[HN Gopher] Why does a plastic-wrapped turkey sandwich cost $15 ...
___________________________________________________________________
Why does a plastic-wrapped turkey sandwich cost $15 at the NYC
airport?
Author : raybb
Score : 601 points
Date : 2023-04-15 14:20 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (hellgatenyc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (hellgatenyc.com)
| trafnar wrote:
| This article is not asking "Why would a store at the airport
| charge extra?" (pretty obvious), it's asking "Exactly how did
| these stores arrive at their prices given the pricing rules that
| are supposedly imposed on them by the government?"
| devy wrote:
| In my anecdotal experience Indianapolis International Airport
| (IND) is the best in terms of reasonable food pricing /
| affordability as well as comfortability in waiting area / seats
| and newness of the facility.
|
| https://www.insideindianabusiness.com/articles/indy-airport-...
|
| Even though IND doesn't nearly have the traffic like 3 NYC
| airports, it's still 24/7 airport and the self-served Farm Fridge
| food kiosk was super great in terms of prepackaged meals and
| pricing (half of the selections were under $10 - I flew to IND
| last month.) The Soda machine also charges $2 / bottle of Coca-
| Cola like other non-airport retailers instead of price gauging.
| hm-nah wrote:
| Why does a double mezcal at Slims Last Chance cost $24.50 before
| the tip?!
| bagacrap wrote:
| As frustrating as it is to be stonewalled like this, I sincerely
| hope they don't waste taxpayer dollars by suing over it.
|
| Airport food is bad and expensive, get over it. Pack your own
| lunch if you care, especially if what you're going to eat is a
| prepackaged sandwich anyway.
| wombatpm wrote:
| I hope they do. It's the only way to hold government
| accountable. If they don't follow the rules, they need to be
| sued. That will force the governors in two states to call up
| the Port Authority and say knock this shit off. Unless someone
| makes a stink, nothing will be fixed.
| canucker2016 wrote:
| How about a ham & cheese sandwich that costs $29+tax ($31.57
| total) in Upper East Side Manhattan?
|
| I thought the large pastrami sandwiches for almost $20 was crazy
| before the pandemic. But for a regular size ham & cheese?
|
| see https://nypost.com/2023/04/14/inflation-raises-price-of-
| ham-...
| smelendez wrote:
| But they don't have a monopoly and that's not normal Manhattan
| pricing. As the article mentions, you can go down the street to
| Panera or McDonald's or anywhere else more easily than in the
| airport.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| I think in protest I'm going to start packing 100g Herring fish
| tins and eating those wherever I can.
|
| https://www.walmart.com/ip/Brunswick-Boneless-Kippered-Herri...
|
| Can I bring Durian fruit past security?
| xwdv wrote:
| It's really not difficult to build sandwiches that won't require
| refrigeration and can be packed into a container for consumption
| on long trips, people just don't really know how to make them.
| But it will vastly improve the quality of your life.
|
| Just stop buying these expensive sandwiches.
| ufo wrote:
| What's your favorite such sandwich?
| thomasjb wrote:
| Cheese and chorizo, with mayo, or a nutella sandwich. I don't
| get the point about not requiring refrigeration, aren't most
| sandwiches OK for a couple days out of the fridge?
|
| On my travels, a bag of chocolate brioches has always been
| good
| bluedino wrote:
| Peanut better and jelly
| osnium123 wrote:
| PDX in Oregon has reasonably priced food. I wonder what their
| secret is.
| fisherjeff wrote:
| Vendors aren't allowed to charge higher prices than at their
| off-airport locations, for one.
|
| https://thepointsguy.com/news/pricey-airport-food/
| rolph wrote:
| perhaps they were done with seeing good food expire on the
| shelf, and paying to have it destroyed
| asah wrote:
| Palm grease is an experiment ingredient, and exempt from FDA
| labeling rules.
| cafard wrote:
| In the late 1980s, when I traveled a lot for work, I thought of
| airports as similar to the debtors' prisons depicted by Dickens:
| it was unpleasant, it was sort of your fault you were there, and
| you could purchase comforts, but at inordinate prices.
| aczerepinski wrote:
| The Boston airport has fair pricing. It can be done, keep
| fighting!
| predogger wrote:
| I just can't eat that sandwich normally so $1 is too much.
| xbmcuser wrote:
| This is how most large corporation/Companies in the US work.
| Identify a market capture it then put shutters up so that you
| have no competition in that space. That is how free market
| capitalism works and results in use your capital or tech to
| capture the market then jack the prices.
| arnejenssen wrote:
| "The reason that X costs Y, is that (enough) people buy it".
|
| It has less to do with the actual price of making the goods or
| service
| dplgk wrote:
| Doesn't really explain it. If X cost less, more people would
| buy it. Less people would plan around avoiding eating at the
| airport.
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| It's rent.
|
| The airport knows how much foot traffic there is, how much spend
| per person and can therefore adjust rent to gouge everything
| except 10%.
|
| But on a square foot revenue basis that's store is the best
| performing of whatever chain we talk about - and it has a
| guaranteed yearly revenue which makes nice for the bank loan and
| the volume deal for the suplliers and ...
|
| it's a win win for everyone apart from the customer
| asah wrote:
| More subtly, why is Newark so much more reasonable? I had a
| perfectly decent shot down meal at Saison and the prices were
| high but not crazy.
| logicallydurrrr wrote:
| [flagged]
| spacemule wrote:
| It's pretty obvious why the one in the picture at the top is
| $14.99. It's from the kosher stand that has a small selection and
| higher prices because kosher meat is generally pretty expensive
| in America. Mind you, I wouldn't normally buy that sandwich for
| $15, but the last time I traveled through Newark, I gladly payed
| that much for something kosher to eat. It's about the same as I'd
| pay outside the airport for something similar if freshly made. I
| can't say much about the other products listed, as I'm not the
| target demographic.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| This is why I just bring along a few protein bars when I travel.
| $15 for a shitty airport sandwich? _Fuhgedaboudit!_
| nemo44x wrote:
| I figured it's because so many travelers are business travelers
| that expense things like meals. The prices are very high but not
| enough to raise the alarm on whoever approves expense reports.
| pcurve wrote:
| You're partly right, but most companies have daily limits on
| meal expenses. Something like $20 for lunch and $40 for dinner.
| If I can help it, I'm not burning my daily limit on a
| disgusting overpriced sandwich!
| casenmgreen wrote:
| I remember being in one of the NYC airports and needing a plug
| socket adapter for my laptop, for the flight.
|
| On Alibaba, 50 cents.
|
| On Amazon, maybe 1.5 USD.
|
| In the airport, 35 USD. This was back in about 2015.
|
| I did not buy it, and got by as best I could.
|
| Such extraordinary prices materially impact the experience of
| traveling. To my eye, they seem shortsighted.
|
| I also finally realised some years ago all the "duty free" shops
| are a giant con.
|
| Yes, they are duty free - but they're all charging about twice
| the high-street price.
|
| I never buy in airports, which can inconvenient, and it is always
| unpleasant to witness when I travel. If I were running an
| airport, I would look to make the experience of travelers as
| pleasant as possible, rather than actually making it unpleasant.
| Symbiote wrote:
| > On Alibaba, 50 cents.
|
| > On Amazon, maybe 1.5 USD.
|
| There's a decent chance neither of these pass the minimum
| safety requirements. It would be fairer to compare with a
| socket adapter from a supermarket.
|
| e.g. Tesco, PS4.50 for two, vs. Heathrow Airport PS11 for two.
| xyzelement wrote:
| You may have noticed in general that convenience costs you
| money. A charger which is in China and you will get in a month
| is indeed worth 50 cents because all that's worth to you.
|
| A charger right this second, at the exact location (airport,
| past security) is obviously going to cost more.
|
| Both because you are being charged a convenience premium, and
| because chances are nobody would bother setting up vending for
| 50 cents (just think about hiring cleared employees, supplying
| your store on that side of security, rental of that very
| limited space)
|
| In general, I find myself much less outraged at what things
| cost once I became versed in market dynamics.
|
| If you are a businessman who forgot his charger in the hotel
| and your flight got delayed, you are thrilled to pay $35 for it
| (vs not having it at all since nobody would bother selling it)
| lucb1e wrote:
| > A charger right this second, at the exact location
| (airport, past security) is obviously going to cost more.
|
| I think the point they're making is that it's curious that "a
| charger right this second, at this exact supermarket" is
| nowhere near 33 usd in 2015 prices. It's specifically
| airports, not about waiting for 3 weeks (or even 3 hours) of
| shipping.
| xyzelement wrote:
| That's not the same thing at all.
|
| a supermarket is a place you "go to" vs the airport
| terminal is a place where "you are."
|
| If I am going to the supermarket, I have the luxury of time
| and I probably have the luxury of for example going 10
| minutes further for a better deal.
|
| When I am at the terminal, I am at the terminal. I can't go
| anywhere else. The product is either there or or it isn't
| kelipso wrote:
| Ok you are describing price gouging
| kevviiinn wrote:
| When I was younger and dumber I made the mistake of buying some
| halfway decent ear buds for $95. Huge ripoff but I rode those
| things for years until they stopped putting out sound to repent
| for my mistake. Never again
| grishka wrote:
| > To my eye, they seem shortsighted.
|
| These prices work in airports because there are little to no
| repeat customers, AND there is no competition to drive the
| prices down.
| ornornor wrote:
| > Yes, they are duty free - but they're all charging about
| twice the high-street price.
|
| Same as ZERO COMMISSION EXCHANGE outfits that, yes, charge 0%
| commission on the receipt but have jacked up all exchange rates
| by 10% instead...
| ZephyrBlu wrote:
| I travelled recently and when I got some foreign cash I
| noticed this. I was thinking, well if the fee is 0% you're
| clearly giving me a shit exchange rate and making your money
| there.
|
| It seems bizarre to shuffle around the cost structure like
| that, but I guess it's a marketing thing that works because
| most people don't know any better?
| ornornor wrote:
| A number of my friends see 0 commission and think "hey,
| good deal, let's exchange here"
|
| So yeah it works as intended. Same trick as advertising
| prices without taxes, tips, cleaning fees, and other
| mandatory fees you'll end up paying.
| lucb1e wrote:
| Zero commission indeed sounds fishy, but what if there is a
| commission?
|
| Inexperienced (euro-pampered) me went to a money exchange
| place that charged a fee because I know it costs money for
| them to have random icelandic kronar on hand so that's fair,
| then they don't need hidden fees right? I also knew the bank
| from name, it's a household name in my country.
|
| Later at home I checked and I paid out of my ass for the
| exchange rate, never mind the fee on top...
|
| I thought I was being clever by doing it at departure where
| you can compare and say no. At the destination airport, you
| have no choice but to exchange, everyone will need the local
| currency to pay for things and so I thought it's better to be
| prepared than potentially be paying the prices of the
| desperate. Yeah. No.
|
| (A few hours of air time later, I learned that in Iceland you
| just pay by bank card for everything at iirc 0.3% fee and you
| don't need to exchange no cash.)
| cleanchit wrote:
| > I learned that in Iceland you just pay by bank card for
| everything at iirc 0.3% fee and you don't need to exchange
| no cash
|
| Can you get cash out of local atm machines using your
| foreign card?
| ornornor wrote:
| My personal way to do this is to check on the web what the
| rate without any fee is (search engine "100/however much
| you need eur to isk") and then I make a mental note of that
| number. I go around exchange places and ask how much isk
| they'd give me for 100 eur all included. Makes it easier to
| compare them with each other without having to figure out
| whatever commission and fee structure they came up with,
| and gives me an idea of how far they are from the interbank
| rate.
|
| An even better solution is to get a card like TransferWise
| (revolut are exploitative assholes and I don't recommend
| enabling this employee exploiter) that charges very very
| reasonable rates so that you don't even need to exchange or
| can use an atm if cash is required.
| oriettaxx wrote:
| and what about the planned maze to reach your gate? planned
| so you are forced to pass in front as many shops as possible?
| The gate may be 50 meters away if you turn left, but the sign
| says you have to turn right... and it will become 200 meters
| and many shops
|
| then, even worse, the fact that they "announce" your gate
| only 30 minutes before embarking! .... they do not want you
| to sit in a chair if front of your gate.. absolutely not!
| they want you to hang around and spend.
|
| but, the worst: when they heat the water in the toilets so
| you cannot drink it! In Greece they even put a fake "not
| potable" sign, so you sure buy the world's higher overpriced
| bottle of water.
| gberger wrote:
| Wait, did you actually find overpriced water in Greece? I
| ask because they have a law regulating the price of bottled
| water: https://greeklandscapes.com/prices-in-
| greece/#:~:text=BOTTLE...).
|
| In my experience, I was able to purchase 0.50EUR water at
| airports in Athens, Mykonos and Santorini. One trick that I
| saw some merchants use was to not to sell bottled water at
| all, or claim it had ran out, and that they only had 7EUR
| Gatorade or whatever.
| oriettaxx wrote:
| > they have a law regulating the price of bottled water:
| https://greeklandscapes.com/prices-in-
| greece/#:~:text=BOTTLE...).
|
| oh, good to know, thanks.
|
| I recall a crazy price for Perrier (something I would
| never buy myself): it was Cefalonia airport where tab
| water is (or at least it was 10 years ago) super fine,
| and in the toilet there was a fake hand made "water is
| not drinkable" sign (only in the main bathroom btw
| ahhaaha): I remember my friend needed to drink and ended
| up buying Perrier and not drinking from the sink as we
| were doing.
| lvkv wrote:
| Do you mean "sinks" instead of "toilets"?
| jffry wrote:
| Maybe "toilets" was meant more in the sense of
| "bathrooms"?
| cortesoft wrote:
| Or the comment was written by a dog
| jstarfish wrote:
| Or Duke Nukem.
| oriettaxx wrote:
| :) :)
|
| yes, of course
| sleepychu wrote:
| The toilet can mean the bathroom, at least where I'm
| from.
| indymike wrote:
| The toilet is in the bathroom where I live. Only the
| local rustics say warshroom.
| [deleted]
| gadders wrote:
| Toilets are what Brits call the room that America's call
| a bathroom. I guess at least that has the virtue of the
| room actually having toilets in it and not baths.
| quietbritishjim wrote:
| I'm a Brit (as my handle suggests) and technically I
| agree with your comment but if I read you can't drink
| "the water in the toilets" it sounds pretty literal even
| to me.
| ipaddr wrote:
| washroom is American but bathroom is Canadian
| PebblesRox wrote:
| I've always heard and used bathroom as an American.
| Restroom is also used for public facilities that don't
| actually have bathtubs.
| ipaddr wrote:
| It might break down like pop/soda. Are you from a pop or
| soda state?
| pxc wrote:
| 'bathroom' is extremely common in the USA.
| zeven7 wrote:
| Another lifelong American checking in with "bathroom".
| I've lived up and down the East coast, and "bathroom"
| would have been normal to hear anywhere, alongside
| "restroom". "Washroom" would be a very distant 3rd
| option.
| grepfru_it wrote:
| >planned maze
|
| Is actually to maximize surface area for airplanes to park
| in a single terminal. Next airport trip, pull out a gps and
| look at where you are walking.
|
| >announce your gate 30 minutes
|
| The airline you are flying on only has X number of gates
| but X+y planes at that given time. So they will hold off on
| gate numbers to optimally fit you in. Lots of pilots
| talking to ATC telling them they don't have gate info from
| their carrier yet
|
| I understand it may appear as though they are trying to get
| you, but they are trying to be efficient
| oriettaxx wrote:
| > Is actually to maximize surface area for airplanes to
| park in a single terminal. Next airport trip, pull out a
| gps and look at where you are walking.
|
| yes, but I am not talking about the structure, the
| "concrete": I am talking about the walking way inside big
| open areas that makes you walk from A to B in a zigzag
| pattern: it is a bit like having salt and sugar in
| different places in a supermarket, which makes you go all
| around the supermarket (which is planned, no doubt, even
| moving those places every x months).
|
| I am 100% sure that the super expensive rent a shop pays
| in an airport goes along with the guarantee that a number
| of X passengers will pass in front of it every day: you
| need to maximize the model, so what do you do?
|
| anything goes
| Y_Y wrote:
| What I've found is that often a flight will take the same
| gate as it took yesterday, and failing that a nearby one.
| I think people like to be near their gate to feel safer
| about missing the flight. You mightn't know know the
| exact date, but since airports won't even give you the
| general area.
|
| Also I don't believe your efficiency story, there are
| plenty of cases where it's possible to know the gate
| ahead of time, and plenty of reasons for airports not to
| want people congregating at the gate as soon as they get
| airside.
| oriettaxx wrote:
| > there are plenty of cases where it's possible to know
| the gate ahead of time
|
| exactly, sometimes even flight radar tells you the gate,
| but the main displays in the airport will tell you the
| gate number only 30 minutes before: Istanbul (IST) is my
| main reference here: what I do is I just go to any
| personnel and gently ask for the gate for my flight
| telling them I need to sit down and rest: they quickly
| check and tell me.
|
| I have no proof, but I do believe that those 30 mins only
| advance notification are planned so not to have me
| sitting down in a comfortable chair for hours not
| spending money.
| ornornor wrote:
| Yep. I hate everything about flying. It's miserable. I plan
| my vacations to avoid flying, it's just not worth the
| aggravation for me.
| tracker1 wrote:
| I find road trips pretty pleasant... don't plan on having
| to drive too far in one day, and when you aren't in a
| rush to get somewhere by a certain time, it's pretty
| relaxing just listening to music, and the general scenery
| for most of the driving. After a few days, most daily
| life stress tends to melt away.
| ornornor wrote:
| I live in Europe and prefer the train. Less pollution,
| more legroom, can take a nap, read a book, etc.
| tracker1 wrote:
| You could also fly, and take a nap there... The biggest
| benefit to a road trip is flexibility. If you see
| something that catches your eye and want to look around
| and take some pictures, a train doesn't give you that. If
| you decide to stay an extra day somewhere, the effect on
| your budget could be significant for other forms of
| travel.
|
| As for pollution, maybe if they were building more
| nuclear plants and high speed chargers, then electric
| vehicles would actually be a better option for longer
| distance travel. Of course not counting the environmental
| impact of building a bunch of new vehicles vs. the one
| that I've had for over 7 years.
| ativzzz wrote:
| Just show up the airport an hour earlier than needed and
| go grab a beer. Less stress, more relaxation
| dev_tty01 wrote:
| That is fine for the first flight, but the connections
| can quickly turn into a mess. Also, after getting there
| an hour early, you grab a beer, sit around, and then the
| flight gets delayed or cancelled. I've noticed it is
| stressful until the plane for my final connection going
| back home leaves the ground.
|
| If you don't have to get somewhere at specific times and
| events, no problem, just chill and you'll get there
| eventually. If going to a planned meeting, or giving a
| talk, etc., it can be very tiring.
| ativzzz wrote:
| Oh true, I try to always fly without connections if
| possible, but if not it can get stressful. Depending on
| where you live you might always have connections, I've
| been lucky to live near well connected airports that have
| direct flights 90% of the time
| ornornor wrote:
| You're still swimming in people (especially since they
| fired all staff after Covid and haven't rehired but usage
| has returned to normal)
|
| You still have to deal with security theatre.
|
| You're still treated as cattle.
|
| You're still at the mercy of delays, bumps, last minute
| gate changes.
|
| You still have to deal with a puny amount of luggage.
|
| You still have to pay for every little thing (lounge
| access to relax, drinks/food inflight, the privilege of
| taking checked in luggage)
|
| You're till siting in a tiny aluminum tube with your
| knees under your chin for hours on end, preferably with a
| kid kicking the back of your flimsy seat the whole way.
|
| You still have to waste copious amounts of time going to
| and from the airport.
|
| You still get your luggage lost/delayed/damaged and
| having to deal with overworked + underpaid people to try
| and get compensated.
|
| I could go on. I hate the miserable experience of flying
| and it seems like airports + carriers are always
| innovating to find ways to make it even worse.
| polio wrote:
| It's also a perverse incentive for the airport to not
| improve security times. The less predictable the security
| experience is, the earlier people have to show up, and the
| more time they spend getting hungry airside.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| not to mention security requirements ... the more
| paranoid they make people about what they can bring, the
| less likely they are to attempt to bring food or drink in
| themselves and end up resigning yourself to buying it in
| the terminal.
|
| There seems to be a deliberate fog of war around travel
| requirements. The specifics of the rules are different
| everywhere (take my shoes off? belt off? laptop in my bag
| or out of my bag? ...). Which is slightly annoying in
| itself but what is really annoying is the lack of
| explanation of _what those specific requirements are_ at
| any one airport. Which means inevitably being yelled at
| by security staff, feeling stupid, setting off scanners
| accidentally etc. It 's all very unpleasant.
| landemva wrote:
| > The specifics of the rules are different everywhere
|
| With lack of signage by TSA to describe the airport-
| specific rules. Makes TSA folks appear busy by seizing my
| water bottle after arriving int'l and getting caught by
| TSA for onward flight. And specific taxes pay for this
| bureaucracy.
| hgsgm wrote:
| TSA took over airport security.
| oriettaxx wrote:
| what a great idea to create jobs :) :)
|
| And you take them seriously, until you take a flight in
| Argentina and they tell you you can take aboard as much
| water you want ahhahaah
|
| omg, you say, will be a safe flight? hahaha
|
| of course.
| elicash wrote:
| It's been years now since I checked, but I remember a Best Buy
| airport vending machine having the same price as their stores.
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >It's been years now since I checked, but I remember a Best
| Buy airport vending machine having the same price as their
| stores.
|
| It's been years now since I checked, but I remember needing
| (within hours) a specific ethernet card (for a box running
| Solaris x86 -- back in the late '90s/early noughties driver
| support for Solaris was quite limited) and went to a BestBuy
| store as they had it in stock near me.
|
| I checked later on and found that the price _in the store_
| was 30% over MSRP.
|
| As such, the fact that the price was the same at an airport
| vending machine vis-a-vis an actual store doesn't surprise me
| that much.
|
| Which is why, unless I'm in a situation like I described
| above, I stay far, far away from BestBuy.
|
| Obviously, this is anecdotal, so I imagine YMMV.
| sgerenser wrote:
| Probably not applicable to the early 2000s, but nowadays
| Best Buy physical stores will price match their online
| prices. I went in several years ago to grab an HDMI cable
| that was listed for ~$10 online but was marked $20 in the
| store. Silly that it's even necessary, but it was easy to
| price match.
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >I went in several years ago to grab an HDMI cable that
| was listed for ~$10 online but was marked $20 in the
| store. Silly that it's even necessary, but it was easy to
| price match.
|
| While I get your point, that I'd even have to compare
| prices online and in person _from the same retailer_ ,
| even if they will "price match" (which is really just
| ripping off anyone who wouldn't think to look for a
| better price from _them_ online) is slimy as hell IMHO.
| largepeepee wrote:
| Depends on the country as well, some country airports with high
| item tax make it worth buying at the airport.
|
| Take the vice tax for example, most Islamic countries probably
| at alcohol cheaper at their airports.
|
| Same goes with countries that have items with pricing power, I
| always get certain gifts at Japanese airports since the price
| it usually cheaper with tax free comparative to the rest of the
| country.
|
| US airports though... Never worth it. Overpriced af
| Ekaros wrote:
| Went to Dubai, I don't do drugs, but prices seemed not
| horrible.
|
| Then I checked if I would spend my local money for some
| candy, but I noped right out. On principle I weren't going to
| pay those prices.
| Eisenstein wrote:
| I'm not sure if your comment makes sense and I can't think
| straight, or maybe you are using 'drugs' and 'candy' in
| some way that I don't understand.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Ethanol is a drug. No different really from fentanyl or
| crack cocaine or THC. So I just referrer it as such.
| traverseda wrote:
| Or blueberries or aspirin? I'm confused as to where you
| draw the lines between those items.
| haldujai wrote:
| Sure they're all 'drugs', but while THC and ethanol have
| comparable safety profiles both are unequivocally
| different from and far less dangerous+addictive than
| fentanyl and crack cocaine for both public and individual
| health...
| Danieru wrote:
| Yes that's fine; but what's the "candy" in your context?
|
| We're all confused about the candy thing.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Actual candy, like chocolate. I think price was multiple
| times what you would expect anywhere.
| Eisenstein wrote:
| Have you considered that is more important for people to
| understand what you are saying than to be technically
| correct?
| conductr wrote:
| > If I were running an airport, I would look to make the
| experience of travelers as pleasant as possible, rather than
| actually making it unpleasant.
|
| You'd also need to find a revenue source to maintain the
| airport and pay salaries which is kind of important
| actionablefiber wrote:
| I think another point is that thanks to TSA measures it will
| pretty much always be unpleasant, so you can make money
| squeezing people with layovers who don't want to, or don't
| have time to, go through security an extra time.
|
| If you have a layover in a train station, e.g. with Amtrak,
| you can just leave the train station and go to a nearby shop
| if you need something.
| [deleted]
| gretch wrote:
| Isn't this very simple?
|
| It's just basic supply and demand. Travelers are already
| exhausted from travel so they are willing to pay high prices for
| small comforts. Also, some travelers are business travelers and
| their company foots the bill.
|
| If all travelers collectively stopped buying these foods, the
| price would drop. But people keep buying them, understandably.
| jtefera wrote:
| The article mentions that according to the Port Authority
| rules, vendors can't charge more than 10% of the street price
| of the equivalent products. So no, you can't charge whatever
| you want just based on supply and demand.
|
| The article is trying to understand how they determine the base
| price.
| Freak_NL wrote:
| If you read the article (you should) you'll note that the shops
| with the concession do not have the freedom to arbitrarily set
| such high prices (which would make it that simple), and that
| the Port Authority who is supposed to ensure that prices adhere
| to the set guidelines, is apparently not doing its job and is
| withholding documents that can proof this despite these
| documents generally being considered open information for
| citizens to request.
| dafelst wrote:
| The issue discussed in the article is that the NY Port
| Authority has regulations to clamp the prices of these items to
| comparable items in NYC (based on the average of the 3 lowest
| cost comparables), and they are not being transparent on which
| comparable items (if any) they are comparing to.
|
| So no, it is not just a simple issue of supply and demand, it
| is an issue of lack of governmental transparency.
| davidkuennen wrote:
| Was able to enjoy the Business Class Lounge a few weeks back in
| JFK Airport. The lounge sounds almost like a steal in comparison
| when reading those prices.
| beej71 wrote:
| "Charge what the market will bear."
| ElfinTrousers wrote:
| Not everything in this article is outrageous. $27.85 to drink a
| Sam Adams would be...
|
| ...wait, they want _me_ to pay to drink a Sam Adams? Sorry, my
| misunderstanding. No deal.
| RickJWagner wrote:
| $15 for a turkey sandwich?
|
| Disney: Hold my beer.
| darod wrote:
| thankfully TSA can only take your liquids and not your solids at
| the checkpoint, so you can theoretically buy/make a sandwich
| before you go to the airport.
| andrewstuart wrote:
| Melbourne airport makes more money from car parking than
| anything.
| oriettaxx wrote:
| Ah, yes, another big scam is parking :)
|
| In Venice, relatives often wait in the car on the side of the
| road. Meanwhile, at the airport, the town has declared (and
| pays traffic police for) a strange 'no stopping' rule on the
| roads leading to the airport.
| djhope99 wrote:
| In most cases (especially with food prices like this) paying for
| lounge access looks like a great option.
| ericpauley wrote:
| The addition of restaurants to Priority Pass has been an
| especially nice addition here. After deductions (and plus tip)
| you can often get a nice sit-down meal for the price of
| plastic-wrapped garbage elsewhere in the airport.
| listenallyall wrote:
| Lounges have jacked up pricing as well. Used to be a $25 add-on
| to a ticket... well worth it when traveling internationally.
| Recently I've seen $49 or $59 for entry. If you're willing to
| drop that coin, you can eat pretty well at airport restaurants.
| tpmx wrote:
| The handful of international business class lounges in the US
| that I've visited were comparatively quite stingy/basic with
| food items (compared to typical counterparts in e.g. Europe or
| Asia).
|
| Anyone got a recommendation for a JFK lounge that's a good deal
| when you're paying for access?
| awinter-py wrote:
| Fascinating comparison to health pricing -- CMS has been trying
| for years to get hospitals to disclose their _own_ prices (not
| even the methodology /formula deal from port authority), and they
| just haven't
|
| People spill a lot of ink about _whether_ regulators should force
| industries to be markets. Feels like we don 't focus enough on
| the downstream case where regulators try to impose markets and
| fail
| DerekL wrote:
| The title is incorrect. As the article states, there is more than
| one airport for New York City, so the phrase "the NYC airport" is
| misleading.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| I've seen these prices at many airports - I'd say every airport,
| IIRC. It's not new and it's not local to NY. It's not only in
| airports, but anywhere there is a captive audience, such as
| sporting events, museums, etc.
|
| Can anyone name airports where these aren't standard prices?
| manual89 wrote:
| When I was flying out of Narita Airport, the vending machines
| within were the exact same prices as those on any street corner
| in Japan: very reasonable.
| genocidicbunny wrote:
| Portland International (PDX)
|
| Many/most of the restaurants are ones that you could also find
| locations for outside the airport, and their prices are the
| same as outside the airport.
| riffic wrote:
| Corruption, plainly put in New York parlance, " _f_ you, that 's
| why."
| jononomo wrote:
| On my last trip, I noticed that a cup of coffee in an airport is
| now $4. And that's just for a paper cup with black coffee in it
| -- not any kind of special latte, etc.
| SMAAART wrote:
| It's $29 in Manhattan
| https://www.instagram.com/p/Cq_FJyDMYoU/?igshid=MDJmNzVkMjY%...
| switch007 wrote:
| I've only flown through JFK once but still, my initial thought
| was "oh only $15?"
| Overtonwindow wrote:
| You're captive to the airport. If you want something to eat you
| have to pay airport prices, there's not a lot you can do about it
| other than bringing in your own food. Airport vendors know this
| so they charge accordingly.
| robomartin wrote:
| For that matter, it's about time abusive pricing policies get
| some scrutiny at amusement parks, theaters, sports venues,
| convention centers, etc.
|
| It is hard to understand why politicians or the very agencies we
| pay to protect consumers do nothing about this. A $5 bottle of
| water is abusive. Oh, yes, and in a lot of these venues you are
| not allowed to bring in your own food and drinks.
|
| Let's thrown in a place like Disney World in FL scanning
| everyone's ID's and fingerprints on entry. Not the same thing, of
| course, yet one of those "What the fuck???" things that you never
| hear media, politicians or consumer protection groups/agencies
| talk about. Ever.
| jannes wrote:
| > $13.50 plus 10 percent = $14.99
|
| That math doesn't check out at all.
| Algemarin wrote:
| > Why does a plastic-wrapped turkey sandwich cost $15
|
| Because people keep paying for them.
|
| The fault of price gouging lies firmly with consumers. If
| consumers are willing to tolerate ridiculous prices, then guess
| what, vendors are going to keep charging ever-higher ridiculous
| prices. Why in the world would they not?
|
| If no one, or at least much fewer, people were willing to shell
| out $15 for a sandwich, then that sandwich would not cost $15.
|
| If you're going to be hungry, bring food with you to the airport.
| If you don't want to deal with being hassled while going through
| security about it, then eat it before you go through security.
| It's very simple.
|
| Sure there are always going to be exceptions--flight delays,
| you're running late, your kids' blood sugar is dipping, etc, but
| if you adhere to this very basic principle more often than not,
| sandwich prices will go down.
| prottog wrote:
| I agree with all of your points, but in cases of monopoly or
| oligopoly you can't place all of the blame on the consumer. It
| seems like a simple way for this problem to fix itself is for
| the Port Authority to allow more competition among
| concessionaires in the terminals; the article doesn't make it
| clear how much competition there really is.
|
| As noted elsewhere in this thread, the Port Authority is one of
| the most corrupt government organizations you could find, so it
| would be unsurprising if it ended up being that there were two
| or three parent companies behind all the concessionaires.
| bluedino wrote:
| They are $4 in the vending machine at the office
| seb1204 wrote:
| Make it a home for even less I guess
| spacemannoslen wrote:
| I can offer some insight onto this, as I used to be in close
| proximity to a friend who worked in the concession group at the
| LAX version monitoring this policy.
|
| It was called the 18% price protection policy program where
| concessionaires had to quarterly list 3 comparable vendors for
| each item sold showing how their item offered was only less than
| 18% above that of those found within a 10 mile radius of the
| airport. In reality, it was too much asked of low skilled and low
| margin vendors with power to enforce not being exercised due to
| managements prioritization of more pressing matters.
|
| In reality, there was little by way of enforcement, it was too
| much regulation to pass down to those vendors even, with that
| being only 1 of 5-10 policies an excel sheets they had to provide
| quarterly data on, entered manually. They vendors had so much
| turnover themselves and employees who didn't specialize in
| providing that sort of data, they would always fall behind with
| all the policies and regulation they had to comply with that
| enforcing it on them was hollow and without power. And when they
| did provide data, it was poorly formatted, required man hours to
| read and research and in the end might not even have been a valid
| "comparable" data that was provided, but, to verify their data
| provided would require manual audits of physically inspecting
| 10-100 individual comparables that were given that it was a
| nightmare, and thus, never got done. There wasn't enough staff at
| either the vendor nor the airport authority to properly see the
| implementation of the price protection policy.
|
| The city could technically use its power to make it a priority,
| but, there were always much more urgent matters at same position
| that it was a on the back burner, it seemed.
| listenallyall wrote:
| What does "used to be in close proximity to a friend" mean? I
| mean your comment is pretty detailed, down to the formatting of
| Excel documents and the internal workings of the regulators.
| People have conversations with friends, but rarely to this
| degree of detail, kind of makes it sound like you're just
| making shit up. Or, that you yourself are the "friend."
| iudqnolq wrote:
| This isn't the only reason someone might go into detail, but
| there's something called "infodumping". It's when autistic
| people like myself socialize by describing something we're
| interested in in depth. Some people have autistic friends.
| bckygldstn wrote:
| I've had plenty of conversations like this with friends over
| a beer or coffee, incredulously diving into some bizarre
| aspect of their work or life!
| seb1204 wrote:
| Same
| hackernewds wrote:
| However I haven't. So I call shenanigans!
| listenallyall wrote:
| If the internet is good for one thing, it's for producing
| entirely trustworthy and accurate tales based on what a
| random poster's "friend once told me a while back".
| floor_ wrote:
| [flagged]
| pwg wrote:
| > Why Does a Plastic-Wrapped Turkey Sandwich Cost $15 at the
| Airport?
|
| Despite the "port authority" rules on 'street pricing', the real
| reason is lack of competition.
|
| A single vendor receives the food contract for the airport, and
| they now have monopoly positioning and a captive audience. When
| business X is the only seller, and when the customers are held
| captive and unable to "go elsewhere" [1] then prices will
| naturally rise to the maximum the captive audience is willing to
| pay.
|
| [1] How many air travelers are willing to exit the security
| perimeter, to then need to take a cab to somewhere (most airports
| are not located near dense shopping/restaurant areas) to purchase
| food, to then have to go back through security to return to their
| flight? And what few even have enough time between flight legs to
| even consider that "go outside the airport for food" trip as even
| possible? Plus by the time the "cab fee" is factored in, even if
| they could find the identical sandwich for 5.50 on the outside,
| the $10 + tip or more cab fee there and back would make the
| sandwich $15 or more in the end anyway.
| lostlogin wrote:
| > the real reason is lack of competition.
|
| If my limited experience with hospital shops is anything to go
| by, yes, but it's not the shop killing your pocket.
|
| The landlord says some variation of 'you'll be the only coffee
| shop' and the rent is about 8x what is sane.
|
| The shop gets guaranteed business but has to charge a lot to
| pay the rent.
| woobar wrote:
| I am not sure why do you think it is a single vendor. JFK has
| 50+ shops in just the "Grab and Go" category. [1] I've been to
| a plenty of airports that have a lot of different vendors of
| overpriced crappy food.
|
| It is not the competition. It is about extracting maximum of
| what the customer could pay. Same reason beer is expensive at
| the event venues. The second part of your comment explains it
| perfectly.
|
| [1] https://www.jfkairport.com/at-airport/shops-restaurants-
| and-...
| piperswe wrote:
| Many, if not most, of those are franchises owned by a single
| operator.
| Overtonwindow wrote:
| I think this sums it up best. Airports charge more for food
| because, well, they can. Travelers or a captive market, and
| have no other choice. I'm old enough to remember when people
| thought you couldn't bring food through security.
| lordnacho wrote:
| But the contract itself is also sold by a monopolist. The
| sandwiches have to pay for rent somehow.
|
| In the end you can extract X amount of money from all the
| passengers and that gets split between the landlord and the
| vendor.
|
| So it's not just that the vendor has a monopoly, if they didn't
| have a monopoly there would still be some amount they'd pay in
| rent for the captive audience.
| treeman79 wrote:
| Same reason raising taxes on companies doesn't work. It
| either gets passed onto the consumer or company goes under if
| business drops too much.
| dsr_ wrote:
| Raising taxes on income doesn't work. Workers will just
| demand higher wages to compensate.
|
| If this logic doesn't work, then there are some unstated
| assumptions.
| hgsgm wrote:
| That's the opposite of true in a monopoly environment.
| stu2b50 wrote:
| Only if the product has completely inelastic demand? Also,
| that'd depend on the goal of the tax in question?
| fuckingbonkers wrote:
| It works in the sense that some people feel better about
| paying higher taxes if they pay them by paying higher
| prices to corporations that then pay the tax.
|
| And other people feel better about raising taxes on people
| if they do so by raising taxes on corporations that then
| raise prices on people.
| bandyaboot wrote:
| Doesn't the blanket statement that "raising taxes on
| companies doesn't work" naturally imply that the only tax
| rate that "works" is zero?
| PebblesRox wrote:
| I think the implication is that it doesn't work as a way
| to avoid raising taxes on regular people.
| rocqua wrote:
| It taxes regular people differently than taxing them
| directly. VAT rates on food tend to be regressive. Taxing
| company profits has little effect on prices.
| martin8412 wrote:
| Why award the contract for the entire airport to a single
| company though. My local Spanish airport has a bunch of
| different options. It's way cheaper, while definitely more
| expensive than outside the airport. The only price control
| enforced is on bottled water which can't cost more than 1 EUR.
| jrockway wrote:
| If you're the contract negotiator, finding a single company
| that won't complain about the kickbacks you ask for is easier
| than finding a bunch of them, right? And what's the point of
| working for the Port Authority if you're not going to be
| corrupt? This is the agency that snarled traffic in the town
| of a mayor that wouldn't endorse a candidate of the opposite
| political party, mostly just for the lulz. Predictably, the
| structure of the Port Authority ensures that nobody can ever
| be held accountable, and indeed, nobody was.
|
| (If you didn't follow Bridgegate when it was happening, strap
| in for the most petty government overreach you've ever read
| about. I've read this article a number of times and honestly,
| you start reading and you can't look away. It's so good!
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Lee_lane_closure_scandal)
| hgsgm wrote:
| Read the link. You got it backwards. NJ Governor Christie
| closed the bridge. Port Authority reopened it.
| rocqua wrote:
| Not quite. One of Christie's appointed directors at the
| port authority closed the bridge. Later the port
| authority decided to reverse it's own decision.
|
| The intro blurb skips the appointed director and
| attributes the closing of the bridge directly to
| Christie, but Christie acted through a crony at the Port
| Authority, as can be read further in the Wikipedia
| article.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Why would the airport enforce competition within their
| property and reduce the profit it can take from the sellers?
|
| I bet the government is involved on that decision from your
| local one.
| bombcar wrote:
| What's really fun is when you have a ton of apparently
| completely different stores at an airport and then you
| realize they're all just fronts for the same company.
|
| Part of the answer is that people going through airports are
| often buying expense account ones, and they're quite price
| flexible.
| pastacacioepepe wrote:
| > Despite the "port authority" rules on 'street pricing', the
| real reason is lack of competition.
|
| The real reason is greed. Competitors can work together to fix
| prices and they usually do. The reason again is greed.
|
| Competition lowering prices only works when the barrier of
| entry to the market is very low and it's possible for many
| actors to compete. For SaaS businesses, where competition can
| virtually scale infinitely, that's true. Not at all for
| airports, where competition can only be very limited due to
| material constraints.
| [deleted]
| chongli wrote:
| _How many air travelers are willing to exit the security
| perimeter, to then need to take a cab to somewhere..._
|
| It doesn't need to be anywhere near that extreme. Lots of
| people pay exorbitant prices for food at movie theatres and
| those facilities tend to be in commercial high traffic areas
| with tons of food service options such as malls, downtown
| streets, etc.
|
| It's really not hard at all to grab a bite before going into
| the theatre yet people still end up buying the ripoff theatre
| food!
| yunwal wrote:
| Most movie theaters I've been in don't allow outside food or
| drinks. Of course, it's never that hard to sneak in, but
| still discourages most people
| standardUser wrote:
| People like the distinct food offerings that movie theaters
| have and are willing to pay more because it's part of the
| experience. Not true at all with airports.
| chongli wrote:
| The only thing distinctive is the popcorn. Everything else
| is candy you could buy at any grocery/convenience store or
| fountain soft drinks and mediocre burgers/hotdogs that can
| be beaten by any fast food joint or street vendor.
|
| And most theatres don't even give you real butter on the
| popcorn anymore. It's now this "artificial butter sauce"
| junk.
| standardUser wrote:
| The candy offering is absolutely distinct. You can find
| some of it at standard stores, but not all of it, and not
| necessarily next to a theater. The popcorn is of course
| an iconic part of the experience. And if you want your
| Twizzlers and popcorn, why not just buy the $6 soda to
| make life simple?
|
| But all that aside, the process of going to the theater
| and standing in line and getting your overpriced junk
| food does add to the experience for many people, even if
| just due to nostalgia. Waiting in line to buy an
| overpriced sandwich at the airport is not an experience
| many people crave or are nostalgic for.
|
| EDIT: I don't know what to tell you all. The specific set
| of junk food at movie theaters in the US is a culturally
| significant phenomenon. Like most cultural phenomena, it
| is not universal, but it is universally known (or close
| to it by anyone who grew up in the US). And for some
| people, sneaking food into theaters, in response to those
| high prices, is a culturally meaningful experience! The
| point being, food and theaters have a cultural history
| that is meaningful and nostalgic for many Americans. Not
| so with airports - where hungry people buy shitty food at
| outrageous prices because they have no choice.
| SilasX wrote:
| >The popcorn is of course an iconic part of the
| experience.
|
| I've long had the "conspiracy theory" that they promote
| popcorn as part of the authentic part of the experience
| because it's an item that's most difficult to smuggle in
| -- with the butter, you'd have to pack it down tight,
| which would ruin it, and yet it's cheap to make at the
| theater. Plus they can afford to spend more on a machine
| than the average person would.
| geodel wrote:
| Well, when it comes to justifying choices people can
| pretty much justify anything. For airport it can be
| simply said the kind of people who travel so much and
| often have to eat at airport a 15 dollar sandwich is very
| very low in term of consideration. Further frequent
| travelers usually pay through expense accounts.
|
| And for infrequent traveler like me, I had no problem in
| eating airline food when I am coming home from long
| distance travel or eating outside after leaving airport
| when there is no food served in plane. If am starting
| from home its not too much of hassle to wrap a few rolls
| or sandwiches to carry.
|
| Now for concession food to have _authentic movies
| experience_ looks more of what marketers would say. I
| think besides streaming another reason cinema theater
| attendance is slimming is outrageous price of that
| authentic experience for large majority of people.
| musicale wrote:
| > The candy offering is absolutely distinct
|
| I like how grocery stores carry "theater packs" of candy.
| Perfect for a special home theater experience, along with
| some popcorn of course.
|
| Unfortunately I don't have an icee machine at home.
| chongli wrote:
| $6 soda? That was the price 15 years ago. Now they're at
| least $10. I've seen popcorn, soda, and candy combos go
| for over $20 now. You can count on spending $100 to go to
| the movies with a family of 3 (2 parents and a child),
| including tickets and one of those combos for each
| person.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| _Why_ is popcorn "an iconic part of the experience?"
|
| Of course it isn't. You're not going to enjoy a movie
| more just because you're shovelling puffy sweetened carbs
| into your face - unless you've been Pavlov'd into it.
|
| Airport food is different, because there's a good chance
| some of the people who buy it genuinely need to eat.
| Sateeshm wrote:
| > You're not going to enjoy a movie more just because
| you're shovelling puffy sweetened carbs into your face
|
| I beg to differ. It definitely is a part of the
| experience for me.
| indymike wrote:
| No... there's a sign on the door saying you aren't allowed
| to bring food or beverages in with you. So you have to pay
| $9 for a Diet Coke.
| standardUser wrote:
| Right, but people sneak food in constantly.
| brianwawok wrote:
| Not really, it's part of why I don't go anymore.
| Swizec wrote:
| > even if they could find the identical sandwich for 5.50 on
| the outside, the $10 + tip or more cab fee there and back would
| make the sandwich $15 or more in the end anyway
|
| And there you have it, a perfect description of value. The
| sandwich costs $15 at the airport, because _at the airport_
| it's worth $15. It may be worth less elsewhere, but that's its
| value there.
|
| They're not selling a sandwich, they're selling a sandwich you
| can have between flights.
| chatmasta wrote:
| This doesn't account for all the people who simply don't buy
| the $15 sandwich, because they planned in advance and ate at
| home. Nor does it account for the people who decide that a
| $15 beer is a better value at the airport than a $15
| sandwich. The value being measured is the markup, not the
| full price in isolation.
| KMnO4 wrote:
| I think the fact that you're allowed to bring most[0] foods
| on a plane is not well advertised.
|
| I always travel with sandwiches that I either make at home
| or buy. Throw it in your carry on bag and eat it whenever
| you want.
|
| [0]: some restrictions on liquids or if you're crossing a
| border with certain foods
| Swizec wrote:
| > who simply don't buy the $15 sandwich, because they
| planned in advance and ate at home /../ or beer
|
| Correct. A sandwich is worth more if you want a sandwich
| than if you don't.
| bluedino wrote:
| You still have to buy the $4 bottle of water
| nickjj wrote:
| > You still have to buy the $4 bottle of water
|
| You can technically bring an empty bottle of water or
| container and fill it up inside of the airport.
|
| Your options would typically be a water fountain,
| bathroom sink or asking a bar tender to fill it up.
| Typically if you go the bar tender route you may end up
| tipping them so you don't escape some cost there.
|
| I've also heard you can bring a frozen water bottle. The
| idea there is if it were a dangerous liquid then it
| wouldn't freeze so you're allowed to bring it. The hard
| part would be ensuring it stays fully frozen while
| waiting on line.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Given that staple food likely has fairly low elasticity of
| demand _and_ food sellers in airports likely have extensive
| market power, I wouldn't really make any conclusions about
| "value." If sellers increase the price from $10 to $15 and
| the quantity of sandwiches demanded doesn't decrease much at
| all, that's a pretty good indicator that "value" to the buyer
| didn't increase much. If the sellers' economic profits went
| up about the same proportion as the price did, that's another
| dead giveaway.
| Symbiote wrote:
| That's true, but doesn't mean they aren't also jacking up the
| price because they have the monopoly on selling a sandwich
| you can have between flights.
|
| Without the artificial barrier of the security perimeter,
| you'd be able to order food to be delivered to the airport.
| sowbug wrote:
| It's OK to take food through security.
| Symbiote wrote:
| Except liquids or gels.
|
| But I meant ordering a pizza and having it delivered, or
| having a street food van selling sandwiches outside.
| Neither of those are possible.
| listenallyall wrote:
| Food delivered to the airport, lol. Where would the
| delivery person park? Why would any driver subject
| themselves to the traffic snarls of an airport, even if you
| were to meet them outside? No matter how you justify it,
| having individual drivers deliver individual orders to an
| airport would cost far more than even the monopolistic,
| jacked-up airport food. Honestly, just the idea "food to be
| delivered"... like seriously, dude, the world isn't here to
| deliver shit right into your lap.
| TheCoelacanth wrote:
| The value is no higher at the airport than anywhere else. The
| difference is who is able to capture the surplus value.
|
| At the airport, the vendor captures most of the surplus value
| due to their monopoly. Elsewhere, the consumer captures a lot
| of the surplus value due to robust competition between
| different vendors.
| medvezhenok wrote:
| That's stretching the definition of value a bit. Value is
| certainly situational - you wouldn't say that someone
| selling the last parachute on a plane that's falling is <<
| capturing the true value of the parachute >> - or someone
| selling a bottle of water to someone dying of dehydration
| in the desert is capturing the true value of the water
| TheCoelacanth wrote:
| I believe I'm using value[1] in the standard economic way
| as "measure of the benefit provided by a good or service
| to an economic agent" often framed as "what is the
| maximum amount of money a specific actor is willing and
| able to pay for the good or service?".
|
| It's not the same as market price or market value. Market
| price is what you actually pay, value is the maximum you
| would hypothetically pay. The difference between the two
| is the "consumer surplus"[2].
|
| It is situational, but I don't think it varies much in
| this scenario. You aren't any hungrier inside the airport
| than you are outside. If food was equally scarce in both
| locations, you would pay the same amount.
|
| The value is the same in both locations, but the price is
| higher in the airport. That means consumer surplus is
| higher outside the airport. The cost to the producer is
| also roughly the same, so the producer surplus is higher
| in the airport. The producer has used their monopoly
| position to take a larger portion of the economic surplus
| inside the airport.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(economics)
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_surplus
| ska wrote:
| > but I don't think it varies much in this scenario. You
| aren't any hungrier inside the airport than you are
| outside.
|
| I think the poster was claiming that in fact the value is
| not the same. You aren't hungrier, but you are typically
| more tired, more rushed, and focused on bigger problems
| than what to eat for lunch, etc. It's a reasonable
| argument. That doesn't mean it's thing going on.
| yibg wrote:
| That's why there are price gouging laws in place.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| My god the fact that people here argue for the LTV is sad.
|
| Literally every bit of theoretical marxism, including the
| Labor Theory of Value, the "absolute general law of capital
| accumulation", the "tendency for the rate of profit to
| fall", and the entire set of predictions around
| "dialectical materialism" are all debunked by more than a
| hundred years of history. Can we drop it now, or do we have
| to be enamored by his fashionable nonsense for another
| hundred years?
| kelipso wrote:
| More like a hundred years of obvious capitalist
| propaganda. Marxist theory is taught in normal economics
| courses in China, a country projected to be the largest
| economy by the end of this decade, largest economy by GDP
| PPP, largest number of people who escaped poverty in the
| last x decades, etc etc. Argue it's because of capitalism
| sure but LTV or Marxist theory are not "debunked" lol.
| robocat wrote:
| What is taught in school and what people learn are often
| vastly different, in any culture.
|
| In Shenzhen every single person seemed to be running a
| business, and it felt like one of the most truly
| capitalist places I have ever been. In New Zealand people
| are dependent on their government, and few people try to
| run their own business. You don't need to risk much in
| New Zealand, so most people don't.
| robocat wrote:
| Consumer Surplus and Surplus Value have their
| similarities. Flaming someone for using some words that
| appear to trigger you is unproductive. Maybe give them
| the benefit of the doubt, especially since their last
| sentence seems to argue for capitalism.
|
| https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_surplus#Consumer_surp
| lus
|
| https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value
|
| Perhaps review:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| freediverx wrote:
| That's a very pro-capitalist way of saying you don't really
| care about free markets. If the airport authority allowed
| competition and/or if they only granted exclusivity tied to
| reasonable pricing, then this issue wouldn't exist.
| bannedbybros wrote:
| [dead]
| karaterobot wrote:
| I believe you when you say there is a lack of competition, but
| it seems like the system is set up to prevent that from being
| consequential: as I understand it, the price should be set as a
| function of the prices of competitors _outside_ the airport,
| per the Port Authority 's own pricing rules.
|
| So, lack of competition inside the airport would not by itself
| be able to explain this pricing.
|
| Corruption or incompetence within the Port Authority would
| explain it, and though I will withhold judgment, it's hard to
| think of what else it might be. It's even easier to jump to
| that conclusion when they also deny and conceal when asked for
| an explanation.
| moomoo11 wrote:
| I've never seen a sandwich store sell sandwiches (talking
| normal sized sandwich not whatever small bite size they sell as
| "regular size" with shrinkflation) for less than 12-15 bucks in
| big cities.
| tempusalaria wrote:
| In London or Paris it's $5-6 for a decent sandwich
| Scoundreller wrote:
| One thing I love about France is that they have a pretty
| good supermarket-store ready-to-eat sandwich culture as the
| inexpensive on-the-go meal option. At a US 7-11, you never
| know if the sandwich might be a week old or not.
| [deleted]
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| QFC and Whole Foods in the states are similar. At least
| here in Seattle, although not quite as nice as LA, or
| abroad.
|
| 7-11 is ok in Japan or China (or say a Co-op Pronto in
| Switzerland). I wish we could get those in the states.
| AndrewOMartin wrote:
| This might explain the $29 ham and cheese sandwich [1] in
| NYC, gives airports the right to charge up to $31.9 for a
| sandwich.
|
| [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/12i4fot/29_ham_and_
| che...
| standardUser wrote:
| I live in Manhattan and see lots of "shocking" prices. But
| I have never seen anything this absurd. Not by a longshot.
| Is it real?
| pengaru wrote:
| Eli Zabar's EAT; for when Whole Foods' prices are too low
| standardUser wrote:
| I appreciate the warning!
| ericabiz wrote:
| I guess it depends on the city. I live in Austin (metro
| population 2.28M), and most places price sandwiches around
| $10 or less here.
|
| Here's Thundercloud, a popular chain (often described as "a
| step up from Subway"):
|
| https://thundercloud.com/main-menu/
|
| I also checked Jersey Mike's, another familiar chain, and a
| regular size "original Italian" is $9.95 here.
|
| I will say that generally Texas tends to have lower prices on
| food than coastal metros like NYC/SF/LA, but the airport
| prices mentioned in the article for NYC still seem absurd.
| moomoo11 wrote:
| Is Austin still worth moving to from CA or has it gotten a
| lot more expensive? I've only spent a couple days in Austin
| many years ago, so I don't know much.
| bsder wrote:
| Depends from where in CA. Austin cost of living is not
| very low anymore. It's not San Francisco stupid levels,
| but I didn't feel a lot of difference between San Diego
| and Austin in the last couple of years.
|
| Texas makes up for not having income tax by having big
| property taxes. So, you may make out on that exchange
| depending upon what your family situation is. If you're
| earning are closer to median, California is probably
| better than Texas. If you're a high earner, Texas is
| probably better because California is biting you via
| income tax.
|
| However, if you're coming to Texas, make _damn sure_ your
| healthcare situation is sorted out. California is good
| about healthcare--the exchanges are decent and you can by
| healthcare _retail_ for the price advertised on the
| exchange. This shocked me at one point as it meant that a
| friend could completely bypass the exchanges for
| healthcare and just _buy it_. Yeah, you wouldn 't get
| reimbursement like the exchanges, but you could just whip
| out a credit card and _purchase it retail_.
|
| Texas, on the other hand, is terrible at healthcare. The
| Republicans have sabotaged most things from the Federal
| government. Most of the hospital chains are mediocre and
| below, and many publicly available health plans are
| ferociously bad.
| thefourthchime wrote:
| Austinite here too. Articles like this make me thankful for
| our airport, honestly one of the best in American as far as
| food and drinks are concerned.
| lowkey wrote:
| Notably the price of a similar wrapped sandwich at the ATX
| airport is $16
| sys_64738 wrote:
| Essen in Manhattan was 8 bucks.
| smelendez wrote:
| This isn't really a sandwich shop sandwich though. It's more
| like something you'd grab off the shelf at CVS or 7-11, where
| it would be under $10.
|
| A comparable, frankly better looking, sandwich at Whole Foods
| in Columbus Circle is $7.99.
|
| https://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/product/whole-foods-
| market-...
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >A comparable, frankly better looking, sandwich at Whole
| Foods in Columbus Circle is $7.99.
|
| Don't be a cheapskate! head over to Zabar's Cafe and pay
| $29[0] for a ham and cheese sandwich! /s
|
| [0] https://gothamist.com/news/why-does-this-ham-and-
| cheese-cost...
| effingwewt wrote:
| Can we all just take a minute to realize how we now
| normalize a 10 dollar sandwich made with less than a
| dollar's worth of ingredients?
|
| 7-11 is the worst offender I've seen. Cheap sandwiches or
| salads for $8+. $3+ for a 20oz soda. No prices listed on
| anything. Or if they are it's only when you buy two or
| more.
|
| Profiteering plain and simple.
| DerekL wrote:
| This is just false. Even forgetting about all of the
| overhead of making sandwiches, it's more than just a
| dollar's worth of ingredients. The skimpiest sandwich
| will probably have more than 2 ounces of meat, more like
| 3 or 4 ounces. The cheapest turkey from the supermarket
| is about $0.50 per ounce. So that's more than a dollar
| right there.
| morsch wrote:
| Wait, what? The product (or its shelf, whatever) isn't
| labeled with the price? Is that common in the US or is it
| a 7/11 thing? I guess it's communism to make displaying
| the price a legal requirement. Competition will sort it
| out...
| stametseater wrote:
| 7-11 shelves have price labels, except for when the
| employees at that shop are too lazy to put those labels
| up, which is fairly often in my experience. The
| franchised 7-11s seem to be better at it, the 7-11s owned
| by corporate are a shitshow because many of the employees
| don't care and there's no owner around to make them care.
| prottog wrote:
| I don't know about not listing prices (that seems shady),
| but surely you realize that the cost of the ingredients
| have very little bearing on the final price of the
| product? Unless you assume that running a 7-11 or any
| other store or restaurant that might sell food has zero
| overhead, with no rent, utilities, taxes, or employees to
| pay.
|
| In a further note, profit has got to be one of the most
| misunderstood things in economics. Every endeavor of
| human commerce has to involve profit for at least one
| party, otherwise the transaction would not occur at all.
| If you can put together a sandwich for $1 in ingredients
| and, say, $4 in your time and labor, why would you sell
| it for less than $5 plus some profit? At exactly $5 you
| may as well not engage in this business at all, since
| you've effectively gained nothing.
| undersuit wrote:
| It's because the sandwiches are made in a central
| location and distributed. You're paying for the
| convenience of not having a sandwich made at point of
| sale.
| MikusR wrote:
| Here are instructions how to get much cheaper sandwiches:
| https://youtu.be/jtqpuYvOfHY
| pdntspa wrote:
| Not my 7-11, nor any of the other ones nearby...
| everything is clearly labeled, 20oz soda is a 99c (or
| 1.49). San Diego.
|
| For the love of god what freakin city are you guys all
| Stockholm Syndromed on?
| nordsieck wrote:
| > I've never seen a sandwich store sell sandwiches (talking
| normal sized sandwich not whatever small bite size they sell
| as "regular size" with shrinkflation) for less than 12-15
| bucks in big cities.
|
| I guess it depends on how posh you want your sandwich.
|
| You really have to try to get a Subway (the chain) sandwich
| that expensive. Same with a burrito from Chipotle, although
| that may be heretical[1].
|
| ---
|
| 1. https://flowingdata.com/2017/05/02/sandwich-alignment-
| chart/
| jononomo wrote:
| What about McDonald's? They sell a chicken sandwich for about
| $5, and I'm sure there is a McDonald's in every city you've
| been in.
| pdntspa wrote:
| Jesus christ, what cities are you in? Like come the fuck on.
| Here in San Diego overpriced sandwiches are $6-$10 at the
| local 7-11, and that is still way too much.
| pduan wrote:
| It's not about the lack of competition or the inconvenience to
| the traveler.
|
| It's about the port authority not publicly revealing what the 3
| market comparable prices are.
| prepend wrote:
| I expect they won't reveal because the inspector just takes a
| bribe and there are no valid comparisons done.
| smelendez wrote:
| The only reason I could think of not to reveal would be the
| fear of collusion. If they know the comparison stores are
| Alice's Deli and Bob's Bodega, they could either collude
| with those owners to raise prices on select items or simply
| go and look at prices and only offer copies of the most
| marked up items in those stores (which could be as simple
| as loading the sandwich with cheap toppings that would be
| extra at the comparison shops).
| prepend wrote:
| The policy says lowest price. Not lowest price of three
| specific vendors.
|
| So if the three vendors names tried to collude, then they
| would no longer be the lowest prices.
| toyg wrote:
| Any sane policy would rotate data points. How many
| sandwich shops are there in NYC, hundreds? Thousands
| even? How often do they shut down, open, change
| owners...? Burning a couple every year is not an issue.
| 13of40 wrote:
| The really silly thing is that unlike at a movie theater, you
| can make yourself the same sandwich for $1.50 and bring it with
| you to the plane. The US has plugged this loophole, at least to
| a certain extent, by seizing your food even if you just have a
| stopover between two other countries. (They took my banana in
| NYC on a flight from Paris to Vancouver and I'm still bitter
| about it.)
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >The really silly thing is that unlike at a movie theater,
| you can make yourself the same sandwich for $1.50 and bring
| it with you to the plane. The US has plugged this loophole,
| at least to a certain extent, by seizing your food even if
| you just have a stopover between two other countries. (They
| took my banana in NYC on a flight from Paris to Vancouver and
| I'm still bitter about it.)
|
| Whether it's silly or not, this isn't some new thing to boost
| revenue at airports. The US has long prohibited the
| "importation" of food items through airports. In fact, that
| was a key theme to the 1971 film, La Mortadella[0].
|
| I'm not saying it's a good policy (I even "smuggled" some
| wonderful Dutch gouda into JFK myself a few years back), nor
| am I saying it makes sense in this day an age, but it (IIUC)
| has nothing to do with trying to make you pay more for food
| at the airport.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Liberty_(film)
| walterlb wrote:
| You can bring food into a movie theater without too much
| trouble in my experience.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Many places don't allow the transfer of uninspected fruit and
| vegetables to prevent the spread of disease.
| docandrew wrote:
| Fresh fruit is usually subject to customs restrictions for
| international travel due to concerns about agricultural
| pests, I don't think this particular case was collusion with
| the airport vendors (but these days you never know).
| 13of40 wrote:
| Yeah, I know that, but the import restrictions for Canada
| should apply, and they're different from the ones in the
| US. (I'm not trying to imply collusion so much as
| overreach.)
| Hippocrates wrote:
| My wife was apprehended in a Mexican airport by a beagle
| regarding a banana in her bag.
|
| Did you know that the bananas we have today are different
| from the ones we had 50 years ago? The standard banana back
| then was wiped out by a fungal disease. Today's bananas are
| all one variety of GMO, and resistant to such fungus.
|
| That's why produce is particularly scrutinized.
|
| https://www.treehugger.com/extinct-banana-5201723
| mcv wrote:
| > unlike at a movie theater, you can make yourself the same
| sandwich for $1.50 and bring it with you to the plane
|
| You can do that at a movie theater too. At least, I did it
| back when I was poor. Well, not with a sandwich, but I got
| some M&Ms and a drink at a nearby supermarket to take into
| the theater, because that saves a lot of money.
| NoZebra120vClip wrote:
| But perhaps you did that in contravention of the theater
| policies; most theaters, if they have a concession counter,
| will prohibit people from bringing in outside food, but
| they don't search your bags or anything. In fact, one
| theater around here disallows bags entirely.
|
| There is also the question of health code regulations. I
| know that in any restaurant which is inspected by County
| health inspectors, outside food is prohibited. So if you
| make a sandwich and you bring it into a McDonald's and you
| order a Coke and fries to go with your turkey sandwich, you
| will probably get kicked out. The main reason is because if
| something were to happen medically, whose food is to blame?
| Is it the food you prepared at home and brought into the
| restaurant? Even worse if you shared it to people who
| didn't know it wasn't prepared at the restaurant. The
| restaurant could potentially be liable for medical costs of
| people who got food poisoning, and their license to prepare
| food could be jeopardized.
|
| Now, having said all that, this is not the case in airports
| or on airlines. They all allow you to bring in food you
| prepared at home, because an airport is not a "restaurant"
| with one kitchen where food is prepared. Aboard an
| aircraft, you could also eat your home-prepped turkey and
| Swiss sandwich instead of a delicious, hot, in-flight
| Kosher meal. If you get sick, well you get sick. I don't
| know if airlines can be liable for food poisoning, but they
| sure are cautious about peanut allergies these days.
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| No, this isn't malice. There's plenty of stuff you could
| legally bring. Fresh fruit is decided not permitted, though--
| while the odds of a pest coming along are low the
| consequences can be severe. We don't permit food to come in
| that might be carrying pests that are not endemic to the US.
| Australia is more isolated and thus even more strict because
| there are more things they want to keep out.
| 13of40 wrote:
| I was walking between two planes in the US, one coming from
| a foreign country and the other leaving for one, without
| leaving the building. The only way I could have let the
| banana loose to destroy New York would have been to run
| outside and huck it over a fence.
| selectodude wrote:
| Or you could throw it in the garbage and somebody will do
| it for you. They don't incinerate garbage on-site at
| airports in the United States.
| 13of40 wrote:
| I haven't spent too much time in New York, but I don't
| think there are a lot of commercial banana growing
| operations there that could be affected. The real reason
| is they can't be bothered to track who's going where, but
| what they can do is seize your stuff, so that's what they
| do.
| astura wrote:
| Customs garbage is treated differently.
| jltsiren wrote:
| American airports generally don't have international-to-
| international airside transfers. In order to take the
| connecting flight, you must first pass though immigration
| and enter the US. You were planning to take the flight to
| Vancouver, but at that point, you could have chosen to
| visit the US instead.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| > American airports generally don't have international-
| to-international airside transfer
|
| I'd like to see a write up on why that is, because it
| seems like an insanely stupid arrangement at face value.
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| There's really no way to do it. The basic issue is that
| the US has no outgoing immigration control. I have walked
| from an international departure gate to open air and
| encountered no obstacles of any kind in the process,
| although I did pass through a one-way spot. (And the
| reason for this was pretty trivial--major delay, I
| preferred the food options elsewhere in the airport.)
|
| How do you have airside transfer when there are no
| barriers to leaving airside?
| zmmmmm wrote:
| yes, I'm not sure the logistics but it's definitely done
| in other places.
|
| Certainly in Australia if you are travelling
| international you go through outbound immigration
| control. I'm not sure what happens if you need to get out
| again for some reason after you "exit" the country. I
| assume you have to "re-enter" the country by circling
| through inbound immigration. Perhaps having no land
| borders makes outbound immigration control more
| reasonable.
|
| It does seem like the cost of adding some secure
| departure lounges might be less than circling huge
| numbers of passengers through unnecessary immigration
| procedures, security lines, etc
| lp4vn wrote:
| >Despite the "port authority" rules on 'street pricing', the
| real reason is lack of competition.
|
| I guess that the lack of competition isn't the only answer, in
| many cases there are many restaurants/stores in an airport and
| all of them are very expensive.
|
| The price of the rent in the airport also has to be taken in
| account. In many airports the restaurants pay outrageous rent
| values that won't allow them to sell cheap food.
| Kalium wrote:
| It's my understanding that in most cases, the many
| restaurants/stores aren't actually separate and in meaningful
| competition with one another. I have often seen airports with
| the same packaged food for sale at every store. I'm pretty
| sure they're in effect many faces of the same business.
| ganoushoreilly wrote:
| This is usually the case, most of the restaurants are
| Franchised to the same company, so ultimately one company
| is dictating all of it.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| > in many cases there are many restaurants/stores in an
| airport
|
| If you lift the peel off, many times they're still operated
| by the one contractor that has a contract for the whole
| airport. Even restaurants that typically don't franchise will
| still run operations under a franchise arrangement in
| airports. E.g. The Starbucks employees at an airport will be
| employed by HMS Host (a common airport food concession
| contractor).
|
| Another captive element is alcohol. Many places only allow
| licensed establishments to sell it (ie: bars/restaurants), so
| no competition from the convenience store type concessions.
| And may be forbidden to consume alcohol outside licensed
| establishments so can't just buy a beer if convenience stores
| were legally allowed to sell it so they don't.
|
| (Can recall good times at Amsterdam Schiphol where you could
| buy a beer for a not-too-insane markup from the convenience
| store and consume wherever, while in Philadelphia, you were
| paying like $10+ for one to consume wherever, ugh).
| wolpoli wrote:
| Is the Port Authority also the landlord as well? If so, that
| means that the Port Authority has the incentive to find the
| highest 'street pricing' so that the store has the margin to
| pay higher rent.
| x43b wrote:
| For the past five years, I have a no eating on travel days
| policy. Not only do I feel like I am avoiding these high costs,
| my stomach is less active which is great on travel days.
| tracker1 wrote:
| Yeah, if you get used to not snacking between meals, you begin
| to learn that typical hunger generally passes, especially if
| you stay busy/distracted. I usually only eat once or twice a
| day, and have fasted as long as a week.
| bagacrap wrote:
| Staying busy and distracted is the hard part during travel,
| which is generally a lot of mind-numbing shuffling about.
| tpmx wrote:
| Just stating the obvious: JFK Airport is owned by the City of New
| York. From that, draw your own conclusions...
| DerekL wrote:
| No, it is not owned by the City of New York. It's owned by the
| Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which is controlled
| by those two states.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| That would be too simple. It's owned by Port Authority of NY
| and NJ:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Authority_of_New_York_and...
| tpmx wrote:
| So this ranks high on Google:
|
| https://airportllc.com/who-owns-jfk-airport/
|
| > JFK Airport is owned by the City of New York and is managed
| and operated by the Port Authority which got the lease from
| New York City in 1947 to build an airport in Queens borough
| to serve the large NYC Metropolitan area
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Looks like NYC is now paid $150m/year for the land lease:
| https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-city-extends-jfk-
| airpo...
| t-3 wrote:
| That's... Not even really unreasonable compared to restaurant
| prices. I've seen eggs and toast for $20 at a diner in
| Minneapolis, and that place had a line out the door with a 30
| minute wait to get in. Wasn't even as good as the $5 or less
| Coney Island breakfast available pretty much everywhere in Metro
| Detroit.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Why does housing cost 10x as much in San Francisco than in my
| current city when I bought 9 years ago? 2-3x price inflation at
| an airport makes a lot more sense than that.
| okokwhatever wrote:
| "Bring your food" policy is becoming a thing
| singron wrote:
| TSA will usually pull you aside and search your bag if you have
| food, so go ahead and take it out first.
| smcin wrote:
| No they don't, IME. Pack all your food in one bag in one
| compartment of your luggage. IME, TSA don't care unless they
| think it has liquid content. Keep your water bottle separate
| and empty.
|
| Things you can't get through security check ('liquids'):
| yoghurts, the salad dressing on a salad. Doubtful about
| hummus.
|
| On international flights: some fresh fruit (e.g. apples, US
| CBP), and some dried fruits and nuts, depends on country, see
| guidelines.
|
| Useful tip: buy trail mix in bulk and repack in a small
| ziplock food bag in your luggage.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| No they won't. Just don't bring drink
| xwdv wrote:
| Not if you are TSA pre-check or better yet if you use Clear.
| toast0 wrote:
| Sure, and if you pay for general aviation, you can have an
| actual good experience flying.
|
| Paying the fees for TSA pre-check or Clear to opt out of
| unnecessary screening feels like paying the mafia to opt
| out of unnecessary physical injury and property damage.
| xwdv wrote:
| You can either live your life angry that you had to pay
| for better treatment, or angry that you didn't get better
| treatment for free, but only one of those options is more
| comfortable than the other.
| thedailymail wrote:
| Or you can be angry at an exploitative situation and try
| to change it for the better, rather than just resigning
| yourself to expect better treatment that is not
| conditional on price gouging.
| xwdv wrote:
| Or, I can let it go and simply accept this isn't a
| problem that will affect my life much even if it is
| solved.
| wellthisisgreat wrote:
| Don't use Clear, don't feed the enemy of the people
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| Clear does not change the screening, it only changes the
| identification check and puts you at the front of the line.
|
| At SeaTac, there's separate lanes for Clear with and
| without Precheck.
| xwdv wrote:
| In some airports Clear with precheck raises the chances
| you'll be directed into more favorable screening lanes
| where TSA are more relaxed, due to it being used
| exclusively by prechecks or crew.
|
| Sometimes with just precheck you'll still get into
| general use lanes with annoying requests such as removing
| laptops from bags, no matter if you are precheck or not.
| This is because there is no Clear employee who can ensure
| you only end up in the best lane.
|
| Regardless, my airport experiences after subscribing to
| Clear have always been far better than simply only having
| precheck alone, especially if you're the type who likes
| to arrive late to a flight to minimize waiting at the
| terminal. Really does feel like a pre-9/11 world.
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| > In some airports Clear with precheck raises the chances
| you'll be directed into more favorable screening lanes
| where TSA are more relaxed, due to it being used
| exclusively by prechecks or crew.
|
| Clear itself isn't giving you access to Precheck, though.
| You are only allowed in the Precheck lane if you have
| Precheck.
|
| As I said above, the only thing Clear is doing (and
| claiming it does) is verify your identity so TSA doesn't
| have to. What lane you get sorted into is entirely based
| on what's available (ie. if the Clear lane you used feeds
| into Precheck or just regular screening) and whether you
| have Precheck or not. You can't get into Precheck using
| _just_ clear and you 'll be turned away if you don't have
| the Precheck status on your boarding pass. I have seen it
| happen at SeaTac.
| kyboren wrote:
| > Really does feel like a pre-9/11 world.
|
| Says the person opting into a biometric surveillance
| dystopia.
|
| Are you for real?
| kyboren wrote:
| > better yet if you use Clear.
|
| Fuck you very much for normalizing automated tyranny.
| xwdv wrote:
| Rest assured I have utmost respect for those fighting
| tyranny. I always take a moment to admire their patience
| as I pass by them on my way to the front of the line.
| bradleyjg wrote:
| They rebuilt LGA.
|
| Now it's pretty but it takes four times longer to get to your
| gate as you have to walk past all the stores whose rent is paying
| off the bonds used to renovate.
|
| I preferred ugly.
| nla wrote:
| Because they are corrupt.
| bastard_op wrote:
| >> "To protect the integrity of the fact-finding process, as well
| as agency deliberations, the Port Authority's longstanding policy
| is to maintain the confidentiality of these types of Inspector
| General investigative reports."
|
| What requires protection here, other than the absurd consumer
| price gouging among a captive audience that occurs in EVERY
| airport across the country and those that let it occur? They are
| absolutely right in the article, this _should be_ something easy
| to be transparent about, and shouldn 't be a secret process run
| by lobbying restaurant companies, city management on the grift,
| and decrepit municipal process.
| ornornor wrote:
| FWIW most airports I've visited have a staff canteen that's
| actually open to everyone, albeit hidden.
|
| If you ask airport staff, they'll know where it is.
|
| There aren't a ton of options there and it's often in the
| basement but you can choose between a few options and get a
| decent meal (considering) without getting fleeced.
|
| That's where ground staff, baggage handlers, etc eat every work
| day.
| rippercushions wrote:
| If you're ever in Singapore, the staff canteens are pretty
| epic:
|
| https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/74945/is-there-a-...
| ornornor wrote:
| That's what I'm talking about :)
| [deleted]
| Algemarin wrote:
| > FWIW most airports I've visited have a staff canteen that's
| actually open to everyone, albeit hidden.
|
| Could you please list which airports you've been to have this,
| and where it is located in them?
|
| It's not that I doubt airports have staff canteens, it's more
| that I have trouble believing anyone can just waltz into them.
| And a casual web search brings up only results about one
| airport actually having one open to the public.
| ornornor wrote:
| I've avoided flying like the plague for several years now.
|
| But I don't remember having trouble doing this in Europe or
| Canada.
|
| It's not publicly advertised because airports prefer you go
| to the overpriced airside concessions they can charge obscene
| rents for, and airport workers just know where it is; they
| don't look it up.
|
| Next time you fly, ask a janitor or other airport employee
| (the ones in the shops don't always know and/or eat at the
| concessions because they have discounts) and see for
| yourself. It was typically ground staff, janitors, security
| guards, baggage throwers, public transit employees eating
| there.
| mcv wrote:
| But I guess this is outside the check-in area, isn't it?
| Beyond the whole check-in, passport check etc point,
| everything is pretty thoroughly locked in and regulated.
| The only place I could accidentally leave that area was in
| Casablanca. I doubt it'd work at Schiphol or Frankfurt.
| ornornor wrote:
| Yes you have to go back through security afterwards, the
| canteen isn't airside.
| orf wrote:
| I've never ever heard of this. Seems like it would be a bit of
| a security nightmare?
| ornornor wrote:
| No, why? The restaurant isn't airside.
| yuppie_scum wrote:
| Don't allow a monopoly in the airport.. boom, problem solved
| tbrock wrote:
| The bacon egg and cheese at Beecher's handmade cheese in the same
| terminal is $16.50 for some decent bread with a microwave egg.
| It's ridiculous, shake shack has a breakfast bacon egg and cheese
| in the $5-6 range right down the way.
| Havoc wrote:
| Sounds like a bunch of bollocks. They clearly charge whatever the
| market will bear, which given captive audience is a lot.
| stackedinserter wrote:
| All airports do this. A bottle of water is 3.75 at Dominican
| Republic airports, presumably not controlled by NYC port
| authority.
| kingcharles wrote:
| As a serial FOIA litigator you have to sue. It's not too hard.
|
| Having battled jails and prisons on similarly vague local
| comparison pricing for their commissary items, my bet is that
| none of the comparison procedures are being followed. They
| probably just expected the stores to be good and regulate
| themselves. Which never happens.
| rolph wrote:
| this is plain gougeing being hidden by a veil of we cant tell you
| why because we are obeying the law.
|
| this is becoming a plague, for a further recent example, i cant
| ask an alexa instance what it just said, it will quote HIPAA as a
| reason to deny the command
| danielovichdk wrote:
| As a European and coming to America this year. SF and NYC, the
| prices has explooooded in the cities.
|
| And the amount of homeless people are also on an upper
| trajectory.
|
| Doesn't feel good for the land of the free.
| Hippocrates wrote:
| My favorite pre-flight ritual as of recent is to go out and get a
| bomb ass sandwich and pack it for the flight. I'm talkin' gourmet
| Italian, fresh mozz, crunchy bread with the waxed paper wrapping.
| Sometimes I'll get it dry and pack the oil+vinegar in a small
| baggie.
| throwawaaarrgh wrote:
| In addition to this: you can't drink your own alcohol on the
| flight, but I know of no FAA regulation that says you can't
| bring a bunch of mini bottles, simple syrup, cherry, and
| bitters and make yourself an old fashioned at the gate while
| you wait to board. Pack a rocks glass and a tiny shaker and
| everyone will think you are simultaneously the weirdest and
| most baller person in Group 5. And technically ice isn't a
| liquid.
| Hippocrates wrote:
| Heh that's a good call. I also take the "rule" about not
| bringing your own alcohol on the plane with a pile of salt.
| In practice, it's easy to dump nips into a soda during a
| flight without being caught.
| aj7 wrote:
| You pack your luggage, carryons, etc. So pack food.
| jonplackett wrote:
| I noticed a massive change in cost the last time flying in the UK
| too.
|
| Pret used to charge pretty much the same as a regular store. It
| would be the only place you could get a bottle of water for PS1.
|
| I flew over Easter and It's all fine up massively. PS3.50 for a
| bottle of water. Nearly PS6 for a (very average) coffee.
|
| Almost a doubling of prices. Especially great when the flight was
| delayed 3 hours - but we got out PS3 voucher from easyJet...
| throwawaaarrgh wrote:
| You are allowed to bring a turkey sandwich through security. No
| need to spend $15 there.
|
| If you bring a jar of peanut butter they won't let you bring it
| through, but if you spread it (all) on bread, they will.
| rr808 wrote:
| Prices in Manhattan are so expensive now, honestly $15 doesn't
| sound crazy to me.
| IndoorPatio wrote:
| Capitalism.
|
| This is the price that generates the highest profit to those
| responsible for setting the price.
| nayuki wrote:
| Keep in mind that Profit = (Sale price - Production cost) x
| Quantity sold.
| komain7 wrote:
| Because the world has too many losers to support anymore. A
| simple chicken sandwich has to pass through 16 different losers
| who all need their little bit. They can't make their own money so
| they take everybody else's money. Adding another 5 cents won't
| hurt anything, says the loser. Then loser starts complaining
| because sandwich cost $15 when they have to rebuy it at their
| ride.
| tomcam wrote:
| I never buy those sandwiches but if I were tempted I'd consider
| that for the price of two of those I could buy a 6.1" screen
| Android smartphone at Kroger's, download some videos, and watch
| them instead of eating.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Only possible because NYC airports _finally_ have free wifi as
| of 2018:
|
| https://www.cntraveler.com/story/new-york-airports-free-unli...
| throwaway4736 wrote:
| OTG is fucking garbage. There's more to it than that, but not
| much.
| hnburnsy wrote:
| Maybe others have mentioned it but airports typically get 10-18%
| of sales (after the minimum rent guarantee is met), so it is in
| their interest for prices to be high.
| reactspa wrote:
| [dead]
| larodi wrote:
| Because u can't help urself out of travel anxiety and event buy
| it to calm down.
| yusufnb wrote:
| That's capitalism. The optimization function works towards
| maximizing profit over value.
|
| For a $2 sandwich, I would need to sell 100 at $3 to make a $100
| profit and just 10 at $12 to make the same.
| starbugs wrote:
| That only works if there isn't any competition.
| alberth wrote:
| I'm surprised the article never mentioned how airports are just
| commercial real estate companies (like a mall).
|
| They are literally in the business of just leasing space to other
| companies.
| oriettaxx wrote:
| exactly!
|
| with all the typical tricks
| twelve40 wrote:
| That's a feast! Laguardia happily shuts down at like 6 or so,
| after that if you have a connection you can look for food scraps
| on the floor or, you know, dive right into that intermittent
| fasting you always wanted to try.
| sdze wrote:
| Or be an adult and bring your sandwich from home.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| Because that's what the market will stand. Simple as that.
| prottog wrote:
| Market failure is a thing, and it seems like in this case there
| may be a monopoly or oligopoly among the concessionaires,
| enabled by the corruption of the Port Authority.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| 725686 wrote:
| Seinfeld uncovered this many years ago. The huge airport, airline
| complex is just a scam to sell you the tuna sandwich:
|
| https://youtu.be/kxGzClxVx9Q
| taeric wrote:
| Is a silly question if we don't know inventory levels and
| turnover. At face value, the answer is trivially because that is
| the best price for the seller to use that they have found.
|
| Lower could maybe sell more, but could also just clear the same
| inventory faster. Such that you need more information to answer.
|
| Could they be gouging customers? I mean, maybe? Gouging usually
| requires duress on the buyer, though. So probably not.
| nikanj wrote:
| If I had to guess: because fuck you, that's why. They don't care,
| because they know you'll be back regardless of the price
| drewcoo wrote:
| Because, and this is obvious from the sign in the photo, they
| value us.
|
| Otherwise, the sandwiches would clearly cost more.
| 77pt77 wrote:
| $15 for NYC.
|
| Sounds like a bargain.
| crazygringo wrote:
| This is a perfect example of an airport trying to have their cake
| and eat it too, and it's kind of diabolically clever.
|
| On the one hand, airports need to make money, and with people
| buying cheap airline tickets, airports have found a solution by
| turning themselves halfway into malls, and charging businesses
| extremely high levels of rent, which the airport justifies
| because it's a captive audience that can't go anywhere else. Most
| of the $15 sandwich is _ultimately going to the airport as rent,
| not to the CIBO food vendor as profit._
|
| But at the same time, there's public outcry over the absurd
| pricing, so the airport has to mollify lawmakers by insisting
| it'll come up with a policy where they won't charge more than 10%
| for what would be comparable in Midtown. The airport is trying to
| blame those greedy vendors! But _this is a trick_. Who could ever
| define that? Sure you can compare Starbucks with Starbucks... but
| you can 't compare a CIBO sandwich because it _doesn 't exist
| outside of airports_, which is _by design_. That 's the whole
| point, that easy comparables don't exist, and when a journalist
| tries to use a FOIA request to get at the comparables, they're
| stonewalled.
|
| The airport is trying to insist it's preventing jacked-up prices,
| when in reality it's the airport charging rent that generates
| those jacked-up prices in the first place, and it tries to
| pretend like it plays no part. Evil, but clever.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| The companies that owns these concessionaires have a reputation
| for lobbying practices that are pretty "aggressive". There's a
| handful of companies (Delaware North, HMS, OTG, etc) that are
| in this business and if you know the business, it's usually
| pretty easy to understand the scope/requirements.
|
| It's pretty easy for a journalist to get the
| RFP/extension/whatever. I'd guess that there are journalists
| figuring out the business now.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Airports are pretty expensive. To run and build. Managing and
| up keeping massive land area isn't cheap. And the buildings
| themselves are also big and have quite a lot of staff and
| specialised stuff going around.
| systemtest wrote:
| Your average international airport staffs tens of thousands
| of people.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| In UK we have a very clever system - The taxpayer builds all
| the airports. We wait and see which ones turn out to have
| large demand and reliable revenues.
|
| Then we privatise large international airports..
|
| Meanwhile the smaller loss-making airports stay in public
| ownership because no-one wants to buy them.
| kevviiinn wrote:
| Make three people rich while making the government look bad
| at the same time. Brilliant
| kevviiinn wrote:
| How much profit do airports report?
| robocat wrote:
| My local example would be ~3% dividends for Auckland
| Airport, which is a premier airport within NZ (Wellington
| and Christchurch get fewer international flights). I don't
| think they have done any share buybacks in the last decade.
| Auckland International Airport Ltd (AIAL) was floated on
| the (Australian) Stock Exchange in Feb-1999, making it one
| of the first gateway airports globally to be listed
| publicly. [Auckland city council has reduced its ownership]
| to the current 18%
|
| https://dividendyield.co.nz/viewdetails.php?loc=AIA
|
| https://www.google.com/finance/quote/AIA:ASX?window=MAX
| gymbeaux wrote:
| Ah so that's why the premade food at airport shops is so weird.
| I remember eating a sandwich I've never heard of before at EWR.
| It wasn't that good and I remember the ingredients were
| unusual.
| brycelarkin wrote:
| Do cheap tickets actually impact airport revenue? My
| understanding is that airlines pay a set price per takeoff and
| landing. So airports should generate constant revenue
| regardless of fluctuation in ticket prices.
| tomrod wrote:
| Second order effects of higher airline fees would include
| airlines running less flights as people choose alternative
| options when facing higher passthrough pricing (tax by
| another name). This impacts airport profits.
| lozenge wrote:
| Is that per seat or per plane? Seats have been getting packed
| closer together.
| Symbiote wrote:
| Yes, at least in Europe. Ryanair is infamous for pushing a
| very hard bargain with airports, but it's common with all the
| low-cost airlines.
|
| Part of the airport's willingness to give Ryanair a discount
| is the expectation of full planes with a lot of seats, so
| there are more people to sell to.
|
| e.g. [1] Table 6, Warsaw Modlin airport charges Ryanair 6 PLN
| (EUR1.30) per passenger, vs the normal 40 PLN (EUR8.50).
| That's obviously significant when they sell flights for EUR15
| or so.
|
| [1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317710545_Intern
| ati...
| odiroot wrote:
| Modlin airport is miserable. Shouldn't even have "Warsaw"
| in the name, as it's nowhere near. To get to Warsaw, you
| have to take a bus first, then switch to a local train.
| JadedEngineer wrote:
| I wish airports didn't do that and Ryanair had to close
| down. One can only dream.
| incone123 wrote:
| Is your complaint with that airline or with budget
| airlines in general? I'm old enough to remember when a 1
| hour flight in Europe would still have hot drinks and
| snacks served included in the ticket price, but I don't
| really need that for short haul and I'm glad to pay less
| for a ticket.
| lmz wrote:
| I think there are still savings to be made by low cost
| airlines in e.g. boarding passengers from the gate by bus to
| a remote location vs using a jetbridge.
| MAGZine wrote:
| any airport that actually cares will adapt a policy like PDX's
| street pricing, and then actually furnish the airport with
| places that exist out in the real world--not just these weird
| airport-only chains (who tf is wolfgang puck) or one-offs (e.g.
| "TrendyNeighbourhood Burger," "TouristDistrict Tavern")
|
| I guess a really nice, mall-like airport with amenities you
| don't want to use (because they're too expensive) is still
| slightly better than a smaller airport whose amenities you
| don't use (because they don't exist). At least you have an
| option, though it doesn't stop it from being annoying.
|
| Sidenote, maybe LAX needs $15 sandos if it means they can
| afford to unshit their airport.
| grishka wrote:
| > actually furnish the airport with places that exist out in
| the real world
|
| I clearly remember a Burger King in one of Moscow airports,
| probably DME. It is a regular Burger King serving everything
| one would expect, except the 1.5x prices.
| yibg wrote:
| There is a Burger King in sfo. But yea more pricey
| martyvis wrote:
| In Australia most of the airports have Macca's or KFC
| selling at street prices. I think that sets precedent for
| the other food outlets to not price gouge.
| inferiorhuman wrote:
| who tf is wolfgang puck
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Puck
|
| Just a guy who's got three Michelin starred restaurants.
| dreamcompiler wrote:
| Indeed. But of course none of them are in airports.
| 8note wrote:
| I think he has an airport restaurant out in Seattle
| proper
| antiframe wrote:
| The airport in Seattle proper (Boeing Field) didn't have
| any restaurants when I was there last. Perhaps you're
| thinking of the airport in the city of SeaTac?
| zrail wrote:
| My spouse and I met in Portland and lived there for almost a
| decade. Every once in awhile we get a craving for Burgerville
| and haha-only-serious joke about flying to PDX and back with
| just enough time to eat at the airside location.
|
| Thus far we have suppressed the urge.
| reisse wrote:
| Haven't seen airport-only chains in Europe, do they exist
| here?
|
| In Stockholm (Arlanda) there is standard McDonald's (among
| other chains) in the terminal.
| fuzzfactor wrote:
| In Houston, they have a single city contractor operate all
| the concessions under the different branded establishments
| at each airport.
|
| It's the biggest-ticket way to do it, therefore it should
| provide the biggest bonus for some individual. Maybe even
| more than one individual could be intended to share the
| glory.
|
| The long-time franchisee was a very well-established &
| respected Houston-based restaurant corp that came in a
| decade ago on their strength of multiple local restaurants
| of various cuisines which were popular, successful, and
| affordable for at least occasional dining for most
| Houstonians.
|
| This could not hold up, recently dethroned by a nationwide
| airport-centric conractor with a deal crafted to compete on
| purely financial terms.
|
| related:
|
| https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/houston/article/h
| o...
|
| https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/pappas-sues-houston-
| over-h...
|
| Firm that prevailed:
|
| https://us.areas.com/
|
| >With an operating presence in 12 countries throughout
| Europe and the Americas, Areas offers a very broad range of
| food services designed to meet the expectations of both
| travelers and landlords in airports, highway service plazas
| and railway stations.
|
| Doesn't appear they would ever expect to prosper from non-
| captive food service.
|
| I can only imagine some of the councilmembers who voted in
| favor of the change could reason that sandwiches already
| cost $15 so they might as well take a bigger cut of that
| themselves.
| ajmurmann wrote:
| Not aware of an airport-only chain there either, but
| European airports night not need them since they tend to
| funnel you through massive duty-free shopping malls. It
| will forever be a mystery to be who buys all that shit and
| keeps these stores in business. A bottle of liquor would
| need to be at a ridiculous price for me to deal with the
| hassle of transporting it back from an international trip.
| laurentlb wrote:
| I often buy local alcohol in the airport (instead of
| having to take a checked-in luggage).
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| Chinese tourists are probably the #1 customers. The most
| savvy stores will have Mandarin-speaking staff!
| boguscoder wrote:
| Ha, you should watch slavic tourists in those duty frees
| (source: l'm slav) - a bottle of any above-cheap imported
| alcohol might be 10$+ cheaper there, nice cologne would
| save you even more and has higher chance of not being a
| knockoff from Asia. When they have a chance to save few
| dozen bucks - they do and I don't see what's bad about
| it, maybe apart from overflows in baggage compartments. I
| imagine folks like Swedes with alcohol monopoly and
| pretty fly taxes on alco would understand this too
| george_808 wrote:
| Unfortunately, LAX already does have $15 pre-packaged turkey
| sandwiches in Terminal 5. Thankfully, there's a chick-fil-A
| and Einstein's in brand-new Terminal 1 with reasonable
| prices. This motivates me to fly southwest more often.
| [deleted]
| victor106 wrote:
| Add to this the fact that TSA won't even let you take a bottom
| water through.
| illiac786 wrote:
| Isn't the airport tax fix per passenger and independent from
| ticket price? I remember flying discount airline and paying
| only the airport taxes (it was around 20-30EUR in my y case)
|
| That would decouple airport mall rent prices from falling
| airline ticket prices.
| amadeuspagel wrote:
| How is a system that enables cheap airline tickets for everyone
| by selling expensive sandwiches to people who can afford it
| evil?
| mcv wrote:
| It's luring people into flying more than they should (which
| is polluting), and then trying to make up the difference by
| trapping those people in an area where they can only by
| ridiculously overpriced stuff.
|
| The right thing to do would be more expensive airline tickets
| that account for the total cost of flying (including the
| pollution they cause) and then charging an honest price for
| the sandwiches.
|
| I mean, this sandwich costs almost as much as some airline
| tickets.
| kevviiinn wrote:
| Hey just bring your own food! Oh wait, I guess you can't
| thanks to security theatre. Guess you'll starve or fork
| over $15 for a shitty sandwich
|
| Too bad we can't have nice trains. I mean Amtrak is _okay_
| but it doesn 't even compare to the rail systems in other
| countries. Guess we're stuck polluting too. Thanks, Elon
| strus wrote:
| Food is not forbidden. I passed security gates with food
| multiple times on multiple airports - still sealed food
| like peanuts or candy bars, but also homemade sandwiches.
|
| Drinks are the problem, but water is not that expensive,
| and some airports have drinkable water for free near
| toilets.
| pbj1968 wrote:
| And in the toilets.
| elijaht wrote:
| I've never been denied bringing food through security for
| US domestic flights. Do other areas prohibit that?
| kevviiinn wrote:
| Iirc it has to be sealed and new to get past security as
| long as they notice it, but I may be misremembering. I've
| never been able to bring food or drinks
| noirbot wrote:
| I've definitely put an entire pizza in a box through the
| scanner before and had no questions or pushback. If
| anything I've had more questions when I've flown with
| packaged food.
|
| Foods I've flown with:
|
| Apples
|
| Two sub sandwiches
|
| 100 fresh tortillas
|
| An entire 20lb uncooked brisket
|
| 3 loaves of bread
|
| A frozen 8lb pork roast
|
| I'm pretty surprised they're ok with frozen stuff, but
| yea, never had any issues bringing entire bags full of
| food, raw or prepared, packaged or not.
| antiframe wrote:
| Yet my baby formula was tossed by TSA. Turns out baby
| formula is not a thing sold at airports either. Then
| again this was in a state hostile to born children, so I
| wasn't too surprised.
| mcv wrote:
| That is incredibly shitty. How do they expect people to
| feed their babies? Or do they expect babies to starve?
| antiframe wrote:
| To be fair these were larger than the permitted size but
| according to the TSA website formula is exempt from the
| limit. But, I wasn't going to argue with the agent.
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| This list is hysterical.
| brewdad wrote:
| Hard cheese has always given me problems. The density
| matches that of a solid explosive like C4 on their x-ray.
| So I always plan for a secondary screening with a full
| unpacking and swab down of my bag if I'm bringing back a
| block of special cheese.
| noirbot wrote:
| Yea, I've sometimes had them swab it, but that's pretty
| quick and not usually a big deal.
| criddell wrote:
| > they're ok with frozen stuff
|
| You can't take a big jug of water through security
| _unless_ it's frozen because the rule prohibits liquids,
| not solids.
| nanidin wrote:
| Yeah, that is all false. You can bring food. The only
| restriction is on liquids. I have taken a chipotle
| burrito through (covered with sauce and guacamole,
| wrapped in aluminum foil) without issue. I have taken
| pizzas, sandwiches, and hamburgers. You are even
| explicitly allowed to take solid water through airport
| security.
| alasdair_ wrote:
| I once flew back with an entire brisket from Franklin BBQ
| in Austin. They were a bit worried about it because it
| looked completely opaque, but they let it theough.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| I've never had problems bringing food, but drinks are
| banned as part of the liquids ban of security theater
| hgsgm wrote:
| Only drinks are secured. Not food. And water is free at
| airport and airplane.
| dev_tty01 wrote:
| I always bring a couple of burritos. No problem.
| arbitrary_name wrote:
| What??? I bring burgers, sushi, homemade sandwiches,
| anything except soup is fair game. Just put it in a
| backpack or something.
|
| And this is flying through hundreds of airports, not just
| major coastal ones...
| jkaplowitz wrote:
| Even soup would probably be possible if you had a
| dehydrated "just add water" version that was solid at the
| time of crossing the security checkpoint, and in airports
| with free water refill stations (or potable bathroom tap
| water) inside the security perimeter you wouldn't even
| have to pay for water.
|
| This idea would work best for soups that are good to eat
| cold, of course, but those do exist.
| raybb wrote:
| The sandwich costs more than many airline tickets in the
| EU.
|
| For example Brussels -> Vienna for 13 euros and it runs
| weekly.
|
| https://www.google.com/travel/flights/s/KLAA2UnyrkmuH8Kv7
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| This is wildly misleading. And, it is a one way ticket
| and does not even allow a carry-on. Google flights tells
| me: Ryanair allows passengers to board
| with 1 small item, such as a purse or laptop bag.
|
| Hmmm, so if I am normal human being and need to carry at
| least a small bag, how much will that cost? 30 EUR for
| one carry-on bag. Or 50 EUR for one checked bag. Ouch. So
| realistic minimum roundtrip is (13 + 30) x 2 = 86 EUR.
| raybb wrote:
| For a weekend trip back to visit the family one small
| (40x20x25cm) can work. A carry-on costs 13.5 euros extra.
| mcv wrote:
| Doesn't change the fact that the ticket price itself is
| ridiculously low. Not misleading at all; it really is
| that low.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| But nobody is popping into an airport for a quick sandwich
| and then leaving the airport. The cost to the average
| passenger is the same.
|
| At the end of the day you're just arguing that there should
| be a carbon tax on flights
| citizen_friend wrote:
| > flying more than they should
|
| How do you know how much they should fly?
|
| Our society uses the price system to allocate those
| transportation resources. The price already factors in
| alternatives and discourages the activity relative to its
| burden on society.
| mcv wrote:
| > How do you know how much they should fly?
|
| When it doesn't hurt society through its externalities
| (noise, pollution).
|
| > The price already factors in alternatives and
| discourages the activity relative to its burden on
| society.
|
| Not really. It doesn't kerosene isn't taxed like other
| fuels in many places. The pollution isn't cleaned up.
| Ticket prices are ridiculously low and have been widely
| advertised to encourage people to fly more.
| citizen_friend wrote:
| There are already many taxes on all kinds of fuel for
| that reason.
|
| It sounds like your real complaint is that the ticket
| should be taxed more, but I'd guess that your opinion
| extends to other kinds of transportation as well.
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| It's nickel-and-diming.
| solatic wrote:
| > airports need to make money
|
| Let's start with this presumption: do they really? Are they
| privately held? Why? Were they built with private money or
| public money? Isn't the purpose of airports to facilitate
| access to the local economy, thus benefitting local businesses,
| and should thus be funded from general tax revenue?
|
| Like so much in the US, payment is demanded for anything of
| remotely private benefit, _even if the majority of the benefit
| is to the commons_. Take TSA Pre-Check, or Global Entry as an
| example. In other countries, these programs (electronic entry)
| are the default for all citizens, provided for free, because
| they make airport operations more efficient as a whole, which
| means the airport can service more people, more efficiently.
| But in the US, it saves the individual a few minutes, so be
| prepared to pay a yearly fee for the privilege!
|
| It's precisely for reasons like $15 turkey sandwiches that New
| York airports are to be avoided (i.e. as stopovers). Treating
| the traveling public as feudal serfs is practically the
| definition of mismanagement.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > The airport is trying to insist it's preventing jacked-up
| prices, when in reality it's the airport charging rent that
| generates those jacked-up prices in the first place, and it
| tries to pretend like it plays no part. Evil, but clever.
|
| The same situation applies to the rest of the economy - people
| celebrate their house going up in value, without realising that
| your plumber and coffee will also go up in price, because the
| plumber's and the barista's rent has just gone up! Even if you
| never have to buy a house, rising house prices mean that every
| service around you becomes more expensive because they've got
| to pay rent.
|
| Industry didn't just move out because western workers want too
| much money, they moved out because western landlords want too
| much money.
| fuzzfactor wrote:
| I would say another reason the sandwiches cost so much is
| because so many remain unsold.
|
| You have to start with the assumption that things like this
| are only intended for the very well-heeled to begin with,
| particularly in this price range where the difference between
| about $2 and $20 is not actually significant to the buyer.
|
| It is well-known that most travelers are not in this
| catagory, and plenty of millionaires will not ever spend
| close to $20 at the high end for something recognized as
| worth $2 at the low end. Even if they could do it without any
| financial pain.
|
| Sometimes that's how they got to be millionaires anyway.
|
| Anyway, you've got to have more than enough sandwiches for
| every one of the real high-rollers who might be passing
| through that day, you would never want to have less than
| enough.
|
| Plus every now and then someone else will get hungry enough
| to bite.
|
| There's no intention for there to be alternative choices
| which are more economical.
|
| So a lot of the sandwiches are going to go to waste.
|
| So they need to be able to afford to make enough to waste
| most of them.
|
| Which could only result in spiraling costs.
|
| Overpriced lower-quality outcomes follow greed in a self-
| fulfilling way when you do the math, but when all benefit is
| directed only to the greedy party, it does no-one any good
| since they are not capable of being fulfilled.
|
| Apply this to so many other parts of the economy, and look
| what we have.
|
| More greed and more waste to go with it, and ordinary workers
| can't afford what they once could.
| 88913527 wrote:
| If high sandwich prices are a tax to cover the operation costs,
| it's certainly an odd one. Why should people who pack their own
| travel food be subsidized by those who are not?
| TheSoftwareGuy wrote:
| Seems like a convenience tax to me. People who are willing to
| pay the high prices at the airport, are probably less price
| sensitive, (read: more wealthy). So yeah, let's let the rich
| subsidize the poor
| landemva wrote:
| Those who can afford it get lounge memberships. Free snacks
| in lounges.
| gruez wrote:
| Presumably that's priced in, either directly (they charge
| $30-$40 per visit), or indirectly (either through
| airlines or credit card companies).
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > The airport is trying to insist it's preventing jacked-up
| prices, when in reality it's the airport charging rent that
| generates those jacked-up prices in the first place, and it
| tries to pretend like it plays no part.
|
| But that's correct. The rent charged by the airport has no
| impact on prices inside the airport. They are high because of
| the captive audience.
|
| Store revenue within the airport is determined by customer
| willingness to pay. Willingness to pay does not take store rent
| into account; it is a function of prices and alternatives. So
| the stores set prices at the level that maximizes revenue, and
| the rent charged by the airport is a fight between the stores
| and the airport over who gets how much of the revenue. If you
| limited the amount of rent the airport could charge, the first-
| order effect would be that prices would stay exactly the same,
| the airport would get less money, every store would get more
| money, and customers would be completely unaffected.
|
| If you wanted to return money to the customers, you'd need to
| increase the level of competition between stores.
| ajmurmann wrote:
| This seems true, since McDonald's prices inside an airport
| seem to be either three danger as outside or just a little
| more. They for sure never reach the astronomical heights of
| other airport vendors.
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| I don't think this goes deep enough. The company ultimately
| putting the squeeze on is the company that makes the in-flight
| snack food. This company has raised prices consistently since
| 1960, and these price hikes are being passed on to consumers,
| by way of airlines demanding that airports take a smaller cut.
| If you want to look for blame, look there.
| hgsgm wrote:
| How can that be possible? The in flight snack company is in a
| highly competitive business -- airlines could buy store brand
| private label snacks.
| dlgeek wrote:
| I think GP is referring to the stores in the airports post-
| security that sell take-away food intended to be consumed
| on the plane - e.g. Hudson News, etc.
| grogenaut wrote:
| Show me an industry that hasn't raised prices since the 60s.
| simonebrunozzi wrote:
| You are spot on and correct. Airports make about 2/3rds of
| their money with rent, and only 1/3rd with flights.
| andsoitis wrote:
| Where is that information from?
| danenania wrote:
| Aren't airports also heavily subsidized? How much does that
| account for?
|
| There's a special place in hell for the executives of
| taxpayer subsidized services that turn around and gouge their
| customers.
| kevviiinn wrote:
| I wonder how much those executives make
| xnx wrote:
| $15 sandwich is better than no sandwich available
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| IIUC, there's essentially a few vendors that own the vast
| majority of space in most airports, and the reason rents are so
| high, is because they outbid everyone (knowing that they can
| charge $15 for a bologna sandwich)- not because the asking rent
| starts high.
|
| The problem is the business model - which could be considered
| price gauging - not the airport.
| illiarian wrote:
| > ultimately going to the airport as rent, not to the CIBO food
| vendor as profit.
|
| In food services in general there's this weird thing that the
| ultimate price on the product doesn't matter. The food-selling
| place will have paper-thin margins regardless. It will either
| be rent, or equipment and cutlery, or the need for highly
| trained and specialised staff, or... (and often all of those,
| and more, coupled together).
| LegitShady wrote:
| this hasn't been my experience at all - usually the cost of
| food is 1/3 overhead (rent, staff), 1/3 ingredients, and 1/3
| profit.
|
| At least in places that last.
| csomar wrote:
| That's spot on the calculation. A relative runs a place and
| he just multiplies ingredients by x3.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Average profit margins in restaurants are 2-6%.
|
| Not 33%.
|
| The actual rule of thumb is one third ingredients, one
| third labor, and one third overhead including rent. And you
| hope to have a tiny sliver of profit left over, by making
| them a hair less than a third.
|
| But that's also just a rule of thumb, as both labor costs
| and rental costs have a great deal of geographic variation
| compared to ingredient costs.
| LegitShady wrote:
| average profits in the realm of 2% are for grocery stores
| not restaurants.
|
| Lets say you're a moderately successful restaurant that
| sells 200 breakfasts at $10 each. At 2% profit that means
| the total profit on 200 breakfasts is just $40 for the
| whole morning.
|
| You're just out to lunch and those are not the correct
| profit margins or realistic. You might be thinking about
| grocery stores whose net margins might be in that realm
| of 2-4%. I don't know where you got your understanding of
| how the pricing works but please don't run a restaurant.
|
| Your mistake is that you have separated overhead and
| labour, when they're out of the same 1/3. 1/3 overhead
| including rent, 1/3 ingredients, 1/3 in the pocket.
| RC_ITR wrote:
| > But at the same time, there's public outcry over the absurd
| pricing, so the airport has to mollify lawmakers by insisting
| it'll come up with a policy where they won't charge more than
| 10% for what would be comparable in Midtown.
|
| My related take in this is that airports are expensive to
| maintain because you waste a ton of space on vendors and
| seating areas. If airports were just shacks next to a runway,
| they'd be much cheaper to run.
|
| So you can't really charge people for sitting/waiting (though
| the private clubs sort of do just that). Then you charge people
| for the other purpose (rent on vendors) _and that pays for
| everything._
|
| But you can't tell your customers "it's actually really
| expensive to build these giant buildings to just hold CIBOs and
| Dufry" since they won't believe you (or worse call for smaller
| more efficient airports to be built with fewer services).
|
| So you just sort of play this very bizarre merchandising game.
| odiroot wrote:
| > My related take in this is that airports are expensive to
| maintain because you waste a ton of space on vendors and
| seating areas. If airports were just shacks next to a runway,
| they'd be much cheaper to run.
|
| That was literally Berlin airport, before it sadly closed.
| anyonecancode wrote:
| > If airports were just shacks next to a runway, they'd be
| much cheaper to run.
|
| Flew Ryan air once to, I think it was some airport nearish to
| Venice, Italy. And it was pretty much a shack next to the
| runway. Walk down the steps off the plane into a small
| building, notice a conveyor belt. Walk through the next door,
| pick your luggage off the same conveyor belt. Walk through
| the next door, you're at the bus stop.
| Aeolun wrote:
| If this were the case it should be easy for the vendor to say
| that $9 of that 15 is based on rent.
| bogomipz wrote:
| >"On the one hand, airports need to make money ..."
|
| Commercial airports in the US are owned by a local, state or
| regional public entity.[1] They need to be self-sustaining and
| break even but they don't need to be profitable in the same
| sense as a private business.
|
| Further, passengers at these airports pay a significant amount
| of "taxes and fees" on their fares that go to support
| operations at these airports [2]. These include a passenger
| facility fee, a segment tax(one per takeoff/landing), a Sept
| 11th Fee for security and Federal ticket tax(pays the FAA.)
|
| [1] https://yourmileagemayvary.net/2022/08/14/who-owns-
| airports/
|
| [2] https://www.farecompare.com/news/airline-ticket-taxes-and-
| fe...
| raydev wrote:
| > with people buying cheap airline tickets, airports have found
| a solution by turning themselves halfway into malls
|
| This is entirely overlooking the fact that you are a captive of
| the airport as long as the TSA screening process exists. At
| best, going through security is annoying and adds anywhere from
| 5 minutes to 2 hours of wait time, and at worst it is
| legitimately traumatizing.
|
| Prices are high simply because people are punished for leaving
| on foot, and people are prohibited from bringing many goods
| through security.
| scarface74 wrote:
| You are allowed to bring food in your carryon just not
| liquids.
|
| And isn't the "waiting two hours an exaggeration"?
|
| I flew out of MCO (Orlando) around spring break and while it
| was hectic, it wasn't that bad just looking at the line. Of
| course I fly enough that having Clear and TSA pre-check makes
| sense.
|
| I flew out of Atlanta - the busiest airport in the US for
| years and it didn't take me that long to get through TSA even
| without PreCheck
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| It took me 90 minutes to get through TSA in LAX recently.
| It split into two lines and the side I chose was moving
| sooo slowly compared to the other line. The person checking
| ID's was making small talk with every single person before
| letting them move along.
| ndsipa_pomu wrote:
| Briefly chatting with someone is a good way to pick up on
| whether they're relaxed and behaving normally or tense
| and secretive. It's probably a far more useful security
| measure than checking shoes or limiting liquids.
| Quillbert182 wrote:
| Atlanta is my home airport, and I can assure you that two
| hours worst case may be on the short side.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Without going back and forth with anecdotes. This is data
|
| https://www.ifly.com/hartsfield-jackson-atlanta-
| internationa...
| gymbeaux wrote:
| MCO can and does get very congested. Your one-off anecdotal
| experience is not representative, I promise you. That said,
| they are kind of addressing the congestion with that new
| terminal.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Again we have data
|
| https://www.ifly.com/orlando-international-airport/wait-
| time...
| EGreg wrote:
| Best part is when TSA confiscates any liquids and then you
| are thirsty while waiting for the flights :)
|
| Why not sell fresh squeezed juices right as people get out of
| the security?
| fouc wrote:
| I always drink the liquid, bring the empty container
| through, and then fill it up at the water fountains.
| gymbeaux wrote:
| Is water allowed if it's frozen?
| lioeters wrote:
| There was a lady who tried that, bringing a bottle of
| frozen water and claiming that ice is not a liquid. I
| don't remember if she was allowed through or not, but
| looking it up, apparently it works now:
|
| > Frozen liquid items are allowed through the checkpoint
| as long as they are frozen solid when presented for
| screening. If frozen liquid items are partially melted,
| slushy, or have any liquid at the bottom of the
| container, they must meet 3-1-1 liquids requirements.
|
| https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-
| screening/whatcanibring/...
| yunwal wrote:
| I'm not sure how making a bomb out of liquids works, but
| could you not just freeze all the necessary liquids and
| then hit them with the hand dryer in the bathroom?
| crubier wrote:
| Yeah, Airport security is not useless, I'm not against it,
| but at the same time it's undeniable that the airport
| shopping industry can thank terrorist groups for justifying
| the existence of this absolutely inefficient system that
| keeps millions of people captive of their greediness..
| hackernewds wrote:
| Or you know, instead of the strawmen, the airport security
| system could be much more efficient.
| mrleinad wrote:
| Not sure how, without heavily stepping even more on
| people's privacy and liberty. And I'm not talking about
| terrorists, but drug smugglers.
| KerryJones wrote:
| "Airport security is not useless"
|
| While that's a pretty extreme statement, airport security's
| usefulness is definitely in question. Most other airports
| outside the US are significantly less strict (don't have to
| take off shoes, for instance), and there have been tons of
| youtube videos showing how you could easily slip in weapons
| of various sorts through airport security.
|
| It's practically a meme about the fact that they throw out
| all "might-be-bomb" liquids into trashcans right next to
| you -- in the same receptacle.
|
| It seems much more like security theatre, and maybe thanks
| to terrorist groups, but more thanks to sensationalist
| media + clever people who take advantage of the
| capitalistic system (one of the heads of the TSA just-so-
| happens to make the machines they use to scan your luggage,
| "private" business on the side that he gets paid for.)
|
| In addition, TSA Precheck / Clear / Global Entry are all
| ways to pay to have less inconvenience -- but have you seen
| any statistics they've been able to give out about stopped
| terrorist attempts? Don't you think that would be a thing
| that would be promoted if it was happening?
| raspasov wrote:
| Anecdotally, some of the worst/slowest/tedious airport
| security I have experience was outside the USA in recent
| years.
|
| In the US, even if there _is_ a tedious process, at least
| everything feels efficient, and appear quite
| standardized.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > even if there _is_ a tedious process, at least
| everything feels efficient
|
| What does this actually mean?
| dannyw wrote:
| There's no security officers sitting on their phones
| playing some game and chatting to each other, a common
| occurrence in SEA airports.
| gymbeaux wrote:
| But I bet they have better bedside manners than TSA
| personnel.
|
| I really feel for the TSA "agent" who has to just sit and
| make sure nobody goes the wrong way through the "exit
| only" corridor that leads out of the terminal.
| BostonEnginerd wrote:
| I tend to agree. In the last ten years or so, the TSA
| operations have markedly improved. I'm saying this as
| someone who flew 80k-100kmi/yr for the last 15yr.
|
| Once precheck became a thing, time to go through security
| is almost always less than 5m.
| klyrs wrote:
| Ironically, restaurants are the go-to source of steak
| knives past security.
| bboygravity wrote:
| _counter-strike voice_ "Terrorists win."
| umanwizard wrote:
| It's not useless, but it doesn't have to be as slow as it
| is. The government could hire 10x the number of agents to
| minimize lines without changing their budget by more than a
| rounding error, but they don't care to.
| megablast wrote:
| > he government could hire 10x the number of agents to
| minimize lines without changing their budget by more than
| a rounding error, but they don't care to.
|
| Don't be ridiculous. At every airport and terminal??
|
| And then how many extra people standing around doing
| nothing when it is a quiet period??
| hattar wrote:
| Roughly 10x as many as are standing around doing nothing
| now. Take a look at security from the raised view
| provided at Denver International. You'll see at any given
| time roughly 1/2 the agents standing around chatting with
| one another.
| Retric wrote:
| It's IMO worse than useless as terrorists can more easily
| kill people at the airport lines than destroying an
| aircraft. Holiday rush + luggage filled with even
| gunpowder and metal would make a huge statement that that
| everything we did was worse than useless.
|
| I was honestly expecting exactly that kind of follow up
| attack for years.
| umanwizard wrote:
| The main purpose of airport security is not to prevent
| people from blowing up planes (although that's an
| important secondary purpose) -- it's to prevent
| hijackings. Read about hijackings in the 60s before
| airport security; they were extremely common and
| disruptive.
| hackernewds wrote:
| why is a hijacking worse?
| Kamq wrote:
| You can fly the plane into a building and kill thousands
| of people (source: 9/11)
|
| As opposed to killing hundreds.
| umanwizard wrote:
| 9/11 probably killed millions of people if you consider
| the destabilizing effect on geopolitics.
| zeven7 wrote:
| But can you really? The pilot doors are now locked from
| the inside and impenetrable.
| Kamq wrote:
| That's a fair question, but I was answering why hijacking
| is worse, which implies that a hijacking can happen.
|
| I'm not saying that the current TSA theater is the most
| efficient way to stop hijackings.
| [deleted]
| Retric wrote:
| Yes and no. Airport security showed up after US
| hijackings had already peaked, based on timing it seems
| the Federal Air Marshal Service service may have had a
| larger impact. The airport screenings are really an
| outgrowth of a Supreme Court case making such in depth
| screenings legal.
|
| Also it was relatively frequent but not that serious in
| the late 1960's. The first US fatality from aircraft high
| jacking didn't occur until 1970.
|
| Attacking airports has also happened multiple times
| including a 2002 incident in LA and even quite deadly
| attacks:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lod_Airport_massacre
| thatguy0900 wrote:
| Why would they spend more money to make it faster when
| they can just charge people for the faster precheck line?
| roenxi wrote:
| > Yeah, Airport security is not useless
|
| An airplane flight is practically a high-tech bus trip.
| Airport security probably _is_ useless, otherwise there 'd
| be an analogue for public transport. And as people
| regularly point out, the cost-benefit of airport security
| is probably net-negative. I bet almost nobody would choose
| a high-security airport over a low security airport if they
| had a choice.
| megablast wrote:
| They do have security in Canadian bus terminals who
| search you. And also in UK ferry terminals when going to
| Ireland.
| dazc wrote:
| I've travelled by ferry to both Northern and Southern
| Ireland several times and have only been searched once.
| This was on a work journey where it turned out my
| colleague had a criminal record. This was 10 - 12 years
| ago so perhaps things have changed since?
|
| I have been routinely searched before boarding a ferry to
| Spain as a foot passenger. AFAIAA, car passengers are not
| routinely searched, so I don't know what the logic is
| there?
| FabHK wrote:
| > An airplane flight is practically a high-tech bus trip.
|
| I think that mindset is mistaken, and explains many of
| the misconceptions around the dentist that was dragged of
| a United plane a while ago. However, that this mindset
| can persist shows just how amazingly successful aviation
| safety and security efforts have been over the past
| decades.
|
| > Airport security probably is useless, otherwise there'd
| be an analogue for public transport.
|
| It is much easier to kill everyone on a plane (and then
| some) than everyone on a bus or train, it seems to me.
| gymbeaux wrote:
| Realistically the days of planes being hijacked are over,
| barring severe incompetence or malice by the pilots. I
| think it's easiest to kill everyone on a bus because the
| driver is accessible and unprotected. I agree with the
| "air bus" analogy. Heh. That's a good name for a company.
| hunter2_ wrote:
| In terms of attacking the passengers of the craft, you
| can equate the two. In terms of attacking a building with
| the craft, there are significant differences. A plane can
| take down a huge building. A bus usually can't. A train
| definitely can't.
| roenxi wrote:
| Although I do agree with your point that the risk there
| is different; a much easier control would be to have an
| emergency autopilot mode in the plane that the pilot
| can't disable. So if the plane gets hijacked ... it just
| flys its normal route. The hijacker's only options are to
| either kill everyone on board (same risk profile as a bus
| trip) or not (at which point they aren't effective
| hijackers).
|
| Even if the plane just downed itself in an ocean in an
| emergency; that'd be technically not so hard to pull off.
| Enough to deter hijackers so the mechanism wouldn't need
| to be used.
| crubier wrote:
| In case of an attack, the bus driver can just stop the
| bus on the road, open the doors and let everyone run off
| the bus. Hard to do on a plane
| noirbot wrote:
| I would be curious to compare to the 90s though. I remember
| when I was younger, I'd sometimes just go to the airport
| back when you could just walk out to the gates, grab a
| snack and then watch the planes take off and land.
|
| Obviously that's not a "normal" thing to have done, but in
| a world with lighter security, I remember airport food
| being around the same level as mall food court options, so
| it was an interesting option for getting out of the house.
| I'd be curious if there's some lower-security path towards
| making Airports more of a common space, not that there's
| any chance of it happening.
| morelisp wrote:
| _I got me a white bread sandwich with some shredded
| lettuce_
|
| _And then I got me a ringside view for my quaint little
| fetish_
|
| _I just wanna drain my little pink heart of all its
| malice_
|
| _And kick back for the afternoon in this fluorescent
| palace_
| efitz wrote:
| In the early 1990s I was very late for a flight. My
| friend dropped me off at the departure area; I got out of
| the car 5 minutes before departure time.
|
| I ran through the airport to security, let them know what
| flight I was on, and then ran to the gate after walking
| through the metal detector fully clothed and sending my
| bag through x-ray. Security radioed the gate and the
| flight crew left the door open so I could board. I made
| it, took my seat and buckled in, they closed the door and
| the plane pushed back. Elapsed time car seat to plane
| seat was about 7 minutes. Every single person I
| interacted with was helpful and understanding.
|
| What strikes me today is that EVERY SINGLE THING ABOUT
| FLYING SUCKS. Airports are just part of the problem.
|
| I know this sounds extreme but they need to deregulate
| and privatize every single thing about the airline
| industry.
|
| Government just needs to ensure that liability flows in
| part to executives and board members regardless of
| corporate structure.
|
| Airlines can form a consortium to operate ATC themselves
| and can modernize it; something the government is
| completely failing at.
|
| A modern ATC would let us break away from the hub model
| that gives airports so much power.
|
| And your sandwich will be cheaper at an airport closer to
| your destination where you didn't have to wait an hour
| for security to feel you up and take naked pictures of
| you.
| osigurdson wrote:
| >> EVERY SINGLE THING ABOUT FLYING SUCKS
|
| Except the eventual 1000 km / hour part
| hattmall wrote:
| Flying out of ATL with TSA precheck takes all of about 1
| minute.
| kortilla wrote:
| This is complete bullshit from the delay of scale riding
| the "plane train" alone.
|
| TSA precheck in ATL takes min 5 minutes on a good day.
|
| Setting that aside again, airlines have now even taken
| the liberty of telling you "boarding doors close 5
| minutes before departure and won't be reopened".
|
| Travel today is so shitty you can't even fathom what it
| could be.
| FabHK wrote:
| > boarding doors close 5 minutes before departure
|
| Err... 5 minutes is extremely generous. Emirates closes
| the gates 15 mins prior to departure; AirAsia, Qatar
| Airways, 20 mins; EasyJet 25 mins.
| dannyw wrote:
| How is a plane supposed to depart on the departure time
| if the doors aren't closed and checks aren't done?
| AgentOrange1234 wrote:
| I wonder how many checks require the door to be closed?
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| > What strikes me today is that EVERY SINGLE THING ABOUT
| FLYING SUCKS. Airports are just part of the problem.
|
| And yet people keep flying. As long as the price is low
| enough there are enough customers who will endure the
| pain.
|
| Things will change when more people stop flying.
| noirbot wrote:
| Inflation adjusted, I'd be seriously curious how much you
| paid for that flight. My general understanding is that a
| ton of the "flying used to be nice" anecdotes are because
| in the 90s and before, almost everyone was flying at a
| cost/service level that's essentially what first class is
| now.
|
| So, yes, everything sucks more now, but it's also far
| more affordable, and part of how it became more
| affordable was that the mid to late 90s brought the first
| wave of budget airlines like Airtran that lowered service
| and legroom and the like but made it cheaper.
|
| There's a common refrain about a lot of things - air
| travel and the internet most of all, that amount to "this
| thing was better when it was a luxury service for only
| the rich."
| standyro wrote:
| Thats a fair point. I just flew to Europe for <$600 on a
| direct flight. Pretty sure that wasn't even possible in
| the 90s, adjusted for inflation. Prices are definitely
| lower and more competitive. The experience has gotten
| somewhat worse though, unless you go through all the
| annoying hoops of TSA Pre/Global Entry/credit cards with
| Airport lounges etc etc
| bagels wrote:
| Southwest Airlines has existed since the 1967. Maybe
| flying is cheaper now inflation adjusted, but I was able
| to buy airline tickets as a college student in the late
| 90s/2000s.
| ido wrote:
| I don't know where your faith that deregulating and
| privatizing would help the experience comes from. Here in
| Europe once they privatized parts of rail travel the
| experience got markedly worse. I moved to Europe about 20
| years ago and it used to be much more of a pleasure
| taking trains with the EU (mostly talking about long
| range international trains within Central Europe) even
| not that long ago.
|
| Specifically in Germany the experience seems to have only
| gotten worse (both with quality of service and
| punctuality).
| eastern wrote:
| True. It's a false idea that privatisation improves
| anything. Most private good and services are better
| because of competition, not because of the ownership.
|
| If privatisation means opening up a line of business to
| all comers, it's good. When it means a limited number of
| suppliers chosen by an authority, it's almost always
| worse.
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >True. It's a false idea that privatisation improves
| anything. Most private good and services are better
| because of competition, not because of the ownership.
|
| Absolutely. So let's have competition with multiple
| private contractors at every airport, paid by the number
| of passengers who _choose_ to use a particular contractor
| to go through security.
|
| That would solve _every_ problem, as the market will
| optimize for maximum passenger satisfaction at security
| checkpoints, especially if they can get more people
| through faster.
|
| What could go wrong? /s
| eastern wrote:
| Privatisation has nothing to offer if there is no
| competition.
|
| If there is no competition possible--and there are so
| many other situations apart from airport security--then a
| publicly owned provider is better. There _are_ some
| things that are a natural monopoly but if there must be a
| monopoly then it should be a government one.
|
| A private monopoly is the worst of all worlds.
| saurik wrote:
| FWIW, in the US an airport doesn't actually have to use
| the TSA: the government can't actually quite mandate a
| single vendor like that here; there thereby exist private
| companies that operate to the TSA specification, and an
| airport can go with one of them instead. The airport in
| San Francisco (SFO) is the only one I have ever seen do
| this, using a vendor named CAS... and while the
| experience is mandated to suck a lot, it still sucks a
| lot less than the TSA as the CAS employees seem to get
| that they are just security technicians, not officers of
| the state (a distinction the TSA people don't understand,
| but also applies to them: the police at the airport, for
| example, have lots of jurisdiction _over them_ , as far
| as I understand).
| ido wrote:
| I don't understand though, why upon learning the
| government does something poorly the first reaction would
| be to replace it with private contractors rather than
| demand your government does better? Some things are
| public services and shouldn't be profit motivated.
| BuyMyBitcoins wrote:
| The problem is that such demands for a government that
| does better often go absolutely nowhere. As a result
| voters _feel_ like it is easier to replace contractors
| than it is to replace politicians. Given the very high
| rate of incumbency, this isn't entirely unfounded.
| ido wrote:
| And what would you do to force SF to replace the private
| contractor they use for their airport if you end up not
| liking it? Your avenue is exactly the same as protesting
| against a public service.
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| If SF's contractor got caught killing a dude over bootleg
| smokes or kneeling on a guy until he died you can bet
| your ass they'd either be out or they'd be doing
| everything in their power to make people happy with them
| going forward.
|
| Try that with a state sponsored security force.
| noirbot wrote:
| Because it's generally been borderline impossible to
| force a large national government to do something better.
| It's legitimately easier a lot of the time to force a
| multinational corporation to change than the government.
|
| Since the TSA is generally a federally controlled agency,
| you'd have to elect a majority of the
| House/Senate/Executive to change policy there to make it
| better, and literally no one will run for those offices
| with even a minor part of their platform being improving
| the TSA. Even if they had a position you liked about
| airport security, would you be willing to look past a
| difference on something like gun laws or school funding
| or environmental issues to vote for someone who was going
| to make the TSA more effective? If your answer is no,
| that's why people have no real hope that the government
| would improve the TSA.
| necovek wrote:
| Which only tells you that the issues with TSA are not
| politicized (in general). Which is a good thing.
|
| So _any_ government should work on improving the process
| if enough people are complaining and there are objective
| improvements to be made.
|
| We don't have to think about which party to vote for to
| ensure eg. the government cares about improving lives of
| their citizens: they should all do that!
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| > Which only tells you that the issues with TSA are not
| politicized (in general). Which is a good thing.
|
| Do you consider "fundamental to the system" better? I
| don't.
| tssva wrote:
| > the government can't actually quite mandate a single
| vendor like that here; there thereby exist private
| companies that operate to the TSA specification, and an
| airport can go with one of them instead. The airport in
| San Francisco (SFO) is the only one I have ever seen do
| this, using a vendor named CAS
|
| The following airports utilize the screening partner
| program: Atlantic City International Airport, Bozeman
| Yellowstone International Airport, Charles M. Schulz-
| Sonoma County Airport, Dawson Community Airport, Great
| Falls International Airport, Glacier Park International
| Airport, Greater Rochester International Airport, Havre
| City-County Airport, Jackson Hole Airport, Kansas City
| International Airport, L. M. Clayton Airport, Orlando
| Sanford International Airport, Portsmouth International
| Airport, Punta Gorda Airport, Roswell International Air
| Center, San Francisco International Airport, Sarasota-
| Bradenton International Airport, Sidney-Richland
| Municipal Airport, Sioux Falls Regional Airport, Tupelo
| Regional Airport, Wokal Field/Glasgow International
| Airport, Yellowstone Airport
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Changi in Singapore is very much a common space, because
| the security is at the gate.
| hackernewds wrote:
| Changi is a stunning example of how beautiful an airport
| experience can be. I fly through there + Singapore
| airlines every chance I get. Perhaps a benevolent
| "dictatorship" can be beneficial.
| Kamq wrote:
| A single dictator has never really been the problem. You
| can find dictators that do better than democracies
| throughout history (especially on long-term planning).
|
| It's the transition of power that's the problem. Like, a
| real bad problem. Like raze half your country and set you
| back 50-100 years problem.
| mongol wrote:
| What kind of dictator are you talking about? Roman-style,
| where it could be time limited, or the modern version, of
| which there are many terrible examples before power
| transition becomes an issue?
| denton-scratch wrote:
| > could be time limited
|
| Roman dictators weren't like modern autocrats. They were
| officials, appointed for a limited time (usually no more
| than 6 months) to address some specific emergency. They
| weren't crooks who staged coups. And it doesn't seem to
| have been a desirable appointment to hold; dictators
| often stood down before the time-limit.
| vanattab wrote:
| I mean your technically correct that dictators were
| supposed to give up thier absolute power and indeed some
| did. But there is definitely a reason the term has
| adopted it current meaning.
| necovek wrote:
| The fact that there are terrible dictators does not
| invalidate the point that there are non-terrible
| dictators.
|
| I think the GP's point was that even with "good"
| dictators, the problems come up when succession needs to
| happen, which is why "dictatorships" don't scale.
|
| Democracy has a built-in mechanism to stop any bad thing
| from happening in a change of government, while ensuring
| that change happens often (at least in a good one).
| Kamq wrote:
| > What kind of dictator are you talking about?
|
| A ruler with absolute political power.
|
| > ...modern version, of which there are many terrible
| examples before power transition becomes an issue?
|
| This actually reinforces my point. I never denied the
| existence of bad dictators (or even that the majority of
| dictators are bad, I think that's quite likely). This
| would make the power transition for a country that
| happened to get a good one significantly more dangerous.
| mrosett wrote:
| "Benevolent" dictatorship
| paulmooreparks wrote:
| Not really. A boarding pass is required for airside
| access.
| refurb wrote:
| Exactly. Changi is no different than other airports - you
| can only access the ticketing and baggage arrival areas
| unless you have a boarding pass.
|
| It does have a massive mall attached to the public area
| though (Jewel).
| JadedEngineer wrote:
| Yes but security is done at each individual gate which
| makes a massive difference. And the staff is nice and
| polite. I don't remember ever queing for anything at
| Changi and I've used it so much. It's about the only
| airport I don't hate these days.
| FabHK wrote:
| Security at the individual gate is also done at Kuala
| Lumpur, Doha, and some others. I prefer the usual
| arrangement of a centralised security check. This stack
| exchange answer does a good job listing some of the
| advantages and disadvantages of security at the gate:
|
| https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/34818/why-is-
| secu...
| 7952 wrote:
| I think some of the space saving benefits are overstated.
| Baggage claim takes up a surprisingly large amount of
| space and you still need customs.
| refurb wrote:
| Security isn't done at the individual gate in Terminal 4
| (newest terminal). And actually security screening at the
| gate is a pain in the ass. Once you're screened you're
| stuck in a room with no bathrooms (you need to leave and
| get rescreened). And if your flight changes gates
| (happened to me), you have to get rescreened all over
| again.
|
| It is helpful in the sense that bottlenecks don't happen
| earlier on, but I'm not sure it's that great of an
| approach.
| crote wrote:
| It _is_ useless, though. The shops after security sell
| plenty of stuff which you somehow aren 't allowed to take
| _through_ security. A quick Google search will show you
| plenty of ways to build weapons or explosives using solely
| duty-free items.
|
| Not to mention that TSA over and over again fails their
| undercover inspections. In some cases 95% of weapons and
| explosives make it through TSA without any issues! Airport
| security literally is theater. _At best_ it 'll result in
| the terrorist attack being moved from the airplane to the
| security queue.
| gymbeaux wrote:
| I agree- if I'm a terrorist and I can't hijack a plane
| since the cockpit door is locked during flight (and
| bulletproof I believe), next best thing is probably "bomb
| in airport". Why kill 100 people when you can kill or
| injure 1000? But of course you can do that without going
| through TSA. In that sense, as an airport patron, I'd
| rather have more bomb-sniffing dogs and armed police than
| TSA "agents" and cavity searches.
|
| Also, why is it up to the airline to tell TSA whether I
| am enrolled in PreCheck or not? If it's not on my
| boarding pass, I must not have PreCheck, huh? Department
| of Homeland Security isn't really sure whether I have
| PreCheck or not.
| AniseAbyss wrote:
| [dead]
| qball wrote:
| >At best it'll result in the terrorist attack being moved
| from the airplane to the security queue.
|
| This has already happened; most terrorist attacks these
| days occur at malls and schoolhouses.
|
| Same memetic infection to disrupt and destroy, same
| domestic hysterics, same feedback cycle. So it goes until
| the next big meme shift for the dissatisfied comes along.
|
| >Not to mention that TSA over and over again fails their
| undercover inspections.
|
| Every (mid-2000s) attacker that managed to get through
| the incompetent security was defeated by the best
| security force available: passengers that know that
| allowing their plane to be hijacked or threatened by a
| bomb means certain death for everyone on board should
| they stay in their seats and permit it.
| hedora wrote:
| It's not quite true that every attacker has been
| thwarted.
|
| There have been a few cases where the pilot waited for
| the co-pilot to use the restroom, locked them out of the
| cockpit with the post-9/11 door, then intentionally
| crashed the plane.
|
| All of these incidents were overseas. One was confirmed,
| and one or two more are suspected cases of pilot suicide.
| qball wrote:
| >It's not quite true that every attacker has been
| thwarted.
|
| When passengers have been able to intervene, they have
| defended their airplane 100% of the time.
|
| When passengers have been prevented by regulatory means
| from defending themselves, they have failed to defend
| against a "trusted" figure turned attacker 100% of the
| time.
|
| Sometimes the correct approach really is to do nothing.
| 7952 wrote:
| I guess the security may level the playing field by
| discouraging attackers from taking more effective
| weapons.
| singleshot_ wrote:
| Somewhat amazing that our solution to "idiot bum-rushing
| the cockpit and crashing the airplane" was to make it
| completely impossible to storm the cockpit in the
| circumstance where the idiot who wants to murder everyone
| is the pilot. Flawless logic, FAA.
| kec wrote:
| That would be why the FAA has a rule that there must
| always be at least two people in the cockpit if the door
| is closed. In the US when a pilot needs the rest room a
| flight attended will take the pilots place (and usually
| leave the door open while watching it at that).
|
| As the other person commented: instances of pilot
| suicides like this occurred outside the US, not under FAA
| justification.
| singleshot_ wrote:
| See, I told you the FAA had flawless logic. (Thank you
| for the correction!)
| tzs wrote:
| > _At best_ it 'll result in the terrorist attack being
| moved from the airplane to the security queue.
|
| Isn't that an improvement? You can't fly a security queue
| into a skyscraper or a crowded arena.
| chii wrote:
| > thank terrorist groups for justifying the existence of
| this absolutely inefficient system
|
| the terrorists have already won. They did more damage
| causing these security measures than any actual killing or
| bombing.
| saurik wrote:
| They are a bit higher, sure; but there is still quite a bit
| of competition inside the airport: surely, _one_ of those
| vendors would defect to get a ton of surplus business...
| unless they are illegally colluding; so, we should expect
| most of the floor in pricing is coming from some external
| shared pricing irregularity (aka, the sky-high rents).
| kortilla wrote:
| There is not enough actual competition for this to happen.
|
| Take a major hub like LAX which is already segregated by
| groups of airlines across subsets of terminals. How many
| options do you have to choose from post-security for
| something as simple as burgers or pizza? Let alone
| something like pasta or something like Indian or Chinese
| food.
|
| "We have both Panda Express and McDonalds" is not a sign of
| competition.
| BostonEnginerd wrote:
| There is no competition in a lot of airports. I believe
| that OTG manages all of the concessions at EWR. There are a
| lot of options, but there's no price competition as they're
| all run by the same company.
| broguinn wrote:
| Let me take a moment to remind everyone that OTG is the
| monopolistic food distributor that puts ipads as sales
| points in _all_ seating at the gates in JFK - not just
| the restaurant seating. If you want to sit at your gate,
| you must be advertised to.
|
| When I've turned the ipad around or covered the ipad's
| camera with a napkin, a worker has come by and forced me
| to face the ipad's camera back at me, even if I'm not
| buying anything. Dystopian.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Yep, it's not even price-fixing if they all got together
| and sold XYZ for the same price.
| crote wrote:
| Collusion is quite hard to prove, though.
|
| A big problem is that it often isn't a free market. Joe The
| Sandwich Guy can't just randomly decide to open up a store
| inside the airport. There's a limited amount of space, a
| lease can easily last a decade, and any that come up are
| usually _granted_ rather than _auctioned_.
|
| The airport is actively trying to provide a varied
| selection of products, which inherently means competition
| is limited: someone complaining about the price of a turkey
| sandwich isn't going to get a Big Mac solely because it is
| a few dollars cheaper.
|
| All of this is often made even worse because they aren't
| actually _different_ vendors. Multiple stores are often
| owned by the same vendor, the different stores are just
| "exploiting various retail strategies".
|
| Nothing is actively illegal. Everyone just independently
| realized they could make a shitton of money because
| travelers are forced to either pay their prices or starve.
| peyton wrote:
| The airport is owned by the government. The buck stops
| there. This is a clear case of corruption.
| throwawaybbq1 wrote:
| If you want simple data, lets look at the price of
| bottled water or soda at an airport (I usually bring an
| empty with me but not the point). It is priced the
| freakin same across every eatery. No collusion?
| tinus_hn wrote:
| > (I usually bring an empty with me but not the point)
|
| I've been in airports where the toilets behind security
| have 'courtesy' warm water at the faucets
| woodruffw wrote:
| There's no collusion if they're all owned by the same
| vendor, which is common (and pointed out in TFA). The
| problem then isn't collusion; it's that the agencies
| responsible for ensuring fair airport pricing are
| captured by the businesses that they're supposed to
| regulate.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| Sounds typical. Not an airport specific problem
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| Like entiries with like goals will conduct themselve
| similarly. The market defines what it will bear. They
| don't need to collude.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| In this case (and the root of some of the problem) is
| that it's not even "the government" that owns the
| airport. The airports are operated by the Port Authority
| of NY and NJ, which is an extra-governmental slush-fund-
| distributor that isn't meaningfully accountable to either
| state government, the NYC government, or any of the
| relevant NJ municipal governments. There is nothing
| meaningful that voters can do to affect change in the
| organization, so nothing is likely to change.
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| >A big problem is that it often isn't a free market. Joe
| The Sandwich Guy can't just randomly decide to open up a
| store inside the airport. There's a limited amount of
| space, a lease can easily last a decade, and any that
| come up are usually granted rather than auctioned.
|
| It's basically like a professional license. The system is
| designed to make you waste so much of your life and money
| entering the market that undercutting people by any
| appreciable amount is the last thing you'll do once
| you're there.
| spoonjim wrote:
| The businesses may not be illegally colluding: they may be
| _all owned by the same entity_ as franchises
| lisper wrote:
| > people are prohibited from bringing many goods through
| security
|
| That's true, but sandwiches are not among them.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| Until the powertripping TSA person decides that your
| sandwich has too much mayo, which is a liquid...
| dannyw wrote:
| How often does this happen? I fly hundreds of times. I
| usually opt out which deviates from SOP. I've
| legitimately never experienced a power tripping TSA
| agent.
| marcins wrote:
| What if you have more than 100mL of Mayo on it?
| kevincox wrote:
| You actually only have 10ml of mayo but it isn't in a
| 100ml container. You will need to throw out the sandwich.
|
| Next time consider bringing all liquid condiments in
| separate 100ml containers and applying them to your
| sandwich after security theater.
| schwartzworld wrote:
| Most of the fast food options inside the airport will
| give you free condiments, or there may even be a station
| where you can just grab mayo after getting through
| security
| geoduck14 wrote:
| >What if you have more than 100mL of Mayo on it?
|
| True story. My FIL tried to bring a jar of mayo through
| security and they made him throw it away.
| hackernewds wrote:
| As they should
| lisper wrote:
| Then I think you should take a hard look at your dietary
| choices. ;-)
| vkou wrote:
| Then you should be detained as a threat to national
| security.
| haldujai wrote:
| Deservingly so for committing such an atrocity. Should
| also check your coronaries.
|
| OP you are allowed to bring solid foods without
| restriction but are still limited to 100cc for
| liquid/salsa/sauce even if it's sandwiched. Practically
| it is not strictly enforced if your sandwich looks
| edible, I've never had my pulled pork sandwiches
| analyzed.
| jkaplowitz wrote:
| At least in US airports, not only must all the liquids,
| gels, and aerosols be within 100ml containers, but these
| 100ml containers must all themselves be contained in a
| single clear zip-top plastic bag per passenger of no more
| than 1 liter in volume.
|
| So, technically, TSA is not being maximally strict in
| enforcing their rules when they allow any sandwich
| containing even tiny amounts of liquids like olive oil or
| gels like mayonnaise to enter outside the single 1 liter
| bag per person that also contains their shampoo and
| toothpaste. No, I don't expect TSA ever to enforce this
| maximally strict interpretation, but that is how the rule
| is worded.
|
| By contrast, some foreign airports that mention the 100ml
| rule make no mention of the single 1 liter (using the
| non-US spelling of liter) maximum enclosing container
| volume per passenger, let alone the requirements for the
| enclosing container to be a clear, zip-top, plastic bag.
| So this particular absurd pedantry about an absurdly
| worded rule that's designed for TSA to keep you guessing
| on each screening about with how much leniency they
| choose to grace you that time does not apply to most
| foreign airports.
| vkou wrote:
| >At least in US airports, not only must all the liquids,
| gels, and aerosols be within 100ml containers, but these
| 100ml containers must all themselves be contained in a
| single clear zip-top plastic bag per passenger of no more
| than 1 liter in volume.
|
| That's the theory. In practice, enforcement of the zip-
| top plastic bag rule is next to non-existent.
| vegetablepotpie wrote:
| But not all goods.
|
| If you need something to eat in an airport, there's a bunch
| of snack options you can bring in. It's not a movie theater.
| I've brought in Nuts, sandwiches, home baked bread wrapped in
| tinfoil. TSA just doesn't want you bringing in the liquids.
| Am I going to get a warm meal with a drink on the side? No.
| Will I be full? Yes. Will is save $15. Yes. Will it take some
| planning and prep work? Yes.
| schwartzworld wrote:
| They will even allow liquids in small containers. I've
| taken a bag full of nips on plenty of flights.
| elgaard wrote:
| I have a bunch of 100 ml bottles (with "0.1 liter" stamped
| in the bottom). You can fit about 5 or 6 of those in a 1
| liter plastic bag.
|
| That is enough to keep you hydrated and getting a drink
| while traveling.
| safeimp wrote:
| Absolutely. I always buffer my time to the airport so I can
| stop off somewhere like a Whole Foods and load up on some
| food prior to the flight. Salad bar is typically my go-to.
|
| A. It's less expensive
|
| B. It tastes 100% better
| BostonEnginerd wrote:
| You know that the system is screwed up when you can hold
| up the Whole Foods salad bar, as being the bargain
| option!
|
| I've found the dine-in restaurant options at EWR to be of
| reasonable quality, at least pre-pandemic. The food court
| areas are very hit or miss, even with the price gouging.
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| Regulatory capture in one of the most literal senses.
| jghn wrote:
| Even in the before times I didn't really leave airside. There
| was so rarely something worthwhile trekking to within the
| time I had available to me, that it wasn't worth it. Yes, the
| TSA security theater makes this worse, but I have very few
| layovers where *that* is the make or break reason I don't
| leave airside.
| jliptzin wrote:
| I am looking forward to widely available personal EVTOL
| aircraft. Unless the TSA sometimes makes it into there and
| ruins that too
| legohead wrote:
| Sounds like basic capitalism to me. You have a captive
| audience, charge them until they refuse the price.
|
| Same thing happens at stadiums, although not quite as bad as
| airports, but the prices - especially for the quality - are
| pretty ridiculous. I've only been to a few bars, but I also
| scoffed at the prices there as well.
| jancsika wrote:
| > Who could ever define that?
|
| The Port Authority:
|
| "based on the average of three lowest prices for Comparable
| Products at the approved Comparable Concession Locations"
|
| Per this _definition_ from the specification, they were
| required to go out see what prices "comparable concession
| locations" charge for a turkey san, take the three lowest
| prices from that search, add them together, then divide by 3.
|
| There are parts of the SVG spec that aren't this well
| specified.
|
| > That's the whole point, that easy comparables don't exist,
| and when a journalist tries to use a FOIA request to get at the
| comparables, they're stonewalled.
|
| If that were true there would have been no reason to stonewall.
| Just release the three prices and the names of the vendors
| used, and watch NYC argue endlessly over the details of
| "comparable" turkey san vendors.
|
| But with the stonewalling this sounds a lot more like, "Let's
| just charge $14.99 and call it a day," and then forget about
| it-- because who in their right mind would ever do a
| Woodward&Bernstein on a goddamm' turkey san price at the
| airport?
|
| And then Christopher Robbins over here is like, "JFK airport,
| fuck ya' life, that's who!"
|
| Edit: clarifications
| Aeolun wrote:
| > If that were true there would have been no reason to
| stonewall. Just release the three prices and the names of the
| vendors used
|
| I think you'll find that the list includes things like
| "Airport stand A", "Airport stand B" and "Airport stand C"
| black_13 wrote:
| [dead]
| JPKab wrote:
| Former defense contractor here:
|
| This has similar econ dynamics to defense contracts.
|
| The market competition between companies is entirely limited to
| competing for the exclusive, government granted monopoly of
| winning the contract. This is known as rent seeking in economics
| terms.
|
| Once rent seekers win, the expectation is that the agency who
| governs the contract actually does their job and prevents price
| gouging. This can sometimes be done well, but usually, it isn't.
| My experience is that most govt regulators are complacent,
| mediocre, low energy desk jockies who default to doing as little
| as possible. This structure of management is why the US DoDs JSF
| (aka f35) program is such an absurdly horrific example of massive
| cost overruns and under performance.
|
| I have an econ background, and one did an internal presentation
| at Booz Allen about the pitfalls of BAHs rent seeking dynamics
| encouraging top engineers to get sucked out of real projects
| (causing them to under perform) to instead work full time on
| writing proposals in response to govt RFPs. After all that's how
| you get promoted at these companies because what they say they
| value isn't actually what they value.
| 4wsn wrote:
| > _My experience is that most govt regulators are complacent,
| mediocre, low energy desk jockies who default to doing as
| little as possible._
|
| Yep. But the upside is that they're often the only thing
| standing between you and more or less infinite profit; and
| they're hardly an obstacle if you have the right set of keys.
| atleastoptimal wrote:
| They would charge 400 dollars if they could. There is no
| principle to markets with artificial scarcity. They can do
| whatever they want when you're trapped there.
| ncphil wrote:
| Because New York City is like deep space: fundamentally hostile
| to life, especially human life. Once people get past their
| sensory overloaded twenties (or luck into the kind of wealth that
| triggers syncophantic personalities to suck up to them), it
| becomes clear that everything you try to do in the City involves
| a fight (and I'm not just talking about the days when you get
| multiple parking tickets, or the late nights when the F Train
| seems like it's never coming, or the kid behind the Deli counter
| gives you a sour look when you're counting out singles to pay for
| that double-digit sandwich on Seventh Avenue). A titanic struggle
| for survival in a high rise hellscape. And everyone is on edge,
| ready to pop off at any moment because they've reached their
| limit of being beaten down.
|
| OK. The real answer is that The Port Authority of New York and
| New Jersey that regulates vendors at its facilities is a more
| wretched hive of scum and villainy than Mos Eisley. Clearly
| George Lucas had experienced one too many visits to JFK. Or was
| it LaGuardia?
| sclarisse wrote:
| > Or was it LaGurdia?
|
| The OTG managed hospitality experience at LGA is the worst
| crime against aviation in the last 21-and-a-half years. Try
| their $20 burger. I dare you.
|
| JFK at least has ShakeShack.
| subpixel wrote:
| Same reason you can't buy anything but crap hotdogs in Central
| Park - vendors pay millions for the exclusive contract to sell
| and then they sell crap at high prices to cover their investment.
|
| No competition, no innovation, no reason to not gouge tbe
| punters.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| It's not just a Central Park problem: a lot of north america
| basically forbids the sale of anything from a cart beyond pre-
| cooked hotdogs and burgers (putting it on the grill is mainly
| for show and to warm it up).
|
| Kinda makes sense because of lack of hand-washing facilities,
| but those aren't impossible to set up.
| subpixel wrote:
| Not in NYC. Central Park should by rights be a cart-and-truck
| culinary wonderland.
| pugworthy wrote:
| Logic and reason does not exist in the cheap/convenience/self
| serve food world. That or a database is configured wrong.
|
| At work, we have self-checkout kiosks for food. There is a
| "Triple Meat" breakfast burrito with eggs, potatoes, onions,
| bacon, ham, and sausage. It weighs 10 ounces. There is a
| "Vegetarian" breakfast burrito, with eggs, potatoes, and onions.
| It weighs 7 ounces.
|
| The vegetarian one costs OVER $1 MORE than the heavier, and more
| ingredient meat version.
|
| Go figure, but my personal theory is bad data, not bad thinking.
| scarface74 wrote:
| The answer is simple:
|
| If you fly a lot, you're probably a business traveler spending
| "someone else's money" and you're going to get reimbursed.
|
| If you fly a little like most people, you're probably in
| "vacation mode" and aren't really thinking as carefully about
| money.
|
| If you're a really frequent traveler, you might even have airport
| lounge access and taking advantage of free "well liquor" and
| food.
|
| Of course the whole captive audience thing is true. But as my
| southern momma would say "we got food at home". Eat before you
| leave home if you are concerned.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| Lounges fix this
| m3kw9 wrote:
| It's a monopoly in there or an ogligopoly. You are stuck inside
| and hungry, they will happily fleece you worse than most places
| on earth
| mwexler wrote:
| "Street prices" can also be surprisingly high in NYC. For
| example, https://gothamist.com/news/why-does-this-ham-and-cheese-
| cost...
|
| But when public groups restrict data even after an FOI request,
| it's hard not to wonder if something foul is going on.
| notjulianjaynes wrote:
| Their argument that they don't want to disclose the names of
| individual vendors is flawed but somewhat logical. I've seen
| redactions, for example, on the breakdown of a town's tax
| revenue by industry when there was only one small business
| working in a specific industry.
|
| Disclosing the price charged for a sandwich seems far less
| sensitive however. My hunch is there is likely no record of the
| comparison sandwiches, and I hope the author of this article
| appeals their records request to find out if that's true or
| not.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-16 23:02 UTC)