Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That baby was thrown out with the bath water in 1978. Being the industry lobby is much stronger than a bunch of self-empowered soccer moms, don't expect it to change.
Right. And how many new airlines have taken flight here in the US in the last decade?
Between 1978 and 2000, some 150 new airlines took flight. Some of them were honest, ambitious upstarts that have (or had) potential for success. Think Reno Air, AirCal, Midway, and Midwest Express. Others were cheesy quixotic messes that really had no chance at all. Think Total Air, SunJet, and Access Air.
Of all those airlines, only four-FOUR of them are still in business here in mid 2017. They are: Allegiant, JetBlue, Frontier, and Sun Country.
That's a pretty dismal record. Kind of reminds me of pre Deregulation. Except that back then, there were a hell of a lot more choices. So while the airlines may still be "Deregulated" in a pure legal sense, the De Facto reality is that they've never been stronger, stable, or more profitable in their history than they are now. There is really no competition. Thanks to the last rounds of mergers and complete lack of new starts. Those who have remained opposed to Deregulation really have no reason at all to complain anymore. They got their wish. To argue to the contrary is really just splitting hairs on semantics. Could you possibly imagine another mass stranding and chaos scenario like the ones we saw when Braniff, Eastern, and Pan Am shut down happening today?
Me either. It would not happen. It could not happen.
The United assault incident ought to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt that the airlines have achieved a level of stability that rivals that of the large banks, any utility, or the railroads. They aren't going anywhere. And if anything were to happen, they'd be immediately bailed out.
But you're still hung up on 1978. Which for all intents and purposes as I said, has been effectively obliterated.
Because the other industries you mention, don't involve the moving parts of the airline industry. There is no equivalent. Until you gain the aeronautical literacy required to understand that, there's nothing to be gained from debating it.
apparently my point went straight over your head. in the end its all about customer service regardless of what industry you are working in. if a flight is delayed, you dont just tell the customer tough toenails get over it. you tell them WHY the delay. you give people a bit of information about what is going on, and they generally go away reasonably happy.
for instance at one property i worked at, the main water line broke and killed the water pressure to the lodge. people started asking why there was no water pressure. at first, since we had no information,we told them it is being checked on. as soon as we knew something we told the people what was going on, in that case a broken water main. not much we could do about it.
the same thing can be done with the airlines. if there is a delay, tell the people why there is a delay, and the vast majority of the time they will understand. the key to good customer service is good communication to the people. and if the plane is on the taxiway, and it is delayed, let the people use the damned bathrooms, especially if the delay is going to be a couple of hours.
and by the way, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM yourself by assuming that people either dont know, or wont understand the issues involved. not everyone thinks they are an expert on everything, but there are many of us that do study up on things other than the areas that affect our immediate work environment.
Honest question, is sitting for your highly exaggerated 8 or 10 hours better than being stranded for 3-4 days in the airport?
Nowadays with forecast weather events and the very high load factors, if you are a low priority customer, you aren't going anywhere for days. Back in the ol' days, you got from A to B but were simply delayed. I'm hoping you get a chance in the near future to "enjoy" the passenger bill of rights.
Due to all of the ambulance/lawyer chasing customers, the new paradigm is to simply remove all passengers from the aircraft to fix a disturbance. Enjoy the delays and cancellations now being caused by one single idiotic passenger. Folks like you deserve what you get.
First of all, it is not exaggerated because there have been many, many times when a plane has been stranded for 8 to 10 hours on the tarmac. And almost every time, or possibly EVERY TIME, it has happened within the 48 continental United States. To answer your question, I would much rather be stranded for 3 or 4 days at an airport than to have to spend 8 to 10 hours in a plane on the tarmac, particularly when the passengers behave as you describe.
It's not always the customer's fault. On my trip to Europe last summer I booked a flight that had a 4 hour layover. Several months after I booked it, they changed the flight times and my layover was reduced to 90 minutes. Now that was still enough time and I didn't mind it but that certainly gives less room for error.
I'm going to Wyoming in August. When booked my ticket the layover going out was 2 hours. Just last week I got a change notice and it was reduced to 55 minutes. I'm very nervous about that because if I miss that flight then I'll be stuck in Texas overnight.
Last fall I went to Michigan and initially booked a flight with a 2 hour layover. Months later they changed the 2nd flight on that leg and it made me have a 6-hour layover in Reagan airport. That sucked!
So yeah, that's one of the reasons why most of us hate airlines. I have been getting big schedule changes (and hour or more) on most of my trips lately. Don't know why this has become a bigger issue for me all of a sudden. Bad luck, schedules just moving around more often now, etc?
You are complaining that your flight to Mayberry in a flyover state was changed and now you have a 6 hour layover??!!! LOL If you and the rest of the American flying public would relax and take things in stride, there would be no need for this thread (and you wouldn't think flying sucked), except maybe for our pilot poster to complain about how stupid today's flyers are. By the way, Reagan is probably one of the better airports in the world to have a 6 hour layover.
You are complaining that your flight to Mayberry in a flyover state was changed and now you have a 6 hour layover??!!! LOL If you and the rest of the American flying public would relax and take things in stride, there would be no need for this thread (and you wouldn't think flying sucked), except maybe for our pilot poster to complain about how stupid today's flyers are. By the way, Reagan is probably one of the better airports in the world to have a 6 hour layover.
Michigan is Mayberry? Ummmm....yeah, ok. I wasn't going to some dinky town - it was a large city in Michigan.
That being said, Reagan was a horrible airport to be stranded in, at least the section we were contained in. There were only about 10 gates in the wing we were in with a couple stores and a couple places to eat. It was nearly impossible to find a seat anywhere at the gates or eateries.
But the point here is I didn't get what I paid for. Is my time not valuable? Well to me it is....and if I would have known it was going to be changed a 6 hour layover I would have booked a different flight. There was another 2 hour layover option when I originally booked my flight with another airline. They were the same price at time of booking. The other option did not change their flight so I would have been better off going with that one but obviously didn't know it at the time. For my troubles I got no discount, no explanation, not even a voucher for some food or a glass of water.
And oh, by the way, my 6-hour layover ended up being an 8-hour layover due to a "crew issue" at Reagan. We were offered no further explanation. Throughout the whole delay there was minimal communication from the airline on what was going on and seemingly no care on their part. That also made my plane get to my destination after the hotel's shuttle ran so would the airline pay for a cab to get there? Nope....
We all understand things happen outside of the airlines control, but their lack of basic customer service skills and care-less attitudes is what makes airline travel so frustrating.
First of all, it is not exaggerated because there have been many, many times when a plane has been stranded for 8 to 10 hours on the tarmac. And almost every time, or possibly EVERY TIME, it has happened within the 48 continental United States. To answer your question, I would much rather be stranded for 3 or 4 days at an airport than to have to spend 8 to 10 hours in a plane on the tarmac, particularly when the passengers behave as you describe.
Sorry, no. It is an incredibly rare event you are talking about. So rare, it was newsworthy.
It seems to me the airlines are exercising the arrogance provided by their joint monopolies on their fast transportation. This is to be expected as the passengers are effectively trapped by the airline. Power and arrogance are on the same coin.
I think we should use some of the money currently sequestered by the 0.1% to build very fast interstate ground service that can compete with the airlines for the traveler's dollars. After all a huge amount of government money was used to develop the airline industry so why not use government money to build an effective competitor?
I have a design concept for such a system and could use some seed money. It would take about three days to get from DC to LA but would include sleeper service cabins and very good meals. There would be comfortable seats and plenty of room to walk around. It also would not be 30,000 feet above the ground or in a vacuum.
If I was stuck in the aluminum tube called an airplane for eight hours without a toilet break the war between my bladder and my prostate would result in a wet floor unless I could use the facilities to privately pee in a bottle.
I wasn't addressing that part of your post...... just your smug statement about the highly exaggerated time on the tarmac.....
Truthfully, I didn't see then and don't see now WHY they couldn't just take us back to a gate and let us off until there was some sort of certainty about when we might actually become airborne.....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
