Hello there!
Edit: I'm sure this post belongs in Privacy@lemmy.ml because this post's concern is with shilling facial recognition, promising benefits for it and overall describing it like the only sane option - "you wouldn't want to stay in line for an hour, now, would you?".
Just bought a Ryanair ticket that was, like, 17 euros. I saw that price and said "Wow! That's like going to a movie but the movie is Slovakia!". Bought the ticket, then received a looooot of spam, among which there was a letter saying that, since I bought from a third-party, I need to verify my identity first. On top there were 2 nice looking buttons that said "Verify Now" and above them there were two ways of verifying my identity enclosed in a nice frame. The first one would only take me 2 minutes and cost only 0.59 cents, and would utilize facial recognition technology,
Uses facial recognition technology. Verify in approx. 2 minutes. Requires a copy of the passenger's identification documentation and a device with a camera.
the other one didn't look so appetizing, because it might have taken up to 7 days (I'd be leaving in 4), it would have no cost (for free) and would use no facial recognition technology, hence the 7 day wait
Verifies the passenger's signature. Verify within 7 days. Requires a copy of the passenger's identification documentation and a device with a camera.
Following the two ways there was a third way, which was in no way highlighted as the first two, and it said that if I wanted, I could go there myself and hand them my passport, but they explicitly dissuade me from doing so because "it would imply a payment of a check-in fee"
Passengers who do not avail of Express Verification or Standard Verification to verify their bookings can verify at the Ryanair ticket desk up to 60 minutes before departure.
However, we do not recommend this option as an airport check-in fee will apply (please see our Table of Fees).
The facial recognition way sounded like an angel's voice among the devil's screams, when compared to the other two. It was presented almost like "an offer JUST for you", like "Look. I normally don't do this, but since you're such a nice guy...". I obviously discarded the facial-recognition way as soon as I read "facial recognition", but also because they so strongly suggested against me paying 55 euros (I called and asked) to them. Now, if the 55 euros are going to Ryanair, it sounds so unreasonable for them to almost refuse taking my money [However, we do not recommend this option as an airport check-in fee will apply (please see our Table of Fees).]. Who doesn't want an extra 55 from each old person that buys their ticket? I would, however, understand if that 55 were to go entirely to the airport, not Ryanair, but I don't think that's how it works (correct me if I'm wrong). It seemed like they wanted to own my face more than my 55 euros, so it must be that they would earn much more from my face than from my wallet. I don't want to allow that. I assume that, when applying to the facial recognition option, I would need to accept a specific ToS allowing them to store and sell my pretty little face around. I can't allow that. I also understand that this is a low-cost flight and they need to reach a certain earning with alternative methods (i.e. selling my face to third-party and whatnot), but since they allow to pay for the ticket AND the 55 for the check-in then that sum must cover the whole thing and it must be the non-low-cost full price. Why then would I sell you my face allowing you to use me to make much more money than you should? For the commodity of doing the verification from my couch in 2 minutes? That's not enough for me to sell myself, and neither should it be for anyone else (who has some, if not pride, then self-respect).
The whole picture looks a bit manipulative to me and I'd rather waste the money I spent on the two-way ticket and airbnb, stay home and never have anything to do with Ryanair.
If it's that cheap, though, it just has to be shit. It's just not realistic, otherwise
Again, that's just market ideology speaking
It's Mathematics, specifically Statistics.
There is also a natural human psychological factor - demonstrated by Behavioural Economists with actual experiments - of when facing with multiple choices one is unfamiliar with presuming that the cheapest has some problem and going for the 2nd cheapest.
There is a lot of Free Market ideology shit, but this specific element actually goes against it (as in, it's the opposite of how the homo economicus model behaves).
If you're going to throw that stuff around at least inform yourself rather than parrot it as a mindless slogan.
presuming
If there was a study that proved all cheaper items were actually inferior, it would prove the presumption correct. But this study does not prove that.
It only proves what I said - that people presume cheaper items are worse.
EDIT: I'm not saying cheaper items aren't often worse. They often are. But it is not a general rule. Many more expensive items have inflated prices, leaving room beneath them for more honestly priced items of similar quality.
They're 2 different things:
Exceptionally cheaper items are often inferior.
However there is also an irrational human behaviour of expecting the cheapest item (even just slightly so) in a range of otherwise similar choices to be inferior.
Whilst the first situation does have a Statistical backing (in that the so-called "too good to be true" situations more often than not are indeed so), the second - which is a much more general cognitive shortcut around pricing - does not (as you pointed out) have any real Statistical backing.
The first feeds the second. It's the same mechanism as stereotyping.
No. You're generalizing something while we were talking about a specific case. 17$ for a plane ticket is just not feasible, when you account all the costs associated with flying. In this specific case, there has to be something wrong somewhere. It's not an abstract theory, it's just numbers not adding up.
You're only guessing, just as I am. Until we can see an actual price breakdown of their tickets, it remains a guess.