←back to thread

Are we the baddies?

(geohot.github.io)
692 points AndrewSwift | 3 comments | 06 Jul 25 05:36 UTC | HN request time: 0.647s | source
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 #
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 #
1. 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 #
2. 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 #
3. kragen ◴[06 Jul 25 21:11 UTC] No.44484091[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.