4 ms·

I can't see this as a long term viable market. Airlines obviously won't like this and it's only a matter of time until they lobby politicians to make this illeg

by bko 10y ago

I can't see this as a long term viable market. Airlines obviously won't like this and it's only a matter of time until they lobby politicians to make this illegal because "terrorism" It's a shame because I believe that loosening restrictions of airline tickets, specifically allowing for transferability would be a huge opportunity. If tickers were transferrable, the seemingly arbitrary shifts in pricing would fall considerably. The same restrictions could apply such as visa restrictions and perhaps even a limit to transferability such as 24 hours before the flight. It would be a huge win for the consumer but sadly I doubt this will happen any time soon.

blowski 10y ago
Whilst my initial reaction is to agree with you, I thought the same about Uber and AirBnB.
- tdb7893 10y ago
  I think the distinction is that Uber and AirBnB both correspond to underused assets that you own and control. This deals with something that you don't price or control, and is already heavily regulated. Also, one problem is that neither weight not space on a plane are very underutilized in current airlines so if this took off airlines would either a) employ a pricing scheme that effectively kills it (e.g. pricing on weight of luggage or something) or b) increase costs to flyers to correspond to increased costs to them.
tdb7893 10y ago
Sending arbitrary packages via airlines I can't see being anything other than a security and customer service nightmare. Even without airlines actively fighting it (and with good reason) there is little possibility this will take off.
- itissid 10y ago
  In all fairness, its upto the mule to make sure what you are taking. Seems its only is a nightmare as much as what happens now, when you transport a package for someone else.
mikeash 10y ago
I'm usually a "security theater" kind of guy, but having people put packages in their luggage that have been packed by strangers sure seems like an actual security problem to me. Getting someone else to unknowingly carry your bomb onto an airliner is a time-honored tradition. It lets the attacker make multiple attempts to probe security without consequences, and it avoids the troublesome part at the end where they die along with their victims. Security aside, this can't catch on. If it started to, the airlines would have to put a stop to it or reduce baggage allowances to the point where it would be unprofitable. Like many services, they're counting on the fact that the average will be much less than the maximum. An airliner where every passenger checked their maximum would probably be overweight, and at the least would greatly cut into their profitable cargo capacity.
- bko 10y ago
  I was thinking more about the right to transfer the right to the baggage. So if in allowed one bag, I can sell you my bag right and you can being on two bags while I don't bring on any. But, yeah, I can see how your scenario might be a security risk. However, I will note that TSA is notoriously bad at identifying and removing banned substances so perhaps the increased risk would be negligible
  - hakanensari 10y ago
    > I was thinking more about the right to transfer the right to the baggage. This is in some way already happening (in reverse) with some budget airlines or travel classes, where the default is hand baggage only, and then you top up for each checked baggage.
  - kirykl 10y ago
    Even if TSA treats passenger cargo the same as commercial cargo, the airlines have a responsibility to comply with commercial cargo regulations. Your average app user looking to make $5 isn't capable of guaranteeing compliance
maerF0x0 10y ago
I doubt they can prevent me from carrying goods that I claim are mine, which i've purchased myself, as illegal. How is that any different than making my shirts and pants illegal? Edit: I had a typo --> "I doubt the can _prevent_ me..."
SilasX 10y ago
Similarly, it's ridiculous how they charge for checked luggage. Now, wait, let me finish! I don't mean in the confused sense of "lol everything should be free!" What I mean is, checked luggage is inconvenient for the passenger (less access, have to wait), while using the least scarce part of the cabin -- they can't sell tickets to fly in the cargo hold, while they want to allocate whatever passenger-usable space they can for paying passengers. So, if anything, they should charge for carry-on luggage while making (some level of) checked luggage free. The system we have now -- the opposite -- creates perverse incentives all around: passengers are encouraged to avoid using the perfectly usable cargo hold, and instead, cram increasingly absurd amounts into their carry-on allotment, testing the unwillingness of airline employees to say, "sorry, you're over your limit, you'll have to check that". And then people have more pieces to deal with, choking up the loading and deplaning procedures, and bringing more of their (potentially dangerous) items through a security checkpoint... Every time I fly, I notice a sea of people toting enormous bags, as if to say "tell me can't take this on. Just try."
- njloof 10y ago
  I assume the airline can happily fill the hold with paid cargo instead.
- jschwartzi 10y ago
  This assumes they don't make any money from selling space in the cargo hold for air mail couriers.
  - hx87 10y ago
    Can't they sell carry-on space too?
  - SilasX 10y ago
    Right, but if we assume passenger space trades off one-to-one for cargo hold space [1], then the airline could reallocate the overhead bins to cargo (e.g. raise the floor). Then they could sell out even more cargo space as mail. So, in equilibrium, passengers should have to "compensate" (pay a premium) for the airline's lost opportunity to rent out the space. Instead, everyone gets some of that premium, human-usable space for free. But if people are going to get some lump of space for free, why not make it the cargo hold, which is less constrained (doesn't have to be human usable) and thus cheaper? They're effectively letting people with more expensive requirements (must be able to access my stuff during flight) be subsidized by people with less expensive requirements ("I can wait until after the flight to access my stuff"). [1] which is probably true enough to a first approximation; you could redesign the interior to have more cargo space and less passenger space

by bko 10y ago

blowski 10y ago

Whilst my initial reaction is to agree with you, I thought the same about Uber and AirBnB.

tdb7893 10y ago
I think the distinction is that Uber and AirBnB both correspond to underused assets that you own and control. This deals with something that you don't price or control, and is already heavily regulated. Also, one problem is that neither weight not space on a plane are very underutilized in current airlines so if this took off airlines would either a) employ a pricing scheme that effectively kills it (e.g. pricing on weight of luggage or something) or b) increase costs to flyers to correspond to increased costs to them.

tdb7893 10y ago

Sending arbitrary packages via airlines I can't see being anything other than a security and customer service nightmare. Even without airlines actively fighting it (and with good reason) there is little possibility this will take off.

itissid 10y ago
In all fairness, its upto the mule to make sure what you are taking. Seems its only is a nightmare as much as what happens now, when you transport a package for someone else.

mikeash 10y ago

I'm usually a "security theater" kind of guy, but having people put packages in their luggage that have been packed by strangers sure seems like an actual security problem to me. Getting someone else to unknowingly carry your bomb onto an airliner is a time-honored tradition. It lets the attacker make multiple attempts to probe security without consequences, and it avoids the troublesome part at the end where they die along with their victims. Security aside, this can't catch on. If it started to, the airlines would have to put a stop to it or reduce baggage allowances to the point where it would be unprofitable. Like many services, they're counting on the fact that the average will be much less than the maximum. An airliner where every passenger checked their maximum would probably be overweight, and at the least would greatly cut into their profitable cargo capacity.

bko 10y ago
I was thinking more about the right to transfer the right to the baggage. So if in allowed one bag, I can sell you my bag right and you can being on two bags while I don't bring on any. But, yeah, I can see how your scenario might be a security risk. However, I will note that TSA is notoriously bad at identifying and removing banned substances so perhaps the increased risk would be negligible
- hakanensari 10y ago
  > I was thinking more about the right to transfer the right to the baggage. This is in some way already happening (in reverse) with some budget airlines or travel classes, where the default is hand baggage only, and then you top up for each checked baggage.
- kirykl 10y ago
  Even if TSA treats passenger cargo the same as commercial cargo, the airlines have a responsibility to comply with commercial cargo regulations. Your average app user looking to make $5 isn't capable of guaranteeing compliance

maerF0x0 10y ago

I doubt they can prevent me from carrying goods that I claim are mine, which i've purchased myself, as illegal. How is that any different than making my shirts and pants illegal? Edit: I had a typo --> "I doubt the can _prevent_ me..."

SilasX 10y ago

Similarly, it's ridiculous how they charge for checked luggage. Now, wait, let me finish! I don't mean in the confused sense of "lol everything should be free!" What I mean is, checked luggage is inconvenient for the passenger (less access, have to wait), while using the least scarce part of the cabin -- they can't sell tickets to fly in the cargo hold, while they want to allocate whatever passenger-usable space they can for paying passengers. So, if anything, they should charge for carry-on luggage while making (some level of) checked luggage free. The system we have now -- the opposite -- creates perverse incentives all around: passengers are encouraged to avoid using the perfectly usable cargo hold, and instead, cram increasingly absurd amounts into their carry-on allotment, testing the unwillingness of airline employees to say, "sorry, you're over your limit, you'll have to check that". And then people have more pieces to deal with, choking up the loading and deplaning procedures, and bringing more of their (potentially dangerous) items through a security checkpoint... Every time I fly, I notice a sea of people toting enormous bags, as if to say "tell me can't take this on. Just try."

njloof 10y ago
I assume the airline can happily fill the hold with paid cargo instead.
jschwartzi 10y ago
This assumes they don't make any money from selling space in the cargo hold for air mail couriers.
- hx87 10y ago
  Can't they sell carry-on space too?
- SilasX 10y ago
  Right, but if we assume passenger space trades off one-to-one for cargo hold space [1], then the airline could reallocate the overhead bins to cargo (e.g. raise the floor). Then they could sell out even more cargo space as mail. So, in equilibrium, passengers should have to "compensate" (pay a premium) for the airline's lost opportunity to rent out the space. Instead, everyone gets some of that premium, human-usable space for free. But if people are going to get some lump of space for free, why not make it the cargo hold, which is less constrained (doesn't have to be human usable) and thus cheaper? They're effectively letting people with more expensive requirements (must be able to access my stuff during flight) be subsidized by people with less expensive requirements ("I can wait until after the flight to access my stuff"). [1] which is probably true enough to a first approximation; you could redesign the interior to have more cargo space and less passenger space