[Barry Cohan]

My 13 yr old son was just supposed to board a return flight from Honolulu to New York. As he tried to board crew members would not allow him to board because we had supposedly not paid for an unaccompanied minor charge. We were told of this charge when we booked the flight and we told the airline reservation clerk to charge us for his return flight as we were only dropping him off to Hawaii, but not bringing him back. They issued the ticket at that time. We would have thought that all was taken care of until just recently when I received his frantic phone call whereby they would not allow a 13 yr old on unaccompanied. I would have been glad to pay the fee at that time, figuring that if it had been previously charged, I would have my credit card company refund the money. They would not take a charge card saying that they could not keypunch in a credit card. Don't they keypunch charge cards 24/7 when taking phone orders for tickets? I asked to speak to a rep but they refused at first, saying they could not take a phone call. Eventually a rep named Mimorie Phoma picked up my son's cell, saying she would see what could be done, but she was not sure if he could board the flight. My son was very upset, but remembered he had traveler's checks, and he offered to pay using them. We asked Ms. Phoma for a number to a supervisor, but she could not locate one. We lost touch at this time with my son.
I hurried home from dinner with my wife, and then tried to find a number for American Airlines to help with a crisis. While they have plenty of numbers to take money for you with regards to selling you a ticket, they have no crisis numbers. We had to go through ticket sales and eventually to an agent named Nola Burgess (burgos?) who simply lacked any ability to handle any problem. I had to scream for a supervisor and after about 5-10 mins (it felt like an eternity) a supervisor named John Emerson took the phone. I was extremely upset which I am quite sure is a reasonable response to not knowing what is happening to your child when he is 3000 miles away from home. Mr. Emerson felt it was much more important for me to tone my voice down than to help me find my son. He told me he was in Dallas and could not tell if my son was on the plane. He explained all he could do was possibly find out was if my son's ticket was read. (wouldn't this mean he had gone past the ticket agent and gone to the plane?) I than asked if they read the ticket would it not mean he entered the plane and was told that it could mean he gave the ticket and turned around. All I know is, once you give your ticket and enter a plane, no one is allowed off even if you have to sit on the plane for hours at the gate without permission to get off. This airline should be ashamed of itself for hiring people unable to handle situations.

[AADFW]

I completely agree. This is why we invented telephony. It should not be difficult for someone in AA Central Reservations to pick up the phone and call the gate in emergent situations such as this. It's common sense. Why does American feel the need make it all so complicated?

The problem I've seen steadily worsening at American is that the left hand has no clue what the right hand is doing. Ask ten different people (CR reps, APO staff) about a ticketing or fee policy, and you're likely to get at least 7 or 8 different answers.

What really needs to happen is for the federal government to stop bailing out the legacy carriers with loan guarantees and the like and LET THEM GO OUT OF BUSINESS. Airlines are subject to the same laws of economics as any other industry. For some reason, consumers and our leaders in Washington seem wantonly ignorant of this fact whenever a major carrier is on the verge of bankruptcy. "Pseudo regulation" ensuring that legacy carriers can stay afloat on a permanent basis has resulted in artificial long lives for many, if not all, of the major players in the industry.

People need to understand this: airplanes aren't going to vanish into thin air if AA, UA, CO, DL, and NW all go out of business tomorrow. The equipment and demand for air travel will all still be there. Investors will come together -- quite quickly in fact -- and create new airlines with far more efficient business models. Planes will continue to fly and the world will not come to an end. In fact, widespread bankruptcy is precisely what the airline industry has needed for a long time. Without such change, there will be very little if any innovation in the areas of service and badly needed technological upgrades.

The alternative, at least in terms of improving service, is very heavy regulation limiting the number of carriers and flights per route, etc. But that would of course drive up fares such that most people wouldn't be able to fly nearly as often as we do today.

[Butch Cassidy Slept Here]

As was noted, heavy regulation is probably counter-productive. As I've noted, previously, establishing a government-supported airline (ie: Air Amtrak) could force positive change on the part of existing airlines through government competition.

A government-supported airline would not have any intention of making a profit--merely containing losses. Service could be limited to flights between secondary airports (ie: Newburgh, NY to Long Beach, CA) to allow a competitive advantage to the existing airlines. Pressure, to force the existing airlines to clean-up their act, could be imposed by the government airline having polite ground and cabin crew, reasonable refund policies, and a decent seat pitch (35" ?) throughout the plane.

[Leatherboy2006]

The Soviet Union had a government run airline.....and for those who never flew them when they existed before the fall of the soviet union would realize we have nothing to complain about here about the USA airline....be glad we don't have a government run airline especially with the bozo we have in the white house right now

[AADFW]

A government-run airline would only be a huge waste of taxpayer money. A truly free airline industry market would be best suited to solve a vast majority of the problems we face today as consumers.

[AADFW]

I've been more active in posting this week after a prolonged absence, and I have been looking through a few of my older posts. My previous argument in this thread was that a truly free airline industry, free of any regulation beyond what's provided for currently was the best model moving forward. My logic before was that if the federal government would allow underperforming airlines to go bankrupt, the situation for consumers where service was concerned would necessarily improve. I was wrong.

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.

Formerly, I had viewed re-regulation in all or nothing terms. In truth, 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 provide;

- 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.

There are any number of other factors that could be included as well. These are matters of basic human decency and fairness that would not contravene free market principles to any level of great disproportion. They are needed, and I stand corrected.