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

201–210 of 678 posts

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

#201

Post by thieving_magpie »

philipwhiuk wrote: post #66
spartas wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, nothing is worse than the folks who didn’t pay up ahead of time who bug one, ‘may we switch seats so we can sit together?’ Some of us parents ask that question for your benefit, not ours. Do you want to sit next to my three-year-old?

Some of us think you're just being cheap.

Some of us are just trying to survive financially or couldn't care less what you think.

Tough luck then buddy. Have fun with the kids.

There has to be some kind of middle ground here, imo. Nobody wants to sit next to kids. Families don't want to be penalized financially anymore than they already are for providing a benefit to society. We don't need to further disincentivize families and further our declining birth rates. At the same time it's wildly unfair to ask people to switch seats when they've paid for them (or even if they haven't).

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

#202

Post by lxgr »

hedora wrote: post #88
redwall_hp wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Automatic Refunds for Cancellations: Airlines want to remove the requirement to provide automatic refunds when flights are cancelled or significantly altered. Passengers may instead receive only vouchers or no compensation at all, leaving them without recourse in the event of a major flight disruption. Basically half of flights I've ever booked have had a cancellation. Usually the airline customer service had to re…

Yeah; I wonder if this is going to lead to chargebacks. I wonder if there are any anti-retaliation provisions, or if they’ll just have a special no-fly list for people they sold non-existent flights to, and that refused to pay up.

That's literally why chargebacks exist. Whoever drafted this particular idea must not be very familiar with how card payments work.

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

#203

Post by lxgr »

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.

> 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.

Huh? We do!

There are very similar EU regulations for train travel: https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/travel/passenger-right...

On a completely unrelated note, I recently noticed that Deutsche Bahn seems to have some of their train schedules staggered by 58 minutes instead of one hour – which means that the 25% refund for a delayed arrival due to a missed connection that didn't wait will usually not kick in :)

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

#204

Post by sweetheart »

AtlanticThird wrote: post #145
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.

I don't think that's what anyone wants. I think they just want families with young children to pay to sit together, like everyone else has to

I think the point remains, though, that making it harder to ensure a young child is sitting next to their guardian benefits _no one_. Having learned over the last year what flying with a 2 year old is like, an increase in the amount of toddlers who fly without sitting next to their parents is just going to be a nightmare for the kids, the parents, the other passengers, and the crew. No one should want this, in my opinion. Besides, the parents have the leverage in this situation I think, in the form of feral toddlers hell bent on maximizing chaos (and I mean that lovingly and empathetically, but still vaguely as a threat lol)

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

#205

Post by showerst »

sroussey wrote: post #129
arrozconcosas wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One example: Chicago to New York on United, direct flight that is ~2.5 hours. $209 for economy and $381 for Economy Plus. This is a $172 difference.

And its even more for first class!

Sure, but everyone agrees that first class is full of perks. “People taller than 6’1 can sit here without being in pain” shouldn’t be a multi-hundred dollar up charge.

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

#206

Post by mr_toad »

smt88 wrote: post #102
Mistletoe wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve seen the movie Brazil and I wish more people had so they would have voted better.

I'm not sure why you think that would've helped. A lot of the people who won't shut up about 1984 and Ayn Rand still vote for the closest thing to monarchy they can find on their ballots.

In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet, and say to us, "Make us your slaves, but feed us."

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

#207

Post by ghaff »

lunias wrote: post #184

Flying has become such a terrible experience that I avoid it all costs. I'd love to take more trips, but the service is so poor that I can't justify supporting it more than absolutely necessary. I doubt anything will change though, the majority of other people seem to not really care.

Either it's a business necessity or it's a "tax" on recreational vacations once or twice a year. In semi-retirement I've told many people my goal is to keep traveling but arrange things so I spend less time in airports and planes. Of course, I can spend more money to make longer flights less onerous.

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

#208

Post by _heimdall »

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…

> [Elimination of] Automatic Refunds for Cancellations

I believe this is referring to when the airline cancels or meaningfully changes the flight. They already don't guarantee refunds if you cancel.

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

#209

Post by wat10000 »

smt88 wrote: post #102
Mistletoe wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve seen the movie Brazil and I wish more people had so they would have voted better.

I'm not sure why you think that would've helped. A lot of the people who won't shut up about 1984 and Ayn Rand still vote for the closest thing to monarchy they can find on their ballots.

Some people see "don't tread on me" as "don't tread on people," while others see it as "don't tread on ME specifically."

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

#210

Post by wat10000 »

wartywhoa23 wrote: post #143
Mistletoe wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve seen the movie Brazil and I wish more people had so they would have voted better.

[flagged]

Where did these regulations come from that they're trying to roll back now?
Post reply on HN