←back to thread

663 points duxup | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
bunnyfoofoo ◴[] No.45359603[source]
Get a 403 from EU. Is there a better source?
replies(4): >>45359642 #>>45359648 #>>45359759 #>>45359861 #
willvarfar ◴[] No.45359648[source]
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.

replies(5): >>45359674 #>>45359795 #>>45359998 #>>45360086 #>>45360898 #
1. redwall_hp ◴[] No.45359998[source]
> 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.

replies(3): >>45360352 #>>45360494 #>>45360967 #
2. hedora ◴[] No.45360352[source]
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.

replies(1): >>45360914 #
3. thombat ◴[] No.45360494[source]
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.
4. lxgr ◴[] No.45360914[source]
That's literally why chargebacks exist. Whoever drafted this particular idea must not be very familiar with how card payments work.
5. ghaff ◴[] No.45360967[source]
>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.