In message , at 16:55:52 on
Fri, 20 Dec 2013, Graham Harrison
remarked:
A good few years ago an agency in Austin Texas regularly found he
couldn't book passengers on a specific AA flight to Dallas. Then,
immediately after failing to make a booking on that flight someone
asked for a trip to New York which happened to use the "full" flight as
far as Dallas. With a little experimentation the agent found he could
book Austin/Dallas/New York and then cancel the Dallas/New York ending
up with what he actually wanted - Austin/Dallas. It took AA a while
to find out what was going on and a row developed; I can't remember the
outcome in terms of AA vs. Agency.

However, the technical result was what is now called "married flights".
In other words the Austin/Dallas and Dallas/New York flights are now
stuck together in such a way that if you book the connection you have
to cancel the whole connection, not just one of the two flights (either
of them, you can't cancel Austin/Dallas either).

It is therefore quite possible for the Austin/Dallas flight to show
only "expensive" seats while the Austin/Dallas/New York shows "cheap"
seats. What AA started is now an industry standard used by many airlines

My wife used to fly (Platinum) with AA and would sometimes be sold
flights like Austin-Dallas-London [then no-show for Austin-Dallas,
rather than cancel] cheaper than the Dallas-London she really wanted
and used. But AA put a stop to that.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 15:30:19 on Fri, 20
Dec 2013, tim...... remarked:
you cannot possibly infer that just because I disagree with you about
the success that a particular pricing policy has, that I do not
understand the principle involved

Everything you post suggests it. For example that latest comment that
"booking early to get a cheap fare" and "booking indirect routes to
get a cheap fare" are somehow the same thing.

No I didn't say they were the same thing

I said (OK I implied) that they were filling the same seats

Both exist, and are largely independent of each other.

Except that they ARE filling the same seats, so they can't be
independent of each other. As soon as all of the "cheap" early booked
seat have gone I wager you that the "cheap "indirect" seats will be
full too (or vise versa)!

It's entirely possible that some seats on the feeder flights are
reserved for passengers who go on to occupy a vastly more lucrative seat
on a long-haul.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 15:30:19 on Fri, 20 Dec
2013, tim...... remarked:
you cannot possibly infer that just because I disagree with you about
the success that a particular pricing policy has, that I do not
understand the principle involved

Everything you post suggests it. For example that latest comment that
"booking early to get a cheap fare" and "booking indirect routes to get
a cheap fare" are somehow the same thing.

No I didn't say they were the same thing

I said (OK I implied) that they were filling the same seats

Both exist, and are largely independent of each other.

Except that they ARE filling the same seats, so they can't be independent
of each other. As soon as all of the "cheap" early booked seat have gone
I wager you that the "cheap "indirect" seats will be full too (or vise
versa)!

It's entirely possible that some seats on the feeder flights

They weren't the seats that I was referring to.

But it seems a lot of faf.

Just how many flights into LHR from points in Europe do BA have to keep
seats free on in case someone wants to connect to LA? 200, 300 400. That's
a lot of held sets for one potential connecting pax.

Though in most cases I doubt that they have to go to any lengths to make
sure that there are seats. I would guess that the booking profile of short
haul flights is that they become 50/75% full later than long haul BICBW

are reserved for passengers who go on to occupy a vastly more lucrative
seat on a long-haul.

selling a seat on a Long haul flight off at a rock bottom price to a connect
pax is not my idea of lucrative

tim

--
Roland Perry

In message , at 12:36:15 on Sat, 21
Dec 2013, tim..... remarked:

It's entirely possible that some seats on the feeder flights

They weren't the seats that I was referring to.

But it seems a lot of faf.

Just how many flights into LHR from points in Europe do BA have to keep
seats free on in case someone wants to connect to LA? 200, 300 400.
That's a lot of held sets for one potential connecting pax.

It's whatever their yield management tells them. Approaching the travel
date it could be as few as one or two seats on a plane that's already
"full" for shorthaul passengers. Very close to the travel date they
might open any remaining shorthaul seats up to walk-up passengers
prepared to pay a king's ransom to travel *now*.

are reserved for passengers who go on to occupy a vastly more
lucrative seat on a long-haul.

selling a seat on a Long haul flight off at a rock bottom price to a
connect pax is not my idea of lucrative

The price they sell the otherwise empty longhaul seat for isn't rock
bottom, it's just low enough that the shorthaul connecting flight
appears to be "priced negative".

eg if the direct fare is say £1400, then an indirect fare might be
£1200, which includes a £300 discount on the long haul [down to £1100]
plus £100 for the feeder flight. But to the passenger it feels like the
feeder flight is minus £200.

As far as the indirect airline is concerned it just got £1200 in revenue
from that passenger, which would otherwise have been £1400 to the
competitor with the direct flight.
--
Roland Perry