Pretty much a BS clickbait headline that doesn't comport with the facts in the article:
> Across the industry, revenue from what’s known as ancillary sales—fees for selecting seats, checking bags, and buying food, to name a few—will reach a record $117.9 billion in 2023
Yes, airlines have done a ton of "unbundling", but lots and lots of people want to select their seats, check their bags, buy food, etc. and are willing to pay for it, regardless of website design. I'm not arguing that airline websites don't use dark patterns, just that it's ridiculously insane to attribute all ancillary revenue to that.
The dark pattern part comes in with how it's impossible to know if or when any of that stuff is actually included in the ticket price, letting airlines like Spirit list 'ultra-low' prices that end up the same or more as other tickets once you actually include the basics like 'having luggage' or 'tall people getting enough legroom to physically fit into the seat'.
Yeah the problem for the consumer is how opaque it is. They're all competing to get the lowest ticket price on the aggregator price, and then claw back a profit either through obtuse language during the checkout process (i.e. insurance which is not clear at all about what it covers) or through unexpected "extra fees" you end up paying between when you get to the airport and when you arrive at your destination.
Ryan Air was so bad with the latter that I flat out stopped flying with them. It happened a couple times I had to pay some extra 40 EUR for not reading the fine print carefully enough (i.e. I paid for a cabin bag, but I had to pick up a tag for it at the check-in counter instead of going straight to the gate to avoid an extra fee)
Imo unbundling is fine if you are allowed to make informed decisions about what you want or not. If you feel like you've been tricked or robbed after using a product it's probably going a bad way.
Indeed if you search enough on flyertalk you could find old posts of mine claiming I wouldn't fly Ryanair if I were paid to do so.
But that was before 2018 November when they have changed. I find them one of the best price/fee wise, it's completely clear as what you pay for and what you get. There's no opaque "personal item", no, it's a 40 x 25 x 20 cm bag and the sizer is 42 x 30 x 20cm ensuring anything compliant will really fit. I have yet to find another airline which would so readily disclose the actual sizer dimensions. You want to bring a bigger bag, pay for priority. They only sell a given amount of priority so the bags actually fit on board. You want leg space, here, book an emergency row, yes it has a price but again: you get what you pay for.
Of course, you still need to walk to the plane most likely (sometimes you get on a bus) and then walk up the stairs -- not as easy as a legacy airline with jetways for sure. But then again, no legacy airline, not even all legacy airlines together can match the network of Ryanair, it's really something else.
I respectfully disagree: I find myself booking Ryanair more and more because, as I mentioned above, they are the ones who fly on the route I want to fly. Real world examples: I now live in Malta, I want to visit my parents at Budapest. Only FR flies MLA-BUD direct. I want to continue on to my brother in the UK who in Suffolk so out of the many London airports, Stansted is closest. Guess who flies BUD-STN? And they have STN-MLA too. That's three routes I fly often and there's really no competition. It's good they cleaned up their act before I moved back to Europe, really.
Happened with my boss, a tall guy. He has stopped flying "low cost" airlines and putting up with their BS dark patterns because Lufthansa and other traditional airlines have lower prices once you add lugage and leg room anyway.
Ryan Air are borderline decent if you only carry a cabin bag and get the "prority" package. You should see Wizz Air. They're worse than booking.com and Sixt combined, no flying over Ukraine and getting downed by trigger happy separatists.
Luckily neither one of those companies had any crashes so far, just one Belorussian jorurnalist kidnapped, an engine failure and bird strikes. No crazy copilot killing himself along with all the passengers in the airplane or getting downed by trigger happy separatists while flying over Ukraine.
To be fair I highly doubt any airline confronted by Belarusian fighter jets would’ve responded differently. A jetliner is not outrunning or outgunning that.
Ultra low-cost airlines are pretty aggressive in upselling seat / baggage / food / fare class upgrades during the checkout process. It is annoying to have no idea what a ticket will really end up costing when it pops up in Google Flights or whatever, but I don't think that's enough to call it a dark pattern since everything is clearly disclosed before you pay for anything. Airlines are very upfront about all the things you aren't getting with your ticket.
I haven't booked a flight in a while but any situation where I don't know the "final" cost of my ticket before I start the checkout process is a dark pattern in my book.
I don't want to see a $100 ticket before I start the checkout process but end up seeing $200 on step 6 / 8 because if I want to sit down and carry a backpack with me it's an extra $100.
That forces me to give them my data (I'm interested in a flight from X to Y, creating accounts, my address, etc.) even if I back out of the checkout process due to upsells.
Compare that to seeing the final cost ahead of time before entering in any billing details and if you don't agree with the price you can use a competitor with better rates. There's no contest in how much better of an experience and outcome that is for customers.
Not knowing if you paid to choose your seat or baggage at the time of checkout is a reading comprehension issue.
There's a valid complaint that they all game what's included/excluded at the listing price so they sort better in the fare compare websites. But once you go through the sales funnel, if you read, its very clear what you are getting.
It's not about reading comprehension or the lack of it.
It's saying the list price is $100 but then you have to invest time and provide information during the checkout process only to find out on a much later step that the list price is no longer the price you were given.
You're being lied to about the list price which makes it harder to compare prices at a glance and companies are preying on you through a form of "the sunk cost fallacy"[0] in that you're more likely to finish checking out because you've invested so much time already to get to step 6 / 8.
This is not what airlines do though. The price on google flights is the exact price I pay to fly because I don't check bags or choose my seat. Just because other people do buy those things doesn't mean they have to or were tricked.
Right, I think airlines are a bad example of "dark pattern" and "junk fees" because ultimately the customers are the problem.
Every airline that has tried the premium model in recent decades has failed.
People have decided they've reserved the right to rock bottom fares and simultaneous complaints about quality of service. Or people have decided flying sucks no matter what airline they choose so they simply sort by price.
I just tried to find a roundtrip flight from SF to LA on Google Flights. Spent some time comparing prices, different airports, etc. Ended up picking one option, click, click, click - I am on the airline's website. More clicks and I am able to select the seats: went through all available seating - there is nothing available at the price that was originally surfaced to me. I can either upgrade to Delta Comfort+ for +$60 or to First Class.
Sure, I can go back to Google Flights and repeat the process. But I wasted 10 minutes already, and if I had a legitimate need to fly to LA I would have most likely just upgraded to Comfort+ to save time.
Are you going to blame me - the customer - for this?
The dark pattern here is that you don't actually have to choose a seat. You can click they disabled-button-colored continue button, click through the warning about not choosing a seat, and avoid paying for the seat choice cost (on each leg there and back).
As a solo traveller, you may not care. As a family you really don't want to be seated away from your kids. If you don't pick seats, will you get seated together? Who knows. Depends on if enough other people who want to pay to pick seats leave enough seats together for you... on a popular flight, that's doubtful.
So it's not just people choosing to pay for a luxury, it's a tax on people who don't know they can skip the step, and on families who may know, but can't roll the dice.
If it's Google Flights' pricing cache being out of date then that's not an airline dark pattern
(Its also possible there is a website dark pattern designed to make an option to pay less by not choosing your seat really non-obvious: I've never booked with Delta)
The airline would say it's your fault for getting a quote from an aggregator rather than direct from them though
To be fair, you can still purchase the ticket at the advertised price without selecting a specific “preferred” seat. They’ll give you a seat assignment at checkin or at the gate (usually one of those “preferred” ones).
That said, the fact that this situation is unsurprising to me is itself probably evidence of the communication problem. Google could do a clearer job of qualifying the “free seat selection” they falsely promise for that fare, and Delta could do a much better job of saying “there are only paid seats left, but if you don’t want to buy one, you’ll still get one at the airport.” I feel like JetBlue used to do a good job with that.
I think in his case it's actually a legit website bug/issue. If you try to click through without choosing a seat it doesn't actually work on this particular sales funnel and pops up an error. My suspicion its something to do with it being a very close in flight (2 hours to takeoff). So you have selected a fare with seat selection included, but there are no seats actually left .. maybe some cache isn't updating at minute level frequency.
What product do you think I am buying? A promise that they might find a seat for me if I show up at the airport?
It puzzles me how many people at HN are so eager to defend dark patterns.
If you look at the screenshots with more attention:
1. Google tells me that the free seat selection is included
2. Delta tells me that if I agree to this price, I will be able to reserve the last available seat on the flight (for this price)
3. Once I confirm the price, Delta tells me that I can’t select the seat, it’s not available. I can still buy the ticket, but the offer has changed. Sure, since clearly I need to get on this flight (booking it last minute) - I would rather pay a bit more to make sure I do have a seat.
This is what dark patterns are all about. How is that so hard to understand?
There is no ambiguity there. You will get an economy seat or better. If non-premium seats available you will have an option to select one for free. If not, they will assign a premium economy or a comfort+ seat at the time of check-in. If the flight is overbooked having a preselected seat does not guarantee you won't be bumped.
This is something I've observed with different airlines. Google's line "Free seat selection" doesn't guarantee availability of seats to choose from, just that you won't be charged for selecting one if available for your fare.
Delta tells me that there is a seat available at this price before I agree to it. After I agree to it it tells me that there is no seat available at this price unless I pay more.
The agreed upon "seat" in this context includes the selection. This is what this specific dark pattern is about. They are misrepresenting the value of their offering. I want to be able to reserve a seat on my flight. Not to reserve a promise that they will assign a seat... if available, obviously. If not I can just book the next flight and wait for a couple of hours at the ariport. Perfect.
Because this isn't a dark pattern??? The alternative is you not being able to buy this product, which is much worse!
This fare comes with preselection over a limited set of seats. There are no more seats available for preselection in that set. If seats were available you would have been allowed to select them; otherwise, you will be assigned one at the gate.
It is very unlikely that you will be involuntarily denied boarding, and you can be denied boarding in the event of an oversale even if you have an assigned seat.
Note: your fare never indicates that you are buying a particular seat. Please read your contract of carriage closely. Maybe this part (not the offering of the ticket you're complaining about!) is a "dark pattern" (nobody reads the contract of carriage) but it's just literally how airline tickets have always worked.
Wow, ok. You think there is nothing wrong with the airline telling me that 1 seat is available on one screen and then telling me that there are no seats available unless I pay more on the next screen? (If I go back to the previous screen it still tells me that 1 seat is available.)
The alternative to this is that when I compare prices of different flights I see the correct full offer for the price I want to pay. This flight is not the only available flight. I would have chosen a different flight on Google Flights if I had known that there are no seats available at this price. But now I am 10 minutes into the process and just want to be done.
What is a dark pattern by your definition? A literal picture of a pattern colored dark gray?
> airline telling me that 1 seat is available on one screen and then telling me that there are no seats available unless I pay more on the next screen?
This is a misunderstanding. Airline does not tell that you need to pay more. You can click on Continue button and complete the purchase. Even the popup you have shared tells you exactly this.
Yes, you are right. When you reserve a "table" at a restaurant you are actually not promised chairs. If you want to reserve chairs - that’s +$20. Don’t want to reserve chairs? Just show up at the restaurant and there might be chairs available.
This is a great example. When you reserve a table at the restaurant they might offer you several seating options when they are not busy. But if they are full they will get you seated and not ask you for extra money. But you may end up next to the toilet.
Try reserving a specific table at the restaurant. An hour before the dinner.
That's not the point though. The point is that when you place a reservation, certain things are included. In the case of a restaurant, chairs are included. In the case of Delta, they explicitly state right under the agreed upon price that there is a seat available that I can reserve. It might be close to the restroom, sure. But they should not list this offer as inclusive of seat selection if there are no seats to select.
For some reason you fail to acknowledge that features listed under the price must be included in the price.
> Try reserving a specific table at the restaurant. An hour before the dinner.
Restaurants don't allow you to go through the reservation process to only suddenly mention at the last stage that the table has no chairs, or no table top (just table legs).
> Restaurants don't allow you to go through the reservation process to only suddenly mention at the last stage that the table has no chairs, or no table top (just table legs).
Are you under the impression that they are going to make you stand up on the flight?
Maybe Google Flights is the issue here?
I always use Kayak.
It shows you with little logos below the price if it includes seat selection, carry on and checked baggage.
For a frequent NYC-MIA flight I take I ran a test.
When I clicked through the first random AA price, and then the first random Delta price option I saw, it took me directly to each airline checkout at the exact price listed.
On an entirely different note, this feels like an exclusively Delta fuck up (and they know, given that they built a whole pop up for it). I fly United and American extremely frequently and never seen this. I have even booked Alaska basic economy that doesn't give you a seat and been given a free seat selection. Delta has been rapidly going downhill in recent years -- those that nerd out on air travel know exactly what I'm talking about.
That's an issue, and going from kayak to delta for same flight leads to same issue.
I wonder if this is some bug/edge case for really close in flights? The example flight booking takes off 2 hours from now?
Last time I ever tried to book a flight so close the online sales funnel was closed due to post-9/11 security restrictions. I think 2 hours is about as close as is even legal right?
Can you replicate for a flight tomorrow / next week / next month?
In my experience this replicates routinely for Delta Main Cabin fares for non-elites on leisure/non-corporate travel once only “Preferred Seats” are left in the economy cabin.
What I think the other carriers do well is detect when there aren’t non-charged seats available for advance selection, and remind you that you can continue without paying for a specific seat and still be guaranteed a seat on day of departure.
Delta hand out “free preferred seating” as a perk to all sorts of categories of traveler though. I wonder if that complicates the prospect of offering that kind of warning.
Urgency is one of the key motivators for using dark patterns. Wouldn't be surprised if Delta defaults to "1 seat available at this price" for all busy flights within X take off time regardless of the availability.
>People have decided they've reserved the right to rock bottom fares and simultaneous complaints about quality of service.
That's not really the case. Airline prices are quite detached from the quality of service. They are more a function of what the airline can get away with in the moment (i.e., surge pricing based on demand). If airline prices were always $100 for low cost, and $200 for frills included, that would be a fine trade. But you will pay anywhere from 100-1000 based on demand irrespective of frills or no frills.
Delta and AA are still the largest airlines in the US and unless you buy the basic economy tickets, the experience is a lot better and you aren’t nickel and dimed.
The Delta CEO said that only 5% of customers buy the lowest tier ticket.
You might be looking for a different word here. A dark pattern is not fraud or outright lying. These are already illegal. Seeing the total price at the end of the purchasing process is the legal requirement for a sale.
A classic example of a dark pattern is AirBnB. They (used to) show listing prices without all additional fees like cleaning, service fees, etc. So users would end up wasting a lot of time on finding the right offering to only later (yes, before checkout) realize that the total price is actually much higher. Users know how much they end up paying, it's not fraud. But this is still a dark pattern.
Well, I'd argue that you're looking for a different term, but obviously there's no concrete definition here.
I don't think a dark pattern requires any fraud or lying. I think the most obvious example is having users opt in to something (e.g. sharing private data) by default and only offering the option to opt out by navigating some convoluted series of menus. You aren't explicitly lying to users and telling them they can't opt out, but you're going out of your way to make sure the option isn't advertised or easily accessible.
In my opinion, there's a gap between that and what airlines and AirBnB do. I guess there's an element of deception with both, but airlines and AirBnB are just waving a nice number in front of your face to drive engagement. That doesn't personally meet my threshold, but I understand how it might meet yours.
For all that Booking.com has lots of annoying patterns like telling you how many people looked at a listing and that there's only two rooms (currently) available for those dates, I do like the fact the price I first see in the ranking is what I pay. Not least because the AirBNB fees usually seems to be how much more it costs to book with them if they have a listing for the same place.
>Booking.com has lots of annoying patterns like telling you how many people looked at a listing and that there's only two rooms (currently) available for those dates
Assuming they're not making up the data, why is this bad? If a hotel is very popular and almost sold-out, isn't that something useful to know when you're making reservations? Sure, it does feel a little high-pressure, but if it's truthful (normal "high pressure sales" tactics aren't, they create a false sense of urgency when in fact there's no shortage at all), it can be useful if you're trying to book a room at a popular place or during a peak time.
In practice I think it's usually inaccurate for medium sized hotels not because Booking.com makes up the data, but because the hotel doesn't release all its inventory to Booking.com at once. Otherwise it's not bad per se, but in combination with the "two people looked at this listing recently" in similarly red letters and all the book now pay later stuff, it does feel a bit like booking with someone shouting at you to hurry up
I feel like this is different than a hotel 'resort fee', which you have no way to decline.
I hate flying Spirit but I have flown places before where I only needed a backpack. It may only be 5% of flyers on any route, but there are a lot of airlines to it makes sense that an airline with the model "if you are the rare traveller who doesn't need luggage - we can give you a good price" should exist.
It's not unusual for me or my colleagues to do short business trips within Europe with only hand luggage. The cost isn't really relevant, it's mostly the convenience of walking straight off the plane to the train or taxi.
Couples can also have one checked bag between two people.
For my last flights, all the fees WERE disclosed well in advance. These airlines WANTED to sell these options and were marketing them diligently to the point where you had to fight these unbundled options with a stick.
There may be some bad guys but the unbundling seems to result - at least for some airlines - in excellent disclosure. Granted now you have to read through a lot more, and you have to select or ignore all these offers. Including pick specific seats if you do want a lot more space.
If anything, I wanted to pay for some more options that were not offered.
Yep, I'm hella tall, I want to know up front I can pay to reserve a seat with more legroom.
And speaking Spirit, Big Front Seat is probably the best value in US domestic aviation. You get a business class seat for a fraction of what the legacies charge.
In the case of Spirit and Frontier, this is literally what they're known for. I'd be shocked to meet someone shocked by that.
The fact of the matter is more legroom is expensive because it means less seats can be in the cabin. Seat selection is expensive as it limits the combinations of available seats for those who want to sit together.
If these things don't matter (I'm a short guy sans family who often does short trips w/ minimal luggage needs), it's great to not have to pay for that.
You want to travel somewhere and pay as little as possible. The airlines want to take you there for as much as possible. It's inherently adversarial.
It used to be the case that everyone bought a bundle that included a bunch of free (not charged at point of use) services. Whether or not you took 3 bags, you paid the same price as someone who did. Whether or not you chose seats all together at time of ticketing, you paid the same as someone who did. With the advent of unbundling (in part driven by online search), consumers could now decide whether taking 3 bags was worth whatever $X the airline proposed to charge. For people who did choose that, they paid more than people who didn't use that service.
> The point is that we all think it’s bad and that it should change and so we’re pointing it out
No, you think it's bad. I may despise Spirit and Frontier and refuse to fly them, but I also think it's a great thing they exist.
I despise them because the lack of comfort/nickle-and-diming is not worth my time, and I can easily afford to pay more for a better experience. But if I were back being 20 years old and broke, and my body could deal much better with being uncomfortable for a couple hours, I'd love the option to be able to fly on the cheap.
Precisely. You won’t catch me dead on a Spirit/Frontier flight because I can afford more comfortable/reliable options for the length of flight, but I am not the target demographic. Having cheap options is good in any industry. I fly budget airlines in Europe quite a bit because the $ saved per ounce of discomfort ratio is far higher and am thankful they exist. One’s inability to read the conditions of their fare is not a valid reason to eliminate the option for everyone else.
Like the other comment said. There's also a time element. Who wants to take four flights, get stuck in an airport, and possible lost luggage when Spirit has a direct flight.
I agree that everything shouldn't be as adversarial, but as somebody who's motto for less important/short flights has become "Just throw me in the trash," flying Spirit is fine by me. There's a segment with additional time/flexibility that they appeal to. My concern is when companies go too far in misrepresenting things, especially things that are actually mandatory, and I'm careful because I've come to expect that from most.
Edit: One big issue when flying for me the risk of cancellation and not being reimbursed, but I balance that against the ticket cost. Again, I often have some flexibility around staying in a location longer when necessary, which helps inform the carrier I select.
Since when is it “adversarial” to charge people who consume more of the product (more legroom, extra bags) more money than people who consume less? That’s how all businesses work. Is it adversarial for a restaurant to charge
extra if you order a second entree?
Not even close to "all" of us think it's bad. I'm happy to fly spirit on short flights since I don't check bags or upgrade my seat. If the budget airlines didn't exist travelling would be much more expensive for me.
It's a lot like SEO optimization and the chicanery that goes on there: Airlines know that customers (a) are using ticket comparison sites like Kayak and Google Flights, (b) customers sort by price, from lowest to highest, and (c) as with Internet search results, customers tend to click on links on the first page w/o scrolling.
"Unbundling" options permits non-ultra-budget airlines to move toward the top of that list, and then make the money back by offering extras during the checkout.
Now, if sites like Google Flights and Kayak would give customers the ability to tick checkboxes saying, "I want a ticket with these unbundled extras," and sort according to the final price, that could potentially re-arrange the field, but who knows? The airlines would probably find another dodge around it.
Google Flights will allow you to select how many carry-ons and checked bags you have (depending on the route).
e.g., on an imaginary trip to Las Vegas, the cheapest carrier changed when I added a checked and carry on bag (and the price difference from a budget carrier to a mainline carrier shrunk considerably).
Sure, but I've not seen them offer tick boxes for things like the ability to choose which seat you're in, or complimentary snacks and drinks.
ZipAir doesn't even provide free cups of water during its flights. They require all baggage, even carry-on, to be under a certain weight or pay an additional charge.
Unbundled options is no longer merely about how many bags you check or carry on. They're monetizing _everything_.
ironically airfares are one of the most transparently priced services in the whole country because Obama passed a law that forced them to show the final price with fees and taxes included in the list price when searching
pretty much no other good or service in the US can say the same
They're transparent in the sense that they tell you the cost and it's the same when you checkout 5 minutes later.
But calling it "transparently priced" is nonsense. Fares change based on multiple variables. The fact that getting the lowest fare means navigating the permutations of date of travel, date of purchase and location of purchase to find the lowest combination of the three can be maddening. I shouldn't need a VPN and a comprehensive understanding of airline pricing quirks to not get overcharged, often by significant amounts. And it shouldn't be possible to get a lower price by using airline points as an intermediate currency, especially since the aggregators do not list the cost for flights in points.
not sure what you think should happen. there’s a limited number of seats per flight. if there’s 10 available seats left and 8 suddenly booked why should the last ones be priced the same
Some the variables should be illegal, though. A seat should cost the same whether I'm buying it from my computer in California or Lima, Peru. And the kind of travel hacking that allows someone to purchase 100k points to buy a seat using points for less than it would cost to purchase the same seat with cash should also be regulated away.
A 2-dimensional search is much easier to navigate than a 4-dimensional search. Aggregators have searches based on flexible dates. And they could combine them with Camelizer-style watching of fares to alert people when they get cheaper as well as providing historical averages. But as soon as you start throwing in more variables, it stops being possible to make sense of it all.
But also:
> if there’s 10 available seats left and 8 suddenly booked why should the last ones be priced the same
You could say the same about any product. What if a grocery store applied the same policy when it came to milk? What if Apple charged more for iPhones when a store was running low? What if a gas station charged more based on the level of their storage tanks? You don't think there'd be outrage if we started to see these airline pricing practices seep into the larger market?
Is there outrage when a clothes store puts the items they haven't been able to shift onto the sales rack? Is there outrage when a grocery store puts discount stickers on the food that's approaching its sell by date? Dynamic pricing is a fact of life in very many sectors.
Because raising prices just because you don't have many left is price gouging. Turns out people don't like being charged more money for no reason than "fuck you, that's why".
The hidden motivation there is that the government's rule benefits the government. It's easier for them to raise their taxes and fees, by hiding their portion in the total price where they won't get blamed. (You can find the breakdown if you look for it, but who ever bothers.)
I hear you, but I fly spirit all the time with no add-ons at all. No bags, no seat selection, no wifi, no snacks. I really appreciate the low price and select Spirit over my preferred airline Southwest often for this use case.
It's not a dark pattern in my case, even if I do get annoyed those times when I actually have to fly them with bags.
For what its worth, I often fly from one location to another without luggage (going home to visit parents for instance). its actually my far my most common mode of flight since I visit them 3-4 times a year.
I appreciate the fact that I don't have to subsidize other people who need luggage.
I wish they would enforce the "hand luggage" size a bit on entry to the plane, last time I flew around 2017 it was a complete shit show in regards to the overhead storage compartments.
I guess it depends on how full a flight is. A empty one they don't really care - a full one they care more.
But also if its a cheap or "premium" airline.
It's usually listed it on their website and not too hard to google. I have to do it for every new airline I use because I'm almost always flying with only carry-on and rules for carry-on can drastically differ between airlines.
Only time I flew Spirit it cost me $40 to get from Orlando to LA and it's hard to beat that price. Compared to likes of RyanAir their personal item size is actually quite generous and my usual weekender backpack fit pretty well. I'm avoiding Spirit since that flight mostly because their operations are less reliable than other carriers but that have nothing to do with extra charges.
Or companies like Easyjet that save a couple of inches of the dimensions of (previously fairly standard) carry on luggage, so that when you get to the gate you have to fork out £40 or so to carry it on.
I don't think Spirit makes any secret of the fact that carry on bags are not included in the price? And in any case, the flight aggregators I have used lately (namely, Google Flights and Kayak) make it obvious.
Google Flights does not show checked baggage or non-standard seat fees AFAIK
It only indirectly shows baggage fees with certain airlines once you select a specific flight when it offers you a range of ticket options (e.g. with BA, it shows Economy Basic / Economy Plus options).
I'm not sure what a non-standard seat fee is (it does show prices for seat tiers, such as economy vs first class), but it does show baggage fees for me.
Eg extra leg room seats is what I mean. Ie what the person you replied to meant, what you understood when you said all that information is front and centre…
And what did you mean by baggage? Carry on or checked? I’ve never seen it show checked baggage fees. Maybe just estimates in small grey text somewhere at most
I think also one has to distinguish junk fees (which are frequently unavoidable, but hidden after the last minute from the consumer) from things like buying food. I mean, some airlines on some flights include free food. But food has little to do with flying itself, and if you don't want to pay, you can easily get it on the ground from another place and/or wait for 2-3 hours without a meal. It's not an "extra fee", it's buying a different product - which yes, can be sold by the airline too, but I don't see anything bad in that. Conflating providing some optional services with the nefarious practice of junk fees is not helping the consumers at all.
True, but I don't think food is ever not free on such long flights - nobody wants to face a hundred of hungry people in a closed quarters :) Usually shorter flights - and alcohol on longer ones - are where the money are made, I think.
When searching for flights, ensure Spirit Airlines is excluded.
Unless there's a massive price difference, just fly Southwest if you have luggage. In over a decade, it's rare that some other airline is a lot cheaper. Most of them are at price parity or more expensive with luggage. In any case, at this point everyone in the US knows you'll get charged for luggage with most airlines and account for it when searching.
Food: Just don't. They give crappy snacks on planes. Just bring a few along with you. Or even buy them at the airport.
Seat selection: Don't bother with it too much. Also, nice that Southwest doesn't let you pick seats.
Priority boarding: Why...? I'd rather sit in the airport than in a cramped seat in the plane. And I've had bad experiences where they've turned the air conditioning off in the plane during boarding and I start feeling sick.
Compared to when I was a kid, flying is much cheaper now (inflation adjusted).
I guess. I usually have a small enough one that I can squeeze under the seat. Even when I've had larger items that need to go overhead, the majority of the times it's within one row of where I'm sitting. The ones where I have to put it far away are the exception.
The problem is is the narrow-body "commuter" aircraft, which often only have enough overhead space for about 3/4 of all seats. Since most people have a carryon that needs overhead space, they often run out, and need to gatecheck your carry on.
The issue is that people don't like this, since it means more of a delay at the destination.
Also some airlines will through gate-check the bag, printing a full barcoded tag tied to your ticket, like all other checked begs. Other airlines, most notably American's regional carriers will instead "valet check" the bag, which means a little red tag is added that is not tied to you in any way, and at the destination they are supposed to separate out those bags, and hand them back on the jetbridge.
This means you will miss any connection that does not exceed the minimum connection time at the airport by a solid 10 minutes. Even worse is what happens if the baggage handler fails to notice the red tag. Then one of 3 things will happen:
1. It will get spit out at baggage claim. (I've had this happen once, albeit on a flight with no possible conections, so the bags skipped the sorting step and went straight to baggage claim.)
2. The bag reaches bag sorting, and because it does not have a proper checked tag with barcode will eventually get spit out for manual processing. An airport employee notices the red "American valet checked" tag, and delivers it to the American baggage office, where you can try to reclaim it with the little stub that you hopefully remembered to remove from the tag.
3. The little red tag got ripped off at some point in the process. If this happens you probably won't get your bag back. If the employee who checks unclaimed bags for identification actually does their job, you might get it back (assuming you have filled out the address card on your luggage), but sadly in practice that almost seems to the the exception instead of the rule.
Though that's a pretty good reason. I do have an airline card that is decent otherwise and gives me good enough boarding priority. I don't bring on a large carryon but I almost never check luggage so it's nice to have overhead bin space.
Not a bad set of guidelines, but I think a bit more nuance is worthwhile.
If you only care about price, Southwest isn't a bad choice. But the cost may be in significantly increased travel time. E.g. if you live in the PNW, start with Alaska first, then try Southwest, because Alaska will probably have better direct flight options.
And seat selection... don't bother with it is fine if you're traveling alone. But if you're going on a family trip, this kind of detail is actually important.
Otherwise generally agree. Definitely bring your own food.
Also, if you do fly Alaska, always take your luggage as a carry-on if is plausible. Don't pay up front, because at the gate they'll offer to check it at no charge when the flight is pretty full.
> And seat selection... don't bother with it is fine if you're traveling alone. But if you're going on a family trip, this kind of detail is actually important.
IIRC, Southwest boards families early enough that they can get seats together, so it's another seat win for them.
> When searching for flights, ensure Spirit Airlines is excluded.
I don't exclude them initially, but unless the price difference is massive enough to account for the expected huge luggage fee and then some, I ignore them (or if they have so many flights that they're cluttering the results, then proceed to exclude them from that search).
> Priority boarding: Why...? I'd rather sit in the airport than in a cramped seat in the plane.
Amen. If at all possible, I'd rather be the last person on the plane, especially if I was guaranteed to not have to check a carry-on (or just don't have one).
Good to know. Apparently my one, which is a travel related CC with annual fee, doesn't provide this benefit.
If yours does, I would still read the fine print and compare with ones on insuremytrip. I picked a random CC and read its benefits, and did not see one involving serious illness - only death, accidents, and things like flight delays.
Edit: Checked again: Apparently mine does provide travel insurance. But as expected, not for serious illness (e.g. stroke that requires medical evacuation - happened to someone I know during travel). Also, it only covers issues related to the mode of travel. So if you're in the Bahamas for 2 weeks, and you get into accident a week in, that is excluded. With insuremytrip plans, the whole duration of stay is covered.
Medical evacuation (unrelated to method of travel) is specifically one of the benefits of an Amex Platinum card, as long as you’re more than 100 miles from your address. Maybe worth $700/year, maybe not.
If you travel a lot every year, I can see it being more affordable than buying insurance each time. Typically when I buy travel insurance it's $50-200 per trip.
Too lazy to look up whether Amex provides for problems during the trip (beyond evacuation), as opposed to merely during travel.
You have to not care about price at all these days to fly Southwest. It's gotten to the point where even if you have a companion pass, and the tickets are essentially buy-one-get-one free, it's still not worth flying them
> fees for selecting seats, checking bags, and buying food, to name a few .. "unbundling"
I can appreciate this kind of unbundling where I can choose what I want or dont want. Unlike the rental market that has started to "unbundle" with mandatory fees. In my case the mandatory additional fees adds another 12% to the "price".
($250 application fee amortized over a year, $60 credit check amortized over a year, $110 technology package, $31 valet trash, $12 amenity fees, $5 online service fee)
I agree. Ticketmaster, AirBnB, and other services with mandatory fees that are known but not shown until checkout should be regulated but it won't happen.
Just like the USA is the only country in the world that doesn't include sales tax on sticker prices (because it makes things seem more expensive)
I actually believe hearing the sales tax thing is a different issue. I recall hearing some conservative folks say tax separate is intended to keep the "sting" in the tax so people will be incentivized to protest it and reduce it.
It's not "unbundling" they literally just added new costs for features that were originally free because they can get away with it. So far, I have also found you are now REQUIRED to pay for your seats if you want to sit together. Frontier splits me and my wife even when there's seats available
I fly Southwest too. I like the flexibility that they provide.
If you don't feel like flying today, that's fine with them. No change fees. However, sometimes they don't feel like flying either, and you also need to extend them the same courtesy.
Hear hear. It would've been one thing if, when they invented Basic Economy, it was "you can get cheaper flights now but you lose all these things you're used to." Instead, as I recall, it was "welcome to Basic Economy, where you still pay the same amount you used to, but we've taken away a bunch of stuff you now have to pay extra fees for."
It's interesting you used Frontier as an example. Frontier's whole business model is "unbundle everything the law allows." This means dirt-cheap fares that alone can't cover their costs of running the flights. They need the fees to make the whole thing work.
I fly on Frontier all the time, and while I do hate all of their upselling during the checkout process, my flight does end up being significantly cheaper than any other option.
In this case, I searched for a flight to Atlanta - Frontier was $49, Delta was $250. After going through the checkout process, I paid exactly $49 for my Frontier flight. I need to add a checked bag, which it looks like they charge $50 for, but $99 is still << $250.
When I lived out of state, I'd go up to visit family for the weekend with just a laptop and 2 changes of clothing. The dirt cheap budget flight options were amazing.
> lots of people want to select their seats, check their bags, buy food, etc. and are willing to pay for it
"willing to pay for it" is a odd way to phrase this. Of course people need to do all those things, but we are now forced to pay extra for these basics. All of which used to simply be part of the ticket price.
You don't actually need to do any of those things - you could sit in the seat assigned to you, travel with less baggage and buy your food on the ground.
All of those things used to be part of the ticket price but now the ticket is cheaper because it doesn't include them.
Another way to look at it is that you are now paying less for the base ticket which used to include those things. This allows consumers more choice in what part of the experience they want to pay for.
If someone wants to build a computer and they don't need a graphics card, it's better to give them the option not to get one for less money, or to get one for more money.
> Another way to look at it is that you are now paying less for the base ticket which used to include those things.
If that were true, sure. But I somehow doubt that's true. I don't have any data to verify this (nor do I know how one would get it), but I would expect that the inflation-adjusted cost of a ticket 20 years ago (when you weren't yet getting nickel and dimed for everything) is comparable to what you pay today for just the base price.
Airline prices are much cheaper than they used to be. Imo airfare is the crowning achievement of capitalism and proof that efficient, free markets are unbeatable economic engines. Airlines barely make any money at all off flights now, they’re profit engine is the credit card they push.
> Airline prices are much cheaper than they used to be.
The base price listed, but by the time you add all the fees and fees on fees, not so sure they're any cheaper. Last time I flew a few months ago the initial flight price of ~$600 on kayak search became ~$1500 by the time I had the final price 5 minutes of clicking later. I ended up buying the ~$800 flight that became ~$1300 after all the add-on fees.
The real problem is that it makes comparison shopping incredibly difficult, since each airlines packages their dozen fees differently. Years ago I could list all the prices from A to B and pick the best time and price from a single screen and that's that, since every price was the final price. It was so easy.
Now I have to go through each flight option individually going through the whole reservation sequence to finally get a price. It can take many hours, what used to be a simple search. If you've done this I'm sure you know the add-on fees are different for each flight option! I'm sure most people just give up and buy whichever rather than waste the time, which is exactly what the airlines want. I'm obsessive enough that I'll spend the time, but what a waste.
> Imo airfare is the crowning achievement of capitalism
Capitalism works optimally when consumers can be fully informed and comparison shop with high efficiency. The airline pricing these days is pretty much the exact opposite of that, being extremely opaque by design to prevent comparison shopping.
I guess the unbundling of basics is the way the airlines flaunt this law.
I just looked up flights from SFO to EWR on kayak. Cheapest one was $426.
But when I click through to the united site, the fine print says that even for a carryon bag there is a +$25 charge. So even if you don't check any bags (which of course is another extra fee), there is a $25 fee for the carryon. So the real price is $426+$25 at a bare minimum.
But let's be honest, that is a basic economy seat with no knee room for an adult and no checked bag. So unless you are a child traveling for two days, you need to pay extra for both legroom and the checked bag. The bag is another +$70. I don't care to spend the time to go through the whole process to get the final price but clearly it's way more than $426.
If you're comparison shopping, now repeat this hassle for every single flight on the search result. You will (and I do) spend many wasted hours on this infuriating nonsense.
I only bring a backpack on flights which is always free. Most of my traveling is short term or between places that I have clothes at though, only real exception is work stuff and they pay for the bag fee.
I'm okay with paying extra for it, but none of the searching tools seem to include the price plus a checked bag plus a carry on, plus choosing my seat.
You have to investigate each airlines policies to find out.
Yeah. Whole article feels a bit "Fastcompany makes $entireprofit from bullshit clickbait headlines". Some people would read the article with an accurate headline!
For people that don't want to be at the front of the queue, select their seats, eat airline food or use inflight wifi, the fact that some people pay a bit more to do it and subsidise their ticket costs is a bonus. And even some of the really customer hostile ancillary revenue streams like "Printing your boarding pass will be 50 dollars sir" has nothing to do with website dark patterns
You weren't selecting your seat in 1984. You'd show up at the airport, the agent at the counter would print your ticket, and you would realize with deep horror that you were in seat 37-E in the back of a DC10 with its 2-5-2 seating arrangement.
Change it to dc9 and you are describing my first flight. 2-3 seating, engines on the wing, feels like you are outside of the plane. When I did a changeover to 747 it felt like I was in a quiet movie theater.
At least you're certain no kid will hit the touchscreen of the entertainment system in your headrest. Although the moment the person in front unfolds their backrest it's what the nightmares are made of.
On top of that, prices were also far higher. Air travel has gotten cheaper and more accessible over time with the option to pay for things you may care about.
I was choosing seats via EasySabre in 1986. Granted, my employer paid for a Sabre service via compuserve, but I was able to pick my own seat for free.
And when I had to book with an agent on the phone, I was able to pick not only aisle or window, but front of cabin, middle, or rear. Also for free.
Let's not normalize bullshit fees that are clearly a money grab. Kinda bizarre how many people are dissing this article and supporting airlines. I'm wondering if that's a Gen Z thing since they're used to paying service fees without realizing there are free alternatives.
Everyone was getting seats allocated at checkin, which was at a checkin desk at the airport. If you were lucky, you'd get asked if you wanted a window or an aisle.
Then you could check-in by telephone. Then you could check-in online. Then airlines started exposing the ability to select seats prior to check-in. Finally, someone realized this could be a revenue stream and started charging for it.
At this point, British Airways will make you pay to reserve a specific seat before check-in even if you're flying in intercontinental business class unless you have an expensive flexible fare or are a frequent flyer.
Well seat selection is just working out you can charge for something that some care about (will pay for) and others don't (won't, largely unharmed).
But luggage for example: having it was to some extent subsidised by people who didn't/you paid for it whether you wanted it or not, in the bundled price.
It's more a problem of advertising & comparison IMO, I don't mind (quite like) these things being separated out otherwise.
When I travel with family, the only way to get seats together was to not select seats. Online I'm presented with a map of just middle seats left, but if I wait until the gate for my seat there's magically adjacent seats so some of them.
> select their seats, check their bags, buy food, etc
I mostly don't have a problem with unbundling, except for seat selection. That's just gouging. But it works pretty well because people traveling as a group will suck it up and pay for the privilege of picking seats together.
Yeah, I actually like the unbundling. I'll buy the cheapest ticket and then check every couple days for a good upgrade price. It also lets me do things like upgrade just the long leg of the flight as first class and not bother with paying for the shorter leg upgrades.
I'm pretty cheap, but I'm also tall and older. Any flight over 2 hours, I absolutely will pay for comfort.
I don't mind the unbundling so much. I mostly know about that, especially given I'm mostly on a single carrier. What's more annoying is clicking on a roundtrip fare from $1K or whatever and when I get to the return leg (on the date I had already chosen) and there's no $1K roundtip fare to be seen.
I just spent probably 8 hours finding a pair of flights somewhat flexibly around Christmas (yes I know but was having trouble firming up plans) and I'm still not sure what final combination/incantation got me to a fare and schedule that was at least within a large ballpark of tolerable if not exactly reasonable.
If you actually read the article you'd know that unbundling is not not what it's about. It's about the dark patterns that trick or coerce people into purchasing "extras" that they don't want, or didn't know they had to pay extra for.
Just a anecdotal data point: a few months ago I took a trip overseas and had to do it on a pretty short time schedule (<a week). As a grad student this is obviously tough to budget. So I load up my Mullvad Browser and jump around VPN points. Everything was breaking. They very much did not like that browser and the VPN was the cherry on top. But because of this effort I saved about $500 (NYC seemed to be the best location fwiw and I'm on the west coast and flew to Asia).
This felt rather insane and anti-competitive. Each time I changed any variable (including restarting the browser) the price changed and those warnings about number of tickets left would dramatically vary. There is no doubt that that these companies were lying to me. How am I supposed to price compare and we have a competitive market when it's stochastic with high variance? I know airlines claim to work on auctions and economists love auctions, but this wasn't even an auction. This was they knew I was in a bind and just added a dice roll to the price. That's only something a monopoly can do. I don't think this is about being able to select seats, check bags, or buy food.
> There is no doubt that that these companies were lying to me.
They're not lying to you, the 'number of seats left' refers to the number of seats available at that price - in the lowest available fare bucket. Not on the plane itself.
What you ran into are called point of sale restrictions. Lower fares are made available to people buying in different markets.
They don't really work on auctions, they charge everyone what they think they'll pay.
Right, why on Earth would anyone call making up new definitions of "seats left" and "lowest fare," changing the price based on purposely hidden variables and not admitting it, and tricking users into believing extra fees are necessary "lying?" I'm sure it's all clearly posted somewhere. It reminds me of a passage from a famous book of marketing advice:
“But the plans were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”
I'm just going to quote hanzmanner (in the sibling's children's comment)
> For a tech forum it is surprising how many commenters in this thread don’t understand what are “dark patterns”
I think people just don't get it. Maybe because people just aren't thinking about how things couple and the interactions. Maybe because no one wants to be the bad guy so don't think too hard about it? There could be a lot of reasons. Could even be that people are more worried about job security so just deal with it.
> So how would someone brag about accomplishing this in their work history?
- Performed user studies that led to x% growth in product revenue
I don't think there would be anything that would specifically flag a resume entry as the employee being the one to implement dark patterns, but I'm just guessing here. Because things like dynamic pricing or user studies aren't inherently wrong. Dark patterns are wrong because they're manipulations. The clearest example being raising prices and then discounting them back to the same price. Amazon does this as well as Walmart.
I interviewed at a travel company. One thing someone said they didn't like about working there was that they're customers are really the airline and hotel chains that pay them, and anything that closes the deal at a higher price is what they'd do. UX "improvements" tested with A/B testing for sales optimization.
This isn't dark pattern stuff, revenue (or yield) management is forecasting variable future demand for an expiring asset (airline seat, hotel room) and trying to optimally set pricing in order to match your supply along various points on the demand curve. Nobody's trying to "trick" anyone, just setting different prices and incenting early and flexible bookings while raising prices at high-demand times.
They always say “seats left at this price,” and the “lowest fare” is in the context of the current search results, which are individual, not in the context of all searches by everyone everywhere, which seems an unreasonable standard.
That doesn't capture the range of their dark patterns. I am literally testing this now. I am on Delta website going through the booking process (redirected form Google Flights). The price at Google Flights was $578. Delta website is showing that 1 seat is available (at this price). When it prompts to select the seat there are no seats available at this price. I am offered to upgrade to Comfort+ for $60. I am already 10 min into the process. And just to preempt your possible argument: when I go to the previous page it still shows that 1 seat is available at this price.
Google Flights runs on a cache, so it can be out of date. This is mentioned in their fine print somewhere.
Delta's own website should be accurate though. I think this is actually legally required. If you can take some screenshots and contact customer support I guarantee you someone will get yelled at, and you may get some sort of compensation.
I know this because I was once the person who would get yelled at (not for Delta). If you could include the time and your local timezone, as well as the market (your country or VPN country) that would help out the person who's going to get yelled at.
Just to clarify, I say "yelled at" as a bit of an exaggeration. But these customer reports were always a big deal where I worked. It usually boiled down to a stale cache issue. But because the airline controls the cache and ticket inventory[0], cache invalidation should be perfect, sans a few ms latency.
[0] Kind of... Not really. It's a mess how the systems really work. But they do get messages for each ticket purchase.
Your use of the word “seat” is overloaded - the one in fare search buys you passage on the plane. More formally we’d call that a ticket. That doesn’t mean you’ll be able to assign a seat during checkout if the ones available for complimentary assignment have already been assigned by others.
And that’s not a problem, if you don’t care where specifically you sit. Once check-in opens you’ll be assigned a seat. Including from the inventory that normally requires you pay extra. Without an additional fee.
If you do care where you sit you can elect to pay extra in advance.
A “seat” in the search results is booking passage on the plane. You are looking at optional, complementary advance assignments. Those are taken at the moment.
I hope that clears it up!
I wouldn’t call this a dark pattern - some airlines like Southwest don’t even let you select seats at all! Some airlines require you pay a fee for any and all seats, mostly low-cost carriers. This is just an example of unbundling. If you value a specific seat assignment you can pay for it. If you don’t, no problem, your flight is cheaper.
That's not what the clear explicit agreement between the two parties is in this case. Why do sellers list any product details at all?
Both Google and Delta have this in writing: I am paying for a seat I can select. If that's not included in the sale - no problem, don't list it.
I am not against seats being sold unassigned. I am not against charging an additional fee for being able to select a specific seat. And this argument is not about that.
The dark pattern is listing "free seat selection" and "1 seat available" before I choose this flight and agree to continue the booking process, while then changing the value of the product by asking me to pay an additional fee for the seat selection. The seats in the main cabin are available (see screenshots). They are just not available for me to select for free. If Delta knows that there are no selectable seats at this price left on the flight, why do they include that in the listing?
I am really not sure where this disconnect is coming from. I am not arguing against all additional fees, not arguing against seating being assigned at check-in. Just make it clear before I commit to the process, so I don't waste time. This is the definition of a dark pattern.
> Both Google and Delta have this in writing: I am paying for a seat I can select. If that's not included in the sale - no problem, don't list it.
No they don't, and no you're not lol. You're paying for transportation from the origin to the destination. Not on a specific flight number, not on a specific number of connections, not on a specific mode of travel even. Seat selection in advance is an optional service that may or may not cost money. You're getting a seat. Not a specific seat, not until you go through the selection. Your fare entitles you to free selection subject to inventory.
In fact the contract of carriage actually requires them to get you from the origin to the destination by whatever means is reasonable and appropriate. The CoC actually allows them to substitute your flight for a train or bus if reasonable and appropriate. The way it's written a horse and buggy may work too. United has codeshared along the northeast corridor with Amtrak historically. Even busses. For instance from Ottawa to Montreal Air France had one with a flight number that connected to an onward Paris flight.
That's something I could see someone being upset about, but the definition of 'seat' (once you know, you know forever) feels like a weird hill to die on. The interchangeable use of 'seat' and 'ticket' is an English colloquialism.
Note that Delta considers Comfort Plus a separate cabin not Main Cabin. If there's no Main Cabin seats at check-in they'll upgrade you.
> That's not what the clear explicit agreement between the two parties is in this case.
The explicit agreement is actually to the Contract of Carriage. For instance. [1]
> Delta will exercise reasonable efforts to transport you and your baggage from your origin to your destination with reasonable dispatch, but published schedules, flight times, aircraft types, seat assignments, and similar details reflected in the ticket or Delta’s published schedules are not guaranteed and form no part of this contract. Delta may substitute alternate Carriers or aircraft, change its schedules, delay or cancel flights, change seat assignments, and alter or omit stopping places shown on the ticket as required by its operations in Delta’s sole discretion.
Seat selection forms no part of the Contract of Carriage.
Credit where due to Delta, they even have it in Plain English! Not just legalese.
Thanks. The next time I submit my "interest in availability" of a "certificate" for "transportation from the origin to the destination" on a "web service" affording a "data exchange between a service provider and a private entity requesting the certificate", I will make sure to hire a team of lawyers to look into ToS of all parties involved.
How could anyone confuse the words "free seat selection" and "1 left at this price" with anything other than "you are buying whatever, we really don't care and can charge for anything we want regardless of what's written in any listings". Silly me.
Saying that, I think I am starting to get it. My mistake was not looking into the origin and the legal definition of the word "seat" before attempting to book a flight.
But just to make sure I resolve this issue once and for all, could you please help me with a few more legal definitions?
What do these words actually mean: "reservation", "flight", "buy", "payment", "free", "selection", "person", "destination", and "confirmation"? Thanks again!
Let me put it plainly for you. You are buying a seat in a cabin on a plane at a price point. Which specific seat may vary. Everything else is on a best-effort basis.
Does this really diverge from your expectations?
I'm having a hard time believing someone could be confused by this.
For a tech forum it is surprising how many commenters in this thread don’t understand what are “dark patterns”. It’s not fraud. Of course eventually I will see the total cost. It’s about misleading the customer in the process. They don’t have to trick me into paying more, they just need to make me progress far enough that I will choose to pay more to save my own time.
That's correct. But it's correct in the sense of "technically correct". It's a language-lawyer type of correct that nobody actually expects when communicating in plain English.
Yes, they're not lying to me. They're simply being intentionally and willfully misleading.
When I was 8 and my parents asked, "Have you brushed your teeth?" to which I responded, "Yes." What they're really asking is, "Did you brush _all_ of your teeth?" and not, "Did you brush at least two of your teeth?" I answered that latter question. And I thought I was the smartest person in the world when I did.
Yes, thank you. I think sometimes we forget how fuzzy language is.
If you're response is "well actually..." you need to think if you're providing meaningful feedback that would make the original claim meaningfully different (i.e. you're adding nuance that would shift perspective). Otherwise it comes off as if you didn't hear anything the original person said because you're missing the meat. Technical corrections are fine, but they should come with some indication of hearing the thesis. Let's try
> Well technically they aren't lying to you. It's the number of seats left at that price and that price can vary. So it is misleading but not technically a lie.
But to counter that claim, simply clearing my cache and restarting the browser would result in both the price and number of seats left changing. Not monotonically. Sometimes it'd be a lower price with more seats. I saw all four permutations! Now I'm not someone with all the airline data, but when this happens over the course of a few minutes I'm pretty suspicious of the results. The likelihood of that happening without manipulation seems rather low.
> I think sometimes we forget how fuzzy language is.
I'm willing to bet a reasonable sum of money that the folks that designed the dark pattern didn't forget how fuzzy language is. In my opinion, the entire spirit of the design of the dark pattern is in fact the complete opposite: to exploit the fact that language is fuzzy in an extremely targeted fashion with the express purpose of extracting as much revenue as is pragmatically possible from the customer.
Considering the possible alternative names for programmers:
Software Lawyer: we’ve got a code that ought to be well defined and straightforward to interpret, but a bunch of legacy rules have made it impossible to predict what anything really means without studying the system in great depth
Software Doctor: We’re trying usually trying to fix an absurd system ridden mysterious bugs while keeping it running. How it got into the state it is basically impossible to understand, it looks like they’ve just used parts for purposes totally unrelated to their intended use (the spine is totally in the wrong orientation).
Software Engineer: There is a rigid schedule posted on a board somewhere, but we’ve gone totally off the rails and have no chance of hitting any of those timelines.
Who's been deceived? You were offered a price, and you can pay it or not pay it. If you pay it you get your ticket. I don't really understand what the deception is.
Is it any more of a deception than someone who comes into a store with a coupon getting 10% off, while you, without a coupon pays full price? Or any more of a deception than Target charging higher prices at outlets in SF and NY than they do in Texas? Or not telling you how many more of an item is around back?
They're not saying there's only that many seats left on the plane - you can get a sense of that by pulling up the seat map. They're saying there's only that many seats left at that price point. It's incumbent on the buyer to know that I think. That information is not hidden.
It provides information to the searcher. If I'm looking, I generally search for 1 seat, even if I eventually plan to book for a few people. It's useful for me to know how many people I can book at that price point.
>They're saying there's only that many seats left at that price point.
...which is a lie.
If the tickets stop selling the price will drop. If there's a signal indicating a future spike in demand they will jack up the price irrespective of sales.
It might, or it might not go down in response to a lack of sales. Some airlines continue to segment their customers by elastic vs. inelastic demand. As departure date approaches their customer mix changes, and it might make sense to raise prices instead of lower them even if it leads to unsold inventory. After all there's a secondary market for unsold inventory - frequent flyer mile redemptions.
Its not as cut and dried as you're making it out to be.
It is accurate at the time presented. You can buy N seats for $X each, before the next seat is more expensive. That's all you can really ask.
Let's say that you and I each buy an airline ticket. We're sitting in the same coffee shop and buying it at the same time from the same airline provider. We're both buying the cheapest ticket available. Let's make even another assumption! Suppose we can buy the same ticket! Would you find it deceitful if we were shown different prices?
A bit more generally, they also ran into dynamic pricing or as it existed in every transaction before the 1870s, namely haggling.
It was only after the rather recent invention of the price tag that consumers themselves were commodified which always involves a level of abstraction and smoothing over of differences, in this case, by price.
Make no mistake, the reason it feels deceptive is that "Bargaining is always adversarial."[1] When one's economic milieu is the egalitarianism of being equal before price, of course bargaining feels deceptive, slimy, and wrong.
1. Bill Sanders, Frank Mobus, Creative Conflict: A Practical Guide for Business Negotiators, Harvard Business Press,2021
You can't really haggle with a computer system can you? And even if we'd accept that as haggling the company has way more power in the transaction. This just seems allowing the company to capture ever more of the consumer surplus.
The computer gives you, the consumer, a lot of power. You can very easily comparison shop - not simply view the cost of flights from every other provider on the same day, but also a day or two earlier/later, and if you are flexible, a week or month later. You can mix airlines, or plan open jaws. You can see the price of a rental car for all or part of the trip. Before travel was sold online, you went to a travel agent and had far fewer options.
If I was able to haggle I might not have such a problem with it. But this cannot possibly be called haggling, as there is no ability to communicate with somebody and make a counter-offer.
One of those ways of communicating is setting your location via VPN. This is just what it feels like to haggle with a non-human system. Would that we weren't required to set aside our own humanity to do this, but this is haggling for a more inhuman age.
I might be wrong, but my recollection is that the practice of changing the price based on user location has been challenged in court some time ago. It's appalling that companies do that. I will definitely follow your advice for flight booking though.
There was a 2012 WSJ article about that [0].
I have both a Windows Surface and a MacBook. When looking for flights, I used both to check for prices in hopes to find better prices, but didn't really notice any discrepancy. I figured maybe they may be showing the same price due to both devices having the same IP address or something to that effect.
United's website. Though I saw the same thing happening on AA. Google Flights had some fluctuation too but it wasn't always reliable to have the same price once visiting the actual website from the link.
It is hard to save with a VPN. Honestly, I manged only once to get a cheaper ticket with a VPN. Managed to buy an international aeroflot flight with a russian VPN IP that saved me 500 USD. But this was a one time incident.
Another good way in which these companies are lying is with overbooking, or legally selling more tickets than seats on the plane and hoping that the statistical rate of people now showing up will cover the deficit.
I agree with your experience, it does feel a bit insane, but just to point out this is the result of too much competition selling a commodity product rather than a monopoly.
Disagree. Consolidation is driving this behavior - smaller companies in a competitive market would not be able to offend customers to this degree. Certain routes are dominated by one "alliance" (cartel) that basically boils down to American, United or Delta. You have a few smaller brands like Alaska, Southwest (which has underinvested in their infrastructure), Jet Blue and Spirit (who are currently trying to merge), but it's not enough.
You need to break up the cartel model so that (e.g.) Delta has real competition for routes to Atlanta. If I look at nonstop flights from LAX to Atlanta for a random day (Apr 1, 2024) your options are: 1 American flight, 1 Alaska flight, 3 Spirit flights (way more expensive) or a Delta flight just about any time you want to travel. That's not "too much competition selling a commodity product" - it's what I would expect from cartel pricing. There is a thin veneer of competition, but Delta owns that route - 90%+ of traffic is going to fly Delta.
Fair enough, my experience is European where you usually have multiple options and most people decide by price.
I will say I was amazed by how few options I had to get from JFK to Denver and the price was insane relative to a transatlantic flight, so perhaps the market is structured differently.
AA has also treated me like shit too many times. I got caught in that pileup delay post CVPR 2022 which resulted in several delays and they would not give me a voucher or hotel. I spent 36 hrs in an airport for them to just say "glad to hear you found a flight. Looks like we resolved your problem."
It's funny how you are cheating companies by impersonating customer from different areas AND demanding honesty about remaining seats on same premises. At least you should be content with your behaviour and demand.
To make it clear I personally have nothing against both approaches - by being on both sides of transaction at times.
My mother is in her sixties, and she's very tech savvy for her age. She usually has no problem with doing all the things online - from online shopping to paying her bills to social media. The only thing that stumps her and make her panic about potentially making a very costly mistake are the airline websites.
She always asks me to buy tickets for her, while feeling very insecure about it. Of course I'm happy to help, but it's hard to convince her that it's not her fault, and the predatory companies are purposefully building these websites like that to trick people into overspending.
Look, I'm not saying her fears are unwarranted, but you have to help me understand where the dark patterns are in airline pricing. They show 1-2 seats remaining, but those are usually accurate... not like Booking.com or other shady booking sites.
When booking from first-party airline websites, I rarely have issues with unexpected prices popping up. Each "add-on" is clearly delineated.
The rise of even lower pricing tiers like Basic Economy on United also have their benefits (and severe restrictions) spelled out throughout the booking process.
The main point of contention seems to be that there are a lot of packages being selected by default, and to deselect everything you have to scroll way down an already long page or to click tiny buttons blending with the other elements, while the design of a site as a whole tries to railroad into clicking the large Next -> Next -> Pay buttons. Plus, the design of various packages differs a lot, so for deselecting, say, paid seat selection, extra in-flight meals and a premium lounge the user has to read the info in a completely different layout, understand it, and find a well-hidden place to click on.
The final price could be representative of what you've chosen, but the whole process creates massive anxiety over forgetting to deselect something somewhere and paying for a completely useless to you option.
Prices vary based on data they collect about you. Such as browser cookies, hardware info, browser, etc. You can often find different prices simply by clearing your cache or cookies. Or trying from a different browser. I left a comment in main about an anecdotal experience. One thing I'll add is that I also tried having 3 browsers open: Firefox, Mullvad, and Safari. I saw different prices on each.
This literally does not happen with first party airline sites (idk about sketchy third party scam sites). Where did this conspiracy theory come from? Which airline did you see doing this?
Since this thread will end up with anecdotes, here’s mine with Flair Airlines in Canada.
I wanted to take the time to figure out how much value I would get out of each add on. It looked like it would be cheaper to get an add-on in a particular way.
The fuckers set a timeout to the site that’s so low that it was just enough time to click through to buy but not enough time to figure out the value. This could be a difference of about 100-200CAD.
The airline also had us sitting on the tarmac long enough for my kid to finish a graphical novel. I am guessing they didn’t want to cough up penalty fees to the destination airport for arriving out of a given landing time slot.
The experience was like going over to a stingy relatives’ house where they keep the thermostat at 40° in the winter and reuse Saran Wrap between different dishes in the fridge.
I recently flew Flair and it was a regular experience. I did find that the booking process did seem to have some "black patterns", mainly that things would be checked off when I had indicated I didn't want them previously. For example, we were just flying with a single checked bag for a family of 5. The first option is to add a checked bag for EVERY passenger and no option for just one. Then at other times during the booking process, bags would be added and price would change. It was only later in the process that I was able to add a single bag.
It was worth the few thousand in difference, however our flights all left on time and we had no delays, so I might be singing a different tune if we had sat and waiting long. One thing I wish I knew is that they charge for everything, including water and coffee.
Flair is a discount airline (not WestJet discount, more like Spirit Airlines or Frontier or some "ultra low cost carrier", I doubt their passenger revenue is more then peanuts a flight, if they even make anything at all), it's basically like going to the discount grocery store in a poor neighborhood and wondering why your $20 brand of parmesan cheese is not available?
It's not like they hide the fact they are a discount airline and you need to accept there will be inconveniences for such discounted prices.
Great. Now is the consumer allowed to compare prices in a meaningful way? Let's say I visit the site, close my browser, clear my cache and cookies, and then navigate to the site again. Should the price change?
That's a great question! The reason many of us are upset. Because it shouldn't, but it does. Not always, but it does. Now this is black box probing so may be another factor, but the prices do swing quickly.
Stop spreading these lies. This cannot be done on any major airline (one large enough to be on a GDS). Airline pricing may be complicated but the way fares are constructed is public.
You may be witnessing:
* An ota changing their markups (which immediately asks the question "why are you paying the markup")
* Differing currency conversions and fares if you're changing the country you're issuing from (but this will reset itself once you actually try to pay)
* Fare class availability (somebody might have just bought the last ticket at that price)
If what you are claiming is true, there'd be far more evidence for it, and ITA Matrix (and hell, OTAs) wouldn't exist as a product. Given how well this is documented, it almost seems like you're disingenuously trying to sell VPN products (especially with your name-drop of a specific product)
I'm not aware of these things being well documented but I'd appreciate a link.
And I'm just trying to say what I've observed. I'm explicitly saying that this is black box probing. I'm not sure these are the causal variables making the changes but they seem to correlate. I've said there are other effects than VPN too, like clearing cache and changing browsers. It is definitely a weird feeling to open a page in multiple browsers and see different prices. You're right, I do not know what's going on but I'm not lying nor am I alone in seeing these things.
My understanding is that on most airlines, for a given route and fare class, you should expect a consistent price. Fare class is determined by stock available and a few extra inputs like trip length.
I'm not quite sure what you wanted me to take from that. First off, it's the best case where there's a high competition. I mean it is a YouTube video and it starts by stating how people spend their entire lives figuring out pricing, so of course it's not going to talk about everything they do in the fine grained nuance. Second, there's another name for price matching: collusion. It's usually indicative of a unfair market and he goes on a tangent for this. Then the next section he called the previous section "micro". Clearly he's not talking about dynamic pricing on a sub day interval.
It was a nice video and I learned some things but I'm not sure how its contents are relevant to the conversation. Doesn't prove or disprove anything. Well... it does demonstrate some ways airlines are anti-competitive but that's not what's being talked about here
Sites used to book travel, ie airfare, hotels, etc, are notorious for changing price based on your perceived interest. I've noticed this myself when I look at a hotel listing multiple times, the price tends to creep up.
Hotels maybe, but airfare is not going to change because you're in incognito or clear a browser. I rarely see any price differences between an Expedia and booking direct. If an airline was messing with prices based on something with your computer you would be see frequent large differences in prices between direct bookings and third party bookings, which I've never seen before.
All the major airlines I’ve used show the prices including mandatory fees and taxes up front. The only things not included are optional add ons like extra bags.
Just bought airline tickets the other day and it was such a frustrating experience to go through. United has 4 levels of economy, it was so tedious to compare luggage fees between them. If I want to sit next to my partner it would be an extra 200 off the lowest price both of us needed to upgrade... Then to bring a carry on.
I was using Google flights to compare and they all advertise the really low price, for lowest tier economy. Then yeah clicking through each one to figure out what the final price, getting hit with insurance upgrades, are you sure you don't want economy+ or w/e upgrades on each page.
The fee names seemed insane. There was a 10 dollar 9/11 fee? Wtf is that?
The prices are changing like everyday? Extra unessary pressure to buy. Why can't we just have consistent pricing, instead of taking advantage of people trying to fly when it's convientent.
The whole experience used to be be simpler I think. Just compare and buy and show up.
As for sitting next to a partner, if you don't absolutely need to guarantee it, then you can wait til you get to the airport and ask at the gate if they can move you to be beside each other.
If the plane is totally full you'll be out of luck, but if there's space then the gate agents will happily reassign you.
Similar approach here: we have a lot better things to do with 400 after tax dollars than spend them to collapse to zero the chance that we'll sit separately in an airliner for a few hours. If that happens, we'll enjoy $400 worth of dinners out way more than sitting together anyway...
I find we usually get assigned seats next to each other anyway unless the plane is completely checked in full for aisles and windows even without asking.
On the flip side of this my partner and I recently decided to pay the additional fee to Spirit to ensure that us, our 6 year old, and our 18 month old (traveling on lap) could sit together. We paid extra to sit toward the front of the plane to minimize time on the plane after landing. As we were boarding we were told that we had been moved because the row we were in was the exit row and we could not sit there with a child (though they let us select that row no problem when they wanted more money). They reassigned us to the very last row on the plane with no window for our 6 year old and no refund on our seat selection fee. I will probably just take my chances asking at the gate next time.
Yeah but people reserve all the window and aisle seats because sitting in the middle seat is miserable so all the empty seats will be middle seats well before the plane is full.
I find airline and concert ticket purchasing to be so exhausting, that I simply opt out more than I desire to. You have to wonder if airlines and other companies (like StubHub) ever calculate how much business they miss from these tactics. We are talking about discretionary purchases, after all.
There's a comedian that I'd really enjoy seeing in person. He's only selling tickets via TicketMaster. As a result, I'll wait for his next Netflix or Amazon tour special.
> Across the industry, revenue from what’s known as ancillary sales—fees for selecting seats, checking bags, and buying food, to name a few—will reach a record $117.9 billion in 2023
Yes, airlines have done a ton of "unbundling", but lots and lots of people want to select their seats, check their bags, buy food, etc. and are willing to pay for it, regardless of website design. I'm not arguing that airline websites don't use dark patterns, just that it's ridiculously insane to attribute all ancillary revenue to that.