I'm loving this thread ... relativity and market readiness is all you need to validate any form of profiteering.

Obviously we'd all pay hundreds to see them!!!!!
So also would a dying man in a desert pay thousands for a glass of water.  Market willingness to pay doesn't make it "right".
And if the guy next to you offers the dying man a glass of water for $1000, offering him one for $800 (that's cost you 10c) is somehow ethical?  Market relativity doesn't make profiteering "right" either.

The original point was entirely an ethics question, not a pragmatic proposal:  It's a benefit concert for the burnt out Victorians, stating "All profits go to ...".  Making profits on anything associated with it (eg: tee-shirts) is ethically dubious since it's declared "All Profits ...", so how is it ethical to make a tidy profit on selling tix to the rabid punters to access what is ultimately a staging point for a non-profit benefit?

As I said, it's an entirely theoretical question anyway, it probably is cost price for putting together a one-off with fly-ins.

[Launch anti-missile ordinance now ...]

I just love analytical ethics ... get over it.  Of course it's a bargain!  The phrase "Once in a lifetime opportunity ..." is valid.

:)

By the way the original poster of the thread also said:  "Hey guess what...my town caught fire 2 days ago...you would have seen it on the news. It was that huge fire in the dandenongs, including Upwey and belgrave south.  [snip]", so there's some fairly reasonably proximity to the actual context in the original complaint.  Me? I'm just an amateur ethics philosopher, so I weighed in.   No valid context here.

Cheers
RM