Apparently selling people something they want at a price they wish to pay is a bad idea now:
But that show of transparency shouldn’t persuade anyone that this is an aberration rather than a symptom, a visible culmination of the logic of low-cost economics. Ryanair is a highly efficient business in an industry whose dominant vision is – in a phrase coined by the government’s airline commission – that “low-cost is king”.
Unbundling has become part of our world, and not just when we fly. It shows up in a host of what are billed as consumer choices, and increasingly in what were once public services.
Effects like this aren’t unique to airlines. As consumers, we have been hooked by bargains that come at a cost.
Ryanair has nurtured the dream of flying to obscure cities for a tenner, because we can.
And Uber has encouraged a swath of city dwellers to take taxis when before they might have used public transport,
Complaints are shrugged off by BA bosses: customers want low fares.
All of this is being said in those shocked tones of disapproval. As if it's just clear and obvious that supplying what people want is a bad idea. When, of course, nothing could be further from the truth. This is the entire point and aim of our having an economy in the first place, that people gain what they desire, that consumers get as much of what they want as can possibly be supplied to them.
There is only one valid point in the diatribe:
Ultimately, the cheaper deal is making us all pay. Unbundling doesn’t eliminate costs, it just makes them external. And they still have to be met by someone, somewhere.
Absolutely, and bundling doesn't eliminate costs either, it just internalises them and thus forces everyone, whether they wish the extras or not, to pay for them. Which is why we like the unbundling of course - so that consumers may indeed select from that menu of options.
The very thing being complained about is the very thing which we actually desire.