New York Times Editorial: We Might Decide to Fly

New York Times Editorial: We Might Decide to Fly
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: June 3, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/04/opinion/04fri1.html?th&emc=th


It would be nice if airlines would commit on their own to treat their passengers right: ensuring, at a minimum, that if you buy a ticket you get a seat and have a reasonable expectation of reaching your destination on time and with your luggage. In today’s world — where air travel is more of an ordeal than an adventure — this is, unfortunately, not the case.

The Obama administration’s new consumer protections for beleaguered airline passengers — including higher compensation for travelers bumped from oversold flights and prominent disclosure of all service fees — are much needed.

The new regulations, proposed on Wednesday, are a response to the many problems of modern air travel, including an enormous increase in the number of passengers bumped by airlines because of overbooked flights.

The Department of Transportation wants to raise the required payments to stranded passengers to a maximum of $1,300 — up from a maximum of $800 — depending on how long the wait was for another flight. Passengers who bought tickets with frequent-flier miles would be entitled to compensation. And airlines would have to inform passengers that they could receive cash — not just tickets on the same airline.

One of the biggest frustrations of travel is that airlines seem to intentionally keep passengers in the dark about pretty much everything. Airlines would now be required to advise passengers about flight delays or cancellations promptly and prominently advertise baggage fees. Airlines and air tour operators also would be banned from increasing the price of a ticket after a customer had paid for it. And carriers would be forced to include all these obligations in the legal contracts of carriage that govern the terms of the ticket purchase.

Airlines have not responded to the proposals, which the government wants to introduce in the fall, following a period of public consultation. The industry is likely to push back hard. Airlines complain that delays and other inconveniences are often not their fault but the result of inadequate airport infrastructure or other causes. They argue that regulations will only lead to increased prices and other unintended consequences.

These arguments should not stay regulators’ hands. It is true that many airlines are barely profitable. But the road to profitability should not be built on stranded passengers and crummy service. And the warnings about the unintended consequences of regulation should be taken with a large grain of salt.

For instance, airlines often dealt with airport congestion by keeping fully loaded flights sitting on the tarmac until they could get a take-off slot. In late April, a new rule went into effect that set a three-hour limit on the time airlines can keep passengers waiting on the tarmac before letting them get off. That same month, airlines’ punctuality rose, three-hour delays were virtually wiped out and despite airlines’ warnings that flight cancellations would rise, they plunged. This might be a coincidence, but we suspect not.