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

61–70 of 678 posts

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

#61

Post by tclancy »

izacus wrote: post #41
bsimpson wrote: post #32

I'd be curious to see how the all-in price of airline tickets has evolved in recent decades. It feels like it's now commonplace to have hundreds of dollars in additional fees for things like legroom. That means a cheap ticket is a midrange ticket and a midrange ticket can end up being quite expensive unless you fall for the "we get to strap you behind the bathroom with only the clothes on your back" Saver ticket. It…

Hundreds of dollars for legroom? Are you... sure? For what kind of flights?

US flights (99% of what I have experienced) definitely can get into three figures for anything other than "middle seat, way back". They know there's at least a built-in audience of taller people who will spring for legroom on any flight over an hour. And now that I am old and tall, an aisle seat and legroom are incredibly valuable to me (don't tell 'em, ok?).

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

#62

Post by dillydogg »

DangitBobby wrote: post #27
eadmund wrote: post #17

> [Elimination of] Automatic Refunds for Cancellations Does this mean when the passenger cancels or when the airline cancels? If it’s when the passenger chooses to cancel, this seems fine and fair: he paid for a flight; he chose not to take it. If it’s the latter, then it seems very unfair. > Transparency of Fees This seems patently unfair. Folks should know what they’re going to be paying ahead of time. > Family Sea…

> If you want to sit together, pay for that privilege. Agreed. I think they leave too much money on the table. Use of window shades and lavatories could be behind a subscription service as well, with Sky Comfort+ affording you the privilege of multiple lavatory visits for those who have chosen the luxury IBS lifestyle. I'll let you know if I think of anything else those pesky airline passengers take for granted.

I think paying for water is a great opportunity. Maybe even the precious Biscoff. Especially for those cross country flights.

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

#63

Post by Forgeties79 »

cdrini wrote: post #47
tarentel wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some will, you just have to pay an extra fee when you buy the ticket. It is ridiculous.

I think charging a fee for passenger cancellation insurance is reasonable; the airline takes on a decent amount of risk if a consumer can cancel at any time.

I don’t think anybody’s said so far that it has to be at any time. Up to X number of days out, like most hotels, I think is perfectly reasonable.

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

#64

Post by arrozconcosas »

izacus wrote: post #41
bsimpson wrote: post #32

I'd be curious to see how the all-in price of airline tickets has evolved in recent decades. It feels like it's now commonplace to have hundreds of dollars in additional fees for things like legroom. That means a cheap ticket is a midrange ticket and a midrange ticket can end up being quite expensive unless you fall for the "we get to strap you behind the bathroom with only the clothes on your back" Saver ticket. It…

Hundreds of dollars for legroom? Are you... sure? For what kind of flights?

One example: Chicago to New York on United, direct flight that is ~2.5 hours. $209 for economy and $381 for Economy Plus. This is a $172 difference.

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

#65

Post by joshstrange »

izacus wrote: post #41
bsimpson wrote: post #32

I'd be curious to see how the all-in price of airline tickets has evolved in recent decades. It feels like it's now commonplace to have hundreds of dollars in additional fees for things like legroom. That means a cheap ticket is a midrange ticket and a midrange ticket can end up being quite expensive unless you fall for the "we get to strap you behind the bathroom with only the clothes on your back" Saver ticket. It…

Hundreds of dollars for legroom? Are you... sure? For what kind of flights?

Yes, as a 6' 2" person, I can assure you that a single leg of a flight will be less that $100 but round trip and multiple legs moves it to $200+ very easily.

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

#66

Post by philipwhiuk »

spartas wrote: post #38
eadmund wrote: post #17

> [Elimination of] Automatic Refunds for Cancellations Does this mean when the passenger cancels or when the airline cancels? If it’s when the passenger chooses to cancel, this seems fine and fair: he paid for a flight; he chose not to take it. If it’s the latter, then it seems very unfair. > Transparency of Fees This seems patently unfair. Folks should know what they’re going to be paying ahead of time. > Family Sea…

> Also, nothing is worse than the folks who didn’t pay up ahead of time who bug one, ‘may we switch seats so we can sit together?’ Some of us parents ask that question for your benefit, not ours. Do you want to sit next to my three-year-old?

Some of us think you're just being cheap.

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

#67

Post by jghn »

eadmund wrote: post #17

> [Elimination of] Automatic Refunds for Cancellations Does this mean when the passenger cancels or when the airline cancels? If it’s when the passenger chooses to cancel, this seems fine and fair: he paid for a flight; he chose not to take it. If it’s the latter, then it seems very unfair. > Transparency of Fees This seems patently unfair. Folks should know what they’re going to be paying ahead of time. > Family Sea…

I know way too many parents who take the stance of not bothering to pay for assigned seating, on the assumption that people will move around to accommodate them.

As someone who pays for an assigned seat so I can sit where I want, this annoys the crap out of me as now they expect people like me to move.

When I point this out, their response is "why should I pay for that?"

I agree with the airlines here but if it makes life overall less stressful for all to put families together due to the bad behavior of those parents, I'm fine with it.

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

#68

Post by [deleted] »

spartas wrote: post #38
eadmund wrote: post #17

> [Elimination of] Automatic Refunds for Cancellations Does this mean when the passenger cancels or when the airline cancels? If it’s when the passenger chooses to cancel, this seems fine and fair: he paid for a flight; he chose not to take it. If it’s the latter, then it seems very unfair. > Transparency of Fees This seems patently unfair. Folks should know what they’re going to be paying ahead of time. > Family Sea…

> Also, nothing is worse than the folks who didn’t pay up ahead of time who bug one, ‘may we switch seats so we can sit together?’ Some of us parents ask that question for your benefit, not ours. Do you want to sit next to my three-year-old?

[deleted]

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

#69

Post by the_sleaze_ »

hedora wrote: post #51
cls59 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn’t make sense to tax every other passenger for it. I'd rather pay a monetary tax on my ticket to keep families organized together instead of the discomfort tax of sharing a row with parent+child that has been unexpectedly split up from their partner and is now trying to manage the child's behavior for the duration of the flight without the benefit of teamwork.

They don’t guarantee both parents are with the kid. They only guarantee that at least one parent is next to each (very young) child. This presumably would mean you’d be feeding a random kid a bottle on long flights. God knows how they’d accommodate breastfeeding.

You are suddenly shaken awake from your restless, fractured sleep. A woman with a look of bright concern implores "Sir your son is watching porn!" "Huh?" She gestures to your right towards the 11 year old boy seated there. "That's not my son"

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

#70

Post by jghn »

dillydogg wrote: post #62
DangitBobby wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you want to sit together, pay for that privilege. Agreed. I think they leave too much money on the table. Use of window shades and lavatories could be behind a subscription service as well, with Sky Comfort+ affording you the privilege of multiple lavatory visits for those who have chosen the luxury IBS lifestyle. I'll let you know if I think of anything else those pesky airline passengers take for granted.

I think paying for water is a great opportunity. Maybe even the precious Biscoff. Especially for those cross country flights.

When I was young there was a discount airline named People Express that actually operated like this. In retrospect I imagine a lot of their nickel & diming would be considered standard these days, but back then it was revolutionary in both good & bad ways.
Post reply on HN