Business aren't obligated to offer you prices that you think are fair. I don't understand why people think they are. When people say something is a rip-off or unfairly priced what they really mean is that they aren't willing to pay that price for the product.

What a business chooses to charge you is entirely up to them, and they can be as rational or irrational in your eyes as they like.

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.

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.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8752643 [1] http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/airfares/programs/economics_and_...

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."

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.

It's not collusion, because air travel is effectively a commoditized market. That means there is continuous downward pressure on pricing exactly because the product is nearly identical everywhere. It is a zero-sum game though with regards to seat size. I don't think they can realistically go much smaller though; as a person of average height (5'7") even I have trouble fitting in their seats.

That said, there are airlines that cater to "comfort". Virgin America is one of them. They're not doing so well: it turns out that most customers either don't know or don't care about the quality of the flight, just the price. Virgin's prices are 10-20% higher than their competitors, but they just can't seem to fill their flights. Virgin has scaled back their routes as a result.

People like you have been saying this for a long time. Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of airline customers have been saying, much more loudly, much more consistently and with money rather than words (i.e., in how they book and what fares they book) that all considerations other than the number of dollars in the ticket price are null and any and all devaluations, reductions or after-the-fact fees are accepted and encouraged if they bring the initial dollar amount of the ticket lower.

The market has been doing a terrible job of making such considerations visible. I'd like to book a flight from city A to city B on an A380. There are two possible routes on two different carriers, and I'm happy to pay the (fairly small) premium.

Do you have any idea how difficult it is to actually do that, to manually go and find the flight times and numbers that correspond to an A380, and then to find those in a search engine (either Kayak or the airlines')? Especially when there's a stopover. Both airlines have a ton of other flights on the same route, which is just noise that I have to filter through. But I'm willing to spend a couple hours doing that to book a slightly less miserable transatlantic flight.

If comfort information was readily available and visible on a flight search, people would actually be able to make that choice. But it's not, so it's not reasonable to draw the conclusion that people don't care about it. It's not easy to research the differences, to the vast majority probably don't know them.

There shouldn't be any difficulty in adding an "A380" filter to a search engine (even for third parties, it's a field in the schedules datasets), but the set of people searching for flights mostly by aircraft type, on routes where A380s actually operate isn't necessarily larger than the set of people who will check the A380 box out of curiosity, be surprised at how few options they get and then book on a different site.

It's perhaps telling that SeatGuru, with its excellent and unique rich data on airline seating, comes with a pretty bog standard search tool.

Airlines have near universally tiny economy seats because the vast majority of people are sufficiently satisfied with small seats to be unwilling to patronise an alternative airline with slightly more expensive but larger economy seats. Why should we subsidise people that want premium economy at a lower price?

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.

> 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.

    > Older people and disabled people make up a measured percentage
    > as well. So less than 90%.

    > Additionally everyone benefits from more seat pitch

    > It has nothing to do with "comfort. [...] It is what people need
    > so they aren't in physical pain for the duration of the flight.

I'm happy that I have the option to choose airlines like EasyJet for shorter trips which are essentially glorified cattle carts with wings on them, but which would allow me to affordably go somewhere over a weekend. If I want more seat space there's always something like KLM's Economy+, or other similar premium arrangements.

    > If airlines want to save some money, remove recline completely.

When you're sitting down in a chair your upper body isn't taking up volume in the space going up vertically from your knees, so there's space for the seat in front of you to recline into that space.

So this suggestion doesn't make sense. It's not an either-or, maybe airlines would benefit from removing or reducing recline, but that's not mutually exclusive with saving money by reducing the space between seats.

I'm not in "physical pain" from the seats as they currently are. The key qualifier that you should add is "some" and replace "need" with "want", perhaps even "feel is necessary". Neither of which apply to me. I neither want more space, nor do I feel it is necessary for me in any way, hence why I suggested you change your view on the matter by adding the qualifier "some".

You should have a look at the term Public Cartel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel#Private_vs_public_cartel

I see this argument a lot of time but I still don't really know how exactly that redeems companies bad business practices and user hostility. What is the purpose of this argument? Saying that it's ok? If not, what else?

Also, what is the alternative? Use a cargo ship over seas? Choose from another 5 companies with same crappy business practices?

For the record, I'm 6'3" with rheumatoid arthritis, and I despise flying in coach. But I have to separate the irrationally perceived personal affront by the airlines from the reality of the situation: I am flying by choice. If I had a specific accessibility concern (and not a convenience or comfort one) the airline would accommodate me.

It's not supposed to redeem them, that's where you took a wrong turn.

>"What is the purpose of this argument? Saying that it's ok? If not, what else?"

I believe the purpose is to tell people to "relax, it'll solve itself", or perhaps: "relax, if there was no coercion, then this is precisely what the market wants, or is willing to bear"

It depends on where you're going. If it's an overseas trip, you could video conference or telecommute. If it's not, you could drive yourself or take a bus.

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.

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/airfares/programs/economics_and_...

That shows 2014 has the highest CPI adjusted price since 2003 and the highest raw USD price going back as far as the data (1995).

Real prices have dropped 14% in the past 19 years, and have been basically flat since 2004, except for an obviously anomalous dip during the financial crisis (2009/2010). The prevailing trend lines are a steady drop of 1.7% per year from 1995-2004 and then a flat-line (.15% increase per year) 2004-2014. To go back a bit further, airfare dropped over 50% 1978-2006[1]. That is, the trend in the late '90s didn't start in '95.

So no, parent's comment isn't quite literally true (prices have gone up 1.5% in the last decade), but historically prices clearly trend down, which I think is the point.

[1] http://web.mit.edu/airlines/analysis/analysis_airline_indust...

We've established that. The data shows that flights this year were about 13% higher than at the lowest point, which was 2009 (recession). They are a little under 5% higher than the lowest point during the "mid 2000's". These numbers (~.25% increase per year over 10 years) are fairly insignificant when you look at the broader trends (>1% decrease per year over 3-4 decades).

"Fee to pick reasonable seats" means that people who prefer a lower price can pay less in exchange for getting worse seats, while people who insist on better seats have to pay.

"Fee to board at a reasonable time" either means that people with more carry-on luggage pay more, or it means that people who don't understand that being on the airplane earlier doesn't make you arrive earlier pay more for no reason. Either way, it's more opportunity for people who want to pay less to do so.

I'm not a big fan of airlines, but I don't see the problem with paying for optional services. Why should each ticket come with a free checked bag? Sure, it's nice when I'm actually checking luggage, but it means I've basically lost out on $25 (or whatever) on those occasions that I don't. Maybe you think, well, I never travel without checking a bag. But lots of people do, and there's no reason they should pay the same price when they don't need the same service.

Being on the plane, where I no longer need to be paying attention, is less stressful. That's not worth a lot to me, but it's not worthless.

On the topic more generally, my biggest objection to piling on the fees after the fact is a lack of price transparency - it makes it much more difficult to compare the same thing across airlines. Of course, that's a problem we could solve with software...

Price transparency is a problem, but not a huge one in my own experience (yours may, of course, vary). Airlines are rarely close enough in price for things like baggage fees to tip the scales, and when they are it's not too hard to see just what their policies are.

Agreed - that wasn't intended as an objection to paying, but as response to your implication that it was silly to want to. I understand that it wasn't intended very strongly; I was just sharing a view from the other side. I'd happily pay ten cents to board first. I wouldn't pay $100. Whether I'd take any given intermediate price depends on a lot of things...

"Price transparency is a problem, but not a huge one in my own experience (yours may, of course, vary). Airlines are rarely close enough in price for things like baggage fees to tip the scales, and when they are it's not too hard to see just what their policies are."

I've definitely spotted a case or two where different baggage fees made the difference as to which flight was cheaper, and even when I'm not looking for the absolute lowest price I'd like to know just how much I'm trading away against all the various other variables (time of day, number and length of layovers, past experiences with the airline, &c).

I imagine you've seen it, but Hipmunk at least takes a stab at balancing some of those issues into a single "agony" score you can sort by.

"Pay less" is how the airlines would like to phrase it, but as a consumer I care more about the comparison to what I paid yesterday. And today, if you're not paying for those services, you're actually paying the same amount that you used to. They're just charging other people more.

It's not like the prices went down when they converted these previously-free services into paid services. They just decided to start charging extra for something they used to give away for free and are busy enjoying the extra profit.

Sure, they're a business and they can charge whatever they want for whatever they want. But don't try and spin it as a win for the consumer so they can choose to pay less.

I do think baggage fees are a ripoff, and I don't pay for them. That doesn't mean that I have to like the fact that they've started charging for services that should be a part of normal service (like checking a bag the airplane has to fucking carry anyway). Nor does it mean that I have to believe their claims that it actually benefits me as a consumer to be nickled and dimed for everything I'm worth.

I'm surprised they haven't started charging more for seats that recline. Maybe that will be next.

[1]: http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/airfares/programs/economics_and_...

it's cheaper because more and more jobs require constant travel so they have much more of the good predative revenue. for example at work I've never seen a 300 mile trip for less than 350. ever. let alone the la-Chicago for 100 they mention in the article. that would look like a bug in my employee's booking system.

what they get from the rest is just icing.

so, convince yourself of that lie all you want. but the system continues to be awful and inefficient. only the demand changed. to their advantage.

Imagine what would happen if there was an airline that could set fixed prices for, let's say, the next 2 or 4 weeks. So you can search for a ticket price on the 1st of a month and it would be the same as on the last day of the month.

I know that this is probably not realistic since you can't just open up an airline like you can a startup, but it would be interesting if it was possible and see who gets a bigger revenue/piece of the pie: the airlines with the uber-sophisticated yield management systems, or the one that treats customers as people and not factors in an equation.

It's probably very difficult to even do the mental experiment, but I sure would be glad to see these kind of companies show up. I know there are already lots of companies that treat customers as their most valued asset instead of just a cash-cow, and almost in all cases that I can think of, these companies are doing great precisely because there's more and more people that want to be treated like people, and are willing to pay extra for that, instead of getting the lowest price and be kicked in the behind in the process.

And it's not only about the space, it's the service + luggage allowance + flexibility

For all the bad press about US inequality (and our health insurance system is a disaster) and for all our right-wing politics (the two-party system allows the authoritarian/psychotic 30% that every country has to gain a major foothold; EU loonies and racists are split between left and right but ours have been successfully corralled to right and "the base" of a major party) I will actually go on record to say that, at heart, Americans aren't very elitist or classist.

In other countries where the rich are held to be simply better people, and act with impunity, the rules are very different. See, the Midwestern neurosurgeon in the US is, in technical terms, not a fucking prick, so he doesn't mind sharing the lounge with a guy who bought a day pass. On the other hand, some lieutenant for a third-world despot, or some unionbusting murderer in a Chinese factory, is going to be pissed if he finds out that someone from economy class was let in to the lounge. So overseas, in countries where the rich are just a lot worse, a lot of lounges have no-day-pass policies.

You can bribe your way in, but that's icky. I have no problem with cheating a large corporation, but foreign airlines are pretty awful to lounge agents who are caught taking bribes.

Edit: please don't correct actual life experience with a quote from Wikipedia.

United Club is the name of their "first class" lounge, as people incorrectly refer to them. Those United Club Lounges have complimentary booze [1]. And no airline is going to allow a passenger to board who had obviously consumed the amount of alcohol you're referring to. I know: I practically lived at the T3 United Club lounge at O'Hare for many years, I was traveling so much. Not as much any more, but when I've been delayed significantly and I'm super-stressed because I'm speaking at a conference or something, I still occasionally get a day pass.

The United lounges you're referring to are considerably more elite, and most travelers don't even know they exist. Again, taken from actual experience and not a quick perusal of a Wikipedia article.

American's "Admiral's Club" [2] no longer offers complimentary liquor.

[1] http://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/travel/airport/loung...

[2] https://www.aa.com/i18n/travelInformation/airportAmenities/A...

If you read the wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Club it says you can buy access to United Club, but doesn't say that about the first class lounge. In fact it says:

"the access rules are significantly more restrictive than for United Club. Access to Global First Lounges is generally restricted to United Global First passengers, Star Alliance First Class customers, and Global Services passengers confirmed in Business Class."

In the first class lounge you get free food and drink including alcohol. If you could really get in for $50 a day, you could easily eat and drink that much worth.

No need to pay $50 a day, just buy a fully-flexible first class ticket and keep re-scheduling it:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/mad-mad-world/Chine...

Or just get an American Express card (Platinum, ideally - no additional fees) and net access to the Centurion lounge and all Delta lounges (when flying Delta).

The Centurion lounge is second-to-none domestically, and the Delta lounges aren't half-bad when it comes to the free booze (some are self-serve - Jack Daniels, Grey Goose, etc.)

United's clubs are a joke comparatively.

And they haven't reduced the fee even while losing Continental lounges when it was bought by United.

For my money, the Citi AAdvantage Executive card is a better similar card, because it now gives you access to all AA and USAirways lounges. While you're right that in my experience the Delta lounges are better (the only amex lounge I've been to is at mccarran), what matters most to me is a lounge in the cities i connect thru.

The Citi card is the same AF as the Amex Plat but Plat has policy of never waiving first year AF and Citi often has a promotion doing just that (or a portion of).

GS is a special invite status reserved for celebrities and high ranking politicians. My assumption is that they need that space so that they can load the person from the tarmac or have them check out of the airport. Thats speculation, but those individuals do have different needs from an airline. [Also onboarding needs as well as that they don't enter from the jetway]

I started using airport lounges when I joined LoungeBuddy (since I had no idea it's even a thing worth checking out before), and it's definitely is a much better experience.

(disclosure - I do iOS work at LoungeBuddy and we pretty much have all the information on all the lounges on the entire planet, including access rules and entry price of they offer walk ups etc. http://www.loungebuddy.com/ )

You can also buy the membership, or apply for the credit card that gets you the membership as a miscellaneous benefit.

https://www.prioritypass.com/

Less enlightened? Wow, I don't even know what to say to that. Even if you're just referring to their louge policy that's a pretty strange turn of phrase, but I doubt that was the implication.