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

481–490 of 678 posts

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

#481

Post by kmeisthax »

eadmund wrote: post #86
jjcob wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you want to sit together, pay for that privilege This is evil. There is no cost to the airline to put people who booked together next to another. It's seems like Mafia-tactic to seat people apart from another unless they pony up another $500 in upgrades. I refuse to fly with United. I understand that there may not be 10 adjacent seats when flying with a big group, but spreading out a family on purpose just so yo…

> > If you want to sit together, pay for that privilege > This is evil. There is no cost to the airline to put people who booked together next to another. Bin-packing is tough (look at Kubernetes!). Economically, giving folks willing to sit in a random seat an extra $10 and charging folks who want to sit together $10 is a wash. Evil is, you know, torture and genocide, not efficient allocation of limited space.

[dead]

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

#482

Post by grafmax »

tavavex wrote: post #389
realusername wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

80% would be way too much, the consumers would catch on and probably not buy tickets anymore. But don't worry, the airlines' best MBAs will be hard at work calculating the exact percentage of flights they have to fly before it starts hurting the bottom line. And once all airlines start doing it, they could bring that percentage down - what are the consumers gonna do if that's the only way to get to the destination?

Exactly. These supposed benefits of deregulated markets dissolve when the sellers have pricing power.

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

#483

Post by sokoloff »

rimunroe wrote: post #450
AtlanticThird wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Then the airlines should offer those more flexible people the option to buy a cheaper ticket that doesn’t include seat assignment. Just brainstorming here, they might call those tickets “Basic” or something.

Then, people with that flexibility could offer that flexibility to the airline in exchange for a cheaper ticket that meets their needs and people who don’t have the same level of flexibility could buy tickets that reflect their needs.

I say this as a parent who pays for assigned seats because we choose to buy tickets that reflect our actual level of flexibility.

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

#484

Post by matwood »

ghaff wrote: post #429
matwood wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your final point is exactly it. PE is better, but the cost difference is generally too high above EP. At that point I tend to just go BC. To your other points, at the end of the day, it's an airplane. And since I'm usually flying US airlines, even business class isn't that special outside of laying flat. I do fly back and forth to the EU enough though, that being able to work for 4ish hours is pretty useful.

>it's an airplane Yeah. For me, $5K or whatever is still a decent amount and, even if you just put it in the vacation pile, that's a decent amount for meals and other experiences vs. being a bit more comfortable over a 10 hour (or whatever) flight.

My trick is that I always just buy the base economy ticket that can still be upgraded. Then I check for upgrades every couple days. What I found is that prices to move classes will vary wildly as they try to sell all the seats. It also makes it easier to upgrade a single leg - an overnight flight is more important to be lay flat than a daytime flight for example.

The other part of my equation is that I put a 'dollar figure x flight time' that I'm willing to pay to be more comfortable. If I see a price that hits my threshold I upgrade, otherwise not.

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

#485

Post by rimunroe »

AtlanticThird wrote: post #472
bcrosby95 wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

Society has to treat parents differently because children are necessary for society to continue. If you make being a parent sufficiently burdensome, people will choose not to have them.

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

#486

Post by lupusreal »

imgabe wrote: post #162
Aurornis wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every time I paid by cache on oil stations. Sometimes my car was half empty, sometimes it was almost full, but I expected long run. And every time amount I need to pay was completely unpredictable. How is this any different than filling up a car in any other country? Gas stations post their prices outside. You should get a feel for how many gallons are going into the tank when it’s half full or mostly full. The pum…

> paying by the gallon only happens in the United States It does. In other countries they pay by the liter and it's also much more expensive unless you're in the middle east.

There is no meaningful difference between paying by the gallon and paying by the liter.

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

#487

Post by dillydogg »

masklinn wrote: post #141
dillydogg wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think paying for water is a great opportunity. Maybe even the precious Biscoff. Especially for those cross country flights.

You’re way late to that party, Ryanair used to charge crew for water.

The forward thinking market leaders we deserve

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

#488

Post by brendoelfrendo »

googlywoogly wrote: post #387
brendoelfrendo wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the GP comment was too US centric, but in the context of US politics, you can't really both-sides this argument or say that the right-wing are the champions of free and fair elections. The Republican party is by far the leader in voter suppression tactics, including closing polling places; restricting or banning mail-in or absentee voting; restricting who is allowed to vote; calling for partisan election obse…

> you can't really both-sides this argument or say that the right-wing are the champions of free and fair elections. Those are like two opposite statements, and I think you missed the whole point of my comment. You think you're in some noble partisan fight where your side are the good guys. In reality both sides work closely together to maximally fuck you over, while your cheer one of them on for some reason.

No, I'm far too cynical to believe that anyone has my interests at heart. But I will acknowledge one side as being openly anti-democratic while the other is merely spineless in the face of opposition.

My opening statement being contradictory was, admittedly, my fault. I couldn't tell if you were trying to champion the right wing or if you were trying to build a both-sides argument, so I tried to cover both bases. And that just made me look silly.

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

#489

Post by ardit33 »

OhMeadhbh wrote: post #453
caycep wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it was worse in the 80's-90's...I guess the past few years of enjoying refunds was not meant to last...

It absolutely was not worse in the 80s. Unless you mean more expensive. Yes. It DEFINITELY was more expensive. When I booked through a travel agent or over the phone with the airline, the fees were pretty transparent. I sorta feel for the airlines here because before deregulation they had to commit to unprofitable routes before they realized HOW unprofitable they would be. That cost was spread over the profitable rou…

No sure why this comment got downvoted. The 90s were more of no hidden fees at all. You paid the ticket, and that's it. Usually 2 baggages were included in the flight (standard), and food was free. US inland trips had crappy snacks, and some soda, but international ones all had food and drinks, including alcoholic ones.

Prices of tickets were more expensive for sure, so air travel was more of a luxury.

The era of the hidden fees started during the late Bush era, and with the advents of online booking, and with the rise of the 'cheap airlines' like RyanAir, Spirit, etc...

They had hidden fees as part of their busisness model. The larger carriers started following suit with more restricitons for the cheapest base tickets (no luggage) and more fees for things that used to be included before.

This is completely different from the 90s, which you paid and things were more upfront.

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

#490

Post by Jotra7 »

jacobgkau wrote: post #476
raddan wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

[dead]
Post reply on HN