Apparently they have over 180 million passengers a year[0]. That means that, at most, they're making $7 per passenger. It's not like they're gouging their customers.
It doesn't mean that aren't stuck in vicious circles.
For instance, Boeing has dumped 737 MAX planes (and duped regulators, endangered passengers, ...) to fight off advanced competitors such as the A220 and Gen2 E195.
Smaller less-capitalized companies have done the right thing and embraced innovation, somehow Boeing decided that international widebody passengers deserve better planes but that narrowbody passengers should suffer and that neoliberals will parrot that "there is no alternative".
Modern airliners can be smaller than the 737 bit have much better passenger comfort and lower seat-mile costs. Boeing has to let up on the anti-competitive behavior for that to happen.
Sure, but if you have to pay a premium for regular seats just because you have a disability, that seems like a problem. And the injury scenario could also be extremely problematic. What if there are no sitting seats left, or you could afford the cattle class seat but not the business class seat?
If my grandmother needs to fly, do we have to upgrade both her seat and someone else’s in the family to something twice as expensive so someone can help her with the various things she can’t do for herself any more? Or upgrade the whole family if we want to sit together?
Current cattle class seats aren’t comfortable. But they’re accommodating to the elderly and people with disabilities or injuries. If some seat shuffling is required to accommodate a special case it’s usually just shifting people between aisle and non-aisle seats, not downgrading them to standing seats so someone else can sit.
This makes no sense to me. Airlines are adding another option that is cheaper. How is that a bad thing? If I don't want the cheaper option, another airline will offer me a more comfortable one and I'll pay for it. What is there to be upset about here?
> Airlines are adding another option that is cheaper. How is that a bad thing?
No, they’re going to make this the new default setting. The regular crappy seat you enjoy today will become the “economy premium” option and cost more.
> If I don't want the cheaper option, another airline will offer me a more comfortable one and I'll pay for it.
Assuming they go where you’re going in the timeframe you’re expecting. And assuming they don’t just move in lock-step with their other competitors and make these new seats the default.
>And assuming they don’t just move in lock-step with their other competitors and make these new seats the default
Well then they wouldn't be competitors, would they? That's another problem.
Any single airline could disrupt the system by choosing not to install these and to keep their prices the same. Or choosing to install these and lower their prices. Which are two good things for consumers.
Like I replied above, that's basic economics of competition.
Show me the airline today that has superior seats to all the others that charges the same amount. It’s not a coincidence that seating has gotten crappier across the board.
And it's also not a coincidence that flights have gotten cheaper across the board.
Airlines have, as a whole, found that it's more profitable to sell cheaper crappy seats than it is to sell more expensive nice seats, because nobody will buy the nice seats given the option.
If someone had superior seats, why would they charge the same amount?
What I'm trying to say is that if someone comes out with a crappier seat, they will have to charge less than a normal seat. If they choose not to, they won't be able to get people into those standing seats.
When a company comes out with a crappier car, do they charge the same amount as a standard car? Does the price of that standard car rise, now that there's a crappy car at its price point?
You sound like an optimist. My take is that airlines are adding a worse option for the price they currently charge, which lets them charge more for the current options.
But in order for that to work, every single airline would have to do that together, holding hands. Because there are multiple airlines, a single airline could choose not to install them and keep their current prices for seats and outcompete those who do install these. I mean, that's basic economics of competition.
Where is this? In much of the US, there are only two airlines. Some lucky Americans might get to pick from three or four airlines. Airlines in the US are not really competitive in any meaningful way - https://www.economist.com/leaders/2017/04/22/a-lack-of-compe...
All American Airlines has to do is announce they're eliminating seats, and Delta and United would probably match them within 3 to 6 months.
Yes, in a free market. Airlines are expensive and heavily regulated. And regulators are subject to capture (ref: FAA and 737-MAX problems). Which means there are major barriers to building a new airline.
I suspect it's actually much more profitable for airlines to follow the profit-seeking lead of a competitor. E.g. if Delta rolled out the standing seats for their current price, I suspect we'd see United and American follow. You don't have to look too far to see that's been the case with other "conveniences" like bag check fees, bag weight limits, seat selection fees, food for sale instead of being included in the price, etc.
The basic laws of economics are premised based on an optimal market, with rational actors. None of these matter in a natural oligopoly. When there are few enough actors you can functionally cooperate without ever communicating directly which acts as a defacto cartel.
The problem is that what will actually happen is this new option will become default, and the old cattle class will now be an upgrade, and it won't cost what it does now, it will be 2x as much. There must be some MBA that figured out that someone who will pay a little extra for comfort will probably pay 2-3x as much if you push.
That isn't what has happened historically, in this market or in others. I don't know why so many people seem to expect this to happen now.
If Delta decides to implement these seats and then charge 2x as much for the current seats, United will choose not to and nobody will fly Delta unless they absolutely have to.
Competition keeps this sort of thing from happening.
Except that's exactly what's been happening over the years. It might be so abrupt in this case that it would fail just because the marketing would be too easy. But airlines have been incrementally decreasing seat pitch for a long time and then charging a significant amount for what used to be normal.
Prices for “economy” and “business class” have been trending downwards, yes. But what you now get in “business class” is what you used to get in “economy” 20-30 years ago and “business class” now is not less expensive than “economy” was 20-30 years ago.
>But what you now get in “business class” is what you used to get in “economy” 20-30 years ago
That's nonsense. Especially in long haul flights, business class is in fact more comfortable and has more amenities than it did 20-30 years ago with lie-flat seating, on demand entertainment, etc. Traditional domestic business class is about the same as it ever was while economy has mostly seen a decrease in seat pitch. (Economy Plus--which differs by airline--is more like what regular economy used to be.)
When I flew economy 25-35 years ago, seat pitch was at least 50% greater than it is now, and the actual seats of the seats were both deeper and better cushioned. You could recline to 45 degrees or deeper. Seats were 50% wider.
It was physically far more comfortable to fly, in a way that’s now a available only in business class. All those characteristics would now be considered business class amenities, and aside from a little more legroom (not even approaching what used to be standard in economy unless you’re on an exit row) are unavailable in premium economy on any flight I’ve taken recently.
You got warmer blankets and larger pillows. They would hand out amenities like headphones and playing cards for free. And you could put about twice as much into the overhead.
Ok, on demand entertainment is new in business class, but that’s about technology rather than cost savings, and it’s available in economy everywhere these days too. And for me at least, not much of an upgrade. I’d far rather watch the specific things I’ve brought on my own electronics, read a book, or do work.
This already happened in aircraft seating. "Premium Economy" is what Economy used to be, they took away space (seat pitch/width) and then sold it back to you as a premium service at a premium price.
That's silly. You could also say that humans don't really deserve praise since our motives are ultimately guided by our self interest. We only do things to make ourselves feel good, or make ourselves look better. I think that companies have many paths towards self preservation, and that choosing the paths that lead to a better world deserve praise regardless of motive.
I disagree there, because all throughout history are examples of genuine heroes who stood to benefit not at all from their actions. Vince Coleman[0] comes to mind.
Humans can be motivated by many things, profit and looking good included. I'm vaguely aware of a philosophical branch that postulates that all actions are selfish, but that ain't science and so I disagree. People will sacrifice their pyramid of needs towards s greater good, I've never heard of a company utterly scuttling profits over the greater good though.
On that note, in this case Amazon obviously is shedding profit for a greater good here, especially if they actually lobby, so in this case I believe they (particularly the people that made this decision) deserve praise.
It doesn't matter whether they're doing it for a 'greater good' or not. You should praise them anyway. They took steps to create the world that you want. It doesn't matter why they did it.
I would praise them if they simply made the change before being shown to know about large % of their staff being forced to take subsidies to be able to live in national press. I don't tend to praise minimum standards of ethical and moral behavior.
Yes. I think being one of the largest/most profitable companies in the US while paying people the minimum wage required by law -- which also happens to ensure most of those employees can't survive without government subsidies in their locals is well below the minimum standard for ethical and moral behavior.
Reverse, Do you think that a company such as amazon should be paying their fulltime and part time employee a wage that requires government subsidies (that you and I pay for) to survive while enjoying the amount of revenue and profit they are receiving?
> Reverse, Do you think that a company such as amazon should be paying their fulltime and part time employee a wage that requires government subsidies (that you and I pay for) to survive while enjoying the amount of revenue and profit they are receiving?
Yes, I do. I think most people misunderstand government subsidies when they make this argument. The idea that the company you work for is responsible for maintaining your standard of living is a weird one, that doesn't really come from any obvious moral principle. We, as a society, have decided that we don't want people to have a standard of living below a certain level. Therefore we, as a society, should provide the resources to ensure that that happens. If Amazon wants to come to those people and say "we'll give you $X/hour to do this task for us", and those people say "Yes", then I don't see any good reason for that to change the moral calculus of society at large, or for Amazon to suddenly become responsible for that person's general welfare.
It does matter. In my view: if they were "forced" by bad publicity to do a net positive thing it hardly matters at all (except for the employees in question), because the systems and structures and incentives to keep acting selfishly and greedily are still there intact. No real change was effected.
I disagree completely. They didn't have to capitulate to those forces. They chose to. If you reward them for doing so, they'll capitulate more readily in the future than if you do not. This is really simple: carrot and stick. Everyone knows this approach to literally everything works. People seem to want to discard it here because they don't want to let go of their negative emotions, because they've come to identify with a sense of moral outrage completely divorced from any objective social goals.
Likewise for the system which caused them to act in the greater good - the demands of their customers. How is that any different than when a human is "forced" to act by their sense of empathy or duty?
The three possible target audiences for saying something are yourself (i.e. getting catharsis by articulating one's beliefs), others (i.e. that there is a network effect to him convincing you and you convincing others and shifting a social consensus), or the subject of the speech (i.e. Amazon will read Hacker News and make decisions based on the extent to which the comments flatter them).
On that basis, is the implication here that hearing anonymous and vague internet praise actually tips the utility calculus of the company in some way?
Because if not it's hard to know why anyone should praise them -- as opposed to acknowledging the decision, or silently mentally updating one's assessment, or not engaging with the news at all, or criticizing them for not doing more.
> On that basis, is the implication here that hearing anonymous and vague internet praise actually tips the utility calculus of the company in some way?
In aggregate, yes. You seem to be trying to reduce this to "who cares about silly comments on the internet", but of course, that isn't the point. The point is about where our moral sentiments ought lie, collectively. And yes, the rollup of all the individuals making throwaway comments on the internet actually do synthesize much of our collective worldview. So yes, I do think that anonymous and vague internet praise actually tips the utility calculus of all companies. If you don't, then you haven't been paying much attention for the last decade.
How does motive relate to means here? I think an "ends vs means" argument would be around whether it was ok to cull half their workforce to pay for this wage increase.
Congress was looking to tax companies whose employees redeem federal benefits due to low wages. Walmart and Amazon we're the poster companies discussed in the legislation. This permanently removes that pressure and prepares Amazon for the inevitable. Get your head out of the sand, if you think this isn't a strategic play from one of the most valuable and business-savy corporate institutions on the planet you are being willfully ignorant.
> You could also say that humans don't really deserve praise since our motives are ultimately guided by our self interest
You could say that and you would be right. Why should anyone praise you if your underlying motivations are self-centered? You seem to be asserting that this is fundamental human nature, however, which is a belief which has been refuted plenty of times throughout history.
If the rules of the game are that we only act out of self-interest, then I would only praise you if it directly benefits me in some way. Is that the sort of relationship you would like to have with everyone in your own life?
If you've oversimplified psychology and behavior that much there's no point asking "why" anyone would praise anyone.
You had as an unstated axiom that self-interested action are not praiseworthy. You still have not made an argument for that, though you have pointed out that a world composed only of self-interested action would be an unpleasant one (I agree).
However, using a more realistic understanding, where actions come from a multitude of motivations, why do you consider a given action's being self-interested to exclude it from praiseworthiness?
Sorry, the post I responded to asserted that “our motives are ultimately guided by our self interest”. It seems like you are now applying my words to a different context.
It depends to what degree a person or company acted positively on its/their own. Amazon would have never done it, if it wasn't for the immense pressure. So, it is not worth much praise.
The idea of there being too many jobs that require degrees (but really don't utilize them) is touched on, and the proposed solution is for positions to not be allowed to ask for degree status. Instead, they would have to test for aptitude. The whole article is worth a read.
Not quite. I could say "I support colonizing mars" and "I support the colonization of mars" and those both mean the same thing, don't they? I'm not actively participating in either of those acts, am I?
I think a lot of it is implicit and context based. And maybe it's even based on personal interpretation, but even in your examples, I see those two sentences meaning the same thing.
[0]https://news.delta.com/corporate-stats-and-facts