Bee Sting theory and airlines

[pktechgirlbackup]

On my last plane trip, I was stunned by the number of things that could have been made better with just a few dollars. The chairs, for example- for just a tiny bit more, they could make those a lot more comfortable. But when I contemplated how much I'd be willing to pay for those things, the answer was "not much." I think it's because there's already so many potential things that could ruin my mood that paying to avoid any one just seems pointless. Had I paid for a comfy chair on my layover, my mood will still have been ruined by the rude for no reason flight attendant who apparently believed I was evil for attempting to board with carry on luggage (also not helping: the fact that I deliberately booked a seat at the front of the plane so I could leave quickly, but ended up having to wait for luggage because the bins were already full. But it would have felt a lot less terrible if the stewardess hadn't started out by attacking me). And the bad things don't actually have to happen to be deterrents, I just have to perceive the probability to be high.

I think this is equivalent to the bee sting dilemma, except instead of paying for ointment after the fact, you pay for a preventative get-out-of-bee-sting free card. And it turns out that when put in a situation where they can pay for anti-sting cards, the middle class and rich either buy their way out of all the stings (fly first class, use the admiral's club), or none of them (rock bottom fairs with no amenities). The few intermediate options, like Jet Blue, are cherry picking the best routes, and thus far haven't been able to achieve the same scale as the big carriers.

Comments

[scythe-of-time.livejournal.com]

Also keep in mind that those preventative-sting cards are limited and usually bought up quickly.

[pktechgirl.livejournal.com]

certainly in the short term, but the more people who buy them, the more incentive to produce them.