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

471–480 of 678 posts

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

#471

Post by jcotton42 »

scarface_74 wrote: post #348
proggy wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This rule only applies to a single adult + child pair, and not the entire traveling party. For instance, if you have a party of 1 child and 2 adults, the airline is well within its rights to charge seat selection fees to the second adult. It’s incredibly frustrating that I have to pay an extra $40-$50, per journey, to United to sit next to my wife and child. And that’s with the current “consumer friendly” rules in pl…

Think of the inverse, someone who doesn’t care about where they sit save money. On the other hand, I never understood this obsession with grown people acting like it’s the end of the world if they don’t sit together. My wife and I fly a lot together - over a dozen trips this year - and she flies more frequently by herself. We both prefer window seats. We hardly ever sit together unless we can get 2 seats next to us b…

In this particular case, it lets the parents trade childcare responsibilities back and forth during the flight, which can be a serious boon on a long flight or if one of them starts feeling unwell.

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

#472

Post by AtlanticThird »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #463
AtlanticThird wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He said had to, as in necessities. No one has to go on vacations, much less fly for them

Well then if the people without kids don't like it they can just not fly.

Or we can treat people equally and not discriminate based on whether or not they have kids

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

#473

Post by mothballed »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #461
mothballed wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes I love modern society "they're your kids" until every busybody on earth calls CPS or police at the first sign of doing something they disapprove (happened to me because I shit you not, my kid is a different race and that was 'suspicious' to be a kidnapping -- thanks FOIA for the bodycam revealing that bullshit). Or when it comes time to tax the shit out of the grown kid made possible by the massive time and mo…

There is a huge difference between funding education, health care etc which I’m all for paying taxes for and subsidizing your flight. And if you expect me to defend the police or Karyns about anything, let’s just say I grew up on NWA and “F%%% the police” and my mom constantly told me that don’t think because my White friends could get away with minor criminal mischief that I could. Well actually she said “don’t let…

If you want to deregulate airlines you have no complaint from me. I couldn't give a shit if there's anti-kid airline who's advertising message is "Fuck dem kids."

If you're talking about a private company choosing who to subsidize once government regulations are removed, then I don't see how you have room to complain. It's not like taxes. You can charter a flight or rent a cessna to pilot if you don't agree to the private terms of carriage of anyone offering tickets.

Taxes are way worse because a guy with a gun can show up and put anyone who disagrees with the majority's idea of charity or subsidy into a tiny cage; if you disagree you can't even escape it by leaving the country because the USA has worldwide taxation. I would classify private flight subsidization as a much more ethical, moral, and wildly less violent regime than taxing people for the healthcare of others.

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

#474

Post by butlike »

Spooky23 wrote: post #315
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…

Let it be the airlines problem. My screaming five year old is going to generate a bunch of complaints and refunds for the airline. The kid will get over it, and the misery of the rest of the people on the flight isn’t my problem. The stewardess can deal with it and nobody gets their peanuts.

they're flight attendants now

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

#475

Post by butlike »

hiroantag wrote: post #256
tveyben wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do kids have to fly…???

What an odd question...families travel all the time for vacations or to see grandma and grandpa for thanksgiving. You can't leave a kid at home.

Feel like grandma is more capable of traveling to see the kids with the newborn than the other way around

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

#476

Post by jacobgkau »

raddan wrote: post #350
ReptileMan wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay - democrats will push us in 1984 dystopia where they force you to accept that reality is what they tell you, and republicans will push us in low life high tech Cyberpunk dystopia where corporations reign supreme. Choose your poison.

Which reality is that? The real reality? Admittedly real reality is a pretty bitter pill at times.

Maybe the one where biological sex is imaginary. Or the one where Biden's health is good enough for another four years. You pick (or keep looking the other way and losing, to the detriment of far more important issues).

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

#477

Post by axiolite »

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?

The turbulence is no worse being up high in the plane vs being down in a seat. In the 1950s, NONE of the passengers would have been using seatbelts...

“When an airplane crashes, the safety belt…may become a deadly hazard.”

- Scientific American Dec 1951 “The Dangerous Safety Belt”

"Aviation requirements for basic safety features, including passenger safety belts, were codified in 1972"

- https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/how-airlin...

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

#478

Post by sfdlkj3jk342a »

mrguyorama wrote: post #441
philipwhiuk wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Generally you will be expected to pay for the costs of your life decisions.

The world has more than enough people, so we shouldn't be subsidizing having children. Imbalanced demographics can be solved in other ways.

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

#479

Post by jacobgkau »

supertrope wrote: post #428
lumost wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You can always buy an economy plus ticket.

The point wasn't minimums, it was that you don't even know what an "economy plus ticket" will get you since it's not standardized.

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

#480

Post by lupusreal »

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…

Nobody in America says paracetamol. The generic drug is called acetaminophen in America.

Anyway, it works very well for the aches and pains that come from manual labor.

Post reply on HN