Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US airlines are pushing to remove protections for passengers and add more fees

travelandtourworld.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 678 posts

Re: US airlines are pushing to remove protections for passengers and add more fees

#151

Post by 8organicbits »

cls59 wrote: post #33
eadmund wrote: post #17

> [Elimination of] Automatic Refunds for Cancellations Does this mean when the passenger cancels or when the airline cancels? If it’s when the passenger chooses to cancel, this seems fine and fair: he paid for a flight; he chose not to take it. If it’s the latter, then it seems very unfair. > Transparency of Fees This seems patently unfair. Folks should know what they’re going to be paying ahead of time. > Family Sea…

> It doesn’t make sense to tax every other passenger for it. I'd rather pay a monetary tax on my ticket to keep families organized together instead of the discomfort tax of sharing a row with parent+child that has been unexpectedly split up from their partner and is now trying to manage the child's behavior for the duration of the flight without the benefit of teamwork.

Agreed. Flying with my own kids, I'm constantly helping them. They struggle with headphones, opening food, fastening seat belts, being reminded to use the bathroom. Worse: they spill food, have potty training accidents, kick seats, yell, cry, and get scared. It gets easier as they get older, thankfully.

With an infant, having two caregivers within reach is huge. When flying with infant in arms there's nowhere to put the kid down, you don't have a free hand. An extra set of hands to wipe up spit-up, help adjust clothing for breastfeeding, collect the diaper bag, etc is a huge help.

The idea that parents need to pay more to help their children is cruel. I would expect people seated next to a child to end up swapping, to help the parent and to escape the noisy child. But that slows down boarding as people shuffle seats and adds anxiety that we're perfectly able to resolve.

Re: US airlines are pushing to remove protections for passengers and add more fees

#152

Post by kortilla »

accrual wrote: post #120
cdrini wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [Elimination of] Automatic Refunds for Cancellations Airline cancellations. Seeing as they're talking about making a change, I assume it's airline cancellations, since no airline will currently refund you for a passenger cancellation.

Delta at least supplies a 24 hour grace period to cancel in case one made a mistake. I noticed they don't even charge cards until after this period

I think this one is required federally because every US airline allows this that I’ve flown.

Re: US airlines are pushing to remove protections for passengers and add more fees

#153

Post by AtlanticThird »

jjcob wrote: post #46
eadmund wrote: post #17

> [Elimination of] Automatic Refunds for Cancellations Does this mean when the passenger cancels or when the airline cancels? If it’s when the passenger chooses to cancel, this seems fine and fair: he paid for a flight; he chose not to take it. If it’s the latter, then it seems very unfair. > Transparency of Fees This seems patently unfair. Folks should know what they’re going to be paying ahead of time. > Family Sea…

> If you want to sit together, pay for that privilege This is evil. There is no cost to the airline to put people who booked together next to another. It's seems like Mafia-tactic to seat people apart from another unless they pony up another $500 in upgrades. I refuse to fly with United. I understand that there may not be 10 adjacent seats when flying with a big group, but spreading out a family on purpose just so yo…

What do you mean there is no cost? Aisle and window seats are more valuable and can be sold for more, and this would force airlines to sell them to families without any up charge they would've received from other customers

Re: US airlines are pushing to remove protections for passengers and add more fees

#154

Post by whatsupdog »

hedora wrote: post #137
whatsupdog wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No... I just came across it and it seems heavily researched. You can just google "obama air traffic controllers test", there are other sources as well.

The downtick in air traffic control safety started post covid (labor shortage due to layoffs in 2020), and accelerated in 2025 (labor shortage due to layoffs and funding cuts because DOGE or something).

That's not true.

In 2013, the FAA sought to diversify the air traffic controller workforce by introducing a biographical questionnaire, which replaced the proven AT-SAT test and deprioritized job-relevant skills in favor of arbitrary factors like LOW grades in science or history. This abrupt change ostracized graduates of the FAA-endorsed CTI programs, which had successfully cultivated highly qualified candidates for years. The process was further marred by reports of corruption, including an FAA official coaching select candidates on how to cheat the questionnaire, undermining fairness and trust in the system. These actions disrupted the training pipeline, reduced applicant quality, and caused lasting staffing shortages and safety concerns in aviation.

Re: US airlines are pushing to remove protections for passengers and add more fees

#155

Post by itopaloglu83 »

egonschiele wrote: post #130

> Family Seating Guarantees: Under current regulations, airlines must ensure that families with young children are seated together without additional charges. This would no longer be guaranteed under the new proposal, meaning families could face extra costs just to sit next to one another. This one is wild. You want to sit next to somebody's crying 2 year old? Go nuts. Change their diaper while you're at it.

Asking families if their teenager could be seated separately is one thing, but knowing the airlines, they might as well start seating the toddlers in the overhead luggage compartments.

Re: US airlines are pushing to remove protections for passengers and add more fees

#156

Post by kortilla »

burkaman wrote: post #30
eadmund wrote: post #17

> [Elimination of] Automatic Refunds for Cancellations Does this mean when the passenger cancels or when the airline cancels? If it’s when the passenger chooses to cancel, this seems fine and fair: he paid for a flight; he chose not to take it. If it’s the latter, then it seems very unfair. > Transparency of Fees This seems patently unfair. Folks should know what they’re going to be paying ahead of time. > Family Sea…

Automatic Refunds for Cancellations is referring to when the airline cancels. This is related to a Biden administration rule abandoned by the Trump administration: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/05/business/flight-delays-ca... .

That Biden rule never rolled out according to the article. So what would be changing?

Re: US airlines are pushing to remove protections for passengers and add more fees

#157

Post by msluyter »

eadmund wrote: post #17

> [Elimination of] Automatic Refunds for Cancellations Does this mean when the passenger cancels or when the airline cancels? If it’s when the passenger chooses to cancel, this seems fine and fair: he paid for a flight; he chose not to take it. If it’s the latter, then it seems very unfair. > Transparency of Fees This seems patently unfair. Folks should know what they’re going to be paying ahead of time. > Family Sea…

Random family seating anecdote. A couple of years ago, we were on vacation and my wife had to go home early to tend for a sick pet. My daughter and I also re-arranged our flight to get home early, and ended up in like the D boarding group (on Southwest). So we're getting on the plane and we're almost dead last, and there are very few seats left together anywhere. My 6 yr old daughter was not really emotionally equipped to sit alone at that point.

We get about 2/3 of the down and there's now nothing, so I say -- with some desperation -- "If someone would be willing to switch seats so my daughter and I can sit together I'll give you $20." A guy says "I don't want the money but I'll switch."

Which sort of shows that if you're not a jerk, and you ask nicely, often people will go out of their way to help you.

Families who seem to expect other passengers to move, especially when there's assigned seating, are another story, and deserve the condemnation they get, IMHO.

Re: US airlines are pushing to remove protections for passengers and add more fees

#158

Post by 0xAFFFF »

masklinn wrote: post #101
DangitBobby wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you want to sit together, pay for that privilege. Agreed. I think they leave too much money on the table. Use of window shades and lavatories could be behind a subscription service as well, with Sky Comfort+ affording you the privilege of multiple lavatory visits for those who have chosen the luxury IBS lifestyle. I'll let you know if I think of anything else those pesky airline passengers take for granted.

Are you a consultant for ryanair? If not, you should apply. They tried to straight up remove the window shades, but that’s currently required by Ireland so no dice. A toilet charge has been floated but is apparently difficult both legally and technically. However given Ryanair’s usual treatment of passengers with disabilities I have no doubt a passenger with IBS would have an experience.

Ryanair talks a lot, but they mostly do it for the free PR they inevitably get when people act shocked. Almost all of their proposal are unfeasible or downright illegal and all of them should be considered bullshit until proven otherwise.

Re: US airlines are pushing to remove protections for passengers and add more fees

#159

Post by panick21_ »

hannasanarion wrote: post #52
panick21_ wrote: post #23

Ironically in Europe we have some decent regulation for airlines, but the public train operating companies refuse to do the same for trains. We need to have some of those same protection and transparency requirements for train companies as well. But the governments of the big operating companies have vetoed this so far. Sometimes deregulation actually makes it easier to implement regulation.

Train operators aren't as strictly regulated because they can't do as much harm, both in terms of the inherent catastraophic consequences of air travel disasters for passengers and bystanders, and in terms of the financial risk that passengers take on by purchasing a ticket. A no-refunds-for-cancellations policy on a $100 intercity train ticket that rarely ever cancels hits different from a $400 flight itinerary that…

I don't think that's true. If you book a connection that involves multiple high speed trains across multiple country you can easily pay 1000s of $. Its actually more then many direct flights in Europe.

And for example if you take TGV from Paris to the German border, and you have to get on an ICE. If the TGV is late, you miss the connection to the ICE, and have to sleep in the border town, TGV doesn't have to pay.

And missing connection is quite common, specially because Germany is ... not very German.

In terms of safety, a train accident can kill 100s of people. They just don't happen very often.

Re: US airlines are pushing to remove protections for passengers and add more fees

#160

Post by NickC25 »

hedora wrote: post #59
jjcob wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you want to sit together, pay for that privilege This is evil. There is no cost to the airline to put people who booked together next to another. It's seems like Mafia-tactic to seat people apart from another unless they pony up another $500 in upgrades. I refuse to fly with United. I understand that there may not be 10 adjacent seats when flying with a big group, but spreading out a family on purpose just so yo…

Checked luggage charges are mostly about price discrimination and not cost savings. They also free up the cargo hold so they can transport mail. Speaking of which, did you know the TSA screening area is a farce?

> Speaking of which, did you know the TSA screening area is a farce?

My man, the TSA is a jobs program disguised as security theater. It's also a funnel for money into contractors' pockets (see: Leidos).

Post reply on HN