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

641–650 of 678 posts

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

#641

Post by hedora »

panick21_ wrote: post #338
hedora wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s been a disaster. There are fewer routes, and flying is miserable, and getting worse every year. Crashes are way up this year. Airlines profits are basically zero per ticket. Adding $10 per trip would be some sort of fantasy land windfall for the shareholders. Deregulation badly broke this industry.

This is pretty much false. If you compare inflation adjusted cost you now get a far better service for the same price, and you get access at a price that literally wasn't possible before. > and flying is miserable It isn't. I have flowing with budget airlines in Europe and its, basically fine. Not luxury but really its incredibly value. On the same price as you did before, you now get luxury. > Crashes are way up thi…

I’m talking about airlines in the US, which is where the deregulation happened. You cite European airlines, which are heavily regulated.

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

#642

Post by afavour »

jermaustin1 wrote: post #636
afavour wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I 100% agree that a parent should be required to sit next to a child under a certain age, but I don't agree that is the responsibility of the airline. They should enforce that the parent/guardian traveling with the child should have to pick seats (so yes, pay for seat selection if it costs money), and if there aren't seats available, too bad. Again, I (who paid for a selected seat assignment) should not even be asked…

You're still not really engaging with my point. A parent sitting next to their kid (without choosing specifically where they are sat) is to the benefit of everyone on the plane. You sitting where you want is to the benefit of you and you only. So it makes sense one has to be paid for and the other does not.

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

#643

Post by hedora »

atonse wrote: post #556
AlotOfReading wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I looked up the difference in numbers.

They could have added something like $30-50 to each ticket, blamed inflation, and been done. They used to be the premium choice vs airlines like united, which charge way more for intentionally separate coach seats with no legroom or luggage allowances.

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

#644

Post by hedora »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #278
dboreham wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Post time traveled from when they didn't. But now they do.

Interesting, I’m sure they didn’t as recently as 4 weeks ago when I tried shopping for flights.

They’re introducing it in January, but they’re intentionally eliminating all competitive advantages they had vs other airlines between now and then, so it’s going to be a shitshow like delta, united, american, etc. moving forward.

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

#645

Post by hedora »

FireBeyond wrote: post #306
hedora wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve definitely selected adjacent seats in the past, then ended up separated the day of the flight. Even if it’s a couple, it’s probably the airline’s fault. I solved the problem by preferring southwest, but their new CEO is an a*hole, and instead of raising ticket prices $50 a seat is adding assigned seating, removing legroom, charging for bags, adding ticket change fees, etc, etc.

> Even if it’s a couple, it’s probably the airline’s fault. Citation needed. These things happen, and the airline has some responsibility. But there's plenty of "playing dumb". Cabin crew: "You have a basic economy seat, which means you didn't get seat selection". "I didn't know!" "There's a big blue warning that pops up when you do this with a child passenger, making you acknowledge it..." "..."

No: It’s “I booked 33A and 33B and took a screenshot of the receipt. At checkin, I got 60C and 22D”.

Also, screw airlines that create a financial incentive to make everyone else on the plane miserable.

The last time I flew Alaska, their seating algorithm needlessly separated parties, then jammed everyone into crowded, no legroom aisles, while leaving the comfortable seats empty.

I know it was intentionally splitting parties because I was flying solo and ended up with a center seat. The person next to me was separated from someone that the airline put in a center seat. A naive greedy algorithm would have swapped me and their companion.

They wanted something like $80 for non-malicious seating assignments.

They even made the flight attendant lie and claim was a safety issue, and the plane would fall out of the sky if people switched rows or were evenly distributed throughout the plane. Presumably, management did this so they could charge you with ignoring safety instructions, which is a crime.

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

#646

Post by hedora »

8organicbits wrote: post #191
the_sleaze_ wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

Remember, children as young as five can fly with out a parent/guardian (in the US, per AA website). So that could happen without change to regulations.

The protection they’re stripping is for younger kids than that.

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

#647

Post by hedora »

SoftTalker wrote: post #242
8organicbits wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider twins. My understanding is that a parent may only have one infant in their arms, the other infant needs a seat. Nevertheless, a parent may choose to book a seat for their infant to give themselves extra space. If the airline puts that seat in a different row, it defeats the purpose.

They may also book a seat so they can use a carseat, which they may be traveling with anwyay, and also because it's safer for the kid to be belted in, and most small kids are used to them and they will fall asleep in them.

Yeah; putting your kid on your lap is incredibly unsafe.

Moderate turbulence is likely to lead to injuries.

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

#648

Post by rtkwe »

nostrademons wrote: post #407
nemomarx wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you fit more people in horizontal than if they stood up and you had little straps to hang onto like a subway?

In theory yes because you can use the space at the top that would otherwise be above people's heads. No guarantee they get to their destination alive though.

Once you include space to get people to the restroom though and to allow them to breath during the flight I think you get a higher density while standing vs laying down.

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

#649

Post by jermaustin1 »

afavour wrote: post #642
jermaustin1 wrote: post #636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I 100% agree that a parent should be required to sit next to a child under a certain age, but I don't agree that is the responsibility of the airline. They should enforce that the parent/guardian traveling with the child should have to pick seats (so yes, pay for seat selection if it costs money), and if there aren't seats available, too bad. Again, I (who paid for a selected seat assignment) should not even be asked…

You're still not really engaging with my point. A parent sitting next to their kid (without choosing specifically where they are sat) is to the benefit of everyone on the plane. You sitting where you want is to the benefit of you and you only. So it makes sense one has to be paid for and the other does not.

Again, 100% agree, parents sitting next to child should be a requirement. I agree that a child should not be sat away from their parent, because that is a bad time for everyone involved.

I just disagree that a child's seat should be allowed to be picked at random by the airline, forcing people to move who DID pick their seat. If an adult is booking a flight with a child, they should be required to book the child+parent seat even if that costs extra.

I believe all seats SHOULD be picked by passengers at the time of purchase, full stop. That was the way it had been as long as I had been flying, until they realized they could make more money by charging "seat selection" fees, now you have people who are the last to board because they got the cheapest seats who complain they aren't sitting with their travel partner. Which shouldn't be the problem of the airline or the passengers that picked their seat.

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

#650

Post by cosmicgadget »

nobody9999 wrote: post #620
cosmicgadget wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Easy. "The public voted up and down the ballot for the platform that promised to gut regulations and consumer protection." Who is a single representative to deny the will of the people?

You mean this platform[0]? Not sure where it says they're going to "gut regulations and consumer protection." Perhaps you could point that part out to me? I understood that to actually be the case, even though that wasn't actually included in the platform. Which is one of reasons I didn't vote for the current administration. That said, I imagine that among those who did so, some folks are fine with it, some folks did…

Cutting "burdensome" and "costly" regulations is listed a half dozen times in your link. Do you need exact quotes or can you look for yourself?

> I understood that to actually be the case, even though that wasn't actually included in the platform.

It honestly takes less effort to listen to his speeches and look at his record than to read the official platform document or the one we knew was the actual plan (P2025). I'm happy to hear out anyone that pleads ignorance but they're probably still busy celebrating deportations.

> As such, I think you're painting folks with far too broad a brush. Which is, I imagine, quite satisfying. I hope you got what you wanted out of that.

What a weird thing to be offended by. Voters voted for this. There's no ambiguity here. Even the ones who don't consider deregulation a pet issue decided that it was worthwhile to get what they wanted.

Post reply on HN