[MEGoody]

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.

[Tublecane]

“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?

[Tublecane]

“I’m not espousing government intrusion”

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

[downtownconservative]

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.