transportbiz

United will only change it's customer hostile policies if one of three things happen:
Legislative Regulation
Serious Litigation
Stock Price Decline

Otherwise, forget it. It's just not a business model based on the customer or employee.

blueman2

fastair, you are using logic. Logic goes out the window in cases like this. Airlines (like cable companies) are seen as uncaring, big, evil companies that take unfair advantage of consumers/voters who have too little choice. And while I say this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, this is the political reality of this business. We have already seen the passenger 'Bill of Rights' pass in the US. And much stronger controls for delays in Europe. If United does not change it ways, and quickly, increased regulation is coming.

I am not advocating increased regulation, but I am saying that United is acting in a way that is greatly increasing the likelihood of it coming.

pdx1M

I once had a mentor who liked to point out the "liberty is the luxury of the self disciplined". Regulating stuff like this is certainly not my preferred approach but when companies fail to act responsibly on a continuing basis they are asking for regulations precisely because they are unwilling to discipline themselves. Acting in at least a customer neutral versus customer hostile manner is the best way to avoid undue regulation. UA seems to not understand this across many issues and continuing down this path will lead to undesired regulation. This is a scenario that has played out in a number of other industries.

transportprof

With all due respect, and I'm not being sarcastic, the justification for more regulation is undercut by DL's stellar operational performance. Why impose new regs on the entire industry if one carrier, albeit major, is a negative outlier?

Of the three paths to change posted by transportbiz in post #421, it would seem that serious litigation is the remedy to deal with an industry laggard/free rider. Cue the legal brigade in FT to step up to this challenge.

JBord

Isn't this exactly the reason? Regulation would create consistent expectations for passengers. If DL already meets the minimum standards, then they won't have to change anything.

Although you could make an argument that regulation would punish DL because it takes away a major differentiator they have from UA.

I'm not arguing for or against regulation here, just noting that regs would just set and enforce a standard, not punish those who are already doing the right thing.

transportprof

I take your point, but the devil is always in the details. I'm pretty sure that new regulations would have compliance costs for all carriers - even the best in class operators like DL. Why should they be penalized for UA's decisions to transfer risk and costs to its customers?

Now if you can write, and enforce, regulations that would only impact the "bad apples" in the bunch, then you should move to work at DOT and get right on it!

pdx1M

I'm not arguing for regulations. I'm observing that behavior like UA's ultimately creates political pressures that the government "do something" which in turn leads to regulations that probably few want. If companies don't discipline themselves this is the result. Your argument about DL is correct - if anything DL should be pressuring UA to "smarten up" lest UA behaviors lead to DL facing industry wide regulation. Unfortunately it is the worst performers who set the regulatory standard. Just ask bankers who weren't screwing around before the big blowup.

blueman2

And not all airlines were holding passengers for 5+ hours on taxiways without allowing them to deplane. Only a few were. But the entire industry is now being hit with the Pax Bill of Rights.

I am not saying more regulation is good, or that it makes sense, or that it will help. I am just saying more regulation is coming if UA continues to act this way.

+1 ^^^

NewportGuy

Agree 1000%. There needs to be a unified customer action against United, like a huge boycott, before they will do anything. And to punish other carriers who at least make the effort to serve passengers would be completely wrong.

Mike Jacoubowsky

Regulation for safety is one thing, regulation to establish a minimum product standard is something entirely different. In general, minimum product standards are created by industry, not government, as a way to reduce competition (by raising barriers to entry).

If the airline industry was going to embrace minimal standards, they likely would have looked at ways to make it tough for companies like Spirit, but the reality is that the carriers currently in business want to reserve all possible future options. It would be easy, today, to profitably operate a legacy carrier with a minimum 30" seat pitch standard, and cause a world of hurt for Spirit. But what happens if oil goes back to $110/barrel?

If the government was interested in regulating the "flying experience" then we'd see specifications for number of passengers/lav and a requirement that they actually be functional. We'd also see requirements for a functioning water system. Those are brain-dead obvious, and yet not required.

So don't look to regulations to fix anything Goose Bay-related. Not as long as the human equivalent of the ASPCA is willing to sign off on the "No people were harmed during the operation of this flight" clause. And that's really the big thing here. It's not a safety issue. Some day, a diverted flight like UA958 could either be the cause of, or exacerbate an existing passenger health issue. But it didn't play out that way, and in fact, Goose Bay diversions have taken place specifically to take care of passenger health issues in the past.

Regulations as a result of this? Nothing to see here, move along. This is something that should be self-corrected by market issues. Too many mechanicals and fuel diversions and people will fly other airlines.

blueman2

I agree in terms of what SHOULD BE, but Passenger Bill of Rights had nothing to do with safety. Only passenger comfort and minimal treatment. The precedent has already been established here.

Was Goose Bay enough to trigger more? I don't think so. But eventually UA's straws (customer disregard) will break the camel's (or regulator's) back.

transportprof

OR someone's going to succumb to the physical and mental stress of one of these major IRROPS meltdowns. Seniors, pax who have already been flying for 12+ hours (e.g., Africa, Middle East connecting through Europe), disabled, etc. After a passenger death from heart attack, stroke, or seizure, UA would be heading down the major lawsuit route, not to mention the additional bad publicity.

I hope it doesn't take such a tragedy to change UA's customer disregard during major IRROPS, but if there are one or two of these incidents every week through the summer, then sooner or later, someone is going to pay the ultimate price.

Mike Jacoubowsky

Wasn't the Passenger Bill of Rights a result of obscene tarmac imprisonment? People left on planes, disconnected from the terminal, sometimes without food & water, for 5+ hours in a few instances? I'd say that's very different on two counts-

• Imprisonment (confinement to the plane) and
• Safety (lack of food & water and sometimes non-functioning toilets, not to mention access to emergency medical needs)

Goose Bay is a minor inconvenience that happens with reasonable frequency for fuel stops, and a major inconvenience that happens very rarely for overnight mechanicals.

clubord

Very well said...

TT-Jones

Just to add some perspective, this is how LH handled a similar matter, just three days ago:

http://avherald.com/h?article=48837b91&opt=0

(Yes, I know that LH also screwed up more than once in the past, but generally speaking, they seem to have their act together.)