←back to thread

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

(www.travelandtourworld.com)
663 points duxup | 2 comments | 24 Sep 25 12:30 UTC | HN request time: 0.398s | source
Show context
Lio ◴[24 Sep 25 15:39 UTC] No.45361891[source]▶
> 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.

replies(8): >>45361944 #>>45362031 #>>45362322 #>>45362678 #>>45362710 #>>45362811 #>>45362887 #>>45364684 #
advisedwang ◴[24 Sep 25 16:46 UTC] No.45362887[source]▶
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).

replies(1): >>45363146 #
1. heathrow83829 ◴[24 Sep 25 17:05 UTC] No.45363146[source]▶
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)
replies(1): >>45364857 #
2. 0xffff2 ◴[24 Sep 25 19:22 UTC] No.45364857[source]▶
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.