Malcolm Weir wrote:
But still, it's entirely *sensible* that the longer route involving a
change of aircraft should be cheaper. It's less attractive to the
consumer because it takes longer and involves a change, and it can be
provided at lower cost since each segment consolidates traffic between
many city pairs.


If you view sale of such itineraries as a way to fill otherwise empty seats,
then yes, it makes sense to "dump "inventory as lower prices, just like a seat sale.

However, when your network is made up of mostly such connecting itineraries,
it is one reason why your airline cannot compete with the ilks of Southwest.
There is no way that it costs the airline less to fly you via chicago versus
putting you on a non-stop flight. Consider the additional landing/takeoff
costs, gate costs, luggage transfer costs, extra staff at gates, and the costs
when flights are delayed/cancelled and you have a bunch of stranded people at
the connecting city (hotels, meals etc).

This is another of those funny pricing schemes such as charging more for A-B
than you do for A-B-C.

At one point, this big money losing airlines in the USA will have to dump
their virtual pricing schemes and start charging what it actually costs for an itinerary.