To some degree, me too. I didn't want to interfere so I let it do its thing.
My guess is that the majority of dealerships aren't tech inclined to notice things like em dashes, and still have some sort of duty to entertain deals/emails
I had a couple of friends buy cars at the same time - one bought a new Subaru, and the other a used 997 Porsche 911. The 911 cost more, but not a large difference in price. In that part of the world, the Subaru (and almost all new cars) loses 40% in the first year in depreciation, and continues to drop off at 10% - 15% per year. The 911 has more expensive maintenance and insurance, but has so far, and could easily continue to be depreciation-proof. The difference in fuel is less than you might think too given how much lighter (and risky in crashes) older smaller cars are. So far the 911 has turned out to be by far the more sensible financial decision. Obviously there are much more financially-prudent alternatives to both, but I find it interesting how older interesting cars are looked at as frivolous purchases, but new utilitarian cars aren't.
Your comment was presumably talking about new or expensive 911s, and I don't want to criticise what you said at all. I just wanted to say something to hopefully encourage some people to consider sillier, more-fun cars as perhaps not a crazy option.
There are a million practicality reasons why this wont work out for most people, but a lot of families have two cars. I really like seeing the 2nd car being something in that realm of interesting but nearly as reliable, costs more in maintenance but less in depreciation, less practical but more enjoyable. It feels to me like that has gotten less common, and a lot of people think every vehicle needs to be as practical as possible.
It seems that I was talking about a place with one of the highest depreciation rates (1) in the world, so what I said may not be widely applicable at all. I didn't realise it varied so much by country. I should have remembered that New Zealand has unusual prices because it gets a lot of used car imports from places like Japan and Singapore who get rid of their cars quickly.
This is an old study which points to New Zealand having quick depreciation in the first year. Looking around briefly, I think depreciation reduced substantially since COVID, and I think those numbers in that study may have been too high anyway (the study found over 50% in the first year). I'm interested in what happened, so I'll try and find what the reality is when I get a chance.
I've had almost exactly the opposite experience. Never had a consistent connection with Panasonic or GoGo, but on my Starlink flight I was streaming live videos without a single hiccup.
So it makes sense to pay a lot more for the always United tickets rather than the $10 fee for internet on the flight from some other company that had cheaper tickets?
I avoid UA because they intentionally sit families on different rows, with plenty of room to be sat together, to get them to pay $$ per member. I frequently travel with 2 children, and it's annoying when airlines do that.
There's a difference between "I want to pick exactly where we sit and am willing to pay extra for it", and "I want my family to sit together, but don't care where that is on the plane, and I'm already paying a lot for 4 tickets, so don't have extra budget to pay more to to pick where I sit."
Also, I can't imagine people who end up sitting next to a kid whose parent isn't nearby, or the stewards who have to deal with such children would be happy about the arrangement either.
Well I am not a marketing guy, but from the little I know, this is price discrimination between a group of 4 who do not mind sitting anywhere, and a group of 4 that must sit together. Sure, your needs may be higher, but each need has a price, and sitting together is one such need. Just need to plan the $$$$s for that.
Well, people generally don't like being on the receiving end of price discrimination. So you shouldn't be surprised when people refuse to fly with you because you charge you more to fly with them just because you have children with you.
Although, I wonder if maybe the real reason for this might be to discourage families from flying with them....
If having my children sit next to me is important then I expect to have to pay extra for this since this is mostly how airline pricing works. In other words, it isn't perfect in all use cases, like not every seat is next to a window and I may have to pay extra for this rather than have to take my chances.
Children should have privileges adults don't have. As they aren't full independent adults, it's fair to give them special treatment. Nobody is born an adult, so every person in society will get these benefits at some point of their lives.
At the same time, I don't see why airliners shouldn't be able to charge less for tickets that are truly "we will put you whatever we want irrespective of your needs and wants". Children who need to be by their parents shouldn't buy these tickets, the same way children shouldn't buy adult shoes.
If a passenger cannot take care of themselves for whatever reason, I think they should be allowed to sit next to whoever takes care of them without having to pay extra.
Indeed and there already is a legal concept for that called a 'dependent'. And both the caregiver and dependent already receive special consideration under various laws and regulations. Requiring airlines to seat them together is both consistent with existing concepts, and just the right thing to do.
Place shuffling in planes is a novel "invention". Putting existing features behind a Paywall isn't being smart and innovative. it's a signal for to little competition and a cash grap.
Man flying in the US really is the Wild West isn't it?
For reference on Singapore Airlines, the cheapest seats don't have free seat selection ($10 SGD I think to choose, but not 100% sure I've never flown with them without a child), but if you fly with a child you do get free seat selection, and I've never once encountered any airline that would not place travelling groups together.
Isn’t this only an issue with basic economy seats? I only buy standard economy seats and have no problem picking my own seat (albeit in the back of the plane).
I am sure they will help, and I have had positive experience with United the 1 time I had to make a change in the past year.
However, it is not always a straightforward solution. You are a family of 4, and the airline allots. you 2 + 2 (middle+aisle on one side, and aisle+middle on the other side) as that is efficient, but you would rather have window+middle+aisle + aisle. Or maybe vice versa.
basically an algorithm may not meet your needs, and while the airline can help adjust, it is an overhead in terms of personnel costs, and also if you decide to pick seats last minute when most of the seats are already allocated.
Free can mean anything from "unlimited bandwidth for free for everyone" to "free limited/capped service with an add on premium bandwidth service for a fee".
Given that Starlink is still a relatively low bandwidth service and there would be hundreds of people wanting to stream Netflix etc. I'm guessing the latter might be more likely and perhaps better for those that want/need decent internet.
Is it really good to treat things as disposable just because price incentives happen to make doing so cost efficient?
If the GP has a lifestyle that's hard on their watch, good on them for selecting the durable product that can survive it instead of churning needless extraction, labor, shipping, time, and e-waste.
I don’t think it’s bad to treat things as disposable.
I think it’s easy to scoff at (and look down on) someone who does treat things as disposable.
But the reality is that we all (in the developed world) treat everything as if it’s disposable. But we just like to think that we’re mindful or whatever because it makes us feel good.
AppleCare+, since 2019, has been renewable (presumably until Apple declares the product obsolete) for most products except the AirPods (in my experience) in the following countries [1]:
Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States
AppleCare now has monthly until you cancel plans - not just for watch but for phone and even the monitor. (I'm not sure of the macs). It's a bit confusing when you order and I'm not sure if it's because Apple is trying to discourage this; I just decline during order and then add it separately and this option always shows up for me.
You can buy AppleCare+ monthly indefinitely (until they EOL the device) at a monthly rate. You can even renew it after the 2 year length into a monthly plan.
My guess is that the majority of dealerships aren't tech inclined to notice things like em dashes, and still have some sort of duty to entertain deals/emails
reply