Hi Tom, The report was published publicly, so there is certainly no explanation required for why it was shared. That was the point!
Thanks for the note and hope all is well, Courtney Visual Approach 214-601-3628 On Wed, Sep 24, 2025, 1:24 AM Tom Ronell via Mifnet <mifnet@lists.mifnet.com> wrote: > > > Welcome to Mifnet, Courtney. > > I understand that Dave forwarded to you my explanation of how and why I > shared the report with Mifnet? If not, I can do so, in order that you have > "the rest of the story," as Paul Harvey would say. > > Best wishes, > > Tom > > ------------------------------ > > *From: *Hubert Horan via Mifnet <mifnet@lists.mifnet.com> > *To: *court...@visualapproah.io; David Wardell <dward...@mifnet.com>; > David Wardell via Mifnet <mifnet@lists.mifnet.com> > *CC: *Hubert Horan <horanaviat...@gmail.com> > *Date: *2025-09-23T18:28:43Z > *Subject: *[Mifnet 🛰 74275] Delta "AI" pricing--reply to Miller > > Sorry for delayed response I have been riding trains in Central and South > Asia. I am emailing this response to you at the same time I am posting it > on Mifnet > > My 19 Sep post was in the context of a Mifnet discussion that began in > July that had been provoked by industry press reports that Glen Hauenstein > had told investors that Delta expected major returns from its ongoing > project to have “artificial intelligence” set prices. My original July post > suggested that if Hauenstein’s claims could be confirmed this could be one > of the biggest stories in aviation, we need to figure out what’s actually > going on. The July discussion focused on three questions: > > 1. Was the Delta/Fletcherr “AI” project designed to give Delta the ability > to implement first-degree price discrimination (whether implemented now or > in the future) so that individuals making identical pricing requests at the > same point in time might be shown different prices based on Delta’ > perceptions of their price elasticity? > > 2. What exactly did Hauenstein mean when he said AI would set Delta > prices? What would Large Language Model/Generative AI pricing do > differently than Delta’ longstanding PYM processes? Was Delta expecting > “AI” to make marginal improvements to its longstanding RM function or > significantly transform them? If the latter, what major RM shortcomings > would “AI” solve? What totally new capabilities would “AI price setting” > introduce? > > 3. In order of magnitude terms, were the revenue gains from introducing > “AI pricing” likely to be incremental/useful or huge/competitively > powerful? Was increased revenue from first-degree price discrimination an > important part of the reason for Hauenstein’s optimism with his investors? > > > > Neither Delta’s public statements nor subsequent press coverage provided > clear answers to these questions. Subsequent Delta statements implied they > don’t intend to introduce first-degree price discrimination, but they > haven’t ruled it out in the future and have made no effort to demonstrate > that the big gains Hauenstein is promising investors come from sources > other than first-degree price discrimination. Again, the comment from > Senator Gallego who thinks Hauenstein is either lying to his investors > (about huge potential gains) or to Congress (about disavowing first-degree > price discrimination). > > The subsequent Mifnet discussion recognized that any effort to implement > first-degree price discrimination would be a huge industry issue but would > face a variety of challenges. While we could speculate, no one seemed able > to confidently answer the three questions. > > Once Ronell distributed your paper, the question for the Mifnet discussion > was whether it helped answer the three questions. I stand by what I told > the Mifnet on the 19th—no it didn’t, and I provided explanations with > direct quotes justifying that conclusion. Your response not only failed to > clarify how you would answer the three questions but ignored almost all the > evidence I presented demonstrating that you didn’t have clear answers to > those questions. > > *Will the AI project enable first-degree price discrimination*? Biggest > question of all. We all know airlines have long had access to lots of > “personal information.” But is the Delta/Fletcherr project designed to > change the use this information so Delta can show different prices to > different customers? Your paper ignored this, and when I highlighted it in > my post of the 19th you ignored it again. Your paper misrepresented > public concerns about the use of anti-competitive market power in order to > capture consumer surplus as concerns about data privacy. Your response > ignored my objection that the single quote from a Georgia TV station you > used to represent the backlash to Hauenstein’s statements similarly > misrepresented the industry/public debate over first-degree price > discrimination. > > *Will AI drive major, dramatic changes to Delta RM, and if so how*? No > one could read your paper without missing your Very Strong Implications > that this is a Really Big Deal. Your paper used the words > revolution/revolutionary ten times. Delta/Fletcherr “have begun to automate > airline pricing.” As I said on the 19th, any RM function can be improved, > but your response ignored my stated concern that all of the improvements > your paper cited sounded like things airline RM has been doing for years > and fall well short of things one could call revolutionary. Delta airline > pricing isn’t currently automated? Airlines are incapable of implementing > their RM models? Airline data isn’t properly warehoused? I invited you to > offer concrete illustrations of major Delta RM shortcomings that the AI > project could fix; your reply failed to offer any, much less ones that > could be considered revolutionary. > > *Is Delta’s introduction of “AI pricing” something with the potential to > massively increase revenue and disrupt industry competition*? No one > could read your paper without missing your Very Strong Implications that > this will have Really Huge Benefits. Delta/Fletcherr “AI pricing” > approach could increase revenue by 10%, could be higher than 10%, and > Delta’ competitors are ceding a big revenue advantage by failing to adopt > the Delta/Fletcherr approach. You ignored my objection that this potential > wasn’t qualified in any way and if taken at face value would produce the > biggest profit gain in industry history. You then insisted that the > existence of uncertainty meant you could ignore my objection that you > hadn’t provided the detailed concrete examples that a conclusion this > powerful would normally warrant or explained why major airlines like Delta > were unable to achieve them in the past. > > *The AI company claims revenue improvements of 10% due to pricing > optimization from the model. We do not know if Delta is seeing the claimed > 10% in their test cases, but we do know the airline is very, very satisfied > with the results.*" > > You were the author of this paper. By endorsing Fletcherr’s specific 10% > claim and Delta’s very satisfied comment you are clearly telling your > readers that you believe gains of this magnitude are highly plausible. Of > course Delta hasn’t publicly committed to specific improvement targets. > That fact isn’t “adding context and nuance”. It is trying to avoid > accountability for the findings and opinions you’ve presented and trying to > blow off requests that the findings and opinions you present be properly > substantiated. > > Now if Delta/Fletcherr are really focused on creating a first-degree price > discrimination system perhaps adjectives like revolutionary and claims of > $5 billion annual revenue gains might become a bit more plausible. The > Mifnet (and a great deal of other industry) discussion is trying to figure > out if that’s what happening. But your paper steadfastly refused to address > the issue and refused to offer any explanation of how > revolutionary/multi-billion-dollar improvements could be possible, if Delta > was being fully honest when it told Congress that it had no intention of > introducing first-degree price discrimination. > > There was nothing in your response that claimed that anything I’d said on > the 19th was factually wrong or could be challenged using public > evidence. Instead it focused on a lot of emotional points that frankly > don’t make much sense. > > You were “disappointed” you hadn’t received my comments in advance. Your > published paper was not published at a discussion forum and did not > specifically invite comments. As you said, your paper was offered as a > contribution to industry discussion and that’s how it was taken when Ronell > distributed it to Mifnet participants. Mifnet participants comment on lots > of external comments about industry issues. > > I recognize that you were not directly involved when the Mifnet first > discussed the three questions about the Delta/Fletchrr approach, but I > don’t see how anyone could discuss anything related to airline AI pricing > without considering them. You complained that your paper said it wasn’t > addressed to experts in data science but I’m not aware of anyone on the > Mifnet who is on the cutting edge of data science and nothing in my post > involved data science issues. Your complaint of objections coming from > people who conflate “artificial intelligence” with ChatGPT assisted > internet searches is strawmanning and a bit insulting. > > You claimed my post was “angry”, “disingenuous” “appears to have been > taken personally, somehow. Perhaps someone forwarded the paper to the > poster with a nasty note?” and was an attack on your integrity. None of > these emotional comments referred to any specific thing I’d written and I > found these aspects of your reply unwarranted and totally unprofessional. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Revised: 20250507 > > You are receiving The Mifnet because you requested to join this list. > > The Mifnet is largely a labor of love, however the infrastructure isn't > exactly cost-free. If you'd care to make a small contribution to the > effort, please know that it would be greatly appreciated: > https://wardell.us/url/mifbit > > All posts sent to the list should abide by these policies: > > 1) List members acknowledge that participation in Mifnet is a > privilege--not a right. > 2) Posts are always off the record, absent specific permission from the > author. > 3) The tone of discussions is collegial. > 4) Posts are expected to be in reasonably good taste. > 5) We discuss ideas and not personalities, and we don't speak ill of other > Mifnet members. > > * The Mifnet WEB SITE is: > https://www.mifnet.com/ > > * To UNSUBSCRIBE from this list at any time please visit: > https://lists.mifnet.com/ > OR: SEND THIS MESSAGE via email: > mifnet-requ...@lists.mifnet.com?subject=leave > > * Send Mifnet mailing list POSTS/SUBMISSIONS to: > mifnet@lists.mifnet.com > > * You may reach the person managing The Mifnet at: > mifnet-ow...@lists.mifnet.com > > * Please consider the DIGEST version of The Mifnet, which consolidates all > list traffic into 1-3 > messages daily. See instructions at: > https://lists.mifnet.com/ > > * Manage your personal Mifnet SUBSCRIPTION at: > https://lists.mifnet.com/ > > * For a list of all available Mifnet commands, SEND THIS MESSAGE via email: > mifnet-requ...@lists.mifnet.com?subject=help > > * View The Mifnet LIST POLICIES and PRIVACY POLICY at: > https://mifnet.com/index.php/policies > > * View instructions for Mifnet DELIVERY PROBLEMS at: > https://mifnet.com/index.php/delivery-problems > > * View The Mifnet LIST ARCHIVE at: > https://lists.mifnet.com/hyperkitty/list/mifnet@lists.mifnet.com/ >
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Revised: 20250507 You are receiving The Mifnet because you requested to join this list. The Mifnet is largely a labor of love, however the infrastructure isn't exactly cost-free. If you'd care to make a small contribution to the effort, please know that it would be greatly appreciated: https://wardell.us/url/mifbit All posts sent to the list should abide by these policies: 1) List members acknowledge that participation in Mifnet is a privilege--not a right. 2) Posts are always off the record, absent specific permission from the author. 3) The tone of discussions is collegial. 4) Posts are expected to be in reasonably good taste. 5) We discuss ideas and not personalities, and we don't speak ill of other Mifnet members. * The Mifnet WEB SITE is: https://www.mifnet.com/ * To UNSUBSCRIBE from this list at any time please visit: https://lists.mifnet.com/ OR: SEND THIS MESSAGE via email: mifnet-requ...@lists.mifnet.com?subject=leave * Send Mifnet mailing list POSTS/SUBMISSIONS to: mifnet@lists.mifnet.com * You may reach the person managing The Mifnet at: mifnet-ow...@lists.mifnet.com * Please consider the DIGEST version of The Mifnet, which consolidates all list traffic into 1-3 messages daily. See instructions at: https://lists.mifnet.com/ * Manage your personal Mifnet SUBSCRIPTION at: https://lists.mifnet.com/ * For a list of all available Mifnet commands, SEND THIS MESSAGE via email: mifnet-requ...@lists.mifnet.com?subject=help * View The Mifnet LIST POLICIES and PRIVACY POLICY at: https://mifnet.com/index.php/policies * View instructions for Mifnet DELIVERY PROBLEMS at: https://mifnet.com/index.php/delivery-problems * View The Mifnet LIST ARCHIVE at: https://lists.mifnet.com/hyperkitty/list/mifnet@lists.mifnet.com/
