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

581–590 of 678 posts

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

#581

Post by Yeul »

lurking_swe wrote: post #522
chrisbolt wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at the numbers, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines#Business_trend... United had their highest revenue in 2024, and their profit margin was... 5.5%. Would reducing your ticket price by 5.5% make any difference?

also, don’t forget (well known fact) that passengers paying for premium economy and business class seats are the most profitable for the airlines - by far. Aside from profits from credit card rewards programs. so the profit margin on economy tickets is likely even smaller than 5.5%!

I have no doubt that if they could fill the plane with 200 business class travelers they would. But that group simply isn't big enough outside of routes to New York or Shanghai.

The 747 became the queen of the skies because it carried 400 tourists to Málaga, Okinawa and Ft Lauderdale.

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

#582

Post by ThunderSizzle »

cogman10 wrote: post #570
gr1zzlybe4r wrote: post #347

The airline industry is a good example of an "open" market that is really anything but. It is effectively an state-supported oligopoly. Airlines have split up every major market, usually with very little competition amongst themselves, and then have a government bailout backstop if things go wrong (this include things like favorable bankruptcy laws that let them get out of wage commitments). This is without even gett…

> The answer is actual competition with some reasonable passenger protections. This is physically impossible. Airplanes require airports and airports only have so much space they can dedicate to flights. An extreme example of this is the Ronald Reagan airport. How could you possibly get more competition there when it cannot grow and it's surrounded by the urban area? That's like saying the solution to your water comp…

Fiber optics is getting multiple providers in several markets, if not many. They do bury/lift multiple lines, even in more rural areas.

I think the biggest issue with airlines is they act as only an airline. The first company to realize they are a transportation company and can get you door to door will be great.

E.g. an airline that can seamlessly get you to/from the airport via a local premium/private transit line that can get you to your home or destination.

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

#583

Post by rimunroe »

butlike wrote: post #475
hiroantag wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What an odd question...families travel all the time for vacations or to see grandma and grandpa for thanksgiving. You can't leave a kid at home.

Feel like grandma is more capable of traveling to see the kids with the newborn than the other way around

Newborns are often basically potatoes and relatively easy to travel with

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

#586

Post by jakub_g »

Yeul wrote: post #562
tialaramex wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I got an email from the train company that according to their records I had a delay and they put a link in it to a online form to get my money back. I was positively surprised at their proactive communication. The money was on my account within the week!

In Italy, for regional trains, since 2025 Trenitalia gives the reimboursement automatically to your credit card if you purchased the ticket electronically. [1]

[1] https://www.firstonline.info/en/trenitalia-rimborsi-automati...

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

#587

Post by HumblyTossed »

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" ?

Probably the thinking is: “The market will sort itself out. If a person doesn’t like this, they can pick an airline that has these features.”

Conveniently leaving out the thought that NONE of the other airlines will do this if it goes away.

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

#588

Post by bombela »

ThunderSizzle wrote: post #582
cogman10 wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The answer is actual competition with some reasonable passenger protections. This is physically impossible. Airplanes require airports and airports only have so much space they can dedicate to flights. An extreme example of this is the Ronald Reagan airport. How could you possibly get more competition there when it cannot grow and it's surrounded by the urban area? That's like saying the solution to your water comp…

Fiber optics is getting multiple providers in several markets, if not many. They do bury/lift multiple lines, even in more rural areas. I think the biggest issue with airlines is they act as only an airline. The first company to realize they are a transportation company and can get you door to door will be great. E.g. an airline that can seamlessly get you to/from the airport via a local premium/private transit line…

I think that's what you get with a first class ticket (never experienced it myself).

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

#589

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

rimunroe wrote: post #514
raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 matt…

I didn’t say parents shouldn’t fly. I said if you want to be able to select yoir seat, pay just like other people do.

> Why should we accept increasing the relative cost of having kids?

So i now live 10 miles away from DisneyWorld, should my ticket prices also be more so your kids can get in free when we only have to pay for two adults? We were also able to downsize to a 1200 foot condo from a 3100 square foot house, we can spend our money on vacations instead of travel hockey like my friend.

What next? Should airlines have “kids fly free”?

> 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.

I’m all for both low skill and high skill immigrants coming in where there is actually a shortage.

But play me the smallest fiddle because you don’t think you should have to pay for a ticket to reserve your seat requiring other people to move. See also, if you are too big to fit in one seat without encroaching on my space, you should also have to buy two seats - a policy many of the airlines have.

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

#590

Post by Spooky23 »

tptacek wrote: post #460
Spooky23 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s really easy: it’s all about revenue maximization. Honestly, people fly too much. I’m 6’5 with a 24” shoulder - flying economy is painful for me and the poor soul stuck next to me. I don’t need to fly for business and am fortunate to have a lot of PTO. So, I fly first class, business class, or not at all. If the cost is too much, i drive. There’s virtually no east coast trip that is more unpleasant to me via car.…

I regret to clarify here that you will definitely save time flying between NYC and Chicago. Would that it were otherwise! Toronto is arguable.

Fair. But I have a price — increased travel time yields me some Duff’s Wings in Buffalo!
Post reply on HN