5 ms·
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, le
by rob74 3y 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 3y agoIt'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 3y agoIf 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.