Hacker News Reader

Comment by elil17 | Hacker News Reader

There shouldn’t even be an option to buy adjacent seats

Why not? I live with three other people. Surely we can sit together, given that we're already spending 24/7 in the same house?

True - I think there should not be an option to sit adjacent to someone if you are not booking together.

The option exists. It's called buying two tickets.

The whole article is about how the option exists. My point is that it should not be an option! You should not be allowed to sit next to a stranger and potentially infect them with COVID

Airlines have been sitting people next to strangers who could be infected with anything for more than 50 years. Life is not without a certain amount of risk.

A month ago you could be seated next to a stranger infected with ebola or tuberculosis. What's different about covid?

Covid-19 is a pandemic.

> A month ago you could be seated next to a stranger infected with ebola or tuberculosis.

This was vanishingly unlikely, especially on a US airline, and both are substantially more difficult to catch.

You can’t buy an empty seat. For instance, if you want to buy the middle seat to ensure it is empty, they won’t let you. At least they wouldn’t prior to this year.

Sure you can, and have been able to for years. It's easier if you say it's because you're overweight, though.

https://viewfromthewing.com/who-knew-you-can-buy-an-empty-mi...

United just posted their updated rules and that’s exactly what they’re doing - you can call in and request adjacent seats. Otherwise it’s one apart.

Good, that's the way to do it

If it were mandatory, everyone would be paying extra.

And I think it's pretty reasonable to be optional, since I wouldn't be worried about sitting next to a family member, for example.

I'm skeptical that the total amount charged would be the same if it were mandatory. I mean, consider backup cameras on cars. Do they cost the same after being required as when they were luxury options?

That is, doesn't price discrimination generally allow companies to extract more money overall? And in this case it's contrary to public welfare.

Maybe not exactly the same, but more.

We're not talking about reducing the marginal price on new technology that needed capital investment- we're artificially reducing overall capacity. Airfare already had seating efficiency priced in.

For the math to work, best case, you'd need to reduce capacity of a 737 (3+3 across) by 1/3 (no middle seats). 1/2 for sets of 2 or 4 seats.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com