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

671–678 of 678 posts

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

#671

Post by ThrowMeAway1618 »

naijaboiler wrote: post #670
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…

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

>republicans. that's what they are all about. if you voted for them, you willingly voted for this.

demonrats. that's what they are all about. If you voted for them, you voted for baby molesting and baby eating. Those far-left lunatics hate America and want to destroy it!

Why do you eat babies? Why do you hate America? Why do you want to destroy it?

What's that? You don't do/feel/want those things? But, but, you voted for demonrats! You must be the most extreme version of whatever someone who disagrees says you are!

Does being painted with that brush make you want to reexamine your choices and/or political ideas? No? Why not?

And what for? It's stupid to try to have a dialogue with your fellow citizens about what's important and what we stand for as a nation, right? Because anyone that doesn't agree, in full, with everything you believe is irredeemably evil and must be stopped, right?

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

#672

Post by int_19h »

buellerbueller wrote: post #339
ReptileMan wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay - democrats will push us in 1984 dystopia where they force you to accept that reality is what they tell you, and republicans will push us in low life high tech Cyberpunk dystopia where corporations reign supreme. Choose your poison.

oh, like that classic Democrat line "tylenol causes autism"?

Until fairly recently, stuff line anti-vax was far more common on the left. There used to be a joke that it's fairly easy to find concentrations of anti-vaxxers in US - you just need to plot locations of Whole Foods on the map and then draw a circle around each.

(To be fair, though, this was never mainstream in the Democratic party the way these things are now among the Republicans.)

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

#673

Post by GFischer »

Yeul wrote: post #562
tialaramex wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, I've had train companies put me in a taxi, and just eat the price of a taxi to wherever because if you want to sell tickets to travel to X, and then oops you can't get me to X well, I didn't buy your "regret" that you can't do that - I bought travel to X, so if that's still possible you'd better make it happen and too bad if that's not profitable.

I got an email from the train company that according to their records I had a delay and they put a link in it to a online form to get my money back. I was positively surprised at their proactive communication. The money was on my account within the week!

Meanwhile I had a terrible experience with DB (Deutsche Bahn) during the European summer two years ago, although it was partly out of their control (weather related delays and cancellations), I had to take awful detours, had paid for 1st class on ICE and ended up on regional trains up and down and lost one day of my holidays. No compensation whatsoever, although maybe I had to fill some online form for that.

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

#674

Post by jdlshore »

brewdad wrote: post #658
jdlshore wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, yes, their site says clearly that you need to talk to an agent to arrange this. (It also says they’ll refund it if the plane isn’t sold out.)

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

#675

Post by raddan »

jacobgkau wrote: post #617
raddan wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, like "conservatives" the stereotypes are not universal. They may not even be typical. Biological sex clearly is not a fiction; we have lots of evidence that it's not something you choose. It's also not necessarily binary, even in humans, although it is mostly binary. I also did not believe that Biden was ready for four more years, but then again, what choice did I have? I would not have voted for Trump under an…

> I also did not believe that Biden was ready for four more years, but then again, what choice did I have? I would not have voted for Trump under any circumstances, and sitting it out would be giving my vote away. Not sure what you mean about it being a Trump, sit out, or Biden choice when Biden wasn't an option in the final election. The choice you had was to vote for someone else in the primary, which did have plen…

> As are you when you call the Democrats' reality "the real reality."

I literally never said that. You also have no idea what my political background is. All I said is that I would never vote for Trump.

In fact, I do believe that there is one reality, because I am a scientist. For me, politics has nothing to do with it. I’m sorry that it does for you. It shouldn’t.

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

#676

Post by jacobgkau »

raddan wrote: post #675
jacobgkau wrote: post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I also did not believe that Biden was ready for four more years, but then again, what choice did I have? I would not have voted for Trump under any circumstances, and sitting it out would be giving my vote away. Not sure what you mean about it being a Trump, sit out, or Biden choice when Biden wasn't an option in the final election. The choice you had was to vote for someone else in the primary, which did have plen…

> As are you when you call the Democrats' reality "the real reality." I literally never said that. You also have no idea what my political background is. All I said is that I would never vote for Trump. In fact, I do believe that there is one reality, because I am a scientist. For me, politics has nothing to do with it. I’m sorry that it does for you. It shouldn’t.

> I literally never said that.

The person you replied to said, "democrats will push us in 1984 dystopia where they force you to accept that reality is what they tell you..."

You replied with, "Which reality is that? The real reality?"

So, yes, you "literally" did. You "literally" argued that "the reality Democrats tell you" is "the real reality," which also strongly suggests your political background. If that was just some kind of joke that you're now unable to stand behind, maybe you should think harder before you quip next time.

But it doesn't seem like it was just a joke. It seems like you're deluded enough to continue arguing that, from a purely "scientific" and "non-political" standpoint, Democrats never make false statements (and hence "the reality they tell you" is "the real reality"), despite there clearly being examples to the contrary.

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

#677

Post by smcin »

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…

The "making us wait in the sun for an hour outside to board the plane" is to game the EU limitations on how long the airline can make you wait on the tarmac:

- after 1hr delay, they must provide access to water/A/C/heat/lavatories. Also to medical assistance (if needed). - and after 5hrs on tarmac, passengers must be given the chance to leave the aircraft. - Exceptions: These rules do not apply if the delay is due to safety, security, or ATC reasons.

Making you wait outside on the tarmac before boarding is bad but skirts the regulations. They key clock time to watch is how long were you waiting after boarding the plane?

Probably also useful to reference your specific EU rights if they object.

If after 1+1hrs wait, passengers were going to faint unless they got water, that seems to be pushing "would need medical assistance".

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

#678

Post by NoLinkToMe »

jjcob wrote: post #638
NoLinkToMe wrote: post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the same concept though isn't it? It effectively sorts people in group A who cares about seats (and thus pays to prevent random seating) and group B who doesn't care (and effectively gets a subsidised ticket price from A, by giving up their seating preference).

You could use the same argument to argue that Basic Economy passengers should be punched in the face when boarding. Then there's a group A of wimpy rich kids (who pay to prevent getting punched in the face) and a group B who don't mind getting punched in the face (and effectively get a subsidised ticket from group A).

No you couldn't.

In my example, seats must be assigned. You can't seat people safely in an airplane without seat assignment.

You can assign it as an airline, or you can let the customer assign.

Not all customers care about assignment equally. Thus there is a market. And in a market you allow people to trade their value.

Pay more for preferred seating, or pay less and accept random seating. Both groups win, total welfare increases. Group A values seat-assignment more than money and gets the more valuable of the two. Group A values money more than seat-assignment, and gets the more valuable of the two. It's a classic trade scenario where both win.

The airline merely functions as the marketplace to allow people to trade, and to get to a more optimal scenario (pareto improving) where the total utility/welfare goes up.

Random seating ensures that everyone makes this trade, and thus ensures you get the closest to max pareto efficiency.

Without random seating you'd get the free-rider problem: those who don't care (or care only a little) about seat-assignment, don't get a discount that they value more. These people are not paying for a feature they don't value, and subsidise those people who do value it and are willing to pay for it independently! While those that care a lot about seating, aren't guaranteed the seat they want, despite wanting to pay for it. This decreases total welfare, it's a destruction of value.

Your punching example is different because it's introducing a harm for everyone. Everyone cares about not getting punched, it's below the baseline service. The baseline service is a ticket to safely go from A to B. Seat assignment is an extra feature above the baseline that some want to pay for, and others don't. Not getting punched in the face is a deterioration below the baseline, it's a nonsense idea to introduce it. That's why it's different. I

Of course the market mechanisms will work just the same, that's certainly true. But the morality or logic behind the airline introducing this is completely different.

Post reply on HN