Fly the Friendly Skies...

Discuss H&R posts and other Reason articles here.
User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 20276
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by Jennifer » 18 Apr 2017, 23:14

JasonL wrote:Consumer sat is maximized at infinite value for zero cost.
If consumers all expected to fly for free, or if, conversely, consumers who were involuntarily bumped off flights never incurred costs as a result, that quip would be far more compelling. With the current airline status quo, though, the rule is "Consumer sat is minimized at zero value, yet they still pay the cost of the ticket which might or might not actually allow them to fly, depending on the airline's convenience."
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
JD
Posts: 9543
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:26

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by JD » 18 Apr 2017, 23:17

nicole wrote:Some customers prefer ultra-cheap air travel, but the real issue is that airlines prefer a price that maximizes profits, not the satisfaction of individual consumers. And I happen to be an individual consumer, not an airline or a collective.
To the airline, you are a collective. And I think the point is that overall, consumers do prefer ultra-cheap air travel, as expressed by their actual behavior. I mean, if you want first class or whatever, it is there...and yet most people don't choose it.

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 20770
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by Mo » 18 Apr 2017, 23:34

JD wrote:
nicole wrote:Some customers prefer ultra-cheap air travel, but the real issue is that airlines prefer a price that maximizes profits, not the satisfaction of individual consumers. And I happen to be an individual consumer, not an airline or a collective.
To the airline, you are a collective. And I think the point is that overall, consumers do prefer ultra-cheap air travel, as expressed by their actual behavior. I mean, if you want first class or whatever, it is there...and yet most people don't choose it.
Though I have noticed that it's getting close to impossible to buy an Economy Plus upgrade right at check-in, which indicates that people are paying for it now that it's a separate fare class.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 7369
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by nicole » 19 Apr 2017, 08:19

JasonL wrote:Consumer sat is maximized at infinite value for zero cost.
But "value" means something different for each of them.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Privilege is having large phones fit into the garments that society expects you to wear." -Dangerman

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 7369
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by nicole » 19 Apr 2017, 08:20

JD wrote:
nicole wrote:Some customers prefer ultra-cheap air travel, but the real issue is that airlines prefer a price that maximizes profits, not the satisfaction of individual consumers. And I happen to be an individual consumer, not an airline or a collective.
To the airline, you are a collective. And I think the point is that overall, consumers do prefer ultra-cheap air travel, as expressed by their actual behavior. I mean, if you want first class or whatever, it is there...and yet most people don't choose it.
Right, but I don't give a shit about "most people." In many market circumstances, what "most people" want isn't what I want, therefore "most people" and their "collective" preferences are making my life worse.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Privilege is having large phones fit into the garments that society expects you to wear." -Dangerman

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 7369
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by nicole » 19 Apr 2017, 08:24

Mo wrote:
JD wrote:
nicole wrote:Some customers prefer ultra-cheap air travel, but the real issue is that airlines prefer a price that maximizes profits, not the satisfaction of individual consumers. And I happen to be an individual consumer, not an airline or a collective.
To the airline, you are a collective. And I think the point is that overall, consumers do prefer ultra-cheap air travel, as expressed by their actual behavior. I mean, if you want first class or whatever, it is there...and yet most people don't choose it.
Though I have noticed that it's getting close to impossible to buy an Economy Plus upgrade right at check-in, which indicates that people are paying for it now that it's a separate fare class.
Economy Plus is a great example of the kind of thing I'm talking about. Most people want more legroom on planes. I don't. I'd pay more for some other option, like a quiet plane or zone, or a different shape of headrest/shorter seat back. But other people's preferences make what I want relatively unprofitable, while making something idgaf about profitable.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Privilege is having large phones fit into the garments that society expects you to wear." -Dangerman

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 20800
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by JasonL » 19 Apr 2017, 08:24

My eyes are rolling. Of course the market doesn't provide exactly everything every individual person would want when they want at the price they want. That's never been the argument. There is a solution for you - buy your own jet or go netjets. That business model is you get exactly what you want with no tradeoffs.

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 7369
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by nicole » 19 Apr 2017, 09:37

JasonL wrote:My eyes are rolling. Of course the market doesn't provide exactly everything every individual person would want when they want at the price they want. That's never been the argument. There is a solution for you - buy your own jet or go netjets. That business model is you get exactly what you want with no tradeoffs.
"That's never been the argument" except when McArdle was trying to tell me to stop complaining because the situation was what I wanted?
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Privilege is having large phones fit into the garments that society expects you to wear." -Dangerman

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 21474
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by Warren » 19 Apr 2017, 09:49

nicole wrote:
JasonL wrote:My eyes are rolling. Of course the market doesn't provide exactly everything every individual person would want when they want at the price they want. That's never been the argument. There is a solution for you - buy your own jet or go netjets. That business model is you get exactly what you want with no tradeoffs.
"That's never been the argument" except when McArdle was trying to tell me to stop complaining because the situation was what I wanted?
Stop. She spelled out her point.
Women with strollers are legitimately the worst people, and should, like motorcyclists, not be considered people for liability and criminal purposes. - lunchstealer

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 20800
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by JasonL » 19 Apr 2017, 09:55

nicole wrote:
JasonL wrote:My eyes are rolling. Of course the market doesn't provide exactly everything every individual person would want when they want at the price they want. That's never been the argument. There is a solution for you - buy your own jet or go netjets. That business model is you get exactly what you want with no tradeoffs.
"That's never been the argument" except when McArdle was trying to tell me to stop complaining because the situation was what I wanted?
She was telling you that in the aggregate that's what the consumers prefer to higher prices or other tradeoffs they've tried. She was telling you that to make the argument that an airline "shouldn't be allowed" to overbook is to shine a light on a narrow case without taking into account the idea that more people find overbooking more flexible all things considered. You can buy your way into unbumpability. Buy business class or first class. You aint' getting bumped.

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 7369
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by nicole » 19 Apr 2017, 10:22

JasonL wrote:
nicole wrote:
JasonL wrote:My eyes are rolling. Of course the market doesn't provide exactly everything every individual person would want when they want at the price they want. That's never been the argument. There is a solution for you - buy your own jet or go netjets. That business model is you get exactly what you want with no tradeoffs.
"That's never been the argument" except when McArdle was trying to tell me to stop complaining because the situation was what I wanted?
She was telling you that in the aggregate that's what the consumers prefer to higher prices or other tradeoffs they've tried. She was telling you that to make the argument that an airline "shouldn't be allowed" to overbook is to shine a light on a narrow case without taking into account the idea that more people find overbooking more flexible all things considered. You can buy your way into unbumpability. Buy business class or first class. You aint' getting bumped.
Yeah, and I'm saying this is a terrible argument. The reason people want regulation is because they don't like the aggregate revealed preferences of their neighbors.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Privilege is having large phones fit into the garments that society expects you to wear." -Dangerman

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 21474
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by Warren » 19 Apr 2017, 10:59

nicole wrote:
JasonL wrote:
nicole wrote:
JasonL wrote:My eyes are rolling. Of course the market doesn't provide exactly everything every individual person would want when they want at the price they want. That's never been the argument. There is a solution for you - buy your own jet or go netjets. That business model is you get exactly what you want with no tradeoffs.
"That's never been the argument" except when McArdle was trying to tell me to stop complaining because the situation was what I wanted?
She was telling you that in the aggregate that's what the consumers prefer to higher prices or other tradeoffs they've tried. She was telling you that to make the argument that an airline "shouldn't be allowed" to overbook is to shine a light on a narrow case without taking into account the idea that more people find overbooking more flexible all things considered. You can buy your way into unbumpability. Buy business class or first class. You aint' getting bumped.
Yeah, and I'm saying this is a terrible argument. The reason people want regulation is because they don't like the aggregate revealed preferences of their neighbors.
You'd rather be subjected to the iron fist of bureaucrats than the invisible hand of the market? I'd advise you to take more care with what you wish for.
Women with strollers are legitimately the worst people, and should, like motorcyclists, not be considered people for liability and criminal purposes. - lunchstealer

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 20800
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by JasonL » 19 Apr 2017, 12:43

Right. You have to ask "compared to what". Some people look at the cereal aisle and see tremendous waste. I see tremendous nuance in meeting consumer demands.

Airlines are big capital things with tons more regulation and expensive to fuel so ... it's hard. Still and all there are value carriers, the Southwest cattle call if you like that, tiered experiences for frequent fliers, points programs, lounges etc. I'm not saying the market is optimized nor that a given route has tons of competition, but saying it should be a utility is a very extreme response that presumes The One Experience is the one you want, which it won't be.

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 7369
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by nicole » 19 Apr 2017, 13:06

Warren wrote:
nicole wrote:
JasonL wrote:
nicole wrote:
JasonL wrote:My eyes are rolling. Of course the market doesn't provide exactly everything every individual person would want when they want at the price they want. That's never been the argument. There is a solution for you - buy your own jet or go netjets. That business model is you get exactly what you want with no tradeoffs.
"That's never been the argument" except when McArdle was trying to tell me to stop complaining because the situation was what I wanted?
She was telling you that in the aggregate that's what the consumers prefer to higher prices or other tradeoffs they've tried. She was telling you that to make the argument that an airline "shouldn't be allowed" to overbook is to shine a light on a narrow case without taking into account the idea that more people find overbooking more flexible all things considered. You can buy your way into unbumpability. Buy business class or first class. You aint' getting bumped.
Yeah, and I'm saying this is a terrible argument. The reason people want regulation is because they don't like the aggregate revealed preferences of their neighbors.
You'd rather be subjected to the iron fist of bureaucrats than the invisible hand of the market? I'd advise you to take more care with what you wish for.
I'd advise you to work on your reading comprehension.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Privilege is having large phones fit into the garments that society expects you to wear." -Dangerman

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 17379
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 19 Apr 2017, 13:08

JasonL wrote: You can buy your way into unbumpability. Buy business class or first class. You aint' getting bumped.
NSFW


User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6729
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by fyodor » 19 Apr 2017, 13:12

nicole wrote:
JasonL wrote:
nicole wrote:
JasonL wrote:My eyes are rolling. Of course the market doesn't provide exactly everything every individual person would want when they want at the price they want. That's never been the argument. There is a solution for you - buy your own jet or go netjets. That business model is you get exactly what you want with no tradeoffs.
"That's never been the argument" except when McArdle was trying to tell me to stop complaining because the situation was what I wanted?
She was telling you that in the aggregate that's what the consumers prefer to higher prices or other tradeoffs they've tried. She was telling you that to make the argument that an airline "shouldn't be allowed" to overbook is to shine a light on a narrow case without taking into account the idea that more people find overbooking more flexible all things considered. You can buy your way into unbumpability. Buy business class or first class. You aint' getting bumped.
Yeah, and I'm saying this is a terrible argument. The reason people want regulation is because they don't like the aggregate revealed preferences of their neighbors.
But you are part of the aggregate that is composed of you and your neighbors. When you and your neighbors is a very large number, what you personally want inevitably becomes a smaller factor.

At worst it seems to me you're complaining about messaging rather than the argument per se. There's definitely some unpacking to do when people don't recognize certainly aspects of how the market works, and I don't know if any of us knows the best wording for getting people to understand.

That said, I think rather than simply saying you want this, it might be a little better to stress the paradoxically aggregate nature of demand, as well as pointing out that what aggregate revealed preference tells business isn't only what customers want but also what customers are willing to put up with.
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 21474
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by Warren » 19 Apr 2017, 13:17

nicole wrote:
Warren wrote:
nicole wrote:
JasonL wrote:
nicole wrote:
JasonL wrote:My eyes are rolling. Of course the market doesn't provide exactly everything every individual person would want when they want at the price they want. That's never been the argument. There is a solution for you - buy your own jet or go netjets. That business model is you get exactly what you want with no tradeoffs.
"That's never been the argument" except when McArdle was trying to tell me to stop complaining because the situation was what I wanted?
She was telling you that in the aggregate that's what the consumers prefer to higher prices or other tradeoffs they've tried. She was telling you that to make the argument that an airline "shouldn't be allowed" to overbook is to shine a light on a narrow case without taking into account the idea that more people find overbooking more flexible all things considered. You can buy your way into unbumpability. Buy business class or first class. You aint' getting bumped.
Yeah, and I'm saying this is a terrible argument. The reason people want regulation is because they don't like the aggregate revealed preferences of their neighbors.
You'd rather be subjected to the iron fist of bureaucrats than the invisible hand of the market? I'd advise you to take more care with what you wish for.
I'd advise you to work on your reading comprehension.
What did I miss?
Women with strollers are legitimately the worst people, and should, like motorcyclists, not be considered people for liability and criminal purposes. - lunchstealer

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 7369
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by nicole » 19 Apr 2017, 13:25

fyodor wrote:
nicole wrote:
JasonL wrote:
nicole wrote:
JasonL wrote:My eyes are rolling. Of course the market doesn't provide exactly everything every individual person would want when they want at the price they want. That's never been the argument. There is a solution for you - buy your own jet or go netjets. That business model is you get exactly what you want with no tradeoffs.
"That's never been the argument" except when McArdle was trying to tell me to stop complaining because the situation was what I wanted?
She was telling you that in the aggregate that's what the consumers prefer to higher prices or other tradeoffs they've tried. She was telling you that to make the argument that an airline "shouldn't be allowed" to overbook is to shine a light on a narrow case without taking into account the idea that more people find overbooking more flexible all things considered. You can buy your way into unbumpability. Buy business class or first class. You aint' getting bumped.
Yeah, and I'm saying this is a terrible argument. The reason people want regulation is because they don't like the aggregate revealed preferences of their neighbors.
But you are part of the aggregate that is composed of you and your neighbors. When you and your neighbors is a very large number, what you personally want inevitably becomes a smaller factor.

At worst it seems to me you're complaining about messaging rather than the argument per se. There's definitely some unpacking to do when people don't recognize certainly aspects of how the market works, and I don't know if any of us knows the best wording for getting people to understand.

That said, I think rather than simply saying you want this, it might be a little better to stress the paradoxically aggregate nature of demand, as well as pointing out that what aggregate revealed preference tells business isn't only what customers want but also what customers are willing to put up with.
This.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Privilege is having large phones fit into the garments that society expects you to wear." -Dangerman

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 7369
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by nicole » 19 Apr 2017, 13:26

Warren wrote: What did I miss?
That I never called for regulation?
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Privilege is having large phones fit into the garments that society expects you to wear." -Dangerman

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 21474
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by Warren » 19 Apr 2017, 13:31

Sorry I thought you were.
nicole wrote:Yeah, and I'm saying this is a terrible argument. The reason people want regulation is because they don't like the aggregate revealed preferences of their neighbors.
But I guess you were trying to make a point about YOU and WE?

But then you're wrong. I see no evidence that the aggregate of people want regulation because they don't like the aggregate revealed preferences of their neighbors. People want property rights. If they pay for the seat, they're entitled to the seat.
Women with strollers are legitimately the worst people, and should, like motorcyclists, not be considered people for liability and criminal purposes. - lunchstealer

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6729
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by fyodor » 19 Apr 2017, 13:34

nicole wrote:
fyodor wrote:
nicole wrote:
JasonL wrote:
nicole wrote:
JasonL wrote:My eyes are rolling. Of course the market doesn't provide exactly everything every individual person would want when they want at the price they want. That's never been the argument. There is a solution for you - buy your own jet or go netjets. That business model is you get exactly what you want with no tradeoffs.
"That's never been the argument" except when McArdle was trying to tell me to stop complaining because the situation was what I wanted?
She was telling you that in the aggregate that's what the consumers prefer to higher prices or other tradeoffs they've tried. She was telling you that to make the argument that an airline "shouldn't be allowed" to overbook is to shine a light on a narrow case without taking into account the idea that more people find overbooking more flexible all things considered. You can buy your way into unbumpability. Buy business class or first class. You aint' getting bumped.
Yeah, and I'm saying this is a terrible argument. The reason people want regulation is because they don't like the aggregate revealed preferences of their neighbors.
But you are part of the aggregate that is composed of you and your neighbors. When you and your neighbors is a very large number, what you personally want inevitably becomes a smaller factor.

At worst it seems to me you're complaining about messaging rather than the argument per se. There's definitely some unpacking to do when people don't recognize certainly aspects of how the market works, and I don't know if any of us knows the best wording for getting people to understand.

That said, I think rather than simply saying you want this, it might be a little better to stress the paradoxically aggregate nature of demand, as well as pointing out that what aggregate revealed preference tells business isn't only what customers want but also what customers are willing to put up with.
This.
Okay then. *I* think that's what McArdle means, I think she means "you" in the aggregate not "you" personally, but I can see how that can get lost! The main way what she said might apply to any one individual is the old well if you hate it so much you don't have to buy it that's implied.
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6729
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by fyodor » 19 Apr 2017, 13:37

Warren wrote:Sorry I thought you were.
nicole wrote:Yeah, and I'm saying this is a terrible argument. The reason people want regulation is because they don't like the aggregate revealed preferences of their neighbors.
But I guess you were trying to make a point about YOU and WE?

But then you're wrong. I see no evidence that the aggregate of people want regulation because they don't like the aggregate revealed preferences of their neighbors. People want property rights. If they pay for the seat, they're entitled to the seat.
But you're not paying for the seat in an unqualified manner, based on the actual terms of the contract. And that's what we get because that's what the airlines have found they can offer and still get people to pay.
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 20770
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by Mo » 19 Apr 2017, 13:39

JasonL wrote:Buy business class or first class. You aint' getting bumped.
Nope and nope.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 20800
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by JasonL » 19 Apr 2017, 13:50

United is truly remarkable.

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 20770
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by Mo » 19 Apr 2017, 13:59

JasonL wrote:United is truly remarkable.
If it wasn't for Frontier, they'd be #1 (worst customer sat).
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest