Why does a plastic-wrapped turkey sandwich cost $15 at the NYC airport?(hellgatenyc.com)
hellgatenyc.com
Why does a plastic-wrapped turkey sandwich cost $15 at the NYC airport?
https://hellgatenyc.com/why-is-airport-turkey-sandwich-expensive
629 comments
> with people buying cheap airline tickets, airports have found a solution by turning themselves halfway into malls
This is entirely overlooking the fact that you are a captive of the airport as long as the TSA screening process exists. At best, going through security is annoying and adds anywhere from 5 minutes to 2 hours of wait time, and at worst it is legitimately traumatizing.
Prices are high simply because people are punished for leaving on foot, and people are prohibited from bringing many goods through security.
This is entirely overlooking the fact that you are a captive of the airport as long as the TSA screening process exists. At best, going through security is annoying and adds anywhere from 5 minutes to 2 hours of wait time, and at worst it is legitimately traumatizing.
Prices are high simply because people are punished for leaving on foot, and people are prohibited from bringing many goods through security.
They are a bit higher, sure; but there is still quite a bit of competition inside the airport: surely, one of those vendors would defect to get a ton of surplus business... unless they are illegally colluding; so, we should expect most of the floor in pricing is coming from some external shared pricing irregularity (aka, the sky-high rents).
Collusion is quite hard to prove, though.
A big problem is that it often isn't a free market. Joe The Sandwich Guy can't just randomly decide to open up a store inside the airport. There's a limited amount of space, a lease can easily last a decade, and any that come up are usually granted rather than auctioned.
The airport is actively trying to provide a varied selection of products, which inherently means competition is limited: someone complaining about the price of a turkey sandwich isn't going to get a Big Mac solely because it is a few dollars cheaper.
All of this is often made even worse because they aren't actually different vendors. Multiple stores are often owned by the same vendor, the different stores are just "exploiting various retail strategies".
Nothing is actively illegal. Everyone just independently realized they could make a shitton of money because travelers are forced to either pay their prices or starve.
A big problem is that it often isn't a free market. Joe The Sandwich Guy can't just randomly decide to open up a store inside the airport. There's a limited amount of space, a lease can easily last a decade, and any that come up are usually granted rather than auctioned.
The airport is actively trying to provide a varied selection of products, which inherently means competition is limited: someone complaining about the price of a turkey sandwich isn't going to get a Big Mac solely because it is a few dollars cheaper.
All of this is often made even worse because they aren't actually different vendors. Multiple stores are often owned by the same vendor, the different stores are just "exploiting various retail strategies".
Nothing is actively illegal. Everyone just independently realized they could make a shitton of money because travelers are forced to either pay their prices or starve.
The airport is owned by the government. The buck stops there. This is a clear case of corruption.
In this case (and the root of some of the problem) is that it's not even "the government" that owns the airport. The airports are operated by the Port Authority of NY and NJ, which is an extra-governmental slush-fund-distributor that isn't meaningfully accountable to either state government, the NYC government, or any of the relevant NJ municipal governments. There is nothing meaningful that voters can do to affect change in the organization, so nothing is likely to change.
If you want simple data, lets look at the price of bottled water or soda at an airport (I usually bring an empty with me but not the point). It is priced the freakin same across every eatery. No collusion?
There’s no collusion if they’re all owned by the same vendor, which is common (and pointed out in TFA). The problem then isn’t collusion; it’s that the agencies responsible for ensuring fair airport pricing are captured by the businesses that they’re supposed to regulate.
Sounds typical. Not an airport specific problem
> (I usually bring an empty with me but not the point)
I’ve been in airports where the toilets behind security have ‘courtesy’ warm water at the faucets
I’ve been in airports where the toilets behind security have ‘courtesy’ warm water at the faucets
Go to any airport an Asia and you will find plenty of drinking water fountains. Sure, sometimes the cold water is broken but at least it's sanitary drinking water.
Meanwhile Frankfurt tells you that the tap water in the restrooms is safe to drink. Absolutely absurd that Airports where you are effectively stuck for possibly hours and are paying for that priviledge can get away with not having to provide basic neccessities.
Meanwhile Frankfurt tells you that the tap water in the restrooms is safe to drink. Absolutely absurd that Airports where you are effectively stuck for possibly hours and are paying for that priviledge can get away with not having to provide basic neccessities.
Like entiries with like goals will conduct themselve similarly. The market defines what it will bear. They don't need to collude.
No it's not.
>A big problem is that it often isn't a free market. Joe The Sandwich Guy can't just randomly decide to open up a store inside the airport. There's a limited amount of space, a lease can easily last a decade, and any that come up are usually granted rather than auctioned.
It's basically like a professional license. The system is designed to make you waste so much of your life and money entering the market that undercutting people by any appreciable amount is the last thing you'll do once you're there.
It's basically like a professional license. The system is designed to make you waste so much of your life and money entering the market that undercutting people by any appreciable amount is the last thing you'll do once you're there.
There is no competition in a lot of airports. I believe that OTG manages all of the concessions at EWR. There are a lot of options, but there’s no price competition as they’re all run by the same company.
Let me take a moment to remind everyone that OTG is the monopolistic food distributor that puts ipads as sales points in _all_ seating at the gates in JFK - not just the restaurant seating. If you want to sit at your gate, you must be advertised to.
When I've turned the ipad around or covered the ipad's camera with a napkin, a worker has come by and forced me to face the ipad's camera back at me, even if I'm not buying anything. Dystopian.
When I've turned the ipad around or covered the ipad's camera with a napkin, a worker has come by and forced me to face the ipad's camera back at me, even if I'm not buying anything. Dystopian.
This sort of thing is a big part of why flying is simply hell.
> When I've turned the ipad around or covered the ipad's camera with a napkin, a worker has come by and forced me to face the ipad's camera back at me, even if I'm not buying anything.
Time to start carrying a bit of electrical tape to put over the cameras.
> When I've turned the ipad around or covered the ipad's camera with a napkin, a worker has come by and forced me to face the ipad's camera back at me, even if I'm not buying anything.
Time to start carrying a bit of electrical tape to put over the cameras.
Say no and keep sitting there. Will police be called?
Yep, it's not even price-fixing if they all got together and sold XYZ for the same price.
There is not enough actual competition for this to happen.
Take a major hub like LAX which is already segregated by groups of airlines across subsets of terminals. How many options do you have to choose from post-security for something as simple as burgers or pizza? Let alone something like pasta or something like Indian or Chinese food.
“We have both Panda Express and McDonalds” is not a sign of competition.
Take a major hub like LAX which is already segregated by groups of airlines across subsets of terminals. How many options do you have to choose from post-security for something as simple as burgers or pizza? Let alone something like pasta or something like Indian or Chinese food.
“We have both Panda Express and McDonalds” is not a sign of competition.
The businesses may not be illegally colluding: they may be all owned by the same entity as franchises
Is this the real saurik? :0
Yeah, Airport security is not useless, I'm not against it, but at the same time it's undeniable that the airport shopping industry can thank terrorist groups for justifying the existence of this absolutely inefficient system that keeps millions of people captive of their greediness..
It is useless, though. The shops after security sell plenty of stuff which you somehow aren't allowed to take through security. A quick Google search will show you plenty of ways to build weapons or explosives using solely duty-free items.
Not to mention that TSA over and over again fails their undercover inspections. In some cases 95% of weapons and explosives make it through TSA without any issues! Airport security literally is theater. At best it'll result in the terrorist attack being moved from the airplane to the security queue.
Not to mention that TSA over and over again fails their undercover inspections. In some cases 95% of weapons and explosives make it through TSA without any issues! Airport security literally is theater. At best it'll result in the terrorist attack being moved from the airplane to the security queue.
>At best it'll result in the terrorist attack being moved from the airplane to the security queue.
This has already happened; most terrorist attacks these days occur at malls and schoolhouses.
Same memetic infection to disrupt and destroy, same domestic hysterics, same feedback cycle. So it goes until the next big meme shift for the dissatisfied comes along.
>Not to mention that TSA over and over again fails their undercover inspections.
Every (mid-2000s) attacker that managed to get through the incompetent security was defeated by the best security force available: passengers that know that allowing their plane to be hijacked or threatened by a bomb means certain death for everyone on board should they stay in their seats and permit it.
This has already happened; most terrorist attacks these days occur at malls and schoolhouses.
Same memetic infection to disrupt and destroy, same domestic hysterics, same feedback cycle. So it goes until the next big meme shift for the dissatisfied comes along.
>Not to mention that TSA over and over again fails their undercover inspections.
Every (mid-2000s) attacker that managed to get through the incompetent security was defeated by the best security force available: passengers that know that allowing their plane to be hijacked or threatened by a bomb means certain death for everyone on board should they stay in their seats and permit it.
It’s not quite true that every attacker has been thwarted.
There have been a few cases where the pilot waited for the co-pilot to use the restroom, locked them out of the cockpit with the post-9/11 door, then intentionally crashed the plane.
All of these incidents were overseas. One was confirmed, and one or two more are suspected cases of pilot suicide.
There have been a few cases where the pilot waited for the co-pilot to use the restroom, locked them out of the cockpit with the post-9/11 door, then intentionally crashed the plane.
All of these incidents were overseas. One was confirmed, and one or two more are suspected cases of pilot suicide.
>It’s not quite true that every attacker has been thwarted.
When passengers have been able to intervene, they have defended their airplane 100% of the time.
When passengers have been prevented by regulatory means from defending themselves, they have failed to defend against a "trusted" figure turned attacker 100% of the time.
Sometimes the correct approach really is to do nothing.
When passengers have been able to intervene, they have defended their airplane 100% of the time.
When passengers have been prevented by regulatory means from defending themselves, they have failed to defend against a "trusted" figure turned attacker 100% of the time.
Sometimes the correct approach really is to do nothing.
I guess the security may level the playing field by discouraging attackers from taking more effective weapons.
Somewhat amazing that our solution to "idiot bum-rushing the cockpit and crashing the airplane" was to make it completely impossible to storm the cockpit in the circumstance where the idiot who wants to murder everyone is the pilot. Flawless logic, FAA.
That would be why the FAA has a rule that there must always be at least two people in the cockpit if the door is closed. In the US when a pilot needs the rest room a flight attended will take the pilots place (and usually leave the door open while watching it at that).
As the other person commented: instances of pilot suicides like this occurred outside the US, not under FAA justification.
As the other person commented: instances of pilot suicides like this occurred outside the US, not under FAA justification.
See, I told you the FAA had flawless logic. (Thank you for the correction!)
I agree- if I’m a terrorist and I can’t hijack a plane since the cockpit door is locked during flight (and bulletproof I believe), next best thing is probably “bomb in airport”. Why kill 100 people when you can kill or injure 1000? But of course you can do that without going through TSA. In that sense, as an airport patron, I’d rather have more bomb-sniffing dogs and armed police than TSA “agents” and cavity searches.
Also, why is it up to the airline to tell TSA whether I am enrolled in PreCheck or not? If it’s not on my boarding pass, I must not have PreCheck, huh? Department of Homeland Security isn’t really sure whether I have PreCheck or not.
Also, why is it up to the airline to tell TSA whether I am enrolled in PreCheck or not? If it’s not on my boarding pass, I must not have PreCheck, huh? Department of Homeland Security isn’t really sure whether I have PreCheck or not.
> At best it'll result in the terrorist attack being moved from the airplane to the security queue.
Isn't that an improvement? You can't fly a security queue into a skyscraper or a crowded arena.
Isn't that an improvement? You can't fly a security queue into a skyscraper or a crowded arena.
I would be curious to compare to the 90s though. I remember when I was younger, I'd sometimes just go to the airport back when you could just walk out to the gates, grab a snack and then watch the planes take off and land.
Obviously that's not a "normal" thing to have done, but in a world with lighter security, I remember airport food being around the same level as mall food court options, so it was an interesting option for getting out of the house. I'd be curious if there's some lower-security path towards making Airports more of a common space, not that there's any chance of it happening.
Obviously that's not a "normal" thing to have done, but in a world with lighter security, I remember airport food being around the same level as mall food court options, so it was an interesting option for getting out of the house. I'd be curious if there's some lower-security path towards making Airports more of a common space, not that there's any chance of it happening.
In the early 1990s I was very late for a flight. My friend dropped me off at the departure area; I got out of the car 5 minutes before departure time.
I ran through the airport to security, let them know what flight I was on, and then ran to the gate after walking through the metal detector fully clothed and sending my bag through x-ray. Security radioed the gate and the flight crew left the door open so I could board. I made it, took my seat and buckled in, they closed the door and the plane pushed back. Elapsed time car seat to plane seat was about 7 minutes. Every single person I interacted with was helpful and understanding.
What strikes me today is that EVERY SINGLE THING ABOUT FLYING SUCKS. Airports are just part of the problem.
I know this sounds extreme but they need to deregulate and privatize every single thing about the airline industry.
Government just needs to ensure that liability flows in part to executives and board members regardless of corporate structure.
Airlines can form a consortium to operate ATC themselves and can modernize it; something the government is completely failing at.
A modern ATC would let us break away from the hub model that gives airports so much power.
And your sandwich will be cheaper at an airport closer to your destination where you didn’t have to wait an hour for security to feel you up and take naked pictures of you.
I ran through the airport to security, let them know what flight I was on, and then ran to the gate after walking through the metal detector fully clothed and sending my bag through x-ray. Security radioed the gate and the flight crew left the door open so I could board. I made it, took my seat and buckled in, they closed the door and the plane pushed back. Elapsed time car seat to plane seat was about 7 minutes. Every single person I interacted with was helpful and understanding.
What strikes me today is that EVERY SINGLE THING ABOUT FLYING SUCKS. Airports are just part of the problem.
I know this sounds extreme but they need to deregulate and privatize every single thing about the airline industry.
Government just needs to ensure that liability flows in part to executives and board members regardless of corporate structure.
Airlines can form a consortium to operate ATC themselves and can modernize it; something the government is completely failing at.
A modern ATC would let us break away from the hub model that gives airports so much power.
And your sandwich will be cheaper at an airport closer to your destination where you didn’t have to wait an hour for security to feel you up and take naked pictures of you.
I don’t know where your faith that deregulating and privatizing would help the experience comes from. Here in Europe once they privatized parts of rail travel the experience got markedly worse. I moved to Europe about 20 years ago and it used to be much more of a pleasure taking trains with the EU (mostly talking about long range international trains within Central Europe) even not that long ago.
Specifically in Germany the experience seems to have only gotten worse (both with quality of service and punctuality).
Specifically in Germany the experience seems to have only gotten worse (both with quality of service and punctuality).
True. It's a false idea that privatisation improves anything. Most private good and services are better because of competition, not because of the ownership.
If privatisation means opening up a line of business to all comers, it's good. When it means a limited number of suppliers chosen by an authority, it's almost always worse.
If privatisation means opening up a line of business to all comers, it's good. When it means a limited number of suppliers chosen by an authority, it's almost always worse.
> If privatisation means opening up a line of business to all comers, it's good.
Not always. Often when this happens, it's just a race to the bottom.
Not always. Often when this happens, it's just a race to the bottom.
Partial privatization is often (always?) worse than no privatization.
Privatization works only because of market incentives. When you take away some of those incentives then you have the illusion of a free market but free market controls cannot encourage good outcomes.
Privatization works only because of market incentives. When you take away some of those incentives then you have the illusion of a free market but free market controls cannot encourage good outcomes.
>True. It's a false idea that privatisation improves anything. Most private good and services are better because of competition, not because of the ownership.
Absolutely. So let's have competition with multiple private contractors at every airport, paid by the number of passengers who choose to use a particular contractor to go through security.
That would solve every problem, as the market will optimize for maximum passenger satisfaction at security checkpoints, especially if they can get more people through faster.
What could go wrong? /s
Absolutely. So let's have competition with multiple private contractors at every airport, paid by the number of passengers who choose to use a particular contractor to go through security.
That would solve every problem, as the market will optimize for maximum passenger satisfaction at security checkpoints, especially if they can get more people through faster.
What could go wrong? /s
Privatisation has nothing to offer if there is no competition.
If there is no competition possible--and there are so many other situations apart from airport security--then a publicly owned provider is better. There _are_ some things that are a natural monopoly but if there must be a monopoly then it should be a government one.
A private monopoly is the worst of all worlds.
If there is no competition possible--and there are so many other situations apart from airport security--then a publicly owned provider is better. There _are_ some things that are a natural monopoly but if there must be a monopoly then it should be a government one.
A private monopoly is the worst of all worlds.
Poe's law[0] strikes again!
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
[deleted]
I know you’re being sarcastic but you’re inadvertently correct.
Very quickly “no security airlines” would go out of business as no one would want to risk their life needlessly, especially if the lack of security led to an incident.
However an airline that used nonintrusive, convenient methods for security, fmight find a loyal passenger following.
Very quickly “no security airlines” would go out of business as no one would want to risk their life needlessly, especially if the lack of security led to an incident.
However an airline that used nonintrusive, convenient methods for security, fmight find a loyal passenger following.
>I know you’re being sarcastic but you’re inadvertently correct.
I don't think so, as you seem to have misunderstood my "bright idea."
It's not airlines I was talking about. They'd have nothing to do with it. Just as they have zero to do with security checkpoint screening now. Rather, it's multiple, private replacements for TSA, each of which would serve all the airlines/gates at an airport.
What's more, even before the TSA existed, the airlines didn't do the screening. It was a private security contractor hired by the airport.
It's, as you correctly imply, all about incentives.
In my "scenario" these hypothetical "competitive private replacement" security screeners are paid by the numbers of bodies it passes through.
And so I'll ask my sarcastic question again. This time specifically to you:
What could possibly go wrong?
Edit: Clarified prose.
I don't think so, as you seem to have misunderstood my "bright idea."
It's not airlines I was talking about. They'd have nothing to do with it. Just as they have zero to do with security checkpoint screening now. Rather, it's multiple, private replacements for TSA, each of which would serve all the airlines/gates at an airport.
What's more, even before the TSA existed, the airlines didn't do the screening. It was a private security contractor hired by the airport.
It's, as you correctly imply, all about incentives.
In my "scenario" these hypothetical "competitive private replacement" security screeners are paid by the numbers of bodies it passes through.
And so I'll ask my sarcastic question again. This time specifically to you:
What could possibly go wrong?
Edit: Clarified prose.
[deleted]
FWIW, in the US an airport doesn't actually have to use the TSA: the government can't actually quite mandate a single vendor like that here; there thereby exist private companies that operate to the TSA specification, and an airport can go with one of them instead. The airport in San Francisco (SFO) is the only one I have ever seen do this, using a vendor named CAS... and while the experience is mandated to suck a lot, it still sucks a lot less than the TSA as the CAS employees seem to get that they are just security technicians, not officers of the state (a distinction the TSA people don't understand, but also applies to them: the police at the airport, for example, have lots of jurisdiction over them, as far as I understand).
I don’t understand though, why upon learning the government does something poorly the first reaction would be to replace it with private contractors rather than demand your government does better? Some things are public services and shouldn’t be profit motivated.
Because it's generally been borderline impossible to force a large national government to do something better. It's legitimately easier a lot of the time to force a multinational corporation to change than the government.
Since the TSA is generally a federally controlled agency, you'd have to elect a majority of the House/Senate/Executive to change policy there to make it better, and literally no one will run for those offices with even a minor part of their platform being improving the TSA. Even if they had a position you liked about airport security, would you be willing to look past a difference on something like gun laws or school funding or environmental issues to vote for someone who was going to make the TSA more effective? If your answer is no, that's why people have no real hope that the government would improve the TSA.
Since the TSA is generally a federally controlled agency, you'd have to elect a majority of the House/Senate/Executive to change policy there to make it better, and literally no one will run for those offices with even a minor part of their platform being improving the TSA. Even if they had a position you liked about airport security, would you be willing to look past a difference on something like gun laws or school funding or environmental issues to vote for someone who was going to make the TSA more effective? If your answer is no, that's why people have no real hope that the government would improve the TSA.
Which only tells you that the issues with TSA are not politicized (in general). Which is a good thing.
So any government should work on improving the process if enough people are complaining and there are objective improvements to be made.
We don't have to think about which party to vote for to ensure eg. the government cares about improving lives of their citizens: they should all do that!
So any government should work on improving the process if enough people are complaining and there are objective improvements to be made.
We don't have to think about which party to vote for to ensure eg. the government cares about improving lives of their citizens: they should all do that!
> Which only tells you that the issues with TSA are not politicized (in general). Which is a good thing.
Do you consider "fundamental to the system" better? I don't.
Do you consider "fundamental to the system" better? I don't.
No government employee will get fired for enforcing the status quo or coming up with a new regulation that seems to improve safety.
However there is huge career risk to reducing regulation, easing up on "safety" rules, etc. And anyone who does that will be attacked and if possible punished if anything goes wrong.
Literally there is no incentive for bureaucracies to do better.
However there is huge career risk to reducing regulation, easing up on "safety" rules, etc. And anyone who does that will be attacked and if possible punished if anything goes wrong.
Literally there is no incentive for bureaucracies to do better.
The problem is that such demands for a government that does better often go absolutely nowhere. As a result voters feel like it is easier to replace contractors than it is to replace politicians. Given the very high rate of incumbency, this isn’t entirely unfounded.
And what would you do to force SF to replace the private contractor they use for their airport if you end up not liking it? Your avenue is exactly the same as protesting against a public service.
If SF's contractor got caught killing a dude over bootleg smokes or kneeling on a guy until he died you can bet your ass they'd either be out or they'd be doing everything in their power to make people happy with them going forward.
Try that with a state sponsored security force.
Try that with a state sponsored security force.
But the article we're talking about isn't about homicide, but about much more pedestrian lack of efficiency and corruption (the price of airport food in NYC).
The government should do as little as possible. That they do a thing poorly is but one reason among many for them to lose the privilege of doing that thing.
> the government can't actually quite mandate a single vendor like that here; there thereby exist private companies that operate to the TSA specification, and an airport can go with one of them instead. The airport in San Francisco (SFO) is the only one I have ever seen do this, using a vendor named CAS
The following airports utilize the screening partner program: Atlantic City International Airport, Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport, Charles M. Schulz–Sonoma County Airport, Dawson Community Airport, Great Falls International Airport, Glacier Park International Airport, Greater Rochester International Airport, Havre City-County Airport, Jackson Hole Airport, Kansas City International Airport, L. M. Clayton Airport, Orlando Sanford International Airport, Portsmouth International Airport, Punta Gorda Airport, Roswell International Air Center, San Francisco International Airport, Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport, Sidney-Richland Municipal Airport, Sioux Falls Regional Airport, Tupelo Regional Airport, Wokal Field/Glasgow International Airport, Yellowstone Airport
The following airports utilize the screening partner program: Atlantic City International Airport, Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport, Charles M. Schulz–Sonoma County Airport, Dawson Community Airport, Great Falls International Airport, Glacier Park International Airport, Greater Rochester International Airport, Havre City-County Airport, Jackson Hole Airport, Kansas City International Airport, L. M. Clayton Airport, Orlando Sanford International Airport, Portsmouth International Airport, Punta Gorda Airport, Roswell International Air Center, San Francisco International Airport, Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport, Sidney-Richland Municipal Airport, Sioux Falls Regional Airport, Tupelo Regional Airport, Wokal Field/Glasgow International Airport, Yellowstone Airport
Inflation adjusted, I'd be seriously curious how much you paid for that flight. My general understanding is that a ton of the "flying used to be nice" anecdotes are because in the 90s and before, almost everyone was flying at a cost/service level that's essentially what first class is now.
So, yes, everything sucks more now, but it's also far more affordable, and part of how it became more affordable was that the mid to late 90s brought the first wave of budget airlines like Airtran that lowered service and legroom and the like but made it cheaper.
There's a common refrain about a lot of things - air travel and the internet most of all, that amount to "this thing was better when it was a luxury service for only the rich."
So, yes, everything sucks more now, but it's also far more affordable, and part of how it became more affordable was that the mid to late 90s brought the first wave of budget airlines like Airtran that lowered service and legroom and the like but made it cheaper.
There's a common refrain about a lot of things - air travel and the internet most of all, that amount to "this thing was better when it was a luxury service for only the rich."
Thats a fair point. I just flew to Europe for <$600 on a direct flight. Pretty sure that wasn’t even possible in the 90s, adjusted for inflation. Prices are definitely lower and more competitive. The experience has gotten somewhat worse though, unless you go through all the annoying hoops of TSA Pre/Global Entry/credit cards with Airport lounges etc etc
My first ever trip that I paid for myself was a round trip from NYC to Amsterdam in 2001, and I remember exactly how much I paid: $420
Southwest Airlines has existed since the 1967. Maybe flying is cheaper now inflation adjusted, but I was able to buy airline tickets as a college student in the late 90s/2000s.
> I know this sounds extreme but they need to deregulate and privatize every single thing about the airline industry
The massive deregulation that already happened is a very large part of why flying sucks. It's also a very large part of why it's cheap. You makes your choice and picks your poison.
The massive deregulation that already happened is a very large part of why flying sucks. It's also a very large part of why it's cheap. You makes your choice and picks your poison.
>> EVERY SINGLE THING ABOUT FLYING SUCKS
Except the eventual 1000 km / hour part
Except the eventual 1000 km / hour part
Flying out of ATL with TSA precheck takes all of about 1 minute.
This is complete bullshit from the delay of scale riding the “plane train” alone.
TSA precheck in ATL takes min 5 minutes on a good day.
Setting that aside again, airlines have now even taken the liberty of telling you “boarding doors close 5 minutes before departure and won’t be reopened”.
Travel today is so shitty you can’t even fathom what it could be.
TSA precheck in ATL takes min 5 minutes on a good day.
Setting that aside again, airlines have now even taken the liberty of telling you “boarding doors close 5 minutes before departure and won’t be reopened”.
Travel today is so shitty you can’t even fathom what it could be.
How is a plane supposed to depart on the departure time if the doors aren’t closed and checks aren’t done?
I wonder how many checks require the door to be closed?
> boarding doors close 5 minutes before departure
Err... 5 minutes is extremely generous. Emirates closes the gates 15 mins prior to departure; AirAsia, Qatar Airways, 20 mins; EasyJet 25 mins.
Err... 5 minutes is extremely generous. Emirates closes the gates 15 mins prior to departure; AirAsia, Qatar Airways, 20 mins; EasyJet 25 mins.
> What strikes me today is that EVERY SINGLE THING ABOUT FLYING SUCKS. Airports are just part of the problem.
And yet people keep flying. As long as the price is low enough there are enough customers who will endure the pain.
Things will change when more people stop flying.
And yet people keep flying. As long as the price is low enough there are enough customers who will endure the pain.
Things will change when more people stop flying.
because driving sucks even more
And even with high-speed rail, a lot of distances in the US would still be brutally slow, even with direct point-to-point rail.
At some point, trying to go from NYC to DC, let alone St. Louis or Atlanta, takes a pretty long time via non-plane methods. In some ways, the big innovation of plane travel is that for major cities, non-stop flights are an option, so it's hard to beat the speed of it. There's never going to be a viable non-stop train from, say, Miami to DC, but if it stops in Jacksonville, Atlanta, Greenville, Winston-Salem, and Richmond, then you've added hours to the trip time in stops/slowing down, which loses people as well who don't want to spend the whole day on a train.
There's a breakpoint around 4-5 hours where travel doesn't eat your full day, and there's only so many routes where you could get under that duration and still have enough volume of people to take it to make it worth running the route.
At some point, trying to go from NYC to DC, let alone St. Louis or Atlanta, takes a pretty long time via non-plane methods. In some ways, the big innovation of plane travel is that for major cities, non-stop flights are an option, so it's hard to beat the speed of it. There's never going to be a viable non-stop train from, say, Miami to DC, but if it stops in Jacksonville, Atlanta, Greenville, Winston-Salem, and Richmond, then you've added hours to the trip time in stops/slowing down, which loses people as well who don't want to spend the whole day on a train.
There's a breakpoint around 4-5 hours where travel doesn't eat your full day, and there's only so many routes where you could get under that duration and still have enough volume of people to take it to make it worth running the route.
I think driving is far superior to flying in every way except one: travel speed.
I prefer driving myself, but fatalities per traveler per mile are another way flying is far superior.
Yes, that's true. I forgot that because it doesn't top my personal list of important distinctions, but certainly plenty of others would feel differently.
Changi in Singapore is very much a common space, because the security is at the gate.
Changi is a stunning example of how beautiful an airport experience can be. I fly through there + Singapore airlines every chance I get. Perhaps a benevolent "dictatorship" can be beneficial.
A single dictator has never really been the problem. You can find dictators that do better than democracies throughout history (especially on long-term planning).
It's the transition of power that's the problem. Like, a real bad problem. Like raze half your country and set you back 50-100 years problem.
It's the transition of power that's the problem. Like, a real bad problem. Like raze half your country and set you back 50-100 years problem.
What kind of dictator are you talking about? Roman-style, where it could be time limited, or the modern version, of which there are many terrible examples before power transition becomes an issue?
The fact that there are terrible dictators does not invalidate the point that there are non-terrible dictators.
I think the GP's point was that even with "good" dictators, the problems come up when succession needs to happen, which is why "dictatorships" don't scale.
Democracy has a built-in mechanism to stop any bad thing from happening in a change of government, while ensuring that change happens often (at least in a good one).
I think the GP's point was that even with "good" dictators, the problems come up when succession needs to happen, which is why "dictatorships" don't scale.
Democracy has a built-in mechanism to stop any bad thing from happening in a change of government, while ensuring that change happens often (at least in a good one).
> What kind of dictator are you talking about?
A ruler with absolute political power.
> ...modern version, of which there are many terrible examples before power transition becomes an issue?
This actually reinforces my point. I never denied the existence of bad dictators (or even that the majority of dictators are bad, I think that's quite likely). This would make the power transition for a country that happened to get a good one significantly more dangerous.
A ruler with absolute political power.
> ...modern version, of which there are many terrible examples before power transition becomes an issue?
This actually reinforces my point. I never denied the existence of bad dictators (or even that the majority of dictators are bad, I think that's quite likely). This would make the power transition for a country that happened to get a good one significantly more dangerous.
> could be time limited
Roman dictators weren't like modern autocrats. They were officials, appointed for a limited time (usually no more than 6 months) to address some specific emergency. They weren't crooks who staged coups. And it doesn't seem to have been a desirable appointment to hold; dictators often stood down before the time-limit.
Roman dictators weren't like modern autocrats. They were officials, appointed for a limited time (usually no more than 6 months) to address some specific emergency. They weren't crooks who staged coups. And it doesn't seem to have been a desirable appointment to hold; dictators often stood down before the time-limit.
I mean your technically correct that dictators were supposed to give up thier absolute power and indeed some did. But there is definitely a reason the term has adopted it current meaning.
> It's the transition of power that's the problem.
That, and the lack of freedom, and the life you're subjected to when the dictator doesn't like you.
That, and the lack of freedom, and the life you're subjected to when the dictator doesn't like you.
“Benevolent” dictatorship
Not really. A boarding pass is required for airside access.
Exactly. Changi is no different than other airports - you can only access the ticketing and baggage arrival areas unless you have a boarding pass.
It does have a massive mall attached to the public area though (Jewel).
It does have a massive mall attached to the public area though (Jewel).
Yes but security is done at each individual gate which makes a massive difference. And the staff is nice and polite. I don't remember ever queing for anything at Changi and I've used it so much. It's about the only airport I don't hate these days.
Security at the individual gate is also done at Kuala Lumpur, Doha, and some others. I prefer the usual arrangement of a centralised security check. This stack exchange answer does a good job listing some of the advantages and disadvantages of security at the gate:
https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/34818/why-is-secu...
https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/34818/why-is-secu...
I think some of the space saving benefits are overstated. Baggage claim takes up a surprisingly large amount of space and you still need customs.
Security isn't done at the individual gate in Terminal 4 (newest terminal). And actually security screening at the gate is a pain in the ass. Once you're screened you're stuck in a room with no bathrooms (you need to leave and get rescreened). And if your flight changes gates (happened to me), you have to get rescreened all over again.
It is helpful in the sense that bottlenecks don't happen earlier on, but I'm not sure it's that great of an approach.
It is helpful in the sense that bottlenecks don't happen earlier on, but I'm not sure it's that great of an approach.
I got me a white bread sandwich with some shredded lettuce
And then I got me a ringside view for my quaint little fetish
I just wanna drain my little pink heart of all its malice
And kick back for the afternoon in this fluorescent palace
And then I got me a ringside view for my quaint little fetish
I just wanna drain my little pink heart of all its malice
And kick back for the afternoon in this fluorescent palace
> Yeah, Airport security is not useless
An airplane flight is practically a high-tech bus trip. Airport security probably is useless, otherwise there'd be an analogue for public transport. And as people regularly point out, the cost-benefit of airport security is probably net-negative. I bet almost nobody would choose a high-security airport over a low security airport if they had a choice.
An airplane flight is practically a high-tech bus trip. Airport security probably is useless, otherwise there'd be an analogue for public transport. And as people regularly point out, the cost-benefit of airport security is probably net-negative. I bet almost nobody would choose a high-security airport over a low security airport if they had a choice.
In terms of attacking the passengers of the craft, you can equate the two. In terms of attacking a building with the craft, there are significant differences. A plane can take down a huge building. A bus usually can't. A train definitely can't.
Although I do agree with your point that the risk there is different; a much easier control would be to have an emergency autopilot mode in the plane that the pilot can't disable. So if the plane gets hijacked ... it just flys its normal route. The hijacker's only options are to either kill everyone on board (same risk profile as a bus trip) or not (at which point they aren't effective hijackers).
Even if the plane just downed itself in an ocean in an emergency; that'd be technically not so hard to pull off. Enough to deter hijackers so the mechanism wouldn't need to be used.
Even if the plane just downed itself in an ocean in an emergency; that'd be technically not so hard to pull off. Enough to deter hijackers so the mechanism wouldn't need to be used.
In case of an attack, the bus driver can just stop the bus on the road, open the doors and let everyone run off the bus. Hard to do on a plane
> An airplane flight is practically a high-tech bus trip.
I think that mindset is mistaken, and explains many of the misconceptions around the dentist that was dragged of a United plane a while ago. However, that this mindset can persist shows just how amazingly successful aviation safety and security efforts have been over the past decades.
> Airport security probably is useless, otherwise there'd be an analogue for public transport.
It is much easier to kill everyone on a plane (and then some) than everyone on a bus or train, it seems to me.
I think that mindset is mistaken, and explains many of the misconceptions around the dentist that was dragged of a United plane a while ago. However, that this mindset can persist shows just how amazingly successful aviation safety and security efforts have been over the past decades.
> Airport security probably is useless, otherwise there'd be an analogue for public transport.
It is much easier to kill everyone on a plane (and then some) than everyone on a bus or train, it seems to me.
Realistically the days of planes being hijacked are over, barring severe incompetence or malice by the pilots. I think it’s easiest to kill everyone on a bus because the driver is accessible and unprotected. I agree with the “air bus” analogy. Heh. That’s a good name for a company.
They do have security in Canadian bus terminals who search you. And also in UK ferry terminals when going to Ireland.
I've travelled by ferry to both Northern and Southern Ireland several times and have only been searched once. This was on a work journey where it turned out my colleague had a criminal record. This was 10 - 12 years ago so perhaps things have changed since?
I have been routinely searched before boarding a ferry to Spain as a foot passenger. AFAIAA, car passengers are not routinely searched, so I don't know what the logic is there?
I have been routinely searched before boarding a ferry to Spain as a foot passenger. AFAIAA, car passengers are not routinely searched, so I don't know what the logic is there?
"Airport security is not useless"
While that's a pretty extreme statement, airport security's usefulness is definitely in question. Most other airports outside the US are significantly less strict (don't have to take off shoes, for instance), and there have been tons of youtube videos showing how you could easily slip in weapons of various sorts through airport security.
It's practically a meme about the fact that they throw out all "might-be-bomb" liquids into trashcans right next to you -- in the same receptacle.
It seems much more like security theatre, and maybe thanks to terrorist groups, but more thanks to sensationalist media + clever people who take advantage of the capitalistic system (one of the heads of the TSA just-so-happens to make the machines they use to scan your luggage, "private" business on the side that he gets paid for.)
In addition, TSA Precheck / Clear / Global Entry are all ways to pay to have less inconvenience -- but have you seen any statistics they've been able to give out about stopped terrorist attempts? Don't you think that would be a thing that would be promoted if it was happening?
While that's a pretty extreme statement, airport security's usefulness is definitely in question. Most other airports outside the US are significantly less strict (don't have to take off shoes, for instance), and there have been tons of youtube videos showing how you could easily slip in weapons of various sorts through airport security.
It's practically a meme about the fact that they throw out all "might-be-bomb" liquids into trashcans right next to you -- in the same receptacle.
It seems much more like security theatre, and maybe thanks to terrorist groups, but more thanks to sensationalist media + clever people who take advantage of the capitalistic system (one of the heads of the TSA just-so-happens to make the machines they use to scan your luggage, "private" business on the side that he gets paid for.)
In addition, TSA Precheck / Clear / Global Entry are all ways to pay to have less inconvenience -- but have you seen any statistics they've been able to give out about stopped terrorist attempts? Don't you think that would be a thing that would be promoted if it was happening?
Anecdotally, some of the worst/slowest/tedious airport security I have experience was outside the USA in recent years.
In the US, even if there _is_ a tedious process, at least everything feels efficient, and appear quite standardized.
In the US, even if there _is_ a tedious process, at least everything feels efficient, and appear quite standardized.
> even if there _is_ a tedious process, at least everything feels efficient
What does this actually mean?
What does this actually mean?
There’s no security officers sitting on their phones playing some game and chatting to each other, a common occurrence in SEA airports.
But I bet they have better bedside manners than TSA personnel.
I really feel for the TSA “agent” who has to just sit and make sure nobody goes the wrong way through the “exit only” corridor that leads out of the terminal.
I really feel for the TSA “agent” who has to just sit and make sure nobody goes the wrong way through the “exit only” corridor that leads out of the terminal.
I tend to agree. In the last ten years or so, the TSA operations have markedly improved. I’m saying this as someone who flew 80k-100kmi/yr for the last 15yr.
Once precheck became a thing, time to go through security is almost always less than 5m.
Once precheck became a thing, time to go through security is almost always less than 5m.
> thank terrorist groups for justifying the existence of this absolutely inefficient system
the terrorists have already won. They did more damage causing these security measures than any actual killing or bombing.
the terrorists have already won. They did more damage causing these security measures than any actual killing or bombing.
It’s not useless, but it doesn’t have to be as slow as it is. The government could hire 10x the number of agents to minimize lines without changing their budget by more than a rounding error, but they don’t care to.
It’s IMO worse than useless as terrorists can more easily kill people at the airport lines than destroying an aircraft. Holiday rush + luggage filled with even gunpowder and metal would make a huge statement that that everything we did was worse than useless.
I was honestly expecting exactly that kind of follow up attack for years.
I was honestly expecting exactly that kind of follow up attack for years.
The main purpose of airport security is not to prevent people from blowing up planes (although that’s an important secondary purpose) — it’s to prevent hijackings. Read about hijackings in the 60s before airport security; they were extremely common and disruptive.
Yes and no. Airport security showed up after US hijackings had already peaked, based on timing it seems the Federal Air Marshal Service service may have had a larger impact. The airport screenings are really an outgrowth of a Supreme Court case making such in depth screenings legal.
Also it was relatively frequent but not that serious in the late 1960’s. The first US fatality from aircraft high jacking didn’t occur until 1970.
Attacking airports has also happened multiple times including a 2002 incident in LA and even quite deadly attacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lod_Airport_massacre
Also it was relatively frequent but not that serious in the late 1960’s. The first US fatality from aircraft high jacking didn’t occur until 1970.
Attacking airports has also happened multiple times including a 2002 incident in LA and even quite deadly attacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lod_Airport_massacre
why is a hijacking worse?
You can fly the plane into a building and kill thousands of people (source: 9/11)
As opposed to killing hundreds.
As opposed to killing hundreds.
9/11 probably killed millions of people if you consider the destabilizing effect on geopolitics.
But can you really? The pilot doors are now locked from the inside and impenetrable.
That's a fair question, but I was answering why hijacking is worse, which implies that a hijacking can happen.
I'm not saying that the current TSA theater is the most efficient way to stop hijackings.
I'm not saying that the current TSA theater is the most efficient way to stop hijackings.
[deleted]
Why would they spend more money to make it faster when they can just charge people for the faster precheck line?
> he government could hire 10x the number of agents to minimize lines without changing their budget by more than a rounding error, but they don’t care to.
Don't be ridiculous. At every airport and terminal??
And then how many extra people standing around doing nothing when it is a quiet period??
Don't be ridiculous. At every airport and terminal??
And then how many extra people standing around doing nothing when it is a quiet period??
Roughly 10x as many as are standing around doing nothing now. Take a look at security from the raised view provided at Denver International. You’ll see at any given time roughly 1/2 the agents standing around chatting with one another.
counter-strike voice "Terrorists win."
Ironically, restaurants are the go-to source of steak knives past security.
Or you know, instead of the strawmen, the airport security system could be much more efficient.
Not sure how, without heavily stepping even more on people's privacy and liberty. And I'm not talking about terrorists, but drug smugglers.
But not all goods.
If you need something to eat in an airport, there’s a bunch of snack options you can bring in. It’s not a movie theater. I’ve brought in Nuts, sandwiches, home baked bread wrapped in tinfoil. TSA just doesn’t want you bringing in the liquids. Am I going to get a warm meal with a drink on the side? No. Will I be full? Yes. Will is save $15. Yes. Will it take some planning and prep work? Yes.
If you need something to eat in an airport, there’s a bunch of snack options you can bring in. It’s not a movie theater. I’ve brought in Nuts, sandwiches, home baked bread wrapped in tinfoil. TSA just doesn’t want you bringing in the liquids. Am I going to get a warm meal with a drink on the side? No. Will I be full? Yes. Will is save $15. Yes. Will it take some planning and prep work? Yes.
Absolutely. I always buffer my time to the airport so I can stop off somewhere like a Whole Foods and load up on some food prior to the flight. Salad bar is typically my go-to.
A. It’s less expensive
B. It tastes 100% better
A. It’s less expensive
B. It tastes 100% better
You know that the system is screwed up when you can hold up the Whole Foods salad bar, as being the bargain option!
I’ve found the dine-in restaurant options at EWR to be of reasonable quality, at least pre-pandemic. The food court areas are very hit or miss, even with the price gouging.
I’ve found the dine-in restaurant options at EWR to be of reasonable quality, at least pre-pandemic. The food court areas are very hit or miss, even with the price gouging.
In London the have abolished the rule on liquids now:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65163418
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65163418
I have a bunch of 100 ml bottles (with "0.1 liter" stamped in the bottom). You can fit about 5 or 6 of those in a 1 liter plastic bag.
That is enough to keep you hydrated and getting a drink while traveling.
That is enough to keep you hydrated and getting a drink while traveling.
They will even allow liquids in small containers. I've taken a bag full of nips on plenty of flights.
Even in the before times I didn't really leave airside. There was so rarely something worthwhile trekking to within the time I had available to me, that it wasn't worth it. Yes, the TSA security theater makes this worse, but I have very few layovers where *that* is the make or break reason I don't leave airside.
You are allowed to bring food in your carryon just not liquids.
And isn’t the “waiting two hours an exaggeration”?
I flew out of MCO (Orlando) around spring break and while it was hectic, it wasn’t that bad just looking at the line. Of course I fly enough that having Clear and TSA pre-check makes sense.
I flew out of Atlanta - the busiest airport in the US for years and it didn’t take me that long to get through TSA even without PreCheck
And isn’t the “waiting two hours an exaggeration”?
I flew out of MCO (Orlando) around spring break and while it was hectic, it wasn’t that bad just looking at the line. Of course I fly enough that having Clear and TSA pre-check makes sense.
I flew out of Atlanta - the busiest airport in the US for years and it didn’t take me that long to get through TSA even without PreCheck
Atlanta is my home airport, and I can assure you that two hours worst case may be on the short side.
Without going back and forth with anecdotes. This is data
https://www.ifly.com/hartsfield-jackson-atlanta-internationa...
https://www.ifly.com/hartsfield-jackson-atlanta-internationa...
It took me 90 minutes to get through TSA in LAX recently. It split into two lines and the side I chose was moving sooo slowly compared to the other line. The person checking ID's was making small talk with every single person before letting them move along.
Briefly chatting with someone is a good way to pick up on whether they're relaxed and behaving normally or tense and secretive. It's probably a far more useful security measure than checking shoes or limiting liquids.
MCO can and does get very congested. Your one-off anecdotal experience is not representative, I promise you. That said, they are kind of addressing the congestion with that new terminal.
Again we have data
https://www.ifly.com/orlando-international-airport/wait-time...
https://www.ifly.com/orlando-international-airport/wait-time...
I realize data is somewhat open to interpretation... to me, seeing a ~30 min wait in the middle of April is a bad omen. I think we should also consider that most airports are probably not congested outside of certain "rush hours". So what does it mean to be congested? What's the benchmark we're aiming for?
What do you consider rush hour? The website I cited lets you choose a time.
Well myself personally, I fly enough that it makes sense to have TSA PreCheck and Clear. But I wanted to find more relevant data than my anecdote - ie a few people in the Clear line and skipping to the front of TSA.
Well myself personally, I fly enough that it makes sense to have TSA PreCheck and Clear. But I wanted to find more relevant data than my anecdote - ie a few people in the Clear line and skipping to the front of TSA.
I want to use this website to see what it thinks MCO was like when I was there last, because I suspect it will say it wasn't as congested as it was, but it doesn't seem to let me see historical data. How are you seeing historical data?
> people are prohibited from bringing many goods through security
That's true, but sandwiches are not among them.
That's true, but sandwiches are not among them.
What if you have more than 100mL of Mayo on it?
Then I think you should take a hard look at your dietary choices. ;-)
>What if you have more than 100mL of Mayo on it?
True story. My FIL tried to bring a jar of mayo through security and they made him throw it away.
True story. My FIL tried to bring a jar of mayo through security and they made him throw it away.
As they should
You actually only have 10ml of mayo but it isn't in a 100ml container. You will need to throw out the sandwich.
Next time consider bringing all liquid condiments in separate 100ml containers and applying them to your sandwich after security theater.
Next time consider bringing all liquid condiments in separate 100ml containers and applying them to your sandwich after security theater.
Most of the fast food options inside the airport will give you free condiments, or there may even be a station where you can just grab mayo after getting through security
Today I saw someone get their food checked, there was a small cup of liquid cheese that was not allowed through, except it was fine once she poured it on a hot dog.
Then you should be detained as a threat to national security.
Deservingly so for committing such an atrocity. Should also check your coronaries.
OP you are allowed to bring solid foods without restriction but are still limited to 100cc for liquid/salsa/sauce even if it's sandwiched. Practically it is not strictly enforced if your sandwich looks edible, I've never had my pulled pork sandwiches analyzed.
OP you are allowed to bring solid foods without restriction but are still limited to 100cc for liquid/salsa/sauce even if it's sandwiched. Practically it is not strictly enforced if your sandwich looks edible, I've never had my pulled pork sandwiches analyzed.
At least in US airports, not only must all the liquids, gels, and aerosols be within 100ml containers, but these 100ml containers must all themselves be contained in a single clear zip-top plastic bag per passenger of no more than 1 liter in volume.
So, technically, TSA is not being maximally strict in enforcing their rules when they allow any sandwich containing even tiny amounts of liquids like olive oil or gels like mayonnaise to enter outside the single 1 liter bag per person that also contains their shampoo and toothpaste. No, I don’t expect TSA ever to enforce this maximally strict interpretation, but that is how the rule is worded.
By contrast, some foreign airports that mention the 100ml rule make no mention of the single 1 liter (using the non-US spelling of liter) maximum enclosing container volume per passenger, let alone the requirements for the enclosing container to be a clear, zip-top, plastic bag. So this particular absurd pedantry about an absurdly worded rule that’s designed for TSA to keep you guessing on each screening about with how much leniency they choose to grace you that time does not apply to most foreign airports.
So, technically, TSA is not being maximally strict in enforcing their rules when they allow any sandwich containing even tiny amounts of liquids like olive oil or gels like mayonnaise to enter outside the single 1 liter bag per person that also contains their shampoo and toothpaste. No, I don’t expect TSA ever to enforce this maximally strict interpretation, but that is how the rule is worded.
By contrast, some foreign airports that mention the 100ml rule make no mention of the single 1 liter (using the non-US spelling of liter) maximum enclosing container volume per passenger, let alone the requirements for the enclosing container to be a clear, zip-top, plastic bag. So this particular absurd pedantry about an absurdly worded rule that’s designed for TSA to keep you guessing on each screening about with how much leniency they choose to grace you that time does not apply to most foreign airports.
>At least in US airports, not only must all the liquids, gels, and aerosols be within 100ml containers, but these 100ml containers must all themselves be contained in a single clear zip-top plastic bag per passenger of no more than 1 liter in volume.
That's the theory. In practice, enforcement of the zip-top plastic bag rule is next to non-existent.
That's the theory. In practice, enforcement of the zip-top plastic bag rule is next to non-existent.
Until the powertripping TSA person decides that your sandwich has too much mayo, which is a liquid...
How often does this happen? I fly hundreds of times. I usually opt out which deviates from SOP. I’ve legitimately never experienced a power tripping TSA agent.
It’s usually a big production to get from the terminal to the nearest building that’s not airport property. Especially with hand luggage. Even if you could waltz in and out, I don’t see it.
Best part is when TSA confiscates any liquids and then you are thirsty while waiting for the flights :)
Why not sell fresh squeezed juices right as people get out of the security?
Why not sell fresh squeezed juices right as people get out of the security?
I always drink the liquid, bring the empty container through, and then fill it up at the water fountains.
Is water allowed if it’s frozen?
There was a lady who tried that, bringing a bottle of frozen water and claiming that ice is not a liquid. I don't remember if she was allowed through or not, but looking it up, apparently it works now:
> Frozen liquid items are allowed through the checkpoint as long as they are frozen solid when presented for screening. If frozen liquid items are partially melted, slushy, or have any liquid at the bottom of the container, they must meet 3-1-1 liquids requirements.
https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/whatcanibring/...
> Frozen liquid items are allowed through the checkpoint as long as they are frozen solid when presented for screening. If frozen liquid items are partially melted, slushy, or have any liquid at the bottom of the container, they must meet 3-1-1 liquids requirements.
https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/whatcanibring/...
I’m not sure how making a bomb out of liquids works, but could you not just freeze all the necessary liquids and then hit them with the hand dryer in the bathroom?
Regulatory capture in one of the most literal senses.
I am looking forward to widely available personal EVTOL aircraft. Unless the TSA sometimes makes it into there and ruins that too
> Who could ever define that?
The Port Authority:
"based on the average of three lowest prices for Comparable Products at the approved Comparable Concession Locations"
Per this definition from the specification, they were required to go out see what prices "comparable concession locations" charge for a turkey san, take the three lowest prices from that search, add them together, then divide by 3.
There are parts of the SVG spec that aren't this well specified.
> That's the whole point, that easy comparables don't exist, and when a journalist tries to use a FOIA request to get at the comparables, they're stonewalled.
If that were true there would have been no reason to stonewall. Just release the three prices and the names of the vendors used, and watch NYC argue endlessly over the details of "comparable" turkey san vendors.
But with the stonewalling this sounds a lot more like, "Let's just charge $14.99 and call it a day," and then forget about it-- because who in their right mind would ever do a Woodward&Bernstein on a goddamm' turkey san price at the airport?
And then Christopher Robbins over here is like, "JFK airport, fuck ya' life, that's who!"
Edit: clarifications
The Port Authority:
"based on the average of three lowest prices for Comparable Products at the approved Comparable Concession Locations"
Per this definition from the specification, they were required to go out see what prices "comparable concession locations" charge for a turkey san, take the three lowest prices from that search, add them together, then divide by 3.
There are parts of the SVG spec that aren't this well specified.
> That's the whole point, that easy comparables don't exist, and when a journalist tries to use a FOIA request to get at the comparables, they're stonewalled.
If that were true there would have been no reason to stonewall. Just release the three prices and the names of the vendors used, and watch NYC argue endlessly over the details of "comparable" turkey san vendors.
But with the stonewalling this sounds a lot more like, "Let's just charge $14.99 and call it a day," and then forget about it-- because who in their right mind would ever do a Woodward&Bernstein on a goddamm' turkey san price at the airport?
And then Christopher Robbins over here is like, "JFK airport, fuck ya' life, that's who!"
Edit: clarifications
> If that were true there would have been no reason to stonewall. Just release the three prices and the names of the vendors used
I think you’ll find that the list includes things like “Airport stand A”, “Airport stand B” and “Airport stand C”
I think you’ll find that the list includes things like “Airport stand A”, “Airport stand B” and “Airport stand C”
> The airport is trying to insist it's preventing jacked-up prices, when in reality it's the airport charging rent that generates those jacked-up prices in the first place, and it tries to pretend like it plays no part. Evil, but clever.
The same situation applies to the rest of the economy - people celebrate their house going up in value, without realising that your plumber and coffee will also go up in price, because the plumber's and the barista's rent has just gone up! Even if you never have to buy a house, rising house prices mean that every service around you becomes more expensive because they've got to pay rent.
Industry didn't just move out because western workers want too much money, they moved out because western landlords want too much money.
The same situation applies to the rest of the economy - people celebrate their house going up in value, without realising that your plumber and coffee will also go up in price, because the plumber's and the barista's rent has just gone up! Even if you never have to buy a house, rising house prices mean that every service around you becomes more expensive because they've got to pay rent.
Industry didn't just move out because western workers want too much money, they moved out because western landlords want too much money.
I would say another reason the sandwiches cost so much is because so many remain unsold.
You have to start with the assumption that things like this are only intended for the very well-heeled to begin with, particularly in this price range where the difference between about $2 and $20 is not actually significant to the buyer.
It is well-known that most travelers are not in this catagory, and plenty of millionaires will not ever spend close to $20 at the high end for something recognized as worth $2 at the low end. Even if they could do it without any financial pain.
Sometimes that's how they got to be millionaires anyway.
Anyway, you've got to have more than enough sandwiches for every one of the real high-rollers who might be passing through that day, you would never want to have less than enough.
Plus every now and then someone else will get hungry enough to bite.
There's no intention for there to be alternative choices which are more economical.
So a lot of the sandwiches are going to go to waste.
So they need to be able to afford to make enough to waste most of them.
Which could only result in spiraling costs.
Overpriced lower-quality outcomes follow greed in a self-fulfilling way when you do the math, but when all benefit is directed only to the greedy party, it does no-one any good since they are not capable of being fulfilled.
Apply this to so many other parts of the economy, and look what we have.
More greed and more waste to go with it, and ordinary workers can't afford what they once could.
You have to start with the assumption that things like this are only intended for the very well-heeled to begin with, particularly in this price range where the difference between about $2 and $20 is not actually significant to the buyer.
It is well-known that most travelers are not in this catagory, and plenty of millionaires will not ever spend close to $20 at the high end for something recognized as worth $2 at the low end. Even if they could do it without any financial pain.
Sometimes that's how they got to be millionaires anyway.
Anyway, you've got to have more than enough sandwiches for every one of the real high-rollers who might be passing through that day, you would never want to have less than enough.
Plus every now and then someone else will get hungry enough to bite.
There's no intention for there to be alternative choices which are more economical.
So a lot of the sandwiches are going to go to waste.
So they need to be able to afford to make enough to waste most of them.
Which could only result in spiraling costs.
Overpriced lower-quality outcomes follow greed in a self-fulfilling way when you do the math, but when all benefit is directed only to the greedy party, it does no-one any good since they are not capable of being fulfilled.
Apply this to so many other parts of the economy, and look what we have.
More greed and more waste to go with it, and ordinary workers can't afford what they once could.
> airports need to make money
Let's start with this presumption: do they really? Are they privately held? Why? Were they built with private money or public money? Isn't the purpose of airports to facilitate access to the local economy, thus benefitting local businesses, and should thus be funded from general tax revenue?
Like so much in the US, payment is demanded for anything of remotely private benefit, even if the majority of the benefit is to the commons. Take TSA Pre-Check, or Global Entry as an example. In other countries, these programs (electronic entry) are the default for all citizens, provided for free, because they make airport operations more efficient as a whole, which means the airport can service more people, more efficiently. But in the US, it saves the individual a few minutes, so be prepared to pay a yearly fee for the privilege!
It's precisely for reasons like $15 turkey sandwiches that New York airports are to be avoided (i.e. as stopovers). Treating the traveling public as feudal serfs is practically the definition of mismanagement.
Let's start with this presumption: do they really? Are they privately held? Why? Were they built with private money or public money? Isn't the purpose of airports to facilitate access to the local economy, thus benefitting local businesses, and should thus be funded from general tax revenue?
Like so much in the US, payment is demanded for anything of remotely private benefit, even if the majority of the benefit is to the commons. Take TSA Pre-Check, or Global Entry as an example. In other countries, these programs (electronic entry) are the default for all citizens, provided for free, because they make airport operations more efficient as a whole, which means the airport can service more people, more efficiently. But in the US, it saves the individual a few minutes, so be prepared to pay a yearly fee for the privilege!
It's precisely for reasons like $15 turkey sandwiches that New York airports are to be avoided (i.e. as stopovers). Treating the traveling public as feudal serfs is practically the definition of mismanagement.
Do cheap tickets actually impact airport revenue? My understanding is that airlines pay a set price per takeoff and landing. So airports should generate constant revenue regardless of fluctuation in ticket prices.
Yes, at least in Europe. Ryanair is infamous for pushing a very hard bargain with airports, but it's common with all the low-cost airlines.
Part of the airport's willingness to give Ryanair a discount is the expectation of full planes with a lot of seats, so there are more people to sell to.
e.g. [1] Table 6, Warsaw Modlin airport charges Ryanair 6 PLN (€1.30) per passenger, vs the normal 40 PLN (€8.50). That's obviously significant when they sell flights for €15 or so.
[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317710545_Internati...
Part of the airport's willingness to give Ryanair a discount is the expectation of full planes with a lot of seats, so there are more people to sell to.
e.g. [1] Table 6, Warsaw Modlin airport charges Ryanair 6 PLN (€1.30) per passenger, vs the normal 40 PLN (€8.50). That's obviously significant when they sell flights for €15 or so.
[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317710545_Internati...
Modlin airport is miserable. Shouldn't even have "Warsaw" in the name, as it's nowhere near. To get to Warsaw, you have to take a bus first, then switch to a local train.
I wish airports didn't do that and Ryanair had to close down. One can only dream.
Is your complaint with that airline or with budget airlines in general? I'm old enough to remember when a 1 hour flight in Europe would still have hot drinks and snacks served included in the ticket price, but I don't really need that for short haul and I'm glad to pay less for a ticket.
I was talking about Ryanair specifically, have nothing against low cost. Ryanair lures you with low prices and then applies abusive policies on everything else.
Second order effects of higher airline fees would include airlines running less flights as people choose alternative options when facing higher passthrough pricing (tax by another name). This impacts airport profits.
I think there are still savings to be made by low cost airlines in e.g. boarding passengers from the gate by bus to a remote location vs using a jetbridge.
Is that per seat or per plane? Seats have been getting packed closer together.
any airport that actually cares will adapt a policy like PDX's street pricing, and then actually furnish the airport with places that exist out in the real world--not just these weird airport-only chains (who tf is wolfgang puck) or one-offs (e.g. "TrendyNeighbourhood Burger," "TouristDistrict Tavern")
I guess a really nice, mall-like airport with amenities you don't want to use (because they're too expensive) is still slightly better than a smaller airport whose amenities you don't use (because they don't exist). At least you have an option, though it doesn't stop it from being annoying.
Sidenote, maybe LAX needs $15 sandos if it means they can afford to unshit their airport.
I guess a really nice, mall-like airport with amenities you don't want to use (because they're too expensive) is still slightly better than a smaller airport whose amenities you don't use (because they don't exist). At least you have an option, though it doesn't stop it from being annoying.
Sidenote, maybe LAX needs $15 sandos if it means they can afford to unshit their airport.
who tf is wolfgang puck
Just a guy who's got three Michelin starred restaurants.
Indeed. But of course none of them are in airports.
> actually furnish the airport with places that exist out in the real world
I clearly remember a Burger King in one of Moscow airports, probably DME. It is a regular Burger King serving everything one would expect, except the 1.5x prices.
I clearly remember a Burger King in one of Moscow airports, probably DME. It is a regular Burger King serving everything one would expect, except the 1.5x prices.
In Australia most of the airports have Macca's or KFC selling at street prices. I think that sets precedent for the other food outlets to not price gouge.
There is a Wendy's in the Vegas airport. It's conveniently located next to a bar
There is a Burger King in sfo. But yea more pricey
Unfortunately, LAX already does have $15 pre-packaged turkey sandwiches in Terminal 5. Thankfully, there’s a chick-fil-A and Einstein’s in brand-new Terminal 1 with reasonable prices. This motivates me to fly southwest more often.
Haven't seen airport-only chains in Europe, do they exist here?
In Stockholm (Arlanda) there is standard McDonald's (among other chains) in the terminal.
In Stockholm (Arlanda) there is standard McDonald's (among other chains) in the terminal.
Not aware of an airport-only chain there either, but European airports night not need them since they tend to funnel you through massive duty-free shopping malls. It will forever be a mystery to be who buys all that shit and keeps these stores in business. A bottle of liquor would need to be at a ridiculous price for me to deal with the hassle of transporting it back from an international trip.
Ha, you should watch slavic tourists in those duty frees (source: l’m slav) - a bottle of any above-cheap imported alcohol might be 10$+ cheaper there, nice cologne would save you even more and has higher chance of not being a knockoff from Asia. When they have a chance to save few dozen bucks - they do and I don’t see what’s bad about it, maybe apart from overflows in baggage compartments. I imagine folks like Swedes with alcohol monopoly and pretty fly taxes on alco would understand this too
I often buy local alcohol in the airport (instead of having to take a checked-in luggage).
Chinese tourists are probably the #1 customers. The most savvy stores will have Mandarin-speaking staff!
In Houston, they have a single city contractor operate all the concessions under the different branded establishments at each airport.
It's the biggest-ticket way to do it, therefore it should provide the biggest bonus for some individual. Maybe even more than one individual could be intended to share the glory.
The long-time franchisee was a very well-established & respected Houston-based restaurant corp that came in a decade ago on their strength of multiple local restaurants of various cuisines which were popular, successful, and affordable for at least occasional dining for most Houstonians.
This could not hold up, recently dethroned by a nationwide airport-centric conractor with a deal crafted to compete on purely financial terms.
related:
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/houston/article/ho...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/pappas-sues-houston-over-h...
Firm that prevailed:
https://us.areas.com/
>With an operating presence in 12 countries throughout Europe and the Americas, Areas offers a very broad range of food services designed to meet the expectations of both travelers and landlords in airports, highway service plazas and railway stations.
Doesn't appear they would ever expect to prosper from non-captive food service.
I can only imagine some of the councilmembers who voted in favor of the change could reason that sandwiches already cost $15 so they might as well take a bigger cut of that themselves.
It's the biggest-ticket way to do it, therefore it should provide the biggest bonus for some individual. Maybe even more than one individual could be intended to share the glory.
The long-time franchisee was a very well-established & respected Houston-based restaurant corp that came in a decade ago on their strength of multiple local restaurants of various cuisines which were popular, successful, and affordable for at least occasional dining for most Houstonians.
This could not hold up, recently dethroned by a nationwide airport-centric conractor with a deal crafted to compete on purely financial terms.
related:
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/houston/article/ho...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/pappas-sues-houston-over-h...
Firm that prevailed:
https://us.areas.com/
>With an operating presence in 12 countries throughout Europe and the Americas, Areas offers a very broad range of food services designed to meet the expectations of both travelers and landlords in airports, highway service plazas and railway stations.
Doesn't appear they would ever expect to prosper from non-captive food service.
I can only imagine some of the councilmembers who voted in favor of the change could reason that sandwiches already cost $15 so they might as well take a bigger cut of that themselves.
My spouse and I met in Portland and lived there for almost a decade. Every once in awhile we get a craving for Burgerville and haha-only-serious joke about flying to PDX and back with just enough time to eat at the airside location.
Thus far we have suppressed the urge.
Thus far we have suppressed the urge.
> But at the same time, there's public outcry over the absurd pricing, so the airport has to mollify lawmakers by insisting it'll come up with a policy where they won't charge more than 10% for what would be comparable in Midtown.
My related take in this is that airports are expensive to maintain because you waste a ton of space on vendors and seating areas. If airports were just shacks next to a runway, they’d be much cheaper to run.
So you can’t really charge people for sitting/waiting (though the private clubs sort of do just that). Then you charge people for the other purpose (rent on vendors) and that pays for everything.
But you can’t tell your customers “it’s actually really expensive to build these giant buildings to just hold CIBOs and Dufry” since they won’t believe you (or worse call for smaller more efficient airports to be built with fewer services).
So you just sort of play this very bizarre merchandising game.
My related take in this is that airports are expensive to maintain because you waste a ton of space on vendors and seating areas. If airports were just shacks next to a runway, they’d be much cheaper to run.
So you can’t really charge people for sitting/waiting (though the private clubs sort of do just that). Then you charge people for the other purpose (rent on vendors) and that pays for everything.
But you can’t tell your customers “it’s actually really expensive to build these giant buildings to just hold CIBOs and Dufry” since they won’t believe you (or worse call for smaller more efficient airports to be built with fewer services).
So you just sort of play this very bizarre merchandising game.
> If airports were just shacks next to a runway, they’d be much cheaper to run.
Flew Ryan air once to, I think it was some airport nearish to Venice, Italy. And it was pretty much a shack next to the runway. Walk down the steps off the plane into a small building, notice a conveyor belt. Walk through the next door, pick your luggage off the same conveyor belt. Walk through the next door, you're at the bus stop.
Flew Ryan air once to, I think it was some airport nearish to Venice, Italy. And it was pretty much a shack next to the runway. Walk down the steps off the plane into a small building, notice a conveyor belt. Walk through the next door, pick your luggage off the same conveyor belt. Walk through the next door, you're at the bus stop.
> My related take in this is that airports are expensive to maintain because you waste a ton of space on vendors and seating areas. If airports were just shacks next to a runway, they’d be much cheaper to run.
That was literally Berlin airport, before it sadly closed.
That was literally Berlin airport, before it sadly closed.
Airports are pretty expensive. To run and build. Managing and up keeping massive land area isn't cheap. And the buildings themselves are also big and have quite a lot of staff and specialised stuff going around.
In UK we have a very clever system - The taxpayer builds all the airports. We wait and see which ones turn out to have large demand and reliable revenues.
Then we privatise large international airports..
Meanwhile the smaller loss-making airports stay in public ownership because no-one wants to buy them.
Then we privatise large international airports..
Meanwhile the smaller loss-making airports stay in public ownership because no-one wants to buy them.
Make three people rich while making the government look bad at the same time. Brilliant
Your average international airport staffs tens of thousands of people.
How much profit do airports report?
My local example would be ~3% dividends for Auckland Airport, which is a premier airport within NZ (Wellington and Christchurch get fewer international flights). I don’t think they have done any share buybacks in the last decade.
https://www.google.com/finance/quote/AIA:ASX?window=MAX
Auckland International Airport Ltd (AIAL) was floated on the (Australian) Stock Exchange in Feb-1999, making it one of the first gateway airports globally to be listed publicly. [Auckland city council has reduced its ownership] to the current 18%
https://www.google.com/finance/quote/AIA:ASX?window=MAX
How is a system that enables cheap airline tickets for everyone by selling expensive sandwiches to people who can afford it evil?
It's luring people into flying more than they should (which is polluting), and then trying to make up the difference by trapping those people in an area where they can only by ridiculously overpriced stuff.
The right thing to do would be more expensive airline tickets that account for the total cost of flying (including the pollution they cause) and then charging an honest price for the sandwiches.
I mean, this sandwich costs almost as much as some airline tickets.
The right thing to do would be more expensive airline tickets that account for the total cost of flying (including the pollution they cause) and then charging an honest price for the sandwiches.
I mean, this sandwich costs almost as much as some airline tickets.
The sandwich costs more than many airline tickets in the EU.
For example Brussels -> Vienna for 13 euros and it runs weekly.
https://www.google.com/travel/flights/s/KLAA2UnyrkmuH8Kv7
For example Brussels -> Vienna for 13 euros and it runs weekly.
https://www.google.com/travel/flights/s/KLAA2UnyrkmuH8Kv7
This is wildly misleading. And, it is a one way ticket and does not even allow a carry-on. Google flights tells me:
Ryanair allows passengers to board with 1 small item, such as a purse or laptop bag.
> flying more than they should
How do you know how much they should fly?
Our society uses the price system to allocate those transportation resources. The price already factors in alternatives and discourages the activity relative to its burden on society.
How do you know how much they should fly?
Our society uses the price system to allocate those transportation resources. The price already factors in alternatives and discourages the activity relative to its burden on society.
> How do you know how much they should fly?
When it doesn't hurt society through its externalities (noise, pollution).
> The price already factors in alternatives and discourages the activity relative to its burden on society.
Not really. It doesn't kerosene isn't taxed like other fuels in many places. The pollution isn't cleaned up. Ticket prices are ridiculously low and have been widely advertised to encourage people to fly more.
When it doesn't hurt society through its externalities (noise, pollution).
> The price already factors in alternatives and discourages the activity relative to its burden on society.
Not really. It doesn't kerosene isn't taxed like other fuels in many places. The pollution isn't cleaned up. Ticket prices are ridiculously low and have been widely advertised to encourage people to fly more.
There are already many taxes on all kinds of fuel for that reason.
It sounds like your real complaint is that the ticket should be taxed more, but I'd guess that your opinion extends to other kinds of transportation as well.
It sounds like your real complaint is that the ticket should be taxed more, but I'd guess that your opinion extends to other kinds of transportation as well.
My complaint consists of many parts. I want externalities like pollution to be accounted for, but I also don't the bait-and-switch business practice of loss leaders where you're drawn with with a low price for the thing you want, and then struck with lots of additional costs that are plainly unreasonable. I want them to charge a fair price for every individual part.
But nobody is popping into an airport for a quick sandwich and then leaving the airport. The cost to the average passenger is the same.
At the end of the day you're just arguing that there should be a carbon tax on flights
At the end of the day you're just arguing that there should be a carbon tax on flights
Hey just bring your own food! Oh wait, I guess you can't thanks to security theatre. Guess you'll starve or fork over $15 for a shitty sandwich
Too bad we can't have nice trains. I mean Amtrak is okay but it doesn't even compare to the rail systems in other countries. Guess we're stuck polluting too. Thanks, Elon
Too bad we can't have nice trains. I mean Amtrak is okay but it doesn't even compare to the rail systems in other countries. Guess we're stuck polluting too. Thanks, Elon
Food is not forbidden. I passed security gates with food multiple times on multiple airports - still sealed food like peanuts or candy bars, but also homemade sandwiches.
Drinks are the problem, but water is not that expensive, and some airports have drinkable water for free near toilets.
Drinks are the problem, but water is not that expensive, and some airports have drinkable water for free near toilets.
And in the toilets.
I’ve never been denied bringing food through security for US domestic flights. Do other areas prohibit that?
Iirc it has to be sealed and new to get past security as long as they notice it, but I may be misremembering. I've never been able to bring food or drinks
I've definitely put an entire pizza in a box through the scanner before and had no questions or pushback. If anything I've had more questions when I've flown with packaged food.
Foods I've flown with:
Apples
Two sub sandwiches
100 fresh tortillas
An entire 20lb uncooked brisket
3 loaves of bread
A frozen 8lb pork roast
I'm pretty surprised they're ok with frozen stuff, but yea, never had any issues bringing entire bags full of food, raw or prepared, packaged or not.
Foods I've flown with:
Apples
Two sub sandwiches
100 fresh tortillas
An entire 20lb uncooked brisket
3 loaves of bread
A frozen 8lb pork roast
I'm pretty surprised they're ok with frozen stuff, but yea, never had any issues bringing entire bags full of food, raw or prepared, packaged or not.
Hard cheese has always given me problems. The density matches that of a solid explosive like C4 on their x-ray. So I always plan for a secondary screening with a full unpacking and swab down of my bag if I’m bringing back a block of special cheese.
Yea, I've sometimes had them swab it, but that's pretty quick and not usually a big deal.
Yet my baby formula was tossed by TSA. Turns out baby formula is not a thing sold at airports either. Then again this was in a state hostile to born children, so I wasn't too surprised.
> they’re ok with frozen stuff
You can’t take a big jug of water through security unless it’s frozen because the rule prohibits liquids, not solids.
You can’t take a big jug of water through security unless it’s frozen because the rule prohibits liquids, not solids.
This list is hysterical.
Yeah, that is all false. You can bring food. The only restriction is on liquids. I have taken a chipotle burrito through (covered with sauce and guacamole, wrapped in aluminum foil) without issue. I have taken pizzas, sandwiches, and hamburgers. You are even explicitly allowed to take solid water through airport security.
I've never had problems bringing food, but drinks are banned as part of the liquids ban of security theater
Only drinks are secured. Not food. And water is free at airport and airplane.
What??? I bring burgers, sushi, homemade sandwiches, anything except soup is fair game. Just put it in a backpack or something.
And this is flying through hundreds of airports, not just major coastal ones...
And this is flying through hundreds of airports, not just major coastal ones...
Even soup would probably be possible if you had a dehydrated “just add water” version that was solid at the time of crossing the security checkpoint, and in airports with free water refill stations (or potable bathroom tap water) inside the security perimeter you wouldn’t even have to pay for water.
This idea would work best for soups that are good to eat cold, of course, but those do exist.
This idea would work best for soups that are good to eat cold, of course, but those do exist.
I once flew back with an entire brisket from Franklin BBQ in Austin. They were a bit worried about it because it looked completely opaque, but they let it theough.
I always bring a couple of burritos. No problem.
I also believe in 30x’ing the price of children’s food and clothes, because they cause far more pollution than air travel does and this will dissuade people from having them.
It's nickel-and-diming.
You are spot on and correct. Airports make about 2/3rds of their money with rent, and only 1/3rd with flights.
> The airport is trying to insist it's preventing jacked-up prices, when in reality it's the airport charging rent that generates those jacked-up prices in the first place, and it tries to pretend like it plays no part.
But that's correct. The rent charged by the airport has no impact on prices inside the airport. They are high because of the captive audience.
Store revenue within the airport is determined by customer willingness to pay. Willingness to pay does not take store rent into account; it is a function of prices and alternatives. So the stores set prices at the level that maximizes revenue, and the rent charged by the airport is a fight between the stores and the airport over who gets how much of the revenue. If you limited the amount of rent the airport could charge, the first-order effect would be that prices would stay exactly the same, the airport would get less money, every store would get more money, and customers would be completely unaffected.
If you wanted to return money to the customers, you'd need to increase the level of competition between stores.
But that's correct. The rent charged by the airport has no impact on prices inside the airport. They are high because of the captive audience.
Store revenue within the airport is determined by customer willingness to pay. Willingness to pay does not take store rent into account; it is a function of prices and alternatives. So the stores set prices at the level that maximizes revenue, and the rent charged by the airport is a fight between the stores and the airport over who gets how much of the revenue. If you limited the amount of rent the airport could charge, the first-order effect would be that prices would stay exactly the same, the airport would get less money, every store would get more money, and customers would be completely unaffected.
If you wanted to return money to the customers, you'd need to increase the level of competition between stores.
This seems true, since McDonald's prices inside an airport seem to be either three danger as outside or just a little more. They for sure never reach the astronomical heights of other airport vendors.
>"On the one hand, airports need to make money ..."
Commercial airports in the US are owned by a local, state or regional public entity.[1] They need to be self-sustaining and break even but they don't need to be profitable in the same sense as a private business.
Further, passengers at these airports pay a significant amount of "taxes and fees" on their fares that go to support operations at these airports [2]. These include a passenger facility fee, a segment tax(one per takeoff/landing), a Sept 11th Fee for security and Federal ticket tax(pays the FAA.)
[1] https://yourmileagemayvary.net/2022/08/14/who-owns-airports/
[2] https://www.farecompare.com/news/airline-ticket-taxes-and-fe...
Commercial airports in the US are owned by a local, state or regional public entity.[1] They need to be self-sustaining and break even but they don't need to be profitable in the same sense as a private business.
Further, passengers at these airports pay a significant amount of "taxes and fees" on their fares that go to support operations at these airports [2]. These include a passenger facility fee, a segment tax(one per takeoff/landing), a Sept 11th Fee for security and Federal ticket tax(pays the FAA.)
[1] https://yourmileagemayvary.net/2022/08/14/who-owns-airports/
[2] https://www.farecompare.com/news/airline-ticket-taxes-and-fe...
If high sandwich prices are a tax to cover the operation costs, it's certainly an odd one. Why should people who pack their own travel food be subsidized by those who are not?
Seems like a convenience tax to me. People who are willing to pay the high prices at the airport, are probably less price sensitive, (read: more wealthy). So yeah, let’s let the rich subsidize the poor
The companies that owns these concessionaires have a reputation for lobbying practices that are pretty “aggressive”. There’s a handful of companies (Delaware North, HMS, OTG, etc) that are in this business and if you know the business, it’s usually pretty easy to understand the scope/requirements.
It’s pretty easy for a journalist to get the RFP/extension/whatever. I’d guess that there are journalists figuring out the business now.
It’s pretty easy for a journalist to get the RFP/extension/whatever. I’d guess that there are journalists figuring out the business now.
Ah so that’s why the premade food at airport shops is so weird. I remember eating a sandwich I’ve never heard of before at EWR. It wasn’t that good and I remember the ingredients were unusual.
IIUC, there's essentially a few vendors that own the vast majority of space in most airports, and the reason rents are so high, is because they outbid everyone (knowing that they can charge $15 for a bologna sandwich)- not because the asking rent starts high.
The problem is the business model - which could be considered price gauging - not the airport.
The problem is the business model - which could be considered price gauging - not the airport.
Isn't the airport tax fix per passenger and independent from ticket price? I remember flying discount airline and paying only the airport taxes (it was around 20-30€ in my y case)
That would decouple airport mall rent prices from falling airline ticket prices.
That would decouple airport mall rent prices from falling airline ticket prices.
The airport opens 3 sandwich shops midtown with outstanding prices. Problem solved.
Not every shop out to do no buisness is money laundring. Some are also regulator laundring.
Not every shop out to do no buisness is money laundring. Some are also regulator laundring.
[deleted]
If this were the case it should be easy for the vendor to say that $9 of that 15 is based on rent.
I don't think this goes deep enough. The company ultimately putting the squeeze on is the company that makes the in-flight snack food. This company has raised prices consistently since 1960, and these price hikes are being passed on to consumers, by way of airlines demanding that airports take a smaller cut. If you want to look for blame, look there.
Show me an industry that hasn't raised prices since the 60s.
How can that be possible? The in flight snack company is in a highly competitive business -- airlines could buy store brand private label snacks.
I think GP is referring to the stores in the airports post-security that sell take-away food intended to be consumed on the plane - e.g. Hudson News, etc.
Add to this the fact that TSA won’t even let you take a bottom water through.
Sounds like basic capitalism to me. You have a captive audience, charge them until they refuse the price.
Same thing happens at stadiums, although not quite as bad as airports, but the prices - especially for the quality - are pretty ridiculous. I've only been to a few bars, but I also scoffed at the prices there as well.
Same thing happens at stadiums, although not quite as bad as airports, but the prices - especially for the quality - are pretty ridiculous. I've only been to a few bars, but I also scoffed at the prices there as well.
$15 sandwich is better than no sandwich available
> ultimately going to the airport as rent, not to the CIBO food vendor as profit.
In food services in general there's this weird thing that the ultimate price on the product doesn't matter. The food-selling place will have paper-thin margins regardless. It will either be rent, or equipment and cutlery, or the need for highly trained and specialised staff, or... (and often all of those, and more, coupled together).
In food services in general there's this weird thing that the ultimate price on the product doesn't matter. The food-selling place will have paper-thin margins regardless. It will either be rent, or equipment and cutlery, or the need for highly trained and specialised staff, or... (and often all of those, and more, coupled together).
this hasn't been my experience at all - usually the cost of food is 1/3 overhead (rent, staff), 1/3 ingredients, and 1/3 profit.
At least in places that last.
At least in places that last.
Average profit margins in restaurants are 2–6%.
Not 33%.
The actual rule of thumb is one third ingredients, one third labor, and one third overhead including rent. And you hope to have a tiny sliver of profit left over, by making them a hair less than a third.
But that's also just a rule of thumb, as both labor costs and rental costs have a great deal of geographic variation compared to ingredient costs.
Not 33%.
The actual rule of thumb is one third ingredients, one third labor, and one third overhead including rent. And you hope to have a tiny sliver of profit left over, by making them a hair less than a third.
But that's also just a rule of thumb, as both labor costs and rental costs have a great deal of geographic variation compared to ingredient costs.
average profits in the realm of 2% are for grocery stores not restaurants.
Lets say you're a moderately successful restaurant that sells 200 breakfasts at $10 each. At 2% profit that means the total profit on 200 breakfasts is just $40 for the whole morning.
You're just out to lunch and those are not the correct profit margins or realistic. You might be thinking about grocery stores whose net margins might be in that realm of 2-4%. I don't know where you got your understanding of how the pricing works but please don't run a restaurant.
Your mistake is that you have separated overhead and labour, when they're out of the same 1/3. 1/3 overhead including rent, 1/3 ingredients, 1/3 in the pocket.
Lets say you're a moderately successful restaurant that sells 200 breakfasts at $10 each. At 2% profit that means the total profit on 200 breakfasts is just $40 for the whole morning.
You're just out to lunch and those are not the correct profit margins or realistic. You might be thinking about grocery stores whose net margins might be in that realm of 2-4%. I don't know where you got your understanding of how the pricing works but please don't run a restaurant.
Your mistake is that you have separated overhead and labour, when they're out of the same 1/3. 1/3 overhead including rent, 1/3 ingredients, 1/3 in the pocket.
Net profit margins for full-service restaurants are 2-3%. 2018 was an exceptional year with margins rising to 6%, but I doubt this continued.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sageworks/2018/01/26/restaurant...
Australia cites 4.2% https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-03/360985-R...
etc.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sageworks/2018/01/26/restaurant...
Australia cites 4.2% https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-03/360985-R...
etc.
That includes things like failed restaurants that didn't make money and closed as well as fast food restaurants that operate on margins impossible for other restaurants and essentially act as real estate companies.
If you want to run a restaurant and not join the tens of thousands that close each year you can't run them the way you're saying. Doing $2000 in business and making $40 isn't sustainable. Successful restaurants don't run that way.
If you want to run a restaurant and not join the tens of thousands that close each year you can't run them the way you're saying. Doing $2000 in business and making $40 isn't sustainable. Successful restaurants don't run that way.
That’s spot on the calculation. A relative runs a place and he just multiplies ingredients by x3.
> Why Does a Plastic-Wrapped Turkey Sandwich Cost $15 at the Airport?
Despite the "port authority" rules on 'street pricing', the real reason is lack of competition.
A single vendor receives the food contract for the airport, and they now have monopoly positioning and a captive audience. When business X is the only seller, and when the customers are held captive and unable to "go elsewhere" [1] then prices will naturally rise to the maximum the captive audience is willing to pay.
[1] How many air travelers are willing to exit the security perimeter, to then need to take a cab to somewhere (most airports are not located near dense shopping/restaurant areas) to purchase food, to then have to go back through security to return to their flight? And what few even have enough time between flight legs to even consider that "go outside the airport for food" trip as even possible? Plus by the time the "cab fee" is factored in, even if they could find the identical sandwich for 5.50 on the outside, the $10 + tip or more cab fee there and back would make the sandwich $15 or more in the end anyway.
Despite the "port authority" rules on 'street pricing', the real reason is lack of competition.
A single vendor receives the food contract for the airport, and they now have monopoly positioning and a captive audience. When business X is the only seller, and when the customers are held captive and unable to "go elsewhere" [1] then prices will naturally rise to the maximum the captive audience is willing to pay.
[1] How many air travelers are willing to exit the security perimeter, to then need to take a cab to somewhere (most airports are not located near dense shopping/restaurant areas) to purchase food, to then have to go back through security to return to their flight? And what few even have enough time between flight legs to even consider that "go outside the airport for food" trip as even possible? Plus by the time the "cab fee" is factored in, even if they could find the identical sandwich for 5.50 on the outside, the $10 + tip or more cab fee there and back would make the sandwich $15 or more in the end anyway.
> the real reason is lack of competition.
If my limited experience with hospital shops is anything to go by, yes, but it’s not the shop killing your pocket.
The landlord says some variation of ‘you’ll be the only coffee shop’ and the rent is about 8x what is sane.
The shop gets guaranteed business but has to charge a lot to pay the rent.
If my limited experience with hospital shops is anything to go by, yes, but it’s not the shop killing your pocket.
The landlord says some variation of ‘you’ll be the only coffee shop’ and the rent is about 8x what is sane.
The shop gets guaranteed business but has to charge a lot to pay the rent.
Why award the contract for the entire airport to a single company though. My local Spanish airport has a bunch of different options. It's way cheaper, while definitely more expensive than outside the airport. The only price control enforced is on bottled water which can't cost more than 1 EUR.
If you're the contract negotiator, finding a single company that won't complain about the kickbacks you ask for is easier than finding a bunch of them, right? And what's the point of working for the Port Authority if you're not going to be corrupt? This is the agency that snarled traffic in the town of a mayor that wouldn't endorse a candidate of the opposite political party, mostly just for the lulz. Predictably, the structure of the Port Authority ensures that nobody can ever be held accountable, and indeed, nobody was.
(If you didn't follow Bridgegate when it was happening, strap in for the most petty government overreach you've ever read about. I've read this article a number of times and honestly, you start reading and you can't look away. It's so good! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Lee_lane_closure_scandal)
(If you didn't follow Bridgegate when it was happening, strap in for the most petty government overreach you've ever read about. I've read this article a number of times and honestly, you start reading and you can't look away. It's so good! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Lee_lane_closure_scandal)
Read the link. You got it backwards.
NJ Governor Christie closed the bridge. Port Authority reopened it.
Not quite. One of Christie's appointed directors at the port authority closed the bridge. Later the port authority decided to reverse it's own decision.
The intro blurb skips the appointed director and attributes the closing of the bridge directly to Christie, but Christie acted through a crony at the Port Authority, as can be read further in the Wikipedia article.
The intro blurb skips the appointed director and attributes the closing of the bridge directly to Christie, but Christie acted through a crony at the Port Authority, as can be read further in the Wikipedia article.
[deleted]
What's really fun is when you have a ton of apparently completely different stores at an airport and then you realize they're all just fronts for the same company.
Part of the answer is that people going through airports are often buying expense account ones, and they're quite price flexible.
Part of the answer is that people going through airports are often buying expense account ones, and they're quite price flexible.
Why would the airport enforce competition within their property and reduce the profit it can take from the sellers?
I bet the government is involved on that decision from your local one.
I bet the government is involved on that decision from your local one.
But the contract itself is also sold by a monopolist. The sandwiches have to pay for rent somehow.
In the end you can extract X amount of money from all the passengers and that gets split between the landlord and the vendor.
So it's not just that the vendor has a monopoly, if they didn't have a monopoly there would still be some amount they'd pay in rent for the captive audience.
In the end you can extract X amount of money from all the passengers and that gets split between the landlord and the vendor.
So it's not just that the vendor has a monopoly, if they didn't have a monopoly there would still be some amount they'd pay in rent for the captive audience.
Same reason raising taxes on companies doesn’t work. It either gets passed onto the consumer or company goes under if business drops too much.
Doesn’t the blanket statement that “raising taxes on companies doesn’t work” naturally imply that the only tax rate that “works” is zero?
I think the implication is that it doesn't work as a way to avoid raising taxes on regular people.
It taxes regular people differently than taxing them directly. VAT rates on food tend to be regressive. Taxing company profits has little effect on prices.
Only if the product has completely inelastic demand? Also, that'd depend on the goal of the tax in question?
Raising taxes on income doesn't work. Workers will just demand higher wages to compensate.
If this logic doesn't work, then there are some unstated assumptions.
If this logic doesn't work, then there are some unstated assumptions.
It works in the sense that some people feel better about paying higher taxes if they pay them by paying higher prices to corporations that then pay the tax.
And other people feel better about raising taxes on people if they do so by raising taxes on corporations that then raise prices on people.
And other people feel better about raising taxes on people if they do so by raising taxes on corporations that then raise prices on people.
There are some taxes that are actually designed to work that way - the most common instance being "sin" taxes on tobacco, alcohol, and cannabis as a way to reduce demand on those items by making them much more expensive.
That's the opposite of true in a monopoly environment.
I believe you when you say there is a lack of competition, but it seems like the system is set up to prevent that from being consequential: as I understand it, the price should be set as a function of the prices of competitors outside the airport, per the Port Authority's own pricing rules.
So, lack of competition inside the airport would not by itself be able to explain this pricing.
Corruption or incompetence within the Port Authority would explain it, and though I will withhold judgment, it's hard to think of what else it might be. It's even easier to jump to that conclusion when they also deny and conceal when asked for an explanation.
So, lack of competition inside the airport would not by itself be able to explain this pricing.
Corruption or incompetence within the Port Authority would explain it, and though I will withhold judgment, it's hard to think of what else it might be. It's even easier to jump to that conclusion when they also deny and conceal when asked for an explanation.
>as I understand it, the price should be set as a function of the prices of competitors outside the airport, per the Port Authority's own pricing rules.
That sort of regulation is never very effective. The VA requires that vendors that sell them medical devices do not sell those devices at a higher price elsewhere. They end up buying a lot of SKUs that are only sold to the VA.
That sort of regulation is never very effective. The VA requires that vendors that sell them medical devices do not sell those devices at a higher price elsewhere. They end up buying a lot of SKUs that are only sold to the VA.
How many air travelers are willing to exit the security perimeter, to then need to take a cab to somewhere…
It doesn’t need to be anywhere near that extreme. Lots of people pay exorbitant prices for food at movie theatres and those facilities tend to be in commercial high traffic areas with tons of food service options such as malls, downtown streets, etc.
It’s really not hard at all to grab a bite before going into the theatre yet people still end up buying the ripoff theatre food!
It doesn’t need to be anywhere near that extreme. Lots of people pay exorbitant prices for food at movie theatres and those facilities tend to be in commercial high traffic areas with tons of food service options such as malls, downtown streets, etc.
It’s really not hard at all to grab a bite before going into the theatre yet people still end up buying the ripoff theatre food!
People like the distinct food offerings that movie theaters have and are willing to pay more because it's part of the experience. Not true at all with airports.
The only thing distinctive is the popcorn. Everything else is candy you could buy at any grocery/convenience store or fountain soft drinks and mediocre burgers/hotdogs that can be beaten by any fast food joint or street vendor.
And most theatres don't even give you real butter on the popcorn anymore. It's now this "artificial butter sauce" junk.
And most theatres don't even give you real butter on the popcorn anymore. It's now this "artificial butter sauce" junk.
The candy offering is absolutely distinct. You can find some of it at standard stores, but not all of it, and not necessarily next to a theater. The popcorn is of course an iconic part of the experience. And if you want your Twizzlers and popcorn, why not just buy the $6 soda to make life simple?
But all that aside, the process of going to the theater and standing in line and getting your overpriced junk food does add to the experience for many people, even if just due to nostalgia. Waiting in line to buy an overpriced sandwich at the airport is not an experience many people crave or are nostalgic for.
EDIT: I don't know what to tell you all. The specific set of junk food at movie theaters in the US is a culturally significant phenomenon. Like most cultural phenomena, it is not universal, but it is universally known (or close to it by anyone who grew up in the US). And for some people, sneaking food into theaters, in response to those high prices, is a culturally meaningful experience! The point being, food and theaters have a cultural history that is meaningful and nostalgic for many Americans. Not so with airports - where hungry people buy shitty food at outrageous prices because they have no choice.
But all that aside, the process of going to the theater and standing in line and getting your overpriced junk food does add to the experience for many people, even if just due to nostalgia. Waiting in line to buy an overpriced sandwich at the airport is not an experience many people crave or are nostalgic for.
EDIT: I don't know what to tell you all. The specific set of junk food at movie theaters in the US is a culturally significant phenomenon. Like most cultural phenomena, it is not universal, but it is universally known (or close to it by anyone who grew up in the US). And for some people, sneaking food into theaters, in response to those high prices, is a culturally meaningful experience! The point being, food and theaters have a cultural history that is meaningful and nostalgic for many Americans. Not so with airports - where hungry people buy shitty food at outrageous prices because they have no choice.
$6 soda? That was the price 15 years ago. Now they're at least $10. I've seen popcorn, soda, and candy combos go for over $20 now. You can count on spending $100 to go to the movies with a family of 3 (2 parents and a child), including tickets and one of those combos for each person.
Why is popcorn "an iconic part of the experience?"
Of course it isn't. You're not going to enjoy a movie more just because you're shovelling puffy sweetened carbs into your face - unless you've been Pavlov'd into it.
Airport food is different, because there's a good chance some of the people who buy it genuinely need to eat.
Of course it isn't. You're not going to enjoy a movie more just because you're shovelling puffy sweetened carbs into your face - unless you've been Pavlov'd into it.
Airport food is different, because there's a good chance some of the people who buy it genuinely need to eat.
Popcorn is "an iconic part of the experience" because the theaters have been pushing it for nearly a century.
The theaters don't make their money showing new movies (most of that goes to the studio) - they make most of their money on high margin concessions, mostly popcorn and soda.
The theaters don't make their money showing new movies (most of that goes to the studio) - they make most of their money on high margin concessions, mostly popcorn and soda.
> You're not going to enjoy a movie more just because you're shovelling puffy sweetened carbs into your face
I beg to differ. It definitely is a part of the experience for me.
I beg to differ. It definitely is a part of the experience for me.
Well, when it comes to justifying choices people can pretty much justify anything. For airport it can be simply said the kind of people who travel so much and often have to eat at airport a 15 dollar sandwich is very very low in term of consideration. Further frequent travelers usually pay through expense accounts.
And for infrequent traveler like me, I had no problem in eating airline food when I am coming home from long distance travel or eating outside after leaving airport when there is no food served in plane. If am starting from home its not too much of hassle to wrap a few rolls or sandwiches to carry.
Now for concession food to have authentic movies experience looks more of what marketers would say. I think besides streaming another reason cinema theater attendance is slimming is outrageous price of that authentic experience for large majority of people.
And for infrequent traveler like me, I had no problem in eating airline food when I am coming home from long distance travel or eating outside after leaving airport when there is no food served in plane. If am starting from home its not too much of hassle to wrap a few rolls or sandwiches to carry.
Now for concession food to have authentic movies experience looks more of what marketers would say. I think besides streaming another reason cinema theater attendance is slimming is outrageous price of that authentic experience for large majority of people.
>The popcorn is of course an iconic part of the experience.
I've long had the "conspiracy theory" that they promote popcorn as part of the authentic part of the experience because it's an item that's most difficult to smuggle in -- with the butter, you'd have to pack it down tight, which would ruin it, and yet it's cheap to make at the theater. Plus they can afford to spend more on a machine than the average person would.
I've long had the "conspiracy theory" that they promote popcorn as part of the authentic part of the experience because it's an item that's most difficult to smuggle in -- with the butter, you'd have to pack it down tight, which would ruin it, and yet it's cheap to make at the theater. Plus they can afford to spend more on a machine than the average person would.
There is no conspiracy - theaters will just straight up admit that the prices of soda, popcorn, and candy are what they are because they make (at best) pennies on each ticket sold and make up for that by making a high margin on concessions.
I didn't say otherwise. My theory is just that some foods are more vs less conducive to policing, and theaters benefit from a strong preference for one particularly easily-policed food. That goes beyond the general economic logic of concessions markets that you repeated here.
> The candy offering is absolutely distinct
I like how grocery stores carry "theater packs" of candy. Perfect for a special home theater experience, along with some popcorn of course.
Unfortunately I don't have an icee machine at home.
I like how grocery stores carry "theater packs" of candy. Perfect for a special home theater experience, along with some popcorn of course.
Unfortunately I don't have an icee machine at home.
No… there’s a sign on the door saying you aren’t allowed to bring food or beverages in with you. So you have to pay $9 for a Diet Coke.
Right, but people sneak food in constantly.
Not really, it’s part of why I don’t go anymore.
Most movie theaters I’ve been in don’t allow outside food or drinks. Of course, it’s never that hard to sneak in, but still discourages most people
It’s not about the lack of competition or the inconvenience to the traveler.
It’s about the port authority not publicly revealing what the 3 market comparable prices are.
It’s about the port authority not publicly revealing what the 3 market comparable prices are.
I expect they won’t reveal because the inspector just takes a bribe and there are no valid comparisons done.
The only reason I could think of not to reveal would be the fear of collusion. If they know the comparison stores are Alice’s Deli and Bob's Bodega, they could either collude with those owners to raise prices on select items or simply go and look at prices and only offer copies of the most marked up items in those stores (which could be as simple as loading the sandwich with cheap toppings that would be extra at the comparison shops).
The policy says lowest price. Not lowest price of three specific vendors.
So if the three vendors names tried to collude, then they would no longer be the lowest prices.
So if the three vendors names tried to collude, then they would no longer be the lowest prices.
Any sane policy would rotate data points. How many sandwich shops are there in NYC, hundreds? Thousands even? How often do they shut down, open, change owners...? Burning a couple every year is not an issue.
>Despite the "port authority" rules on 'street pricing', the real reason is lack of competition.
I guess that the lack of competition isn't the only answer, in many cases there are many restaurants/stores in an airport and all of them are very expensive.
The price of the rent in the airport also has to be taken in account. In many airports the restaurants pay outrageous rent values that won't allow them to sell cheap food.
I guess that the lack of competition isn't the only answer, in many cases there are many restaurants/stores in an airport and all of them are very expensive.
The price of the rent in the airport also has to be taken in account. In many airports the restaurants pay outrageous rent values that won't allow them to sell cheap food.
> in many cases there are many restaurants/stores in an airport
If you lift the peel off, many times they're still operated by the one contractor that has a contract for the whole airport. Even restaurants that typically don't franchise will still run operations under a franchise arrangement in airports. E.g. The Starbucks employees at an airport will be employed by HMS Host (a common airport food concession contractor).
Another captive element is alcohol. Many places only allow licensed establishments to sell it (ie: bars/restaurants), so no competition from the convenience store type concessions. And may be forbidden to consume alcohol outside licensed establishments so can't just buy a beer if convenience stores were legally allowed to sell it so they don't.
(Can recall good times at Amsterdam Schiphol where you could buy a beer for a not-too-insane markup from the convenience store and consume wherever, while in Philadelphia, you were paying like $10+ for one to consume wherever, ugh).
If you lift the peel off, many times they're still operated by the one contractor that has a contract for the whole airport. Even restaurants that typically don't franchise will still run operations under a franchise arrangement in airports. E.g. The Starbucks employees at an airport will be employed by HMS Host (a common airport food concession contractor).
Another captive element is alcohol. Many places only allow licensed establishments to sell it (ie: bars/restaurants), so no competition from the convenience store type concessions. And may be forbidden to consume alcohol outside licensed establishments so can't just buy a beer if convenience stores were legally allowed to sell it so they don't.
(Can recall good times at Amsterdam Schiphol where you could buy a beer for a not-too-insane markup from the convenience store and consume wherever, while in Philadelphia, you were paying like $10+ for one to consume wherever, ugh).
Is the Port Authority also the landlord as well? If so, that means that the Port Authority has the incentive to find the highest 'street pricing' so that the store has the margin to pay higher rent.
It's my understanding that in most cases, the many restaurants/stores aren't actually separate and in meaningful competition with one another. I have often seen airports with the same packaged food for sale at every store. I'm pretty sure they're in effect many faces of the same business.
This is usually the case, most of the restaurants are Franchised to the same company, so ultimately one company is dictating all of it.
The really silly thing is that unlike at a movie theater, you can make yourself the same sandwich for $1.50 and bring it with you to the plane. The US has plugged this loophole, at least to a certain extent, by seizing your food even if you just have a stopover between two other countries. (They took my banana in NYC on a flight from Paris to Vancouver and I'm still bitter about it.)
No, this isn't malice. There's plenty of stuff you could legally bring. Fresh fruit is decided not permitted, though--while the odds of a pest coming along are low the consequences can be severe. We don't permit food to come in that might be carrying pests that are not endemic to the US. Australia is more isolated and thus even more strict because there are more things they want to keep out.
I was walking between two planes in the US, one coming from a foreign country and the other leaving for one, without leaving the building. The only way I could have let the banana loose to destroy New York would have been to run outside and huck it over a fence.
American airports generally don't have international-to-international airside transfers. In order to take the connecting flight, you must first pass though immigration and enter the US. You were planning to take the flight to Vancouver, but at that point, you could have chosen to visit the US instead.
> American airports generally don't have international-to-international airside transfer
I'd like to see a write up on why that is, because it seems like an insanely stupid arrangement at face value.
I'd like to see a write up on why that is, because it seems like an insanely stupid arrangement at face value.
There's really no way to do it. The basic issue is that the US has no outgoing immigration control. I have walked from an international departure gate to open air and encountered no obstacles of any kind in the process, although I did pass through a one-way spot. (And the reason for this was pretty trivial--major delay, I preferred the food options elsewhere in the airport.)
How do you have airside transfer when there are no barriers to leaving airside?
How do you have airside transfer when there are no barriers to leaving airside?
yes, I'm not sure the logistics but it's definitely done in other places.
Certainly in Australia if you are travelling international you go through outbound immigration control. I'm not sure what happens if you need to get out again for some reason after you "exit" the country. I assume you have to "re-enter" the country by circling through inbound immigration. Perhaps having no land borders makes outbound immigration control more reasonable.
It does seem like the cost of adding some secure departure lounges might be less than circling huge numbers of passengers through unnecessary immigration procedures, security lines, etc
Certainly in Australia if you are travelling international you go through outbound immigration control. I'm not sure what happens if you need to get out again for some reason after you "exit" the country. I assume you have to "re-enter" the country by circling through inbound immigration. Perhaps having no land borders makes outbound immigration control more reasonable.
It does seem like the cost of adding some secure departure lounges might be less than circling huge numbers of passengers through unnecessary immigration procedures, security lines, etc
Or you could throw it in the garbage and somebody will do it for you. They don't incinerate garbage on-site at airports in the United States.
I haven't spent too much time in New York, but I don't think there are a lot of commercial banana growing operations there that could be affected. The real reason is they can't be bothered to track who's going where, but what they can do is seize your stuff, so that's what they do.
Customs garbage is treated differently.
Many places don't allow the transfer of uninspected fruit and vegetables to prevent the spread of disease.
>The really silly thing is that unlike at a movie theater, you can make yourself the same sandwich for $1.50 and bring it with you to the plane. The US has plugged this loophole, at least to a certain extent, by seizing your food even if you just have a stopover between two other countries. (They took my banana in NYC on a flight from Paris to Vancouver and I'm still bitter about it.)
Whether it's silly or not, this isn't some new thing to boost revenue at airports. The US has long prohibited the "importation" of food items through airports. In fact, that was a key theme to the 1971 film, La Mortadella[0].
I'm not saying it's a good policy (I even "smuggled" some wonderful Dutch gouda into JFK myself a few years back), nor am I saying it makes sense in this day an age, but it (IIUC) has nothing to do with trying to make you pay more for food at the airport.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Liberty_(film)
Whether it's silly or not, this isn't some new thing to boost revenue at airports. The US has long prohibited the "importation" of food items through airports. In fact, that was a key theme to the 1971 film, La Mortadella[0].
I'm not saying it's a good policy (I even "smuggled" some wonderful Dutch gouda into JFK myself a few years back), nor am I saying it makes sense in this day an age, but it (IIUC) has nothing to do with trying to make you pay more for food at the airport.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Liberty_(film)
Last I checked, cheese was allowed in vacuum-sealed packaging. Meat, fruit and vegetables are what's not allowed. Those you just have to eat before you go through customs after arriving in the US.
>Last I checked, cheese was allowed in vacuum-sealed packaging. Meat, fruit and vegetables are what's not allowed. Those you just have to eat before you go through customs after arriving in the US.
A good point. However, this wasn't vacuum sealed, just the standard wax around the ball of cheese wrapped in paper.
And I wouldn't have been all that excited to wolf down 2+ kg of cheese at the airport.
A good point. However, this wasn't vacuum sealed, just the standard wax around the ball of cheese wrapped in paper.
And I wouldn't have been all that excited to wolf down 2+ kg of cheese at the airport.
Fresh fruit is usually subject to customs restrictions for international travel due to concerns about agricultural pests, I don’t think this particular case was collusion with the airport vendors (but these days you never know).
Yeah, I know that, but the import restrictions for Canada should apply, and they're different from the ones in the US. (I'm not trying to imply collusion so much as overreach.)
My wife was apprehended in a Mexican airport by a beagle regarding a banana in her bag.
Did you know that the bananas we have today are different from the ones we had 50 years ago? The standard banana back then was wiped out by a fungal disease. Today’s bananas are all one variety of GMO, and resistant to such fungus.
That’s why produce is particularly scrutinized.
https://www.treehugger.com/extinct-banana-5201723
Did you know that the bananas we have today are different from the ones we had 50 years ago? The standard banana back then was wiped out by a fungal disease. Today’s bananas are all one variety of GMO, and resistant to such fungus.
That’s why produce is particularly scrutinized.
https://www.treehugger.com/extinct-banana-5201723
> unlike at a movie theater, you can make yourself the same sandwich for $1.50 and bring it with you to the plane
You can do that at a movie theater too. At least, I did it back when I was poor. Well, not with a sandwich, but I got some M&Ms and a drink at a nearby supermarket to take into the theater, because that saves a lot of money.
You can do that at a movie theater too. At least, I did it back when I was poor. Well, not with a sandwich, but I got some M&Ms and a drink at a nearby supermarket to take into the theater, because that saves a lot of money.
But perhaps you did that in contravention of the theater policies; most theaters, if they have a concession counter, will prohibit people from bringing in outside food, but they don't search your bags or anything. In fact, one theater around here disallows bags entirely.
There is also the question of health code regulations. I know that in any restaurant which is inspected by County health inspectors, outside food is prohibited. So if you make a sandwich and you bring it into a McDonald's and you order a Coke and fries to go with your turkey sandwich, you will probably get kicked out. The main reason is because if something were to happen medically, whose food is to blame? Is it the food you prepared at home and brought into the restaurant? Even worse if you shared it to people who didn't know it wasn't prepared at the restaurant. The restaurant could potentially be liable for medical costs of people who got food poisoning, and their license to prepare food could be jeopardized.
Now, having said all that, this is not the case in airports or on airlines. They all allow you to bring in food you prepared at home, because an airport is not a "restaurant" with one kitchen where food is prepared. Aboard an aircraft, you could also eat your home-prepped turkey and Swiss sandwich instead of a delicious, hot, in-flight Kosher meal. If you get sick, well you get sick. I don't know if airlines can be liable for food poisoning, but they sure are cautious about peanut allergies these days.
There is also the question of health code regulations. I know that in any restaurant which is inspected by County health inspectors, outside food is prohibited. So if you make a sandwich and you bring it into a McDonald's and you order a Coke and fries to go with your turkey sandwich, you will probably get kicked out. The main reason is because if something were to happen medically, whose food is to blame? Is it the food you prepared at home and brought into the restaurant? Even worse if you shared it to people who didn't know it wasn't prepared at the restaurant. The restaurant could potentially be liable for medical costs of people who got food poisoning, and their license to prepare food could be jeopardized.
Now, having said all that, this is not the case in airports or on airlines. They all allow you to bring in food you prepared at home, because an airport is not a "restaurant" with one kitchen where food is prepared. Aboard an aircraft, you could also eat your home-prepped turkey and Swiss sandwich instead of a delicious, hot, in-flight Kosher meal. If you get sick, well you get sick. I don't know if airlines can be liable for food poisoning, but they sure are cautious about peanut allergies these days.
Yeah, but a restaurant is specifically for food, so it makes sense that they would kick you out for bringing your own, but a movie theater is not a restaurant, like an airport or plane. I pay for the seat in the theater, and I'm not interested in their food.
They may have a policy against bringing your own food, but I don't think it's a reasonable policy and I don't see any reason to obey it if you don't want to and they don't enforce it.
If you want to make more money from the movie goers, just charge an extra buck for the ticket.
They may have a policy against bringing your own food, but I don't think it's a reasonable policy and I don't see any reason to obey it if you don't want to and they don't enforce it.
If you want to make more money from the movie goers, just charge an extra buck for the ticket.
You can bring food into a movie theater without too much trouble in my experience.
I’ve never seen a sandwich store sell sandwiches (talking normal sized sandwich not whatever small bite size they sell as “regular size” with shrinkflation) for less than 12-15 bucks in big cities.
This isn’t really a sandwich shop sandwich though. It’s more like something you’d grab off the shelf at CVS or 7-11, where it would be under $10.
A comparable, frankly better looking, sandwich at Whole Foods in Columbus Circle is $7.99.
https://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/product/whole-foods-market-...
A comparable, frankly better looking, sandwich at Whole Foods in Columbus Circle is $7.99.
https://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/product/whole-foods-market-...
>A comparable, frankly better looking, sandwich at Whole Foods in Columbus Circle is $7.99.
Don't be a cheapskate! head over to Zabar's Cafe and pay $29[0] for a ham and cheese sandwich! /s
[0] https://gothamist.com/news/why-does-this-ham-and-cheese-cost...
Don't be a cheapskate! head over to Zabar's Cafe and pay $29[0] for a ham and cheese sandwich! /s
[0] https://gothamist.com/news/why-does-this-ham-and-cheese-cost...
Can we all just take a minute to realize how we now normalize a 10 dollar sandwich made with less than a dollar's worth of ingredients?
7-11 is the worst offender I've seen. Cheap sandwiches or salads for $8+. $3+ for a 20oz soda. No prices listed on anything. Or if they are it's only when you buy two or more.
Profiteering plain and simple.
7-11 is the worst offender I've seen. Cheap sandwiches or salads for $8+. $3+ for a 20oz soda. No prices listed on anything. Or if they are it's only when you buy two or more.
Profiteering plain and simple.
I don't know about not listing prices (that seems shady), but surely you realize that the cost of the ingredients have very little bearing on the final price of the product? Unless you assume that running a 7-11 or any other store or restaurant that might sell food has zero overhead, with no rent, utilities, taxes, or employees to pay.
In a further note, profit has got to be one of the most misunderstood things in economics. Every endeavor of human commerce has to involve profit for at least one party, otherwise the transaction would not occur at all. If you can put together a sandwich for $1 in ingredients and, say, $4 in your time and labor, why would you sell it for less than $5 plus some profit? At exactly $5 you may as well not engage in this business at all, since you've effectively gained nothing.
In a further note, profit has got to be one of the most misunderstood things in economics. Every endeavor of human commerce has to involve profit for at least one party, otherwise the transaction would not occur at all. If you can put together a sandwich for $1 in ingredients and, say, $4 in your time and labor, why would you sell it for less than $5 plus some profit? At exactly $5 you may as well not engage in this business at all, since you've effectively gained nothing.
Not my 7-11, nor any of the other ones nearby... everything is clearly labeled, 20oz soda is a 99c (or 1.49). San Diego.
For the love of god what freakin city are you guys all Stockholm Syndromed on?
For the love of god what freakin city are you guys all Stockholm Syndromed on?
It's because the sandwiches are made in a central location and distributed. You're paying for the convenience of not having a sandwich made at point of sale.
This is just false. Even forgetting about all of the overhead of making sandwiches, it's more than just a dollar's worth of ingredients. The skimpiest sandwich will probably have more than 2 ounces of meat, more like 3 or 4 ounces. The cheapest turkey from the supermarket is about $0.50 per ounce. So that's more than a dollar right there.
Here are instructions how to get much cheaper sandwiches: https://youtu.be/jtqpuYvOfHY
Wait, what? The product (or its shelf, whatever) isn't labeled with the price? Is that common in the US or is it a 7/11 thing? I guess it's communism to make displaying the price a legal requirement. Competition will sort it out...
7-11 shelves have price labels, except for when the employees at that shop are too lazy to put those labels up, which is fairly often in my experience. The franchised 7-11s seem to be better at it, the 7-11s owned by corporate are a shitshow because many of the employees don't care and there's no owner around to make them care.
> I’ve never seen a sandwich store sell sandwiches (talking normal sized sandwich not whatever small bite size they sell as “regular size” with shrinkflation) for less than 12-15 bucks in big cities.
I guess it depends on how posh you want your sandwich.
You really have to try to get a Subway (the chain) sandwich that expensive. Same with a burrito from Chipotle, although that may be heretical[1].
---
1. https://flowingdata.com/2017/05/02/sandwich-alignment-chart/
I guess it depends on how posh you want your sandwich.
You really have to try to get a Subway (the chain) sandwich that expensive. Same with a burrito from Chipotle, although that may be heretical[1].
---
1. https://flowingdata.com/2017/05/02/sandwich-alignment-chart/
This might explain the $29 ham and cheese sandwich [1] in NYC, gives airports the right to charge up to $31.9 for a sandwich.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/12i4fot/29_ham_and_che...
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/12i4fot/29_ham_and_che...
I live in Manhattan and see lots of "shocking" prices. But I have never seen anything this absurd. Not by a longshot. Is it real?
Eli Zabar's EAT; for when Whole Foods' prices are too low
I appreciate the warning!
In London or Paris it’s $5-6 for a decent sandwich
One thing I love about France is that they have a pretty good supermarket-store ready-to-eat sandwich culture as the inexpensive on-the-go meal option. At a US 7-11, you never know if the sandwich might be a week old or not.
QFC and Whole Foods in the states are similar. At least here in Seattle, although not quite as nice as LA, or abroad.
7-11 is ok in Japan or China (or say a Co-op Pronto in Switzerland). I wish we could get those in the states.
7-11 is ok in Japan or China (or say a Co-op Pronto in Switzerland). I wish we could get those in the states.
[deleted]
I guess it depends on the city. I live in Austin (metro population 2.28M), and most places price sandwiches around $10 or less here.
Here’s Thundercloud, a popular chain (often described as “a step up from Subway”):
https://thundercloud.com/main-menu/
I also checked Jersey Mike’s, another familiar chain, and a regular size “original Italian” is $9.95 here.
I will say that generally Texas tends to have lower prices on food than coastal metros like NYC/SF/LA, but the airport prices mentioned in the article for NYC still seem absurd.
Here’s Thundercloud, a popular chain (often described as “a step up from Subway”):
https://thundercloud.com/main-menu/
I also checked Jersey Mike’s, another familiar chain, and a regular size “original Italian” is $9.95 here.
I will say that generally Texas tends to have lower prices on food than coastal metros like NYC/SF/LA, but the airport prices mentioned in the article for NYC still seem absurd.
Is Austin still worth moving to from CA or has it gotten a lot more expensive? I’ve only spent a couple days in Austin many years ago, so I don’t know much.
Depends from where in CA. Austin cost of living is not very low anymore. It's not San Francisco stupid levels, but I didn't feel a lot of difference between San Diego and Austin in the last couple of years.
Texas makes up for not having income tax by having big property taxes. So, you may make out on that exchange depending upon what your family situation is. If you're earning are closer to median, California is probably better than Texas. If you're a high earner, Texas is probably better because California is biting you via income tax.
However, if you're coming to Texas, make damn sure your healthcare situation is sorted out. California is good about healthcare--the exchanges are decent and you can by healthcare retail for the price advertised on the exchange. This shocked me at one point as it meant that a friend could completely bypass the exchanges for healthcare and just buy it. Yeah, you wouldn't get reimbursement like the exchanges, but you could just whip out a credit card and purchase it retail.
Texas, on the other hand, is terrible at healthcare. The Republicans have sabotaged most things from the Federal government. Most of the hospital chains are mediocre and below, and many publicly available health plans are ferociously bad.
Texas makes up for not having income tax by having big property taxes. So, you may make out on that exchange depending upon what your family situation is. If you're earning are closer to median, California is probably better than Texas. If you're a high earner, Texas is probably better because California is biting you via income tax.
However, if you're coming to Texas, make damn sure your healthcare situation is sorted out. California is good about healthcare--the exchanges are decent and you can by healthcare retail for the price advertised on the exchange. This shocked me at one point as it meant that a friend could completely bypass the exchanges for healthcare and just buy it. Yeah, you wouldn't get reimbursement like the exchanges, but you could just whip out a credit card and purchase it retail.
Texas, on the other hand, is terrible at healthcare. The Republicans have sabotaged most things from the Federal government. Most of the hospital chains are mediocre and below, and many publicly available health plans are ferociously bad.
Housing in Austin metro has gone up in recent years but it is still 1/3 the price of a home in the Bay Area or San Diego.
Property taxes are proportionately higher than in California but lower on an absolute basis for a similar property due to the large difference in purchase prices.
No state income taxes means most people with decent incomes will come out ahead in Texas.
What the sister comment says about healthcare in Texas is true, unfortunately. Most healthcare providers are private equity backed and treat healthcare as an assembly line. It is difficult to find providers who prioritize quality care over checking boxes.
As for publicly available plans I don’t have personal experience, but I don’t doubt the sister comment’s claims. Best have a good job with a quality healthcare plan.
Property taxes are proportionately higher than in California but lower on an absolute basis for a similar property due to the large difference in purchase prices.
No state income taxes means most people with decent incomes will come out ahead in Texas.
What the sister comment says about healthcare in Texas is true, unfortunately. Most healthcare providers are private equity backed and treat healthcare as an assembly line. It is difficult to find providers who prioritize quality care over checking boxes.
As for publicly available plans I don’t have personal experience, but I don’t doubt the sister comment’s claims. Best have a good job with a quality healthcare plan.
Austinite here too. Articles like this make me thankful for our airport, honestly one of the best in American as far as food and drinks are concerned.
Notably the price of a similar wrapped sandwich at the ATX airport is $16
Jesus christ, what cities are you in? Like come the fuck on. Here in San Diego overpriced sandwiches are $6-$10 at the local 7-11, and that is still way too much.
What about McDonald's? They sell a chicken sandwich for about $5, and I'm sure there is a McDonald's in every city you've been in.
Essen in Manhattan was 8 bucks.
I am not sure why do you think it is a single vendor. JFK has 50+ shops in just the "Grab and Go" category. [1] I've been to a plenty of airports that have a lot of different vendors of overpriced crappy food.
It is not the competition. It is about extracting maximum of what the customer could pay. Same reason beer is expensive at the event venues. The second part of your comment explains it perfectly.
[1] https://www.jfkairport.com/at-airport/shops-restaurants-and-...
It is not the competition. It is about extracting maximum of what the customer could pay. Same reason beer is expensive at the event venues. The second part of your comment explains it perfectly.
[1] https://www.jfkairport.com/at-airport/shops-restaurants-and-...
Many, if not most, of those are franchises owned by a single operator.
> Despite the "port authority" rules on 'street pricing', the real reason is lack of competition.
The real reason is greed. Competitors can work together to fix prices and they usually do. The reason again is greed.
Competition lowering prices only works when the barrier of entry to the market is very low and it's possible for many actors to compete. For SaaS businesses, where competition can virtually scale infinitely, that's true. Not at all for airports, where competition can only be very limited due to material constraints.
The real reason is greed. Competitors can work together to fix prices and they usually do. The reason again is greed.
Competition lowering prices only works when the barrier of entry to the market is very low and it's possible for many actors to compete. For SaaS businesses, where competition can virtually scale infinitely, that's true. Not at all for airports, where competition can only be very limited due to material constraints.
> even if they could find the identical sandwich for 5.50 on the outside, the $10 + tip or more cab fee there and back would make the sandwich $15 or more in the end anyway
And there you have it, a perfect description of value. The sandwich costs $15 at the airport, because at the airport it’s worth $15. It may be worth less elsewhere, but that’s its value there.
They’re not selling a sandwich, they’re selling a sandwich you can have between flights.
And there you have it, a perfect description of value. The sandwich costs $15 at the airport, because at the airport it’s worth $15. It may be worth less elsewhere, but that’s its value there.
They’re not selling a sandwich, they’re selling a sandwich you can have between flights.
The value is no higher at the airport than anywhere else. The difference is who is able to capture the surplus value.
At the airport, the vendor captures most of the surplus value due to their monopoly. Elsewhere, the consumer captures a lot of the surplus value due to robust competition between different vendors.
At the airport, the vendor captures most of the surplus value due to their monopoly. Elsewhere, the consumer captures a lot of the surplus value due to robust competition between different vendors.
That’s stretching the definition of value a bit. Value is certainly situational - you wouldn’t say that someone selling the last parachute on a plane that’s falling is « capturing the true value of the parachute » - or someone selling a bottle of water to someone dying of dehydration in the desert is capturing the true value of the water
I believe I'm using value[1] in the standard economic way as "measure of the benefit provided by a good or service to an economic agent" often framed as "what is the maximum amount of money a specific actor is willing and able to pay for the good or service?".
It's not the same as market price or market value. Market price is what you actually pay, value is the maximum you would hypothetically pay. The difference between the two is the "consumer surplus"[2].
It is situational, but I don't think it varies much in this scenario. You aren't any hungrier inside the airport than you are outside. If food was equally scarce in both locations, you would pay the same amount.
The value is the same in both locations, but the price is higher in the airport. That means consumer surplus is higher outside the airport. The cost to the producer is also roughly the same, so the producer surplus is higher in the airport. The producer has used their monopoly position to take a larger portion of the economic surplus inside the airport.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(economics)
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_surplus
It's not the same as market price or market value. Market price is what you actually pay, value is the maximum you would hypothetically pay. The difference between the two is the "consumer surplus"[2].
It is situational, but I don't think it varies much in this scenario. You aren't any hungrier inside the airport than you are outside. If food was equally scarce in both locations, you would pay the same amount.
The value is the same in both locations, but the price is higher in the airport. That means consumer surplus is higher outside the airport. The cost to the producer is also roughly the same, so the producer surplus is higher in the airport. The producer has used their monopoly position to take a larger portion of the economic surplus inside the airport.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(economics)
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_surplus
> but I don't think it varies much in this scenario. You aren't any hungrier inside the airport than you are outside.
I think the poster was claiming that in fact the value is not the same. You aren't hungrier, but you are typically more tired, more rushed, and focused on bigger problems than what to eat for lunch, etc. It's a reasonable argument. That doesn't mean it's thing going on.
I think the poster was claiming that in fact the value is not the same. You aren't hungrier, but you are typically more tired, more rushed, and focused on bigger problems than what to eat for lunch, etc. It's a reasonable argument. That doesn't mean it's thing going on.
That’s why there are price gouging laws in place.
My god the fact that people here argue for the LTV is sad.
Literally every bit of theoretical marxism, including the Labor Theory of Value, the "absolute general law of capital accumulation", the "tendency for the rate of profit to fall", and the entire set of predictions around "dialectical materialism" are all debunked by more than a hundred years of history. Can we drop it now, or do we have to be enamored by his fashionable nonsense for another hundred years?
Literally every bit of theoretical marxism, including the Labor Theory of Value, the "absolute general law of capital accumulation", the "tendency for the rate of profit to fall", and the entire set of predictions around "dialectical materialism" are all debunked by more than a hundred years of history. Can we drop it now, or do we have to be enamored by his fashionable nonsense for another hundred years?
Consumer Surplus and Surplus Value have their similarities. Flaming someone for using some words that appear to trigger you is unproductive. Maybe give them the benefit of the doubt, especially since their last sentence seems to argue for capitalism.
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_surplus#Consumer_surplus
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value
Perhaps review: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_surplus#Consumer_surplus
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value
Perhaps review: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
More like a hundred years of obvious capitalist propaganda. Marxist theory is taught in normal economics courses in China, a country projected to be the largest economy by the end of this decade, largest economy by GDP PPP, largest number of people who escaped poverty in the last x decades, etc etc. Argue it's because of capitalism sure but LTV or Marxist theory are not "debunked" lol.
What is taught in school and what people learn are often vastly different, in any culture.
In Shenzhen every single person seemed to be running a business, and it felt like one of the most truly capitalist places I have ever been. In New Zealand people are dependent on their government, and few people try to run their own business. You don’t need to risk much in New Zealand, so most people don’t.
In Shenzhen every single person seemed to be running a business, and it felt like one of the most truly capitalist places I have ever been. In New Zealand people are dependent on their government, and few people try to run their own business. You don’t need to risk much in New Zealand, so most people don’t.
That's true, but doesn't mean they aren't also jacking up the price because they have the monopoly on selling a sandwich you can have between flights.
Without the artificial barrier of the security perimeter, you'd be able to order food to be delivered to the airport.
Without the artificial barrier of the security perimeter, you'd be able to order food to be delivered to the airport.
Food delivered to the airport, lol. Where would the delivery person park? Why would any driver subject themselves to the traffic snarls of an airport, even if you were to meet them outside? No matter how you justify it, having individual drivers deliver individual orders to an airport would cost far more than even the monopolistic, jacked-up airport food. Honestly, just the idea "food to be delivered"... like seriously, dude, the world isn't here to deliver shit right into your lap.
Given that staple food likely has fairly low elasticity of demand and food sellers in airports likely have extensive market power, I wouldn’t really make any conclusions about “value.” If sellers increase the price from $10 to $15 and the quantity of sandwiches demanded doesn’t decrease much at all, that’s a pretty good indicator that “value” to the buyer didn’t increase much. If the sellers’ economic profits went up about the same proportion as the price did, that’s another dead giveaway.
This doesn't account for all the people who simply don't buy the $15 sandwich, because they planned in advance and ate at home. Nor does it account for the people who decide that a $15 beer is a better value at the airport than a $15 sandwich. The value being measured is the markup, not the full price in isolation.
I think the fact that you’re allowed to bring most[0] foods on a plane is not well advertised.
I always travel with sandwiches that I either make at home or buy. Throw it in your carry on bag and eat it whenever you want.
[0]: some restrictions on liquids or if you’re crossing a border with certain foods
I always travel with sandwiches that I either make at home or buy. Throw it in your carry on bag and eat it whenever you want.
[0]: some restrictions on liquids or if you’re crossing a border with certain foods
> who simply don't buy the $15 sandwich, because they planned in advance and ate at home /../ or beer
Correct. A sandwich is worth more if you want a sandwich than if you don’t.
Correct. A sandwich is worth more if you want a sandwich than if you don’t.
You still have to buy the $4 bottle of water
> You still have to buy the $4 bottle of water
You can technically bring an empty bottle of water or container and fill it up inside of the airport.
Your options would typically be a water fountain, bathroom sink or asking a bar tender to fill it up. Typically if you go the bar tender route you may end up tipping them so you don't escape some cost there.
I've also heard you can bring a frozen water bottle. The idea there is if it were a dangerous liquid then it wouldn't freeze so you're allowed to bring it. The hard part would be ensuring it stays fully frozen while waiting on line.
You can technically bring an empty bottle of water or container and fill it up inside of the airport.
Your options would typically be a water fountain, bathroom sink or asking a bar tender to fill it up. Typically if you go the bar tender route you may end up tipping them so you don't escape some cost there.
I've also heard you can bring a frozen water bottle. The idea there is if it were a dangerous liquid then it wouldn't freeze so you're allowed to bring it. The hard part would be ensuring it stays fully frozen while waiting on line.
That’s a very pro-capitalist way of saying you don’t really care about free markets. If the airport authority allowed competition and/or if they only granted exclusivity tied to reasonable pricing, then this issue wouldn’t exist.
[deleted]
I think this sums it up best. Airports charge more for food because, well, they can. Travelers or a captive market, and have no other choice. I'm old enough to remember when people thought you couldn't bring food through security.
I can offer some insight onto this, as I used to be in close proximity to a friend who worked in the concession group at the LAX version monitoring this policy.
It was called the 18% price protection policy program where concessionaires had to quarterly list 3 comparable vendors for each item sold showing how their item offered was only less than 18% above that of those found within a 10 mile radius of the airport. In reality, it was too much asked of low skilled and low margin vendors with power to enforce not being exercised due to managements prioritization of more pressing matters.
In reality, there was little by way of enforcement, it was too much regulation to pass down to those vendors even, with that being only 1 of 5-10 policies an excel sheets they had to provide quarterly data on, entered manually. They vendors had so much turnover themselves and employees who didn't specialize in providing that sort of data, they would always fall behind with all the policies and regulation they had to comply with that enforcing it on them was hollow and without power. And when they did provide data, it was poorly formatted, required man hours to read and research and in the end might not even have been a valid "comparable" data that was provided, but, to verify their data provided would require manual audits of physically inspecting 10-100 individual comparables that were given that it was a nightmare, and thus, never got done. There wasn't enough staff at either the vendor nor the airport authority to properly see the implementation of the price protection policy.
The city could technically use its power to make it a priority, but, there were always much more urgent matters at same position that it was a on the back burner, it seemed.
It was called the 18% price protection policy program where concessionaires had to quarterly list 3 comparable vendors for each item sold showing how their item offered was only less than 18% above that of those found within a 10 mile radius of the airport. In reality, it was too much asked of low skilled and low margin vendors with power to enforce not being exercised due to managements prioritization of more pressing matters.
In reality, there was little by way of enforcement, it was too much regulation to pass down to those vendors even, with that being only 1 of 5-10 policies an excel sheets they had to provide quarterly data on, entered manually. They vendors had so much turnover themselves and employees who didn't specialize in providing that sort of data, they would always fall behind with all the policies and regulation they had to comply with that enforcing it on them was hollow and without power. And when they did provide data, it was poorly formatted, required man hours to read and research and in the end might not even have been a valid "comparable" data that was provided, but, to verify their data provided would require manual audits of physically inspecting 10-100 individual comparables that were given that it was a nightmare, and thus, never got done. There wasn't enough staff at either the vendor nor the airport authority to properly see the implementation of the price protection policy.
The city could technically use its power to make it a priority, but, there were always much more urgent matters at same position that it was a on the back burner, it seemed.
What does "used to be in close proximity to a friend" mean? I mean your comment is pretty detailed, down to the formatting of Excel documents and the internal workings of the regulators. People have conversations with friends, but rarely to this degree of detail, kind of makes it sound like you're just making shit up. Or, that you yourself are the "friend."
I’ve had plenty of conversations like this with friends over a beer or coffee, incredulously diving into some bizarre aspect of their work or life!
Same
However I haven't. So I call shenanigans!
If the internet is good for one thing, it's for producing entirely trustworthy and accurate tales based on what a random poster's "friend once told me a while back".
This isn't the only reason someone might go into detail, but there's something called "infodumping". It's when autistic people like myself socialize by describing something we're interested in in depth. Some people have autistic friends.
I remember being in one of the NYC airports and needing a plug socket adapter for my laptop, for the flight.
On Alibaba, 50 cents.
On Amazon, maybe 1.5 USD.
In the airport, 35 USD. This was back in about 2015.
I did not buy it, and got by as best I could.
Such extraordinary prices materially impact the experience of traveling. To my eye, they seem shortsighted.
I also finally realised some years ago all the "duty free" shops are a giant con.
Yes, they are duty free - but they're all charging about twice the high-street price.
I never buy in airports, which can inconvenient, and it is always unpleasant to witness when I travel. If I were running an airport, I would look to make the experience of travelers as pleasant as possible, rather than actually making it unpleasant.
On Alibaba, 50 cents.
On Amazon, maybe 1.5 USD.
In the airport, 35 USD. This was back in about 2015.
I did not buy it, and got by as best I could.
Such extraordinary prices materially impact the experience of traveling. To my eye, they seem shortsighted.
I also finally realised some years ago all the "duty free" shops are a giant con.
Yes, they are duty free - but they're all charging about twice the high-street price.
I never buy in airports, which can inconvenient, and it is always unpleasant to witness when I travel. If I were running an airport, I would look to make the experience of travelers as pleasant as possible, rather than actually making it unpleasant.
> Yes, they are duty free - but they're all charging about twice the high-street price.
Same as ZERO COMMISSION EXCHANGE outfits that, yes, charge 0% commission on the receipt but have jacked up all exchange rates by 10% instead…
Same as ZERO COMMISSION EXCHANGE outfits that, yes, charge 0% commission on the receipt but have jacked up all exchange rates by 10% instead…
and what about the planned maze to reach your gate? planned so you are forced to pass in front as many shops as possible? The gate may be 50 meters away if you turn left, but the sign says you have to turn right... and it will become 200 meters and many shops
then, even worse, the fact that they "announce" your gate only 30 minutes before embarking! .... they do not want you to sit in a chair if front of your gate.. absolutely not! they want you to hang around and spend.
but, the worst: when they heat the water in the toilets so you cannot drink it! In Greece they even put a fake "not potable" sign, so you sure buy the world's higher overpriced bottle of water.
then, even worse, the fact that they "announce" your gate only 30 minutes before embarking! .... they do not want you to sit in a chair if front of your gate.. absolutely not! they want you to hang around and spend.
but, the worst: when they heat the water in the toilets so you cannot drink it! In Greece they even put a fake "not potable" sign, so you sure buy the world's higher overpriced bottle of water.
>planned maze
Is actually to maximize surface area for airplanes to park in a single terminal. Next airport trip, pull out a gps and look at where you are walking.
>announce your gate 30 minutes
The airline you are flying on only has X number of gates but X+y planes at that given time. So they will hold off on gate numbers to optimally fit you in. Lots of pilots talking to ATC telling them they don’t have gate info from their carrier yet
I understand it may appear as though they are trying to get you, but they are trying to be efficient
Is actually to maximize surface area for airplanes to park in a single terminal. Next airport trip, pull out a gps and look at where you are walking.
>announce your gate 30 minutes
The airline you are flying on only has X number of gates but X+y planes at that given time. So they will hold off on gate numbers to optimally fit you in. Lots of pilots talking to ATC telling them they don’t have gate info from their carrier yet
I understand it may appear as though they are trying to get you, but they are trying to be efficient
What I've found is that often a flight will take the same gate as it took yesterday, and failing that a nearby one. I think people like to be near their gate to feel safer about missing the flight. You mightn't know know the exact date, but since airports won't even give you the general area.
Also I don't believe your efficiency story, there are plenty of cases where it's possible to know the gate ahead of time, and plenty of reasons for airports not to want people congregating at the gate as soon as they get airside.
Also I don't believe your efficiency story, there are plenty of cases where it's possible to know the gate ahead of time, and plenty of reasons for airports not to want people congregating at the gate as soon as they get airside.
> there are plenty of cases where it's possible to know the gate ahead of time
exactly, sometimes even flight radar tells you the gate, but the main displays in the airport will tell you the gate number only 30 minutes before: Istanbul (IST) is my main reference here: what I do is I just go to any personnel and gently ask for the gate for my flight telling them I need to sit down and rest: they quickly check and tell me.
I have no proof, but I do believe that those 30 mins only advance notification are planned so not to have me sitting down in a comfortable chair for hours not spending money.
exactly, sometimes even flight radar tells you the gate, but the main displays in the airport will tell you the gate number only 30 minutes before: Istanbul (IST) is my main reference here: what I do is I just go to any personnel and gently ask for the gate for my flight telling them I need to sit down and rest: they quickly check and tell me.
I have no proof, but I do believe that those 30 mins only advance notification are planned so not to have me sitting down in a comfortable chair for hours not spending money.
My local airport only has 8 gates for american airlines. They are constantly landing without a gate. Sometimes you get to file your gate early, sometimes you don't. Not having a gate doesn't prevent you from filing an IFR flight plan and getting to your destination. It just means you might sit on the tarmack because you are not flying into a hub for your airline
> Is actually to maximize surface area for airplanes to park in a single terminal. Next airport trip, pull out a gps and look at where you are walking.
yes, but I am not talking about the structure, the "concrete": I am talking about the walking way inside big open areas that makes you walk from A to B in a zigzag pattern: it is a bit like having salt and sugar in different places in a supermarket, which makes you go all around the supermarket (which is planned, no doubt, even moving those places every x months).
I am 100% sure that the super expensive rent a shop pays in an airport goes along with the guarantee that a number of X passengers will pass in front of it every day: you need to maximize the model, so what do you do?
anything goes
yes, but I am not talking about the structure, the "concrete": I am talking about the walking way inside big open areas that makes you walk from A to B in a zigzag pattern: it is a bit like having salt and sugar in different places in a supermarket, which makes you go all around the supermarket (which is planned, no doubt, even moving those places every x months).
I am 100% sure that the super expensive rent a shop pays in an airport goes along with the guarantee that a number of X passengers will pass in front of it every day: you need to maximize the model, so what do you do?
anything goes
Yep. I hate everything about flying. It’s miserable. I plan my vacations to avoid flying, it’s just not worth the aggravation for me.
I find road trips pretty pleasant... don't plan on having to drive too far in one day, and when you aren't in a rush to get somewhere by a certain time, it's pretty relaxing just listening to music, and the general scenery for most of the driving. After a few days, most daily life stress tends to melt away.
I live in Europe and prefer the train. Less pollution, more legroom, can take a nap, read a book, etc.
You could also fly, and take a nap there... The biggest benefit to a road trip is flexibility. If you see something that catches your eye and want to look around and take some pictures, a train doesn't give you that. If you decide to stay an extra day somewhere, the effect on your budget could be significant for other forms of travel.
As for pollution, maybe if they were building more nuclear plants and high speed chargers, then electric vehicles would actually be a better option for longer distance travel. Of course not counting the environmental impact of building a bunch of new vehicles vs. the one that I've had for over 7 years.
As for pollution, maybe if they were building more nuclear plants and high speed chargers, then electric vehicles would actually be a better option for longer distance travel. Of course not counting the environmental impact of building a bunch of new vehicles vs. the one that I've had for over 7 years.
Just show up the airport an hour earlier than needed and go grab a beer. Less stress, more relaxation
You’re still swimming in people (especially since they fired all staff after Covid and haven’t rehired but usage has returned to normal)
You still have to deal with security theatre.
You’re still treated as cattle.
You’re still at the mercy of delays, bumps, last minute gate changes.
You still have to deal with a puny amount of luggage.
You still have to pay for every little thing (lounge access to relax, drinks/food inflight, the privilege of taking checked in luggage)
You’re till siting in a tiny aluminum tube with your knees under your chin for hours on end, preferably with a kid kicking the back of your flimsy seat the whole way.
You still have to waste copious amounts of time going to and from the airport.
You still get your luggage lost/delayed/damaged and having to deal with overworked + underpaid people to try and get compensated.
I could go on. I hate the miserable experience of flying and it seems like airports + carriers are always innovating to find ways to make it even worse.
You still have to deal with security theatre.
You’re still treated as cattle.
You’re still at the mercy of delays, bumps, last minute gate changes.
You still have to deal with a puny amount of luggage.
You still have to pay for every little thing (lounge access to relax, drinks/food inflight, the privilege of taking checked in luggage)
You’re till siting in a tiny aluminum tube with your knees under your chin for hours on end, preferably with a kid kicking the back of your flimsy seat the whole way.
You still have to waste copious amounts of time going to and from the airport.
You still get your luggage lost/delayed/damaged and having to deal with overworked + underpaid people to try and get compensated.
I could go on. I hate the miserable experience of flying and it seems like airports + carriers are always innovating to find ways to make it even worse.
That is fine for the first flight, but the connections can quickly turn into a mess. Also, after getting there an hour early, you grab a beer, sit around, and then the flight gets delayed or cancelled. I've noticed it is stressful until the plane for my final connection going back home leaves the ground.
If you don't have to get somewhere at specific times and events, no problem, just chill and you'll get there eventually. If going to a planned meeting, or giving a talk, etc., it can be very tiring.
If you don't have to get somewhere at specific times and events, no problem, just chill and you'll get there eventually. If going to a planned meeting, or giving a talk, etc., it can be very tiring.
Oh true, I try to always fly without connections if possible, but if not it can get stressful. Depending on where you live you might always have connections, I've been lucky to live near well connected airports that have direct flights 90% of the time
It's also a perverse incentive for the airport to not improve security times. The less predictable the security experience is, the earlier people have to show up, and the more time they spend getting hungry airside.
not to mention security requirements ... the more paranoid they make people about what they can bring, the less likely they are to attempt to bring food or drink in themselves and end up resigning yourself to buying it in the terminal.
There seems to be a deliberate fog of war around travel requirements. The specifics of the rules are different everywhere (take my shoes off? belt off? laptop in my bag or out of my bag? ...). Which is slightly annoying in itself but what is really annoying is the lack of explanation of what those specific requirements are at any one airport. Which means inevitably being yelled at by security staff, feeling stupid, setting off scanners accidentally etc. It's all very unpleasant.
There seems to be a deliberate fog of war around travel requirements. The specifics of the rules are different everywhere (take my shoes off? belt off? laptop in my bag or out of my bag? ...). Which is slightly annoying in itself but what is really annoying is the lack of explanation of what those specific requirements are at any one airport. Which means inevitably being yelled at by security staff, feeling stupid, setting off scanners accidentally etc. It's all very unpleasant.
> The specifics of the rules are different everywhere
With lack of signage by TSA to describe the airport-specific rules. Makes TSA folks appear busy by seizing my water bottle after arriving int'l and getting caught by TSA for onward flight. And specific taxes pay for this bureaucracy.
With lack of signage by TSA to describe the airport-specific rules. Makes TSA folks appear busy by seizing my water bottle after arriving int'l and getting caught by TSA for onward flight. And specific taxes pay for this bureaucracy.
Wait, did you actually find overpriced water in Greece? I ask because they have a law regulating the price of bottled water: https://greeklandscapes.com/prices-in-greece/#:~:text=BOTTLE...).
In my experience, I was able to purchase 0.50€ water at airports in Athens, Mykonos and Santorini. One trick that I saw some merchants use was to not to sell bottled water at all, or claim it had ran out, and that they only had 7€ Gatorade or whatever.
In my experience, I was able to purchase 0.50€ water at airports in Athens, Mykonos and Santorini. One trick that I saw some merchants use was to not to sell bottled water at all, or claim it had ran out, and that they only had 7€ Gatorade or whatever.
> they have a law regulating the price of bottled water: https://greeklandscapes.com/prices-in-greece/#:~:text=BOTTLE...).
oh, good to know, thanks.
I recall a crazy price for Perrier (something I would never buy myself): it was Cefalonia airport where tab water is (or at least it was 10 years ago) super fine, and in the toilet there was a fake hand made "water is not drinkable" sign (only in the main bathroom btw ahhaaha): I remember my friend needed to drink and ended up buying Perrier and not drinking from the sink as we were doing.
oh, good to know, thanks.
I recall a crazy price for Perrier (something I would never buy myself): it was Cefalonia airport where tab water is (or at least it was 10 years ago) super fine, and in the toilet there was a fake hand made "water is not drinkable" sign (only in the main bathroom btw ahhaaha): I remember my friend needed to drink and ended up buying Perrier and not drinking from the sink as we were doing.
Do you mean “sinks” instead of “toilets”?
Toilets are what Brits call the room that America's call a bathroom. I guess at least that has the virtue of the room actually having toilets in it and not baths.
I'm a Brit (as my handle suggests) and technically I agree with your comment but if I read you can't drink "the water in the toilets" it sounds pretty literal even to me.
washroom is American but bathroom is Canadian
I've always heard and used bathroom as an American. Restroom is also used for public facilities that don't actually have bathtubs.
It might break down like pop/soda. Are you from a pop or soda state?
Yeah, it probably depends on the region.
My state is split down the middle and I'm in the soda half.
My state is split down the middle and I'm in the soda half.
Another lifelong American checking in with "bathroom". I've lived up and down the East coast, and "bathroom" would have been normal to hear anywhere, alongside "restroom". "Washroom" would be a very distant 3rd option.
'bathroom' is extremely common in the USA.
:) :)
yes, of course
yes, of course
Zero commission indeed sounds fishy, but what if there is a commission?
Inexperienced (euro-pampered) me went to a money exchange place that charged a fee because I know it costs money for them to have random icelandic kronar on hand so that's fair, then they don't need hidden fees right? I also knew the bank from name, it's a household name in my country.
Later at home I checked and I paid out of my ass for the exchange rate, never mind the fee on top...
I thought I was being clever by doing it at departure where you can compare and say no. At the destination airport, you have no choice but to exchange, everyone will need the local currency to pay for things and so I thought it's better to be prepared than potentially be paying the prices of the desperate. Yeah. No.
(A few hours of air time later, I learned that in Iceland you just pay by bank card for everything at iirc 0.3% fee and you don't need to exchange no cash.)
Inexperienced (euro-pampered) me went to a money exchange place that charged a fee because I know it costs money for them to have random icelandic kronar on hand so that's fair, then they don't need hidden fees right? I also knew the bank from name, it's a household name in my country.
Later at home I checked and I paid out of my ass for the exchange rate, never mind the fee on top...
I thought I was being clever by doing it at departure where you can compare and say no. At the destination airport, you have no choice but to exchange, everyone will need the local currency to pay for things and so I thought it's better to be prepared than potentially be paying the prices of the desperate. Yeah. No.
(A few hours of air time later, I learned that in Iceland you just pay by bank card for everything at iirc 0.3% fee and you don't need to exchange no cash.)
My personal way to do this is to check on the web what the rate without any fee is (search engine “100/however much you need eur to isk“) and then I make a mental note of that number. I go around exchange places and ask how much isk they’d give me for 100 eur all included. Makes it easier to compare them with each other without having to figure out whatever commission and fee structure they came up with, and gives me an idea of how far they are from the interbank rate.
An even better solution is to get a card like TransferWise (revolut are exploitative assholes and I don’t recommend enabling this employee exploiter) that charges very very reasonable rates so that you don’t even need to exchange or can use an atm if cash is required.
An even better solution is to get a card like TransferWise (revolut are exploitative assholes and I don’t recommend enabling this employee exploiter) that charges very very reasonable rates so that you don’t even need to exchange or can use an atm if cash is required.
> I learned that in Iceland you just pay by bank card for everything at iirc 0.3% fee and you don't need to exchange no cash
Can you get cash out of local atm machines using your foreign card?
Can you get cash out of local atm machines using your foreign card?
I travelled recently and when I got some foreign cash I noticed this. I was thinking, well if the fee is 0% you're clearly giving me a shit exchange rate and making your money there.
It seems bizarre to shuffle around the cost structure like that, but I guess it's a marketing thing that works because most people don't know any better?
It seems bizarre to shuffle around the cost structure like that, but I guess it's a marketing thing that works because most people don't know any better?
A number of my friends see 0 commission and think “hey, good deal, let’s exchange here”
So yeah it works as intended. Same trick as advertising prices without taxes, tips, cleaning fees, and other mandatory fees you’ll end up paying.
So yeah it works as intended. Same trick as advertising prices without taxes, tips, cleaning fees, and other mandatory fees you’ll end up paying.
You may have noticed in general that convenience costs you money. A charger which is in China and you will get in a month is indeed worth 50 cents because all that's worth to you.
A charger right this second, at the exact location (airport, past security) is obviously going to cost more.
Both because you are being charged a convenience premium, and because chances are nobody would bother setting up vending for 50 cents (just think about hiring cleared employees, supplying your store on that side of security, rental of that very limited space)
In general, I find myself much less outraged at what things cost once I became versed in market dynamics.
If you are a businessman who forgot his charger in the hotel and your flight got delayed, you are thrilled to pay $35 for it (vs not having it at all since nobody would bother selling it)
A charger right this second, at the exact location (airport, past security) is obviously going to cost more.
Both because you are being charged a convenience premium, and because chances are nobody would bother setting up vending for 50 cents (just think about hiring cleared employees, supplying your store on that side of security, rental of that very limited space)
In general, I find myself much less outraged at what things cost once I became versed in market dynamics.
If you are a businessman who forgot his charger in the hotel and your flight got delayed, you are thrilled to pay $35 for it (vs not having it at all since nobody would bother selling it)
> A charger right this second, at the exact location (airport, past security) is obviously going to cost more.
I think the point they're making is that it's curious that "a charger right this second, at this exact supermarket" is nowhere near 33 usd in 2015 prices. It's specifically airports, not about waiting for 3 weeks (or even 3 hours) of shipping.
I think the point they're making is that it's curious that "a charger right this second, at this exact supermarket" is nowhere near 33 usd in 2015 prices. It's specifically airports, not about waiting for 3 weeks (or even 3 hours) of shipping.
That's not the same thing at all.
a supermarket is a place you "go to" vs the airport terminal is a place where "you are."
If I am going to the supermarket, I have the luxury of time and I probably have the luxury of for example going 10 minutes further for a better deal.
When I am at the terminal, I am at the terminal. I can't go anywhere else. The product is either there or or it isn't
a supermarket is a place you "go to" vs the airport terminal is a place where "you are."
If I am going to the supermarket, I have the luxury of time and I probably have the luxury of for example going 10 minutes further for a better deal.
When I am at the terminal, I am at the terminal. I can't go anywhere else. The product is either there or or it isn't
Ok you are describing price gouging
Depends on the country as well, some country airports with high item tax make it worth buying at the airport.
Take the vice tax for example, most Islamic countries probably at alcohol cheaper at their airports.
Same goes with countries that have items with pricing power, I always get certain gifts at Japanese airports since the price it usually cheaper with tax free comparative to the rest of the country.
US airports though... Never worth it. Overpriced af
Take the vice tax for example, most Islamic countries probably at alcohol cheaper at their airports.
Same goes with countries that have items with pricing power, I always get certain gifts at Japanese airports since the price it usually cheaper with tax free comparative to the rest of the country.
US airports though... Never worth it. Overpriced af
Went to Dubai, I don't do drugs, but prices seemed not horrible.
Then I checked if I would spend my local money for some candy, but I noped right out. On principle I weren't going to pay those prices.
Then I checked if I would spend my local money for some candy, but I noped right out. On principle I weren't going to pay those prices.
I'm not sure if your comment makes sense and I can't think straight, or maybe you are using 'drugs' and 'candy' in some way that I don't understand.
Ethanol is a drug. No different really from fentanyl or crack cocaine or THC. So I just referrer it as such.
Sure they're all 'drugs', but while THC and ethanol have comparable safety profiles both are unequivocally different from and far less dangerous+addictive than fentanyl and crack cocaine for both public and individual health...
Have you considered that is more important for people to understand what you are saying than to be technically correct?
Or blueberries or aspirin? I'm confused as to where you draw the lines between those items.
> If I were running an airport, I would look to make the experience of travelers as pleasant as possible, rather than actually making it unpleasant.
You’d also need to find a revenue source to maintain the airport and pay salaries which is kind of important
You’d also need to find a revenue source to maintain the airport and pay salaries which is kind of important
I think another point is that thanks to TSA measures it will pretty much always be unpleasant, so you can make money squeezing people with layovers who don't want to, or don't have time to, go through security an extra time.
If you have a layover in a train station, e.g. with Amtrak, you can just leave the train station and go to a nearby shop if you need something.
If you have a layover in a train station, e.g. with Amtrak, you can just leave the train station and go to a nearby shop if you need something.
> To my eye, they seem shortsighted.
These prices work in airports because there are little to no repeat customers, AND there is no competition to drive the prices down.
These prices work in airports because there are little to no repeat customers, AND there is no competition to drive the prices down.
> On Alibaba, 50 cents.
> On Amazon, maybe 1.5 USD.
There's a decent chance neither of these pass the minimum safety requirements. It would be fairer to compare with a socket adapter from a supermarket.
e.g. Tesco, £4.50 for two, vs. Heathrow Airport £11 for two.
> On Amazon, maybe 1.5 USD.
There's a decent chance neither of these pass the minimum safety requirements. It would be fairer to compare with a socket adapter from a supermarket.
e.g. Tesco, £4.50 for two, vs. Heathrow Airport £11 for two.
When I was younger and dumber I made the mistake of buying some halfway decent ear buds for $95. Huge ripoff but I rode those things for years until they stopped putting out sound to repent for my mistake. Never again
It's been years now since I checked, but I remember a Best Buy airport vending machine having the same price as their stores.
>It's been years now since I checked, but I remember a Best Buy airport vending machine having the same price as their stores.
It's been years now since I checked, but I remember needing (within hours) a specific ethernet card (for a box running Solaris x86 -- back in the late '90s/early noughties driver support for Solaris was quite limited) and went to a BestBuy store as they had it in stock near me.
I checked later on and found that the price in the store was 30% over MSRP.
As such, the fact that the price was the same at an airport vending machine vis-a-vis an actual store doesn't surprise me that much.
Which is why, unless I'm in a situation like I described above, I stay far, far away from BestBuy.
Obviously, this is anecdotal, so I imagine YMMV.
It's been years now since I checked, but I remember needing (within hours) a specific ethernet card (for a box running Solaris x86 -- back in the late '90s/early noughties driver support for Solaris was quite limited) and went to a BestBuy store as they had it in stock near me.
I checked later on and found that the price in the store was 30% over MSRP.
As such, the fact that the price was the same at an airport vending machine vis-a-vis an actual store doesn't surprise me that much.
Which is why, unless I'm in a situation like I described above, I stay far, far away from BestBuy.
Obviously, this is anecdotal, so I imagine YMMV.
I should clarify. Since I was at the airport, I compared it to Best Buy's ONLINE price, not the store price. My mistake, it didn't occur to me that those might be different, but it does speak well for the vending machines!
Probably not applicable to the early 2000s, but nowadays Best Buy physical stores will price match their online prices. I went in several years ago to grab an HDMI cable that was listed for ~$10 online but was marked $20 in the store. Silly that it’s even necessary, but it was easy to price match.
>I went in several years ago to grab an HDMI cable that was listed for ~$10 online but was marked $20 in the store. Silly that it’s even necessary, but it was easy to price match.
While I get your point, that I'd even have to compare prices online and in person from the same retailer, even if they will "price match" (which is really just ripping off anyone who wouldn't think to look for a better price from them online) is slimy as hell IMHO.
While I get your point, that I'd even have to compare prices online and in person from the same retailer, even if they will "price match" (which is really just ripping off anyone who wouldn't think to look for a better price from them online) is slimy as hell IMHO.
Former defense contractor here:
This has similar econ dynamics to defense contracts.
The market competition between companies is entirely limited to competing for the exclusive, government granted monopoly of winning the contract. This is known as rent seeking in economics terms.
Once rent seekers win, the expectation is that the agency who governs the contract actually does their job and prevents price gouging. This can sometimes be done well, but usually, it isn't. My experience is that most govt regulators are complacent, mediocre, low energy desk jockies who default to doing as little as possible. This structure of management is why the US DoDs JSF (aka f35) program is such an absurdly horrific example of massive cost overruns and under performance.
I have an econ background, and one did an internal presentation at Booz Allen about the pitfalls of BAHs rent seeking dynamics encouraging top engineers to get sucked out of real projects (causing them to under perform) to instead work full time on writing proposals in response to govt RFPs. After all that's how you get promoted at these companies because what they say they value isn't actually what they value.
This has similar econ dynamics to defense contracts.
The market competition between companies is entirely limited to competing for the exclusive, government granted monopoly of winning the contract. This is known as rent seeking in economics terms.
Once rent seekers win, the expectation is that the agency who governs the contract actually does their job and prevents price gouging. This can sometimes be done well, but usually, it isn't. My experience is that most govt regulators are complacent, mediocre, low energy desk jockies who default to doing as little as possible. This structure of management is why the US DoDs JSF (aka f35) program is such an absurdly horrific example of massive cost overruns and under performance.
I have an econ background, and one did an internal presentation at Booz Allen about the pitfalls of BAHs rent seeking dynamics encouraging top engineers to get sucked out of real projects (causing them to under perform) to instead work full time on writing proposals in response to govt RFPs. After all that's how you get promoted at these companies because what they say they value isn't actually what they value.
> My experience is that most govt regulators are complacent, mediocre, low energy desk jockies who default to doing as little as possible.
Yep. But the upside is that they're often the only thing standing between you and more or less infinite profit; and they're hardly an obstacle if you have the right set of keys.
Yep. But the upside is that they're often the only thing standing between you and more or less infinite profit; and they're hardly an obstacle if you have the right set of keys.
Because New York City is like deep space: fundamentally hostile to life, especially human life. Once people get past their sensory overloaded twenties (or luck into the kind of wealth that triggers syncophantic personalities to suck up to them), it becomes clear that everything you try to do in the City involves a fight (and I'm not just talking about the days when you get multiple parking tickets, or the late nights when the F Train seems like it's never coming, or the kid behind the Deli counter gives you a sour look when you're counting out singles to pay for that double-digit sandwich on Seventh Avenue). A titanic struggle for survival in a high rise hellscape. And everyone is on edge, ready to pop off at any moment because they've reached their limit of being beaten down.
OK. The real answer is that The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey that regulates vendors at its facilities is a more wretched hive of scum and villainy than Mos Eisley. Clearly George Lucas had experienced one too many visits to JFK. Or was it LaGuardia?
OK. The real answer is that The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey that regulates vendors at its facilities is a more wretched hive of scum and villainy than Mos Eisley. Clearly George Lucas had experienced one too many visits to JFK. Or was it LaGuardia?
In the late 1980s, when I traveled a lot for work, I thought of airports as similar to the debtors' prisons depicted by Dickens: it was unpleasant, it was sort of your fault you were there, and you could purchase comforts, but at inordinate prices.
"Street prices" can also be surprisingly high in NYC. For example, https://gothamist.com/news/why-does-this-ham-and-cheese-cost...
But when public groups restrict data even after an FOI request, it's hard not to wonder if something foul is going on.
But when public groups restrict data even after an FOI request, it's hard not to wonder if something foul is going on.
Their argument that they don't want to disclose the names of individual vendors is flawed but somewhat logical. I've seen redactions, for example, on the breakdown of a town's tax revenue by industry when there was only one small business working in a specific industry.
Disclosing the price charged for a sandwich seems far less sensitive however. My hunch is there is likely no record of the comparison sandwiches, and I hope the author of this article appeals their records request to find out if that's true or not.
Disclosing the price charged for a sandwich seems far less sensitive however. My hunch is there is likely no record of the comparison sandwiches, and I hope the author of this article appeals their records request to find out if that's true or not.
>> "To protect the integrity of the fact-finding process, as well as agency deliberations, the Port Authority’s longstanding policy is to maintain the confidentiality of these types of Inspector General investigative reports."
What requires protection here, other than the absurd consumer price gouging among a captive audience that occurs in EVERY airport across the country and those that let it occur? They are absolutely right in the article, this should be something easy to be transparent about, and shouldn't be a secret process run by lobbying restaurant companies, city management on the grift, and decrepit municipal process.
What requires protection here, other than the absurd consumer price gouging among a captive audience that occurs in EVERY airport across the country and those that let it occur? They are absolutely right in the article, this should be something easy to be transparent about, and shouldn't be a secret process run by lobbying restaurant companies, city management on the grift, and decrepit municipal process.
Exactly. Transparency protects integrity.
> Why does a plastic-wrapped turkey sandwich cost $15
Because people keep paying for them.
The fault of price gouging lies firmly with consumers. If consumers are willing to tolerate ridiculous prices, then guess what, vendors are going to keep charging ever-higher ridiculous prices. Why in the world would they not?
If no one, or at least much fewer, people were willing to shell out $15 for a sandwich, then that sandwich would not cost $15.
If you're going to be hungry, bring food with you to the airport. If you don't want to deal with being hassled while going through security about it, then eat it before you go through security. It's very simple.
Sure there are always going to be exceptions--flight delays, you're running late, your kids' blood sugar is dipping, etc, but if you adhere to this very basic principle more often than not, sandwich prices will go down.
Because people keep paying for them.
The fault of price gouging lies firmly with consumers. If consumers are willing to tolerate ridiculous prices, then guess what, vendors are going to keep charging ever-higher ridiculous prices. Why in the world would they not?
If no one, or at least much fewer, people were willing to shell out $15 for a sandwich, then that sandwich would not cost $15.
If you're going to be hungry, bring food with you to the airport. If you don't want to deal with being hassled while going through security about it, then eat it before you go through security. It's very simple.
Sure there are always going to be exceptions--flight delays, you're running late, your kids' blood sugar is dipping, etc, but if you adhere to this very basic principle more often than not, sandwich prices will go down.
I agree with all of your points, but in cases of monopoly or oligopoly you can't place all of the blame on the consumer. It seems like a simple way for this problem to fix itself is for the Port Authority to allow more competition among concessionaires in the terminals; the article doesn't make it clear how much competition there really is.
As noted elsewhere in this thread, the Port Authority is one of the most corrupt government organizations you could find, so it would be unsurprising if it ended up being that there were two or three parent companies behind all the concessionaires.
As noted elsewhere in this thread, the Port Authority is one of the most corrupt government organizations you could find, so it would be unsurprising if it ended up being that there were two or three parent companies behind all the concessionaires.
For the past five years, I have a no eating on travel days policy. Not only do I feel like I am avoiding these high costs, my stomach is less active which is great on travel days.
Yeah, if you get used to not snacking between meals, you begin to learn that typical hunger generally passes, especially if you stay busy/distracted. I usually only eat once or twice a day, and have fasted as long as a week.
Staying busy and distracted is the hard part during travel, which is generally a lot of mind-numbing shuffling about.
Same reason you can’t buy anything but crap hotdogs in Central Park - vendors pay millions for the exclusive contract to sell and then they sell crap at high prices to cover their investment.
No competition, no innovation, no reason to not gouge tbe punters.
No competition, no innovation, no reason to not gouge tbe punters.
It's not just a Central Park problem: a lot of north america basically forbids the sale of anything from a cart beyond pre-cooked hotdogs and burgers (putting it on the grill is mainly for show and to warm it up).
Kinda makes sense because of lack of hand-washing facilities, but those aren't impossible to set up.
Kinda makes sense because of lack of hand-washing facilities, but those aren't impossible to set up.
Not in NYC. Central Park should by rights be a cart-and-truck culinary wonderland.
It's pretty obvious why the one in the picture at the top is $14.99. It's from the kosher stand that has a small selection and higher prices because kosher meat is generally pretty expensive in America. Mind you, I wouldn't normally buy that sandwich for $15, but the last time I traveled through Newark, I gladly payed that much for something kosher to eat. It's about the same as I'd pay outside the airport for something similar if freshly made. I can't say much about the other products listed, as I'm not the target demographic.
This article is not asking "Why would a store at the airport charge extra?" (pretty obvious), it's asking "Exactly how did these stores arrive at their prices given the pricing rules that are supposedly imposed on them by the government?"
FWIW most airports I’ve visited have a staff canteen that’s actually open to everyone, albeit hidden.
If you ask airport staff, they’ll know where it is.
There aren’t a ton of options there and it’s often in the basement but you can choose between a few options and get a decent meal (considering) without getting fleeced.
That’s where ground staff, baggage handlers, etc eat every work day.
If you ask airport staff, they’ll know where it is.
There aren’t a ton of options there and it’s often in the basement but you can choose between a few options and get a decent meal (considering) without getting fleeced.
That’s where ground staff, baggage handlers, etc eat every work day.
> FWIW most airports I’ve visited have a staff canteen that’s actually open to everyone, albeit hidden.
Could you please list which airports you've been to have this, and where it is located in them?
It's not that I doubt airports have staff canteens, it's more that I have trouble believing anyone can just waltz into them. And a casual web search brings up only results about one airport actually having one open to the public.
Could you please list which airports you've been to have this, and where it is located in them?
It's not that I doubt airports have staff canteens, it's more that I have trouble believing anyone can just waltz into them. And a casual web search brings up only results about one airport actually having one open to the public.
I’ve avoided flying like the plague for several years now.
But I don’t remember having trouble doing this in Europe or Canada.
It’s not publicly advertised because airports prefer you go to the overpriced airside concessions they can charge obscene rents for, and airport workers just know where it is; they don’t look it up.
Next time you fly, ask a janitor or other airport employee (the ones in the shops don’t always know and/or eat at the concessions because they have discounts) and see for yourself. It was typically ground staff, janitors, security guards, baggage throwers, public transit employees eating there.
But I don’t remember having trouble doing this in Europe or Canada.
It’s not publicly advertised because airports prefer you go to the overpriced airside concessions they can charge obscene rents for, and airport workers just know where it is; they don’t look it up.
Next time you fly, ask a janitor or other airport employee (the ones in the shops don’t always know and/or eat at the concessions because they have discounts) and see for yourself. It was typically ground staff, janitors, security guards, baggage throwers, public transit employees eating there.
But I guess this is outside the check-in area, isn't it? Beyond the whole check-in, passport check etc point, everything is pretty thoroughly locked in and regulated. The only place I could accidentally leave that area was in Casablanca. I doubt it'd work at Schiphol or Frankfurt.
Yes you have to go back through security afterwards, the canteen isn’t airside.
If you're ever in Singapore, the staff canteens are pretty epic:
https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/74945/is-there-a-...
https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/74945/is-there-a-...
That’s what I’m talking about :)
[deleted]
I never buy those sandwiches but if I were tempted I’d consider that for the price of two of those I could buy a 6.1” screen Android smartphone at Kroger’s, download some videos, and watch them instead of eating.
Only possible because NYC airports finally have free wifi as of 2018:
https://www.cntraveler.com/story/new-york-airports-free-unli...
https://www.cntraveler.com/story/new-york-airports-free-unli...
Fascinating comparison to health pricing -- CMS has been trying for years to get hospitals to disclose their own prices (not even the methodology/formula deal from port authority), and they just haven't
People spill a lot of ink about whether regulators should force industries to be markets. Feels like we don't focus enough on the downstream case where regulators try to impose markets and fail
People spill a lot of ink about whether regulators should force industries to be markets. Feels like we don't focus enough on the downstream case where regulators try to impose markets and fail
It’s really not difficult to build sandwiches that won’t require refrigeration and can be packed into a container for consumption on long trips, people just don’t really know how to make them. But it will vastly improve the quality of your life.
Just stop buying these expensive sandwiches.
Just stop buying these expensive sandwiches.
What's your favorite such sandwich?
I’ve only flown through JFK once but still, my initial thought was “oh only $15?”
You are allowed to bring a turkey sandwich through security. No need to spend $15 there.
If you bring a jar of peanut butter they won't let you bring it through, but if you spread it (all) on bread, they will.
If you bring a jar of peanut butter they won't let you bring it through, but if you spread it (all) on bread, they will.
[deleted]
In my anecdotal experience Indianapolis International Airport (IND) is the best in terms of reasonable food pricing / affordability as well as comfortability in waiting area / seats and newness of the facility.
https://www.insideindianabusiness.com/articles/indy-airport-...
Even though IND doesn't nearly have the traffic like 3 NYC airports, it's still 24/7 airport and the self-served Farm Fridge food kiosk was super great in terms of prepackaged meals and pricing (half of the selections were under $10 - I flew to IND last month.) The Soda machine also charges $2 / bottle of Coca-Cola like other non-airport retailers instead of price gauging.
https://www.insideindianabusiness.com/articles/indy-airport-...
Even though IND doesn't nearly have the traffic like 3 NYC airports, it's still 24/7 airport and the self-served Farm Fridge food kiosk was super great in terms of prepackaged meals and pricing (half of the selections were under $10 - I flew to IND last month.) The Soda machine also charges $2 / bottle of Coca-Cola like other non-airport retailers instead of price gauging.
They rebuilt LGA.
Now it’s pretty but it takes four times longer to get to your gate as you have to walk past all the stores whose rent is paying off the bonds used to renovate.
I preferred ugly.
Now it’s pretty but it takes four times longer to get to your gate as you have to walk past all the stores whose rent is paying off the bonds used to renovate.
I preferred ugly.
My favorite pre-flight ritual as of recent is to go out and get a bomb ass sandwich and pack it for the flight. I’m talkin’ gourmet Italian, fresh mozz, crunchy bread with the waxed paper wrapping. Sometimes I’ll get it dry and pack the oil+vinegar in a small baggie.
In addition to this: you can't drink your own alcohol on the flight, but I know of no FAA regulation that says you can't bring a bunch of mini bottles, simple syrup, cherry, and bitters and make yourself an old fashioned at the gate while you wait to board. Pack a rocks glass and a tiny shaker and everyone will think you are simultaneously the weirdest and most baller person in Group 5. And technically ice isn't a liquid.
Heh that’s a good call. I also take the “rule” about not bringing your own alcohol on the plane with a pile of salt. In practice, it’s easy to dump nips into a soda during a flight without being caught.
Was able to enjoy the Business Class Lounge a few weeks back in JFK Airport. The lounge sounds almost like a steal in comparison when reading those prices.
"Bring your food" policy is becoming a thing
TSA will usually pull you aside and search your bag if you have food, so go ahead and take it out first.
No they don't, IME. Pack all your food in one bag in one compartment of your luggage. IME, TSA don't care unless they think it has liquid content. Keep your water bottle separate and empty.
Things you can't get through security check ('liquids'): yoghurts, the salad dressing on a salad. Doubtful about hummus.
On international flights: some fresh fruit (e.g. apples, US CBP), and some dried fruits and nuts, depends on country, see guidelines.
Useful tip: buy trail mix in bulk and repack in a small ziplock food bag in your luggage.
Things you can't get through security check ('liquids'): yoghurts, the salad dressing on a salad. Doubtful about hummus.
On international flights: some fresh fruit (e.g. apples, US CBP), and some dried fruits and nuts, depends on country, see guidelines.
Useful tip: buy trail mix in bulk and repack in a small ziplock food bag in your luggage.
No they won't. Just don't bring drink
Not if you are TSA pre-check or better yet if you use Clear.
Sure, and if you pay for general aviation, you can have an actual good experience flying.
Paying the fees for TSA pre-check or Clear to opt out of unnecessary screening feels like paying the mafia to opt out of unnecessary physical injury and property damage.
Paying the fees for TSA pre-check or Clear to opt out of unnecessary screening feels like paying the mafia to opt out of unnecessary physical injury and property damage.
You can either live your life angry that you had to pay for better treatment, or angry that you didn’t get better treatment for free, but only one of those options is more comfortable than the other.
Or you can be angry at an exploitative situation and try to change it for the better, rather than just resigning yourself to expect better treatment that is not conditional on price gouging.
Or, I can let it go and simply accept this isn’t a problem that will affect my life much even if it is solved.
Clear does not change the screening, it only changes the identification check and puts you at the front of the line.
At SeaTac, there’s separate lanes for Clear with and without Precheck.
At SeaTac, there’s separate lanes for Clear with and without Precheck.
In some airports Clear with precheck raises the chances you’ll be directed into more favorable screening lanes where TSA are more relaxed, due to it being used exclusively by prechecks or crew.
Sometimes with just precheck you’ll still get into general use lanes with annoying requests such as removing laptops from bags, no matter if you are precheck or not. This is because there is no Clear employee who can ensure you only end up in the best lane.
Regardless, my airport experiences after subscribing to Clear have always been far better than simply only having precheck alone, especially if you’re the type who likes to arrive late to a flight to minimize waiting at the terminal. Really does feel like a pre-9/11 world.
Sometimes with just precheck you’ll still get into general use lanes with annoying requests such as removing laptops from bags, no matter if you are precheck or not. This is because there is no Clear employee who can ensure you only end up in the best lane.
Regardless, my airport experiences after subscribing to Clear have always been far better than simply only having precheck alone, especially if you’re the type who likes to arrive late to a flight to minimize waiting at the terminal. Really does feel like a pre-9/11 world.
> In some airports Clear with precheck raises the chances you’ll be directed into more favorable screening lanes where TSA are more relaxed, due to it being used exclusively by prechecks or crew.
Clear itself isn't giving you access to Precheck, though. You are only allowed in the Precheck lane if you have Precheck.
As I said above, the only thing Clear is doing (and claiming it does) is verify your identity so TSA doesn't have to. What lane you get sorted into is entirely based on what's available (ie. if the Clear lane you used feeds into Precheck or just regular screening) and whether you have Precheck or not. You can't get into Precheck using just clear and you'll be turned away if you don't have the Precheck status on your boarding pass. I have seen it happen at SeaTac.
Clear itself isn't giving you access to Precheck, though. You are only allowed in the Precheck lane if you have Precheck.
As I said above, the only thing Clear is doing (and claiming it does) is verify your identity so TSA doesn't have to. What lane you get sorted into is entirely based on what's available (ie. if the Clear lane you used feeds into Precheck or just regular screening) and whether you have Precheck or not. You can't get into Precheck using just clear and you'll be turned away if you don't have the Precheck status on your boarding pass. I have seen it happen at SeaTac.
> Really does feel like a pre-9/11 world.
Says the person opting into a biometric surveillance dystopia.
Are you for real?
Says the person opting into a biometric surveillance dystopia.
Are you for real?
Don’t use Clear, don’t feed the enemy of the people
In most cases (especially with food prices like this) paying for lounge access looks like a great option.
The handful of international business class lounges in the US that I've visited were comparatively quite stingy/basic with food items (compared to typical counterparts in e.g. Europe or Asia).
Anyone got a recommendation for a JFK lounge that's a good deal when you're paying for access?
Anyone got a recommendation for a JFK lounge that's a good deal when you're paying for access?
Lounges have jacked up pricing as well. Used to be a $25 add-on to a ticket... well worth it when traveling internationally. Recently I've seen $49 or $59 for entry. If you're willing to drop that coin, you can eat pretty well at airport restaurants.
The addition of restaurants to Priority Pass has been an especially nice addition here. After deductions (and plus tip) you can often get a nice sit-down meal for the price of plastic-wrapped garbage elsewhere in the airport.
this is plain gougeing being hidden by a veil of we cant tell you why because we are obeying the law.
this is becoming a plague, for a further recent example, i cant ask an alexa instance what it just said, it will quote HIPAA as a reason to deny the command
this is becoming a plague, for a further recent example, i cant ask an alexa instance what it just said, it will quote HIPAA as a reason to deny the command
Because the world has too many losers to support anymore. A simple chicken sandwich has to pass through 16 different losers who all need their little bit. They can't make their own money so they take everybody else's money. Adding another 5 cents won't hurt anything, says the loser. Then loser starts complaining because sandwich cost $15 when they have to rebuy it at their ride.
I noticed a massive change in cost the last time flying in the UK too.
Pret used to charge pretty much the same as a regular store. It would be the only place you could get a bottle of water for £1.
I flew over Easter and It’s all fine up massively. £3.50 for a bottle of water. Nearly £6 for a (very average) coffee.
Almost a doubling of prices. Especially great when the flight was delayed 3 hours - but we got out £3 voucher from easyJet…
Pret used to charge pretty much the same as a regular store. It would be the only place you could get a bottle of water for £1.
I flew over Easter and It’s all fine up massively. £3.50 for a bottle of water. Nearly £6 for a (very average) coffee.
Almost a doubling of prices. Especially great when the flight was delayed 3 hours - but we got out £3 voucher from easyJet…
Frankly if you are eating anywhere other than McDonalds at an airport you are paying fine dining prices for the absolute bottom tier food. It's so frustrating when a day of flying means either carting along meals for a day or spending $80-$120 for two people.
As a serial FOIA litigator you have to sue. It's not too hard.
Having battled jails and prisons on similarly vague local comparison pricing for their commissary items, my bet is that none of the comparison procedures are being followed. They probably just expected the stores to be good and regulate themselves. Which never happens.
Having battled jails and prisons on similarly vague local comparison pricing for their commissary items, my bet is that none of the comparison procedures are being followed. They probably just expected the stores to be good and regulate themselves. Which never happens.
If I had to guess: because fuck you, that’s why. They don’t care, because they know you’ll be back regardless of the price
This is why I just bring along a few protein bars when I travel. $15 for a shitty airport sandwich? Fuhgedaboudit!
I've seen these prices at many airports - I'd say every airport, IIRC. It's not new and it's not local to NY. It's not only in airports, but anywhere there is a captive audience, such as sporting events, museums, etc.
Can anyone name airports where these aren't standard prices?
Can anyone name airports where these aren't standard prices?
When I was flying out of Narita Airport, the vending machines within were the exact same prices as those on any street corner in Japan: very reasonable.
Portland International (PDX)
Many/most of the restaurants are ones that you could also find locations for outside the airport, and their prices are the same as outside the airport.
Many/most of the restaurants are ones that you could also find locations for outside the airport, and their prices are the same as outside the airport.
American living in the UK. Go back to visit family in Northern California ever year or two. On the way out (Heathrow) we can get a Pret or similar for more or less the same price as in central London, say £5-7 per person for a medium sized meal. And there are well over a dozen options of similar restaurants.
On the way back (SFO), it’s basically Burger King or one of the airport sandwich shops, and $20+ per person.
I don’t know the details of why it’s one way or the other, but clearly it doesn’t have to be like this!
On the way back (SFO), it’s basically Burger King or one of the airport sandwich shops, and $20+ per person.
I don’t know the details of why it’s one way or the other, but clearly it doesn’t have to be like this!
For that matter, it's about time abusive pricing policies get some scrutiny at amusement parks, theaters, sports venues, convention centers, etc.
It is hard to understand why politicians or the very agencies we pay to protect consumers do nothing about this. A $5 bottle of water is abusive. Oh, yes, and in a lot of these venues you are not allowed to bring in your own food and drinks.
Let's thrown in a place like Disney World in FL scanning everyone's ID's and fingerprints on entry. Not the same thing, of course, yet one of those "What the fuck???" things that you never hear media, politicians or consumer protection groups/agencies talk about. Ever.
It is hard to understand why politicians or the very agencies we pay to protect consumers do nothing about this. A $5 bottle of water is abusive. Oh, yes, and in a lot of these venues you are not allowed to bring in your own food and drinks.
Let's thrown in a place like Disney World in FL scanning everyone's ID's and fingerprints on entry. Not the same thing, of course, yet one of those "What the fuck???" things that you never hear media, politicians or consumer protection groups/agencies talk about. Ever.
Seinfeld uncovered this many years ago. The huge airport, airline complex is just a scam to sell you the tuna sandwich:
https://youtu.be/kxGzClxVx9Q
https://youtu.be/kxGzClxVx9Q
Logic and reason does not exist in the cheap/convenience/self serve food world. That or a database is configured wrong.
At work, we have self-checkout kiosks for food. There is a "Triple Meat" breakfast burrito with eggs, potatoes, onions, bacon, ham, and sausage. It weighs 10 ounces. There is a "Vegetarian" breakfast burrito, with eggs, potatoes, and onions. It weighs 7 ounces.
The vegetarian one costs OVER $1 MORE than the heavier, and more ingredient meat version.
Go figure, but my personal theory is bad data, not bad thinking.
At work, we have self-checkout kiosks for food. There is a "Triple Meat" breakfast burrito with eggs, potatoes, onions, bacon, ham, and sausage. It weighs 10 ounces. There is a "Vegetarian" breakfast burrito, with eggs, potatoes, and onions. It weighs 7 ounces.
The vegetarian one costs OVER $1 MORE than the heavier, and more ingredient meat version.
Go figure, but my personal theory is bad data, not bad thinking.
Palm grease is an experiment ingredient, and exempt from FDA labeling rules.
The answer is simple:
If you fly a lot, you’re probably a business traveler spending “someone else’s money” and you’re going to get reimbursed.
If you fly a little like most people, you’re probably in “vacation mode” and aren’t really thinking as carefully about money.
If you’re a really frequent traveler, you might even have airport lounge access and taking advantage of free “well liquor” and food.
Of course the whole captive audience thing is true. But as my southern momma would say “we got food at home”. Eat before you leave home if you are concerned.
If you fly a lot, you’re probably a business traveler spending “someone else’s money” and you’re going to get reimbursed.
If you fly a little like most people, you’re probably in “vacation mode” and aren’t really thinking as carefully about money.
If you’re a really frequent traveler, you might even have airport lounge access and taking advantage of free “well liquor” and food.
Of course the whole captive audience thing is true. But as my southern momma would say “we got food at home”. Eat before you leave home if you are concerned.
How about a ham & cheese sandwich that costs $29+tax ($31.57 total) in Upper East Side Manhattan?
I thought the large pastrami sandwiches for almost $20 was crazy before the pandemic. But for a regular size ham & cheese?
see https://nypost.com/2023/04/14/inflation-raises-price-of-ham-...
I thought the large pastrami sandwiches for almost $20 was crazy before the pandemic. But for a regular size ham & cheese?
see https://nypost.com/2023/04/14/inflation-raises-price-of-ham-...
But they don’t have a monopoly and that’s not normal Manhattan pricing. As the article mentions, you can go down the street to Panera or McDonald’s or anywhere else more easily than in the airport.
Don’t allow a monopoly in the airport.. boom, problem solved
Is a silly question if we don't know inventory levels and turnover. At face value, the answer is trivially because that is the best price for the seller to use that they have found.
Lower could maybe sell more, but could also just clear the same inventory faster. Such that you need more information to answer.
Could they be gouging customers? I mean, maybe? Gouging usually requires duress on the buyer, though. So probably not.
Lower could maybe sell more, but could also just clear the same inventory faster. Such that you need more information to answer.
Could they be gouging customers? I mean, maybe? Gouging usually requires duress on the buyer, though. So probably not.
It's rent.
The airport knows how much foot traffic there is, how much spend per person and can therefore adjust rent to gouge everything except 10%.
But on a square foot revenue basis that's store is the best performing of whatever chain we talk about - and it has a guaranteed yearly revenue which makes nice for the bank loan and the volume deal for the suplliers and ...
it's a win win for everyone apart from the customer
The airport knows how much foot traffic there is, how much spend per person and can therefore adjust rent to gouge everything except 10%.
But on a square foot revenue basis that's store is the best performing of whatever chain we talk about - and it has a guaranteed yearly revenue which makes nice for the bank loan and the volume deal for the suplliers and ...
it's a win win for everyone apart from the customer
I think in protest I'm going to start packing 100g Herring fish tins and eating those wherever I can.
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Brunswick-Boneless-Kippered-Herri...
Can I bring Durian fruit past security?
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Brunswick-Boneless-Kippered-Herri...
Can I bring Durian fruit past security?
"Charge what the market will bear."
[deleted]
Like theaters charging outrageous prices. Comes down to control. They block people from bringing their own snacks so they got people over the barrel. If your sugar is dropping, and you need a bite, you've got to pay the price. It is a type of extortion.
As frustrating as it is to be stonewalled like this, I sincerely hope they don't waste taxpayer dollars by suing over it.
Airport food is bad and expensive, get over it. Pack your own lunch if you care, especially if what you're going to eat is a prepackaged sandwich anyway.
Airport food is bad and expensive, get over it. Pack your own lunch if you care, especially if what you're going to eat is a prepackaged sandwich anyway.
I hope they do. It’s the only way to hold government accountable. If they don’t follow the rules, they need to be sued. That will force the governors in two states to call up the Port Authority and say knock this shit off. Unless someone makes a stink, nothing will be fixed.
Same as how theatres were able to charge outrageous prices. Comes down to control. If people are unable to bring their own food, and their sugar drops, then they got to pay the price. It is a type of extortion.
Corruption, plainly put in New York parlance, "f you, that's why."
The bacon egg and cheese at Beecher’s handmade cheese in the same terminal is $16.50 for some decent bread with a microwave egg. It’s ridiculous, shake shack has a breakfast bacon egg and cheese in the $5-6 range right down the way.
You're captive to the airport. If you want something to eat you have to pay airport prices, there's not a lot you can do about it other than bringing in your own food. Airport vendors know this so they charge accordingly.
It's $29 in Manhattan https://www.instagram.com/p/Cq_FJyDMYoU/?igshid=MDJmNzVkMjY%...
I figured it’s because so many travelers are business travelers that expense things like meals. The prices are very high but not enough to raise the alarm on whoever approves expense reports.
You're partly right, but most companies have daily limits on meal expenses. Something like $20 for lunch and $40 for dinner. If I can help it, I'm not burning my daily limit on a disgusting overpriced sandwich!
PDX in Oregon has reasonably priced food. I wonder what their secret is.
Vendors aren’t allowed to charge higher prices than at their off-airport locations, for one.
https://thepointsguy.com/news/pricey-airport-food/
https://thepointsguy.com/news/pricey-airport-food/
perhaps they were done with seeing good food expire on the shelf, and paying to have it destroyed
Melbourne airport makes more money from car parking than anything.
Ah, yes, another big scam is parking :)
In Venice, relatives often wait in the car on the side of the road. Meanwhile, at the airport, the town has declared (and pays traffic police for) a strange 'no stopping' rule on the roads leading to the airport.
In Venice, relatives often wait in the car on the side of the road. Meanwhile, at the airport, the town has declared (and pays traffic police for) a strange 'no stopping' rule on the roads leading to the airport.
Why does housing cost 10x as much in San Francisco than in my current city when I bought 9 years ago? 2-3x price inflation at an airport makes a lot more sense than that.
On my last trip, I noticed that a cup of coffee in an airport is now $4. And that's just for a paper cup with black coffee in it -- not any kind of special latte, etc.
Maybe others have mentioned it but airports typically get 10-18% of sales (after the minimum rent guarantee is met), so it is in their interest for prices to be high.
They would charge 400 dollars if they could. There is no principle to markets with artificial scarcity. They can do whatever they want when you're trapped there.
Not everything in this article is outrageous. $27.85 to drink a Sam Adams would be...
...wait, they want _me_ to pay to drink a Sam Adams? Sorry, my misunderstanding. No deal.
...wait, they want _me_ to pay to drink a Sam Adams? Sorry, my misunderstanding. No deal.
The title is incorrect. As the article states, there is more than one airport for New York City, so the phrase “the NYC airport” is misleading.
More subtly, why is Newark so much more reasonable? I had a perfectly decent shot down meal at Saison and the prices were high but not crazy.
It’s a monopoly in there or an ogligopoly. You are stuck inside and hungry, they will happily fleece you worse than most places on earth
All airports do this. A bottle of water is 3.75 at Dominican Republic airports, presumably not controlled by NYC port authority.
Sounds like a bunch of bollocks. They clearly charge whatever the market will bear, which given captive audience is a lot.
"The reason that X costs Y, is that (enough) people buy it".
It has less to do with the actual price of making the goods or service
It has less to do with the actual price of making the goods or service
Doesn't really explain it. If X cost less, more people would buy it. Less people would plan around avoiding eating at the airport.
Just stating the obvious: JFK Airport is owned by the City of New York. From that, draw your own conclusions...
That would be too simple. It's owned by Port Authority of NY and NJ: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Authority_of_New_York_and...
So this ranks high on Google:
https://airportllc.com/who-owns-jfk-airport/
> JFK Airport is owned by the City of New York and is managed and operated by the Port Authority which got the lease from New York City in 1947 to build an airport in Queens borough to serve the large NYC Metropolitan area
https://airportllc.com/who-owns-jfk-airport/
> JFK Airport is owned by the City of New York and is managed and operated by the Port Authority which got the lease from New York City in 1947 to build an airport in Queens borough to serve the large NYC Metropolitan area
Looks like NYC is now paid $150m/year for the land lease: https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-city-extends-jfk-airpo...
No, it is not owned by the City of New York. It's owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which is controlled by those two states.
Because, and this is obvious from the sign in the photo, they value us.
Otherwise, the sandwiches would clearly cost more.
Otherwise, the sandwiches would clearly cost more.
That's... Not even really unreasonable compared to restaurant prices. I've seen eggs and toast for $20 at a diner in Minneapolis, and that place had a line out the door with a 30 minute wait to get in. Wasn't even as good as the $5 or less Coney Island breakfast available pretty much everywhere in Metro Detroit.
Prices in Manhattan are so expensive now, honestly $15 doesn't sound crazy to me.
Because u can’t help urself out of travel anxiety and event buy it to calm down.
Why does a double mezcal at Slims Last Chance cost $24.50 before the tip?!
The Boston airport has fair pricing. It can be done, keep fighting!
OTG is fucking garbage. There’s more to it than that, but not much.
I just can't eat that sandwich normally so $1 is too much.
Because that's what the market will stand. Simple as that.
Market failure is a thing, and it seems like in this case there may be a monopoly or oligopoly among the concessionaires, enabled by the corruption of the Port Authority.
thankfully TSA can only take your liquids and not your solids at the checkpoint, so you can theoretically buy/make a sandwich before you go to the airport.
> $13.50 plus 10 percent = $14.99
That math doesn't check out at all.
That math doesn't check out at all.
Corruption. There is no need to write further.
You pack your luggage, carryons, etc. So pack food.
As a European and coming to America this year. SF and NYC, the prices has explooooded in the cities.
And the amount of homeless people are also on an upper trajectory.
Doesn't feel good for the land of the free.
And the amount of homeless people are also on an upper trajectory.
Doesn't feel good for the land of the free.
$15 for a turkey sandwich?
Disney: Hold my beer.
Disney: Hold my beer.
Because they are corrupt.
This is how most large corporation/Companies in the US work. Identify a market capture it then put shutters up so that you have no competition in that space. That is how free market capitalism works and results in use your capital or tech to capture the market then jack the prices.
$15 for NYC.
Sounds like a bargain.
Sounds like a bargain.
Lounges fix this
Capitalism.
This is the price that generates the highest profit to those responsible for setting the price.
This is the price that generates the highest profit to those responsible for setting the price.
Keep in mind that Profit = (Sale price − Production cost) × Quantity sold.
Isn’t this very simple?
It’s just basic supply and demand. Travelers are already exhausted from travel so they are willing to pay high prices for small comforts. Also, some travelers are business travelers and their company foots the bill.
If all travelers collectively stopped buying these foods, the price would drop. But people keep buying them, understandably.
It’s just basic supply and demand. Travelers are already exhausted from travel so they are willing to pay high prices for small comforts. Also, some travelers are business travelers and their company foots the bill.
If all travelers collectively stopped buying these foods, the price would drop. But people keep buying them, understandably.
The issue discussed in the article is that the NY Port Authority has regulations to clamp the prices of these items to comparable items in NYC (based on the average of the 3 lowest cost comparables), and they are not being transparent on which comparable items (if any) they are comparing to.
So no, it is not just a simple issue of supply and demand, it is an issue of lack of governmental transparency.
So no, it is not just a simple issue of supply and demand, it is an issue of lack of governmental transparency.
If you read the article (you should) you'll note that the shops with the concession do not have the freedom to arbitrarily set such high prices (which would make it that simple), and that the Port Authority who is supposed to ensure that prices adhere to the set guidelines, is apparently not doing its job and is withholding documents that can proof this despite these documents generally being considered open information for citizens to request.
The article mentions that according to the Port Authority rules, vendors can't charge more than 10% of the street price of the equivalent products. So no, you can't charge whatever you want just based on supply and demand.
The article is trying to understand how they determine the base price.
The article is trying to understand how they determine the base price.
[deleted]
On the one hand, airports need to make money, and with people buying cheap airline tickets, airports have found a solution by turning themselves halfway into malls, and charging businesses extremely high levels of rent, which the airport justifies because it's a captive audience that can't go anywhere else. Most of the $15 sandwich is ultimately going to the airport as rent, not to the CIBO food vendor as profit.
But at the same time, there's public outcry over the absurd pricing, so the airport has to mollify lawmakers by insisting it'll come up with a policy where they won't charge more than 10% for what would be comparable in Midtown. The airport is trying to blame those greedy vendors! But this is a trick. Who could ever define that? Sure you can compare Starbucks with Starbucks... but you can't compare a CIBO sandwich because it doesn't exist outside of airports, which is by design. That's the whole point, that easy comparables don't exist, and when a journalist tries to use a FOIA request to get at the comparables, they're stonewalled.
The airport is trying to insist it's preventing jacked-up prices, when in reality it's the airport charging rent that generates those jacked-up prices in the first place, and it tries to pretend like it plays no part. Evil, but clever.