Careful What You Wish For

[jodifla]

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.

How anybody could read the bolded statement and think we DON"T need a bill of rights for airline passengers is beyond me.

 

[Lewisc]

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.

The most common meaning of the mob is:

a disorderly or riotous crowd of people.

People who don't share your opinions aren't part of a "mob". The passenger bill of rights was passed by our elected officials not by mobsters.

I'll blame the airlines (and airports). Three hours is long enough to keep passengers on a plane on the ground. Delay the flight and let the passengers wait in the terminal.

 

[bicker]

We'll have to agree to disagree about the applicability of "mob" because I believe it was indeed mob-mentality that pressured the tenets of the PBoR - unruly, narrowly-focused crowd; interested only in immediate gratification and uninterested in considering second-order ramifications.

Delaying the flight is often more expensive than cancelling it, yet consumers demand low fares, and therefore effectively insist on airlines using the flight cancellation approach. Again, the fault for the extra cancellations rests squarely on passengers, no one else.

 

[Lewisc]

I'm not sure what your point is. As a consumer I'm not going to select a more expensive fare to increase an airlines profits (or reduce their loses). Airlines need to reduce their capacity (at least in price sensitive routes) so they can fill their planes with passengers willing to pay a profitable fare. Southwest is doing just that. Witness all the threads complaining about SW fares and SW reducing the number of flights.

No question consumers prefer low fares over amenities such as meals and probably even free luggage and assigned seats.

I'm not going to blame consumers who want low fares. Blame the airlines for thinking they can profitably offer fares low enough to satisfy every segment of the market.

Blame is probably the wrong word to use. Consumers are price sensitive. Airlines haven't done a good job putting a line in the sand and deciding which routes either aren't worth flying or aren't worth flying at current schedules.

Three hours on a plane on the tarmac is long enough. The fact that a number of people, and elected officials, don't share your opinion doesn't mean they're "a mob".

I'm not even sure you can completely blame the flight cancellation on the passenger bill or rights. After the Valentines Day "situation" airlines have been quicker to cancel flights so they don't have planes stuck in airports that are weathered in.

edited to add the word "blame" implies the person did something wrong. A customer who books a low fare didn't do anything wrong. An airline that continues to offer flights that only sell if unprofitable fares are offered might be blamed for not moving their planes to more profitable routes.

I'll agree consumers preference for low price is responsible for the unbundling of fees, reduction of amenities and even nickle and dime fees.

We'll have to agree to disagree about the applicability of "mob" because I believe it was indeed mob-mentality that pressured the tenets of the PBoR - unruly, narrowly-focused crowd; interested only in immediate gratification and uninterested in considering second-order ramifications.

Delaying the flight is often more expensive than cancelling it, yet consumers demand low fares, and therefore effectively insist on airlines using the flight cancellation approach. Again, the fault for the extra cancellations rests squarely on passengers, no one else.

 

[john1928]

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

I'm not a twice weekly road warrior, but I do take dozens of flights per year, mostly for work rather than pleasure. And mostly into large metro areas with hundreds of flights per day.

Most of the "days" of delay can be attributed to routes that are too full to absorb any significant unplanned passenger load (which is exactly how the airlines need their planes if they want to avoid going bankrupt). It's not much of an issue for a single plane with mechanical problem as folks are likely continuing on to several destinations.

However, when a snow storm, volcano, or FAA computer failure cause delays for large numbers of flights concurrently you're going to run into significant (sometimes days long) delays whether flights are canceled or not. Unless you're a glutton for punishment or are connecting internationally if you had a 4 hour tarmac delay you probably missed your connection already and may be waiting a while in either case. If you were on a direct flight you may well have saved some time by not having the flight canceled. I can't argue that there isn't a benefit for some people to not canceling the flight in that case.

In the cases where a canceled or delayed flight means that someone is going to miss a wedding, cruise, or critical business meeting I can understand why they'd be annoyed. I can also understand why even more folks would be annoyed if they were stuck unmoving 200 feet from a terminal where they could stroll around, get a bite to eat, or change their kid's diaper without needing to be a Cirque acrobat in an airplane restroom. However, in one case they'd be annoyed 17" from me with the risk of DVT rising by each movement-limited minute, in the other they'd be annoyed several miles away while I relaxed/worked at home or at a hotel. Again I know which I'd pick 95% of the time.

 

[bicker]

I'm not sure what your point is. As a consumer I'm not going to select a more expensive fare to increase an airlines profits (or reduce their loses).

We're not talking about fares; we're talking about the PBoR. So most of your message was utterly off-topic, and irrelevant to the message you replied to.

The fact that a number of people, and elected officials, don't share your opinion doesn't mean they're "a mob".

Actually, they are a mob. And I explained why above... because they forced government to put bad law in place that will make things worse overall. I was pretty clear about that; I'm not sure why you were confused.

 

[bicker]

Most of the "days" of delay can be attributed to routes that are too full to absorb any significant unplanned passenger load (which is exactly how the airlines need their planes if they want to avoid going bankrupt).

Precisely, and in light of this, it was really a bad idea to essentially push airlines into canceling flights (which is absolutely what the PBoR has done), instead of just waiting for their turn to take off. It was doubly-bad, because the government (the FAA) is the party that should have been held responsible for air traffic control, and when it, the agency, fails to get aircraft off the ground in a timely manner after push-back, instead of making the airline responsible for something over which they have practically no control over.

 

[NHdisneylover]

I am going to have to agree with Bicker that the Passenger Bill of Rights is a result of mob mentality controlling governmental decisions without looking carefully at the facts (likes such delays being RARE).

The 5 or 6 times I fly in any given year is always with kids and always for vacations. I would still prefer to sit a bit longer on the tarmac if it means we can get out that day than be delayed further days. I have done it once--for 3 1/2 hours. The kids were 2 and 4. Delta did put on a movie and hand out drinks. In the end we did not get to go (Atlanta had been closed down and it reeked havoc on Delta) but i was glad they tried. The vomit/backed up toilets things sounds TERRIBLE--but that is not common at all. DH travels 40 weeks a year and he has also only once been delayed over three hours (the same flight I referenced earlier).

I also agree with the PP who is okay with the nickel and dime fares. Since fare as a whole are at rock bottom, I like only having to pay for the services I need. I still fly Southwest in the US though because I like their service.

 

[bicker]

I never understood the animosity toward "nickel-and-diming". That practice is very much consumer-friendly, since it gives the consumer so much more power over what they have to pay for.

Folks here on the DIS know that I'm the go-to guy when it comes to info about television, and one of things that consumers are crying for most is "retail a la carte" - the ability to put together packages of channels themselves, rather than having to choose from specific packages. Retail a la carte is the ultimate form of "nickel and diming" - and again, it is consumers who want it. Especially budget-conscious consumers, since they're the ones who would benefit financially from retail a la carte. Premium consumers would pay commensurately more, so I suppose that corresponds to the Y-class traveler, paying full fare - how many of us pay Y-class fares anymore, even on business? Regardless, retail a la carte - i.e., "nickel and diming" - is good for consumers. It is only the television networks who stand to lose from retail a la carte. (Cable companies are going to get the same amount of money either way.)

My best guess for the animosity toward "nickel and diming" is that some consumers don't want to learn about the things they're buying. They just want whatever they buy to be exactly the way they expect it to be, without going through the effort of becoming an educated consumer.

 

[NotUrsula]

I think that the issue with "nickel and diming" is that it creates a perception of false advertising. If an airline advertises a $99 fare, consumers get angry when the actual cost of the flight turns out to be $200, which is what can happen if you must pay $10 for the seat assignment, $30 for a bag, and $60 in taxes & mandatory fees.

Most people would be a LOT happier if the airlines were required to advertise fares with all possible fees included, and then state it as a "discount" if you want to drop your seat assignment or your baggage allowance.

 

[doggydoc]

Precisely, and in light of this, it was really a bad idea to essentially push airlines into canceling flights (which is absolutely what the PBoR has done), instead of just waiting for their turn to take off. It was doubly-bad, because the government (the FAA) is the party that should have been held responsible for air traffic control, and when it, the agency, fails to get aircraft off the ground in a timely manner after push-back, instead of making the airline responsible for something over which they have practically no control over.

So let's just totally ignore the fact that airlines board and push-back flights knowing they won't get off the ground for hours just so they can keep up their on-time %. You continue to state the same argument over and over but the bottom line is your desire to get to your conference on-time does NOT supersede my fundamental constitutional right to liberty. It's false imprisonment plain and simple. Three hours is plenty to keep people waiting. No private company(or governmental agency for that matter) should have the right to treat a citizen that way. It is one of the founding principles of our democracy. Maybe now that they are facing this law airlines will start leaving flights at the gate allowing people to wait in the terminal instead of loading them and pushing back to same their precious on-time percentage, necessitating the imprisonment of passengers for hours on end.

 

[bicker]

I think that the issue with "nickel and diming" is that it creates a perception of false advertising.

However, educated consumers know that that's bunk. Advertising always mentioned "terms and conditions apply" or somesuch, and so asserting grievance because you choose to ignore those terms and conditions is without merit, and pretty silly, too.

Most people would be a LOT happier if the airlines were required to advertise fares with all possible fees included, and then state it as a "discount" if you want to drop your seat assignment or your baggage allowance.

uh-uh - Most people would punish the airlines that did that.

 

[bicker]

So let's just totally ignore the fact that airlines board and push-back flights knowing they won't get off the ground for hours just so they can keep up their on-time %.

The airline did everything it was supposed to to take-off on time, yet you would think they should deliberately incur penalty for doing everything right?!?!?! That makes no sense. Passengers, as a group, have determined that on-time percentage is a relevant metric. And the FAA has determined that push-back is what determines on-time percentage! Why refuse to put blame where it belongs, i.e., on passengers and passenger advocacy groups that made on-time percentage a metric by which airlines are measured, and on the agency that determines how it gets measured?

The misdirection of blame that goes on is ridiculous. It seems like just another excuse people make up to justify being angry.

You continue to state the same argument over and over but the bottom line is your desire to get to your conference on-time does NOT supersede my fundamental constitutional right to liberty.

Your fundamental right to liberty remains unabridged. If you don't like how airline travel works, then do without it.

It's false imprisonment plain and simple.

It is no such thing, "plain and simple".

Three hours is plenty to keep people waiting.No private company(or governmental agency for that matter) should have the right to treat a citizen that way.

Not only does the government have that right, the vaunted PBoR you're trying to defend says that explicitly!

It is one of the founding principles of our democracy.

No it isn't (for the reasons outlined above). .

Maybe now that they are facing this law airlines will start leaving flights at the gate allowing people to wait in the terminal instead of loading them and pushing back to same their precious on-time percentage, necessitating the imprisonment of passengers for hours on end.

Nope: They're going to cancel flights due to weather delay, so it won't count against their on-time percentage. Passengers and citizens' government set up the standards, and the airlines just do what they can to do the best they can for their owners within the boundaries that the passengers and the government constructed.

 

[Lewisc]

Kayak gives you the option to indicate how many bags you'll be checking. They include those fees in the price that's displayed.

At a minimum I think airlines should be required to include any internet booking fee in the fare that's displayed. I think it's deceptive to display a fare that's only applicable if you have to go to an airport to purchase the ticket.

Including other fees sounds like a good idea but which fees. The cost to check one bag? Two bags? The cost for a meal? The cost for an assigned seat? The cost for a preferred "assigned seat"? I don't think we could agree on which fees should be included. I think the disclosure has to be better. Maybe a clear list with your confirmation along with an opportunity to cancel your reservation within 24 hours.

I'm not sure why the fee to check a bag is exempt from the federal excise tax when the tax is applicable if the cost to check a bag is included with the price of a ticket. Makes sense to tax those fees.

 

[NotUrsula]

However, educated consumers know that that's bunk. Advertising always mentioned "terms and conditions apply" or somesuch, and so asserting grievance because you choose to ignore those terms and conditions is without merit, and pretty silly, too.

Respectfully, Bicker, that's horsepucky and you know it. "Terms and conditions" do not normally add up to add'l monies other than sales taxes on most other sorts of purchases; only on common carrier fare purchases do we go way deep into the purchase before we can find out what it is actually going to cost up front. "Terms and conditions" cover such things as warranties, refund requirements, transferability, seat assignment guarantees, and the requirement to get past TSA before you can get on.

You can also add the practical reality that probably 50% of persons who purchase airline tickets do so less often than once per year. It is unrealistic to expect those people to know every little idiosyncracy of the fare market, or to study it.

uh-uh - Most people would punish the airlines that did that.

Not if ALL airlines had to do it. This much regulation I'd welcome, and a bill is once again in Congress that would require it. AA's lobbyists managed to get it killed last time, but it has another chance, and now that baggage and seat assignment fees have become common, the odds for passage are much better.

As to what fees to include in the initial quoted price, I'd say that it should include all taxes, the PFCs, fuel surcharges, peak travel surcharges, the seat assignment fee if there is one (including SWA's EBCI fee, since that falls into the same category), any online purchase surcharges (or phone service surcharges, etc., relevant to which purchase method you are using when you ask for the quote), and the fee for two checked bags <50# each and of standard maximum size. Then you can put in buttons to drop the bags (per each) or the seat assignment fee if the passenger so chooses, before the purchase is final. I do not think that the initial quote should have to include over size/weight fees for checked bags, unaccompanied minor fees, or pet carriage fees, since those have never historically been rolled into the fare structure; they have always been separate line items that are only included by special request.

Currently allowed airfare advertising is essentially a loopholed bait-and-switch, because it is not actually possible to buy ANY seat at the lowest offered price. While Americans are used to accepting actual taxes added on after the price is agreed on, the PFC is not technically a tax, so as soon as you add it, you've rendered the "product" impossible to deliver at the advertised price.

 

[PrincessArlena'sDad]

The passenger bill of rights was passed by our elected officials not by mobsters.

Is there a difference?

 

[jodifla]

I am going to have to agree with Bicker that the Passenger Bill of Rights is a result of mob mentality controlling governmental decisions without looking carefully at the facts (likes such delays being RARE).

The 5 or 6 times I fly in any given year is always with kids and always for vacations. I would still prefer to sit a bit longer on the tarmac if it means we can get out that day than be delayed further days. I have done it once--for 3 1/2 hours. The kids were 2 and 4. Delta did put on a movie and hand out drinks. In the end we did not get to go (Atlanta had been closed down and it reeked havoc on Delta) but i was glad they tried. The vomit/backed up toilets things sounds TERRIBLE--but that is not common at all. DH travels 40 weeks a year and he has also only once been delayed over three hours (the same flight I referenced earlier).

I also agree with the PP who is okay with the nickel and dime fares. Since fare as a whole are at rock bottom, I like only having to pay for the services I need. I still fly Southwest in the US though because I like their service.

And how about if it were 6 hours? Or 9 Hours? With no toilets, food, water, or working A/C? Would that still be OK with you?

 

[bicker]

Respectfully, Bicker, that's horsepucky and you know it. "Terms and conditions" do not normally add up to add'l monies other than sales taxes on most other sorts of purchases

Utterly untrue. (And I'd bet dollars to donuts that every example I'd give you you'd reply, "But that's different." So I won't even bother unless you promise to accept any terms and conditions I can provide for you that will add up to "add'tl monies other than sales taxes".)

 

[doggydoc]

The airline did everything it was supposed to to take-off on time, yet you would think they should deliberately incur penalty for doing everything right?!?!?! That makes no sense.

Passengers, as a group, have determined that on-time percentage is a relevant metric. And the FAA has determined that push-back is what determines on-time percentage! Why refuse to put blame where it belongs, i.e., on passengers and passenger advocacy groups that made on-time percentage a metric by which airlines are measured, and on the agency that determines how it gets measured?

C'mon now your just arguing for arguments sake. You seem knowledgable enough about the industry to know that AIRLINES lobbied to have pushback rather than take-off be the accepted metric. That way they can manipulate their percentage. Pushing back when they know the plane can't take off for hours is not doing everything right. It is for the airlines image benefit to the detriment of their passengers. If they want to be allowed to do this then they should be held accountable for such actions when they lead to unacceptable passenger retention on board.

The misdirection of blame that goes on is ridiculous. It seems like just another excuse people make up to justify being angry.

Your fundamental right to liberty remains unabridged. If you don't like how airline travel works, then do without it.

Whatever. I guess I should anticipate the possibility of hours and hours on board ANY time I fly or do without air travel completely. The airlines don't even warn you when they know there will be a delay thus giving you the oportunity to avoid that flight. Without the PBoR more and more people will begin to avoid air travel, pushing your precious airlines futher into the red.

It is no such thing, "plain and simple".

I disagree

Not only does the government have that right, the vaunted PBoR you're trying to defend says that explicitly!

Where? Subchapter and section please

No it isn't (for the reasons outlined above). .

Nope: They're going to cancel flights due to weather delay, so it won't count against their on-time percentage. Passengers and citizens' government set up the standards, and the airlines just do what they can to do the best they can for their owners within the boundaries that the passengers and the government constructed.

Well they have spoken now and the airlines will just have to make do won't they. I think you should give the PBoR a good read while your looking for the chapter and section info I asked for earlier. As I read it it does not mandate flight cancellation it merely mandates that passengers be given the right to deplane.

SUBCHAPTER IV--AIRLINE CUSTOMER SERVICE

`Sec. 41781. Air carrier and airport contingency plans for long on-board tarmac delays

"`(B) DELAYS-

`(i) IN GENERAL- As part of the plan, except as provided under clause (iii), an air carrier shall provide passengers with the option of deplaning and returning to the terminal at which such deplaning could be safely completed, or deplaning at the terminal if--

`(I) 3 hours have elapsed after passengers have boarded the aircraft, the aircraft doors are closed, and the aircraft has not departed; or

`(II) 3 hours have elapsed after the aircraft has landed and the passengers on the aircraft have been unable to deplane.

`(ii) FREQUENCY- The option described in clause (i) shall be offered to passengers at a minimum not less often than once during each successive 3-hour period that the plane remains on the ground."

So if I want to get off what stops you from sitting there hoping you can take-off later. Unless everyone on the plane thinks as I do how is this going to have these horrific negative effects in the form of never ending strandings at the airport you've been shouting about?

 

[NHdisneylover]

I think that the issue with "nickel and diming" is that it creates a perception of false advertising. If an airline advertises a $99 fare, consumers get angry when the actual cost of the flight turns out to be $200, which is what can happen if you must pay $10 for the seat assignment, $30 for a bag, and $60 in taxes & mandatory fees.

Most people would be a LOT happier if the airlines were required to advertise fares with all possible fees included, and then state it as a "discount" if you want to drop your seat assignment or your baggage allowance.

But the ACTUAL cost would not include seat assignment or bag checking unless you want it to. I almost never pay for seat assignments--I don't care (even when traveling with the kids--they have sat alone on and off since age 3, no big deal). If i have a need to take luggage I figure it into the fair and if not I don't. Much like adding park hopper or not at Disney World. Taxes is a very silly argument. Airlines do not set taxes or airport fees and virtually nothing in the US routinely has the tax added into the price you see quoted. Why would the airlines be any different

And how about if it were 6 hours? Or 9 Hours? With no toilets, food, water, or working A/C? Would that still be OK with you?

Would it be okay? Gosh no! I would be pretty darned annoyed. However, I would recognize it as a RARE thing and be annoyed about the INCIDENT without thinking laws that do not take specific circumstances into account should be passed willy nilly. I mean, I sat in a car on a freeway in Dallas for 4 hours in August once many years ago when a semi overturned in rush hour and it took that long for those of us near the front to finally be allowed to turn around and drive off the other way. It was miserable. Terrible. I don't think that means that no semis should be allowed on the freeway or that the Dallas police did anything wrong. It was just a bad situation about which nothing more needs to be done.