17 ms·

I don't think that it's dynamic pricing that makes people hate the airlines. It's the rash of bad-faith activity around the dynamic pricing. For example, decre

I don't think that it's dynamic pricing that makes people hate the airlines. It's the rash of bad-faith activity around the dynamic pricing. For example, decreasing legroom and forcing disabled people into business class tickets they wouldn't have needed, were it 20 years ago when coach seats had enough room, is bad-faith activity. Likewise, this "boarding group" nonsense where "Group 5" means you'll have no overhead space and have to wait at a fucking baggage claim, despite carrying your bags to the terminal, is bad-faith activity. So is (in Asia) denying airport lounge access to coach passengers instead of pricing it a la carte as is done in the US, and so is the non-transferability of tickets (which is disingenuously argued to be because of 9/11, but really is just there to steal from people). There's a ton that airlines do that is dishonest, in bad faith, and generally engineered to make for an unpleasant experience in coach, just to make up for the continuing decline in demand for first-class travel due to (a) teleconferencing in business, and (b) better medications for sleep and relaxation (e.g. modern benzodiazepines). If you want to charge some narcissistic business executive 10x for 50% more room, go ahead. But that's not what we're talking about.

icebraining 12y ago
For example, decreasing legroom and forcing disabled people into business class tickets they wouldn't have needed, were it 20 years ago when coach seats had enough room, is bad-faith activity. How are coach ticket prices now compared to 20 years ago? It's not bad faith if it's a way of decreasing prices (by packing more people) for most clients.
- jdmichal 12y ago
  User canvia posted information about this in another tree [0][1]. I think a good summary would be decreasing prices up until about 2003, when they seem to level out around the high $300's, with an apparently exceptional drop in years 2009-2010. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8752643 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8752643 [1] http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/airfares/programs/economics_and_finance/air_travel_price_index/html/AnnualFares.html http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/airfares/programs/economics_and_...
spdustin 12y ago
To be fair, they're not forcing anyone into anything. As much as I loathe handing over my money to airlines - an experience I sometimes have to face three times a month - they are a for-profit commercial enterprise with no requirements for how they operate beyond government-imposed ones. Want something legitimate to complain about when thinking of flying the friendly skies? Think about the airlines whining about the cost of fuel (and jacking up their ticket prices over 10%/year) when fuel prices are significantly less than four years ago when their whining was strongest. Or, if you're like me, think about their failure to solve one major gripe by stating, "do not place your bag in an overhead bin at the front of the aircraft unless you're sitting in the goddamn front of the aircraft."
- Someone1234 12y ago
  There should be a government imposed minimum seat pitch. The current distance between the back of one seat and the front of another is too small for the top 10% in terms of height of the population, disabled people, and older people. Then airlines cannot use "competition" to argue why they should make seats smaller and smaller, as all competition would have to adapt also. I don't care if they're a private business. That means nothing to me. When all airlines have the same tiny seats and no alternative that isn't 5-10x more expensive, that is collusion, not competition. Particularly in the US, you can pick any airline you want but the products are identical.
  - ElComradio 12y ago
    Then what happens is you effectively impose a surcharge on the 90% of the population who do not need a larger seat pitch, which hardly seems fair either. You don't have competition on seat pitch because there are not enough people willing to pay the increase for the comfort to sustain an airline.
    - Someone1234 12y ago
      Older people and disabled people make up a measured percentage as well. So less than 90%. Additionally everyone benefits from more seat pitch, even if just to allow them to more easily use things like a laptop in economy (which is not viable now if the person in front of you reclines fully). > You don't have competition on seat pitch because there are not enough people willing to pay the increase for the comfort to sustain an airline. It has nothing to do with "comfort." It isn't a luxury feature in the same vein as a complementary back massage, hot flannel, or free alcoholic drink. It is what people need so they aren't in physical pain for the duration of the flight. Now, yes, extreme seat pitch (e.g. business/first class) is absolutely about pure comfort. I am talking about a bare minimum so an adult can fit their butt, legs, and knees between the back of their seat and the back of the seat in front when reclined. If airlines want to save some money, remove recline completely.
mikeash 12y ago
Non-transferability is the only one on your list that upsets me. That's some annoying crap. But the rest, I find no fault in. I doubt that disabled people really get forced into a business class ticket. Buy a regular ticket and get on the plane. If you can't use a normal seat, not your problem, get the airline to figure it out. I'm pretty sure that kicking you off the flight when you have a ticket just because you're disabled would violate the law pretty hard. The more bags you have, the more you'll pay, whether it's for checking them in or for earlier boarding, or paying with time by getting your bags afterwards. I have no problem with people who use more paying more. If I bring no luggage, why should I pay the same as somebody who brings a bunch? Plenty of places have tiered access to services, and airports have plenty of places to sit and eat and drink, so I don't see the big deal with airport lounge access. I've never actually been in one so maybe they're way nicer than I give them credit for. I don't see how this stuff is either "dishonest" or "bad faith." "Dishonest" to me would be the time a flight was hours late even though the status board continued to say it was leaving on time. "Bad faith" to me would be the time my flight was canceled because of SARS and no effort was made to inform me before I showed up at the airport to discover nobody at the check-in counters. Thankfully, these don't happen too often.

icebraining 12y ago

For example, decreasing legroom and forcing disabled people into business class tickets they wouldn't have needed, were it 20 years ago when coach seats had enough room, is bad-faith activity. How are coach ticket prices now compared to 20 years ago? It's not bad faith if it's a way of decreasing prices (by packing more people) for most clients.

jdmichal 12y ago
User canvia posted information about this in another tree [0][1]. I think a good summary would be decreasing prices up until about 2003, when they seem to level out around the high $300's, with an apparently exceptional drop in years 2009-2010. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8752643 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8752643 [1] http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/airfares/programs/economics_and_finance/air_travel_price_index/html/AnnualFares.html http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/airfares/programs/economics_and_...

spdustin 12y ago

To be fair, they're not forcing anyone into anything. As much as I loathe handing over my money to airlines - an experience I sometimes have to face three times a month - they are a for-profit commercial enterprise with no requirements for how they operate beyond government-imposed ones. Want something legitimate to complain about when thinking of flying the friendly skies? Think about the airlines whining about the cost of fuel (and jacking up their ticket prices over 10%/year) when fuel prices are significantly less than four years ago when their whining was strongest. Or, if you're like me, think about their failure to solve one major gripe by stating, "do not place your bag in an overhead bin at the front of the aircraft unless you're sitting in the goddamn front of the aircraft."

Someone1234 12y ago
There should be a government imposed minimum seat pitch. The current distance between the back of one seat and the front of another is too small for the top 10% in terms of height of the population, disabled people, and older people. Then airlines cannot use "competition" to argue why they should make seats smaller and smaller, as all competition would have to adapt also. I don't care if they're a private business. That means nothing to me. When all airlines have the same tiny seats and no alternative that isn't 5-10x more expensive, that is collusion, not competition. Particularly in the US, you can pick any airline you want but the products are identical.
- ElComradio 12y ago
  Then what happens is you effectively impose a surcharge on the 90% of the population who do not need a larger seat pitch, which hardly seems fair either. You don't have competition on seat pitch because there are not enough people willing to pay the increase for the comfort to sustain an airline.
  - Someone1234 12y ago
    Older people and disabled people make up a measured percentage as well. So less than 90%. Additionally everyone benefits from more seat pitch, even if just to allow them to more easily use things like a laptop in economy (which is not viable now if the person in front of you reclines fully). > You don't have competition on seat pitch because there are not enough people willing to pay the increase for the comfort to sustain an airline. It has nothing to do with "comfort." It isn't a luxury feature in the same vein as a complementary back massage, hot flannel, or free alcoholic drink. It is what people need so they aren't in physical pain for the duration of the flight. Now, yes, extreme seat pitch (e.g. business/first class) is absolutely about pure comfort. I am talking about a bare minimum so an adult can fit their butt, legs, and knees between the back of their seat and the back of the seat in front when reclined. If airlines want to save some money, remove recline completely.

mikeash 12y ago

Non-transferability is the only one on your list that upsets me. That's some annoying crap. But the rest, I find no fault in. I doubt that disabled people really get forced into a business class ticket. Buy a regular ticket and get on the plane. If you can't use a normal seat, not your problem, get the airline to figure it out. I'm pretty sure that kicking you off the flight when you have a ticket just because you're disabled would violate the law pretty hard. The more bags you have, the more you'll pay, whether it's for checking them in or for earlier boarding, or paying with time by getting your bags afterwards. I have no problem with people who use more paying more. If I bring no luggage, why should I pay the same as somebody who brings a bunch? Plenty of places have tiered access to services, and airports have plenty of places to sit and eat and drink, so I don't see the big deal with airport lounge access. I've never actually been in one so maybe they're way nicer than I give them credit for. I don't see how this stuff is either "dishonest" or "bad faith." "Dishonest" to me would be the time a flight was hours late even though the status board continued to say it was leaving on time. "Bad faith" to me would be the time my flight was canceled because of SARS and no effort was made to inform me before I showed up at the airport to discover nobody at the check-in counters. Thankfully, these don't happen too often.