Airline Sympathizer???
 

Why are people labled "airline sympathizer" just because they have common sense and can see through some of these trumped up, over the top "airline complaints" and have very logical explanations as to why many things that passengers are complaining about happen.

We all read these complaints and know in more cases than not there is more to the story.

What passengers don't seem to understand is that you can go under any airline and read the same complaints that are on all the othere airlines.
Bag fee's, delayed and cancelled flights, theft, poor customer service......the list goes on and on.
It is the same with every airline, there is always going to be someone who is not happy because the person next to them got two bags of pretzels, and they only got one, so let me go and spread the word to never fly this airline again....

BAH HUMBUG!!!!:mad:

I could think of a lot of OTHER words!!
 

Because “airline sympathizer” is, really, a GENEROUS term for people who not only defend the practices listed below, but call people who object to them mentally ill.

· Airlines that try to cram as many flights as possible into the shortest time span possible thereby assuring massive delays will happen when there is anything less than ideal weather—and the government agencies that allow this!
· Airlines that hire street thugs for baggage handlers because they don’t want to pay decent wages/benefits.
· Airlines that offer reclining seats when common sense, such as a narrow seat pitch, says there shouldn’t be any reclining seats.
· Airlines that offer unhealthy seat pitches—like 31” on a 2+ hour flight.
· Airlines that have call centers in India and similar places.
· Airlines that allow their flight attendants to “hide” in the galley.
· Airlines that hire, and retain, borderline sociopathic/power drunk flight attendants and gate staff. And, again, the government agencies that allow, and enable, this behavior. If customers follow basic rules of social decency, then staff should reciprocate!

Would air fares go up if any, or all, of these points were acted on? Certainly! Would air travel return to the civility I, and others, knew several decades ago? You betcha!

Wow Butch, whatever your smokin, you gotta send me some of that because WOW! Just WOW! But air travel will never return to the way it once was, even if the airlines one day became civil, and we're talkin super-happy, syrup sweet customer service of old, the PEOPLE will not change. Do you see the type of people that fly nowadays? There was a time you needed to wear your sunday best to fly and now you have dudes with ripped jeans, gals with the shortiest skirts (not complainin... the shortier the better) and overall people with disgusting atitudes. I and many other business travelers (those that are accustom to the ins and outs of air travel) have maintained our civility, but others... yea ugh!.

But the "true" points of why we are sympathizers rest upon the admin, for these main reasons, not the dumb points that butch pointed out. No one agrees to any of that, no one!

We have been labeled thusly because

- We disagree with those who refuse to accept personal responsibility. Those that arrive late and then say the airline screwed them over. (allegiant air guy admits to arriving 30 mins of his departure and wonders why no one was at the counter, and claims the airline gave him bad customer service)

- we disagree with those who exagerate their story to the extreme, remember the dad who's "poor little baby" workin at a movie studio was stuck in L.A.?

- we disagree with silly frivilous complaints, such as the guy who was upset because he could not get a napkin. A napkin people!!

- we disagree with those that exagerate one sided stories, you know the kind. Such as the ones who get arrested or kicked off a plane. But they were waaaaaaay nice and don't know why it was happening.

but mostly we are sympathizers because if we respond to a complaint in the negative, it won't be taken as seriously by the OP who will merely brush it off and say "Meh, you're just a sympathizer, why should I listen to you?"

If I missed any points please fill em in for me.

Ya, I'm against a lot of things the airlines do, overbooking is one (But then I try to reap the rewards), but I also accept the fact that air travel will never be the same. I speak out for the airlines because someone has to. Flying isn't all that bad, and those that complain are those who are new to the experience. Then again you have Frequent flyers who complain tick me off because they "act" like newbie travelers. They get hit with a change fee and then ask "why????" or they cannot believe a flight is delayed! (3 hours is my max to wait for a flight, after that I get rebooked the next day and am going home or to a hotel).

I'm not against the label, I really don't care, it doesn't change my responses, but I think I pretty much covered the WHY we have the label. so why not label everyone?

Let's not forget the guy who BOOKED a 16 connection on Etihad, and expected a food voucher. (Then tried to claim that give them for a scheduled 3 hour transit)

Let's not forget the doctored photos of a part supposedly falling off of a Southwest plane. Actually has to be something one the lens.

I agree with that....IF customers follow basic rules of social decency, but unfortunantly so many of them do not.

We all know that MANY of the complaints on here are the fault of the customer. Missing flights, not knowing the rules BEFORE you buy the ticket and then complain when they get to the airport and have to pay for bags.

As an airline employee, I am the first to say that ALL airlines need improvement. I work beside people everyday that I am ashamed to work with because of their poor customer service and rudeness. That does not mean that I have poor customer service, even though I have been told I have just because an arrogant passenger did not get his way. I have had my name taken many times, but have never had a bad letter against me in 12 years, because at the end of the day, the passenger knew they were wrong. Sometimes they think they can bully you into letting bag fee go, asking to speak with the supervisor, or taking my name.

When I started 12 years ago, passengers were allowed 3 bags 70lbs each free. We never measured a bag. Things have changed, I hate it as much as the passengers, but it is my job. I honestly hate the airline industry, but after 12 years, I am here to stay until I can retire.

You are right, things will never go back to the way they were, there is nothing we can do about that.

Bah humbug

This is the very essence of the problem: people who accept and defend the indefensible business practices of the U.S. airline industry as an "acceptable" status quo for the travelling American public.

The fundamental problem is that we badly need a common-sense, comprehensive airline passenger bill of rights that would create de facto re-regulation of the industry. I'm not talking about price controls that would prove prohibitive for most people -- but rules that would cost all the airlines proportionately the same uniform compliance costs and raise fares accordingly to a level that would eliminate the "lowest common denominator" passengers described in Silent Bob's post.

Yes, some of the complaints on this board are unreasonable. Yes, some of the OPs are neurotic and/or flying novices. This does not excuse the outrages that Americans are forced to routinely endure in a free-for-all airline industry unregulated beyond FAA rules. We are entitled to basic fairness and consumer protection, and we should demand it from our legislators in Washington.

Exactly what rules would you impose? It has been suggested that we model ours after the EU and standardize rules for compensation due to non-weather delays and cancellations and additionally limit the time the airline can hold people "captive" on a plane during delays. What else would you propose?

The problem with a "Passenger Bill of Rights" is that even now passengers have a sense of entitlement simply because they hold a ticket. Rules work both ways but even now some feel that the rules should somehow apply to everyone else but somehow their situation is so unique that the rules shouldn't apply to them.

When one buys a car one usually knows or should know just what the terms of the warranty are. What does/doesn't it cover and under what circumstances. If there's a warning label on the tank that says "Unleaded Gas Only" and you fill up with diesel then don't expect your warranty to cover any of the damage caused as a result.

The same is true with airline tickets. If one chooses not to read the rules and restrictions of that ticket and the airlines' contract of carriage they can't later clam they are not subject to the rules and restrictions because they were unaware of them. They entered into the contract by purchasing the ticket and in order to purchase that ticket they needed to click the "I Agree..." check box if it was purchased online. If one can't understand what "non-transferable, non-refundable, no value after departure if not canceled, cancellation or changes will be charged a fee" or that one needs to check in at least 45 minutes prior to departure and be at the departure gate at least 15 minutes prior then they should not be buying these tickets online! They should pay the extra fee and book trough the call center so they can be advised of these restrictions and rules.

In may ways the state of airline "customer service" which is a broad all-encompassing perspective is the fault of the American consumer. We demanded low fares. What we weren't aware of is that the demand for low fares comes at a cost to the airlines. A cost which is ultimately passed on to the consumer in the form of reduced service levels.

It would be great if we could walk up to a fully staffed ticket counter and after a short wait be told our 100 pound bag won't be a problem...they'll just overlook it this time because you're traveling to an important convention and have a ton of stuff. It would be terrific if there were six flights a day to our destination instead of just two so if we happened to miss the flight or it was canceled due to weather we would still get to our destination that day instead of two days from now. It would be nice if we had 35"-36" of legroom in coach instead of the typical 31"-32". It would be wonderful if there were eight flight attendants on a 737 who immediately fulfilled our every wish and whim. This isn't the '50's anymore. The "Texaco Boys" don't come running out when we pull in to get gas. The same is true for the airlines.

A "Bill of Rights" has to work both ways. Passengers who have grievances claiming it is within their rights to demand certain things better know all the wording and so should the airline agents. The problem is, as you mentioned, fares are likely to increase as a result. In this fragile economy I'm not so sure this is a good idea. Airlines are already hurting and if they raise fares to a point where the bargain hunters will no longer buy it will just create lower passenger loads leading to more schedule reductions and furloughed employees. It's a vicious cycle indeed.

Air travel for "everyone" = Air travel for "NO-one"
 

Saying passenger rights reform will not significantly reduce unreasonable, dishonest, or just plain stupid, airline customers is not a reason to block it. Indeed this sounds like something direct from the PR department of the Air Transport Assn. (“ATA”)

That "Contract of Carriage" reads like an insurance policy. Unfortunately the amount of regulation a private health insurer, for example, is subject to (even with Federal pre-emption) is, in no way, comparable to the amount of regulation applicable to the relationship between a domestic fare customer and an airline. When one considers the amount of EFFECTIVE regulation in existence--that is regulations which are actually enforced, with some degree of regularity, with penalties that are not later reduced--one does, indeed, have a near "free-for-all."

Going “back to the future,” and relegating those who wish to, or must, travel on the cheap to Greyhound would benefit everyone. The status quo of air travel for “everyone” DIS-serves as many as it SERVES. The air traffic control system will not be re-built anytime soon. Offering the idea of refurbishing an out-dated air traffic control system as an alternative to serious passenger rights, as the ATA has done, is about as rational as offering someone a canoe, as an alternative to the Queen Mary II, for a trans-Atlantic crossing!

Meaningful passenger rights must provide for a serious enforcement capacity, within the DOT, with regard to violations of consumer protections. Until then the only "redress" the domestic airline customer can expect are more meaningless form letters, sometimes defending hostile staff actions, and worthless vouchers.

That's a bunch of BS. A contract of carriage has to cover a lot of ground, and I don't know of one that isn't in an organized fashion. The reason there are so many rules listed it the airline has to set guidelines to the ticket.

To answer your question...
 

I don't see anything wrong with a smaller, more profitable U.S. airline industry. In my view, the only reason why airlines have been so resistant to any form or fashion of regulation is pure greed: anything that decreases the size of the pie is bad, even if it means more margin versus cost and greater stability for the airlines.

As far as specifics, allow me to quote from my previous posts:

Since the days of de-regulation, commercial air travel in the United States has become much more affordable when adjusted for inflation. It has also become safer and far more plentiful. As the economic model for the industry has matured, however, service levels have continued to adjust to consumer elasticity of price. The result is that human beings are being treated as something less than human in too many instances.

Regulation comes in many forms that can be instituted on varying levels with a wide degree of economic impact upon the airline industry and its consumers. Setting arbitrary minimum fares is a bad idea, as are bailouts, government ownership, and federal loan guarantees to airlines. However, the legislation of a comprehensive and balanced "passenger bill of rights" is a form of regulation that just makes sense.

In my view, this should include:

- compensating passengers for delays that are within the control of the airline on a sliding scale basis over prescribed lengths thereof;

- creating transparency of price, such as establishing ONE price of fare inclusive of all taxes, “fuel surcharges,” etc.;

- limiting the scope and nature of fee-based services airlines can implement;

- setting phased-in, minimum requirements for seating space and pitch, and of course;

- prohibiting long on-board delays wherein passengers are denied food, water, and access to sanitary, functioning toilets.

These are matters of basic human decency and fairness that would not contravene free market principles to any level of great disproportion. There are any number of other factors that could be included as well, such as allowing foreign-owned airlines to compete within the U.S. under the same rules.

Paradoxically, at the same time that we need to institute common-sense regulation in favor of CONSUMERS, we need to mitigate the overly powerful unions that protect airline EMPLOYEES who routinely abuse their passengers. It makes sense to do both.

To clarify...
 

This should have read more like "creating transparency of price, such as establishing that published airfares include all applicable taxes, security fees, “fuel surcharges,” etc."

I did not mean to suggest that airlines should be restricted to one uniform airfare per route.

Also, airfares that require round-trip travel should be advertised quoting only the entire price. The practice of "each way based on round-trip" fine print has become so pronounced that some advertisers omit the language in their marketing materials altogether.

The point has been proven
 

With regard to the point made by the OP:

The comments, in this thread, from those carrying the label "Airline Sympathizer," et al, significantly supports the status quo and the position of the airlines and the Air Transport Assn. True, there may be some isolated "token" pro-consumer comments. But the basic sentiment comes-across loud and clear.

Contrary to what AADFW has stated I think a government-operated airline (ala "Amtrak Air) is needed in the current environment. If service was limited to secondary airports, and no attempt is made to compete as to fares, along with other regulations, the airlines might, for the first time, feel some real pressure to clean-up their act. The proposal to have a government-operated health insurer, operating along-side private insurers, (for national health insurance) is based on the same reasoning.

This site as a "mouthpiece" for the Air Transport Assn.
 

- passengers are already compensated for delays that are within the control of the airline. A sliding scale or trickle down a la carte menu of time may further complicate the ticketing system. Passengers should be aware of the potential of any type of delay and the consequences. The contract explains this in more technical terms.

-a transparent form of pricing would indeed be nice but who can enforce that? If that were to happen then that would have to be effective on other consumer goods and services. Personally, my internet/cable bill comes to about $78 a month after the taxes and fees. The base amount is $49. That is about a 58% price increase. Phone bills, utilities, cars, real estate, credit cards and many others have added taxes and fees. Taking away the fees to be include in the base price would mean more work and calculations for the pencil pushers and bean counters thus raising the price. The IRS and FDA, just off the top of my head, would have to grow thus increasing more taxes. I don't want more taxes, I pay enough.

-"limiting the scope and nature of fee-based services airlines can implement"
why would one want to limit the scope of a free based service airline if it works? if it does not work, let the airline fall.

- it is not a policy of airlines to hold passengers hostage with no food or water but sometimes it happens and I agree better precautions should be taken to minimize discomfort. The government already has standards for food but sometimes that is not enough. The government has standards for crew rest but sometimes the crew still does not get enough rest.

My point is I also think better steps can and should be taken for airlines to improve their act but consumers still demand the service. Millions of tickets are sold annually. I think if the pie were to shrink it would be a double edge sword. Service may improve but many jobs and flights would be lost.

Airhead's Points
 

No they're not, at least not consistently. Such compensation wouldn't need to be tied in any form or fashion to ticketing systems.

What a totally preposterous response. First of all, the FTC can and does monitor and enforce rules with respect to false advertising and deceptive pricing. There's no reason why they, or another government agency couldn't respond to consumer complaints if price transparencey rules were enacted for airlines. The "calculations" that "bean counters" and "pencil pushers" seem to have no problem with are the extraneous "fuel surcharges" and other add-on fees that go directly to the airlines and are simply a deceptive part of the fare structure itself. Including taxes and fees in the fares upfront wouldn't create any extra labor for the airlines at all. It would simply be fairer for consumers.

There is an alarming trend of what amounts to bait and switch tactics on the part of airlines to entrap passengers with low fares and then attempt to extort extra fees for everything from using the bathroom on board (e.g. Ryanair) to excessive checked luggage expenses. There seems to be no end in sight as to what airlines will attempt to charge extra for. This practice needs to be controlled before it gets totally out of hand.

Yes, that's the point. With common-sense regulation some airline jobs would be lost, capacity would shrink, and consumers would enjoy higher quality of service.

Why do you insist on seeing things that aren't there? How would you come to such an ridiculous conclusion? Because some of us have been on the other side of the counter and know how passengers act sometimes? Get a grip dude. This isn't Kate Hanni's site.

Right, her forum board has been down for months.

Why should airlines be treated differently
from any other business? If you're not completely satisfied with your Dominos Pizza they aren't obligated to give you a refund. More often than not they give you a "credit" towards your next purchase. Of course, if the airline can't get you to your ticketed destination at all then under DOT rules you are entitled to a refund. If it's just a delay I don't see anything wrong with compensation in the form of travel vouchers or even frequent flier miles.

Actually, the pricing that does show when booking on the internet is just how the FTC wants it. While one is shopping for flights the price displayed is the base fare plus the 7.5% federal excise tax which is consistent across all US fares. The other taxes/surcharges are often dependent on the number of segments, which airports are transited, and in the case of international travel the destination country/airport.

For example Delta has a non-stop from Phoenix to JFK. Let's assume a base fare of $200. The federal tax would be $15, segment tax would be $3.60, passenger facility tax $4.50, and the "9/11" security fee $2.50 for a total of $225.60. Now let's look at the same $200 base fare on United which doesn't have non-stop service from Phoenix and would require a connection. PFCs (Passenger Facility Charges) are for the most part all the same now so let's assume a connection in Chicago (ORD). So the base fare and federal tax, $200 and $15, are the same. Since there are now two segments the segment tax would be $3.60x2 or $7.20. Same goes for the PFCs and "9/11" fees which are now $9 and $5 respectively. So the total on United would be $236.20.

Same base fare, origin and destination, but if you were shopping an internet booking engine and the prices displayed were...

Delta - $225.60
United - $236.20

...which would you choose if price was your major determining factor? That is why prices are before taxes and fees. With an equal playing field on price the customer can then choose based on other factors such as convenience of a non-stop vs. connection, departure/arrival times, brand loyalty, etc.

As for the miscellaneous service fees that the airlines are charging these days, if they thought those fees were cutting into their business in a significant way they'd stop collecting them. Of course expect fares to increase accordingly.

Personally the fees don't bother me. I have yet to encounter an issue booking online that required a call to an agent to book it for me. There are some situations where an agent is required due to the complexity of the booking or an award ticket on some partners. I rarely travel with a checked bag and when I do I don't mind paying the fee. I'd rather know that for all the times I traveled without one my fare wasn't subsidizing people who pack half of their belongings for a weekend trip.

They should be treated differently because it is in the prevailing public interest to do so. Airlines operate in a space of finite capacity and the industry maintains the infrastructure for a public service. Regulation thereof is appropriate when the operators, left to their own devices, will behave in a way that is contrary to the best interests of consumers. That’s precisely what is starting to happen now.

While prices have fallen and safety has improved in the industry since deregulation, U.S. airlines still haven’t managed to make very much money. In recent years, airline management has been rightfully determined to reverse this problem by reshuffling revenue and marketing models. We’re already seeing the early results, and they are not pretty: fees for everything under the sun, dishonest pricing practices, lower service standards, and less regard for customer satisfaction in general.

Yes, but the pizza can’t hold you hostage in an airport or metal tube for hours or days, in many cases without access to food, water, or sanitary toilets. Besides, who said anything about “completely satisfied?” I was talking specifically about delays that are within the airline’s control.

The point of cash-based compensation is to regulate; it is to make airlines sit up and pay attention to the problem because it will hurt their bottom line if they don’t. In addition, travel vouchers and frequent flier miles are only useful provided that the consumer plans to use the same carrier again… a condition that he or she did not subscribe to when making the original purchase of the delayed conveyance.

That’s debatable, and it is precisely why I am advocating a change in the status quo; so that consumers will be able to make informed decisions with respect to what they’ll actually pay when the transaction is fully processed.

This example serves only to wholly endorse the very basis of my argument rather than to refute it, yet the conclusion drawn is a perversion only a U.S. airline lobbyist or someone very eager to defend the industry could possibly manage:

The end price is the end price – plain and simple! Consumers are capable of making choices on the basis of all those factors, and they deserve to know the full story in advance! How could anyone reasonably argue otherwise?!?

The problem is that consumers are not duly informed of the whole truth in advance. For example, let’s say an airline advertises a $200 airfare from Dallas to London. When a consumer jumps on that deal, and it then turns out that it’s really one-way based on r/t travel, and that the airline is also going to add a $200 fuel surcharge, all of a sudden with taxes the total is closer to $750.

Sure, at the end of the day that consumer doesn’t have to buy the ticket, but that person has just wasted his or her time determining that what they thought was being offered wasn’t the truth. These pricing practices are sleazy, dishonest, and underhanded. So is charging someone to use the toilet on board, or extorting $150 from someone who wants to bring a pet on board an airplane in a carry-on bag. My argument is not that the airlines are doing anything illegal with respect to these practices, but that they ought to be regulated because American consumers deserve better. We definitely deserve honest truth in advertising. Let the fare be the whole fare!

Good for you. I’d wager you’re in the minority.

Point taken, but with respect to fees the airlines are behaving a bit like drunken sailors on shore leave that have just discovered a whorehouse. The fees for everything they can think of are becoming excessive. While the fees may eventually adjust to the tolerance of the marketplace, many consumers will be unfairly hurt in the interim. Just as the law protects consumers from loan sharks, so should we be protected from the whims of an industry who’s role is to provide a service so fundamental to our national welfare.

To Jetliner: Really??
 

Your words are MY words as well:

Why do you insist on seeing things that aren't there? How would you come to such an ridiculous conclusion? Because some of us have been on the (other) customer side of the counter and know how (passengers) airline employees act sometimes? Get a grip dude. (Again: Note the trick of using an accusation of mental instability in an attempt to discredit.) This isn't (Kate Hanni's) American Airlines’, et al, or the Air Transport Association’s site.

As to your lament for the poor abused gate or ticket counter worker: These people have the airport police on speed dial. The airport police will, short of mass murder, support just about any kind of behavior on the part of staff.

Finally, Jetliner, if you like, I will be glad to go through your posts, cut and paste, so everyone can see just how “pro-customer” (barf!) your posts have been!

Still, you and your friends screem like a stuck pig all because you must carry the label of "Airline Sympathizer," etc.

Here's a take. In previous positions (80's/90's), I flew regularly. As my flights became more infrequent (and a greater % become for pleasure), the experiences became alot worse. Always seemed like a 1 in 3 chance the product would be delivered as promised.

My wife and I recently decided to go see my sister in Va over the 4th. It would have entailed a connecting flight and I told her "screw it, we'll drive". The total drive time was about 9 hours (500+) . I figured with the reporting time of a couple of hours to make sure we don't give them an excuse to drop the hammer when things go South, the flight times, the layover and getting the luggage (hopefully) we would probably end up ringing her doorbell at the same time if we drove.

She rented 1/2 dozen books on tape, packed a small cooler and we enjoyed the hell out of the trip. Had a big pillow, plenty of leg room (I'm 6'3" - you guys KILL me), my luggage showed up and we had a complete lack of stress.

New house rule. Whether for business or pleasure if its under 10 hours, we're driving. And just so you know its not just me, my boss, who is also a regional manager, is flying a whole lot less. He has branches in Madison, Green Bay, Columbus, Des Moines and Cincy. He has tried to do it flying but now he just rents a car. Just too much of a hassle.

You guys have slowly but surely eliminated your advantage. Speed/comfort. The delta is getting smaller and you guys are just so undependable and unpleasant.

And just so you know, for all the weather/equipment, delays/cancellations I endured over 25 years, I never (almost) lost my temper. I used to smile, shake my head and give thanks I never had to work in the airline industry. This tack used to get me upgrades (most recently in Atl for a missed connection due to mechanical delay plus a wonderful one from HI to Korea after they overbooked business class) I never asked for or an extra drink. I used to think, "how screwed up is this that they will pick one of the herd, who just keeps following the trail, for a special pat on the head".

Consistency is the key.....and you got your work cut out for you.

It comes-down to greed...
 

on the part of the airlines and what, to date, has been a spineless US Dept. of Transportation ("DOT"). The New York City area is a prime example. So far, the DOT has been unable to thin-out the traffic in New York's three main airports by auctioning-off landing/take-off slots. The result is these airports are overcrowded and anything less than perfect weather leads to major delays. The public would probably be willing to use secondary airports near New York (Islip, Newburgh, Allentown) if fares to the main airports were higher. However since the DOT is, essentially, allowing the entire "world" to operate from the three main airports there is little incentive to use the secondaries.

The airlines' "response" to this mess is that the air traffic control system should be upgraded. And during the 5 to 10 years it will take to complete an upgrade the dysfunctional status quo should continue!

Seeker, I would agree if its leisure and its a short distance, driving would be the best mode of transportation. However if its business I would disagree and discourage people from driving, because you have the same probability of getting delayed on the road as you would in the air. In fact it could be worse, if you would drive there in traffic, weather, accidents, or breakdowns and you HAVE to be there. I used to think driving would be easier for business, but I attempted that once, got stuck in a jam and missed a very important meeting when all my collegues flew and were there on time, or even hours earlier. And don't get me started with a train, if you get delayed by track your screwed. If it was just leisure, I seriously wouldn't care and would just wade it out, but if its business, yea no dice. I'd rather take my chances with the airlines. and so far I've been very successful. Usually United or Continental have done well by me with the rebooking process, plus I always try to leave one day in advance just to play it safe, especially if its important. (Then again being platinum on either side helps)

I don't know about being consistent since nothing is guaranteed, even if you drive, same rule applies: anything can happen. But I think this is the best time to fly since most airlines have chopped most of their prices to uber-cheap prices (tax and charges may or may not be included) And yours truly has definitely scored some sweet deals and packages, especially to my favorite spot, Vegas. I doubt the number travelers will dwindle, if prices stay reasonable, it will only go up. Even those that say they will never fly so and so again will fly some other airline, true?

Why don't you back that up with some facts chief.

Why? Because I call BS when I see it? Go ahead. Spend all the time you want posting.

But before you do, why don't you answer my original question - How has this board turned into the mouthpiece for the ATA? Is there some reason you can't answer that with a straight answer? By the way, if you haven't noticed, you are really the only one bringing up the passenger bill of rights stuff (well, other than me pointing that fact out.)

In fact, I'll save you the trouble (and make sure nothing gets conveniently left out to twist the context around) - here's the link under my profile to all my posts: Jetliner's list of supposedly ATA mouthpiece posts

Anti-customer/passenger commentary
 

By the way, if you haven't noticed, you are really the only one bringing up the passenger bill of rights stuff

So, if you had your way, all discussion of Airline Passenger Rights / Kate Hanni would be banned? And how does this position NOT support the Air Transport Association?

Jetliner, you want to have it both ways. You don't want your friends on here carrying the label "Airline Sympathizer" and you ALSO want to be able to, almost, consistently make posts favoring the airlines and dismissing the concerns of the customer. And your reasoning (or lack of it!) behind this is that most, or all, customer complaints are "BS," and all airline employees are little angels being abused by big bad customers!

You gotta be kidding me. I could bore you to tears with the number of times I flew and HAD to be somewhere and the airlines did not get me there. Here are a few highlights.

#1 Flying Indy to TUC thru Denver (old airport). Call the day before because there is snow everywhere. "Your flight is still good to go". Call in the morning before I leave for the airport and they say "on-time departure is anticipated". Leave on time. Get into Denver and the place is bedlam. They have one runway operating. There are aircraft at every gate and the concourses are full of people. Problem is, crews can't get to the airport. Spend the next 20 hours in the airport with no food or TP. The place had broken down. So Indy crams their flights out and dumps them into chaos? Nice.

Needless to say, I did not get to meetings I HAD to get to the next day. I damn near could have driven to TUC in the time Continental had me in their grip. I have made the trip driving to TUC a half a dozen times (relocating household/starting jobs) and always arrived exactly when I planned. If there was weather in No. NM or AZ I just went South to thru Las Cruces.

I did learn a valuable lesson. NEVER fly Denver in the winter. NEVER. I started flying American thru Dallas.

#2 I was working a big project in the UK. Needed to attend a conference to give a status in Indy before returning to my office in HI. I set up my flight to get into Indy a day ahead of the conference. AM flight was cancelled due mechanical. Later flight is delayed 2 hrs. for who knows what. Miss my new connection at JFK due to the delay. Spend overnight in NY. Did the conference I HAD to attend via phone from the concourse. Couldn't drive from London, but damn sure was done with United.

#3 I was returning to TUC via PHX from SD. Mechanical delay in PHX. Rented a car and beat the airplane. Stopped flying out of TUC and started driving the 2 hrs to Sky Harbor. It got to be such a hassle and introduced more moving parts which could/would break that it was easier to drive to a direct flight in PHX.

I could go on and on about O'Hare, Atlanta, etc. etc., but would it really matter?

I said what I said. You guys are undependable and unpleasant. Your service levels sux. If airlines ran nuclear powerplants, this entire planet would be glowing and uninhabitable.

Repeating just to prove that your believe system has some holes...

My boss has stopped trying to run his region by plane. If you try to get into smaller markets in this country you are rolling the dice. If you can do Columbus in 3 hrs why would you fly? Chicago 4 hrs? Faster to drive. Milwaukee 5.5? Still makes more sense with the amount of time required to clear security, layovers, luggage.

There is no train system in this country. Trillions of government dollars have gone into building roads and airports. Indy just finished building a $Billion$ dollar white elephant airport. I just wish sometime over the past 50 years a little of that money would have gone into a high speed rail to Chicago.

It would have been worth every penny just to avoid O'Hare.

Amtrak travel in the winter
 

There is no train system in this country.

There's no question Amtrak offers limited destination options. And travel across the dividing line marked by Chicago will require a change in Chicago. Still, for wintertime travel, Amtrak offers something the airlines frequently don't--they keep moving. Granted, with major delays. But it takes several feet of snow to brings things to a complete halt. The airlines? Two flakes and everything shuts-down.

As an ex-locomotive engineer, I can tell you with expert qualifications, that the railroads come to a flipping halt as often, if not more so than airlines.

Snow: As soon as the snow is over the top of the rails, traffic must be halted for snow removal.

Tracks: The tracks are ALWAYS under repair somewhere along the route, causing stoppages and slowdowns. Tracks are also affected by rain washouts.

Wind: Gusts of over 45 miles an hour requires the train to be stopped, and tied down. That's railroad talk for securing the train.

So don't talk about railroads unless you KNOW what you're talking about.

So what about Amtrak's Northeast Corridor Line?
 

So using your story, wise guy, I guess we're supposed to believe that every single time it snows between Boston and Washington the traffic is shut down??

Try another brand of BS!

I would tend to agree with Gromit that trains deal with delays just as much as airlines do, and its even worse considering how slow you'll be moving across snow (know this from experience... not pretty)

Seeker your first point is moot, 1) you were dealing with weather 2) you called the airlines who're somewhere other than the airport so yea to them your plane was on time, only when you arrived... chaos! Who do blame if the problem started with the snow? You blame the person on the phone who said your plane was on time? Any "season" traveler knows not to take what's said over the phone with some grain of salt, ESPECIALLY when dealing with weather because when you arrive at the airport you don't know what to expect.

your second point? Give me a mechanical delay any day of the week, especially if I'm on a connecting flight that way I get a direct. united and Continental both handle these situations rather well in getting you out as quickly as possible, by any means, on any other airline. if their flights are not full.

Lastly, by your post it would appear that you are talking to the airline directly

are you aware this is a forum, not affiliated with any airline?

my points are directed at those in this board who work for the airlines and deflect any problem with "everybody knows you can't trust us, its your fault that you did".

Hey, ubertwit.

If you take your head out of your a** you might see what I wrote. When the level of the snow covers the rails, snow removal must commence. Snow builds up under modern locomotives under the trucks and motors, and can derail a locomotive you utter blithering f**l.

You don't know anything at all about the railroad. I spent 10 years running with SP and UP.

That was then.
 

I spent 10 years running with SP and UP.

And now you shill for the airlines! (in my opinion)

I, nor anyone else said any such thing. Quite putting words in my mouth, or in this case posts. My point is that this board is for people to voice complaints about airlines. I don't read every complaint (I don't have time) so forgive me if I've missed something, but I haven't seen that many where people were stuck on planes for hours on end.

Um, why don't you go back and actually read the posts. I did not start this thread, nor have I really and truly stated against that label. I've weighed in on some of what was said, but not once did I say that label is wrong.

What I find interesting here is the fact that of all the people who have stated they think that label is wrong, you didn't attack any of them as you have me, who hasn't said the label is wrong.

To AADFW:

I hear ya. And for the most part I agree with you. The problems are:

The general public still demand the service, or lack thereof, in the airline industry. If it was not true, then larger decreases in ticket sales would be apparent.

The deceptive marketing strategies of airlines is wrong but the fine print details it. I don't agree with this but it is what it is and people are still buying this stuff. My point of demand still stands.

If the all the airlines had the same sliding scale of fees, that would require regulation on a large scale and I think that too would not work since the government is not good at this sort of thing.

Today's flying industry is in sad shape but most of them are making JUST enough money to do it. I don't understand why financial investors put their money in this industry. Maybe it is because so many millions of people are still buying the tickets.

And you are shilling for the railroads. Have a vested interest in there do you with your"hate the airlines" website?

The only "freebie" I've ever received for a service recovery issue was a $300 voucher for an eight hour mechanical delay and I didn't even ask for that! Every other "freebie" I've received was for voluntary bumps when flights were oversold.

And Kate Hanni. Don't for get Kate. She's probably shelled out thousands to him by now.

Disregard - accidental duplicate point.