FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   TravelBuzz (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travelbuzz-176/)
-   -   New DOT Rules (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travelbuzz/1110341-new-dot-rules.html)

davetravels Jul 28, 2010 10:39 am


Originally Posted by StayingHomeIsBetter (Post 14380024)
109 pages of public comments... no, I did not read them all. But every one I opened, (repeat, every one) pertained to the peanut allergy issue.:eek:

Well, it's certainly at the top of MY complaint list!! The least they could do is give us cashews when we don't get an upgrade!! :p

FlyingUnderTheRadar Jul 28, 2010 11:10 am


Originally Posted by FlyAO2 (Post 14380048)
Seriously?? With no way to verify what you had in the luggage you want there to be no liability limits.

What all big government people fail to understand is that NOTHING comes free. Impose a boat load of unreasonable rules that cost money - those costs gets passed along to the consumer.

What I am proposing is no different than shipping with UPS or the USPS.

Note I did not say it should not be free. I said they had to accept responsibility. They could easily drop the limit for compensation to a say $500 and accept liability for everything. If you are traveling with crap worth more than it is your responsibility to either have trip insurance for your crap or "self" insure it. As I say it is no different than shipping with UPS or the USPS.

EZE Jul 28, 2010 11:13 am


Originally Posted by FlyAO2 (Post 14380048)
Seriously?? With no way to verify what you had in the luggage you want there to be no liability limits.

What all big government people fail to understand is that NOTHING comes free. Impose a boat load of unreasonable rules that cost money - those costs gets passed along to the consumer.

This is an excellent point. The optimal approach is similar to Fedex in my mind: if the value of your items exceed the liability coverage the carrier provides then you should be able to purchase insurance to cover the remainder of the difference between your estimated value and the liability coverage provided by the airline - if you so desire. This way the cost of the absurd claims of value are not borne by all travelers.

Pharaoh Jul 28, 2010 11:35 am


Originally Posted by EZE (Post 14380419)
This is an excellent point. The optimal approach is similar to Fedex in my mind: if the value of your items exceed the liability coverage the carrier provides then you should be able to purchase insurance to cover the remainder of the difference between your estimated value and the liability coverage provided by the airline - if you so desire. This way the cost of the absurd claims of value are not borne by all travelers.

And ... this already exists in the form of travel insurance, available to everyone. Just have to find your preferred policy from the multitude of underwriters.

StayingHomeIsBetter Jul 28, 2010 11:44 am


Originally Posted by Pharaoh (Post 14380558)
And ... this already exists in the form of travel insurance, available to everyone. Just have to find your preferred policy from the multitude of underwriters.

Transferring the liability to a third party does nothing to incentivize DL management to improve their baggage handling practices.

FlyingUnderTheRadar Jul 28, 2010 11:54 am


Originally Posted by StayingHomeIsBetter (Post 14380622)
Transferring the liability to a third party does nothing to incentivize DL management to improve their baggage handling practices.

Thanks, that is what I was trying but failed to say. So if they had to be response for all items up to a certain value then perhaps we would not see as many thefts as well as fewer damaged bags. But on the other hand there should be a reasonable limit.

longing4piedmont Jul 28, 2010 11:57 am


Originally Posted by StayingHomeIsBetter (Post 14380622)
Transferring the liability to a third party does nothing to incentivize DL management to improve their baggage handling practices.

So you are willing to place all responsibility on the airline (not just DL) even though they do not and can not control who has access to the bag through the entire process of transporting the bag (TSA for example)

longing4piedmont Jul 28, 2010 12:15 pm


Originally Posted by FlyingUnderTheRadar (Post 14380389)
What I am proposing is no different than shipping with UPS or the USPS.

I'm sure that every airline in the industry would agree to this as well if they could away with limiting all claims to $100 or less like UPS does without additional insurance.

Tom Williams Jul 28, 2010 12:39 pm


Originally Posted by brad9696 (Post 14379862)
Only one thing....unless really look for it on DL.com - all indications are that the flight is truly direct. I did ICN->PDX last week. That's what the Itinerary said. 1 flight number, no indications there was a stop. Had no clue until about 1 week before there was a stop in NRT. At least it was the same aircraft type (no seat issues) but due to a delay in the ICN->NRT part - I almost missed NRT->PDX. If I had known it wasn't a true non-stop - I might have booked differently

Another irritating thing about the "Change of equipment" direct flights is that the Delta web site cannot deal with seat assignments for two different segments with the same flight number.

Probably doesn't warrant a DOT complaint, but irritating nonetheless.

StayingHomeIsBetter Jul 28, 2010 1:04 pm


Originally Posted by longing4piedmont (Post 14380710)
So you are willing to place all responsibility on the airline (not just DL) even though they do not and can not control who has access to the bag through the entire process of transporting the bag (TSA for example)

So you are willing to place all responsibility on the PAX even though they do not and can not control who has access to the bag through the entire process of transporting the bag (TSA for example)? :rolleyes:

lseflyer Jul 28, 2010 1:48 pm

An area that needs to be addressed is code shares. The rules/fees for a code share should not be allowed to be different then on the ticketing carrier, i.e., if DL doesn't charge me a baggage fee then the code share partner should not be able to if I buy the ticket from DL. If delta charges a fee, the code share should not be higher. If my status lets me choose seats, stand by for earlier flights, earn qualifying miles, etc., I should have the same rights on the code share if I buy the ticket from DL.

longing4piedmont Jul 28, 2010 2:21 pm


Originally Posted by StayingHomeIsBetter (Post 14381162)
So you are willing to place all responsibility on the PAX even though they do not and can not control who has access to the bag through the entire process of transporting the bag (TSA for example)? :rolleyes:

Given the way the system is set up now.....in a word yes.

Don't put valuables in your bag, if you do assume it will be stolen and you will never be able to prove who stole it. What is covered and not covered is clearly spelled out before you fly.

Use a lock on your bag.....

etc,etc, etc.

motytrah Jul 28, 2010 2:35 pm


Originally Posted by lseflyer (Post 14381426)
An area that needs to be addressed is code shares. The rules/fees for a code share should not be allowed to be different then on the ticketing carrier, i.e., if DL doesn't charge me a baggage fee then the code share partner should not be able to if I buy the ticket from DL. If delta charges a fee, the code share should not be higher. If my status lets me choose seats, stand by for earlier flights, earn qualifying miles, etc., I should have the same rights on the code share if I buy the ticket from DL.

Let's position it in a way I think the DOT will find it actionable (sales practices). Maybe say something like:

Consumers are blind sided by fees that are not disclosed at time of booking when a code share is involved. Because of the nature of codeshares there is a complex and difficult to understand sequence of who's fees apply. Often the first carrier for the days travel apply.

It is not usual for a consumer to pay no fees on the leg out of the US including a connection with a foreign code share partner. However, on the return leg the foreign carrier's fees would apply and be collected.

At time of sale a code share doesn't disclose a different set of fees apply. Although airlines have become quite sophisticated advising the customers on the day of travel. Often they are able to alert the customer of who and where to check-in with. That same technology should be applied to disclosing fees.

jkatzen Jul 28, 2010 3:53 pm

What does a proposed prohibition on "post-purchase price increases" mean?

Surely this doesn't mean that airlines wouldn't be able to charge more for a flight as it gets closer to the date of travel?

Update: Nevermind. I see what it is: http://www.consumertraveler.com/toda...-buy-a-ticket/

MikeMpls Jul 28, 2010 4:32 pm


Originally Posted by longing4piedmont (Post 14381663)
Given the way the system is set up now.....in a word yes.

Don't put valuables in your bag, if you do assume it will be stolen and you will never be able to prove who stole it. What is covered and not covered is clearly spelled out before you fly.

Use a lock on your bag.....

etc,etc, etc.

:td::td::td::td::td:

If you are paying the airline to transport a bag, your contract is with the airline and only with the airline. If the airline allows TSA unsupervised access to your baggage, that should be the airline's liability, and the airline can take it up with TSA.

As soon as the airlines have no easy way to pass the buck & shrug off their liability, they'll clean up their act.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 2:23 am.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.