Because your definition of "protections" involves taking a pandemic and forcing companies to rewrite their business model on things that have nothing to do with. In reality, you're asking to use a difficult time for your own selfish wants. Would we want nicer perks? Who wouldn't? However, most of us know better than to cheer for government regulation. No one wins in the end.

"Without asking for anything in return." The government has already mandated that this cannot be used for buybacks, and has mandated refunds for cancelled flights, amongst other things. What do you really need protected from?

Now in a free market, it is just fine to ask for these things. In fact, nearly everything you asked for, is available already. You just don't want to pay for it. You want everything for free and/or want everyone else to subsidize it. In most economic downturns, like we are already in, these types of business generally DO get more consumer friendly as they are fighting for more business.

Judging by the cleanliness of AA's planes, why would Denny's hire this cleaner?

God forbid consumers ever demand industry changes, but whenever corporations seek favorable changes, not a peep out of anyone, right? In a truly free market, we would let these airlines fail under the stress of market forces and wait for other airlines to take their place. You're right though, it isn't their fault that the virus has cut their revenue streams by such wide margins, but it's not my fault or anyone's fault either, so why should my tax dollars go towards funding the operations of a corporation that has consistently tries to cut costs anywhere it can while also stuffing seats into a plane to marginally safe limits, all while reducing lavatory space to a minimum, adversely affecting disabled flyers. If I'm handing over my tax dollars to bailout an airline, of course I'm going to want the airline to make changes to the way it is managed and its services/operation; I now have an interest in the airline(s) through my tax dollars despite not being issued stock, and if that's selfishness then so be it, but I never got a chance to decide whether my tax dollars went to funding their operations.

After all, burning cash in order to increase the value of stock for shareholders was a great decision at the time, but obviously a poor one in the long-run, right? I mean, would we all be in favor of bailing out someone that would've burnt extra cash left over after payments on trinkets, only to be asking for a bailout from an emergency medical procedure? I would, but many here wouldn't, countering with the "why should my tax dollars go towards paying for their medical bill; instead of burning their extra money on trinkets, they should've had a rainy day fund", as cbn42's example goes. Let's not forget that a free market doesn't believe in government subsidies and bailouts; if you run your business poorly, made poor decisions, or are overcome by external forces and fail, tough luck; that's how the game goes.

The reality is that airlines made bad choices, and I feel no remorse for the corporate side of any company, since after all its a "free market". I feel bad for the employees and workers of airlines, and would want these bailouts geared towards assisting them if/when needed. You can also essentially call me an unhappy freeloader all you want, but simply wanting the industry to be more regulated for the safety and yes, some added comforts, isn't an airline-killing demand. Minimum seat pitch and width (safety and comfort), minimum size requirements for lavatories that can properly and comfortably serve disabled flyers (safety and comfort), minimum hygiene standards (safety); these will kill airlines? Refusing to adopt basic standards due to profits simply isn't a good excuse. And yes, I of course don't cheer for government regulation of any kind to interfere with the lead in my paint or the chemicals in my local water supply, or even ensuring that I receive my hard-earned cash when an airline cancels my trip; it wouldn't end well for anyone.

Absolutely agree.

The airline industry is one of the most highly regulated in the world, and thank god for that - it shouldn't be up to each airline to decide how often a plane gets a C check or how many hours your pilot can fly between breaks. Corporations prefer this too - when everyone is playing by the same rules you don't have to consider taking shortcuts to increase profits. You obviously can't regulate everything, but the government has an important role to play in guaranteeing the safety of the traveling public as well as consumer protections.

It is true that the current situation is not the airlines' fault. There are a lot of businesses that are going to suffer from this due to no fault of their own. A lot of those business owners will lose a lot of money or go out of business all together. Airlines are special, since they underpin so much of our economy - they can't be allowed to fail, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be pain for the shareholders and executives, just like much of America is suffering. Watershed moments like this pandemic are the perfect time to address long-standing complaints since the airlines are building themselves back up from square one anyway and as mentioned above, government dollars mean government influence. There's no overarching market philosophy that I can think of that can be both anti-regulation and pro-government support.

c�mon, that�s the �how� of the airline�s operation, and for all practical purposes that�s irrelevant to (or, more accurately, independent of) this conversation about the �when� and �where� and �how much� that actually affect the customer and the customer experience

Who exactly is the "we" that is going to demand changes? Apparently this was tried before. The airlines just laughed in the face of "airline rights" and made flying even more miserable jamming in more seats and the government UNDER BOTH administrations looked the other way. The only way I see changes coming is for airlines to experience a lengthy period of 25%-30% filled planes, a possibility. Under that model you do realize that the low fare will be toast. Gone the days of flying PHL/MCO for $59. I for one (and most of my flying is personal) welcome this. But then the same posters here screaming about "flyer rights" will be screaming about higher fares. Ignorant to the fact that there's no free lunch.

There is no need to ask airlines to eat any costs, but simply to include the cost of our rights in the competitive ticket price. An example: one ripoff we have to chuck out right now is making a pax buy a whole new ticket on the day of flight because of a misspelled name, when the error could be fixed at checkin with a few keystrokes and perhaps $25 for their trouble. Do airlines really make net money on screwing people over like this? For every extra walkup ticket they manage to sell this way, there are doubtless several people who will later hear that passenger's tale and swear to never include that airline in the own plans again. I'm guessing that the impact on ticket prices of being fair would be too small to measure.

I don't completely disagree with everything you say. I just don't believe that an unavoidable pandemic is grounds to force each airline to provide frequent flyer programs and seating that is more convenient to you. It is a poor precedent to set amongst other things. It is not a matter of safety, no matter how much you try to swing it to appeal to your favor.

Again, everyone has the right to vote with their wallet, but the overwhelming masses choose the lowest price. You can absolutely choose bigger, more comfortable seats, right now, on most airlines. You just don't want to pay for it. Instead, you believe the government should force airlines to give it to you.

I'm all for the market determining what they believe the product should be. Not the government.