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

621–630 of 678 posts

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

#621

Post by nebula8804 »

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 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.

Well American Airlines is already doing this, you book a ticket and on some routes they transport you via a bus instead of a plane....still sucks.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GR4h6d4sa8

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

#622

Post by hn8726 »

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.

I did that — picked a booking, it redirected me to Expedia and showed a $0 rental! But then when I changed my region on the top bar from US to "Rest of Europe", that booking no longer worked. When I then search (on Expedia) for the same location and dates, I get very believable prices (200-300 EUR). When I change the region back to the US and search again directly on Expedia, I see the same scam $0 offer as previously.

I think this supports precisely my point — in EU all the fees are presented such that you can get the service without any hidden costs

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

#623

Post by lurking_swe »

Yeul wrote: post #581
lurking_swe wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

100%. just wanted to highlight how razor-thin those margins really are, especially when looking at economy seats alone. For your average traveler, there’s really not much left to “squeeze” to reduce the price of air travel.

i suppose you could reduce safety standards, but that’s undesirable in its own right.

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

#624

Post by Larrikin »

thieving_magpie wrote: post #603
tsycho wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So according to you: they should give up their paid seat so that you don't have to pay for assigned seats, even when you know way in advance that you are traveling with a 3 yr old? Let's ignore special cases where you didn't have a chance to buy assigned seats, and focus on the vastly more common scenario where parents can easily pay to ensure seats of their choice. Yes, it's nickel and diming by the airlines to make…

No. According to me there is probably a middleground. You can't have it both ways that you don't want a child next to you and just expect parents to spend extra money to accommodate you. Easily pay? I assure you it isn't easy for a lot of us. The irony of your use of entitlement.

You're assuming a stranger will watch your kid and not just let them constantly unbuckle and run to your seat the entire flight.

If you can't afford to fly then drive.

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

#625

Post by jjcob »

NoLinkToMe wrote: post #524
jjcob wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you want to sit together, pay for that privilege This is evil. There is no cost to the airline to put people who booked together next to another. It's seems like Mafia-tactic to seat people apart from another unless they pony up another $500 in upgrades. I refuse to fly with United. I understand that there may not be 10 adjacent seats when flying with a big group, but spreading out a family on purpose just so yo…

> This is evil. There is no cost to the airline to put people who booked together next to another. It's seems like Mafia-tactic to seat people apart from another unless they pony up another $500 in upgrades. The idea is that an airplane needs a certain revenue to run. Suppose it's 10k, and there are 100 passengers. Each passenger thereby pays $100. However, some passengers (A) wish to sit in a big seat and are willin…

I've long accepted that Airlines charge for "better" seats. I don't care for the "good" seats. I'm happy with whatever seat they put us in.

What you seem to be missing is that some airlines have started to split up groups on purpose. When they assign seats, even if 75% of the seats are still unassigned, they put people who booked together far apart from another to make them pay for seats.

That's where it turns to evil in my opinion. Fortunately "normal" airlines don't do that yet so I know that I can avoid crappy airlines like Ryan or United.

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

#626

Post by camillomiller »

throaway5445454 wrote: post #619
warkdarrior wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found your comment insightful and informative, until I saw this: > Please correct my figures if they're wrong. I guess the numbers could be wrong, and the comment completely unreliable.

Well if you have knowledge that proves my comment wrong, please present it.

[flagged]

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

#627

Post by panick21_ »

lxgr wrote: post #551
panick21_ wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 em…

I'm not sure, I got it from a railway person that travels a lot in Europe.

My understanding is that currently, this regulation might work within one provider but not on handover. If you book in DB app, and you miss the handover to TGV it doesn't work.

But maybe its the case that the regulations say that it should and it simply doesn't.

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

#628

Post by abduhl »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #599
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

Google flights actually has an option for Economy (exclude Basic) now. I’m not sure when this was rolled out. Previously, you could accomplish the same functionality by adding a single carryon bag in the drop down to force non-Basic.

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

#629

Post by matwood »

chrisbolt wrote: post #462
matwood wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EP is just economy with slightly more leg room. PE is closer to business than EP. The food is upgraded along with the service. The seats are more recliner like and you generally have more room. Additionally, the PE seats are often the quickest to deplane if that's important. I can also work in PE seat, whereas EP not so much. The problem with PE is that it's often not that great of a deal. Unless it's a super busy ro…

Seatguru hasn't been updated in ages, use https://www.aerolopa.com instead

Thank you!

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

#630

Post by matwood »

thfuran wrote: post #513
matwood wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your final point is exactly it. PE is better, but the cost difference is generally too high above EP. At that point I tend to just go BC. To your other points, at the end of the day, it's an airplane. And since I'm usually flying US airlines, even business class isn't that special outside of laying flat. I do fly back and forth to the EU enough though, that being able to work for 4ish hours is pretty useful.

> At that point I tend to just go BC It sounds to me like their pricing is working as intended and getting an even bigger upcharge.

Maybe, but I’ll just fly economy in that case. The BC prices haven’t really changed as far as I can see on my usual routes.
Post reply on HN