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

591–600 of 678 posts

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

#591

Post by sjs7007 »

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…

Could you share more context on the water bottle thing? That makes no sense to me.

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

#592

Post by cogman10 »

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've worked at burying fiber. It's a LOT easier to place and bury vs a water line. Fiber lines are a lot smaller and they don't have to be trenched in. That means you can run a fiber line under driveways without doing almost any damage. You can also trench in fiber lines in a fairly non-destructive manner that mostly just leaves a small scar in the grass.

Water lines can't be put in that way because PVC pipe isn't flexable. Ditto for gas.

That's the reason you might see more ISP competition and lines placed but you aren't seeing competition with your sewage or water provider.

If you've ever seen a company do water line work, you know they had to dig up and repave every single driveway the line was buried under. It also takes a lot longer time.

Hence the reason I talked about water providers and not fiber providers. You have similar problems putting in new waterlines as you would expanding an airport (only much smaller and easier to overcome).

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

#593

Post by afavour »

jermaustin1 wrote: post #447
mcaravey wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that part of the problem is a want versus a need. I don't particularly care if me and my wife don't sit together. We see each other all the time. But I don't want to have my four-year-old sitting in between two strangers, six rows in front of me where I can't see him. That's not fair to the two strangers, but also I don't trust strangers. I get the idea of paying for the privilege, but at the same time, it's…

> All I do know is that if they were to stop rearranging seats, it would make the frequency of our flying go down quite a bit. I don't understand this. When you book a flight, do you not chose your seats so you sit together? Why should it be up to the airline to ensure you get a seat with your baby, that is part of planning a trip. When I rent "the cheapest car on offer", if it is a 2 seater, and I have 3 passengers,…

> if it is a 2 seater, and I have 3 passengers, that's on me for not planning for my passengers.

Well, no, it’s on all of you in the sense that all of your passengers pay the price for your mistake. But as the guy behind you in line at the rental place, makes no difference to me.

If a parent isn’t sat with a child everyone sat anywhere near the kid pays a price.

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

#594

Post by octo888 »

slaw wrote: post #539
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…

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.

LOL there is literally a "$0 total" deal ($0.24 rounded down). At least it's REALLY obvious it's a scam:

  Due today: $0.00
  Due at car rental counter: $0.24
  Car rental: $0.20 Scg - lpf $0.01Scg - iva $0.03"
I'm guessing there is some crazy location fee, mandatory insurance at an inflated price and/or "oops the car you booked isn't available"?

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

#595

Post by octo888 »

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…

I was trying to ascertain if we're discussing just taxes etc, or from the article "fees (like baggage, seat assignments, and service charges)" and whether you /need/ to select extras to have a decent standard of a service

Also, so much is unbundled these days, you have to be really careful what that initial price really includes. For example, with Sixt, they often don't include the basic CDW + Theft coverage which for a long time was always included in the base price. I assumed it was law in most of Europe. Luckily Avis, Hertz, Europcar don't stoop that low

You're right - you can book a car, and if you don't inadvertently agree to extras either verbally or on the ipads at the rental desk, and don't incur any extra charges/fees during the rental, the price you pay should be what you initially reserved :-)

And you're right about booking.com - they seem to do a fairly good at at incorporating tourist taxes etc into the final price.

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

#596

Post by nerdponx »

terminalshort wrote: post #371
nerdponx wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't mean it's not opaque and complicated.

"We can't tell you the exact price because you haven't told us what you want to buy yet" isn't opaque or complicated.

Kind of? The way flights are sold and priced is opaque and complicated IMO. That doesn't make it bad necessarily: maybe there's no good alternative, I don't know. But it really is opaque and it really is complicated. I think my opinion is at least somewhat educated, having done some crude flight price modeling for work in the past.

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

#597

Post by octo888 »

asdff wrote: post #580
lunias wrote: post #184

Flying has become such a terrible experience that I avoid it all costs. I'd love to take more trips, but the service is so poor that I can't justify supporting it more than absolutely necessary. I doubt anything will change though, the majority of other people seem to not really care.

As annoying as it is to be nickel and dimed I really can't complain when thinking about what is actually on offer. If I told my ancestors I was unhappy about traveling 2000 miles in 5 hours for $250 they'd rightfully slap me over the head. What a historically unprecedented capability for our species to end up on the opposite side of the planet in about a half a day.

> What a historically unprecedented capability for our species to end up on the opposite side of the planet in about a half a day.

For a mere 40 hours of unskilled labour! Compared to months to years of labour, travelling on ships, 1-3 centuries ago

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

#598

Post by octo888 »

terminalshort wrote: post #396
onlypassingthru wrote: post #363

It seems like the smart play here is a three step process: 1) Deregulate claiming that competition will lower costs 2) Further consolidate carriers so that there is even less competition 3) Profit! With the corporate buyout of government, it won't be long until we see the announcement for the new AmDelTed.

This has worked so far, though. Prices are down ~50% after inflation since the airlines were deregulated.

> Prices are down ~50% after inflation since the airlines were deregulated

On a like-for-like basis? Seat pitch, seat comfort, customer service, meals, drinks, included baggage, ticket flexibility/conditions etc?

EDIT: found some example historical fares from Flyertalk:

1. A 1972 BA flight to JFK in economy. I imagine economy in 1972 was more like Premium Economy today. It was ~£80 then (£944 in 2025), whereas a Premium Economy ticket sells for more like ~£800 today, which is cheaper (but still not 100% like-for-like if you consider BA is a very different company now). Also that's an extremely competitive route and an unusually cheap PE fare. A less competitive route, LHR-SFO, you're looking at £1,700-£3,000 for PE !

2. BA, LHR-BRU, economy, non-refundable fare, £40 in 1976, which is £268 now. I'd wager BA european business class is similar to economy back then, and that usually sells for £200-400 on that route (~£600 last minute...), so taking an average, we're not close to it being 50% cheaper

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

#599

Post by matthewdgreen »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #563
matthewdgreen wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

One of the fundamental truths of American aviation is a significant fraction of fliers will buy the cheapest ticket every time. They’ll bitch about it. But if you cut some leg room and a few dollars off your tag, you’ll swing them from another. Basic economy doesn’t exist because of Google Flights. It exists because it sells. Well enough that it sustained entire discount airline fleets until the majors copied their m…

I don’t want basic economy because it means my kids will end up scattered across the airplane instead of sitting with me. So I always have to upgrade to the “normal economy” seats. I’m willing to bet a large chunk of money that a huge fraction of the airlines’ customers do the same “upgrade” because their sites are more or less built around the idea of funneling people into it. Yet on Google Flights there’s no easy option to specify that I want this popular product: the only options are Economy, Premium Economy (a very different product), Business and First.

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

#600

Post by nerdponx »

googlywoogly wrote: post #523
brendoelfrendo wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm far too cynical to believe that anyone has my interests at heart. But I will acknowledge one side as being openly anti-democratic while the other is merely spineless in the face of opposition. My opening statement being contradictory was, admittedly, my fault. I couldn't tell if you were trying to champion the right wing or if you were trying to build a both-sides argument, so I tried to cover both bases. And…

Both parties are very openly very anti-democratic and very corrupt. They openly sabotage and attack their own candidates if they don't fall in line (Bernie Sanders is one of MANY examples). They are pretty openly corrupt (look at Biden and family, look at all of the insider trading, etc), and pretty openly serve special/corporate interests like the military industrial complex. They constantly lie and try to misinform…

The "both sides" argument, in the USA, does not at all stand up to even a little bit of scrutiny. Yes, both sides do various bad things, and individual politicians on both sides are varyingly corrupt. But only one side systematically obstructs social, economic, environmental, educational, and medical progress, and actively works to undo progress that has already been made. The other side generally, albeit slowly and stubbornly, moves things in a positive direction.

It's one thing if you genuinely think liberal, center left, and leftist policy is bad compared to authoritarian conservatism. That's wrong, but at least it's a strong and clear position, and the people who hold such beliefs usually do so for various personal reasons that are at least somewhat intellectually and morally understandable, even though they are usually incoherent and inconsistent.

It's another thing entirely to continue to hammer away at the "both sides equally bad" idea. It's flatly wrong, as a matter of simple fact. Pelosi insider trading simply does not compare in magnitude of damage to, say, the president more or less openly taking bribes to allow huge industry consolidation, or unraveling decades of American soft power abroad. You might also want to go look up the actual activity that took place under the Biden executive branch. I don't think anybody will argue against you that Biden was a problematic president. But you can't look at the policy enacted and carried out by his administration and claim that it's all a wash. It would be much more intellectually honest to say you prefer Trump's policy.

Post reply on HN