You asked why passengers don't trust the airlines. Perhaps it's because we actually believe the airlines don't care a whit for their passengers. Except for the fares we pay. Let me relate an example which should have been an airline bonus. But United failed to handle it. Several years ago, I was flying from Seattle through Denver and back to Oklahoma City. Prior to our boarding in Seattle, the United pilot came out to the passengers area to talk to us. He explained his philosophy of flying, of safety, of the responsibilities that he and the airline took serious. This was such a rare thing that my fellow passengers and I applauded him. The flight from Seattle to Denver was a dream. This same pilot showed off some of the scenery as we flew. This pilot enjoyed flying. We all could tell that. It was actually one of the best air flights I've ever had. When I returned to Oklahoma City, my first thought was to to send an e-mail letter to United thanking him for this pilot and the flying "experinece" I had just had. I received in turn from United an e-mail that said simply "thank you, we read all our mail." Nothing more than that. I never heard from the pilot, the airline, or anyone else. To tell you the truth, I don't like to fly American Airlines. I don't like to fly through DFW Airport. Except for the fact that I have little choice on my flights from OKC to Denver, I would probably put United in that same "no do" camp. But it all went to show that United didn't care a whit whether or not I had a good flight. My ticket was paid for. Now I have flown British Airways many times. BA treats its passengers right in my opinion. BA and Southwest Airlines. I fly thme whenever I can.

Come on...really, previous poster...

Of course their job is to fly the plane. But when things are safe, as when the pilot of my aborted landing had gotten us to cruising altitude 15 minutes before landing again, then they NEED to explain to passengers. What, 30 seconds at most? Not exactly difficult to do...

Airlines -- and the pilots flying the planes -- are providing a service to passengers. WE ARE THE CUSTOMERS!!!!! Everyone, repeat after me. WE ARE THE CUSTOMERS!!!!!

Yes, it may be cheaper than it used to be, but so what, we are STILL the customers.

If you hire an accountant, and ask the accountant to explain why you're not getting a particular dedcation, do you expect the accountant to respond: "my job is to do the taxes, not explain things to clients..."

This "Their job is to fly the plane, not explain technicalities to passengers" attitude is exactly what's WRONG with American business today, and the airline industry in particular.

Frankly, this disinclination to take responsibility, explain or otherwise be accountable to ones clients, customers, patients -- or constituents -- seems to be a problem with America, period.

If I have a choice, I will fly an airline whose employees -- including pilots -- treat me respectfully, and bother to provide information. (The fact that we're at the mercy of many airlines, with monopolies on particular routes, is unfortunate, and leaves some of us without a choice for some flights...)

So maybe an aborted landing or smoke in the cabin or getting hit by lightening or an exploding engine is just some piddly thing and anyone who breaks a sweat or gets even remotely nervous is a scaredycat weenie.

The fact is, I'm the CLIENT. I'M THE CUSTOMER. And I'm not the only one who is a scaredycat weenie. The airlines know that. I'm paying the fare, and if whatever it is is loud enough or jostling enough or smoky enough to scare even a few of us weenies on the plane, then why is it such a stretch to think that the pilot or Flt attendant shoudl give even a brief word to let customers know what the hell is going on -- when it's SAFE to do so, of course...?

It's difficult to know for sure, but I can only assume that AncientAssyrian's comments are directed at me, having read through the other posts. If so:

1. Please don't use quotation marks to refer to comments I never made. Such behavior in a public forum makes you appear ignorant and unable to communicate effectively or concisely.

2. I never even implied what you've quoted me as having written.

I deliberately avoided a discussion about whether or not airlines and their employees should better explain the vagaries of the experience when and if it's warranted. I feel that Patrick Smith adequately exposed that topic and I agree with him. Perhaps I ought to have been explicit about that. My apologies.

I agree that airline employees often don't adequately explain things the way they should. But I know enough about flying not to let it bother me. And what difference does getting angry make, anyway, or knowing if you "might" have died if you didn't? I recognize when an airline is, however ineffectively, just trying to cover their own butts or explain away something that may just be too difficult to explain adequately. It's ultimately a matter of corporate management and economics, not whether or not the airline appreciates you as a customer.

As Patrick explained, it costs money to train your employees to fully understand and appropriate the necessary language to cover all possible incidents, and in this day and age it does not surprise me that legacy airlines are being more glib about how such situations are handled. They're behind the eight ball as it is. On the other hand, airlines that make customer satisfaction a high priority, such as jetBlue and Southwest, naturally reap the benefits. (But as TV's "Airline" clearly demonstrates, most passengers don't appreciate even that.) And, let's be honest, most passengers aren't very loyal to one airline; they will fly whoever offers the lowest fare, regardless of the quality of service.

I completely stand by my assertion that, even as the customer or client, it's completely fair that the airline treats you according to the fare you pay. And I do not believe that "the customer is always right," because if the customer is always right, the employee is always wrong, and such a philosophy does nothing to improve morale or service. Customers have responsibilities, too, and we more often than not ignore them because we feel that money out of our pockets entitles us to whatever we want. It's a social disease in this country that is ruining our ability to treat each other with civility and respect.

In situations where safety is the issue, money is irrelevant. If the plane goes down, first class is going, too. I've never been in such a situation, but I do feel that the crew should do whatever they can to assuage passenger fear and deal with the situation professionally and effectively. I would guess that in most instances, that's exactly what happens; we just hear about the few where the flight attendant--who may be fearing for his or her own life as much as anyone--just can't speak as eloquently as their training might have prepared them to. That's assuming they even know what's going on. If I were a pilot in an emergency situation, the last thing on my mind would be taking time to explain to the passengers what's happening. (And, really, if it's really dire, what would you prefer? A P.A. announcement telling you how you might perish, or a crew that's focused on getting you safely through the crisis?) Even after the fact, I think it might be premature for a passenger to demand an explanation until a thorough investigation has been conducted. (And given the shaky financial ground airlines are on, any whiff of disaster or near-disaster is a potential financial one, so it's pretty obvious in light of that why some employees would rather say nothing, especially in a situation fraught with panic and/or disorganization. I'm not justifiying it, but I acknowledge the business logic of it.)

Back to money...consumers expect to have their cake and eat it, too, regardless of the economic realities of the situation. We demand lower and lower fares, and then expect to have our asses kissed for the duration of the journey. I'm not making excuses for surly employees or shoddy service, just pointing out that they sometimes exist as part of a system of inequities, not because they "don't like us" or don't "appreciate our business." It's far more complicated than that and it benefits no one to view it through the overly-simplistic lense of "customer über alles."

When something is rotten at the core of the enterprise, customers will almost always get a taste of it. It's a cutthroat industry, and employees are bearing most of the burden, not passengers. Sure, passengers complain about how we're treated, but most of us aren't paying to be treated well. And being treated well costs money, otherwise amenities wouldn't be the first things cut when budgets are tightened. If we were all paying more than we are, and airlines were able to make money, and their employees could make a decent living with good benefits, everything would be completely different. Profitable airlines--or those that at least have a fighting chance--have happier customers. (Now-defunct Independence Air had outstanding customer service and very happy passengers, but an untenable business model: high quality service with utterly unrealistic, rock-bottom fares that even Southwest and jetBlue shuddered at in horror.)

Communication matters, certainly, but it's mostly about money, like almost everything else in this country. The best thing passengers can do is have healthier, less confrontational, less adversarial attitudes. That's half the battle. Given how little we're paying, we can afford to take the high road, as it were. Show some compassion and empathy for people who are just trying to do an (often thankless) job and get through the day like everyone else.