Reader mail: Why does it cost less to fly further?
First time here? Check out the site's "greatest hits" or read a random post from the archives. Feel free to ask a question, and consider subscribing to the latest posts via RSS or e-mail. Thanks for visiting!
Reader Joe writes in:
I live in Ventura, California, and I was looking at a flight to Philadelphia. But the fares don’t make sense. It’s cheaper for me to fly from Santa Barbara to LAX to Philadelphia than it is to fly nonstop LAX-PHL. I don’t get it. It’s cheaper to connect at LAX??! I’m flying further, so why is it less? About $80 less, too. Why??
Ahh, airline economics. Use more of a resource, pay less! But believe it or not there’s sometimes a logic to it.
In fact, this is quite common. I recently faced a similar thing when buying a ticket. It was cheaper to fly from Greensboro to Charlotte, and onward to San Diego, that to fly nonstop from Charlotte to San Diego. Adding the Greensboro to Charlotte leg actually caused the price to drop about $70.
Two important things to remember:
1) Pairs matter. Distance doesn’t.
Fares won’t necessarily depend on the route you fly. Fares are based on city pairs — the departure and destination city.
2) Supply and Demand.
Supply and competition for a particular route will generally trump other economic factors like distance flown.
Airlines price flights based not only on the costs they incur, but also on the demand for the route and the amount of competition for the particular city pair. In your case, Joe, the LAX-Philadelphia route may have seen hefty sales already, selling out the cheaper seats on that route. But the Santa Barbara-Philadelphia city pair may have seen only light sales, so the cheap seats could still have been available.
And don’t forget fare sales: If a competitor is driving prices lower on the Santa Barbara-Philadelphia route, then prices are likely to drop. This is especially noticeable when a new, cheaper competitor starts service from a city. (The “Southwest Effect” is a common phrase to describe the effect of fares on a city when Southwest starts service in a market.)
[As a sidebar: Given the fact that you’ll have to change planes, thereby risking a misconnection and spending more time in airports, is it really worth saving a few bucks to increase your inconvenience? You might also be paying a nonstop premium, which could easily be worth it. I realize your question was about why the price difference exists, but the lower price may still be a bad value.]
Bottom line: If you’re trying to make sense of an airfare, ignore distance. Ignore where you’re changing planes. And ignore superficial logic. Focus on price for the explanation.
(image)
RSS Feed / Subscribe
Subscribe to Posts by Email
February 13th, 2008 at 5:02 am |
You’re contradicting yourself. You talk about risking missed connections and spending more time in airports, but then you say to focus on price.
I would argue that your first point is better: It may be worth spending an extra $80 if you don’t have to change planes, risk missing your connection, and most likely save a significant amount of time. Then again, if one airport is easier to get to, that could also affect how much the price difference is really worth.
February 13th, 2008 at 7:59 am |
I wasn’t clear. The “focus on price” comment was a reference to the initial question, asking WHY the price differences exist. I’ve edited the post to hopefully make this clearer.
I’m in full agreement that it may be worth paying the extra $80 to avoid making a connection, if other factors (like distance to airport A vs. airport B, cost of parking, time between flights, etc., etc.) align.
February 13th, 2008 at 1:35 pm |
As a United 1K member that lives in Santa Barbara, I’m made more than a few connecting flights from SBA. In this case, I’d recommend going the cheaper SB route for the following reasons:
1) SBA is a small airport that is incredibly convenient to get to from Ventura, while I’d rather have someone poke my eyes out than have to drive to LAX. The time you spend on the extra flight might be time saved by not having to drive on the 405.
2) SBA’s long term parking is cheaper ($6/day) and closer (short walk) to the terminal than LAX ($8/day, requires shuttle ride)
3) SBA’s security is VERY quick. Unless you have a 6am flight, the time between when you get in line and are done with security is about 2 minutes.
4) If you’re a frequent flyer, you’ll get more credit for the extra flight.
The only drawback is the remote possibility of a some delay causing you to miss your connection. From experience, SBA-LAX is dependable route, so your chances of problems are very small. SBA-SFO is not as dependable.
As a side note: SBA-SFO has a lot of problems with delays and cancellations. If you have a late morning flight and there’s bad weather in SFO, try to fly standby on an 8am or earlier flight so that you’re set to arrive in SFO before the international planes start arriving.
February 13th, 2008 at 2:21 pm |
I’ve often wondered about this curiosity in pricing myself, many thanks for clearing it up!
March 21st, 2008 at 12:11 pm |
the oddest one is that it is cheaper to fly LHR-LAX-AUK to New Zealand than to do just the LAX-AUK segment ON THE SAME PLANE. Sorry to shout, but it still amazes me months later. Air New Zealand.