Take meat. Used to be you'd go to the butcher for your meat, and you'd get a reasonably good product, from a butcher who knew where the meat came from, probably even the farmer who reared the meat. That was the way almost everybody got their meat, so the fixed overheads of having a butcher shop was spread over a large customer base.

Move along a couple of decades. Supermarkets, with their more efficient logistics, eat into the meat trade. Butcher shops almost completely disappear. But supermarket meat goes through a longer supply chain with larger suppliers that have the efficiencies of scale to cope with the pricing power supermarkets have. The butcher shops that survive turn into boutiques, where their unique selling proposition is what used to be commonplace: that they know where the meat is coming from and probably know the farmer that reared it.

The market bifurcates into two basic strategies, low price and high quality (see also Porter's Cost Leadership and Differentiation).

The consumer who's willing to pay a little bit more for a little bit more quality ends up having to pay a lot more rather than a little bit more, because the pool of people who could spread the fixed costs of the higher quality is split - most go for the lowest priced product. There's a ratchet effect, where slightly higher quality products are, at the margin, increasingly expensive because there's no scale in that strategy: the more expensive they become the less uptake they get, which means they have less scale, which means they become more expensive.

In some ways it's a collective action problem: what would be a better outcome for a large group of people can't really occur because individual actions can't sustain a stable state change. In other ways - many, if not most economists believe this - it's a better outcome overall, because more people get to use the bargain basement product.

But I think people in the middle are usually worse off in commoditized markets.

Airlines have jacked up the prices of comfortable berths people can sleep in on long haul journeys to almost 10x the price of shrinking torture chairs that most of us buy. For a long while business class and coach drew apart in price even as business got more luxurious with flat beds and fancy wines while coach seats in Boeing's newest, most advanced 787 jets are the narrowest trans-oceanic seats ever sold and Spirit/Frontier domestic seats don't even recline anymore.

But that difference was driven by corporate executive passengers whose employers were paying the 10x prices and getting tax breaks for doing so. Corporate sales is complicated and charging more can actually sell more units so the airlines carefully eliminated mid-priced options to force businesses to pay far more for the very profitable business class seats than their marginal cost.

And economic rationality has reasserted itself. Premium economy seating is now common on airlines outside the USA without such easily gamed large corporations to scam. The premium economy is similar in quality to old-fashioned business class seating at prices that middle class leisure travellers can afford. Mostly you can't buy it from the USA without paying a steep premium, but anyone flying to the USA from abroad has been able to for about a decade. Carriers refused to sell it at the same prices in the USA because running the game on corporate purchasing departments is so lucrative. For example, JAL and Cathay Pacific round trip fares between the Far East and USA in premium economy have been about $500-1000 more originating in the USA than in their home countries.

But Delta and American are now outfitting planes with premium economy because it's the most profitable use of space for carriers that have it and supporting the corporate business class sales inflation scam can't hold it back anymore. American is flying the new class on planes already. Even CX and JL prices are starting to rationalize.

So the key variable in airline discomfort has been American corporate purchasing culture irrationality and not the natural division of markets into tiers. Corporate purchasing irrationality and cartel pricing to exploit it are also the drivers of advance-purchase fares, last-minute price gouging, saturday night stay requirements, steep premiums for one-way fares, and lots of other paradoxical and nasty pricing strategies.

Maybe part of the problem is the tendency to hyperbolize.

So what happens with people of below average intelligence and physical ability? They're likely to suffer from lower earnings. Should a person of average height and on minimum wage subsidise a well-paid tall person?

In an ideal world, chairs would adjust so that everyone is comfortable and still allow the same number of people on the plane at the same price. However, in the real world, we probably have to accept that allocating comfort based on ability to pay, with a bit of flexibility on both sides, is the best outcome.

I assume it is ok though that a short well-paid person to subsidize a tall less-paid individual?

Most airlines that I've been on have started turning the exit row into a "non-first-class extra legroom" row. On a few occasions I've seen very tall people sitting there. And there's nothing wrong with building a range of legrooms into a plane. But I don't see why there should be some requirement that a costly good - legroom on a plane - be provided to more people than actually want to pay for it.

It costs a much larger premium than the space differential, it largely costs more due to price discrimination, because many fliers in business aren't the ones paying for their tickets. If you're talking about real first class (which can carry up to a 30-50x price premium on the economy rate), there's also very attentive service, nice champagne, multi-course meals made by an onboard chef served on china plates with silverware, seclusion, sometimes even private rooms. I would not characterize it as "largely because of its larger legroom".

If you mean to say that many people choose business/first because of the additional space, that's more correct. But even in business, it's more about lying flat and other factors than simple legroom.

But a sigificant component of the cost is simply that first class carries fewer people per linear foot than does economy.

Allowing the unbundling of services is much more likely to allow the emergence of an "extra leg room only" class, than is a situation where services must be bundled into a standard package. If the prices have to be the same regardless of seat location, and be packaged with an identical bundle of food, blankets, etc, then that's a strong disincentive to attempt to sell a separate class of legroom seats. And it's much more likely that a "standardized seat" will be too short for very tall people than it will be tall enough - and even if it were, that would mean fewer seats on the plane and thus higher prices.

And it's not always as somebody pointed out above that you may chose the door seats for the same price. I had to take a last minute trip for this summer vacation. Those places were part of some "Comfort" plan I didn't even hear of while booking. Fortunately those were the only ones free on the plane and they let me sit there for free. They were booked out for the flight back though...

It's a pain, it got worse through the decades and I fail to understand that development. Was the free market not supposed to make everything better and cheaper? ;)

I'm not saying it's at all comfortable, just that it's rather hyperbolic to call it 'torture'. I have a book, an MP3 player and some headphones, and then look forward to landing. I prefer to have the money than pay for extra comfort. FWIW, I also have a pretty small car for exactly the same reason. I wouldn't call that torture, and wouldn't expect anyone to subsidise big cars just so I feel more comfortable for the same price.

"Having to pay what I deem a high price for a good and/or service I deem insufficient? Help help, I'm being oppressed!"

Wanting enough space for my elbows to be able to stay within the confines of my seat should not cost me 10x as much.

Economy plus might not be the best thing in the world, but 50% more is at least within the realm of human affordability, and partial recline and my own armrest sounds downright luxurious. For 5x as much as a coach fare, the perks better be things I shouldn't discuss on a public forum.

And I don't really care about the quality of food or service, how many times they bring me a hot towel, etc. Just want a good seat.

It does tie in with two-income families (households are more time-poor) and other changes in the economy, it's not just commoditization.

Or perhaps even better, a return from Manchester to Nürnberg for ~£30 in 2 hours instead of a 14 hour drive plus ferry. The fuel for that alone (not including the ferry) would cost £170.

I just don't understand the complaints!

Booking a few months in advance I can get a return trip to the otherside of the world (Australia) for under £700 and get there in less than 24 hours. I find that incredibly cheap and would be mindblowing just 20 years ago.

Take cheese, for example - it's much easier to taste the difference with cheese. I've never had a UK supermarket Comte comparable to a Comte from a cheesemonger, no matter how premium it was advertised.

Or pastries. The only widely distributed supermarket in the UK with what I would consider edible pastries is Waitrose, and not all branches have a decent range. But bakeries in the UK have their own mass-market pathologies.

What really brought the insight home to me was my experience eating in Morocco. There, bread was baked by street vendors - it was always fresh and warm. You have to get lucky with timing to get the same experience in the UK, even if you go to bakeries. I realised we've lost certain qualities of life with our economic setup, and the more I found out about good food, the more I realised that supermarkets and commoditization had created a mechanism that forced me to work much harder to get good food.

Anyway, this isn't directly related to airline seats, but I do think the ratchet effect is real and it shows up in a lot of places.

Maybe that's just the UK? In Germany, many supermarket and discount store chains have recently been outfitting their stores with bakery stations, where you have a somewhat decent chance of actually getting warm rolls.

Also, I've had a pretty good experience with premium products in German supermarkets. I only rarely buy from a premium store (sometimes for cheese, almost never for meat), but when I do, their performance is pretty comparable to supermarket premium lines.

Mind, I was fortunate enough to live in the best baking city in Israel (something like 53 bakeries in a city of 300000 people, plus supermarkets and open street markets), but still.

This is false. 15 percent in the US are at or below the poverty line. The remaining 85 percent certainly aren't at the top.

I certainly don't.

"nothing in the middle" is a blatant lie and hackernews discussions are much better when they are backed by facts and logical arguments rather than political clap trap.

71% making less than $50k/y.

51% of households.

There's quite a few households and quite a lot of people between $35k and $100k. The claim that there is no middle class is blatantly, provably false. The very, very top has a lot. I don't think anybody is disputing that (I'm certainly not). But there are a lot of people who make a solid, middle class income.

https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/...

This shows it more clearly.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Distribu...

> In 2015, in the United States, the poverty threshold for a single person under 65 was at an annual income of US$11,770; the threshold for a family group of four, including two children, was US$24,250.

Do you consider this getting by?

I don't deny that the commodity situation is better for people at the lower end of the income distribution. It's the middle that gets hollowed out.

It's impossible for everyone to be happy when you're making the collective decision.

All told, it's easily 2+ hours on top of your flight.

On a train, I get out my laptop, do some work (the wifi is usually free; eat shit, gogoinflight), maybe nap a bit, and arrive in about the same total time. Much nicer.

To Boston though I usually fly. It is actually much faster if you leave at the right times to avoid traffic which you'd want to do if driving too. It's about 100% faster in my experience.

I drove to Chicago once and that was about 12 or 13 hours. I've flown a bunch of times and it takes, door to door (depending on when you leave, etc) about 4 hours total. So it's much faster.

There is a very good youtube video on this subject.

The Northeast Corridor[1], where the DC-NYC route that was previously mentioned is part of, is owned primarily by Amtrak -- so they get priority on the rails and can run as often (and as fast) as they please. However, they share the rails with other passenger rail lines so both entities cooperate on scheduling and maintenance.

Not to mention that there are sections that are designated as high speed sections, consist of 4 tracks (1 local and 1 express track in each direction), and is electrified. Plus, there are regional transportation agencies (and Amtrak) that operate locomotives capable of 150mph+.

Yes, I know this speed pales in comparison to Europe, but as far as I'm aware, it's still faster than any other rail system in the US.

That's why when Northeast US people rave about Amtrak service (between Boston and DC), and everyone else doesn't, both sides think the other side is crazy due to a myopic view.

What suffers in the Northeast is delivery of freight, so almost all of it needs to go by truck, which contributes to traffic congestion, and drives even more people to mass transit for long distances (which makes it easier to make a convincing case for expanding passenger rail operations). Or to relocate to more densely-populated cities that have rail access.

One interesting by-product of this, is diesel engines are banned in New York City rail tunnels, so the only way to get freight from New Jersey into New York city, is via a 140-mile detour known as the the Selkirk Hurdle[2].

In other parts of the US, the rails are owned by freight companies (BNSF, CSX, etc), so their customers' cargo gets priority, and Amtrak suffers because they don't automatically win the "battle" like they do in the Northeast.

Additionally, in these areas, due to the lack of electrification, Amtrak has to rely on an aging fleet of diesel locomotives[3] that break down often, and when they do, everything gets backed up. Couple this with the fact that the only section of Amtrak's network that's profitable is the Northeast Corridor and there's less incentive to throw good money after bad, and also leads to politicians calling for the defunding or even eradication of Amtrak.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Corridor 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selkirk_hurdle 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Amtrak_rolling_stock#L...

It's a shame really! A high speed track between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg would really improve accessibility for the city and be well used I think. I know there's been some talk of it, but no real progress made.

It was a real eye-opener for me.

Because of this, people frequently spend a lot of non-productive time at the airport, because they are afraid of the (small) chance that they can miss their flight entirely.

I have colleagues that prefer to drive that, and I only do it if it's the last option available. For me, the driving is my full day and them I'm exhausted while taking a flight I can nap or do work - much less unproductive time.

I think a 4-5 hour one-day drive is about my limit before I'll look hard at flight options. I also don't mind taking a flight for work on my "own time" since I find the whole process rather peaceful and can just zone out reading/catching up on news. Driving you'll have to pay me :)

To each their own though - I know without precheck and being able to jump the standby list flying would be much more miserable. It's certainly a race to the bottom that's sad to watch.

the US does a lot of trains, but generally for short distances on commuter corridors, and municipal light rail. we don't do high speed passenger rail, which is probably what you're thinking of.

You can choose from literally hundreds of car seats when purchasing a vehicle, and I have never, ONCE been in a car seat less comfortable than the standard airline economy seats which, despite coming from different manufacturers across different airlines, are universally terrible. Flat as a board so you put pressure on your tailbone, no support anywhere, just terrible. I'd rather sit on a park bench.

Give me the option of paying $200 per ticket to sit in my car's seats on an airplane, I'd do it every time.

Here in Australia, I check in on the mobile app, arrive at the airport around 40 minutes before my domestic flight, take 1 minute to walk straight to the automated Qantas Bag Drop point (and there's almost never a queue of more than 1 or 2 other travellers), take around 30 seconds to scan my boarding pass or frequent flyer card, put my (complimentary) checked bag with its RFID baggage tag straight on the machine, 30 seconds later I have my baggage receipt.

1 minute later, I'm on my way through security - I have to take my laptop out of my bag and empty metal from my pockets, but I'm not usually taking off my shoes and there's no LAG restrictions on domestic services. No ID checks either (admittedly a possibility of being stopped for 30 seconds for an "explosives residue" test, though). A minute later, I'm on the other side, and I'm already lining up to buy an only slightly overpriced drink from the cafe.

The whole process is quick enough that when you don't have checked luggage, it's absolutely possible to walk in the front of the terminal and see FINAL CALL on the departures screen, and still make it to the gate in time.

The seat dimensions on domestic aircraft aren't great (and I'm 6'4", so believe me, I know) but it's not really that much more uncomfortable than a car, and it's definitely better than being on a bus for 8 hours. The overhead bin space is way less of a problem when you're on a traditional carrier that unlike the American ones still gives you a complimentary checked bag.

And for anyone who suffers from mild motion sickness (like myself), it's way nicer to be in an aircraft and still be able to read a book than to be on the road.

I can definitely live with this.

I'm an American and I travel back to the US as seldom as possible, in large part due to the bullshit you have to go through to travel there. Every time I go back I feel like I'm treated like a criminal, with my only crime being that I need to get on a plane.

And as bad as the normal procedure is, it's much worse if you have to book a flight on short notice - two of the last three trips I've taken to the US were because either a family member had died or was dying. Honestly, when you're just off a 10 hour flight and you don't know whether or not your mother died while you were on the way, the last thing you have patience for is yet another asshole border control guy asking you question after question.

Yeah, I'm a bit bitter about airport security in the US.

If the airport did not have American flags all over, I would have thought that I'm in a third-world country.

I've timed it with friends with global entry going through at the same time and they shaved off maybe 5 minutes.

Either ATL, SEA, LAX, JFK, and MSP are way better than average, or global entry isn't worth it except for the tiny percentage of international travelers that commute that way.

Point being, for US citizens, CBP is plenty fast enough without global entry.

The reinforcement of cockpit doors and additional sky marshals are what keep that incident list short today.

In the past, the message was, give the hijackers what they want and no one will get hurt.

Of course you can always do better. But compared to Europe, I've found the TSA to be very quick working and quite friendly. I worried a bit after reading so many bad articles, but then wondered that most of them kept smiling and being polite despite their intense work.

This presumes that the TSA keeps bombs out of the plane, which does not seem to be the case.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/homeland-security/2449...

Shoes, belts, and taking the laptop out are the only significant pain point that America has that the rest of the world doesn't. And the shoes thing is a the result of someone walking through security with bombs in his shoe, so it's hard to be too critical.

Maybe this is a generational thing? I've only been traveling for the past 3 years and to me everything seems normal.

Edit: There is one thing that really bugs me: The insecticide spray they release into the cabin on some routes. What's next? Barnaby Joyce personally raiding the cabin looking for traces of Pistol and Boo?

It's not hard to imagine a scenario where 10 years later whatever chemical they use is linked to some form of cancer and then a class action lawsuit follows.

Typically I arrive about 30-45min before boarding begins and it's no problem whatsoever. I agree most countries I've travelled to have the security lines figured out a lot better in the US, and I just recently got TSA PreCheck so I don't have to take off my shoes and take out my laptop, but it's more about the convenience than the speed.

And the "cost" outside of that is shuffling around an airport listening to an audiobook for a couple of hours, then a few hours of cramped pleasant conversation with a stranger or mediocre naps or reading a book?

It's not the ideal situation, of course, but the last flight I was on I was able to program my first game (shitty breakout clone in Lua and Love2D) from start to finish.

Some of the fares are really cheap these days. For example a return flight from Manchester to Dublin booked two weeks in advance is £20. That's a journey that can only be done by flying for one hour or driving for two followed by a three hour ferry.

Or perhaps even better, a return from Manchester to Nürnberg for ~£30 in 2 hours instead of a 14 hour drive plus ferry. The fuel for that alone (not including the ferry) would cost £170.

I just don't understand the complaints!

Booking a few months in advance I can get a return trip to the otherside of the world (Australia) for under £700 and get there in less than 24 hours. I find that incredibly cheap and would be mindblowing just 20 years ago.

Just a quick googling got me this: http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/13/news/economy/train-plane-car...

    Cars and trucks: 5.75 deaths per billion miles
    Commercial air travel: 0.06 deaths per billion miles

Accidents on country roads are often fatal though, so maybe that is where the difference would come from (and country driving is not an alternative to flying commercial).

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/roadway-and-environment/fa...

So you're right, country driving is more dangerous than urban driving, but both are far more dangerous than flying on a per-mile basis.

I feel that's what worries people. Ya, per mile traveled its less likely, but per accident I imagine is a much different story.

honestly that makes no sense

And I even like to fly Ryanair, the service isn't great but they're basically always on time and boarding/de-boarding is much faster than with other airlines (don't understand why only no-frills airlines use both doors for boarding). Don't need food&drinks for a 1-2hr flight, and leg room is enough for me for that time.

I don't really know where ticket prices in the US come from. I often find cheaper fares (for the same distance) in Europe than the US, even with airlines offering free alcohol on board and lounges that are way better than what you find in the US (domestic lounges in the US are laughable).

I always take into account the cost of going to the airport; the far away cheap airport often loses out (as saving e.g. 10 EUR isn't worth the hassle).

Going anywhere further than just the airport by train is expensive. I try to take the bus until 2.5 hour trips. After that I try to avoid unless you can fly. Pretty ridiculous!

150 vs 75 is 2x, not 3x. And it's a bit strange to read that you "would give anything" if 75 euros is too much.

This helps a little: http://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/14032/market-econo...

Yeah, just that. Merely taking like 7 hours to get from the US to Europe sitting on a chair in the sky and being fed -- as opposed to a trip that used to take months or weeks, people got sick and/or died in the way, and unless you were rich you were getting terrible food (or what you brought yourself) and bunk beds.

>and the basic human dignity of having personal space

Immigrants from Europe towards the US / Ellis Island: http://www.amicidicapracotta.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/...

Not accepting the current state of things is a good way to improve things. Instead of comparing to the past, compare it to other regions. One commenter compared USA to Europe and said USA is significantly worse, irrespective of how things were loads of years ago.

The other side of this is that without seeing things in perspective we might not appreciate the huge improvements that went into it.

And we might even lament for "first world problems" making mountains out of molehills, or take everything for granted...

But, more precisely, because I found the kind GP's lamentations over the top when speaking of modern air travel, and think that it would only be justified if GP was indeed speaking about pre-airplane travel.

Most people are not software engineers and would prefer to save $50 even if it means a less dignified experience

International business class is expensive, yes, typically on the order of $8,000 to $10,000 for a round-trip ticket. But international is the only place airlines can get away with charging that kind of fare and have people pay it, so that's what they'll continue to do. And when compared to other things people in software-developer income brackets often spend money on, even that isn't particularly gigantic; it's just all in one go instead of spread out over many small purchases the way, say, use of Uber and Lyft would be.

    > International business class
    > is expensive, yes, typically
    > on the order of $8,000 to 
    > $10,000

Economy: ~400 GBP

Premium Economy: ~1000 GBP

Business: ~1300 GBP

First: ~3700 GBP

So, the "$8000 to $10000" isn’t even in the same ballpark as First class, respectively business class.

    > International business class
    > is expensive, yes, typically
    > on the order of $8,000 to 
    > $10,000

For the purposes of this comment I just Google searched "SFO to Shanghai". The default is Jan 21-Feb 3 (so you're not paying a last-minute-booking penalty).

The prices are insanely cheap somehow, but the multiple holds up.

$527 economy $1999 premium economy $2853 business $5340 first

I would fly premium economy every time if it existed on most airlines and the multiple was 'only' 50%. What normal human can afford 4x the price for a couple more inches of elbow and legroom? It's far greater than the cost of the actual space.

AMS-IAD (two airports with good capacity) for the default Google Flight dates show 45k for economy, 99k for PE, and 120k (all INR) for business, all on reasonable airlines

    > What normal human 

30 minutes to wake up/get ready, 1 hour to the airport, arrive 90 minutes early, 30 minutes to de-board, 30 minutes for luggage/rental car and I'm at 4 hours on top of flight time. Most of that time I'm bothered by what I'm being put through - whether it's a TSA line, one of several airline lines, poor customer service, overpriced ... everything, and the general unhealthy atmosphere I'd happily commit an additional 2 hours to the drive. I get to be in my own car and avoid all kinds of frustration in favor of zoning out on music I enjoy.

The point is airlines are giving people options. Flying is unbelievably cheap if you want it to be but you get what you pay for - a safe flight in a moderately uncomfortable seat. People wanted cheap and they're getting it.

I wish more airlines offered more classes of service though. Flying United to Europe you either have crummy economy (exit rows are fine but the service still is poor) or rather expensive first. More options for mid-tier service where you have larger, more comfortable seating and nice food options similar to Virgins "Premium Economy" service which is is quite nice at a reasonable ask for those that find a couple hundred dollars extra worth it. I find it worth it for 8 hour+ flights to have some extra comfort so I feel better when landing.

You're a brave man. How was it?

as an adult it's probably better because there's no recovery time, they just take the nitrous away and you're good to drive yourself home (or to the pharmacy, to pick up your pain meds that you're definitely going to need) 2 minutes later.

the 2-3 weeks following extraction are 1000x worse than the actual procedure, which isn't bad at all.

Domestic first-class cabins in the US have been shrinking (fewer seats), for what it's worth. And while international business-class cabins still usually have 20+ seats in them (and sometimes much more), you're correct in noting that they're much more expensive in relation.

The economics of running an airline hasn't changed. People still -- despite everything they complain about as a consequence -- shop exclusively for the lowest possible fare they can find anywhere, and damn the legroom and extra fees. Airlines, which need to maximize the revenue coming from the back end of the plane in order to stay profitable, know this and have responded by squeezing in more seats (witness the number of carriers now going to ten-across seating on international aircraft, switching to "slimline" seats and shaving more inches out of the legroom in order to add another row or two) and unbundling as much as they can into separate upsells to preserve that low advertised fare.

The problem is that increasing the other basic economy tickets by the lost revenue (even all seats regardless of class) prices the seats out of competition, not to mention the costs in actually ripping the seats out, moving all the other seats, and getting the plane recertified/inspected.

> when someone reclines in front of me, the seat is literally 6 inches from my face

Serious question: would 8 inches be any better?

> I think they cram us in as tightly as humanly possible (literally) so that they can cajole more people into the first-class cabin and it's attendant price. It's not just awful; it's manipulative!

I think the intersection of people who can afford first class but who would consider taking basic economy with 8" of room but not 6" is exceedingly small.

They offer this service on most airlines, it's called economy plus on United.

I love a couple inches more wide. Maybe instead of a 3-3 row, they could sell a 2-3 row. Or just make the damn planes wider.

Even when I was skin and bones, 169 lbs and 6'2", I couldn't comfortably fit in these 17 inch wide seats. My shoulders are too wide. Now that I've plumped up, it's basically impossible.

Hell, I'd just appreciate a thin seat divider that clearly makes sure I'm not spilling into someone else's room.

United has "Economy Plus" which is more legroom. I'm 6'2" and I find it fine. My advice is to upgrade to that and pay extra for the exit row. If there are 2 exit rows then book the one behind the one in front. You can't recline into an exit row so with the second set of exit rows you get a ton of space and no one that can recline into you.

I recently picked up a business class seat from Australia to LA for 4x the economy price.

Well worth it for the short trip and being able to get some sleep and work done in air.

Hmm, I don't think first class on an aircraft has anything on the better ocean liners in the 'dignified' stakes - if you've got the time to burn.

Did you read the article? Because the entire point of the article is that people aren't actually getting it for cheaper.

It assumes that people will automatically buy the next-highest fare bucket in order to avoid the horrors of Basic Economy, but the history of the airline business in the US over the past couple decades suggests that the vast majority of travelers will complain about how horrible the low-fare experience is, then book it anyway.

And the one day you go into the store, and they tell you "We just introduced a new Basic Economy package!". It's still only $60, but now it's 5 pounds instead of 6. Or, for $12 more, you can upgrade to your previous 6 pound package.

May you pay more to upgrade, maybe you pay the same—but either way, what used to be $10/lb is now $12/lb. The price went up.

Now they are finally updating their seating and policy to be in-line with what the discount airlines offer. So they aren't charging more for economy. They're pricing it inline with the level of service you get, something they weren't able to do before.

    > Flying United to Europe you
    > either have crummy economy 
    > or rather expensive first

I think they called it "Business First" before they switched to "Polaris".

Delta has impressed me lately. I may make the switch and just deal with the extra haul to JFK which is about 20 minutes more for me if United can't or won't improve their lousy, outdated aircraft for international flights to Europe.

United does fly nicely outfitted aircraft to Asia and Australia but I don't get out that way nearly as much.

Of the big three legacy carriers, Delta is currently the best combination of price and reliability. You know they want a bit of extra money for the slightly nicer experiences, and you know what you're going to get out of it.

For international travel, though, I've been starting to avoid US carriers entirely in favor of flying the other country's airline (which is something you can do when living near a major international hub -- SFO, in my case). Often it's another small step up, and sometimes it's a big step up, compared to the US airlines.

You're right though, airlines like British Airways and Virgin Atlantic are quite a bit more nice. United treats me pretty well as I have the highest status, however.

Once I got on United Gold, I could pick weird flights (undesireable times, maybe the shittier airport) that would automatically upgrade a full ticket to first class. But a full fare economy is basically the same price as a non-refundable first class. So it only works if a business is picking up the tab.

Lower fuel costs means budget airlines can compete more aggressively, and major carriers have to lower their own prices to stay competitive. So they have to cut corners other ways to maintain growth.

For me, the upside of much cheaper travel beats these downsides. If you travel light and educate yourself about fees, airline travel really isn't so bad.

http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-strangely-successfu...

When I fly I get a free upgrade to economy plus (it ain't much but the extra legroom is nice) and occasional upgrades to first class, a free check bag, priority boarding, and priority security. And that's only with basic status.

Checking in online and packing only carry-on means I can breeze through pretty quickly. Add a trusted traveler program and it's almost like flying 20 years ago.

My guess is the goal of airlines is to encourage frequent flier loyalty by making conveniences a part of the status benefits, and then squeeze the occasional travellers for more dollars at the same time.

Even economy plus is weird because it just means I can't reach the touch screen without leaning forward :D

You can solve most of the other problems by being super late to your flight. Cuts the waiting and queuing but does mean you have to check your bags. Often this is okay or even preferable because less stuff to haul around airport.

Oh and noise cancellation headphones have changed my life. You can actually hear the stewardess when they talk to you because your ears aren't worn out from the engine noise. It's amazing! Easily the best $300 I ever spent in terms of improving airplanes.

I'm not small, I'm travel size. ;)

A "normal" person who doesn't rack up tens of thousands of miles a year will absolutely never see an upgrade.

In Delta's case, at least, it depends on how many seats are free, and how you rank. The ranking is based on all kinds of stuff. So for less-flown and less-upgraded routes, it's easy to upgrade. Other routes have more people flying first class by paying and more competition for the free upgrades.

Or if you travel a lot for work.

I've been flying for over 30 years.

Shopping for tickets is easier. Before you had to go to a travel agency or wait in line at the airport. Now you just buy online.

Checking in has gotten a lot better. The last so many times I flew, I did not even have a wait. Go to the kiosk, get your tickets, and not even a wait to go to a person and have them checked in.

Fighting for overhead bin space is the same. Seat dimensions are roughly the same. Lavatories are the same.

Only security lines has gotten worse.

Fighting for overhead space is indisputably worse since airlines mostly abandoned free checked bags.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/29/travel/shrinking-airline-s...

Hopefully self-driving or at least largely autonomous cars at an affordable price will make this a no-brainer for everything except trans-oceanic flights. My car has a seat that's more comfortable than any seat I've had on an airplane so far.