|
Originally Posted by RustyC
(Post 29579048)
The Faux News talking heads like to point out how certain things are so much cheaper now, but that's more than offset by other things like housing, education, health care and to a lesser extent transportation that haven't been on the same trajectory. The end result for many people (I'd say a majority) is that discretionary income is a much lower percentage of the total and may even be a negative number.
As time goes by people spend differently, so it is really hard to say who is "better off." |
Originally Posted by simpleflyer
(Post 29578564)
This. I take into consideration the alternatives I would be offered if the flight were rescheduled (because of low load factors or whatever.)
My breaking point would be washrooms. It's one thing to cram oneself into a tiny seat, and another to queue longer than a minute or two for the loo. I've never noticed different loo-queue times on different carriers. I guess it could be theoretically longer in a high-density configuration, but I don't pee enough on airplanes for this to be an issue. |
Originally Posted by GetSetJetSet
(Post 29552334)
and people who a skeptical of the crew training and the maintenance practices of ULCCs. Also the pitch in legacy Y- might be a few inches more than some ULCC.
|
Originally Posted by Rebelyell
(Post 29580962)
On the east and west coasts housing has skyrocketed. In much of flyover America, not so much. In my home town a lot of houses are selling for around the same prices that they sold for in the late 1970s, and that's without adjusting for inflation. Tuition costs have skyrocketed, but in the 1970s merit aid was almost unheard of, while today it's common, with decent test scores qualifying for automatic full or partial tuition waivers at many schools.
As time goes by people spend differently, so it is really hard to say who is "better off." That the cost of dilapidated housing stock in some places and some consumer durable items are a lower proportion of median income doesn’t mean that discretionary income is a higher proportion of total income for the average household than it used to be; it’s not. And airfare costs for domestic travel as a percentage of disposable income are not now the lowest they’ve ever been; and even if they were, the governmental waivers and favors granted to the legacy majors and anti-competition mergers/acquisitions have made airfare costs more costly than they would be. Corporate-kiss-up elected officials, government bureaucrats, lobbyists, corporate-cheerleading ideologues and greedy “investors” have made this market what it is for consumers. |
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 29584859)
...That the cost of dilapidated housing stock in some places and some consumer durable items are a lower proportion of median income doesn’t mean that discretionary income is a higher proportion of total income for the average household than it used to be; it’s not.
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fly...a80544c2a6.jpg What $50,000 buys in flyover America. |
Originally Posted by Rebelyell
(Post 29586036)
I just bought a very nice 2 bedroom, one bath house for $50,000. It's not dilapidated. In fact, it's very nice. That's flyover country for you.
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fly...a80544c2a6.jpg What $50,000 buys in flyover America. But what's that old saying about real estate? The three most important things are location, location, and location. That house would go for 10x your price on the West Coast. And it would sell, maybe even faster than it did where you live. Though it seems like you got an extraordinary deal, no matter what state. ^ |
Originally Posted by Rebelyell
(Post 29586036)
I just bought a very nice 2 bedroom, one bath house for $50,000. It's not dilapidated. In fact, it's very nice. That's flyover country for you.
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fly...a80544c2a6.jpg What $50,000 buys in flyover America. And 30-40 years ago housing like that in your location under comparable conditions was also selling for under median annual household income? But that would be about $10k-20k then but more than double now. There have always been some housing stock locations available for below annual median household income, but the median household income, but it doesn’t mean housing is necessarily more affordable now than before. |
Originally Posted by simpleflyer
(Post 29578564)
This. I take into consideration the alternatives I would be offered if the flight were rescheduled (because of low load factors or whatever.)
My breaking point would be washrooms. It's one thing to cram oneself into a tiny seat, and another to queue longer than a minute or two for the loo. Charge to use the toilet and remove 2 of the 3 on board in order to squeeze 6 extra seats in. But people still want to say there is no race to the bottom. |
Originally Posted by Rebelyell
(Post 29586036)
I just bought a very nice 2 bedroom, one bath house for $50,000. It's not dilapidated. In fact, it's very nice. That's flyover country for you.
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fly...a80544c2a6.jpg What $50,000 buys in flyover America. Looks like a cool house!! Now trim that tree and bushes... ;) Been to Oxford exactly twice...cool town. Everybody should tailgate in The Grove at least once in their life. (Or...twice.) |
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 29519106)
Norwegian didn’t cause this “race to the bottom” in passenger service in the main; the ultimate responsibility for that rests with the legacy majors being given too many governmental waivers and favors and there being too much power in the hands of the large network carriers with government-allowances to collude against consumers. |
Originally Posted by ou81two
(Post 29621802)
Actually, it's that people won't pay extra for a better experience.
The whole “de-bundling” scheme from the legacy majors is built upon squeezing more money out of the many people the airlines believe will pay for a “better” experience and do. Even if it’s not a better experience.for the price. |
Originally Posted by dulciusexasperis
(Post 29587453)
LOL, I take it you haven't heard about this simpleflyer. Paying to Pee: Ryanair's New Flight Bathroom Fee. Have Airlines Gone Too Far? - ABC News
Charge to use the toilet and remove 2 of the 3 on board in order to squeeze 6 extra seats in. But people still want to say there is no race to the bottom. |
Originally Posted by EuropeanPete
(Post 29623292)
This was just a media stunt by Ryanair to get press coverage and has been extensively debunked since then. What has been happening is that some toilets are getting smaller in Y and larger in J and F - in BA's latest refit of short-haul planes, along with sub-ULCC size seats, for example.
I’ve seen a reduction in numbers and/or sizes of bathrooms on such carriers. for passengers in the main. But charging for in-flight bathroom use hasn’t been implemented by such carriers. |
Originally Posted by dulciusexasperis
(Post 29587453)
LOL, I take it you haven't heard about this simpleflyer. Paying to Pee: Ryanair's New Flight Bathroom Fee. Have Airlines Gone Too Far? - ABC News
Charge to use the toilet and remove 2 of the 3 on board in order to squeeze 6 extra seats in. But people still want to say there is no race to the bottom. |
Originally Posted by LondonElite
(Post 29623617)
Was this ever actually implemented? I thought it was just another O’Learly headline grabber. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 3:01 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.