Careful What You Wish For

[Little Bit]

It happened to me - and I am not a frequent flyer. I was stuck on that plane from 5:00 PM to 1:15 AM with my two DS, age 4 and 5, and my diabetic sister. Even worse, they had us separated. One son was near the front of the plane with me and one was near the back with my sister. This was after cancelling our 6:00 AM flight. We got back home at 3:00 in the morning after they finally cancelled the flight we were stuck on. We had no food, no ice, no air in the middle of August. This happened in 1997 and I still get panic attacks when I'm on a flight that's not moving. I'm usually okay once it's in motion. The airlines should not be allowed to keep passengers on a plane for that long.

 

[NotUrsula]

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

Mostly because if the fare goes DOWN after you choose it, there is no bait-and-switch argument possible; most people are happy with that.
As to taxes, they differ by route, so they should be included so that you can make an informed choice. I advocate itemizing in the ad's fine print.

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.

But in the car you could get out and walk away. Sure, something bad might have happened to it if you abandoned it, but you had a choice, no one was physically restraining you.

 

[maxiesmom]

Or telling them they would be arrested if they tried to leave.

 

[jodifla]

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



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.

You could get out of the car if you had to, though. You could stand up, walk around. Send part of your party go get food if it was nearby. Pull the car to the side of the road and just leave it. Traffic jams happen all the time.

And these airline laws weren't passed "willy-nilly." There were passed after airlines STOPPED using human decency and started keeping passengers on the plane until they starting vomiting, and all FOR PROFIT!!!

 

[nemofans]

It happened to me - and I am not a frequent flyer. I was stuck on that plane from 5:00 PM to 1:15 AM with my two DS, age 4 and 5, and my diabetic sister. Even worse, they had us separated. One son was near the front of the plane with me and one was near the back with my sister. This was after cancelling our 6:00 AM flight. We got back home at 3:00 in the morning after they finally cancelled the flight we were stuck on. We had no food, no ice, no air in the middle of August. This happened in 1997 and I still get panic attacks when I'm on a flight that's not moving. I'm usually okay once it's in motion. The airlines should not be allowed to keep passengers on a plane for that long.

Wow, that's horrible! I would have been screaming & crying if stuck that long. Especially being separated from one of my kids.

 

[NHdisneylover]

Mostly because if the fare goes DOWN after you choose it, there is no bait-and-switch argument possible; most people are happy with that.
As to taxes, they differ by route, so they should be included so that you can make an informed choice. I advocate itemizing in the ad's fine print.

.

I have ALWAYS been able to see the taxes and fees before making a final purchase--so then I do make informed choices. I have never, ever seen an airline or TA (including online ones) where this is not possible
As to the price going DOWN if you then take out luggage, etc--why would the airlines want to inflate the cost of a ticket and then pretend they are giving a discount to consumers who want only to get from point A to point B and do not need baggage to get there as well? To my way of thinking it is a much shadier business practice to make people think they are getting a "deal" when it is not a deal. I think people do not like seeing luggage, seat assignment, etc priced separately is because this is not the model the airlines originally used. Then again, the airlines also originally priced seats MUCH more profitable. It seems many consumer want the rock bottom fares with all of the perks of profitable pricing--which is just not going to happen.

Or telling them they would be arrested if they tried to leave.

You could get out of the car if you had to, though. You could stand up, walk around. Send part of your party go get food if it was nearby. Pull the car to the side of the road and just leave it. Traffic jams happen all the time.

And these airline laws weren't passed "willy-nilly." There were passed after airlines STOPPED using human decency and started keeping passengers on the plane until they starting vomiting, and all FOR PROFIT!!!

I do believes the laws were passed mostly willy nilly--as a knee jerk sound good reaction to a few highly publicized issues. There are many laws like that (No Child Left Behind, anyone?). Not being allowed to move about the aircraft or get off on the tarmac is not a decision the airlines make but they have to comply with laws in place. Perhaps it would have made much more sense to amend current rules to allow for people being up during prolonged time on the run way, require that water and snacks be offered, require airports to create a system to allow planes to be serviced (toilets pumped, etc) while waiting extended periods, etc. I doubt the crews on these aircrafts were any happier with the situations than the passengers you know.
I will say that if 3 hours and 2 minutes would get my plane off the ground but I have to return to the gate and fly out the next day (or later) because at the three hour mark it is all over then i think THAT is totally ridiculous. Yes, no doubt there have been times when a plane as waited too long and put passengers (and crew) through undue distress. Absolutely. But deal with those issues, do not make a blanket rule which greatly hinders flexibility when storms and the like occur.

BTW--I realize the car situation does not completely compare--but it was an example of something somewhat similar and not totally overreacting to an extreme case. Yes traffic jams happen all the time but they are not often SO long in getting resolved so that there is any movement at all. Likewise flight delays happen all the time--most do not end up causing people to sit for 9 hours in the heat vomiting. Anyway, I could not pull the car over--I was in the middle of 6 lanes of stopped traffic. Abandoning it there would have severely hampered others from getting out of the same situation. But yes, I did have more control over my circumstances than I do in a plane (or train, I spend a lot of time on those too). If you need to know you will have the control in extreme circumstances then I think it is better not to fly.

 

[bicker]

C'mon now your just arguing for arguments sake.

Not as much as you are.

You seem knowledgable enough about the industry to know that AIRLINES lobbied to have pushback rather than take-off be the accepted metric.

Take-off would be worse. The airline has no control after they push-back. It makes no rational sense to measure airline performance including time after push-back. None.

Pushing back when they know the plane can't take off for hours is not doing everything right.

Given the parameter that passengers have set up for deciding what is good and bad, yes it is.

It is for the airlines image benefit to the detriment of their passengers.

A condition passengers have inflicted on themselves. That's the point I've been making.

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.

No. That's not rational. Instead: If passengers want airlines to be responsible for take-off, then give them total control over the system. Get rid of the FAA and let the industry monitor itself, if you want the suppliers in the industry to have responsibility for the whole process.

But you don't. You want the FAA. You want our nation to have some control. Then accept the consequences of that. Accept that only part of the process is the airline's responsibility, and judge the airline only by that part. That's rational judgment.

Where?

Air-traffic controllers can override the policy, and remember they control the aircraft from push-back (not just from take-off). Read up on the legislation and its implementation for more details.

Well they have spoken now and the airlines will just have to make do won't they.

Indeed, and they shall, and passengers will be worse off for it, afaic.

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.

Which prompts airlines to cancel flights. That's the point. The delay introduced by allowing passengers to deplane is so significant that the airline is often better off for myriad reasons.

Stop thinking just about what they law says, and start thinking about what the law does. And again that's what I'm saying the "mob" didn't do. They just forced the law without thinking through what it would cause as a result.

 

[bicker]

Or telling them they would be arrested if they tried to leave.

Which again is government control.

 

[NotUrsula]

Which again is government control.

Um, only if the FA presses charges. The charge that will be brought against you if you attempt to leave an aircraft is "interfering with the duties of a flight attendant." A LEO will only be arresting you for that if an FA calls it in. (If you succeed out on a taxiway it is a different matter, because then the airport will have you charged with trespassing.)

An airline has other alternatives than cancellation, should they choose to pursue them. The PBoR is not a Constitutional Amendment; it does not require moving a mountain to amend the law and change the details. Sulking and whining about unfair government meanies is not a constructive solution. If they don't like the law as it stands, then work with a Congressional sponsor to draw up a better alternative that everyone can live with, but don't expect Americans to go back to trusting airlines to take care of matters without being held to it by law, because we all know that they will NOT do it.

 

[jodifla]

If you need to know you will have the control in extreme circumstances then I think it is better not to fly.

Again, which other business exactly gets to hold customers hostage? Just because they do it randomly or for a "good reason" doesn't mean it's still not a crime. McDonald's can't just start robbing their evening customers because they didn't turn a profit during the lunch shift.


Government stepped in because the corporations were abusing their authority in the name of profits, and the showed no sign of stopping, EVEN when they kept promising over and over, "We won't do it again."

 

[Lewisc]

Again, which other business exactly gets to hold customers hostage? Just because they do it randomly or for a "good reason" doesn't mean it's still not a crime. McDonald's can't just start robbing their evening customers because they didn't turn a profit during the lunch shift.


Government stepped in because the corporations were abusing their authority in the name of profits, and the showed no sign of stopping, EVEN when they kept promising over and over, "We won't do it again."

Some Walmarts in the NY area locked their night employees in the store so they wouldn't have to worry about theft and wouldn't have to pay for security. The fire Department had an issue with the fire exits being padlocked with chains.

Not customers but wrong.

Three hours on the ground in a plane is long enough.

 

[Lewisc]

Bicker

Flights from EWR and JFK were frequently delayed on the ground for over an hour during peak travel times, evening departures for flights to Europe. The problem was the port authority allowed the airlines to schedule more flights per hour then the airport could handle.The airlines put up a lot of obstacles when the port authority went to reduce the number of allowable flights per hour.

I'm not going to blame the airlines or the airport. The airlines work with the airport. Both are to blame if more flights are scheduled then an airport can accommodate.

I want a flight that lands on time, not one that just pushes back on time. A system that encourages an airline to "push back" on time rather then wait at the gate is not a system that benefits passengers.

 

[bicker]

And the give-and-take is actually four ways: Airline, airport, FAA and consumers in the marketplace. There is no foundation for blame. The situation is difficult, because there are conflicting needs, even within the same stakeholder (i.e., consumers desire frequent flights with the great comfort and flexibility offered by flights that aren't always full, but they also desire low fares - the latter trumps the former, of course).

Indeed, a big part of the issue, going back to why I labeled the manner in which the legislation got through Congress as a "mob" action, is that it reflects the imposition of blame when blame is actually not applicable.

 

[LadyBeBop]

And the give-and-take is actually four ways: Airline, airport, FAA and consumers in the marketplace. There is no foundation for blame. The situation is difficult, because there are conflicting needs, even within the same stakeholder (i.e., consumers desire frequent flights with the great comfort and flexibility offered by flights that aren't always full, but they also desire low fares - the latter trumps the former, of course).

By going reading the five pages of this thread, I see a major conflict among the consumer stakeholders.

The first group want (or in some cases need) to get to their destination ASAP, whether it's for a business convention, a wedding, a cruise, etc. They're willing to wait in the plane for a longer period if it means getting there quicker.

The second group is willing to get to their destination a day or two later, as long as it means not having to wait in the plane for a long period.

Major conflict, because you'll have members of each group on the same plane waiting on the tarmac. Right now, the second group have the upper hand...to the chagrin of that business traveller who needs to make it to that business meeting.

But last year, the first group had the upper hand...to the chagrin of that single mother travelling with twins under two years old.

Unfortunately, there's no good answer.

Indeed, and even major conflicts within many consumers' own minds.

Bingo.

 

[bicker]

By going reading the five pages of this thread, I see a major conflict among the consumer stakeholders.

Indeed, and even major conflicts within many consumers' own minds.

 

[SuzanneSLO]

By going reading the five pages of this thread, I see a major conflict among the consumer stakeholders.

The first group want (or in some cases need) to get to their destination ASAP, whether it's for a business convention, a wedding, a cruise, etc. They're willing to wait in the plane for a longer period if it means getting there quicker.

The second group is willing to get to their destination a day or two later, as long as it means not having to wait in the plane for a long period.

Major conflict, because you'll have members of each group on the same plane waiting on the tarmac. Right now, the second group have the upper hand...to the chagrin of that business traveller who needs to make it to that business meeting.

But last year, the first group had the upper hand...to the chagrin of that single mother travelling with twins under two years old.

Unfortunately, there's no good answer.



Bingo.

What appears to be happening in the first few months of the new rule is an increase in flights pushing back multiple times. Pushing back, waiting on the tarmac, realizing they won't take off before 3 hours, going back to the gate, giving passengers the option to get off with no compensation or guarantee of another flight time, then pushing back again and finally taking off. Except for the few passengers who elected to get off the plane when it returns to the gate, this is a lose-lose for all the other passengers who have been on the plane for more than 4 hours prior to take off and still have their arrival delayed by more than an hour more than under the old rule. -- Suzanne

 

[NotUrsula]

What appears to be happening in the first few months of the new rule is an increase in flights pushing back multiple times. Pushing back, waiting on the tarmac, realizing they won't take off before 3 hours, going back to the gate, giving passengers the option to get off with no compensation or guarantee of another flight time, then pushing back again and finally taking off. Except for the few passengers who elected to get off the plane when it returns to the gate, this is a lose-lose for all the other passengers who have been on the plane for more than 4 hours prior to take off and still have their arrival delayed by more than an hour more than under the old rule. -- Suzanne

I think that would depend greatly on whether or not the plane was serviced when it returned to the gate. It's still annoying to have to sit for long periods, but adverse sanitary and environmental conditions tend to only happen if the plane is out on a taxiway the whole time. If you are hooked into the jetway utilities the air conditioning/heat will be working, the sanitary system can be emptied out, and additional drinks and food can be easily taken on board. Most people will be unlikely to make a formal complaint as long as those conditions are met.

 

[chicagodisneyfan]

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.

NO industry requires taxes to be included. When I see something on sale at Macy's or the grocery store I know it does not include tax.

I think that is a terrible idea. People SHOULD know what the true cost of the ticket is as well as the amount of fees that are added to it.

 

[john1928]

I think that would depend greatly on whether or not the plane was serviced when it returned to the gate. It's still annoying to have to sit for long periods, but adverse sanitary and environmental conditions tend to only happen if the plane is out on a taxiway the whole time. If you are hooked into the jetway utilities the air conditioning/heat will be working, the sanitary system can be emptied out, and additional drinks and food can be easily taken on board. Most people will be unlikely to make a formal complaint as long as those conditions are met.

If you're hooked to the jetway they can board the plane and depart in under 30 minutes... If we're talking 4+ hours delay it should be fairly easy to provide that 30 minutes of notice for most planes once the delay condition begins to clear. The planes waiting less than 3 hours might get lucky and get to "jump past" some earlier flights since they'd be sitting in the stand-by line waiting to take advantage of any 5 minute gaps between snow squalls or whatnot, but that just makes the whole system more efficient even if it doesn't result in a true FIFO queue...

 

[john1928]

Take-off would be worse. The airline has no control after they push-back. It makes no rational sense to measure airline performance including time after push-back. None.

Nope, take off makes more sense, and on-time arrival makes the most sense when selecting a valid metric of both system and airline performance.

Sure, there are lots of factors outside the airline's control once they push back. But are those factors uniform across all airlines on a given route?

If so, then there's no competitive disadvantage for any one airline in using those numbers and they help us determine if a given airport, route, region or other system component is operating beyond reasonable capacity. They also provide the consumer with the best possible information to make decisions.

If there are differences in performance that have a different impact on one airline over another then as a consumer that information is just as important to me as the factors that are in the airline's control. Are their gates at the wrong end of the terminal for the prevailing winds resulting in longer taxi time? Does their taxiway need to cross an extra runway resulting in slightly more delays for take-off? Do their pilots annoy ATC and end up having to wait more than another airlines? Does their company fly 3% slower to save more fuel? I don't care about the specifics, just the end result. On-time push back is a proxy for on-time arrival, but it's not a very good one as you have already agreed.