←back to thread

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

(www.travelandtourworld.com)
663 points duxup | 4 comments | 24 Sep 25 12:30 UTC | HN request time: 0.898s | source
Show context
eadmund ◴[24 Sep 25 13:14 UTC] No.45359858[source]▶
> [Elimination of] Automatic Refunds for Cancellations

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.

replies(18): >>45359959 #>>45359963 #>>45359981 #>>45359994 #>>45360024 #>>45360055 #>>45360094 #>>45360106 #>>45360155 #>>45360160 #>>45360223 #>>45360555 #>>45360614 #>>45360663 #>>45360939 #>>45360970 #>>45360997 #>>45361708 #
jjcob ◴[24 Sep 25 13:33 UTC] No.45360106[source]▶
> If you want to sit together, pay for that privilege

This is evil. There is no cost to the airline to put people who booked together next to another. It's seems like Mafia-tactic to seat people apart from another unless they pony up another $500 in upgrades.

I refuse to fly with United. I understand that there may not be 10 adjacent seats when flying with a big group, but spreading out a family on purpose just so you are more likely to buy an upgrade is evil.

I understand paying for checked luggage because luggage handling costs money. But purposely making the experience worse just so you can charge money for upgrades is evil.

replies(6): >>45360176 #>>45360342 #>>45360590 #>>45360642 #>>45360890 #>>45364851 #
NoLinkToMe ◴[24 Sep 25 19:21 UTC] No.45364851[source]▶
> This is evil. There is no cost to the airline to put people who booked together next to another. It's seems like Mafia-tactic to seat people apart from another unless they pony up another $500 in upgrades.

The idea is that an airplane needs a certain revenue to run. Suppose it's 10k, and there are 100 passengers. Each passenger thereby pays $100.

However, some passengers (A) wish to sit in a big seat and are willing to pay for it, and others (B) don't care about seat size and are willing to give-up space for a cheaper ticket.

As such, 1 Passenger A may want to pay $250 instead to get a 30% bigger seat, while 3 passengers B give up 10% of their seat size and pay a $50 ticket. The airplane still collects $400 from 4 passengers as before, but the passengers are happier now. They have traded their individual desires, for something less valuable. A desired a bigger seat and thought $150 extra was less valuable than this bigger seat. B desired a $50 cheaper ticket and thought the smaller seat was less valuable. They traded and became happier.

You may say but nah, airlines will simply charge for bigger seats and keep the smaller seats the same price. But they don't, because they must compete with other airlines that don't. If they could do this they would've already.

For seat picking it's the same thing. A prefers to pay to sit close to a friend or partner. B doesn't care and prefers a cheaper ticket. Thus A pays a bit more, B pays a bit less.

I've always had to pay for seating as long as I can remember, I never cared enough (except long international flights), so I enjoy slightly cheaper prices than a world where there was no choice. It's not as evil as it may seem at first glance.

replies(1): >>45370400 #
1. jjcob ◴[25 Sep 25 08:07 UTC] No.45370400[source]▶
I've long accepted that Airlines charge for "better" seats. I don't care for the "good" seats. I'm happy with whatever seat they put us in.

What you seem to be missing is that some airlines have started to split up groups on purpose. When they assign seats, even if 75% of the seats are still unassigned, they put people who booked together far apart from another to make them pay for seats.

That's where it turns to evil in my opinion. Fortunately "normal" airlines don't do that yet so I know that I can avoid crappy airlines like Ryan or United.

replies(1): >>45371144 #
2. NoLinkToMe ◴[25 Sep 25 10:14 UTC] No.45371144[source]▶
It's the same concept though isn't it?

It effectively sorts people in group A who cares about seats (and thus pays to prevent random seating) and group B who doesn't care (and effectively gets a subsidised ticket price from A, by giving up their seating preference).

replies(1): >>45372456 #
3. jjcob ◴[25 Sep 25 13:34 UTC] No.45372456[source]▶
You could use the same argument to argue that Basic Economy passengers should be punched in the face when boarding.

Then there's a group A of wimpy rich kids (who pay to prevent getting punched in the face) and a group B who don't mind getting punched in the face (and effectively get a subsidised ticket from group A).

replies(1): >>45517833 #
4. NoLinkToMe ◴[08 Oct 25 16:18 UTC] No.45517833{3}[source]▶
No you couldn't.

In my example, seats must be assigned. You can't seat people safely in an airplane without seat assignment.

You can assign it as an airline, or you can let the customer assign.

Not all customers care about assignment equally. Thus there is a market. And in a market you allow people to trade their value.

Pay more for preferred seating, or pay less and accept random seating. Both groups win, total welfare increases. Group A values seat-assignment more than money and gets the more valuable of the two. Group A values money more than seat-assignment, and gets the more valuable of the two. It's a classic trade scenario where both win.

The airline merely functions as the marketplace to allow people to trade, and to get to a more optimal scenario (pareto improving) where the total utility/welfare goes up.

Random seating ensures that everyone makes this trade, and thus ensures you get the closest to max pareto efficiency.

Without random seating you'd get the free-rider problem: those who don't care (or care only a little) about seat-assignment, don't get a discount that they value more. These people are not paying for a feature they don't value, and subsidise those people who do value it and are willing to pay for it independently! While those that care a lot about seating, aren't guaranteed the seat they want, despite wanting to pay for it. This decreases total welfare, it's a destruction of value.

Your punching example is different because it's introducing a harm for everyone. Everyone cares about not getting punched, it's below the baseline service. The baseline service is a ticket to safely go from A to B. Seat assignment is an extra feature above the baseline that some want to pay for, and others don't. Not getting punched in the face is a deterioration below the baseline, it's a nonsense idea to introduce it. That's why it's different. I

Of course the market mechanisms will work just the same, that's certainly true. But the morality or logic behind the airline introducing this is completely different.