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

81–88 of 88 posts

Re: Airlines Colluded to Ensure Onboard Food Would Be Awful

#81

Post by listenallyall »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #80
listenallyall wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your standard for quality food is a gas station?

Not saying it's "quality" but you might never seen a decent gas station food. In Lithuania I often prefer gas station sub over local restaurants. In NZ some stations cater decent pies. Either of two is better than "chicken or vegetarian" option on many flights.

The U.S. has fresh food at some gas stations as well. Wawa is probably the model. But, just like any sub shop, they make one sandwich at a time, not 200 all at once.

Re: Airlines Colluded to Ensure Onboard Food Would Be Awful

#82

Post by jjav »

jacurtis wrote: post #52
dboreham wrote: post #11

Uh. It's nothing like as bad as it was 20-30 years ago.

Thanks, I'm glad I wasn't the only one thinking this. Airline food used to be AWFUL. Like you would honestly not even bother unless you were on a very long flight and needed it. My experience is that the last 10 years or so, most airlines have decent food. It is nothing to get excited about or to look forward to, but compared to how bad it used to be it is now quite good. I would rate a lot of the food I've had on fl…

> but compared to how bad it used to be it is now quite good

Now there is no food (unless you pay first class) so how can it be better?

Airplane food was never great but in the 90s it was fine, and free, and if nothing else it provided for something to do in the endless boredom of a long flight.

Today there's nothing, so it's worse in every way.

Re: Airlines Colluded to Ensure Onboard Food Would Be Awful

#83

Post by mcphage »

eftychis wrote: post #51

Anecdotal story/take: The Aegean Airlines (Europe) business seat has much, much better food in a 20-minute flight than the comparable business 5-7-hour flight in the U.S. (And for a lower price, but I'm not sure that is important to the point.) But the article does take a weird take. Also not sure how collusion is claimed here. I guess CAB counts as a forcing mechanism, but I am not sure one can argue collusion when…

> in a 20-minute flight than the comparable business 5-7-hour flight in the U.S. (And for a lower price, but I'm not sure that is important to the point.)

Well, it does cost considerably more to fly an airplane for 5-7 hours than it does to fly an airplane for 20 minutes.

Re: Airlines Colluded to Ensure Onboard Food Would Be Awful

#84

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

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 mentions deregulation because it is challenging a purported assumption that the only airline regulations before 1978 were those set by government.

Arguably it was the government regulation against competing on price that led to the industry regulations on food service. Airlines tried to compete on other bases so food service was much better than what it is today.

Re: Airlines Colluded to Ensure Onboard Food Would Be Awful

#85

Post by illiac786 »

yowzadave wrote: post #75
j7ake wrote: post #20

This is obvious for anyone who took an airlines outside of USA eg Singapore air, Emirates, Cathay and ate real food with real cutlery and got a tub of hagendaz ice cream for dessert.

Interesting to hear that they serve a good American ice cream!

I would not put Häagen-Dazs in the category "good" necessarily. They also do crap.

Re: Airlines Colluded to Ensure Onboard Food Would Be Awful

#86

Post by MichaelZuo »

makeitdouble wrote: post #63
mannykannot wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our options are not determined by what we want, but by what the ticket-buying population as a whole has demonstrated is its actual (as opposed to merely stated) preferences. The marketplace for travel is not perfect, but it has never been more efficient.

It's all bundled though. It's pretty complex to get a dirt cheap ticket, with no checked luggage, but extra leg room, no extra entertainment or extra perk but just a better meal. I see it as the same situation as cable TV, you'll never have the perfect bundle tailored to your tastes at the right price, and that's partly by design, as the company can charge more to have you pay for useless options.

Huh? Airline’s are near universally pricing their cheapest economy class tickets as unbundled as possible.

But they almost all sell nicer food on board or during online check in.

Re: Airlines Colluded to Ensure Onboard Food Would Be Awful

#87

Post by dambi0 »

jordanb wrote: post #67
Dalewyn wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I really don't mind kids too much I agree, and besides: We were all that kid at some point or another in our lives, probably many times too. The adults then were patient with us, so I think it's our turn to pay that hospitality forward.

> were all that kid at some point or another in our lives I wasn't because my mother would never have sat with me on her lap and let me kick the arm of the stranger next to us the entire flight..

I presume you don’t recall directly. I wouldn’t suppose your mother would tell you that “yeah, I let you run amok on flights”. Notwithstanding that the general point was a tad broader.

Re: Airlines Colluded to Ensure Onboard Food Would Be Awful

#88

Post by tracker1 »

greedo wrote: post #43
tracker1 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wait, Buick is a luxury car now?

I said I don't do luxury... But Buick is generally a step up.

Much like day Red Lobster is a steep up from Long John Silvers. It's not luxury but you are paying for and getting more.

Post reply on HN