jordyn

It's kind of silly to say "AA is selling transportation, not a seat" when AA itself is making the analogy to the sporting event to justify fully non-changeable tickets. Sure, they're selling a different sort of contract now, but it's not unreasonable for customers to articulate what they think is a better model--especially if AA is proposing to react to regulated change fees by disallowing changes altogether.

Dave Noble

Thing is - what will AA actualy do - what it is saying in order to try and head off change is not necessarily what it will do if the restriction on fees does come in

jordyn

So if your point is that Parker is just full of it and making a self-serving analogy that he actually has no intention of following to its logical conclusion, I guess I have no choice but to agree with you.

no1cub17

How are the Chicago Cubs or Oklahoma Sooners any different? When I buy a ticket to see them, am I not entering into a contract with them to attend said event?

And as others pointed out, it was Dougie himself (or Scott, I can't remember, they're one and the same really) who made the analogy to a sporting event. Yet somehow when we as consumers point that out, the airline is right, again!

clobbersaurus

I would like to delete this, sorry

mvoight

USA261 wouldn't be free to passengers.. That cost would have to be made up More regulation is only going to raise ticket prices

jordyn

There's been studies on this. In Europe, it's estimated the regulation adds about 1% to the cost of a ticket. So yes, it's not free. On the other hand, that's much cheaper than third-party insurance products for cancellation or delay, and generally better at aligning incentives between the airline and its customers so you're less likely to have problems and have to resort to insurance.

Dave Noble

I do not think that if limits on change fees are implemented, that the airline will just make all fares non changeable - I expect that there will be some changes - e.g. only middle fares upwards allowing changes or no changes within a certain number of days before departure - but the claim that it will lead to airline not allowing changes seems unlikely

If it was not allowed to charge change fees at all, then I could see it happening - but not just with a reduction in the amount chargeable

Often1

1. It's all over. The change fee provisions have been pulled from the proposed legislation, in large part due to "intense lobbying" by the industry, including the speech in question.

2. The same studies showing a 1% cost also report that only approximately 2% of claims are ever made in the first place. While there are contingent fee bottom feeders called "claims agents" in the EU, the plaintiff's bar is nowhere near as developed as the US. If only 10% of claims were made, that 1% would increase to 5% and that starts to become real money which is a windfall to the business traveler who is an employee and is still paid.

All comes down to whether you want your government to be a nanny or whether, if you think you need it, you purchase an insurance policy for not very much.

jordyn

First, it seems HIGHLY speculative to assume that the US is magically going to have a claim rate 5x higher than Europe.

Second, the part of the EC261 regulation that is closest to normal travel insurance is duty of care rather than compensation, which I'm sure airlines provide in the majority of cases where it's required. There's no opportunity for a 10x blowup in cost here.

Even disregarding the compensation requirements of EC261, private insurance is often 5% or more per flight. If there was some affirmative obligation for the insurance company to pay you cash for delays as well, it would be a lot more expensive. This is a clear case where a fairly reasonable set of government costs better align the incentives of the passenger and the airline and provides important protections for the passengers at a quite low cost; certainly much lower than the prices we're seeing the market deliver.

Often1

I didn't mean to say 10%, simply that it's an example of what can happen.

I still think that all of the issues from duty of care to delay compensation and the like can be handled through insurance (or not). But, it ought to be the passenger (or employer's) option.

EC 261/2004 was intended not as a compensation scheme but as a service prodder, e.g., if air carriers faced monetary penalties, they would do a better job of ontime performance. But, it never happened. It's now the end of 2018 and the Regulation has existed since 2004. So, 14 years later, no better ontime performance. Not surprising.

On top of all of that, it's simply inconsistent with the way this country regulates business. So, it's not going to happen.

Dave Noble

I disagree that issues from delays or being downgraded should be the passenger's responsibility

EC261 provides protection against being downgraded - how many reports of pitiful reimbursement for downgrades on AA
It provides protections when a flight is cancelled or delayed - the airline is accountable for its inactions - again seems good

It does do what it was intended - protecting passengers against impacts of airlines delaying / cancelling flights or downgrading passengers

The point of a duty of care is that it is the duty of the airline to care - not an insurance thing - delay passengers and the airline is responsible for it - seems pretty reasonable

Regardless , this has nothing to do with change fees

Often1

I agree with you last sentence.

LINDEGR

I disagree, Everyone I knew was doing it and there was never a requirement that it be government-issued!