The European Union is looking to outlaw fees imposed on hand luggage and seat allocation as well as to standardise inconsistent airline policies to eliminate hidden costs that impact airline fares. This is according to a resolution passed by the European Parliament on October 4, asking the European Commission to present concrete policy measures against hand luggage price supplements. It also requires the EU executive body to outline the scope and specific requirements of "reasonable" carry-on baggage weights and dimensions. In revising the existing EU Air Services Regulation, the Commission should address issues resulting in hidden passenger costs, such as fees imposed on seat allocations and the current complexity of airline offers relating to luggage. The aim is to regulate the composition of the final price, it said. It has already launched a review of the regulation. European lawmakers want the Commission to fully implement a European Union Court of Justice ruling on September 18, 2014, concerning the baggage surcharges that Vueling Airlines (VY, Barcelona El Prat) was imposing at the time. The court found that airlines should not charge a supplement for carry-on bags "on condition that such hand baggage meets reasonable requirements in terms of its weight and dimensions and complies with applicable security requirements". Lawmakers have urged EU member states to ensure that this ruling is respected and, in the meantime, disclose hand luggage fees when providing fares and schedules to strengthen consumer protection. Earlier this year, Spain's Ministry of Consumer Affairs launched an investigation into multiple low-cost carriers over hand luggage fees, reports Euronews. In November 2019, a Spanish court ruled against Ryanair (FR, Dublin International) for having imposed a EUR20 euro (USD21) surcharge on a passenger for taking a small personal bag on board. Last month, the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions (PETI) passed a motion urging airlines operating within the EU not to penalise passengers for carrying hand luggage. Meanwhile, in the United States, Frontier Airlines (F9, Denver International) faces class action for alleged deceptive practices and bait-and-switch tactics concerning luggage and associated fees after it charged a passenger USD100 for an oversized personal carry-on item.
  • darq@kbin.social
    601·
    1 year ago

    We need to subsidise train travel. Train travel has the disadvantage that it’s slower, but over medium distances not that much slower if one includes getting to and from airports and getting through security and such.

    Trains have the advantage of being far more pleasant an experience, leaving from and arriving at more convenient locations, fewer restrictions on luggage, just generally less hassle.

    But then trains are crazy expensive for some reason.

    • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.clubEnglish
      8·
      1 year ago

      Trains require a lot more infrastructure on the ground than planes do. Also, the fuel for planes isn’t taxed in Europe even though it should be.

      • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        3·
        1 year ago

        True, but it’s always like, planes are more expensive in the long run.

        It’s more expensive to build a solar panel than burn coal. But after the coal has been burned, the solar panel still stays up.

    • Phanatik@kbin.social
      6·
      1 year ago

      Trains tend to be largely privatised. I can’t speak to other countries but here in the UK, each train company covers different lines so it’s effectively a distributed monopoly. They have no incentive to make tickets cheaper or their trains better because there isn’t any competition. Trains should be nationalised or at least have more regulations.

      • Dmian@lemmy.world
        7·
        1 year ago

        Trains tend to be largely privatised

        That’s mostly the UK. Germany has Deutsche Bahn, France SNCF, Italy SF/Trenitalia, and Spain has Renfe. All state owned. And I guess there are many other European countries with State owned Rail companies. Trains tend to be mostly state owned in Europe.

    • riceandbeans161@discuss.tchncs.de
      61·
      1 year ago

      yup. I’m in a long distance relationship. Germany to England. I’d love to take the train if it wasn’t 3x as expensive and takes like twice as long with a hundred changeovers.

    • honey_im_meat_grinding@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      83·
      1 year ago

      “Crazy expensive” doesn’t really matter when you’re a government and can borrow or print to make investments that have investment returns in the form of efficiency gains that go on to improve the economy, much like what corporations do to grow (borrow, reinvest profits gained from growth). There isn’t really any good macroeconomic evidence that inflation is to blame because of said funding strategies, as explained by PhD Joeri Schasfoort in multiple of his videos[1], much to the behest right wing populist politicians who lie about not being able to invest in infrastructure. In the UK, Rishi Sunak is cancelling our HS2 railway falsely citing costs and even sabotaging it by sidestepping the democratically elected House of Commons by selling off gov. owned land so that the incoming Labour government will have a hard time un-cancelling HS2 - even our old conservative Brexit-causing PM David Cameron is criticising it publicly (ex-PMs rarely criticise their own party’s contemporary government).

      [1] https://www.youtube.com/@MoneyMacro/videos

      • burningmatches@feddit.ukEnglish
        5·
        1 year ago

        Part of the problem is that many government’s don’t fund infrastructure investment themselves. By privatising utilities and other vital infrastructure they can appear to “cut spending”. Of course, in reality the cost is much higher (and/or the investment is much lower) because privatised entities need to make a margin and (by definition) have higher borrowing costs than the government.