This is a small world. The US has something like ten major airlines. Eight if you don't count subsidiaries. Someone at the first one made a decision to embrace an exploitative pricing model. And then, someone at the second airline looked at this and thought to themselves, "you know, we're not gonna organize a PR campaign to stigmatize it, we're gonna try the same".
In other words, modern airlines gouge certain customers, but effectively subsidize others. I would be unambiguously outraged only if they were gouging everyone and making fat stacks.
No, the thing they're doing is still awful.
The basic problem is that they do actually have competitors and are offering a product which is basically fungible, so their margins are inherently going to suck, even if they do every slimy thing, because then their competitors will just do the same thing and they're back to having thin margins only now they've made everything more deceptive/inconvenient/confusing.
The ideal thing in a market like that is to have an efficient way for customers to cut through the BS and find the best price for a ticket that isn't screwing them in covert ways, because then the deceptive tactics don't work, which takes away the incentive to do them. They'll still have thin margins, only with less deception.
But an individual airline can't unilaterally allow that if their competitors have a way to block it or they'd be at a competitive disadvantage, so they're going to try to stop that from happening. It's in no one's interest -- not even theirs -- to let them. They just need you to not let their competitors get away with it either.
It's a failure of customer protections laws. The same service legally should cost each customer the same. Sophisticated pricing schemes should be just plainly illegal.
You can't put an item in the store on the shelf and charge every customer what you like. You have to put up a price and adhere to that price regardless of who wants to buy. Anything else is illegal. Or at least should be.
It should be but unfortunately I don't think it is. The main reason store prices are the same for everyone is because it wasn't practical to individualize them without making it clear to purchasers that they are getting screwed. Still, store membership programs / value cards are one way this is being done in a limited way. And some stores are already switching to digital price labels which can be updated instantly so this is going to get a whole lot worse.
I definitely have increased the price of consulting for "annoying" customers doing stuff I don't want to do. Many moons ago, I was doing some contract training for a small airline here in town. I liked teaching but I didn't really want to do the training they wanted me to do - it was a pain in the ass, it took a week, and didn't really pay enough to justify the opportunity cost.
So I kept raising my price, and eventually, they stopped asking me to do the training. It was great because I didn't have to do the thing I didn't want to do anymore, and I made more money. You are allowed to charge different people different amounts of money - some people are just a pain in the butt and charging more pays for the lack of sanity.
Notice also the thing the customers should be doing in response to the second one: Sharing the prices they're shown for everything with the other customers so they can arbitrage by having the person offered the lowest price be the one to order it.
That would get gamed immediately and we'd be in the same spot. Allow price differences for problem customers that require more attention and airlines will say that why they change prices basedcon certain factors.
Ah, but this is worst in industries where resale is not possible. For example, flights, digital games, and rideshare. Of course one has the option to just not fly, buy games, or use Uber, but this limits a lot of convenience and function in a modern society. This is why I think targeted regulation is not such a bad thing - provided, as you explain, that the reason for the price discrimination is not because the customer actually costs the business more.
If we really care about prices changing per passenger, quality of services, terms and conditions, etc them just don't fly with the airlines that have those practices you disagree with. If that's every airline, well you don't have to fly at all.
Negotiating a price is as old as humans. "That merchant over there is charging 10% less. Can you beat that?", "I want to buy 10 of these, can you give me a bulk discount?"
I have friends that haggle at local stores. One goes does the "Store X is cheaper thing". Another does "My parents live in Oregon where they're is no sales tax, can you lower your price to cover the difference? Otherwise I'll just have them bring it down from Oregon", etc....
It is nowhere close to example you gave.
There are many conditions under which price variation allows the seller to maximize the overall amount of services/products that it sells to the largest number of people, all of whom feel like they're getting a good deal.
Should a loaf of bread cost the same thing in Malaysia as it does in the US? No. And if you required it to be such, then people in Malaysia simply wouldn't have bread, and people in the US would likely have higher prices because cutting off less-wealthy markets would reduce the economies of scale that drive overall prices.
>> For most of human history, you had to haggle over prices before you could buy something. The Quakers were among the first people to commit to fixed prices — and they did it because it was good morals. Turned out, it was also good business. This is the strange story of the long journey of that little piece of paper.[0]
Seems maybe this is just getting back to haggling, except where the seller has an unfair advantage, and we are trying to eke back a somewhat fair playing field using AI.
It could end up that (maybe wishful thinking), if enough people do it, United Airlines banning AI booking agents may lose them enough business they will need to cut prices or invite in AI agents.
[0] https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/02/28/589278258/plan...
My local grocery store has a senior discount on Tuesday mornings.
Many places have student discounts.
Some places offer a discount if you buy in bulk.
I used to be a book store club member, which would give me a discount on prices. A local history club has monthly public talks, with discounted prices for members. And of course most grocery stores have that sort of scheme.
My father worked for a company which offered family discounts to its employees.
You'll find little support for making all of those illegal.
Of course some of these schemes are illegal in some areas, such as a bar offering discounted drinks for women, but those fall under civil rights law, not customer protection.
I tried to come up with a solid way to prohibit the market segmentation practices you don't like, but it's such a slippery concept that I failed.
Like, consider how some regions require bars to close by, say, midnight, but members-only clubs are allowed to be open after hours. These clubs respond by making membership trivial -- show up at the door, apply for membership, and you are in.
"Do you want to apply for the student club? Membership is free, with student id, and then you can pay the student club fee rather than the public fee." Repeat with "retired club, with proof of age" and "frequent buyer club', etc.
And bulk discounts aren't market segmentation, but a way for the store to pass on reduced costs due to lower overheads to the customer. Again, they are also usually clearly disclosed because incentives are aligned.
I don't every remember seeing places which are transparent about the discounts they offer staff and family off staff. At the very least, I've never seen signs listing those discounts.
Okay, it's not market segmentation. My comment was in response to what scott79 wrote: 'You have to put up a price and adhere to that price regardless of who wants to buy.'
That means that if I didn't list a bulk price and someone comes in and asks what the discount is for a bulk order, then, what, I need to refuse them?
Or can I can scribble the price on the tag right then, for the sale, and erase it immediately afterward?
I'm simply not able to figure out what the guidelines should be. I'm also not sure that "transparent" is that useful of a term, given how easy it is to put clauses in terms&services which people affirm without reading.
Or from HHGTTG: “But the plans were on display…” ... “It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”
The rest, such as Frontier, JetBlue, Southwest, Allegiant - are all discount and/or regional airlines.
For example, allegiant flies to most cities secondary airports that are 1-2 hours drive from the city.
EDIT: It's really 4 equally large ones by passenger miles:
* 1 Delta Air Lines 17.8%
* 2 American Airlines 17.5%
* 3 Southwest Airlines 17.3%
* 4 United Airlines 16.0%
The rest are sub 10%
To your edit, Alaska is something like 9.9%. Technically below 10%, but barely.
Like Jet Blue, Alaska has a handful of wide bodies (that it got from its Hawaiian acquisition) and does a few international routes on its own metal, but it is an airline you fly domestically and that primarily serves the west coast most effectively.
It’s not a bad airline (it’s also not anything special), but it’s not the equivalent of American, United, or Delta. And that isn’t to say the individual flying experience might not be the same as those carriers, but it’s not the same class of operation as a business. Again, it does a handful of international flights. To me, major means you have an array of wide-body jets and a large international operation. Not a few seasonal routes on its 29 wide-bodies. For comparison, American has a fleet of 137 wide body jets. Delta has 179. United has over 240.
These are not the same.
Southwest is even less of a major carrier. It’s got a lot of marketshare from its previous era focused on selling the idea that it was cheaper than the majors, but it operates one type of jet, has zero wide bodies and its international destinations don’t count.
And while Alaska might have to use American to pad out its network of flights at major hubs and markets, at least it can. Southwest’s design to eschew major hubs means that tou can’t get a lot of direct flights to major cities. If it happens to fly where you travel to, fine, but otherwise you have to look at at least one hop and go to a smaller airport than what you might expect.
Jetblue doesn’t have widebody aircraft, but they still offer transatlantic connections.
If you're already on the east coast and aren't going to the west coast, then Alaska doesn't have a route. So I suppose they are "regional", where the region is about 70% of the country rather than all of it.
So yes, still a regional airline if your home base isn't exactly on the west coast.
why?
given "Airline tickets were more expensive"
I specifically mentioned the price as the one metric that has improved. And it's a pretty important metric! But not the only one.
Ok, but why do you care how many airlines exist? Competition?
Guess what? There was a larger number of airline CEOs, and... less competition! Airline profit margins were fat back in the day (isn't excessive "producer surplus" supposedly a sign of a non-competitive market?).
Not only did the government set the maximum and minimum price an airline could charge, but all routes had to be approved by the government. Airlines who served a particular route were even allowed to protest when another airline petitioned to offer service on that route, and "too many competitors" was considered a valid reason to deny an application.
The reason we have so many fewer airlines today is that some airlines outcompeted others after airlines were finally allowed to compete for customers. One of the things that nobody likes to talk about w.r.t. competition is "what happens to the competitor who got out-competed?"
The answer is: He exits the market (goes bankrupt or gets merged into another competitor). This happens one-by-one until the number of competitors has been reduced enough to achieve a stable market equilibrium. That equilibrium is achieved when the number of competitors is sufficiently small to give the remaining competitors "pricing power" to maintain reasonable profit margins (and thus not go bankrupt).
> Oh, and service quality. And comfort in flight.
Right, when the government makes it illegal to compete on price, you have to compete on other things.
You can still get that old-school level of service and comfort today. It's called first class, and it's great!
They do all sorts of wonderful things, like offer a glass of bubbly before takeoff, halfway decent food, loads of legroom, wide seats for our fat American butts, a couple free checked bags, and flight attendants who act like they give a damn. Most of that wasn't included in a domestic economy ticket back in the old days.
The best part is that modern domestic first class still only costs about the same as an old-school economy ticket. But it turns out that what almost all customers really want is the cheapest ticket possible. Their revealed preference is that they prefer lower quality, no checked bag, and cheaper prices. Airlines who offered this option survived and those who didn't perished.
I road it once, and the only real difference is an included hard drink, getting off first (which doesn't matter if you have a checked bag), and more leg room before your knees hit the wall in front of you. Debatable about feet room though, since feet can't slide under the wall...
Worse than when the government set, not just the maximum, but also the minimum price an airline could charge for a ticket? You're saying that time, when price competition was literally illegal, was better than today?
Is there any chance that you're not actually old enough to remember that time?
What, pray tell, is the advantage of competition when the competitors are forced by the government to charge the same price for the same route? And not just forced to charge the same price, oh no! But forced to charge a price higher than railroads (which cost more to operate than airlines), so as not to outcompete railroads, which are both slower and more expensive to operate.
It's like getting mad at your cat for killing a bird - it's just what cats do.
The answer to this behavior isn't being mad at or boycotting particular airlines, it is regulation.
And I have actually heard "if you hate it, you should have asked the regulators to stop me from doing it" from a techie, and man... no. You have agency. You own this. If you need a regulator to stop you, you're not a good person, sorry. The market didn't make you do this. You just felt that it absolved you.
Or, you know…accept that a cat is a cat, and stop trying to regulate scratching simply because you don’t like it.
(I get that you probably understand this, but the “regulation is the solution” is kind of a leap. People whining about efficient market pricing have always struck me as just fundamentally misunderstanding what capitalism is.)
Where is the sympathy for me? Why do only large corporations get to use the "competition" excuse?
You cannot price your services however you want.
That has nothing to do with what we are talking about though, and was not the point in the first place. An airline obviously cannot price their services too high or low and expect to survive. You didn't show how the user's comment made sense in the context that it was originally made, nor did you give a proper retort to my comment.
You just picked the wrong thing to focus on and contributed nothing to the conversation.
But anyhow, you see the problem.
Look up food deserts. I'm sure there are myriad issues you think exist only in North Korea.
They are saying the biggest problem with the poor communities you're talking about is the people living in them. That seems true statistically no? Or at least, there's more data that supports that than the idea that there's magic soil in the rich communities.
Are we going to pretend like communities aren't shaped by their people now and everybody is just NPCs that has no influence over what their communities look like?
We can at least rule out that poor people can't make good communities because there are plenty of counterexamples that show otherwise.
Well, I didn't say I had any problems so I'm not sure what you're even referencing here. Weird strawman
> you would see that the reasons some people and communities are poor are due to external factors.
Oh spare me. This is like reaching algebra and thinking you've reached the frontier of mathematics in 2026. As if nature vs nurture wasn't drilled into every prepubescent brain in even the worst school systems in the west. It seems that you're the one that's unable to escape elementary pop psychology.
Or perhaps it’s simply not a functioning competitive market in the first place, for a variety of reasons including obvious ones like large barriers to entry.