DOT October 19, 2016 announcement (discussion)
Oct 19, 2016, 7:49 am
#31
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,718
Actually, that's not true. Washington doesn't wonder that. Those folks are doing so well scratching one another's backs, they don't care.
Oct 19, 2016, 7:59 am
#32
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
The US DOT "error" fare regulation handling has been a debacle of a position for consumers. It was done just for the benefit of people like David A. Berg of Airlines "For" America -- a lobbying group for the very US airlines understandably interested in maximizing their ability to fleece the US aviation consumer.
Oct 19, 2016, 8:31 am
#34
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,369
There obviously have been private discussions to set this up. I didn't need anyone from FT/IB to tell me that.
There have not been 101 actual posts made with that member account handle. The post count of the member was manually adjusted to allow them to post in some ways without being stuck in some kind of technical/administrative bottleneck. I wanted to rule out that it was a technical glitch, and so I asked in the appropriate forum and found out that this is not a technical glitch. Thank you, IB.
I hope it's not more hype than anything else. But I don't see anything to gain from the US DOT wanting to use FT for this purpose rather than using its own possible arrangements for "discussions" .... er, managed questions and answers.
This Admin's approach to airline consumer protection has been nothing more than more of the same as the prior Admin but even worse. [This is also the same with regard to the "security" dog and pony show.] This last minute play to posture as a friend of the flying consumer is too little too late -- after the Admins have allowed for the US airline cartel kingpins to be what they are by granting the airline kingpins so many waivers and favors that came at the expense of consumers in the main.
There have not been 101 actual posts made with that member account handle. The post count of the member was manually adjusted to allow them to post in some ways without being stuck in some kind of technical/administrative bottleneck. I wanted to rule out that it was a technical glitch, and so I asked in the appropriate forum and found out that this is not a technical glitch. Thank you, IB.
I hope it's not more hype than anything else. But I don't see anything to gain from the US DOT wanting to use FT for this purpose rather than using its own possible arrangements for "discussions" .... er, managed questions and answers.
This Admin's approach to airline consumer protection has been nothing more than more of the same as the prior Admin but even worse. [This is also the same with regard to the "security" dog and pony show.] This last minute play to posture as a friend of the flying consumer is too little too late -- after the Admins have allowed for the US airline cartel kingpins to be what they are by granting the airline kingpins so many waivers and favors that came at the expense of consumers in the main.
I can definitively say that as a TB member, I had no advanced hint that this was being considered or discussed for FT.
Oct 19, 2016, 9:00 am
#35
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Bellevue, WA - AA EXP 3MM
Posts: 2,756
Full DOT rules are here: https://www.transportation.gov/sites...ions%20III.pdf . 111 pages, not a quick read, but lots of details to study.
Oct 19, 2016, 9:55 am
#36
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2013
Programs: DL PM, MR Titanium/LTP, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 10,130
The only thing that could have moved the needle is an EC261-type regulation
Oct 19, 2016, 10:03 am
#37
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2008
Location: CHA, MAN;
Programs: Delta DM 1 MM; Hz PC
Posts: 11,169
QUOTE DOT Webpage [Requiring the Reporting of Data on Flights Operated by Code-Share Partners: U.S. airlines will have to report data for flights operated by their domestic code-share partners (i.e., flights by generally smaller, regional airlines that are sold under the brand of the larger airline) in order to make their airline performance reports more complete. The data will be included in the Department’s publicly available monthly Air Travel Consumer Report.] QUOTE - end of
Outstanding ! Well overdue ^
Outstanding ! Well overdue ^
Oct 19, 2016, 12:44 pm
#38
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,369
Full DOT rules are here: https://www.transportation.gov/sites...ions%20III.pdf . 111 pages, not a quick read, but lots of details to study.
Oct 19, 2016, 3:02 pm
#39
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by US DOT
In response to jdrtravel (1:38pm, #29):
Last year, the Department’s Advisory Committee for Aviation Consumer Protection looked into the issue of legroom on aircraft. Consumer advocates expressed concerns about risk of deep-vein thrombosis and challenges of evacuating planes when narrow seats are installed. FAA has determined that existing legroom on aircraft is safe. Airlines generally believe market forces should determine the type of seats that are on aircraft so long as they are safe. The Advisory Committee declined to make a recommendation on seat sizes.
Last year, the Department’s Advisory Committee for Aviation Consumer Protection looked into the issue of legroom on aircraft. Consumer advocates expressed concerns about risk of deep-vein thrombosis and challenges of evacuating planes when narrow seats are installed. FAA has determined that existing legroom on aircraft is safe. Airlines generally believe market forces should determine the type of seats that are on aircraft so long as they are safe. The Advisory Committee declined to make a recommendation on seat sizes.
Oct 19, 2016, 4:27 pm
#40
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Programs: Frontier Gold, DL estranged 1MMer, Spirit VIP, CO/NW/UA/AA once gold/plat/comped gold now dust.
Posts: 38,138
Re: OP. I thought it was going to be summary executions for anyone caught bringing a Samsung Galaxy Note 7 on board. 
Given the awful track record from the mid-90s ValuJet fiasco through Bush 43 and the start of the mergers, it's good to see some (but not nearly enough) attention paid to the consumer side. With Obama the regulations about ramp delays and crackdown there have been an unheralded success, and requiring all-in pricing for mandatory fees in advertising is important (and also something done in other developed countries). Airlines hate it because ones like Spirit want to advertise close to $0 fares and then pile on tons of airline-imposed fees that stay hidden until you get a total of $50 or $75, not $0. They basically want to institutionalize bait-and-switch, which is consistent with a long history of questionable practices by airlines and dealing in bad faith, including gouge-level change fees and the pre-Internet practice of training their people on the phone NOT to quote the lowest fare. It's an industry that's shown time and again that self-regulation doesn't work.
It's becoming increasingly obvious that DL, UA and AA are choosing to collude a lot more than they're choosing to compete, and that the mergers have been a real negative for consumers.
Given the awful track record from the mid-90s ValuJet fiasco through Bush 43 and the start of the mergers, it's good to see some (but not nearly enough) attention paid to the consumer side. With Obama the regulations about ramp delays and crackdown there have been an unheralded success, and requiring all-in pricing for mandatory fees in advertising is important (and also something done in other developed countries). Airlines hate it because ones like Spirit want to advertise close to $0 fares and then pile on tons of airline-imposed fees that stay hidden until you get a total of $50 or $75, not $0. They basically want to institutionalize bait-and-switch, which is consistent with a long history of questionable practices by airlines and dealing in bad faith, including gouge-level change fees and the pre-Internet practice of training their people on the phone NOT to quote the lowest fare. It's an industry that's shown time and again that self-regulation doesn't work.
It's becoming increasingly obvious that DL, UA and AA are choosing to collude a lot more than they're choosing to compete, and that the mergers have been a real negative for consumers.
Oct 19, 2016, 6:06 pm
#41
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 206
Very disappointed that they decided to shelve the "service animals" discussion because they couldn't come to a decision. Must be some nutso animal lover on that committee that brings their dog on board and lets it run around to the detriment of other passengers and wants to keep it that way.
Oct 19, 2016, 9:55 pm
#42
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 27,222
Also disappointed that they didn't address what I think were several questions about downgrade compensation / fare differential calculation (separate from an EC 261-like scheme, which was also a good question that was ignored...)
Oct 19, 2016, 10:55 pm
#43
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,369
I was disappointed that, in the limited time available, two TSA questions were answered with nothing but platitudes. We know on FT, or at least we should know, that TSA is responsible for airport security and TSA is not part of DOT.