That depends on the distribution of consumer incomes. Price discrimination (charging people more who can afford more) can be good for low-income customers.
Unfortunately it doesn't work out that way. Consider banks, for example. As a relatively wealthy person, I don't pay fees for practically anything. On the contrary, banks pay me in the form of new-account signup bonuses, interest-bearing checking accounts, ATM fee reimbursements, etc.
Poorer bank customers, on the other hand, are continuously getting nickeled-and-dimed by banks in the form of monthly account fees, foreign ATM fees, NSF charges, etc.
If you walk or take the bus to the grocery store, you have fewer grocery stores to shop around for a deal at. If you're living paycheck to paycheck, you're less able to stock up on, say, cold medicine, when you see a good deal (and more likely to pay the "we know you're sick" price). And if you're time-poor (because you're working two jobs, and neither are the kind you can browse the Internet at while your code is compiling), you're less able to do comparison shopping, or notice that the price of what you need is always more expensive than when you don't.
(Mine pays me about 3% APR which isn’t nothing.)
If you want redistribution, implement a wealth tax.
But in the long run, we've seen a steady worsening of the economy experience as airlines have invested in improved first class experiences. In the long run it's simply impossible for a firm to serve poor people (they have no money), absent interventions that allocate buying power to the poor person, or others that force the firm to do so.
Most likely what happens is that cattle class pays for the plane to fly, and airlines make more from first class.
but isn't that less for consumers who can afford less?