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

231–240 of 678 posts

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

#231

Post by lxgr »

geff82 wrote: post #222

Book trips from European websites in the future. Prices here need to include everything upfront. Which might lead to situations where you reserve a hotel room in the USA for 1500, but then only pay 1200 at checkout because the remaining 300 are the "resort fee" that will be paid at the hotel. Or take car rental: the cheaper, more complete packages for the USA are often booked in the EU at at better price.

+1 for hotels, but I'd be careful with car rentals. Often, these bookings are tied to the country of residence of the driver, which could at least theoretically have insurance implications.

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

#233

Post by forgotoldacc »

mr_toad wrote: post #206
smt88 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

We're at a point where people would be glad to starve if they think it pissed someone else off.

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

#234

Post by gpderetta »

DangitBobby wrote: post #27
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. 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.

What about seats? You can fly standing perfectly fine. Sitting is a privilege (definitely ryanair does not propose this form time to time).

> On the one hand, this seems fair. If you want to sit together [with your family], pay for that privilege

This seems shortsighted. Airlines could get much more money if they added a fee to guarantee not to be seated beside a kid!

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

#235

Post by 8organicbits »

lumost wrote: post #112
hedora wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I’ve always wondered if it would be cheaper to just have everyone check their bags and eliminate the overhead bin. I wouldn’t be surprised if airline boarding was sped up by 2-3x this way.

Flying with an infant, I'm very happy I can bring a diaper bag and other essentials on board.

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

#236

Post by wat10000 »

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

There's a basic requirement in commerce that products sold must be fit for purpose. That is, they need to actually do what they're supposed to do in some form. I can't sell you a flight to New York and then give you a pair of plastic wings and say that the rest is on you. I have to actually get you there like any reasonable person would assume I would given what I sold you.

Selling tickets to a small child and their caregiver and then seating them far apart is plainly not fit for purpose. They can't actually fly like that, so you've sold them something they can't use, and that you know they can't use.

If they want to charge extra to sit together, fine, but that needs to be bundled into the basic price when one of the tickets is for a small child, not presented as an optional add-on at an additional cost.

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

#237

Post by jghn »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #105
jghn wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you never seen a confrontation erupt from this? Or a flight attendant "suggesting" the person being asked to move?

No. Is there compensation given, since assigned seating costs more than non?

I've been bumped out of my paid preassigned seat for other reasons and have never received compensation.

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

#238

Post by pstuart »

dfee wrote: post #218
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.

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

It's a must watch movie -- there's multiple editions and you should watch the directors cut.

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

#239

Post by tveyben »

rimunroe wrote: post #197
AtlanticThird wrote: post #145

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…

Do kids have to fly…???

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

#240

Post by pixl97 »

hopelite wrote: post #57
bsimpson wrote: post #32

I'd be curious to see how the all-in price of airline tickets has evolved in recent decades. It feels like it's now commonplace to have hundreds of dollars in additional fees for things like legroom. That means a cheap ticket is a midrange ticket and a midrange ticket can end up being quite expensive unless you fall for the "we get to strap you behind the bathroom with only the clothes on your back" Saver ticket. It…

Related to that; I am curious in what airlines think they will get or what motivates them to prioritize being deceptive, sneaky, dishonest, manipulative, lying, con-artists, i.e., just abusive all around? If everyone is required to provide "all in pricing" then there is no competitive advantage in being a bigger, better fraud; so must it be concluded that they think they have a competitive advantage at being the bett…

>board room high fives all around"

Things like bonuses tend to be driven by short term gains. Who gives a hell about a few years from now when you can get an extra $xxxxxxx in your paycheck now.

Post reply on HN