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

51–60 of 678 posts

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

#51

Post by hedora »

cls59 wrote: post #33
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…

> It doesn’t make sense to tax every other passenger for it. I'd rather pay a monetary tax on my ticket to keep families organized together instead of the discomfort tax of sharing a row with parent+child that has been unexpectedly split up from their partner and is now trying to manage the child's behavior for the duration of the flight without the benefit of teamwork.

They don’t guarantee both parents are with the kid. They only guarantee that at least one parent is next to each (very young) child.

This presumably would mean you’d be feeding a random kid a bottle on long flights. God knows how they’d accommodate breastfeeding.

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

#52

Post by hannasanarion »

panick21_ wrote: post #23

Ironically in Europe we have some decent regulation for airlines, but the public train operating companies refuse to do the same for trains. We need to have some of those same protection and transparency requirements for train companies as well. But the governments of the big operating companies have vetoed this so far. Sometimes deregulation actually makes it easier to implement regulation.

Train operators aren't as strictly regulated because they can't do as much harm, both in terms of the inherent catastraophic consequences of air travel disasters for passengers and bystanders, and in terms of the financial risk that passengers take on by purchasing a ticket. A no-refunds-for-cancellations policy on a $100 intercity train ticket that rarely ever cancels hits different from a $400 flight itinerary that cancels multiple times a week because of normal weather.

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

#53

Post by robofanatic »

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 it’s when the passenger chooses to cancel, this seems fine and fair: he paid for a flight; he chose not to take it.

It’s fair only if he does it at the last minute OR the seat goes unsold.

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

#54

Post by eterm »

panick21_ wrote: post #23

Ironically in Europe we have some decent regulation for airlines, but the public train operating companies refuse to do the same for trains. We need to have some of those same protection and transparency requirements for train companies as well. But the governments of the big operating companies have vetoed this so far. Sometimes deregulation actually makes it easier to implement regulation.

One of the best things to happen lately in the UK is "Delay Repay": https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/help-and-assistance/compensat...

Made it much easier to get compensation for delayed and canceled trains. ( Of which there are many ).

It's not a significant amount for minor delays, but it makes traveling on trains just that little bit less miserable.

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

#56

Post by devilbunny »

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…

I ask to switch sometimes, but I always offer them the better seat and aisle-for-aisle or window-for-window. You’re sitting next to a stranger either way and I assure you that you don’t want to be sitting next to my wife when I’m the one carrying much of the gear. I’ll be passing her stuff constantly.

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

#57

Post by hopelite »

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 better scheming, fraudulent, manipulative con artist?

The airline market is so constricted and basically well across the line of a cartel, but I guess they think they get something out of it or do they just like the getting one over on people? "ha, you thought you were going to have a good time with your family or see your grandmother's funeral for X price, but we squeezed another $200 out of you, Sucker! *board room high fives all around*"

Or maybe is it a kind of momentum of the people and organizational structure that was built up over many years, aimed at facilitating the con and fraud perpetrated on the public that still has power to manipulate the airline enterprises themselves? The people who used to do that are after all, as I assume adept and oriented towards being deceptive, manipulative, scheming.

It's all a bit odd to me and I would love if someone could spill the beans on what motivates the airlines on being so adamant about cheating, lying, abusing, scamming, conning and generally being really awful to people and society.

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

#58

Post by chinathrow »

burkaman wrote: post #30
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…

Automatic Refunds for Cancellations is referring to when the airline cancels. This is related to a Biden administration rule abandoned by the Trump administration: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/05/business/flight-delays-ca... .

Wow that sounds like pure grift.

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

#59

Post by hedora »

jjcob wrote: post #46
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 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…

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?

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

#60

Post by runako »

izacus wrote: post #41
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…

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.

Post reply on HN