Careful What You Wish For

[bicker]

Calls for re-regulation go back to deregulation itself. I found a Fortune magazine article discussing it in 1989. However, when we talk about regulated airfares, it may help if people could keep this in mind:

In 1982 there were three roundtrip flights from Boston to Los Angeles, with the lowest fare costing $298. Adjusted for inflation, that ticket should cost $635 today [2007], but Trippler found that, not only are there nine roundtrip flights instead of three, the lowest fare was just $199.

Do folks really want prices increasing that much? ... practically doubling? While prices are increasing since 2007, they're still running behind inflation. And keep in mind that the rate of inflation doesn't tell the whole story: There are myriad other factors that contribute to higher costs these days (not the least of which are higher costs for labor, and fuel, as compared to 1982 - items for which the costs have increased substantially more than the overall rate of inflation).

 

[kaytieeldr]

No, I don't want reregulation bicker - but I'm not averse to paying a reasonable rate for airfare, even if it means traveling less.

 

[sam_gordon]

I disagree. I think airlines need to stop nickel-and-diming, sure - but I think they need to start charging reasonable fares. Instead of $129 each way to fly between Boston and Las Vegas in December, then adding $6 or $13 to choose my seat, then $23 or $25 to check a suitcase, and the $2.50 security fee, and the 'up to $10' PFC, and the $7.50 landing/take-off fee... Now it's costing me $185 each way.

In a way, I like the fees. If you don't care about your seat selection (traveling alone) and if you're not checking your suitcase, why pay more?

Or I can just book with JetBlue. Yes, I still have some of those annoying little fees - but seat selection is free, first bag is free - I'm paying $194.50. Worth it to me, worth it to them. No nickel-and-dime.

That's a business decision JetBlue has made. But if you think about it, if you're not checking a bag, you are paying money for a service you're not really using (baggage handling). It's just all wrapped into one price.

 

[Lewisc]

When a business goes far past what the public (and our elected officials) think is reasonable regulations result. The scope of regulations may be greater then what some people think is reasonable.

Airlines shouldn't need a regulation to know passengers shouldn't be sitting in a plane, without working toilets, without water or food for long periods of time.

Maybe the regulations and penalties should be more lenient but past experience suggests many people don't trust the judgment of the airlines.

 

[bicker]

Airlines don't have control over a big portion of the situation. If it was up to the airline, they'd jump to the head of the de-icing queue, then jump to the head of the take-off queue, and take-off, without ever having to worry about this issue.

I don't think the airline's judgment is anything other than sound. The issue is that we passengers want the impossible: Low fares, superlative security and safety, no delays, no new airports, no new runways, only airports close to the city center, etc. The more we insist on, the more we create new problems by the stress we put on the system.

 

[jodifla]

Name me one other non emergency/law enforcement situation where a private company can keep you confined against your will. Whether or not YOU feel the repercussions of canceling flights is worse is irrelevant, if I feel the consequences of staying on the flight is worse for ME. The police can't even hold you for questioning without booking you for as long as some people have been held hostage on planes. It may be rare but the worst cases are once is too much situations.

The law may not be perfect but if the airlines hadn't been guilty of repeated ridiculous infractions it wouldn't have been put in place. No industry should have the right to hold people against their will in what they feel is uncomfortable conditions for more than 3 hours. What if WDW decided that the parks and resort pools were too full and so certain guests would have to stay in their rooms for 4-5 hours per day. And oh yeah AC is costing too much so none of that, and by the way the bathrooms are broken.

I have spent hours on the tarmac due to weather only to have the plane called back to the terminal just as flights were leaving simply because the flight crew was reaching maximum allowable flight time. I feel I deserve to have rules in place to protect my freedom, safety and comfort just as much as the employees do.

Exactly!!!!!!

Airlines have NO RIGHT to hold people HOSTAGE for ENDLESS hours! Not what I signed up for when I bought an airline ticket. The next airline who pulls this stunt should have its CEO put in jail. THAT will stop it.

Three hours is the max I want to spend on an airplane that's not going anywhere.

Frankly, I'm surprised somebody hasn't gotten very sick or even died from the conditions they put people under in a crowded, hot plane with no food, water, bathrooms and very poor air quality for nine hours.

 

[Lewisc]

There is an exception if

if air traffic control advises the pilot in command that returning to the terminal would disrupt airport operations.

I suspect that loophole would handle a lot of circumstance.

I agree with the pp, 3 hours sitting on a plane on the ground is long enough. Giving passengers right to get off the plane, as long it doesn't disrupt airport operations makes sense to a lot of passengers.

 

[Tara]

I would LOVE to see solid information about how often this has happened in the last few years.

 

[NotUrsula]

Yes, I've read them and if you believe that that happens more than occasionally then you're sadly misguided.

And indeed that's part of what worried me in the first place, that exaggeration in the minds of passengers prompted bad law.

I've been on hundreds, if not thousands of flights in my life, and it has never happened to me. I had a few times where we waiting two-plus hours but we actually never made it to three, if I recall. It happens, as I said "occasionally". If you want to say that "once is more than enough" that's fine, but don't try to pass off three-plus hour tarmac delays as something that an individual passenger experiences repeatedly with great frequency.

Actually, it depends greatly not just on how often you fly, but WHERE you fly and at what times of the day. My personal experience with truly nasty tarmac delay incidents were at hub airports in the South, especially at HOU, DFW, and ATL. Heat can make conditions much worse in these locations when it happens. It has never happened to me at an airport in the Northeast, but then, I fly to the NE very seldom -- I think 6 times in 20 years.

At last count, I've been retained on the taxiway for more than three hours 12 times in the past 20 years: 1 at MCO, 1 at TPA, 2 at HOU, 2 at DFW, 3 at STL, and 3 at ATL. On three of those occasions I was travelling with a small child. The most memorable was a delay at ATL in August with DS who was then aged 2; the plane was full of children because it was the week before school started up again. We were delayed 5 hours in mid-day, and when the plane landed after our flight, there was a further delay, thankfully in the terminal this time, while Delta had everyone de-plane for a cleaning. 8 seats (including the one I was sitting in) had to be removed and replaced because they were soiled by vomit. The toilets were overflowing, there was garbage piled in the galleys; it was like being locked inside a used portolet at the state fair for 7.5 hours.

I would be fine with letting the airlines service the aircraft on the taxiways during delays, provided that the interior of the plane is not overly hot or cold. Pull up trucks: clean the toilets, take out the trash and restock the galleys. Deliver sandwiches or at least bags of snack food. It CAN be done with trucks (LHR does it all the time because they don't have enough fixed gates for normal operations), and it makes more economic sense than bringing the passengers back to the gate or canceling the flight. Buy some buses with stairs -- if passengers want to get off, let them do so at timed intervals, without their checked baggage. Taking these measures would eliminate all but the most egregious situations.

 

[john1928]

I truly don't expect them to put things back. The mob is bigger than I am. I do expect, though, that folks would acknowledge and accept that there are consequences to what they've put in place, and that those consequences, i.e., more canceled flights, more itinerary disruption, etc., are "our" fault, not the airlines' fault.

Right, and the point of every other poster in this thread is that they want those consequences rather than the consequence of sitting in a stinking plane that's not going anywhere for hours. On the flyertalk boards you'll find lots more folks that agree with you, and for business travelers I can understand why. On a board that caters to travel to a destination with a high kid quotient I think you'll be in a tiny minority.

I know I wouldn't like to wait 4 hours to take off on a business trip, but it wouldn't be a huge issue (I've had many 2+ hour delays while onboard, but I don't recall any 4+ hour ones). However, I know that adding 4 hours unmoving onto a 3 hour planned flight with my 2yr old could make it a nightmare...

Or let's look at another example. Last August in Rochester MN, people were locked in a Contenental Express plane for 6 hours, at an airport that was 60-90 minutes by car from their destination... The original diversion was the result of weather, so I don't hold that against the airline.

But this flight was at the end of the day, once they knew the flight crew was going to time out, there wasn't even the potential for time savings by keeping them on the plane vs letting them wait in the terminal. For anyone with friends/relatives in the area who could come get them or who wanted to pay crazy cab fare it was sure to cost time. The airline points their finger at the airport and the airport points their finger at the TSA, and they all say "it's not our problem", well with the PBR we now know that it is in fact the airline's problem. Hopefully next time they will let the people off as soon as they know they cannot continue on their way.

 

[bicker]

Right, and the point of every other poster in this thread is that they want those consequences rather than the consequence of sitting in a stinking plane that's not going anywhere for hours.

That's fair. As I said, the mob is larger than me and I don't expect to get my way. I really do hope that folks don't direct anger at the airlines for the inevitable increase in canceled flights, and instead direct that anger squarely at the Passenger Bill of Rights, in other words (in most cases, according to your implication that most people want those consequences), direct anger for the increase in canceled flights at themselves.

On the flyertalk boards you'll find lots more folks that agree with you, and for business travelers I can understand why.

I suppose it is nice to know that my preference for time on the tarmac over a increased incidence of canceled flights (with the accompanying two to three day rebooking concern) is prevalent somewhere. I suspect, though, that few folks there are willing to be as sanguine as I am, i.e, accepting not getting my way as long as the people who have gotten their way take the blame for the increased incidence of canceled flights. For me, the cost of sitting next to someone stuck in the airport for a few extra days, angry at the airline instead of at themselves, is pretty high.

People angry at the airlines put out really grating vibes; people angry with themselves are much more tranquil.

However, I know that adding 4 hours unmoving onto a 3 hour planned flight with my 2yr old could make it a nightmare...

This is a good launching-off point to those consequences. Tell me please how you're going to feel about being stuck in MCO for a few extra days, due to a cancellation of a flight? How about not being able to get to MCO until a few days into your vacation? Answering these questions in the thread is not really important - what is important is answering these questions in your own mind, preparing yourself for the possibility, and hopefully ending up with you being a tranquil neighbor sitting next to me, instead of a grating one.

 

[nemofans]

The closest experience we had to this was last month. We flew AA & had a connecting flight in Miami. Due to a storm, flights were delayed about 30 min. Then they let us on to then tell us that the plane didn't have fuel, food/beverages, or luggage yet & it could be about a 20 min wait. Okay not too bad, except it ended up lasted 1.5 hrs, not 20 min. Now I had my 16 mos old w/me & the added time made it much more difficult. People did hear a screaming toddler for about an hour of it.
We were furious that they boarded us when the plane wasn't ready to take off, just so we can sit there. They could have extended the delay & boarded everyone when the plane was much closer to being ready. I would have been much happier waiting in the airport where my little one could walk around than stuck on a plane.

 

[bicker]

Did they push-back after you boarded, but while the plane "wasn't ready to take off" as you referred to it?

 

[nemofans]

Our flight had a 30 min delay already due to the storm. We were supposed to leave at 5:35 pm, but the delayed time was 6:05 pm. They boarded us at 6:05 pm & once everyone was on the plane they announced that the plane wasn't ready. They said that they couldn't prepare the plane during the 30 min delay b/c there was lightening. So the crew had to wait til the lightening passed. Then we sat on it for 1.5 hrs waiting. I don't understand why they put us on the plane if they were still waiting for the lightening to pass. It's still took awhile b4 they let the crew get near the plane b/c there was still lightening. And we were stuck there waiting. The pilot kept coming on to tell us that there was still lightening & the crew still can't do anything. They could have easily delayed the flight more & left us in the airport w/access to food & bathrooms.

 

[SuzanneSLO]

I do think that higher cancellations will make it even more important for travellers to plan by picking optimum flights. Usually, that means non-stop if possible, an airline with lots of flights to your destination and not taking the last flight of the day (with earlier in the day better). Then, if your flight is cancelled, you may have a chance that some or all of your party can be reaccomodated on another flight and not have a forced over-night layover at your own expense.

Whenever I think about cancellations, I always remember a trip to Hawaii, scheduled for a Thursday and being told that if we missed our flight to LAX, the next confirmed seats out of LAX to Hawaii would be on Monday! We were lucky to make it on time by having a cab driver step on it and get us to a different airport 30 miles away to catch a flight that left in 30 minutes! -- Suzanne

 

[sam_gordon]

This is a good launching-off point to those consequences. Tell me please how you're going to feel about being stuck in MCO for a few extra days, due to a cancellation of a flight? How about not being able to get to MCO until a few days into your vacation?

You've made this "days late" claim a couple times in this thread and I'm not exactly buying it. Two stories for you...

Flying from Newark back home through Chicago Midway on an early evening flight. Severe storm delays our flight a couple hours (fortunately we hadn't boarded). Get into Midway WAY after missing my connecting flight (along with most of the people on the plane. In fact, we arrived at Midway AFTER the connecting flight arrived at my home airport. The airline got me on the first flight the next morning. BTW, that storm shutdown Newark, JFK, and LaGuardia for hours. I don't remember hearing stories of people being delayed DAYS.

And one of the most "mixed up" flying times in our country... returning from WDW the Saturday after 9/11... We left Orlando fine (darn it). Atlanta was a MESS. Canceled flights everywhere. Planes weren't where they needed to be, crew weren't where they needed to be (airline turned down my request to be a flight attendant so our flight could take off), etc. Guess what... we got put on the first flight in the AM.

I guess what I'm saying is as long as airlines CAN fly, they'll get you there. It might be HOURS (maybe 24), but I find it hard to believe DAYS will go by with passengers stranded because of a canceled flight.

What I don't get is during the 9/11 trip, my parent's flight was canceled out of Orlando. Disney was offering to put up stranded tourists. My parents elected to rent a car and leave! I was HOPING our flight was canceled.

 

[Tara]

You've made this "days late" claim a couple times in this thread and I'm not exactly buying it.

Do you fly a lot? Bicker does. I do. I work for a consulting firm, so I'm surrounded by people who fly every week as well. Whether you buy it or not, the "days" delays do happen, especially now that we've seen so much consolidation of routes and schedules.

Just last summer I was in Alabama visiting family and my morning flight out of HSV was canceled due to weather. (inbound aircraft never left for HSV) After 2 hours of trying every option possible, the best they could get me was space on the last flight to DTW the next day where I'd then have to spend the night and take another flight out the next morning to get home.

In February I had a horrible snafu that very nearly made me miss my initial flight of a double-connection trip to Palm Springs. As I desperately tried to make the flight, I talked to United and try as they might, they couldn't get me to Palm Springs any earlier than 2 days later if I didn't get on my original flight. Luckily, I made the flight because I'd have missed 50% of the TED Conference and that would have sucked mightily.

Earlier this spring we had 2 consultants in Puerto Rico who missed the 5pm USAir flight to Charlotte and had to wait until the morning flight 2 days later to get home.

And one of the most "mixed up" flying times in our country... returning from WDW the Saturday after 9/11... We left Orlando fine (darn it). Atlanta was a MESS. Canceled flights everywhere. Planes weren't where they needed to be, crew weren't where they needed to be (airline turned down my request to be a flight attendant so our flight could take off), etc. Guess what... we got put on the first flight in the AM.

Anyone who flew in the first couple of weeks after flights resumed will tell you that airports were practically deserted - I'd be shocked if anyone had to wait days for space because so many people were opting to NOT fly, freeing up a lot of space.

 

[bicker]

You've made this "days late" claim a couple times in this thread and I'm not exactly buying it.

Actually, I quoted that from an article. "Not buying it" will just leave travelers in that "grating" category instead of the "tranquil" category that I was referring to earlier, when the inevitable happens, and that is my major concern.

I guess what I'm saying is as long as airlines CAN fly, they'll get you there.

I'm sorry but I believe your comments in this regard are out of touch with the reality that airline travelers experience today, much less the worse situation that they're now going to be experiencing due to the PBoR. It is not uncommon for flights to be booked-up fully for days, making rebooking after a flight cancellation practically impossible. Folks who were affected by the volcano found this out the hard way. Don't you fall into the same trap.

 

[seashoreCM]

9/11 was unusual regarding being able to rebook and get going quickly after all those flight cancellations.

Everytime else, after a spree of cancellations, it took awhile for everyone to be re-accommodated.

 

[happycamps]

Airlines don't have control over a big portion of the situation. If it was up to the airline, they'd jump to the head of the de-icing queue, then jump to the head of the take-off queue, and take-off, without ever having to worry about this issue.

I don't think the airline's judgment is anything other than sound. The issue is that we passengers want the impossible: Low fares, superlative security and safety, no delays, no new airports, no new runways, only airports close to the city center, etc. The more we insist on, the more we create new problems by the stress we put on the system.

You're sooooooo right.