You have your heros and you have your zeroes when it comes to leaders in the travel industry. The year just passed had an abundance of both. Here is a shortlist of people who made waves, for good or otherwise, in 2010, starting with the good guys:
HEROES
Ray LaHood, Secretary of Transportation, U.S.: Lahood, to his credit, has tried to make sense of the crazy-quilt of transportation policy. In 2010, he gave passenger rights some long-awaited teeth by approving hefty fines for U.S. domestic carriers that park planefuls of passengers on the tarmac for three hours or more on domestic flights. Coincidence or no, long waits on the tarmac fell markedly when the new rules came into effect, perhaps because airlines cancelled more flights. Long waits during the recent East Coast snow and ice storms for arriving passenger jets flown by international carriers may mean the rules could tighten for those carriers, too.
Kate Hanni, head of Flyersrights.org. Some critics say Hanni, a former realtor and singer in a rock band, has not met a camera or microphone she doesn't like. True or not, Hanni is a articulate spokesperson for the rights of air travelers, especially in the U.S., and her effective advocacy spurred airlines to be more aware of customer service and resulted in the tarmac delay fines cited above.
Kevin Mitchell, head of the Business Travel Coalition. Mitchell, whose group has represented corporate travel planners since the mid-1990s, was again a persistent and well-spoken advocate for transparency in travel, especially when it comes to air fares and disclosure of extra airline ticket fees.
Giovanni Bisignani, outgoing director general of the Geneva-based International Air Transport Association. For eight years the head of IATA, the trade group for most of the world's major airlines, the former head of Alitalia turned what had been a moribund talking-shop into a leading global advocate of fair-minded ownership rules, rational routes and pro-active steps to combat aviation's contribution to climate change.
Richard Branson. The British billionaire and chief of London's Virgin Group. For embracing fun in air travel and reviving a bit of the cheeky entrepreneurship that characterized the airline industry in earlier times.
Hero of the Year: Southwest Airlines CEO Gary Kelly, for holding out against charging stiff fees for changing flights and continuing the carrier's consumer-friendly "bags fly free'' policy in the face of escalating luggage-checking fees by nearly everyone else.
ZEROES:
Ben Baldanza, CEO of Spirit Airlines, a U.S. low-cost airline that became the first airline in the land to start charging customers for carry-on bags.
Michael O'Leary, the CEO of Ireland's ryanair. The Ebenezer Scrooge of airline executives, he called for charging passengers for using the loo. It hasn't happened yet, but even if it's a publicity stunt, it's a suggestion too far.
Zero of the Year: No contest: Steven Slater, Steven Slater, Steven Slater. The cursing, beer-snatching JetBlue flight attendant who, claiming a passenger had hit and scratched him, deployed the emergency escape shute and left his post and his job when his flight landed at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport. An exhaustive investigation turned up no such passenger and not one person on the flight backed Slater's story. He was arrested and agreed to accept court-imposed psychological counseling.
Showing posts with label Kevin Mitchell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kevin Mitchell. Show all posts
Monday, January 3, 2011
Monday, September 6, 2010
Transparency and Airline Fees
Here's the nub of the situation:
Airlines - especially money-losers in the United States - have a justifiable business need to make money after a decade of losses. In order to do this they are adding fees for things like checked bags and extra legroom in the cabin. In line with this, airline customers - i.e., we travelers - need to know what all the fees are and how much they cost, quickly and transparently.
Tomorrow, Tuesday, Sept. 7, the Business Travel Coalition - an estimable nonprofit trade group for corporate travel planners - will launch an online consumer campaign in support of a proposed U.S. Department of Transportation rule (http://www.dot.gov/) that would require clearer and quicker disclosure of what the BTC calls "hidden airline fees." The BTC (http://businesstravelcoalition.com/) has additionally declared Sept. 23 to be Mad As Hell Day in the U.S. as a means of dramatizing its support.
In the USA, where free-floating, politicized anger is the coin of the realm in a badly polarized society, Mad As Hell Day may be an unfortunate name. But there is little doubt the campaign's basic point is a good one: Consumers should know, from airline Web sites and other sources, just how much money proliferating airline fees contribute to the ultimate, real cost of their airline ticket. The BTC says checked baggage fees alone "can add 30 percent, 40 percent or more to the cost of a ticket.''
The proposed rules change doesn't prohibit airlines from making business decisions to add fees - it pushes them to clearly disclose the fees.
Airline industry groups such as the Air Transport Association (www.airlines.org/) point out that this information is available on airline Web sites. But it is often buried deep in the fine print where travelers have a hard time rooting it out. Why not make it easy?
The BTC asks consumers who support its campaign to sign a petition on the dedicated Web site http://madashellabouthiddenfees.com/. Moreover, the organization asks supporters to "post a link to our Web site on your Facebook page, Twitter feed or other social network."
The BTC's chairman, Kevin Mitchell, also suggests checking out a new YouTube video "by life-long traveler Betty Stewart, and share your story about being surprised by hidden airline fees in the comments section.''
Mitchell writes: "It is imperative that we as consumers have the ability to comparison-shop and know the full cost of a trip before committing to a purchase.''
Airlines - especially money-losers in the United States - have a justifiable business need to make money after a decade of losses. In order to do this they are adding fees for things like checked bags and extra legroom in the cabin. In line with this, airline customers - i.e., we travelers - need to know what all the fees are and how much they cost, quickly and transparently.
Tomorrow, Tuesday, Sept. 7, the Business Travel Coalition - an estimable nonprofit trade group for corporate travel planners - will launch an online consumer campaign in support of a proposed U.S. Department of Transportation rule (http://www.dot.gov/) that would require clearer and quicker disclosure of what the BTC calls "hidden airline fees." The BTC (http://businesstravelcoalition.com/) has additionally declared Sept. 23 to be Mad As Hell Day in the U.S. as a means of dramatizing its support.
In the USA, where free-floating, politicized anger is the coin of the realm in a badly polarized society, Mad As Hell Day may be an unfortunate name. But there is little doubt the campaign's basic point is a good one: Consumers should know, from airline Web sites and other sources, just how much money proliferating airline fees contribute to the ultimate, real cost of their airline ticket. The BTC says checked baggage fees alone "can add 30 percent, 40 percent or more to the cost of a ticket.''
The proposed rules change doesn't prohibit airlines from making business decisions to add fees - it pushes them to clearly disclose the fees.
Airline industry groups such as the Air Transport Association (www.airlines.org/) point out that this information is available on airline Web sites. But it is often buried deep in the fine print where travelers have a hard time rooting it out. Why not make it easy?
The BTC asks consumers who support its campaign to sign a petition on the dedicated Web site http://madashellabouthiddenfees.com/. Moreover, the organization asks supporters to "post a link to our Web site on your Facebook page, Twitter feed or other social network."
The BTC's chairman, Kevin Mitchell, also suggests checking out a new YouTube video "by life-long traveler Betty Stewart, and share your story about being surprised by hidden airline fees in the comments section.''
Mitchell writes: "It is imperative that we as consumers have the ability to comparison-shop and know the full cost of a trip before committing to a purchase.''
Monday, December 21, 2009
First steps Toward Dealing with Flight Delays
After a decade of warnings from Congress and unkept promises by airlines to reform, the U.S. Department of Transportation said today it will impose rules intended to ease the discomfort of air travelers in the United States whose planes are stranded on the tarmac.
Beginning in 120 days - late April 2010 - airlines operating domestic U.S. flights will have to let passengers whose planes have sat on the tarmac for at least three hours get off the planes and go back to the airport terminal if they want to, or require the pilot to take the aircraft back to the gate. On flights held on the runway or taxiway for at least two hours, airlines will be required to provide food and water, operable toilets and medical attention if necessary. Carriers in violation of the new rule, announced Dec. 21 by U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, face fines of up to $27,500 per passenger.
According to DOT statistics, aan average of 1,500 domestic U.S. flights per year, carrying about 114,000 passengers, have sat on the tarmac for at least three hours, awaiting take-off.
This is a big first step toward a creating a "passengers' bill of rights'' of the type that has been mooted over and over since the late 1990s. In recent years, such notions have drawn bipartisan support in the U.S. Congress, most notably from Senator Barbara Boxer (Democrat-California) and Senator Olympia Snowe (Republican-Maine).
There are exceptions written into the just-announced rules. If air-traffic controllers think that deplaning passengers or driving the plane back to the gate would interfere with with the safety and security of airport operations, they can waive the rules and keep the plane waiting.
U.S. commercial carriers have long opposed such regulation and punishment, arguing that flight delays and cancellations are caused by congested airspace, an antiquated U.S. air-traffic control system, bad weather and other things beyond their control.
In line with this, James C. May, the tough-talking head of the U.S.'s major airline trade association, the Air Transport Association, issued this terse statement:
"We will comply with the new rule, even though we believe it will lead to unintended consequences - more cancelled flights and greater passenger inconvenience. In particular, the requirement of having planes return to the gates within a three-hour window or face significant fines is inconsistent with our goal of completing as many flights as possible. Lengthy delays benefit no one.''
The airlines are not wholly wrong. Many things contribute to flight delays and cancellations. Moreover, the new rules still leave a number of wrinkles that need to be ironed out.
Supporters of stricter rules recognize this, but they argue that years of debate and delay in rectifying delays is enough.
Kevin Mitchell, head of the Business Travel Coalition, backs the rules change while allowing it will take time to make it work: "All passengers will benefit from the requirement that airlines must provide food, water, operable lavatories and medical attention as needed.''
Even so, Mitchell notes that "it simply will not work at the three New York City area airports, and other over-scheduled major hubs, unless incumbent airlines rationalize and de-peak their schedules and operations. Each airline will have to look at their entire system and restructure or they will violate the new rule virtually every day.''
Not only the airlines, but also DOT, is getting advice from U.S. aviation-watchers, such as the Wall Street Journal's Scott McCartney:
"In addition to forcing airlines to live within a three-hour cap, the DOT needs to put air-traffic controll procedures (in place) to help airlines deplane passengers without major distruption or penalty. Controllers need to be able to move planes around to get stranded planes out of a conga line of jets if necessary.'' Moreover, he wrote, "Work rules for pilots need to be clear so that a crew that returns to a gate doesn't simply time-out because it returned to a gate. And airlines need to come up with busing plans, with the help of airports and the Federal Aviation Administration, so that passengers who want off a jet can get off without further delaying the people on the plane who still want to go.''
The upshot: It's going to take a while to solve this problem, and it may get worse (shudder!) before it gets better. Still, all this attention - not to mention the threat of fines that could run into the millions - will concentrate the minds of airline and airport executives.
Beginning in 120 days - late April 2010 - airlines operating domestic U.S. flights will have to let passengers whose planes have sat on the tarmac for at least three hours get off the planes and go back to the airport terminal if they want to, or require the pilot to take the aircraft back to the gate. On flights held on the runway or taxiway for at least two hours, airlines will be required to provide food and water, operable toilets and medical attention if necessary. Carriers in violation of the new rule, announced Dec. 21 by U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, face fines of up to $27,500 per passenger.
According to DOT statistics, aan average of 1,500 domestic U.S. flights per year, carrying about 114,000 passengers, have sat on the tarmac for at least three hours, awaiting take-off.
This is a big first step toward a creating a "passengers' bill of rights'' of the type that has been mooted over and over since the late 1990s. In recent years, such notions have drawn bipartisan support in the U.S. Congress, most notably from Senator Barbara Boxer (Democrat-California) and Senator Olympia Snowe (Republican-Maine).
There are exceptions written into the just-announced rules. If air-traffic controllers think that deplaning passengers or driving the plane back to the gate would interfere with with the safety and security of airport operations, they can waive the rules and keep the plane waiting.
U.S. commercial carriers have long opposed such regulation and punishment, arguing that flight delays and cancellations are caused by congested airspace, an antiquated U.S. air-traffic control system, bad weather and other things beyond their control.
In line with this, James C. May, the tough-talking head of the U.S.'s major airline trade association, the Air Transport Association, issued this terse statement:
"We will comply with the new rule, even though we believe it will lead to unintended consequences - more cancelled flights and greater passenger inconvenience. In particular, the requirement of having planes return to the gates within a three-hour window or face significant fines is inconsistent with our goal of completing as many flights as possible. Lengthy delays benefit no one.''
The airlines are not wholly wrong. Many things contribute to flight delays and cancellations. Moreover, the new rules still leave a number of wrinkles that need to be ironed out.
Supporters of stricter rules recognize this, but they argue that years of debate and delay in rectifying delays is enough.
Kevin Mitchell, head of the Business Travel Coalition, backs the rules change while allowing it will take time to make it work: "All passengers will benefit from the requirement that airlines must provide food, water, operable lavatories and medical attention as needed.''
Even so, Mitchell notes that "it simply will not work at the three New York City area airports, and other over-scheduled major hubs, unless incumbent airlines rationalize and de-peak their schedules and operations. Each airline will have to look at their entire system and restructure or they will violate the new rule virtually every day.''
Not only the airlines, but also DOT, is getting advice from U.S. aviation-watchers, such as the Wall Street Journal's Scott McCartney:
"In addition to forcing airlines to live within a three-hour cap, the DOT needs to put air-traffic controll procedures (in place) to help airlines deplane passengers without major distruption or penalty. Controllers need to be able to move planes around to get stranded planes out of a conga line of jets if necessary.'' Moreover, he wrote, "Work rules for pilots need to be clear so that a crew that returns to a gate doesn't simply time-out because it returned to a gate. And airlines need to come up with busing plans, with the help of airports and the Federal Aviation Administration, so that passengers who want off a jet can get off without further delaying the people on the plane who still want to go.''
The upshot: It's going to take a while to solve this problem, and it may get worse (shudder!) before it gets better. Still, all this attention - not to mention the threat of fines that could run into the millions - will concentrate the minds of airline and airport executives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)