Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Robert Reich objects when airlines use market-based pricing, but maximizes own profits
AEI ^ | 10/31/2012 | Mark Perry

Posted on 10/31/2012 6:47:25 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

Robert Reich was relieved that he was a passenger on one of the last flights to leave NYC before the airports closed on Monday. But he’s upset that the airline had “jacked up” ticket prices to $4,000 for the last flights leaving NYC for California. Even at $4,000 per ticket, the flight was oversold by 47 passengers, and the airline then paid 47 volunteers $400 each to take a later flight, “whenever that might be.” In his own words, Professor Reich explains:

Assuming that the 47 extra passengers had each paid $4,000 to get onto the plane at the last minute, and the 47 who gave up their seats for them received $400 in return, the trade would have been “rational” in narrow market terms. After all, the seats were “worth” $4,000 to those who bought them at the last minute, and switching to the next flight (whenever that might be) was “worth” $400 to those who agreed to do so.

But the transaction was also deeply exploitative. The airline netted a huge profit because of the impending storm.

I couldn’t help think this was a miniature version of the America we’ll have if Mitt Romney is elected president. Rational and efficient in terms of supply and demand, guaranteed to maximize profits, but fundamentally unfair.

MP: Here’s what I find exploitative and fundamentally unfair: Robert Reich’s speaking fee is $37,500 to $100,000 according to the website below, and he therefore is able to net huge personal profits for his 30-minute talks.

OK, actually, I think it’s great that Professor Reich uses market-based pricing for his speeches, and I applaud him that he can apparently charge speaking fees as high as $100,000 based on demand, but then he really shouldn’t complain when an airline uses market-based pricing to allocate scarce seats on a plane when demand is high during a natural disaster.

And if Reich thinks that the market for giving speeches is an example of a market that is “guaranteed to maximize his profits” as a supplier of speeches, but is “fundamentally unfair,” because his prices and profits are so high, then I would challenge him to reduce his speaking fees significantly to a much lower, and much more “fair price.”

HT: Dean Harrington



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: robertreich

1 posted on 10/31/2012 6:47:32 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Is Reich unfamiliar with the concept of bid and ask being distinct prices?


2 posted on 10/31/2012 6:52:13 AM PDT by oblomov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I guess he could also say the screamingly high price made it possible for a rich fellow like him to get a ticket and shut out the rabble who couldn’t pony up the money.

It’s up to the airline what to do. People do not always react totally logically to astounding price run-ups in disaster situations, and are known to hold grudges, and share stories that engender grudges, that a vendor might not want. For public relations sake the airline might have had a lottery for the last few seats, if tariffs permitted (which is a whole nother story). But nobody can, or ought to be able to, force them to if they don’t so choose.


3 posted on 10/31/2012 6:54:20 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (cat dog, cat dog, alone in the world is a little cat dog)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Sorry, I’m failing to be appalled at Reich’s speaking fees, but I am appalled at the airlines profiteering on people’s desparate efforts to get out or get home. The two situations are hardly comparable.


4 posted on 10/31/2012 6:55:04 AM PDT by MEGoody (You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

Supply and Demand.
Free Enterprise.
The Market System.

Folk who don’t like the concepts above like to use the term “price gouging” instead.
As a Conservative, I do not use the term “price gouging”.


5 posted on 10/31/2012 6:58:54 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Global Warming is a religion, and I don't want to be taxed to pay for a faith that is not mine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

Given that the storm rendered all travel paralyzed, those people who couldn’t get seats because there were too few to go around were going to be looking at delays anyhow. Other possibilities existed for many, such as driving a rental car or taking a bus or taxi to an operative airport. Airlines were fully refunding all canceled-flight tickets.


6 posted on 10/31/2012 6:59:28 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (cat dog, cat dog, alone in the world is a little cat dog)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

How dare airlines make a profit by fulfilling a need! How dare they ration supply in a time of high demand by changing the price! Whoever heard of such a thing? Why, it’s almost as if they were tryong to maximize satisfaction at both ends. Everyone knows they should maximize the satisfaction of one passenger—whoever happens to be eriting an article later—at the expense of everyone else.

If you think it’s “unfair” or “exploitative” blame God or nature. The airline didn’t make the weather. Otherwise, assuage your sense of justice by not buying a ticket. On the bright side this is refreshingly frank. If only they’d always admit they prefer some undefined state of fairness to efficiency. Usually they pretend their policies are more efficient in addition to following some novel form of fairness.


7 posted on 10/31/2012 7:01:55 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

People say the same thing about stores jacking up prices on bread, water, batteries, etc before a storm. The result is that these items are sold at their usual price and are wiped out by the first few people who show up. If they were sold based on market value, then people would have to consider how many gallons of water at they REALLY need before they load 20 of them into their shopping cart.


8 posted on 10/31/2012 7:02:27 AM PDT by Straight Vermonter (Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

This is the usual argument against ‘price gouging’ in times of disaster. But of course the more prices are gouged, the more incentive there will be to get the scarce product or service to those in need despite the adversarial circumstances.


9 posted on 10/31/2012 7:02:44 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Given that due to security regulations it’s no longer possible to resell a personally unused ticket (though the airline might refund part or all of it) it’s not like hoarding tickets would happen. So it’s a little different than passing out so many bottles of water. All the seats will get used by people who need them (who is going to joyride in such a situation?), and a lottery might make sense for public relations purposes. People liken capitalism to gravity as equally inexorable forces, and it’s true insofar as it goes, but we also note that gravity does not mean we are condemned to do nothing but lie upon the ground all our lives.


10 posted on 10/31/2012 7:04:45 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (cat dog, cat dog, alone in the world is a little cat dog)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

People react as people react. It’s up to the airline to choose what to do for the sake of its perceived appearance or its financial condition or for the sake of whatever flower is blooming in Japan right now for that matter. I’m not even sure Reich is asking that anybody force the airline, he’s only commenting about how it looks. He might be feeling a bit guilty about being rich enough to get the ticket and thus shutting out poorer people.


11 posted on 10/31/2012 7:08:46 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (cat dog, cat dog, alone in the world is a little cat dog)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

The two situations are perfectly comparable. But nevermind. What specifically “appalls” you about “profiteering” on people’s desperation? Doesn’t the very fact that they are desperate, in your words, prove the market price is higher? If you kept prices the same despite customer’s desperation wouldn’t you increase the likelihood that less desperate people would gobble up the tickets of more? Yes, absolutely, especially if they were rich.

What do you want, exactly? For the airline to ration seats but not profit from it? How? By donating seats to make up the difference between normal and hurricane profits? Why? Wouldn’t that just be the winners exploiting all remaining desperate people? Why’s it okay for them but not the airline? Or is it for PR purposes? I can understand why that’s necessary, given the delusions of people like you over the phantom distinction between profiting and “profiteering.”


12 posted on 10/31/2012 7:12:16 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Straight Vermonter

Logically they should say the same thing about bread, water, etc. all the time. Did you know you’ll die in a month or so without food? Grocery stores profit off of this fact. They charge a price for your life!!!


13 posted on 10/31/2012 7:15:49 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Hoarding wouldn’t happen, but you’d still be able to price out the less from more desperate.

As for the lottery, really it’d be like a stupidity tax on the airline. It wouldn’t make for a better functioning economy, just a means of assuaging a misguided morality based on ignorance.


14 posted on 10/31/2012 7:20:05 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Okay, so it looks bad to you and Robert Reich. I’m setting both of you straight. Your beef is with nature, not the airline. Life is unfair, not profits (or “profiteering”).


15 posted on 10/31/2012 7:22:43 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
I am appalled at the airlines profiteering on people’s desparate efforts to get out or get home

Since the airlines had a limited number of seats left, how would you have chosen who gets a seat?

16 posted on 10/31/2012 7:30:03 AM PDT by TChris ("Hello", the politician lied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
What about the flight before?

Waiting 'til the last minute can be very expensive, whether it's buying airline tickets, hotel reservations, concert tickets, etc. The storm just magnified this truth.

The law of supply and demand is simple, how does Reich not know about it?

17 posted on 10/31/2012 7:30:59 AM PDT by ZOOKER ( Exploring the fine line between cynicism and outright depression)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
What specifically “appalls” you about “profiteering” on people’s desperation?

I think it is wrong to jack up the price of something just because people are desparate for it due to a disaster. I'd feel the same way about someone charging $50 for a bottle of water when there was no other way to get water, or lumber increasing in price 50x immediately before or after a hurricane when people are desparately trying to protect their homes or at least what is left of them.

Doesn’t the very fact that they are desperate, in your words, prove the market price is higher?

Of course I believe the market should dictate the price of things. But in disaster situations, taking advantage of people's desparation is simply immoral. If the airlines always made the profit margin they made on these seats, then so be it. But to jack up the price so significantly during a crisis is plain wrong.

What do you want, exactly?

I'd like to see people in the United States have better morals.

For the airline to ration seats but not profit from it?

Oh, please. The airlines were profiting at their normal prices. As to "allocating" the seats, they should have handled it like always - the seat goes to the first one to purchase it.

Wouldn’t that just be the winners exploiting all remaining desperate people?

I have no idea what "winners" you are talking about. If you are refering to the people who purchased a ticket before the seats were sold out, that is nothing new, and it is not exploitive.

I can understand why that’s necessary, given the delusions of people like you over the phantom distinction between profiting and “profiteering.”

So taking advantage of desperate people in a natural disaster situation is simply "making a profit" to you. Good grief.

18 posted on 10/31/2012 7:34:06 AM PDT by MEGoody (You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Market-based pricing is the most effective means of allocating scarce resources.

If you could get out for $300, you'd have a mess.

19 posted on 10/31/2012 7:39:58 AM PDT by HIDEK6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Straight Vermonter
The result is that these items are sold at their usual price and are wiped out by the first few people who show up.

Those things get wiped out anyway. Didn't you see the pictures of the stores before Sandy?

If you are truly concerned about the food and water supplies getting spread around appropriately, a rationing system makes more sense. Someone can still come in and buy it all up. Jacking up the price dosn't stop that - it just changes who has the resources to do it.

If the airline had raise the price from (for example) $400 per ticket to $450, it wouldn't have been a huge deal in my view. But to jack it up to $4,000 is appalling - and immoral in my view.

20 posted on 10/31/2012 7:41:11 AM PDT by MEGoody (You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I had the unfortunate experience of being stuck for half an hour with Reich in the foyer of a venue while we waited for the guy with the key to arrive.

Believe me, after listening to 30 minutes of Reich's socialist blather -- up close and personal -- I would gladly buy a plane ticket to Podunk to escape having to listen to him speak!

21 posted on 10/31/2012 7:43:45 AM PDT by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Folk who don’t like the concepts above like to use the term “price gouging” instead.

There is a big difference between day to day situations and a natural disaster. If someone was willing to pay $4,000 for a plane ticket on a normal day, that's up to them. But when the airline "price gouges" to take advantage of people in a desparate situation - that's immoral in my view.

22 posted on 10/31/2012 7:45:05 AM PDT by MEGoody (You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
I think it is wrong to jack up the price of something just because people are desperate for it due to a disaster.

They are not jacking up the price because people are desperate, they are determining a price that, if met, will compensate them for being able to offer a service that no one else can offer.

It will encourage other suppliers to do the same.

23 posted on 10/31/2012 7:47:21 AM PDT by HIDEK6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
Those things get wiped out anyway. Didn't you see the pictures of the stores before Sandy?

Yes, because "price gouging" is illegal.

24 posted on 10/31/2012 7:47:55 AM PDT by Straight Vermonter (Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

You need to think through to the logical conclusion of your point. If you believe in the free market system, market based pricing is the only logical approach. If you want the government to regulate the market in order to make it more humanistic (and might I add, capricious), then you do not believe in the value of the free market and capitalism.

If the government gets to decide what is reasonable profit, Katy-bar-the-door. Free people get to decide what is reasonable based on their own pocketbook and over-pricing is eventually curbed by loss of demand.

If the folks who agreed to pay $4000 for their tickets out of town didn’t want to have to pay so much, they should have made plans in advance of the approaching storm. That mistake cost them.

Under the system you seem to espouse (with government intrusion), the airline would have been forced to prioritize the assignment of the available seats by interviewing each of the passengers in order to ascertain their need for travel and assign each based on the subsequent numerical score. Or maybe a lottery system should be set up, just to be fair, in these situations.

No, airlines operate on very low profit margins. Airlines lost millions of dollars due to flight cancellations, diversions and equipment grounded (and therefore accruing costs but zero revenue) during this storm. Don’t begrudge them just a tiny bit of revenue recovery.


25 posted on 10/31/2012 7:56:27 AM PDT by downtownconservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
I think it is wrong to jack up the price of something just because people are desparate for it due to a disaster. I'd feel the same way about someone charging $50 for a bottle of water when there was no other way to get water, or lumber increasing in price 50x immediately before or after a hurricane when people are desparately trying to protect their homes or at least what is left of them.

Read Walter Williams on "price gouging".

26 posted on 10/31/2012 8:01:05 AM PDT by kevkrom (If a wise man has an argument with a foolish man, the fool only rages or laughs...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
lumber increasing in price 50x immediately before or after a hurricane when people are desparately trying to protect their homes or at least what is left of them.

That's a perfect example of why prices fluctuate in free markets. If the price of lumber didn't increase, a few people could buy up all the available lumber in a local market without concern for waste. Price changes in such circumstances are not so much for profit, but to allocate scarce resources.

Someone could go out and buy 200 flashlights. If the price of flashlights rose in times of emergency, maybe that person buys only 3, which leaves 197 available for others.

Or hotel rooms. Maybe a family of six would like six hotel rooms, but with increased prices they share one or two rooms. The hotel can then take in a lot more people.

Read Thomas Sowell's book on economics -- the beginning is all about scarcity of resources and how to best distribute them. There are different economic theories, and a popular one in the United States is a free market.

27 posted on 10/31/2012 8:01:55 AM PDT by FoxInSocks ("Hope is not a course of action." -- M. O'Neal, USMC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

So you think economic laws should be suspended in times of “desperation” and “disaster.” Leave aside for the moment who defines what’s a disaster and the fact that I think we’ve officially been in an emergency as a nation since 1933 to justify government saving us from the evil market. You don’t seem to realize how it would hurt the desperate fir prices to take no cognizance of supply and demand in time of disaster. I don’t think I can explain it, except to say that there’s no reason why, for instance, airlines should suddenly become charities because of desperation. That’s merely a redistribution of suffering.

You think the market should dictate prices, just not during a disaster. Well, I say that’s immoral because it’s all the more important for markets to be free when need is most acute.

Better morals to you sounds like stupider morals to me. I do not worship the god Efficiency. For instance you should not be able to hire a murderers just because you’re willing to lay. But for the things we should be allowed to buy, I recognize no moral principle restricting what sellers can charge. Buyers can take it or leave it, and if they’re willing to pay that is the market price. Yes, even in a time of disaster. Especially in times of disaster.

“The airlines were profiting at their normal prices”

Not to profit from rationing seats according to the market conditions at the time, obviously I meant. Which means by charging a higher price and thereby profiting more. You wouldn’t want them to do that, though, which means you don’t want them to ration. You may not realize it, but that’s exactly the outcome of your supposedly moral stance in favor of customers. You would virtually guarantee less desperate people would crowd out more desperate.

“As to ‘allocating’ the seats, they should gave handled it like always—the seat goes to the first one to purchase it.”

Okay, so you’re not a lottery advocate like some.

The “winners” are the ones who won the lottery, should there have been one.

Yes, taking advantage of people is making a profit. That’s what businesses exist for: to take advantage of need. Airlines jack prices up during disasters to take advantage of demand just like the grocery store takes advantage of your wanting to eat. This doesn’t suddenly become a bad thing just because you really, really want it instead of wanting it.


28 posted on 10/31/2012 8:03:09 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: downtownconservative
Under the system you seem to espouse (with government intrusion)

I'm not espousing government intrusion.

If the folks who agreed to pay $4000 for their tickets out of town didn’t want to have to pay so much, they should have made plans in advance of the approaching storm.

Some could, some couldn't.

That mistake cost them.

This statement makes me wonder if there were any who couldn't afford the $4,000 were injured or killed during the storm. We'll probably never know.

Airlines lost millions of dollars due to flight cancellations, diversions and equipment grounded (and therefore accruing costs but zero revenue) during this storm.

I don't know this for a fact, but I'd be willing to bet the airlines have insurance to cover these types of situations.

Don’t begrudge them just a tiny bit of revenue recovery.

I "begrudge" anyone benfitting from immoral behavior.

29 posted on 10/31/2012 8:17:23 AM PDT by MEGoody (You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: HIDEK6

“They are not hacking up the price because people are desperate”

Oh, let them have their little word. “Desperation” equals higher demand. So the more desperate customers are the higher prices go, and the best way to allocate scarce resources in times of desperation is freely floating prices, like always.

You could call the a mother’s love for her children dependency and the children’s receiving her care exploitation on their part, or a $150 million contract to play baseball wage slavery. A ything can be whatever you say it is so long as people assent to it. But that doesn’t touch the morality of the situation. If children exploit their parents or being a millionaire is being a slave then exploitation and slavery are good. If charging higher prices for plane tickets during disasters is profiteering off people’s desperation, then making money off desperation is a good thing.

I actually believe that last part. Thank God people can make money off desperation. It’s so much better that they can than that they bake money off lesser need.


30 posted on 10/31/2012 8:29:21 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

Oh please. You are completely deluded. It is actually immoral NOT to jack up prices. The rise in prices guarantees a wider distribution to those who have the greatest utility for the product.

Keeping prices low encourages hoarding and results in less product being available.

Please spare us from your inflated sense of moral superiority lololol


31 posted on 10/31/2012 8:30:16 AM PDT by statered ("And you know what I mean.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

“This statement makes me wonder if there were any who couldn’t afford the $4,000 were injured or killed during the storm”

Is that idle curiosity, or do you think it’s germane to your point. Be aide if the price weren’t raised it’s simply be another group of people left behind: instead of those who couldn’t afford $4,000 it’d be those who behind in line. Are you trying to tell me there’s some moral principle which holds that the latter deserve their fate but not the former?


32 posted on 10/31/2012 8:36:11 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

“I’m not espousing government intrusion”

Okay, but all arguments against government intrusion hold equally against your spurious morality.


33 posted on 10/31/2012 8:43:23 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“I couldn’t help think this was a miniature version of the America we’ll have if Mitt Romney is elected president.”

Well, shouldn’t Mr. Reich be happy about a miniature version of America, where he can finally reach the top shelves in refrigerators?

Also, if the prices were too steep for him, perhaps Mr. Reich could have negotiated with the airline for a better price, if they stowed him in the overhead compartment.


34 posted on 10/31/2012 8:51:48 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

Oh no, the airlines charged more because there was unprecedented demand? Cry me a river!

Listen, unless you give the airlines some moral credit when they are forced to lower prices because of low demand, then you have no standing to assign them moral blame when they raise prices due to high demand. Otherwise, you’re just being a hypocrite.

Even if you were consistent about it, it would still be supremely silly to make moral judgements based on entities acting according to the natural laws of economics, just like it is silly to make moral judgements based on animals following their instincts.


35 posted on 10/31/2012 9:06:22 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
or lumber increasing in price 50x immediately before or after a hurricane when people are desparately trying to protect their homes

Would you load up a truck with lumber, drive all night into the path of a hurricane to deliver lumber to people "desperate" to save their homes if you stand the change of getting arrested for "price gouging?" And yet, that is EXACTLY what people "desperate" to save their homes need people to do.

36 posted on 10/31/2012 11:47:28 AM PDT by Onelifetogive (I tweet, too... @Onelifetogive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
appalled at the airlines profiteering on people’s desparate efforts to get out

You must HATE auctions where one person is allowed to bid the price of an item beyond what any other person wants to pay!

37 posted on 10/31/2012 12:03:10 PM PDT by Onelifetogive (I tweet, too... @Onelifetogive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Just pissed because they always ask him if he’s flying unattended.


38 posted on 10/31/2012 12:26:11 PM PDT by gundog (Help us, Nairobi-Wan Kenobi...you're our only hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
Immoral is a word that has a broad meaning depending on who is using it. At what point does market based pricing become "price gouging"? Let's appoint a panel and decide a maximum range of profit margin beyond which we can exert our moral superiority and point fingers at people who provide services or product and scream at them and call them "profiteers"./s/

Your argument is seriously flawed unless you become much more specific. And at that point, you become a progressive liberal.

39 posted on 10/31/2012 12:56:17 PM PDT by downtownconservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

It’s a tax on the airline only if somebody else enforces it. Otherwise it’s a public relations investment.


40 posted on 10/31/2012 3:18:03 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (cat dog, cat dog, alone in the world is a little cat dog)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

No, they do not, one is as far from the other than the willing sacrifice of God is from being hypothetically able to force God to sacrifice.


41 posted on 10/31/2012 3:20:58 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (cat dog, cat dog, alone in the world is a little cat dog)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I haven't seen the discussion of airline ticket prices on any other board, including Flyertalk. Google brings up no recent articles.

First, if someone had already purchased the ticket, they wouldn't have had to pay $4,000 for a seat.

Second, the $400 bump fee is mandated in law. Customarily, airlines also refund the full cost of your ticket when that happens - at least on Southwest.

Third, what reservations system allows 47 overbookings?

I think that he made it up as a class lesson in mythology.

42 posted on 11/01/2012 6:53:27 AM PDT by texas booster (Join FreeRepublic's Folding@Home team (Team # 36120) Cure Alzheimer's!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: texas booster
Here is RR original post. The entire blog post sounds like a made up story or meme, much like racist taunts, lesbians being attacked or murderers with a middle name of Wayne. He is telling socialists what they want to hear.

He also completely misses the point of the AFI article - even Reich and his agent work to guarantee their maximum profit. The same behavior by capitalist politicians is fundamentally unfair.

Leaving New York City yesterday bound for California on one of the last flights out of JFK before the airport closed, a flight attendant told me I was lucky to already have my ticket. In light of the pending hurricane, the airlines had just hours before jacked up ticket prices on the flight to $4,000 (I had paid a few hundred dollars when I bought it last week).

As a result of the last-minute rush for tickets, the flight was oversold by 47 passengers. So the flight attendants offered money to any passengers who volunteered to switch their tickets to the next flight out of NYC, whenever that might be. The first offer of $200 wasn’t enough to elicit 47 volunteers, nor were the subsequent ones of $300 and $350. An offer of $400 finally did the trick.

Assuming that the 47 extra passengers had each paid $4,000 to get onto the plane at the last minute, and the 47 who gave up their seats for them received $400 in return, the trade would have been “rational” in narrow market terms. After all, the seats were “worth” $4,000 to those who bought them at the last minute, and switching to the next flight (whenever that might be) was “worth” $400 to those who agreed to do so.

But the transaction was also deeply exploitative. The airline netted a huge profit because of the impending storm.

I couldn’t help think this was a miniature version of the America we’ll have if Mitt Romney is elected president. Rational and efficient in terms of supply and demand, guaranteed to maximize profits, but fundamentally unfair.

43 posted on 11/01/2012 7:03:45 AM PDT by texas booster (Join FreeRepublic's Folding@Home team (Team # 36120) Cure Alzheimer's!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

I didn’t say it is a tax; I said it’s like a tax. I employed a simile to demonstrate how similar is the airline missing out on money due to the public’s economic ignorance to the government coercing money out of them through the taxing power.


44 posted on 11/01/2012 11:25:09 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson