[Jetliner]

Originally Posted by Butch Cassidy Slept Here

Tschüss und scher dich zum Teufel!

Nah. I can't go to hell. I've already been there and they kicked me out.

[Butch Cassidy Slept Here]

Originally Posted by Butch Cassidy Slept Here
By your own admission, Jetliner, you bash customers who arrive late for their flight.

UM, OK. Would you care to enlighten everyone as to exactly where I made any such statement? (This ought to be good)

I aim to please! You’ll find three examples of your anti-customer attitude below. As to your last statement: I agree, I think it’s quite good also!

By the way, I see you’re now, conveniently, “out to lunch” on an issue you brought-up in another post. Now, who is it that doesn't respond when they get "called-out?" Specifically:

those on here that want to use the forum as a soapbox for their own agenda and to bash the airlines, without ever having posted one single actual complaint themselves

So, ONCE AGAIN! Can you, please, provide some links to all the threads you started, on this board, which involve a complaint, about a specific experience, you yourself, went through. I think those who favor airline customers on here would be interested in your "encore performances."

As of now, it looks like you want this one to go away.

And now for our feature presentation:


…people don't take personal responsibility anymore…The airline is not going to hold a plane load of people because the can't get to the airport in time.

And a lot of airlines gave up, years ago, “taking responsibility.” Just look at tarmac delays!

See post # 10 at:

http://www.airlinecomplaints.org/sho...=9288#post9288

************************************************** ************************************************** **********************

First of all Southwest does not fly to Atlanta. Secondly, if there were no pages, etc, how did all of the other passengers know where to board the aircraft?

That’s right, stick it to that low-life customer! How about: “I understand Southwest does not fly to Atlanta. Can you give us some more detail?” And, “Where were you when the flight was called? Did you hear the announcement?”

See post # 3 at:

http://www.airlinecomplaints.org/sho...=2272#post2272


************************************************** ************************************************** ***********************

Bottom line is that if every other passenger made it but you, then we need to look at YOU, not the airline.

And if the customer promises to kiss your backside you’ll forgive him! I made a comment in this thread also. But, as usual, you win the prize for anti-customer attitude.

See post # 8 at:

http://www.airlinecomplaints.org/sho...=2203#post2203

************************************************** ************************************************** ***********************

Oh, and by the way, I'm not your kid.

No. But when it comes to customers, you act like one!

[Jetliner]

Oh, but you are wrong. First where do I supposedly admit to bashing people? You are very correct with your quotes - I did say those things. And every one of them needed to be said.

"Oh, I missed the plane because they boarded up the plane, and left me but didn't make any announcements that they were boarding the plane" I'm sorry that you disagree, but it's true that if the plane got boarded, and you (or whoever the passenger is) was the only one left, then somehow the other passengers all had to know it was time to board the plane. Do you think the gate agents came to each person sitting there and whispered in their ears that it's time to get on the plane? No.

Also, I'm not out to lunch on anything. I very specifically addressed that point, but let me quote it for you in case you missed it two posts ago:

Originally Posted by Jetliner

I'm not complaining about the airlines, YOU are. You go on and on about how bad the airlines are, yet all you ever have are other people's "war" stories.

Since that doesn't seem to be clear enough, then let's just clear it up. I said that other's use this forum as a soapbox to bash the airlines without having made a complaint themselves. Since I'm not using this as a soapbox to bash the airlines, I am exempt from my statement. I don't bash the airlines, therefor I would not have needed to list a complaint. You DO bash the airlines, yet you don't seem to have any complaints of your own.

In fact, you always say how it's things you've seen, yet other than a couple news items, you never have any real examples. So it leaves one to wonder why you are on such a tear to smear the airlines, when you can't tell us anything that actually happened to you.

It kind of becomes a sort of racist thing. I can say that I've driven through the ghetto and seen cars on concrete blocks with nothing but black folks around, therefor all black people must be bad, right? In reality I don't really think that, but you get my point.

Or let's look at this - do you think that every catholic priest is a child molester? There have been some that have done it, so they surely all must be right? No.

There have been idiots out there in the airlines, but does that mean we all are/were? No.

[Jetliner]

Originally Posted by Butch Cassidy Slept Here

…people don't take personal responsibility anymore…The airline is not going to hold a plane load of people because the can't get to the airport in time.

It's interesting that you take two sentence and try to merge them into one that is out of context

Originally Posted by Jetliner

The other part too, is that people don't take personal responsibility anymore. See, there's two complaints from the original poster #1 the agent was rude and #2 he didn't try to help. Since none of us were there, let's put #1 aside, or let's even assume he was rude. But for #2, they were late. End of story. What do they want him to do? The airline is not going to hold a plane load of people because the can't get to the airport in time. And true, it could have been a blown tire, or they can't manage time well, who knows. But the bottom line is there is a cut off time and they missed it. But now they want to come on here and smear the airline and the employee.

I even said then that they could have had a very good reason for being late. But the agent didn't bend the rules for them and they got upset.

=====================================

Originally Posted by Jetliner

First of all Southwest does not fly to Atlanta. Secondly, if there were no pages, etc, how did all of the other passengers know where to board the aircraft?

Originally Posted by Butch Cassidy Slept Here

Can you give us some more detail?” And, “Where were you when the flight was called? Did you hear the announcement?”

Refer to post number 1

Originally Posted by jim_cochran

I was told I was paged. Never heard it. I will never fly southwest again.

========================================

Originally Posted by Butch Cassidy Slept Here

Bottom line is that if every other passenger made it but you, then we need to look at YOU, not the airline.

Again, refer back to post number 1

Originally Posted by philemonv6

What a nightmare! After checking in an hour and a half before departure, and getting thru security almost an hour before scheduled departure
=============================

I was sitting right in front of the gate 25 minutes before scheduled departure... no announcements were made that the gate was about to close

So, he was sitting there starting at 25 minutes before departure and not one announcement was made? Again, how did EVERY other passenger except him (and he says one other, so fine 2) know to get on the plane? The gate agents certainly did not go to each person and whisper in their ears that it was time to board.

Not only that, my post that you have quoted here, was not my first response on this. In fact it was only after others had also tried to reason with this guy and he still just didn't get it. This is from his next post in that thread:

Originally Posted by philemonv6

Why is it so hard to believe this gate agent did not make an announcement before closing the gate? Why would I get to the airport 90 minutes in advance if I didn't want to get on the plane? Have you ever been to a gate when no one made an announcement before closing the gate?

Now, do you really, honestly think they somehow got everyone on board with out any boarding announcements? Does he or even you really and truly believe that they made an announcement at some point prior and never said anything else? Here's another question - when he got to the gate, why did he not attempt to board? The door was open.

[Jetliner]

Man overboard! Man overboard!

[acurrier]

I've been reading the posts in this forum, as a newbie here, and it is quite interesting to see the breath of opinion. It is also curious to see that those who defend the airline industry post here, on a website named airlinecomplaints.org! The most curious comment seems to fault passengers who expect something from the airline "just because they have a ticket." Hmmm.

But to move on to my question, I recently had a bad experience with Delta. I won't bore you with the details, but it has led me to seek an answer, not forthcoming from Delta, for a simple question: Do the airlines schedule flights that are, it appears, set up to "fish" for passengers, but are subsequently canceled when not enough sign on? And can they do that without notifying customers that that is the case, some passengers of whom have planned their trip and paid for their ticket far in advance?

Yes, I know that the airlines are unregulated and can, basically, do anything they want with their schedules, but aren't there basic consumer protection rules governing all business that say you can't "bait and switch," which this actually is. Yes, again, the airline will refund your ticket price, if you complain enough, but isn't that unfair to the customer when the airline waits a long time (like 3 months after you pay) to cancel the flight? Now, not only have you lost interest on money which could have been sitting in the bank, but your chances of booking that cheaper price and getting those better seats, is about nil.

I am not one of those passengers with unrealistic expectations. I show up on time, I accept weather delays or other delays out of the airlines control, and I don't expect first class seats in coach - although I am old enough to remember when flying was comfortable and you were able to wear decent clothes in coach without fear of them being ruined!), but it seems to me that the pendulum has swung totally away from passenger service, toward maximizing profit. One must ask, what happened to the idea of improving service to increase business? And the heightened security has not helped (although I support the TSA efforts completely!) in that it has made airline attendants so smug you are afraid to complain less they accuse you of being "disruptive."

So does anybody here have an answer to my question? Does anybody know how I might get actively involved in doing something to protect passenger rights?

[PHXFlyer]

How do you see it as "bait and switch." When you buy a ticket you are basically purchasing transportation from "point A to point B" on a particular date. In every airline's contract of carriage, the terms you agree to when you purchase the ticket, there is a provision for changes to schedules, aircraft, and routes. An airline is a business not public transportation. If a certain flight or route isn't profitable they have every right to make changes to their schedule and route so that they can attempt to make a profit or at least mitigate loss. If a schedule change doesn't work for you the airline is obligated to give you a refund even on a non-refundable ticket. If they don't they can get into trouble with the DOT.

[acurrier]

One definition of bait and switch: taking someone's money, then delivering something other than what was promised.
I think you miss the point, PHXFlyer. A refund does not re-immburse the passenger for real expenses or, if I dare even mention it, loss of comfort and convenience. If you book several months in advance you get a better price and often better seats. Do you replace those with a refund? (Not to mention interest lost on your money.)
And are you saying airlines can't make money without routinely expecting their customers to accept whatever they feel comfortable delivering on that particular day? What kind of business is that? Can Sears deliver a washing machine that is not the one you ordered and say, "Well, it washes clothes. Tough."
I guess I'm just old fashioned. Used to be that business strived to deliver what they promised the customer. Now the airline industry just expects its customers to be happy if they get there, no matter what the conditions. And they are smug about it, too!
Hey! I just had a brain storm. I bet that has something to do with their trouble making money.
My bottom line: the taxpayers have helped the airline industry more than once. Now it's time for gov't to help the taxpayers get a fair deal from the airlines.

[Gromit801]

So, if a customer buys an item, and agrees to all terms and conditions plainly spelled out in the purchase agreement, they should then be able to scream unfair when those terms and conditions come into play for whatever reason?

So, on my credit cards, when it said that my interest rate could change (and they did), I should scream bait and switch because it was 19% when I got the card, but now it's something else?

[jimworcs]

acurrier,

Let me try to answer you question, but before I do, let me first challenge something PHX has said.

An airline is a business not public tranportation

That is plain wrong. An airline is a business AND public transportation. It is also a business which relies heavily on government support and infrastructure. Let me give you an example. ATC is government run in the US. In many other countries, ATC is a private entity. In the US, ATC does not pay taxes to the government, because it is an government entity. In the UK for example, the ATC agency is required to pay taxes and fees. Therefore the fees that airlines pay for ATC in the US are subsidised compared to other countries. This is repeated throughout the air infrastructure system, with airports in government or local government ownership, radar, weather warning systems, etc. This is provided because it is regarded as a public transportation system and represents a significant subsidy.

Now, in answer to your question about bait and switch and consumer law. Airlines have a statutory exemption from Federal anti-trust law. In addition, the Airline Deregulation Act (1978) has a preemption clause which exempts airlines from State and Local truth-in-advertising and other consumer protection laws. Now ask yourself.. why do they have this exemption? A number of States Attorney Generals have asked the Federal Government to allow them to take enforcement action against airlines who have breached consumer laws. The airlines spend huge amounts of lobbying money to block this and other flyers rights legislation.

There is current legislation before congress which stipulates some minimal standards for passengers to protect against being held hostage against your will on the ground by airlines, but I have little confidence it will pass. You could perhaps support that. Unfortunately, the legislation is being promoted by someone called Kate Hanni at flyersrights.org. She is a bit of a narcissist and seems a bit kooky, but it might be worth a look.

(Kate recently posted a method which she said was for information, but which she did not endorse which suggested that people who are stranded on airplane should declare a medical emergency and then when they are disembarked, refuse to get on the ambulance. That is very dangerous advice. In severe weather, wasting an emergency ambulances time could cost people their lives. That kind of irresponsible posting has put me off using the site).

Nevertheless, I support the legislation itself. You could perhaps contact your Senator directly and ask him/her to support it.

[acurrier]

Thank you, jimworcs, for the info. What a state of affairs. It is depressing. So, maybe my particular complaint is not technically "bait and switch," since if I had asked to see the Contract of Carriage (although I had never even heard of one until I had a problem, and I've been flying a couple of times a year for 40 years or so), I might have realized how much I was at the mercy of the airline, but it sure is unethical, just as a lot of the behavior of credit card companies is unethical. (PHX - if I were a company, I wouldn't want to be put in the same category as the credit card people!)They are beginning to do something about the credit card companies, so maybe there is hope for reform in the airline industry? One thing deregulation should have taught us: when people are allowed to do anything, especially where money is concerned, they will do - anything!
I came across the name Kate Hanni on the web and wondered about her group, so thanks for your comments. I intend sending letters to all my gov't representatives to support the legislation, but I'd like to be more pro-active. What we need is a reputable, sensible, but also aggressively active group to support the cause, and continue to do so on other passenger issues. Is there one? I don't think sharing our concerns on any forum is going to do enough.

[jimworcs]

I am English and havn't lived in the States for more than a decade, so I am not familiar with groups that support this change. As I said, there is the flyersrights.org organisation. I am not convinced Kate Hanni is in it for the best of motives, but here is the link for you to decide for yourself. Otherwise, I think active lobbying is all that can be done.

http://www.flyersrights.org/

[ChrisH]

Originally Posted by bah humbug

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

I agree with this 100%. I've worked for the airline industry for nearly 4 years, not quite as long as you, and I have to say, as well, that I hate it. I hate many of the airline policies, but
it is my job. I've dealt with many very polite, respectable customers, who understand that things are outside of my control. I am more than happy to do what I can for those people. I've then dealt with the rude customers, who want to take everything out of the agent, and then accuse me of being the rude, unhelpful one. It is THOSE people who come to websites like this, and complain, often times exaggerating the story. I also work with some people I am ashamed to work with, but air travel isn't nearly as bad as some people want to make it out to be.

[PHXFlyer]

Originally Posted by jimworcs

That is plain wrong. An airline is a business AND public transportation. It is also a business which relies heavily on government support and infrastructure.

It can't be both. Public transportation, like city busses and commuter rail, is subsidized through taxes. No such subsidy exists for most airlines. Yes there is the EAS (Essential Air Service) program but none of the major airlines participate in that program as the airports involved are too small to support mainline service. It is the smaller commuter carriers that benefit from EAS and it's not a blank check either. The payment is based on the operational loss from serving that airport so in reality the government is paying a subsidy to keep air service at smaller airports and the airlines serving those airports are doing just a bit better thanbreaking even.

Jim you make it seem like the major airlines get millions in operating revenue from the US government which comes from the taxpayers. That is simply the furthest notion from the truth.

[Gromit801]

Such logic would also make a taxi company "public transportation" instead of a business. After all, they drive on roads paid for by taxes.

[jimworcs]

Taxi's are a form of public transportation and are highly regulated... it is a pity the airlines are not properly regulated too.

[PHXFlyer]

Originally Posted by jimworcs

Taxi's are a form of public transportation and are highly regulated... it is a pity the airlines are not properly regulated too.

In some cities, like New York, they are. Here in Phoenix the only regulation is to ensure taxi companies have the proper insurance and that the meters are accurate. Otherwise they can charge whatever they want to. That is the case in most areas of the US.

[jimworcs]

If they have meters, clearly they can't charge what they like. The whole point of a meter is to standardise the cost per mile, at a rate set by the city. If they can charge what the like, what would be the point of the meter? If taxi A has a meter set to $1 a mile and taxi B is set to 50 cents per mile, the meter is rendered pointless.

Look, you guys appear to be arguing that if a business is for profit, then it is not public transportation. That just doesn't make sense. The Tokyo Metro area has seven train companies providing commuter train services on a competitive basis. The companies are private companies, providing competing services and are highly profitable. To say that the Tokyo Metro is not public tranportation doesn't make sense.

Likewise, in the UK train companies compete for business in much the same way airlines do. Virgin runs trains for example, which run from London to Glasgow. They compete against another company (LNER). Both companies are private for profit (as are virtually all train companies in the UK). Are we saying that trains in the UK are not public transportation?

You guys are blinkered. It doesn't matter if the services is provided for profit, or subsidised, services which provide transportation for the public are critical for the well being of the economy and are part of the vital infrastructure. All forms of transport are highly subsidised, whether by road, sea, rail or air and need to be regulated. There is nothing unique about air travel.

[PHXFlyer]

Originally Posted by jimworcs

If they have meters, clearly they can't charge what they like. The whole point of a meter is to standardise the cost per mile, at a rate set by the city. If they can charge what the like, what would be the point of the meter? If taxi A has a meter set to $1 a mile and taxi B is set to 50 cents per mile, the meter is rendered pointless.

Been to Phoenix lately, Jim? No? I'm telling you Discount/Yellow Cab has a different flag drop rate than AAA which has a different per mile rate than VIP or Sunrise. The meter is only to ensure you are being charged the posted per mile fare and wait time fare when the cab is stopped. Otherwise the company sets the initial charge, per mile, and wait time rates which are loaded into the meters and the meters are then sealed by weights and measures. There is controlled, mandated fare such as in NYC or Washington DC. We have no Taxi and Limousine commission here. (A friend of mine owns a small taxi & livery service. I think I know what I'm talking about. If you don't believe me check here.)

[Gromit801]

Originally Posted by jimworcs

Taxi's are a form of public transportation and are highly regulated... it is a pity the airlines are not properly regulated too.

Jim, perhaps because you're in the UK, you fail to appreciate the difference between what is considered public, and private transportation here in the US. Public transportation is paid for by taxes. It's owned by a government entity. Airlines, taxi companies, Greyhound, etc are all private businesses, and not "public transportation."

[Butch Cassidy Slept Here]

I agree that (US-based) airlines are not public transportation in the same sense local bus systems, in most cities, are. However there are many (perhaps even a few on this board!) who would agree airlines hold a significant public trust. The government requires an airline to obtain a Certificate before it can begin accepting paying passengers. Airlines use taxpayer-supported facilities—airports and air traffic control services. Most important, an airline is different from many businesses in that entry to many markets is restricted by airport capacity and market forces. As an example, the “market,” and airport capacity, limit the number of airlines that can offer non-stop service between New York—LaGuardia and Atlanta. When combined with the fact that all airlines face the same costs, saying ‘I’ll never fly with you again,’ or ‘I’ll take my business elsewhere’ is, usually, an exercise in tilting at a windmill.

Like a taxi driver who has tampered with his meter, the airlines have likewise abused their public trust. Selling tickets with unrealistically short flight connecting times is one onerous practice. Failing to disclose all possible charges (fees) after a ticket has been purchased is another.

As I indicated in another post: Perhaps it’s time the government treated airlines like another category of private business—radio and tv stations. An airline certificate of operation should not be a property right but something that must be defended, at a comparative hearing, every 5 to 10 years. Those who hold the financial and other qualifications should be allowed to argue, at a certificate renewal hearing, how they can better serve the public and why the incumbent certificate holder is undeserving of a renewal.

[mars6423]

jim many airlines are what i would call private transportation for the public, yes the public travels in them and so on, however they are privatly help companies, and yes there are/were airlines in the stockmarket but they are still a private comp, same as other transportation industries

[jimworcs]

Public transport comprises passenger transportation services which are available for use by the general public, as opposed to modes for private use such as automobiles or vehicles for hire.


Any form of transport that can be used by a member of public (for a fee); as opposed to private ownership of e.g. cars


Public transport, public transportation, public transit or mass transit comprise all transport systems in which the passengers do not travel in their own vehicles. While the above terms are generally taken to include rail and bus services, wider definitions might include scheduled airline services, ferries, taxicab services etc. — any system that transports members of the general public. A further restriction that is sometimes applied is that transit should occur in continuously shared vehicles, which would exclude taxis that are not shared-ride taxis.

There are three different definitions taken from the web, all on US based websites. Not one of them excludes airline services.

Mars.. I lived in the States for 10 years... no one has responded to my examples.. because you have no answer. In your argument, British trains are not public transportation, neither does Tokyo have any public train transportation, because they are for profit. It is an absurb distinction... if you make a profit, you cannot be a public transport system? All I ask.. is show me. Find me a definition of public transportation from any source that links the profitability with the status of the transport..

[The_Judge]

http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/public-transportation/

Public transportstion refers to all service involved in the transportation of passengers for hire by means of street railway, elevated railway, subway, underground railroad, motor vehicles, or other means of conveyance generally associated with or developed for mass surface or sub-surface transportation of the public, but does not include any service involved in transportation by taxicab, airport limousine, or industrial bus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Transportation

Public transport (also public transportation, public transit, or mass transit) comprises passenger transportation services which are available for use by the general public, as opposed to modes for private use such as automobiles or vehicles for hire.

Public transport services are usually funded by fares charged to each passenger, with varying levels of subsidy from local or national tax revenue; fully-subsidised, zero-fare services operate in some towns and cities.

Public transport can consist of subways, trolleys and light rail, commuter trains, buses, van pool services, paratransit services for senior citizens and people with disabilities, ferries, water taxis, or monorails.[1]

Nowhere in the above are airlines mentioned, in fact, the first definition is specific in non-air travel.



I think this debate is really more about perception than definition. Many people's perception when they hear the term public transportation is that is government funded, at least that is what I think. City buses jumps to mind. Whether this is correct or not, is obviously debatable.

I think you gentlemen should just realize you will not be changing each other's minds and move on to a new battle.