Passenger's Bill of Rights? for/against?
Mar 11th, 2007, 08:02 AM
#41
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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 . ."
I agree that it is risky to assume that legacy carriers and LCCs are necessarily all that distinct. Legacy carriers are becoming more and more LCC-like as they watch the latter grabbing more and more market share. In other words, they are cutting costs to compete with the lower fares of LCCs. Sometimes the cuts are of genuine fat; sometimes, they consist of such service and performance as such carriers could at least in theory better provide. But this does not argue for legislation, if anything, it strengthens the case against it.
I also agree that a legacy carrier isn't necessarily well managed, certainly not in all aspects. But the point is still apt: the overall odds - and it is a matter of probability - of avoiding severe backlogs are far better on a carrier which carries more as opposed to less surplus capacity. Legacy carriers nearly always operate complex routes which involve connections, and they have to allow for the possibility that some of their passengers will miss those connections. So they carry surplus capacity if only to cover their butt for those instances. LCCs, by contrast, nearly always operate on a strictly point-to-point basis. This is one of the reasons why they would be more affected by legislation requiring surplus capacity than the majors. I don't say that legacy carriers never screw up, I just say that when it comes to delays, then on average, legacy carriers do better than LCCs. For example, Ryanair and BA both have delay/cancellation problems, but Ryanair, I am almost certain, has had more instances of passengers not being able to get rebooked for up to FOUR DAYS.
It's been an interesting discussion. I wish y'all well, and certainly, I wish nobody to be stuck on a plane. That I argue against legislation, does not mean I don't sympathize.
I agree that it is risky to assume that legacy carriers and LCCs are necessarily all that distinct. Legacy carriers are becoming more and more LCC-like as they watch the latter grabbing more and more market share. In other words, they are cutting costs to compete with the lower fares of LCCs. Sometimes the cuts are of genuine fat; sometimes, they consist of such service and performance as such carriers could at least in theory better provide. But this does not argue for legislation, if anything, it strengthens the case against it.
I also agree that a legacy carrier isn't necessarily well managed, certainly not in all aspects. But the point is still apt: the overall odds - and it is a matter of probability - of avoiding severe backlogs are far better on a carrier which carries more as opposed to less surplus capacity. Legacy carriers nearly always operate complex routes which involve connections, and they have to allow for the possibility that some of their passengers will miss those connections. So they carry surplus capacity if only to cover their butt for those instances. LCCs, by contrast, nearly always operate on a strictly point-to-point basis. This is one of the reasons why they would be more affected by legislation requiring surplus capacity than the majors. I don't say that legacy carriers never screw up, I just say that when it comes to delays, then on average, legacy carriers do better than LCCs. For example, Ryanair and BA both have delay/cancellation problems, but Ryanair, I am almost certain, has had more instances of passengers not being able to get rebooked for up to FOUR DAYS.
It's been an interesting discussion. I wish y'all well, and certainly, I wish nobody to be stuck on a plane. That I argue against legislation, does not mean I don't sympathize.
Mar 12th, 2007, 06:21 AM
#43
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sue:
While I believe your sincerity when you say you sympathize, sympathy doesn't count for much when you're stuck on a plane for hours on end.
First, no, my point is that the airlines, in many respects, are not free-market enterprises when they are sucking millions of taxpayer dollars. Therefore, why is it not reasonable to expect a basic level of respect for the consumer (i.e. the taxpayer)? If anything, you've contradicted yourself . . . This is a perfect example of the free-market system -- he/she who has the "gold" should rule. Thus, any real/perceived "hypocrisy" by the airlines is a very minor point in the much larger picture.
Second, if basically all of the airlines have no BOR in place, once again, I ask -- where is the choice? The free market only works when there is a choice. If, for example, AA and DL offered a BOR, I would be against any federal legislation, because passengers in virtually every area of the country would have a choice. But, again, if all of the airlines are the same, there is no choice . . . it's a monopoly. Monopolies are inherently contradictory to the free-market system, so in essence, you're proving my point.
Third, you seem to equate being stuck on a plane for hours on end with a "risk." Sorry, but the correlation is faulty. Are there inherent risks in flying? Of course. There are inherent risks in leaving your house every morning. But, what does "risk" have to do with being stuck on a plane when one could be allowed to simply deplane after a certain period of time? There are "risks" and there are situations that can be relatively easily ameliorated. I argue this falls into the latter. Also, when you get into your car, you are in control. You determine how to get from point A to point B, you determine how many stops you make, etc. When you fly, you are essentially ceding almost total control to the carrier you're flying. You have no say on the routes, who the fuel vendor is, and, as of right now, how long they can trap you on their plane. Thus, one could argue that the former is a "risk;" the latter is expecting the transporter to do their job and adhere to a basic set of rules.
Fourth, as I have said repeatedly, I am the first one to admit that the proposed legislation is NOT a panacea. It is -- again -- a FIRST STEP, being needed because the airlines have repeatedly -- REPEATEDLY -- reneged on their promises to prevent situations like this. After years of broken promises, how much longer are we supposed to believe that the airlines will step up and take responsibility? I have a question for you . . . Why should we have food safety laws? Why not just let meatpackers, grocers and produce processors police themselves? Why not abolish the existing consumer protection laws, and allow business to dictate how consumers are treated? I'm actually all for government staying out of business as much as possible, but when there is a strong need for change and when business has either repeatedly broken promises to implement that change (in this case) or completely ignores the need for change, then, unfortunately, sometimes government needs to step in AS A LAST RESORT.
Fourth:
"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."
Please name me the carriers (besides B6) who have implemented even anything close to a BOR as a result of all of this negative publicity.
Finally, I don't know where you and the other anti-BOR-ers are getting this idea that the BOR has anything to do with providing adequate surplus capacity. I don't mean to be snide, but have you even bothered to read the submitted bills? Here's the House version:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c110avGqbf::
I ask you, where does it say anything about putting passengers on alternate aircraft? If the BOR (hopefully) passes, theoretically, I choose to deplane, the airline could say that I have abdicated my portion of the contract to be transported, and I am therefore "left to my own devices." Thus, your talking about legacy vs. LCC capacity is completely, entirely irrelevant, just as talking about seat pitch, or any of the other non-issues brought up by some here.
I've enjoyed the discussion, as well. Although I disagree with you anti-BOR-ers, I appreciate your desire to keep government out of business as much as possible. It's just that in this particular instance, given all of the facts, it's time for the last step of government intervention.
While I believe your sincerity when you say you sympathize, sympathy doesn't count for much when you're stuck on a plane for hours on end.
First, no, my point is that the airlines, in many respects, are not free-market enterprises when they are sucking millions of taxpayer dollars. Therefore, why is it not reasonable to expect a basic level of respect for the consumer (i.e. the taxpayer)? If anything, you've contradicted yourself . . . This is a perfect example of the free-market system -- he/she who has the "gold" should rule. Thus, any real/perceived "hypocrisy" by the airlines is a very minor point in the much larger picture.
Second, if basically all of the airlines have no BOR in place, once again, I ask -- where is the choice? The free market only works when there is a choice. If, for example, AA and DL offered a BOR, I would be against any federal legislation, because passengers in virtually every area of the country would have a choice. But, again, if all of the airlines are the same, there is no choice . . . it's a monopoly. Monopolies are inherently contradictory to the free-market system, so in essence, you're proving my point.
Third, you seem to equate being stuck on a plane for hours on end with a "risk." Sorry, but the correlation is faulty. Are there inherent risks in flying? Of course. There are inherent risks in leaving your house every morning. But, what does "risk" have to do with being stuck on a plane when one could be allowed to simply deplane after a certain period of time? There are "risks" and there are situations that can be relatively easily ameliorated. I argue this falls into the latter. Also, when you get into your car, you are in control. You determine how to get from point A to point B, you determine how many stops you make, etc. When you fly, you are essentially ceding almost total control to the carrier you're flying. You have no say on the routes, who the fuel vendor is, and, as of right now, how long they can trap you on their plane. Thus, one could argue that the former is a "risk;" the latter is expecting the transporter to do their job and adhere to a basic set of rules.
Fourth, as I have said repeatedly, I am the first one to admit that the proposed legislation is NOT a panacea. It is -- again -- a FIRST STEP, being needed because the airlines have repeatedly -- REPEATEDLY -- reneged on their promises to prevent situations like this. After years of broken promises, how much longer are we supposed to believe that the airlines will step up and take responsibility? I have a question for you . . . Why should we have food safety laws? Why not just let meatpackers, grocers and produce processors police themselves? Why not abolish the existing consumer protection laws, and allow business to dictate how consumers are treated? I'm actually all for government staying out of business as much as possible, but when there is a strong need for change and when business has either repeatedly broken promises to implement that change (in this case) or completely ignores the need for change, then, unfortunately, sometimes government needs to step in AS A LAST RESORT.
Fourth:
"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."
Please name me the carriers (besides B6) who have implemented even anything close to a BOR as a result of all of this negative publicity.
Finally, I don't know where you and the other anti-BOR-ers are getting this idea that the BOR has anything to do with providing adequate surplus capacity. I don't mean to be snide, but have you even bothered to read the submitted bills? Here's the House version:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c110avGqbf::
I ask you, where does it say anything about putting passengers on alternate aircraft? If the BOR (hopefully) passes, theoretically, I choose to deplane, the airline could say that I have abdicated my portion of the contract to be transported, and I am therefore "left to my own devices." Thus, your talking about legacy vs. LCC capacity is completely, entirely irrelevant, just as talking about seat pitch, or any of the other non-issues brought up by some here.
I've enjoyed the discussion, as well. Although I disagree with you anti-BOR-ers, I appreciate your desire to keep government out of business as much as possible. It's just that in this particular instance, given all of the facts, it's time for the last step of government intervention.
Mar 14th, 2007, 09:33 PM
#44
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,067
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, I'd like to see some safeguards against customer abuse instituted. I've been trapped on a plane for 4 hours when they knew full well we couldn't depart. I don't see complete loss of personal rights to be just a customer service issue.
But it could well be that the free market is exactly the answer. But that isn't what we have now. GM has to compete head to head with Toyota - not just on the world market, but in the US domestic market as well.
So let's allow Cathay to fly SFO-ORD as a standalone route. Bring in all of them. Ryanair can compete with Southwest on budget US domestic routes... (even if they do fly you to Baton Rouge and tell you it's near enough to New Orleans to just call it New Orleans on the website). Now that would be a free market.
