4 ms·

This is a case where I wish society didn’t optimize for the lowest price and instead made it acceptable to pay more to make the default option more appealing. Y

This is a case where I wish society didn’t optimize for the lowest price and instead made it acceptable to pay more to make the default option more appealing. Yes, you can always pay for business class, but it’s framed as an upgrade, not the baseline standard.

rob74 4y ago
Yes, but... today, if you don't need more than carry-on luggage and are ok with not getting anything to eat during the flight, you are able to afford flying, let's say, from Munich to Barcelona for a weekend, which you maybe wouldn't have been able to do when "paying more for a more appealing default option". Of course it's debatable if encouraging such flights is good for the environment, but purely from the perspective of having more travel options, I would say it's a win...
- keiferski 4y ago
  It's my understanding that most of these cheap flights are heavily subsidized to begin with. But my point was more that just as we have certain expectations for other things, it would be nice if we had the same for air travel – and not just resign ourselves to "the absolute lowest price possible" as the defining characteristic.
  - rob74 4y ago
    If you mean "subsidized" because the airlines don't have to pay the kind of taxes on jet fuel that users of road (or rail) vehicles have to pay on gas, or that they only have to pay airport taxes, but can use the airways free of charge, then yes. But no-frills airlines like Ryanair are not in the charity business, so you can bet that their price calculation is economically sound on the whole.
quacksilver 4y ago
Some countries (like the UK) even have additional taxes on flights that are not the lowest class available. I'm not sure if it is to discourage taking more comfortable travel options or just to scalp people with money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Passenger_Duty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Passenger_Duty
rayiner 4y ago
Except that means that people who fall below the baseline are just cut out. A large swath of the country in the 1950s simply couldn’t fly anywhere.

rob74 4y ago

Yes, but... today, if you don't need more than carry-on luggage and are ok with not getting anything to eat during the flight, you are able to afford flying, let's say, from Munich to Barcelona for a weekend, which you maybe wouldn't have been able to do when "paying more for a more appealing default option". Of course it's debatable if encouraging such flights is good for the environment, but purely from the perspective of having more travel options, I would say it's a win...

keiferski 4y ago
It's my understanding that most of these cheap flights are heavily subsidized to begin with. But my point was more that just as we have certain expectations for other things, it would be nice if we had the same for air travel – and not just resign ourselves to "the absolute lowest price possible" as the defining characteristic.
- rob74 4y ago
  If you mean "subsidized" because the airlines don't have to pay the kind of taxes on jet fuel that users of road (or rail) vehicles have to pay on gas, or that they only have to pay airport taxes, but can use the airways free of charge, then yes. But no-frills airlines like Ryanair are not in the charity business, so you can bet that their price calculation is economically sound on the whole.

quacksilver 4y ago

Some countries (like the UK) even have additional taxes on flights that are not the lowest class available. I'm not sure if it is to discourage taking more comfortable travel options or just to scalp people with money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Passenger_Duty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Passenger_Duty

rayiner 4y ago

Except that means that people who fall below the baseline are just cut out. A large swath of the country in the 1950s simply couldn’t fly anywhere.