Obviously there is, but in principle? How much of our freedom to live and consume is really “free”? Can we ever be free to choose whatever we want, or are we purely products of the environment we live in?

At uni I took an economics course in Sustainability. While this subject tends to be both broad and complex (including the definition of the term), the underlying principle is clear:

Something that is sustainable is something we can continue doing indefinitely without any negative consequences for our existence.

Applying this principle means asking yourself the question: Can we continue doing this forever? If the answer is a clear-cut NO, it’s not sustainable, i.e. it’s bad.

At the moment I’m trying to change my consumption habits into a more sustainable one. I’ll try to present these actions in upcoming posts.

On my way to work this morning I noticed the upgraded FlyNordic ad in the subway. For you who are unfamiliar with the company and its ads: FlyNordic is a Swedish low-cost airline that launched a series of ads last year featuring stereotypes of Swedish upper-class people muttering about the “one-class” flights.

It’s nicely executed, but more importantly, it reminded me of one of my earlier posts about the economics and morality of business class travel. The idea I had was that business class is “ok” in terms of equality, because it doesn’t harm economy class passengers. In fact the opposite is true: it actually subsidizes economy class passengers.

So, while making fun of the upper class is fine by me, I’m thinking if an “equal” airline system will benefit people with less money. Probably not, since no subsidies can exist without two ticket classes (i.e. price discrimination). Maybe FlyNordic has a totally different perspective on airline economics?

FlyNordic website and http://theplanninglab.com/?p=505

A post in the Economist blog asks whether it’s morally objectionable to separate airline travellers into two classes (i.e. business and economy class) in a world where the income gap is getting bigger. Since business class travellers subsidize economy class travellers through higher ticket prices (demand is inelastic), this question is not really clear-cut.

What happens when we apply some philosophical principles to this situation of inequality? Well, according to some 20th century socio-liberal principles of justice (Rawls), each person should have a full claim to basic liberties. Social and economic inequality is only justified if: 1) everybody has a fair opportunity to reach the privileged position and 2) the inequality is to the greatest advantage of those who are least well-off.

My interpretation of the airline case is that a two-class system does not conflict with Rawlesian fairness because:

1) Business class travel cannot be considered a basic liberty, and

2) the people who are least-well off i.e. the ones that buy the cheapest airline tickets benefit the most from subsidies of business class tickets.

This, however, requires that the society in which the economy class traveller lives provides a fair chance for the economy class traveller to advance economically and socially in order to ultimately get a business class ticket.

To sustain a moral highground, I think that airlines should consider these marketing implications:

PRICING. The price difference between the cheapest business class ticket and the most expensive economy class ticket should be minimal. This allows for advancement.

INNOVATION. The delivered value of business class tickets should be increased through service development (especially ground- and peripheral services). This increases the possibility to further subsize economy class tickets -and consequently the welfare of poorer travellers.

BRANDING. The perceived service quality gap between business and economy class has to managed to reduce any feelings of indignity. One way to do this is to position the brand as a relative modern and progressive airline that cares for all its passengers, not just business class travellers.

Economist blog