Airlines taking away free snacks for customers feels like companies taking away free snacks for employees: it doesn't really matter much by itself for anyone involved, but it's an obvious signal that the management involved can't bother to even put a fig leaf on the matter of your personal comfort.
"Very many little things" is a great way of describing how bad air travel is. None of the issues are all that bad taken individually, but taken together, the experience is worse than the difference of its parts.
There are also a few great things about modern air travel. For one, it has gotten considerably cheaper (and thus more accessible to a broad spectrum of consumers) over time. It's also amazingly safe for travel in a metal tube at 550 MPH 35,000 feet above the earth.
There are market-based products that would address many of your concerns if you are willing to pay. Prefer a larger seat or priority boarding? Try economy plus, which will also decrease the likelihood of sitting next to a baby and may get you more attentive service. The reality though is that collectively we prefer lower prices and choose flights almost exclusively by this metric, but then gripe about all the ways air travel could be better.
The problem with those value-adds is that they're priced completely out of the range of the utility you might get out of it.
Remember - little things. Yeah, having a few more inches of legroom would be nice, but $50 nice? I'm well over 6" here, and the seats are designed for the lowest common denominator. Unless I get a reclining seat in first, it's gonna suck.
Priority boarding, I never understood the point of. Okay, you get on the plane a bit faster to spend more time in tiny seats. If you didn't get a window seat, you're still moving over people. For another extra $30 or so.
Say I get 'em both. I've spent an extra $80 on a ticket, and from there, I'm about halfway to first class. The extra ~$120 would get me more legroom and a mediocre meal that I could have gotten in the airport for a tenth of the price and some positive multiple of the quality. Some might bring up the free drinks at this point, but I swear the FA's are trained to tactically ignore you after about two drinks.
On top of all that, there's the psychological aspect. It feels scummy and exploitative (indeed, it is scummy and exploitative).
So a victory for the "market", I guess, at the expense of basic humanity.
There is always diminishing returns to travel upgrades. Maybe $100 (or whatever) gets you a bed but $300 get you a really comfy bed with a nice view. This also applies in all sorts of areas.
>Priority boarding, I never understood the point of.
A lot of it has to do with having overhead space. On a packed flight, you'll often have to check your carryon if you can't fit it under the seat in front of you if you're in a late boarding group.
I'm totally with you on priority boarding - I don't get the appeal at all.
All I am saying is that the market responded to our collective preferences for airlines to compete on cost -- and we benefited from this in some ways because costs have fallen over time. It's likely that the $50 you might pay for economy plus would put you even on real terms with tickets/legroom from 10-20 years ago.
It's all in how you evaluate whether it is a horrible product. I consider economy class airfare a commodity and evaluate it on getting me to my destination safely and on time. Delays are obviously still an issue, and I do believe airlines should treat passengers as well as possible (prompt re-booking, compensation, hotel rooms, etc.) when their travel plans have been disrupted due to delays.
I also don't believe there was a historical glory day of air travel. It used to be far more expensive, with far fewer routes. International travel was MUCH more expensive, again with fewer routes. Fatal crashes were more frequent. We all used to complain about how bad airline food was...then they took it away and we complained about that too.
You don't have to believe in a "Golden Age" to think that sloth and greed drive airline operations to fall back on excuses about security and their TBTF status to monetize "less horrible" vs "horrible."
It's worth noting that due to airline loyalty programs frequent flyers tend to have a far superior experience than the guy that only flies a couple of times a year.
It's not really "far superior" unless you have such high status that you always get upgraded--which is going to require something in the 100K+ miles/range. Airline Clubs and TSA Pre also help although those aren't directly related to frequent flyer status. There are some benefits to mid-tier status (e.g. Economy Plus on United) but you're still pretty much just flying coach and have all the same issues related to flight delays etc. as everyone else does.
What is odd is that even the cheapest budget airlines of Asia, and there are many, many of them, nearly all provide not just free snacks, but free hot meals.
I imagine I'm the minority opinion--and Asian airline meals are generally better than US ones but that probably just reflects my preferences--but I actually don't especially regret the general demise of hot meals on most flights. They were always horrible in coach to the degree that I can recall joking cartoons about them. Serving the meals was disruptive and often stunk up the cabin.
Now, when it comes to passing out cold snacks, by all means.
Yeah. To be honest, I almost looked forward to layovers during air travel for my once- or twice- yearly McDonalds visit. The food options in airports, as dismal and overpriced as they tend to be, are gourmet fare compared with what's served on the airplane.
I'd just as soon not have to shuffle my laptop or book around to make space for lousy food.
Many airport options have improved quite a bit--though most are still hardly cheap. At some point, the message seems to have gotten out--for at least some terminals--that very few people want pseudo-fine dining at airports but many want good, relatively fast food.
I've flown on couple dozen airlines. Yes, Asian carriers are almost always better in terms of food. I was actually served medium cooked steak on Asiana. But the real difference is in their cabin attendants. x10 better.
But what I hate flying about isn't the food or CA service.
It's flying into and out of JFK. Everyone working there is f'king miserable. They treat people like live stocks. And their customs and immigration are incredibly inefficiently run.
>But the real difference is in their cabin attendants. x10 better.
At least some of which is for reasons that, properly, wouldn't fly in the US. They hire young, attractive, college-educated women who are enjoying flying the world for a few years before they settle down and get married. And who are not expected to stay on once they've enjoyed those few years.
I'm sure that's some of it, but I suspect the bigger factor is that some of the other international carriers put a bigger emphasis on customer service. I don't thing being young, college-educated, or female matters nearly as much as working for an organization that prides itself on customer service.
That's certainly fair. Although it's probably easier to implement that emphasis on customer service with young, enthusiastic people as opposed to a 25-year veteran who has been through various downsizings and contract disputes.
You're probably right about that. That happens at any office work place settings too. Difference here is, you are in a customer-facing job, where your attentiveness and face you put on impacts customer satisfaction. If you can't keep customers happy as well as a 25-year old, then you don't belong in the cabin.
Look, I don't blame the front-line workers for any of this. This is almost all management's fault. Look at Southwest. Their attendants are better trained, more motivated, and are happier.
Better work environment and management are important, but they're paid 25% more than other airlines. SW will attract better talent and retain them. I'm sure other airlines wouldn't mind having SW style employees. But their management is not willing to pay for it.
Yeah I think a big component of the poor customer service with United is being beat down over years of cost-cutting. I've seen firsthand how they've drastically cut down the number of gate agents which leaves almost a skeleton crew to deal with customers. In that environment I'm sure it's hard for someone to be chipper and helpful.
Doesn't hurt, but as per below comment, they are just much better trained to provide attentive and friendly service.
When I was waiting at impeccably maintained Osaka Kansai airport, I saw a flight attendant pickup small gum wrapper on floor that somebody else left behind. It's completely different mentality.
The competition is Asian for Airlines is a lot more intense then in North America. Almost every country has a Carier or 2 or 3. They all fly to each other countries so there is a lot of choice. Every country has been expanding its airports for the 20 years. And competition is driving the use of brand new planes and perks.
Now look at North America. There are only 3 countries here. United States airlines are the largest carriers. In the past 20 years consolidation has reduced the number of airlines. That's why despite the huge drop in oily our not seeing ticket prices go down.
In most cities / airports there is one dominating airline and they know chances are you will take their flight.
There's times of the year (not holiday) when it's marginally more expensive for me to to Vietnam for a vacation then to visit my family living in Austin. This is from NYC.
What I can't understand is why United (and tbh most airlines) put such ludicriously short connection times in going from international to domestic in the US.
I've literally had them quote a 42 min connection at me getting from IAD international to domestic. This is literally impossible unless the flight was very significantly early/they put me on Concorde by mistake. I phoned up when I noticed and asked to change flight. Nope, some huge change fee + additional difference in airfare due.
Gave up and sure enough I missed the flight. They just stuck me on the next one anyway, but probably lost the revenue for the flight I was meant to be on. This has happend multiple times (I've it take as much as 4 hours at EWR to go through immigration -> go through TSA-> get bag -> recheck bag -> go through TSA -> board plane.
It must cost them millions of dollars. And as far as I can see there is no option on the scheduling system to say I want a longer layover. Not crazy long, just some room to breathe. Annoying.
@martinald, this sounds frustrating and I'm sorry about that. I can't speak for the United site, but when I travel I usually choose Delta. On the Delta.com site there's an option to filter by both Min and Max connection time. So, even though United doesn't do it, there are other airlines that do.
As far as I can tell, 42 minutes violates United's own minimum connection time for international to domestic at IAD.
Their general MCT for IAD is 45 minutes domestic-domestic or domestic-international, and 90 minutes international-domestic. There are a few connections which allow all the way down to 65 minutes international-domestic, but nothing allowing 42. So if something quoted such a connection at you it would have been invalid per United's published times.
Yes, but the idea that you actually have to hire a person to do something that can be almost trivially handled by their existing systems is ridiculous these days.
It's a whole lot of little things. On one flight, there wasn't enough space for my carry-on, so they told me to check it. I assumed they had meant "gate check", because that's what other airlines I fly do, but instead it got routed to the carousel, and because my next flight was on a different airline, there was no way to route it to my final destination; I had to leave the security area and come back in to continue. Thankfully security was light and I didn't miss my flight. The least they could have done was to check to make sure I understood what this entailed, and worked to find a solution.
I think not providing meals/refreshments on any flight longer than 30min is just wrong.
Why? Of course on could argue that if you "pay less you get less" or that meals are not needed on short flights.
But the true story is that often times, the actual time in flight is not the only time you wait. You stand in line at the TSA, you run through giant gangways, you are sitting in a plane that gets late an hour or more. Which all means: by the time you finally are in the air, many people need some rest and energy. Not providing at least some food/drinks for free thus is absolutely unacceptable to me.
Recently flew Frankfurt=>Detroit=>Dallas (2 flights). I was lucky they provided 2 meals on the long first flight, as on the second leg they only gave a coke. Including the waiting time and the time after the last meal on board, we had 5 hours without food.
There's much to complain about with the airlines but this is one I just don't get.
5 hours without food doesn't seem like any great hardship. And there are any number of places at most airports where you can pickup a sandwich or whatever to bring on board (or pack some snack bars). I guess maybe if you were expecting a meal on a transcontinental flight but airline food in economy was always a bad joke. I'd probably prefer a bag of chips when they serve me water or a Coke but it's really not a big deal if I know they won't.
Flight experiences are really just anecdotal if you're talking about the same "class" of flight. I know people who fly regularly and are perfectly fine with Delta while they'd never fly American. At the same time, its always felt like the "national" domestic airlines have had very poor service - I liken it to GM and Chrysler vehicles.
The quality of the experience can also depend on what routes and/or hubs people use regularly. Airlines also have different grades of presence at various airports.
For years, I felt Lufthansa was better than United for SF -> Germany flights. Especially after the merger with Continental. Lately though, LH has been in decline.
In general, I find United to be ok for the travel I have done. But they aren't what they used to be. Also, my options are limited if I want to do SF -> Europe direct and not go to CDG, Heathrow, etc. KLM wasn't bad, but it's also One World and I don't fly American or Delta domestically.
I think the airlines have had a bit of a race to the bottom in a few ways:
* Fees. Charge baggage fees, everyone else does the same, nobody's any better off. Boarding is slower and passengers crankier. I was HAPPY to not have to tote my bag around every single layover until they started charging for bags, now I'm another unhappy customer lugging a bag everywhere, walking up and down the aisles looking for space, having my bag gate-checked (and inevitably lost -- gate checking is the least reliable way of actually getting your bag to its destination, it seems).
* Chasing "frequent flier" business travelers. I don't have the numbers to back this up, but most of them already seem loyal to their chosen airline to funnel their corporate dollars to, because they've got so many damn miles accrued. But airlines trip all over themselves to throw free shit at the 1% of frequent fliers that they piss off the 99% of occasional travelers. Yes, the frequent flier dollars are very important, but now we have a (very) long tail of less-frequent travelers who can be guaranteed that they will never, ever, ever be offered a free upgrade. You won't even get an emergency exit row (see: fees). I hate to sound entitled, but on my honeymoon, I was hoping that, for once, I might get a courtesy upgrade. Nope. I'd wager that if every airline set aside 2 slightly-better seats for a random upgrade, they'd get a lot of good word-of-mouth from the average joe like myself. But instead they waste every single bit of effort on the jaded business traveler whose opinion won't be swayed that much by small favors, because all of the airlines are throwing free stuff at them all the time anyway.
* Space, obviously. I continue to insist there's a market to pay 50% more for just a LITTLE bit more space. I don't mean economy plus; I'm not tall, I'm just an average-sized male. I just want my own goddamned armrest. I don't know why the airlines can't get this right. Business class 2x2 seating on a narrowbody would 'only' cost them 33% of seat capacity. 2x3 would even be acceptable, with an offset aisle. On a widebody, even just taking out ONE coach seat would make enough space to give passengers a meaningful upgrade. add a couple more inches of legroom to make it easier to get in and out, and bam, you have my loyalty for life. I'm happy to pay for a little comfort. I just won't pay 5x as much for business class. It's simply not in a normal human being's price bracket. I don't have to pay $100k to get a car that's a bit nicer than a Corolla. (see: frequent fliers spending business dollars).
As someone who is in the top 1% of fliers I could not disagree more with the sentiment that the top 1% of fliers aren't going anywhere/will not notice good service.
In fact as a counter to that point I flew well over 150k miles on United last year and yet right now I'm doing a status match on American because United's service on my most frequent route (LAX -> JFK) completely changed in October of last year and I was/am hoping that American may offer superior service on that route. Regardless of the miles in my account (they truly don't matter that much to me) I care about how the customer service is, how the delays are and how often my baggage is handled properly.
When I do use my miles its almost never on a ticket for me but a ticket for a friend or family member.
As for those people who are not frequent fliers but expecting an upgrade "randomly" I'd suggest to pay more for the seats and "upgrade" yourself. The short of it is, the people who do spend as much time in the air as people like me do care and it does make a difference to the Airlines' bottom line no doubt.
Thanks for your comment. We're all certainly sensitive to customer service issues (if anything, frequent fliers even more so). I think a major change in service for your most frequently-used route is pretty significant, and I'd expect anyone to switch airlines for this. I was speaking more of small changes that would likely go unnoticed, eg if one airline offers upgrades to frequent fliers slightly more often than another; that might go unnoticed, and even if it didn't, likely would not trump loyalty due to existing miles, preferable routes, preferred lounges/service of one airline over another, etc.
Your suggestion of "upgrading" yourself is not realistic for 2 reasons. One, very few people will pay 5x as much for a slightly better experience. The price difference vastly exceeds the actual cost (except to the extent that premium seats subsidize coach seats, of course).
Secondly, my comment was about the customer goodwill the occasional upgrade would generate, as lowly infrequent fliers do not expect to be treated as anything but breathing, inconvenient cargo.
You say that people who spend as much time in the air as you DO care, but you also said you don't use upgrades, and you changed airlines over a major service change, not over a minor upgrade policy change. I'm not saying you DON'T care about upgrades, just that it's not really what you were addressing in your comment.
if it makes you feel better mid level "elites" don't have it a whole lot better I wasn't updraded a single time last year on 50+ flights - yes there are free checked bags and free economy plus...but that's about all I get for spending $15k+ on United
A typical domestic flight has very few upgrade seats (e.g. on a 757). As one of those "frequent flier" business travelers on United (Gold--50K mile/yr status), I hardly ever get upgraded.
>would 'only' cost them 33% of seat capacity
So, on today's planes, they'd have to increase fares accordingly given that utilization on most flights is pretty high. I get your point. But the market dynamics are more or less "lowest price" vs. business class is OK.
Right, I am more than willing to pay a premium price for a better service, but we're talking 50%, not 500%. I believe the price they're trying to charge is simply an order of magnitude out of whack with reality.
I suspect there are 2 factors at play here. For one, serving the lowest common denominator and competing on price is easier. It's easier to create metrics around, and by handling volume, it's easier to fill planes. It would be harder to provide a premium service airline with all more-expensive seats, because likely they'd end up with unexpectedly low utilization or unexpectedly high demand at various times, based on seasonality, and it might be harder to fill all of the seats as efficiently. Not to mention route planning and so on.
The other factor is probably just a bit of a herd mentality where nobody wants to go out on a limb and try something different for fear of spectacular failure. We know the existing system works, even if it doesn't work well.
I know United has Premium Service, but they don't even make it easy to purchase. They mention that it's on EWR-LAX and EWR-SFO routes, but then tout the level of "available" service in different classes -- 1st, and economy plus. They imply there's ALSO regular economy seating, and don't explain what (if anything) is better in regular economy. They don't discuss whether Economy plus is better than economy plus on other planes/routes. They also don't seem to provide any way of booking it -- I looked several times on their website, and perhaps I just need to know which flights are considered "PS" flights, and then figure out if it costs more or the same?
>It would be harder to provide a premium service airline with all more-expensive seats
It's been tried and, by and large, it doesn't work because too many people just buy on price. There are some minor exceptions--e.g. British Airways all-business London City to New York route but that's obviously a pretty special case.
Economy Plus is just more legroom. It may include priority boarding as well. I believe it primarily exists as a perk for frequent flyers (which I am). I've been told that, otherwise, you may not be able to book it until some number of days before your flight.
I would definitely pay 50% more for an extra 3" of leg room. Maybe even just 2". Take out one row and you could add that much to 10-12 rows.
I must be missing something, because that seems like it would be an effective option. It would increase the flight cost of those seats by 8-12%, and you could charge 20-50% more for them.
You've pretty much described United Economy Plus. I'm not sure it's even typically that much of a premium although I'm not sure as I get it as part of my status.
From what I've seen, Economy Plus only offers 5" additional legroom and no additional shoulder room. The legroom comes in handy more for ingress and egress (and, I suppose, not having your laptop screen crushed as readily when the passenger in front of you reclines).
The parent specifically asked for legroom. You're correct that there's no additional shoulder room. As a relatively tall person, the legroom is nice. I basically never use a laptop in flight.
About 1/2 of the flights I've taken in the past 5 years have been on United or Continental. 11 flights on United and 4 flights on Continental[1] (I keep track of my airline travel in a spreadsheet). 2 of my United flights were international. My most recent United flights was in late 2014.
I can only speak for myself, but I've never had a bad experience with United or Continental. A few small delays here or there. One 3 hour delay caused by really bad weather, but no cancellation: I still made it to my destination before 1am.
For context, I've always flown economy, by myself or in a small group, and usually departing from Austin or Houston.
Statistically, United's performance has been absolutely abysmal. The crap really started hitting the fan in June of last year, when United reported departure/arrival on-time numbers of 42% and 66% (in other words, over half of flights departed late, and over one-third arrived late, meaning they didn't make up much time in the air).
For another perspective: if we look at "chronically delayed" flights (DOT defines this as being 30+ minutes delayed, 50% or more of the time), the most recent month published (November 2015) shows one-third of the chronically-delayed flights in the US are on United's network, through its chronically-comically-delayed Newark hub. Back in 2013 the WSJ published a report listing eleven flights through Newark which had landed on the chronically-delayed list for 8 consecutive months or more. The only carrier with more chronically-delayed flights than United... is Spirit. And that's saying something (they're also typically the only airline with worse overall on-time performance than United).
Granted, a lot of that is from affiliates running small regional jets under the "United Express" brand -- though mainline United was still dead last in on-time performance among the big three legacy US carriers in Q3 2015 -- but in turn that's mostly ripple effects of the way United manages its regionals and shops out as much flying as possible to them (in Q3 2015, Delta operated 233,000 flights, American operated 234,000 and United only 133,000; over the same time period ExpressJet, which does regional operations for all three but primarily for United, operated over 142,000 flights, and SkyWest which has over half its flying as United Express operated over 152,000 flights), which in turn was thanks to a major strategy (slashing mainline operations in the name of "capacity discipline") of the previous Smisek-led management at United.
I travel frequently and United is one of my favored airlines. I guess I just don't expect much and airlines tend to deliver. My biggest frustrations are usually with other passengers, not the airlines or their staff.
One thing I do miss is the airline Midwest Express, which used to hand out warm chocolate chip cookies on each flight. It was a delight just smelling them warm up about 30 minutes in to the flight.
The last time I flew United was a non-stop flight from Chicago to NYC. I somehow ended up in Washington D.C. with seemingly clear skies* and no more flights out for the evening and a three-hour line for people trying to get hotel vouchers. I rented a car and was in my bed five hours later. That was six years ago. That wasn't my first bad experience with United by a long shot, but I'm trying to make sure it's my last.
* If there WERE poor weather conditions anywhere along the way, they weren't showing up on any weather maps. I'm no expert - I'm sure they had their reasons.
I can't help but think that all they have to do is to look at other airlines in the US and don't do what they do. Then you look at any airline in Asia and do what they do. Problem solved.
I fly a lot in South-East Asia and judging by what I see from US commenters here, the things I can complain about are problems a US airline would love to have.
This is actually one of the things (some of) United's frequent flyers complain about -- very cheap day-of-travel upgrades which prevent complimentary upgrades for their most loyal/highest spending customers from clearing.
I'd argue that the airline industry was disrupted, in pretty much the classic "provide something that works OK for a lot of people at a cheaper price" sense. This is the result. The rise of budget carriers and people consistently choosing lowest price over everything else for flights led the legacy carriers to smash more and more seats into planes and remove all those little niceties that used to come as part of the experience: food, free checked bags, playing cards, whatever. Basically anything that doesn't actively bring in money or is at least free to re-use for the next flight.
EDIT: it makes sense, too. I can't blame people for that decision, I've made the same one. How many bucks is it really worth to be a bit less uncomfortable for 2 hours? 3 hours? Even 6 hours? Especially if I'm flying with a partner I'm sitting next to, which makes the leg-room/personal-space issue less annoying. And even when flying internationally, would I rather dedicate more money towards the flight itself, or to upgrading my accommodations for the time I'm spending overseas?
The problem is that people complain but many then go ahead and book the cheapest flight whether it's to save their own money or to comply with corporate travel policies. I'm not sure what "disruption" you have in mind that isn't available to existing carriers.
This is the key. People complain about the airlines, but they're only giving their customers what the customers want. Sure, nobody says they'd rather be crammed into terrible seats and treated horribly to save $50, but that's how people behave, and that's all that counts.
Next time you're eating your terrible free pretzels with your knees in the back of the person before you, don't blame the airline, blame your fellow passengers. And yourself!
Why the heck would I blame myself or other customers when it's the company that's giving shitty service?!
If you want to make a capitalist argument then you also need to accept that customers also have the right to complain about the service they receive. It's part of the market. None of this "it's your own fault" bullshit when it's the airline that's installing the seats.
Airlines offer better service if you pay for it. If you choose not to take advantage of that offer, you're telling the airline that you prefer to save money than have better service.
You have every right to complain, but complaining itself doesn't do anything. If you say X when you complain, but say Y when you pull out your wallet, airlines are naturally going to listen to Y much more than X.
I've lost count of how many times I've seen a conversation go like this:
"Airlines suck, I'm a tall guy and my knees are crammed into the seat back for the entire flight."
"Almost every airline these days offers an upgraded economy class with more legroom."
"Yeah, but it's too expensive!"
If you don't want to pay for it and would prefer to suffer (I'm a tall guy, and that's what I do too) then fine, but don't be surprised when the airlines listen to the signals you send with your money.
Mind you, United has more than its share of customer service issues even for people who regularly get upgraded. But I fully agree with your basic point. There does seem to be some market for relatively modestly priced legroom upgrades but, for the most part, the market tends to bifurcate into cheapest flight or price doesn't really matter.
Yeah, they don't have an option to pay $100 for better customer service, so that's a little more opaque. Still, different airlines do it differently, and it's rare not to have a choice of airline for your trip.
That's an interesting aspect of this trouble with United's service. They had a long period where their service was well below average. Did their passenger numbers suffer accordingly, or did everybody just put up with it?
The major US airlines all suck to some degree, but they suck differently, so if you care about that then go with the one you like best even if it costs more. If you don't, you're saying you don't actually care.
I'm honestly not convinced that there are huge differences between the big legacy US carriers. Or, at any rate, your experience is just as much dictated by how busy their hubs are, whether your common routes are non-stop (as many of mine are with United), whether you're tending to fly in the winter in northern climates, etc.
I'm sure I would have absolutely no problem collecting a long litany of horror stories about every major US airline from among my Facebook friends with status.
So I go with United for size of route system and frequency of flights at my home airport and get enough miles to have status which does help. (Alternatively, for one shorter route where United doesn't have a non-stop, I usually fly JetBlue which IMO is one of the better bets in the absence of status.)
So much depends on luck, too. If you only fly a few times a year (which seems pretty typical) then the variance in experience can be huge. I think you really have to look at the relevant statistics to see how they actually compare. Gathering anecdotes from friends won't give you a good picture, especially since people have different standards for service. One person might say they had a bad experience when the airline baggage people took their bag and shredded each item in front of them while ridiculing their choice of underwear, while another might say they had a bad experience when their flight was delayed by 30 minutes because of a violent thunderstorm.
One major problem is that the comparison sites that people use to determine this stuff don't make it easy to figure out if you're saving $10 to get a massively more uncomfortable situation.
That's effect, not cause. The customer's relentless quest for cheaper fares at all costs was around long before everybody was booking their flights online.
I would not tag "low IQ" as the problem. Airline employees are mismanaged. Every working day they experience the same cheap-ass approach to stakeholders their customers only experience when flying. Then the bad ones take it out on the customers.
