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

431–440 of 678 posts

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

#431

Post by kindatrue »

doodaddy wrote: post #16

> 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…

Those are all optional fees.

What they want is a return to the old pre-Obama days where all the taxes and mandatory fees (government and stuff they made up) were only displayed at check out. Kind of like resort fees on hotels.

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

#432

Post by margalabargala »

debatem1 wrote: post #380
Spooky23 wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was an option in the 1950s for infants. They attached a little cot to the overhead — sort of like the changing shelf on a pack and play!

Isn't this basically just putting the kid in a tumble drier whenever you hit turbulence? Did they pad the roof and door as well?

Concussions hadn't been invented yet, that's why no one wore a helmet back then

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

#433

Post by heathrow83829 »

advisedwang wrote: post #414
Lio wrote: post #318

> Airlines want to remove the requirement to provide automatic refunds when flights are cancelled or significantly altered. This is wild. Are they really asking to be able to take money for a flight, then cacel it and keep the money? That's crazy.

In practice, they're not likely to just refuse any kind of recompense. More likely: * Giving a credit instead of a refund. * Offer a take-it-or-leave-it alternative flight. * Only giving out credit/refund on request (so people that don't realize or do it in time loose their money).

a credit instead of a refund is almost the same thing as not offering a refund. you're going to have a hard time using that refund in a manner that benefits you (not taking a flight for no reason)

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

#434

Post by ghaff »

unregistereddev wrote: post #405
ghaff wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who has traveled for a long time, I find two things to be true: 1. People like business travelers or those with even minimal levels of status/benefits (who don't pay for checked luggage) don't usually preferentially check bags because luggage gets delayed, it's harder to switch flights when there's a weather etc. problem, and they have to wait at the luggage carousel. 2. Hard and hard-ish roll-aboards are…

I agree with both these points, though I'm much more willing to check a bag when traveling on vacation than when traveling on business. If I were to lose a bag on vacation there wouldn't be the same consequences. On vacation I don't have my work laptop, so it's easier to toss toiletries and an emergency change of clothes in a small under-seat carry-on bag. Besides, tourists aren't expected to smell nice and look put-…

>If I were to lose a bag on vacation there wouldn't be the same consequences.

Not that taking everything carryon was really an option in this case, but I had a bag misplaced after a connecting flight was canceled. This was a group hiking trip but I had at least an extra day scheduled. Still spent about $500 to minimally restock although my bag arrived at literally the last minute before one of the guides left the hotel for our one-way walk.

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

#435

Post by mrguyorama »

bilekas wrote: post #188

These two in particular : > Automatic Refunds for Cancellations > Transparency of Fees How does a lawmaker justify this being in the publics interest ? I'm not even joking, I know "well lobbyist going to lobby", but this is a legitimate question. How does a regulatory body say "Yup, that's okay with us to remove" ?

Are you not able to observe the current administration? There's no need to "justify" anything being in the public's interest.

The admin is no longer counting how many people cannot afford food for crying out loud.

The public voted against their interest.

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

#436

Post by AlotOfReading »

atonse wrote: post #118
hedora wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Southwest used to for all tickets, for free. They’re eliminating it because the new CEO is trying to speed-run them out of business.

Even though I’ve flown a dozen or more airlines in my life, I actually felt true loyalty towards Southwest because of their amazing no fee policies. And it was worth playing the “check in quickly cuz there’s no assigned seats” game for all the other benefits. And we’ve flown so many flights as a family due to that. It removed all the stress from the ticket purchasing process. This CEO is a freaking idiot. Is this an…

An activist investor, Elliot, acquired a significant stake in the company and organized a shareholder revolt about Southwest's margins. Paraphrasing their presentation on the issue [0]:

    Management Has Historically Ruled Out Industry-Standard Commercial Initiatives [like assigned seating, different seat classes, and checked bag fees]
The plan is to make SWA as similar as possible to other airlines to get their numbers to the same place, increasing the value of already owned shares. They don't care if it destroys SWA's customer base because they'll have sold off their stake by then.

[0] https://beatofhawaii.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Stronger...

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

#437

Post by exabrial »

> Under current regulations, airlines must ensure that families with young children are seated together without additional charges.

I'm against rolling back all of the other ones mentioned, but this one, I don't have a problem with charging a fee to be seated together. Most airlines let you pay to pick seats anyway.

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

#438

Post by bluGill »

realusername wrote: post #354
Lio wrote: post #318

> Airlines want to remove the requirement to provide automatic refunds when flights are cancelled or significantly altered. This is wild. Are they really asking to be able to take money for a flight, then cacel it and keep the money? That's crazy.

I mean, why even bother to run flights at all in this scenario? They could cancel 80% of flights and keep the rest to pretend they are still an airline. Cancelations would be more profitable than the flights themselves.

They still have to offer replacement flights, and if the replacement flight isn't reasonable they have to refund. They can't just keep your money.

Don't forget that a lot of flights are business flights. Fortune 500 companies will negotiate deals with the airlines, and they will ensure that getting there matters. Sure the CEO flys the company jet, but the next level down rarely does, but they talk to the CEO and will ensure that the chosen airline will get their people there by contract (wherever there is), if the airlines start failing to get people there on time these contracts will change since the large companies have enough money to matter. Those who fly a lot (again likely for business, even small businesses sometimes have someone flying several times a week) again are people the airlines need to make happy as they will go to different airline if there are problems.

Which is to say they can screw the "common man" who rarely flies, but most of the business is people who have enough power to to to airlines that treat them well and at that point it normally isn't worth screwing anyone.

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

#439

Post by bluGill »

onlypassingthru wrote: post #378
delfinom wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine the class action lawsuits at that point would bankrupt them

Presumably pre-emptively nullified by that arbitration agreement when you accepted the T&C to purchase the ticket.

Arbitration is not automatically in their favor. It is cheaper by far than a trial (in most cases), but they need to be at least somewhat fair or the whole thing collapses next time the government changes.

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

#440

Post by OkayPhysicist »

runako wrote: post #60
izacus wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hundreds of dollars for legroom? Are you... sure? For what kind of flights?

In a search just now, Delta Main r/t from ATL-LAX is $337. Delta Comfort on the same flight is $727. (Yes, it's more than 2x the price.) Obviously Comfort boards earlier, but it's not unreasonable to attribute most of the fare differential to the legroom. Checked bags are also extra for either seat.

I've never understood why boarding early is considered a premium worth paying for (for normal flights with assigned seating). Planes are never as comfortable as whatever I have access to in the airport, whether that's hanging out in the lounge or sipping a drink at a restaurant, or just stretching my legs walking around the airport.
Post reply on HN