The collusion in question seems to only relate to regulation, which prohibited the airlines from competing on price. The incentives obviously don't work out the same with deregulation!
Arguably it was the government regulation against competing on price that led to the industry regulations on food service. Airlines tried to compete on other bases so food service was much better than what it is today.
Are we talking business or economy? Because emirates hasn’t served nice food on economy for years.
I'm not a luxury car guy... But have bought a few Buick cars along the way.
So I'll pay a premium for comfort and quality in general to a point. Not everyone does every time, but there should definitely be the option.
Equally some small minority (assumed from the relative tinyness of business/first class) are prepared to pay for more.
Both can be true at the same time, and are.
For longer flights, the desire for at least some amenities goes up. I don't expect in-flight entertainment from London to Schipol, but London to Sydney without a screen would be brutal.
Personally I'm in the camp where the worst food in the terminal is still 10 times better than the food on the plane, so I eat before and after, not during. But everyone else seems to love the hour killed discovering what they're being fed. So again, room for different opinions.
I see it as the same situation as cable TV, you'll never have the perfect bundle tailored to your tastes at the right price, and that's partly by design, as the company can charge more to have you pay for useless options.
Maybe we'll return to looking for lower costs, but an aging and wealthier world might prize comfort more than it did in the past.
The parent comment claimed that people "choose" the worse option, ignoring that the "better" option is marginally better food for usually 2x or 3x the price.
I haven't flown domestically (in any country) in about 10 years. The shortest leg of recent trips will be ~2 hours, either followed or preceded by a ~7-9 hour flight.
Parent's comment suggests I'm "choosing" worse food options (thankfully they are still an option, you can just choose not to eat on the plane) as if that's the only factor.
It couldn't possibly be that business class on the same route is more than 4x the cost, and for a family of 3 will cost the same as a brand new small car... just to get a slightly better reheated meal. Yes the meal is in a "nicer" seat, but that isn't the argument being made in the parent comment, is it?
If you complain you will get told there's nothing that can be done. Even if you get sat in a seat soiled with vomit or poop[1][2]. And of course you may get bumped from your flight, potentially violently[3] or have it delayed, rerouted or cancelled.
So it's a market for lemons, you buy the cheapest ticket you can since the experience is likely to suck no matter what you do, and you try to endure it.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2023/09/05/air-canada-... [2] https://www.newsweek.com/delta-passenger-forced-sit-seat-cov... [3] https://qz.com/954791/everything-that-went-wrong-in-uniteds-...
I suspect that airlines could offer seats which guarantee that you won't be subjected to various nuisances, but choose not to.
Otherwise, I have noise cancelling headphones
That said. I do think I can handle a whole can of soda. On the food front, I can pretty much take it out leave it.
I fly first class a fair bit (10-12 flights per year), and children in first class is pretty rare. When I've seen it, they've never been rowdy. In fact, my experience is that its usually really quiet, which is one of the things I really value.
Maybe i'm just the luckiest person in the world. But its never happened to me and I fly a moderate amount to have some sample data.
I will concede, that flight rowdiness in general is very different based on time of day. The afternoon is the worst. Fridays and Mondays are the worst. I love night flights, to the point where I prefer them. Everyone is so much calmer on red-eyes.
In some cities, only the rich can afford multiple kids.
I suspect they are just as happy to take some kids parents money for the seat as not.
And judging by the number of people I know that get upgraded, its not like they sell out every flight.
Business class is rarely worth it, it’s not priced for mere mortals. Most people have a corporation buying their tickets, or are using air miles to reduce the price, or they are 1%ers, etc.
If you manage to buy it at 2x price of economy it's absolutely worth it, hands down. At more typical 6x it's not really.
I'd take tasteless warmed potato puree over tasteless soggy yet chewy triangle sandwich.
It may have been this article: https://skift.com/2012/11/18/fda-finds-airlines-outside-cate...
But if the options include JAL or ANA, always take them over any US carrier. They are not even the same kind of thing compared to what we endure in the US.
You also have to consider safety (some airlines only fly Airbus planes, some are mostly Boeing), cost, and convenience.
BA on 777: really nice
Virgin Atlantic on A-340: awful
Icelandair on 757: truly awful
KLM on 777: pretty nice
I don't think just avoiding the American flag is enough.
But the article does take a weird take. Also not sure how collusion is claimed here. I guess CAB counts as a forcing mechanism, but I am not sure one can argue collusion when it is the result of regulation. Was the regulation in bad faith?
Well, it does cost considerably more to fly an airplane for 5-7 hours than it does to fly an airplane for 20 minutes.
My grandmother was telling me about her honeymoon in Europe in the 1960s. Inflation-adjusted, the tickets were $3000 each!
Flying back then was better for smokers. They used to have smoking sections on planes. Grandpa loved his Chesterfields.
In Lithuania I often prefer gas station sub over local restaurants. In NZ some stations cater decent pies. Either of two is better than "chicken or vegetarian" option on many flights.
Airline food used to be AWFUL. Like you would honestly not even bother unless you were on a very long flight and needed it. My experience is that the last 10 years or so, most airlines have decent food. It is nothing to get excited about or to look forward to, but compared to how bad it used to be it is now quite good. I would rate a lot of the food I've had on flights as fair to average. Compare that to "i'll only eat it if this flight spans two mealtimes" of the 80s-90s and here we are.
Singapore Airlines is actually quite good (even in coach). ANA is also good. If you fly on a US Carrier, just know its all the same provider regardless of airline. Their food is meh: perfectly edible, but not good. Pasta dishes usually reheat quite well, so that's often the safe bet when choosing a meal option.
Trust us guys. If you think food now is bad... you don't know what they COULD be serving you.
Now there is no food (unless you pay first class) so how can it be better?
Airplane food was never great but in the 90s it was fine, and free, and if nothing else it provided for something to do in the endless boredom of a long flight.
Today there's nothing, so it's worse in every way.
If I anticipate something not great, I’ll stow away some shake shack.
Lol, it reminds be Robert Sheckley's "A Ticket To Tranai", where they were looking for innovative ideas how to make robots worse on purpose.
The other life hack is, of course, to bring your own food. I can confirm that I've gotten the stink-eye a couple times for pulling out my own food while everyone else was suffering whatever was rejected by the inmates at the state penitentiary.
Frankly, if you're flying out of Italy, and are eating airline food, you're flat-out doing it wrong.
~ Some Defense Counselor
