US airlines are pushing to remove protections for passengers and add more fees • Hacker News Board

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

#651

Post by afavour » Thu, Sep 25, 2025, 4:34 PM UTC

jermaustin1 wrote: post #649

afavour wrote: post #642

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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+pare…

So you agree that a parent and child being sat together is beneficial for everyone but you want parents to bear that cost alone? Simple economics would tell us that results in parents not paying and more miserable passengers. Which isn't in anyone's interest.

Sometimes we're so focused on the concept of "fair" that we lose sight of the bigger picture.

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

#652

Post by nobody9999 » Thu, Sep 25, 2025, 5:41 PM UTC

cosmicgadget wrote: post #650

nobody9999 wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Cutting "burdensome" and "costly" regulations

Reread my comment. I expect that at least one of the three (and maybe more, I pointed out three) groups you lumped together don't consider "consumer protections" to be burdensome or costly.

Did I not make that clear? Or are you deliberately missing my point?

>What a weird thing to be offended by.

Who said I was offended? I said I thought you were painting folks with too broad a brush. And the "folks:" to whom I referred didn't include me.

As such, I'm not offended by you. Or at least not WRT the broad brush you used. I can't say for sure, but your patronizing tone appears as to assume I'm not so bright. Which might offend me, except the source is some rando on the inter tubes (that'd be you in case you were confused).

So no. You haven't offended me. In fact, you gave me a chuckle. Thanks!

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

#653

Post by brewdad » Thu, Sep 25, 2025, 6:41 PM UTC

baby wrote: post #614

sjs7007 wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The next morning was really hot, they made us wait in the sun for an hour outside to board the plane, then again for an hour or two in the plane before it departed (even announcing at some point they would land in Manchester instead of London, that got some good reactions out of all of us stranded in Poland). Then in the plane there was no AC and some people were almost fainting, so I stood up and went to get water m…

No airline wants passengers up and about while on the tarmac. Once they get clearance to move they need to get going almost immediately and can't move if passengers aren't seated.

That doesn't excuse the flight crew for not handing out water however. That's just a cheap airline being stingier than necessary.

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

#654

Post by brewdad » Thu, Sep 25, 2025, 6:46 PM UTC

bojangleslover wrote: post #602

missinglugnut wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last flight I was on was American Airlines. We waited in the plane while they tried to figure out to start it because the auxiliary power unit was out, and the generator American uses to start planes with no APU was also broken, so they had to borrow one from another airline. And no APU also meant no air conditioning until the plane is started. It was only a 30 minute delay but the heat made it miserable. I paid…

Was it an afternoon/evening flight, on a Thursday, Friday or Saturday? Was it in Orlando, Miami or Newark in the summer? flyontime.app helps you with this (I know, massive plug, but hugely relevant to this discussion and 100% free with no strings attached).

Please create your own ShowHN thread rather than spamming this one. While you're at it be sure to explain how your Chrome extension will fix the problem of a major carrier not properly maintaining its equipment.

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

#655

Post by brewdad » Thu, Sep 25, 2025, 6:53 PM UTC

runako wrote: post #60

izacus wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

In a search just now, Delta Main r/t from ATL-LAX is $337. Delta Comfort on the same flight is $727. (Yes, it's more than 2x the price.) Obviously Comfort boards earlier, but it's not unreasonable to attribute most of the fare differential to the legroom. Checked bags are also extra for either seat.

Comfort will get you one free alcoholic drink. It's an expensive one however.

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

#656

Post by brewdad » Thu, Sep 25, 2025, 6:57 PM UTC

asdff wrote: post #573

abawany wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I used to have carry-ons, boarding early ensured that I got room in the overhead bins to place the bag. I now use under-seater bags only and pack light so I no longer care when I get to my seat.

Then they gate check it which is a perk for me honestly. Now I don't have to schlep a bag anymore.

Depends on if you packed wisely (not needing to remove medication or batteries before gate checking). Also depends on how quickly you need to be able to get out of the airport when you arrive.

Lastly, there is always the risk of a lost bag once you no longer have it with you. One fight years ago they forgot to load all of the car seats and gate checked bags that were left at the end of the ramp. We were stuck waiting 90 minutes for the next flight from that destination to arrive since we needed the car seat to drive our child home.

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

#657

Post by cosmicgadget » Thu, Sep 25, 2025, 6:57 PM UTC

nobody9999 wrote: post #652

cosmicgadget wrote: post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Cutting "burdensome" and "costly" regulations Reread my comment. I expect that at least one of the three (and maybe more, I pointed out three) groups you lumped together don't consider "consumer protections" to be burdensome or costly. Did I not make that clear? Or are you deliberately missing my point? >What a weird thing to be offended by. Who said I was offended? I said I thought you were painting folks with too…

> don't consider "consumer protections" to be burdensome or costly.

I mean if they're unaware that a politician will dress up their policy with pejoratives then I'd be happy to have a conversation with them.

To be more explicit regarding your other groups, they affirmatively voted for a president and one or more legislators. They can claim ignorance about a particular policy but it is willful ignorance. As in the kind where they get to own the implications of deciding to not to do any research beyond their one issue.

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

#658

Post by brewdad » Thu, Sep 25, 2025, 7:01 PM UTC

jdlshore wrote: post #165

Y_Y wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oddly there is no such premium for wide people. I understand (somewhat) price discriminating based on the quantity of space required by the passenger (for comfort or from physical necessity), but then why does this apply to one dimension and not the other. I'm not even talking about pay-by-weight as was famously tried between pacific islands. Nobody wants to have someone spilling over the armrest into their seat, and…

Most airlines require very wide people to buy an extra seat. The requirement is that they have to be able to lower the armrest.

Delta is famous for selling that second seat out from under passengers who planned ahead. It shouldn't be legal but apparently is. There is a way to get that second seat permanently linked to your primary one but it involves calling and speaking to an agent. Online purchases won't be protected.

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

#659

Post by Zak » Thu, Sep 25, 2025, 8:11 PM UTC

Braxton1980 wrote: post #618

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…

>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 airline doesn't provide the service it sold for reasons within its control. Why the exception for this then? There are many situations where regulations could protect consumers and I don't understand why you have the general view against non-safety…

There are several factors that make this situation especially suitable for regulation.

The most important is that airlines have the ability and motivation to force passengers to accept unfavorable terms, and passengers have no ability to negotiate more favorable terms. Many routes are only served by one airline, so there isn't even competitive pressure in those cases. There's also a financial incentive for airlines to mistreat customers, e.g. by overbooking flights, canceling underbooked flights, and delaying non-mandatory maintenance until the cheapest or most convenient time.

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

#660

Post by panick21_ » Thu, Sep 25, 2025, 9:21 PM UTC

hedora wrote: post #641

panick21_ wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nonsense, deregulation happen in Europe as well with many of the same effects.

And in both the US and in Europe airlines are 'heavily' regulated. That's a meaningless distinction.

Ironically, South West was the most successful budget airline in the US, and it was way better then Raynair the most successful budget airline in Europe.