cfc

The European trains are as good as they are because no one blinks at the idea of a government subsidy for what amounts to a necessary public utility.

The expectation that such a transportation utility be run for the benefit of private shareholders guarantees the kind of lousy service we get. In addition, the conservative pro-private-sector administrations of late have gone on a campaign to gut Amtrak.

As for the "comfortable" airline you want soccr to start, there are some who might point to JetBlue, Midwest, and a few of the non-legacy airlines, who understand that although we want decent prices, we also would choose, among other things, some comforts at our seat in exchange for not bothering with the crappy food.

When airlines that do offer decent seating, etc., go out of business, it's not because people refuse to fly them; its usually because predatory airlines like AA (the worst of the bunch) target and move into the market, sell seats at unrealistically low prices, and then once the indie folds, either raise the prices up again or leave.

I agree with soccr. The system's rigged so that we don't have a choice, and all the blustering about "the free market" is nonsense.

Carrybean

<i>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.</i>

Wrong on all counts. I do upgrade but use miles &amp; I only fly a couple times a year. When the government regulated the airlines you really only had a few fare options. First, coach &amp; advanced purchase coach fares. Comparing the fares in those days with the prices today, the prices were MUCH more expensive than today.

You want cheap fares? You got 'em. They have to pack lots more people in the back of the bus to be able to fly without going out of business. That's simple economics.

Carrybean

Oh, and there ARE no trains in the Virgin Islands but I love train travel in the UK &amp; would certainly use it in the States when I move back.

soccr

I challenge anyone to claim that plane travel is reasonably comfortable nowadays. And I challenge anyone to claim that the airlines are in business for the health and welfare of the consumer. My &quot;bottom&quot; line is always in pain at the end of a flight while the CEOs, CFOs, and their cronies are widening their &quot;bottom&quot; lines at the expense of ours.

There is, therefore, not only no reason why passengers shouldn't have a bill of rights; it seems, at this point, the only way to express what we, as consumers, consider the collective &quot;bottom&quot; line.

Sue_xx_yy

Clarasong, it is fairest if you make a question open-ended. That someone might reply in the negative to your question does not necessarily make them a 'supporter' of the airlines, let alone of greedy or badly managed companies, as your post implied. There are many, quite legitimate reasons for being skeptical about the efficacy of a 'bill of rights'.

First, you apparently feel that delays are exclusively due to the airlines. But Gander, Newfoundland, does not have the same delays due to congestion as does Atlanta - even when one and the same airline is involved. Therefore, the airline isn't necessarily to blame. Who, on the other hand, is to blame for this congestion?

Is it the airport, trying to stuff too many planes into too few slots, with too few air traffic controllers and too few ground service personnel? Is it local residents and their political representatives, who object (not always unreasonably) to increasing airport capacity, thereby forcing the airport to handle more flights than for which it was originally designed?

What about passengers themselves? I can't disagree that increased seating space would be a lot more comfortable. But I also can't ignore the reality that to increase the space per passenger would be to reduce the capacity of the plane. If anything, this would not decrease congestion, but increase it. For a given level of demand, the number of planes required, and thus the number of landing slots, is inversely proportional to the capacity of the aircraft. Thus, in a way, delays might occur precisely because, not despite, passengers' desires being converted into 'rights'.

True, the size of the planes could be increased for certain particular routes, but this is a complex fleet management issue that could have less than desirable consequences somewhere else down the line. (And we won't even get into the contentious issue of environmental energy laws, yet another political football.)

So, passengers are not always victims: sometimes they can be, at least in part, the perpetrators of difficulties. For that matter, on othe subject of dirty planes and overflowing toilets, consider the charming souls who use seat pockets as garbage cans, and those who throw paper towels into toilets, causing them to malfunction.

If there's going to be a Bill of Paassenger Rights, how about a Bill of Passenger Responsibilities, as well.

Gardyloo

Well said, Sue_xx_yy!

I was on a plane today (SEA-ORD) where a boarding lady dumped her full Vente latte (hey, it's Seattle) onto the seat, her person, neighboring seats, yadda, thereby delaying pushback for some time while the FA's tried to mop up the mess (which will smell really great in a day or two.) Who's rights to a speedy (and smell-free) takeoff were abridged here? Everybody's!

soccr

Oh yes, and I'm sure the lady who spilled the Vente did it on purpose because she's irresponsible. And neither Gardy nor Sue have ever spilled anything. Please. There's a difference between a spilled drink and a monster blizzard with domino-effect terrible management.

I fully agree that passengers should be responsible -- about things like getting to the airport on time, being informed about and complying with security and baggage rules, being thoughtful about sharing the painfully limited space on a plane, being civil when dealing with airline personnel, and understanding the difference between unavoidable problems like weather or mechanics and airline malfeasance.

But bravo to JetBlue for at least advancing the idea that passengers have the right to expect certain basic services and certain basic consideratiosn when those services go wrong.

LT

The torrent of specious reasoning by some here is utterly amazing. For the umpteenth time, we're not talking about the return to the days of white glove service with wide seats, linen tablecloths and hot meals with real silverware. We're talking about giving people the OPTION to not be held captive on a plane for an interminable amount of time. I'm utterly incredulous at those who feel that this is somehow being &quot;selfish,&quot; &quot;demanding,&quot; etc.

NOWHERE in Cong. Thompson's soon-to-be-introduced bill does it talk about seat pitch, pillows, hot meals, or anything of the sort. It simply, for the first time, would force the airlines to provide a BARE MINIMUM level of respect for the traveller. Is it a cure? no. Is it a good first step? Yes!

Also, this bizarre correlation that being treated like a human being is somehow related to the cost of a ticket is also rubbish.

Again, the airlines and the ATA have been making promises for YEARS to change. Face it -- they haven't, and they're not going to. To those who believe otherwise, I'm reminded of that line from &quot;Planes, Trains and Automobilesquot; &quot; . . . and if they (the airlines) told you that wolverines would make good house pets, would you believe them?&quot; Sadly, some on here probably would think so.

LT

One other point -- to those who keep talking about &quot;choose another carrier,&quot; If someone lives in an area where B6 does not operate, and if all of the other carriers either have had one of these incidents or is currently capable of having an incident , where's the choice? Oh, I see . . . guess we're all supposed to make a choice between flying charter or being treated worse than cattle, huh? Let them all eat cake, eh . . . ?

HKP

Ahhh, LT, a voice of reason.

clevelandbrown

LT, you choose where you want to live, and if you elect a bucolic location without good air transport, that is your own choice. In Alaska, for example, those who choose to live in the bush will either find a way to get themselves to a major airport, or do without. Those of us who like winter sports are usually smart enough to live where winter sports exist, and don't move to the sunbelt and whine that we want snow and ice delivered to us, at low cost.

So if competitive air service is not available where you live, you can always get yourself to a major port (you can drive, can't you), or, if competitive air service is really that vital to you, relocate to somewhere where it is available.

No so-called bill of rights is ever going to get you anything more that bare-bones service if you are getting your service at a non-competitive location. I appreciate that the US government does subsidize some non-competitive locations, but they keep a very low profile about it, I think because very few of us want to use our money for such purposes. I think there would be a real stink if the government said that most of us would have to pay an extra $25 or more per ticket, just so a few people could get more leg room than the rest of us.

Sue_xx_yy

Yes, soccr, accidents happen. So do blizzards. That's the crux of the matter - delays can have many causes, which is why a bill that holds only one possible causative agency responsible is not going to work. Who's going to fine God for sending the blizzard, for example?

True, it might be a reasonable option to advocate that airports be required to waive gate fees when airlines are forced to divert to them in certain severe weather cases. (I believe that was why Jetblue was on the tarmac for so long, they did not normally do business with JFK, the airport in question, and rightly or wrongly, the pilot didn't want to incur gate fees by asking for a gate.) But, it's worth noting that the airlines don't want such incidents anymore than anyone else - they certainly aren't getting any revenue sitting on a tarmac, having their expensive piece of metal sitting idle, even as they end up paying their crew for 10 hours with nothing to show for it.

The world is becoming an ever more crowded place. I am afraid, folks, that we are going to have to suck it up - or win the lotto, and fly accordingly.

Sue_xx_yy

Hmmn, well, serves me right for trusting a source (a post on flyertalk) without checking it out. Seems JetBlue most certainly does normally do business with JFK!!!

Which still leaves the question of why the pilot didn't go back to the gate.

LT

Clevelandbrown, you're missing the point. Again, if all of the other airlines either have had incidents like this or are currently capable of having incidents like this . . . WHERE'S THE CHOICE, and, thus, where someone lives or what airport they fly out of is completely irrelevant! BTW, Dallas, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Atlanta, Minneapolis, and, yes, Cleveland are all cities which do not have B6 service. I didn't realize they're &quot;bucolic.&quot;

Also, you keep bringing up seat comfort (along with service to &quot;underserved&quot; areas or any of the other obfuscations you keep bringing up), which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the proposed BORs.

Let us know what you name your new pet wolverine . . .

clevelandbrown

LT, I think it is you who miss the point. The socalled bill of rights is so riddled with exceptions that it will benefit very few. And you laud JetBlue for pure publicity in saying that, while they screwed up this time (and to date lack the resources to avoid screwing up again). That seems pretty gullible.

The more capable carriers just go ahead and resolve these emergencies as best they can. Let me explain this as simply as possible: when weather precludes or slows operations, planes that have left the gate often cannot return to the gate because a subsequent flight has already moved into the gate. On those very few occasions when my full service carrier has had problems such as this, they have arranged deliveries of necessities to the trapped planes, or even provided bus service for passengers who don't want to stay on the plane. The airline you seem enamored of has demonstrated that they lack the planning and resources to handle such situations. I hope they get their act together, but that will almost certainly mean increased costs for them and either increased ticket prices or decreased services. Contrary to what some misguided posters' feel, airlines are not in the business of making passengers comfortable; they are in the business of making money, and they deliver only enough services to keep selling tickets and making money. Those that don't observe this model are soon in bankruptcy, and without a recovery plan showing that they will make money, they just disappear.

The only advantage I see from the so-called bill of rights is that those airlines (usually discount airlines) that lack the resources to deal with delays will be fined out of existence (with their low cost tickets), and that overbooking, which has proven to be an effective way to keep planes full, will probably become more expensive for the airlines, so they will cut back the overbooking and raise prices on the seats they do sell, as has happened, I believe, in Europe, since their bureaucrats instituted something very like this bill of blights.

I seem to recall that it was you who complained of being treated like cattle, and my point remains that we will continue to get what we pay for. For myself, I choose to fly in cramped quarters from CLE to SAN because it is fast and very affordable; I could take a comfortable train at much higher cost, but it would take days, even assuming that Amtrak didn't break down or get shunted aside for a freight train.

Incidentally, I don't have a wolverine and don't contemplate getting one. I do have a snake we named LT because it has a long tail, and doesn't seem too strong in the reasoning department.

Sue_xx_yy

LT, I think part of the confusion is that one and the same result can vary in terms of its magnitude, depending on the carrier involved.

Yes, all airlines can have the same incident. For example, all of them have to cancel their flights from time to time, but discount carriers generally cannot deal with cancellations, and thus with the conditions that cause them, as well as can the full-service carriers. In other words, the magnitude of the effect of the cancellation is much bigger on a slim-margin discount carrier than on a major. The discount carriers will, on average, generally take longer, sometimes much longer, to deal with backloads of passengers resulting from cancellations, since their surplus capacity is lower than the major carriers, they have fewer personnel detailed to deal with emergency situations, etc.etc. And as cleveland pointed out, they often maintain fewer gates and own fewer and less desirable landing slots (thank you cleveland, I knew there had to be a better reason for Jetblue sitting on the runway than the one I'd read about, in which the pilot claimed the planes currently at the gate had frozen to the ground or some such fable....)

Anyway, the point cleveland is making is that if you want to have a bill of rights, or in other words, if you want the government to impose certain performance standards on the airlines, then what you are doing in effect is to impose a certain minimum surplus capacity and other overheads for airlines to carry. This will not only increase ticket prices in general, it could also make it impractical for some airlines to run some routes at all. This is the 'choice' that you would lose, in fact what you would do in effect is return to the days when airlines were regulated to the point of ludicracy. Believe me, I remember the 'good old days' of airline travel and they weren't as great as everyone now wants to convince themselves they were.

Look, personally I don't like discount carriers. The prices are attractive, and some of the superficial aspects of service are fine, but I appreciate that behind the scenes, they take more and bigger gambles with the resources available to them than I'm comfortable with. But many people do like them, in fact, they are the reason some people are able to fly at all, so who am I to deny people the choice? Plus, overall, the competition offered by the discount carriers keeps the majors on their toes.

In a nutshell: enforced performance standards tends to decrease competition, which is rarely a good thing for the consumer.

CubFanAlways

After consideration, I decided that I’m in favor of a bill of rights. By why should it just be government regulating the airlines?

I want a bill of rights against government transportation. When it snows in Chicago (could happen) I want the right not to be delayed on government owned Interstates 88, 90, 355, and 294. Toss in 190, too. After all, if all it takes is a law to make something magically go away, such as storms, why not?

The public has continually voted, with their dollars, in favor of very low costs in favor of most anything else. I can still buy, at times, a ticket from ORD to LAX for around $200 - the same price is was pushing thirty years ago.

I’m not saying the airlines handled this and other cases as well as they could: For Pete’s sake, just tell me the truth, don’t string me along.

I am saying that the market - that’d be us - has decided that we don’t want an extra empty aircraft hanging around to accommodate us in case something happens to ours, because we could have that if we'd agree to pay for it.

I am saying that the market has decided that it’s not a good idea to run gate capacity at 50% so our aircraft can to pull into one any time, because we could have that if we'd agree to pay for it.

I am saying that the market has decided that we don’t want extensive backup resources; we want cheap tickets. And most of the time, we win that bet.

<i>If you want the government to impose certain performance standards on the airlines, then what you are doing in effect is to impose a certain minimum surplus capacity and other overheads for airlines to carry. This will not only increase ticket prices in general, it could also make it impractical for some airlines to run some routes at all. This is the 'choice' that you would lose.</i>

Sue, will you help me teach my econ class?

Carrybean

Very well said, CFA!

LT

OK, I tried to stay away, but I just couldn't!

First, there seems to be a perception among the anti-BOR-ers here that it's the LCCs who are the primary offenders of trapping people on planes. You all seem to forget about NW in DTW in 2001 and in DLH in 2006, AA in Texas in December 2006, UA at ORD in February, and on, and on. What's the common thread? They're all legacy carriers. So much for this being confined to the LCCs . . .

Clevelandbrown, I don't even know where to begin . . . First, I have never even flown on B6, so I don't know where you're getting this idea that I am so &quot;enamored&quot; with them.

&quot; airlines are not in the business of making passengers comfortable; they are in the business of making money, and they deliver only enough services to keep selling tickets and making money. Those that don't observe this model are soon in bankruptcy, and without a recovery plan showing that they will make money, they just disappear.&quot;

Really? First, that news will come as quite a surprise to the airlines, since they all state that this is one -- one -- of the primary tenets of their business. I can only imagine what flying would be like if the airlines employed your business model . . . I'm thinking wooden benches with a burly guy with a whip to keep everyine in line . . . Yes, that's a recipe for success.

Second, no, when virtually all of the legacies fall on hard times, they saunter up to suckle at the federal teet. Remember the post-9/11 bailouts? They even do it when their bottom line is not hemorrhaging. Just ask UA if their service in/out of McCook, NE is profitable, and who is really paying the bills . . .

I find your claim of being in similar situations and being at least given the basics highly dubious; nevertheless, if this is in fact true, count your blessings. You're in the extreme minority.

And to clarify one point, when I referred to being &quot;treated like cattle,&quot; I am not referring to seat pitch, in-flight movies, hot meals, etc. But, then again, unlike the trapped passengers, at least the cattle know when things are going to end, so, you may be right -- I might have to rethink that.

And, here's an idea . . . How about if the airlines -- all of the airlines -- actually planned for contigencies, instead of just letting them happen to the detriment of the flying public? Wow, what a concept! But, once again, all of you anti-BOR-ers can just continue to believe empty promises and take care of your wolverines . . .

Sue, if the airlines used the same planning and negotiating skills that at least some of the airlines (like WN) do when it comes to their purchasing, any additional costs would be minimal. And, since every carrier would be required to plan for this contingency, I'm sure that, miraculously, the airlines would put the good part of capitalism into play and come up with the most cost-effective solution to the problem. Thus, the cost argument is just another canard. Also, as previously mentioned, there are already plenty of examples of where the airlines are not making profitable decisions and expect the taxpayer to bail them out. So, if that's the case, why not expect a little quid pro quo?

And CubFan, thanks for keeping the torrent of specious logic flowing. First, if you're stupid enough to drive in Chicago in a snowstorm, you're probably a strong candidate for a Darwin Award. Second, at least if you're stuck in a car, you can pull over to the side and get out. In other words, you have CHOICES. That's all we're asking for. If you and all of the other anti-BOR-ers want to enjoy the splendor of being stuck on a hot plane with no working toilets, food, water, etc., be my guest. All I'm asking for is the CHOICE to be let off so I can seek alternate arrangements. We pro-BOR-ers are not asking for another aircraft (which doesn't make any sense, especially if the situation is weather-related), we're not asking for wider seats, a hot towel, or to be tucked in to nap by the FA . . . All we're asking for is to have a CHOICE.

Sue_xx_yy

LT: You point out that some airlines have persuaded the government to bail them out, i.e., abandon the law of the free market when they, the airlines, are the victim of that same free market. You then argue that this means that they should not object when the government intervenes when the fortunes of the consumer are at stake.

There are several problems with this reasoning but the main one is that you have only proven, at best,that airline executives are capable of being hypocritical. This might be true, but it does not, in and of itself, show why the law of the free market is not the best one to apply in EITHER the case of people seeking legislated standards OR the case of an airline seeking a bailout. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with the soundness of the basic principle.

&quot;And CubFan, thanks for keeping the torrent of specious logic flowing. First, if you're stupid enough to drive in Chicago in a snowstorm, you're probably a strong candidate for a Darwin Award. Second, at least if you're stuck in a car, you can pull over to the side and get out. In other words, you have CHOICES.&quot;

First, to backtrack to what Cubfan said.

He pointed out that there are times when travel entails some risk, but that it might not always be in the people's interest for governments to zealously act to prevent them from taking that risk.

In what you intended as a rebuttal, you actually agreed with him. You pointed out that when people travel by road during, say, a Chicago winter, that they are taking a known risk. You also opined that that made them stupid in your eyes, but the stupidity of the electorate has nothing to do with whether a proposed piece of legislation will best serve their interests. Your contempt, however, makes clear that you agree that their risk-taking should not be interfered with by the government. Thus, you want the same end as Cubfan, you differ only in the reason: he, because he thinks interference is impractical, you, because you think stupid people don't deserve interference. Either position argues against government interference.

At the same time, you argue that the two situations aren't fairly comparable because people travelling by car have more choices available to them and thus are not as in need of legislation to provide them with choices. However, you have not made your case since whether the proposed legislation would or would not be the best means of providing passengers with more choice is what we are discussing in the first place. I agree it sucks to be stuck for hours on an aircraft, in fact I suspect most people would. But the adverse publicity generated in the press is, as rkkwan pointed out, a very formidable force acting against such situations, and yet does not involve legislation which is often too rigid to be the best solution.