Air Fares 101 – Why do fares change all the time?
cheapair.com
cheapair.com
Practically, that means that you can only game the system if nobody else knows how. If you are the only one that knows how, the algorithms probably can't detect and compensate for the error. As soon as news breaks out, the algorithm starts compensating. We saw this about 10 years ago when there were a few companies that started promoting the ability to search for Y-class fares...it was all but a year or so before the pricing stabilized. The same problem is currently happening for the hidden-city ticketing trick [1](the algorithms are compensating, although the airlines put in some manual systems when it first broke news).
The same goes for these ideas of "the best time to buy". Not only is historical data not good enough, but the more well known the data becomes, the worse the predictions become. This has already happened to some degree with the "buy as early as possible" crowd. Now it is more expensive to buy early than it is to buy late...something that wasn't previously true.
The lesson? If you figure out a way to game the system, don't tell anyone else.
[1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014241278873235398045782597...
For example, imagine you 'game' the system in such a way that you will definitely be in an otherwise-empty seat, and you would only buy a ticket if you successfully got your intended discount. Then, airlines wouldn't be incentivized to 'adjust' and you could keep getting discounts.
We are playing with a few prototypes to do exactly this at http://www.projectcaspini.com. Sign up for the mailing list if you are interested.
Do you know of any referential book/article/blog to learn this kind of things?
It's not just me: it's a common opinion. One prominent business magazine had a cover a few years back titled something like "The companies we all hate"
Consumers like to purchase things in atomic units and simple terms. If I go to the grocery store, there's a bushel of apples. The sign says "Granny Smith apples: $1"
I can confidently pick up an apple, walk to the register, and expect to pay a dollar. The grocery store can advertise their wares and prices in the paper or online and I can plan on going to the store and making the same exchange. People like being able to predict how much of one thing they have to trade for an amount of something else. When lots of competitors do this in a market that anybody can participate in, it's good for everybody.
But when I buy an airline ticket? The rules are many times so byzantine that entire cottage industries have sprung up in an effort to capitalize on them. How much does it cost to fly coast-to-coast? Beats the heck out of me. There is no answer. Could I pick up a job where I had to fly ten times from point A to point B with a few day's notice and be able to include travel costs in the price? No, not unless I were to charge up to 17 times the cheapest rate.
Complex pricing systems may be great for the airline, but they're damaging to the free and open market. Instead of using rapidly-changing yield management systems, we'd all be better off if they just used an cross-carrier auction with transferable tickets. Let downstream providers handle liquidity.
I doubt this will happen, and instead there will be more penny-pinching, crazy rates, and unhappy customers.
> I can confidently pick up an apple, walk to the register, and expect to pay a dollar.
This is true in most of the world, but not in the US, where you don't know what you're paying until you reach the checkout counter.
Fruit is sold by weight, not count, in China too.
In most of the world if a product's price tag says X then you pay exactly X at the register (e.g. £2 sandwich costs exactly £2 in cash, you hand then exactly £2 and leave).
In the US that is not the case. Almost everything has a "hidden fee." You go buy a $2 sandwich but pay $2 + 6% ($2.12), if you get food in a restaurant you pay $price + 15-20%, an advertised $30/month cell phone plan is actually $45 after "taxes and fees," and so on...
Within Europe/EU in particular these types of hidden fees are actively combatted. Just within the last few years a few airlines (e.g. Easyjet) got into trouble for charging both a credit card or debit card fee (approx. £3-5) which wasn't reasonably avoidable and wasn't mentioned in their adverts.
The US in general is rather consumer hostile on the grounds of "business freedom."
In some states, there is sales tax. In others, none. Sales tax may or may not be applied to clothing depending on state. Sales tax may or may not be applied to food, or only some kinds of food (e.g., alcohol always taxed), or only to food above a certain threshold.
All in all there's nothing hidden about sales tax. It shouldn't be a surprise that people are expected to know how the sales tax system in their state works when they are interacting with it every day.
But that's the same thing! If people don't know or understand the rules, the fee is hidden to them. You could say that people have should educate themselves, and my reply would be that there's infinite amount of complexity that could be added to the pricing if needed: "Oh, on cloudy Wednesdays, when Jupiter shines and the Yen is down.. it's 2$ extra"
There's nothing else to say on that topic. I won't further debate what is or is not a "hidden fee." That's my definition, if it isn't in the headline price and is unavoidable then it is a hidden fee.
A basket of 10 random goods in a grocery store may have wildly different taxes applicable to them.. there are sales taxes, sin taxes (on tobacco, alcohol, etc), and others. These aren't listed on the price tag, so are essentially hidden.
Here in Fiji, I walk into a grocery store with $100 and can arrive at the checkout counter knowing I have $98 worth of goods and can expect $2 change for my bus fare home. I don't even have to know how to multiply numbers to figure this out... simple addition gets me there.
I have a two-part theory as to the advertising of prices exclusive of sales tax (which, again, doesn't apply to the apple example, for those HN readers who live in Silicon Valley); it goes like this:
1. Companies that sell products out of more than one store would like to use the same advertising everywhere, instead of making one ad per sales tax region they're present in.
2. This causes everyone to have to advertise prices the same way.
Actually, now I'm curious what the tax scheme was when you ordered something out of the Sears catalog.
Most of your examples have something going for them, but this one
> an advertised $30/month cell phone plan is actually $45 after "taxes and fees,"
is something I've never heard of. All of my US cell phone plans advertised the exact price they charged.
Like hell they are. Here's a 1:1 copy/paste from a recent AT&T bill (only modified for formatting, and <Local> for privacy reasons):
Surcharges & Fees
Administrative Fee $0.61
Computer Aided Dispatch Surcharge $0.06
Federal Universal Service Charge $0.82
Municipal License Surcharge $0.59
Regulatory Cost Recovery Charge $0.66
Relay Service Device Fund Surcharge $0.02
<Local> Universal Service $0.10
Total Surcharges & Fees $2.86
And: Government Fees & Taxes
City District Sales Tax - Telecom $0.08
City Sales Tax - Telecom $0.18
County Sales Tax - Telecom $0.05
Local Wireless 911 Surcharge $0.61
<Local> State Sales Tax - Telecom $0.81
Unified Statewide 911 Charge $0.09
Total Government Fees & Taxes $1.82
These are charged on top of their headline rates. Some of these are federal fees so aren't likely avoidable no matter where you happen to live.The most striking difference is that, in general, the flight attendants are happy. They smile. They joke around. Sometimes they sing songs. I was on a flight a few months ago where the entire plane played a game because it was someone's birthday.
If Southwest flies anywhere close to where I'm going, I make a point to fly with them. Even if they're slightly more expensive, the drastically less toxic experience makes up for it.
This new checked bag pricing has made the (already crowded) overhead compartments even more crowded. If your flight is full, or nearly so, there will not be enough overhead space for the carry-ons and the flight attendants and gate agents will start gate checking bags. Even if there is space, it may be toward the back of the plane, possibly behind one's seat.
This can be a big inconvenience for people who want to carry-on. If your carry-on is several rows behind you, you have to wait for the entire cabin to deplane before you can go back and get your bags. If you're on a tight layover, this can be seriously problematic.
As a result of this madness, the gate agents are always making announcements that they would like to gate check your bags (for free, of course).
http://www.flyfrontier.com/travel-information/baggage/checke...
"Gate Check Fee - any bag brought to the departure gate that exceeds the carry-on dimensions"
I initially cringed as the attendant started talking on the the mic and making a joke, as any world weary traveler probably would. I soon found myself laughing as the rest of the crew joined in with mimes and singing and call backs. It was definitely one of the best flight experiences I've ever had.
It was a good way to get the attention of everyone before we could all go back to ignoring the rest of the safety instructions.
I've taken to exclaiming "Oooh!" when they show us how to buckle our seat belts.
I'll only fly either of those two airlines if I have a choice.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/jetblue-to-add-bag-fees-reduce-l...
Just something to keep in mind from someone who often plans travel 6+ months in advanced. Booking flights 3-4 months in advance is fairly safe, longer or shorter and you might suffer for it.
We're different from Kayak or Yapta alerts in that you don't have to set alerts for a specific destination/time - you can search for things for, say, '7-10 day trips to South America between January 4th and 30th' or 'a long weekend in Austin in the next quarter'.
two quick thoughts:
1.as a consumer its hard to do more than "technical analysis" on a chart of the ticket price to figure out where to set your limit order
2. What are the odds that the company doing this doesn't share their order book with the airlines?
still like the idea
You don't do any analysis on the price. You just introspect, and figure out what is cheap enough to make you get up and fly, and that's the price you set.
On ExpertFlyer, we show all of this hidden raw information that normally only travel agents have been able to see as we buy the data from the airline reservation systems. The first few pages of our education guide give a simple overview of how this works: http://www.expertflyer.com/edu-guide.pdf
I've been a subscriber for several years, and this is the first I've seen the Education Guide. It might just be because I'm oblivious, but perhaps you might want to make it more prominent on the "New to ExpertFlyer" page?
I've learned everything in there by osmosis at this point, but the strategies would have been a cool thing to know when I was getting started.
There are many sites that describe this happening, such as [1]. And I've seen it happen to me: a fare would go up by $50 while I was searching, and opening a private browsing window would make it go back down.
[1] http://www.halfwayanywhere.com/budget-travel/your-guide-to-c...
I have yet to see real proof that airline companies get you to pay a higher fare by tracking your searches/browsing. While I'm sure you saw a $50 difference, it was likely a slightly different search, which is almost always what happens when people claim they've noticed this.
About a year ago, someone on reddit went out and offered a year of reddit gold for anyone that could, there was nobody: https://www.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comments/1ekv6e/lpt_bou...
As recently as last week, someone claimed they had reproduced, but they used slightly different search params and ended up with something totally different: http://www.reddit.com/r/travel/comments/2okml5/for_anyone_pl...
This myth is rife with anecdotal proof, but I've yet to see anything concrete.
I kept track of my searches in a spreadsheet, so I know for a fact that the price went up slightly (I think it was by 20€), and went back down immediately when I switched to a different browser.
Again, this was unfortunately too long ago for me to have reasonable proof, and it hasn't happened since (perhaps because I now tend to avoid Iberia anyway; they're pretty crappy in other ways as well).
Personally I don't search airline tickets outside of incognito , and preferably not without VPN or tor protection as well.
That price fluctuations are more due to activity than user profiling.
2. search it again.
3. the price has surged.
they don't track individual users, they track the search queries, this makes me wonder if flight search services are just rising the entire market prices, instead of a user only searching once, they constantly search the same query.
Not in general. The airlines account for that. (Otherwise, if the market could bear a higher price and still get reasonable demand, the airlines would have raised prices to that level in the first place.)
The volume of pre departure cancellations can be crazy for some routes to a point people wouldn't even believe.
Most flight search engines now let you set up alerts to track prices, but I also think those aren't ideal because if you're flexible about where or when you might travel you'd have to set up thousands of alerts. (example: I'd like to go somewhere warm for a weekend in January from New York. There are 113 warm weather destinations within 4 hours of New York; I can leave on Friday or Saturday and return on Sunday or Monday; there are four weekends in January = 1808 alerts to set!).
This is exactly why we built Hitlist (hitlistapp.com, available for iOS and Android), an app which monitors airfares across swathes of destinations and dates and sends you notifications when there are ridiculous fares. Some of you might find it useful!
Two questions:
1. Why is it an App and not a website? 2. As you noted in your other comment, it would be best if you can have my credit card on file and buy tickets on my behalf automatically.
This is another reason to be wary of ubiquitous tracking for marketing purposes. Say I want to fly from Kent to New York via London. I book my expensive transatlantic flight and once that is secured, book my domestic flight.
But if Big Data is watching my actions, what is to stop the airline hiking the price of the domestic flight as soon as they see me booking the transatlantic flight? At that point I am committed and will be forced to pay much more than I had planned for the domestic flight.
Switch the order in which you book the flights. Since we assume separate bookings and sequential booking order this puts lower risk into your first purchase, and also Big Data then has all transatlantic flights from London to choose from to hike your price.
I suspect there is somewhere in the behavioural economics literature a pricing mechanism that has many benefits of dynamic pricing but allows the buyer to feel I control - they know the complete range of fares and the complete range of prices and so feel able to buy without the fear if missin out.
I'm from Europe myself, and it usually costs us anywhere from $40 to $150 to travel anywhere in Europe, though the prices do go up if you want to go to a place such as China, Thailand, or even India. But then again, that's Asia!
Prices are much lower for closer distances - it's not at all unusual to be able pick up ~$150 round trips for shorter routes.
I could pay less, but I stick with US Airways so I can rack up miles. When I made less money I'd fly whatever airline was cheapest - just under $400 was common.
I've done it all: bus, train, and drove myself. Flying is the best deal, hands down. There's no comparison - round-trip cross-country for $500 is a modern miracle.
I live near Washington, DC. If I fly to, say, New York, then $500 would be outrageous. I'd expect to pay $100-200 roundtrip for that, depending. It's about an hour's flight.
If I fly to Miami, I'd expect to pay $200-300. That's about two hours.
If I fly to San Francisco, then $500 becomes a reasonable price. That's a six hour flight.
It makes no sense to talk about "a plane ticket" in isolation. From where to where? How far?
Another thing that surprises most people is how expensive business and first class are, relative to coach. After all, if you're only getting 1.5-2x as much space, it doesn't seem fair that you'd have to pay 10x prices. The truth is that many of those seats are filled via upgrades to frequent fliers and more fairly priced in that view. But someone who asks for an assured first-class seat (which is where the 5-10x premium is charged) is identifying himself as a captive buyer. About half of the first-class seats are upgrades (especially to make room, because airlines often overbook) given that day, and those are cheap or free, but the other half are a mix of business travelers under time pressure, invited conference speakers whose flights are booked by a third-party, and people with disabilities. While people complain about the "assholes" in first class getting marginally better treatment, a surprising percentage of the people up there aren't rich at all, but have disabilities (e.g. back and knee problems) and can't fly coach, and those people fly once a year (!!) at most, because they can barely afford it. Perversely, the disabled guy of modest means is going to see a higher fare for a first-class seat than a business traveler on a corporate rate.
Oddly enough, air travel is getting to the point where airlines are intentionally making coach travel worse to make up for a decline of first- and business-class passengers since 2008. While one might think that the purpose of the checked bag fees is to make a little extra money (and that's part of it) there's a much larger gain in filling up the overhead bins (thanks to those horrid checked-bag fees, overhead bins always fill up early) and then selling early boarding for $50 per ticket. Waiting spaces at many terminals have been deliberately neglected for acoustics and outlets, to push people into buying first-class tickets just to have access to the lounges. Natural demand for first class seats hasn't recovered since 2007 and, even with the economy back, it won't, so air travel is now an experience where unpleasantness is deliberately induced.
Business aren't obligated to offer you prices that you think are fair. I don't understand why people think they are. When people say something is a rip-off or unfairly priced what they really mean is that they aren't willing to pay that price for the product.
What a business chooses to charge you is entirely up to them, and they can be as rational or irrational in your eyes as they like.
For example, decreasing legroom and forcing disabled people into business class tickets they wouldn't have needed, were it 20 years ago when coach seats had enough room, is bad-faith activity. Likewise, this "boarding group" nonsense where "Group 5" means you'll have no overhead space and have to wait at a fucking baggage claim, despite carrying your bags to the terminal, is bad-faith activity. So is (in Asia) denying airport lounge access to coach passengers instead of pricing it a la carte as is done in the US, and so is the non-transferability of tickets (which is disingenuously argued to be because of 9/11, but really is just there to steal from people).
There's a ton that airlines do that is dishonest, in bad faith, and generally engineered to make for an unpleasant experience in coach, just to make up for the continuing decline in demand for first-class travel due to (a) teleconferencing in business, and (b) better medications for sleep and relaxation (e.g. modern benzodiazepines).
If you want to charge some narcissistic business executive 10x for 50% more room, go ahead. But that's not what we're talking about.
How are coach ticket prices now compared to 20 years ago? It's not bad faith if it's a way of decreasing prices (by packing more people) for most clients.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8752643 [1] http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/airfares/programs/economics_and_...
Want something legitimate to complain about when thinking of flying the friendly skies? Think about the airlines whining about the cost of fuel (and jacking up their ticket prices over 10%/year) when fuel prices are significantly less than four years ago when their whining was strongest.
Or, if you're like me, think about their failure to solve one major gripe by stating, "do not place your bag in an overhead bin at the front of the aircraft unless you're sitting in the goddamn front of the aircraft."
Then airlines cannot use "competition" to argue why they should make seats smaller and smaller, as all competition would have to adapt also.
I don't care if they're a private business. That means nothing to me. When all airlines have the same tiny seats and no alternative that isn't 5-10x more expensive, that is collusion, not competition.
Particularly in the US, you can pick any airline you want but the products are identical.
It's not collusion, because air travel is effectively a commoditized market. That means there is continuous downward pressure on pricing exactly because the product is nearly identical everywhere. It is a zero-sum game though with regards to seat size. I don't think they can realistically go much smaller though; as a person of average height (5'7") even I have trouble fitting in their seats.
That said, there are airlines that cater to "comfort". Virgin America is one of them. They're not doing so well: it turns out that most customers either don't know or don't care about the quality of the flight, just the price. Virgin's prices are 10-20% higher than their competitors, but they just can't seem to fill their flights. Virgin has scaled back their routes as a result.
People like you have been saying this for a long time. Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of airline customers have been saying, much more loudly, much more consistently and with money rather than words (i.e., in how they book and what fares they book) that all considerations other than the number of dollars in the ticket price are null and any and all devaluations, reductions or after-the-fact fees are accepted and encouraged if they bring the initial dollar amount of the ticket lower.
The market has been doing a terrible job of making such considerations visible. I'd like to book a flight from city A to city B on an A380. There are two possible routes on two different carriers, and I'm happy to pay the (fairly small) premium.
Do you have any idea how difficult it is to actually do that, to manually go and find the flight times and numbers that correspond to an A380, and then to find those in a search engine (either Kayak or the airlines')? Especially when there's a stopover. Both airlines have a ton of other flights on the same route, which is just noise that I have to filter through. But I'm willing to spend a couple hours doing that to book a slightly less miserable transatlantic flight.
If comfort information was readily available and visible on a flight search, people would actually be able to make that choice. But it's not, so it's not reasonable to draw the conclusion that people don't care about it. It's not easy to research the differences, to the vast majority probably don't know them.
There shouldn't be any difficulty in adding an "A380" filter to a search engine (even for third parties, it's a field in the schedules datasets), but the set of people searching for flights mostly by aircraft type, on routes where A380s actually operate isn't necessarily larger than the set of people who will check the A380 box out of curiosity, be surprised at how few options they get and then book on a different site.
It's perhaps telling that SeatGuru, with its excellent and unique rich data on airline seating, comes with a pretty bog standard search tool.
Airlines have near universally tiny economy seats because the vast majority of people are sufficiently satisfied with small seats to be unwilling to patronise an alternative airline with slightly more expensive but larger economy seats. Why should we subsidise people that want premium economy at a lower price?
You don't have competition on seat pitch because there are not enough people willing to pay the increase for the comfort to sustain an airline.
> You don't have competition on seat pitch because there are not enough people willing to pay the increase for the comfort to sustain an airline.
It has nothing to do with "comfort." It isn't a luxury feature in the same vein as a complementary back massage, hot flannel, or free alcoholic drink. It is what people need so they aren't in physical pain for the duration of the flight.
Now, yes, extreme seat pitch (e.g. business/first class) is absolutely about pure comfort. I am talking about a bare minimum so an adult can fit their butt, legs, and knees between the back of their seat and the back of the seat in front when reclined.
If airlines want to save some money, remove recline completely.
> Older people and disabled people make up a measured percentage
> as well. So less than 90%.
How does being older have anything to do with needing more leg room?
Depending on the disability that may not matter either. > Additionally everyone benefits from more seat pitch
As an anecdote I'm 183 cm (or 6") and I actually find it really
uncomfortable to sit at the optional incline offered by airlines, I'd
like to either be sitting straight up or lie completely level, nothing
in-between. So I'm not benefiting from it, unless it's getting quite
close to 90 degrees. > It has nothing to do with "comfort. [...] It is what people need
> so they aren't in physical pain for the duration of the flight.
I'm relatively fine with the current seat arrangement, and I'm happy
that airlines aren't being mandated to increase prices for everyone
due to some government-imposed seat size regulations.I'm happy that I have the option to choose airlines like EasyJet for shorter trips which are essentially glorified cattle carts with wings on them, but which would allow me to affordably go somewhere over a weekend. If I want more seat space there's always something like KLM's Economy+, or other similar premium arrangements.
> If airlines want to save some money, remove recline completely.
Aside from the fact that you're entering into a voluntary business
arrangement with the airline, and it's somewhat presumptuous to assume
that you're better aware of how they could save money than they are:When you're sitting down in a chair your upper body isn't taking up volume in the space going up vertically from your knees, so there's space for the seat in front of you to recline into that space.
So this suggestion doesn't make sense. It's not an either-or, maybe airlines would benefit from removing or reducing recline, but that's not mutually exclusive with saving money by reducing the space between seats.
I'm not in "physical pain" from the seats as they currently are. The key qualifier that you should add is "some" and replace "need" with "want", perhaps even "feel is necessary". Neither of which apply to me. I neither want more space, nor do I feel it is necessary for me in any way, hence why I suggested you change your view on the matter by adding the qualifier "some".
You should have a look at the term Public Cartel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel#Private_vs_public_cartel
I see this argument a lot of time but I still don't really know how exactly that redeems companies bad business practices and user hostility. What is the purpose of this argument? Saying that it's ok? If not, what else?
Also, what is the alternative? Use a cargo ship over seas? Choose from another 5 companies with same crappy business practices?
For the record, I'm 6'3" with rheumatoid arthritis, and I despise flying in coach. But I have to separate the irrationally perceived personal affront by the airlines from the reality of the situation: I am flying by choice. If I had a specific accessibility concern (and not a convenience or comfort one) the airline would accommodate me.
It's not supposed to redeem them, that's where you took a wrong turn.
>"What is the purpose of this argument? Saying that it's ok? If not, what else?"
I believe the purpose is to tell people to "relax, it'll solve itself", or perhaps: "relax, if there was no coercion, then this is precisely what the market wants, or is willing to bear"
It depends on where you're going. If it's an overseas trip, you could video conference or telecommute. If it's not, you could drive yourself or take a bus.
But the rest, I find no fault in. I doubt that disabled people really get forced into a business class ticket. Buy a regular ticket and get on the plane. If you can't use a normal seat, not your problem, get the airline to figure it out. I'm pretty sure that kicking you off the flight when you have a ticket just because you're disabled would violate the law pretty hard.
The more bags you have, the more you'll pay, whether it's for checking them in or for earlier boarding, or paying with time by getting your bags afterwards. I have no problem with people who use more paying more. If I bring no luggage, why should I pay the same as somebody who brings a bunch?
Plenty of places have tiered access to services, and airports have plenty of places to sit and eat and drink, so I don't see the big deal with airport lounge access. I've never actually been in one so maybe they're way nicer than I give them credit for.
I don't see how this stuff is either "dishonest" or "bad faith." "Dishonest" to me would be the time a flight was hours late even though the status board continued to say it was leaving on time. "Bad faith" to me would be the time my flight was canceled because of SARS and no effort was made to inform me before I showed up at the airport to discover nobody at the check-in counters. Thankfully, these don't happen too often.
http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/airfares/programs/economics_and_...
That shows 2014 has the highest CPI adjusted price since 2003 and the highest raw USD price going back as far as the data (1995).
Real prices have dropped 14% in the past 19 years, and have been basically flat since 2004, except for an obviously anomalous dip during the financial crisis (2009/2010). The prevailing trend lines are a steady drop of 1.7% per year from 1995-2004 and then a flat-line (.15% increase per year) 2004-2014. To go back a bit further, airfare dropped over 50% 1978-2006[1]. That is, the trend in the late '90s didn't start in '95.
So no, parent's comment isn't quite literally true (prices have gone up 1.5% in the last decade), but historically prices clearly trend down, which I think is the point.
[1] http://web.mit.edu/airlines/analysis/analysis_airline_indust...
We've established that. The data shows that flights this year were about 13% higher than at the lowest point, which was 2009 (recession). They are a little under 5% higher than the lowest point during the "mid 2000's". These numbers (~.25% increase per year over 10 years) are fairly insignificant when you look at the broader trends (>1% decrease per year over 3-4 decades).
"Fee to pick reasonable seats" means that people who prefer a lower price can pay less in exchange for getting worse seats, while people who insist on better seats have to pay.
"Fee to board at a reasonable time" either means that people with more carry-on luggage pay more, or it means that people who don't understand that being on the airplane earlier doesn't make you arrive earlier pay more for no reason. Either way, it's more opportunity for people who want to pay less to do so.
I'm not a big fan of airlines, but I don't see the problem with paying for optional services. Why should each ticket come with a free checked bag? Sure, it's nice when I'm actually checking luggage, but it means I've basically lost out on $25 (or whatever) on those occasions that I don't. Maybe you think, well, I never travel without checking a bag. But lots of people do, and there's no reason they should pay the same price when they don't need the same service.
Being on the plane, where I no longer need to be paying attention, is less stressful. That's not worth a lot to me, but it's not worthless.
On the topic more generally, my biggest objection to piling on the fees after the fact is a lack of price transparency - it makes it much more difficult to compare the same thing across airlines. Of course, that's a problem we could solve with software...
Price transparency is a problem, but not a huge one in my own experience (yours may, of course, vary). Airlines are rarely close enough in price for things like baggage fees to tip the scales, and when they are it's not too hard to see just what their policies are.
Agreed - that wasn't intended as an objection to paying, but as response to your implication that it was silly to want to. I understand that it wasn't intended very strongly; I was just sharing a view from the other side. I'd happily pay ten cents to board first. I wouldn't pay $100. Whether I'd take any given intermediate price depends on a lot of things...
"Price transparency is a problem, but not a huge one in my own experience (yours may, of course, vary). Airlines are rarely close enough in price for things like baggage fees to tip the scales, and when they are it's not too hard to see just what their policies are."
I've definitely spotted a case or two where different baggage fees made the difference as to which flight was cheaper, and even when I'm not looking for the absolute lowest price I'd like to know just how much I'm trading away against all the various other variables (time of day, number and length of layovers, past experiences with the airline, &c).
I imagine you've seen it, but Hipmunk at least takes a stab at balancing some of those issues into a single "agony" score you can sort by.
"Pay less" is how the airlines would like to phrase it, but as a consumer I care more about the comparison to what I paid yesterday. And today, if you're not paying for those services, you're actually paying the same amount that you used to. They're just charging other people more.
It's not like the prices went down when they converted these previously-free services into paid services. They just decided to start charging extra for something they used to give away for free and are busy enjoying the extra profit.
Sure, they're a business and they can charge whatever they want for whatever they want. But don't try and spin it as a win for the consumer so they can choose to pay less.
I do think baggage fees are a ripoff, and I don't pay for them. That doesn't mean that I have to like the fact that they've started charging for services that should be a part of normal service (like checking a bag the airplane has to fucking carry anyway). Nor does it mean that I have to believe their claims that it actually benefits me as a consumer to be nickled and dimed for everything I'm worth.
I'm surprised they haven't started charging more for seats that recline. Maybe that will be next.
[1]: http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/airfares/programs/economics_and_...
it's cheaper because more and more jobs require constant travel so they have much more of the good predative revenue. for example at work I've never seen a 300 mile trip for less than 350. ever. let alone the la-Chicago for 100 they mention in the article. that would look like a bug in my employee's booking system.
what they get from the rest is just icing.
so, convince yourself of that lie all you want. but the system continues to be awful and inefficient. only the demand changed. to their advantage.
Imagine what would happen if there was an airline that could set fixed prices for, let's say, the next 2 or 4 weeks. So you can search for a ticket price on the 1st of a month and it would be the same as on the last day of the month.
I know that this is probably not realistic since you can't just open up an airline like you can a startup, but it would be interesting if it was possible and see who gets a bigger revenue/piece of the pie: the airlines with the uber-sophisticated yield management systems, or the one that treats customers as people and not factors in an equation.
It's probably very difficult to even do the mental experiment, but I sure would be glad to see these kind of companies show up. I know there are already lots of companies that treat customers as their most valued asset instead of just a cash-cow, and almost in all cases that I can think of, these companies are doing great precisely because there's more and more people that want to be treated like people, and are willing to pay extra for that, instead of getting the lowest price and be kicked in the behind in the process.
And it's not only about the space, it's the service + luggage allowance + flexibility
For all the bad press about US inequality (and our health insurance system is a disaster) and for all our right-wing politics (the two-party system allows the authoritarian/psychotic 30% that every country has to gain a major foothold; EU loonies and racists are split between left and right but ours have been successfully corralled to right and "the base" of a major party) I will actually go on record to say that, at heart, Americans aren't very elitist or classist.
In other countries where the rich are held to be simply better people, and act with impunity, the rules are very different. See, the Midwestern neurosurgeon in the US is, in technical terms, not a fucking prick, so he doesn't mind sharing the lounge with a guy who bought a day pass. On the other hand, some lieutenant for a third-world despot, or some unionbusting murderer in a Chinese factory, is going to be pissed if he finds out that someone from economy class was let in to the lounge. So overseas, in countries where the rich are just a lot worse, a lot of lounges have no-day-pass policies.
You can bribe your way in, but that's icky. I have no problem with cheating a large corporation, but foreign airlines are pretty awful to lounge agents who are caught taking bribes.
Edit: please don't correct actual life experience with a quote from Wikipedia.
United Club is the name of their "first class" lounge, as people incorrectly refer to them. Those United Club Lounges have complimentary booze [1]. And no airline is going to allow a passenger to board who had obviously consumed the amount of alcohol you're referring to. I know: I practically lived at the T3 United Club lounge at O'Hare for many years, I was traveling so much. Not as much any more, but when I've been delayed significantly and I'm super-stressed because I'm speaking at a conference or something, I still occasionally get a day pass.
The United lounges you're referring to are considerably more elite, and most travelers don't even know they exist. Again, taken from actual experience and not a quick perusal of a Wikipedia article.
American's "Admiral's Club" [2] no longer offers complimentary liquor.
[1] http://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/travel/airport/loung...
[2] https://www.aa.com/i18n/travelInformation/airportAmenities/A...
If you read the wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Club it says you can buy access to United Club, but doesn't say that about the first class lounge. In fact it says:
"the access rules are significantly more restrictive than for United Club. Access to Global First Lounges is generally restricted to United Global First passengers, Star Alliance First Class customers, and Global Services passengers confirmed in Business Class."
In the first class lounge you get free food and drink including alcohol. If you could really get in for $50 a day, you could easily eat and drink that much worth.
No need to pay $50 a day, just buy a fully-flexible first class ticket and keep re-scheduling it:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/mad-mad-world/Chine...
Or just get an American Express card (Platinum, ideally - no additional fees) and net access to the Centurion lounge and all Delta lounges (when flying Delta).
The Centurion lounge is second-to-none domestically, and the Delta lounges aren't half-bad when it comes to the free booze (some are self-serve - Jack Daniels, Grey Goose, etc.)
United's clubs are a joke comparatively.
And they haven't reduced the fee even while losing Continental lounges when it was bought by United.
For my money, the Citi AAdvantage Executive card is a better similar card, because it now gives you access to all AA and USAirways lounges. While you're right that in my experience the Delta lounges are better (the only amex lounge I've been to is at mccarran), what matters most to me is a lounge in the cities i connect thru.
The Citi card is the same AF as the Amex Plat but Plat has policy of never waiving first year AF and Citi often has a promotion doing just that (or a portion of).
GS is a special invite status reserved for celebrities and high ranking politicians. My assumption is that they need that space so that they can load the person from the tarmac or have them check out of the airport. Thats speculation, but those individuals do have different needs from an airline. [Also onboarding needs as well as that they don't enter from the jetway]
I started using airport lounges when I joined LoungeBuddy (since I had no idea it's even a thing worth checking out before), and it's definitely is a much better experience.
(disclosure - I do iOS work at LoungeBuddy and we pretty much have all the information on all the lounges on the entire planet, including access rules and entry price of they offer walk ups etc. http://www.loungebuddy.com/ )
You can also buy the membership, or apply for the credit card that gets you the membership as a miscellaneous benefit.
Less enlightened? Wow, I don't even know what to say to that. Even if you're just referring to their louge policy that's a pretty strange turn of phrase, but I doubt that was the implication.