nested itineraries and a shockingly low fare

I found myself with two short trips to make from London to the US within a little over a week (both for work, with work obligations in between in London, such that the travel couldn't be done crossing the Atlantic once).

Neither trip had a Saturday-night stay: one trip was LHR->IAD on a Monday, returning IAD->LHR the next day; the other was LHR->ABQ departing on the Sunday after the IAD->LHR flight, returning ABQ->LHR the following Wednesday.

As I'm sure many are aware, one possibility when one has two non-Saturday-stay trips like these is to use what are sometimes called "nested" itineraries: book one itinerary as the "outer" two flights (in this case, Monday LHR->IAD and Wednesday of the following week ABQ->LHR) and the other as the "inner" two flights (in this case, Tuesday IAD->LHR and the following Sunday ABQ->LHR). The advantage of booking this way is that we've turned two non-Saturday-stay itineraries (which usually cost upwards of GBP 1500 in Economy) into two Saturday-stay itineraries (which are typically available at the lowest available fare, often in a sale O fare basis).

Years ago (certainly around 2000), US domestic airfares were priced such that Saturday night-stay itineraries were significantly cheaper ("leisure" fares) than non-Saturday night-stay ("business," even in economy class) ones. But the US low-cost carriers like Southwest and JetBlue did away with those distinctions, always charging "leisure" fares. Eventually, the major US carriers had to follow suit to compete. But *before* that change, US carriers prohibited nested itineraries, because they saw them as "cheating" the airline out of the added revenue of non-Saturday stay itineraries. In fact, carriers searched reservation records for nested bookings under the same passenger name, and would often cancel tickets upon finding them.

I was concerned that VS might behave similarly, given that VS still charges way more for non-Saturday stay tickets than Saturday-stay ones. I was able to find FT threads (but only from a few years ago, interestingly) stating that BA prohibited nested itineraries. But I saw no evidence VS did. So I called VS and tried to book the above nested itineraries. The agent happily booked them for me. Wanting to avoid unexpected surprises, I then even pointed out to the agent that I'd just booked nested tickets, and asked if that was against Virgin policy. The agent said that this was absolutely fine by VS.

I'm curious: what are others' experiences with nested itineraries on Virgin in the recent past? Have others followed this practice without a problem, as well? Or have some been told by Virgin that such itineraries aren't allowed?

A final twist to this story:

I initially booked the above itineraries to LAX rather than ABQ, figuring I'd just book my own separate round-trip ticket on a US carrier between LAX and ABQ. I then realized that I wouldn't be able to inter-line my baggage if I made the trip on two separate tickets. So I called VS back within 24 hours of booking, and asked them to add hops from LAX->ABQ and ABQ->LAX to my itinerary.

They happily obliged, canceling my prior tickets and rebooking with the added hops. But the oddest (and most wonderful) thing happened. The "old" "inner" itinerary (IAD->LHR then LHR->LAX) had originally cost GBP 659. The "new" one (IAD->LHR then LHR->LAX->ABQ), however, came *down* in price to GBP *352.00*!! And what's more the fare bases were the same on the VS legs. Somehow, pricing the itinerary as a "through" ticket to ABQ drastically reduced the fare.

The agent was very amused, said he "wasn't going to argue with the system" since it had fared the itinerary this way. Result: a ticket with an extra leg I would have purchased separately for a little over *half* the price in the same classes of service, *and* I can inter-line my baggage!

There are occasionally *pleasant* surprises when setting up complex itineraries.

Is this the same as a "back to back" ticket?

As a travel agent I got into trouble back to pre low cost airline times when I issued back to backs for a client who was going to take the bus instead!

BA threatened to remove the ticketing plate as I was diluting revenue.

It was easy to do on some routes with competition, like GLA-LHR where you can mix bmi and BA, BA were vociferous about us breaking rules.

Then I emailed them photocopies of tickets issued by their staff at the airport and they went quiet.

I imagine these days airlines are much more flexible and VS might be taking a pragmatic stance, given that VS have competition on every route. Why not get both sectors? If a flyer is giving up flexibility (the main feature on no-Sat-night stay fares) then it's more cash in the coffers.

An excellent point, Sealink: if the choice for VS (or any airline) is between "get the revenue from two Saturday-stay fares" vs. "get the revenue from one Saturday-stay fare" (if in the latter case, the passenger books one Saturday-stay fare on one airline and the other on another airline), it's in the airline's best interest to allow the nested (or back-to-back, another name for the same style of ticketing) itineraries...more revenue, full stop.

But as you also point out, that only works when there's competition on the routes involved--when there isn't, the passenger doesn't have the option of doing the two itineraries on different airlines.

Given that nearly all of VS's routes are served by many airlines, it probably doesn't make sense for VS to try to prohibit nested/back-to-back itineraries. By analogy, maybe a few of BA's routes are more unique (e.g., Seattle, which I believe is served non-stop *only* by BA), and thus it might make more sense for BA to try to prohibit nested/back-to-back itineraries.

That's great news bnkarp, and useful to know that VS will book an internal flight for you. I have always booked those myself, but I'll try your method next time.

On your main point, I know a number of people who use these back-to-back bookings. They appear to work very well for regular travellers who can book a couple of trips at a time. I have heard exactly that argument, that if VS complains, then the other "nested" trip could easily be booked on BA or someone else.

Apparently there are some slightly confused looks at check-in or the gate (if you turn up there with just hand luggage) as they will ask to see your return ticket. (I'm assuming you are a Brit). They struggle that it is on a different booking with an already used outbound leg. Having said that, I have never heard of any problems.

It sounds from Sealink like BA have tried to stop this in the past and failed. I have another fried who regularly does it with BA now, with no problem at all.

Apparently there are some slightly confused looks at check-in or the gate (if you turn up there with just hand luggage) as they will ask to see your return ticket. (I'm assuming you are a Brit). They struggle that it is on a different booking with an already used outbound leg. Having said that, I have never heard of any problems.

Personally, I would be more concerned about explaining this at the immigration desk -- unusual behaviour will typically trigger (at best) raised eyebrows.

Personally, I would be more concerned about explaining this at the immigration desk -- unusual behaviour will typically trigger (at best) raised eyebrows.

US immigration never ask to see the tickets, they simply ask how long are you staying for, so I don't imagine there are any problems with those folks. They certainly don't care about VS or BA revenue
Cheers
Martin

I am doing similar soon using reward flights. travelling US-Uk in june but couldnt get any reward returns so delayed till October. Booked a BA reward LCY-JFK one way -problem solved.

US immigration never ask to see the tickets

I've been asked to show them on several occasions. I didn't mean to imply that they would care about the airlines' rules; what I meant is that unusual ticketing arrangements may well increase their level of scrutiny.

Apparently there are some slightly confused looks at check-in or the gate (if you turn up there with just hand luggage) as they will ask to see your return ticket. (I'm assuming you are a Brit). They struggle that it is on a different booking with an already used outbound leg. Having said that, I have never heard of any problems.

I'm a dual US/UK national. So given that I have the right to live and work in both countries without limitation of duration, any confusion should be short-lived upon my producing both passports.

(FWIW, I'd assume that British-only nationals with US work visas living and working in the US also buy itineraries that originate in the US, which would result in a "return" leg flown UK-US. In those cases, presumably showing the US work visa would resolve any questions.)

Best,
Brad

US immigration never ask to see the tickets

I've been asked to show them on several occasions.

Recently? I have not had to produce evidence of a return ticket in a fair few years now ?|

I can see nested itineraries confusing the check-in staff, even one way reward bookings lead to the hurried gaze at your luggage and the: "Are you coming back with us sir?" question

Have never tried doing one myself, always assumed if things change last minute it would lead to segments of more than one ticket having to be cancelled and rescheduled. Although can see the merit for very frequent travellers as enough one ways will be in place for a long weekend away if plans change, wishful thinking is that?

New job doesn't involve any frequent business stateside :# so it might be a while before I set up some nested itineraries for amusement value, will likely be posting questions if (and when) I get lost in the booking process

Recently?

The most recent was last year -- I can't remember which trip but I remember the lady asking. It is admittedly not very common but it does happen.

I'm still very surprised that VS are (apparently) now happy with nested itineraries. That would seem to undermine one of the cornerstones of their revenue model -- the Saturday-night rule.

I'm still very surprised that VS are (apparently) now happy with nested itineraries. That would seem to undermine one of the cornerstones of their revenue model -- the Saturday-night rule.

Hmm revenue model is balancing repeat custom too I would imagine. In order to generate nested itineraries booking more than one return flight is required.... surely will bring in more income and foster a greater loyalty in the long run to the business travellers that stay on the move and plan ahead.

Last minute stuff.. that is where the saturday rule comes in, as well as for people who have no idea what a nested itinerary is and can't plan ahead in this manner.

From where I am sitting I believe they have both avenues covered to generate an acceptable return.

I wonder if it will still be allowed (or at least tolerated) when the DL deal goes through. Imagine all the possibilities factoring in inter US DL flights and the subsequent transatlantic routes, more so if Little Red expands into Europe ii)

Not sure I agree with you about this! Perhaps I should have said pricing rather than revenue model, but the whole thing depends upon setting up an expensive distinction between leisure travellers who book in advance and have little flexibility, and business people who are typically booking later and more often desiring greater flexibility. Also, the business fare-model assumes people do not want to be away over weekends, hence the Saturday night rule and the associated enormous increase in cost if you violate it. It is that, rather than last-minutes-ness, that drives the differences in price, I think (as is evidenced by the fact that you can often get very cheap deep discount economy fares right up until the day of departure). (E.g. fly tomorrow to NYC for £462, returning a week later.)

Nesting flattens this distinction, which is why many airlines have historically disliked it. As soon as one big airline relaxes its conditions, then I would have thought others would have to follow.

So that's why I am surprised VS have done this -- if indeed they really have. It may get them more cash in the short term, but it changes the rules of the pricing game quite considerably and I do find that interesting...

I do understand what you are saying, but I don't think airlines 'dislike' these itineraries on such a grand scale which is why they are tolerated. I can even see the benefit to the airline in the pax loyalty generated and the repeat business in booking more than one flight with the same carrier to make this 'loop hole' work. This alone is extremely important with the current competition operating on certain routes.

Ahhh yes economy late deals to fill the plane.... does not apply to the premium cabins though, where the majority of us prefer to linger if sent away last minute To upgrade using miles requires the higher fares being paid anyway, but in allowing the nesting of fares gives VS the hook into our travel arrangements for future revenue generation.

Slight tangent.. you mentioned generation of cash in the short term, isn't that what they are really pushing at the moment? I speak of miles sales, the mileage booster, seat plus, guest list.. need I go on? All those miles given out especially will be a massive liability for them in the future..... think of all those upgrades and reward flights they will be having to fork out on and also, if spending is allowed from the DL joint venture, a ton of free flights could be taken stateside - get saving ii)

Anyways, they will always be able to flog the higher fares to some business (and even leisure) travellers that need that flexibility (extra TPs and miles too ) so I do not see the extreme minority using nested itineraries eating into this market on any measurable level.

The distinction still exists but as opposed to having two subgroups you have a third with FFs that travel enough on a predictable basis, either leisure or business, to book groups of flights. The order in which they take them should not be relevant - as long as people don't take it too far (a simple cap on the number of bookings you hold at once should deal with that one) I see no reason why airlines should not allow (not saying advertise or encourage ) it.

I think you might be giving this a lot more of a paradigm altering stance than it actually holds. On the other hand, I may very well be underestimating this completely and that VS are holding to their motto of truly 'flying in the face of the ordinary'. |:)

The thing that airlines charge most for is flexibility.

If you are willing to trade that in then I think the likes of Virgin will be happy to take your money. If you need to change a date *kerching*. Every one wins. Except if you need to change a date.