Book Round Trip and Use Only One???

You missed the point of the analogy - buying a larger order of scrambled eggs than one wants because it is cheaper than the desired size then throwing away the unwanted part is distinctly comparable to buying a round trip because it is cheaper than the one way, and then throwing away the unwanted return ticket.

 

Just as you are getting the cheapest desired order of eggs, you would be getting the cheapest desired flight --- in both cases by buying more (for a lesser price) and discarding the unwanted portion. That is precisely what happens to me - it may not be what is happening to the airline - but that is their concern, not mine.

I certainly haven't missed the point, because people come up with this sort of stuff all the time and it always contains fallacies. The most notorious is "If airlines sold paint", which you've probably seen floating around the Internet.

 

A better (but still imperfect) analogy would be this. You can buy a plate of steak (6 oz), egg and chips for $15. You can also buy a steak (6 oz) on its own for $20. The difference is that the steak in the former is the nastiest and cheapest cut of meat that the restaurant can obtain, but if you buy the steak on its own you get the best quality available anywhere. But the restaurant won't sell you the nasty cheap steak on its own for $10.

 

You can take the view that you're getting more for a lesser price if you buy the nasty cheap steak together with egg and chips for less total money, and throwing away the egg and the chips. You can take the view that the steak in the $15 offer is a piece of meat just like the steak in the $20 offer is a piece of meat, and that there's no difference between one piece of meat and the other piece of meat. And you can take the view that it's the restaurant's concern - but none of yours - that one piece of meat is worth more than the other.

 

That's what corresponds to buying a round-trip ticket and throwing away the second half because it's cheaper than buying a one-way. It may well work for some customers. But it's not ridiculous or stupid for the restaurant to say that the nasty cheap steak will only be sold as part of a package (just look at the markup on the egg and chips!), nor to say that the top quality steak will only be sold on its own and not as part of a package.

 

The underlying fallacy is that a ticket for a flight is the same as any other ticket for that flight even if they are at different prices. It may seem like that to those who don't understand the different types of ticket you can buy, and it may be frustrating for those who do understand the difference and who want to buy something that the airline doesn't offer. But none of that is helped by resorting to fallacious analogies.

I am just wondering if the OP goes back and forth across the pond a few times a year why doesn't he(she) just take the FF miles they earn and get an award ticket and be done with it. :confused:

 

Coming on a mostly cruise message board and pitching a fit really isn't going to change anything. Of course you could take your chances on Flyertalk but I'm going to guess there would not be any sympathy over their either.

Two points: I fly trans-Atlantic every year - sometimes several times, and I have never been on a sold-out flight - most seats taken, but there have always been some empties; also, what possible rationale could there be for charging more for a one way than for a round trip?

You are starting from a false premise.

 

The goal is NOT to sell every seat on the flight. That might be an outcome but it is not the goal.

 

The goal IS to achieve the greatest amount of revenue for that flight.

 

Any airline can fill an airplane. If I offered flights from JFK to LHR for $100 each way, I would have NO trouble filling an aircraft. (Can anyone say "Tower Air" or "PeoplExpress"?) Would I stay in business? Hell no!! But I would have full airplanes. The trick is to maximize revenue - and if you happen to fill the plane, that's just a side effect.

You are starting from a false premise.

 

The goal is NOT to sell every seat on the flight. That might be an outcome but it is not the goal.

 

The goal IS to achieve the greatest amount of revenue for that flight.

 

Any airline can fill an airplane. If I offered flights from JFK to LHR for $100 each way, I would have NO trouble filling an aircraft. (Can anyone say "Tower Air" or "PeoplExpress"?) Would I stay in business? Hell no!! But I would have full airplanes. The trick is to maximize revenue - and if you happen to fill the plane, that's just a side effect.

 

One could also have a completely full Business and/or First class cabin, and a full cargo bay (which passengers cannot really see), but be nearly empty in economy...and still be making a boatload of cash on that flight. But if you're in economy and don't get to see business or first, or under the floor in to the cargo bay, you may be under the impression the flight is a dud.

 

Recently, I had a Monday evening flight from Chicago to London on BA. In the winter. I was in business class and it was absolutely packed - every seat taken aside from maybe one. Whilst doing one of my laps around the plane, I was back in economy and the load was probably about 35%. It looked pretty roomy and nice! But I am sure that flight still made money, or at least came close to it.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Zach1213

A better (but still imperfect) analogy would be this. You can buy a plate of steak (6 oz), egg and chips for $15. You can also buy a steak (6 oz) on its own for $20. The difference is that the steak in the former is the nastiest and cheapest cut of meat that the restaurant can obtain, but if you buy the steak on its own you get the best quality available anywhere. But the restaurant won't sell you the nasty cheap steak on its own for $10.

 

.[/iI QUOTE]

 

This analogy is totally inapplicable. The seat on an eastbound T/A on its own is identical to that same seat on the same eastbound T/A as half of a round trip. Throwing in comparisons between "the nastiest and cheapest cut" and the "best quality available anywhere" is inane.

This analogy is totally inapplicable. The seat on an eastbound T/A on its own is identical to that same seat on the same eastbound T/A as half of a round trip. Throwing in comparisons between "the nastiest and cheapest cut" and the "best quality available anywhere" is inane.

The seat may be the same when obtained using either ticket, but there are many other things about the two tickets that are different from each other and which make one more valuable than the other.

 

Of course, you may not notice or care about the other differences between the tickets, just as you may not notice or care about the difference between the good quality meat and the poor quality meat. But that doesn't make either set of differences any less real.

This analogy is totally inapplicable. The seat on an eastbound T/A on its own is identical to that same seat on the same eastbound T/A as half of a round trip. Throwing in comparisons between "the nastiest and cheapest cut" and the "best quality available anywhere" is inane.

 

Two cuts of steak compared to airline seats is just as inapplicable as other comparisons. Best to just "give up" and let the "regulars" rant :D

The seat may be the same when obtained using either ticket, but there are many other things about the two tickets that are different from each other and which make one more valuable than the other.

 

Of course, you may not notice or care about the other differences between the tickets, just as you may not notice or care about the difference between the good quality meat and the poor quality meat. But that doesn't make either set of differences any less real.

 

Your repeated comparisons to differing qualities of meat are utterly irrelevant in the context of a given airplane seat on a given flight.

 

Granted that a consolidator ticket is different from a non-refundable coach class ticket and from a half of a round trip with the other half thrown away, or an over-priced one way ticket purchased from the airline, or a frequent flyer award ticket. Sure - they are all different and they all have their own codes and meanings --- but if they all get you from Airport A to Airport B in the same seat --- isn't that the point of the exercise?

 

Continually drumming on the different codes may demonstrate expertise in airline ticketing but how much REAL difference is there? I have flown numerous times on cruise air type tickets - without problem. When Sandy caused flight cancellations in 2012 American Airlines called me the day before our flight was cancelled - they got us on an Iberian flight to Rome later that day - and that was based on a consolidator ticket. I do not know what else they might have done for a customer who had booked an over-priced one way on that same flight - who would have paid about $1,400 for the ticket which cost me $450.

 

I have realized comparable savings on about a dozen flights. I have also noted that the only reports of people who have gotten fouled up on such flights seem to involve cases where they let some agent do everything, do not build in a little wiggle time by flying in a day or so early, do not check with the airline in question and get locater codes and seat assignments directly with the airline - and periodically check status.

 

Sure - I grant you that the ticket codes may be different and may mean different things -- but never in my experience have they made a noticeable difference - so paying over $1,000 more for a ticket for such codes strikes me as kind of expensive insurance against very slight risk -- so the seat I fill for, say, $450 does for me what the identical seat costing $1,400 could do.

Your repeated comparisons to differing qualities of meat are utterly irrelevant in the context of a given airplane seat on a given flight.

 

Granted that a consolidator ticket is different from a non-refundable coach class ticket and from a half of a round trip with the other half thrown away, or an over-priced one way ticket purchased from the airline, or a frequent flyer award ticket. Sure - they are all different and they all have their own codes and meanings --- but if they all get you from Airport A to Airport B in the same seat --- isn't that the point of the exercise?

Getting from A to B is only part of the exercise, especially when you're looking at the type of ticket that you typically get if you buy a one-way ticket and it costs a lot of money.

 

You may not want or need the bells and whistles that come with the expensive ticket, but they are there and that's why the ticket is expensive. It's not "ridiculous", "stupid" or "inane" to sell a high value ticket at an expensive price. That's the point of the analogy; like all analogies, it's neither complete nor perfect, but it does start to illustrate why it's not just about a seat on a flight.

 

And merely because you personally have never needed the bells and whistles and therefore have been lucky enough not to have noticed the differences between the ticket types, it doesn't mean that others don't need them or that they are not prepared to pay for them. They are. I've been there too - painful though it is to have to pay for those facilities out of my own pocket. There are very real and very important differences.

 

You may not want or need the bells and whistles that come with the expensive ticket, but they are there and that's why the ticket is expensive. It's not "ridiculous", "stupid" or "inane" to sell a high value ticket at an expensive price. That's the point of the analogy; like all analogies, it's neither complete nor perfect, but it does start to illustrate why it's not just about a seat on a flight.

 

.

 

You miss the point of interest to people on this site. Of course it is not ridiculous, stupid or inane to SELL a high value ticket. Those SELLING the tickets have a natural interest in selling them for the highest posdible price. But airlines are not as active here as are cruise passengers - and they are the ones who BUY tickets - and for them to pay more than necessary IS arguably ridiculous, stupid and inane. They want a seat on a flight - and in virtually all cases they can get it at a price advantageous to them rather than to the airlines.

You miss the point of interest to people on this site. Of course it is not ridiculous, stupid or inane to SELL a high value ticket. Those SELLING the tickets have a natural interest in selling them for the highest posdible price. But airlines are not as active here as are cruise passengers - and they are the ones who BUY tickets - and for them to pay more than necessary IS arguably ridiculous, stupid and inane. They want a seat on a flight - and in virtually all cases they can get it at a price advantageous to them rather than to the airlines.

In other words....cheapest is best, and if you can't give it to me cheap, then you are wrong. Your business model should cater to me - because I want cheap.

 

In the big scheme of things, TATL air tickets for cruises is a drop in the bucket for air carriers. So no, they aren't going to change just because you want them to. Or because people on this message board want them to. I would think that a "banker" would understand economic market forces.

 

Is it time to bring back 6rugrats old sig line (from George Carlin): "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience".

In other words....cheapest is best, and if you can't give it to me cheap, then you are wrong. Your business model should cater to me - because I want cheap.

 

In the big scheme of things, TATL air tickets for cruises is a drop in the bucket for air carriers. So no, they aren't going to change just because you want them to. Or because people on this message board want them to. I would think that a "banker" would understand economic market forces.

 

Is it time to bring back 6rugrats old sig line (from George Carlin): "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience".

 

No --- cheapest is not best. But cheaper certainly is better than unnecessarily expensive. Understanding economic market forces is what leads consumers to seek alternatives to initially quoted prices established by market entities whose interests are opposed to the interests of those consumers.

 

While there may very well be some advantages to the consumer to pay full quoted air fare, wouldn't there be even greater advantages to paying even more by chartering his own plane? Yes, that is an extreme example - but any transaction involves deciding how many bells and whistles are needed.

 

My experience has been that I can travel as well, and certainly far more economically- and therefore more frequently, buy shopping around than by paying initial list price for a product which, for my needs, is overpriced.

You miss the point of interest to people on this site. Of course it is not ridiculous, stupid or inane to SELL a high value ticket. Those SELLING the tickets have a natural interest in selling them for the highest posdible price. But airlines are not as active here as are cruise passengers - and they are the ones who BUY tickets - and for them to pay more than necessary IS arguably ridiculous, stupid and inane.

I agree that a customer should try not to pay more than they need to if they only want a one-way ticket, and we have plenty of advice here about that.

 

But this isn't what you were saying in your previous posts, which is what I took issue with:-

... there is, in fact, something "ridiculous" about an airline charging more for a one half of a round trip flight than for the whole thing.

... the current practice of most airlines to charge more for one ways than round trips is beyond ridiculous: it is stupid. They prefer to drive away with their pricing a growing market segment: passengers who just happen to want to fly one way.

The airlines know what they are doing much better than either you or I. The one thing that they are not being is ridiculous or stupid. If it ever became unwise for them to continue this policy, it would change - as it already has for some airlines on some long-haul routes.

I agree that a customer should try not to pay more than they need to if they only want a one-way ticket, and we have plenty of advice here about that.

 

But this isn't what you were saying in your previous posts, which is what I took issue with:-The airlines know what they are doing much better than either you or I. The one thing that they are not being is ridiculous or stupid. If it ever became unwise for them to continue this policy, it would change - as it already has for some airlines on some long-haul routes.

 

I retain some skepticism about whether airlines really do know what they are doing. The U.S. airline industry has a pretty dismal record when you consider that virtually every airline flying twenty or thirty years ago has wound up bankrupt. Your own mixed-message conclusion is interesting: your acknowledging that SOME airlines have changed the policy in question - presumably because it was shown to be unwise - has to mean that those who have not changed the policy are wrong, or that those who have changed should not have.

 

I am not calling them stupid - but by their pricing policies they have encouraged players - call them consolidators - to step in -- where if their pricing had been rational they probably could have wound up with higher revenues for themselves - while maintaining better relations with their customer base.

 

Having been involved in the oversight of more than one airline going through reorganization, I do have some experience in the area.

I retain some skepticism about whether airlines really do know what they are doing. The U.S. airline industry has a pretty dismal record when you consider that virtually every airline flying twenty or thirty years ago has wound up bankrupt.

If it were only US airlines doing this, I would share your scepticism. However, this is an approach adopted by network airlines across the world.

Your own mixed-message conclusion is interesting: your acknowledging that SOME airlines have changed the policy in question - presumably because it was shown to be unwise - has to mean that those who have not changed the policy are wrong, or that those who have changed should not have.

Neither conclusion would be justified. Those who have adopted a different policy on some routes may operate in different markets (whether by market segment - take Icelandair, for example, amongst the trans-Atlantic airlines - or by route). So they may have different imperatives and come to different conclusions about what they should do. Not all airlines are uniformly alike, and what works for one airline may not work for another, even if they compete on the same route.

 

And for any individual airline, it's not about selling the maximum number of tickets but of getting the maximum revenue, which is sometimes achieved by not trying to sell every single seat on the aircraft if the yield doesn't justify it. Neither is this a field in which there is either unlimited supply or unlimited demand. It's not hard to construct (artificial and simplistic) scenarios to illustrate how an airline can make more money by refusing to service the market that only wants cheap tickets.

I am not calling them stupid - but by their pricing policies they have encouraged players - call them consolidators - to step in -- where if their pricing had been rational they probably could have wound up with higher revenues for themselves - while maintaining better relations with their customer base.

Consolidators have been around for ever and there's not much chance of them going away any time soon. Like direct sales, consols operate much more in the field of round-trip tickets than one-way tickets. Their presence in the one-way market doesn't tell us anything about whether the airlines' policies on one-way pricing are good or bad.

I am not calling them stupid - but by their pricing policies they have encouraged players - call them consolidators - to step in -- where if their pricing had been rational they probably could have wound up with higher revenues for themselves - while maintaining better relations with their customer base.

 

 

This is where you are missing the point if you are referring to cruise air as consolidators, which is what started the conversation.

 

The airlines love the cruise lines. They get large chunks of money 18-24 months BEFORE the flight, they don't have to deal with the passengers very often and they sell out their cheapest tickets based on very sophisticated yield management programs long before the lowest price tickets are available to the general public. And those lowest price tickets available to the general public ARE NOT the same as what the cruise lines purchased.

 

In addition, they are selling the cruise lines RT tickets of which some passengers only get 1/2. Therefore, the planes fly with GUARANTEED passengers (or at least paid for seats) both ways.

 

There is absolutely no incentive for airlines to sell cheap one way international tickets as a general rule.

 

This is how cruise lines purchase tickets: They send RFP's out to the airlines (primarily US airlines) for 200 tickets from JFK to LHR for October 15, 2016. Airlines respond: We will sell you XXX tickets for $350 each. BUT these are our rules: Cruise line OWNS the tickets after contract is signed. Cruise line will take care of most passenger needs.

 

The tickets are NON RE-ROUTABLE (same route with same departure dates and time even if another route is the ONLY way to get to your cruise on time) and NON ENDORSABLE (no good on another airline even if another airline is the ONLY way to get to your cruise on time.). Some contracts are signed under "vacation package" rules. Don't take the cruise or package trip-sorry, your air is no good and very often NOT refundable. You cannot use your already paid for airline ticket to take a land vacation to the same place. But RARELY, does a person purchasing the "cheap" tickets become aware of those restrictions until there is a glitch in travel and they are simply STUCK someplace. There is no way to read the COMPLETE fare rules with most cruise air purchases.

 

Cruise lines can sell those tickets to anyone they choose for whatever price they can get. So even the cruise lines are NOT purchasing one way tickets. There just is not a huge demand for one way tickets. One offs for business travel occasionally but it is generally cheaper to buy a RT and pay the change fees. It is what we do for all of our trade show business, even though a lot of times, the salespeople need to stay for an extra couple of days.

And for any individual airline, it's not about selling the maximum number of tickets but of getting the maximum revenue, which is sometimes achieved by not trying to sell every single seat on the aircraft if the yield doesn't justify it.

 

....

 

Consolidators have been around for ever and there's not much chance of them going away any time soon. Like direct sales, consols operate much more in the field of round-trip tickets than one-way tickets. Their presence in the one-way market doesn't tell us anything about whether the airlines' policies on one-way pricing are good or bad.

 

My point was that by refusing to apply flexible pricing for flight segments, the airlines opened the niche for consolidators - who essentially buy low from the airlines and resell (with flexibility to the flying public) at a profit. That profit comes directly out of what could have been part of the airlines' bottom lines. The airlines hold the proprietary information on seat sales - as well as their costs - which they could use to maximize revenue. Rather, they prefer to release blocks of seats to the consolidators who then compete with the airlines' efforts to sell the remaining seats at maximum profit. The airlines posess all the actual data on flight loading yet they fail to utilize it to their own maximum advantage

 

That strikes me as irrational - and the fact that most airlines have operated unprofitably in recent decades says something about the rationality of their approach to their business.

 

Interestingly, the two most profitable US airlines happen to be Southwest and Jet Blue - both of which are the most flexible in their sales policies. True, as late entrants, they have not been burdened with the enormous labor costs of the older lines - but those lines (by going through bankruptcy reorganizations) have been largely able to level that part of the field.

My point was that by refusing to apply flexible pricing for flight segments, the airlines opened the niche for consolidators - who essentially buy low from the airlines and resell (with flexibility to the flying public) at a profit. That profit comes directly out of what could have been part of the airlines' bottom lines. The airlines hold the proprietary information on seat sales - as well as their costs - which they could use to maximize revenue. Rather, they prefer to release blocks of seats to the consolidators who then compete with the airlines' efforts to sell the remaining seats at maximum profit. The airlines posess all the actual data on flight loading yet they fail to utilize it to their own maximum advantage

 

 

The cruise lines have been buying in bulk for years and years, so the ONLY thing that is new is the fancy websites. The flights that were originally managed by humans in the air/sea dept are now primarily managed by computers. And YOU, the customer, are made to think all these fancy computer programs booking air is NEW. NOPE, same tickets, same contracts.

 

The cruise lines saved a whole lot of labor which translates into a lot of dollars. The airlines saved a lot of labor which again translates into a lot of dollars. And the value of all that cash 18-24 months in advance of the flight is a BIG incentive for the airlines.

 

The airlines wouldn't do it if there was not a HUGE upside (which is really the advance cash plus a lot less labor per ticket). If people only knew they WERE NOT getting the same ticket that they would purchase direct from the airline, a ticket that could seriously put their vacation in jeopardy, there wouldn't be so much touting of Choice Air/EZ Air and all the other variations.

.

Interestingly, the two most profitable US airlines happen to be Southwest and Jet Blue - both of which are the most flexible in their sales policies.

 

Where are you finding these statistics? Per Airline Weekly, the 15 most profitable airlines in the world, for the time period ending June 2014 are:

 

 

 

Rank/ Best / Margin

1 Copa (Panama) 22%

2 Spirit (U.S.) 18%

3 Allegiant (U.S.) 16%

4 Republic (U.S.) 16%

5 Ryanair (Ireland) 15%

6 Alaska (U.S.) 14%

7 Japan Airlines (Japan) 12%

8 Aegean (Greece) 12%

9 Hainan Airlines (China) 12%

10 Delta (U.S.) 11%

11 easyJet (U.K) 11%

12 WestJet (Canada) 11%

13 Southwest (U.S.) 11%

14 American (U.S.) 10%

15 Air Arabia (United Arab Emirates) 10%

 

The margin measures operating profits as a percentage of operating revenues. For most, it covers the 12 months ending June 30.

 

Also reported here:

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/22/airlines-profits-idUSL2N0RN1KD20140922

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-04-10/the-most-hated-u-dot-s-dot-airline-is-also-the-most-profitable

Edited March 27, 2015 by 6rugrats

I thought consolidators originated when airlines were much more regulated as a way for the airlines to sell discounted tickets without running afoul of selling at less than the IATA published fares. Maybe I'm misremembering?

 

If the airlines wanted to eliminate consolidators, they'd simply stop selling tickets to them. Since they still exist, I'd think the airlines have no issue with using consolidators for the cheap fares the airlines don't want to sell - the cost of selling to bottom-feeder customers is not justified by the miniscule profit. So they let consolidators deal with selling to them.

I thought consolidators originated when airlines were much more regulated as a way for the airlines to sell discounted tickets without running afoul of selling at less than the IATA published fares. Maybe I'm misremembering?

 

If the airlines wanted to eliminate consolidators, they'd simply stop selling tickets to them. Since they still exist, I'd think the airlines have no issue with using consolidators for the cheap fares the airlines don't want to sell - the cost of selling to bottom-feeder customers is not justified by the miniscule profit. So they let consolidators deal with selling to them.

 

Of course, the reason there are those cheap fares the bottom feeders snap up is the fact that the airlines release blocks of seats to the consolidators at deeply discounted prices. In today's close-to-zero interest environment, getting the proceeds of those deeply discounted fares well in advance isn't such a great benefit. It is great for the consumer, because it floods the market with many seats but it does mean that, by releasing so much of their product to an essentially independent sales force, they wind up not really controlling the price of that product.

Of course, the reason there are those cheap fares the bottom feeders snap up is the fact that the airlines release blocks of seats to the consolidators at deeply discounted prices. In today's close-to-zero interest environment, getting the proceeds of those deeply discounted fares well in advance isn't such a great benefit. It is great for the consumer, because it floods the market with many seats but it does mean that, by releasing so much of their product to an essentially independent sales force, they wind up not really controlling the price of that product.

They don't put the money from the consolidators into the bank to earn interest until someone goes on a flight. They use it for operations. Much cheaper than using borrowed money.

 

I dispute that they are flooding the market with discount fares. Prices are up, loads are up, and the airlines are actually turning a profit. Much to the disappointment of bottom feeders such as myself. I long for the days when they lost money on every ticket and tried to make it up in volume.

 

Cruise air, consolidators, bucket shops and other sales channels of that ilk are a part of the airlines revenue management strategies. If the airlines thought they could make a better profit without them, they simply wouldn't exist anymore. They also wouldn't use those channels in a manner that would undermine their pricing. And if they thought they could make a better profit directly selling discount one-ways without undermining their pricing, they would.

 

That doesn't mean a new entrant couldn't come into the market and shake things up. IIRC, domestic used to have expensive one-ways until WN came along. Now pretty much all domestic R/Ts are double a one-way. Unfortunately, WN doesn't go to Europe.

 

----------------------------------------------

 

Spirit Air 18%? Really? No wonder the legacies seem to be headed in that direction :eek:.

My point was that by refusing to apply flexible pricing for flight segments, the airlines opened the niche for consolidators - who essentially buy low from the airlines and resell (with flexibility to the flying public) at a profit.

Consolidators only sell what they're allowed by the airlines to sell, and only in the way that the airlines allow them to sell it. They can't simply buy x seats on a flight from the airline and themselves freely choose whether to sell those seats as one-way tickets or round-trip tickets, or to set their own conditions on those tickets.

 

In any event, consolidators are very active in round-trip travel. Indeed, their primary business is round-trip travel, just like the airlines'. Consolidators actually exist and thrive for reasons other than airlines' restrictive pricing practices, thus showing the fallacy of this argument (and there are different reasons for the different practices of different airlines, even where they compete on the same routes, just as for other things in this industry).

 

As CantanaLobo points out, the airlines could turn off the taps to consolidators if consolidators were undermining their business, but airlines continue to choose to deal with them.