A Thirst for Water and a Hunger for Greed: Ending Price Gouging at the Nation’s Airports

With California in the midst of an unprecedented drought, there is something more than a bit unjust about paying $6 for a liter of “designer water” at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). Since this overpriced water comes from springs and wells outside of the Golden State, because so much of the water at airport kiosks originates from pumps and aquifers in locales as varied as Maine or Fiji, we should not have to indulge the greed of companies with a monopoly on the sale of something that is otherwise free.

This issue is a matter of moral justice and economic fairness because, as planes ascend or begin their descent into San Diego or San Francisco, when you fly the length of California and see the brown fields and parched earth of the San Joaquin Valley and the empty reservoirs of desert landscapes, it becomes all the more obscene to think businesses would sooner gouge consumers than try to win their loyalty.

And, security rules and dire predictions to the contrary, it is also somewhat absurd that a person cannot bring a bottle of water – one he or she is visibly drinking – past a certain checkpoint, as if a grandmother or sleep deprived parent is a would-be terrorist.

Instead, we have world-famous coffee companies and their barking baristas, and regional newsstands and their curt cashiers, demanding premium prices for an item that most restaurants offer as a complimentary refreshment.

The inconvenience to consumers is one thing, but the reasoning behind it is something else entirely. Indeed, the rationale is so offensive because it is so obvious: It is an admission-by-pricing that a company knows you have no choice but one, so, rather than uphold the spirit of the marketplace (as opposed to this artificially inflated scenario), we have brands choosing greed over integrity.

Travelers know they are captives of their own environment; they await their flights in seating areas where the smell of fast food and heavily sugared sweet buns fills the air, where nutrition is a foreign word and service is a novel concept.

There is, however, a limit to everything. There comes a time, and that moment is now, when greed is so excessive it causes a backlash. The subsequent outrage and lawsuits are a predictable response to these airport monopolies.

What concerns me is the lack of thought – the absence of even the slightest pangs of guilt – by store managers and executives that milking consumers for a bottle of water is a good idea.

Are these people unaware of the power of social media and negative publicity? Do they think a smile is a substitute for decent service, and not a smirk at our collective expense, as each of us surrenders a twenty-dollar bill for two bottles of water and a soggy sandwich?

When these companies make the majority of their money elsewhere, why must they insist on insulting our intelligence in this enclosed space of nowhere – nowhere to bid or barter; nowhere to browse or buy from more than one merchant?

The drought mentioned earlier is real; the manufactured one, at LAX and beyond, is unconscionable. It is wrong because it is so unnecessary, a rounding error on a global brand’s balance sheet.

And yet, these companies persist with pettiness-through-pricing.

The shame is not in the act itself, though it is most definitely shameful; the shame is in the smallness of the decision by these businesses to even think of doing such a thing.

Awash in profits, these companies should be good corporate citizens.

They could do worse than follow this sacred rule:

“For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in.”

Elizabeth Rice Grossman