Hacker News Reader

Disabled people do not have to buy first class tickets. I am disabled, and often am seated in the very back of the airplane. There is a narrow aisle chair (a very skinny wheelchair) to help people get into the plane and through a plane's aisles. Airline agents at the gate often nicely switch my seats closer to the front of the plane, but not to first class. You are claiming some things that absolutely aren't true, here.

I don't think the comment author claimed that disabled people have to travel first class, but that some people with disabilities choose to travel business or first class because travelling in economy is too painful / not practical.

Right. I wasn't saying that everyone with a disability had to travel first class. There are various different kinds of disability.

"if you're only getting 1.5-2x as much space, it doesn't seem fair that you'd have to pay 10x prices"

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.

I don't think that it's dynamic pricing that makes people hate the airlines. It's the rash of bad-faith activity around the dynamic pricing.

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.

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.

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.

User canvia posted information about this in another tree [0][1]. I think a good summary would be decreasing prices up until about 2003, when they seem to level out around the high $300's, with an apparently exceptional drop in years 2009-2010.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8752643 [1] http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/airfares/programs/economics_and_...

To be fair, they're not forcing anyone into anything. As much as I loathe handing over my money to airlines - an experience I sometimes have to face three times a month - they are a for-profit commercial enterprise with no requirements for how they operate beyond government-imposed ones.

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."

There should be a government imposed minimum seat pitch. The current distance between the back of one seat and the front of another is too small for the top 10% in terms of height of the population, disabled people, and older people.

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.

Then what happens is you effectively impose a surcharge on the 90% of the population who do not need a larger seat pitch, which hardly seems fair either.

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.

Older people and disabled people make up a measured percentage as well. So less than 90%. Additionally everyone benefits from more seat pitch, even if just to allow them to more easily use things like a laptop in economy (which is not viable now if the person in front of you reclines fully).

> 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.

>"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."

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".

> 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.

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.

Indeed. Everyone says they want legroom! then everyone goes on the internet and just buys whatever's cheapest. Same with people who talk about workers rights then go shop at Primark.

I think a part of this, though, is that everything is geared toward comparing only price. I don't fly often enough to have a good sense of what airlines are going to genuinely be more comfortable, so I weigh more heavily the thing I'm more certain of. That doesn't mean I wouldn't be willing to pay more for a more comfortable flight.

That would increase airlines' cost per-seat-mile, which will increase the average ticket costs for the majority of the public and decrease seat availability (and result in the cancellation of marginal routes).

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?

When all airlines have the same tiny seats and no alternative that isn't 5-10x more expensive, that is collusion, not competition.

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.

> all considerations

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.

Again, the market does a terrible job of making such considerations visible because not enough consumers care. It's not like online travel agencies don't want to distinguish themselves or airlines don't want people to know they're operating A380s

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.

>"When all airlines have the same tiny seats and no alternative that isn't 5-10x more expensive, that is collusion, not competition."

You should have a look at the term Public Cartel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel#Private_vs_public_cartel

Many airlines offer seats with a few inches more legroom for a modest increase in price. If you want more room, pay for it. Despite your protest to the contrary, you can.

> To be fair, they're not forcing anyone into anything.

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?

It's offensive behavior, to be certain. But unless it's legislated otherwise, it's "okay", yes.

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.

> Also, what is the alternative? Use a cargo ship over seas? Choose from another 5 companies with same crappy business practices?

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.

Or a train.

In the US? Hah. I once looked up the time it would take to take a train from Seattle to Chicago. Three days, one way. I would have to spend a week vacation just traveling to and from my destination. The flight between those two cities is four hours. Trains in the US are substitutes for driving, not flying.

There are other countries.

>"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."

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"

Non-transferability is the only one on your list that upsets me. That's some annoying crap.

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.

"Uber shit" is having a single transparent price that fluctuates with market forces. That's not remotely what airlines do.

Airlines (Soviet service and morale, capitalistic price fluctuation) are a perfect microcosm of corporate capitalism, which exists to give the worst of both systems (that is, capitalism and socialism) to the masses and the best of both (social safety net/impunity of socialism, extreme upside of capitalism) to a well-connected elite (often called "the 1%", but closer to 0.1%).

Considering airfares are the cheapest they've ever been in the US, I don't know how that's even remotely true. More of "the masses" are able to fly than ever before.

it's not cheap because the system works.

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.

You're not looking very hard, and you're seeing discount hub connections. It's incredibly easy to get a 600$+ ticket for that many miles. [I'm not talking about business or first class tickets.] The cheapest you can go is about $60 on advanced LA-SFO OW tickets. (Outside of Southwest or the discount flights).

I just looked at round trip tickets LAX->RDU for $329 on a direct flight. Flying is cheap.

How far ahead and what days are you traveling and how many days apart is your start and return trip. I fly RDU -> SFO regularly. If I'm 21 days out and my trip is 3 days or more I can get it for $500 - $600. If I reduce it to 2 nights it goes up to nearly $1000. So "cheap" tickets still exist but they're much harder to find than they used to be.

This was for mid january, so about 4 weeks out. Leaving on a Friday and returning on Monday.

nobody goes on work trips fri-mon :)

You sure about that?

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).

That's a deeply misleading summary of the data. The table excluding inflation is meaningless in the context of parent's comment, so I won't even touch that.

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...

Airfares are most definitely higher than they were in the mid 2000's. The global recession saw a big cut back in capacity and that capacity hasn't been added back in to the system to offset the ever stronger economy. Flights are fuller than they've been in a long time meaning higher fares etc.

How much of that is down to taxes and fuel prices? Oil has dropped recently but for most of the past 5-6 years it's been much much higher than it was back then.

> Airfares are most definitely higher than they were in the mid 2000's

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).

Yes, I was referring to airfares over the past few decades, not the recent past.

Even if that's true, that would ignore all the new fees for services you used to get for free. Some new fees you now have the pleasure of paying: - Fee to check even one bag. You used to be able to check at least one under a certain size for free. - Fee to pick reasonable seats on many flights. Those isle and window seats are available, and they can be yours for only $10! - Fee to board at a reasonable time. Otherwise you're stuck at group 5, which is really group ~15 after the platinum, executive platinum, star, super star, golden star, etc. groups that go before group 1, which you can pay an extra $10 to join!

"Fee to check even one bag" means that people traveling with small amounts of luggage can pay less.

"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.

"people who don't understand that being on the airplane earlier doesn't make you arrive earlier pay more for no reason"

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...

Well then if it's worth something to you then it should be worth paying for.

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.

"Well then if it's worth something to you then it should be worth paying for."

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).

Trying to wrangle all the other variables is interesting. I don't think we can blame the airlines for much of that, but it doesn't ultimately matter whose fault it is, we have to figure it out anyway.

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.

> "Fee to check even one bag" means that people traveling with small amounts of luggage can pay less.

"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.

Airline tickets are cheaper than they have ever been. And there's pretty decent variety in what gets included in the ticket price versus what's an extra fee, so if you feel that baggage fees are a ripoff, pick an airline that includes a checked bag with your ticket.

From a link posted above[1], the Department of Transportation Statistics would seem to disagree with your assertion about ticket prices. Someone simply dismissed it as "misleading," but that wasn't exactly convincing. Especially since as a consumer, I care about the average fare I'm having to pay.

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_...

This sounds like this would be fertile grounds for an airline to be disruptive.

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.

It's actually pretty easy to open an airline, all things considered. You don't need that much capital, since you can lease the planes. And you get your fare revenue before you render the service---ie an inherently cash flow positive business.

I wonder if we're confusing cause and effect here. Are half of those first class seats upgrades because they couldn't be sold? Or are they priced at such an exorbitant price and manipulated to ensure half remain free to reward high revenue frequent fliers? You seem to be implying the latter.

Sometimes you can get a business class by a nice price (something like 1.5x a regular ticket), it depends

And it's not only about the space, it's the service + luggage allowance + flexibility

I've had a first-class upgrade be only $15 more than the checked bag fee. One should always check the price and compare it to the fees they are expecting to pay anyway.

and using the short lines at the airport, and the lounge.

People buy first class tickets just for the lounges? Usually, you can just pay $30 or so for a day pass to a lounge.

$30 for a day pass to a first class lounge? I can't believe that at all. Can you show me which airports and lounges offer that because I'm going to take them up on it.

Um... All airports with United or American lounges? It's $50 a day, though. With American, they actively try to sell you a day pass on their in-airport check-in terminals.

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...

That's United Club - that's not the first class lounge at all.

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.

> If you could really get in for $50 a day, you could easily eat and drink that much worth.

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.

That card is $400 a year.

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).

But on the other hand, with that $400 you also get free Global Entry & PreCheck, $200 of airline incidentals per year (in-air food, baggage overages, upgrades, whatever), unlimited free companion tickets when you purchase tickets for yourself via their concierge service, free gold/elite status with most major car rental and hotel chains, and whatever other non-travel benefits there are. For frequent travelers it can pretty easily pay for itself.

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...

Why has this been downvoted?

Some downvotes are accidental. They're usually corrected by other people.

That's because they're a huge international airline and they have to keep things kosher.

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]

Global Services is just a set of people who spend a ton of money on United. It's not only people who have interesting personal security requirements.

GS folks board normally, though sometimes will get called by name to board first. GS is invited essentially on revenue only (though perhaps special people have special handling). If your spend is above $50k, you probably have a fair chance of getting invited to GS.

United Clubs simply aren't first class lounges. Just because a true fact is on Wikipedia doesn't make it less true. Also the complimentary booze has been pretty cut back and they now charge bar-like prices for many items. In general their service level for first class passengers in their main region seems to be declining (particularly the in flight meals-I've had stuff I'd send back at a burger king).

yeah, I've seen $30 for a day pass for your guest when you've got a fancy membership, and Delta day-pass rates tend to be closer to $50 (similar to the rates they have here -- https://www.delta.com/skyclub/purchasemembership_performRequ... -- but you need to buy it associated with a ticket somehow so the only rates listed are bulk rates).

You can also buy the membership, or apply for the credit card that gets you the membership as a miscellaneous benefit.

It varies by country.

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.

They call it VIP lounge, not first:

https://www.prioritypass.com/

That's a different class of lounge. They're tiered, Priority Pass is partnering with the lowest tier willing to accept their pricing.

Lounges can be between $30 - $100-ish depending on location, quality, amenities etc. There are lots of really great lounges that can be had without expensive flight tickets - http://www.plaza-network.com/ it's interesting that most people don't know about independent lounge providers. These lounges have massages, showers, tasty food, etc. For people who don't travel enough to warrant a membership but still wants a nice experience it's pretty awesome.

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/ )

In the US, you can. In less enlightened countries, that's not the case. Of course, for a 2-hour domestic flight, the lounge is just a perk rather than a necessity.

The lounge really has nothing to do with the length of the flight, rather, it's the length of the layover. Though I suppose you mean as compared to an international lounge where the hot shower is desirable.

Now THOSE lounges are worth some self-righteous envy. I had the pleasure of using one a few years back. Did wonders for my feeling like a herd animal for my second leg.

> In less enlightened countries, that's not the case.

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.

Relax, it's a joke.

There's a difference between the regular lounge anyone can buy day passes/memberships to, and the premium-class lounges for international flights. Access to the former does not get you access to the latter; typically, only an actual premium-class international ticket for that day, or possessing top-tier frequent-flier status in the airline or alliance, gets you into those.

Lounge tickets are valued at about $25, because thats where the market puts them at. The lounges charge $50 or better at the door.

Jet Blue mint is $599 from jfk to sfo or lax. I commend them for only pricing the premium experience at 2-3x.