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

511–520 of 678 posts

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

#511

Post by Symbiote »

terminalshort wrote: post #392
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…

For me it's not having to wait at the carousel at the end, it's having to wait in that enormous line at the beginning. I really don't understand why they make it so much work just to drop off your checked bag before the flight.

Many European (and other) airports now have self-done baggage drop-off.

At Copenhagen Airport, I usually get off the metro, walk to the luggage tag machines at the end of the platform and scan my passport (or boarding pass). That prints a bag tag (and boarding pass if requested), so after sticking that to my luggage I drop it off at the counter — I put the bag on the scale/conveyor, it scans the barcode, prompts me to press "Confirm" that there's no explosives etc, and I'm done.

I scan my boarding pass to go through the barrier into the security screening, walk to the gate, and very often scan the boarding pass again to get onto the jetbridge.

I can easily go from the metro to the plane without interacting with anyone. I understand this is Scandinavian bliss.

(Exceptions are trips to countries where I need my documents to be checked; e.g. to go to the USA a checkin agent has to see my ESTA visa waiver. Oddly, going somewhere like China which requires a printed visa in my passport does work on the machine, as the machine prompts me to scan it.)

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

#512

Post by [deleted] »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #470
rimunroe wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Flying is a luxury. You appear to have since edited your comment, but the version I replied to referred to being able to choose a seat as the luxury, not flying itself. As I've said elsewhere, flying is either a straight up necessity in some cases and a practical one in others. As I've also said in other places, people without kids can fly without need of choosing their seats. > But I paid for my seat and if I did…

It’s a distinction without a difference. Just like flying is a luxury. I paid to sit next to my wife. You can pay to sit next to your infant. Don’t inconvenience me because you want to save a couple of hundred dollars. You have to pay for all sorts of “necessities” because you have kids - just add that to the list.

[deleted]

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

#513

Post by thfuran »

matwood wrote: post #373
ghaff wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with all that. The food still isn't great. And the seat still isn't great for a red-eye relative to business. I wouldn't generally work on a plane anyway. I've been in PE--don't remember the circumstances--but as I recall didn't think it was anything special for the cost.

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.

> At that point I tend to just go BC

It sounds to me like their pricing is working as intended and getting an even bigger upcharge.

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

#514

Post by rimunroe »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #470
rimunroe wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Flying is a luxury. You appear to have since edited your comment, but the version I replied to referred to being able to choose a seat as the luxury, not flying itself. As I've said elsewhere, flying is either a straight up necessity in some cases and a practical one in others. As I've also said in other places, people without kids can fly without need of choosing their seats. > But I paid for my seat and if I did…

It’s a distinction without a difference. Just like flying is a luxury. I paid to sit next to my wife. You can pay to sit next to your infant. Don’t inconvenience me because you want to save a couple of hundred dollars. You have to pay for all sorts of “necessities” because you have kids - just add that to the list.

> It’s a distinction without a difference.

That difference matters quite a bit if you're specifically arguing about how people who are going to fly get to experience said flight.

[Edit] If you don't believe that parents have as much reason to fly as anyone else I don't think there's much point to further discussion. However if you do believe it then whether or not assigned seating specifically counts as a luxury matters quite a bit.

> You have to pay for all sorts of “necessities” because you have kids - just add that to the list.

Why should we accept increasing the relative cost of having kids? That's a very good way to make having kids prohibitively expensive and part of how we've gotten to the point we're at. I'm in my late 30s and most of my friends chose not to have kids. For quite a few of those friends, they decided not to have them specifically because of how expensive it's become. You might think that's acceptable or even good, but birthrates are declining and people don't seem interested in allowing immigrants to come in and fill the void so I'm not sure what the endgame here is.

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

#515

Post by wat10000 »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #364
wat10000 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a basic requirement in commerce that products sold must be fit for purpose. That is, they need to actually do what they're supposed to do in some form. I can't sell you a flight to New York and then give you a pair of plastic wings and say that the rest is on you. I have to actually get you there like any reasonable person would assume I would given what I sold you. Selling tickets to a small child and their…

Okay, in that case the airlines shouldn’t allow people to book a fare where you can’t choose your seat if you are flying with a kid - problem solved.

Right, that's my third paragraph.

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

#516

Post by mathgeek »

terminalshort wrote: post #398
hn8726 wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give an example? I just checked a random rental website for France and I got a very clear `From $xx` price and I could — in one step — go to checkout with that exact price by simply not selecting any other options. Sure you will have upsells but if a price for a service is presented, that should be a final price. You can't tack on "resort fees", the price presented must be inclusive of all the required charge…

But it works that way too when I book in the US.

Which sites have you found with this feature in the US? Every one I have ever used adds various fees to whatever price shows on the listings.

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

#517

Post by root_axis »

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.

My worry is that this incentivizes airlines to overlook safety concerns because grounding a risky flight or taking extra time to deal with unscheduled maintenance downtime will cost them money. It's a guaranteed certainty that some people will die because of it. I'd rather risk 300 bucks than my life.

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

#518

Post by bsimpson »

chrisbolt wrote: post #462
matwood wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EP is just economy with slightly more leg room. PE is closer to business than EP. The food is upgraded along with the service. The seats are more recliner like and you generally have more room. Additionally, the PE seats are often the quickest to deplane if that's important. I can also work in PE seat, whereas EP not so much. The problem with PE is that it's often not that great of a deal. Unless it's a super busy ro…

Seatguru hasn't been updated in ages, use https://www.aerolopa.com instead

SG has failed me a lot lately. Thanks for the tip!

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

#519

Post by NoLinkToMe »

lxgr wrote: post #223
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" ?

Playing devil's advocate for a moment: I could imagine airlines wanting to not allow for a full refund if passengers can be booked on a "reasonably similar" connection. (I've done this myself in the past, as far as I remember; changes of a few minutes in either direction often make an entire booking refundable.) The problem here of course would be the definition of "reasonably similar". Arriving a few hours later can…

I don't follow the point. Suppose we live in a perfect world where exactly similar alternative flights are always available the moment yours gets cancelled. You still have to pay for it. And you do that by using the refund money.

Cancelling a flight without refunding it, just means profiting at the expense of the customer.

Businesses are able to insure their limited cost of cancellations, and price their tickets to absord these insurance costs (which are ultimately born by the ticket-payer).

Deregulating this point just puts all the risk and burden with millions of individual customers, some of whom cannot easily carry the cost of unexpected events, and aren't professional parties that can and routinely do enter into properly-negotiated insurance products to mitigate their risk.

> 've done this myself in the past, as far as I remember; changes of a few minutes in either direction often make an entire booking refundable.)

My understanding is that refunds eligibility starts at a >3 hour change, meaning an alternative timetable of 2 hours doesn't trigger an automatic refund right now. Further, even in the case of a significant change (>3h), the refund isn't automatic, it is only paid once the customer refuses an alternative booking or compensation. For international flights it's even 6 hours instead of 3.

> Arriving a few hours later can be entirely fine or completely ruin a trip, depending on the circumstances.

I do agree on this point, context really matters. And I think in theory it makes sense to offer price-differentation based on the context. i.e. if I am slow-travelling for 4 months, I'd be happy taking a 10% cheaper ticket (no-insurance), and have no recourse if there is an 8 hour delay.

Whereas earlier this month when travelling overseas for a wedding the day prior, I'd have paid a 10% extra fee to insure my travel time, to ensure I have recourse to travel with a limited (But that's still all theory, at some point differentiation on everything leads to complex and difficult decision making for customers. Fun in a Sim computer game, not so fun when booking a flight is a 20-step process with 200 pages of T&C that I have to assess against my personal situation.

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

#520

Post by 0xffff2 »

root_axis wrote: post #517
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.

My worry is that this incentivizes airlines to overlook safety concerns because grounding a risky flight or taking extra time to deal with unscheduled maintenance downtime will cost them money. It's a guaranteed certainty that some people will die because of it. I'd rather risk 300 bucks than my life.

Airline travel is safer than it has ever been in its entire history. What is your evidence for this hypothesis?
Post reply on HN