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

661–670 of 678 posts

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

#661

Post by Braxton1980 »

Zak wrote: post #659
Braxton1980 wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 t…

The limited availability of choice makes sense for regulation but I will say most of the other reasons exist with most other companies.

I believe in regulation for the market to protect consumers for all products and services.

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

#662

Post by OhMeadhbh »

caycep wrote: post #510
ardit33 wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No sure why this comment got downvoted. The 90s were more of no hidden fees at all. You paid the ticket, and that's it. Usually 2 baggages were included in the flight (standard), and food was free. US inland trips had crappy snacks, and some soda, but international ones all had food and drinks, including alcoholic ones. Prices of tickets were more expensive for sure, so air travel was more of a luxury. The era of the…

I could have gotten my decades wrong. I just remember not being able to get refunds by default, and then it was a glorious past several years where JetBlue and southwest would automagically refund my tickets back to my credit card.

Not sure what "Default" means in this context. When American canceled flights in the 90s, you had to ask for a refund. If you didn't, they would give you a flight voucher or a ticket on the next scheduled flight. If you wanted a cash refund, you had to explicitly ask for it. I'm okay with that and often took the next available flight instead of the cash. But I don't know how much of that was AA policy and how much was required by law.

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

#663

Post by grafmax »

SoftTalker wrote: post #260
grafmax wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deregulation once again helping business at the expense of consumers.

Look at what flying cost before deregulation and then decide if you want to go back.

Because hidden costs like ‘no refunds for cancellations’ is the same as transparent price competition - what the deregulation you’re referring to ushered in. Not all deregulation benefits the consumer.

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

#664

Post by throaway5445454 »

camillomiller wrote: post #626
throaway5445454 wrote: post #619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[flagged]

You guys are reading too much into my statement and unfortunately must not read the news much:

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/south-koreas-president-l...

https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Peti...

https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/news/joint-statement-unite...

Honestly. HN has the most asinine commenter sometimes.

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

#665

Post by thieving_magpie »

philipwhiuk wrote: post #634
thieving_magpie wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of us are just trying to survive financially or couldn't care less what you think. Tough luck then buddy. Have fun with the kids. There has to be some kind of middle ground here, imo. Nobody wants to sit next to kids. Families don't want to be penalized financially anymore than they already are for providing a benefit to society. We don't need to further disincentivize families and further our declining birth ra…

> Some of us are just trying to survive financially You made choices, if you were informed about the costs that's kind of on you.

Then quit whining about the toddler next to ya. That's your choice too.

I don't understand the objection to a middle ground approach here, but if that's what we want then screw it.

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

#666

Post by thieving_magpie »

Larrikin wrote: post #624
thieving_magpie wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can afford to fly. I'm on the plane. You don't have to watch my kid, but they'll be next to you. It works both ways.

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

#667

Post by asdff »

lunias wrote: post #637
asdff wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're right, but for me it's less a comparison between present day and before airplanes existed and more a comparison between present day and when air travel became common (sometime around the 60s). Of course we've made progress in the last 1000 years, but we've lost progress in the last 60 years. It's not a great trend.

When air travel became common tickets were still way more costly. Way fewer direct flights and little competition. We are sitting on the laurels of airports that have quadrupled in size today with the conveniences that come with that.

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

#668

Post by asdff »

brewdad wrote: post #656
asdff wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Rule of traveling: never bank on leaving the airport quickly. Flight can always get delayed and your plans screwed.

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

#669

Post by throaway5445454 »

warkdarrior wrote: post #345
throaway5445454 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canada just allowed the USA to have control over their nuclear plants and waste for 20 years. South Korea had to publicly come out and say they wanted to accept Trump's deal, but it had to have some concessions or else they would go into economic collapse! And the EU just allowed something like 30% more access from USA food which was previously considered not fit for human consumption under their health laws right? P…

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.

Just like every comment you read on the internet?

See my reply to a poster below for links.

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

#670

Post by naijaboiler »

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…

republicans. that's what they are all about. if you voted for them, you willingly voted for this.
Post reply on HN