[HN Gopher] US airlines are pushing to remove protections for pa...
___________________________________________________________________
US airlines are pushing to remove protections for passengers and
add more fees
Author : duxup
Score : 594 points
Date : 2025-09-24 12:30 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.travelandtourworld.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.travelandtourworld.com)
| duxup wrote:
| Original title did not fit on HN so I had to edit it, origional:
|
| >American Joins Delta, Southwest, United and Other US Airlines
| Push to Strip Away Travelers' Rights and Add More Fees by Rolling
| Back Key Protections in New Deregulation Move
| grafmax wrote:
| Deregulation once again helping business at the expense of
| consumers.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Look at what flying cost before deregulation and then decide
| if you want to go back.
| bunnyfoofoo wrote:
| Get a 403 from EU. Is there a better source?
| unwind wrote:
| Data point: it worked for me, also in the EU.
| willvarfar wrote:
| These are the main points listed in the article:
|
| * Automatic Refunds for Cancellations: Airlines want to remove
| the requirement to provide automatic refunds when flights are
| cancelled or significantly altered. Passengers may instead
| receive only vouchers or no compensation at all, leaving them
| without recourse in the event of a major flight disruption.
|
| * Transparency of Fees: The airlines also aim to strip away
| rules that require them to disclose all fees (like baggage,
| seat assignments, and service charges) upfront. Instead of the
| clear, itemized pricing system that passengers currently rely
| on, airlines could hide fees until later in the booking
| process, making the true cost of a ticket much higher than
| expected.
|
| * Family Seating Guarantees: Under current regulations,
| airlines must ensure that families with young children are
| seated together without additional charges. This would no
| longer be guaranteed under the new proposal, meaning families
| could face extra costs just to sit next to one another.
|
| * Accessibility Protections for Disabled Passengers: The
| deregulation proposal also targets protections for disabled
| passengers, weakening their access to support and assistance
| during air travel.
|
| Nasty site full of a gazillion trackers etc.
| cft wrote:
| I am in the EU and I get 200
| rancar2 wrote:
| "The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) encourages all
| airlines to guarantee that young children are seated adjacent
| to an accompanying adult without charging any additional
| fee." https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/airline-
| family-se...
|
| There is not coverage beyond one adult already in the US.
| With an additional adult and one child, the airlines already
| adds in fees. It's also non-transparent when booking that
| they have made sure the easy path is the charged path,
| especially now that airlines make you pay to guarantee being
| seated together prior to flight checkin 24 hours in advance
| of takeoff.
| redwall_hp wrote:
| > Automatic Refunds for Cancellations: Airlines want to
| remove the requirement to provide automatic refunds when
| flights are cancelled or significantly altered. Passengers
| may instead receive only vouchers or no compensation at all,
| leaving them without recourse in the event of a major flight
| disruption.
|
| Basically half of flights I've ever booked have had a
| cancellation. Usually the airline customer service had to
| rebook a new itinerary for the same purpose, but once in the
| past year they had to issue a refund because all possible
| routes went through DFW and they had lightning, which they
| have all the time.
|
| It's absolutely ridiculous to even suggest that you should be
| able to take someone's money and not render services. That's
| a fundamental part of commerce.
| hedora wrote:
| Yeah; I wonder if this is going to lead to chargebacks.
|
| I wonder if there are any anti-retaliation provisions, or
| if they'll just have a special no-fly list for people they
| sold non-existent flights to, and that refused to pay up.
| lxgr wrote:
| That's literally why chargebacks exist. Whoever drafted
| this particular idea must not be very familiar with how
| card payments work.
| thombat wrote:
| They'll add a footnote explaining that the term "flight"
| should be understood as a non-refundable ticket in a
| transport lottery. Similarly to how most sales of
| entertainment now are providing you with a revokable
| license to access it, rather than a reusable copy in your
| possession.
| ghaff wrote:
| >Basically half of flights I've ever booked have had a
| cancellation.
|
| You would seem to be a very unlucky person. My record is
| somewhere in the low single digits. Obviously, my
| percentage of flights with some delays has been somewhat
| higher.
| palmotea wrote:
| > * Family Seating Guarantees: Under current regulations,
| airlines must ensure that families with young children are
| seated together without additional charges. This would no
| longer be guaranteed under the new proposal, meaning families
| could face extra costs just to sit next to one another.
|
| Capitalist money-making idea: guarantee young children are
| seated _as far away as possible from their parents_ if the
| fee is not paid, then offer to collect the fee from other
| passengers seated next to the child. Double the cost if it 's
| a baby.
| lxgr wrote:
| > no compensation at all, leaving them without recourse in
| the event of a major flight disruption
|
| Would airlines even get away with that, given that card
| payments for non-provided services can usually be trivially
| charged back?
|
| Presumably business travelers would not always care enough,
| but their company's expense management department certainly
| would.
| pluc wrote:
| https://archive.is/wWXqY
| lawn wrote:
| Works for me.
| MangoToupe wrote:
| Interesting. The deregulation of airlines is already a case study
| of how deregulation tends to reduce competition and hurt
| consumers.
|
| I suppose we've just given up on the concept of trying to do
| anything but nakedly extract profit at any cost. You'd think
| shareholders would be pro-competition in the end, though--I
| certainly would prefer that.
|
| Edit: I mean short-term profits. As a shareholder I would prefer
| long-term profits via competition and diversification.
| rjbwork wrote:
| >You'd think shareholders would be pro-competition in the end,
| though--I certainly would prefer that.
|
| The end game of capitalism is monopoly. Why would shareholders
| want competition that prevents them from extracting maximum
| profit?
| panick21_ wrote:
| What are you talking about overall, deregulation of routes has
| not been bad for consumers. The opposite actually.
| hedora wrote:
| 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.
| pfdietz wrote:
| Safety is massively improved since the days of regulation.
| Fares are way down in real terms. Flying might be
| miserable, but that's because people realize they'd rather
| pay less than pay more for luxuries they don't actually
| value very much.
|
| Your comments remind me of the arguments Ma Bell gave to
| justify their monopoly. Oh noez, quality will suffer if
| there's telecom competition. Well, people ended up being
| willing to make the tradeoff.
|
| You did score a hit with airline profits being low. The
| whole purpose of regulation was to artificially inflate
| prices to ensure profits for airlines.
| ghaff wrote:
| >they'd rather pay less than pay more for luxuries they
| don't actually value very much
|
| Basically. I have used a combination of miles and co-pays
| to upgrade to business trans-Pacific. But most of the
| time going from the east coast US to Europe (especially
| when I can do it without a red-eye to London), I end up
| thinking of all the nice stuff I could do with $5K at the
| cost of sort of a miserable flight.
|
| It's not that I couldn't splurge but there are other
| things I'd generally prefer to splurge on.
| pfdietz wrote:
| One reason flights are more miserable is planes are more
| heavily loaded. Before deregulation, planes were usually
| ~50% full. Today in the US, it's about 84%.
|
| This is directly correlated with airfares. Were planes as
| sparsely loaded now as they were then then fares would be
| correspondingly higher. But in a deregulated environment
| there's a very strong incentive for increased economic
| efficiency to keep the fares competitive.
| tavavex wrote:
| I'm not sure if either you or the person you're replying
| to are correct about safety. The way I see it, safety is
| completely orthogonal to regulations about routes,
| passenger services and so on. Safety's been on a rough
| upward trend throughout history as technology improves.
| No matter what tools are given or taken away from
| airlines for extracting value from their passengers, I
| don't see how it impacts safety, since actual flying is
| its own separate thing. The one exception is rules on
| e.g. crew composition, maximum working hours for pilots,
| and so on. But in these cases, deregulation would hurt
| both.
| panick21_ wrote:
| 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 this year.
|
| What the fuck does 'this year' have to do with it when we
| are talking about something that happened in around the
| 1980s.
|
| Total safety is up massively, and per passenger safety is
| up by an absurd amount.
|
| Any counter-argument to this is literally not credible.
|
| > Airlines profits are basically zero per ticket.
|
| So capitalism works? Not sure what your point is.
|
| > Deregulation badly broke this industry.
|
| Based on what?
| pfdietz wrote:
| > The deregulation of airlines is already a case study of how
| deregulation tends to reduce competition and hurt consumers.
|
| What the actual F? Deregulation of airlines was massively
| beneficial to consumers.
|
| "Base ticket prices have declined steadily since
| deregulation.[15] The inflation-adjusted 1982 constant dollar
| yield for airlines has fallen from 12.3 cents in 1978 to 7.9
| cents in 1997,[16] and the inflation-adjusted real price of
| flying fell 44.9% from 1978 to 2011.[17] Along with a rising
| U.S. population[18] and the increasing demand of workforce
| mobility, these trends were some of the catalysts for dramatic
| expansion in passenger miles flown, increasing from 250 million
| passenger miles in 1978 to 750 million passenger miles in
| 2005.[19]"
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_deregulation
| hedora wrote:
| How do the real price reductions compare to the rest of the
| world? Computers automated away a ton of airline jobs, and
| fuel economy has increased.
|
| Also, are those prices apples to apples with pre-deregulation
| tickets?
|
| Like, can I just walk up to the terminal, same day, pay that
| price, and get the equivalent of business class on the plane,
| and still pay 44% less than real 1978 prices?
| MangoToupe wrote:
| Base ticket prices doesn't seem like a great metric, not that
| I have a better trivial to measure metric off the top of my
| head (maybe leg room?), but competition has certainly gone
| down since deregulation.
| jdiff wrote:
| Monopoly by underhanded treachery offers better odds at long-
| term profits than a long, drawn-out competition on fair terms.
| pluc wrote:
| In Canada, we've already learned to _always_ fly a European
| airline when possible. We have some legal protections but
| Canadian airlines are happy to put people on a complaint waiting
| list instead of doing anything - it 's pretty laughable. As of
| August, there's 85k complaints waiting. It's a 1.5-2 years wait.
|
| https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/air-travel-complaints-resolution-p...
| bthrn wrote:
| There is a 90 day decision timeframe starting from the time of
| submitting a complaint.
|
| But note: > Due to a high volume of complaints, there will be a
| delay between when a complaint is submitted and waits in the
| queue and when the complaint process will start.
|
| wat
| FireBeyond wrote:
| Like Amazon, "Two day shipping!"...
|
| "Two days from when we actually ship it, which might be
| today, but might be tomorrow, or in three days from now..."
| sib wrote:
| So... it's kinda like healthcare?
| doodaddy wrote:
| > Instead of the clear, itemized pricing system that passengers
| currently rely on, airlines could hide fees until later in the
| booking process...
|
| They call what we have now "clear"? Where when looking at a page
| of flights I don't know how much the multitude of
| economy/economy+/economy++/premium economy/business/business++
| seats will cost until I click on each flight? Where every carrier
| offers slightly different variations of these seats such that I
| can't cross-shop on Google Flights?
|
| Is that the clear and transparent system the airlines are
| complaining about?
| code_for_monkey wrote:
| yeah, now imagine when its even worse
| Mistletoe wrote:
| I've seen the movie Brazil and I wish more people had so they
| would have voted better.
| nyc_data_geek1 wrote:
| Is your form stamped? There's no stamp on it.
| thombat wrote:
| This is your receipt for your husband. And this is my
| receipt for your receipt.
| nyc_data_geek1 wrote:
| We're all in this together, kid.
| smt88 wrote:
| I'm not sure why you think that would've helped. A lot of
| the people who won't shut up about 1984 and Ayn Rand still
| vote for the closest thing to monarchy they can find on
| their ballots.
| mr_toad wrote:
| In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet, and
| say to us, "Make us your slaves, but feed us."
| forgotoldacc wrote:
| We're at a point where people would be glad to starve if
| they think it pissed someone else off.
| recursive wrote:
| I think most of them would say that right up until they
| could actually feel the hunger. People spend hundreds of
| dollars on drugs that just make them less hungry so they
| eat less. So I don't think so.
| wat10000 wrote:
| Some people see "don't tread on me" as "don't tread on
| people," while others see it as "don't tread on ME
| specifically."
| nerdponx wrote:
| Don't tread on me but please do tread on those other
| people I've been indoctrinated to dislike.
| red-iron-pine wrote:
| "tread on them especially hard"
| ReptileMan wrote:
| 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.
| buellerbueller wrote:
| oh, like that classic Democrat line "tylenol causes
| autism"?
| ReptileMan wrote:
| We are talking about the same hepatotoxic compound that
| is absurdly easy to OD on but it gives negligible relief
| on stuff you should just power trough? That anecdotal -
| is barely better than a pacebo?
|
| Personally - I think that the two main drivers of autism
| are people having kids later and too high rates of smart
| people intermarriage.
|
| Of course Trump should not have said Tylenol, but
| paracetamol.
|
| And there are some very mild hints in the data that they
| are correlated, but not enough sigmas.
|
| And of course it could be Tylenol and something else with
| which ot interacts. And autism is so hard to be linked to
| anything because of how big the umbrella is and that we
| have such high delay to diagnosis that we will never
| know. Not taking medications when not really necessary is
| probably a good precaution principle
| troyvit wrote:
| But if he can't say "acetaminophen" how can he say
| "paracetamol"?
| buellerbueller wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
|
| My point is merely that the lie against reality is being
| perpetrated by Republicans. You never really addressed
| that.
| lupusreal wrote:
| Nobody in America says paracetamol. The generic drug is
| called acetaminophen in America.
|
| Anyway, it works very well for the aches and pains that
| come from manual labor.
| raddan wrote:
| Which reality is that? The real reality? Admittedly real
| reality is a pretty bitter pill at times.
| jacobgkau wrote:
| Maybe the one where biological sex is imaginary. Or the
| one where Biden's health is good enough for another four
| years. You pick (or keep looking the other way and
| losing, to the detriment of far more important issues).
| raddan wrote:
| 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 any circumstances, and
| sitting it out would be giving my vote away.
|
| You're painting with a rather broad brush. You must have
| at least a few liberals in your life with whom you can
| compare notes.
| dfee wrote:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_(1985_film)
|
| Looks interesting!
| pstuart wrote:
| It's a must watch movie -- there's multiple editions and
| you should watch the directors cut.
| lisper wrote:
| I know that "me too" comments are frowned upon, but I
| really feel the need to chime in here. Brazil is my
| favorite movie of all time. It is eerily prescient. It's
| important to keep in mind while watching it today that it
| was made forty years ago.
|
| And yes, the director's cut. Absolutely the director's
| cut.
| scrps wrote:
| Don't forget the inverse can happen, like when tech-bros
| read sci-fi and end up thinking Bad Thing is a good idea...
| :|
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| geez, can you people stop tearing down the torment nexus
| for just one minute!
| MurkyLabs wrote:
| Ah yes, the Torment Nexus from the popular sci-fi book,
| "Don't build the Torment Nexus!"
| herval wrote:
| I love/hate how many people in tech watched Black Mirror
| and went "that's a great idea! I'll build that"
| MangoToupe wrote:
| I see the causality as reversed: the show is based on
| extrapolating current tech trends to produce near-future
| dystopian sci-fi.
| caycep wrote:
| it was worse in the 80's-90's...I guess the past few years of
| enjoying refunds was not meant to last...
| OhMeadhbh wrote:
| It absolutely was not worse in the 80s. Unless you mean
| more expensive. Yes. It DEFINITELY was more expensive. When
| I booked through a travel agent or over the phone with the
| airline, the fees were pretty transparent. I sorta feel for
| the airlines here because before deregulation they had to
| commit to unprofitable routes before they realized HOW
| unprofitable they would be. That cost was spread over the
| profitable routes and ultimately everything was more
| expensive. But... oh man... remember when you could get on
| a flight where only about 25% of the seats were filled and
| the food wasn't great, but was free? I remember being able
| to lift the arm-rests on seats up and stretch out and take
| a nap on the plane. Those were the days. Before American's
| MD/SD-80s started falling out of the sky, I would fly out
| to DFW from SJC each week and it was delightful.
|
| And baggage handling systems are much better than the 80s.
| It's been 5 years since an airline has lost checked luggage
| for me. But of course, it's been 5 years since I checked
| luggage, so who knows? I really miss Yamato Zhai Pei Bian
| from when I lived in Japan. Americans really don't know how
| to travel correctly.
|
| Meh. The dollar is probably going to be devalued soon so
| the dream of air travel for the typical American will
| likely only be in the rear-view mirror. We'll all be lost
| in wistful nostalgia about the time when normal people
| could afford air travel.
|
| So... SOME things were worse in the 80s/90s. Not all things
| related to traveling.
| ardit33 wrote:
| 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 hidden fees started during the late Bush
| era, and with the advents of online booking, and with the
| rise of the 'cheap airlines' like RyanAir, Spirit, etc...
|
| They had hidden fees as part of their busisness model.
| The larger carriers started following suit with more
| restricitons for the cheapest base tickets (no luggage)
| and more fees for things that used to be included before.
|
| This is completely different from the 90s, which you paid
| and things were more upfront.
| caycep wrote:
| 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.
| Telemakhos wrote:
| > It's been 5 years since an airline has lost checked
| luggage for me.
|
| It hasn't even been two weeks for me, although my luggage
| arrived the next day. I remember on Slashdot hearing the
| advice of always packing a firearm (even a starter
| pistol) in checked luggage when traveling domestically--
| not only is it legal, but the BATFE gets involved if the
| airline loses your luggage, so the airline is very
| careful not to lose your luggage.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| If each flight leg is a different price, how can the website
| show you the total until you select both (or all) legs?
| nerdponx wrote:
| That doesn't mean it's not opaque and complicated.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| The context is making pricing more opaque than it needs to
| be in order to earn more money.
|
| I don't understand how it could be made simpler, unless you
| want every flight to cost the same, which is stupid. Hence
| the complaint does not make sense.
| terminalshort wrote:
| "We can't tell you the exact price because you haven't told
| us what you want to buy yet" isn't opaque or complicated.
| sjm-lbm wrote:
| FWIW, at least as of today, American Airlines' website
| attempts to show you round trip prices.
|
| When choosing your outbound leg(s), they show a price
| inclusive of the cheapest return journey on the day you
| selected to return using the class of service on your
| outbound leg. So, there's all sorts of ways for it to be
| incorrect - maybe you want a different class of service,
| maybe the cheapest return has a stop but you'd like the
| direct, etc. - but it's still really useful for figuring out
| the best options for your flights.
| gertlex wrote:
| Kayak.com does it... it's very much a UX choice of whether to
| show combinations of flights at a given "level"
| (economy/main/1st class) or instead dedicate the space to
| showing the prices at all levels, and only show a flight at a
| time.
| nostrademons wrote:
| They usually show you a minimum, then have you select each
| leg, with the price for that leg fully displayed.
| lumost wrote:
| Not to mention the lack of standards on leg room/entertainment
| packages/food quality for any of the above combinations on any
| airline!
| SpaceNoodled wrote:
| I literally don't fit in certain carriers' seats because my
| legs are longer than their seat pitch.
| ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote:
| You want regulations on in-flight entertainment packages??
| supertrope wrote:
| You can always buy an economy plus ticket.
| jacobgkau wrote:
| The point wasn't minimums, it was that you don't even know
| what an "economy plus ticket" will get you since it's not
| standardized.
| FinnKuhn wrote:
| At least Google flights shows you an estimate for the airline
| JustExAWS wrote:
| Well rule #1 is never to book a flight on a third party travel
| portal. When things go wrong, you now have to deal with the
| travel portal and the airline.
| trzy wrote:
| Google Flights isn't a third party portal! It takes you
| directly to the airline web site to book. It attempts to
| estimate the fare price but that's becoming increasingly
| difficult with variably priced seats and other "gotcha"
| expenses that get figured in deep into the booking flow.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| And in that case, this was never regulated by the
| government. The airlines shouldn't be responsible for how
| their products are presented on a random aggregator.
| khuey wrote:
| For domestic flights, perhaps. It routinely refers me to
| third party OTAs for the cheapest prices on flights to less
| common international destinations.
| jghn wrote:
| Many people will do things like use Google Travel to narrow
| down an initial set of potential flights based on times &
| cost, and then go to the individual airlines from there to
| book things. The GPs post is still a problem in this
| scenario.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| That seems like a Google problem because of a poor
| interface. Unless you want each airline to standardize
| their offerings. Even then their would be differences based
| on loyalty programs, which airline you have a credit card
| for etc.
|
| The legislation nor the regulations were geared toward
| third party aggregators.
| AdamN wrote:
| Kayak has a flag to limit tickets shown to only those sold
| by airlines. That's the way to go.
| ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote:
| This is a pro level feature set. I don't think most flyers feel
| bilked that they can't do this. Absolute price sensitivity
| (meaning bottom line, not "cheapest business class") is the
| factor for most people and that is easy to see on any of the
| flight search engines.
| bluGill wrote:
| For most perhaps, but I want to know what I'll really pay. I
| already know I'm going to check luggage (or not, but now that
| I have kids and am going for longer vacations checked bags is
| not something I'll do without), so I want to see the price
| with checked bags. Likewise I know I'm willing to pay for the
| legroom of economy plus (the rest of my family doesn't care,
| though my kids are soon hit their final growth and soon
| will). I've just added $1000 to my actually price, but all I
| see is the per person ticket price with no options...
|
| There is a reason I took Amtrak last vacation. Too bad they
| doen't go do where my next vacation will be.
| BeetleB wrote:
| What airlines are you searching on?
|
| Whenever I search (admittedly mostly on Southwest), I get
| everything up front.
| kindatrue wrote:
| Those are all optional fees.
|
| What they want is a return to the old pre-Obama days where all
| the taxes and mandatory fees (government and stuff they made
| up) were only displayed at check out. Kind of like resort fees
| on hotels.
| eadmund wrote:
| > _[Elimination of]_ Automatic Refunds for Cancellations
|
| Does this mean when the passenger cancels or when the airline
| cancels? If it's when the passenger chooses to cancel, this seems
| fine and fair: he paid for a flight; he chose not to take it. If
| it's the latter, then it seems very unfair.
|
| > Transparency of Fees
|
| This seems patently unfair. Folks should know what they're going
| to be paying ahead of time.
|
| > Family Seating Guarantees
|
| On the one hand, this seems fair. If you want to sit together,
| pay for that privilege. It doesn't make sense to tax every other
| passenger for it. OTOH, families are a net benefit to society, so
| maybe it's right for everyone else to pitch in a bit. Also,
| nothing is worse than the folks who _didn't_ pay up ahead of time
| who bug one, 'may we switch seats so we can sit together?' So
| perhaps free family seating makes life easier for everyone.
|
| > _[Elimination of]_ Accessibility Protections for Disabled
| Passengers
|
| I wonder what that actually means. It could be fair (for example,
| folks too large for one seat purchasing two) or unfair.
| cdrini wrote:
| > [Elimination of] Automatic Refunds for Cancellations
|
| Airline cancellations. Seeing as they're talking about making a
| change, I assume it's airline cancellations, since no airline
| will currently refund you for a passenger cancellation.
| tarentel wrote:
| Some will, you just have to pay an extra fee when you buy the
| ticket. It is ridiculous.
| ghaff wrote:
| It will typically be in the form of a credit but United,
| for example, does allow cancellations (not sure how far in
| advance) for no charge.
| cdrini wrote:
| I think charging a fee for passenger cancellation insurance
| is reasonable; the airline takes on a decent amount of risk
| if a consumer can cancel at any time.
| BolexNOLA wrote:
| I don't think anybody's said so far that it has to be at
| _any_ time. Up to X number of days out, like most hotels,
| I think is perfectly reasonable.
| cdrini wrote:
| That would be reasonable, but I think I could take it or
| leave it. Planes fill up more than hotels would be my
| guess, so they'd need a buffer window of like a month? At
| which point the difference between having and not having
| cancellation protection seems negligible to me.
| BolexNOLA wrote:
| I think we're making a lot of assumptions here. For all
| we know one to two weeks could make a lot of sense.
|
| I understand airlines are very feast or famine and often
| operate on very thin margins, but at this point I'm
| willing to pay a little more for the experience to not be
| so categorically and consistently miserable
| cdrini wrote:
| I think for me my main gripe with air travel is how hard
| it is to predict the price and how high the prices are.
| It takes me like a day of research to book a flight due
| to how careful I have to be to confirm what luggage I'm
| allowed/etc. And it's incredibly easy for me to get
| burned because aggregator sites like Google flights can't
| tell you eg how much a carry-on would cost, so I have to
| try to determine if the cheaper flight is _actually_
| cheaper, etc etc. And I'm tired of having family have to
| pay crazy hundred dollar + fees for an extra carry on
| because the eco light ticket (although the ticket just
| says eco on it) doesn't actually include a personal item,
| that's only part of the eco ticket, and since you're at
| the counter that's going to be $100 fee for you to carry
| a purse onto the plane. -_- Shout out Condor.
|
| Otherwise I find everything ok. The flights are fine --
| packed but it is what it is there's high demand. I could
| do with/without the food if it reduced the price, I can
| pack my own. But otherwise I find them fine.
|
| What makes air travel miserable for you?
| hedora wrote:
| Southwest used to for all tickets, for free.
|
| They're eliminating it because the new CEO is trying to
| speed-run them out of business.
| atonse wrote:
| Even though I've flown a dozen or more airlines in my life,
| I actually felt true loyalty towards Southwest because of
| their amazing no fee policies. And it was worth playing the
| "check in quickly cuz there's no assigned seats" game for
| all the other benefits. And we've flown so many flights as
| a family due to that. It removed all the stress from the
| ticket purchasing process.
|
| This CEO is a freaking idiot. Is this an excel jockey/MBA
| a-hole like the kind that ran Boeing and Intel into the
| ground?
|
| What's wrong with the board that voted this idiot in?
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| 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 to the same place,
| increasing the value of already owned shares. They don't
| care if it destroys SWA's customer base because they'll
| have sold off their stake by then.
|
| [0] https://beatofhawaii.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2024/06/Stronger...
| atonse wrote:
| Amazing. Absolute douchebag investors that ruin
| everything.
| cdrini wrote:
| I see they offer free cancellations and refunds for their
| two top-tier tickets, but can't find a reference for them
| offering it for all tickets. Do you have a link?
|
| https://mobile.southwest.com/fare-information/
| vel0city wrote:
| https://support.southwest.com/helpcenter/s/article/policy
| -ch...
|
| Before, you could cancel within 24 hours of boarding and
| get your full amount as at least a credit without any
| extra fee _for any ticket class_. That credit had no
| expiration. Now, there 's a fee and expiration for this
| credit.
| accrual wrote:
| Delta at least supplies a 24 hour grace period to cancel in
| case one made a mistake. I noticed they don't even charge
| cards until after this period
| kortilla wrote:
| I think this one is required federally because every US
| airline allows this that I've flown.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| It is a legal requirement.
| itopaloglu83 wrote:
| They want to benefit from passengers who don't know their
| rights, because they won't request a refund.
|
| Similar things happened to family members multiple times
| where their initial flight (overseas) was delayed by 6 hours,
| they had many issues, and nobody provided information about
| their rights. I told them about what to ask for and voila,
| $1100 refund.
| cyral wrote:
| If the flight is delayed by 3 hours, you will get a refund if
| you cancel. This is great if the delay is long and there is a
| flight on a competing airline that would let you get out
| sooner.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| > If you want to sit together, pay for that privilege.
|
| Agreed. I think they leave too much money on the table. Use of
| window shades and lavatories could be behind a subscription
| service as well, with Sky Comfort+ affording you the privilege
| of multiple lavatory visits for those who have chosen the
| luxury IBS lifestyle. I'll let you know if I think of anything
| else those pesky airline passengers take for granted.
| dillydogg wrote:
| I think paying for water is a great opportunity. Maybe even
| the precious Biscoff. Especially for those cross country
| flights.
| jghn wrote:
| When I was young there was a discount airline named People
| Express that actually operated like this. In retrospect I
| imagine a lot of their nickel & diming would be considered
| standard these days, but back then it was revolutionary in
| both good & bad ways.
| LPisGood wrote:
| Spirit Airlines does not give free water. They will give
| you a cup of ice if you ask.
| masklinn wrote:
| You're way late to that party, Ryanair used to charge
| _crew_ for water.
| dillydogg wrote:
| The forward thinking market leaders we deserve
| az226 wrote:
| $99 recline your seat fee
| jghn wrote:
| I'd pay $99 so that the person in front of me *can't*
| recline their seat
| asah wrote:
| I'd pay $99.01 so I can recline again... oh wait, I see
| where this is going...
| cwmoore wrote:
| Why not? Let's also reverse the auction, make a C2B
| market:
|
| I'd offer $300 roundtrip to Lahaina for 5-10 days,
| airlines? Any takers?
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| I'd pay $99 to sit across the aisle from you two and
| giggle.
| SirMaster wrote:
| I prefer when they recline as that always seems to give
| me extra knee room which is the main place that I am most
| cramped. When they recline the part of the chair where my
| knees are slides forward about in inch or 2.
| dweinus wrote:
| Perfect, digital bidding app on each seat so you and the
| person in front of you can see who will pay more for
| reclining control.
| el_benhameen wrote:
| Just know that when this inevitably happens, it's now on
| you for putting it out into the universe.
| eterm wrote:
| You get that for free on some Ryanair planes.
| jeltz wrote:
| One of the few nice things about flying with them.
| masklinn wrote:
| Are you a consultant for ryanair? If not, you should apply.
|
| They tried to straight up remove the window shades, but
| that's currently required by Ireland so no dice. A toilet
| charge has been floated but is apparently difficult both
| legally and technically. However given Ryanair's usual
| treatment of passengers with disabilities I have no doubt a
| passenger with IBS would have an experience.
| 0xAFFFF wrote:
| Ryanair talks a lot, but they mostly do it for the free PR
| they inevitably get when people act shocked. Almost all of
| their proposal are unfeasible or downright illegal and all
| of them should be considered bullshit until proven
| otherwise.
| Bhilai wrote:
| Agreed. There should be a fee for speaking too. Some
| passengers are really chatty. In today's world where free
| speech is already being curbed, Airlines should charge a
| free-speech fee for passengers who plan to converse.
|
| Separately there should be a fee for opening/closing the AC
| vent and using the overhead lights.
| granitepail wrote:
| If ya made it through all three of the sentences they wrote,
| you'd see the comment you replied to came around to it being
| reasonable to give families a break on group seating.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| I did, in fact, manage to read all three. I just couldn't
| help but run with the devil's advocate premise.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| You may not remember the coin-operated public toilets that
| used to be fairly common, especially in places like airports.
| gpderetta wrote:
| What about seats? You can fly standing perfectly fine.
| Sitting is a privilege (definitely ryanair does not propose
| this form time to time).
|
| > On the one hand, this seems fair. If you want to sit
| together [with your family], pay for that privilege
|
| This seems shortsighted. Airlines could get much more money
| if they added a fee to guarantee not to be seated beside a
| kid!
| devoutsalsa wrote:
| I'm waiting for airlines to offer a budget First Class called
| Number Two Class. You get exclusive use the lavatory for the
| entirety of the flight.
| burkaman wrote:
| Automatic Refunds for Cancellations is referring to when the
| airline cancels. This is related to a Biden administration rule
| abandoned by the Trump administration:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/05/business/flight-delays-
| ca....
| chinathrow wrote:
| Wow that sounds like pure grift.
| kortilla wrote:
| That Biden rule never rolled out according to the article. So
| what would be changing?
| cls59 wrote:
| > It doesn't make sense to tax every other passenger for it.
|
| I'd rather pay a monetary tax on my ticket to keep families
| organized together instead of the discomfort tax of sharing a
| row with parent+child that has been unexpectedly split up from
| their partner and is now trying to manage the child's behavior
| for the duration of the flight without the benefit of teamwork.
| hedora wrote:
| They don't guarantee both parents are with the kid. They only
| guarantee that at least one parent is next to each (very
| young) child.
|
| This presumably would mean you'd be feeding a random kid a
| bottle on long flights. God knows how they'd accommodate
| breastfeeding.
| the_sleaze_ wrote:
| 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"
| 8organicbits wrote:
| 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.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| The crew is aware of all the unaccompanied minors on a
| flight.
| 8organicbits wrote:
| Is that a meaningful distinction, though? "Aware of" !=
| "Actively supervising". I guess it's easier to page a
| flight attendant than find a parent seated elsewhere, but
| neither can provide active supervision.
| 8organicbits wrote:
| Agreed. Flying with my own kids, I'm constantly helping them.
| They struggle with headphones, opening food, fastening seat
| belts, being reminded to use the bathroom. Worse: they spill
| food, have potty training accidents, kick seats, yell, cry,
| and get scared. It gets easier as they get older, thankfully.
|
| With an infant, having two caregivers within reach is huge.
| When flying with infant in arms there's nowhere to put the
| kid down, you don't have a free hand. An extra set of hands
| to wipe up spit-up, help adjust clothing for breastfeeding,
| collect the diaper bag, etc is a huge help.
|
| The idea that parents need to pay more to help their children
| is cruel. I would expect people seated next to a child to end
| up swapping, to help the parent and to escape the noisy
| child. But that slows down boarding as people shuffle seats
| and adds anxiety that we're perfectly able to resolve.
| spartas wrote:
| > Also, nothing is worse than the folks who didn't pay up ahead
| of time who bug one, 'may we switch seats so we can sit
| together?'
|
| Some of us parents ask that question for your benefit, not
| ours. Do you want to sit next to my three-year-old?
| philipwhiuk wrote:
| Some of us think you're just being cheap.
| hedora wrote:
| 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.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I avoid southwest because they don't have assigned
| seating.
| dboreham wrote:
| Post time traveled from when they didn't. But now they
| do.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Interesting, I'm sure they didn't as recently as 4 weeks
| ago when I tried shopping for flights.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > 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..."
| "..."
| thieving_magpie wrote:
| 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
| rates. At the same time it's wildly unfair to ask people to
| switch seats when they've paid for them (or even if they
| haven't).
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Indeed, having children should have tiny nickel and dime
| costs all throughout your life in a million different ways.
| It should be the norm that just trying to raise the next
| generation costs you time, energy, effort, and money just
| to do normal day to day things, and it should especially be
| harder for you because you dared to have children.
|
| Wait, why is nobody having kids?
| sfdlkj3jk342a wrote:
| Generally you will be expected to pay for the costs of
| your life decisions.
|
| The world has more than enough people, so we shouldn't be
| subsidizing having children. Imbalanced demographics can
| be solved in other ways.
| eadmund wrote:
| > Do you want to sit next to my three-year-old?
|
| Not particularly, no. What I want is for you to purchase the
| seats your family needs ahead of time, not ask me for them
| for free.
|
| I know that travelling with kids is really tough. I sincerely
| sympathize! But it's not a surprise that a kid needs a seat
| next to his parents. They know _when they bought the ticket_
| that he'll be coming along, because they're buying the
| ticket. They should select the necessary seats then.
|
| Sure, if the airline had to move flights around then 1) they
| should attempt to preserve group cohesion 2) in extremis
| folks should negotiate. But for awhile I was getting requests
| from late-boarders every single time I flew. That's not an
| accident: they are flying on cheap tickets and trying to get
| extra value. I sympathize with that too! But I pay for the
| value I get, and I don't appreciate social pressure to give
| it away.
| hoistbypetard wrote:
| The airline asks the age of each minor traveler when
| tickets are booked. The airline could perfectly well
| require that a kid be seated next to a caretaker.
| (Regardless of whether they impose an extra charge for
| that.)
|
| Your gripe here is with the airline.
| thieving_magpie wrote:
| Then don't whine when you're sitting next to a 3 year old
| that has all the same justifications you do for sitting
| there. I don't appreciate social pressure to make your
| flight as comfortable as possible at my financial
| inconvenience.
|
| In all seriousness I understand your point but I think it's
| worth considering that you're also applying social
| pressure.
| ByteDrifter wrote:
| I believe every airline should offer a basic service: when
| minors are traveling with an adult, they should
| automatically be seated together. Ideally, airlines should
| provide a designated family seating area to avoid
| situations where a child ends up sitting next to a
| stranger.
| dmoy wrote:
| This is what happens now. The proposal is to get rid of
| that.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| > Not particularly, no. What I want is for you to purchase
| the seats your family needs ahead of time, not ask me for
| them for free.
|
| What happened to "if you want it, then you have to pay for
| the privilege?" If you want to be sure you aren't next to a
| kid, just pay for a first class ticket, instead of making
| other people pay extra for your comfort. You knew your
| preferences when you bought the ticket, after all. Select
| the seat you find necessary. /s
|
| The point being that the status quo rolls dice that make
| everyone unhappy, and there are options for everyone to
| avoid it by paying extra. Those options are priced by the
| people creating the situation in order to make a maximally
| profitable 'pay to avoid this' scenario. I always pay for
| my family to get together, but blame the airline for making
| you uncomfortable, not the family.
| vincnetas wrote:
| :) tables have turned. Do you want to switch seats for a
| "small" fee :)
|
| No, ok never mind, enjoy your flight.
| hedora wrote:
| Family seating guarantees are pretty crucial.
|
| Many airlines have punitive seating algorithms (looking at you,
| Alaska), or pull crap like moving your seats around and
| separating you after you select them unless you have status
| (United used to, at least, since they had a practice of selling
| non-existing flights, then bin packing planes the day before)
| so without this you can end up having a breast feeding infant
| sitting across the plane from its family.
|
| In essentially all cases, the kid can be put next to the parent
| without splitting up another parrty.
| tastyfreeze wrote:
| A breast feeding infant doesn't require a seat. Children
| under 2 can sit on a parent's lap.
| 8organicbits wrote:
| 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.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| 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.
| jjcob wrote:
| > 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 you are more likely to buy an
| upgrade is evil.
|
| I understand paying for checked luggage because luggage
| handling costs money. But purposely making the experience worse
| just so you can charge money for upgrades is evil.
| hedora wrote:
| Checked luggage charges are mostly about price discrimination
| and not cost savings.
|
| They also free up the cargo hold so they can transport mail.
| Speaking of which, did you know the TSA screening area is a
| farce?
| lumost wrote:
| I've always wondered if it would be cheaper to just have
| everyone check their bags and eliminate the overhead bin. I
| wouldn't be surprised if airline boarding was sped up by
| 2-3x this way.
| xur17 wrote:
| A lot of airlines have started doing this by "gate
| checking" bags.
| fwip wrote:
| I've heard that the boarding process itself is rarely the
| limiting factor in flights. They're usually waiting on
| other plane-related things (refueling? Pre-flight checks?
| I can't recall the details).
|
| If it were, they probably wouldn't be doing their 8-group
| boarding process that takes 20 minutes just to let people
| start boarding, because gate-time is expensive for them.
| lstodd wrote:
| OTOH it would overwhelm baggage reclaim and everyone will
| get stuck there instead.
| gpderetta wrote:
| that's a problem for the airport. Faster turnaround for
| the airline though!
| lstodd wrote:
| nope. airport gets overwhelmed, aircraft get stuck
| because of processing, airline costs rise, ticket prices
| rise.
|
| it's a single pipeline. every single one bottleneck has
| to be removed.
|
| let's start with TSA.
| 8organicbits wrote:
| Flying with an infant, I'm very happy I can bring a
| diaper bag and other essentials on board.
| rescbr wrote:
| As a person who regularly flies international with just a
| carry-on bag, I very much prefer to get out of the
| airport with my bag in 20 minutes after I leave the plane
| vs waiting who knows how long for it to arrive and hope
| that somebody didn't break it/into it.
|
| Newer planes/retrofitted ones with larger overhead bins
| with space for everybody are the solution.
| NickC25 wrote:
| > Speaking of which, did you know the TSA screening area is
| a farce?
|
| My man, the TSA is a jobs program disguised as security
| theater. It's also a funnel for money into contractors'
| pockets (see: Leidos).
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| The current situation is the worst possible. They cost
| tax money, they raise ticket prices, _and_ they make air
| travel worse for no benefit. If minimizing the jobs
| program is impossible, make them sit in a back room
| somewhere they can 't cause backups and ruin proposals.
| eadmund wrote:
| > > 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.
|
| Bin-packing is tough (look at Kubernetes!). Economically,
| giving folks willing to sit in a random seat an extra $10 and
| charging folks who want to sit together $10 is a wash.
|
| Evil is, you know, torture and genocide, not efficient
| allocation of limited space.
| LPisGood wrote:
| Can you elaborate on the Kubernetes bit
| DangitBobby wrote:
| I'm not GP, but I imagine it has to do with efficiently
| scheduling pods onto nodes to optimally support
| workloads, some of which have a resource affinity (CPU,
| MEM, Disk) that can only be supported by particular
| nodes. In this analogy the affinity would be a strong
| preference for isle and window seats or sitting with
| family. It's easier to have the pods sort themselves
| according to preference than to write a daemon to do it.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| Evil can be small and banal. Intentionally creating a
| negative outcome (algorithmically distance families) and
| charging people to escape it (preferred seating fees)
| certainly rhymes with a protection racket. It's purely the
| bad kind of capitalism, where instead of charging people
| for value you've created, you create new problems that only
| you can be paid to solve.
| kortilla wrote:
| Some seats are worth more than others (aisle/window vs
| middle). Putting families together means giving "preferred
| seats" away for no premium.
| AtlanticThird wrote:
| What do you mean there is no cost? Aisle and window seats are
| more valuable and can be sold for more, and this would force
| airlines to sell them to families without any up charge they
| would've received from other customers
| fwip wrote:
| If you're sitting together, that means at least one person
| is in the less-desirable middle seat, right?
| jjcob wrote:
| I have no issue with airlines offering reserved seats for
| money. Let people buy their aisle seats and window seats
| and exit rows.
|
| Most people don't give a shit where they sit, so most seats
| are not reserved. Traditionally, airlines tried to just put
| people close together when they booked together. When we
| check in, we just get random seats that are close together.
| That's okay. I'm fine with taking whatever seats no-one
| else wants.
|
| If I understand United marketing correctly, they will
| actively sit you apart from others in your group unless you
| buy an upgrade. That is, instead of assigning you some of
| the free spots close together, you get put as far apart as
| possible, and they hope that you will buy an upgrade to sit
| close together.
|
| Other airlines don't do that.
| tatersolid wrote:
| Is this a per-market thing?I'm from Chicago and therefore
| fly United with my family all the time. The website/app
| lets me pick all our seats at booking time in Economy
| class without any up charges.
| jjcob wrote:
| It's a benefit of "Economy" vs "Basic Economy". I saw it
| on an international flight. You pay 20% more and are
| allowed to sit with your family. At least that's how I
| understood their marketing. There also seem to be some
| exceptions for kids under 12, but I'm not sure how they
| work.
| mkipper wrote:
| I don't have any data to back this up, but I think window
| and aisle seats being more valuable doesn't necessarily
| mean they can be sold for more.
|
| I am very tall and I always pay for a seat with extra
| legroom in economy. Whenever I'm picking my seat early,
| almost every seat in economy is available. People _could_
| pay to reserve a window or aisle seat, but anecdotally it
| seems like almost no one does this. Everyone I know just
| tries to check in as early as possible so they can grab a
| good seat before they're all taken.
|
| I don't think airlines are actually losing any money by
| seating families together. It's not like all those window
| and aisle seats would have been paid for otherwise.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| An aside or window seat next to an unaccompanied toddler is
| worth considerably less.
| JackFr wrote:
| As a parent who once flew with a baby with an ear infection,
| I'll admit there were times I desperately wanted to be seated
| apart from her.
| NoLinkToMe wrote:
| > 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 willing to pay for it, and others (B) don't care about
| seat size and are willing to give-up space for a cheaper
| ticket.
|
| As such, 1 Passenger A may want to pay $250 instead to get a
| 30% bigger seat, while 3 passengers B give up 10% of their
| seat size and pay a $50 ticket. The airplane still collects
| $400 from 4 passengers as before, but the passengers are
| happier now. They have traded their individual desires, for
| something less valuable. A desired a bigger seat and thought
| $150 extra was less valuable than this bigger seat. B desired
| a $50 cheaper ticket and thought the smaller seat was less
| valuable. They traded and became happier.
|
| You may say but nah, airlines will simply charge for bigger
| seats and keep the smaller seats the same price. But they
| don't, because they must compete with other airlines that
| don't. If they could do this they would've already.
|
| For seat picking it's the same thing. A prefers to pay to sit
| close to a friend or partner. B doesn't care and prefers a
| cheaper ticket. Thus A pays a bit more, B pays a bit less.
|
| I've always had to pay for seating as long as I can remember,
| I never cared enough (except long international flights), so
| I enjoy slightly cheaper prices than a world where there was
| no choice. It's not as evil as it may seem at first glance.
| robofanatic wrote:
| > If it's when the passenger chooses to cancel, this seems fine
| and fair: he paid for a flight; he chose not to take it.
|
| It's fair only if he does it at the last minute OR the seat
| goes unsold.
| devilbunny wrote:
| I ask to switch sometimes, but I always offer them the better
| seat and aisle-for-aisle or window-for-window. You're sitting
| next to a stranger either way and I assure you that you don't
| want to be sitting next to my wife when I'm the one carrying
| much of the gear. I'll be passing her stuff constantly.
| jghn wrote:
| I know way too many parents who take the stance of not
| bothering to pay for assigned seating, on the assumption that
| people will move around to accommodate them.
|
| As someone who pays for an assigned seat so I can sit where I
| want, this annoys the crap out of me as now they expect people
| like me to move.
|
| When I point this out, their response is "why should I pay for
| that?"
|
| I agree with the airlines here but if it makes life overall
| less stressful for all to put families together due to the bad
| behavior of those parents, I'm fine with it.
| Larrikin wrote:
| You don't have to engage or justify staying in your seat,
| just say no thank you and end the conversation
| jghn wrote:
| Have you never seen a confrontation erupt from this? Or a
| flight attendant "suggesting" the person being asked to
| move?
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| No. Is there compensation given, since assigned seating
| costs more than non?
| jghn wrote:
| I've been bumped out of my paid preassigned seat for
| other reasons and have never received compensation.
| jen20 wrote:
| Despite flying at least 10-15 times a month on average, I
| have actually never seen this happen. Reddit suggests
| that there is an epidemic of it. The actual problem is an
| epidemic of terminally online dipshits making mountains
| out of molehills.
| jghn wrote:
| And yet as someone who only flies 10-15 times a year and
| being a terminally online dipshit, I have seen this
| happen. Not like one of those TikTok videos with
| fisticuffs, mind you.
|
| I remember as I was annoyed that this whole thing was
| holding up my flight. Family asked someone to move, they
| declined, family kept insisting. Boarding line was
| getting held up due to this. FA arrives, starts imploring
| the man to move his seat, obviously just trying to get
| boarding complete so we can all move on with our lives.
| Eventually the man got up & changed.
| thieving_magpie wrote:
| And I'll smile back knowing you're about to have a really
| great flight with my 3 year old :)
|
| (to be clear, I don't do this personally and pay extra to
| sit together but I do hope people start parking their kids
| all over the plane since that's what we all seem to want!
| It's tempting.)
| tsycho wrote:
| 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 all
| seat assignments paid. And hating airlines is completely
| justified.
|
| But I find the entitlement of parents, that other
| passengers should accommodate their parsimonious
| preferences, just amazing.
| vonneumannstan wrote:
| >On the one hand, this seems fair. If you want to sit together,
| pay for that privilege. It doesn't make sense to tax every
| other passenger for it. OTOH, families are a net benefit to
| society, so maybe it's right for everyone else to pitch in a
| bit. Also, nothing is worse than the folks who didn't pay up
| ahead of time who bug one, 'may we switch seats so we can sit
| together?' So perhaps free family seating makes life easier for
| everyone.
|
| I don't understand, are people buying random tickets and hoping
| to be put together once on the plane? I've literally only
| bought assigned seats on flights except on Southwest.
| kortilla wrote:
| Yes, exactly. They want to avoid the upcharge for seat
| selection so they roll the dice and hope.
| jvvw wrote:
| If you're travelling with young children being seated together
| isn't a luxury, so it's basically a tax on travelling with
| children, and a fairly expensive one ($100 easily for a return
| flight perhaps for four seats?) when you've paid it for all the
| seats for your family.
|
| Though when we had young children, we seriously considered not
| paying and enjoying having somebody else looking after our four
| or five year old for the flight :-)
|
| Given it is a necessity, I feel it should either be a
| compulsory extra cost if you have children below a certain age
| or it should (ideally) be free to be seated together, so that
| people who do pay for particular seats know that there won't be
| an unsupervised child allocated to the seat next to them.
| msluyter wrote:
| Random family seating anecdote. A couple of years ago, we were
| on vacation and my wife had to go home early to tend for a sick
| pet. My daughter and I also re-arranged our flight to get home
| early, and ended up in like the D boarding group (on
| Southwest). So we're getting on the plane and we're almost dead
| last, and there are very few seats left together anywhere. My 6
| yr old daughter was not really emotionally equipped to sit
| alone at that point.
|
| We get about 2/3 of the down and there's now nothing, so I say
| -- with some desperation -- "If someone would be willing to
| switch seats so my daughter and I can sit together I'll give
| you $20." A guy says "I don't want the money but I'll switch."
|
| Which sort of shows that if you're not a jerk, and you ask
| nicely, often people will go out of their way to help you.
|
| Families who seem to _expect_ other passengers to move,
| _especially_ when there 's assigned seating, are another story,
| and deserve the condemnation they get, IMHO.
| _heimdall wrote:
| > [Elimination of] Automatic Refunds for Cancellations
|
| I believe this is referring to when the airline cancels or
| meaningfully changes the flight. They already don't guarantee
| refunds if you cancel.
| lxgr wrote:
| > If you want to sit together, pay for that privilege.
|
| What privilege? Assigning seats next to each other costs
| airlines next to nothing (assuming they assign seats in the
| first place, which almost all of them do).
| kumarsw wrote:
| Paying for a group to sit together is really just a roundabout
| way of charging extra for the middle seat that solo travelers
| don't want. There's something gross about it, creating a market
| price for a nonexistent good.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > Also, nothing is worse than the folks who didn't pay up ahead
| of time who bug one, 'may we switch seats so we can sit
| together?' So perhaps free family seating makes life easier for
| everyone.
|
| This is my absolute pet hate. Most of the airlines I fly
| frequently with specifically throw up a dialog box making you
| acknowledge "I have no seat selection options with this fare",
| yet every flight, I'll see people doing this stupid seat dance.
| No, I chose the seat I wanted for a reason.
| camillomiller wrote:
| They can't in Europe because of ... mmm let me check ... oh yeah:
| REGULATION.
| throaway5445454 wrote:
| just wait till Trump gives them another deal they can't refuse
| lol
| jdiff wrote:
| The rest of the world's already discovered an easy out:
| negotiate by promising to do what you've already been doing
| for the past decade. As long as he hasn't been fed some idea
| to fixate on, he's an easy mark that can be placated by
| literally anything.
| throaway5445454 wrote:
| 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? Please correct
| my figures if they're wrong.
| warkdarrior wrote:
| 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.
| handwarmers wrote:
| You should try your REGULATION trick with Lufthansa's customer
| support.
| cccbbbaaa wrote:
| I did. It worked without issues on my end.
| camillomiller wrote:
| Did many times. It has to work and they have to pay.
| panick21_ wrote:
| Ironically in Europe we have some decent regulation for airlines,
| but the public train operating companies refuse to do the same
| for trains. We need to have some of those same protection and
| transparency requirements for train companies as well.
|
| But the governments of the big operating companies have vetoed
| this so far. Sometimes deregulation actually makes it easier to
| implement regulation.
| hannasanarion wrote:
| Train operators aren't as strictly regulated because they can't
| do as much harm, both in terms of the inherent catastraophic
| consequences of air travel disasters for passengers and
| bystanders, and in terms of the financial risk that passengers
| take on by purchasing a ticket. A no-refunds-for-cancellations
| policy on a $100 intercity train ticket that rarely ever
| cancels hits different from a $400 flight itinerary that
| cancels multiple times a week because of normal weather.
| jen20 wrote:
| Have you compared the cost of a train to a flight in Europe?
| Often the flight is _substantially_ cheaper, especially in
| the UK.
| panick21_ wrote:
| I don't think that's true. If you book a connection that
| involves multiple high speed trains across multiple country
| you can easily pay 1000s of $. Its actually more then many
| direct flights in Europe.
|
| And for example if you take TGV from Paris to the German
| border, and you have to get on an ICE. If the TGV is late,
| you miss the connection to the ICE, and have to sleep in the
| border town, TGV doesn't have to pay.
|
| And missing connection is quite common, specially because
| Germany is ... not very German.
|
| In terms of safety, a train accident can kill 100s of people.
| They just don't happen very often.
| eterm wrote:
| One of the best things to happen lately in the UK is "Delay
| Repay": https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/help-and-
| assistance/compensat...
|
| Made it much easier to get compensation for delayed and
| canceled trains. ( Of which there are many ).
|
| It's not a significant amount for minor delays, but it makes
| traveling on trains just that little bit less miserable.
| hedora wrote:
| Your trains are at least 10x better than US airlines from a
| passenger perspective.
| lxgr wrote:
| > the public train operating companies refuse to do the same
| for trains. We need to have some of those same protection and
| transparency requirements for train companies as well.
|
| Huh? We do!
|
| There are very similar EU regulations for train travel:
| https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/travel/passenger-right...
|
| On a completely unrelated note, I recently noticed that
| Deutsche Bahn seems to have some of their train schedules
| staggered by 58 minutes instead of one hour - which means that
| the 25% refund for a delayed arrival due to a missed connection
| that didn't wait will usually not kick in :)
| panick21_ wrote:
| 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 parties. Train
| companies do everything in their power to silo as much as
| they can to force costumers into booking threw their app.
| lxgr wrote:
| > 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 embrace GDSes
| and force you to use their app as well (I've been bitten by
| that once when booking through a "non-cooperative
| OTA/reseller and not being able to access my boarding
| pass), and conversely, I think some train connections are
| selling tickets to travel agencies these days.
|
| > 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.
|
| Sure? EU regulation 2021/782, article 20 would disagree:
| https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
| content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A...
| hiphipjorge wrote:
| I honestly think it's pretty amazing how cheap air travel already
| is in the USA and Europe. It explains why we're seeing all time
| highs for air travel.
|
| The air industry seems like a good example of just the right
| level of regulation: There's tons of competition, different
| pricing tiers with their corresponding levels of quality, and a
| lot of dynamism combined with a good set of consumer base
| regulations (24 hour cancellation period, for example).
| handwarmers wrote:
| This might be the case if all your travel boils down to off
| season direct flights between major airports.
|
| In my experience, it has been rapidly going up in price and
| down in quality since the end of the pandemic. You have very
| few protections as a passenger, and while you may have some
| rights on paper, they have been made excruciatingly difficult
| to pursue with the way support lines work with airlines.
|
| To add insult to the injury, look up the history of bailouts
| airlines have received.
| ragazzina wrote:
| > while you may have some rights on paper, they have been
| made excruciatingly difficult to pursue
|
| Are you in the US? In the EU there are many websites that
| help you get a cancellation/delay refund, they require little
| more than your boarding pass, and they work very well for a
| small (sometimes none) fee. The fee is taken from your refund
| so if you don't get one, you don't have to pay anything.
| vonneumannstan wrote:
| You probably work for Boeing lmao
| charrondev wrote:
| Is it just me or is this an awful "article"? It mention
| deregulation but doesn't point to what specific regulations have
| been removed. I took a Delta flight 2 weeks ago (one that
| supposedly had implemented all of these draconian rollbacks) and
| had the same experience I've had for the past 10 years:
|
| - price of the ticket was as advertised - a checked bag was an
| option at the same price it has always been. - I was able to
| assign a seat next to my husband without additional fees.
|
| Now while this flight was not cancelled, I've had to reschedule
| some flights with Delta due to illness previously and they just
| gave me a 100% credit for the cost of the flight that was easy to
| use.
|
| The only contrast for cancellation I know is the nightmare of Air
| Canada. In the past I've had flights get cancelled and only got
| "vouchers" that could only be used by calling a specific number
| that took 1 hour+ and were not applicable for taxes (you know
| half the cost of a Canadian Airline Ticket), and would be lost of
| not fully used in one purchases
| whatsupdog wrote:
| Air Canada vouchers also expire in one year. I had the
| misfortune of having a flight cancelled at the beginning of
| COVID. They never refunded me, because apparently you had to go
| fill a form to apply for a refund within a few days of
| cancellation. Air Canada is the worst.
| bsimpson wrote:
| I'd be curious to see how the all-in price of airline tickets has
| evolved in recent decades. It feels like it's now commonplace to
| have hundreds of dollars in additional fees for things like
| legroom. That means a cheap ticket is a midrange ticket and a
| midrange ticket can end up being quite expensive unless you fall
| for the "we get to strap you behind the bathroom with only the
| clothes on your back" Saver ticket.
|
| It also means that you're often still out actual money if you use
| award miles.
| izacus wrote:
| Hundreds of dollars for legroom? Are you... sure? For what kind
| of flights?
| ghaff wrote:
| I'm most familiar with United. Economy Plus (which is mostly
| about a bit more legroom) does have a modest premium absent
| sufficient status that gets you it for free. But Premium
| Economy that gives you somewhat wider seats as well as
| legroom gets into the hundreds of dollars. International
| business has lots of benefits including legroom and lie flat
| seating but that usually gets into the thousands.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| Nothing should be allowed to be called "Premium Economy"
| ghaff wrote:
| Eh, they already had economy plus. Premium economy is
| basically traditional domestic business class on widebody
| international flights that have lie-flat business
| (Polaris) seating as well. Honestly, putting it in the
| economy bucket in contrast to Polaris seems pretty honest
| in the scheme of things.
| whatshisface wrote:
| Premium doesn't have to mean "elite," it might also refer
| to a risk premium or any situation where a buyer has to
| pay extra. ;)
| matwood wrote:
| 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 route, you can usually keep
| shopping for an upgrade and just go all the way to lay flat
| business. Side note, when going business class, understand
| that not all plane layouts and seats are the same. Check
| seat guru.
|
| Source - I fly back and forth to the EU quite a bit.
| ghaff wrote:
| I agree with all that. The food still isn't great. And
| the seat still isn't great for a red-eye relative to
| business. I wouldn't generally work on a plane anyway.
| I've been in PE--don't remember the circumstances--but as
| I recall didn't think it was anything special for the
| cost.
| matwood wrote:
| 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.
| ghaff wrote:
| >it's an airplane
|
| Yeah. For me, $5K or whatever is still a decent amount
| and, even if you just put it in the vacation pile, that's
| a decent amount for meals and other experiences vs. being
| a bit more comfortable over a 10 hour (or whatever)
| flight.
| matwood wrote:
| My trick is that I always just buy the base economy
| ticket that can still be upgraded. Then I check for
| upgrades every couple days. What I found is that prices
| to move classes will vary _wildly_ as they try to sell
| all the seats. It also makes it easier to upgrade a
| single leg - an overnight flight is more important to be
| lay flat than a daytime flight for example.
|
| The other part of my equation is that I put a 'dollar
| figure x flight time' that I'm willing to pay to be more
| comfortable. If I see a price that hits my threshold I
| upgrade, otherwise not.
| thfuran wrote:
| > 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.
| chrisbolt wrote:
| Seatguru hasn't been updated in ages, use
| https://www.aerolopa.com instead
| bsimpson wrote:
| SG has failed me a lot lately. Thanks for the tip!
| runako wrote:
| 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.
| onionisafruit wrote:
| Don't forget they give you all the 10C/ bags of sun chips
| you can eat.
| galaxy_gas wrote:
| Recently I had received a mini packet of crisps that had
| four in it.
|
| Four
|
| How is that even worth the packaging cost
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| I've never understood why boarding early is considered a
| premium worth paying for (for normal flights with assigned
| seating). Planes are never as comfortable as whatever I
| have access to in the airport, whether that's hanging out
| in the lounge or sipping a drink at a restaurant, or just
| stretching my legs walking around the airport.
| abawany wrote:
| 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.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| Yep. I've taken several flights in the past few months,
| and _every time_ by the time my boarding group was
| called, the staff announced that there was no more
| overhead bin space, and people would have to check bags.
| asdff wrote:
| Then they gate check it which is a perk for me honestly.
| Now I don't have to schlep a bag anymore.
| tclancy wrote:
| US flights (99% of what I have experienced) definitely can
| get into three figures for anything other than "middle seat,
| way back". They know there's at least a built-in audience of
| taller people who will spring for legroom on any flight over
| an hour. And now that I am old and tall, an aisle seat and
| legroom are incredibly valuable to me (don't tell 'em, ok?).
| Y_Y wrote:
| 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 I'm sure
| plenty of people who are wider than the seat would like to
| fit without going first class. I'm not even so unusually
| sized, but cannot sit in the aisle without being hit by
| every person and trolley passing by.
| jdlshore wrote:
| Most airlines require very wide people to buy an extra
| seat. The requirement is that they have to be able to
| lower the armrest.
| toast0 wrote:
| There's rules for passengers and airlines... but
| enforcement is limited, because who wants to slow down
| boarding by checking.
|
| And compliance is hard for passengers, because you have
| to call in to book the special case, and who wants to
| call in?
|
| But theoretically, a passenger that will encroach on an
| adjacent seat can pay for the extra seat (I don't know if
| they need to also pay for seat assignment to get two
| seats next to each other), and then if the flight doesn't
| actually sell out, the extra seat fee is refundable. But
| when you actually board, people will see the 'empty' seat
| and try to sit in it, even though you paid for it. Etc.
| mjparrott wrote:
| One example: Chicago to New York on United, direct flight
| that is ~2.5 hours. $209 for economy and $381 for Economy
| Plus. This is a $172 difference.
| hopelite wrote:
| Maybe karma for short jokes?
|
| Next up, $200 for head-room. You didn't think you could fly
| keeping your head upright for free, did you?
| sroussey wrote:
| And its even more for first class!
| showerst wrote:
| Sure, but everyone agrees that first class is full of
| perks. "People taller than 6'1 can sit here without being
| in pain" shouldn't be a multi-hundred dollar up charge.
| joshstrange wrote:
| Yes, as a 6' 2" person, I can assure you that a single leg of
| a flight will be less that $100 but round trip and multiple
| legs moves it to $200+ very easily.
| onionisafruit wrote:
| The point of the comment is it's hard to be sure because the
| pricing is anything but clear.
| mkipper wrote:
| I'm 6'6" and I basically treat an exit row upgrade as non-
| negotiable. It's just a fundamental cost of long haul travel
| for me if I can't swing premium economy or business class.
|
| To get some extra legroom, I paid (round trip, in CAD) $250
| for a trip to Dublin this year and $320 for a trip to Hong
| Kong in 2023. That's a lot of money, but it was <50% of the
| cost to upgrade to premium economy and <20% of the cost to
| upgrade to business class.
|
| This _used_ to be much cheaper. I remember paying ~$100 for
| similar upgrades a decade ago, but airlines got wise to this
| at some point and jacked the prices way up.
| pimlottc wrote:
| Ah, for the days of old, when you could just ask nicely at
| the counter for exit row...
| mkipper wrote:
| This isn't totally dead. I missed a flight last year and
| got bumped to a flight the next morning on some weird
| ticket class where I didn't get a seat assignment until
| the gate. The gate agent was able to give me a bulkhead
| seat with extra legroom at no cost. And this was with
| United, not some airline with a shining reputation for
| customer service.
|
| So you _can_ roll the dice and try to get a premium seat
| at the gate, but that 's not a risk I'm usually willing
| to take.
| hopelite wrote:
| Related to that; I am curious in what airlines think they will
| get or what motivates them to prioritize being deceptive,
| sneaky, dishonest, manipulative, lying, con-artists, i.e., just
| abusive all around? If everyone is required to provide "all in
| pricing" then there is no competitive advantage in being a
| bigger, better fraud; so must it be concluded that they think
| they have a competitive advantage at being the better scheming,
| fraudulent, manipulative con artist?
|
| The airline market is so constricted and basically well across
| the line of a cartel, but I guess they think they get something
| out of it or do they just like the getting one over on people?
| "ha, you thought you were going to have a good time with your
| family or see your grandmother's funeral for X price, but we
| squeezed another $200 out of you, Sucker! *board room high
| fives all around*"
|
| Or maybe is it a kind of momentum of the people and
| organizational structure that was built up over many years,
| aimed at facilitating the con and fraud perpetrated on the
| public that still has power to manipulate the airline
| enterprises themselves? The people who used to do that are
| after all, as I assume adept and oriented towards being
| deceptive, manipulative, scheming.
|
| It's all a bit odd to me and I would love if someone could
| spill the beans on what motivates the airlines on being so
| adamant about cheating, lying, abusing, scamming, conning and
| generally being really awful to people and society.
| nemomarx wrote:
| First principle is that customers will choose whoever has the
| cheapest flights in general, and airlines that try to market
| on having an inclusive price without surprise fees suffer
| anyway because the real cost is closer to fees.
|
| The second is price discrimination - think current McDonald's
| prices. Soaking people who can afford it and letting people
| who are very frugal navigate your confusing system and
| membership etc is worth a good amount of money
| ghaff wrote:
| I'll just amend to say that many on this forum are probably
| not super price-sensitive. But, within the broader
| population, many people are going to be more or less
| unconditionally looking to shave $100 off their family
| vacation. Which encourages a lot of a la carte nickel and
| diming over all-in charges.
| cats_4_freedom wrote:
| Not entirely true with the cheapest = first. I've been
| using a reputed and magnanimous airline for years and it
| doesn't matter what the other low-blow contenders are
| offering.
|
| As long as it's in my anticipated budget, I want comfort,
| consistency, and courage. These undercutters have me scared
| they shaved off a wing to save on price. @#$% them. I fly
| with my airline, and these jerkoffs who want to bend over
| for fascism can die with it.
| nemomarx wrote:
| Out of interest, which airline? I've never found a
| particularly good one in the us.
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| I absolutely love Delta. I'll fly other airlines
| domestically occasionally. But I have found their
| customer service to be top notch and they have the best
| web interface/app.
| cats_4_freedom wrote:
| Nope. A good airline is hard to find (as long as they
| aren't f@sc1st$)
| Spooky23 wrote:
| It's really easy: it's all about revenue maximization.
|
| Honestly, people fly too much. I'm 6'5 with a 24" shoulder -
| flying economy is painful for me and the poor soul stuck next
| to me.
|
| I don't need to fly for business and am fortunate to have a
| lot of PTO. So, I fly first class, business class, or not at
| all. If the cost is too much, i drive. There's virtually no
| east coast trip that is more unpleasant to me via car. I'm
| young enough that I can do NY to Georgia or Chicago overnight
| with no ill effect. There's so much wasted time around the
| airport many flights don't even save time.
|
| I'm going on a trip to Asia in the early spring with my kid.
| I could save like $4000 flying in the back... but why? If
| that amount of money is breaking the bank, I cannot afford
| two weeks there anyway.
| tptacek wrote:
| I regret to clarify here that you will definitely save time
| flying between NYC and Chicago. Would that it were
| otherwise! Toronto is arguable.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Fair. But I have a price -- increased travel time yields
| me some Duff's Wings in Buffalo!
| bsder wrote:
| You won't save time, but, man, with the price of car
| rentals lately you will save a _TON_ of money depending on
| how long you need to stay.
| EE84M3i wrote:
| To add to this - is there some kind of general rule for what
| specific industries will devolve into the pattern of having
| these sorts of anti-consumer practices? Off the top of my
| mind I can think of cable companies, gyms, cellphone
| providers, airlines, live events. Is it market capture and/or
| the high cost of switching providers that prevents meaningful
| competition?
| myrmidon wrote:
| I think the main motivation is simply that reduced
| transparency enables better price discrimination: As a
| company, you want every individual to pay as much as they are
| willing/capable. You explicitly _don 't_ want to sell the
| same service for the same price to everyone.
| hoistbypetard wrote:
| The Behind the Bastards podcast episodes covering Frank
| Lorenzo might be right down your alley:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bmGff5f-Ug
|
| (They are available from all the usual podcast places, but it
| just happens that the youtube mirror is the easiest way I
| know to link a specific episode.)
| pixl97 wrote:
| > _board room high fives all around_ "
|
| Things like bonuses tend to be driven by short term gains.
| Who gives a hell about a few years from now when you can get
| an extra $xxxxxxx in your paycheck now.
| philjackson wrote:
| Trump really has enabled grifting en mass. Any semblance of
| corporate responsibility out of the window.
| tehjoker wrote:
| Don't forget that it was Delta airlines that lobbied the Biden
| administration that got CDC to reduce isolation duration. Both
| administrations are deadly liars. When it comes to the
| airlines, the last administration's deregulation killed people,
| a lot of them. Not that if Trump was in power he would have
| done anything different.
| clcaev wrote:
| As more legislators (and supreme court judges) use their donors'
| private airplanes, how much will they think about the typical
| flight experience?
| WaitWaitWha wrote:
| I echo what some already stated. I think this topic if real needs
| to be known. Problem is that I cannot find any reference _where_
| this information is coming from.
|
| Give me a link, document, reference, or something to back up the
| claims. Otherwise it comes across as FUD.
| egonschiele wrote:
| > Family Seating Guarantees: Under current regulations, airlines
| must ensure that families with young children are seated together
| without additional charges. This would no longer be guaranteed
| under the new proposal, meaning families could face extra costs
| just to sit next to one another.
|
| This one is wild. You want to sit next to somebody's crying 2
| year old? Go nuts. Change their diaper while you're at it.
| AtlanticThird wrote:
| I don't think that's what anyone wants. I think they just want
| families with young children to pay to sit together, like
| everyone else has to
| rimunroe wrote:
| Flying with babies (and other young children) presents
| challenges which "everyone else" doesn't have to deal with.
| Babies and children need much more attention. Babies are much
| more likely to throw tantrums, to feel pain from pressure
| changes, to be sick, etc. They often need a LOT of soothing.
| Many also need to be breast fed (some babies don't take
| bottles), which depending on the baby's length and the side
| they're nursing on may involve their legs sticking into the
| aisle or their neighbor's space. They also like to fling
| solid foods, spit up or vomit with no warning, and are
| generally fantastic at making messes.
|
| My spouse and I just finished our first two flights with our
| 11 month old this weekend which were about 3.5 and 4 hours
| apiece. Even with an extra seat reserved for them and an
| overall extremely well tempered baby, I cannot imagine how
| much harder the flight would have been if the gate agent
| hadn't been able to rearrange our seats so all three of us
| were sitting together. If that hadn't been guaranteed, we
| would have had to ask one of the neighbors to swap seats with
| us. They'd have been highly motivated to do so, but it
| wouldn't have been a sure thing. They may have their own
| needs. Impromptu swaps during boarding seems not great for
| making the process go smoothly.
|
| Having to get an extra seat to fit a car seat for an infant
| isn't required, but flying with the infant in a car seat is
| strongly recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
| Having somewhere to put the baby or their various
| toys/bottles temporarily helps a whole lot over a four hour
| flight. This already added $500 onto the price of our trip.
|
| The cost of raising children is already very high in the US,
| so it will really suck if flying becomes yet more expensive
| and stressful. In my opinion, this (and _many_ others) are a
| cost which we should spread out if we actually want people to
| have kids.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| The "growth every quarter" is a disease that is going to
| destroy our civilization, said without an ounce of
| hyperbole.
|
| Air travel is a solved problem and there's no innovation
| really to be done; the planes are packed like cans of
| sardines most of the time, the food is awful, and the
| travel itself is expensive, cumbersome, and a miserable
| experience overall but they are _STILL_ trying to find ways
| to juice revenue, up to and including separating children
| from parents and charging them to be put back together.
| tveyben wrote:
| Do kids have to fly...???
| scruple wrote:
| No one does, so what's your point?
| rimunroe wrote:
| A small correction, but there are plenty of reasons
| someone might require flying. The travel might be
| required and also be on a tight schedule or terrain might
| be impractical to traverse by other methods. As an
| example: a friend of mine had to fly across the
| continental US for spinal surgery because traveling is
| stressful on the body and they couldn't be e.g. on a
| train for multiple days. People move across oceans all
| the time and might not have the luxury of being able to
| make a long trip by boat.
| ASinclair wrote:
| Do adults have to fly? Certainly they could walk or swim
| to their destination.
| hiroantag wrote:
| What an odd question...families travel all the time for
| vacations or to see grandma and grandpa for thanksgiving.
| You can't leave a kid at home.
| zerkten wrote:
| You would think that this is an odd question. It's such
| an odd question if grant a degree of anonymity. I've seen
| a similar type of question, as it relates to affordances
| for parents in the workplace, like no on-call for a time
| when a newborn is on the scene. I don't know if this is
| just happening because people are feeling unfairly
| impacted when folks on teams become parents, but I'm
| always bracing for these comments now.
| lurking_swe wrote:
| imo people asking those questions have no empathy, or
| they are just dumb. :)
|
| You don't _want_ a sleep deprived new parent on-call. A
| sleep deprived person is not who you want responding to
| an emergency, so of course others should pick up the
| slack temporarily. That's what being a TEAM is all about.
| Kind of like playing a sport?
|
| Now if the team is tiny the on-call impact will be a much
| bigger deal, and i sympathize, but in that case i'd blame
| management for having poor redundancy / contingency
| plans, NOT my colleague.
|
| And for some reason there's always some snarky person who
| chimes in with a comment like "but they chose to become
| parents!" A tale as old as time... so did our own
| parents! They chose. But i'm a human being that has
| empathy and i'm grateful to those who helped pick up the
| slack during their stressful newborn phase.
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| Then pay the extra money to choose your seat like most
| adults do. Delta said in an earnings call for instance
| that less than 5% choose basic economy where you can't
| choose your seat.
| rimunroe wrote:
| > Then pay the extra money to choose your seat like most
| adults do.
|
| It's an additional expense which isn't a luxury for
| parents. You can't sit far from an infant for 6+ hours
| because they _need_ close attention. Also, sometimes
| there aren 't adjacent seats for you to choose.
| Nevertheless, gate agents are usually able to somehow
| make things work. I'm not sure how they do this on a
| packed flight though. I didn't notice anyone being called
| over the PA after a gate agent moved all three of our
| seats to a different row on our last packed flight.
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| Flying _is_ a luxury. It's one thing to pay taxes to fund
| the school system, pre-K, health care, even state
| college. I'm all for that. But if you want to fly as a
| parent either suck it up and pay or don't fly. There are
| parents who take long road trips because they can't
| afford to fly.
|
| But I paid for my seat and if I did pay to sit next to my
| wife (which isn't really a big deal for either of us), I
| would be really pissed if my seat was changed because a
| parent was too cheap to pay to have an assigned seat.
|
| My wife and I have chosen a different flight because the
| seats we wanted wasn't available.
|
| Of course all of these opinions of mine go out of the
| window if it truly is an emergency. But even then, at
| least with Delta, they only allocate a certain number of
| seats as "basic economy" and once those are sold out -
| like they might be on a last minute flight - you have to
| pay a fare where you choose your seat.
| rimunroe wrote:
| > Flying _is_ a luxury.
|
| You appear to have since edited your comment, but the
| version I replied to referred to _being able to choose a
| seat_ as the luxury, not flying itself. As I 've said
| elsewhere, flying is either a straight up necessity in
| some cases and a practical one in others. As I've also
| said in other places, people without kids can fly without
| need of choosing their seats.
|
| > But I paid for my seat and if I did pay to sit next to
| my wife (which isn't really a big deal for either of us),
| I would be really pissed if my seat was changed because a
| parent was too cheap to pay to have an assigned seat.
|
| You can debate on whether or not flying is a necessity,
| but if we're flying then it's a luxury for you to sit
| next to your wife but it's a necessity for me to sit next
| to my infant.
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| It's a distinction without a difference. Just like flying
| is a luxury. I paid to sit next to my wife. You can pay
| to sit next to your infant. Don't inconvenience me
| because you want to save a couple of hundred dollars.
|
| You have to pay for all sorts of "necessities" because
| you have kids - just add that to the list.
| rimunroe wrote:
| > It's a distinction without a difference.
|
| That difference matters quite a bit if you're
| specifically arguing about how people who are going to
| fly get to experience said flight.
|
| [Edit] If you don't believe that parents have as much
| reason to fly as anyone else I don't think there's much
| point to further discussion. However if you do believe it
| then whether or not assigned seating _specifically_
| counts as a luxury matters quite a bit.
|
| > You have to pay for all sorts of "necessities" because
| you have kids - just add that to the list.
|
| Why should we accept increasing the relative cost of
| having kids? That's a very good way to make having kids
| prohibitively expensive and part of how we've gotten to
| the point we're at. I'm in my late 30s and most of my
| friends chose not to have kids. For quite a few of those
| friends, they decided not to have them specifically
| because of how expensive it's become. You might think
| that's acceptable or even good, but birthrates are
| declining and people don't seem interested in allowing
| immigrants to come in and fill the void so I'm not sure
| what the endgame here is.
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| I didn't say parents shouldn't fly. I said if you want to
| be able to select yoir seat, pay just like other people
| do.
|
| > Why should we accept increasing the relative cost of
| having kids?
|
| So i now live 10 miles away from DisneyWorld, should my
| ticket prices also be more so your kids can get in free
| when we only have to pay for two adults? We were also
| able to downsize to a 1200 foot condo from a 3100 square
| foot house, we can spend our money on vacations instead
| of travel hockey like my friend.
|
| What next? Should airlines have "kids fly free"?
|
| > _You might think that 's acceptable or even good, but
| birthrates are declining and people don't seem interested
| in allowing immigrants to come in and fill the void so
| I'm not sure what the endgame here is._
|
| I'm all for both low skill and high skill immigrants
| coming in where there is actually a shortage.
|
| But play me the smallest fiddle because you don't think
| you should have to pay for a ticket to reserve your seat
| requiring other people to move. See also, if you are too
| big to fit in one seat without encroaching on my space,
| you should also have to buy two seats - a policy many of
| the airlines have.
| AtlanticThird wrote:
| He said had to, as in necessities. No one has to go on
| vacations, much less fly for them
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| Well then if the people without kids don't like it they
| can just not fly.
| AtlanticThird wrote:
| Or we can treat people equally and not discriminate based
| on whether or not they have kids
| rimunroe wrote:
| > Or we can treat people equally and not discriminate
| based on whether or not they have kids
|
| Society _has_ to treat parents differently because
| children are necessary for society to continue. If you
| make being a parent sufficiently burdensome, people will
| choose not to have them.
| butlike wrote:
| Feel like grandma is more capable of traveling to see the
| kids with the newborn than the other way around
| rimunroe wrote:
| Newborns are often basically potatoes and relatively easy
| to travel with
| rimunroe wrote:
| Yes, just like other people need to. Families move.
| Families are spread out. Families go on vacation.
|
| We traveled so my only remaining grandparent could meet
| her great granddaughter before she dies, which could be
| any day now. Do you think we should make doing that
| harder just for slightly higher profits?
| AtlanticThird wrote:
| Hmmm didn't realize families had to go on vacation, and
| even more so they had to do it by flying
|
| I didn't do these things for economic reasons growing up,
| and I'm perfectly fine today
| rimunroe wrote:
| You're free to argue people shouldn't expect to be able
| to go on vacation once in a while or see family. However,
| not only do I think that's absurd but it doesn't address
| my other examples.
| bluGill wrote:
| They don't have to go to Grandma's funeral I guess.
| However they will fly if they are going to make it on
| time. (This is a real situation for me a few years ago)
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Let it be the airlines problem. My screaming five year old
| is going to generate a bunch of complaints and refunds for
| the airline.
|
| The kid will get over it, and the misery of the rest of the
| people on the flight isn't my problem. The stewardess can
| deal with it and nobody gets their peanuts.
| rimunroe wrote:
| I'd rather it be solely a problem of their profits rather
| than adding inconvenience to families as well. Also, my
| kid is going to be a lot happier and less likely to be
| upset and bother everyone else if both of us are there to
| entertain her and keep each other from being frazzled.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Agreed. The point of these things is that the company is
| betting on you doing the decent thing at your expense. I
| refuse to accommodate their failure.
|
| I was in one of these situations once where we missed a
| scheduled flight because of an airline screwup, and they
| refused to accommodate us without a substantial payment -
| thousands of dollars. Frankly, I couldn't afford it. This
| despite the fact I already paid for an assigned seat on
| the fubar flight.
|
| The predictable outcome happened after they pulled away
| from the gate and the flight crew came to me and my
| response was "He's 20 rows away, what do you expect me to
| do? Sounds like the options are to move us, or return to
| the gate."
|
| They figured it out and were great about it, but the
| whole situation was stressful to everyone and was
| completely unnecessary. Flight crews are busy and it's
| just senseless toil.
| mothballed wrote:
| There's a lot of kids that aren't like that once they
| reach, say, toddler age. They know they can terrorize
| mom/dad as much as they like and they'll still be there,
| so they ruthlessly exploit that. They can be ruthlessly
| terrorizing next to their parents, but put them next to a
| stranger they'll be polite and relatively quiet because
| they intuitively know they are capable of anything.
|
| i.e. when my child was young, a waiter could hand them a
| lemonade and they'd be ecstatic. If I handed them the
| same lemonade, they would start screaming at me the color
| of cup was wrong.
| rimunroe wrote:
| I can imagine! I'm just speaking of my kid in this
| current week. By next week she'll be offering us a
| completely different traveling experience
| butlike wrote:
| they're flight attendants now
| AtlanticThird wrote:
| I'm fine subsidizing necessities for kids, but flying is a
| luxury
| rimunroe wrote:
| As I said elsewhere in the thread there are situations
| where it's not a luxury. A bigger point though is that
| it's an additional burden on parents for something
| childless people simply don't need to deal with.
| Childless people might want assigned seats, but they
| don't _need_ to sit next to an infant. When a parent can
| 't sit near their kid it negatively impacts everyone else
| on board the aircraft. It might result in the kid
| screaming more, but it'll also definitely require people
| to get up and shuffle around more frequently as parents
| come to change/feed/soothe their infants (car
| seats/bassinets are not supposed to be in aisle seats).
| sokoloff wrote:
| Then the airlines should offer those more flexible people
| the option to buy a cheaper ticket that doesn't include
| seat assignment. Just brainstorming here, they might call
| those tickets "Basic" or something.
|
| Then, people with that flexibility could offer that
| flexibility to the airline in exchange for a cheaper
| ticket that meets their needs and people who don't have
| the same level of flexibility could buy tickets that
| reflect their needs.
|
| I say this as a parent who pays for assigned seats
| because we choose to buy tickets that reflect our actual
| level of flexibility.
| rimunroe wrote:
| I assume this is a somewhat flippant/sarcastic response,
| but it completely ignores the gist of the message (well,
| multiple messages) you're replying to.
|
| > I say this as a parent who pays for assigned seats
| because we choose to buy tickets that reflect our actual
| level of flexibility.
|
| For what it's worth, I'm saying all this as a parent who
| flies on airlines where assigned seats are the only
| option afaik
| sokoloff wrote:
| I don't think it does. People with flexibility to be
| assigned to sit next to whomever and willingness to sit
| in middle seats ought to be able to pay less in exchange
| for providing that flexibility.
|
| Their flexibility is lubricating the entire system and
| making it work better. Why should we charge them the same
| amount as people who aren't as flexible?
|
| What I see is people who aren't offering that flexibility
| arguing that they should still get the price as if they
| were willing to provide it, when they are consuming
| rather than providing it.
| rimunroe wrote:
| > I don't think it does.
|
| Let me know if this is an unfair summarization, but the
| way I see it: my comments discussed how charging parents
| additional fees to sit near their infants is bad. Your
| comment proposed charging people who wanted assigned
| seating for that feature and allowing people who don't
| need that flexibility a discount. How does that address
| my point rather than simply re-describe the thing I've
| already described as the problem?
|
| > Why should we charge them the same amount as people who
| aren't as flexible?
|
| Because that flexibility is needed more by parents and we
| generally want to encourage parenting and reduce the
| burden on them by using the power of the state to spread
| such costs out. IMO we don't do nearly enough of this,
| like with family leave, daycare, or healthcare costs.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Because the framing of what is the standard or default
| matters in determining whether a problem needs solving at
| no cost or merely needs a solution to be available in the
| market.
|
| If the standard is everyone can choose whom they sit next
| to (assuming seats are available), then parents are at no
| disadvantage. This is how air travel was for a very long
| time, when tickets were much more expensive and much more
| all-inclusive.
|
| Now, people are seeking cheaper tickets, so the airlines
| propose to offer discounts for passengers to forgo some
| of that all-inclusive nature and if those forgone items
| are a good match for your needs, feel free to take
| advantage of them. If they're not, feel free to buy a
| ticket that meets your needs.
|
| No one would think that when the USPS offers Next Day
| Express, Priority, and Parcel Post that a parent should
| get Next Day Express for the price of Priority or Parcel
| Post just because they're mailing something for their
| kid, right? When a rental car company charges a family of
| 6 more for a large car than a childless couple is charged
| for an economy car, are they violating some kind of
| social contract? "Use discount code BUTIHAVEFOURKIDS to
| rent a Suburban for the price of a Civic." A landlord
| charging more for a 2 BR than a 1 BR also hurts parents,
| but I assume most people think that's logical and proper.
|
| > we generally want to encourage parenting and reduce the
| burden on them by using the power of the state to spread
| such costs out
|
| Some people want that. Not all people want that and
| probably no one wants it in unlimited amounts. I have
| kids and I'm largely indifferent on the topic beyond
| supporting strong K-12 public education. I do observe
| that some people take the notion of "we should spread out
| the costs of kids" way, way too far for what I think is
| rational.
|
| Selfishly, I'd be perfectly fine if Basic airline tickets
| were made illegal for everyone. It just makes my looking
| at airfares online more annoying because I'll never buy a
| Basic fare. But, people who do find Basic fares to meet
| their needs ought to be allowed to have access to them,
| so I don't actually want them banned.
| mcaravey wrote:
| I think that part of the problem is a want versus a need. I
| don't particularly care if me and my wife don't sit together.
| We see each other all the time. But I don't want to have my
| four-year-old sitting in between two strangers, six rows in
| front of me where I can't see him. That's not fair to the two
| strangers, but also I don't trust strangers.
|
| I get the idea of paying for the privilege, but at the same
| time, it's not like they roll out the red carpet for someone
| who flies with their kids. Pretty much every time that I can
| remember them ever rearranging seats to get us together, we
| always wind up sitting in the rows at the very back of the
| plane close to the bathroom, which is fine with me. If I
| wanted red carpet treatment, I'd pay for first class for
| everyone. But I'm not about to do that.
|
| All I do know is that if they were to stop rearranging seats,
| it would make the frequency of our flying go down quite a
| bit. At a minimum, if they went that route, I would want
| there to be a guaranteed payment to be able to get everyone
| to sit together. That way I can at least plan for the extra
| cost. Knowing airlines they would probably use a sliding
| scale based on age or something.
| euleriancon wrote:
| This exactly. For parents it is not a choice, you
| absolutely must have a parent sitting by a young child. The
| effect of not automatically putting parent and children
| next to each other would just be making tickets more
| expensive for parents.
| unglaublich wrote:
| Don't want to play the devils advocate... but if you
| _must_ sit next to a person in need... you have to
| reserve the seats. Doesn't matter if it's a child, a
| dependent parent or a colleague that you need to run
| through an upcoming presentation with.
|
| Currently, it's just the case that parents get a discount
| on the seat reservation fee.
| mothballed wrote:
| Easy solution, just charge more for a child than for an
| adult, no fees needed.
| unglaublich wrote:
| Currently children <11yr get a 20-50% discount/subsidy
| for a seat. So just rectify it to a 100% and give the
| seat as a bonus instead. Everyone happy?
| mothballed wrote:
| Honestly I would be happy if the 5x the price, and I'm a
| parent. I hate flying with a kid and it would let me
| convince the wife to drive or take a boat the next time.
|
| I basically only fly with a kid because everyone else is
| willing to subsidize the massive externality I impose on
| them.
| brummm wrote:
| I have never seen this. For all flights I have flown
| recently, the price for a kid and an adult is the exact
| same.
| hansvm wrote:
| > must reserve
|
| With the current implementation exposed to the end
| customer, yes, that's required. Reserving specific seats
| isn't fundamental to the constraint that some people want
| to sit together.
|
| Plus, the current reservation system is predatory in its
| own right. When booking you're dumped into a page
| strongly suggesting you must choose a seat, and all
| available options cost more than the base ticket.
| unglaublich wrote:
| Well, any half decent operator will put you next to each
| other and the other half at least lets you select seats
| during the check-in process. If that 90% certainty is not
| enough for you... just reserve the seats. Yes, it'll cost
| money, because otherwise there won't be any seats to
| reserve as anyone will do it.
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| And? They are your kids. Why should someone who has paid
| to reserve their seat have to move because you were to
| cheap to pay to choose your seat.
|
| Also see, I'm not going to work extra hours because a
| parent can't work late. Just because I have grown
| children doesn't mean that I don't have a life outside of
| work.
| mothballed wrote:
| Ah yes I love modern society "they're your kids" until
| every busybody on earth calls CPS or police at the first
| sign of doing something they disapprove (happened to me
| because I shit you not, my kid is a different race and
| that was 'suspicious' to be a kidnapping -- thanks FOIA
| for the bodycam revealing that bullshit).
|
| Or when it comes time to tax the shit out of the grown
| kid made possible by the massive time and money
| investment made by the parents, the lion's share of the
| total. "No no no, that was society's investment -- now
| they owe us those taxes as part the social contract!"
|
| When it comes time to do the gangster shit it's all on
| the parent, but when it comes time to reap the benefits
| suddenly "we're a society."
| renewiltord wrote:
| Haha, it's very true. Everyone is an individualist when
| it comes to paying for kids but when it comes to social
| security, we should raise that to high heaven so that the
| current kids will be slaves to the geriatric majority.
|
| "I don't mind paying more money in taxes" they always
| say, knowing full well that the majority of the incidence
| is on the next generation.
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| There is a huge difference between funding education,
| health care etc which I'm all for paying taxes for and
| subsidizing your flight.
|
| And if you expect me to defend the police or Karyns about
| anything, let's just say I grew up on NWA and "F%%% the
| police" and my mom constantly told me that don't think
| because my White friends could get away with minor
| criminal mischief that I could.
|
| Well actually she said "don't let your little white
| friends get you in trouble". But close enough.
| mothballed wrote:
| If you want to deregulate airlines you have no complaint
| from me. I couldn't give a shit if there's anti-kid
| airline who's advertising message is "Fuck dem kids."
|
| If you're talking about a private company choosing who to
| subsidize once government regulations are removed, then I
| don't see how you have room to complain. It's not like
| taxes. You can charter a flight or rent a cessna to pilot
| if you don't agree to the private terms of carriage of
| anyone offering tickets.
|
| Taxes are way worse because a guy with a gun can show up
| and put anyone who disagrees with the majority's idea of
| charity or subsidy into a tiny cage; if you disagree you
| can't even escape it by leaving the country because the
| USA has worldwide taxation. I would classify private
| flight subsidization as a much more ethical, moral, and
| wildly less violent regime than taxing people for the
| healthcare of others.
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| I personally have no problem with the current state of
| affairs or with the state of affairs that the airlines
| are proposing. I fly Delta, I don't buy the cheapest
| ticket so I can cancel a flight up to the time the flight
| is scheduled and get a credit.
|
| From the little I do fly other airlines, only the
| cheapest fares don't at least give you credits for
| cancelled flights.
|
| Every airline has a credit card that gives you free
| luggage where the annual fee is cheaper than the baggage
| fee for a couple flying round trip.
|
| My wife and I also have status with Delta (Platinum
| Medallion), lounge access, TSA PreCheck, Clear etc so we
| can do our best to not deal with families and once a year
| vacationers. We live in Orlando now.
|
| But if I did have small kids. I would definitely pay for
| reserve seatings.
| nostrademons wrote:
| Playing devil's advocate here, as a parent this sounds
| great! Have your young children sit next to a couple
| strangers a few rows away: now you get some peace and
| quiet while other people have to deal with their seat-
| kicking, drink-spilling, whining, crying, bathroom trips,
| diaper changes, requests for entertainment, etc.
|
| You know this is going to happen too: there are going to
| be some subset of parents that are not going to pay extra
| and will just choose to let the airline make their kids
| some complete stranger's problem. Hope the general public
| enjoys it.
| AtlanticThird wrote:
| I have medical issues that require me to fly first class.
| It's not a choice. I don't expect you to pay for it
| jermaustin1 wrote:
| > All I do know is that if they were to stop rearranging
| seats, it would make the frequency of our flying go down
| quite a bit.
|
| I don't understand this. When you book a flight, do you not
| chose your seats so you sit together? Why should it be up
| to the airline to ensure you get a seat with your baby,
| that is part of planning a trip.
|
| When I rent "the cheapest car on offer", if it is a 2
| seater, and I have 3 passengers, that's on me for not
| planning for my passengers.
|
| People who chose to not pick their seats (to save the $25
| or whatever) shouldn't then punish people like me who paid
| to sit in a specific seat with specific neighbors.
| sweetheart wrote:
| I think the point remains, though, that making it harder to
| ensure a young child is sitting next to their guardian
| benefits _no one_. Having learned over the last year what
| flying with a 2 year old is like, an increase in the amount
| of toddlers who fly without sitting next to their parents is
| just going to be a nightmare for the kids, the parents, the
| other passengers, and the crew. No one should want this, in
| my opinion. Besides, the parents have the leverage in this
| situation I think, in the form of feral toddlers hell bent on
| maximizing chaos (and I mean that lovingly and
| empathetically, but still vaguely as a threat lol)
| floatrock wrote:
| What the airlines want is to have people pay more to sit
| together.
|
| What they're gonna get is same thing that happened when
| luggage fees became standard: enshittification because people
| find ways to pay less. In the case of luggage fees, suddenly
| everyone's like "yeah, okay, I guess I can fit things into a
| carry on" and turns out there's not enough overhead space for
| the entire plane so the plebs in Group 4+ have mandatory gate
| checks. Is the labor of always gate checking bags really any
| cheaper than having it flow through the airport luggage
| infrastructure? Apparently it is slightly, but it's
| definitely a shittier experience.
|
| What's gonna happen here is parent is gonna book two separate
| cheap middle seats and ask you when you sit down if you could
| trade your premium aisle/window seat for a middle seat so mom
| and child can be together. Because otherwise you're
| separating momma from baby and therefore a terrible human.
|
| And then we all get upset at each other for trying to cost-
| hack instead of seeing the real enemy in the room: the
| pathological MBA's picking up pennies in front of the
| enshittification steamroller.
| scruple wrote:
| > What the airlines want is to have people pay more to sit
| together.
|
| And charging parents paying extra so families can sit
| together is just an easy target.
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| They don't charge "parents extra". They charge everyone
| extra for choosing a seat.
| wat10000 wrote:
| There's a basic requirement in commerce that products sold
| must be fit for purpose. That is, they need to actually do
| what they're supposed to do in some form. I can't sell you a
| flight to New York and then give you a pair of plastic wings
| and say that the rest is on you. I have to actually get you
| there like any reasonable person would assume I would given
| what I sold you.
|
| Selling tickets to a small child and their caregiver and then
| seating them far apart is plainly not fit for purpose. They
| can't actually fly like that, so you've sold them something
| they can't use, and that you _know_ they can 't use.
|
| If they want to charge extra to sit together, fine, but that
| needs to be bundled into the basic price when one of the
| tickets is for a small child, not presented as an optional
| add-on at an additional cost.
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| Okay, in that case the airlines shouldn't allow people to
| book a fare where you can't choose your seat if you are
| flying with a kid - problem solved.
| wat10000 wrote:
| Right, that's my third paragraph.
| afavour wrote:
| They are meaningfully different scenarios, though.
|
| If you and your partner board the plane, sit separately, and
| one of you sits next to me that's not a negative for me.
| You'll sit, you'll watch a movie, read a book, whatever.
| You're self-contained.
|
| If you and your five year old child board the plane, sit
| separately, and your child sits next to me that's a clear
| negative for me. Your child needs attention and assistance.
| It's bad for you, it's bad for the child, it's bad for me.
| Probably also bad for whoever sits next to the parent because
| they'll be standing up and sitting down constantly to go and
| attend to their child.
|
| I get that it isn't "fair" in a very straightforward
| examination of the scenario but take a step back and it's
| just making every passenger's experience more miserable in an
| attempt to gain more airline profits. If it happens just
| watch, the airlines will introduce a "guarantee not sat next
| to a solo child" add-on fee for you to pay.
| baq wrote:
| At which point a homo sapiens specimen becomes a homo
| economicus?
| doktrin wrote:
| > I think they just want families with young children to pay
| to sit together, like everyone else has to
|
| Oh great so now I have to sit next to someone's unattended
| child in the name of fairness? Am I gonna get the option to
| subsidise the family's seat grouping instead of being saddled
| with that noise? Talk about creating problems for no good
| reason.
| itopaloglu83 wrote:
| Asking families if their teenager could be seated separately is
| one thing, but knowing the airlines, they might as well start
| seating the toddlers in the overhead luggage compartments.
| bthrn wrote:
| The most profitable way to fill a plane would be to knock
| everybody out and just pile them up in the fuselage.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Don't forget that some airlines seriously looked at
| standing "seats" for short hop flights.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| The Fifth Element solution!
| mrinterweb wrote:
| You and I should talk :) I've been thinking of this ever
| since seeing the movie "The Incredible Burt Wonderstone".
| He uses a sleeping gas on his audience packs them into a
| moving truck and "magically" transports his audience to a
| new location. Tada! Basically same idea, but substitute
| moving truck with jet.
| rtkwe wrote:
| Knocking someone out safely isn't cheap. There's a reason
| anesthesiologists are so highly paid. Just ask the hostages
| from Dubrovka Theater [0] how improvising an anesthetic gas
| can go (spoiler: you'll need a medium/ouija board).
|
| [0]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis
| nostrademons wrote:
| So then just pile them up without knocking them out.
| nemomarx wrote:
| Can you fit more people in horizontal than if they stood
| up and you had little straps to hang onto like a subway?
| nostrademons wrote:
| 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.
| butlike wrote:
| You can just lay them ass-to-mouth and then stack them.
| Come on, the slave ships and Dutch East India company
| taught us that one.
| tavavex wrote:
| That's still way too inefficient, it leaves so many gaps
| and barely tiles the space. As soon as we get our hands on
| full reconstruction, you can bet the airlines will require
| everyone to be ground into a slurry and pumped into the
| fuselage like a huge tank, and get reassembled at the
| destination.
| bluGill wrote:
| Only a new airplane. Most planes are designed for a lot of
| air and couldn't fly with as many people as can physically
| fit inside. Cargo airplanes carefully watch this factor. As
| a passenger I've been on airplanes that took off with empty
| seats even though there were people on standby wanting to
| get on because with the weather they couldn't fly a full
| plane.
| Yeul wrote:
| Imagine waking up on your 20 hour flight to Tokyo early...
| markovs_gun wrote:
| People think I'm crazy for saying this but the only thing
| stopping big corporations from hiring hitmen to just actually
| murder people to be more profitable is that it's illegal to
| do so. If it were legal for them to make you put your baby in
| overhead luggage you bet your ass they'd be doing it if it
| were profitable.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| That was an option in the 1950s for infants. They attached a
| little cot to the overhead -- sort of like the changing shelf
| on a pack and play!
| debatem1 wrote:
| Isn't this basically just putting the kid in a tumble drier
| whenever you hit turbulence? Did they pad the roof and door
| as well?
| margalabargala wrote:
| Concussions hadn't been invented yet, that's why no one
| wore a helmet back then
| axiolite wrote:
| The turbulence is no worse being up high in the plane vs
| being down in a seat. In the 1950s, NONE of the
| passengers would have been using seatbelts...
|
| "When an airplane crashes, the safety belt...may become a
| deadly hazard."
|
| - Scientific American Dec 1951 "The Dangerous Safety
| Belt"
|
| "Aviation requirements for basic safety features,
| including passenger safety belts, were codified in _1972_
| "
|
| - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/how-
| airlin...
| topkai22 wrote:
| You can still do this for infants on some long haul
| flights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8fphE1v66M&msocki
| d=42557114...
| topkai22 wrote:
| The current rule only applies to children under 14 years of
| age. They don't have to ask for teenagers.
| proggy wrote:
| This rule only applies to a single adult + child pair, and not
| the entire traveling party. For instance, if you have a party
| of 1 child and 2 adults, the airline is well within its rights
| to charge seat selection fees to the second adult. It's
| incredibly frustrating that I have to pay an extra $40-$50, per
| journey, to United to sit next to my wife and child. And that's
| with the current "consumer friendly" rules in place.
| nostrademons wrote:
| I usually filter out all Basic Economy fares from my search
| and only look at the next tier up, where you can get seat
| selection at time of booking. I just figure it's a product
| that doesn't work for my family.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| Think of the inverse, someone who doesn't care about where
| they sit save money.
|
| On the other hand, I never understood this obsession with
| grown people acting like it's the end of the world if they
| don't sit together. My wife and I fly a lot together - over a
| dozen trips this year - and she flies more frequently by
| herself. We both prefer window seats. We hardly ever sit
| together unless we can get 2 seats next to us by ourselves
| like on larger planes with a 3-2-3 combination or exit row
| seats in main.
| jcotton42 wrote:
| In this particular case, it lets the parents trade
| childcare responsibilities back and forth during the
| flight, which can be a serious boon on a long flight or if
| one of them starts feeling unwell.
| terminalshort wrote:
| I have to pay more to select the exact seats I want on a
| plane, so why shouldn't you?
| duxup wrote:
| It drives me crazy that airlines are allowed to book tickets
| for families who have to sit together ... but then they have to
| sort it out at the gate.
|
| It's just a big pain for everyone.
| LightBug1 wrote:
| One of my biggest regrets is not travelling the length and
| breadth of the US two decades ago when I had an opportunity.
|
| What with orange two-chins in charge, MAGA, ICE, deregulation
| across the board, and the general shit-housery that seems to be
| going on over there, I'm not sure I'll ever be able to attempt it
| again in my lifetime ... it's not the actual travel that is the
| issue, it would be the non-stop gag-reflex on landing ...
|
| RIP USA ...
| bikemike026 wrote:
| A large chunk of the population voted for this. Good going
| losers.
| clarkmoody wrote:
| I would pay more for an announcement-free flight. I watch the
| safety briefing ahead of time, and nobody speaks over the
| insanely-loud PA system the entire time I'm on the airplane.
| lunias wrote:
| Flying has become such a terrible experience that I avoid it all
| costs. I'd love to take more trips, but the service is so poor
| that I can't justify supporting it more than absolutely
| necessary. I doubt anything will change though, the majority of
| other people seem to not really care.
| ghaff wrote:
| Either it's a business necessity or it's a "tax" on
| recreational vacations once or twice a year. In semi-retirement
| I've told many people my goal is to keep traveling but arrange
| things so I spend less time in airports and planes. Of course,
| I can spend more money to make longer flights less onerous.
| xoxxala wrote:
| I'm with you. If I can't drive there, I don't go. Between the
| TSA, cramped seats, fees, unhelpful staff, angry passengers,
| angry staff, turbulence, the lousy food and dealing with carry-
| ons/luggage -- it's not worth it (for me, personally). My last
| flight was 2019 and I don't miss it at all.
|
| We take fewer, but longer, vacations, and use the extra time to
| drive to our destination. We try to avoid freeways as much as
| possible so we can see smaller places. We make vague plans and
| stop when we get tired or hungry.
|
| I know it won't work for everybody, but it works for us and I
| love it.
| asdff wrote:
| 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.
| bilekas wrote:
| These two in particular :
|
| > Automatic Refunds for Cancellations
|
| > Transparency of Fees
|
| How does a lawmaker justify this being in the publics interest ?
| I'm not even joking, I know "well lobbyist going to lobby", but
| this is a legitimate question. How does a regulatory body say
| "Yup, that's okay with us to remove" ?
| lxgr wrote:
| Playing devil's advocate for a moment: I could imagine airlines
| wanting to not allow for a full refund if passengers can be
| booked on a "reasonably similar" connection. (I've done this
| myself in the past, as far as I remember; changes of a few
| minutes in either direction often make an entire booking
| refundable.)
|
| The problem here of course would be the definition of
| "reasonably similar". Arriving a few hours later can be
| entirely fine or completely ruin a trip, depending on the
| circumstances.
| bilekas wrote:
| Okay, I can see some benefits to the airline that are not too
| egregious for point 1, maybe automatic can be updated to
| manual intervention. Not the worst.
|
| But price transparency ?
|
| > A4A opposes the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT)
| rules requiring airlines to disclose ancillary fees upfront,
| arguing that these rules exceed the DOT's authority and don't
| provide any clear benefits to consumers.
|
| > don't provide any clear benefits to consumers
|
| As a customer I like to know where my money is going and how
| much.
| Tadpole9181 wrote:
| Airlines caused automatic refunds by systematically screwing
| customers for a decade, doing every single thing in their
| power to avoid giving _any_ refunds. This policy exists
| because they proved to everyone they can 't be trusted.
| NoLinkToMe wrote:
| I don't follow the point. Suppose we live in a perfect world
| where exactly similar alternative flights are always
| available the moment yours gets cancelled. You still have to
| pay for it. And you do that by using the refund money.
|
| Cancelling a flight without refunding it, just means
| profiting at the expense of the customer.
|
| Businesses are able to insure their limited cost of
| cancellations, and price their tickets to absord these
| insurance costs (which are ultimately born by the ticket-
| payer).
|
| Deregulating this point just puts all the risk and burden
| with millions of individual customers, some of whom cannot
| easily carry the cost of unexpected events, and aren't
| professional parties that can and routinely do enter into
| properly-negotiated insurance products to mitigate their
| risk.
|
| > 've done this myself in the past, as far as I remember;
| changes of a few minutes in either direction often make an
| entire booking refundable.)
|
| My understanding is that refunds eligibility starts at a >3
| hour change, meaning an alternative timetable of 2 hours
| doesn't trigger an automatic refund right now. Further, even
| in the case of a significant change (>3h), the refund isn't
| automatic, it is only paid once the customer refuses an
| alternative booking or compensation. For international
| flights it's even 6 hours instead of 3.
|
| > Arriving a few hours later can be entirely fine or
| completely ruin a trip, depending on the circumstances.
|
| I do agree on this point, context really matters. And I think
| in theory it makes sense to offer price-differentation based
| on the context. i.e. if I am slow-travelling for 4 months,
| I'd be happy taking a 10% cheaper ticket (no-insurance), and
| have no recourse if there is an 8 hour delay.
|
| Whereas earlier this month when travelling overseas for a
| wedding the day prior, I'd have paid a 10% extra fee to
| insure my travel time, to ensure I have recourse to travel
| with a limited (<2h) delay no matter what or be significantly
| compensated.
|
| But that's still all theory, at some point differentiation on
| everything leads to complex and difficult decision making for
| customers. Fun in a Sim computer game, not so fun when
| booking a flight is a 20-step process with 200 pages of T&C
| that I have to assess against my personal situation.
| 0xffff2 wrote:
| > You still have to pay for it. And you do that by using
| the refund money.
|
| You generally don't though? The airline will rebook you
| directly, even if the flight is on a different airline in
| my experience.
| bilekas wrote:
| I'm mostly behind you with this, a great point that you
| make is the insurance.
|
| > Businesses are able to insure their limited cost of
| cancellations, and price their tickets to absord these
| insurance costs (which are ultimately born by the ticket-
| payer).
|
| Those insurance companies have requirements for paying out,
| in Europe for example a low fare airline Ryanair will offer
| you a refund if your flight is delayed 2/3 hours. You can
| choose to still take the flight though which, for some is
| acceptable. But that refund is by way of a request, it's
| not automatically processed. It works, for me personally,
| but I've been delayed for important things where it was
| only an hour, I would have loved to have been able to get s
| refund to book on another airline but I have to say, I
| wouldn't "expect" that.. which is why I can soften on their
| first point.
| yibg wrote:
| Give me that choice (refund or rebook me) and let me choose.
| Problem is if the airlines don't have to give a refund I now
| no longer have a choice.
| fzeroracer wrote:
| Dream: 'This will lower prices for consumers by reducing
| administrative overhead and allowing for people to select what
| protections and plans they want for their trip.'
|
| Reality: Tickets all cost exactly the same (because no company
| is going to willingly take less money) except now you get to
| pay more for less benefits.
| tavavex wrote:
| It will be some variation of the well-treaded argument of "us
| making more money just so happens to be in the public
| interest". Companies have become experts at arguing this in
| many different ways. You can see some examples in the article.
| More competition, purely hypothetically lower prices, etc.
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| 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?
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Are you not able to observe the current administration? There's
| no need to "justify" anything being in the public's interest.
|
| The admin is no longer counting how many people _cannot afford
| food_ for crying out loud.
|
| The public voted against their interest.
| HumblyTossed wrote:
| Probably the thinking is: "The market will sort itself out. If
| a person doesn't like this, they can pick an airline that has
| these features."
|
| Conveniently leaving out the thought that NONE of the other
| airlines will do this if it goes away.
| geff82 wrote:
| Book trips from European websites in the future. Prices here need
| to include everything upfront. Which might lead to situations
| where you reserve a hotel room in the USA for 1500, but then only
| pay 1200 at checkout because the remaining 300 are the "resort
| fee" that will be paid at the hotel. Or take car rental: the
| cheaper, more complete packages for the USA are often booked in
| the EU at at better price.
| lxgr wrote:
| +1 for hotels, but I'd be careful with car rentals. Often,
| these bookings are tied to the country of residence of the
| driver, which could at least theoretically have insurance
| implications.
| octo888 wrote:
| > Prices here need to include everything upfront
|
| How are you defining "everything" and "upfront"? Upfront as in
| the first page shown after searching?
|
| Because many, many airlines/car rental sites have a complex
| muti-step process of different fares, extras etc until you get
| to the final stage
| hn8726 wrote:
| 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 charges. For example as much as I dislike
| Booking.com, the price they show for a room includes
| everything -- tax, mandatory cleaning fee and city tax if
| applicable.
| terminalshort wrote:
| But it works that way too when I book in the US.
| mathgeek wrote:
| Which sites have you found with this feature in the US?
| Every one I have ever used adds various fees to whatever
| price shows on the listings.
| aakkaakk wrote:
| Lol. No, VAT is _never_ included in US.
| slaw wrote:
| 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.
| alberth wrote:
| I'm surprised the world isn't moving more towards "Nutrition"
| labels for pricing.
| Beestie wrote:
| TLDR version: The Airlines are turning into TicketMaster.
| hahajk wrote:
| Man, I hate headlines like this. It may be true that what they're
| doing is evil but I feel like I'm not allowed to have my own
| opinion.
| Zak wrote:
| 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 600EUR
| 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 airline doesn't
| provide the service it sold for reasons within its control.
| tialaramex wrote:
| 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.
| Yeul wrote:
| 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!
| jakub_g wrote:
| In Italy, for regional trains, since 2025 Trenitalia gives
| the reimboursement automatically to your credit card if you
| purchased the ticket electronically. [1]
|
| [1] https://www.firstonline.info/en/trenitalia-rimborsi-
| automati...
| baby wrote:
| There was a year I made more money from flying than I spent,
| because I kept flying ryanair or easyjet and I kept getting
| massive delays (one was a 20h delay, in which I spent the night
| at the airport squatting some of the couches in a cafe in the
| terminal, because small delays kept being slowly pushed on us,
| and we also spent 2h waiting in the final plane for it to take
| off, no A/C and they refused to give us water threatening to
| call the cops on us if we did get water bottles ourselves,
| great experience!)
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| Ryanair is the most punctual airline tho
| reorder9695 wrote:
| Absolutely not in my experience, maybe I've just been
| really unlucky but I can't remember more than 1 Ryanair
| flight I've been on that was actually on time. Most delayed
| by less than 4 hours, but delayed.
| maest wrote:
| Ryanair has the very sleazy habit if saying things like "we
| have just landed at X, note how we are 5 minutes ahead of
| schedule!" over the PA.
|
| However, they don't make a peep when the flight lands with
| a delay.
| sjs7007 wrote:
| Could you share more context on the water bottle thing? That
| makes no sense to me.
| JustExAWS wrote:
| I fly a lot and let me put in context one of the "protections" as
| far as parents being seated with children or at least how it
| works on Delta.
|
| If you buy their lowest fare - which they try their best to steer
| you away from and they say prominently in big bold type avive
| where you order your ticket that you will not be able to choose
| your seat - you cannot in fact choose your seat. Then parents
| complain and people who did pay to choose their seat are forced
| to move so kids can sit with their parents.
|
| The rest of the items that the airline wants to roll back are
| foot guns for infrequent travelers.
| kumarsw wrote:
| I was hoping that the pendulum would swing the other way with the
| scandal over too many passengers bringing out their bags on a
| recent AA evacuation caused by a burning tire. The push to
| eliminate checked bags has created a chaotic cabin environment
| that probably exacerbated the situation. There's no sign of it
| getting better either. The overcrowding of overhead bins creates
| a prisoners dilemma where flight attendants pressure passengers
| to put smaller bags under their seats, disincentivizing bringing
| anything but a big roller bag.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8l2n-di3hJE
| ghaff wrote:
| As someone who has traveled for a long time, I find two things
| to be true:
|
| 1. People like business travelers or those with even minimal
| levels of status/benefits (who don't pay for checked luggage)
| don't usually preferentially check bags because luggage gets
| delayed, it's harder to switch flights when there's a weather
| etc. problem, and they have to wait at the luggage carousel.
|
| 2. Hard and hard-ish roll-aboards are a menace. Especially in a
| world of generally more casual dress, soft-side luggage would
| make overheads a lot more manageable--understanding that some
| people really can't use shoulder bags or backpacks.
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| My wife and I are both Delta Platinum and it's half and half.
| Since we always get upgraded to C+ with dedicated overhead
| and we board early, for non stop flights, we won't check our
| bags for short getaways.
|
| We hate lugging luggage around the airport for layovers and
| now that we don't live in ATL any more, we almost always have
| layovers.
| terminalshort wrote:
| For me it's not having to wait at the carousel at the end,
| it's having to wait in that enormous line at the beginning. I
| really don't understand why they make it so much work just to
| drop off your checked bag before the flight.
| ghaff wrote:
| My experience with United over the past few years is that
| there's a pretty quick pre-registered drop line. But that
| doesn't apply everywhere presumably. I rarely check bags
| but for some types of trips (generally hiking trips for me)
| it's sort of unavoidable.
| Symbiote wrote:
| Many European (and other) airports now have self-done
| baggage drop-off.
|
| At Copenhagen Airport, I usually get off the metro, walk to
| the luggage tag machines at the end of the platform and
| scan my passport (or boarding pass). That prints a bag tag
| (and boarding pass if requested), so after sticking that to
| my luggage I drop it off at the counter -- I put the bag on
| the scale/conveyor, it scans the barcode, prompts me to
| press "Confirm" that there's no explosives etc, and I'm
| done.
|
| I scan my boarding pass to go through the barrier into the
| security screening, walk to the gate, and very often scan
| the boarding pass again to get onto the jetbridge.
|
| I can easily go from the metro to the plane without
| interacting with anyone. I understand this is Scandinavian
| bliss.
|
| (Exceptions are trips to countries where I need my
| documents to be checked; e.g. to go to the USA a checkin
| agent has to see my ESTA visa waiver. Oddly, going
| somewhere like China which requires a printed visa in my
| passport does work on the machine, as the machine prompts
| me to scan it.)
| 0xffff2 wrote:
| Wait, you go through security without interacting with
| anyone? How does that work? Other than that though, this
| really sounds pretty much the same as my experience in US
| airports in the last decade.
| Symbiote wrote:
| I missed that -- yes, sometimes someone says "anything in
| your pockets?" or similar, and someone else beckons me to
| walk through the metal detector. If I'm 'randomly'
| checked of course I have to speak.
|
| I found American airports less hands-off (especially
| security, which is considerably more hands-on than I'm
| used to, "Sir, I will now rub your balls"). But then I'm
| almost always flying internationally out of the USA, so
| it's not a fair comparison against domestic (Schengen)
| flights in Europe.
| unregistereddev wrote:
| I agree with both these points, though I'm much more willing
| to check a bag when traveling on vacation than when traveling
| on business. If I were to lose a bag on vacation there
| wouldn't be the same consequences.
|
| On vacation I don't have my work laptop, so it's easier to
| toss toiletries and an emergency change of clothes in a small
| under-seat carry-on bag. Besides, tourists aren't expected to
| smell nice and look put-together, and are more likely to have
| a flexible schedule that would let them go shopping if the
| bag doesn't turn up.
|
| Only once has the airline lost my bag while on vacation. It
| was only slightly annoying and they found the bag and got it
| to me eventually. I've seen a coworker whose bag was lost on
| a business trip to India. He was stuck wearing the same
| clothes - a tshirt and jeans - for multiple days. This
| included time in the office (which had a dress code) and at
| least one business dinner.
| ghaff wrote:
| >If I were to lose a bag on vacation there wouldn't be the
| same consequences.
|
| Not that taking everything carryon was really an option in
| this case, but I had a bag misplaced after a connecting
| flight was canceled. This was a group hiking trip but I had
| at least an extra day scheduled. Still spent about $500 to
| minimally restock although my bag arrived at literally the
| last minute before one of the guides left the hotel for our
| one-way walk.
| vhcr wrote:
| I don't want to check my luggage, I had them damaged or lost
| more than once.
| WorldMaker wrote:
| Plus all the additional time wasted in planing/deplaning the
| cabin in _general_ as you wait for 90%+ of passengers in rows
| ahead of you to grab roller bags from overhead bins. Including
| the time wasting bottlenecks of "overhead bins full, everyone
| else must now gate check" guaranteed to slow the last
| passengers from planing and then on deplaning the crowds stuck
| in the jet bridge waiting for gate checked bags.
|
| (Then there's the factor of how much time and space all that
| also wastes at security checkpoints.)
|
| Checked baggage has the efficiencies of forklifts and trucks
| and conveyor belts. Just as airlines fixed most of the problems
| with those systems and got them to be efficient beasts they
| decided to disincentivize actually using them by charging extra
| for what _is_ the cheaper cargo space. I wish an airline would
| have the courage to reverse the fees structure and charge for
| overhead bin space instead. (But then I also travel with IBS
| issues and my patience in deplaning has been severely tested
| enough that I know not everyone shares quite my annoyance at
| deplaning issues in particular.)
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| I have never had a gate checked bag where you don't pick up
| your bag at baggage claim except for regional flights on
| small planes where even standard carry ons won't fit in the
| overhead.
|
| And for the pedantic _really_ small planes like Sansa in
| Costs Rica for their 30 minute flights between San Jose and
| other cities.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| I've seen everything from gate-checks on the carousel to a
| special pickup counter to leaving the bag on the tarmac
| covered in ice, with standard commercial airframes. It
| depends on airline policy and available airport
| infrastructure.
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| And thats why i brought up Sansa. I flew into here.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quepos_La_Managua_Airport
| #/m...
|
| https://www.vacationscostarica.com/_next/image/?url=https
| %3A...
|
| But that has more to do with the realities of the plane
| and the airport infrastructure like you said. It's not
| about airline policy with regards to checked bags vs non
| checked bags.
|
| On that plane, they not only weigh your bags, they weigh
| the passenger to make sure the plane isn't over the
| weight limit.
| WorldMaker wrote:
| Yeah, it gets worse than that, too, because some airlines
| have multiple _types_ of gate checks. Delta, which I 've
| flown the most on recently, lets you gate check at the
| gate desk up until like 10 minutes before boarding and
| those get tagged like normal checked baggage, sent to a
| baggage car for the normal forklift-ability, and will
| show up at baggage claim at your final destination, but
| Delta _also_ lets you gate check at the last minute by
| dropping it at the end of the jet bridge and those get a
| slightly different tag, are basically thrown into cargo
| by hand, and also need to be pulled out of cargo by hand
| and so are thrown right back onto the jet bridge on the
| deplaning side of the next destination, not the final
| one. In the case of "overhead bins full" every bag after
| that full point gets into that second category of jet
| bridge bags. (And yeah, I've seen that particular case
| cause some traffic jams in deplaning.)
|
| (Delta also has a third type of "gate check" if you count
| the regular checkin desk silliness to try to skip bag
| fees by checking in with 0 bags, getting asked if you
| want to gate check, and then checking it at the checkin
| desk like checked baggage is supposed to work. That also
| goes to your final destination, but it's a silly process
| of "no I don't want to check bags" to say that "yes, I
| have one bag I would like to check but it's not worth
| your silly fees to check if you want to charge me".)
|
| I also have met people that _like_ the "jet bridge
| checked baggage" and think it a feature, not a bug. I
| understand there is a flexibility it offers if a
| connection fails or is too delayed or what have you, but
| the slow, artisanally hand tossed baggage part of that
| seems so inefficient and slow down to the rest of us, it
| is hard for me to not see that as a bit selfish and
| something _that should have fees_ to pay for the extra
| labor and time involved. Also, if anything it seems a
| reminder that Baggage Claim got put on the wrong side of
| Security checkpoints in the US out of a mistake from
| historic airport layouts, and if you were to design the
| system from scratch you 'd put it before leaving Security
| and allow people the option to choose _which_
| destinations it needs to be picked up (but still
| defaulting to the final one), and maybe a "recheck" desk
| right next to it.
| starky wrote:
| I was just on a flight with an Asia based airline where even
| the most basic fare had 2 free checked bags and some pretty
| limiting carry on restrictions. It was amazing how much
| smoother boarding was because most people only had a backpack.
| perfectstorm wrote:
| i wonder if they could create a central locking mechanism where
| if a plane makes an emergency landing, it automatically locks
| all the overhead bins so passengers don't waste time trying to
| pick their baggage out. the only remaining thing would be
| smaller bags underneath the seats which i don't tihnk would
| delay anyone or at least not significantly as the overhead
| bins.
| o_1 wrote:
| The airlines and the FAA have been reducing seat size and weight
| for "safety reasons". 21" width minimum required in 1995 only 18"
| width in 2025. These seat requirements directly corrolate to fuel
| cost savings, and passenger density. Simple statistical
| manipulation with the increase in passengers shrinks the fatality
| and accident rate because the sample is larger. The airlines are
| to the FAA as what wall street is to the SEC.
| swasheck wrote:
| i'm hard-pressed to think of an industry whose financial
| principles i'm more skeptical of than the airline industry.
| post-9/11 the industry cratered and they said they needed to add
| fees to keep from going bankrupt. united created ted, their own
| low-cost no-frills carrier which was actually decent. once air
| travel recovered, they (airlines, in general) kept the fees and
| have been turning record profits ever since. united dumped ted so
| that they could return to focus on squeezing customers there.
|
| i love travel but i hate dealing with airlines. their executives
| rank up there with health insurance as some of my least favorite
| personalities.
|
| and one last thing, other than (eventually) telecom way back in
| the 80s, has there ever been an industry whose deregulation has
| been a net win for consumers? i'm genuinely curious and not
| asking sarcastically
| chrisbolt wrote:
| Looking at the numbers, for example:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines#Business_trend...
|
| United had their highest revenue in 2024, and their profit
| margin was... 5.5%. Would reducing your ticket price by 5.5%
| make any difference?
| lurking_swe wrote:
| 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%!
| Yeul wrote:
| 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 Malaga, Okinawa and Ft Lauderdale.
| DrNosferatu wrote:
| Pleasant prospect indeed!
| bradley13 wrote:
| I agree that transparency is important. All charges known up
| front.
|
| That said, I think a fundamental problem is that sir travel is
| too cheap. That's the motivation behind all the nutty fees.
|
| Surely there would be a market for an airline (or a class of
| seating) where you get a decent seat, with no gimmicks and up-
| charges? And not for triple the price like business class?
| ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote:
| Isn't this just regular seating (of any class) on one of the
| non-discount airlines?
|
| I fly a couple times a month with Alaska or Delta, economy
| tickets only, and this is always my experience. No weird fees,
| price known up front, the seat is fine, etc.
| havaloc wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midwest_Airlines
|
| "For many years, all flights featured 2-by-2 leather seating
| (in aircraft usually fitted with 3-2 seating), ample legroom,
| complimentary gourmet meals, and warm chocolate chip cookies.
| This made the airline popular with business travelers. In
| addition, Midwest Express operated a sizable executive charter
| operation with a specially configured DC-9."
| dangus wrote:
| I think the airlines don't realize that all the rules in place
| now make flying more tolerable and even enjoyable.
|
| If the airlines jerk me around I'm more likely to just not buy a
| ticket and stay home. If they make it a great experience it's
| something I'm going to look forward to.
| Lio wrote:
| > _Airlines want to remove the requirement to provide automatic
| refunds when flights are cancelled or significantly altered._
|
| This is wild. Are they really asking to be able to take money for
| a flight, then cacel it and keep the money? That's crazy.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| The purpose is economic extraction of the customer base. They
| really are asking, because they can, and that aligns with this
| administration's low regulation and anti consumer stance.
|
| Edit: Comment of comment value removed. Updated to increase
| value. Thanks indoordin0saur, I am occasionally in the wrong
| gear until the psychotropics kick in.
| indoordin0saur wrote:
| If you know it's a low value post then don't post it.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| Why not celebrate the acceleration achieved by deregulation
| instead?
| realusername wrote:
| I mean, why even bother to run flights at all in this scenario?
|
| They could cancel 80% of flights and keep the rest to pretend
| they are still an airline.
|
| Cancelations would be more profitable than the flights
| themselves.
| delfinom wrote:
| I imagine the class action lawsuits at that point would
| bankrupt them
| falcor84 wrote:
| Class actions lawsuits only work if the courts and
| legislators have an interest in consumer protection.
| onlypassingthru wrote:
| Presumably pre-emptively nullified by that arbitration
| agreement when you accepted the T&C to purchase the ticket.
| bluGill wrote:
| Arbitration is not automatically in their favor. It is
| cheaper by far than a trial (in most cases), but they
| need to be at least somewhat fair or the whole thing
| collapses next time the government changes.
| tavavex wrote:
| 80% would be way too much, the consumers would catch on and
| probably not buy tickets anymore. But don't worry, the
| airlines' best MBAs will be hard at work calculating the
| exact percentage of flights they have to fly before it starts
| hurting the bottom line. And once all airlines start doing
| it, they could bring that percentage down - what are the
| consumers gonna do if that's the only way to get to the
| destination?
| grafmax wrote:
| Exactly. These supposed benefits of deregulated markets
| dissolve when the sellers have pricing power.
| bluGill wrote:
| They still have to offer replacement flights, and if the
| replacement flight isn't reasonable they have to refund. They
| can't just keep your money.
|
| Don't forget that a lot of flights are business flights.
| Fortune 500 companies will negotiate deals with the airlines,
| and they will ensure that getting there matters. Sure the CEO
| flys the company jet, but the next level down rarely does,
| but they talk to the CEO and will ensure that the chosen
| airline will get their people there by contract (wherever
| there is), if the airlines start failing to get people there
| on time these contracts will change since the large companies
| have enough money to matter. Those who fly a lot (again
| likely for business, even small businesses sometimes have
| someone flying several times a week) again are people the
| airlines need to make happy as they will go to different
| airline if there are problems.
|
| Which is to say they can screw the "common man" who rarely
| flies, but most of the business is people who have enough
| power to to to airlines that treat them well and at that
| point it normally isn't worth screwing anyone.
| rpcope1 wrote:
| Airlines are basically as stupid and greedy as telcos. If it
| were up to them, GA aircraft, UAVs, model aircraft and
| basically anything that wasn't military or an airliner would be
| banned. It has strong analogs in telcos swallowing up large
| amounts of spectrum "cause muh 5 gee" and just squatting on it.
| I'm sure safety would be in the shitter too if the FAA was less
| watchful (not to say it's sufficiently aggressive on the big
| players today).
| sokoloff wrote:
| Every one of their pilots learned to fly in a GA or military
| aircraft, with the vast majority being GA.
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| I don't think that is going to happen. Before this new-ish
| regulation, the airline had discretion over how to rebook you
| or compensate you. Now if the delay is over 3h (iirc) they have
| to refund you.
|
| I think even an arbitration court would have them reimburse you
| if they simply canceled a flight and kept your money.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| Yes, But no one wants to have to go to court or arbitration
| to get a refund on a service that the service provider
| cancelled.
|
| If AA cancels my flight, I want my money back without having
| to ask for it. I don't want to have to submit an application
| to receive AA credits that expire in 6 months, and then have
| to initiate legal action to get my actual cash back. Or
| having them say that they rebooked me on a flight three days
| later so they are off the hook.
|
| The current rules make it so that the customer has the power.
| I can still give AA the option of rebooking me or refunding
| me, but it is MY choice.
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| I agree with you on everything except ever flying American
| Airlines. I think most people would agree with you.
| itopaloglu83 wrote:
| And what percentage of people will take them to court just to
| get them to refund their ticket?
|
| Airlines have full time lawyers with nothing to do but push
| paper around.
|
| Why are we making it harder for the consumer to resolve an
| issue when the flight is clearly cancelled?
|
| They just want to force you into weird store-credit style
| refunds so that you cannot go to a competitor or choose not
| to travel.
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| > And what percentage of people will take them to court
| just to get them to refund their ticket?
|
| If there is any upside to mandatory binding final
| arbitration, it's that proceedings are cheaper and quicker.
| It might be that the arbitrators decide to universally rule
| in favor of the airlines amidst unambiguous evidence that
| the airlines took money and canceled the service, but seems
| unlikely.
|
| It's also a huge risk on the part of the airlines to decide
| that their official policy is to stiff customers and hope
| it works out in arbitration.
|
| > Why are we making it harder for the consumer to resolve
| an issue when the flight is clearly cancelled?
|
| Because we elected the guy who said he would, going so far
| as to ensure he had a majority in both houses of Congress.
|
| > They just want to force you into weird store-credit style
| refunds so that you cannot go to a competitor or choose not
| to travel.
|
| Lol yes that is exactly it. I wouldn't have written that
| stuff above if I knew you were going to correct yourself.
| charcircuit wrote:
| >This is wild.
|
| Keep in mind this rule has only been in affect for a little
| over a year. Airlines weren't being "wild" last year before the
| change.
| jacobgkau wrote:
| They were being pretty annoying, which is why the regulation
| went into place. The "wildness" is that they're openly trying
| to make it annoying again.
| advisedwang wrote:
| In practice, they're not likely to just refuse any kind of
| recompense. More likely:
|
| * Giving a credit instead of a refund.
|
| * Offer a take-it-or-leave-it alternative flight.
|
| * Only giving out credit/refund on request (so people that
| don't realize or do it in time loose their money).
| heathrow83829 wrote:
| a credit instead of a refund is almost the same thing as not
| offering a refund. you're going to have a hard time using
| that refund in a manner that benefits you (not taking a
| flight for no reason)
| 0xffff2 wrote:
| Yep. I don't fly a ton, but I had a flight canceled by
| Alaska a couple of years ago. They refunded me so I wasn't
| actually out anything, but they also gave me a $100 credit
| in addition to the refund. I really tried, but since I
| don't live in Seattle and don't fly much, there was no way
| I could use that $100 credit without paying a whole lot of
| my own money too. It annoyed me to "throw away money", but
| the credit expired unused.
| root_axis wrote:
| My worry is that this incentivizes airlines to overlook safety
| concerns because grounding a risky flight or taking extra time
| to deal with unscheduled maintenance downtime will cost them
| money. It's a guaranteed certainty that some people will die
| because of it. I'd rather risk 300 bucks than my life.
| 0xffff2 wrote:
| Airline travel is safer than it has ever been in its entire
| history. What is your evidence for this hypothesis?
| root_axis wrote:
| My evidence is the extensive history of corporations
| prioritizing profits over safety. The relative safety of
| air travel is not in dispute nor is it relevant to my
| point. If you give companies the option to choose they will
| always optimize for profits over safety.
| gr1zzlybe4r wrote:
| The airline industry is a good example of an "open" market that
| is really anything but. It is effectively an state-supported
| oligopoly. Airlines have split up every major market, usually
| with very little competition amongst themselves, and then have a
| government bailout backstop if things go wrong (this include
| things like favorable bankruptcy laws that let them get out of
| wage commitments). This is without even getting into the unholy
| public-private airport situation.
|
| The answer is actual competition with some reasonable passenger
| protections.
|
| Let foreign carriers compete here (9th freedom rights). No
| bailouts for failed operations or even unusual circumstances like
| covid.
| nerdponx wrote:
| The bailouts for unusual circumstances are a really interesting
| case. The "unusual circumstances" tend to be perfect for
| industry consolidation, which is normally (and rightly) viewed
| with at least some skepticism, but tends to get a pass during
| unusual circumstances as a matter of survival. In no small part
| this is driven by the desire not to cause thousands of people
| to be laid off with no equivalent pay opportunities in sight.
|
| The PPP program turned out to be a widely abused transfer of
| wealth from taxpayers to capitalists, yes. But I actually think
| in general that bailouts, especially for smaller industry
| players, are an important tool for preventing industry
| consolidation, which causes generational-scale harm that is
| difficult to reverse or even remediate.
|
| I think what need to happen is that it should be much easier to
| pierce the corporate veil in cases of obvious negligence in
| planning that leads to being unprepared for a predictable
| event. And of course putting an end to PE-style "corporate
| raiding" behavior that really just amounts to embezzlement.
| Imagine an economy in which the owners, directors, and chief
| executives of corporation are, as individuals, required to
| uphold some level of fiduciary duty to their _customers_. The
| economy might look very different in that case.
| intalentive wrote:
| >The answer is actual competition
|
| It's hard to see how that can happen when politicians take
| money from the rent-seekers who benefit from the status quo.
| "Competition is for losers", says Peter Thiel, so buy yourself
| a state-sanctioned monopoly (like Palantir).
| cogman10 wrote:
| > 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 company monopoly
| is more competition. You can't bury more water lines for
| different companies. Someone has to own the existing lines.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| To be pedantic, I'm sure you "can", but the effort and
| political sway to do so for what may not even be profitable
| is humongous.
|
| That was pretty much Google fiber in a nutshell last decade.
| They existing cable lines eventually pushed Google out of it.
| ThunderSizzle wrote:
| 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 that can get
| you to your home or destination.
| bombela wrote:
| I think that's what you get with a first class ticket
| (never experienced it myself).
| hamonrye wrote:
| the pink elephant is whether a triple-bogey on a par-five hole
| acctounts for the disappearance of the airport terminus pass.
| onlypassingthru wrote:
| It seems like the smart play here is a three step process:
|
| 1) Deregulate claiming that competition will lower costs
|
| 2) Further consolidate carriers so that there is even less
| competition
|
| 3) Profit!
|
| With the corporate buyout of government, it won't be long until
| we see the announcement for the new AmDelTed.
| terminalshort wrote:
| This has worked so far, though. Prices are down ~50% after
| inflation since the airlines were deregulated.
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| There might be other factors to consider, such as seat
| density and maintenance costs. Plus that deregulation was a
| massive change compared to whether or not they can use the
| AirBnB price quote model.
| onlypassingthru wrote:
| The cost savings has also come from efficiency gains like
| winglets & jet bridges, and service reductions like going
| from meal service to snacks to nothing, the removal of
| amenities (remember playing cards and wing pins for kids?),
| little or no in-flight entertainment, etc.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| No, _service_ is down 50% after inflation. Regulated tickets
| included things like sufficient leg room and snacks and
| luggage. Now all that costs extra.
| jmull wrote:
| Making flying even crappier doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
|
| Regulations that put a floor on how crappy airlines can be should
| be pretty neutral on competition since all the airlines would
| have the same rules.
|
| That's not to say all rules are a good idea, even rules that
| raise quality -- raising the floor raises prices, and if the
| floor is raised higher than necessary, prices are higher than
| necessary too, making flying less affordable. Set the floor too
| low and people fly less because it's too crappy. Set the floor
| too high and people fly less because it's too expensive. You're
| looking for the balance point.
|
| IMO, the floor is too low right now. I think it's a mistake to
| try to lower it.
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| That is the beauty of the floor, everyone stands on it so it
| becomes acceptable even if it shouldn't be.
|
| Deregulation and disassembly of consumer protections is what
| Americans voted for.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| > _Making flying even crappier doesn 't seem like a good idea
| to me._
|
| Ah, but do you own an airline?
| Ajedi32 wrote:
| > Set the floor too low and people fly less because it's too
| crappy.
|
| Seems like a great opportunity for an airline to be less crappy
| and make a lot of money selling tickets to all those people who
| are "flying less" on other airlines, no?
|
| So the question then becomes why hasn't someone done that
| already, if the floor really is "too low"?
| smcg wrote:
| High barrier to entry, consolidation, and collusion. Look at
| how many airline mergers have happened over the past decades.
| sershe wrote:
| That wouldn't explain why the reverse happened. Everyone
| introduced the crappier economy tier; even the airlines
| initially saying they wouldn't eventually caved and now
| there's a crappy economy tier default. Moreover, gradually
| these crappy tiers converged, including some (united iirc)
| getting slightly less crappy following user demand.
|
| Most people want cheaper tickets and don't shop on quality.
| In the rare cases that they do airlines readily adjust. But
| the airlines trying to offer quality as the default would
| go out of business
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| Price aggregators like Google Flights continue to show
| the crappy tier by default, which means that airlines
| have to offer that tier to appear competitive. No idea
| why Google wants to build its product this way, but there
| are only a few companies in this business.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| 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 model.
| Ajedi32 wrote:
| Wouldn't it make sense for regulators to focus on those
| problems then, rather than on setting arbitrary industry-
| wide limits on what level of service consumers are allowed
| to buy?
| missinglugnut wrote:
| 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 for a name brand airline, paid to choose a decent
| seat, could have paid for more upgrades, but no amount of
| money short could prevent me from waiting out a delay in a
| hot cabin because the airline failed to maintain their
| equipment. The folks in first class faced the same miserable
| heat.
|
| It's a market for lemons. Paying more doesn't assure quality,
| it just means you spent more money to get screwed. So people
| aren't willing to pay.
| michaelt wrote:
| Many airlines offer different fare classes. For a return
| ticket half way around the world, I can pay $1100 for
| Economy, $2800 for Premium Economy, $3900 for Business Class
| and $6900 for First Class.
|
| It seems you have to charge a big, big premium to deliver a
| less crappy experience.
|
| And even then, the experience is only better in some
| dimensions - your checked luggage receives the same handling
| no matter what ticket you buy.
| cogman10 wrote:
| Don't forget private charted jets. Those fill the >$7k hole
| for anyone willing to spend through the nose and they give
| the best experience of any flight.
|
| The cost is around $1k/10k per flight hour.
| jmull wrote:
| > no?
|
| No. Because people don't know how crappy it will be when they
| book.
|
| They're just juggling prices and scheduled times.
|
| People who aren't flying very frequently and don't have a
| trustworthy source of knowledgeable recommendations -- that
| is, a substantial majority of people -- will never take
| enough flights to know which airlines are worth $X more. If
| they even have many options for their route and time.
| karmelapple wrote:
| Funny enough, different airlines play by different rules [1]
|
| 1. https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/airline-
| cancellat...
| type0 wrote:
| good summary on where air travel is headed: _The Horrifying
| Evolution of Air Travel_
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnGgAyQhP7Q
| thrance wrote:
| > Making flying even crappier doesn't seem like a good idea to
| me.
|
| It does, from a purely ecological point of view. What was the
| number again? 4 longhaul flights for life per person if we want
| to achieve sustainability?
| penguin_booze wrote:
| Let what happens in America, stay in America. All of it.
| exabrial wrote:
| > Under current regulations, airlines must ensure that families
| with young children are seated together without additional
| charges.
|
| I'm against rolling back all of the other ones mentioned, but
| this one, I don't have a problem with charging a fee to be seated
| together. Most airlines let you pay to pick seats anyway.
| altspace wrote:
| Opportunity for AI agents to deep dive into all the options and
| provide user friendly view?
| OhMeadhbh wrote:
| This is part of the reason I don't fly so much anymore. In the
| last 10 flights I flew, only 2 arrived on time. For one flight I
| was delayed in D/FW for 72 hours. I haven't had a flight on
| United that wasn't canceled or rescheduled or I was bumped in
| about 10 years. And the behaviour of the airlines has been
| getting MUCH worse over time. The Alaska flight from DFW to SEA
| that was delayed 72 hours... They originally weren't going to
| refund me for canceling it. I had to get a lawyer involved. I
| should not have to get a lawyer and a local TV news crew involved
| to reschedule a canceled flight.
|
| I drive a lot more these days and if Amtrak was better I would
| take the train more often. I get to catch up on podcasts while
| driving and usually do it over the weekend so I can stop and see
| out-of-the-way roadside attractions. Before driving I-80 between
| Reno and Salt Lake, I never realized how empty some sections of
| the country are.
|
| I'd be curious to hear if this is happening in Europe or Asia.
| jermaustin1 wrote:
| I flew a LOT pre-covid, and still more than average post-covid
| (2-4 times a year), and primarily via United (thanks to racked-
| up miles from the Continental days) out of Houston/NYC/London,
| and I have never had any issues with delays or cancellations -
| In 2009, a Continental flight did have me circling IAH for 2
| hours while they troubleshot a landing gear malfunction before
| landing again and switching planes, though, but that is the
| only issue I remember, and I was flying 2-5 flights/week at
| that point between HOU/NYC/LAX/DEN.
|
| The handful of times I've flown Southwest have been slightly
| less than perfect, but some of that was user error not
| understanding how Southwest worked compared to normal carriers.
|
| I don't want to discount yours, or the thousands upon thousands
| of reports about United or Southwest, but in my experience, it
| has been pretty solid on both counts.
| OhMeadhbh wrote:
| I'm flying out of the west and have to go through SLC or DEN
| when flying United. It's ALWAYS a PITA. Now that I think
| about it... I had a segment a couple years ago on United from
| JAX to ORD that was delayed only 5 minutes and wound up
| arriving 5 minutes early, so maybe east of the Rockies things
| are better. And my brother tells me international flights on
| Untied through SFO to Asia are generally pretty stable.
|
| I bet if I looked at where flights originated, United is
| doing a East to West pattern and there are just fewer
| opportunities for cascading delays to impact people getting
| on the plane in the east. Comparing with Alaska, which has
| other problems, but hasn't canceled too many flights on me, I
| bet most of the flights I take originate out of SEA going
| south or east, so you don't have that same pattern.
|
| Also... Southwest... I remember when it was a good airline.
| Just another example of what hedge funds can do to you. FWIW,
| they have a train at DFW now that will take you to either
| downtown Ft. Worth or downtown Dallas (or even Las Colinas.
| Or DENTON. I took a train from DFW to "downtown" DENTON
| once!!! The wonders never cease.) I would love to see LUV
| field step up it's mass trans game.
| jermaustin1 wrote:
| Now that you are saying that, I wonder if HOU to LAX or LAS
| is better served because it stays south of the Rockies. And
| since I've almost always been based out of Houston, or when
| I lived in NYC, flying home to HOU or vacationing in DEN,
| those flights never had to cross the Rockies.
|
| I bet you are on to something.
| hereme888 wrote:
| The entire industry generates money by means of dark patterns.
| Per my interactions with people, almost 100% of consumers are
| constantly pissed off at the unending deception. Given this is
| their modus operandi, I don't trust a word the industry tells me.
|
| I'm in favor of stronger regulation, actually.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| High speed rail can't come soon enough.
| throwmeaway222 wrote:
| I haven't flown anywhere since 2013ish, maybe more people should
| stop supporting it. Convert airports into space for housing.
| darkamaul wrote:
| While US airlines are lobbying to roll back passenger protections
| and add fees, the EU is moving the opposite way - now pushing
| rules to standardize free carry-on and checked baggage sizes
| across all airlines[0]
|
| [0] https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20250627-the-big-
| change-a...
| nitwit005 wrote:
| The fees will only bring in extra revenue if they're a surprise,
| or some sort of impulse buy. I'm not sure that'll keep happening.
|
| We're already at the point where people don't trust the listed
| price of flights and hotel bookings (Vegas has made hotel resort
| fees globally famous). It just seems the long term result is
| everyone will use some app to calculate the real cost of their
| trip, and what those apps display will be the real list price.
| imchillyb wrote:
| US airlines discovered, during and after covid, that shipping
| prices were astronomical for some materials and some
| destinations. The airlines began taking on more packages, and
| less people. Now the airlines are allowing passengers to compete
| with these new package-pound-per-dollar rates. It's not
| unexpected. Now the safety measures are getting in the way of the
| package-pound-per-dollar and the airlines are seeking a way to
| scurry out from under these safety measures.
|
| This is undesirable behavior, but how can a meat-package compete
| with a rare-metals, rare-earths, or even small aluminum shipment?
| The cost of shipping goods has risen astronomically since covid.
| Meat-packages now must compete. We're losing the competition.
| fuckinpuppers wrote:
| Just a few short months ago we had an administration that pushed
| and got some fair rules created. It is crazy to me that people
| can't see how transparently anti-consumer the current
| administration is.
| jaybrendansmith wrote:
| Europe is looking better and better every day.
| gitpusher wrote:
| I don't know much about running an airline. But whenever an
| industry lobbies to de-regulate itself, you know it will be bad
| for consumers.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-09-24 23:02 UTC)