Passenger Bill of Rights for air travel

[OHGoDive]

OHGO, ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE AIRLINE INDUSTRY IS TOTALLY HONEST IN THEIR ONTIME, DELAYED, ARRIVAL REPORT TIMES ALL THE TIME?

sorry for the cap lock

Well, in so much as nearly every (not all) major carrier & airport records and reports those numbers using automated, electronic means (via onboard computers communicating directly with FAA computers in the tower), and that they are 100% independently verifiable by consumer watchdog agencies and the US Government, yes, I'll go ahead and suggest just that.

Now, are you suggesting that the very government that you accuse as being currently involved in collusion with the airline industry will somehow change their ways when they, themselves, pass another law to regulate said industry? Isn't that a bit of a contradiction on your part?

 

[TxHockeyGuy]

I would have to say that's ridiculous. I see no such thing in OGD's posts.

I agree. Then again I have already stated in this thread (why oh why am I posting here again :shakehead ) that I agree with OGD. For me it comes down to the fact that I believe that involving the government in anything should be an absolute last resort. The government often does a poor job in both crafting and enforcing the laws they create while creating mountains of paperwork, heartache, and additional cost for all who are affected by these laws. I'm not saying this always happens but it certainly happens more often than it should.

Now lets try to put all this in perspective. We've seen 3 such incidents like this in the past what, 5 years? Suppose for a minute that all 3 of these occurred in the last year and that they happened at DFW airport. DFW airport claims to have 1800 flights per day which works out to 657000 flights per year. That means if DFW were to have this happen 3 times per year that .00000456% of flights were affected as such. That is if this occurred at just 1 airport and all in the last year! I agree those passengers should never have had to go through this, but the airlines are sorting this out themselves, and we do not need government to get involved.

EDIT: Just saw someone else post similar statistics a few minutes ago.

 

[pilot fish]

Well, in so much as nearly every (not all) major carrier & airport records and reports those numbers using automated, electronic means (via onboard computers communicating directly with FAA computers in the tower), and that they are 100% independently verifiable by consumer watchdog agencies and the US Government, yes, I'll go ahead and suggest just that.

More industry talking points. This is HYSTERICAL UH, OhGO, HOW DO YOU KNOW THESE THINGS AND WAHT IS YOUR SOURCE?

Now, are you suggesting that the very government that you accuse as being currently involved in collusion with the airline industry will somehow change their ways when they, themselves, pass another law to regulate said industry? Isn't that a bit of a contradiction on your part?

Everyone that doesn't take your pro-industry position is a conspiracist?

 

[OHGoDive]

More industry talking points. This is HYSTERICAL UH, OhGO, HOW DO YOU KNOW THESE THINGS AND WAHT IS YOUR SOURCE

It's hysterical that I actually take the time to look things up and try to make sure I have my facts straight before I use them in an argument? More people should be so funny.

Part of it is simply my understanding of air travel.

Or, as I stated in an earlier post, you can go to your airport yourself and record the times that planes take off and land, and compare them to the OAG flight guide. Then compare them to the posted reports.

But, mostly, it's all online and easily accessible to anyone with a computer. Just like the bill of rights demands.

Check the Department of Transportation, it's all there. Start here:

http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline...reporting_directives/technical_directive.html

Everyone that doesn't take you pro-industry position is a conspirist?

No, just people who, without proof or evidence, accuse the government and business of deliberately falsifying data, or withholding of information, in order to deceive people.

People like, um, you, for instance (see numerous posts bearing your name as my source).

 

[DandyDon]

Damn It...!

Personal insults & attacks are totally inappropriate. This goes for PF as much as it does for David and the others. You have a point to present, an arguement to state, a disagreement - fine. I served my years in the Corps offering my life to defend the right of free speach, among others. But the character assaults are cheap shots and totally uncalled for - a boring read, even tho they insult the poster more than the target.


thank you

​

 

[pilot fish]

ohgo, I don't accuse the Gov of anything in this matter, perhaps some ignorance of what is going on but no conspiracy to withhold. I do, however, suggest to you that the airline industry is less than accurate in thier bookkeeping

Are you an air hostess, ex flight attendant, ticket agent or just someone with wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much time on their hands?

 

[OHGoDive]

ohgo, I don't accuse the Gov of anything in this matter, perhaps some ignorance of what is going on but no conspiracy to withhold. I do, however, suggest to you that the airline industry is less than accurate in thier bookkeeping

Fair enough. I've shown you my case for why I don't think this is true, or even really possible. I would guess that the penalties for being found doing so would be harsh.

But, you have the floor. Based on what evidence?

Are you an air hostess, ex flight attendant, ticket agent or just someone with wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much time on their hands?

Are we done here?

 

[pilot fish]

Ok, let me try it this way, ohgo, if your numbers are correct, ya know, accurate, and these incidents are as rare as hen's teeth, as you suggest, then why such fuss over passenger compensation and a Bill to prevent this from occurring again? If it is indeed, as you and some others suggest,that rare, then there would be NO COST BASIS FOR INCREASED FARES Helloooooooooooooooooooooo?

One of your sticking points on this is that it would increase fares. If it never happens again, or stays as rare an occurrance as you claim, there is not need to ever raise fares. If it never happens again passengers will never have to be compensated. hello? Why is the industry, and you as their defacto surrogate, so incensed over this? Because you KNOW it is not that rare.

 

[OHGoDive]

Ok, let me try it this way, ohgo, if your numbers are correct, ya know, accurate, and these incidents are as rare as hen's teeth, as you suggest, then why such fuss over passenger compensation and a Bill to prevent this from occurring again? If it is indeed, as you and some others suggest,that rare, then there would be NO COST BASIS FOR INCREASED FARES Heloooooooooooooooooooooo?

One of your sticking points on this is that it would increase fares. If it never happens again, or stays as rare an occurrance as you claim, there is not need to ever raise fares. If it never happens again passengers will never have to be compensated. hello?Why is the industry, and you as their defacto surrogate, so incensed over this? Because you KNOW it is not that rare.

I've been over this. My numbers are, ya know, accurate. You've shown no reasons for me to believe that they are not accurate. So, yes, incidents like these are rare.

My fuss, as you call it, is because the cost to implement a structure such as the passenger bill of rights is not a zero sum proposition. It would add overhead, significant overhead, to solve a problem that just isn't there, in the scope and magnitude that you and others suggest.

The passengers affected were all compensated. Whether you or I think it was fair compensation is irrelevant, because you and I were not on the plane. But, from what I've seen and heard in the media, it was fair enough for the people affected, in this case.

So, if it (or any such complaint) happens rarely, and if it is already being adequately addressed to the mutual satisfaction of the parties involved when it does happen, then why in the world do we want to add additional overhead and COST to everyone, whether or not they will ever be affected?

It's not the compensation to passengers that will raise prices (because that compensation is already occurring), it is the new infrastructure that would have to be implemented to ensure the Government and an independent review panel that it can never happen that would add the cost. Make sense?

Show me the evidence that this type of event is not rare. I'll listen.




P.S. When this thread hits 600 posts, I'm done. This is exhausting, and other than pure entertainment value, I don't think it's going to have much effect on anyone still reading (or writing to it). So, if you have any more points to make, make em quick.

 

[pilot fish]

ohgo, let me just say, it is to your credit that you have tried stay on topic in much of your posting. I hold that you are incorrect and coming from a biased position but you have defended that skewed and baised position with passion and some considerable effort, albeit wrongheaded. You tried to state your weak case with vigor, while others, namely ddavid, resorted to inane off topic one liners.

Try to be a bit more open minded?