Is now the time to demand consumer-friendly changes?
 

Airlines have been eroding any consumer friendly attributes about traveling: reduced leg-room, basic economy, baggage fees, cramped/unusable restrooms (for disabled), increased change fees, lowering frequent flyer benefits, changing from mileage-based to revenue based frequent flyer programs, etc.

Is now the time to demand a Passenger Bill of Rights? And an overhaul to the frequent flyer programs to go back to the mileage-based model? I believe this would go a long way towards expanding a loyal post-COVID consumer base, which would increase cash flow. Wealthy folks and those traveling on corporate contracts are going to keep flying regardless, but it's giving irregular flyers reasons to fly and become loyal flyers at that.

Any thoughts?

They tried a passenger bill of rights in Canada and it got suspended during the pandemic. Furthermore, AC changed its tariffs when this "BoR" came into effect to tie involuntary refunds (for irops, cancelations) to the BoR rather than making it an entitlement of the tariff as it had been previously, so... Be careful what you wish for

It would be better to avoid doing anything that will increase airlines' costs. Similarly, airlines need flexibility now, not increased regulation (which drives up costs and decreases flexibility).

As a corporate flyer doing four or five expensive flights a week the revenue based ff award system worked great. Are you suggesting the airlines stop encouraging those flyers from going out of the way to pick a specific airline and go back to giving buckets of points to elite fliers on $500 rt ATL-KUL trips?

Moving the thread to TravelBuzz as it is not directly related to Coronavirus/COVID-19.


NewbieRunner
Co-moderator, Coronavirus and travel forum

In what world is a revenue-based FFP consumer "unfriendly"? It goes without saying that there are winners and losers in any FFP and there are a lot of people who benefit substantially from revenue-based systems, e.g. people who fly TPAC in paid F/J and want redemptions for their family vacations.

Same thing for bag fees. Why on earth should I subsidize people who check bags when I don't?

As to the other stuff, the chances that anything which comes with an increased price tag gets done in the next 2-3 years is hovers at or around zero.

In short: No.

The time to be "making demands"?? ...? I'm sure airlines all over are bleeding money because of this whole ordeal and we'll all be thrilled (airline and customer) to weather the storm and get back to traveling again. Airlines will be happy to survive this at all. Earlier today Lufthansa had to finally axe Germanwings because of it.

As far as increasing cash flow - there are entire business units within each airline that all day, every day, try to maximize their revenue and cash flow, reduce expenditure, etc. That's why there are things like Basic Economy, why flight loads have been maximized, etc.

If you want more legroom or fewer restrictions from BE, etc. - you have the ability to do so with your wallet. Simple. The choice is yours.

Now is the time to be realistic and a pragmatist.

So LCCs have the right model? Why should I subsidize your carry-on when I’m flying with nothing? Why should I subsidize your water when I brought my own? Why should I subsidize space for a bathroom when I can hold it for 6 hours? Etc.

Well one of those is a fundamental ADA need, similarly to bulkheads being blocked out. Whether or not you can hold it is great and all. The rest I can agree with, and demanding regulation brings us full circle on airlines and increases prices. In this day of on demand everything, we can essentially get/bring anything we need on a plane, including extra legroom, which you can pay for on demand, Otherwise, expect the back of the plane to cost more than buying up does if you regulate it.

You can demand anything at any time. But the reality is no airline will care at all, especially now. In fact, they may simply file for Chapter 7 instead. The only way that can be changed is the airlines are regulated again, which is unlikely.

I see that you are UA 1K. Case-in-point - if UA is serious about its passengers, then UA does not have to wait until DL has acted and extends our status.

All the things you want have been made optional because most customers want the cheapest deal they can get. You can pay extra and get more if that's your choice currently, so don't see what any "Passenger Bill of Rights" would do, except remove the rights of those who put price first.

Which I think is fundamentally what people forget when they ask for all this stuff. You pay, in one way or another, for what you ask for. Do people think if you're given a free checked bag, additional legroom, wider seats, a more enjoyable flying experience overall, free changes, IRROPs "duty-to-care" protections in weather events, that airlines are going to keep charging $29 for a OW fare? No, they're going to increase that fare to account for all those "extras" they have to provide. I get that we look at the EU261 regulations and think wow those are great (especially when you benefit from it), and I think there are some good things in it to keep airlines striving to be better on their part, but I also think it goes too far to hold airlines responsible for things out of their control (weather). I'm sure the cost of the airline providing those "beneftis" is baked into the ticket price somewhere.

I think now IS the right time to start pushing consumer rights, but not nearly as extensive as what you're laying out. The government has no role in regulating frequent flyer programs - airlines could just as easily not offer them and continue to serve their function of providing critical transportation. So, what should the government look at?

- Minimum seat pitch and width requirements. No, we won't all end up with business-class-like legroom, but it's clear airlines will continue to squeeze people together beyond what is comfortable and arguably safe in a race to the bottom of profitability.

- Required refunds on all ancillary fees when service isn't delivered. Bag delayed? You don't have to pay!

- Advertised and aggregated airfares must include the cost of a seat and a carry-on bag in the bottom line total.

- Timely refunds. Take the carriers to the woodshed for holding on to people's money for so long during all these cancellations. Refunds must be paid within 72 hours of request or accumulate $100 /day /ticket in fines.

- Tickets must be able to be cancelled through every channel they can be booked through. I shouldn't have to call and wait on hold for 3 hours to get my money back if you're willing to take my money online in 10 minutes.

- Hygiene - Planes must be cleaned/disinfected once every x hours of flight time. Bathrooms must have operable sinks and soap.

I'm sure there's a lot more.

Not true. At least the U.S. Supreme Court has said so (Northwest, Inc. v. Ginsberg, 134 S. Ct. 1422. 1433 (2014))

DOT does have the authority to regulate FFPs if it so desires to do so, as it is related to airline service. But the thing is DOT did not make new rules for FFPs. Instead, DOT relies on its own existing regulations to regulate FFPs. For example, if a FFP is misleading, DOT can go against the program by the usual 49 USC §41712.

Airlines are not responsible for things out of their control, like weather, under EC261. The only thing they have to do in that scenario, is provide food&water if the delay is more than 2 hours, which I think is the correct thing to do (as airport food is ridiculously expensive).
EC261 just holds airlines responsible if they mess up (delaying/cancelling flights to either improve load capacity or due to poor maintenance, for example). Can you imagine how fast AA would've budged if EC261 was in play when they were fighting their mechanics (in court)? That stuff would've been solved within days, causing far less customers to experience delays, instead of the situation and results that we've seen.

I know I am going to enjoy this thread.. but sorry , I have some ideas myself.. but my wife is calling me..
she needs her diet mountain dew.. back soon..

Congratulations consumer champion! Your hypothetical country now has zero operating airlines and every single future traveller just lost the value of their ticket.

Have you taken a look at the financials of most of the world's airlines over a long run? Margins are tight and many have had to be bailed out or are kept alive by subsidies. I'm not a fan of nationalisation, but perhaps the thing to do is to view air travel as public transit and accept that the taxpayer has a role in maintaining an airline. These measures you are proposing are simply not feasible for a public listed commercial business.

Not a chance, considering they just overhauled the entire thing to a revenue-based system. It is comical that people still think that it is possible.

By what mechanism do you propose to "demand" better accommodation by the airlines? Threaten to stop flying? We've already done that.

Market forces are a better lever than any puffed-up customer revolt. (Boycotts, etc. by aggrieved airline clientele are notorious for looking small and stupid, as most of the customer base just wants to fly at the lowest price, whether the limes on the bar cart are cut the way FlyerTalk likes or not.)

In a prosperous era the airlines make bank and exploit passengers. In a recession or depression the airlines have to campaign for revenue and be nicer to passengers. Simple as that. Remember United Airlines happily throwing its customers into the labor-management crossfire during the famous 2000 SFH (Summer From Hell), then sheepishly pivoting to trying to be nice whilst flirting with BK and possibly extinction after 9/11? We'll see the same swing of the pendulum here.

Airlines are (A) notoriously efficient destroyers of capital and (B) mostly poorly managed. I would be interested to see a debate over the wisdom of applying public capital as a stabilizing force in return for certain concessions to taxpayers, but the tactical hurdles would be astronomical and I don't think anyone wants Air Amtrak or copies of the USSR-era Aeroflot. At present I am bemused to see hysterical rhetoric from Airlines for America, the US trade lobby, arguing that the government has absolutely no claim to even a temporary stake in the US network carriers, but those carriers have a fundamental right to $50+ billion in government funds. It is of course massive, hilarious hypocrisy, but airline managers have been known for it for a long long time.

No I don't see it happening now. What I "possibly" see is tragically one day is an accident with a completely packed 28-29 seat pitch a/c and not everyone getting out of the a/c alive. Then the blame put on too cramped seating conditions. Maybe then there would be changes.

:rolleyes: Every time new regulations are proposed there's always someone there to tell us why it's the doom of industry. They claimed it when the government instituted regulations requiring airfares to be advertised including taxes and fees. They claimed it when the government mandated free cancellations within 24 hours. They claimed it when the government would no longer let airlines hold passengers hostage for 6+ hours during bad weather. It's just not true.

It's an entirely reasonable model. It all depends on the breakpoints for the customer demographic. If 95% of passengers want a drink, might as well include it in the ticket price. If only 5% want one, why should the others subsidize.

Air carriers can mine their own data and figure out what ought to be included in a base ticket price and what ought to be sold a la carte.

We know the U.S. airline industry spent $45 billion buying back their own stock to boost share prices. We know the tax payers are giving $50 billion to the airlines to keep them solvent. The problem isn't profitability, it's priorities.

yes
 

An article appeared today about this (cbc.ca) making it clear that Transport Canada worked in cahoots with the airlines to change the rules. IMO that will put max. pressure on the Government of Canada to reverse course.

So my answer to the question is yes. If not now, when?

It's a difficult point to put across in this hypercharged climate, but if the airlines had kept $45 billion in cash sitting around in expectation of a long-shot economic apocalypse unlikely to ever occur, they would be fending off criticism of a different kind.

How many times have the US3 (and their predecessors) been bailed out/in Ch11?

Neither the US nor Canada, nor any developed economy are going to let their key air carrier infrastructure go to pot. Period.

Worrying about stock buybacks, FFP's, bag fees and other stuff (as occurs in other threads) simply isn't worth the bandwidth.

Chapter 11 is not so much a bailout as a heat shield. The concern is allowed to continue trading and reorganize and renegotiate terms with banks, vendors, etc. while protected from creditors, e.g. ignoring its bills. AA, DL, US, NW, F9, CO, and UA have all filed Chapter 11 at one time or another, but kept operating as usual. United remained in bankruptcy protection from December 2002 to February 2006, more than three years, a feat regarded by most as a spectacular, flagrant abuse of the law. Chapter 11 is supposed to confer a little breathing room, not become a way of life.

Other US carriers that went bankrupt and ceased operations, e.g. dropped dead, include Braniff, Eastern ATA, the first Frontier, Aloha, the second National, Midway, Skybus, and many more... not including distressed carriers like Pan Am and TWA that were on the verge of shutting down when acquired.

I didn't say they should have sat around on a pile of cash. I said maybe they should have taken one row of seats out of their planes. Or included a carry-on bag with every ticket. Or made their websites more functional. Or done literally anything else with that $45 billion that would make me more sympathetic to their cause. They didn't have to please consumers for the last ten years because they had plenty of demand and, well, that's business. But now the shoe is on the other foot. Why shouldn't we have demands?

I'm probably too pessimistic but I wouldn't be surprised to see airlines permanently adopt some of the "temporary" emergency measures or exceptions they've put in place.

Indeed it is, it's just another operational cost that must be paid for. There's only one airline I know of that tried to seperate it out as an individual line item and that was Ryanair. It was all of 2 Euro ($2.17 USD) per flight.

Well..that depends on what you mean by "out of their control". If you read through the EC261 focused threads on FT you will see MANY examples of airlines being expected to pay in circumstances I at least would have said were NOT within their control.... ie..Volcanic eruptions.... Delays caused by damage to aircraft by airport equipment and so on. YMMV of course, but IMO EC261 is already being pushed too far.

Yet people kept packing the planes, even the most horrible carrier Ryanair. I'd hitch hike across Europe before I flew them. As long as people are going to buy tickets on the ULCCs the shoddy treatment will continue. Now given what is happening with the global economy the ULCCs might find few takers for their $59 fares because so many people will be flat broke.

Who is "we"?

The owners of UA, e.g. its shareholders, received a benefit. That includes large institutional funds such as teacher & fire fighter pension plans. Remove a row of seats rather than properly fund an EMT's pension? It's all a balance.

Well let's just rip out the seats and stack the passengers like cordwood so we can all maximize our 401ks.

Perhaps you missed the use of the word "balance"?

This is the stretch of the century lmao.

I think it was very interesting to see how many individuals are actually against consumer protections and regulations, when we (the US taxpayers) are handing out billions in our tax dollars in a blank check without asking for anything in return. Protect the company, not the consumer! It's very interesting to say the least, and while I understand these positions, I think GuyIncognito said it best.

They would have received some criticism from shareholders, but that's about it.

Maybe we need a "stress test" for airlines like we developed for banks after the recession. They should be required to have enough cash on hand to weather a downturn of a certain intensity. If we tell individuals to have a 6 month emergency fund in case they lose their job, why shouldn't airlines have a similar requirement? Airlines without sufficient cash on hand should fail the stress test and have limitations placed on their ability to pay dividends or buy back stock.

Alternatively, we could allow airlines to "opt out" of the stress test on the condition that they not participate in any bailout. If a disaster happened, this would likely wipe out the shareholders.

I know people say this situation was unforeseeable, but we are 20 years into the new millennium and this is the second time US airlines have required a bailout. It's not as uncommon as people think. Businesses need to plan for such things.