The short answer to your question is this: Mary should not have to pay $644 for a $220 seat on the plane in order to get to her dying mother. Nor should anyone.
This assumes that the $220 the seat sold for a month ago actually covers the cost and provides a little profit for the airline. I suspect this is not the case, otherwise the airlines would not have invested so much in the algorithms to predict highest prices and taken the risk of customer outrage.
What they have done is to exploit people in dire circumstances and force them to subsidize people who are not in dire circumstances -- or, who just don't give a fig if they are paying three times as much as the guy in the seat next to them.
The ebay comparison is not quite apt. Mary's mother isn't going to die without a final farewell if Mary loses the bid on the toaster. The difference is that Mary has a lot of choice on ebay and practically none when she needs to get to her mother.
If the airlines can't cover their costs and make a small profit by selling seats for $220 they shouldn't sell them for $220. Exploiting those who are in dire circumstances may be good for the bottom line, but I don't think it is good for society. A better way is to sell the original ticket for $280, say, or even $300. Spread the burden for profitability around among all the passengers instead of forcing it on the few who are caught in circumstances beyond their control.
|