Hacker News Reader

Comment by bobthepanda | Hacker News Reader

Reducing competition to increase competitive liability has generally not been good for consumers. See: airline consolidations.

We've seen in other markets that going from four to three results in increases in costs for consumers, while keeping investment levels flat: https://www.economist.com/news/business/21699143-country-mer...

View on HN

I was under the impression that air travel was an extremely competitive market with slim profit margins. Am i wrong?

Everybody is mad that airlines are temporarily making profits during the lag between fuel prices dropping from peaks and ticket prices catching up.

> Everybody is mad that airlines are temporarily making profits during the lag between fuel prices dropping from peaks and ticket prices catching up.

I knew nothing about this. My irritation towards the airline industry is entirely based on poor quality / service, which seems (to me) to be the result of my having no meaningful options as a consumer.

Nah it's because most of us are cheap as fuck and book flights by whichever is cheapest. So it's a race to the bottom for pricing which means cost minimisation ie. Shit support and service.

Exactly.

Try starting an airline with free checked baggage, free meal and more legroom. If your ticket price reflects the added cost you'd be bankrupt in a few months.

Southwest has two out of three though. Just no free meal.

Sure. But merging legacy carriers, in my opinion, seems more likely to throttle the market's competitive features.

Would it be so terrible if the legacy airlines were thinned, and more Southwest/JetBlue/Virgin America-type newcomers showed up? As it is American, United, and Delta are the largest three airlines in the world because they all had fairly sizable mergers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com