Hacker News Reader

> Fast forward to an hour or so later, and I see the same family at one of the coasters, standing in line while I walk right ahead and past them to the front. I start to think -- geez, is this sending the right message to this family, that those with more can just zoom ahead?

I think it's great that you are worrying about this and that you ended up giving them your pass later.

OTOH, there's no end to these thoughts. Some families cannot even afford a park visit. Other families might have time but no money for a FastPass. Why is your ability and willingness to pay for the pass an issue by default? That family might go to Disney every year, save up and enjoy the experience. You took a limited opportunity to go and hop on rides, you might have not done without the FastPass system.

> I do tend to think though that with a little empathy for everyone else, you'll do pretty well.

Another family could have used the FastPass more, could have swapped an airplane seat etc.

Ultimately your empathy cannot fix things / make the best possible choice, but yes, it's still preferable to not taking the opportunity to be considerate. And it will make you feel better as well. Win/win.

Though, in the end, it doesn't mean we shouldn't look to improve policy / systems to address these issues of imbalance.

Disclaimer: I'm talking here about the Disney World FastPass system; if the system is different at other parks, I'm not familiar with it.

FastPass is a very interesting example, because for decades, it was not a "pay-to-win" system. Everyone had the same access to it.

For a long time, it was designed such that those who understood the system better, and were willing to purposefully structure their time at a park, could take better advantage of it: as soon as you enter the park (at opening, ideally), get a FastPass for a ride you know will be highly congested, then go and ride one of the other most-popular rides; by the time you're out, your FastPass time will be pretty close. Use your FastPass, and immediately go back and get another one for another ride. Rinse and repeat.

About ten years ago, Disney shifted the system to a limited number of FastPasses per ticket, which you could pre-book online. This was definitely fairer than the previous system, because it made sure everyone was getting the same number of FastPasses. The only people losing out were those who could previously work the system. Worth noting that this was also around the time the crowds in the parks were getting to be excessive—maximum wait times for rides increasing from the 1-1.5 hour range during the mid-2000s into the 3+ hour range in the 2010s.

Now, very recently, they've changed it to be an explicit "pay-to-win" system, where you pay extra for each FastPass.

Force the airlines to articulate a policy upfront (they’re free to make it whatever they want). That way it becomes an externality they’re not allowed to pass on to their customers blamelessly (which apparently they do today so the customers fight amongst themselves instead of blaming the airline). I think that’s the game theory equivalent answer here to the cake cutting solution of “I cut you pick”.

Ryanair - Europe's largest short haul airline - have no reclining seats.

And universally despised :).

> even though I know I'm getting convenience at the cost of a exploitative system for the vulnerable and underemployed.

By what measure is it exploitative? How is that any different than if the delivery person worked for the restaurant?

> How is that any different than if the delivery person worked for the restaurant?

As far as I know, at least in Europe if the person works for the restaurant they have almost always a right to days off and always for sick leave and contributions for the pension, while the delivery companies try to make them figure as "self employed". Laws are being passed (most recently in Spain) to avoid this issue, so this might not be the case everywhere anymore.

A delivery person working for the restaurant works for the restaurant, and has reasons to care about both the restaurant and the customer - and in return, both have a reason to care about the delivery person. DoorDash, Uber Eats and friends are VC-funded multinationals that ruthlessly exploit restaurants and the delivery people, strip-mining the local markets, often ruining restaurants in the process. The mischief and borderline fraudulent behavior of those companies is well-documented, and regularly discussed on HN.