I was pretty pleased these past few days, hearing about the U.S. Department of Transportation's plans to strengthen air passengers' rights when it comes to getting bumped from a flight, being compensated for lost luggage, suffering through delays on the tarmac and so on. Then I remembered I am facing eight domestic flights in the next two weeks - only two of which, nonstops on Virgin America - are likely to be pleasant, and my mood darkened.
Now, reading over the list of changes, I'm thinking not hip, hip hurrah for the DOT, but just hip, hip - hold the hurrah. The rules-changes are definitely a step in the right direction, but do they go far enough?
No. Especially in a time when air traffic controllers - zonked on the job from lack of sleep - fall into deep slumber or chill out by watching a movie rather than direct pilots how to land. Even U.S. First Lady Michelle Obama's pilot was given inaccurate information from an air traffic control tower last week. The First Lady! And that was a military ATC, too.
I'm all for boosting compensation when a bag is lost and the airline is culpable. Ditto if a traveler is involuntarily bumped from an overbooked flight. Have you flown in the United States lately? If you do manage to wedge yourself into the plane, you may find - as I did this morning when I tried to book a seat on a flight departing 10 days from now - that every seat is taken. Airlines are also supposed to become more transparent about listing ancillary fees that brought them $2.5 billion USD in revenue last year; that, too, is devoutly desired, as it can be hard to know the true total cost of a flight at the time of booking.
People in civil aviation reflexively - and understandably - say that safety is their highest priority. In line with that, DOT should understand that boosting an ATC's time away from the tower to nine hours from eight - one of the rules-changes scheduled to take effect in late August, after the busy summer flying season - is not enough. These people are exhausted. (So, incidently, are many pilots.) Treating people who control the movements of planes and the lives of millions of travelers like sleep-deprived hospital interns is not a good idea. (Having sleep-deprived hospital interns is not a good idea, either.) Adding a second ATC to the lone worker pulling duty overnight at 28 U.S. airports is a good, and long overdue, move.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told the PBS "NewsHour'' that his department and Federal Aviation Administration administrators will make additional changes in American air travel if necessary. Get ready to make them, Mr. Secretary. It's necessary.
Showing posts with label U.S. Department of Transportation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U.S. Department of Transportation. Show all posts
Monday, April 25, 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, January 11, 2010
Like a Virgin
They play hardball in the travel biz. Ask anyone at Virgin America, a San Francisco-based, low-fare, high-style airline that launched commercial passenger service more than two years ago - and hasn't stopped fending off legal challenges ever since.
I don't know if Virgin America - which licenses its name from minority owner Richard Branson's UK-based Virgin Group - ever truly expected a smooth ride, but if so, I imagine the carrier has lost its innocence by now.
First, the fledgling airline's application to the U.S. Department of Transportation to begin service was held up when several mainline U.S. competitors, led by Continental Airlines, charged it wasn't in compliance with U.S. laws that restrict foreign ownership of any U.S. airline to a minority share. The application was approved, but only after the airline jettisoned its founding CEO, Fred Reid, who the DOT thought was too close to Branson. Branson tapped Reid, a former Delta and Lufthansa executive, to get Virgin America off the ground. Virgin America's first flight finally took off in August 2007.
Then, in early 2009, the Alaska Air Group Inc., which operates Alaska Airlines, similarly charged that Virgin America was not U.S.-owned and controlled. After renewed deliberation, DOT ruled last week that it is, while prompting several changes in the stakes of investors and the appointment of the airline's current CEO, former American Airlines executive David Cush, to the board of directors. This expands the board to nine members from eight, with seven of the directors being U.S. citizens.
As if all that wasn't enough, U.S. aviation legend Chuck Yeager, the former aircraft-test pilot - a main figure in Tom Wolfe's book "The Right Stuff'' and the 1980s movie adaptation of the same title - has sued Virgin America. Yeager claims the airline used his name "maliciously, oppressively and fraudulently,'' in promotional material, according to Andrew S. Ross's The Bottom Line column in the Jan. 8 business section of the San Francisco Chronicle. Virgin America, according to the Chronicle, praised Yeager in passing in an e-mail sent to its frequent fliers to ballyhoo on-board Wi-Fi, which it has pioneered among U.S. airlines.
"Not unlike Buzz Aldrin or Chuck Yeager, you have the opportunity to be part of a monumental moment in air travel,'' the e-mail reads, as quoted in Ross's reporting. Yeager says the airline didn't ask permission to use his name, and is asking for "the revenue and profits'' derived from its use, as well as "exemplary and punitive charges.'' The Chronicle's headline on the column: "Yeager's Suit - the Wrong Stuff.''
Jeesh.
Virgin America might prefer the exposure it will be getting on a new reality TV show, "Fly Girls,'' premiering on the CW network. "Fly Girls'' follows five young, not-average-looking female flight attendants who fly a lot and party a lot. The FAs work for Virgin America. That should be a boost to brand awareness.
As for Branson and foreign ownership, I can only say this: Most countries, convulsed by national security fears and worried about potential job losses, limit foreign ownership and control of their airlines. But, why? Business is global now, and the airline business is the main mode of transport for global commerce, especially travel and tourism. As much as any industry, civil aviation makes business more international than it's ever been. (I'll revisit this subject, and argue that such ownership rules are outdated and mercantilist, in another post.)
The British? Speaking as an American, I daresay the Brits haven't harmed the United States since they burned the White House during the War of 1812. You'd think we'd be over it by now. They're mainly a good lot. Of course, the British did give us Slade, Princess Di and Madonna faking a lady-of-the-manor English accent, so maybe it's OK to fear them after all. Probably not in aviation, though.
Virgin America, which flies to 10 U.S. cities and has ambitions to fly to 50, deserves a break. It's a good airline, a leader in in-flight technology, and a spur to much-needed competition in the U.S. domestic market. Allowing the airline to operate on that level playing field that everyone keeps nattering on about wouldn't be such bad thing.
I don't know if Virgin America - which licenses its name from minority owner Richard Branson's UK-based Virgin Group - ever truly expected a smooth ride, but if so, I imagine the carrier has lost its innocence by now.
First, the fledgling airline's application to the U.S. Department of Transportation to begin service was held up when several mainline U.S. competitors, led by Continental Airlines, charged it wasn't in compliance with U.S. laws that restrict foreign ownership of any U.S. airline to a minority share. The application was approved, but only after the airline jettisoned its founding CEO, Fred Reid, who the DOT thought was too close to Branson. Branson tapped Reid, a former Delta and Lufthansa executive, to get Virgin America off the ground. Virgin America's first flight finally took off in August 2007.
Then, in early 2009, the Alaska Air Group Inc., which operates Alaska Airlines, similarly charged that Virgin America was not U.S.-owned and controlled. After renewed deliberation, DOT ruled last week that it is, while prompting several changes in the stakes of investors and the appointment of the airline's current CEO, former American Airlines executive David Cush, to the board of directors. This expands the board to nine members from eight, with seven of the directors being U.S. citizens.
As if all that wasn't enough, U.S. aviation legend Chuck Yeager, the former aircraft-test pilot - a main figure in Tom Wolfe's book "The Right Stuff'' and the 1980s movie adaptation of the same title - has sued Virgin America. Yeager claims the airline used his name "maliciously, oppressively and fraudulently,'' in promotional material, according to Andrew S. Ross's The Bottom Line column in the Jan. 8 business section of the San Francisco Chronicle. Virgin America, according to the Chronicle, praised Yeager in passing in an e-mail sent to its frequent fliers to ballyhoo on-board Wi-Fi, which it has pioneered among U.S. airlines.
"Not unlike Buzz Aldrin or Chuck Yeager, you have the opportunity to be part of a monumental moment in air travel,'' the e-mail reads, as quoted in Ross's reporting. Yeager says the airline didn't ask permission to use his name, and is asking for "the revenue and profits'' derived from its use, as well as "exemplary and punitive charges.'' The Chronicle's headline on the column: "Yeager's Suit - the Wrong Stuff.''
Jeesh.
Virgin America might prefer the exposure it will be getting on a new reality TV show, "Fly Girls,'' premiering on the CW network. "Fly Girls'' follows five young, not-average-looking female flight attendants who fly a lot and party a lot. The FAs work for Virgin America. That should be a boost to brand awareness.
As for Branson and foreign ownership, I can only say this: Most countries, convulsed by national security fears and worried about potential job losses, limit foreign ownership and control of their airlines. But, why? Business is global now, and the airline business is the main mode of transport for global commerce, especially travel and tourism. As much as any industry, civil aviation makes business more international than it's ever been. (I'll revisit this subject, and argue that such ownership rules are outdated and mercantilist, in another post.)
The British? Speaking as an American, I daresay the Brits haven't harmed the United States since they burned the White House during the War of 1812. You'd think we'd be over it by now. They're mainly a good lot. Of course, the British did give us Slade, Princess Di and Madonna faking a lady-of-the-manor English accent, so maybe it's OK to fear them after all. Probably not in aviation, though.
Virgin America, which flies to 10 U.S. cities and has ambitions to fly to 50, deserves a break. It's a good airline, a leader in in-flight technology, and a spur to much-needed competition in the U.S. domestic market. Allowing the airline to operate on that level playing field that everyone keeps nattering on about wouldn't be such bad thing.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Where's (the) Justice?
Today's opinion by the U.S. Department of Justice opposing giving antitrust immunity to American Airlines, British Airways and three smaller memberts of the oneworld alliance of airlines stands on shaky ground. Similar immunity - which allows airlines to cooperate by coordinating flight schedules, fares and marketing and allowing travelers to move more smoothly from one carrier's routes to another - has already been granted to members of the two other alliances, SkyTeam and Star Alliance.
American and BA have attempted to expand their association twice before this decade, but backed off when U.S. authorities wanted them to give up coveted landing slots at London's busy Heathrow airport in exchange for antitrust immunity. Since then, the airlines argue, a U.S.-E.U. open-skies pact, which has opened up trans-Atlantic travel and Heathrow slots to previously excluded competitors, has rendered this objection moot. Still, Justice disagrees.
It's hard to see what the grounds are for this objection, in an era in which competition between the three big airline alliances is replacing competition between individual airlines. The global alliances may not themselves be permanent fixtures on the international aviation scene, but until national governments around the world lower the barriers to foreign ownership and cross-border mergers between airlines, alliances are likely to be important players.
Justice's position may not matter anyway, as the U.S. Department of Transportation has the final say on AA, BA and partner airlines Spain's Iberia, Finland's Finnair and Royal Jordanian's proposal. All are oneworld members. According to media reports, DOT has put off making its decision, originally expected in October, so it could hash things out with the Justice Department.
Given the double standard employed by U.S. regulators, it's hard to see a compelling reason why DOT shouldn't grant antitrust immunity, as requested. Anything that can promote greater ease of travel for passengers and help airlines shore up their finances in the grip of a stubborn and deep global recession sounds reasonable.
American and BA have attempted to expand their association twice before this decade, but backed off when U.S. authorities wanted them to give up coveted landing slots at London's busy Heathrow airport in exchange for antitrust immunity. Since then, the airlines argue, a U.S.-E.U. open-skies pact, which has opened up trans-Atlantic travel and Heathrow slots to previously excluded competitors, has rendered this objection moot. Still, Justice disagrees.
It's hard to see what the grounds are for this objection, in an era in which competition between the three big airline alliances is replacing competition between individual airlines. The global alliances may not themselves be permanent fixtures on the international aviation scene, but until national governments around the world lower the barriers to foreign ownership and cross-border mergers between airlines, alliances are likely to be important players.
Justice's position may not matter anyway, as the U.S. Department of Transportation has the final say on AA, BA and partner airlines Spain's Iberia, Finland's Finnair and Royal Jordanian's proposal. All are oneworld members. According to media reports, DOT has put off making its decision, originally expected in October, so it could hash things out with the Justice Department.
Given the double standard employed by U.S. regulators, it's hard to see a compelling reason why DOT shouldn't grant antitrust immunity, as requested. Anything that can promote greater ease of travel for passengers and help airlines shore up their finances in the grip of a stubborn and deep global recession sounds reasonable.
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)