Hacker News Reader

Comment by predictmktegirl | Hacker News Reader

As usual, if you want to be healthy, you pay extra.

To expand on your point: it is taboo to trade off sacred values for money [1]. For things like health, we are forced to pretend that they have infinite value.

[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/psychology-of-tab...

> As usual, if you want to be healthy, you pay extra.

It's been like that for centuries. Healthier food costs more than unhealthy food. That's why poor people have a lower life expectancy than their rich counterparts.

You seriously think all people are equal and/or should be treated equally and/or should have equal outcomes? Ha.

> Healthier food costs more than unhealthy food.

I don't get this. The cost of a stir fry with rice or a pasta with fresh sauce is going to be less or close to any processed meal and the preparation time is of the order of 15m or less.

Are fresh vegetables insanely expensive where you're from?

Freshly prepared food is more expensive for all sorts of reasons than shelf-stable, highly-processed junk food. To buy fresh vegetables, you need to be able to shop frequently. To prepare fresh food, you need the time and energy to cook plus the skills and equipment plus a kitchen.

I don't think you need fresh vegetables. Frozen vegetables should provide much of the same without the need to shop as often.

This is only true if you're uneducated. Buying food can be both cheap and healthy if you make good choices.

Low cost airlines like frontier usually need at-least 85% occupancy to remain profitable. I don't see any good alternative. But with the WHO recommendation of maintaining 2 meters social distancing, it's unclear if this is even helpful.

I keep hearing this, but 85% occupancy isn't some magic number. If occupancy is 66% instead, they can put their prices up 30% and realise the same revenue. Prices fluctuate way more than that anyway and oil prices (the biggest marginal cost) are at an all time low.

Airlines are in trouble because they can't run as many flights and they have significant fixed costs: leasing planes, servicing debt, payroll costs. Not because the flights they do run will be less full.

You assume that they'd get 66% occupancy if they raised their rates by 30%.

Additionally, I don't think you understand how airlines buy gas. This will help: https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Why-The-Oil-Price...

The WHO used to recommend 1 meter and in Australia it's still 1.5 meters. These are just guidelines. In the end, a little distance reduces the chance of transmission and more distance reduces it more. Droplet transmission can occur at much larger distances than 2 meters, it just becomes exceedingly unlikely, much like it becomes more unlikely at 2 meters versus 1 meter.

Welcome to life - where stuff costs money.

Is anyone other than Spirit doing this? My recollection was other airlines were capping sales to ensure sufficient space.

As opposed to airlines collapsing from having to keep unsustainable prices?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com