3 ms·

A recent article I read regarding that illustrated the point a bit from the other side. One of the airlines artificially capped their prices to $99 per flight,

by zo1 9y ago

A recent article I read regarding that illustrated the point a bit from the other side. One of the airlines artificially capped their prices to $99 per flight, and predictably sold out very quickly. That did very little good to all the truly desperate people (Luckily, other airlines that didn't cap had open, but pricier, seats). What this meant was that people who weren't necessarily in all that much danger, or had plenty of time to evacuate via other means, used up all the tickets. But the ones that were really needy and couldn't use other evacuation means, E.g. pregnant women, were not even given the option of the higher price.

mfringel 9y ago
...and then Air Canada sent down more flights to get people out. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/r-e-p-e-a-t----air-canada-operating-24-extra-flights-for-customers-impacted-by-hurricane-irma-2017-09-07 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/r-e-p-e-a-t----air-canada-o... In the event of irregular operations, the supply of seats is somewhat elastic.
josefresco 9y ago
Who's to say that those in most need can afford the gouging? If the price is allowed to flex based on demand, only the rich could afford the service, and money != need.
- zo1 9y ago
  I'm not saying that that can't happen. There are probably people that are needy and can't afford the increased prices. But, by making it "cheap" enough for the poor & needy to pay, you've effectively made it "cheap" for the poor and not needy to pay as well. The latter group being much larger and will probably drown out access for the former, so it's a lose-lose if you ask me.
  - josefresco 9y ago
    "There are probably people that are needy and can't afford the increased prices." I would imagine most people fall into this category during a crisis. Access is "drowned out" for everyone ... equally. The alternative is that only the rich have access. Which is better? In both scenerios people die, except in one onnly one class of people die. My point is there should be no "economic" model for private business in a natural disaster where lives are on the line.

by zo1 9y ago

mfringel 9y ago

...and then Air Canada sent down more flights to get people out. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/r-e-p-e-a-t----air-canada-operating-24-extra-flights-for-customers-impacted-by-hurricane-irma-2017-09-07 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/r-e-p-e-a-t----air-canada-o... In the event of irregular operations, the supply of seats is somewhat elastic.

josefresco 9y ago

Who's to say that those in most need can afford the gouging? If the price is allowed to flex based on demand, only the rich could afford the service, and money != need.

zo1 9y ago
I'm not saying that that can't happen. There are probably people that are needy and can't afford the increased prices. But, by making it "cheap" enough for the poor & needy to pay, you've effectively made it "cheap" for the poor and not needy to pay as well. The latter group being much larger and will probably drown out access for the former, so it's a lose-lose if you ask me.
- josefresco 9y ago
  "There are probably people that are needy and can't afford the increased prices." I would imagine most people fall into this category during a crisis. Access is "drowned out" for everyone ... equally. The alternative is that only the rich have access. Which is better? In both scenerios people die, except in one onnly one class of people die. My point is there should be no "economic" model for private business in a natural disaster where lives are on the line.