Skiplagging

[Pea-n-Me]

I have never heard of this before.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ED-airport-trying-use-skip-lagging-trick.html

Is it legal? Ethical? More complex because in this case the passenger is a minor? Would you do it/have you done it?

 

[sam_gordon]

I have never heard of this before.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ED-airport-trying-use-skip-lagging-trick.html

Is it legal? Ethical? More complex because in this case the passenger is a minor? Would you do it/have you done it?

It's not new. It's not illegal, as far as law enforcement is concerned. It violates the "terms of use" with the airline however. In which case, they can take steps they feel are appropriate. That could include banning you from the airline and cancelling future tickets.

It would be similar to Disney not allowing adults to dress up in costume in the park. That's not illegal, and Disney can decide what to do with a disobedient guest. They can make them change clothes, kick them out of the park, or ban them.

ETA: This article (don't know if it's the same one I read before) said the gate agent became suspicious because of the teen's NC DL. Why is the gate agent asking to see ID? It shouldn't have been at the counter to check in luggage, because skiplagging doesn't work with checked luggage.

 

[soccerdad72]

I've heard of it, but never considered doing it before (or, for that matter, ever priced out an option like that).

The article says it was the first time the son has travelled by himself. Why the family decided to try this in this circumstance is beyond me.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I've heard of it, but never considered doing it before (or, for that matter, ever priced out an option like that).

The article says it was the first time the son has travelled by himself. Why the family decided to try this in this circumstance is beyond me.

It said they’ve been doing it that way for years. Maybe they just thought he was used to doing it that way?

 

[RedAngie]

Hidden city ticketing (another name for it) has been around for decades. So has “back to back” ticketing, two separate round trips with the intention of using the outgoing leg of one ticket and the return leg of the other, and discarding the two other legs.

Airline pricing is incredibly convoluted, and these loopholes can save money. Although they’re not illegal in a criminal sense, they violate the airlines’ “Conditions of Carriage,” the fine print you’re agreeing to when buying a ticket.

I have a feeling Daddy Dearest has tried this successfully several times before and the airline got suspicious and caught the son because Daddy paid for the ticket.

 

[RedAngie]

OK, I read the link. Daddy has admitted he’s used this method many times before, but was unaware it was against airline policy.

Sure, Jan.

He knew damn well what he was doing. He’s not complaining that he (his son) finally got caught, just that the son was “detained.”

 

[White Cat]

I've heard of it, but never considered doing it before (or, for that matter, ever priced out an option like that).

The article says it was the first time the son has travelled by himself. Why the family decided to try this in this circumstance is beyond me.

To save money. They thought they could get away with. Problem is sometimes the carrier can make you check your carry on. My wife is waiting for an Air Canada flight now and they just did that to her. Hers s a direct flight. But if it wasn’t now you have to deal with that.

 

[_19disnA]

I have most often heard of it as 'hidden city ticketing' and the scheme has been around for years. You basically buy a ticket that connects through the city you actually intend to visit so you exit the plane without taking all segments of the flights. Due to the use of hub airports, it is often cheaper to buy a ticket to a flight continuing on to some other destination instead of just purchasing a ticket to the hub dity. Airlines have always considered this against their terms & conditions. Clearly, you can't have any checked baggage or this scheme won't work. Airlines can cancel your ticket and/or bar you from future flights if you are caught using this scheme.

If the people in the article admit to doing this numerous times in the past, they knew exactly what they were doing and just happened to get caught this time.

 

[RedAngie]

Plus, in the case of irregular or cancelled flights, the airline might rebook you to the final destination on your ticket via a different route, skipping the city where you intended to go.

 

[Karin1984]

Yeah, it is a thing. Mainly for the return flight. When I worked for an airline we have it here in the Netherlands with people departing from airport in Belgium or Germany because a direct flight from Amsterdam is more expensiven

So they book Brussels - Amsterdam - New York. And on the way back they ask agent at the desk to label their baggage only to Amsterdam, they get out in Amsterdam and are no show for the flight to Brussels.

You do have to take them in order, you cannot skip (officially, there was one loophole for this) Brussels - Amsterdam, otherwise all your other flights were cancelled. But not taking the last flight, or even the entire return flight, yes happens quite a lot.

 

[EACarlson]

It's legal, it's not ethical, the passenger was 16 with a driver's license so I have no issue with that. I would not do it, I like the ability to fly on all of the airlines and have points in most of their mileage programs. Blatantly violating the CoC is a great way to lose all of that. If the father was that worried about his son, don't tell your kids to do shady things and pay the money for the unaccompanied minor program.

 

[PollyannaMom]

I agree that the kid should have got off with a warning this time. (Flag the family members' names to check future bookings in advance.)

And I even buy that the dad didn't realized it was covered in the fine print - who here honestly reads every word? I'm sure he thought he was "pulling something over" on the airline, but I can believe that he thought it was a loophole they hadn't closed yet.

I actually don't think it should be against policy, though - they were still paid for the flight booked (and had one fewer person to take care of). It seems highly illogical for a longer flight to be cheaper than a shorter one. Maybe it's their convoluted pricing schedule that needs to be fixed.

 

[White Cat]

I agree that the kid should have got off with a warning this time. (Flag the family members' names to check future bookings in advance.)

And I even buy that the dad didn't realized it was covered in the fine print - who here honestly reads every word? I'm sure he thought he was "pulling something over" on the airline, but I can believe that he thought it was a loophole they hadn't closed yet.

I actually don't think it should be against policy, though - they were still paid for the flight booked (and had one fewer person to take care of). It seems highly illogical for a longer flight to be cheaper than a shorter one. Maybe it's their convoluted pricing schedule that needs to be fixed.

Yes but they could have sold that seat that is now empty to a paying customer.

 

[mom2rtk]

Yes but they could have sold that seat that is now empty to a paying customer.

They sold it already.

 

[EACarlson]

They sold it already.

With the agreement that the person they sold it to was going to be on both legs of the flight. The airline definitely gave up revenue on the first leg by them booking the hidden city ticket, and most likely on the second as CLT-JFK is usually a pretty high fare. With CLT being American's fortress hub, flights in and out of it can be quite expensive do to limited competition. There may be additional competition between Gainesville and JFK that drives down those prices, probably from Delta through ATL.

 

[tvguy]

Ran into that a lot when flying to my FILs house in Texas. Flying into Houston and having him pick us up there cost more than continuing on to Port Arthur on a puddle hopper second flight. City of Port Arthur gave the airlines a subsidy for providing air service to their city. Except for us, we were going on the second flight, but if we just wanted to go to Houston, that is how I would have done it.
That is one of the reasons I generally book flights that have connections through a travel agent. I had planned a trip and presented my routing to the travel agent, and she said the route made sense on paper, but it was an illegal connection and I would have been stranded in Salt Lake City. The airline booking website did not flag that, but the Travel Agent system did.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Kind of galling that the airlines are trying to take the moral high ground on literally anything these days.

They routinely WILLFULLY overbook and I see them leaving hundreds of people stranded all over the US at every holiday ruining people plans and wasting thousands of dollars with zero accountability. I had no idea we they also took the position passengers are captive, so that's nice.

Endless photos on the news have earned the airline industry a spot in my least favorite businesses, a necessary evil now, no longer a YAY. I doubt I'm the only one, this was a week ago and has been a constant for years so not a one off, they have some nerve. Going after the kid is not redemptive.

 

[White Cat]

They sold it already.

You aren’t looking at it the right way.

 

[VandVsmama]

I have never heard of this before.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ED-airport-trying-use-skip-lagging-trick.html

Is it legal? Ethical? More complex because in this case the passenger is a minor? Would you do it/have you done it?

I would not have done this. Nor would I have put my minor kid on a flight telling him/her to do this either. The parents made a stupid decision on this one.

 

[kymom99]

I agree that the kid should have got off with a warning this time. (Flag the family members' names to check future bookings in advance.)

And I even buy that the dad didn't realized it was covered in the fine print - who here honestly reads every word? I'm sure he thought he was "pulling something over" on the airline, but I can believe that he thought it was a loophole they hadn't closed yet.

I actually don't think it should be against policy, though - they were still paid for the flight booked (and had one fewer person to take care of). It seems highly illogical for a longer flight to be cheaper than a shorter one. Maybe it's their convoluted pricing schedule that needs to be fixed.

Valid point