CONSUMER PROTECTION

Minimal black and white line cartoon of a wide-eyed traveler holding a rolling suitcase at an airport counter while an agent behind the desk gestures, suggesting a conversation about baggage.

The war is over. Let’s bring airline baggage fees down now.

by

Peace negotiators may be dotting the i’s on a deal to end the Iran war, but air travelers are paying attention to something else: the cost of their checked bags. Remember when jet fuel prices spiked after the fighting broke out earlier this year? Every major American airline rushed to raise its checked bag fees. United, American, Delta, Southwest, JetBlue, they all went up. The airlines blamed the war, and at the time they had a point, since fuel had roughly doubled. But then the ceasefire came, oil pulled back from its highs, and guess what? Not one airline has announced it is bringing its luggage fees back down. There is a name for this pattern, and once you see how it works, and what Europe just did about bags while U.S. carriers went the other way, the summer ahead at the airport starts to look very different.

Cartoon of a disappointed concertgoer holding a ticket stub while standing in a packed crowd far from a brightly lit stage where performers appear as tiny distant figures.

SeatGeek promised first-row seats. I got section G instead!

by

Sean Thomas paid SeatGeek $2,744 to see The Weeknd, and the listing made the value clear: premium floor seating in the first five rows, plus a special VIP merchandise bundle. Then the tickets arrived. They were for Section G, a long way back from the stage, and the VIP package did not match the terms SeatGeek’s own rules require. When he complained, the answers kept shifting. First a representative told him “first five rows” actually meant a general zone, not literal rows. When he disproved that, the company redefined the stage itself, suggesting runways now count as part of it, and then uploaded a brand-new seat map after he filed his complaint. His Buyer Guarantee was supposed to protect him against exactly this. What happened when he invoked it, and what SeatGeek finally said about his $2,744, is where the case turns.

Line cartoon of a worried woman holding a boarding pass and pulling a suitcase as her family of three sits anxiously in airport gate seats behind her.

“A travel nightmare”: United changed my flight but never told me — now I’m out $2,000

by

Krupa Singampalli had booked a United trip home from Australia for her family of four, with business class upgrades bought using miles and a copay for each passenger. The outbound leg went smoothly. The return became a nightmare. At 1 a.m. in Cairns, she opened the United app and saw her 74-year-old mother’s seat had quietly slipped to waitlisted. A schedule change had rerouted the whole family through Sydney, except the message announcing it had never reached her inbox. When they got to the airport, the partner airlines could not find their reservations, the agents pointed at one another, and a flight departed without them while she was still on hold. Desperate and unwell, she bought four new one-way tickets out of her own pocket just to keep moving. Only later did she learn what United had done with the seats she thought she still had, and what the airline would say when she asked it to make the whole thing right.

Cartoon of a shocked couple standing beside their blue rental Jeep, staring wide-eyed at a small pile of sand on the ground next to the vehicle's tire.

Budget’s $125 sand trap: When does a “dirty” floor mat become a rental car rip-off?

by

When Barb and Steve Pfeffer returned their rental Jeep after an eight-day hiking trip in the Pacific Northwest, the drop-off seemed routine. A friendly Budget agent verified the fuel, thanked them, and sent them on their way. It was anything but routine. Two weeks later, they found a $125 cleaning fee on their credit card. The reason? Excessive sand on the floor mats. Budget claimed the debris forced the Jeep out of service for detailing. The Pfeffers, who have rented cars for more than 40 years and never once been charged a cleaning fee, were stunned. They admit there was sand, they had been hiking in national parks for over a week, but they argue a couple of dirty mats hardly justify sending a car to a detailer. The deeper problem is buried in Budget’s contract, in a single phrase that lets the company decide, entirely on its own, what counts as too dirty and what that judgment will cost you.

Black and white cartoon of a small couple with suitcases standing on a dark horizon, watching a paper airplane folded from a banknote fly up and away into a vast cloudy sky.

Air travelers deserve stronger consumer protections—in Europe and the U.S.

by

Mila Schoun knew what his downgrade was worth, but his airline pretended it did not. Schoun and his wife had paid Swiss International Air Lines for premium economy on a flight from Prague to Miami, and then the airline changed aircraft and put them in regular economy for the 10-hour crossing. He asked for the difference back. Swiss refused. What Schoun had on his side, even if he had never heard of it, was EC 261, a 21-year-old European regulation that makes airlines pay when they cancel, bump, strand, or downgrade you, and that quietly protects millions of Americans on any flight leaving an EU airport. Europe just spent the spring fighting over whether to gut that law, with the airline lobby pushing to raise the delay threshold and erase most claims. Passengers appear to have dodged the worst of it. But there is a quieter problem that no one in Brussels lobbied for and no one fought against, one that has been draining the value out of this protection for two decades while everyone argued about something else.

Black and white cartoon of a frazzled airline passenger facing a smiling gate agent at a counter, who holds up a document labeled "OUR RULES," illustrating the gap between what travelers want and what the DOT's disclosure rule actually delivers.

Congress asked for passenger rights. It got a PDF

by

Airline passengers are tired of standing at the gate while agents hand out excuses. The Department of Transportation has a fix. Soon, airlines will hand out a piece of paper instead. The DOT just finalized a rule requiring airlines to publish a one-page summary of passengers’ rights. Congress ordered it eight years ago. The rule does not set any compensation amounts. It does not require meals, hotels, or rebooking when there is a delay. Each airline only has to briefly summarize its own existing policies, in whatever format it likes. The rule also skipped the public comment period, and in a detail that is hard to make up, the summaries are not even due yet, because carriers cannot submit anything until a separate government approval process is complete. When the regulated industry shrugs at a new regulation, that means something, and this rule drew no objection at all.

Black and white cartoon of a woman with wild, disheveled hair glaring angrily near an airport check-in counter as a wary uniformed agent watches her from behind the desk. airline blacklist

Is it time for an international blacklist of problem passengers?

by

If an airline bans you for screaming at a flight attendant or trying to open a door at altitude, you can usually walk to a competitor’s counter and buy a ticket. Britain wants to put an end to that, and its actions may ripple across the Atlantic. The Department for Transport and the Home Office are reportedly working on a national system that would let UK airlines share details of serious offenders, so a person barred by one carrier could be flagged at check-in by another. A trade group has welcomed it, and a budget carrier has been lobbying for exactly this kind of database. On its face it sounds like common sense: keep the dangerous few off everyone’s planes. But a shared ban list raises harder questions than the headlines admit, starting with the ones that decide whether it protects passengers or quietly turns into something else: who decides who belongs on it, what counts as unruly, and if an airline flags you and you think it is wrong, who exactly do you appeal to?

Editorial cartoon of a disappointed woman with shoulder-length hair resting her chin on her hand while holding up a smartphone showing the orange StubHub app, seated at a table against a pink wall with a vintage-style concert poster for The Lumineers hanging on the wall behind her, illustrating a frustrated concertgoer who received the wrong tickets and struggled to get a refund through StubHub's confusing return policy

Help! StubHub’s confusing ticket return policy cost me $1,176

by

Sharon McMonagle paid $1,176 for four club section tickets to a Lumineers concert through StubHub. The confirmation email included no seat numbers, and the day before the show StubHub sent tickets for a completely different section with no club access. StubHub asked her to accept the wrong tickets and transfer them back, which she feared would lock her into ownership. An agent told her to send a screenshot proving she had not accepted the tickets. After 45 days, StubHub said she would receive nothing because she had not returned the tickets through Ticketmaster, tickets she never accepted in the first place. StubHub advertises a FanProtect Guarantee promising that buyers who do not receive the tickets they ordered will get comparable replacements or a full refund.

Editorial cartoon showing a worried elderly gray-haired man in a beige cardigan and gray trousers sitting in a dark red armchair with his hand on his sore right knee while holding a cell phone to his ear, with a black wheeled suitcase standing nearby on the hardwood floor, illustrating a senior traveler trying to secure a medical refund after a hip condition forced him to cancel a transatlantic flight

Why is ITA Airways making it impossible to get a medical refund?

by

Daniel Lichtblau booked two ITA Airways tickets from Chicago to Turin four months in advance. Shortly after booking, he learned he could not travel due to primary osteoarthritis in his right hip. He submitted a medical certificate from his orthopedic surgeon covering the travel dates and requested a refund for his ticket and a date change for his wife’s ticket. ITA Airways initially confirmed receipt of the documentation, then denied the refund claiming the certificate lacked a prognosis specifying the exact dates of inability to travel. The airline refused to specify what additional language was required. Under U.S. and state consumer protection laws, airlines must provide accurate guidance about their refund requirements.