[HN Gopher] Airlines are charging solo passengers higher fares t...
___________________________________________________________________
Airlines are charging solo passengers higher fares than groups
Author : _tqr3
Score : 199 points
Date : 2025-05-29 18:39 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (thriftytraveler.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (thriftytraveler.com)
| Aurornis wrote:
| I never would have understood this as a young, single person. Now
| that I have a family there are several times per year where we
| price out the cost of a solo ticket for one parent, the price of
| taking one or two kids, or the cost of all of us going for
| something. Having a quantity discount would absolutely tip the
| scales for us for certain trips.
|
| People will look at this as penalizing single travelers and want
| everyone to have the lowest fare, but that's not the real
| alternative. A flat fare would bring solo prices down and group
| rates up so the blended average is the same.
| n8cpdx wrote:
| Traveling solo is already brutal because hotels and Airbnbs are
| priced on the assumption of two travelers.
|
| Traveling solo essentially costs double automatically because
| of lodging, and it kind of sucks there's a double whammy with
| airfare where, unlike lodging, the penalty doesn't actually
| make any sense.
|
| I guess as a family be grateful that all hotel rooms come with
| a 50% (or more) discount per traveler?
| growlNark wrote:
| Hostels are wonderful for single traveling, though. And
| that's in spite of the fact that hostels _also_ have bulk
| discounts.
| hellisothers wrote:
| How are 2 travelers priced in? If I rent a 4 passenger car
| are 4 people priced in?
| 1776smithadam wrote:
| Would a van cost more to rent then a sedan?
| chrisweekly wrote:
| yes (car rental prices are mostly a function of size)
| aaomidi wrote:
| But in reality, rarely. The pricing is mostly a function
| of luxury AND space.
|
| I've regularly seen larger cars with more capacity equal
| to medium sedans.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Only when you're comparing the cheapest vehicles of each
| size, where the cost of the vehicle and maintenance is
| probably roughly in line with vehicle size. There are
| plenty of luxury and sports cars widely available for
| rent that will cost more than a minivan.
| dowager_dan99 wrote:
| different scenario; more appropriate would be the same
| car with zero or 1,2, or more passengers.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| Some countries (e.g. Japan) charge per person in non-Western
| hotels. Even then, you may get different prices for a solo
| traveler because the lower overall price means they need to
| increase the per person rate to make enough margin with their
| fixed costs.
| frank_nitti wrote:
| They do this in Mexico as well. Always just seems like an
| honor system thing unless they are checking people at the
| door to the hotel and/or room each time they enter, which
| only seems realistic in very small hotels who have no e.g.
| restaurant open to the public.
|
| Otherwise can't one just rent the room as a solo guest, and
| just have someone come through later, as long as there
| isn't an obvious group activity going on inside the room?
| sjf wrote:
| Why do people put locks on glass doors? Society only
| works because of the assumption that ~90% of people will
| follow the rules.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| Are you going to bring your own sheets and breakfast as
| well?
| ghaff wrote:
| I see people complaining a lot about single traveler (with
| their own room) surcharges on both group and self-guided
| trips. But, you're right, while per-person-double-occupancy
| rates make it explicit, it's pretty much the norm at most
| hotels whether stated as such or not.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| I don't really find this relevant in the US because airline
| pricing is already the ultimate brutal form of pricing. Not
| only are they allowed to bill you whatever they want, they
| are never under any actual obligation to put you on the
| plane.
| hiAndrewQuinn wrote:
| This seems surprising to me. I was under the impression
| that airlines are pretty low profit margin industries,
| pulling in only around 3-4% in a decent year, and that of
| that the airline tickets themselves are the lowest margin
| items percentage wise, with other things like baggage fees
| being much more load bearing.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| Depending on which party you're talking about (airport,
| airline, etc), a no-bag economy ticket is often below
| cost, which is made up in volume and extras.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| This is correct, the single passenger 'economy' ticket is
| usually a loss leader.
|
| You can make the argument that airlines are companies
| that sell in flight beverages and also happen to fly a
| passenger airplane. The actual profit comes from an
| unusual sources, like deals with credit card issues for a
| "rewards" program that gives you frequent flyer miles
| dlisboa wrote:
| You are correct. As much as we like to bash airlines and
| their decisions, and liking low fares and quality service
| myself, it's objectively one of the worst businesses
| imaginable. Extremely high risk, low margin. Every year
| about a dozen airlines go bankrupt, get merged or bailed
| out. A small increase in the price of oil is a major risk
| for most of them.
|
| Most of the more profitable markets have high competition
| not only by other airlines but also other forms of
| transportation. Very few airlines are swimming in cash
| and even those are only a couple bad years away from
| bankrupcy.
| authorfly wrote:
| You'd like Milton Friedman and his take on pilot Unions
| too.
| dlisboa wrote:
| Knowing Friedman's other takes, probably not.
| chgs wrote:
| As the saying goes. The best way to be a millionaire
| running an airline is to start as a billionaire.
| tshaddox wrote:
| The fact that their brutally anti-consumer business is
| _also_ not even that profitable for them is really no
| consolation to the consumer.
| umanwizard wrote:
| Yes it is, because it's the reason why air travel is
| extremely cheap relative to historical norms.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| They are a low profit business, and that kind of liberty
| is stuff that pushes their profits even lower. They also
| always fail to differentiate from one another and are
| always competing on only price and how much fees they can
| keep hidden.
|
| Personally, I do argue that it's worth it having tickets
| 10% more expensive and forcing the companies to always
| allocate all passengers, treat people humanely and etc.
| It's even worth it the 25% increase to make them let
| people carry luggage and avoid all the troubles that come
| with the optionality. But most governments seem to
| disagree.
| umanwizard wrote:
| > It's even worth it the 25% increase to make them let
| people carry luggage
|
| You are asking for people who fly without checked luggage
| (as I usually do) to subsidize you.
| os2warpman wrote:
| Airfare is the cheapest it has been in the entire history
| of commercial aviation except for immediately after 9/11
| and the initial weeks of the global covid lockdown-- but
| both you and I know those periods don't count.
|
| Most people are ok with terrible service because they
| save money.
|
| Doesn't stop them from complaining, though.
|
| And yes, "cheapest" includes taxes and all fees.
|
| You can fly from New York to Paris non-stop for $150 if
| you are patient and flexible. (Please please please call
| me a liar.)
|
| If you are not patient $500 is more typical.
|
| Twenty years ago was a $800 ticket.
|
| Thirty years ago that was a $1000 ticket.
| authorfly wrote:
| What's your patient/flexible technique? Let me know.
|
| And you are not a liar - but your claim isn't true at all
| in Europe - see increased per-flight legislated fees and
| the loss of budget airlines. Price of flights between 2
| destinations has increased by 25-40% in the last 5 years
| in most of Europe.
|
| Thanks to efforts like increasing the per-flight fees
| "because of high inflation" (these fee increases are
| still going up several years later):
| https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/why-
| travel... and loss of airlines like Flybe.
|
| You can still get the madly cheap hop flights, but they
| are often pricing in income from our flights (or
| accepting even negative returns by pricing above the per-
| flight fees) because the planes need to be where you are
| going to fly a profitable flight later.
|
| So the old status quo where genuinely cheap flights could
| be booked on a 7 day basis (e.g. cheap thursday-thursday
| flights) has been replaced by convoluted patterns to get
| the cheap flights (you usually need to leave on Monday,
| return on Saturday (if your source airport has lower
| demand than the destination) or vice versa. I suggest
| based on flights in the US becoming cheaper, that this is
| due to government intervention.
|
| I get saving the environment and all that. But let me pay
| more taxes monthly, don't charge the airline PS15 minimum
| making a bunch of flights unviable. Don't make booking a
| holiday or conference flight so unpleasant and annoying.
| I always have to tradeoff wasting a day or two with
| paying 50-150 euros extra.
|
| It's not the worlds biggest problem, but making that
| decision is a regular additional dilemma I didn't want in
| my life. I wish for the days when you could get just
| normal timetabled flights at good costs if the month
| (e.g. February) was unpopular for travel. Now those
| months really aren't cheaper.
| tredre3 wrote:
| If calling you a liar gets me a no-stop ticket from
| America to Paris for only 150 bucks, then you're a liar.
| os2warpman wrote:
| >Not only are they allowed to bill you whatever they want,
| they are never under any actual obligation to put you on
| the plane.
|
| With exceptions, once you have paid for a ticket all
| commercial passenger airlines are obligated to transport
| you under their contract of carriage.
|
| All airlines must do this, I even looked up the contract of
| carriage for the shittiest airline I could think of and
| Frontier has this to say:
|
| >Involuntary -- If insufficient passengers volunteer,
| passengers who cannot be accommodated on the flight will be
| denied boarding and Frontier will provide transportation on
| a Frontier flight to the same destination. After a
| passenger's boarding pass is collected or scanned and
| accepted by the gate agent, and the passenger has boarded,
| a passenger may be removed from a flight only for safety or
| security reasons or in accordance with Section 3 of this
| Contract of Carriage.
|
| They must also compensate you. If being denied boarding
| delays you for 1-2 hours you get 2x the cost of the fare up
| to $1550 and 2+ hours 4x up to $2150.
|
| And they still have to put you on a plane:
|
| >A passenger denied boarding, voluntarily or involuntarily,
| pursuant to this section, will be transported on Frontier's
| next available flight on which space is available and at no
| additional charge.
|
| https://www.flyfrontier.com/legal/contract-of-carriage
|
| Contracts of carriage are pretty much boilerplate but all
| of this is to say: if you pay, show up on time, and aren't
| denied boarding for a safety reason airlines are obligated
| to transport you to your destination.
|
| (in the US)
| shawabawa3 wrote:
| "next available flight" could mean waiting 2 days in a
| random airport, hardly reassuring
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| One of my co-workers had a flight delayed so long that
| the alternative flight they offered would have him stay
| on the plane at the destination airport and begin his
| home journey immediately.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| "denied boarding" seems pretty key here. What about when
| the airline decides you aren't on the flight in the first
| place?
| greenavocado wrote:
| > they are never under any actual obligation to put you on
| the plane.
|
| It's true that airlines wield pricing power but their
| Contract of Carriage, buried under more fine print than a
| payday loan agreement, does impose obligations. Rule 21 of
| United's Contract explicitly allows refusal of transport,
| but Rule 4 confirms that a ticket with a confirmed
| reservation constitutes a binding agreement to provide
| service, absent violations by the passenger (like failing
| to check in). Rule 25 further mandates denied boarding
| compensation when overselling occurs, because even in
| brutal airline economics, a confirmed reservation isn't
| merely a suggestion, it's a contractual commitment, however
| creatively airlines may interpret "commitment." Of course,
| involuntary bumping, force majeure, and the ever-convenient
| "operational decisions" let airlines off the hook. But to
| claim they have no obligations is not true.
| al_borland wrote:
| Cruises are especially bad for this. I've never gone, but
| I've looked at but after I had 3 independent people tell me
| to take one in the span of a few months. Most are priced
| assuming 2 people in the room and if you're solo it seems
| like they expect you to buy 2 spots.
|
| I've seen a couple where they have a few solo cabins, but the
| amount of effort to surface this stuff turns me off to the
| whole thing.
|
| The only reason I'm still half looking is that it seems like
| the easiest way for a random person to set foot on
| Antarctica, which would be a cool thing to check off the
| bucket list.
| duped wrote:
| Ease is relative especially considering cost, but that's
| the kind of thing that having a good travel agent is good
| for (eg: finding someone with knowledge of where to stay in
| Chile and who to hire for a charter flight or boat trip).
| Economies of scale kinda kick in though so a cruise is
| probably the least expensive.
| ghaff wrote:
| >if you're solo it seems like they expect you to buy 2
| spots
|
| Cruises are probably more complicated because they price
| things other than your cabin into the "experience." (Though
| I think the Queen Mary 2 a few years back was slightly less
| than 2x for just me.) But the random Marriott doesn't
| really care if there is one of you or two when it comes to
| pricing.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| Why wouldn't they care?
|
| I imagine 2 people use roughly twice the bedding, towels,
| toiletries, etc., on average.
| ghaff wrote:
| Well, they mostly don't. They're often using the same
| bedding. Most toiletries are squirt containers these
| days. I don't think toilet paper is that expensive. And
| another towel or two to wash is probably not a big deal.
| And to the degree the hotel has a restaurant or bar they
| probably come out ahead. Your hotel may take a different
| approach but it's near universal (perhaps outside of
| resorts) that hotels charge the same for 1 or 2 guests.
| decimalenough wrote:
| Citation needed. In my experience it's entirely the
| opposite: it's nearly universal that hotels charge more
| for two guests than one.
|
| You can easily verify this on Booking.com, where the
| search results show price per room and how it varies
| based on how many people are in that room and whether
| they're adults or children.
| ghaff wrote:
| I don't care to do research. I will say when I book on
| Marriott.com there's never a difference. I don't use
| booking.com much though.
| ahtihn wrote:
| Price only varies for the breakfast-included option in my
| experience.
| losteric wrote:
| 2 vs 1 doesn't significantly impact space or cleaning
| labor, unless you're staying in a super minimalist itty
| bitty unit (which I rarely find exists anymore)
| mgkimsal wrote:
| If there's two beds, maybe. If one bed, doesn't matter
| how many people sleep in it. Maybe twice the towels?
|
| I'll say over the years most places do not respect the
| "if the towel is not on the floor don't replace it". I'm
| fine with reusing a towel to dry off twice, but some
| hotels change them every day, even when their signage is
| indicating a protocol to prevent that sort of waste.
| al_borland wrote:
| The other things priced into the "experience" are why I
| call out cruises separately. With a hotel, I get it, a
| room is a room. But a solo cruiser is eating half the
| food, drinking half the drinks, taking up half as many
| seats at shows...
|
| Maybe that's the problem. Cruises rely on people spending
| a lot of extra money onboard the ship, or drink packages,
| nicer dinners, excursions, etc... fewer people doing
| that, with less social pressure to spend extra, means
| less money for them and they have to make it up
| somewhere.
| mmcconnell1618 wrote:
| Some cruise lines, like Norwegian, have specific solo
| travel fares and cabins and even social events just for
| solo travelers
| desert_rue wrote:
| Cruises are selling a set space rather than a service or
| trip per person. The extra incremental cost is minimal for
| the second person.
|
| Also the more people on the ship means more chances of
| selling high margin add ons like drink packages, excursions
| and so on.
| onlypassingthru wrote:
| There are a couple travel agencies in Ushuaia that sell
| open cabins at steep discount for cruises heading across
| the Drake Passage. If you've got a little flexibility in
| your schedule, you can set foot in Antarctica for a lot
| less than if you bought a ticket anywhere else.
|
| also: be sure to make offerings to the sea gods before
| sailing because crossing the Drake Passage can be...
| exciting.
| jltsiren wrote:
| Ships going to Antarctica often offer single beds in shared
| cabins.
|
| When I went there, I booked the cheapest bed (maybe $6500
| in 2013) in a three-person cabin. It was early season and
| the ship wasn't full, so the company filled it with
| backpackers waiting for last-minute discounts in the
| hostels of Ushuaia. Because I had paid the full price, they
| upgrade me two classes to a much nicer two-person cabin.
| And then halfway through the trip, the ship delivered some
| staff to a museum. The other guy got their cabin, and I got
| the one we had shared.
| jajko wrote:
| Go to Ushuaia, and book a normal ship just like all other
| folks do. You will have 100x more rewarding experience from
| all of it, guaranteed. Its not just destination but whole
| road to it that make such trips worthwhile and you will
| keep remembering it for rest of your days.
|
| Cruises are for folks, how to say it politely... who gave
| up on any form of adventure or excitement in their lives.
| Dont be that person, not yet at least.
| QuercusMax wrote:
| I just invited myself along on a "girl's cruise" to Alaska
| that my wife was doing with her friend (who's actually my
| second cousin). As the third person in the cabin, my fare
| only cost $99, plus some fees, compared the several
| thousand each my wife and cousin paid.
|
| There were quite a few solo travelers we met on the cruise,
| though - I think they mostly had solo inside cabins with no
| view.
| Ekaros wrote:
| It is strange balance, but in cruising there is expectation
| that money is spend outside the base fare on extra
| experiences. So getting double money from double occupancy
| is important. Cost of basic food doesn't scale that much.
| And these extra revenue opportunities is also why occupancy
| beyond double is so much cheaper.
| reliabilityguy wrote:
| You can make the same argument about food too: buying chicken
| at Costco is way cheaper per pound than in Whole Foods or
| Aldi. Are they also penalizing single people? No: buy more,
| pay less per unit.
| Mistletoe wrote:
| You can't freeze a hotel room.
| tshaddox wrote:
| The hotel also cannot easily split and recombine rooms
| and beds on demand. They have to decide upfront how many
| single-person and two-person rooms to build, based on
| what they perceive the market desires.
| mrmanner wrote:
| https://www.icehotel.com/ :D
| reliabilityguy wrote:
| Hotel rooms can't get spoiled.
|
| You can always stay in Motel 6 for $20/night.
| authorfly wrote:
| What packs do you buy where it is much more cheaper?
|
| Frozen > 5kg or so?
| patcon wrote:
| (Saying all this with respect for those who value privacy
| more than me )
|
| Hostels are for this market, no? Share physical infra
| (bathroom/heating/walls) with other humans (aka strangers)
| and you get the same family discount. You're not obligated to
| pay the premium unless you want your own bathroom and own
| personal space like families tend to want
|
| As in: families don't get a discount, they just amortise the
| cost of privacy that you also seem to specifically need/want.
| but many solo travellers don't care to pay for that.
| kaikai wrote:
| There's a very big difference between sharing sleeping
| space with multiple complete strangers and sharing space
| with family.
| growlNark wrote:
| Hostels often offer private rooms, to varying degree of
| privacy. But i've certainly stayed at hostels that offer
| very comfortable single private rooms with private
| bathrooms for a third the cost of a local hotel room.
| Expensive for a hostel, but great value for the privacy.
|
| But if you're traveling with your family, just get hotel
| rooms. Hostels only came up in the first place in
| response to a gripe about solo travel.
| chgs wrote:
| The point is you are paying for one bed, one living area,
| one bathroom, whether you are a single traveller or as a
| couple. I'm in a hotel room at the moment with a bed and
| a sofa, can host 4 people or me, it's the same size. At
| breakfast I usually sit on a table which can seat 4, but
| certainly one that can seat 2. I use almost all the
| resources a couple do, and spend less at the bar in the
| evening, so I'd expect to pay the same or even more.
| tshaddox wrote:
| It's probably also worth noting that the majority of these
| hotels and Airbnbs are also _designed to accommodate_ two or
| more travelers. Thus the complaint isn 't really "single-
| person rooms are priced that same as two-person rooms," but
| rather "single-person rooms don't exist, which means I have
| to pay for more space than I need." In this sense it's not
| really any different than any other product that you wish was
| sold in smaller quantities.
| ghaff wrote:
| It's probably a bit of a mixed bag. Beds are reasonable for
| two people (Usually a queen/king or a couple queens). But
| there may be only one sitting chair. Two people can manage
| but hotels split the difference a lot of the time.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| The difference in costs between accommodating one person
| and two people is pretty minimal. Even things like
| breakfasts are prepared in bulk.
|
| Most single people own and sleep in double beds, so there's
| no sense in which a double bed is "designed to accomodate"
| two travellers.
|
| The issue is more that discounted single room rates would
| encourage unofficial double stays, which would lose
| significant income.
| tshaddox wrote:
| I doubt the difference is minimal. Forget the size of
| beds, the point is that a hotel with 200 single-person
| rooms has twice the beds, twice the bathrooms, roughly
| twice the walls, etc. than a hotel with 100 two-person
| rooms.
| chgs wrote:
| A hotel hosting 100 single people will be roughly the
| same size and operating costs as a hotel hosting 100
| couples, even if the rooms had a 3' bed rather than a 6'
| bed And thus could be 3' smaller
| eCa wrote:
| At least here in Europe there are plenty of hotels with
| solo traveller rooms (<=120 cm beds). But still not
| uncommonly priced at 80-95% of a double occupancy
| doublebed-room.
|
| I often book a double for myself (often for the same price
| or EUR10 more) for a bigger bed.
| chgs wrote:
| The room will be about the same size as a room with a
| double bed in, so 80% seems a massive difference
| soperj wrote:
| Why wouldn't you just stay in a hostel? or rent a room on
| airbnb?
| garciasn wrote:
| For two reasons:
|
| 1. I don't want to stay in a hostel. See below for more on
| this; but, hostels, at least the ones I have researched,
| have bunk rooms and shared facilities. Hard pass for me.
|
| 2. I don't like sharing a bedroom and, especially, a
| bathroom in someone's home when they may be there. There's
| simply a different level of security (potentially false, I
| understand) in a hotel vs a rented room in a house.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Families who travel together also share rooms and
| facilities, so if that's a hard pass for you then you
| wouldn't be happy with the "discount" of traveling as
| part of a family either.
| garciasn wrote:
| I appreciate the pedantry; but, there's a significant
| difference between several random someone(s) having
| travelers diarrhea in a shared bathroom and my family.
| jeremyjh wrote:
| The point is multiple people sharing facilities get
| discounts. It's nothing more sinister than that. The
| hotel charges per room, and rooms include facilities. The
| costs for the hotel don't depend on how many people are
| staying in that room.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Right, but my point is that you're now no longer
| complaining about the concept of offering discounts for
| room-sharing. Now you're complaining that there's no one
| you would be comfortable sharing a room with.
| garciasn wrote:
| No; I'm complaining about the alternatives listed.
| dlisboa wrote:
| Reframing it to how it sounds to me: you'd like to
| temporarily reserve a massive amount of real estate
| (relative to your human body) from a city's housing
| reserve and not be forced to pay any more for that than
| the family who would put 4 people in that same footprint.
| andix wrote:
| > Traveling solo is already brutal because hotels and Airbnbs
| are priced on the assumption of two travelers
|
| The cost for the hotel and Airbnb doesn't really change a
| lot, if there is more than one person staying in the room.
| More or less another set of towels and a bit more soap. Even
| providing rooms with single beds only brings down the costs
| marginally.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Looks like the deal is to find someone else who wants to go
| the same way and then buy the tickets together.
|
| I'm pitching the movie to the Hallmark channel right now.
| the_third_wave wrote:
| When travelling on your own just go to hostels instead of
| hotels and you-ll both pay much less (prices normally are per
| person, not per room) and you'll meet more people who are
| open to interacting with other solo travellers.
| mmustapic wrote:
| > Traveling solo essentially costs double automatically
| because of lodging
|
| Travelling with somebody else brings costs down. Hotel rooms
| have the same surface for single and double occupancy (in
| fact they are usually the same rooms!). Even if you remove
| the surface of one single bed, the room stays almost the
| same. So, it's much cheaper for 2.
| bdangubic wrote:
| provided you have someone to go with :)
| pwim wrote:
| In Japan, you pay by the person when it comes to hotels. Some
| will give you a slight discount for the second person. Others
| won't.
| 33MHz-i486 wrote:
| kids dont make any income. a weekend trip for 4 in the same
| timezone costs us $3k to 5k. a cross country trip is 10-20k.
|
| DINK > Solo >> anything else
| alexey-salmin wrote:
| > I guess as a family be grateful that all hotel rooms come
| with a 50% (or more) discount per traveler?
|
| This is not always the case. A two-bedroom hotel suite on
| average costs more than two standard rooms. This happens
| because the vast majority of rooms are twin/double and cheap
| hotels often don't offer suites at all.
|
| At a given location two travellers would be chosing from e.g
| 100 options and at least some of these would be
| budget/discount offerings. In the same location a family of
| four would have to chose from 10 options and likely none of
| them are budget/discount.
|
| Now consider that you HAVE to travel during the school
| holidays so competition for these damn 10 options increases
| and the price for both hotels and tickets easily goes up
| 2-3x.
|
| There are some situations where a family of four would get a
| better price per person but most of the time it's the other
| way round.
| Matheus28 wrote:
| Sounds like you're only fine with it because you personally
| benefit from it.
| atonse wrote:
| Or it could just be a certain way of framing things?
|
| But for the benefit of this debate I'll state my bias. Almost
| all my travel is as a group.
|
| But in most other facets of life, we save by buying more,
| right? (buying wholesale, buying bulk, etc).
|
| So I've actually had the other feeling... if I'm buying 4
| tickets at once, can I get a bit of a volume discount? And
| I'm not sure that's what the airlines are doing here (I don't
| ascribe any altruism, it's probably more that families were
| getting cold feet with increasing prices), but I like that I
| get some kind of cheaper rate when I'm buying 4x of
| something, just like in just about every other purchase in
| life.
| SecretDreams wrote:
| Everything hinges on filling the airplane as often as they can.
| A blend of solo and group travel is probably easier to fill
| planes. Looking at prices alone is only part of the picture,
| imo. Group travelers are also more likely to pay for at least
| 1-2 bags, which brings in some extra $$.
| dlisboa wrote:
| Group travelers also buy assigned seats more often.
| DSMan195276 wrote:
| To add on to this, the issue in the article is really more
| about one-way tickets than single passenger, if you buy a
| round-trip ticket for that flight the difference in price
| goes away. In fact, a single passenger round-trip ticket that
| includes the flight in the article is cheaper than buying the
| one-way ticket on its own (as in, both tickets _together_ are
| less than the one-way, it's cheaper to buy the round-trip and
| skip the return flight). Google suggests that one-way tickets
| get uniquely screwed because they're often used for business-
| related travel, but I don't really see anything definitive.
|
| You can also get screwed in the other direction where groups
| are more expensive - airlines will sometimes bump every
| ticket in a group to a higher fare level even if they still
| list one or two tickets at a cheaper price for smaller
| groups.
| darth_avocado wrote:
| We as a society already penalize people without families:
|
| 1. Higher taxes and fewer deductions 2. Higher workplace
| performance expectations 3. Higher costs in every aspect of
| life 4. Fewer options eat out, expensive solo tickets at events
| etc.
|
| This is just one more example in a long list of examples of how
| being by yourself is penalized in the society.
| nemomarx wrote:
| how are there less options for people without families to eat
| out? I'm not following that part
| darth_avocado wrote:
| You can't eat out alone everywhere
| chrisweekly wrote:
| "Table for one" is nearly always accommodated. Bringing a
| family of 4 or 5 out, and you're much more likely to be
| denied, or to suffer a long wait.
| ghaff wrote:
| And, in fact, if there's a bar where they serve food that
| makes it even easier.
| ghaff wrote:
| I mean, you almost always can? During COVID, there was a
| certain degree of reservations required--min 2 people.
| But it's pretty darned rare. And I say this as someone
| who has eaten out solo many hundreds of times. (And tend
| to eat at fairly decent restaurants.)
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| This is extremely uncommon in my experience, to the point
| where I've really only heard of it happening secondhand.
| I've seen people eating alone everywhere from fast food
| to Michelin star restaurants and done it myself many
| times. Where have you seen it?
| prerok wrote:
| In my experience as well, never been denied dining.
| But... maybe different parts of the world have different
| customs.
| brandall10 wrote:
| Nicer restaurants often won't accept reservations for solo
| diners, leaving them to come at off-hours or eat at the
| bar.
|
| Obviously that's a pure economic thing you can't get mad at
| as tables are designed for 2+ and you're trying to get in
| during a high traffic time.
| SamBam wrote:
| > Higher costs in every aspect of life
|
| ...except for the average $300,000 cost of raising a child in
| the US. That one would seem to rather balance out all those
| others.
| IshKebab wrote:
| Yeah I used to think that until I had a family. In reality
| it's more like:
|
| 1. Taxes are more punishing because you're spending half your
| disposable income on children, and most of it probably comes
| from one earner. You can say "don't have children if you
| can't afford it" all you like, but you wouldn't be alive if
| nobody had children, so it's quite selfish of anyone to be
| anti-children.
|
| 2. For men performance expectations are the same but now you
| have to somehow simultaneously be at work and also pick up
| your children from school at 3pm. Oh and don't forget you
| have to somehow cover like 80 days of school holidays a year.
| For women... well you can legislate that being off work for 2
| years doesn't matter all you want; in reality it is a major
| disruption to careers.
|
| 3. Childcare is far more expensive than any increased cost I
| experienced for being single, with the possible exception of
| not being able to share rent with a partner. But once you
| have children... rent for a family is more than double rent
| for a one bed flat.
|
| 4. Yeah price me up a skiing holiday for a family of 4. Now
| do it for a single person (and double it if you like).
|
| The very reason that discounted family tickets exist is that
| families wouldn't buy any tickets otherwise because they
| would be too expensive. It's the same reason student
| discounts exist. It's called price discrimination.
|
| I do agree it's pretty annoying and feels unfair though. The
| optimum group from a price point of view is really a couple,
| not a family.
| hypeatei wrote:
| > you wouldn't be alive if nobody had children, so it's
| quite selfish of anyone to be anti-children.
|
| It gets into philosophical territory, but the default
| "having a pulse = good" thinking is pretty shortsighted
| IMO. Life is inherently suffering and no one got a yes/no
| prompt before being born.
| dlisboa wrote:
| For a society it's not philosophical. If it wishes to
| exist past a few decades then it needs children, simple
| as that. Therefore societies are (and should) be skewed
| towards that.
| layer8 wrote:
| "No children" and "single" isn't the same, as evidenced
| by DINKs. That set aside, you're just confirming that
| singles are (or should be) penalized.
| dlisboa wrote:
| Yes, that's just a necessity for the persistence of a
| society. Otherwise there's no point in even organizing as
| one. I'm not making a value judgment by the way, just an
| objective statement. I was also once part of a "DINK" and
| someone who thought would not have children, I have no
| qualms with that, but there's just no point in
| prioritizing that segment.
| hypeatei wrote:
| I'll ask this in response: why does society need to exist
| at all?
|
| Obviously ideas like yours are ingrained into us at a
| biological level and it logically makes sense if we want
| to survive as a species... but there is no inherent
| reason other than "just because" right?
| dlisboa wrote:
| That's indeed a philosophical question. Should we even
| exist at all?
|
| It's a strange thing of nature and evolution that it
| creates a species that can plan and execute its own
| intentional suicide.
| IshKebab wrote:
| Well yeah, because of our ingrained sense of morality &
| self-preservation. But we're talking about the policies
| _of society_ so it 's kind of pointless discussing them
| if you don't accept that society should exist in the
| first place.
|
| Also... it's not society, it's the human species.
| glitchc wrote:
| While there are people who wish that "yes" was a "no"
| instead, they form an exceedingly small portion of the
| general population. Most people are happy they exist.
| scienceman wrote:
| you get a yes/no prompt every day after you are born
| though -- and most people keep saying yes until they're
| ripped out
| mike_d wrote:
| > Yeah I used to think that until I had a family.
|
| It is amazing how blatantly people will just admit "I agree
| with politics that benefit me even if they exclude others."
|
| > Taxes are more punishing because you're spending half
| your disposable income on children
|
| I probably spend on my dogs what you do on your children.
| Gosh life sure is hard because of my decisions. Where are
| my discounts and tax refunds?
|
| > It's called price discrimination.
|
| ...and when is discrimination ok? Lets all say it out loud.
| IshKebab wrote:
| > dogs
|
| Dogs are not people. Society does not rely on the
| continued existence of dogs. Do you see any governments
| enacting policies to make people have more dogs?
|
| > when is discrimination ok?
|
| When it makes things more moral/fair. Do you object to
| student discounts? Progressive taxes? You seem to be
| having a knee-jerk reaction to the word "discrimination".
| It's also called "price differentiation". Maybe that
| sounds less bad to you?
| chgs wrote:
| Who do you think will look after you when you are 70? Who
| will grow your food, make your car, fly your plane etc?
| al_borland wrote:
| I went to buy tickets to a comedy show last year and they
| wouldn't let me buy a single ticket. I had to buy 2. It quite
| literally doubled the cost, and then a seat went empty.
|
| If someone were to buy 3 tickets, it could just as easily
| leave an orphaned seat.
| ghaff wrote:
| I've never run into such a thing across many years. I buy
| single tickets to Broadway/West End shows a lot of the time
| and I often land great tickets.
| al_borland wrote:
| I've seen it twice now, both times within the past couple
| years. I'm not sure if it is the venue of the performer
| that imposes it, but it's really bad. To get single
| tickets, people are basically left to sit and wait for
| all the other seats to be bought, then hope there are
| single person gaps they can fill.
| tuckerman wrote:
| Is it possible to distinguish between society penalizing
| being single and society incentivizing having children? Since
| society's existence requires that people have children (even
| in the fairly short term, someone younger has to be around to
| take care of the older folks) it seems reasonable to
| incentivize it.
|
| I guess it's all relative, lower taxes for A compared to B
| looks like higher taxes for B compared to A, but I suspect
| most of this comes from a) incentivizing people to form as
| many families w/ children as possible and then b) since there
| are so many families w/ children, people build businesses
| that assume most people will be in families.
| tshaddox wrote:
| I think even calling it "society incentivizing people to
| have children" is a bit of a stretch, since in most cases
| the tax advantages are unlikely to result in a net
| financial advantage given the financial costs of raising
| children. In most cases the thought isn't "I'm ambivalent
| about having children but I will do it for the financial
| benefits" and rather "I'd like to have children, but it's
| very expensive, and the tax advantages slightly lessen the
| expensive."
| tuckerman wrote:
| This has been my experience as well, childcare alone is a
| pretty big part of my budget. I am definitely not better
| off financially by having a toddler :D
|
| I still think of it as incentivizing in the same way the
| EV rebate helped encourage me to buy my first EV, even if
| the cost of the car still was more than I would have been
| willing to pay for an ICE car. It made a difficult thing
| (slightly) less difficult.
| authorfly wrote:
| Single also differs from being in a childless couple e.g.
| in your early 20s.
|
| To get on the ladder today, 5 years sharing rent is
| priceless. Then once you do, you get child benefits. Many
| people are single late in life too. So I don't think it's
| something you can equate.
| 4ndrewl wrote:
| OTOH when you retire those other people's kids will be
| powering the economy that will be financing your pension.
| neutronicus wrote:
| It's not even retirement.
|
| When a 25-year-old lands a senior role in 10 years at 35,
| it's because someone else's 13-year-old grew up, graduated
| college, and got hired as a junior. Promotions are 10%
| Crushing It, 90% dumping your grunt work on some poor sap
| too young to know better.
|
| Society is a pyramid scheme, and, like all pyramid schemes,
| bringing more people in is ultimately more valuable than
| actually selling the LuLaRoe or whatever.
| silisili wrote:
| That sounds a lot like a subsidy, which I'm generally not a big
| fan of. Sure you and I benefit from it, but it doesn't seem
| fair to a solo traveler.
|
| That said, I have to imagine the reasoning behind it having to
| do with assuming some large percentage of solo travelers are on
| work expense trips, so squeezing the company for a few more
| dimes. The article assumes as much -
|
| > It's just another way for airlines to continue "segmenting"
| their customers, charging business travelers paying with a
| corporate card more while offering a better deal to families on
| the exact same flight.
|
| A lot of companies I've worked for don't even do corporate
| cards, they just tell you to pay for it and submit for
| reimbursement.
|
| All of that rabble out of the way, it feels like it would be
| impossible to identify business vs leisure customers up front,
| so it sounds like solo leisure travelers are caught in the
| crossfire.
| blharr wrote:
| > People will look at this as penalizing single travelers
|
| > A flat fare would bring solo prices down and group rates up
| so the blended average is the same
|
| So... it is penalizing solo travelers?
| BoorishBears wrote:
| This makes no sense.
|
| A solo traveler can decide to take a trip because they saw a
| good fare very trivially: you're not going on a trip with 2
| days notice just because a fare "tipped the scale" when you
| need 10x the planning and logistics, and the airlines know
| that.
|
| They're not doing it to entice families to travel, they just
| know solo travel is associated with higher incomes and want to
| extract more money.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| > blended average
|
| ...is of course great when you personally are on the side
| benefitting.
| criley2 wrote:
| Bulk discounts don't "penalize" smaller purchases, they reward
| larger purchases.
|
| Companies offer bulk discounts on basically... everything.
|
| This is like pointing out that the Dollar Store penalizes
| people for buying small quantities and thus suggesting that
| Costco should raise prices to "make it fair".
| mike_d wrote:
| No, it is discrimination based on marital/family status.
|
| If they were willing to sell me 5 flight coupons for a
| discount, that would be acceptable. There is nothing I can do
| as an individual to take advantage of the discount.
| miltonlost wrote:
| > People will look at this as penalizing single travelers and
| want everyone to have the lowest fare, but that's not the real
| alternative. A flat fare would bring solo prices down and group
| rates up so the blended average is the same.
|
| So it's still penalizing being single. Single travelers are
| subsidizing group rates. They are being penalized for not
| buying multiple. You didn't explain how it's not a penalty to
| buy as one person
| popalchemist wrote:
| If it were the same, there would be no motive to do it.
|
| One way or another, this increases profit for them.
| lordfrito wrote:
| Apparently the article author hasn't heard about the concept of a
| "group discount"
| josephcsible wrote:
| The point is that the extent of the group discount is absurd.
| E.g., the ORD-LEX one, $214 for a single ticket, and then only
| $1 more for a second one.
| Aurornis wrote:
| I've been pricing tickets for a family trip recently and I
| have not seen anything that extreme.
|
| That's definitely a cherry picked example for the article,
| not the common scenario.
| jjcob wrote:
| Yeah, typically groups pay more per ticket than
| individuals.
|
| This is probably only on unpopular routes where they know
| they aren't going to fill the plane.
| paulgb wrote:
| Part of what makes it seem shady here is that airline ticket
| prices are pretty opaque. If they advertised it as a group
| discount, it would be received differently.
| kenjackson wrote:
| Airline pricing in general is pretty opaque. Not hospital
| pricing opaque, but still pretty opaque. It's one of the few
| things we regularly purchase where the price changes almost
| daily (both up and down). For example, bus and train tickets
| are pretty much the same price each day for the same route.
| For airlines, I'll often check the price on some future night
| to see if it is cheaper or not.
| ghaff wrote:
| Distance train at least may (or may not depending on
| location/country) be quite a bit cheaper for advance
| purchase but maybe doesn't fluctuate as much day to day.
| wwweston wrote:
| Like medicine, the price is a negotiation point in a
| complex web of probabilities. Air travel can be more
| transparent because the probability network is simpler and
| the spread is narrower, but they're both dealing with
| realities of providing predictable service under volatile
| demand and group payer conditions.
| ttoinou wrote:
| Maybe even if it was a possibility before, it wasn't used and
| now airlines have enough data and market power to actually make
| different prices for groups
|
| (By the way, if it's about inflating prices for individual,
| then it's not really volume discounting... it just appears this
| way on the outside)
| kubectl_h wrote:
| If you read the article than you'd understand it's about degree
| of discount to which two or more passengers are receiving. In
| some cases two tickets is almost as cheap as one ticket. If
| these prices converge it would actually make sense to buy two
| tickets for one traveler if you value comfort and can afford
| it.
| dbuxton wrote:
| Although in this case you actually have to be accompanied by
| another adult
| eduction wrote:
| I would guess this is about middle seats. No one wants them but
| if you're part of 2+ party you're much more likely to take one.
| The alternative is two aisles side by side but those are tricky
| to get as the plane fills up.
| layble wrote:
| The business traveler who is less price sensitive and almost
| always books a solo itinerary.
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| It's a shame this is so far down the page (at least for me,
| at this moment) because I'm fairly certain you are exactly
| right.
| ttoinou wrote:
| HN comments vote need more than 40 minutes to stabilize
| munificent wrote:
| It's also literally in the article itself:
|
| "It's just another way for airlines to continue
| 'segmenting' their customers, charging business travelers
| paying with a corporate card more while offering a better
| deal to families on the exact same flight."
| asdff wrote:
| All my solo flights over the last year were wedding related.
| That is probably a huge cash cow for the airline and hotel
| industry. The hotel is basically never full even with the
| hotel block so it is probably a very welcome cash infusion
| for them at an otherwise sleepy locale.
| toast0 wrote:
| I thought everybody booked aisle and window and left the middle
| unbooked. If you get lucky, you have an extra seat; if not, the
| middle seat will almost always be willing to swap for one of
| the other two and you can still sit together.
| brightbeige wrote:
| Nope. If an empty row is available, book the middle seat. No
| one wants to sit next to the weirdo who chooses the middle
| seat first.
| nharada wrote:
| I do this but I've been told other's views on it range from
| "seems fine" to "this makes you a terrible person"
| isaacremuant wrote:
| If you this I won't swap with you because you're clearly an
| asshole and I'm not going to give you the satisfaction.
|
| You're the kind of person forcing people to be separate just
| to try and get one over others. The type leaving their bag on
| the seat as a method of protecting your seat in the bus.
|
| You also probably justify it as some sort of pragmatic thing
| but you're just selfish and inconsiderate.
| paulgb wrote:
| I think this is fair play, they can charge how they want (within
| reason) and it's not too different than other bulk discounts.
|
| But someone should totally make a site for finding strangers to
| book the same flight with :)
| pinkmuffinere wrote:
| lol I love that concept! Replying here so that I'm reminded of
| the idea in case I get the time
| paxys wrote:
| Any amount of premium is worth not having a random stranger on
| your itinerary.
| guhidalg wrote:
| Do they have to show up? What is the carrier policy on
| travelers that "miss their uber"?
| lapetitejort wrote:
| No they don't, but they paid for a ticket, and any
| insurance amount is probably more than the discount of
| flying in a group.
| bobro wrote:
| Why?
| paxys wrote:
| Because they may change their plans. They could be a no-
| show (which will affect your return flight). They could
| call and change the flight without your knowledge. They
| could add extras to the trip and charge it to your card.
|
| People are flaky, and being on the same itinerary with the
| same PNR as someone else means your trip is in their hands.
| w29UiIm2Xz wrote:
| Some sort of service that sat on top of bookings would
| have its own set of terms and conditions that you agree
| to, which would at least disincentivize them from acting
| against your interest.
| smeej wrote:
| You're going to end up sitting next to a stranger anyway if
| you're flying alone. Nobody says you have to become friends,
| but I wouldn't mind having in common with my seatmate that
| we're both the kind of people who don't take the standard
| option at face value.
| brailsafe wrote:
| I've always thought there's a difference between who you book
| with and who's on your itinerary. Very rarely do I say I'm
| traveling with anyone unless we're staying in the same room.
| I guess these fares do specifically state that, but I have a
| very hard time imagining anyone at the gate would care,
| they're typically doing the bare minimum as they should.
| bbarnett wrote:
| Hi it's John! Is that you, Steve?
| vladimirralev wrote:
| A company can figure out the premium and just average it out
| across the pax who book thru them. Further they could risk-
| manage no-shows or other bad behaviour based on ratings and
| feedback. It's just wasting everybody's time to go thru
| intermediaries.
| xandrius wrote:
| Imagine realising that everyone on Earth you don't know is a
| random stranger with that mentality, even surrounding you on
| a non-private flight.
| 6stringmerc wrote:
| Ride-Along Roulette
| agosnell wrote:
| AirUandMe
| kayge wrote:
| OnlyPlanes
| josephcsible wrote:
| I can foresee that backfiring when you miss your connection and
| end up having to stay somewhere unexpected overnight, and then
| the airline will only pay for one room for both of you.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Sounds like the pretext for the opening of a great film.
| sircastor wrote:
| Traveling together does not imply that you're _rooming_
| together. It 's probably a bit of a fight with the airline to
| get them to pay for it, but then _everything_ is a bit of a
| fight with the Airline.
| mobilemidget wrote:
| I personally think it's fair if they charge by weight. The post
| office does it, why not airlines?
| anal_reactor wrote:
| Moral argument: it's a sexist strategy. Yet another situation
| where men pay more and get worse service.
|
| Economic argument: fat people are more likely to make use of
| on-board food service despite high markup, so you want as
| many of them as possible.
| carabiner wrote:
| What if larger sizes of clothes were priced higher, since
| they use more material? I wear a small in almost every case
| so wouldn't affect me, but man it'd be nerve wracking for a
| lot of Americans.
| owlbite wrote:
| They already are?
| m463 wrote:
| lol. Having done the laundry, I think women's clothing
| has significantly higher cost:weight ratio.
| m463 wrote:
| You mean mass.
|
| Otherwise I would buy seats for my personal helium balloons
| on either side of me.
| akudha wrote:
| That would be a useful and funny site
| billyp-rva wrote:
| Cell phone lines only $30/line when you buy six. What, you don't
| have a family of six? Weird.
| mattgreenrocks wrote:
| Or when you switch to an MVNO :)
| skirmish wrote:
| Then it's one line, $10 / month.
| chgs wrote:
| Why is American cell phone service so expensive?
| anonymars wrote:
| In comparison to what..? Vietnam? Canada?
| omosubi wrote:
| I don't have any data, but it wouldn't at all surprise me if
| single/business travelers are way more likely to cancel or change
| flights, and this is just pricing that into the ticket cost.
| freehorse wrote:
| Changing/cancelling flights is not usually for free.
| derac wrote:
| Yes, it's already baked in. A cancellable ticket is more
| expensive.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| I did it for free once, but I think the airline was just bad
| at math. I flew most of the legs of my flight. Then the last
| leg a hurricane showed up and they offered me an opportunity
| to rebook since it was likely to cancel the flight.
|
| When I rebooked, the airline gave me a credit for the round
| trip flight in total. I only had to book a one way ticket on
| the last leg, so I obviously was able to "afford" the flight
| without additional expenditure on my part.
| brigade wrote:
| Less than 20% of legacy carrier tickets are basic economy,
| and even ULCCs don't always charge a fee anymore. So by
| numbers, it is usually for free.
| ghaff wrote:
| I'm skeptical. Not sure why as a solo traveler I'd be more
| likely to cancel than a family vacation. If anything, more can
| go wrong in the case of the latter.
|
| Business traveler maybe. Not my money and business stuff
| happens. (Usually they want you to book non-refundable because
| it comes out ahead in the end.)
| Tade0 wrote:
| > If anything, more can go wrong in the case of the latter.
|
| Which is why the people involved take good care to prevent
| anything from getting in the way of those plans.
|
| If you miss your flight when travelling solo, you disappoint
| only yourself. With a family the number of disappointed
| people increases accordingly.
| dandelany wrote:
| I suspect they also empirically have less price-sensitivity on
| average, for a variety of reasons
| joezydeco wrote:
| I've flown a good number of transatlantic routes with my
| family, and I've also flown over alone.
|
| From my anecdata, being single _greatly_ increases your chances
| of being bumped off a full flight. And it 's a lot cheaper and
| easier to compensate/redirect one person than a family of four.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| You aren't really "bumped". They are legally allowed to
| oversell the plane. You were never getting on the plane in
| the first place. They just use weasel wording language like
| the flight being "full" when they communicate it
|
| I did once have an airline offer me something like $1500 USD
| and 50,000 bonus miles if I was willing to cancel my flight,
| but that was days in advance.
| nfriedly wrote:
| > _You were never getting on the plane in the first place._
|
| I'm not sure that's true. The airlines are gambling that at
| least one person will miss the flight for whatever reason,
| and they'll get away with overbooking.
|
| But, of course, when they loose that gamble, it's really a
| passenger that looses. The house always wins.
| free652 wrote:
| > You were never getting on the plane in the first place.
|
| Not always the case, you could be physically removed from
| the plane because the flight is full:
|
| https://www.flyertalk.com/articles/overbooked-united-
| flight-...
| muppetman wrote:
| I love how the author thinks they've discovered something super
| secret, when they have in fact just learnt about "Group
| Discounts".
|
| Author will lose their mind when they buy 10+ of the same thing
| from AliExpress.
| tantalor wrote:
| From the conclusion, they seem pretty confident that this is
| not "business as usual":
|
| > Whenever this pricing strategy began, this is a massive
| change in how airlines set prices - and one that will likely
| catch many travelers off guard.
|
| > Unlike shopping at retail stores or Costco, bulk discounts
| are unusual for airlines - at least not just for booking just
| two passengers instead of one. And these higher fares for one
| passenger are the opposite of what we typically see, where
| travelers booking for two passengers or more wind up getting
| charged more per person than a single passenger.
| jjcob wrote:
| It probably just depends on how full the flight is. If the
| plane is empty, there will be discounts for families, because
| they want to sell tickets, and families are price concious.
| Solo travellers usually are not.
|
| If the plane is on a popular route, you'll pay through the
| nose, and there sure as hell won't be any group discounts.
| You'll pay almost full price for a two year old, because they
| know they'll fill the plane no matter what.
| legitster wrote:
| > Unlike shopping at retail stores or Costco, bulk discounts
| are unusual for airlines - at least not just for booking just
| two passengers instead of one. And these higher fares for one
| passenger are the opposite of what we typically see, where
| travelers booking for two passengers or more wind up getting
| charged more per person than a single passenger.
|
| This isn't strictly true. Airlines have long offered bulk
| pricing through travel agencies and booking partners.
| coldcode wrote:
| This was prevalent until the early 2000s, it is far less
| common today. Corporate discounts used to exist based on
| guaranteed minimum legs in some time period. This ended
| when airlines discovered only flying full planes made them
| more money, making bulk discounts more pain that they were
| worth.
| darth_avocado wrote:
| 2 isn't exactly what you'd think of when you think of "Group
| discounts".
| aaomidi wrote:
| Buy one get one free
| jajko wrote:
| You've never seen a 2+1 free or 3+1 free pricing in stores?
| We have them frequently here in Europe on some things. This
| is same thing and tbh I am surprised it took so long.
|
| And as a father of 2 small kids not complaining at all,
| having multiple kids these days is brutal also financially,
| any small thing that helps is very much appreciated.
| nickjj wrote:
| > You've never seen a 2+1 free or 3+1 free pricing in
| stores?
|
| Yes and as a solo person I can choose to buy those and take
| advantage of it in the same way a family can. Usually it's
| consumables like a 6 pack of bagels or something that might
| cost $5 which I'll 100% use.
|
| This airline approach comes off much different, because as
| a solo traveler there is no benefit or reason why I would
| ever buy 2 tickets to save $80 per ticket since I wouldn't
| get any value from it and the cost of 2 tickets even with a
| discount will be greater than 1 non-discounted ticket.
|
| Most airlines seem to also charge to pick your seats. I
| wonder if people who travel as a group end up paying that
| discount back to sit together.
| brigade wrote:
| Airfare typically has group anti-discounts, where if you buy
| more tickets on a single reservation than tickets available at
| the lowest fare bucket, they'd sell you _all_ the tickets at
| the higher fare instead of mixing fares
| glitchc wrote:
| That's my experience as well.
| jlarocco wrote:
| They'll be devastated when their large group has a gratuity
| included at the celebration dinner, though.
| josephcsible wrote:
| This is different than most group discounts because the
| airlines aren't advertising it or making a big deal that
| they're doing it.
| desireco42 wrote:
| I think they because so custom in their pricing that is becoming
| insane... I wish they are more predictable in how much things
| cost, it is almost like weather, how much will airfare cost.
| phyzix5761 wrote:
| If you can predict consumer demand, trade policy, interest
| rates, and money printing schedules then you can predict
| prices. Problem is we can't predict any of those things.
| ttoinou wrote:
| Huh if this becomes mainstream there's an opportunity to make a
| social media website to purchase in groups and make friends for
| the flights
| mc32 wrote:
| Good idea in principle. In practice this could invite
| unscrupulous actors, or people who flake out at higher rates
| than close family -not that families can't flake out, but I'd
| imagine it'd be a lower incidence.
| al_borland wrote:
| There are already websites, like Going, for getting flight
| deals. As a solo traveler who doesn't have to coordinate with
| anyone and can pack light, I can jump on the deals when they
| come up and save a lot more than what a regular price group
| rate probably is. Looking at my upcoming trip, I got it for 50%
| off the current pricing, for solo or a couple.
|
| Coordination with others also makes booking take longer and
| tends to fix dates and locations, which makes it hard to grab a
| deal when they come up.
| ttoinou wrote:
| I "used" Scott Cheap Flights in 2018 for a few years and
| never found a good deal
| geverett wrote:
| Tbh this makes perfect sense. As someone who worked in airline
| revenue management for 11 years, it always seemed a little odd
| that the sales tactics people use everywhere else - group
| discounts, BOGO, etc - weren't being used by airlines (yes, group
| bookings could often get discounts, but usually for much larger
| groups).
|
| What's remarkable here is that airlines waited this long to do
| it. Sad news for me as a usually solo traveler who prizes
| flexibility, but I understand airlines wanting to prioritize
| groups and more locked-in fares.
| mysterypie wrote:
| > _As someone who worked in airline revenue management, it
| always seemed odd that the sales tactics people use everywhere
| else weren 't being used by airlines_
|
| Remember the really old days when air miles were awarded solely
| by distance flown rather than by dollars paid? This made no
| business sense. It meant that someone who flew the cheapest
| tickets could rack up as many points as a last-minute first
| class business traveller who spent massively more ticket.
|
| With the airlines I'm familiar with, it seems that pricing
| anomaly has been corrected. Air miles are much more correlated
| with the price of the ticket these days. Eg., you don't even
| get air miles on the cheapest tickets on one airline I know.
|
| But I still wonder why the airline industry created an air
| miles formula so disconnected from the value of the passenger
| in the early days.
| bronson wrote:
| Because of the difference between:
|
| "Congratulations! You flew 100,000 miles with us!"
|
| "Congratulations! You spent $100,000 with us!"
| nocoiner wrote:
| The first mileage program was introduced only a couple years
| after deregulation, so it probably made a lot more sense at
| the time as a rough proxy for revenue, and revenue management
| at the airlines wasn't nearly as sophisticated as it is
| today.
| listenallyall wrote:
| In the early days you didn't have the internet where people
| would share every tiny anomaly, allowing thousands of people
| to exploit them. Even then, you had a few people realize they
| could do mileage runs, but it was considered additional
| revenue and the perks of doing so weren't valued nearly as
| highly as they are today.
| _heimdall wrote:
| I usually expect to see BOGOs, group discounts, etc advertised.
| If airlines showed the seat price along with a group discount I
| don't think people would have a problem with the price
| difference.
| listenallyall wrote:
| There are lots of things airlines could offer, that they don't.
| They are all obsessed with "loyalty", why not sell travelers
| multi-packs (6 flights over the next 12 months) or
| subscription-like plans? Why a 24-hour cancellation period even
| for flights booked months ahead... they could certainly extend
| that to allow for "low-risk" booking or even charging a small
| fee for the right to cancel up to, say, 3 months in advance.
| Auctioning off unsold seats. Selling itineraries with multi-day
| layovers in a 3rd city (basically adding a second destination
| to a vacation). Lots more with a bit of creativity.
| MrToadMan wrote:
| Seems intuitive: the group passengers are likely to have to cough
| up another 5-10% more at the time of check-in, in order to sit
| together, so it all evens out.
| wallunit wrote:
| "Penalizing solo travelers" is a hell of a spin on quantity
| discounts. If this isn't click bait what is?
| bredren wrote:
| This just in: Airlines penalize those not traveling for
| bereavement.
| niij wrote:
| Airlines don't provide bereavement discounts anymore.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| You can call it penalizing solo travelers, you can call it
| inventivizing group travelers. If you look at them relative to
| each other, both are true.
| deanCommie wrote:
| Yup. It's funny how this stuff evolves.
|
| You used to see "surcharge for visa" but visa made that
| illegal.
|
| So now you see "discount for cash/debit", and everyone is
| happy!
| fallingknife wrote:
| Visa isn't happy. But fuck them in particular.
| fjasdfwa wrote:
| Curious if any others are priced out of traveling? I haven't seen
| family in 3 years.
| skylerwiernik wrote:
| I wonder if this could be abused by purchasing 2+ refundable
| tickets, and then canceling all but 1.
| Matheus28 wrote:
| Fully refundable tickets are an entirely different fare (and
| much more expensive)
| ge96 wrote:
| it's crazy how if you just want a ticket now it could be say $700
| but if you wait the same trip can take $150 different providers,
| I was the former just got something listed on Google Flights with
| SouthWest but yeah
| Molitor5901 wrote:
| Airlines are always doing a negative to consumers. Squeezing
| passengers, gouging, treating them like they're numbers on a
| spreadsheet - knowing their options are limited - seems modus
| operand by the airlines.
|
| We need a passenger bill of rights, not just for the airlines,
| but also how passengers are treated in airports, by security, and
| concrete cause of action for consumers when airlines misbehave.
| mustyoshi wrote:
| This is no different than spending 98c per roll to buy 32 rolls
| of toilet paper vs 1.33$ per roll to only buy 12.
|
| We have a Sam's Club membership because buying in bulk is
| cheaper.
|
| Edit: checked prices Sam's vs Meijer
| legitster wrote:
| > In this case, the rationale for charging solo travelers more is
| fairly clear: It's just another way for airlines to continue
| "segmenting" their customers, charging business travelers paying
| with a corporate card more while offering a better deal to
| families on the exact same flight.
|
| I think the explanation is wrong and the author is jumping to
| conclusions. Airlines have long offered "bulk" discounts. Their
| goal is to fill as many seats on a flight as possible. What we
| are seeing here is their group pricing creep into their direct
| sales.
| lvl155 wrote:
| Airlines need to be regulated and treated like public utility
| which is exactly what they are.
| guhidalg wrote:
| I think the governments only role is to guarantee the planes
| don't fall out of the sky or crash into each other, and then
| the airlines can price compete.
| crazygringo wrote:
| No they aren't. Public utilities generally give you only one
| choice of provider, which is why they need to be regulated
| because of their monopoly status.
|
| When you fly, you usually have a choice between lots of
| airlines. So there's nothing "public utility" about it
| whatsoever.
|
| Airports, on the other hand, are considered public
| infrastructure. There are also sometimes routes that are only
| served by one airline, which are sometimes regulated
| accordingly. But that isn't the general case, nor should it be.
| tiffanyh wrote:
| Is volume-based discounts really that surprising?
| dbuxton wrote:
| I find it weird that this is news and not:
|
| - That it's still way cheaper in most instances to book a return
| (especially where the "trip" straddles a weekend) rather than a
| one-way fare when travelling long haul - even if you just throw
| away the return flight.
|
| - That you can sometimes get access to totally different
| inventory by booking a package including accommodation, even if
| that accommodation is one night in a shared dormitory in a hostel
| (which you just don't go to).
|
| At least group discounts have a recognizable economic rationale.
| But in these examples you are getting a strict superset of the
| same SKU (OK, maybe the change rules might be a _little_ tighter,
| but not in a way that 's perceptible) for less money.
| akudha wrote:
| Isn't it a waste to book accommodation and not use it? If it is
| a popular place, maybe they'll give it to walkins or something,
| but otherwise?
| mbrameld wrote:
| Isn't it a waste to spend more for a flight when you could
| get the same flight for less if you also booked an
| accommodation you don't plan to use?
| akudha wrote:
| I meant the accommodation going to waste (unused), which
| could be used by someone else.
|
| But yes, in terms of money, it sure is waste to pay more
| for the flight.
| mgraczyk wrote:
| My home is empty nearly 70% of the time. Surely that is more
| wasteful than not using a dorm bed once per year
| Matheus28 wrote:
| Do you have any examples of a one way direct being more
| expensive than a round trip, with both of them sharing the same
| outgoing flight?
| anonymars wrote:
| Try London to Washington, DC and watch your eyes pop
|
| You might be able to find an airline where it doesn't happen,
| but you will definitely find airlines where it does. Just
| verified with Delta and British airways and Lufthansa
| decimalenough wrote:
| Singapore Airlines has been doing (used to do?) do this for ages:
| "GV2" was a Great Value fare for 2 people, "GV4" for 4.
|
| I also don't find this particularly outrageous. Lots of companies
| do volume discounts, and traveling as a family gets very
| expensive very fast.
|
| Finally, the fare bucket system used to price flights usually
| works the other way to penalize groups. If there's 3 seats left
| in the cheapest bucket, and you try to book for 4, you don't get
| 3 cheapest plus 1 more expensive, your entire group gets priced
| at the more expensive bucket.
| glitchc wrote:
| I'm not sure if this is driven to incentivize having children,
| but the more general point of incentivizing children for the good
| of society is a valid one. A society that stops having kids (or
| importing them) will cease to be a society before too long.
| brm wrote:
| Or, a society will just start having children again once the
| population gets small enough that having children becomes a
| more optimal decision or the supply of things that make having
| children optimal is increased...
| notepad0x90 wrote:
| it truly is unfortunate how society punishes you for being
| single. Insurance, tax, credit worthiness, even health care.
|
| i wonder how low birthrate societies like Japan or South Korea
| are like, is it worse to improve birthrates? or is it better
| because being single isn't an anomaly?
|
| More importantly, the number of single/solo people isn't even low
| in the US. If i had to ballpark it, at least a quarter of the
| population is like that. Lots of married people travel solo for
| business for example. Why aren't some airlines playing capitalism
| well by offering "business elite" flights where solo travelers
| get a loyalty discount and there are no children on the flight?
| Not for all destinations but at least popular ones like to vegas
| or NYC <-> LAX.
| proee wrote:
| This must be a new thing, because I've experienced the opposite.
| I needed to book 7 tickets, and the price was much higher than a
| single ticket. So I ended up adjusting the quantity and saw the
| price increase at around 4 tickets. So I ended up splitting the
| purchase into two transactions. However, after purchasing the
| first 4 tickets, the following price for single ticket was now
| slightly increased - so they were really playing some games or
| perhaps there was limited availability that was adjusting prices
| real-time.
| bluGill wrote:
| They are trying to charge as much as possible while filling the
| plane. If you take too many seats they need to up the price for
| the next person because someone needs to say too expensive and
| not fly on that plane
| Marazan wrote:
| Many airlines operate on the following model. Imagine the plane
| has a hundred economy seats. The seats will be split into
| groups of 10, each group has it's own price.
|
| Group 1 seats cost 100 dollars Group 2 seats cost 110 dollars
| ... Group 10 seats are 350 dollars
|
| Your group order got the last seats in group N and the first
| seats in group N+1
|
| This is where the myth of "booking late gets you the cheapest
| seats" comes from. If an early booking passenger cancels their
| Group 1 seat it becomes available to buy again and it is still
| a group 1 seat even if every other seat has been sold. So late
| cancellations can make cheap seats available again.
| anonymars wrote:
| I had the same with just two tickets. We ended up booking them
| separately because it was cheaper. It was a modest difference
| but still.
| encoderer wrote:
| In other news, gas stations are selling individual cigarettes for
| $0.50 each
| stmw wrote:
| Here is why I think these kinds of dynamic pricing practices are
| bad: it may be perfectly fair and legal, but it forces a non-
| negligible number of humanity to waste time and/or energy to
| figure out if it's happening, how to work around it if it is, and
| just generally waste human potential on something that should be
| a simple commodity.
| NegativeLatency wrote:
| Especially when your industry is so "critical" that it has
| repeatedly received bailouts from the government.
| _heimdall wrote:
| Are you referring to bailouts for airline operators or
| Boeing?
| brian_herman wrote:
| Both
| _heimdall wrote:
| Boeing is, for better or worse, pretty critical to our
| military. I'm not sure why they'd consider any one
| airline company critical though.
| stackskipton wrote:
| Because most airlines have become monopolies at their
| respective hubs so their loss would severely
| inconvenience a ton of people so government is encouraged
| to prop them up.
|
| For example, if Delta went under, Atlanta, Detroit and
| Salt Lake City would lose a total of 50%+ of their
| flights. That would be absolutely devastating.
| _heimdall wrote:
| Devastating to individuals sure. I hold a pretty high bar
| when it comes to something being truly critical enough
| for the government to bailout, economic concerns never
| meet that bar for me.
|
| If we allowed markets to become monopolized we have to
| deal with that when the bill comes due rather than kick
| the can down the road.
| WalterBright wrote:
| Airfares were much more expensive when the government
| regulated them.
| akudha wrote:
| Also, just because something is legal, doesn't make it ethical,
| moral or fair. It is just that, legal
| yadaeno wrote:
| Same with points systems. Why am I forced to understand your
| made up currency and status system to get the full value of my
| money.
|
| There might be some benefits to price discrimination (which is
| in effect what a point systems achieves) but the collective
| time wasted dicking around with points isn't worth it. Make all
| point systems illegal.
| bbarnett wrote:
| The entire point behind reward cards, is to track every
| purchase you make. They're the original evil tracking device,
| so the airline makes money with those points.
|
| They do it by selling data, by points expiring, and by often
| only allowing points when seats would be empty otherwise.
|
| And often retailers pay more at POS terminals!
|
| This all ties into any rewards program. It's part of the
| package, even if points are granted for use.
| margalabargala wrote:
| > And often retailers pay more at POS terminals!
|
| This is really the whole point. The sale of data is much
| less lucrative than the purchases by the customers
| themselves, especially for the "nicer" cards.
|
| If you are a CC company with wealthy clientele, they tend
| to spend more. This means that retailers are willing to
| offer deals/rewards to attract those clients, and also that
| you want to offer rewards to keep those clients.
|
| This is why e.g. American Express has cards with great
| rewards, high annual card fees to keep the riffraff away,
| and retailers willing to take a larger % cut in order to
| have those cardholders shop at their store where they
| presumably purchase more.
| devin wrote:
| Not saying you're wrong exactly, but
| https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/anatomy-of-credit-
| car... does a good job of explaining the mechanics of
| rewards programs. It is more complicated/interesting than
| what you describe IMO.
| Zak wrote:
| Evil tracking is half of it, but the nominal "loyalty"
| benefit is there too. If I have a bunch of points with one
| company, I'm likely to accept a slightly worse deal from
| them relative to a competitor where I have none in the hope
| that I'll acquire enough for an award.
| Retric wrote:
| Non rewards credit cards also track purchases. It's a
| revenue stream few companies are just going to leave
| sitting around.
| kimos wrote:
| They also have the poorest who have cheap credit cards
| subsidize the richest who have the best cards and receive
| most of the rewards. The inequality is baked into the system.
|
| Which is adjacent to: Nearly everyone loses, because the
| house knows the odds and controls the terms and conditions of
| the rewards.
| ncruces wrote:
| > Why am I forced to understand your made up currency and
| status system to get the full value of my money.
|
| You're not forced. This allows them to make extra money from
| people who don't bother, and offer discounts to price
| conscious people.
|
| Time is money. Convenience too.
| sciencesama wrote:
| And groceries are planning a similar strategy!!
| listenallyall wrote:
| Flights are definitely not a "simple commodity"
| fallingknife wrote:
| Airline ticket prices are flat since 2000, which is down almost
| 50% after inflation.
| https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUUR0000SETG01. So I say let
| them keep doing what they're doing.
| ponector wrote:
| I had a different experience with Ryanair. When you book solo,
| they show you price with a tooltip: "last 2 tickets for that
| price!"
|
| If you are going to book for 3 passengers they charge three of
| you with the next level, more expensive fare.
|
| But so far my favorite is they force you to buy seat if you
| travel with infant. You cannot select free random seat as their
| planes have rules to allow infants only on the seat near the
| window.
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| I would just buy two seats and sort it out on the plane. It's
| not like they can separate you.
| WalterBright wrote:
| Companies give quantity discounts. Shocking!
| black6 wrote:
| Airlines should grow up and start charging by weight just like
| carriers do for every good except passengers (flat rate shipping
| boxes excluded.)
| hackernewshomos wrote:
| Thats why:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxEEaJ4YRkg
|
| Fat fucking influencers!
| mgraczyk wrote:
| This is good. Almost all price discrimination is good.
|
| Larger groups are more price sensitive. They should pay less
| because they have more buying power when they buy ahead.
| p1necone wrote:
| I feel like people are suspending their reasoning in order to
| maximally shit on airlines in this thread (because yes, they do
| have a history of predatory pricing practices).
|
| The problem with this isn't the difference in prices - charging
| less for buying in bulk is a normal thing that's probably been
| done by merchants since the invention of money.
|
| The problem with this is the lack of communication. There's no
| advertisement of a bulk/family discount at any point during the
| pricing process, you just see a different price. _That 's_ the
| problem here, not the price difference itself.
| postalrat wrote:
| Are these discounts compared to prices before the change or did
| they raise the price for individual travelers?
| SonOfLilit wrote:
| Are grocery store discounts for six packs compared to prices
| before the change or did they raise the price of single
| items?
|
| Here they don't even advertise it as a discount, so there's
| no ethical problem with raising the individual traveler price
| by x and lowering the family price by y so that the total
| profit remains the same.
| listenallyall wrote:
| _All_ airline pricing is unadvertised and not communicated.
| They also sell through lots of independent agencies and
| channels.
|
| It would be weird to specifically advertise this. Unlike say,
| buying a second pair of shoes - not many people will buy an
| extra plane ticket to save 30% off both.
| obblekk wrote:
| this might be a good thing if viewed from the opposite
| perspective: people with kids/elderly parents usually can't
| afford to pay as much per person as people traveling alone for
| fun/corporate travel.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-05-29 23:00 UTC)