Senator Boxer is an opportunist coward.

FM2436

Veteran
Jan 8, 2003
747
11
Great article by Michael Boyd regarding the upcoming, and most certain, Demmocrat controlled United States Congress "Airline Passenger's Bill of Rights." While identifing some problem (most have already been discuss) Boyd complements jetBlue but lays blame on much of the airline industry problems upon the Government.

http://www.aviationplanning.com/asrc1.htm
 
Great article by Michael Boyd regarding the upcoming, and most certain, Demmocrat controlled United States Congress "Airline Passenger's Bill of Rights." While identifing some problem (most have already been discuss) Boyd complements jetBlue but lays blame on much of the airline industry problems upon the Government.

http://www.aviationplanning.com/asrc1.htm
Keep in mind that an "Airline Passenger's Bill of Rights" will remain just that - a bill, until signed into law or a veto override (with enough votes). I don't know that there's enough support from the President or other congressmen to pass this into law or override a veto. What we need right now is something very important, like a presidential sex scandal or a celebrity doing something stupid to put this on the backburner.
 
RE: "Senator Boxer is an opportunist coward."

Why should she be different from (just about) anyone else in politics? Not saying that I agree with on the topic (I don't), but most politicians are opportunistic.
 
...unfortunately, Congress deals with a variety of issues they are not prepared to understand. How could they? Can we really expect any individual to know everything about every industry? Just as unfortunate is their desire to quickly try to appease to public with ridiculous rally cries like this. Okay, Jetblue screwed up royally...got it. And they as a company should suffer (financial losses) as a result...also got it. How about the lack of appropriate funding for the industry that causes far greater delays throughout the course of any year? Isn't that their fault? Who's writing the Congressional bill of rights that says when we pay a tax it can't be used for other reasons or to hide deficits in other areas? They always seem to miss that one. Intersting.
 
...unfortunately, Congress deals with a variety of issues they are not prepared to understand. How could they? Can we really expect any individual to know everything about every industry? Just as unfortunate is their desire to quickly try to appease to public with ridiculous rally cries like this. Okay, Jetblue screwed up royally...got it. And they as a company should suffer (financial losses) as a result...also got it. How about the lack of appropriate funding for the industry that causes far greater delays throughout the course of any year? Isn't that their fault? Who's writing the Congressional bill of rights that says when we pay a tax it can't be used for other reasons or to hide deficits in other areas? They always seem to miss that one. Intersting.
A interesting follow up to Michael Boyd's comments regarding a Congressional imposed "Airline Passenger Bill of Rights." Boyd makes reference as to the 5 reasons a "Airline Passenger Bill of Rights" will not work.

http://www.aviationplanning.com/asrc1.htm
 
A interesting follow up to Michael Boyd's comments regarding a Congressional imposed "Airline Passenger Bill of Rights." Boyd makes reference as to the 5 reasons a "Airline Passenger Bill of Rights" will not work.

http://www.aviationplanning.com/asrc1.htm
The irony of Michael Boyd calling someone else a "blowhard" is too much.

Frankly, the reason that these types of bills get traction is that the flying public believes (often correctly) that the airlines either lie to them or withhold important information. A little communication would go a long way to handling most customers' problems.
 
The irony of Michael Boyd calling someone else a "blowhard" is too much.

Frankly, the reason that these types of bills get traction is that the flying public believes (often correctly) that the airlines either lie to them or withhold important information. A little communication would go a long way to handling most customers' problems.
Not sure about the lying or withholding of info "often". As I type this, I'm at the gate at an outstation. Screen says inbound is late. No CSRs around. Pax just asked why/how long we're delayed. My reply, "I'm not sure". This pax might think I'm lying or withholding info. I know I'm not, but the bottom line is when it's safe & legal to go we'll go. If the pax knew reason/how long for delay, it doesn't change when we're leaving.
 
I know I'm not, but the bottom line is when it's safe & legal to go we'll go. If the pax knew reason/how long for delay, it doesn't change when we're leaving.
That is true, but totally misses the point. The pax may want to inform others of the delay or make alternate plans or just like to know what is going on. All legitimate reasons. Why, oh why, is it so difficult for airlines to just tell us what they know when they know it?
 
Part of the problem is aircraft operate in government controlled airspace. While there, they are vectored and held at the will by an organ of the government that has no profit incentive to operate efficiently. As a result, often times, the airlines cannot know when their machines will arrive or when the government organ will decide to ground stop, hold, slow or otherwise delay their equipment's arrival at their destination. And never forget, the government organ, never, ever updates the airline or the passengers on their ineffiecient control of the airspace. Thus, airline employees often guess based on past experiences, what or when events will happen. This is true at all airlines.
 
That is true, but totally misses the point. The pax may want to inform others of the delay or make alternate plans or just like to know what is going on. All legitimate reasons. Why, oh why, is it so difficult for airlines to just tell us what they know when they know it?
TechBoy

Sorry for my short reply; my aircraft pulled up & I didn't have time to finish.

I do understand your point. I agree that pax often think "we" are lying. In spite of that, I'll tell them what I know (which often, like yesterday, isn't much). But many times, all I can tell them (by looking at a computer) is when we should be leaving - not WHY we're late. That was the point I was trying to make (again, my apologies). I've told pax, for example, "We should be leaving at 5 o'clock". This info is based on estimated arr. time of the inbound, time for deplaning/boarding, etc. When asked why we're late, I responded (truthfully), "I'm sorry, I don't know". I been called a liar to my face, heard a pax go tell a travelling companion what I said, followed by, "I think he's lying", etc. We're going to leave when the inbound gets here (which is up to the inbound Capt. and ATC), everyone gets off (up to the inbound pax), etc. I do everything I can to be early, on time, or make up time when late. But I can only control so much. Telling someone WHY we're late doesn't change when we're leaving.

As a pilot, I can log in on the computer and look at the same info as the CSRs. Our system for estimating arr. times (and thus dept. times) is fairly accurate once an aircraft is in the air. But that time will change if the inbound is instructed to enter a holding pattern or various other reasons. If I (or a CSR) tells you that the inbound will be at the gate at 5 o'clock (based on what's in the computer), and 2 minutes later that aircraft is told to enter a holding pattern for an hour, the new ETA is going to be at least an hour later. Did I lie to you? No; I told you, when you asked, the best available info. Once the computers are updated, I can pass on the new ETA to you. Once the inbound lands (now at 6 0'clock), what if it can't get into the ramp because a certain commuter airline, who will remain nameless, that seems to never have gates available for their inbounds in ATL, is clogging up the ramp area, and our inbound can't get to its gate for another 30 minutes. Did I lie again about the new ETA? What if the weather/traffic forecasts predicted no holding, the inbound was given a 2 hr. hold, got low on fuel, had to divert to an alternate, and once there, ATC wouldn't let it take off for 2 hrs? This could take a once ontime aircraft and make it 6 hrs. late. Were you lied to?

Another example: Say our inbound is 4 hrs. late, and I know it is. What possible incentive do I have for lying about this? If I think you're going to yell at me because of the delay, I'm thinking that I'd rather tell you the truth and have you yell at me once. If I lie (and tell you that we're leaving on time), aren't you going to come to the gate area around departure time? Aren't you going to then ask why we're not leaving on time? Aren't you going to yell at me then? If I then tell you that we're leaving in an hour (a lie), aren't you going to come back in an hour and repeat the process? If my incentive was to not have you pissed off around me in the gate area, I'd tell you the truth, get yelled at once, and get it over with. I wouldn't want to do it 4 times, every hour on the hour.

I can't honestly tell you that airline employees never lie, any more than you can tell me that they "often" do. Neither of us has enough evidence. But, I have had personal experiences of telling pax the truth, only to be accused of lying. Although that's frustrating, I don't think that all, or most, pax are rude and accusitory. I just wish that they would give airline employees the same consideration when it comes to receiving flight info.
 
TechBoy

Sorry for my short reply; my aircraft pulled up & I didn't have time to finish.

I do understand your point. I agree that pax often think "we" are lying. In spite of that, I'll tell them what I know (which often, like yesterday, isn't much). But many times, all I can tell them (by looking at a computer) is when we should be leaving - not WHY we're late. That was the point I was trying to make (again, my apologies). I've told pax, for example, "We should be leaving at 5 o'clock". This info is based on estimated arr. time of the inbound, time for deplaning/boarding, etc. When asked why we're late, I responded (truthfully), "I'm sorry, I don't know". I been called a liar to my face, heard a pax go tell a travelling companion what I said, followed by, "I think he's lying", etc. We're going to leave when the inbound gets here (which is up to the inbound Capt. and ATC), everyone gets off (up to the inbound pax), etc. I do everything I can to be early, on time, or make up time when late. But I can only control so much. Telling someone WHY we're late doesn't change when we're leaving.

As a pilot, I can log in on the computer and look at the same info as the CSRs. Our system for estimating arr. times (and thus dept. times) is fairly accurate once an aircraft is in the air. But that time will change if the inbound is instructed to enter a holding pattern or various other reasons. If I (or a CSR) tells you that the inbound will be at the gate at 5 o'clock (based on what's in the computer), and 2 minutes later that aircraft is told to enter a holding pattern for an hour, the new ETA is going to be at least an hour later. Did I lie to you? No; I told you, when you asked, the best available info. Once the computers are updated, I can pass on the new ETA to you. Once the inbound lands (now at 6 0'clock), what if it can't get into the ramp because a certain commuter airline, who will remain nameless, that seems to never have gates available for their inbounds in ATL, is clogging up the ramp area, and our inbound can't get to its gate for another 30 minutes. Did I lie again about the new ETA? What if the weather/traffic forecasts predicted no holding, the inbound was given a 2 hr. hold, got low on fuel, had to divert to an alternate, and once there, ATC wouldn't let it take off for 2 hrs? This could take a once ontime aircraft and make it 6 hrs. late. Were you lied to?

Another example: Say our inbound is 4 hrs. late, and I know it is. What possible incentive do I have for lying about this? If I think you're going to yell at me because of the delay, I'm thinking that I'd rather tell you the truth and have you yell at me once. If I lie (and tell you that we're leaving on time), aren't you going to come to the gate area around departure time? Aren't you going to then ask why we're not leaving on time? Aren't you going to yell at me then? If I then tell you that we're leaving in an hour (a lie), aren't you going to come back in an hour and repeat the process? If my incentive was to not have you pissed off around me in the gate area, I'd tell you the truth, get yelled at once, and get it over with. I wouldn't want to do it 4 times, every hour on the hour.

I can't honestly tell you that airline employees never lie, any more than you can tell me that they "often" do. Neither of us has enough evidence. But, I have had personal experiences of telling pax the truth, only to be accused of lying. Although that's frustrating, I don't think that all, or most, pax are rude and accusitory. I just wish that they would give airline employees the same consideration when it comes to receiving flight info.
Excellent Post Jock. Very truthful and to the point. FTWeb can only be accurate when the data is entered and that is always subject to change.
 
Citrus,

I appreciate that situations change (often through forces outside the control of the airline) and that airline staff do not always have all the information. But I have personally experienced situations many times where contradictory information was provided or where known information was withheld. Anecdotal information from many other travellers appears to corroborate my experience. (Whether the problem is cause by poor information management, poor employees, or poor airline management is beyond my knowledge.) That is what makes pax so angry at times.

To go back to my original point, industries tend to get regulated when they either abuse their market power or abuse their customers. As there is certainly no market power in the airline industry these days, I would suggest that the airlines look a little more at how they treat their customers before telling the Congress that there is no problem.
 
I too have witnessed contradictory info being given, and it makes me cringe because it leads to the "you're lying" attitude from some pax. Example: an aircraft originates in the a.m. at MDW. It is scheduled to arrive in ATL during a time of light inbound traffic. But, because of heavy snow at MDW, the aircraft must be deiced, causing it to takeoff later and arrive in ATL during a period of numerous arrivals. The inbound is told to enter a holding pattern near ATL. If the CSR tells you the delay is because of ATC, and later I tell you it was weather, you've received contradictory info. Both reasons you were told are correct. The CSR saw in the computer that the aircraft left the gate in MDW on time (it's not documented in there when deicing takes place away from the gate) & was subsequently told to hold, hence her ATC delay explanation. I talked to the inbound pilot who told me about having to deice, thus my wx delay explanation. You've been told 2 totally different things, thus your (possible) inclination to think we're lying.

In a perfect world, we would have enough employees to keep this from happening. But, to help control costs and keep ticket prices down, we usually only have one CSR/flt., and our aircraft are usually scheduled to be at the gate for just 35 minutes. Among CSR duties are to check pax in, print outbound flt. paperwork, give connecting gate info to deplaning pax, clean aircraft (at outstations), board outbound aircraft, etc. If you asked the CSR to look for the reason a flt. is late (especially later in the day when this would involve looking back at numerous flts.), it would likely cause an ontime flt. to be delayed, or a delayed flt. to be more delayed. I don't say all of this in the hopes of excusing a skeleton staff. The only way to remain profitable while selling cheap tickets is with this staffing level.

Sometimes known info is withheld, and with good reason: you're on a flt. from ATL to CLT that's delayed. You approach the CSR at the gate to ask her the latest on your flt. While looking at her computer, the phone rings and she's informed that your flt. has just been cancelled. She knows that our next flt. to CLT is in 6 hrs., but Delta and US Airways both have flts. leaving within the hour. If she works quickly, she can do all the work that's necessary to rebook everyone and get them on those flts. One option is to tell you that your flt. just cancelled, which would lead you to loudly repeat this info in the gate area, which would lead to a scene similar to the movie "Airplane" when everyone was told the plane had run out of coffee (wrestlers, hockey players fighting, boobs, etc.). With all of this going on, she won't be able to concentrate and rebook you. Her other option is to withhold info and do the work that has to be done right now, so that everyone can get to CLT as quickly as possible. If she withholds info, you get to CLT in 2 hrs. If she tells you what she knows, you get to CLT in 6 hrs. Again, with adequate staffing, things would be different. Another example: I'm your Captain, and we've been told to hold on the arrival into ATL. I know there's no way in hell we're going to have enough fuel to hold for as long as we've been told to. I could tell you: (1)We've been told to hold and when we're released from the hold, I'll let you know; (2)Nothing; most of the time, we get released from holding long before our anticipated time; (3)We're all gonna die. I normally choose #1, keeping in mind #2. In this example, I've withheld info from you because in my opinion it's the best decision, and I'm not going to let #3 happen. I'm not trying to suggest that all withheld info is justified; only that it is sometimes. And, depending on whether you're the withholder or the withholdee, you come to vastly different opinions on the justification.

Finally, I don't think that airlines are looking at the JetBlue situation (or any other situation) and saying there's no problem. Anytime someone's trapped on an airplane for 6 hrs., that's a problem. I think that as an industry, we're saying (1)Congress shouldn't pass laws affecting all airlines when only one had a problem; and (2)We can fix this better than Congress can; JetBlue has already begun this process, and it has been met with a fairly positive reaction. Gov't regulation, to whatever degree, won't keep this secenario from repeating itself, without repealing current federal law (the Captain being the final authority for safety of the flt.) and abolishing unions (work rules governing workers working during periods of hazardous weather). I certainly don't want to debate the merits of federal law or unions; I only want to point out that this won't be solved by Congress.