This loophole has various names, including skiplag, hidden city ticketing, and point beyond ticketing, all of which refer to the act of booking a flight with a connecting flight and getting off at the connecting city instead of traveling to the final destination. . Connecting flights are usually cheaper than direct flights, and airlines want to increase efficiency by getting as many travelers through their hubs as possible, so even longer trips can be cheaper to travel.
Launched in 2013, Skiplagged allows customers to book flights from point A to point C on their website, knowing that the actual final destination is the connecting city, point B.
Skiplagged CEO Aktarer Zaman said in a statement to The Washington Post that the company’s strong repeat business shows it offers a valuable product.
“Contrary to American’s claims, our millions of returning users clearly speak to the value we bring to the travel industry,” Zaman said in a statement. ‘ said.
Last month, Americans canceled a flight for a North Carolina teenager after learning it was going to be late.presumed to be american 17 years old prohibited I stopped flying for three years.
Aviation industry expert Clint Henderson told The Washington Post last month that the ban shows how serious airlines are about cracking down on skip lag. He pointed to examples of airlines revoking frequent flyers and memberships and, in rare cases, suing passengers.
In a new lawsuit, American Airlines alleges that Skiplag violated its terms of service and threatened to cancel tickets sold by Skiplag.
“Skiplagged hides its activities because they know that the tickets they issue run the risk of being voided, and they can easily cancel tickets if American Airlines is discovered. , we have told them to hide it from American Airlines,” the complaint reads.
Additionally, the airline claims that Skip Plugged “misrepresents” how much its tickets cost compared to American Airlines. In the complaint, American Airlines alleges that Skiprud advertised a $441 return ticket from Ontario, Calif., to Reno, Nevada, with a stopover in Phoenix. That’s $14 less than the $455 American Airlines charges for the same ticket. However, Skiplagged’ fees raised the cost to $459, the lawsuit states.
Zaman said that while American’s description of Skiprud’s fees was “deceptive,” those fees gave the company the means to fight “this ridiculous lawsuit.”
Skipplugged and Zaman “publicly admit” that their ticketing operations violate airline rules and encourage customers to break those rules, the complaint says. in 2015 Reddit’s “Ask me anything” forumZaman is accused of saying that when purchasing tickets from the company, customers “could intentionally violate an agreement with the airline, known as a contract of carriage, that they must not intentionally miss their flight.” ing.
Skiplagged’ website allegedly teaches customers how to lie to airlines about their final destination. “It also provides personalized, scripted guidance” on how to avoid getting caught, the complaint states. The website is said to advise travelers to wear only backpacks. Anything larger than that runs the risk of being inspected at the gate. In that case, the luggage would be taken to the final destination of the trip rather than the passenger’s intended final destination, the complaint says. In case of bad weather, the website urges travelers to ask for a “similar itinerary,” according to the complaint, if the airline intends to change transit cities.
Finally, Skiplagged’ website allegedly warns customers about “angry airlines.”
One of the prompts is said to read, “Airlines hate missing flights to save money, so don’t do it often.”
Airlines have tracked Skiplagged before. In 2014, United Airlines sued its website for allegedly “intentionally and maliciously” interfering with the company’s operations and facilitating “prohibited modes of travel.” los angeles times report.federal judge abandoned the lawsuit The following year, the court said it lacked jurisdiction.
In 2021, Southwest Airlines filed a lawsuit against Skipragd, accusing it of tricking passengers into violating the airline’s terms and conditions. A judge dismissed the case in June after the parties agreed to a non-disclosure settlement.