Fury as major credit card company cuts airport perk and hits customers with new steep fee: ‘I'm deeply disappointed'
Capital One customers will soon be grieving a beloved perk that the bank holding company provided its customers with — and they're not happy about it.
The company's Venture X card launched in 2021 and is known as a premium travel card offering great perks to its users.
Advertisement
Capital One hits cardholders with a steep $395 annual fee — however, users were willing to pay that since the card offered them many benefits, including complimentary access to airport lounges.
However, starting next year — on February 1st to be exact, according to The Points Guy — that free access for Venture X and Venture X Business cardholders will soon be a thing of the past.
Having free access to airport lounges was a beloved perk by card users.
Yakobchuk Olena – stock.adobe.com
Advertisement
In early 2026, cardholders will have to shell out a yearly $125 fee for each person who wants to relax in an airport lounge — which means a family of four has to spend around $500 for some sanity before even stepping foot onto a plane, as reported on by Men's Journal.
Yes, it gets even worse.
If you want to access the Capital One-specific lounges — it'll cost you $45 per guest and $35 for Priority Pass access, exclusive lounges affiliated with Capital One.
The only way cardholders can be exempt from paying these annoying fees is if they rack up $75,000 in credit card charges over the course of a year.
Advertisement
Sounds like a lose-lose situation.
The Post reached out to Capital One for comment.
'As airport lounges continue to grow in popularity across the industry, we've seen our customers increasingly encounter wait times to enter them,' a Capital One spokesperson said in a statement to the Daily Mail, defending their decision.
Venture X cards were always known for their great perks.
monticellllo – stock.adobe.com
Advertisement
'It is important to us that we maintain a great airport lounge experience for our Venture X and Venture X Business customers, while continuing to deliver best-in-class premium travel cards at an accessible price point.'
Regardless, Capital One customers are furious over these changes.
'…to be blunt — I'm deeply disappointed. This isn't just a tweak to policy. It's a fundamental shift in what made this card valuable, and frankly, worth recommending,' Seth Chomout, a Venture X cardholder and travel advocate, wrote in an open letter on LinkedIn.
'…it feels like Capital One has pivoted from creating value to creating obstacles.'
'And sure, I get that lounges are crowded. But rather than scaling with demand, Capital One chose to wall off benefits behind spending thresholds that are completely misaligned with the needs of real families and real travelers,' Chomout continued.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Yahoo
Capital One $425 million class action settlement reached: See if you qualify
If you had a Capital One 360 savings account between Sept. 2019 and June 2025, you may be eligible to receive payment as part of a $425 million settlement. According to a notice filed in the United States federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, Capital One customers filed a class action lawsuit against the bank in 2024. Earlier this year, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) also sued Capital One, alleging the company froze its rate at a low level for years, despite increasing national rates. As a result, customers were cheated out of more than $2 billion in lost interest payments, according to the Bureau. In a statement, the Bureau said Capital One marketed its 360 Savings account as 'high interest' with a variable rate that was 'one of the nation's best," and that consumers would earn much more interest than the average savings or money market account. The Bureau called these representations "false or otherwise misleading." The CFPB dropped the lawsuit in February, but Capital One has agreed to pay $425 million in a separate class action lawsuit settlement. Here's what you need to know about the class action settlement. Capital One accusations Capital One advertised its 360 Savings account as its high-interest savings account, Kiplinger, a finance news outlet, reported, adding that it later froze interest rates on that account at 0.3%. At the same time, rates on its newer account called "360 Performance Savings" increased to a peak of 4.3% in 2022 after the Federal Reserve did a rapid series of rate hikes. Customers of the older savings account, the Capital One 360 savings account, allegedly weren't notified of the new and higher-earning account. Who qualifies for payment? Current and former customers who maintained a Capital One 360 Savings account between Sept. 18, 2019, and June 16, 2025, qualify for payments. How much will customers receive? Account holders will receive payments totalling what they "would have earned if their 360 Savings account(s) had paid the interest rate then applicable to the 360 Performance Savings account,' according to the settlement. The remaining payments will go towards customers who still have a 360 savings account. Their accounts will earn an interest rate that is "at least two times the national average rate for savings deposit accounts as calculated by the FDIC," the settlement stated. The settlement awaits court approval, with a hearing slated for Nov. 6. The deadline to submit a claim or write to the court objecting to the settlement is Oct. 2. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Capital One $425 million class action settlement. Who qualifies?
New York Post
17 hours ago
- New York Post
Zohran's rent-stabilized digs: Letters to the Editor — Aug. 14, 2025
The Issue: Andrew Cuomo's proposal for 'Zohran's Law' to stop the wealthy from exploiting rent control. Will New Yorkers finally wake up and elect someone who cares about crime, the cleanliness of the city and its taxpayers ('Cuo: 'Zohran's Law' to save apt. for needy,' Aug. 11)? Zohran Mamdani, who talks tough about taxing the millionaires and billionaires, is the son of millionaires and also makes $142,000 as a state assemblyman while living in a rent-stabilized apartment. He's nothing but a hypocrite, who will break the backs of New York's hard-working taxpayers. Advertisement Michael Greaney Massapequa As a tenant in a rent-regulated apartment, I agree with Andrew Cuomo's proposal to impose a means-test for occupants of these dwellings. Advertisement Many tenants of New York City's million rent-regulated units have low or moderate incomes. But some are privileged people in power who abuse the system, like Mamdani. No one who earns more than $100,000 a year (about twice the city median income) should qualify for a rent-regulated apartment. Those units belong to the needy, not the greedy. It is time to reform New York's rancid rent laws. Richard Reif Kew Gardens Hills Advertisement While Cuomo is right to criticize socialist Mamdani for gaming the rent-stabilization system, he's guilty of a staggering hypocrisy in calling for means-testing renters. As governor, Cuomo signed the notorious 2019 law preventing landlords from raising rents in exchange for Major Capital Improvements. As a result, over 20,000 apartments are left vacant, while the city faces a growing housing shortage. Robert Spitalnick Great Neck Advertisement Wow. The Post is really scraping the bottom of the barrel to find fault with Mamdani. It's not like he's paying $150 a month for a five-room rent-controlled apartment. If someone bought a house at a low price and then property values suddenly went up, why would they think: 'I'd better move. It's not fair that I was so lucky'? Carol Puttre-Czyz East Village The Post reports that Mamdani has a nice subsidized one-bedroom apartment. As a socialist — likely even a communist — I'm sure Mamdani would welcome a few new roommates to share his largesse. Don Phelan Avon, Conn. The Issue: Mahmoud Khalil's attempt to justify Hamas' Oct. 7 attacks in a New York Times interview. How did terrorist mouthpiece Mahmoud Khalil get legal US residency ('Cries to boot bum Khalil,' Aug. 8)? Advertisement This moral degenerate thinks that Hamas' rape, beheading and burning of children, women and men was necessary to derail a Saudi-Israeli peace deal. He's now free to spew his demented hatred for Jews all over the media, igniting fantasies of murdering Jews. Someone should tell Khalil that a guest doesn't attack the values of those who have invited him into their homes. Steve Heitner Middle Island Advertisement I just don't understand how anyone can support Hamas, which engaged in these egregious and nefarious acts against innocent men, women and children who only wanted to live in peace. In my opinion, people like Khalil, whose only objective is to promote antisemitism and harming our Jewish friends and neighbors, should be deported. Frederick Bedell Jr. Advertisement Bellerose Khalil's justification for the savagery of Oct. 7 is only the tip of the iceberg. Those who applauded the rape and beheadings of innocents on Oct. 7 would also have proudly raised their fists in victory on 9/11. David Bryant Palm Desert, Calif. Advertisement Want to weigh in on today's stories? Send your thoughts (along with your full name and city of residence) to letters@ Letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, accuracy, and style.
New York Post
17 hours ago
- New York Post
Eric Adams vetoes controversial grocery bills, citing affordability crisis for New Yorkers
Mayor Eric Adams vetoed a pair of controversial grocery bills that would have forced delivery companies in NYC to pay drivers more, which critics said would result in higher costs at the supermarket. Adams said Wednesday he issued the vetoes because he feared the increase in prices would burden struggling New Yorkers already facing an affordability crisis. 'Grocery prices are already too high, so now is not the right time to do anything to drive these prices even higher,' the mayor said. 4 Adams used his veto power to swat down a pair of bills he said would make grocery deliveries more expensive. James Messerschmidt Progressive City Council members who supported the legislation said the new laws would increase wages to more than $21 per hour for delivery drivers. But Adams argued the app delivery companies would pass the cost of the increased wages onto 'vulnerable' customers. 4 The mayor said New Yorkers can't afford higher grocery prices. Xinhua/Shutterstock 'Grocery delivery is fundamental for many New Yorkers, including some of our most vulnerable residents,' Adams said. 'We must always work to strike the right balance between delivering fair wages and making our city affordable for everyone and for that reason, I am vetoing both of these bills at this time.' Two-thirds of council members could vote to override Adams' vetoes. Council member Sandy Nurse, who sponsored Intro 1135-A and leads the council's progressive caucus, did not immediately respond to The Post's request for comment. When her bill was passed in July it received 36 votes, two more than a veto-proof majority. Intro 1133-A, the other bill Adams vetoed Wednesday, was also passed with a veto-proof majority, with 38 council members voting 'aye' in July. Council member Jennifer Gutiérrez, who sponsored 1133-A did not immediately respond to The Post's request for comment. A spokesperson for city council, Julia Agos, said the mayor was being hypocritical and the council was 'considering next steps.' 'Mayor Adams is once again displaying hypocrisy – this time, by opposing common-sense minimum pay standards and protections for grocery delivery workers that his own administration negotiated with us to match existing ones for food delivery workers,' Agos said. 'This veto demonstrates that the mayor's claims to care about working-class New Yorkers and a sustainable delivery industry for New York City are hollow, because he is undermining the workers who make the sector possible,' she added. 4 Progressive city council members argued struggling food delivery workers are underpaid. Stephen Yang The mayor was swayed in part by an op-ed written by Rev. Al Sharpton and published in AMNY, according to a source in City Hall. Sharpton argued food insecure New Yorkers, who are already facing cuts from the Trump administration to federal food programs, such as SNAP, couldn't stomach higher grocery prices. 4 A majority of council members could still vote to override the mayor's veto. Matthew McDermott The mayor's decision was also affected by a petition signed by 11,000 grocery delivery customers asking for the bills to be vetoed, according to a source. 'We cannot risk making groceries even more expensive for the families who can least afford them. Our administration will always fight for a fairer, more affordable future for all New Yorkers, full stop,' Adams said.
