Travel 2008: 33 hours from San Juan to Chicago
First time here? Check out the site's "greatest hits" or read a random post from the archives. Feel free to ask a question, and consider subscribing to the latest posts via RSS or e-mail. Thanks for visiting!
Steve Baron of Fox News Chicago sends in a link to his station’s report on a God-awful start to the traveling new year. Passengers on a United flight (a Ted flight, technically) from San Juan, Puerto Rico, to Chicago say it took them 33 hours to get from point A to point B. Broken planes which pilots refused to fly, passengers shuffling on and off the aircraft, and just an all-around feeling of customer service breakdown. The one brightside (and this is really a stretch): At least they weren’t stuck waiting for takeoff during all those hours, and got to go back into the terminal.
Yeah, I know. That’s not really much consolation. But they got vouchers! That make you happy? Didn’t think so.
So whatever happened to the Passengers’ Bill of Rights (PBOR)?
New York passed a law back in August, which the airlines sued to stop. They failed. Now other states are close behind with their own legislation. While state legislatures are trying to emulate the New York model, it’s inevitable that some variation will persist. So now this is getting complicated, since rules could vary state by state.
And if legislation doesn’t work to create a national standard, then maybe litigation will. Kate Hanni and Catherine Ray of flyersrights.com have filed separate lawsuits against American Airlines. You may recall that they were trapped on the tarmac in Austin for 7 hours.
Frankly, I wish Congress or the Department of Transportation had had the courage to create some meaningful legislation or regulation, since market mechanisms have clearly failed. But legislators and regulators didn’t do enough, thanks in part to heavy lobbying from the airlines. Which leads us back to 33 hour delays.
Congress and the DOT have left a void. Nature hates a void, which the states and the courts are now starting to fill.
I just hope someone, or something, comes up with a standard, and does it soon.
Related:
- Should we trust airlines to improve passenger rights?
- United’s half-assed policy changes: Not quite a bill of rights, and not quite an upgrade policy fix
- Passengers’ bill of rights: Slow but steady progress?
- Chicago City Council to mandate passengers’ bill of rights?
(image)
RSS Feed / Subscribe
Subscribe to Posts by Email
January 10th, 2008 at 10:02 am |
What baffles me is that we are talking about a billion dollar industry, with millions of dollars and hundreds of lives on the line at every turn.
My own business is a little smaller than your average airline, and I keep myself up at night worrying about the smallest detail!
Now that the United HQ is in Chicago’s Loop, maybe I can stroll over and watch the executives leave the office at 4pm…
mp/m
January 10th, 2008 at 1:52 pm |
I can’t bring myself to agree with the need for a legislatated “Bill of Rights.” Did the airlines fail? Yes. However their punishment needs to come from market dynamics, not the government. If people stopped flying an airline because of some of these issues, then the airline would have to work to correct the problem.
I only flew 55,000 miles last year (mainly on Delta), so maybe I just don’t fly enough to see these problems. The only time I was “stranded” was when we Denver was having heavy snowfall and we had to wait to be de-iced. We were on the ground for 2 hours waiting to de-ice and for a runway to be cleared. At no time did I want to return to the gate and have to wait through all that again.
Like the CEO of Spirit alluded to, people are too busy looking for the lowest priced airfare, but yet the continue to expect first class service. If the airline didn’t treat you right, stop flying it. That’s why I refuse to fly United despite living in the Denver area. Sure I pay more, sometimes a lot more, but for me it isn’t about price, but service and I get better service with Delta, Alaska, and Continental than I do with United so I pay the extra.
January 10th, 2008 at 3:20 pm |
Hey, look… United is at it again. I’m telling you guys, if you take that airline, you’re asking for trouble!
Jason, the trouble with trusting the market to regulate businesses is that too much money is in the hands of unintelligent people. People aren’t all smart enough to immediately boycott bad products and search hard for alternatives. Too many are far too chained to their own habits and ignorance, and therefore there’s a major hole in the laws of supply and demand.
Before we can ever pull government regulations back, we need to find a way to keep stupid people from wielding money. Now, which do you think is easier to do? Regulate companies or regulate who can wield money?
January 10th, 2008 at 4:08 pm |
I think the easiest thing is to stop coddling adults. If they can’t make an intelligent decision with their money, why should I care? Government regulation runs counter to the true nature of capitalism. It stifles competition and innovation. Besides, why should my tax dollars be used to enforce a regulation that will only serve to rescue the ignorant and inept? We have enough of that already!
January 10th, 2008 at 5:14 pm |
I hope in the name of consistency then, that you do not support the ability to buy others ideas (patents, copyrights), then hoard them, as that constitutes government involvement in business in a very destructive way. Also, of course, I hope you don’t support lucrative government contracts for shady companies in foreign countries, or corporate welfare.
At any rate, there’s a damn good reason to exhort the government for help. Even if you and I both boycott bad products, that won’t be enough to run them out of business, with the idiots keeping them afloat. In other words, without regulations, we’re at the mercy of the stupid. What do you propose be done about that?
January 10th, 2008 at 6:11 pm |
I subscribe to the belief that government should be composed of three actions. The police to protect me from other people attempting to infringe on my individual rights. The military (much smaller mind you) to prevent other nations from attempting to infringe on my individual rights. And the courts to objectively mediate disputes. There should be no regulation, no income tax, no welfare (corporate or individual). Prices, competition, etc should be decided by the market.
If stupid wants to support a corporation that I don’t like, fine. Let them do what they want, I will continue to boycott them.
January 10th, 2008 at 7:02 pm |
The only way that can work is if buyers become as organized as laborers. Buyer’s unions may be able to successfully regulate companies in lieu of the government.
January 10th, 2008 at 9:12 pm |
Jason, the market is failing. This isn’t the first time airlines said “We’ll fix it, the market will work” and we’re back to where we were 7 or 8 years ago. I forget which year it was but Google “Summer of Hell airlines” and see what comes up.
Customers may have a choice among airlines, but despite competition, they’re still operating within a cartel environment. The barriers to market entry are too high for real competition, and it takes a long time for good competitors to build a network. Look at Virgin America.
The airlines have gotten complacent and arrogant, but we can’t just throw the bums out and get a new one easily.
I agree that regulation isn’t necessarily the answer to everything. Regulation keeps Singapore Airlines from flying from LA to DC, for example. But sometimes it’s necessary to have a safety net for consumers. Being stuck on a plane for hours and hours may be a long shot, but I want some protection in case it happens.
January 10th, 2008 at 9:19 pm |
Good point SA that I missed. Not only can the market not be trusted to keep businesses in check, but sometimes barriers simply are too high for the competition to enter. I’m really not a big fan of government regulation but sometimes we’re just kind of stuck with it.
January 10th, 2008 at 10:32 pm |
“Summer of Hell” = 2000. Anyone flying United had no fun, as you never knew if the pilots would show up for your flight or not.
January 11th, 2008 at 11:08 am |
Part of the reason the barrier to entry is so high for airlines is the regulations and government licenses! Reducing the regulations and licenses to a minimum and the chances are that the barrier to entry would fall.
I don’t buy that airlines operate in a cartel environment and if you look at the history of all the airlines, it took them quite awhile to build their route networks. You can’t expect Virgin America to startup with a 100 flight/day network, that’s just not good business sense.
If we remove the regulation that prevents Singapore from flying LAX to IAD, then it forces the other airlines to innovate or die. And I know we all would like a few domestic carriers to die (United for example would be nice as a dead airline).
January 11th, 2008 at 2:18 pm |
Two things to remember here.
1 - The airlines already have your money before they provide you with a service, therefore they have no reason to provide anything more than average service.
2 -In most cases there are no viable alternatives to air travel. Unless the government upgrades our railways substantially.
January 11th, 2008 at 4:10 pm |
There are more reasons than just stimulating better air travel to improve our railways. There are plenty of cities between which car travel is maddeningly slow (especially with porcine forces at work), and plane travel is too much trouble.
Examples are the Dallas/Houston/San Antonio triangle (for which there was once a HSR plan), Seattle/Spokane, Vancouver BC/Seattle/Portland, and LA/San Diego.
People claim that because of America’s size compared to European countries, rail travel is impractical, but when you consider the amount of travel that goes on within a single coast of this country, and how much of the country doesn’t factor into most people’s travel plans, it makes a lot more sense.