mikybee93

No it hasn't. Airline prices have trended downwards over time.

And it's also not a coincidence that flights have gotten cheaper across the board.

Airlines have, as a whole, found that it's more profitable to sell cheaper crappy seats than it is to sell more expensive nice seats, because nobody will buy the nice seats given the option.

If someone had superior seats, why would they charge the same amount?

What I'm trying to say is that if someone comes out with a crappier seat, they will have to charge less than a normal seat. If they choose not to, they won't be able to get people into those standing seats.

When a company comes out with a crappier car, do they charge the same amount as a standard car? Does the price of that standard car rise, now that there's a crappy car at its price point?

That isn't what has happened historically, in this market or in others. I don't know why so many people seem to expect this to happen now.

If Delta decides to implement these seats and then charge 2x as much for the current seats, United will choose not to and nobody will fly Delta unless they absolutely have to.

Competition keeps this sort of thing from happening.

Apparently they have over 180 million passengers a year[0]. That means that, at most, they're making $7 per passenger. It's not like they're gouging their customers.

[0]https://news.delta.com/corporate-stats-and-facts

>And assuming they don’t just move in lock-step with their other competitors and make these new seats the default

Well then they wouldn't be competitors, would they? That's another problem.

Any single airline could disrupt the system by choosing not to install these and to keep their prices the same. Or choosing to install these and lower their prices. Which are two good things for consumers.

Like I replied above, that's basic economics of competition.

But in order for that to work, every single airline would have to do that together, holding hands. Because there are multiple airlines, a single airline could choose not to install them and keep their current prices for seats and outcompete those who do install these. I mean, that's basic economics of competition.

I don't think anyone suggested that all seats are going to be replaced by these.

This makes no sense to me. Airlines are adding another option that is cheaper. How is that a bad thing? If I don't want the cheaper option, another airline will offer me a more comfortable one and I'll pay for it. What is there to be upset about here?

That's silly. You could also say that humans don't really deserve praise since our motives are ultimately guided by our self interest. We only do things to make ourselves feel good, or make ourselves look better. I think that companies have many paths towards self preservation, and that choosing the paths that lead to a better world deserve praise regardless of motive.

This is talked about by Scott Alexander of Slate Star Codex here: http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/06/06/against-tulip-subsidies...

The idea of there being too many jobs that require degrees (but really don't utilize them) is touched on, and the proposed solution is for positions to not be allowed to ask for degree status. Instead, they would have to test for aptitude. The whole article is worth a read.

I think that should be why you don't read youtube comments, and have nothing to do with reddit.

Look at the comments on the post from reddit instead: https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/8nk31a/latvian_fire...

Not quite. I could say "I support colonizing mars" and "I support the colonization of mars" and those both mean the same thing, don't they? I'm not actively participating in either of those acts, am I?

I think a lot of it is implicit and context based. And maybe it's even based on personal interpretation, but even in your examples, I see those two sentences meaning the same thing.