alt Hacker NewsVery unpopular opinion, but I personally find price discrimination somewhat appealing. Both me and the richest person on the plane get to the same destination at the same time. And yet he payed 4x as much for the same privilege. It's one of the few forces left in the economy that actually reduces inequality (somewhat).
I'm an absolute cheapskate and I love flying, so I never really fall for the need to upsell. I'll fly with my family and not pay for assigned seats (I've joked with gate agents "I dare you not to sit me next to my children" - in reality they are happy to make sure you sit together anyway).
I get that people value different things differently, but with so much price discrimination the value gets more efficient and you increasingly get exactly what you pay for - no more or less. Which just unlocks the hacker ethos in me.
At the end of the day, you are paying for insanely fast travel across the sky. It's a miracle, let alone at the insanely low prices you can get these days.
Replies
I too was initially wondering what the problem was with price discrimination---it seems like it's just offering a worse product for less money, so everyone gets to choose.
But from what I understand, the article is saying that the problem is that the worse product is _artificially_ worse, in a way that is not commensurate with quid pro quo consumption like we're used to.
If I pay less for a Macbook with worse specs, that's "good" price discrimination, because Apple gets to give me something of intrinsically lower value that it cost them less to produce, and I give them something of lower value (less money) that it cost me less to acquire.
But an airline _creating_ a bunch of hoops for you to jump through (the article lists "no advance seat assignment, no ticket changes, last boarding group, baggage restrictions") in an effort to cause people whom they can juice for a little more cash to identify themselves, is scammy and scummy behavior. I don't want to see companies purposefully making my life worse in order to juice me for as much as they can.
I don't think it is an unpopular opinion at all.
The airline sector had this memory of its "hey days" - but the price has conviniently been forgotten.
From my perspective I would love if the airlines would skip entertainment systems and food on long haul flights. I use my phone for l entertainment, and see the value of airline food as a negative value (i try to fast when I travel, but I am bad at declining food).
Frankly, I wouldn't agree with the article, and call having different quality options at different prices, "price discrimination", even if consumers are discriminating based on price. That's just offering a selection of different products of varying quality and prices. No harm in that IMO.
It's more the reverse, wherein the service provider discriminates to charging people different amounts for the exact same good/service (not just different quality goods/services). IMO, this is more likely what people have a problem with.
That rich guy in your example probably values price discrimination just as much as you do, because he - presumably not being a cheapskate - can just pay more and know that all the conveniences he wants will be there for him. And then he goes back to thinking about his next genius business plan, because it's not worth his time looking for the best bargain. So both win.
I agree with this, airline price discrimination is an example of the market actually working correctly.
Most people could afford to pay more for airline tickets. It’s just that they’ve done the math and they don’t want to.
I plan carefully and don’t have to rebook my flights. I pack my own food. I leave behind that second pair of shoes so that I only bring a carry on.
I’d rather do all of this so that I have an extra $100 to spend on a nice meal or experience at my destination.
If any of those things are important to you, then you can have them! You just have to pay for them.
I don’t see why the government needs to mandate that airlines provide certain services like checked bags (which would require increasing minimum ticket prices). Why not use price signals to allow each individual to tailor the experience for themselves?
I feel like everyone leaves out that last part. Everyone wants extras when you don’t have to pay for them. Are the people arguing for more regulation mentioning the tidbit that ticket prices will go up?
I know this is veering into the political, but I just don’t understand the ideology that most people seem to have. Which is that we need to use the power of the government to force people to buy things they don’t want.