Passenger's Bill of Rights? for/against?
 

Watching the news tonight, great controversy being aired over whether we should legislate a 'bill of rights' for airline passengers regarding delayed flights, stuck on runway for hours, providing food, water, and hygiene for long delays, etc (as some recent problems have surfaced). But the airlines and their supporters say "let the airlines monitor and patrol itself...more red tape will solve nothing, and will be difficult and costly to enforce?" Any thoughts? It does seem that airline travel has degraded to an entirely new low of late.

Against. It is not going to help with congestions, and will only cause more cancellation and stranding more passengers at the airport.

I think the media is doing a good job in recent cases, and they are most suited for keeping the airlines in check.

Neither, since I don't know who will draft it, what it will cover and how, or if, it will be enforced.

I am for the airlines being forced to allow reasonable room between seats (leg room) and reasonable width of seats based on the real size and heights of travellers erring on the side of reasonable room for almost everyone (not some "average" that fits only the median size or below).

I want the FAA to enforce reasonable seating and accomodation for travellers safety. I don't want to know what happens to tall people whose legs are jammed into the seat ahead of them and those "lap" children who fly from their parents grip or those whom they fly into in an event (crash, hard stop, over shot tarmac on landing, shaking from "air pockets)".

I don't believe that profit or the desire for cheap flights are the proper determinates of how to design the seating on aircraft.

I feel like an inconvenience separating the airline from my money these days.

I am happily shocked when someone on the phone, at the airport or on the plane is nice (like I always am when interacting with air travel workers). Even a nice no is better than the icy indifference I see too often.

There is a lot of room for improvement in service. I feel that the airlines have had many years to monitor themselves.

It doesn't seem to be working. Who else do we allow to treat us so badly and keep coming back?

The airlines seem to need some standards set for them. Who or how matters less to me than that it is done and soon.

Delays, people held on planes, miserable cabin conditions, impolite personnel, I'm tired of all of it.

Only my opinion.

Against. I think we're spoiled, as Americans, and our quality of life is so high-- delays and all-- that we lose sight of what really matters in this world. We're so fortunate, and take it for granted.

I just figure it's the roll of the dice if my flight is delayed and I'm inconvenienced. I get over that kind of stuff pretty easily.

However, for people w/ disabilities, medical conditions, etc., there should be stricter regulation. I don't think a diabetic (for example) should have to sit on the runway for 8 hours w/out his/her medication.

If one wants to really solve the problem of planes sitting on tarmac for long time, a "Passenger Bill of Rights" is the wrong solution.

Scott McCartney wrote a piece on Wall Street Journal this week (I think it was Wednesday) about this issue, and thank god there is at least one journalist who understands it. (Unlike those people in Congress).

The reason why Jetblue and other airlines will send planes out to the taxiways in a blizzard with no hope to take off in hours? It's because of rules and regulations. In particular, in two aspects.

One is hour on duty for the cockpit crew. The other is that for a flight to get in line for departure is to close the door and pull out, even though the runway is closed at that time and there are already 30 planes ahead of it for takeoff. Just have to do it.

I am not an expert, so I can't give you the detail. But if you want flights to go out without stranding more passengers in the terminal, and you don't want people sit on the planes for hours on the tarmac, both of those rules have to be rewritten. Otherwise, these incidents will still happen, even if the airlines are more aware of the issue.

I am for a passenger bill of rights. But I am solidly against this being done by people in congress who know nothing about the situation and will only do what they think will get them reelected.

JetBlue just made their own rules. Let the airlines make the rules. Let people decide for themselves by voting with their luggage.

KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT OF SITUATIONS WHERE THEY DON'T KNOW ANYTHING AND WILL ONLY MAKE IT WORSE. ((*))

I'm with Jed. And since the airlines have turned into flying Greyhounds due to the cheap airfares it's impossible to expect 5* service.

The marketplace will determine what happens & I'm quite sure that the attorneys for the people stuck on the tarmac will force the airlines to improve their policies or as Jetblue is doing, making their own Bill of Rights.

i too think jet blue's initiative is commendable.

The European Commission created such a bill of rights.

And a greater collection of perverse results - not even the ones intended by the gullible acceptance of every Old Airline Industry lobbyist's preposterous assertions - you couldn't imagine.

Budget airlines are fined five to six times their average fare for every delay. So they manufacture an endless stream of situations - similar to what rkkwan describes - to avoid going bust.

There's a simple way of getting better "rights". Use the legislative process to get real competition. Any government interference, apart from measures to increase competition, just gives the best-heeled lobbyists a slug of new ways of freezing new blood out.

I think the marketplace, especially one nudged in the ribs (firmly, with a knife) by trial lawyers from time to time, can do an okay job of resolving these matters.

I'm for it, but not as a matter of formal legislation so much as a well-publicized guideline to put fairly specific pressure on the airlines instead of letting them market to the public what they WANT us to want, instead of what we actually want.

If a Bill of Rights were actually legislated, it would be watered down, modified, amended, mushed and squished -- and it would only form the basis of some more litigation that wouldn't improve travelers' situation at all.

As a guideline, it could give airlines like JetBlue impetus to get more organized and anticipate problems along specific lines, and could be still used in litigation as a standard of practice against which truly bad actors could be held.

I think a ground delay of five hours would put me over the edge. That's the time Jet Blue will wait before offloading passengers. As far as their cancellations and departure delays "bill of rights", the operative phrase is "controllable irregularity." That excludes most situations. I think it's inhumane to keep passengers on an aircraft for more than an hour and shouldn't be tolerated for any reason.

<i>&quot;I think it's inhumane to keep passengers on an aircraft for more than an hour and shouldn't be tolerated for any reason.&quot;</i>

If that's what you think, you really want to stay away from flying commercial airlines in the US, in current times. I am 100% serious and not kidding.

I was a travel agent and then worked for United, so I've traveled extensively both domestically and internationally and honestly can't remember ever sitting on the ground for even an hour. Well...maybe once leaving CDG. Guess I've been very lucky and should knock on wood for our trip to St. Barths this Wednesday!

Judy

ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, 100% FOR!!!

The airlines and the ATA have been making phony promises for years. There are plenty of reasonable-sounding excuses for why it's OK to keep people captive on a plane for hours on end in a hot, crowded plane with no food or water and overflowing toilets. The problem is that they don't hold water.

I'm not a big fan of government, but there are times when it has to step in. That's why we have food safety laws, as an example. The BOR may not be perfect, but at least it would be a good first step.

And for those who think the BOR is not a good idea, how about we stuff all of you in one of AA's dirty, old MD-80's for hours on end with no food, water, or working toilets, and you can tell us why the BOR makes no sense?

ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, 100% AGAINST!!!

I'm a firm believer in free market economics, and the less government intervention the better. For matters of safety, there absolutely must be regulation.

But the issues raised here seem to be customer service related. Some businesses will do better than other, and they will be ones that prosper.

I like JetBlue because of low fares, new planes, direct point to point routes, and convenience to my home airports, but I rarely fly them as they don't fly when/where I frequently need to travel for business.

They have made conscious (or unconscious) business decisions on how to handle hiccups like last week, and those decisions have hurt their reputation. Other airlines which have different business strategies were not as poorly affected.

To me, it's very much a matter of choice. Let the marketplace decide.

Commercial airline service is less than posh today because the airlines have discovered that almost none of us will pay for better service. Almost everytime an airline offers some convenience, even at a slight price increase, they soon find they are losing customers and the convenience, or the airline, disappears.

Most severe inconveniences are found on the lowest frills airlines, who sell cheap tickets by avoiding the necessity to have support and management staff on the payroll. If you read carefully about the latest debacle, you will realize that the owner admits they lacked personnel necessary to resolve their issues; they didn't even have the capacity to respond to available flight crews that called in and asked where to report. Their so called bill of rights is just eyewash to make them look like a caring company, but without major systematic reforms of that particular airline, they will continue to have problems and their refunds will drive them out of business.

If you really want the type of first-class service in tourist you seem to seek, charter a plane.

As for additional provisions and lavatories, that would just take up space on most flights, reducing the number of seats, and increasing the cost of tickets.

Well said, Cleveland.

Cleaveland and Carrybean,

Spoken like someone who is 1. wealthy, 2. flies enough to have elite status and can upgrade, 3. young, 4. 4 ft. 8&quot; and 85 lbs., or 5. any combination of the above.

The same &quot;hey, the public doesn't want it&quot; arguments have made about things as disparate as seat belts and healthy school lunches. It only holds true if there are actual, viable choices.

The problem here is that, as I've said, the airlines have a hammerlock on their Byzantine pricing structure (e.g., so that fares are less to connect through 2 or 3 airports (which costs airlines more) than to fly the same route nonstop)and passengers do not have real choices. The airlines decide what they'll offer and then withdraw it when they decide to cut corners somewhere else.

The only people who don't think it's painful to travel in Joe-Shmoe coach are those who are either young, short, and flexible enough to sustain long periods of close confinement without pain or those who never travel in coach (except maybe in the exit row).

Do we have alternatives? No. If we did, we'd be gone.

Bring back the trains for trips under 600 miles, and even for the longer ones.

Soccr, you miss on 4 of 5 points, actually more, since I do have elite status, but rarely get an upgrade.

I would think someone as knowledgeable as you would have the initiative to start a comfortable airline and drive all the current airlines out of business. You could become rich, but I think it unlikely that your ideas will come to fruition.

Incidentally, the trains are still there, and they are comfortable, but quite slow, and are consistently seeking government subsidies since they cannot attract enough customers to be profitable. When we go to Europe, I am always eager to get off the plane at the earliest opportunity and continue our journey on the excellent, although slightly slower, European train system, enjoying the scenery, comfort, and food, and an arrival at a central and relatively uncrowded terminal.