"Getting even" can serve a purpose

Why This Traveler's Outrage Feels So Right
by Charles Wheelan, Ph.D.
Monday, May 10, 2010

United and Continental are merging to create the world's biggest airline. Congratulations. Now give me my $25 back.

I just filed what may be the world's smallest lawsuit against what will soon be the world's biggest airline.

At the beginning of May, I sued United Airlines (soon to absorb Continental) in New Hampshire district court for $25. (Yes, it cost me $72 to file the suit, but I'll get to the logic of that in a moment.)

The grounds for my lawsuit are, I believe, airtight. In March of this year, I checked a bag on a United flight from Toronto to Manchester, N.H. To do so, I paid $25. My understanding was that both the bag and I would arrive in Manchester later that evening.

I arrived. The bag did not. Gone. Nearly six weeks later, it's still missing. Which is why I want my $25 back.

True, the bag had a lot of valuable stuff in it -- clothes, shoes, even an olive oil and vinegar decanter that I was bringing back as a gift. Obviously I want that stuff back, too, or compensation for the lost possessions. But I'm willing to wait on that, as United claims to be still looking for the bag. If it never turns up, we'll have to haggle over the value of the contents. Fine.

But in the meantime, one thing is absolutely, positively clear: I didn't pay $25 to have the bag disposed of. I paid $25 to have the bag delivered to its ultimate destination. That didn't happen. Come on Glenn Tilton (who as United CEO is the named party in the lawsuit), these bag fees are irksome when the bag does go where it's supposed to go. They're really hard to justify when it doesn't!

When I try to explain this to the United baggage claim representatives, I just end up deeper in call center hell. After yelling at about the ninth person (people who admittedly bear no responsibility whatsoever for my lost bag), I opted to seek justice the American way: in small claims court. The Web site explaining the New Hampshire small claims process actually says: "The 'People's Court' television show is a very good example of how most courts handle small claims cases."

My only disappointment is that I won't be eligible for a jury trial, since the claim is less than $1,500.

Remarkably, there are some important economic concepts lurking within my otherwise silly $25 lawsuit. The first is the explanation for why the major airlines (with the notable exception of Southwest) increasingly treat passengers like inmates in a medium security prison (though presumably there are fewer added fees in prison). Because they can.

The airline industry is not a perfectly competitive market. If it were, then each one of us who has had a bad customer service experience would simply choose a different airline next time. But that's usually not possible. Both regulations and gate availability constrain the number of carriers that serve most markets.

If I found a dead rat floating in my soup at a restaurant, I could credibly claim that I was never coming back. There are plenty of restaurants to choose from, even in a small town. Airlines are different. I can't credibly claim that I'll never fly United again, as it's often the only option to some of the places I need to go, at the times I need to fly. The sad reality is that I've had to book two new United flights just since my bag was lost.

Firms that don't face meaningful competition tend to take their customers for granted. Of course, the industry will become even less competitive once the United-Continental merger is consummated -- a fact that regulators are now scrutinizing.

The second relevant economic point is that recent research has demonstrated that there is nothing particularly stupid about paying $72 to file a $25 lawsuit. In fact, it explains an important aspect of human evolution.

Until recently, economists assumed that no rational person would do anything that makes them worse off -- such as filing a lawsuit that can't possibly be worth the cost of my time, even if I win. But economists should have been reading more Shakespeare. It turns out that vengeance, or harming oneself in order to inflict harm on someone else, is both explainable and important.

Scientists can now literally watch our brains as we go about different activities. Getting even with someone who has done you harm stimulates the same pleasure centers in the brain as other enjoyable activities. When participants are put in experimental games in which they are treated unfairly by a fellow player, the victims are perfectly willing to give up their own resources in order to inflict harm on the wrongdoer -- because it makes them feel good.

Evolutionary biologists believe this warm, fuzzy feeling related to vengeance plays a crucial role in human development. Our economic and social advancement depend on cooperation among groups of people; some of those people cheat, shirk or provide unpleasant customer service. Vengeance ensures that we will punish these perceived wrongdoers, even if it exacts a personal toll on us in the short run.

In the long run, this willingness to punish cheaters and shirkers makes for fewer of them, which in turn promotes cooperative endeavors. Vengeance also appears to be uniquely human. New research shows that when monkeys play laboratory games involving food, they will not sacrifice their own consumption in order to punish another monkey who has acted "unfairly."

So, if nothing else, my lawsuit proves that I'm smarter than a monkey. And win or lose, it makes me feel good.