←back to thread

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

(www.travelandtourworld.com)
663 points duxup | 1 comments | 24 Sep 25 12:30 UTC | HN request time: 0.41s | source
Show context
bilekas ◴[24 Sep 25 14:22 UTC] No.45360845[source]▶
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" ?

replies(7): >>45361025 #>>45361065 #>>45361878 #>>45362745 #>>45362913 #>>45363164 #>>45366785 #
mushroomba[dead post] ◴[24 Sep 25 14:37 UTC] No.45361065[source]▶
[flagged]
1. bilekas ◴[24 Sep 25 14:44 UTC] No.45361152[source]▶
> First, realize that there is no such thing as the 'public interest'. The public is composed of different subdivisions of people, from everyone everywhere down to the individual.

I don't buy that at all, that's what regulations are for. There is no public interest in still having lead in our fuel [0], or arsenic in green wall paint [1]. To say regulations are not for public interest is to say why have any oversight of anything.

Should we say "well fuel companies can make fuel cheaper with lead so lets just remove those regulations.

[0] https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/inside-20-year-c...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_green#:~:text=Because%20...

replies(1): >>45361529 #