←back to thread

Are we the baddies?

(geohot.github.io)
697 points AndrewSwift | 10 comments | 06 Jul 25 05:36 UTC | HN request time: 0.992s | source | bottom
Show context
ggm ◴[06 Jul 25 06:09 UTC] No.44478235[source]▶
For some people, paying the premium to jump the queue is the point. What they didn't forsee is what happens when everyone has wound up paying the premium, and the queue is now with you again. This is mostly Australian frequent flyers, when it was a high barrier to entry it conferred advantages and now Fly in Fly out work has commoditised club status, there is next to no boarding advantage, and no points flight availability.

So yes. Status seeking, and differential price seeking probably is a-social as a pattern when it's weaponised against the consumer.

That said, I hated Uber, they actually offered to underwrite people breaking the law to get foot in the door (how that didn't get them excluded as a corporate scofflaw is beyond me) and they continue to export all the profits offshore, but taxi services had become shit and now we have got used to Uber and I just don't worry about surge pricing. I got boiled slowly.

My fellow Australians all feel a bit shit about the introduction of tipping in paywave and food service. That's unaustralian. We have legally enforced minimum wages and penalty rates. Turn that feature off.

The European push to mandate included luggage in flight is seeing a fair bit of trolling. So there are still true believers who think needing clean underwear is weak.

replies(16): >>44478304 #>>44478436 #>>44478619 #>>44478738 #>>44478946 #>>44478989 #>>44479057 #>>44479127 #>>44479393 #>>44479945 #>>44480176 #>>44480295 #>>44480476 #>>44480794 #>>44481108 #>>44486878 #
1. cortesoft ◴[06 Jul 25 08:03 UTC] No.44478738[source]▶
> What they didn't forsee is what happens when everyone has wound up paying the premium, and the queue is now with you again

Wouldn't the market purist argue that this just means the good is mispriced, and tickets should actually be what the price is with the premium added? What you really need is to just raise the prices of the tickets and the price to jump the queue?

replies(5): >>44478769 #>>44478791 #>>44479084 #>>44479274 #>>44480646 #
2. kragen ◴[06 Jul 25 08:09 UTC] No.44478769[source]▶
The market purist might argue for a second-price auction for boarding order, where people board in the order of highest sealed bid for boarding order to lowest, but pay the amount bid by the person behind them in the sequence; or for "Paris Metro Pricing" where everyone being in the "priority" line results in a large fraction of them opting not to pay the premium for the next flight they take. Or they might think up something I haven't thought of.
replies(1): >>44480221 #
3. imtringued ◴[06 Jul 25 08:13 UTC] No.44478791[source]▶
The most profitable thing you can do is charge for a service and then not deliver it.
replies(1): >>44479587 #
4. andyst ◴[06 Jul 25 09:14 UTC] No.44479084[source]▶
especially the australian airline example and perhaps with much broader applicability, I know that companies are completely happy with managable competition (Australian domestic airlines are functionally 2 players, and similarly across many large industries here that's true) where over time once they can establish profitable gimmicks neither party really wants to rock the boat and they're able to lock in that margin forever more. It doesn't suit established players to compete on that, they both open up losing situations in the game theory compared to silent non-competition.

In high capital businesses like airlines and supermarkets it seems to play out all over the place these days.

5. cjfd ◴[06 Jul 25 09:53 UTC] No.44479274[source]▶
For market purism to work people need to have an idea what they are paying for. If this is changing too quickly or there is personalized pricing it becomes a very different kind of game.
replies(1): >>44481465 #
6. bsenftner ◴[06 Jul 25 10:55 UTC] No.44479587[source]▶
They do that too.
7. jodrellblank ◴[06 Jul 25 12:32 UTC] No.44480221[source]▶
CGP Grey on "The better boarding method airlines won't use" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAHbLRjF0vo
replies(1): >>44484091 #
8. AstroBen ◴[06 Jul 25 13:29 UTC] No.44480646[source]▶
People don't make buying decisions from a purely rational headspace, though. Charge too much for the upfront ticket and people will go to someone advertising it for lower (but with additional back-end services that are must-have)

My guess is the hidden fees end up making businesses more money

9. immibis ◴[06 Jul 25 15:18 UTC] No.44481465[source]▶
Market purism very rarely works, just like any kind of purism, but it's still an interesting thought experiment.
10. kragen ◴[06 Jul 25 21:11 UTC] No.44484091{3}[source]▶
Thanks for the link! This is a good example of the use of the medium of video (animation) to present information more clearly than alternative media could.

He's concerned not about allocating the suffering optimally (to the people least willing to pay to reduce it, for example because they are in excellent health or couldn't afford the flight otherwise) but about reducing the total amount of suffering, which is far more important.

In other contexts, the main benefit of market mechanisms is precisely that they vastly reduce suffering, for example by stimulating the production of socially valuable goods. Is there a way market mechanisms for boarding order could have such a benefit? For example, by rewarding people who board in an order that minimizes overall boarding delay? I'm skeptical.