Hacker News Reader

Comment by yibg | Hacker News Reader

Similar situation as flights. People complain about lack of space, misc fees etc. But when it comes down to it, people for the most part, still pick the cheapest flight.

I think the other factor is a bit of anchoring. I know this impacts me anyways. If there is a "free" alternative, then that's where I'm anchored at. I can watch youtube for free so paying for it seems like a bad deal. Where as there is no free alternative to Coke that still gets your Coke (as opposed to say water).

View on HN

> when it comes down to it, people for the most part, still pick the cheapest flight.

Flight comparators don't show "avaliable legroom" in their metrics.

As far as I know some companies charge more for seats near entrances where there's more space, so people are willing to pay more.

> As far as I know some companies charge more for seats near entrances where there's more space, so people are willing to pay more

In my anecdotal experience, the people complaining about leg room are precisely those who are not paying for additional leg room. (Similar to how people who compare modern air travel with service in the 1960s aren't purchasing the inflation-adjusted equivalent ticket, which would almost always be a lay-flat seat today if not Wheels Up.)

I may be the exception, but as someone who's 194cm tall I am both paying for more legroom and complaining about legroom.

Airlines aren't paying inflation-adjusted equivalents from the 1960s for their expenses either.

Google flights does - at least as well as they can base don the airline and plane. They'll also compare this to the average. All airlines charge more for exit rows and their extra legroom, typically as "premium economy" seats.

Premium economy is usually separate from exit row surcharges for economy class seats. Both are also relatively recent trends and I am not so sure that all airlines have caught up to the exit row squeeze.

> As far as I know some companies charge more for seats near entrances where there's more space, so people are willing to pay more.

Unfortunately those prices are usually not even close to proportional to the additional space (and even that would ignore that seating space is only part of the service).

> People complain about lack of space, misc fees etc. But when it comes down to it, people for the most part, still pick the cheapest flight.

This is true. One thing I note is that with the same dollar amount, you get even less legroom, luggage, etc. today than you used to back 10-15 years ago on traditional airlines. Granted the airline costs rose over time, but it's hard to imagine they went up to the scale traditional airfare has increased at equivalent service levels... Also the fact that things that used to be included are now considered "extra" looks like a good excuse for folks to complain about.

I guess the point being Youtube versus Youtube without ads is as different as Coke versus water. But you're point holds in that people think they are the same service, as the ads bit, no matter how integral, is seen as 'other' than the service. This is a big win for the service provider. I remember when RyanAir charged £5 per flight plus £50 unavoidable add-ons, you ask anyone how much they paid, they said £5. Seems like the same thing here - we give the service provider too much kudos, it's as though consuming a service makes it part of us, so we big it up no matter if it's taking us for a ride.

For the most part, people are not who make the airline the most profitable, companies paying employees to fly do.

Even then the second most profitable line of business for airlines are credit cards and the banks who buy miles in bulk for their customers. Of course this is a US perspective.

People pick the cheapest flights because price is a simple number they can understand.

How to you qualify the comfort of a seat with 20cm of legroom vs 30cm? Until we have a quality metric for flights that's also a single number we can't.

The price is one of the few things that's always available when choosing between flights. Journey time is the other, and people will pay for a shorter journey or shorter layovers.

Strangely, some of my colleagues have 'paid' (work's money, their time) extra to avoid Ryanair, when Ryanair has the only direct connection. This I find strange.

Given the choice, I've long paid a little more if it means an Airbus plane, as I think the cabin is quieter. However, that's rarely shown on flight booking sites.

Ryanair are notorious for a) nickel-and-diming and b) general nastiness (e.g. charging a big fee to print a boarding pass at the airport, flying to an airport 70km from the city name they advertised, telling the press that they're going to start charging for the toilet). They're one of the few airlines whose reputation is big and extreme enough that it's percolated into the public consciousness.

It's easy to see where the flight is going.

Meanwhile, I get half a day free in Gdansk or Budapest or wherever while my colleague wanders around Munich Airport.

I'll happily pay more for an Airbus plane or even an older Boeing model because I prefer not to crash and die.

Yeah, I pretty much prefer to be surprised whenever the flight I’m on is scheduled on an A320neo compared to being surprised whenever a B737-Max is scheduled for my flight. That’s why I avoid flying with the airline that has a Boeing fleet in my country.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com