Originally Posted by CPH-Flyer

But then it also made the surge nonsense a thing for a while which was mainly a scam for them to make money rather than actually getting more cars on the street.

Originally Posted by FlyingMoose

Surges are a means to get cars into a certain location because there is demand but to few cars. This is still being used to counter ride fishing by drivers or only having them stand at key intersections.



Uber works really well in Sweden (I mean Stockholm when I say Sweden) and is anywhere between 30-50% cheaper than regular taxis. Product is the same so I disagree there are no benefits for the consumer, this is exactly the kind of competition I want to see make products cheaper and free up consumer cash flow for other goods and services.

Originally Posted by FlyingMoose

Surges are a means to get cars into a certain location because there is demand but to few cars. This is still being used to counter ride fishing by drivers or only having them stand at key intersections.

Uber works really well in Sweden (I mean Stockholm when I say Sweden) and is anywhere between 30-50% cheaper than regular taxis. Product is the same so I disagree there are no benefits for the consumer, this is exactly the kind of competition I want to see make products cheaper and free up consumer cash flow for other goods and services.

Originally Posted by FlyingMoose

Uber works really well in Sweden (I mean Stockholm when I say Sweden) and is anywhere between 30-50% cheaper than regular taxis. Product is the same so I disagree there are no benefits for the consumer, this is exactly the kind of competition I want to see make products cheaper and free up consumer cash flow for other goods and services.

Originally Posted by CPH-Flyer

That is the exact point of the European Air travel market, it was disrupted by Easyjet and Ryanair to point to the early entrants that are still around. It lead to a revolution in airtravel costs levels, but also obliterated services along the way.

Uber did one good thing for the taxi industry, it added the concept of booking via an app. In some countries the concept was really used to improve services as it added accountability, though interestingly it was often not truly Uber driving the change, but rather a local company taking the lead and basically crushing Uber in the process. I am not sure I see one thing coming from Airbnb that has added a benefit or improvement to my travel experiences more broadly.

We may not like the direction that the disruption has taken European airtravel, but the consumers in general does seem to like it. So that is what we get for it.

The question was not really whether US first class is better or worse than European business class, the question was did competition make US first class a better product? After due consideration I can think of 1 point where competition did lead to a clear improvement, United transcon PS service. But that was an awful long time ago, and since then competition has also gradually eroded that product down to a shadow of what it started as. Price is just the name of the game, and once that is the case it is not about improving services. It is about simplifying processes, outsourcing, finding cheaper suppliers, getting more people on the same aircrafts, turning over every penny and see if there is a way to keep it.

​​​​​​
​​​​​

Originally Posted by GUWonder

I see Uber and Airbnb as being good for travel needs in Sweden. They added competition, and that is good for me.

I don’t see what harm Uber did to my getting rides in Stockholm (or anywhere else in Sweden). I don’t see what harm Airbnb has done to my getting lodging for travel needs.

US first/front class service was better for me when there were more competitors. Economy class service was better too. The core physical product is worse in economy class than it used to be. Sort of the same dynamic with the first/front cabin domestically too, but not in the same way and as much as with the economy class cabin.

Originally Posted by CPH-Flyer

I don't think I claimed Uber did any harm, just that the surge charging was more a profit scam than an actual means of getting cars out on the road. Apart from adding the app to my taxi rides I just don't see much benefit either, but I could imagine that pricing in Sweden could be one benefit though. Hence I asked, what's the going rate for an Arlanda to town ride these days. Absence of benefits does not equate adding harm.

There were more airlines back in the day, but was there truly more competition? The pressure on price being added by the LCCs and by the ability to compare prices changed the nature of competition in a way that was definitely not good for the services provided in the cabins. But if your view if purely price, of course it was a winner.

Originally Posted by Fredrik74

You ignored the Ryanair example. Additionally, I'd like to discuss your line of work where it obviously is a need to lower prices, right?

Originally Posted by CPH-Flyer

To be clearer, when I said free competition never brought benefits to the consumer I was referring to the free market chaos that reigned for a long while. Sweden and taxis were actually a place where Uber could be quite useful, hence I asked whether Uber was a thing. The interesting question is then, did the established players like Taxi Stockholm respond, and what is now the price for Arlanda to downton Stockholm?

Originally Posted by FlyingMoose

I continue to assume that you can either not read or only read what you want. Ryanair is no way desirable competition or a product of any use. It is a worse product for a lower price.

Originally Posted by FlyingMoose

Honestly I don't know, I haven't used a regular taxi since Uber entered the market and never will again. There are some budget taxi companies that have a price that matches Uber. The established staxi companies primarily seem to be losing business to Uber and Bolt. Lyft isn't a thing in Stockholm.

Originally Posted by GUWonder

If surge pricing motivated neither a reduction nor decline in the number of Uber cars on the road during surge pricing periods, wouldn’t that mean surge pricing motivated an increase in the number of cars gotten onto the road during such periods? I have gained with Uber’s entering the deregulated Swedish market for taxis and other car service.

About airlines “back in the day” before all these governmental waivers and favors legalizing what otherwise would have been illegal collusive behavior by the TATL-flying legacy majors, there truly was more competition; and that “truly more competition” showed up in the value customers got from the airline loyalty programs.

LCCs don’t only compete on price, some also compete on service and other aspects.

Any legacy major player in the sector who has to count on relative opaqueness of pricing and on lack of LCCs in order to sustain or improve its service offering and the value it provides customers has only itself to blame for running a rat race to the bottom and letting slip its major incumbency advantages. No competitor forced SK to gut the value of rebate currency dynamics of its loyalty program for those who fly SK flights — SK did that all on its own.

Originally Posted by Fredrik74

Unlike other airlines they're typically profitable.They obviously offer a desirable product. Part of this is having a lower price just like you pretend you want(when it's not your own salary).

You're just repeating your predictable pattern of not understanding how the World works(including its humans).

Originally Posted by FlyingMoose

To some people dude, this is why public transport exists, because some groups of people don't have a choice. Its not doing anything for significant groups of other people and in fact, doing more harm there than good for their aviation needs (or what public transport does to their parking needs).

Originally Posted by FlyingMoose

The value I get from my US FFP is also significantly greater than the value I get from any EU FFP, mostly because their top tiers require actual frequent flying and spending.