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

551–560 of 678 posts

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

#551

Post by lxgr »

panick21_ wrote: post #349
lxgr wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Huh? We do! There are very similar EU regulations for train travel: https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/travel/passenger-right... On a completely unrelated note, I recently noticed that Deutsche Bahn seems to have some of their train schedu…

I didn't say there was no regulation what so ever. But there were multiple efforts of increasing it that was blocked. And what I specifically noted that the rights are weaker then for airlines. If your airline is delayed and you miss a connection, you will get a hotel for the night. In a train, you can get that. Airlines are forced to compete on price and have to publicly list prices and make that accessible to 3rd p…

> Airlines are forced to compete on price and have to publicly list prices

Which regulation requires airlines to do so? I was under the impression that airlines mainly make their inventory available via GDSes for historical reasons (for decades before direct online booking, airlines would sell most of their tickets through travel agents, which needed unified interfaces).

There are some low-cost airlines that don't embrace GDSes and force you to use their app as well (I've been bitten by that once when booking through a "non-cooperative OTA/reseller and not being able to access my boarding pass), and conversely, I think some train connections are selling tickets to travel agencies these days.

> If your airline is delayed and you miss a connection, you will get a hotel for the night. In a train, you can get that.

Sure? EU regulation 2021/782, article 20 would disagree: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A...

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

#552

Post by darkamaul »

While US airlines are lobbying to roll back passenger protections and add fees, the EU is moving the opposite way - now pushing rules to standardize free carry-on and checked baggage sizes across all airlines[0]

[0] https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20250627-the-big-change-a...

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

#553

Post by sokoloff »

rimunroe wrote: post #509
sokoloff wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think it does. People with flexibility to be assigned to sit next to whomever and willingness to sit in middle seats ought to be able to pay less in exchange for providing that flexibility. Their flexibility is lubricating the entire system and making it work better. Why should we charge them the same amount as people who aren’t as flexible? What I see is people who aren’t offering that flexibility arguing th…

> I don’t think it does. Let me know if this is an unfair summarization, but the way I see it: my comments discussed how charging parents additional fees to sit near their infants is bad. Your comment proposed charging people who wanted assigned seating for that feature and allowing people who don't need that flexibility a discount. How does that address my point rather than simply re-describe the thing I've already…

Because the framing of what is the standard or default matters in determining whether a problem needs solving at no cost or merely needs a solution to be available in the market.

If the standard is everyone can choose whom they sit next to (assuming seats are available), then parents are at no disadvantage. This is how air travel was for a very long time, when tickets were much more expensive and much more all-inclusive.

Now, people are seeking cheaper tickets, so the airlines propose to offer discounts for passengers to forgo some of that all-inclusive nature and if those forgone items are a good match for your needs, feel free to take advantage of them. If they're not, feel free to buy a ticket that meets your needs.

No one would think that when the USPS offers Next Day Express, Priority, and Parcel Post that a parent should get Next Day Express for the price of Priority or Parcel Post just because they're mailing something for their kid, right? When a rental car company charges a family of 6 more for a large car than a childless couple is charged for an economy car, are they violating some kind of social contract? "Use discount code BUTIHAVEFOURKIDS to rent a Suburban for the price of a Civic." A landlord charging more for a 2 BR than a 1 BR also hurts parents, but I assume most people think that's logical and proper.

> we generally want to encourage parenting and reduce the burden on them by using the power of the state to spread such costs out

Some people want that. Not all people want that and probably no one wants it in unlimited amounts. I have kids and I'm largely indifferent on the topic beyond supporting strong K-12 public education. I do observe that some people take the notion of "we should spread out the costs of kids" way, way too far for what I think is rational.

Selfishly, I'd be perfectly fine if Basic airline tickets were made illegal for everyone. It just makes my looking at airfares online more annoying because I'll never buy a Basic fare. But, people who do find Basic fares to meet their needs ought to be allowed to have access to them, so I don't actually want them banned.

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

#554

Post by sershe »

smcg wrote: post #550
Ajedi32 wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That wouldn't explain why the reverse happened. Everyone introduced the crappier economy tier; even the airlines initially saying they wouldn't eventually caved and now there's a crappy economy tier default. Moreover, gradually these crappy tiers converged, including some (united iirc) getting slightly less crappy following user demand.

Most people want cheaper tickets and don't shop on quality. In the rare cases that they do airlines readily adjust. But the airlines trying to offer quality as the default would go out of business

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

#555

Post by Ajedi32 »

smcg wrote: post #550
Ajedi32 wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Wouldn't it make sense for regulators to focus on those problems then, rather than on setting arbitrary industry-wide limits on what level of service consumers are allowed to buy?

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

#556

Post by atonse »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #436
atonse wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even though I’ve flown a dozen or more airlines in my life, I actually felt true loyalty towards Southwest because of their amazing no fee policies. And it was worth playing the “check in quickly cuz there’s no assigned seats” game for all the other benefits. And we’ve flown so many flights as a family due to that. It removed all the stress from the ticket purchasing process. This CEO is a freaking idiot. Is this an…

An activist investor, Elliot, acquired a significant stake in the company and organized a shareholder revolt about Southwest's margins. Paraphrasing their presentation on the issue [0]: Management Has Historically Ruled Out Industry-Standard Commercial Initiatives [like assigned seating, different seat classes, and checked bag fees] The plan is to make SWA as similar as possible to other airlines to get their numbers…

Amazing. Absolute douchebag investors that ruin everything.

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

#557

Post by nitwit005 »

The fees will only bring in extra revenue if they're a surprise, or some sort of impulse buy. I'm not sure that'll keep happening.

We're already at the point where people don't trust the listed price of flights and hotel bookings (Vegas has made hotel resort fees globally famous). It just seems the long term result is everyone will use some app to calculate the real cost of their trip, and what those apps display will be the real list price.

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

#558

Post by Symbiote »

0xffff2 wrote: post #531
Symbiote wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I missed that — yes, sometimes someone says "anything in your pockets?" or similar, and someone else beckons me to walk through the metal detector. If I'm 'randomly' checked of course I have to speak.

I found American airports less hands-off (especially security, which is considerably more hands-on than I'm used to, "Sir, I will now rub your balls"). But then I'm almost always flying internationally out of the USA, so it's not a fair comparison against domestic (Schengen) flights in Europe.

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

#559

Post by matthewdgreen »

sershe wrote: post #554
smcg wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That wouldn't explain why the reverse happened. Everyone introduced the crappier economy tier; even the airlines initially saying they wouldn't eventually caved and now there's a crappy economy tier default. Moreover, gradually these crappy tiers converged, including some (united iirc) getting slightly less crappy following user demand. Most people want cheaper tickets and don't shop on quality. In the rare cases tha…

Price aggregators like Google Flights continue to show the crappy tier by default, which means that airlines have to offer that tier to appear competitive. No idea why Google wants to build its product this way, but there are only a few companies in this business.

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

#560

Post by imchillyb »

US airlines discovered, during and after covid, that shipping prices were astronomical for some materials and some destinations. The airlines began taking on more packages, and less people. Now the airlines are allowing passengers to compete with these new package-pound-per-dollar rates. It's not unexpected. Now the safety measures are getting in the way of the package-pound-per-dollar and the airlines are seeking a way to scurry out from under these safety measures.

This is undesirable behavior, but how can a meat-package compete with a rare-metals, rare-earths, or even small aluminum shipment? The cost of shipping goods has risen astronomically since covid. Meat-packages now must compete. We're losing the competition.

Post reply on HN