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

531–540 of 678 posts

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

#531

Post by 0xffff2 »

Symbiote wrote: post #511
terminalshort wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Wait, you go through security without interacting with anyone? How does that work? Other than that though, this really sounds pretty much the same as my experience in US airports in the last decade.

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

#533

Post by Telemakhos »

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…

> It's been 5 years since an airline has lost checked luggage for me.

It hasn't even been two weeks for me, although my luggage arrived the next day. I remember on Slashdot hearing the advice of always packing a firearm (even a starter pistol) in checked luggage when traveling domestically—not only is it legal, but the BATFE gets involved if the airline loses your luggage, so the airline is very careful not to lose your luggage.

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

#534

Post by tialaramex »

Zak wrote: post #262

I've had four overnight delays on three transatlantic trips this year. Fortunately, EU passenger compensation rules applied to three of them; the airline must pay each delayed passenger 600€ or convince them to take a more compelling non-cash offer. I'm not for heavily regulating non-safety details of how most industries do business, but I do think it's fair to demand the true price up front and compensation when the…

Right, I've had train companies put me in a taxi, and just eat the price of a taxi to wherever because if you want to sell tickets to travel to X, and then oops you can't get me to X well, I didn't buy your "regret" that you can't do that - I bought travel to X, so if that's still possible you'd better make it happen and too bad if that's not profitable.

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

#535

Post by yibg »

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…

Give me that choice (refund or rebook me) and let me choose. Problem is if the airlines don't have to give a refund I now no longer have a choice.

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

#536

Post by baby »

Zak wrote: post #262

I've had four overnight delays on three transatlantic trips this year. Fortunately, EU passenger compensation rules applied to three of them; the airline must pay each delayed passenger 600€ or convince them to take a more compelling non-cash offer. I'm not for heavily regulating non-safety details of how most industries do business, but I do think it's fair to demand the true price up front and compensation when the…

There was a year I made more money from flying than I spent, because I kept flying ryanair or easyjet and I kept getting massive delays (one was a 20h delay, in which I spent the night at the airport squatting some of the couches in a cafe in the terminal, because small delays kept being slowly pushed on us, and we also spent 2h waiting in the final plane for it to take off, no A/C and they refused to give us water threatening to call the cops on us if we did get water bottles ourselves, great experience!)

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

#537

Post by bilekas »

NoLinkToMe wrote: post #519
lxgr wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

I'm mostly behind you with this, a great point that you make is the insurance.

> 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).

Those insurance companies have requirements for paying out, in Europe for example a low fare airline Ryanair will offer you a refund if your flight is delayed 2/3 hours. You can choose to still take the flight though which, for some is acceptable. But that refund is by way of a request, it's not automatically processed. It works, for me personally, but I've been delayed for important things where it was only an hour, I would have loved to have been able to get s refund to book on another airline but I have to say, I wouldn't "expect" that.. which is why I can soften on their first point.

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

#538

Post by cosmicgadget »

itopaloglu83 wrote: post #528
cosmicgadget wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that is going to happen. Before this new-ish regulation, the airline had discretion over how to rebook you or compensate you. Now if the delay is over 3h (iirc) they have to refund you. I think even an arbitration court would have them reimburse you if they simply canceled a flight and kept your money.

And what percentage of people will take them to court just to get them to refund their ticket? Airlines have full time lawyers with nothing to do but push paper around. Why are we making it harder for the consumer to resolve an issue when the flight is clearly cancelled? They just want to force you into weird store-credit style refunds so that you cannot go to a competitor or choose not to travel.

> And what percentage of people will take them to court just to get them to refund their ticket?

If there is any upside to mandatory binding final arbitration, it's that proceedings are cheaper and quicker. It might be that the arbitrators decide to universally rule in favor of the airlines amidst unambiguous evidence that the airlines took money and canceled the service, but seems unlikely.

It's also a huge risk on the part of the airlines to decide that their official policy is to stiff customers and hope it works out in arbitration.

> Why are we making it harder for the consumer to resolve an issue when the flight is clearly cancelled?

Because we elected the guy who said he would, going so far as to ensure he had a majority in both houses of Congress.

> They just want to force you into weird store-credit style refunds so that you cannot go to a competitor or choose not to travel.

Lol yes that is exactly it. I wouldn't have written that stuff above if I knew you were going to correct yourself.

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

#539

Post by slaw »

hn8726 wrote: post #382
octo888 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Prices here need to include everything upfront How are you defining "everything" and "upfront"? Upfront as in the first page shown after searching? Because many, many airlines/car rental sites have a complex muti-step process of different fares, extras etc until you get to the final stage

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…

https://www.kayak.com/cars/San-Jose,Costa-Rica-c30707/2025-1...

You can go to the last page and book rental. Only at the airport counter you will learn, there are extra fees you need to pay.

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

#540

Post by [deleted] »

Zak wrote: post #262

I've had four overnight delays on three transatlantic trips this year. Fortunately, EU passenger compensation rules applied to three of them; the airline must pay each delayed passenger 600€ or convince them to take a more compelling non-cash offer. I'm not for heavily regulating non-safety details of how most industries do business, but I do think it's fair to demand the true price up front and compensation when the…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN