cbn42

We don't live in an idealized world where everyone controls their emotions and behaves appropriately to each other at all times. We live in the real world, where people are emotional creatures and their behavior is is impacted by those emotions. Saying that people should have personal responsibility and self control sounds great in theory, but that isn't going to fix anything.

I doubt change fees have anything to do with it. People are avoiding flying because being on a plane with a bunch of other people in close quarters can result in transmission of viruses. If people are avoiding large gatherings/festivals, then they will avoid airplanes and public transport as well.

But I don't think your assertion that people are still traveling is correct. Hotels are quite empty these days. Few people are taking road trips, and it is usually to spend time with family.

This type of anti-expert attitude is exactly why we have anti-vaxxers and global warming deniers. It is also why industries are able to establish oligopolies and abuse their customers.

The airlines are fortunate that this downturn is happening with a "pro-business" administration in Washington. After 9/11, congress authorized $10 billion in loan guarantees for the airlines. I'm betting this time it will be even more. Capitalism for the poor, handouts for the rich.

alangore

Hotel occupancy is down just over 7%, in an economy where air reservations have fallen off a cliff. That has to mean that a large percentage of people are making their intended destinations, but traveling by other means.

az22

Not many industries out there get to enjoy the level of price discrimination and anti-consumer policies as the airlines at such large scale. The airline industry figured out how to nickel-and-dime their customers and treat them like sh*t and get away with it. And we’re suckers for putting up with it.

Want more leg room? Switch flights? Check bags, bring carry-on? Pay for it. Delayed flight?
Stranded due to cancelled flight? You’re on your own.

Sure, if you’re spending OPM, who cares? For the average Joe taking his family of four for a vacation? Or the college kid trying to come home for Thanksgiving? That’s when it hurts. They’re the ones footing the bill when the government bails them out.

Why should the airline industry get preferential treatment? Outside of paying wages for the pilots, FAs, gate agents, airline support staff, baggage handlers, nothing else should be done for the airlines. Why don’t we help others impacted by the downturn as well? Don’t forget there are many others with uncertain futures too - small business owners, restaurant workers, ride share drivers, hotel maids, etc. Many people may lose their jobs and their livelihoods.

We’ve been suckers for falling for their FF programs. They’ve created an environment where these “benefits” and “privileges” (free checked bag, priority boarding, leg room, priority customer service, lounge access etc.) aren’t for every equal paying customer. They’ve played with your emotions, made you feel incrementally special, gave you a badge of “honor”. It’s pretty unfortunate to see the number of folks on here worried about qualifying for elite status next year or contemplate life without “status” in times like these. There are things bigger than this.

Many of us are fortunate enough to have jobs or careers that will protect our families. There are many out there who do not. Let’s not take it for granted.

GuyIncognito

Anyone know the terms of the last bailouts? Do they eventually get repaid or have any strings attached?

I agree with the author - you can't privatize profits and socialize losses. AA chose to spend all of their profits on inflating their stock price, which is their right to do. But there must be a penalty for making bad bets. If they come out of this unscathed then capitalism isn't working.

cbn42

The bailout after 9/11 was $5 billion in direct payments and up to $10 billion in loan guarantees (only $1.6 billion of which was actually issued). In return, the federal government received warrants enabling them to buy shares at a set price in the future. Since some airline stocks went up during the boom of 2003-2004, the government made money on this deal. Some of the recipients went into bankruptcy so there was significant risk, but at the end, the program made a profit.

Qwkynuf

Ridiculous assertion.

BuildingMyBento

must be on FT then

lhrsfo

I would certainly support some consumer protection in dealings with airlines. UA’s recent attempt to be able to change the date of someone’s flight while offering no refund was a particularly egregious example. But cheaper fares in return for change fees is not a bug but a (broadly positive) feature. Certainty of load and income is hugely beneficial for airlines so they offer lower fares for it.

GrayAnderson

I think the complaint is that this isn't a case of "10% off in exchange for a lack of flexibility" but that you're often faced with either a cheap, mostly non-flexible fare ("can't change without a $200 fee plus fare difference") or an exorbitant, flexible fare with nothing advertised in between (and sometimes the flexible fare doesn't even show up as an option). Likewise, there's no way to "price out" the "bundle" you want (i.e. "one full carry-on, one checked bag, and seat selection for two people with no status") during your search.

The UA situation is unusually abusive, even by airline standards, and I'm not sure it would survive litigation for tickets bought prior to then; honestly, IANAL TINLA but that degree of a change to the contract probably constitutes a breach of the underlying contract.

Edit: Honestly, a simple requirement to bar subsequent "unfavorable" changes to a CoC wouldn't be a bad start.