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

441–450 of 678 posts

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

#441

Post by mrguyorama »

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.

Indeed, having children should have tiny nickel and dime costs all throughout your life in a million different ways. It should be the norm that just trying to raise the next generation costs you time, energy, effort, and money just to do normal day to day things, and it should especially be harder for you because you dared to have children.

Wait, why is nobody having kids?

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

#442

Post by bluGill »

bthrn wrote: post #176
itopaloglu83 wrote: post #155

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.

Only a new airplane. Most planes are designed for a lot of air and couldn't fly with as many people as can physically fit inside. Cargo airplanes carefully watch this factor. As a passenger I've been on airplanes that took off with empty seats even though there were people on standby wanting to get on because with the weather they couldn't fly a full plane.

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

#444

Post by FinnKuhn »

lumost wrote: post #89
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…

Not to mention the lack of standards on leg room/entertainment packages/food quality for any of the above combinations on any airline!

At least Google flights shows you an estimate for the airline

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

#445

Post by onlypassingthru »

cosmicgadget wrote: post #410
terminalshort wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has worked so far, though. Prices are down ~50% after inflation since the airlines were deregulated.

There might be other factors to consider, such as seat density and maintenance costs. Plus that deregulation was a massive change compared to whether or not they can use the AirBnB price quote model.

The cost savings has also come from efficiency gains like winglets & jet bridges, and service reductions like going from meal service to snacks to nothing, the removal of amenities (remember playing cards and wing pins for kids?), little or no in-flight entertainment, etc.

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

#446

Post by OhMeadhbh »

This is part of the reason I don't fly so much anymore. In the last 10 flights I flew, only 2 arrived on time. For one flight I was delayed in D/FW for 72 hours. I haven't had a flight on United that wasn't canceled or rescheduled or I was bumped in about 10 years. And the behaviour of the airlines has been getting MUCH worse over time. The Alaska flight from DFW to SEA that was delayed 72 hours... They originally weren't going to refund me for canceling it. I had to get a lawyer involved. I should not have to get a lawyer and a local TV news crew involved to reschedule a canceled flight.

I drive a lot more these days and if Amtrak was better I would take the train more often. I get to catch up on podcasts while driving and usually do it over the weekend so I can stop and see out-of-the-way roadside attractions. Before driving I-80 between Reno and Salt Lake, I never realized how empty some sections of the country are.

I'd be curious to hear if this is happening in Europe or Asia.

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

#447

Post by jermaustin1 »

mcaravey wrote: post #199
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

I think that part of the problem is a want versus a need. I don't particularly care if me and my wife don't sit together. We see each other all the time. But I don't want to have my four-year-old sitting in between two strangers, six rows in front of me where I can't see him. That's not fair to the two strangers, but also I don't trust strangers. I get the idea of paying for the privilege, but at the same time, it's…

> All I do know is that if they were to stop rearranging seats, it would make the frequency of our flying go down quite a bit.

I don't understand this. When you book a flight, do you not chose your seats so you sit together? Why should it be up to the airline to ensure you get a seat with your baby, that is part of planning a trip.

When I rent "the cheapest car on offer", if it is a 2 seater, and I have 3 passengers, that's on me for not planning for my passengers.

People who chose to not pick their seats (to save the $25 or whatever) shouldn't then punish people like me who paid to sit in a specific seat with specific neighbors.

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

#448

Post by bluGill »

tveyben wrote: post #239
rimunroe wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…???

They don't have to go to Grandma's funeral I guess. However they will fly if they are going to make it on time. (This is a real situation for me a few years ago)

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

#449

Post by troyvit »

ReptileMan wrote: post #399
buellerbueller wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

oh, like that classic Democrat line "tylenol causes autism"?

We are talking about the same hepatotoxic compound that is absurdly easy to OD on but it gives negligible relief on stuff you should just power trough? That anecdotal - is barely better than a pacebo? Personally - I think that the two main drivers of autism are people having kids later and too high rates of smart people intermarriage. Of course Trump should not have said Tylenol, but paracetamol. And there are some v…

But if he can't say "acetaminophen" how can he say "paracetamol"?

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

#450

Post by rimunroe »

AtlanticThird wrote: post #417
rimunroe wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm fine subsidizing necessities for kids, but flying is a luxury

As I said elsewhere in the thread there are situations where it's not a luxury. A bigger point though is that it's an additional burden on parents for something childless people simply don't need to deal with. Childless people might want assigned seats, but they don't need to sit next to an infant. When a parent can't sit near their kid it negatively impacts everyone else on board the aircraft. It might result in the kid screaming more, but it'll also definitely require people to get up and shuffle around more frequently as parents come to change/feed/soothe their infants (car seats/bassinets are not supposed to be in aisle seats).
Post reply on HN