Fly the Fairly-Priced (and Safe) Skies
Here's a quick litmus test to see whether someone subscribes to a reality-based theory of economics or languishes in a wishful-thinking la-la land.
Which is better:
A. An airline that "oppresses" its passengers by imposing service-specific fees (second checked bag, curbside check-in, forward economy seat, child flying alone, etc.), clearly identified surcharges (most notably for fuel), fewer flights and more crowded planes, or
B. An airline that "oppresses" no one — because it's bankrupt.
If you chose Option A, then you are a reality-based capitalist — congratulations. If you sit around kvetching about how there ought to be an Option C, then you are a La-La Lander. Good luck — you'll need it. (If you chose Option B, then you're just a pathetic sociopath who warrants no further consideration.)
"A la carte" fees for air travel are a perfectly sensible and hardly oppressive pricing system. Why should every passenger pay for a service that only a fraction use? How is forcing some passengers to subsidize others not itself the "oppressive system"? If you disagree, then why not take the next logical step and charge people (perhaps via taxes) for not flying at all, in order to subsidize those who do? (Oops — never mind.)
---
As for the FAA-AMR debacle, let's keep some hasty stitches in mind:
(a) This is not a case of "fixing faulty wiring" on hundreds of "unsafe" planes. American insists (and there is no reason to doubt them) that there is no cognizable safety risk whatsoever. The company is merely capitulating to FAA (and media) paranoia in the wake of a scandal at the bureaucracy itself, catalyzed by a notoriously activist politician, Representative Jim Oberstar, seeking gratuitous headlines to look impressive to his ignoranti constituents.
(b) Speaking of which, the last time I checked the FAA was the government. To call this national headache a "market failure" due to "greedy capitalists" is the height of self-delusional policy hysteria.
---
*Regarding the bankruptcies, it's worth noting that ATA avoided shutting down as long as it did only by sucking at the military's teat. Skybus, meanwhile, was run by a gaggle of incompetent jackasses who thought they could make money by selling tickets for $10 (and $57 million in taxpayer money — how Amtrak of them). Good bye and good riddance.
But large, well-run companies can go under too, if they become unwilling — or unable — to run their businesses rationally. "Kick'em when they're down" is a federal air travel policy that could only make sense to a moron like Jim "airports to nowhere" Oberstar.
UPDATE: More on Oberstar from the Wall Street Journal.
Which is better:
A. An airline that "oppresses" its passengers by imposing service-specific fees (second checked bag, curbside check-in, forward economy seat, child flying alone, etc.), clearly identified surcharges (most notably for fuel), fewer flights and more crowded planes, or
B. An airline that "oppresses" no one — because it's bankrupt.
If you chose Option A, then you are a reality-based capitalist — congratulations. If you sit around kvetching about how there ought to be an Option C, then you are a La-La Lander. Good luck — you'll need it. (If you chose Option B, then you're just a pathetic sociopath who warrants no further consideration.)
"A la carte" fees for air travel are a perfectly sensible and hardly oppressive pricing system. Why should every passenger pay for a service that only a fraction use? How is forcing some passengers to subsidize others not itself the "oppressive system"? If you disagree, then why not take the next logical step and charge people (perhaps via taxes) for not flying at all, in order to subsidize those who do? (Oops — never mind.)
---
As for the FAA-AMR debacle, let's keep some hasty stitches in mind:
(a) This is not a case of "fixing faulty wiring" on hundreds of "unsafe" planes. American insists (and there is no reason to doubt them) that there is no cognizable safety risk whatsoever. The company is merely capitulating to FAA (and media) paranoia in the wake of a scandal at the bureaucracy itself, catalyzed by a notoriously activist politician, Representative Jim Oberstar, seeking gratuitous headlines to look impressive to his ignoranti constituents.
(b) Speaking of which, the last time I checked the FAA was the government. To call this national headache a "market failure" due to "greedy capitalists" is the height of self-delusional policy hysteria.
---
*Regarding the bankruptcies, it's worth noting that ATA avoided shutting down as long as it did only by sucking at the military's teat. Skybus, meanwhile, was run by a gaggle of incompetent jackasses who thought they could make money by selling tickets for $10 (and $57 million in taxpayer money — how Amtrak of them). Good bye and good riddance.
But large, well-run companies can go under too, if they become unwilling — or unable — to run their businesses rationally. "Kick'em when they're down" is a federal air travel policy that could only make sense to a moron like Jim "airports to nowhere" Oberstar.
UPDATE: More on Oberstar from the Wall Street Journal.
Related Posts (on one page):
Posted by Kip on
10 April 2008
Feel free to post as a Guest. You do not need to provide a valid email address. Comments are open for fourteen days only. All comments are subject to editing or deletion. There is a 2000-character limit for comments; lengthy multi-part comments are NOT permitted; you should email me such responses instead. Please note that time constraints preclude me from replying to most comments, although I do try to reply to all emails.
Also, what about the seats that are emergency exit seats? It seems a bit unfair to impose an additional fee on the people who get those seats if it is based on the presence of additional leg room. They also have (highly theoretical) roles they are expected to perform in an emergency.
Minor quibbles. I agree. I actually think the populist reactions against airlines are pretty laughable, given the economic realities they confront. Southwest's foresight in oil is particularly admirable.
If I go to a salon for a men's haircut, I pay less than someone who gets a cut, a color, and a manicure. No one complains about this.
Yet I should pay the same ticket price as someone who receives more services from an airline? Why?
It doesn't cost the airline any more to carry two suitcases than it does to carry one suitcase. What does cost them more is carrying additional weight. If this was truly about capitalism they would charge passengers for suitcases by the pound, not by the each.
For that matter, heavier passengers cost more to transport than lighter passengers, so why aren't they charging passengers by the pound? Why should I have to subsidize the cost of moving the other guy's fat ass from one city to another?
[Kip replies: You're not thinking dynamically. Perhaps the base fares didn't go up as much as they would have, thanks to a la carte pricing.
The biggest cost of a second checked bag is the baggae handler (who, incidentally, is unionized), not the added fuel. (And there are indeed weight and size limits on bags as well.)
Several airlines require obese passengers to pay for two seats.]
There is a practically zero chance that the exit-row passengers will be called upon to perform these duties, and there is no real basis for determining who is qualified (especially mentally) to perform those duties.
That said, since nearly every passenger wants to sit in an exit row and enjoy the extra leg room, there is an excess of demand over supply if prices aren't allowed to vary. I gladly pay more for exit-row seats when they are available. The airlines aren't "imposing an additional fee on the people who get those seats," they're charging extra for the people who want those seats.