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

541–550 of 678 posts

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

#541

Post by cosmicgadget »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #506
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.

Yes, But no one wants to have to go to court or arbitration to get a refund on a service that the service provider cancelled. If AA cancels my flight, I want my money back without having to ask for it. I don't want to have to submit an application to receive AA credits that expire in 6 months, and then have to initiate legal action to get my actual cash back. Or having them say that they rebooked me on a flight three…

I agree with you on everything except ever flying American Airlines. I think most people would agree with you.

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

#542

Post by pavel_lishin »

jmull wrote: post #391

Making flying even crappier doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Regulations that put a floor on how crappy airlines can be should be pretty neutral on competition since all the airlines would have the same rules. That's not to say all rules are a good idea, even rules that raise quality -- raising the floor raises prices, and if the floor is raised higher than necessary, prices are higher than necessary too, making…

> Making flying even crappier doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

Ah, but do you own an airline?

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

#543

Post by Ajedi32 »

jmull wrote: post #391

Making flying even crappier doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Regulations that put a floor on how crappy airlines can be should be pretty neutral on competition since all the airlines would have the same rules. That's not to say all rules are a good idea, even rules that raise quality -- raising the floor raises prices, and if the floor is raised higher than necessary, prices are higher than necessary too, making…

> Set the floor too low and people fly less because it's too crappy.

Seems like a great opportunity for an airline to be less crappy and make a lot of money selling tickets to all those people who are "flying less" on other airlines, no?

So the question then becomes why hasn't someone done that already, if the floor really is "too low"?

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

#544

Post by pavel_lishin »

abawany wrote: post #495
OkayPhysicist wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never understood why boarding early is considered a premium worth paying for (for normal flights with assigned seating). Planes are never as comfortable as whatever I have access to in the airport, whether that's hanging out in the lounge or sipping a drink at a restaurant, or just stretching my legs walking around the airport.

When I used to have carry-ons, boarding early ensured that I got room in the overhead bins to place the bag. I now use under-seater bags only and pack light so I no longer care when I get to my seat.

Yep. I've taken several flights in the past few months, and _every time_ by the time my boarding group was called, the staff announced that there was no more overhead bin space, and people would have to check bags.

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

#545

Post by dzhiurgis »

baby wrote: post #536
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 t…

Ryanair is the most punctual airline tho

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

#546

Post by karmelapple »

jmull wrote: post #391

Making flying even crappier doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Regulations that put a floor on how crappy airlines can be should be pretty neutral on competition since all the airlines would have the same rules. That's not to say all rules are a good idea, even rules that raise quality -- raising the floor raises prices, and if the floor is raised higher than necessary, prices are higher than necessary too, making…

Funny enough, different airlines play by different rules [1]

1. https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/airline-cancellat...

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

#547

Post by type0 »

jmull wrote: post #391

Making flying even crappier doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Regulations that put a floor on how crappy airlines can be should be pretty neutral on competition since all the airlines would have the same rules. That's not to say all rules are a good idea, even rules that raise quality -- raising the floor raises prices, and if the floor is raised higher than necessary, prices are higher than necessary too, making…

good summary on where air travel is headed: The Horrifying Evolution of Air Travel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnGgAyQhP7Q

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

#548

Post by root_axis »

0xffff2 wrote: post #520
root_axis wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

My evidence is the extensive history of corporations prioritizing profits over safety. The relative safety of air travel is not in dispute nor is it relevant to my point. If you give companies the option to choose they will always optimize for profits over safety.

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

#549

Post by aakkaakk »

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.

Lol. No, VAT is never included in US.

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

#550

Post by smcg »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #543
jmull wrote: post #391

Making flying even crappier doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Regulations that put a floor on how crappy airlines can be should be pretty neutral on competition since all the airlines would have the same rules. That's not to say all rules are a good idea, even rules that raise quality -- raising the floor raises prices, and if the floor is raised higher than necessary, prices are higher than necessary too, making…

> Set the floor too low and people fly less because it's too crappy. Seems like a great opportunity for an airline to be less crappy and make a lot of money selling tickets to all those people who are "flying less" on other airlines, no? So the question then becomes why hasn't someone done that already, if the floor really is "too low"?

High barrier to entry, consolidation, and collusion. Look at how many airline mergers have happened over the past decades.
Post reply on HN