First off, I’d like to officially declare that I’m tired of the jetBlue story. But it remains the belle of the ball, if by “ball” we mean “e-mail inbox.” Buckle up.
For starters: Late last week, I solicited reader opinions on whether or not the passengers’ bill of rights would become law. This was before the jetBlue fiasco went from a small number of planes stuck on the ground to a multi-day festival of flight cancellations. There were some interesting long-form responses in there, which I’ll address in another post, but the summary:
69% of you predicted that, yes, a passengers’ bill of rights would become law, while 31% said no.
Thanks for all the votes. Follow-up soon. To the mailbag:
The jetBlue ground delays stemmed in large part from the fact that the planes backed away from the jetway, even though they weren’t going to take off. Reader Stephanie writes:
I’ve noticed more and more often that planes are pushing away from the gate on time, and then sitting on the ground for up to an hour, hour and a half before leaving. They then call the flight “on time”… Is this the latest thing airlines are doing to get past saying their flights are late?
For the most part, yes, leaving the gate means the plane has departed on time. But the government’s statistics measure arrival, so a flight that leaves the gate early but doesn’t go anywhere won’t be considered on-time if it arrives late.
Leaving the gate isn’t done to cheat the customer, per se. (The airlines DO pad the flight time a lot, though, making it easier for them to meet a very relaxed “on-time” standard.) Rather, the hurry-up-and-wait policy 1) lets the ground crew meet their on-time departure targets (quotas?), when their job performance is being considered, and 2) opens up the gate for another plane to arrive.
I usually fly in and out of O’Hare, and arriving to find an “occupied gate” is unfortunately very common. I’m generally more annoyed by waiting to deplane than waiting to take off, but I’m sure others feel differently.
Reader Paul writes:
Now that JetBlue has a BOR, do you think that’s enough to stop Congress from debating a bill?
No. I don’t. Three main reasons. 1) It’s only jetBlue. No other airline has a similar policy. Until the others do, the pressure will remain on. 2) JetBlue’s policy doesn’t cover all the issues that most proposals for a PBOR do. It’s just about delays. 3) It doesn’t have sufficient teeth.
Yesterday, I suggested that the loopholes in the policy were large enough to taxi an Airbus A320 through. (”Controllable Irregularity.”) And vouchers are just glorified coupons, and a rather insincere form of “payment.” If you ever look at a supermarket coupon’s fine print, they usually list a cash value that’s well below the face value (e.g., 1/100th of a cent). Same principle here.
Others have pointed out further flaws of the jetBlue plan.
Bottom line, jetBlue’s policy is an okay conversation starter, but it’s not the final word.
Reader Steven writes:
What do you think about Mike Boyd’s commentary that all the journalists (and bloggers?) who call for a bill-of-rights are idiots?
Well, I’ll respectfully disagree. He has a lot of opinions. So do I. If he wants to consider a reasoned set of arguments for an increased set of passenger rights as the impassioned plea of “nitwit consumerist gadflies,” then let him. I think he’s far too dismissive of the actual problems that are endemic to the airline industry. It’s not just one or two flights. It’s the policies and practices that allow such things to happen.
Sure, some politicians are grandstanding now, but that’s just what they do. At the end of the day, the policy that results is what matters.
Reader S A asks:
A PBOR’s rights sound great, but how would a PBOR be enforced?
I assume a claim would be filed with the airline. Yes, passing a bill of rights will create hassles for the airlines, the airports, and everyone in between, as they point fingers, pointing out whom to blame. I initially felt that a PBOR would be difficult to implement for precisely such reasons. But as commenter Oliver pointed out, that would be the airline’s problem, not yours. If a regulation exists that mandates a minimum threshold of service, then it should be up to the airline to meet that threshold, if necessary by putting pressure on vendors, airports, and regulatory bodies to make sure it happens.
RSS (FeedBurner)
Read with Amazon Kindle
Subscribe by E-mail
February 21st, 2007 at 6:13 pm
[...] Mark at Upgrade: Travel Better posts a nice roundup of the whole jetBlue thing. [...]
March 5th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
[...] As you may recall from an earlier post, a whopping 69% of you expressed the belief that, yes, a PBOR would become law. If the same poll were taken today, we might see an even bigger number. [...]