3 ms·
I chuckled at your scenario, but more realistically airlines realized that some critical mass of the market would rather pack a little lighter and save on their
by weberc2 8y ago
I chuckled at your scenario, but more realistically airlines realized that some critical mass of the market would rather pack a little lighter and save on their airfare instead of paying for a checked bag. If the scenario went as you described, then the airlines were trading their credibility for a short term boost in profits and the market will correct to their mid/long-term disadvantage. This is a poor consolation to the unsavvy consumers who "fell for it", but the solution is to produce savvier consumers, not to penalize the current crop of savvy consumers by inflating their ticket prices.
- chipotle_coyote 8y ago"This is a way for airlines to get the lowest price in front of consumers" and "this is a way to address a market segment willing to go carry-on only in order to save money" are not mutually exclusive, are they? Consider the recent addition of "Basic Economy" fares for some airlines now, which incur extra charges for overhead bin space. I would assert that this is a way to get an even lower price in front of consumers. You would presumably assert that it is a way for the airlines to let people who can travel with little to no luggage save even more. Again: both of those things can be true.
- weberc2 8y agoLol they are both true; that’s my point. The market is securing an agreeable outcome for both parties. It’s literally a win-win scenario. The airlines are finding ways to carve out more value for their customers in exchange for their business. This is eminently desirable! I think your real issue is against the increased cost of air travel and the inconvenience it poses for travelers who are unwilling or unable to compromise by trading off luggage for price. It sucks, but it’s not “greedy corporations”; it’s just economic reality.