Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Airlines eye crueler ways of making passengers miserable

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 120 posts

Re: Airlines eye crueler ways of making passengers miserable

#31

Post by brutus1213 »

mlrtime wrote: post #16
PaulHoule wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe that "customers want cheap flights more than they want comfort". Really customers have about as much choice in the comfort of a flight as they do in the cost of health care services. For years it has been "pay 4 times as much as economy or suffer", in the last ten years they've introduced "basic economy" which at least is realistic. I might rather fly in a widebody on a domestic flight but I don't get…

People vote with their dollars, many legs have multiple options and multiple seat options. Almost everyone goes with the cheapest option. I've flow from NYC to Chicago $90 round trip. It's incredible how inexpensive flying as become.

This is a naive comment. The airline industry is hardly competitive. You do realize the issue is the limits on gates. Please visit Canada and our shitty airline and telecom monopoly/oligopoly to understand how airlines can lower service, make money and pass almost nothing back to customers.

Re: Airlines eye crueler ways of making passengers miserable

#32

Post by lenticular »

Airlines are having near-record profits now. I have a hard time believing there isn't some implicit or explicit collusion going on with US carriers. Not only are seats ever-more cramped and the fees ever greater, but pilot benefits have been massively slashed at many airlines as well. The series of mergers we have had have made things worse, I think.

Re: Airlines eye crueler ways of making passengers miserable

#33

Post by mikybee93 »

kareemm wrote: post #23
mikybee93 wrote: post #15

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?

You sound like an optimist. My take is that airlines are adding a worse option for the price they currently charge, which lets them charge more for the current options.

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.

Re: Airlines eye crueler ways of making passengers miserable

#34

Post by niij »

crankylinuxuser wrote: post #7

Gee golly! You mean to tell me capitalists are trying to extract more money by increasing capacity (and thus increasing misery)? Please say it isn't so! /news at 11

Or providing a valuable service of allowing more people to fly for less money at the expense of comfort.

I value getting from A to B quickly, I don't mind some discomfort for a few hours if it means it's significantly cheaper.

Re: Airlines eye crueler ways of making passengers miserable

#35

Post by joezydeco »

gomox wrote: post #12
tyingq wrote: post #8

The bicycle like standing seat does look awful. Reclining, though, is a silly feature on coach airline seats. At best, you temporarily get more room at the expense of the person behind you. Until the person in front of you reclines. Reclining seats when the seat pitch is so tight is just dumb. Oh, and if you get the paywall: http://archive.is/vqTNf

If you ever do a long haul flight in economy (which I assume you haven't) you will realize the obvious purpose of reclining coach seats: to allow people a fighting chance of remaining asleep instead of being constantly awakened by their falling heads.

The reclining seats also allow you to be shaken awake every 15 minutes as someone uses the headrests as handholds while walking up the aisle in the dark.

That 45 degree upward incline in both directions is a bitch.

Re: Airlines eye crueler ways of making passengers miserable

#36

Post by rootusrootus »

tyingq wrote: post #8

The bicycle like standing seat does look awful. Reclining, though, is a silly feature on coach airline seats. At best, you temporarily get more room at the expense of the person behind you. Until the person in front of you reclines. Reclining seats when the seat pitch is so tight is just dumb. Oh, and if you get the paywall: http://archive.is/vqTNf

WRT reclining, I disagree. The seats need to be upright enough so that emergency egress is easy, but that runs contrary to what is comfortable for many people. I don't need much recline, but allowing the seat to move back an inch or two (as measured at the top) makes a huge difference in posture.

Re: Airlines eye crueler ways of making passengers miserable

#37

Post by noonespecial »

crankylinuxuser wrote: post #7

Gee golly! You mean to tell me capitalists are trying to extract more money by increasing capacity (and thus increasing misery)? Please say it isn't so! /news at 11

Good news. You are also a capitalist. Don't buy the ticket.

Re: Airlines eye crueler ways of making passengers miserable

#38

Post by mikybee93 »

xienze wrote: post #24
mikybee93 wrote: post #15

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?

> Airlines are adding another option that is cheaper. How is that a bad thing? No, they’re going to make this the new default setting. The regular crappy seat you enjoy today will become the “economy premium” option and cost more. > If I don't want the cheaper option, another airline will offer me a more comfortable one and I'll pay for it. Assuming they go where you’re going in the timeframe you’re expecting. And as…

>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.

Re: Airlines eye crueler ways of making passengers miserable

#39

Post by rootusrootus »

mrerrormessage wrote: post #22

Am I the only one who thinks standing for shorter flights of < 3 hours would be healthier and more comfortable? I work regularly at a standing desk, sitting for too long makes me feel lethargic and often causes headaches for me (it's much easier to have good posture, neck and back alignment when standing). For longer flights, people need a seat, but for shorter flights I would gladly pay the same price to be able to…

My achilles tendon is starting to ache a little just thinking about being forced to stand for a flight.

Re: Airlines eye crueler ways of making passengers miserable

#40

Post by JoeAltmaier »

Some of us barely fit into a jet cabin at all now! Anything over maybe 5'10" and you have to duck. I'm 6'4". Imagine standing for an hour with your neck torqued because the headroom is too little.

In addition the new Delta legroom of 23" (including the depth of the seat!) will make it impossible for me to sit down. My knee is 25" from the seat (I just measured it). With existing 29" 'seat pitch' cabins, I have to splay my legs or sit sideways.

I guess it'll be the train for me.

Post reply on HN