Letters to the Editor
-
False analogy
Being locked in a plane is in no way parallel to a call center not answering your phone call in a reasonable amount of time. Glibly suggesting customers take their business elsewhere is ridiculous when the customer's body isn't allowed to move - why not let those poor bastards locked on a plane for 8 hours switch to Amtrak?
-
The message seems to be "suck it up."
Well, airlines are letting the absurd happen even if rarely. I understand that everything can't be legislated and the market can (not "will") be a better tool for improvement. But this article seems to suggest that legislators not even attempt to address the lack of complete common sense that allows people to be locked for eight to ten hours without proper food, water or sanitation (and what if someone needed medical attention?). Indeed, the article's tone seems like 'If you don't like it then sue...I f*****g dare you'. I hope to god someone does sue the living shit out of JetBlue or any other airline to let such foolishness happen and that they don't accept a settlement.
This is a bizarre article. It's 5% outrage over an airline locking people up for ten hours and the other 95% sneering at those who think that maybe it's not enough to let the market decide if it's ok to lock people up.
-
And oh yes...
Good point about the call center or UPS analogy. When I read that I was sort of shocked. It is one of the more callous thing I've read in a while. A phone call or a package isn't the same thing as a living human body.
-
OK, so how will we enforce this?
You would think that the rest of the industry might have learned from the Northwest fiasco eight years ago. Since it didn't, how is the prohibition of thoughtless tarmac practices by bloviating politicians going to change airline policies that weren't even affected by the spectacle of NWA's costly public relations nightmare?
Maybe a CEO or station manager being perp-walked in shackles through the falling snow could lead to the simple measure of building some weather-resistant rolling stairways, but somehow I don't think so. If there are tens of thousands of dollars to be saved each day you roll out tin cans full of passengers who have no gate to come back to, increasing the penalty for the one day in 3,000 that things go catastrophically wrong won't make the carriers modify practices that 99.99% of the time they get away with.
-
legislating customer service
we do it already--in the insurance industry (via the dept of insurance). Anyone who has ever dealt with a car accident knows your claim adjusters have to respond in certain periods of time (30 days is common) to proof of loss statements.
I'm sure others can also come up with their own examples of customer service industries that are legislated (or should be).
I agree that the analogies were quite poor--and I think the harm inflicted on passengers sitting on grounded planes for hours at a time isn't comparable, and thus warrant legislation. With increasing numbers of people flying (and increasing inclement weather as we continue to warm the planet), surely we'll see more of these problems rather than less, yes?
-
Is anyone surprised?
Can we finally begin to invest in Amtrak and other non air mass travel systems? Yes, I know, the train takes longer, of course, not if you count the 1 to 2 hours you need to get through security, the delays, the tarmac lock up and the lost luggage. Last time I flew, in perfect weather, everything that could go wrong did. The last time I took Amtrak, I arrived in NYC 20 early.
As for the tone of the article, all I have seen in the last few days are apologies for the airlines. I am sick of it. If the airline apologists believe in the free market so much, I wonder if they also supported the government bail out after 9/11? I say, let them all go out of business. Either the free market works or it doesn't.
-
Popping Hatches and Taking Your Business Elsewhere
I have to say, around the five hour mark - and absent some extraordinary communication from the pilot explaining why it was absolutely necessary that I and my fellow passengers were entombed in a plane on the runway - I'd start making plans to pop the hatch and slide to freedom (carefully, of course). And then I'd quite happily try my case in the court of public opinion.
~
I share Mr. Smith's general desire to let the market sort things out, but I'd say that the airlines have a pretty good history of cartel-like coordination, in which they all pretty much default to the least-consumer-friendly behavior. Don't think so? Name a domestic airline that is head and shoulders above the others in terms of communication. Or seat pitch. These are two of the most common complaints by passengers, and thus should be an easy point of differentiation in a functioning market. So where is it?
-
"But is legislation the way to fix the problem?"
Apparently yes, because nobody in this country has an ounce of common sense these days. Sometimes you just have to MAKE people do the right thing under threat of legal action (or physical ass-beating) or the common sense thing to do will not get done.
-
limited competition
The free market may well be able to sort of the problem of imprisoned passengers if only it was allowed it function. In air travel, the outdated regulations against foreign ownership and foreign carriers offering domestic flights prevent true competition.
I'm looking forward to flying Virgin America if the US government ever allows it fly. The primary opponents of Virgin America being allowed to operate are the incumbent carriers. They are against government regulation expect when it is to block competitors.
If I'm going to Asia, I prefer to fly Singapore Airlines. Yet I'm precluded this option for domestic flights by more government regulation.
Congress has already gotten too involved in limiting competition to let the free market sort out problems in the industry.
-
Regulation is not a four letter word...
I like Patrick Smith's columns a lot but this time I think he's got it all wrong. The difference between the airlines and other business's is that they have effectively become monopolies (OK oligopolies). Add to that the fact they are heavily subsidized and yes I believe that *some* regulation is warranted to curb the worst abuses. Good regulation does not necessarily mean loss of competition. We already have laws to regulate safety issues because otherwise airlines would *cheat* so why not laws to ensure other minimum standards of behavior. As long as all airlines have to comply, competition need not be affected and might be refocussed on achieving long term goals rather than cutting corners on basic customer care.