xxx--large companies do not donate money because it "makes them feel good." They do so in part because of the tax write-off, but also because it's good PR. It gives the public a warm and fuzzy association with a company's name. <BR> <BR>I don't like the idea of bereavement fares to begin with, particularly when the policy seems to indicate that traveling because a loved one died is somehow more important than traveling to see a loved one who is still alive. We all travel for different reasons, and as we all know, we all seem to pay a different fare. Yes, and airline provides certain discounts, such as senior and children's fares, but try to imagine the logistics of basing fares on people's reasons for traveling!

Well, there's a world of difference between traveling for a loved one's funeral and travel to visit a loved one. The difference is that in one situation, you can take advantage of advance purchase fares, and it is called a vacation; for the other, you can't. Seems to me that if you're going to give a discount, you might as well do it for something that has a societal benefit -- helping families get together during difficult times. <BR> <BR>Interesting, also, is that the most right-wing, hard-line people on this thread object strenously to helping out people facing this sort of family emergency, but I would guess that they usually hold themselves out as pro-family. Hmmm.

Jay, nice cynical response ... or rant. You've given the issue a lot of thought, have you? So, when someone screws you over it's just the old law of the jungle at work, and who's to complain, right? I just bet when you took American History, you fell asleep about 1910 and snored all through the consumer revolution. You missed an important trend in the 20th Century, Dude. Or else you are in dire need of a refresher course. Can someone give our friend here a glimpse of the social contract? Ciao

Hmmm, what a conversation. <BR> <BR>I think some of you are being sensible, and some of you are simply misguided. But, it IS a fact that airlines are businesses, and such seek as a primary goal the maximization of shareholder value. Period. <BR> <BR>Now, how they do this is where things get cloudy. Customer satisfaction is certainly an element contributing to the overall health of any business, although it may be difficult at times to quantify the exact nature of this relationship. Especially in businesses where competition is not consistently a factor. I get lots of competition and great fares in my town, but my friend 200 miles away does not, and is essentially stuck with one airline for most flights out. <BR> <BR>One thing I do know - people time and time again say they would pay more to fly on Midwest Express, if the routes were only available. ME is a model for customer satisfaction within the domestic airline jungle. It would be interesting to hear from someone who has had experience obtaining "bereavement" fares from ME. In every other aspect of their business, it is clear that customer satisfaction is paramount, and I'm guessing they do a pretty good job on this as well. <BR> <BR>Anyone with this info? I ask because I am convinced we as Americans are willing (collectively) to pay a bit of a premium for better service, if only it were "buyable". This tells me that customer service/satisfaction IS important to some businesses....if for no other reason than the fact that it can affect the "bottom line".

What in the world makes you think your entitled to a bereavement fare? Why does the airline have to offer a bereavement fare because you lost a loved one. Granted that is a difficult thing to deal with, but a bereavement fair is not a right it's a customer service oriented perk. I tell you what..next time I can't "get" something because of the cost involved, I'll call you because "you have more than me and it's not fair!!!" <BR> <BR>Gimme a break! <BR> <BR>I guess your "entiled" to other things too like health insurance or government assistance.

Why is it easier for so many people say it's everyone for themselves, rather than be on the side of sympathy and compassion?

Just Wondering-It's the ME attitude that is prevelant in this country that is the problem. Lack of compassion and manners is commonplace. Everyone is out for themselves. Sad, but that's what we've become. God help us if we ever have a national crisis or world war again.

To 'just wondering': <BR>Speaking as a business owner I will answer your question about why compassion and sympathy don't rule the business world. <BR>BECAUSE WE'D GO BROKE! <BR>It's pretty simple. <BR>You take enough hits to your profit margins then you can't pay competitive salaries to get top employess and then your entire business starts heading downhill and the story ends at Chapter 11. <BR>To Leone: <BR>Theoretical economics often has VERY little to do with the practical day to day issues involved in running a successful business. Ask anyone who's been to B-school and then run his/her own business how well all the theoretical issues actually helped them grind out the daily issues of running things. <BR> <BR>I don't know anything about archictecture so I would never presume to try to tell an architect how to do his job. <BR>People who have never run a business (or at least carefully studied business), I'm willing to bet, are the ones here whining for the airlines to cough up cut rate tickets because it's the "nice thing to do". <BR>What a boatload of crap. <BR>Pretty damned tragic when someone's house burns down. Does the Ritz Carlton hotel down the street owe them a cut rate room? <BR>If you answer yes, you're hopelessly beyond help and should try to find a commune somewhere to go hide away from real life.

We are talking about a very small minority of passengers who are travelling because of a death in their family. Certainly, businesses must remain profitable to continue, but I think that there is room for a little compassion, too. I don't advocate free rides, just the same discount that they offered other passengers on that same flight. It's not right to gouge someone just because they didn't have the option of planning ahead.

Dearest Grip, <BR> <BR>Thanks for setting me straight on how tough it is to eek out a meager profit running an airline in an oligopoly with a Republican in the White House. Particularly if you and all your buddies in the airline industry have already been busted once for price collusion. Guess that's why they all want to just merge and be done with it. <BR> <BR>As for getting discount seats or hotel rooms or whatever, you're right there, too. Of course, the first thing a business should do when they know someone is in dire need is jack up the price. Discount? Not when there's a buck to be made. <BR> <BR>That gives me a great business idea. I'll start a service that monitors reports of home fires. Then, I'll provide the victims' names to all the local hotels, and these victims won't be offered the low rate others are paying; they'll be offered the special tragedy rate -- highest possible price! Once I get going real good, I'll also include the names of those recently evicted or foreclosed. Want to get in on the "ground floor" on this one? (Get it? That's a little hotel humor just between us big bad business owners.)

I have to say I thought that was pretty funny.

We had a positive experience with US Airways in regard to a bereavement fare. Last year we had to leave the following morning (making reservations at 8PM the night before) going from NY to FL. We ended up paying full coach fare but was told by the agent to call back upon our return home and speak to a manager in regard to our situation. She would note our situation on the reservation. I called upon our return home and they reimbursed us for more than half the ticket! They were the ONLY airline willing to help us.

Last summer when I needed last minute flights due to my mother-in law's death I had an idea - there are so many people who have more frequent flier miles and vouchers than they will probably ever use, why not do something to help others in need and sell them off? It could even be like an e-bay site where frequent flier miles(of course they would have to be transferable)would be auctioned off.For some family memebers the choice to attend a funeral means either go in credit card debt for the flights or don't go at all. And there sits business travelers with more miles than they know what to do with. It was just a thought I had when I was so frustrated having to pay last minute outrageous fares and the plane was half empty.

Mr. Grip, with all due respect, I'd might ask a B-Schooler to implement a solution, but never find one. We're a global society ... but we know death and illness will occur, and we need to be able to travel quickly to where we're needed when we are. Sort of the human version of "just in time" used by industry to manage inventory. Same approach avoids disrupting life by pre-postioning ourselves merely to respond to an event that will occur sometime. So, what are the two things we cannot avoid? Death ... and taxes ... speaking of which, lets step outside the box for just a moment or two, and think about the 1040. When Congress saw a growing citizen push for public funding of elections, it authorized the optional dollar check-off. A beautiful concept of individual freedom earmarking funds for a specific goal. We are a country of user fees ... think about interstates the next time you gas up. The trust fund and "pay as you go" ... or closer to our issue, that tax on your airline ticket ... and that trust fund which provides new runways, radar, etc. So, being totally outrageous now, what about am Airline Travellers Bereavement Fund? On your ticket, an optional dollar check-off for this dedicated fund, to be used by eligible travellers in times of major illness and death to close family. To be operated by airlines, who will establish the eligibility policy, pay themselves whatever they believe is a fair fare for each B ticket, and reimburse themselves off the top for all administrative costs. And the part you'll enjoy most, bring in the B-Schoolers to handle the B Fund and keep it flying. We've complained enough ... now lets create some options. The ATB Fund is one. Ciao

Maybe you've found your life's work, L. <BR>Chuck that government position and go do something that makes a visible difference, and is for the betterment of society.

I'm afraid the safety conscious would miss my contribution ... since we try to find solutions to equally perplexing problems. The highway trust fund example is one I know quite well ... it has all sorts of workable beauties ... and the more I think about it, the less hokey the ATBF version seems. In fact, I wonder what the public response might be if an airline were to announce it was considering such a B Fund policy on is own. Some would say "sucker" ... but firms are always trying various techniques to establish their niche. Recently, as New Yorker pointed out, Dan Rather announce CBS Evening News would not report the Chandra Levy case (policy since abandoned). Some viewed this as niche marketing ... cynically, I might say. So, the idea of a B Fund would not seem to be more abberant. Ciao

Compassion-I wasn't talking about just randomly going to visit a loved one, but when that person is sick. When my grandmother had a stroke, I flew home that same day, so I could see her while she was still alive. What good would it do to go to her funeral, after she's dead? But airlines only give bereavement fares for deaths. <BR> <BR>And, Compassion, "pro-family" is not something a political party can latch on to. There are strong, closely knit Republican families, just like there are strong, closely knit Democrat families. And for every Bill Clinton and Gary Condit, there's a Newt Gingrich and Henry Hyde. Neither party has a claim on morality or lying and cheating. It's a personal thing, not a political thing. <BR> <BR>And for the rest of you complaining that the world's falling apart, you obviously aren't paying attention. Divorce rates hit a high in the early 1980s, and have been steadily falling since then. Murder and rape rates are at their lowest across the country in 30 years. We have the highest literacy rates in history. In my neighborhood, which is so new that no one has lived there for more than 2 years, people routinely gather together to help out a neighbor in trouble, or just to have a party. <BR> <BR>So if you want to go back to the "good old days", when a black man couldn't get served in a restaurant, when polio was crippling my father, when people in Minnesota didn't have indoor plumbing, when life was great only if you were a white male, when politicians were screwing around, except the press didn't tell the public, when women routinely died in childbirth, when most poor children couldn't read, you go right ahead. We live in a golden age right now, and if you can't recognize that, I feel so very sorry for you. Why can't you enjoy life instead of wishing for the way things never were?

Thank you for your thoughts, Jim. I agree with you wholeheartedly, so I must have misunderstood you completely. <BR> <BR>And as for my point about hard-liners, having a policy to help you visit a dying loved one or meet with family after the death is pro-family, and I was surprised that so many conservative people had such a strong knee-jerk reaction and are unwilling to consider some sort of initiative here, even if it isn't through government mandate. (And I thought bereavement fares were available for serious illness, with a doctor's certification). <BR> <BR>Take care. You sound like a great guy.

Yes, I'd have to say Jim is a person who feels compassionately about what he feels and thinks ... I like that, a lot. Nice perspective ... we are in a golden age ... time to enjoy what we have, not fret about what we couldn't have. But we have to take care we don't undershoot. I really like my idea about that check-off. Most of the time I'm for fun, but from time to time, I get serious. This bereavement fare issue is certainly one I hope stays alive ... somehow it needs to be brought to the attention of the airlines. Afterall, what do the demographics indicate about our aging society. Maybe this is an issue whose time has arrived. Ciao

Why should the airlines be obligated to help you out in a crisis? <BR> <BR>For one thing...usually when you fly, you fly a distance...if a relative dies (especially a close relative) and you need to get home, the airline should at least have the courtesy to offer the absolute lowest fare possible. I mean the fare one gets when they book in advance. <BR> <BR>I was on a flight this past November that I couldn't get a seat on for a relative because the airline was charging an outrageous fare...guess what...there were at least ten seats on that plane that were EMPTY....that annoyed me to no end. While this has nothing to do with bereavement, the fact remains that there ARE empty seats on planes (I happened to be going to a popular destination during Thanksgiving week, FLL) I thought all the seats would be jammed. NOT! <BR> <BR>Airlines are getting more arrogant every day, and until people get together enmasse it will only get worse! <BR> <BR>I can't imagine having to pay anything over $400 for a bereavement fare! Anything more than that is heartless!!!!! <BR> <BR>

Years ago I had to go overseas because my mother had terminal cancer. This was pre-internet ticketing days so I got my ticket from a travel agent. I never thought to ask for anything special except maybe the best possible price. About a month later I decided to return home as the family decided that my mother could linger on. As the plane was landing in Tokyo, I was paged to go to their desk. I identified myself and they gave me the message to call the US and they then offered their phone so I could call my husband in New York. My mother had died almost just as my flight took off from Manila. The airline then arranged to immediately book me on a return flight back to Manila. Again, I did not ask for anything special. I eventually learned I paid almost as much for the Tokyo-Manila roundtrip segment than I did for my original international ticket. But, I was in first class as that was the only seat available on the first flight going out. I also knew from experience that this route was always fully booked so I know I wasn't really gypped. Maybe, I could have bargained down the price but at that time I couldn't care less. The fact that the airline was willing to locate me, get me paged, offer a free call to the US, get a me an English-speaking agent to deal with, book me on the first flight out, direct me to their first class passenger lounge and feed me while I was waiting more than compensated for the expensive fare. Maybe my husband was lucky in getting a good agent and an understanding supervisor when he first called to get their help. But I do believe that the airlines do try to be assistance. The airline was Northwest.

An addendum to to saga above. The airline was even able to retrieve my luggage, tag it and store it in Tokyo so that I could pick it up my way back to the US. And you know what? My luggage didn't get lost, wasn't tampered with and every office and agent I dealt with made sure that the luggage was tagged and ready to get on my return flight.

I just checked this thread this out of curiosity after seeing the number of responses it had garnered. I've skim-read most of it, so if I'm repeating someone else's take on this, I apologize. <BR> <BR>I simply do not understand those who take the position that the airlines don't "owe" a bereavement fare. Airlines fare structures penalize those who don't plan ahead...businessmen whose company is paying anyway, or those who have enough $$ that it just doesn't matter to them. The bereaved have absolutely no control over their circumstances...why should they be penalized for not having planned? Why should they be forced to pay the same fare as that businessman who suddenly plans a trip to Chicago for next week? He could easily have foreseen the need in most cases. No way could the bereaved. <BR> <BR>Be glad the fare even exists today. My Dad died unexpectedly December 23, 1987. There were no bereavement fares then. My rt Dallas-&gt;Hartford ticket cost $1,200!!! For my husband and 2 teenaged children to accompnay me would have been another $3,600, something we just couldn't afford. DH made my flight arrangements, and I, like the person saving absurd items from a house fire, went grocery shopping for Christmas dinner ingredients they would need, then wrote up our traditional recipes so they prepare them. Hours later I was on the flight to Hartford, in a plane full of happy travelers headed home for the holidays (all of whom had planned well in advance and paid a fraction of what I had), overhead bins full of gifts, festive mood. To add insult to injury, of course they ran out of my preferred meal before getting to me in the back of the plane and I ended up with a gravy ladden piece of inner sole....for my $1,200. That's when the tears came..finally, (and stupidly) for the first time since that morning phone call. <BR> <BR>Someone asked if hotels owe you a discounted rate for having to stay after a house fire? Hotels don't have rate structures that penalize you for not planning ahead, as airlines do. You are paying the same rate as the person who made their reservation 3 weeks ago. The lack of understanding here absolutely baffles me!! It seems so bloody simple.......

If, after reading of Mrs. Oyl's experience when her dad died, you're not totally onboard about a new airline attitude on bereavement fares, check your heart rate ... somebody may be coming to see you off soon and need that very change. Ciao

Sorry, Olive. <BR>While I understand your arguments from a humanistic standpoint, from a business standpoint they don't hold water. <BR>A business can set its rate policies in any (legal) manner deemed appropriate. <BR>Businesses are not obligated to look out for anyone's social interests beyond the contract of service. <BR>I can't fathom how you think an airline OWES anyone who is bereaved. <BR>As I've said before, the cab driver and AMTRAK don't OWE the bereaved. Yes, I read your comment about being penalized for spur of the moment booking. But that's not the airline's fault that you can't predict a death. If your husband suddenly dies and you have to immediately sell the house and a car, etc you can't anticipate those things either. Can't 'get the best price' because you don't have the luxury of time to bid them out and compare. Is that the prospective buyer's fault? Do they owe you a 'good deal' because you're bereaved and time constrained? <BR> <BR>You want what is 'right'. You're speaking what we all feel...you want sympathy and compassion during a time of pain and crisis. All I'm saying is that no one else OWES you that. Praise to them if they give it to you....but you can't MANDATE or legislate that kind of consideration in this country.

Grip, perhaps we ought to expand our perspective realistically to go beyond what is evidently your necessarily limited, business-oriented view of "contract of service" and "social interests." <BR> <BR>Since we are discussing the interplay of bereavement and business decisions about pricing, perhaps it might be useful for someone knowledgeable about state and federal regulation of funeral industry practices to weigh in. Funeral directors also believed they were free to operate a strictly market-oriented pricing system as long as it upheld their view of a contract of service. Sounds likes airline companies, doesn't it? <BR> <BR>Courts and regulatory bodies viewed their pricing and market tacitcs with the bereaved to be of less standing than the special social care that must be taken with the bereaved during those special times. The bereaved were of course vulnerable to predatory tactics, and of course we're talking about price gouging and phony pricing tactics. <BR>Government stepped in to legislate and regulate marketing practices and how pricing structures were imposed on the bereaved. Gee, doesn't this sound even more like what ought to be occurring with airlines? <BR> <BR>I will leave you to draw the parallels, and please, do not retort that none is extant. My point is a simple one: sometimes there is a higher, more important social interest that will supersede the notion that contract of service is the determining factor when companies deal with their customers. And when airlines act in identical fashion, it does raise some other issues as well, such as collusion to unfairly inhibit one group's access to travel in favor of another more willing and able to adjust to predatory pricing practices under the guise of free enterprise. Ciao

Leone: <BR>I agreed with most of your posts up to the 1:45 PM one. Quit your rambling, son. Did you start drinking a couple of hours ago? My head hurts trying to follow your reasoning. <BR>Grip: <BR>I have a notion you have never lost someone near & dear, or you wouldn't be so adamant in your stance. <BR>Adieu

Hey, ZZZZZ, I'll just overlook the drinking slur ... you demean yourself with that stuff, not me. Okay, my point: you may believe in what Grip says, and if you do, it means you think business has the final say in pricing. The funeral industry history is a perfect example of why that belief can be turned on its head anytime government decides that a social issue takes precedence over free enterprise. The commonality is of course the need for a family member to transact a business decision in the midst of a personal bereavement. Funeral directors, sales staff were taking advantage, so gradually they were no longer strictly unregulated. It is not beyond possibility that airline practices in similar circumstances might attract similar regulatory attention. Perhaps the linkage doesn't work for you, but at least I've tried to move the discussion beyond merely reciting personal horror stories ... which, do not get me wrong, are fine, and necessary, to illustrate a larger issue ... and when that larger issue has been articulated, you then have the basis for debating a change in social policy, and the tools that make that change occur ... laws and implementing regulations. And that, based on a lot of very hard and specific personal experience, is one way in which American society changes. Please remember ... that's in simplified form. And it is hardly an argument you'll overhear in a bar. I'm sure you meant your jest in jest anyway. Ciao

L: <BR>RE-READ my post. I AGREE WITH YOU. Just keep it short(er).

Good analogy, L. Wish I had thought of it. <BR> <BR>To Grip: I think you're a little behind the times. The government constrains business with regularity when it comes to consumer protection and issues of compassion. Honestly! Long ago, if someone stole my credit card and ran it up, that was my problem. No sympathy from the credit card company regardless of hardship. A contract is a contract, after all. But for social reasons, the government said they can't charge me more than $50. <BR> <BR>Other examples of "compassion" overriding the business' right to charge what they wish abound: telling hospitals they can't throw out people who can't pay. Telling HMOs what they have to cover. Initiatives to prevent gouging following natural disaster. <BR> <BR>I see no difference with bereavement fares (other than I think the government needn't step in and public pressure ought to be sufficient). <BR> <BR>Oh, and while I'm on the subject, airlines voluntarily assist "bereaved" family members when there has been a crash. Free lodging, flights, food, counseling. They do it because they got bad press a few crashes ago. Bad press can accomplish a lot.

Grip, you are missing my point, sorry. I do agree with your first two paragraphs. I don't feel anything is *owed* me, truly. (And by the way the last thing in the world I wanted that day, or any day, would be *ANYONE* feeling sorry for me!) <BR> <BR>Do you agree that pricing on fares for flights where reservations are made just days in advance is a form of a penalty for waiting to book? These late-comers throw off scheduling of planes, fares (available discounted), and personnel and they pay (owe?) for it. <BR> <BR>All I'm asking is that I be allowed to pay the same fare *I would have paid* had I been able to book this flight 2-3 weeks out, as I would have done under any other circumstance but this one. Nothing more. No half off the lowest fare. And in my particular case, even that lowest fare would have been exorbitant as it was jacked up Christmas pricing. Just give me the (gouge) fare I would have been eligible for had not life's MOST unpredictable event stepped into my path, demanding that I leave immediately, not one, two, or even three, weeks from now. If the rest of my family still can't afford to fly with the advance purchase fare, so be it, but don't penalize me for *having* to book the same day as my father's death!! <BR> <BR>I agree with ZZZZ...if you had EVER found yourself in this situation, you would not be wearing the blinders you've got on today.

Can I add a good bereavement fare experience? About 5 years ago my mother dies and I had to fly from Denver to Amsterdam. I had a really wonderful travel agent at the time, who went out of her way to find me a good fare. I ended up flying Delta for a very reasonable price and first-class treatment. The ticket was coded in a way that showed it was a bereavement ticket, and I didn't have to wait in line anywhere and my luggage was first on the carousel at every stop. I was so impressed that I sent a letter to Delta complimenting them on their wonderful service.

Olive: <BR>I completely agree with your last (qualified) statement. I believe it would be REASONABLE for airlines to be required to offer bereaved persons an advanced booking fare (something the average flier could have obtained earlier). I doubt the government would ever enforce this type of policy, partly because fares change so frequently on many carriers/routes (based on demand/season etc) that determining a single 'advanced booking fare' would allow for plenty of wiggle room on the carrier's part. <BR>But you're one of the few who has specified that the requirement should be ONLY to remove the late booking 'penalty'. Most posters above are simply arguing that the airlines 'owe the bereaved because they're bereaved', implying that they deserve some type of special treatment not due other customers. <BR> <BR>Leone: <BR>Your examples about social interest vs business pricing are almost inverse examples of the bereavement situation with the airlines. The government stepped in to regulate the funeral industry because there was sytematic abuse targeting virtually all those requiring funeral services. (Same with the 'hospital dumping' issue in which ER's were sending indigents away for lack of ability to pay). <BR>The airline industry is clearly making infinitessimally small amounts of money (percentage basis) from the bereaved. Nothing systematic and I seriously doubt that it's intentional in any way. <BR>So why don't they just give the bereaved a break? I believe they fear the slippery slope. Make it difficult for people to obtain bereavement fares and only the truly bereaved will bother making the effort to get a reduced fare. <BR>Make it policy that any death certificate or funeral contract entitles one to a reduced fare and within 48 hours there will be a new internet niche industry cranking out phony facsimiles for people to download and copy.

Well, Grip, your analysis of why the gov't. stepped in to regulate the funeral industry fits what airlines are doing. The elements you cite: systematic ... abuse .. tageting virtually all needing a specific service. One could make the case that the bereaved traveller seeking to purchase a non-gouged ticket faces exactly that situation. With ER's and indigents, there are major difference: many local jurisdictions specifically provide a general hospital that handles those without funds, and many other hospitals do so as well, even knowing they will take a loss. I know this firsthand through trauma center studies. That is a huge problem and it is in every town and city. Most of the indigent do receive care, albeit under difficult circumstances. There is no such relief for the bereaved airline passenger. This debate is all about finding ways to give that relief. For you to say the denial of a reasonable fare is not systematic is to fly in the face of all the other comments - it is becauase it is so widespread and painful that people are upset and commenting on this website. That the airlines make a small amount of their money from the tickets they sell to the bereaved is simply irrelevant. They sell a cheaper ticket to those who reserve in advance because it benefits the airline's operation. As far as a slippery slope, in the time of internet communication, there are ways to ensure that phony funeral home documents do not plague the airlines. People defraud all types of companies ... to refuse to sell a cheaper ticket to bereaved on those grounds is to suggest that any business who is defrauded should immediately close its doors and cease providing that service. Giving a break in fares to the bereaved is an ideas whose time has come ... what amzaes me is that change has not already taken place. Ciao