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

Airlines Colluded to Ensure Onboard Food Would Be Awful

viewfromthewing.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 88 posts

Re: Airlines Colluded to Ensure Onboard Food Would Be Awful

#21

Post by j7ake »

loosescrews wrote: post #19
jordanb wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Airline upgrades is a market for lemons. Even if you, say, buy an upgraded seat you may get sat next to a big guy or a rowdy child and then your seat sucks. Instead you have to pay much more (sometimes multiple times a main-cabin ticket) for the cabins up front and even then you might have to set next to a drunk businessman. If you complain you will get told there's nothing that can be done. Even if you get sat in a…

I've traveled for business a few times and a few times I got the company to pay for a first class seat up front. One time the first class cabin had a crying baby in it. Another time it was full of rowdy children. It turns out that rich people have children too. Paying for first class simply decreases your chances of dealing with such things, just like any other seat upgrade. I suspect that airlines could offer seats…

Why does first class decrease the chance of rowdy children?

In some cities, only the rich can afford multiple kids.

Re: Airlines Colluded to Ensure Onboard Food Would Be Awful

#22

Post by smt88 »

gosub100 wrote: post #14
verdverm wrote: post #2

I recall how much better the experience of flying British Airways was, notably the food and drinks. Too bad it was only once

I've heard it as a general rule when flying internationally to always choose the foreign carriers over a US one.

That's a bad rule of thumb. Some foreign airlines are significantly worse than the better US airlines like Delta.

You also have to consider safety (some airlines only fly Airbus planes, some are mostly Boeing), cost, and convenience.

Re: Airlines Colluded to Ensure Onboard Food Would Be Awful

#24

Post by mauvehaus »

Years back, I read the life hack of requesting a Halal meal. I can confirm that on the one flight that I both got fed and received the same, the food seemed superior to the non-Halal options.

The other life hack is, of course, to bring your own food. I can confirm that I've gotten the stink-eye a couple times for pulling out my own food while everyone else was suffering whatever was rejected by the inmates at the state penitentiary.

Frankly, if you're flying out of Italy, and are eating airline food, you're flat-out doing it wrong.

Re: Airlines Colluded to Ensure Onboard Food Would Be Awful

#26

Post by tracker1 »

chii wrote: post #3

good airline food but at a higher ticket price is not what consumers actually choose to buy. They'd rather suffer and get a discount on the ticket. They merely complain about that suffering.

Didn't agree so much. I generally avoid air travel, when I have to, sometimes I'll bite the bullet for first class. I'll fly Delta over the cut rate carriers.

I'm not a luxury car guy... But have bought a few Buick cars along the way.

So I'll pay a premium for comfort and quality in general to a point. Not everyone does every time, but there should definitely be the option.

Re: Airlines Colluded to Ensure Onboard Food Would Be Awful

#28

Post by DaveExeter »

If anyone is longing for the pre-deregulation days of aviation, ticket prices were a lot higher back then.

My grandmother was telling me about her honeymoon in Europe in the 1960s. Inflation-adjusted, the tickets were $3000 each!

Flying back then was better for smokers. They used to have smoking sections on planes. Grandpa loved his Chesterfields.

Re: Airlines Colluded to Ensure Onboard Food Would Be Awful

#29

Post by masto »

taion wrote: post #16

I'm not sure why this piece mentions deregulation. The drinks limit was in 1956, while the sandwich spat was in 1958 – but deregulation wasn't until 1978, two decades later! The collusion in question seems to only relate to regulation, which prohibited the airlines from competing on price. The incentives obviously don't work out the same with deregulation!

It was kind of a weirdly written intro, but I think it was meant to set up "here are some examples of how ridiculous things were before deregulation".

Re: Airlines Colluded to Ensure Onboard Food Would Be Awful

#30

Post by jethro_tell »

loosescrews wrote: post #19
jordanb wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Airline upgrades is a market for lemons. Even if you, say, buy an upgraded seat you may get sat next to a big guy or a rowdy child and then your seat sucks. Instead you have to pay much more (sometimes multiple times a main-cabin ticket) for the cabins up front and even then you might have to set next to a drunk businessman. If you complain you will get told there's nothing that can be done. Even if you get sat in a…

I've traveled for business a few times and a few times I got the company to pay for a first class seat up front. One time the first class cabin had a crying baby in it. Another time it was full of rowdy children. It turns out that rich people have children too. Paying for first class simply decreases your chances of dealing with such things, just like any other seat upgrade. I suspect that airlines could offer seats…

That's because you're paying for a wider seat and better service.

I suspect they are just as happy to take some kids parents money for the seat as not.

And judging by the number of people I know that get upgraded, its not like they sell out every flight.

Post reply on HN