Comments on: No, US Airways Did Not Kill This Woman

By: Nicholas Barnard

Nicholas Barnard — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 01:22:25 +0000

You know, I agree with CS. The airlines won’t be doing this anytime soon unless they all do it at the same time. (The first airline to do it makes their schedules look less competitive.) I know there is already a few departure and arrival times. (the one customers see, the one the FAA sees, the one the airline actually expects the flight to last, etc…)

If anyone does this first I think it’ll be JetBlue. Its a bringing humanity back to ~~flying~~ err jetting thing.

By: CS

CS — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 22:25:32 +0000

Just happened across this post today, but the thing that struck me about the incident is the airline rebuttal pointing out that she got there at 1:05pm for a 1:13pm flight, but the door was closed and the jetbridge pushed back. 1:05pm is, last I checked, 8 minutes *before* 1:13pm. A reasonable person could believe that getting to the gate 8 minutes before the flight left was sufficient to get on the plane. But in most cases it’s not — not for US Airways and not for other airlines either.

I’ve seen this insanity lead to more incidents with irate customers at airport gates than I can count (none involving me, so this is no personal grudge). For reasons that I have never understood, airlines do not schedule the flight at the time they want their customers at the plane; they schedule the flight 10-15 minutes *after* they want their customers at the plane. This makes no sense. If I had a dentist appointment at 1:13 and I showed up at 1:05, they wouldn’t say ‘no, sorry, you were supposed to be here at 12:58.’ If I am meeting a friend for coffee at 10am and I show up at 9:52, she doesn’t say ‘why are you late?’ (indeed, she herself probably isn’t even there yet). Airlines are intentionally misleading with their departure times, and then disclaim responsibility for the consequences.

If airlines were to promote/publish their flights with the times they require passengers to be at the gate to keep their seats, things would go much more smoothly for passengers and airlines alike.

By: Sam

Sam — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:40:37 +0000

I have flown both US Airways and Northwest and I have to agree with Eric that NWA is pretty bad. Their set-up at Detroit Metro is a mess and they have people that barley speak english checking you in. I have also flown US Airways and had quite a pleasent trip. They worked hard to re-confirm me when I missed my flight and had no problems doing so. I enjoyed flying with them and plan on doing so in the future.

By: MB

MB — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 18:51:25 +0000

CF: You write as if the market was actually functioning and as if consumer choice was likely to produce the discipline that competition compels. Even the industry’s defenders acknowledge that the airlines operate as oligopolies. Moreover, they have deftly protected themselves with sweetheart exemptions and limitations courtesy of a compliant Congress. Meanwhile, the airlines continue their cynical games. Remember the “voluntary” Passenger Bill of Rights they promised?

There are two alternatives when markets fail: The tort system or regulation. Lacking faith in rapacious trial lawyers and class action suits, I would opt for judicious regulation.

Yes, it would add costs, but not unduely so. After all, they’re already (ostensibly) regulated on a range of operational issues. If they’re all required to operate on a level regulatory playing field, in terms of how many people can be crammed into an airplane without safety and service blowback, baggage, overbooking, transparency, etc., they can plan accordingly.

By: CF

CF — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 00:59:24 +0000

Thanks for the comments, MB. I’m not personally a fan of partial regulation in any way. Unfortunately, I think that’s effectively what we have now. If you want to regulate service standards, you might as well just re-regulate the entire industry, because it becomes increasingly difficult to operate a profitable business if you have no control over it.

I remain convinced that the best way to fight an airline you don’t like is to not fly that carrier. The problem we have is that consumers do not adequately punish an airline that treats them poorly, so there is little incentive for the airline to get better.

Much of this stems from the fact that most people book airlines like they buy a commodity. They look for the lowest price and that’s it. There are plenty of people who hate US Airways and any other airline, but they continue to fly if the price is right.

If enough people start paying more money to fly a better airline, the worse airlines will be in trouble. That’s exactly what happened to United in Chicago back in 2000 when they’re operation melted down. That’s also why airlines like Southwest and JetBlue have been able to grow, but in growth, they’ve found themselves with similar problems as the legacy carriers.

It may be easy to complain about how poorly the airlines treat people sometimes, but it’s actually quite hard to ensure that every single person is treated well in a business with so many moving parts. To do that, it requires more staffing, more spare aircraft, more excess terminal space to be used during irregular ops, etc. But guess what? That results in higher fares and people don’t like that. They’ll fly the airline that’s cheaper.

By: MB

MB — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:21:19 +0000

CF’s argument that US Airways is no worse that the others is not exactly a ringing defense of the airline. Come on CF: quibbling about the journalism involved misses the essential point. Your argument sounds like you’re flacking for the industry.

Did they kill this woman? No, and the author didn’t claim that. Are they irresponsibly ratcheting up the pressure on their customers to the point that incidents are increasing in frequency and intensity? I’d like to see an argument to the contrary.

This company, as a calculated business decision, routinely abuses thousands of passengers that, ironically, are paying for the privilege. And it’s not just overbooking. That others do so as well is not persuasive.

The issue boils down to the power relationship; only the airlines can call in guys with guns and handcuffs when the people they abuse object too loudly. A transaction with airlines is barely discernible from a transaction with government: in the final analysis, one side has coercive power and the other side just hopes for the best.

Normal businesses would seek to please their customers rather than have the annoying ones dragged off in chains. The Gotbaum case is a metaphor for the current state of airlines. Just go overseas and see the difference!

It all argues for an assertive re-regulation by the government of an industry that is unaccountable by any traditional free market standard. There’s not a lot of consumer choice or information available when you’re stranded somewhere by these folks.

While we may not need to regulate routes, etc., service standards can certainly be enforced. A cop on the beat on behalf of the traveling public is desperately needed.

By: CMH

CMH — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:01:09 +0000

I like how Bardach sued US Airways after she got home. She makes it sound like she has never had a bad airline experience. And she felt she deserved $7500 for her troubles?

By: erics

erics — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 03:04:07 +0000

Tom: I haven’t flown US Airways enough to debate you, but I’d be curious to know if you have flown Northwest Airlines a few times. I shudder to think there is actually an airline worse the Northwest Airlines.

Cranky: How about a poll of your readers to determine America’s worst airline. I will even write the press release for you.

By: Andy

Andy — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 01:59:14 +0000

It was an incoherent rant: they found people who were willing to trade places, fly later and get the compensation but the airline employees “talked them out of it”?! Why? So now it’s the employees who’re evil?

The press already mentioned that the deceased showed up after the bridge was pulled and her name was called repeatedly…

By: Tom S

Tom S — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 00:37:11 +0000

I have a few points to make here. First, I would like to point out that I personally believe that US Air is the worst airline (coupled with Mesa) in the US. On a 10 point scale, I rate them a 0.1. I basically refuse to fly them anymore, and the entire experience of flying on them is one of the most unpleasant things I have endured (and paid for).

My rant in the previous paragraph doesn’t make the other airlines much better. I put most of them below a 2 on a 10 point scale of pleasantness. United, Southwest, Midwest, American…all have made travel unpleaseant for me this year alone (including sleeping in more than one airport overnight because they can’t deliver). I still like Southwest, but the only airline where I have a semi-pleasant experience is on Jetblue (I might rate them a 7 because of the TVs). Internationally, TAM is the worst I have been on, but that is only because Brasil is just a nightmare.

If the experience of flying is going to improve, people (an overwhelming majority) need to be willing to pay more for plane tickets (or just stop flying). I would like to see another form of transportation that would make sense, like trains, but I don’t think I will ever see it happen (how do those Europeans do it?). Amtrack is a mess as well, and the only reason they are still around is because of huge government subsidies. The bottom line is that for airlines, or any form of transportation to become “pleasant”, people will have to pay. As long as they won’t pay, they “get what they pay for”. The only person you can blame is everyone. This isn’t a problem with an easy solution. If it was easy to fix, this discussion would never occur.