I can see what you mean but this computation doesn't make sense

送交者: eng 于 2008-04-23, 22:32:37:

回答: the reference point is full-price 由 Enlighten 于 2008-04-23, 22:12:36:

引用：

以前的一个朋友告诉我，搭飞机要想便宜，要到机场里去等，飞机没装够人，就会派人提着喇叭到处兜售剩余的位置，一般人要600，你300就可以走了，或者砍价狠的，200也走了。

So in this case, selling at a discount (for the empty seats) is actually the best choice. (Selling at full price happens with probability 0, hence with an expected outcome of 0.)

所有跟贴:

the opportunity loss happens only in the following scenario: - Enlighten (496 bytes) 2008-04-23, 22:42:00 (220926)
- 你的书背得真好。可惜不管用。 - james_hussein_bond (276 bytes) 2008-04-23, 22:49:34 (220927)
  - last time you claimed Nobel prize was BS too. - Enlighten (213 bytes) 2008-04-23, 22:56:30 (220928)
    - You got it backwards. If the guy doesn't get the discount, he doesn't fly. - james_hussein_bond (47 bytes) 2008-04-23, 23:00:03 (220930)
      - if all seats were sold, of course there's not opportunity loss. - Enlighten (168 bytes) 2008-04-23, 23:04:33 (220931)
        
        False premise - james_hussein_bond (337 bytes) 2008-04-24, 06:38:44 (220947)
        
        you mixed up two types of consumers. - Enlighten (397 bytes) 2008-04-23, 23:15:10 (220935)
        
        Gosh, you're slow. - james_hussein_bond (154 bytes) 2008-04-23, 23:10:36 (220933)

加跟贴