•

Major airline faces backlash after using ‘ghost flights’ to exploit a legal loophole: ‘They weren’t even selling tickets’

https://news.yahoo.com/major-airline-faces-backlash-using-220000546.html

Ultimately, it’s incumbent on lawmakers to take steps to ensure this practice is discouraged.

Major airline faces backlash after using ‘ghost flights’ to exploit a legal loophole: ‘They weren’t even selling tickets’::Ultimately, it’s incumbent on lawmakers to take steps to ensure this practice is discouraged.

27 comments

44razorsedge

•

Hahaha, but skiplagging is bad!!!! Fucking hypocrisy of an industry.

slaacaa

•

Don’t you worry, I’m sure the free market competition will sort it out any minute now…

realharo

•

But wouldn't a more free market in this case let them do more direct flights to Melbourne without requiring the extra leg?

The extra leg is only added to get around a specific kind of regulation of the market (limiting how many flights they can do with Melbourne as a destination), it wouldn't exist otherwise.

gmtom

•

If Melbourne had unlimited capacity for flights, yes. But that's where the free market stuff tends to fail in reality, it works if you assume a market without natural limits, but not otherwise.

realharo

•

But a free market solution would be the airport increasing its prices until the demand at those prices matches how much capacity they have (and probably a push to add more capacity, or a build a new airport nearby, etc.)

The problem from Australia's point of view is probably that this could cause their own airlines to be out-competed by foreign ones, or it could reduce the number of destinations where flights are viable, etc.

w2qw

•

There are slot limits that regulate that. This is just a policy to benefit domestic airlines while encouraging flights to airports other than Sydney and Melbourne.

InverseParallax

•

In this case, Qatar Airways was making these extra journeys to avoid caps that allow it to make only 28 weekly trips to Australia’s major airports, which includes Melbourne. Landing at Adelaide Airport, which is not among that list, as the final destination enabled the airline to make additional journeys to Melbourne, as there were no limits on flights to non-major airports.

Cute.

ShakeThatYam

•

Love the double standard. When you do this as a passenger to get a cheaper fare the airliner will ban you for life.

Kiernian

•

When you do this as a passenger to get a cheaper fare the airliner will ban you for life.

Wait, are you saying if you buy a ticket from Orlando to Las Vegas and the flight stops for a planned plane change in Atlanta, if you get off in Atlanta because that was your actual destination and DON'T continue on to Vegas you can get in trouble?

CmdrShepard

•

Correct. "In trouble" depends on your definition though. They ban ot because they give discounts for common destinations but they don't like it if you take advantage of the discount to fly to some less popular destination as a layover that would typically cost more if booked directly.

pazukaza

•

How can they even find out? You just go down with the other people who paid the direct trip there. Do they keep track somehow?

CmdrShepard

•

They know who's aboard the plane and aboard any connecting flights. Not sure if they'd be able to tell if it was one where you stay on the same plane the whole time, but those aren't as common IME.

Horst_Voller

•

Not in legal trouble but the airline might decide not to sell tickets to you in the future.

Jackcooper

•

So I get how that's bad for the environment and all

But why are their flights limited to 28 in the first place?

doczombie

•

There is a bit of a scandal in aus at the moment about this. Qatar asked for more international flights (they back Virgin Australia, one of 2 major domestic carriers in Australia). Government said no, for undisclosed reasons.

The "national" carrier Qantas are scumbags with the government in their pocket and likely quietly lobbied against it, but also Qatar International Airport did this to Australian citizens not that long ago:

https://amp.abc.net.au/article/12817070

So it's just kind of dickheads all the way down.

WHYAREWEALLCAPS

•

I'm sure they investigated themselves and found no trace of wrong doing.

luthis

•

Yeah... fuck Qatar for that, goddamn thats a human rights violation if I ever saw one

WHYAREWEALLCAPS

•

Like Qatar gives a good god damn about human rights.

Jackcooper

•

...wow

Kanzar

•

At the time, the airline also said it wasn't their fault or responsibility it happened (i.e., they had no power over it happening), but now at the hearing they claim they will ensure it won't happen again. 🤷🏻‍♀️🤷🏻‍♀️🤷🏻‍♀️

Pulptastic

•

The Mighty Black Stump

Eylrid

•

HI Tim

Professorozone

•

The airlines always complain about the cost of fuel, I'm surprised they can tolerate this. 18,000 ghost flights for Lufthansa? Just last month I sat in a 100 degree cabin for about 45 minutes before take- off because the APU needed to be turned on by a ground unit. The pilot said he called for the truck. It never came. Later I asked a pilot friend of mine and he said they can power that unit themselves but it uses fuel and the airline probably has a policy against it. Screw you Virgin Atlantic!

AirlineF0od

•

The apu itself is located in the tail and cannot be air started. If the apu is bad and engine can be started with an air truck.

Professorozone

•

On all planes?

childOfMagenta

•

I'd think so. They may have been talking about a ground air conditioning cart.

Edit to add: APUs burn fuel, are noisy, and some airports are very picky about their use, rightly so. But typically these airports offer ground air conditioning. If not, you ask them to start the APU when it gets too hot in the plane.

I worked for an airline that was picky about it, but the bottom line was a riot on board was worse than burning fuel. Never been told no by the airport in reasonable conditions.

pHr34kY

•

Damn. I was going to fly between those two last week, but gave up because the prices are stupid.