Recent legislation has given Airline Passengers A Bill Of Rights. Here's my view from a Sensistive & PC point of view as a member of the airline industry.

While no one including airlines wants to be inconvenienced by airline delays, creating a “Passengers Bill of Rights” does not solve the problem or address the real issues.

Extended flight delays are the exception to everyday airline operations and normally only occur when airlines are faced with situations that are usually beyond their control.

Airport and airspace saturation due to weather and air traffic control constraints are usually the main contributors.

As an employee of a major airline and having worked in the airline industry for over fifteen years, I believe the situation requires both a long term solution with immediate stop gap measures.

Long term we need new airports along with an updated air traffic control system to keep up with the projected increase in demand for air travel.

An immediate first step stop gap is for The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to restrict arrivals and departures into high density airports at peak times. This can be done without sacrificing seat capacity if airlines adjust their schedule frequency and equipment on certain routes.

A 50 seat airplane requires the same airspace consideration as a 150 seat airplane but carries 100 less passengers. Does New York (LGA) to Boston (BOS) need hourly service by two different airlines?

High schedule frequency usually with smaller airplanes can contribute to airspace congestion which in turn leads to delays even on good weather days.

Secondly, with major weather events or air traffic control problems, passengers should not be allowed to board an aircraft unless air traffic control (FAA/ATC) can guarantee an airborne departure within one hour. A form of this is currently done at most high density airports through a flow control program but in light of the new legislation it needs to be enhanced.

Since the 3 hour time limitation does not begin until the aircraft physically leaves the gate. Early boarding can cause passengers to be on the airplane a lot longer than 3 hours. Again, the 3 hour limitation DOES NOT GO INTO AFFECT UNTIL THE AIRPLANE LEAVES THE GATE.

With airlines facing stiff fines of almost $4 million dollars for a delayed airplane with 148 passengers. Most airlines will return to the gate after 2 hours of weather or ATC delays, no matter how close they are to takeoff. Unfortunately, depending on your crew’s (FEDERALLY MANDATED) limitation on working hours and rest requirements, for your safety your flight might be canceled.

It is naive for politicians or others to think that airlines purposefully inconvenience and/or mistreat their passengers, we are all aware that no one wins if this happens.

Often your airplane is needed at your destination to fly others to their destination. By doing this safely and conveniently this is how airlines make money.

Therefore, it is also in our best interest to get you to your destination on time.

My airline with hundreds of flights a day has it's share of delays and operational issues but it is ridiculous to expect it to pay more than a hundred times the price of an average ticket for delays that are beyond it's control.

From my experience, you ultimately get to your destination faster on bad weather days or with air traffic control delays by being on the airplane in an active takeoff sequence.

A gate return which the new rule forces, usually adds to your delays because your flight loses it's spot in the departure line.

However, to keep the politicians happy and the airlines from paying million dollar plus in fines the norm will be a gate return. Your delay may be longer than 3 hours waiting inside the terminal or having your flight ultimately canceled. This is part of your rights and the airlines will not be punished as long as your delay is not in an airplane.

Setting up a system to pay fines into a federal black hole is stupid. If you want to make everyone happy, mandate that any delay over 3 hours will result in automatic refund of round trip ticket price plus $1000 cash to each person trapped on the plane. The cumulative fine to the airline would not be enough to break the bank, but the inconvenienced passengers would at least feel like they got some recompense for their trouble.

What gets me really annoyed is when the airline claims "weather" as the reason for a flight delay (the one thing that absolves them of any responsibility for delays), but the sky above my departure and arrival airports are crystal clear. The answer is always that the weather in a third city kept the plane from getting to my city on time - sorry, but that is NOT a weather delay, that is a planning problem.

I actually agree with much of what you state; however, you ignore some very salient points:

- First and foremost, the airlines had YEARS to solve this problem on their own and did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. No, wait a second . . . they (and their lackeys at the ATA) actually opposed every effort to find a reasonable solution to this issue.

- The airlines are in charge of their schedules. They are the ones who choose to fly Q400s 3 times daily from GSP - EWR.

- As witnessed by the recent VS incident, the words "contingency planning" seem to be totally, utterly absent from anyone in the airline industry. Yes, weather happens. That's why you need to PLAN for it AHEAD of time.

- I also think it's naive to think that the airlines are not willing to let pax rot on an aircraft, as this has been proven time and time again. The fact that it does happen infrequently is what allows them to behave in this manner.

The bottom line is that while the "tarmac horror flights" thankfully happen infrequently, I certainly would not want to be held captive on a hot plane with screaming kids, overflowing toilets, and no food or water. And again, the airlines could have solved this on their own without the government interference and instead chose to stubbornly, inexplicably do NOTHING. Thus, they have no one to blame for this but THEMSELVES.

DMB Traveler - United States's airlines "policies" and explanations are the reason I always choose to fly European airlines (more passenger rights legislation) to Europe and Asian airlines (stellar customer srvice in general). Granted, I have received stellar service from time to time on American and Continental, but it's not guaranteed because American airlines generally aren't held to the same customer service standards.

LT,

I thought we were done quibbling

Yes, you are correct airlines set their own schedules, that's why to me DOT on time performance is a joke. However, to your point. Regardless of airline schedules, most extended delays are weather related.

Airspace congestions which usually come from poor airline scheduling for shake of high schedule frequency and competition (If United has 6 flights a day ORD-LGA, then damm it we need to have 7 or they'll take our market share!) is another major contributor.

In the end the 3Hr limit does not start until aircraft leaves the gate. Therefore, airlines will closely monitor this or not operate your flight at all. Although it sounds good because "we can stick it to the airlines". In the end I think passengers will suffer because airlines will do all they can to avoid paying fines which may include returning to the gate to reset the 3HR clock.

This law is an unnessary burden on airlines and you will see on passengers as well as they wait in the terminals where there is no 3Hr time limit.

Are we done quibbling?

Usernameistaken,

How do you compare the prices paid for your tickets on US vs Foreign carriers?

Regardless, weather and ATC problems affect them both. The last newsworthy incident was on Virgin Airlines.

Bottom line, this bill is nothing but political fluff. Airlines and The FAA need to address the real issues. Too many airplane operating in an outdated air taffic control system and too many operations at already high density airports!

I think the problems will take care of themselves, given help by the political fluff. Airlines can't continue to run in the red indefinitely.

Even though many people seem to enjoy demonizing them as big, bad businesses that are out to make their passengers' lives a misery, in reality, if you take a deep breath and step back out of the twilight zone for just a moment, they are really just businesses trying to stay in business because they have lots of employees who really need their jobs to feed their families and keep roofs over their heads, just like the rest of us.

And federal mandates make that more and more difficult. Eventually they will be forced to raise prices or go bankrupt - wait, that's already happened, hasn't it, the bankruptcy part? I guess the next step will be to raise prices or go bankrupt again - but this time there will be no one to save them because the saviors are bankrupt.

Eventually those that survive will turn back into airlines again, instead of trying to compete with Greyhound for the customers who demand lower and lower pricing. And fewer people will fly, more will take the real bus, pressure on airports and routes will decline and - problems solved - we're back to the more civilized days some of us still remember, when flying wasn't something we felt was owed to us.

I think I am not alone in understanding that the airlines have a lot to deal with that is beyond their control, but as someone who has worked in the service industry for most of her life, I have to say sometimes the way you deliver bad news is almost important as the news itself.

A smile is free. A little empathy is free. It's not about the money. The snapping and rudeness that some (and notice I said SOME, not all) airline employees feel they are entitled to has got to go.

And DMBTraveler - foreign airfares are competitve with US airfares if you book in advance. For example, in January, we flew to Thailand from Boston on ANA for $939 pp (that's including taxes). Although we were in economy class, the service felt like what I would imagine first or business class to be (I have never flown anything but economy). No US airline offered that price. we are flying to Barcelona in September on Air France - the price was only $100 more than Delta and United but features only one stop and better flight times. We also booked a Lufthansa flight into Prague and out of Vienna for October for around $850 pp - I think the Delta fare (with bad timing and connections) was only %50-70 less.

Julia1,

You make good points. Basically along the same line as I am trying to point out.

I feel if the flying public became more aware of the issues around air travel.The Good, The Bad and The Ugly then they can have better experiences even with government interference or lack of.

Looking at airlines different than any other business is a mistake. Airlines in general do a great job for the product they deliver but it's a business that is easy play political football with or make jokes about.

Still, like a used car salesman or lawyer when we need one their services can be invaluable.

usernameismistaken,

If I understand you all airlines offer competitive prices. I would suggest the difference in service you received is then based on cost structure. With a fair amount of foreign airlines being directly governnment subsidized that my be the difference in them providing you better service.

On similiar routes most airlines offer similiar service although your chicken dinner on ANA may be more tasty than on Delta. First and Business Classes are a completely diffrent product than economy. Here passengers are willing to pay for the services, so airlines are willing to provide it.

That cannot be said for most passengers that just want to get from Point A to B.

You are right about the approach employees take to problems and informing passengers about it can make a big difference.

I once flew a Southwest flight with problems that had us land in PHX late. Because of the way it was handled passengers actually applauded even though we were 2 hrs late.

Your point is well taken.

Respectfully, the difference in service I am referring to does not cost money. It does not cost money to note that when a passenger is sleeping and misses meal service to hold an entree for that person. It does not cost money to come by every once in a while to offer water. It does not cost money to smile.

My guess is happy employees give better service therefore I would suggest it does cost money to have the service you are talking about.

I imagine it is easy for certain employees that are not happy with their job or employer to past that on to customers. And it would be naive to think they should just quit after dedicating 20-30 years of your life to an employer. Jobs are not easy to come by and bills still have to be paid.

Since 911 many employees in the airline industry have lost up to 40% in earned pay plus lost pensions and benefits. Homes have been foreclosed on, vacations canceled and belts tighten.

Yet, I know from first hand experience hundreds of airline employees in that situation that still go to work and smile.

Your experiences does not surprise me but I believe similiar experiences are isolated incidients.

I am sure if your boss cut your salary 40% and took away your health benefits... You would not have much to smile about no matter what you do for a living.

As a general rule you will get better service from employees of a company when they are treated well by their employers and yes, this does cost money!

Actually, DMBTraveler, I work 2 jobs and last year, at one job, two of my four shifts were taken away and I still had to smile and did. Others at that job lost health insurance. At my other job, I was required to take 5 days without pay. So, I do know what it is like to have your pay cut and still ahve to give good service. That's called being a professional.

That's what I see everyday where I work also, Professionals being paid and treated like amateurs. And sometimes this type of treatment comes from passengers as well. Still like you and your job most of these professionals continue smiling.

Again, I think passenger mistreatment in the airline business is the exception not the norm. With 3400 departures a day and thousands of passengers flying on just one airline a lone a day there is bound to be someone that does not smile or gives bad customer service.

To brand the whole US airline industry because of it is not something I am not prepared to do. I travel quite a bit and have seen all levels of service flying in Coach and First Class. From bad to excellent with mostly good from both US and foreign carriers.

I work to make my air travel experience better by smiling myself and saying please and thank you. I find if I can brighten someone's day maybe they'll brighten mine. Courtesy extended is often returned.

“Are we done quibbling?”

Welll . . . We might be, had you addressed more than one of my points. Yes, weather is the main cause for “tarmac horror flights;” yet the fact still remains that the airlines have had years to address this and did less than nothing.

I’ll even give you a current example. AA has a main hub at DFW. DFW is embarking on a major, ambitious, capital improvement program. Now, you’d think that if AA was smart, they’d get together with their landlord and address how to deal with weather issues, instead of letting pax rot on planes (as they have done at DFW in the past). Yet, they have done NOTHING . . . See a pattern here?

Instead, they and their apologists insist the sky will fall because of the BOR. Yet, the EU has had an even more draconian rule in place for a while, and . . . guess what? The sky has not fallen.

Again, I agree that the BOR should not be necessary. The airlines should have come up with a solution when they had the chance (which they had for YEARS). And – again – they not only did nothing; they basically “stuck it” to the government and the flying public.

I’m not one for excessive government regulation. But, when private industry fails to police itself, they leave everyone with little choice.

I agree with LT, it is absolutely inexcusable that the airlines have had years to address the weather and have done less than nothing. In this day and age, to let the weather take whatever course it wants is positively medieval. The airlines need to come up with a solution to prevent weather altogether.

I agree with LT, there's no need for excessive government regulation (and besides that, we all know we don't stand a chance at regulating the government), but weather regulation? That's another matter entirely. It's time the airlines take care of this problem once and for all. All in favor of regulating the weather, please stand up.

LT,

Let's quibble!

I thinks airlines in the past and still today do a pretty good job dealing with weather issues in order to prevent passengers from rotting on their airplanes.

With weather or air traffic control issues, airlines make educated calculations on being able to operate a flight safely. Sometimes things do not work out as planned and you can end up with worse case scenarios.

However, these are isolated incidents.

American for example operates over 3400 daily departures and I would venture to state that less 100 (2-3 %) of AA flights are canceled or delayed more than 3 hrs on any given day.

Airlines have weather departments, dispatchers, mechanics and all types of personnel working to ensure flights leave and arrive as scheduled. Sure there are delays but not to the extent or with the purpose of "sticking it to the public". Cancellations and delays can cost airlines million and all around is bad for business.

What are possible solutions to not rotting on an airplane?

For departures, passengers should not be allowed to board an airplane until that flight has a guaranteed airborne departure time within one hour. If passengers must be delayed then they should be required to wait in the boarding area.

For arrivals, airports should be required to provide a means to deplane passengers away from the terminal. This can be a complicated process since the airport itself is a secure area that has to remain secure regardless of weather or other issues. In addition, passengers cannot be randomly deplaned on the airport property. International flights must clear customs and immigration before they can be deplaned.

The trick is to find a balance. Airlines are in the business to safely transport you from Point A to B and do so rather well with few exceptions. These exceptions do not justify legislation and ridiculous fines which ultimately leads to passengers delays through flight cancellations.

For more in depth posting:

http://dmbflyingcoach.blogspot.com/2...airplanes.html

Julia1,

I'm not sure LT will be up to the task. Therefore, I am nominating you as the new Minister In Charge Of Weather Regulating!