[Silent Bob]

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?

[Jetliner]

Originally Posted by Silent Bob

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

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.

[AADFW]

Originally Posted by Silent Bob

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.

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.

[PHXFlyer]

Originally Posted by AADFW

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.

[Butch Cassidy Slept Here]

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.

[Jetliner]

Originally Posted by Butch Cassidy Slept Here

That "Contract of Carriage" reads like an insurance policy.

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.

[AADFW]

Originally Posted by PHXFlyer

Exactly what rules would you impose?

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.

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.

[AADFW]

Originally Posted by AADFW

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

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.

[Butch Cassidy Slept Here]

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.

[Butch Cassidy Slept Here]

Compared to those who advocate for airline passenger rights the airlines and their lobbying organization--the Air Transport Assn. ("ATA")--have, literally, tens of thousands of dollars for contributions to "friendly" candidates and for anti-passenger advertising. Accordingly I have big time problems with the airlines, and the ATA, attempting to hijack sites like this for their own ends. Those who are currently employed by US-based airlines may well have their employment security threatened if airline passenger rights reform were enacted. So there's an understandable desire, on the part of these people, to vigorously defend the status quo--no matter how dysfunctional it is. Another group of defenders of the status quo may be those who one or more airlines recognize as being a significant revenue contributor (truly "frequent fliers.) This latter group has probably been shielded from much of the abuse the INfrequent traveler must endure. Thus the label "Airline Sympathizer" responds to these points as well as to the "I have a right to speak my mind" issue.