Sorry travelers, as expected, United Airlines will require minimum stays on all flights starting in October. Gone are the halcyon days of jetting away for a business meeting after breakfast with time to spare before returning for dinner. Most United fares will now require a three-night or weekend stay, but it “will depend on the destinations involved, the price of the ticket and the length of the flight.” And, yes, you will still be charged $15 to check your first bag.
“[Business travelers will] push back big time,” said Mike Boyd, a Colorado-based aviation consultant. “It’s one thing to simply raise fares. It’s quite another to do it by imposing restrictions that appear to make it harder to conveniently fly.”
Major carriers scrapped most minimum-stay rules – put in place largely to discourage big-budget corporate travelers from snatching up the cheapest seats – at the start of the decade, although United and other airlines recently started bringing the overnight rules back piecemeal.
Friday’s changes are far more sweeping because they also apply to highly competitive routes where United goes head-to-head against lower-cost rivals such as Southwest Airlines and JetBlue Airways.
“What we did this week was almost across the board,” [United spokeswoman Robin Urbanski] said. “At the end of the day, it’s all about improving our profit as we combat these record high fuel prices.”
We previously suggested that travelers evade overnight requirements by buying back-to-back one-way fares, which can be cheaper than a round-trip ticket with a hotel stay.
In related news, United also raised the price of one-way tickets.
United Airlines to require minimum stays from Oct. [The Canadian Press]
PREVIOUSLY: Airlines Revive Hated Minimum Stay Fares
(AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast)
More From Consumerist
-
This Restaurant Really Wants You To Know Why It Can Now Require $10 Minimum For Credit Card Purchases
-
‘Passenger Of Size’ Policies For The Largest Domestic Airlines
-
Costco CEO Comes Out In Support Of Minimum Wage Increase
-
United Suing Passenger Complaint Site But Says It’s Not Because Of All That Complaining
-
Retailers Love Latest Attempt At Online Sales Tax Law, eBay Not So Much
While I do understand the airlines are really hard hit by fuel costs, doesn’t it just seem that they will be losing quite a bit of business by forcing people to do this?
Oh, hell, no way, you’ve got to be kidding me. A few years ago when I was doing survey jobs I would fly from Oklahoma to Texas in the morning, survey around lunchtime, and fly home to be back with the family. What the hell are they smoking? The airlines are becoming masters at alienating their customers.
@scerwup: Yes they will. Business is already cutting back on travel, and this will give them no incentive to start flying again.
Pardon my ignorance, but I don’t understand the point of this. I’m going to have to fly back either way; why does it matter to the airline if I fly back on the same day or in three days? Are they getting some kind of kick-back from hotels and rental car agencies?
@scerwup: That entirely depends on if the other airlines jump on the bandwagon and decide to get the customers from all angles. If that happens I think there will be a huge increase in the use of other modes of transportation like trains and maybe even fractional ownerships in jets…
But it’s truly insane and ridiculous that they would being to shoot themselves in the foot like this. The average airline consumer will take a lot of punishment and inconvenience but this will likely be the straw that breaks the camel’s back!
It matters because they can make more money from a class of traveler that simply HAS to fly regularly. (business folk, for the most part.)
They can’t take a bus to the big sales meeting or convention on the other side of the country, as that is financially ridiculous. (lost time vs savings)
So this is the Airline’s blatant slap in the face for the class of customer they deal with most, basically, right?
I don’t think we should start again with the back-to-back/hidden city ticketing. Although on the surface it appears to be a neat “trick” to evade this stayover rules, all airlines prohibit this per their contracts of carriage. Whether or not we agree with these rules doesn’t matter; the fact is that these rules are there and if you are caught doing this, just don’t use the excuse “The Consumerist told me it was ok!”
There’s a fairly lengthy discussion going about this over here: [www.airliners.net]
Other than that, does anybody think that the CO/UA partnership ISN’T that great? I do, especially after things like this that UA does. Unfortunately CO is probably going to have to bow down to UA’s level…
I swore off United after the bag-check news, so this doesn’t bother me one bit.
I never understood the purpose of the Saturday stayover.
IF the idea is to get business travelers to pay a premium price to avoid the Sat stayover…. well IF the penality is severe enough, companies will just work their employees over the weekend. Back in the day when I had to travel my work week was Thru thru Sunday (Four 10 hour days). Sure solved that Sat stayover without costing the business extra bucks.
What ever happened to the idea that you made money by serving your customers’ needs? This is disservice.
What the article doesn’t mention is that this is already effective due to the fact that it takes three days to get through all the airport security checkpoints.
@InThrees:
Yes and no. They (businesses that need face time in other locations) can start using video conferencing technology more. They can cut back on sales meetings. They can cut back on the number of employees they’re sending to conventions.
Two years ago, businesses would put an employee on a plane at the mere suggestion that his or her presence was needed somewhere else. Today, that trip is going to be scrutinized more and fewer people will fly.
Again, this won’t give business any incentive to increase travel budgets.
@humphrmi:
Absolutely correct.
Travel budgets are getting cut as we speak.
this story has been pretty shoddily reported, and some of the commenters above are reflecting the misunderstanding that’s going on.
What is most likely the correct story is that United is putting back minimum stay restrictions on many of the cheapest of fares where there was previously no requirement.
Of course there will still be tickets where you can come back the same day. Those will continue to be the expensive tickets.
For those who don’t understand, the Saturday night stay rule has been one of the most successful ways for airlines to get business travelers to buy expensive weekday tickets, while still allowing leisure travelers to afford weekend travel. This is because many business people will not tolerate being away from home on the weekend, and because companies will pay for this, airlines want that revenue.
They put up these “price fences” so that business with money will pay for the expensive ticket, while the leisure traveler can buy a cheaper ticket for the weekend. Otherwise an airline would have to charge a uniform price, and the business traveler would get away with a cheaper ticket, while the leisure traveler would have to pay more.
Don’t automatically gripe about it and think the airline is trying to screw you. This is how tickets used to be anyway. And how often does a Saturday night stay requirement actually affect you and prevent you from traveling as you wanted? In fact, for your personal travel, it allows the airlines to offer low fares for you on the weekend.
I think some of you don’t totally get it. You can still fly whenever but at a premium cost (and the thought is that big business can afford it) while saving the cheap seats for people actually taking holidays.
While i’m a fan of one price per route per class, if they are gonna keep with the current model they should be taking in more money and who best to foot the bill. People can cancel a vacation, but business travel is sometimes a must (you can’t finalize a sale over videochat).
@Aresef: I swore off United after the bag-check news, so this doesn’t bother me one bit.
Yes, let’s just hope the other airlines don’t follow suit with this tomfoolery.
For bulk air fares to Hawaii there has always been a 2 night minimum stay. For Fly/Drives with Published rates, it is a minimum 7 night stay.
That said, I’m putting United Airlines on my ’09 dead pool list. They be a hurt’n company.
[disclaimer: I work for a travel agency]
/airline ticketing rules are written by psychotic, mongoliod, crap flinging baboons.
What is most likely the correct story is that United is putting back minimum stay restrictions on many of the cheapest of fares where there was previously no requirement.
Sure doesn’t sound like it to me. The source article says “Starting Oct. 6, most United fares will require a one-to three-night or weekend-night minimum stay.” “Most fares” does not sound like a handful of coach fares.
This, of course, will not apply to 1st or Business Class… which is what they will force businesses who must fly into using.
Seriously, does this actually surprise anyone? The soaring cost of fuel is destroying the airlines. They have no where else to get profit margin. If you have a better idea, let’s hear it.
Still fascinated by the hidden city ticketing…
@ibanix: I think the point that some are trying to make is that the airlines need to optimize their profit, not kill it. Stayover length has no impact on costs and only encourages businesses to find other ways to save money.
There is the concept of Elasticity of Demand going into play here and I’m not sure that the airlines understand that.
@LJKelley:
People can cancel a vacation, but business travel is sometimes a must (you can’t finalize a sale over videochat).
Why not?
Maybe if travel gets pricey enough, people will rethink that.
@Nev-in-NYC:
Holy shit, look what the third Google result was for “hidden-city ticketing”:
[www.aa.com]
It’s a form letter to be sent from American Airlines to those caught using hidden-city ticketing.
@pianos101:
Southwest doesn’t (PDF; see page 5).
@pianos101: I agree. I’m flying UA next week, and CO in September. I prefer CO, but money and schedule sometimes wins out.
good article
the airlines are going to fight hidden city ticketing and back-to-back ticketing. Their computers are good at picking these up and in some cases you could lose all your frequent flier miles.
@pianos101:
Looking at the airlines’ policy on “hidden city” ticketing is just appalling. They act like you’re a criminal for finding the best way to get where you want to go. It’s THEIR fault for having a deceptive and confusing pricing scheme.
If I’m offered 4 tires for the price of 2 even though I just want three, I’m gonna buy the 4. Then I’m gonna ditch the remaining two. Unethical? Eat me.
Also appalling is the fact that people actually use airliners.net. $5/mo to use an online forum? Yeah, right. I think this explains why there are so many fools on that forum who are apt to defend the airlines. They’re either astroturfers or they’re just idiots who would PAY TO USE A FORUM. Wow.
@geoffhazel: Oh noes! My worthless, fast-expiring, super-restricted miles! How ever would I do without?
In what other industry do you find press releases bragging about price increases? I’m convinced that the only reason they make a huge deal is to price-signal the other airlines to follow the leader.
Lucky me…I usually go by my middle name, and my FF accts are on my middle name. Looks like I may have to make every other reservation with my first name, in order to evade the Almighty computer overloads they airlines have working for them.
Wasn’t the whole reason UA got rid of this minimum stay crap because Southwest was KILLING them? Looks like it’s a good time short some shares of United!
@SMSDHubbard:
Hey now…they have to have some way to fund all the complete self-centered dicks they call mods! The only good forum there anymore is tech/ops…where people seem to love to help “noobs” learn more about the industry.
For those not familiar with a.net, replace “Are they taking it seriously?” with “Is Northwest getting rid of the DC-9″ and you’re more or less set!
@TechnoDestructo:
When the hell did companies start posting their form letters online?
Airlines to World: STOP FLYING! – WE ARE TRYING TO GO OUT OF BUSINESS – HOW MUCH DO WE HAVE TO SUCK TO JUST GET YOU TO STOP BUYING TICKETS??
I wonder if they’re going to make an exception for the Boston to NY to BOS to DC or NY to DC commuter routes (add Philly in there too). You know, the routes where you can hop the ACELA for not much more than flying…
Economists call this price discrimination
@SMSDHubbard: Seriously. I had no idea this was verboten. We live in Charlotte. If I fly from, say, Hartford CT to Charlotte, it costs $400. If I fly to Greensboro, NC, it costs $200. Where does the second flight layover? Charlotte. I’ve hopped off many times, and have encouraged family members to do so, too. Haven’t been penalized yet, but I’ll take this into consideration the next time we do this.
@bdgbill: too true. Everything the airlines do seems directed towards alienating customers and making it more and more unpleasant and inconvenient to fly. I’ve given up on flying completely, but I’m only a leisure traveler. I think when some companies start re-thinking things like video conferencing, then the airline industry will really collapse. Regulation is going to have to come back, or something.
The bright side of this is, maybe it will help Amtrak.
@Groovymarlin: The bright side of this is, maybe it will help Amtrak.
… timely article in NYT on this exact topic – Amtrak is getting busier but can’t pull cars from underused routes due to political issues:
[www.nytimes.com]
@wesmills: You are correct. I meant to put that in my comment but it slipped my mind. Yet another reason why WN is becoming less of a “secondary” LCC and more or a first-rate “legacy”carrier.
Also appalling is the fact that people actually use airliners.net. $5/mo to use an online forum? Yeah, right. I think this explains why there are so many fools on that forum
May I introduce you to MetaFilter?
@SMSDHubbard: If you bothered to read my post above, I said, “Whether or not we agree with these rules doesn’t matter…” I do not work for the airlines and I think that saturday night stays, etc. are ridiculous. However, until some act of god changes the airlines contracts of carriage we have to play by their rules, lest we deal with the consequences. (and, by the way, airlines are a business anyway. Fuel doubled in the past year; shouldn’t the part of my plane ticket associated for fuel double, too?).
As for you dumb comment about paying to join a.net: if you don’t like it keep it to yourself. Although I don’t work for the airlines, airlines keep my company in business and without them, I wouldn’t have a job (I’m an engineer for Boeing). A.net is MY forum about topics that I care about and where I go to talk to other people who know a lot about both the airline and the aerospace industry. So relax.
Maybe Amtrak would be a better option if they didn’t cost more for a 4-hr train ride from boston to NYC than a 30minute plane ticket costs for the same.
Friggin ripoff. I don’t care if you get to “sit down and relax”. I want to get there, cheap.
The arguments against hidden city ticketing still seem a bit misguided. The airlines are claiming that they need to charge extra for checked baggage because it increases weight and decreases fuel efficiency. One would think that having fewer passengers on a leg of a flight would decrease the weight and improve fuel efficiency or at the least provide sufficient seats to cover the inevitable overbooking of the flight.
Not to mention the fact that it seems a bit strange from a contracts point of view that they would penalize customers for not fully availing themselves of the benefit of the bargain. This would be akin to a pizzeria getting upset because you didn’t finish the whole pie despite paying the same amount as if you had. That being said, they’re a private business and can ban anyone they want from flying but still don’t see the unethical nature of it. It’s taking advantage of the system, just as reinstating minimum stays is taking advantage of the system. Guess that’s the golden rule, the one with the gold (or in this case the leverage) gets to make the rules.
I believe the best way around this that I’ve seen so far is to book hidden city tickets under your middle name and regular ones under your first name or vice versa.
Tell me, how does repeatedly making your business LESS ACCESSIBLE to customers help to raise profits?? Where is the logic here??
Something has radically altered the business of business.
Airplanes are airplanes. Not much major has changed since commercial air flight was introduced. An aluminum tube, filled with people, powered by props or jets and directed by avionics. It’s still pretty much the same physical factors it was in the beginning. But the business of air travel has degraded until it’s Dante-esque circles of hell. Why?
Delta used to call you before your flight and ask how you wanted your steak done on your flight. Continental used to be a SUPERIOR airline. Braniff was just a freaking hoot to fly. Call for a reservation and a pleasant helpful human being answered the phone. Pleasant men and women greeted you at the airport, at the ticket counter and you weren’t probed for a bomb-squad anal exam just for parking your car. Sky Caps handled your luggage right from the curb, and you could walk unmolested from one end of the airport to the other.
What we need to be asking is … what the hell happened? And don’t say Bush, because the corruption of flight service and everything associated with it began about the time GW was in high school.
Travel used to be a joy, an adventure that was fun. Even business travel. Many of you have no experience of that, and that’s a damned shame. Used to be people respected travel and dressed for it, like it was an important occasion instead of just a cattle car to endure. Used to be the industry made a TON OF EFFING MONEY when it was fun and exciting. Airline stocks were gems in your portfolio. If they could make beaucoup bucks while providing outrageously great service, WTF, people? What changed? If Delta could make fantastic profits Back Then even with a human being calling you in advnace to see about your steak …. what changed? In pure scalar factors, more customers just means more employees to keep following the Game Plan that made them great. But something shattered all that, along with every other airline.
What we need to be asking is … how the hell do we get back to a sensible industry run by sensible people with sensible customers in a sensible environment. I mean, dayum … this is not just Not Fun anymore, it’s toxic and untenable.
Yeah, ok. You want your $200 LAX-JFK ticket and also want your steak medium well?
@BlackFlag55:
What happened? They lowered prices. By a ton. You may want to go back, but the rest of us will take our cheap fares.
@BlackFlag55: Your answer is a simple one: deregulation. Before deregulation the ONLY thing airlines had to compete against one another WAS service. Since prices and routes were fixed by the government, airlines can only make money by attracting customers to their airlines. How’d that do that? By calling you before your flight asking how you want your steak cooked.
After deregulation prices were also left to competition; this meant that the airline with the lowest price would now win the customer, not the airline with the best service. As a result of this cost/competition downspiral service decreased; it HAD to (unfortunately). Gradually services and amenities were taken away and we are all left with crappy airlines that could barely make a buck WITHOUT the factor of high fuel prices. Costs these days are through the roof (labor, expenses, etc) and since airlines have to keep costs way down (because the have to compete on price, not just service) we the consumers are the ones who get screwed.
@charliux: Right. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. $200 transcons are GONE regardless of the steak dinner, anyway. It just can’t exist anymore and I don’t want to hear people complaining about it. Nickel and diming, yes; complain about that. But don’t complain about high airfares.
Isn’t requiring minimum stays really just a sneaky way to charge a ton of money for business travelers that don’t want to stay on a Saturday? Obviously if you absolutely insist on leaving Friday morning and coming back Friday night, the airline will find a way for you to do it. But that $300 ticket a year ago might now cost you $1200. And for a lot of businesses paying an extra $900 is cheaper than keeping an exec in a big city like NYC for the weekend just to satisfy the minimum stay.
@weakdome:
Maybe Amtrak would be a better option if they didn’t cost more for a 4-hr train ride from boston to NYC than a 30minute plane ticket costs for the same.
Hmmm have you actually timed yourself going point to point. Because I guarantee it doesn’t take you just a “half hour” to fly boston to nyc. Apparently your forgetting the long wait to be strip searched followed by an hour plus of just waiting around to board.
How would this stop someone from booking the cheapest two one way tickets on different airlines?