Live data from Hacker News

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

travelandtourworld.com

211–220 of 678 posts

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

#211
post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The most profitable way to fill a plane would be to knock everybody out and just pile them up in the fuselage.

Don't forget that some airlines seriously looked at standing "seats" for short hop flights.

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

#212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are the main points listed in the article: * 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. * Transparency of Fees: The airlines also aim to strip away rules…

> 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…

>Basically half of flights I've ever booked have had a cancellation.

You would seem to be a very unlucky person. My record is somewhere in the low single digits. Obviously, my percentage of flights with some delays has been somewhat higher.

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

#213
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.

What privilege? Assigning seats next to each other costs airlines next to nothing (assuming they assign seats in the first place, which almost all of them do).

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

#214
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Family seating guarantees are pretty crucial. Many airlines have punitive seating algorithms (looking at you, Alaska), or pull crap like moving your seats around and separating you after you select them unless you have status (United used to, at least, since they had a practice of selling non-existing flights, then bin packing planes the day before) so without this you can end up having a breast feeding infant sittin…

A breast feeding infant doesn't require a seat. Children under 2 can sit on a parent's lap.

Consider twins. My understanding is that a parent may only have one infant in their arms, the other infant needs a seat.

Nevertheless, a parent may choose to book a seat for their infant to give themselves extra space. If the airline puts that seat in a different row, it defeats the purpose.

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

#215
post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I have no issue with airlines offering reserved seats for money. Let people buy their aisle seats and window seats and exit rows. Most people don't give a shit where they sit, so most seats are not reserved. Traditionally, airlines tried to just put people close together when they booked together. When we check in, we just get random seats that are close together. That's okay. I'm fine with taking whatever seats no-o…

Is this a per-market thing?I’m from Chicago and therefore fly United with my family all the time. The website/app lets me pick all our seats at booking time in Economy class without any up charges.

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

#216
post #95

> Instead of the clear, itemized pricing system that passengers currently rely on, airlines could hide fees until later in the booking process… They call what we have now “clear”? Where when looking at a page of flights I don’t know how much the multitude of economy/economy+/economy++/premium economy/business/business++ seats will cost until I click on each flight? Where every carrier offers slightly different variat…

[flagged]

What a bizarre example. Gas in the US is priced about as transparently as it is possible to be. There isn't even the thing where you have to add sales taxes on to the posted price, like there is with most other things in the US. Every single station has the total price per gallon, inclusive of all taxes, on a giant sign. The amount you pay is literally the number of gallons you pumped multiplied by that number.

If you're going to make up stories, at least do five seconds of research first to make it vaguely plausible.

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

#217
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…

Paying for a group to sit together is really just a roundabout way of charging extra for the middle seat that solo travelers don't want. There's something gross about it, creating a market price for a nonexistent good.

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

#218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah, now imagine when its even worse

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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_(1985_film)

Looks interesting!

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

#219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Flying with babies (and other young children) presents challenges which "everyone else" doesn't have to deal with. Babies and children need much more attention. Babies are much more likely to throw tantrums, to feel pain from pressure changes, to be sick, etc. They often need a LOT of soothing. Many also need to be breast fed (some babies don't take bottles), which depending on the baby's length and the side they're…

The "growth every quarter" is a disease that is going to destroy our civilization, said without an ounce of hyperbole.

Air travel is a solved problem and there's no innovation really to be done; the planes are packed like cans of sardines most of the time, the food is awful, and the travel itself is expensive, cumbersome, and a miserable experience overall but they are STILL trying to find ways to juice revenue, up to and including separating children from parents and charging them to be put back together.

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

#220
post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Quick note (after doing some digging) that this is close to disinformation. The 2013 change cited above was rolled back in 2016 per: https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ190/PLAW-114publ190.p...
Post reply on HN