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

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.

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.