FORT WORTH- CNBC host Andrew Ross Sorkin publicly acknowledged using skiplagging on an itinerary to save money. He stated on air that the ticket was priced roughly $1,500 less by ending his trip early rather than flying the full scheduled route.
The admission has intensified debate between airlines and consumers over throwaway ticketing, where passengers intentionally skip the final segment of a trip to reduce travel costs.
It highlights a structured conflict between revenue models designed by carriers and the way travelers perceive ownership of purchased flights.
CNBC Admits Skiplagging on Live TV
Throwaway ticketing has existed for decades, yet its visibility surged when Sorkin questioned The Points Guy founder Brian Kelly live on MSNBC’s Squawk Box about whether it is a practical savings tactic.
He explained that his booked trip required multiple additional stops he never intended to take, then asked, “Am I supposed to cancel the flight after?” and concluded by noting that a travel agent handled the booking.
Industry experts strongly criticized the public acknowledgment. Cory Garner, former American Airlines Vice President of Sales and Distribution Strategy, argued on LinkedIn that skiplagging deliberately circumvents pricing architecture designed to match fares to demand.
He stated that most airlines restrict the practice through conditions of carriage and agency agreements.
He added that a revenue analyst would likely flag Sorkin’s reservation, identify missed segments, and issue a debit memo to the responsible travel agency. Also, Sorkin did not specify on which airline he was travelling.
According to View from the Wing, the tension stems from conflicting interpretations. Airlines consider a connecting trip, AAA–BBB–CCC, to be a distinct commercial product from AAA–BBB travel alone, even if the physical flight from AAA–BBB is identical.
Consumers, however, see two purchased flights and believe they can choose to use or not use either segment.
Airline Penalties and Detection Methods
Garner compared skiplagging to a customer placing an advance payment for two pounds of candy, then taking four pounds instead. He outlined three points to support his interpretation:
- The buyer knowingly misrepresented their intentions.
- The buyer received more value than the price paid.
- The merchant lost potential future sales due to inventory removal.
This reasoning explains why carriers classify skiplagging as extractive behavior rather than a loophole.
Airlines price itineraries based on competition, hub economics, and demand elasticity, not on the distance flown.
A nonstop into a carrier’s hub often costs more than an itinerary connecting onward to a competitive market. Skiplagging undermines those fare dynamics.
Consumer Rights vs. Airline Products
Travelers commonly see a ticket as purchased access to a seat rather than participation in a binding agreement regarding each flight segment.
Most passengers cannot recall having read the conditions of carriage, even though these rules legally govern every ticket.
That disconnect makes the practice feel like a simple consumer choice rather than a breach of contract.
Historical examples show how normalized the practice has become. The late US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia used throwaway ticketing.
The New York Times ethicist endorsed it as rational consumer behavior. A Donald Trump PAC also utilized the practice. These examples reinforce that the discussion rarely centers on morality.
Practical Risks and Limitations
While skiplagging may produce savings, it creates logistical challenges. Checked baggage will almost always be routed to the ticketed final destination, not the earlier point where the passenger plans to exit.
If overhead space is insufficient and a carry-on is gate checked, the same issue occurs.
Irregular operations also disrupt plans. If a connecting flight is canceled, the airline may reroute passengers through a different city, eliminating the intended exit point entirely.
If a traveler skips an early segment of a round-trip itinerary, all remaining segments are automatically canceled. For this reason, skiplagging on outbound segments requires booking two separate one-way tickets.
Expert Views
Carriers retain the right to price products as they choose and to deny future travel to those who repeatedly violate ticketing rules.
Consumers are free to decide what to do after purchasing a seat, provided they accept the contractual risks.
Travel agencies face the greatest exposure because they explicitly agree to comply with carrier ticketing policies and can suffer substantial financial penalties.
The debate is best understood as a commercial disagreement rather than a question of right or wrong.
Airlines protect revenue. Travelers seek cost efficiency. Both parties act rationally according to their incentives, which is why the controversy continues.
Stay tuned with us. Further, follow us on social media for the latest updates.
Join us on Telegram Group for the Latest Aviation Updates. Subsequently, follow us on Google News
