Slashdot Mirror
Give Us Your Personal Data Or Pay Full Fare
ebh writes "Noted in an AP story about how fees make it difficult to compare air travel costs, is how the airline industry is moving toward tailoring offer packages (and presumably, fares) for individuals based on their personal information. Worse, 'The airline association said consumers who choose not to supply personal information would still be able to see fares and purchase tickets, though consumer advocates said those fares would probably be at the "rack rate" — the travel industry's term for full price, before any discounts.'"
We've established the nature of the relationship, we're now just haggling over the cost...
Or, principles are expensive...
How many data mining tokens er loyalty cards are in your wallet?
In Australia this has been mostly fixed legislatively under the 'component pricing' laws.
Amazon do personal pricing. They won't give you a price for some things unless you login. Then they give you a price that is the maximum they think you will pay. Other people see lower prices.
The aim of personal pricing is to milk you for more money to maximize profit, not for some kind of altruism. It's all about 'how much can this customer pay right now for that item'.
Now when companies get together to implement this, this is known as a price fixing cartel. It DOES NOT require them to have a fixed price, the mere act of agreeing to deceive customers on the price, is enough to be a crime under cartel acts. So if they're doing this because they've agreed to, then you look at price fixing cartel laws to see how to fix it.
But make no mistake, when they won't tell you the price for something, its not for your benefit.
My biggest concern is that if I supply them with my PI, I might not receive the obligatory junk touching.
Reading the article, the companies are unhappy with the Transportation Department rule that requires them to include all taxes in their advertised rates because that rule "violate their free-speech rights".
The "free speech" card is so abused nowadays that it will soon lose any meaning.
Airlines also have been cracking down on websites that help travelers manage their frequent flier accounts. The sites use travelers' frequent flier passwords to obtain balances and mileage expiration dates, and then display the information in a way that makes it easier for travelers to figure out when it makes more sense to buy a ticket or to use miles.
There is not even a quote from airlines about "making it safer for passengers" or "providing the best service". I guess there is simply no way to spin this as a good thing for customers. A rare event indeed.
If I currently receive a discount, and they're simply removing my discount (or making it contingent on providing excessive personal information), then I'll be opting out of those airlines.
... that's fine by me. I mean, I want to control my data - but I also don't mind selling the same set of information to several different sources for a price reduction at each source.
If, on the other hand, they're just asking for the same data that most free online services request, and are using that information to keep prices lower
- Nec Impar Pluribus, or so I'm told.
If you don't send us your tax forms, how badly you want to travel, etc, how will we know how you and/or your business can afford to pay us to transport you there?
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
I first noticed when I did a search for a media player, I clicked through and it refused to give me a price unless I logged in. I click the 'why we ask you to login' link and it made some kind of BS claim about customer service. I got my price.
Then I then logged out, tried to create a new account, and tried again and got that *same* price (same IP, I think they're smarter about covering their tracks), so I then used a works proxy with a different IP address, and created a new account and was offered a cheaper price.
They're still up to their old games, just better at hiding them.
That was only a few months ago.
.. I thought it was about Android/iOS apps.
The single price means the minimum total cost that is able to be quantified (or calculated) at the time of making the representation.
That's all well and good for taxes, but what about
You could argue that these are not necessities (thus the law you quote does not apply). But I would say that a carry-on charge, for example, really pushes the line of "necessity".
If we don't have anything to conceal, so why not give these information ?
Video
I have no plans to fly until gate rape is made illegal (this includes both the rubber-glove version and the rape-scan version).
I'll gladly spend two days driving (each way) once a year to avoid a gate-rape.
Large grocery stores already force you to sign up for their club cards in order to get the sale prices.
A cartel requires cooperation between companies that should be competitors, but actually agree to mutually rip off customers. Amazon DOES rip off customers with inflated prices, but that's not illegal unless its a cartel.
" Amazon does nothing to prevent you from comparing its price to the competitor's."
Yes it does, watch for the occasions when it puts up a "you need to log-in to see the price" text. Those times, you're seeing a personal price. It's not that they offer a *cheaper* price just to you, because people looking for the cheapest price don't hang around to login, they're the ones you wouldn't try to get to log-in. It's that this item can be price inflated as its quite difficult to get hold of, and if you're looking on Amazon then you haven't found a supplier, so bend over and prepared to take it up the Amazon.
I think the only new twist here, is that just clearing cookies and trying to create a new account didn't fix the inflated price, I had to go through a proxy to see a cheaper price.
I think airlines were investigated in EU for that fees trick, I don't know what became of that.
I have never had an issue using fake information on those shopping member cards. I imagine trying to use fake info for air travel would be frowned upon.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
History has shown that the rich can almost always buy themselves privacy, while the poor get screwed.
The rich can buy houses far away and concealed from any neighbor, while the poor are stuck in overcrowded ghettoes where they are forced to share rooms with many others.
The rich can buy private compartments on trains, entire railroad cars, or even whole trains, while the poor have to ride coach with the rest of the poor.
The rich can afford to hire teams of security experts to sweep their houses and offices for bugs and perform other counter-surveillance measures, while the poor have no such recourse.
The rich can ride in private jets, while the poor (if they can afford to fly at all) have to put up with flying coach and submitting to invasive security theater and now to having to give up personal information because they can't afford the rates charged for not revealing that information (rates which the rich can easily afford).
So, once again, we see that the rich can buy themselves some privacy, while the poor get screwed.
But there is something the government could do about this: create privacy protection laws that forbid the collection of personal information or the charging of fees for non-collection of such information.
I have never had an issue using fake information on those shopping member cards. I imagine trying to use fake info for air travel would be frowned upon.
Hehe, I hope you NEVER used a credit card to purchase with your "fake" shopping member card. Because once you do, the fake member card is tied to your real and verifiable info forever.
Airlines would also have your true information because you cannot even buy your plane ticket with cash (well, maybe you can - but I wouldn't recommend it nowdays). At least groceries can still be had for cash...
This will be interesting for business travelers as many companies require employees to purchase the cheapest fare.
If this change were to take hold, it is easy to see that the cheap fares for your grand mother no longer being available to you when you need to fly LAX/SFO/JFK for a business trip. I cannot see business liking that and that pressure will be applied during sessions on the golf course and at the club room to nip this one in the bud.
The other place this will hit will be the 1%ers who could also expect to see price discrimination (if they're not already buying 1st class tickets) and again I would expect that social circles will influence this discussion.
A different potential outcome is that profiles of people purchasing tickets leads to the repeating traveler also paying less, so not only do they get more FF points the more they fly, but because they're a good customer, they get cheaper prices than the once a year flyer looking for a good deal.
Once they see the contents of your wallet... they can adjust the prices they offer to you to maximize their intake of your cash and minimize those aforementioned contents of your wallet. That's the real key to profitability with personal pricing: find out how MUCH they are willing to pay for what they want. So it's only to their benefit to know how much money you're playing with (how good your credit is, how many other expensive things you've bought before, whether you're a customer they'd like to take on or someone they want to go away).
.
There is NO benefit for customers from this at all that I can see.
I already have at least 8 separate identities online, with quite different ages, sex and attitudes. Most of my friends have at least two. TOR and Mailinator are your friends here...
As usual the well off will get discounts so they get to fly more for leisure, the working poor as usual will be squeezed as they usualy only spend when they have to.
It is expensive to be poor and powerless, once you have access to capitol you have control over your world.
Paying the full fare is the expected situation, right?
Well of course having detected I was being ripped off I stopped using Amazon. Most people won't be able to see alternate prices for an item, so they'll never know the reason they were required to log-in was to be offered an inflated price compared to others.
I think the same is true of this airline scam. HOWEVER, the main difference here, is the airlines via it's association are showing clear signs of cooperation on this, which is a strong indicator of cartel activity.
It's not like one of them has just decided to go alone on this, it's that their airline association is declaring this.
That has CARTEL written all over it.
They still do useful things, and airlines still find it advantageous to offer them good prices. The airline doesn't get your name until the travel agent has already locked the price in.
I don't know of an airline in .au (other than weight challenged ones) that charge for carry-on.
though the rest of your issues are quite valid. prices advertised are usually ones without checked luggage. Choosing a seat in advance of check in (when booking) is extra, Better seats are extra, upfront seats are better (i don't see how these are better when flying the cheaper airlines as they typically do fore and aft boarding)
priority lanes are also not included
Doesn't a little concept called a perfectly competitive market solve this issue? If you dont wanna get ripped off compare prices, it all equals itself out.... Unless there is a genuine cartel involved, but that would be illegal.....
What the summary talks about is something that could happen based on ideas from the trade industry that covers travel agency.
Now the reason travel agencies are upset is because airlines are switching to a system where if you order your ticket from the airline web site you can purchase extra deals which are not available if you purchase some site like expedia or travelocity.
For example one airline just switched to a system where for $68 you get a luggage check on, and you can change your date and time for no additional cost. If you purchased it through the travel agency site you just have the option to pay $50 for the check luggage and if you want to change date or time it costs $150. All prices USD.
So in a way they are correct if people switch to using the airline web site to order tickets they will get to know your age, sex, address, email and travel history but the travel agencies are already collecting this.
Set up a site and have people post what they paid or what they are being shown for a flight. Use transparency to see through their bull.
Did you ever see what people cram into the cabin just to avoid luggage fees? I'd love to see a fee for people travelling WITHOUT checked baggage and give an incentive to get all that baggage where it belongs - in the cargo area!
bickerdyke
Airlines are (and have been, and will continue to be) giving preferential treatment to their better customers. How this is even news, I don't know - frequent flyer programs have been around for what, thirty years now? And you don't have to fly to see all the advertising about how getting the airline's affinity credit card saves you from paying for that first checked bag every time you fly with them, and so on, and so forth. Flying 25,000 miles a year with them gets you that too, plus bonus miles, plus free upgrades when available, and the perks only go up from there.
Earlier this millennium, I spent a few years as a top-tier frequent flyer on an airline that has since merged into one of the remaining behemoths. I was in my 30's at the time, and had some "work" that involved a lot of international flights. (Thanks for paying your taxes, if you live in any of the twenty-odd countries whose governments were funding it.) It was even worthwhile for me to buy a membership in their lounges. Their back-end system had a formula for determining "high-value customers," and based partly on how many years I was expected to be their customer before retiring, it decided they were going to make some bucks off me, even though I always flew on the cheapest available fares.
The airline that borged them didn't have this generous of a nature, but said "wow, look at this great data-mining system!" and adopted it, not fully understanding what they were getting. A year or so after the merger, I used some miles for a free, non-upgradable ticket to meet up with my fiancée in Paris for a weekend. I got to the hub airport for the trans-Atlantic flight to Paris, the gate agent paged me, looked me up and down (yeah, t-shirt and sandals), asked if I was in fact me, looked more than a little distressed, then dragged me off to the side away from the counter and said in hushed tones, "We're not allowed to do this - but the computer says to upgrade you!"
As far as I know, this airline's computer still thinks I am a god among men, and unless they deliberately go in and tweak the algorithms, it may think that forever. I'm... okay with this. :)
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
That doesn't sound like it would fix the credit card "fee" problem, popularised by RyanAir.
Much of the info mentioned in the article is shit you make up when filling out profiles online anyway. So do that. Obviously you'll need your real name and probably your correct gender and approximate age if you don't want extra probing^Wscreening, but have a field day with everything else.
Use Tor when shopping, and create a new account every time. It's not like accounts cost you money. They'll know it's you when you use your credit card to pay, anyway. When customer loyalty is repaid by ripping you off, fight back.
I travel light. I don't have the time to wait for luggage once I get to my destination, and don't care much for not having my luggage out of sight, getting lost, etc. If you're going to make this rule, make stricter rules about the amount you can carry on board. I'm fine with a single cabin class bag + my laptop.
They just keep piling it on, adding reasons not to have anything to do with air travel.
Having to pay big $$$ for parking at a lot that is still a 10 minute bus ride from the terminal
Having to wait maybe 15 minutes for that bus
Having to wait maybe 15 minutes for that bus at 24 degrees or 105 degrees
Overpriced food at terminals
TSA stealing stuff from your luggage
TSA thinking they have the right to lay hands on you
TSA thinking they have the right to x-ray you (only my Dr. and dentist...)
Late planes
Late planes when you have to catch a connection
1/2 hr sprints thru big airports 'cuz your plane was late for the connection
Lost luggage
45 minutes to retrieve luggage after plane lands
Arriving 2 hrs early 'cuz of TSA
Narrow airplane seats
Fees for blankets
Fees for pillows
Fees for food
Fees for checked baggage
Fees for carry on baggage
Having to rent a car when you get there
Paying for wi-fi in the airport
Have given up flying for anyplace I can get to with my car. About the only good thing left about flying and airports is Cinnabon.
The Solution is Dilution
There is no quid pro quo for accuracy of the information (except in credit card data mining industry, and travel companies are already in that business). Easy enough to give bad data. Sure, there are things you cannot fake with air travel due to Homeland Security requirements. But we should all be in the habit of polluting our data at least a little bit. I change my birthday on almost every site, and the more sites that ask for my birthday, the greater my opportunity to pollute the grid. I'm more concerned about my friends tagging my information than I am about the information I give to grocers (I do have a grocery reward card, but I use one I found in the parking lot)
http://tinyurl.com/solutionisdilution
Gently reply
So I am a 7'2" 120 pound jewish black man with a medical condition that makes me look like I am a short fat balding white guy that eats bacon.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
So let me get this straight, airlines will offer discounts to customers it knows more about, and (potentially) no discounts to customers it knows nothing about? And the problem is...
They have put a value to your personal information and are giving consumers a choice - share your personal info, save some money OR keep your personal info private and don't.
What's wrong with allowing customers to 'opt in' for savings at the cost of their annonymity? If they didn't allow you to 'opt in' but forced you to share personal data I could understand the issue, but that isn't the case here.
Ken
And game the system to your advantage.
In America, you get screaming meemies, lawyers, and "everybody's a special case" syndrome. So, the discount airline is Southwest, with "low low fares" as low as a few hudred bucks, basically.
In "nanny state" britain, the system is less regulated and adults are allowed to enter (or not, as they so choose) into contracts which they are expect to keep. The result is ryanair, which can be "less than the cost of a pizza" cheap, regularly.
I'd be more than happy if companies competed on information as well. I am not excited otherwise about what half of you are proposing, which is the inability of companies to compete on such things. If you dont want to give such companies your business, don't. but FFS, don't get the regulators involved in free market innovation (good bad or otherwise this is one place where the market actually can work).
and don't get me started on the eedjits who think it should be written into the constitution that the price of their luggage be included in the ticket... that is, that everybody else should subsidize their luggage.
The rich can ride in private jets, while the poor (if they can afford to fly at all) have to put up with flying coach and submitting to invasive security theater and now to having to give up personal information because they can't afford the rates charged for not revealing that information (rates which the rich can easily afford).
You know, there's a huge business opportunity here for someone with some resources and the balls to upset the airline industry and the government.
How about a website that acts sort of like a travel/booking site and an auction site, sort of like a cross between Amazon, Orbitz, and Ebay, only the "goods" up for auction will be air-charter services. Get these small and medium charter services competing for bookings. The more that bid on a flight, the lower the price, as a charter service can charge less per passenger if they can be reasonably sure of packed flights. The more that use the service, the lower the prices for everyone.
Once businesses start using it, the game would be all but over except for the death-spasms for the current airline industry (and the TSA...hard to justify spending billions for agents to sit cooling their heels in increasingly-empty commercial terminals).
Eventually, unless government stepped in to prevent individuals from organizing together to book private flights (which would be a bugger in the details to try to prevent), the charter services would grow until they replaced the old airlines.
If the airlines and government can't or won't make air travel reasonable in price, service quality, or "junk-groping", then treat the airlines and government like censorship on the 'net, and route around the greedy, pompous, megalomaniacal, corrupt bastards.
If they won't fix the air travel industry, build a new air travel industry the way that people on the 'net are funding and creating all sorts of other things from open source software projects.to business startups.
Although it's likely the government would step in to somehow halt any such movement towards grass-roots air travel, maybe forcing it to have to do so would at least bring the topic "above the fold", to use an old newspaper term, and the popular public pressure generated would have some mitigating effect on the horrible state of commercial air travel in the US.
Or, everybody can bitch and moan on internet forums and blogs and do the same things they've been doing, and fighting the fight on their terms. That's worked well so far.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
The airlines oppose honest business practices. This seems to be why they are opposed to making it easier for the consumer to make an informed decision. If they are so opposed to honest business practices, it is all the more reason to pass regulation.
I don't know of an airline in .au (other than weight challenged ones) that charge for carry-on.
Nor in Europe. Not even Ryan Air.
No sig today...
What the value of everyone knowing what you buy actually is. If the supermarket and the airline and everyone else knows I own a dog and drive an old Camry I'm not sure what anyone thinks the spam/value-add of all of that is. As it is, most people already throw away most junk mail and junk email unopened. And since the airlines themselves never actually give discounts, just complex fee-add schemes, it's not as if they're going to successfully market to people based on that. It's not as if they're going to take an 'extra' trip to Florida this year because your quadruple platinum diamond intergalactic admiral club membership is going to waive that $25 checked bag fee. I just don't see it. I think the airlines were sold a bill of goods by marketing consultants and now they're going to create complex expensive systems that, as always, don't do anything to keep them out of bankruptcy like they do every 3 or 4 years.
Every airline I know that charges for baggage also has strict limits for carry-on.
And they enforce them. Watching the Ryan Air baggage-nazi go along the queue with his/her luggage measuring box is one of my favorite moments when flying. Watch the smug looks turn to dismay when their overstuffed bags don't fit inside and they get dragged off to the desk to pay 40 pounds extra.
What? You don't have a tape measure at home so you didn't know...? Yeah, right.
No sig today...
...by continuing to give them money. Very effective. /sarcasm
What, you'd dare to go against giant corporations and the government? Are you a progressive? A c-c-c-communist!?
I don't know why people are modding you down because you are right. All through the 80s and 90s when I flew, your carryon was limited to very specific size measurements. I had a rucksack that I could take when I flew to The Netherlands, but, every single time, upon return, KLM's carryon sizes were smaller. Occasionally, if the flight was not full, they'd let me take it on, but most of the time it had to be checked.
The last time I flew (Denver to New York) the carryon luggage was the size of regular luggage and I saw people literally punching the bags to fit into the overhead bin. I had a backpack and my netbook, both of which fit right under the seat in front of me. Somewhere along the lines, they just started letting people take whatever they wanted into the cabin and now they're forced to deal with it because it's become a huge issue.
Like you, I don't like my stuff out of my sight. I pack extremely light because of this. A good rule of thumb for people taking on carryon luggage, if you cannot personally lift it over your head, by yourself, then it's too damned big and should be checked.
Yes, but normal airlines still include 1pcs of baggage in the ticket price.
I wouldn't be surprised if RyanAir charged an additional fee on top of your ticket for using the airplane door to board the plane. Heck, they alraedy had extra fees for paying your bill!
bickerdyke
The airline industry has operated in a cartel-like fashion for as long as I can remember. The whole hub and spoke system is designed to limit your choices by carving up the market nice and neat among the major carriers. Southwest tried to upend this with competitive pricing and was successful for a while until they got frozen out of landing rights at the major airports (ex. Love Field in Dallas rather than DFW, Midway rather than O'Hare in Chicago).
The airlines are one of the only businesses I can think of where they purposely screw over their best customers. As a business traveller I can almost guarantee that you will pay more if you fly on a Sunday and return on a Thursday - even if you do this every week of the year. Yet the family that flies once a year on vacation gets a lower price on their ticket than the business traveller that flies every week. Go figure. If you shop that much at Nordstram's they are rolling out the red carpet for you. Even the cable companies give price breaks to their better customers.
Give me your best fare or I'll fly with your competitor.
Please folks, let's remember that we still have the right to tell corporations to fuck off. We don't have to play their game and it's important to make every purchase a strategic one.
Shop mindfully.
You are welcome on my lawn.
And a nice long gmail address helps too. Gmail doesn't count any periods in the user name, so if you use an address like "abcdefg@gmail.com" then you also have "abcdef.g@gmail.com", "abcde.fg@gmail.com" etc. It gives you a large number of "different" email addresses you can use for a service allowing multiple accounts without having to set up new email accounts or use a catch-all. (I leave tracking used/unused addresses as an exercise for the reader...)
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
I piece, so long as it fits in the test fixture provided and weights less than the 6kg or 10 kg limit (Airline specific). Some airlines allow a handbag or laptop, or camera in addition, but people have told me of being asked to put their laptop in their luggage this Christmas. (Europe)
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
What, you'd dare to go against giant corporations and the government? Are you a progressive? A c-c-c-communist!?
No, I'm a capitalist. What we have now is not capitalism. It's what's been called "crony-Capitalism", otherwise known as soft Fascism. The Progressives and communists are the ones in power in Washington, D.C. currently, and largely have been to a grater or lesser extent for decades and in both major political parties and the labor unions.
As to whether or not I'd "dare", the point is moot, as I don't have the resources to even dream of attempting something like that.
Unless, of course, you're actually Bill Gates and want to fund such a project. (Hey Bill, it *would* be a nice "in your face!" payback for all that "monopoly" stuff the government threw at you! Just sayin'. :-) )
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Stay home. No, seriously. Stay home. Think about it: no TSA, no lines, no having a fat person sitting in half of your lap the whole trip, no screaming kids, no rude flight attendents, no loss of personal information along with all your clothes, and best of all no giving 1/2 a months pay to fly somewhere where I'll spend at least just as much while I'm there. If I staycation for the next 10 years I can retire 2 years earlier. Why would I want to travel? Let some other stupid schmuck see the world. That's what I've got Internet for.
So that 1 piece became in the end:
1 small suitcase declared as hand luggage
1 Laptop case
1 Handbag
1 coat with everything heavy stuffed into it to avoid weight limits for checked and hand baggage
1 umbrella
2 duty free bags
or
airlines are sometimes rather lenient with that fragile but bulky souvenir you bought..
bickerdyke
There are other solutions to beating the airline industry too, if only more companies were progressive enough to take them on. For example, http://allaboardflorida.com/
Yes, they're aiming directly at the short haul airlines. And it's not hard to see how if the FEC can turn a profit with this, other railways will see an opportunity they've been missing for nearly half a century. And if you're about to ask "What's changed that'd make it profitable now", the fact is "it" hasn't been tried before. What's been tried before is trying to produce a full service, stops every five miles, rail system that the government actively competed with. If all you're doing, like AAF/FEC, is running trains between large cities - as airlines do planes - then you stand a much better chance of pulling this off and making a mint in the process.
The biggest issue is convincing the rail companies to dip their toes in the water again. Reportedly at least one Class A is thinking in terms of running a non-Amtrak service. If the FEC can make a success of it, I suspect most of the major rail companies will jump in.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Part of the move to allow carry in luggage was airlines using what used to be dedicated passenger luggage space for cargo.
They saw a) space in the passenger luggage area that was not being used and b) that people liked being able to bypass having to wait for their luggage.
However now that they have that revenue stream from selling the cargo space they want the best of both worlds. Selling the cargo space and charging people for their luggage. The airline industry is not the pure good guys you are trying to make them out to be.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
Where did you read that berberine thought that airline were pure good guys? It sounded like he was complaining not praising this airline practice.
At least in a few cases I've seen Frontier allow passengers with no carry-on to board first.
Until you have to verify your telephone number by receiving a voice call or by replying to a text message. Facebook already does this, which makes things hard for users who don't have their own cell phone.
Or the house always buying lots of food that your insurer may not like you consuming, like chips and soda?
By "chips" do you mean the US version (crisps) or the UK version (fries)? And what would a health insurer dislike about Pepsi Max, Diet Mtn Dew, and Dr Pepper Ten, none of which are loaded with calories? It's a lot cheaper to be on those than it was to be on Strattera.
shipping goods within the state paid by foreign credit card consider foreign transaction
What more accurate heuristic would you suggest for detecting common patterns of credit card fraud?
Gmail doesn't count any periods in the user name
Once sites with a fetish for rejecting disposable addresses catch wind of this, they'll do the equivalent of str_replace('.', '', $address) on any address within the gmail.com or googlemail.com domain. I'd bet many already have.
Im willing to bet 99% of the people who complain about this have to balls to complain while they have rewards club cards in their wallets, have signed up for a petsmart card discount card, a speedway (gas station) gas points card, have used amazon where you need to login to get the free shipping on your purchase or something else like that but are still ignorant and stupid enough to complain about this as if it were any different than signing up for a groupon deal.
And why do they complain? Because its popular to bitch about the airlines right now. People love to jump on bitch bandwagons and complain about whatever everyone else is complaining about like its a trend. They dont even need a reason, or a reasonable reason, they just need a headline and off they go without actually thinking one thing through.
This isn't about personal data concerning your bank balance or your religion - It's about saving your personal preferences so the systems can tailor a ticket price for you. For example, I'm a frequent business traveller with Elite status. My profile -
...this is about allowing me to create that profile so when I ask for a ticket price these details are taken into account and there are no 'suprises' in the price.
- I'm Canadian
- Try to fly carriers in the Star Alliance
- Flew 65K miles last year
- Rarely cross an ocean
- Star Alliance Gold passenger
- Prefer one-stop (or less routings)
- Credit point to Air Canada Aeroplan
- Always fly economy
- Sometimes purchase upgrade to Economy Plus on United
- Rarely check bags
- Always sit at the window
- Like to sit forward of the wing
- Usually fly out of YVR, sometimes tempted by BLI
- Don't like transiting YYZ
Just for the hell of it tell the cashier that you forgot your card at home. They will most likely scan a generic card and give you the same price. The only thing you'll lose is any rebates which are based on cumulative spending and those are usually very small anyway. There's no reason for them to charge you double the price for a package of chicken just because you aren't a card-carrying "member".
I always get a chuckle out of people who have a dozen "discount" tags on their key rings. They might as well wear a shirt that says "fuck me, I'm stupid."
I'm saying use the number at the register, don't even bother to fill out a form. Someone already did.
Then the register would give no discount: "Loyalty card not verified. Inform customer that no discount will be applied and hand customer another form."
My old phone number is now registered to someone else
Make that annual verification: "Loyalty card will expire in 17 days. Explain this to customer and hand customer a reminder notice to renew the card." Some credit card issuers are already doing that for quarterly 5% cash back promotions.
Actually, if I remember correctly, you already can't do this. I believe their is a rule about charter planes not being able to sell open tickets AND cannot be booked by people who formed a group specifically for the purpose of chartering a plane. I believe that last piece is in place because if we were able to coalesce groups for the sole purpose of cheaper/better/easier flying then the airlines would go out of business. This sounds like a scenario where you can wear your "capitalism hat" and say they should be more competitive. But if you think about it, the collapse of the air industry which has regularly scheduled trips would be very bad for, at the very least, regular long distance transit.
Frankly, I think the rule is a bit of a joke. It actively prevents improvement in certain areas. But I like knowing that if I needed to get across the country tomorrow, I totally could.
I think Ryan Air is hilarious. I truly believe it's owned by a sadist who lives only to degrade people by proving to them that they will submit to any amount of abuse in exchange for a promised discount, which typically vanishes into a puff of fees.
I will not be flying anymore.
The airline industry is a joke.
The same thing was done in Canada.
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
When I've traveled with Ryan Air everything had to fit in the single bag declared as hand luggage. If you had a camera, duty free, handbag or whatever it had to fit inside the hand luggage for boarding (pretty obvious really, given the size of some handbags...)
I know a couple of people who put on several layers of clothes to avoid checking a suitcase.
Umbrella? Won't get past security.
No sig today...
Or, everybody can bitch and moan on internet forums and blogs and do the same things they've been doing, and fighting the fight on their terms. That's worked well so far.
So in the meantime you'll do just that, while you wait for the other guy (the one with the resources and the balls) to actually do something. Well, that's an interesting tactic (no wonder you got modded "Interesting"). Lemme know how it works out for ya.
I was on a project last year where the two firms ended up getting a pre-paid NetJet share because we were having to fly all over the place to support installations across the country. When you are flying teams of 4 - 6 it worked out to be about the same as commercial tickets, but usually we could leave early in the morning, get the job done, and were back that evening. If we flew commercial it was usually 2 - 3 days out of the office as it's normally take a day to fly to the destination between security checks, layovers, weather delays, then a day on site, and a third day for the return trip. If you factor in those lost days of work, it turned out to be a lot cheaper.
We don't fly very much, most of our relatives live within a 6 hour car trip, but I've looked at it before to charter a jet for family travel to the coasts. If 6 people are going it usually works out to be about $50 a person more than commercial. And again not having to waste a day dealing with security and other hassles it's almost worth it.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Everywhere. Now I don't bother. Just stay close to home.
It is just no longer worth the hassle to me.
I think Ryan Air is hilarious. I truly believe it's owned by a sadist who lives only to degrade people by proving to them that they will submit to any amount of abuse in exchange for a promised discount, which typically vanishes into a puff of fees.
I like Ryan Air. Then again I'm not too cheap to pay the extra $15 to reserve a seat with some leg room and jump all the queues at the airport. $15 for that seems pretty cheap to me.
Bags? One bag with some t-shirts, socks and a spare pair of trousers is usually all I need. Even if I check an extra bag it's still a quarter of the price of a regular flight. Me and my girlfriend are both going on an international flight in a couple of weeks and return flights for both of us cost 116 pounds ($187) with priority boarding, reserved seats in the exit rows (leg room) plus one checked bag so we can go shopping. Other airlines wanted 400 pounds each. Where's the problem with Ryan Air? I'm not seeing it...
The people who bash Ryan Air are the ones who think they're entitled to a full service flight plus unlimited luggage for $20. They need to get a clue.
No sig today...
> Not even Ryan Air.
You know that Our Lady Air has reached the pinnacle (I'm not saying of what) when they can appear an a sentence like that!
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
... because it doesn't have a mark or number to it and so we won't deal with you.... And for those who have these.... we can still say no.
People that is not capitalism, its control.
> ... they just started letting people take whatever they wanted into the cabin and now they're forced to deal with it ...
Au contaire. Ryan Air has turned brutal. One bag means one bag. Your handbag? That's a second bag - not allowed. Your duty free? That's a third bag - not allowed. Go re-pack, and get to the back of the queue. And if it doesn't fit into the template - you're paying. Idiots will quickly learn that Ryan Air are serious, as it will cost them up to 63e when they make a mistake that can't be resolved by re-packing.
> if you cannot personally lift it over your head, by yourself, then it's too damned big and should be checked
That's explicitly in the T&Cs of all the cheap-arse airlines that I fly with. (And yes, as they're cheap-arse, they are looking for any opportunity to charge you, non-compliant carry-on luggage being a classic case.)
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
It's a good thing I gave up air travel after 9/11.
Partly for environmental reasons, I've decided not to lust after exotic vacations in far-away places. This was never viable for a global middle class.
It would make far more sense to facilitate working couples to be able to transplant themselves to a far-away country for a year or so to gain the experience of living and working with foreign cultures.
There is so much friction and chance in the job market that only the most intrepid couples are willing to take the jump. God help you if either half is a union employee. A year somewhere else could knock you right off the seniority escalator of shuffling your feet unadventurously. Seriously, do union executives get kickbacks from the airline and travel industry? They ought to.
Some US states threatened to ban the TSA mark II. The president equally threatened to block all federal funding. If 4 adjacent states had banded together, they could have stopped this federal blackmail. Bonus points for 'confiscating' IRS and TSA assets.
An airplane is 6 times faster than a car. That and the near-zero profit on most routes makes building specialized high-speed rail uneconomical. Allowing for the time wasted with check-in and security theatre, one doesn't need to travel far before flight becomes the quicker alternative. That is why air travel will always have a viable market.
Bet you thought that was the meaning of the aircraft rating "ETOPS"?
Would believe, "Engines Turn or Passenger's Swim"?
With the baggage rules, how about "Expect The Passengers to Smell" (on the return trip in the absence of fresh clothes)?
Capitalism's a bitch isn't it?
You don't have to give the airlines any of that information, you just have to pay a little more. Just like you have to pay a more if you don't get the store discount card and you can also choose to not fly.
Just remember we need to deregulate to keep prices low and let the free market take care of things.
Corny capitalism is a natural outgrowth of deregulation. And deregulation is good because it lets the market take care of itself.
So all is well with the world.
The single price means the minimum total cost that is able to be quantified (or calculated) at the time of making the representation.
You must include in the single price any:
The Transportation Department had a rule requiring airlines to provide the total price for air fair but the industry is fighting that rule in court:
"Meanwhile, Spirit Airlines, Allegiant Air and Southwest Airlines - with backing from industry trade associations - are asking the Supreme Court to reverse an appeals court ruling forcing them to include taxes in their advertised fares. The appeals court upheld a Transportation Department rule that went in effect nearly a year ago that ended airlines' leeway to advertise a base airfare and show the taxes separately, often in smaller print. Airlines say the regulations violate their free-speech rights."
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Actually, if I remember correctly, you already can't do this. I believe their is a rule about charter planes not being able to sell open tickets AND cannot be booked by people who formed a group specifically for the purpose of chartering a plane. I believe that last piece is in place because if we were able to coalesce groups for the sole purpose of cheaper/better/easier flying then the airlines would go out of business. This sounds like a scenario where you can wear your "capitalism hat" and say they should be more competitive. But if you think about it, the collapse of the air industry which has regularly scheduled trips would be very bad for, at the very least, regular long distance transit.
Frankly, I think the rule is a bit of a joke. It actively prevents improvement in certain areas. But I like knowing that if I needed to get across the country tomorrow, I totally could.
I'd like to see some sort of cite or reference for your statements, especially about; "...AND cannot be booked by people who formed a group specifically for the purpose of chartering a plane.".
I'm not totally ignorant here, as I was an avionics technician for GA (General Aviation) aircraft for many years, which private charters are a part of, and I've never heard of not being able to charter a flight as a group. It makes no sense, as that's how many, many charter flights happen. Group hunting excursions to Alaska, group vacations, etc are booked all the time. I know they can't sell tickets like commercial airlines do, but that's not necessary here.
This is simply a means for organizing people who would like to fly from "A" to "B" and empowering them to network together to book a private flight like any other group does currently. No different really than putting a $SPECIALTYTRIP sign-up sheet up on the bulletin board at $YOUREMPLOYER, except done with computers via the internet.
This would simply allow people who have no other common interests or connections other than the time frame, origin, and destination locations in common to find each other and book a charter flight together. A law or regulation would basically have to make what is perfectly legal in meat-space illegal if it's done using a computer and the internet.
Screw the airlines and the government! We'll build our own air travel industry...with blackjack, and hookers!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Umbrella? Won't get past security.
I've never had real problems getting an umbrella past security, but I've got a triple-folding one that goes into a volume not much larger than a soda can. It was queried once (in Paris, as it happens) but once I showed that it was an umbrella then it was no problem.
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Did you ever see what people cram into the cabin just to avoid luggage fees? I'd love to see a fee for people travelling WITHOUT checked baggage and give an incentive to get all that baggage where it belongs - in the cargo area!
That's simple, charge extra for more than 2 bags carried on. I shouldn't have to pay more because I don't check in baggage if I don't need it. Let me give an example:
I'm a programmer who's been lain-off and I have an interview across the state, but for a local job. Now say the interview is 300 miles away. I have 2 choices drive or fly. I can drive 5 hours for it then 5 hours back. Or I can leave the house 3 hours before the interview to go to the airport to fly there and rent a car or take a taxi to the interview location then go back the opposite way. I don't need check-on luggage because I'm only going to be there a couple of hours. By charging for not having check-in luggage you're raising my costs.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Corny capitalism is a natural outgrowth of deregulation. And deregulation is good because it lets the market take care of itself.
So all is well with the world.
Wait, what? 0.o
Dude, set the pipe down and step away. Do it. Do it now.
Crony capitalism is a natural outgrowth of too much government power and control over private business combined with corruption, not too little control, just as with crony-capitalism's big brother, straight-up fascism.
Sheesh! Buy 'em books, send 'em to school...
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Are you assuming that the retailer / website doesn't also ignore the period (".") ?
In Perth, Australia our public transportation company (Transperth) gives you a 15% discount on fares if you use their "Smartrider" chipped card. They increase the discount to 25% if you register your details and sign up for "Autoloading" which adds credit automatically from your bank account. Same thing except it allows your travel to be tracked on a much finer scale.
The single price means the minimum total cost that is able to be quantified (or calculated) at the time of making the representation.
That's all well and good for taxes, but what about
You could argue that these are not necessities (thus the law you quote does not apply). But I would say that a carry-on charge, for example, really pushes the line of "necessity".
All conditions of the product or service must be declared before taking payment.
In Australia we have both budget and premium airlines. Premium airlines dont charge for food, luggage, carry on (fscking seriously, they charge you for a carry on) although some now charge for the exit rows (looking at you QANTAS) and there is no such thing as the "priority lane" as no-one in Oz is dumb enough to pay for it.
But if I were to book a flight on Air Asia, a budget airline then before Air Asia take my payment I have to select my baggage options, meal options, seating options and everything else after which I am presented with a final price including taxes, fees and surcharges BEFORE I pay a cent. They have to do this under Australian law.
Now what this means
The single price means the minimum total cost that is able to be quantified (or calculated) at the time of making the representation.
Is that the advertised price is what I can buy a flight for including all fees, taxes and surcharges. This does not include optional extras, but the minimum total (I thought that would be self explanatory) of what I'd pay for that flight.
Going back to an airline example, if Bob's Budget Air advertised a flight to Wagga Wagga for $50, he has to sell that flight for $50. He can offer extras but I dont have to take them. If Pete's Premium Airline advertises the same flight for $100 with baggage and a meal, they have to sell it to me for $100 and provide me with a baggage allowance and an in-flight meal (as per the conditions of the sale) at no extra cost. As long as the conditions of sale are made known (I.E. no baggage allowance included) before the sale it is OK (the law does not get around Caveat Emptor).
If Bob's Budget Air doesn't disclose that there is no baggage allowance in their fare, then they are in violation of the law.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
This is why everybody I know wears a very big coat with surprisingly large pockets when flying with Ryanair.
I carry a tablet, two books, my headphones, a drink, three days clothing and a pair of dance shoes in my coat all the time, honest.
One bag with some t-shirts, socks and a spare pair of trousers is usually all I need.
Usually I like to take clean underwear too. Saves having to wash the same pair every night and hoping they're sufficiently dry before morning.
Sadly these days I need a bag just for my camera. Clothes wont fit in it, and the camera bag is too big to fit into a standard airline carry-on sized bag. So RyanAir would charge me extra in some form.
What people hate isn't being charged a realistic price. It's being quoted a £1 flight then having to pay £80 for it. If the flight costs £80, quote £80. Shit, that's still bloody good value - a train ticket from Manchester to London will cost that, even off-peak. So don't quote £1, then add on sixteen different surcharges, excesses, taxes, fees and other costs.
Unless, of course, you're actually Bill Gates and want to fund such a project. (Hey Bill, it *would* be a nice "in your face!" payback for all that "monopoly" stuff the government threw at you! Just sayin'. :-) )
Strat
Except it was government granted monopolies that made Bill Gates wealthy. That is what copyrights are, government granted monopolies.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Buying them books is just more socialism, let them buy their own books a pay for their own education.
Crony Capitalism much easier without government involvement; you know companies signing secret agreements to not poach each other employees and one HR department calling the other when somebody tries to jump ship.
Capitalism isn't about playing fair, its about negotiating what's best for you, and he who has the capital makes the rules. Only when you have enough capital to actually compete does the competitor have to negotiate.
Quite right, Falcon, old bird! :-)
Government has the "carrot".
And government has the "stick".
That's precisely what makes government and those in it so very, very dangerous, and therefor should be watched like hawks and should only be given *just* enough power to do what the citizens want it to do, and no more, and do only those things, and no more.
Maybe Bill might see himself as one of the very, very few people with anywhere near the kind of wealth and clout needed to pull something like that off, and feels more as he's gotten older, that helping in such a way might keep the way open after he is gone for the next guy in a garage to succeed. Yeah, me too, but, hey. Reality is often much stranger than fiction, right?
People have been increasingly propagandized and conditioned over the last several generations to think that giving the government ever more power over them, and control over ever-more wealth, will result in more and more entitlements, benefits, "fairness", bread-and-circuses, miniature flying unicorn ponies, Captain Planet, whatever.
What *actually* happens, however, is that once government and those in it reach a certain level of power and control, they no longer have to even pay lip-service to any of that happy nonsense, and then the "economic crisis" (they aren't getting enough of your economy!), austerity measures, and tax hikes kick in, along with things like fully-militarized police, gun confiscations, and permanent "temporary" checkpoints.
All I can say for the year past and the new year almost upon us is; "Hang on, kids!...because things are gonna get "the bad parts in the history books" rough in the US *and* the rest of the world for a few decades before it gets better, if ever, if there are not dramatic changes in the next year or two."
Cheers, eh?
Miniature flying unicorn ponies would be kind of cool, though.
That is, as long as they ONLY "went" when NOT flying! :-)
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
What people hate isn't being charged a realistic price. It's being quoted a £1 flight then having to pay £80 for it.
ie. The people who need to get a clue.
Are there really any people out there who a) Have heard of Ryan Air, and b) Don't know about the pricing?
What we're seeing here is really just a bunch of whiners. Ryan Air must be laughing at them - their incessant whining gives them loads of free publicity.
No sig today...
No, what we're seeing here is a company lying about its prices.
Shit, it took the OFT to step in and stop them quoting a price you could never actually get, due to surcharges for actually paying them.
They're abusive and make a profit by fucking over their customers.
Didn't Ryan Air open up for this, and was told in no uncertain terms to not even think about it?
Spot on!
Problem is not the people (like me) who travel light/optimized and thus have no need to checked luggage - it is the people that drag freeeking huge "handbags" (larger than my 55L stroller) and various other not-so-small things plus a huge coat ... they easily take up all the space in the overhead compartment across 3 rows.
Now, if only the flight-attendants would step in and enforce the carry-on rules, including the ones about 1 bag+1 coat ...
I carry [...] and a pair of dance shoes in my coat all the time, honest.
Irish, right? Whole Lord-Of-Prance thing going on there..
everything is negotiable. If you pay 'full' price for anything it is the result of your negotiation.
full price is an arbitrary number.
-badford
With Skype, with other video conferencing, and with projection screens, I no longer have to travel 1000 miles to stay in a hotel with a 1000 rooms, eating meals made for a 1000 people, who otherwise could use the equivalent time to actually pick up an e-book (if that is possible) and learn the material on their own.
In my view, conferences are just paid vacations. On the other hand, taking a course about a product, or a presentation of something worthwhile, such as meeting a future boss is worth it. I would say that conferences are where musical chairs take place, with A quitting his job to go to xyz, and B quitting his job to go to abcd. In the end, you get to know someone and have been lucky to have a handshake,
So, a vacation trip for a family is and should be a discount fare. A trip because of marriage, or funeral should be too. And business fares may be that category too, if the city holding the convention treats all fly-in participants as a group.
As an example of gouging, I consider as over, the era of 60% profit, of gouging the customer so the overprices pay for the next big warehouse store. Margins have to come down to where a store is self sustaining, based on reasonable markups. I hate my Big Box electronic store for that reason. I buy USB cables for $3.00 at a Dollar store, and avoid paying the $29.95 for the heavily marketed name. A $25 profit above the Dollar store price is robbery and with that example, the airlines are trying to do the same thing.
Screw the airlines. I drive 8 hours instead of taking that one hour flight. That flight costs me parking at the airport, renting a car for the day at the destination, and then flying back. Often times, I just rent a car from my home car rental dealer to do the return 8 hour trip. No wear and tear on my own car. And I have comfort, music I like, pit stops when I want, detours to visit a place during the trip and most of the times we are two or three going to a conference. When we are more than one, sitting behind the wheel is shared.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
What *actually* happens, however, is that once government and those in it reach a certain level of power and control, they no longer have to even pay lip-service to any of that happy nonsense, and then the "economic crisis" (they aren't getting enough of your economy!), austerity measures, and tax hikes kick in, along with things like fully-militarized police, gun confiscations, and permanent "temporary" checkpoints.
Over the past couple of weeks I've been hearing about "economic cliff" and such. When I do I think I want to see it just to show people how dangerous government is to the economy. The bigger the part of economy the government is the worse. If I had my way I would abolish parts of the federal government. The DEA would be chopped off as would the ATF. Drug Czar? Gone. Washington state and Colorado are hopefully leading the nation here. Fatherland, er Motherland, er Homeland Security, bye bye. We already have national security, it's called the Department of Defense. And it would be pruned as well. End these wars that have off-line budgets and bring our troops back. Including the War on Drugs. I once started going through the federal budget and requests and came up with trillions of dollars in cuts without going through half the budget. By eliminating parts that are not in the Constitution of the USA.
Modern Progressivism & Liberalism
I don't know what Modern Progressivism is but liberalism is not what it used to be. Thomas Jefferson in advocating for liberty and small government was a liberal. Most so called liberals in the US are almost the opposite of him. They want bigger not smaller government. Conservatives are no better, they too want bigger government. The only difference between conservatives and today's liberals is what part of government will be big and what part will be small if not gone. For instance conservatives want morality police while fake liberals want to redistribute wealth.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
By "modern" liberalism, I'm not referring to Jeffersonian libertarianism/liberal. I meant the US "Progressive" movement from the early 1920s that became widely discredited and then switched names to "Liberal" to escape the ridicule their ideological failures earned them. Same failed ideology, different name, chosen purposefully to create confusion with "classic" liberalism, the Jeffersonian kind.
Can't find fault with anything you've written here. :) Nice to come across another person on /. with critical thinking skills. Sadly, that's all too rare these days anywhere one looks. Hope your Christmas was happy and peaceful, and best wishes for the new year.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
By "modern" liberalism, I'm not referring to Jeffersonian libertarianism/liberal.
Yea, look at Wiki's entry to Modern liberalism in the United States and Classical Liberalism. Today the closest political party we have to Classical Liberalism in the US is the Libertarian Party. However even there, it seems to me that some libertarians are corporate libertarians. Thomas Jefferson warned about the corporate aristocracy though. Corporations were originally granted limited liability by government if the corporation served a public good. And when it did not the corporate charter could be revoked.
Most people don't even know about the history of corporations and where they got their start. The first corporate charter was granted to the Dutch East India Company by the Dutch government in 1602. In 1604 Britain granted a charter to the British East Indian Company. Both companies were shippers and shipping was a risky business. If cargo being shipped was lost the ship owner was liable. Whether by bad weather or by pirates cargo lost was expensive to replace or pay for. Both of these companies transported cargo between Europe and India. Someone who was able to set aside some money to invest in a ship was liable to lose everything they owned, including their home. But with corporate charters the same person could invest in a shipping corporation. Then if the ship was lost the only thing the investor lost was the amount they invested. This enabled more people to invest in and expand shipping which benefited a lot of people. So as it were, the Dutch and British East India Companies were the first multinational corporations.
But talk of revoking a corporate charter today is denigrated by some so called libertarians, those corporate libertarians I mentioned above, even as corporations write the rules and regulations they are regulated by.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Yes, I recently had a discussion with a journalist about this. Same journo once interviewed O'Leary and recounted to me how he [O'Leary] is a complete and utter twat.
Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com)
If I'm not mistaken Ryan Air also has smaller cabin-bag size allowances. True or false, I've never flown Ryan Air and by the sounds of it, I wouldn't want to.
Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com)
The laws in commonwealth countries are **mostly** sane about this. It's the countries with large amounts of passenger traffic where there is the potential for extremely bad precedents to be set where travellers have to worry... Ahem... USA, India, China.
Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com)