Competition doesn't *force* the airlines to charge the same, but they do. (Unless of course, that without the business their seats would be empty.. which of course is not really competition forcing them, but rather inflexible labour contracts!... but we digress.) Airline 1: Boise, ID to Kansas City, MO - $100 Why would Airline 2, who's never going to offer such a direct flight, match the price? In many cases they do. Airline 2 is going to fly your through Denver (more miles = more expensive) but likely do it with more expensive operating costs (making it even MORE expensive.) It's a pissing war that unless Airline 2 offers a direct flight, or has labour costs so much lower than Airline 1 that dragging you through Denver makes it worth their while. Neither which I think is going to happen. Someone might argue that Airline 2 needs to only have a competitive price but can rely on the loyalty factor due to their FF program. But I'm guessing that loyalty on airlines will only sway for a small difference in price. Ugly.. Matthew On Thursday, September 18, 2003, at 10:45 AM, damiross2@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > a) competition forces airlines to charge the same between 2 cities, > regardless > of routing > > b) Southwest does if you chose to fly between 2 cities on flights that > are not > shown in the timetable. For example, if you want to fly from Oakland > to > Dallas, you would have to chose your own connecting flights as this > routing is > not shown in the timetable. > > David R >> Never understood this: >> >> Airlines can price their airfares based on either: >> >> a) Origin and Destination (regardless of routing) >> b) By actual legs. >> >> Why do most airlines choose a) ? >> >> Which ones follow b)? >> >> I get the "got-to-steal-those customers" angle, but why would any >> business (especially a capital and operating cost intensive one) want >> the revenue model to be completely disconnected from the cost >> structure? >> >> Matthew