Couldn't resist making no sense?

The Cement Manufacturers case is a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that competitors can share information to combat customer fraud without violating the antitrust laws. It was not cited to compare the airline industry to cement companies. There's nothing out of the ordinary about this; in fact, the Cement Manufacturers case was cited by a District Court in ruling on an antitrust claim brought against DL, NW and US alleging that they conspired to enforce rules against hidden-city ticketing and back-to-back ticketing.

In contrast, comparing airline pricing to a transmission job makes zero sense. An airline operates with extremely high fixed costs, and low marginal costs. In contrast, an auto mechanic faces relatively low fixed costs and high avoidable/marginal costs. So the industries are totally different. Moreover, you don't have the same level of variability on the demand curve that gives rise to efficient price discrimination. So comparing one to the other in terms of pricing strategy makes zero sense.

So still trying to figure out what you couldn't resist.

Tell you what. I've got $10,000 to the charity of your choice that says I'm licensed to practice law. You put up $10,000 to the charity of my choice that says I'm not.

We'll find an impartial mediator to collect the $10,000 check from you and hold it in escrow until I produce my bar number.

Got the guts to put your money where your mouth is? I happen to doubt it, but feel free to surprise me. I've got a great no-kill animal shelter that could use the money.

No, actually it's called economics. I'm always amused by people who say "It's so unfair that they take advantage of people in need by raising prices." A feel-good argument, but one that is completely ignorant of economic reality.

Price is a metering device in a world of unlimited wants but limited resources. Consider your roofing example. Suppose a city has enough roofers to repair 10 roofs in a week. Suppose further that a storm blows through and damages 100 roofs. So you have demand of 100, but supply of 10. How do you decide which ten homes get the roof?

Should it be first come first served? Or should the government pick who gets their roof repaired? How about a lottery? None of those is going to work. If it's the first ten, then someone will offer one of those ten a payoff to send the roofer to their house. Same with a lottery or government allocation. The only efficient way to allocate the scare resource is price - and it will be allocated that way whether you like it or not, or whether the roofer chooses to do it that way or not.

Don't believe me? How do you think ticket scalpers are in business? The NFL doesn't charge enough for tickets to the Super Bowl - so people resell them for a higher price. Or for a concert, if it's just the first people in line to buy tickets, scalpers pay people to stand in line to get tickets to resell them. If the tickets were priced higher and with more price tiers to begin with, there'd be no market for scalpers.

You can wish all you want that the laws of economics don't apply to your life - or apply some socialistic pipe dream that somehow the laws of supply and demand can be suspended in favor of some version of "fairness." But that's not how the world works. The most efficient allocator of a scarce resource is the market. That's all airline pricing is - a means of allocating a resource.

Thai Airlines? Great example. Ten domestic routes, all of which I'm guessing are dominated by leisure traffic feeding off of international routes, operated by a state owned airline that is losing money. Thank you for putting it all in perspective.

As for haircuts, the place I go has a deal - first cut $10, but only on Tuesdays or Wednesdays. So that's price discrimination - both for: (a) new customers; and (b) the two slowest days of the week for them.

How about golf courses? Are they crooked, evil entities for having the gall to charge $100 to play at 7 am on Saturday, but only $70 at 11 am on Monday, and just $20 to play at 3 pm on Thursday? I mean, how DARE they.

Feel free to put up your $10k anytime. Like I said, I can't wait for all the dogs and cats to enjoy the benefits of your money.

Yea and the us carriers are earning tins of money. No I don't take the bet. I thought betting is illegal, mr law?

(1) I wouldn't say that there is anything wrong with it, but rather that airlines are simply taking advantage of customers in their hub cities. In a similar way, hidden city ticketing is simply taking advantage of a low fare. The only difference is that the airline made up a rule saying that the latter is not allowed.

(2) Agreed, Southwest often does have high prices and the 'Southwest effect' isn't what many people make it to be. You don't get really cheap fares, just fares that aren't quite so expensive. But things like AAA-ATL-BBB being cheaper than just the AAA-ATL flights does mean that they are charging more for flights to/from ATL.

(3) Hubs don't have to be bad for customers. For convenience, they're great since you get flights to places all over the world without having to connect. Also, cities don't mind since they make a good amount of money in taxes with more flights and higher prices.

(4) If you see a moral problem with this, that's perfectly fine. But I just find it hard to really apply morals when you essentially sign a contract with a (profitable!) private company with the rules written out. If you break the rules, you might pay the price. But it's up to them to enforce it.

Not when the proceeds go to charity. And it's not gambling when there's no contingency. It's an easily verifiable fact already in existence. You aren't taking the bet because you don't have the stones to back your smack talk up. Figures. All hat and no cattle.

Hey, I didn't ask for a bet. I asked for you to either stop talking like a lawyer or show that you are one.

Besides, your kind of "bet" with you having the one-sided advantage of knowing where you stand, is kind of like airlines making the rules, changing them as they please and asking us to bend over while we also have to bring the lube (fuel surcharges).

Anyway, it used to be challenging, then slightly amusing, then annoying, then maybe funny again. But at this point, arguing with your nonsensical antiquated and pre-historic view of things, especially that you are certainly holier than the Pope Himself, has kind of gone on too far, and I agree that the best thing is to shut this post down by not taking your bait.

Meanwhile I'll take that 10000 dollars I just "saved" and invest it in a stack of back to back and hidden city tickets!

Thanks for the entertainment, Mr Law.

Coffee. Everywhere... :D

I know it's sophomoric, but all the unintentional humor around here keeps me smiling!

Well, based on the fact that you won't put your money where your mouth is, that shows: (a) you talk a good game but refuse to back it up; and (b) you know I am a lawyer and don't want to give $10,000 to charity.

All hat, no cattle. Live long and prosper in your ticketing fraud. Adios.