Passenger Bill of Rights for air travel

[tedtim]

tedtim, as I said, I would be happy to discuss each point individually as you bring them up. First tell me how you would go about the mandatory 3 hour limit? I'm all for it, even to the point that it be reduced to 2 hours. Lower than that would be unfair to the airlines. Let us discuss the 3 hour limit first, OK?

OK
Please see my comments in the following posts
50 (speaks to crew day and safety), 247, 248, 251, 257, 528, 591. I do not in any way feel qualified to set a specific time limit. IMO the problem will be that some folks will agree with it and some folks will think that any delay is too long. If the FAA sets rules for crew day limitations, then I suggest that is a place to start to set limits for waiting on flights after they have left the gate. If you want to quantify a limit then you need valid data to back up the reasoning, not just a subjective opinion.

I did bring up many of the points on which I have an opinion.

We agree on the lost luggage point, just not how to fix it. Again, I won't venture what is a fair amount because I don't have the data to back up such a suggestion. Perhaps they should look at when the standard was set and adjust it according to the average inflation rate since then.

Please see my post 528 regarding:

1. "Make lowest fare information, schedules and itineraries, cancellation policies and frequent flyer program requirements available in an easily accessed location and updated in real-time"

2. "Ensure that baggage is handled without delay or injury; if baggage is lost or misplaced, the airline shall notify customer of baggage status within 12 hours and provide compensation equal to current market value of baggage and its contents."

3. "Require that these rights apply equally to all airline code-share partners including international partners. "

PF, I stated my opinion on these aspects of the proposed Passenger Bill of Rights. As for those that I have not addressed previously, either I would accept them as they are written or I have no opinion. Either way, it does not matter.

Now, again, I ask on what basis do you see that there would be no cost to implement the proposed Passenger Bill of Rights in its current form.

 

[OHGoDive]

Ok, at the risk of someone thinking that I am now on the payroll of ScubaBoard's smoke-filled and well-bankrolled back room, I checked the TOS.

It does not mention private messages at all.

I'm going to assume this to mean that since I did nothing untoward or unethical, any posts implying the contrary are just hooey.

:mooner:

 

[radinator]

You need permission from the person you send it to ,to even forward it. You need to read some of those rules. Be careful whom you report because it can come back to bite you:no

If those are 'the rules', as you claim, they are not only wrong - they are ridiculous.

The content of a PM reflects on the knowledge/character/intention of the sender, not the receiver. The receiver doesn't suddenly have ownership (not even joint ownership) simply because they received it. No matter the content of a PM, it doesn't reflect on the receiver at all.

Also, if the receiver suddenly had 'ownership', then you could (after the fact) claim some sort of infringement simply because the PM sender decided to CC: someone else when they sent you the PM.

The receiver has no stake, therefore they have no 'ownership'.

Ray
I'm not a lawyer, but I wouldn't mind playing one on TV.

 

[pilot fish]

Oh, come on, stop the crap. You clearly identified (short of the name) who you were referring to. We all knew who you were talking about so stop pretending you're Mr perfect here dammit. :sigh:

I did not identify anyone. A guilty conscience needs no accuser. This issue does not concern you and only serves as a distraction, wardic

 

[letterboy]

Ok, at the risk of someone thinking that I am now on the payroll of ScubaBoard's smoke-filled and well-bankrolled back room, I checked the TOS.

It does not mention private messages at all.

I'm going to assume this to mean that since I did nothing untoward or unethical, any posts implying the contrary are just hooey.

:mooner:

I don't believe it is against the TOS but if you and I are PMing back and forth and I post both sides of the conversation that could be frowned upon, but posting your own half of the conversation isn't . . .

 

[pilot fish]

"I think I own it, intellectual property and all that. Seems like I can do with it as I please." ]]ohgo
You would be wrong on that issue too. This Board owns it.

 

[OHGoDive]

"I think I own it, intellectual property and all that. Seems like I can do with it as I please." ]]ohgo

You would be wrong on that issue too. This Board owns it.

Now I know that is wrong.

If I upload a photograph to the board, the board owns it? I don't think so.

Do you ever get tired of being right all the time?

 

[pilot fish]

Anything written by you, me, or ohgo become the property of ScubaBoard

If those are 'the rules', as you claim, they are not only wrong - they are ridiculous.

The content of a PM reflects on the knowledge/character/intention of the sender, not the receiver. The receiver doesn't suddenly have ownership (not even joint ownership) simply because they received it. No matter the content of a PM, it doesn't reflect on the receiver at all.

Also, if the receiver suddenly had 'ownership', then you could (after the fact) claim some sort of infringement simply because the PM sender decided to CC: someone else when they sent you the PM.

The receiver has no stake, therefore they have no 'ownership'.

Ray
I'm not a lawyer, but I wouldn't mind playing one on TV.

 

[HowardE]

I don't believe it is against the TOS but if you and I are PMing back and forth and I post both sides of the conversation that could be frowned upon, but posting your own half of the conversation isn't . . .

Posting PM's in the public forum is considered bad form, and is frowned upon, but is not specifically against the TOS AFAIK.

 

[wardric]

I did not identify anyone. A guilty conscience needs no accuser. This issue does not concern you and only serves as a distraction, wardic

If you insist on changing people names in an offensive way, at least, do it correctly and put a k at the end of my modified screen name.