←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: 0.202s | 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 #
lxgr ◴[24 Sep 25 14:34 UTC] No.45361025[source]▶
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.

replies(4): >>45361198 #>>45362088 #>>45364728 #>>45365133 #
1. bilekas ◴[24 Sep 25 14:48 UTC] No.45361198[source]▶
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.