For Immediate Release:
Contact: Kate Hanni
Phone: (707) 337-0328
Email: kate@flyersrights.org
Airline Data on Diversions “Highly Suspicious”
Statistics Show Some Airlines Let You Decant in the Terminal, Others May Let You Whither on the Vine
Napa, CA - 07/13/2009: Last week, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) released the latest data installment for diverted commercial airline flights – flights that make unscheduled stops before they reach their final destinations; to refuel, or due to weather or other in-flight emergencies. This is the eighth month since the DOT began keeping detailed statistics for diverted flights. An exclusive FlyersRights.org analysis of the data shows that American Airlines, American Eagle, United Airlines, Northwest Airlines and Delta Airlines collectively gave passengers an opportunity to deplane at a diverted airport 66% of the time, while the other fifteen largest U.S. airlines gave passengers that option 99% of the time - according to the government data.
“If you believe DOT’s statistics, you might avoid American, American Eagle, United and Delta because according to the DOT’s numbers, those four airlines have alone been responsible for 1150 of 1181 instances where passengers were not allowed to deplane at a diverted airport”, said Kate Hanni, FlyersRights.org founder and executive director. Ms. Hanni’s was just one of dozens of flights that were diverted on December 29th, 2006. She and her family were stranded on an American Airlines flight on the airport tarmac in Austin, Texas for over nine hours without food, potable water and usable restrooms. According to the statistics, American Airlines did not allow passengers to deplane 61% of the time. The next closest airline was Delta with 47%.
“The data were so shocking that we asked the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS – a department under the DOT) to verify the data before we released our analysis to the public, and we also asked the DOT’s Inspector General to conduct an investigation”, said Ms. Hanni. “If the airlines are not reporting this data correctly, that’s a violation of federal law.” Through both written statements and press accounts, the BTS and the airlines’ trade association have insisted the data is correct. “The IG hasn’t responded as yet.”
“Meanwhile, we have an obligation to let consumers know which airlines have a track record of giving weary passengers an option to wait out the diversion in the comfort of an airport terminal, and which ones don’t”, said Ms. Hanni.
Spreadsheets and methodology for the diversion analysis can be obtained on the organization’s website www.flyersrights.org.
FlyersRights.org has over 25,000 members; the largest non-profit airline passengers’ rights coalition. For information, contact Kate Hanni directly at 707-337-0328 or Kate@flyersrights.com.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Thursday, July 9, 2009
DOT Fines Delta $375,000 related to bumping compensation laws!
DOT 98-09 Thursday, July 9, 2009 Contact: Bill Mosley Tel.: (202) 366-4570
DOT Fines Delta for Violations of Denied Boarding Compensation Rules
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) today assessed a civil penalty against Delta Air Lines for violating federal rules regarding passengers denied boarding (“bumped”) on oversold flights.
“Airlines often oversell flights in order to ensure that they fill all their seats, and the bumping rules are designed to protect consumers when this happens,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “We take these rules seriously and will take enforcement action when necessary.”
Delta was ordered to cease and desist from further violations and assessed a civil penalty of $375,000. Up to $200,000 of the penalty may be used by the carrier to implement systems not required by the rules that will benefit consumers.
When a flight is oversold, DOT regulations require airlines to seek volunteers willing to give up their seats for compensation. If not enough volunteers can be found and the carrier must bump passengers involuntarily, the carrier is required to give bumped passengers a written statement describing their rights and explaining how it decides who will be bumped from an oversold flight. In most cases, passengers bumped involuntarily also are entitled to cash compensation of up to $800.
The Department’s Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, as part of an on-site investigation at the carrier’s headquarters, reviewed records of Delta’s passenger complaint records from January to July 2008. The office also reviewed similar consumer complaints against Delta received by DOT last year. Both revealed a number of instances in which the carrier bumped passengers but did not follow one or more of the provisions of the oversales rules.
The consent order is available on the Internet at www.regulations.gov, docket DOT-OST-2009-0001. A summary of the oversales rules is available at http://airconsumer.dot.gov/publications/flyrights.htm#overbooking.
DOT Fines Delta for Violations of Denied Boarding Compensation Rules
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) today assessed a civil penalty against Delta Air Lines for violating federal rules regarding passengers denied boarding (“bumped”) on oversold flights.
“Airlines often oversell flights in order to ensure that they fill all their seats, and the bumping rules are designed to protect consumers when this happens,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “We take these rules seriously and will take enforcement action when necessary.”
Delta was ordered to cease and desist from further violations and assessed a civil penalty of $375,000. Up to $200,000 of the penalty may be used by the carrier to implement systems not required by the rules that will benefit consumers.
When a flight is oversold, DOT regulations require airlines to seek volunteers willing to give up their seats for compensation. If not enough volunteers can be found and the carrier must bump passengers involuntarily, the carrier is required to give bumped passengers a written statement describing their rights and explaining how it decides who will be bumped from an oversold flight. In most cases, passengers bumped involuntarily also are entitled to cash compensation of up to $800.
The Department’s Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, as part of an on-site investigation at the carrier’s headquarters, reviewed records of Delta’s passenger complaint records from January to July 2008. The office also reviewed similar consumer complaints against Delta received by DOT last year. Both revealed a number of instances in which the carrier bumped passengers but did not follow one or more of the provisions of the oversales rules.
The consent order is available on the Internet at www.regulations.gov, docket DOT-OST-2009-0001. A summary of the oversales rules is available at http://airconsumer.dot.gov/publications/flyrights.htm#overbooking.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
UNITED WE FALL: United puts the squeeze on the Flying Public AGAIN!
United Airlines’ Dangerous Cost-Shifting Scheme
Why Consumers Will Pay Substantially More for Air Travel When Travel Agents are Forced to Pay Airline Credit Card Costs
Contact: Kate Hanni 707-337-0328
Stay Tuned for Public Press Release
BACKGROUND
United Airlines (UA) has told many travel agents and signaled its competitors that it will introduce on July 20, 2009 a radical new cost shifting scheme in the U.S. marketplace. If it succeeds, it will represent the most drastic and misguided scheme ever concocted since the airline industry was deregulated in 1978.
UA will endeavor to shift responsibility for payment of credit card merchant fees, an airline cost of sales, to travel agencies (TAs) who will then have virtually no choice but to pass them on to consumers in the form of higher TA service fees, or to absorb them and risk extinction. This is much more nefarious than just a price increase for consumers; it could remove trusted travel advisors from the distribution chain.
The leisure travel consumer, who purchases some 70% of all airline tickets, is a prime target UA plans to (a) extract supra premium prices from over time at united.com, (b) immediately shift substantial financial risk to and (c) exploit to build cash reserves in advance of its next bankruptcy filing.
Just barely a year after U.S. airlines turned irrevocably to charging consumers twice for product features such as baggage and seats already charged for in the price of an airline ticket, UA is now floating as a trial balloon a scheme that would have the consumer pay its credit card costs. Credit card merchant fees are likewise currently baked into the price of a ticket. This comes at a time when leisure fares have begun a double digit ascent. Consumers need to understand how they will be harmed should this unprecedented industry proposal succeed.
This document will provide the relevant facts and key assumptions, and will call out areas of likely negative impact on consumers.
RELEVANT FACTS
1. UA informed an unspecified number of TAs that effective July 20, 2009 they will not be able to sell UA tickets using UA’s credit card merchant agreements.
2. The policy applies to Visa, MasterCard, American Express, Discover, Diner's Club, JCB.
3. TAs would need to establish merchant accounts with the credit card issuers and settle in cash with UA via the Airline Reporting Corporation (ARC).
4. Under this scheme, some $171 million annually in credit card merchant fees could be transferred from UA to TAs.
5. Targeted TAs that continue using UA’s merchant facilities will receive a $75 debit memo for each ticket sold.
6. TAs can avoid merchant fees and debit memos by booking tickets on UA’s website.
7. UA indicated that TAs may have payment and settlement options through GDSs.
8. It is today not feasible for TAs using their own merchant accounts to book through GDSs. When using a consumer's credit card in the GDS, the charge is to airline’s merchant account. As such, the TA would have to sell “as cash” in the GDS, and accept a credit card outside of the normal workflow.
KEY ASSUMPTIONS
1. For competitive reasons, the only way UA can succeed in implementing its policy on July 20 is if virtually every other large airline indicates it will match UA. In short, UA’s pre-announcement of this scheme is both a trial balloon and smoke signal to its competitors. The additional assumptions and projected consumer impacts that follow are predicated upon a successful industry-wide adoption of UA's transfer of its credit card sales costs to TAs.
2. This UA policy is more than just a wholesale transfer of sales-related expenses; it is targeted. UA is not looking to transfer all its merchant fee costs, just those for consumers who use a TA.
3. Many TAs, especially in today’s tight-credit environment, would not likely be approved for merchant agreements involving high volumes of airline tickets. This would be terminal for these TAs.
4. Some TAs with their own merchant accounts would be at risk of losing their agreements because of a substantial increase in average transaction price; their credit limits would be exceeded. Today, TAs generally use their own merchant accounts for only relatively small service fees (e.g., $30) and not ticket sales (e.g., $300).
5. Those TAs approved for merchant agreements may not find the maximum charge volume allowed, or discount-rate levels offered, sufficient or affordable enough to stay in business. This scheme upends established credit relationships in the travel distribution chain and puts processing costs and financial risk in a place where they cannot and should not be borne.
6. Those TAs approved for merchant agreements may find high reserves and holds required by card companies and processors economically unworkable, forcing TAs to service customers using inefficient airline.coms where merchant fees will presumably be avoided; however, soaring administrative costs, plummeting agent productivity and customer service degradation would soon doom these TAs.
7. Well-resourced larger TAs currently possessing their own merchant agreements, or approved for such agreements because of this new airline industry policy, would be forced to pass the new merchant fees on to customers in the form of higher ticketing service fees. What’s more, most TAs today pay significantly higher discount rates than do large airlines.
8. Those TAs attempting to increase cash transactions would find their ARC bond requirements increasing substantially; in the current economic environment many TAs would simply not qualify for higher levels.
9. Ticketing service fees would be driven to even higher levels as TAs' cost of doing business would skyrocket as systems would need to be radically reprogrammed, i.e., this program is as big as Secure Flight in terms of required system changes to GDSs, back office accounting, mid and front office processing and online booking tools; the booking process would be made significantly more cumbersome and costly to execute.
10. The TA instead of being an “agent” would now be the “service provider,” aka the “merchant,” in the eyes of charge card companies. This risk-transfer to TAs would raise a multitude of new obligations and liabilities such as removing protections from TAs when airlines fail to perform.
11. In accepting merchant fee responsibility, TAs tie their very business survival to airlines’ financial viability. In the case of an airline bankruptcy, the consumer credit card transaction would have been with the TA merchant, but the TA would have paid the airline in cash within a matter of days. As such, the consumer could not request that the credit card company reverse the charge, and the TA would have no way to get the cash back from the airline since it would be just another unsecured creditor. Consumers would demand that TAs refund the ticket amount or if the consumer had not yet paid his credit card invoice, refuse to pay the charge. Consequently, a bankrupt airline would in turn cause the bankruptcy and failure of countless TAs, especially in airline dominated hub airport cities -- while being able to keep cash for tickets that it would not fulfill because it either stopped operating or cancelled the service on which the tickets were sold.
12. In an industry where many companies are serial Chapter 11 filers, it is perhaps no accident that under the UA scheme the TAs that had paid cash for ticket sales are not likely to qualify for the bankruptcy protection given to consumer deposits.
13. TAs would have to deal with the financial impact (e.g., higher costs; reduced financial flexibility) of having the necessary capital on hand to transact with ARC in cash.
14. TAs in the U.S. clear transactions with ARC, and as such, they would be on the line for the entire cost of a ticket in the event of charge card fraud, even though the airline is the service provider. Heretofore, since airlines have been the service providers they have had the means and incentives to take action by denying service to travelers involved with verified fraudulent transactions. For example, it is the airline, not the TA that has the chance after telephone or online sales to physically verify the identity of the traveler at time of check in and to refuse service as necessary.
15. Taken together, these negative impacts are lethally discriminatory toward the TA airline ticket distribution channel and would put it at an insurmountable competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis the airline-direct channel. This sets the stage for TA bypass and considerable consumer harm.
INJURIOUS CONSUMER IMPACTS
1. Consumers who continue to use TAs would pay airlines' credit card sales costs, likely finding TA service fees 50% to 100% higher due to merchant fees being passed on as well as systems reprogramming costs and significantly increased TA administrative and process costs.
2. As TAs go out of business, the independent TA channel for airline ticket distribution will have been substantially weakened, diminishing consumers’ access to complete and accurate information regarding air travel alternatives. And once airlines weaken the neutral TA channel, why would we not expect airlines to start charging all consumers who were to book directly with the airline a “credit card convenience” charge? Ironically, airlines would be in a position to justify such a move later on the grounds that “travel agencies do it.” In any event, there can be no doubt that consumers would pay unnecessarily higher airfares.
3. Better-financed TAs would be able to raise service fees even higher while offering less customer service, especially for those consumers who do not have access to the Internet or who are otherwise uncomfortable with online financial transactions or navigating complex airline websites. The UA move, if matched, would lead to more consolidation and more failures of TAs.
4. New merchant fees and additional costs would create a material price gap between the total-cost of a ticket booked via a TA versus at airline.com. Especially in a recession, unsuspecting consumers would be enticed to airline.com by perceived lower fares, and perhaps short-term inducements, but where the absence of comparison shopping and unbiased, expert TA advice would lead to higher fares paid.
5. As investigated and disclosed by the European Commission last year, the majority of airlines operating in Europe had websites that were misleading and deceptive in the way fare information was displayed. A dominant airline-direct channel, in Europe or the U.S., without the competitive discipline from online and traditional TAs, and with plenty of opportunity to tack on to quoted ticket prices other fees and charges for “extra services” -- would likely lead to ever-higher overall prices paid by consumers for air travel.
6. The consumer would be placed at risk if a booking were made through a TA who in turn had to purchase from an airline in cash and luggage were lost, or there were another airline non-performance problem. Who would be liable since the ticket form-of-payment would have been cash, even though the traveler would have paid with a credit card?
7. The consumer would be placed at risk in a dispute with an airline that, for example, refused to issue a refund. Today, the consumer can work with his credit card company. Under the proposed new process, the credit card transaction would have been with the TA who paid the airline cash. As such, the consumer would have virtually zero leverage with the airline and would be harmed financially.
8. Unknowingly, consumers would help finance UA and matching carriers' next trips into bankruptcy. A consumer would have no recourse vis-à-vis the airline in the event an airline filed bankruptcy after the TA had acted as merchant because UA and matching airlines would have required the TA to pay them in cash, which the airlines would have received from the TA and not the customer. It is the TA that would be a creditor of the bankrupt airline, not the customer. Under these circumstances, it would appear to be an open question as to whether the customer would have any ability to protest payment to the TA as the TA would not have defaulted and would in fact have fully performed its contract with the consumer by paying cash to UA. The TA, in turn, would not likely be able to enjoy any of the protections the bankruptcy law affords to consumer deposits. So, UA would, in effect, be maximizing its cash on hand in the next Chapter 11 proceeding on the backs of TAs and consumers.
…
Why Consumers Will Pay Substantially More for Air Travel When Travel Agents are Forced to Pay Airline Credit Card Costs
Contact: Kate Hanni 707-337-0328
Stay Tuned for Public Press Release
BACKGROUND
United Airlines (UA) has told many travel agents and signaled its competitors that it will introduce on July 20, 2009 a radical new cost shifting scheme in the U.S. marketplace. If it succeeds, it will represent the most drastic and misguided scheme ever concocted since the airline industry was deregulated in 1978.
UA will endeavor to shift responsibility for payment of credit card merchant fees, an airline cost of sales, to travel agencies (TAs) who will then have virtually no choice but to pass them on to consumers in the form of higher TA service fees, or to absorb them and risk extinction. This is much more nefarious than just a price increase for consumers; it could remove trusted travel advisors from the distribution chain.
The leisure travel consumer, who purchases some 70% of all airline tickets, is a prime target UA plans to (a) extract supra premium prices from over time at united.com, (b) immediately shift substantial financial risk to and (c) exploit to build cash reserves in advance of its next bankruptcy filing.
Just barely a year after U.S. airlines turned irrevocably to charging consumers twice for product features such as baggage and seats already charged for in the price of an airline ticket, UA is now floating as a trial balloon a scheme that would have the consumer pay its credit card costs. Credit card merchant fees are likewise currently baked into the price of a ticket. This comes at a time when leisure fares have begun a double digit ascent. Consumers need to understand how they will be harmed should this unprecedented industry proposal succeed.
This document will provide the relevant facts and key assumptions, and will call out areas of likely negative impact on consumers.
RELEVANT FACTS
1. UA informed an unspecified number of TAs that effective July 20, 2009 they will not be able to sell UA tickets using UA’s credit card merchant agreements.
2. The policy applies to Visa, MasterCard, American Express, Discover, Diner's Club, JCB.
3. TAs would need to establish merchant accounts with the credit card issuers and settle in cash with UA via the Airline Reporting Corporation (ARC).
4. Under this scheme, some $171 million annually in credit card merchant fees could be transferred from UA to TAs.
5. Targeted TAs that continue using UA’s merchant facilities will receive a $75 debit memo for each ticket sold.
6. TAs can avoid merchant fees and debit memos by booking tickets on UA’s website.
7. UA indicated that TAs may have payment and settlement options through GDSs.
8. It is today not feasible for TAs using their own merchant accounts to book through GDSs. When using a consumer's credit card in the GDS, the charge is to airline’s merchant account. As such, the TA would have to sell “as cash” in the GDS, and accept a credit card outside of the normal workflow.
KEY ASSUMPTIONS
1. For competitive reasons, the only way UA can succeed in implementing its policy on July 20 is if virtually every other large airline indicates it will match UA. In short, UA’s pre-announcement of this scheme is both a trial balloon and smoke signal to its competitors. The additional assumptions and projected consumer impacts that follow are predicated upon a successful industry-wide adoption of UA's transfer of its credit card sales costs to TAs.
2. This UA policy is more than just a wholesale transfer of sales-related expenses; it is targeted. UA is not looking to transfer all its merchant fee costs, just those for consumers who use a TA.
3. Many TAs, especially in today’s tight-credit environment, would not likely be approved for merchant agreements involving high volumes of airline tickets. This would be terminal for these TAs.
4. Some TAs with their own merchant accounts would be at risk of losing their agreements because of a substantial increase in average transaction price; their credit limits would be exceeded. Today, TAs generally use their own merchant accounts for only relatively small service fees (e.g., $30) and not ticket sales (e.g., $300).
5. Those TAs approved for merchant agreements may not find the maximum charge volume allowed, or discount-rate levels offered, sufficient or affordable enough to stay in business. This scheme upends established credit relationships in the travel distribution chain and puts processing costs and financial risk in a place where they cannot and should not be borne.
6. Those TAs approved for merchant agreements may find high reserves and holds required by card companies and processors economically unworkable, forcing TAs to service customers using inefficient airline.coms where merchant fees will presumably be avoided; however, soaring administrative costs, plummeting agent productivity and customer service degradation would soon doom these TAs.
7. Well-resourced larger TAs currently possessing their own merchant agreements, or approved for such agreements because of this new airline industry policy, would be forced to pass the new merchant fees on to customers in the form of higher ticketing service fees. What’s more, most TAs today pay significantly higher discount rates than do large airlines.
8. Those TAs attempting to increase cash transactions would find their ARC bond requirements increasing substantially; in the current economic environment many TAs would simply not qualify for higher levels.
9. Ticketing service fees would be driven to even higher levels as TAs' cost of doing business would skyrocket as systems would need to be radically reprogrammed, i.e., this program is as big as Secure Flight in terms of required system changes to GDSs, back office accounting, mid and front office processing and online booking tools; the booking process would be made significantly more cumbersome and costly to execute.
10. The TA instead of being an “agent” would now be the “service provider,” aka the “merchant,” in the eyes of charge card companies. This risk-transfer to TAs would raise a multitude of new obligations and liabilities such as removing protections from TAs when airlines fail to perform.
11. In accepting merchant fee responsibility, TAs tie their very business survival to airlines’ financial viability. In the case of an airline bankruptcy, the consumer credit card transaction would have been with the TA merchant, but the TA would have paid the airline in cash within a matter of days. As such, the consumer could not request that the credit card company reverse the charge, and the TA would have no way to get the cash back from the airline since it would be just another unsecured creditor. Consumers would demand that TAs refund the ticket amount or if the consumer had not yet paid his credit card invoice, refuse to pay the charge. Consequently, a bankrupt airline would in turn cause the bankruptcy and failure of countless TAs, especially in airline dominated hub airport cities -- while being able to keep cash for tickets that it would not fulfill because it either stopped operating or cancelled the service on which the tickets were sold.
12. In an industry where many companies are serial Chapter 11 filers, it is perhaps no accident that under the UA scheme the TAs that had paid cash for ticket sales are not likely to qualify for the bankruptcy protection given to consumer deposits.
13. TAs would have to deal with the financial impact (e.g., higher costs; reduced financial flexibility) of having the necessary capital on hand to transact with ARC in cash.
14. TAs in the U.S. clear transactions with ARC, and as such, they would be on the line for the entire cost of a ticket in the event of charge card fraud, even though the airline is the service provider. Heretofore, since airlines have been the service providers they have had the means and incentives to take action by denying service to travelers involved with verified fraudulent transactions. For example, it is the airline, not the TA that has the chance after telephone or online sales to physically verify the identity of the traveler at time of check in and to refuse service as necessary.
15. Taken together, these negative impacts are lethally discriminatory toward the TA airline ticket distribution channel and would put it at an insurmountable competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis the airline-direct channel. This sets the stage for TA bypass and considerable consumer harm.
INJURIOUS CONSUMER IMPACTS
1. Consumers who continue to use TAs would pay airlines' credit card sales costs, likely finding TA service fees 50% to 100% higher due to merchant fees being passed on as well as systems reprogramming costs and significantly increased TA administrative and process costs.
2. As TAs go out of business, the independent TA channel for airline ticket distribution will have been substantially weakened, diminishing consumers’ access to complete and accurate information regarding air travel alternatives. And once airlines weaken the neutral TA channel, why would we not expect airlines to start charging all consumers who were to book directly with the airline a “credit card convenience” charge? Ironically, airlines would be in a position to justify such a move later on the grounds that “travel agencies do it.” In any event, there can be no doubt that consumers would pay unnecessarily higher airfares.
3. Better-financed TAs would be able to raise service fees even higher while offering less customer service, especially for those consumers who do not have access to the Internet or who are otherwise uncomfortable with online financial transactions or navigating complex airline websites. The UA move, if matched, would lead to more consolidation and more failures of TAs.
4. New merchant fees and additional costs would create a material price gap between the total-cost of a ticket booked via a TA versus at airline.com. Especially in a recession, unsuspecting consumers would be enticed to airline.com by perceived lower fares, and perhaps short-term inducements, but where the absence of comparison shopping and unbiased, expert TA advice would lead to higher fares paid.
5. As investigated and disclosed by the European Commission last year, the majority of airlines operating in Europe had websites that were misleading and deceptive in the way fare information was displayed. A dominant airline-direct channel, in Europe or the U.S., without the competitive discipline from online and traditional TAs, and with plenty of opportunity to tack on to quoted ticket prices other fees and charges for “extra services” -- would likely lead to ever-higher overall prices paid by consumers for air travel.
6. The consumer would be placed at risk if a booking were made through a TA who in turn had to purchase from an airline in cash and luggage were lost, or there were another airline non-performance problem. Who would be liable since the ticket form-of-payment would have been cash, even though the traveler would have paid with a credit card?
7. The consumer would be placed at risk in a dispute with an airline that, for example, refused to issue a refund. Today, the consumer can work with his credit card company. Under the proposed new process, the credit card transaction would have been with the TA who paid the airline cash. As such, the consumer would have virtually zero leverage with the airline and would be harmed financially.
8. Unknowingly, consumers would help finance UA and matching carriers' next trips into bankruptcy. A consumer would have no recourse vis-à-vis the airline in the event an airline filed bankruptcy after the TA had acted as merchant because UA and matching airlines would have required the TA to pay them in cash, which the airlines would have received from the TA and not the customer. It is the TA that would be a creditor of the bankrupt airline, not the customer. Under these circumstances, it would appear to be an open question as to whether the customer would have any ability to protest payment to the TA as the TA would not have defaulted and would in fact have fully performed its contract with the consumer by paying cash to UA. The TA, in turn, would not likely be able to enjoy any of the protections the bankruptcy law affords to consumer deposits. So, UA would, in effect, be maximizing its cash on hand in the next Chapter 11 proceeding on the backs of TAs and consumers.
…
Monday, June 22, 2009
FlyersRights.org to the Rescue!
Passengers aboard US Airways Flight #1576 received hotel, taxi and food vouchers thanks to passengers David Anderson and Peter Pimino, who had the presence of mind to use cell phones to call FlyersRights.org at 1-877-FLYERS-6 (1-877- 359-3776).
Flight #1576 was beset by mechanical troubles immediately upon boarding. Passengers were initially held on the tarmac for 90 minutes due to what they were told was a wiring problem. After returning to the gate for repairs to the wiring (during which passengers were allowed to return to the terminal for 15 minutes), passengers were re-boarded, only to be held on the tarmac for an additional 4 hours for yet another mechanical problem.
While passengers became increasingly restless (some screamed at the crew and actually threatened to open the emergency exits), Anderson and Pimino had the presence of mind to call FlyersRights.org. By now, it was 6:00 PM.
We advised them that, in the event of a mechanical delay, they were entitled to be re-booked immediately to an alternate flight or, in the event no flights are available, to hotel, taxi and food vouchers. We also asked them to use their cell phones to photograph the event; their photo appears above. Thanks to their quick thinking, the flight was immediately taken back to the gate, passengers were allowed re-booking (without a fee), and those who had to stay overnight were given cab fare, a meal and hotel accommodations.
Remember: whenever you’re stuck on the tarmac, call FlyersRights.org at 1-877-FLYERS-6 (1-877- 359-3776). If your delay is caused by mechanical problems, you have certain rights under the law.
Incidentally, this is one more reason why you should always carry a cell phone aboard an aircraft. You may need to make a vital call, a video or take photos to document your horror story.
Kate Hanni
FlyersRights.org
Flight #1576 was beset by mechanical troubles immediately upon boarding. Passengers were initially held on the tarmac for 90 minutes due to what they were told was a wiring problem. After returning to the gate for repairs to the wiring (during which passengers were allowed to return to the terminal for 15 minutes), passengers were re-boarded, only to be held on the tarmac for an additional 4 hours for yet another mechanical problem.
While passengers became increasingly restless (some screamed at the crew and actually threatened to open the emergency exits), Anderson and Pimino had the presence of mind to call FlyersRights.org. By now, it was 6:00 PM.
We advised them that, in the event of a mechanical delay, they were entitled to be re-booked immediately to an alternate flight or, in the event no flights are available, to hotel, taxi and food vouchers. We also asked them to use their cell phones to photograph the event; their photo appears above. Thanks to their quick thinking, the flight was immediately taken back to the gate, passengers were allowed re-booking (without a fee), and those who had to stay overnight were given cab fare, a meal and hotel accommodations.
Remember: whenever you’re stuck on the tarmac, call FlyersRights.org at 1-877-FLYERS-6 (1-877- 359-3776). If your delay is caused by mechanical problems, you have certain rights under the law.
Incidentally, this is one more reason why you should always carry a cell phone aboard an aircraft. You may need to make a vital call, a video or take photos to document your horror story.
Kate Hanni
FlyersRights.org
Friday, June 5, 2009
A Flight from Paradise to Hell - Photo Update!
Napa, CA – June 4, 2009: Delta flight 510 from Turks and Caicos bound
for Atlanta on April 10th, 2009 started out like any other flight for
vacationing tourists who had spent a week in the sunny Caribbean
paradise. The passengers, spring breakers, families, and retirees were
tired and a little depressed that their vacations were over, but they
had no idea how their vacation would end.
The flight was scheduled to land at Hartsfield International Airport in
Atlanta at 5:04 pm, but the plane circled for a while due to
thunderstorms below, and was ultimately diverted to Columbia, S.C.
Metropolitan Airport where it landed at 5:44 pm. And there they sat,
and sat, and sat. Five and a half hours later they were finally
permitted to get off the plane - not into the terminal, but into a
cold, stark room with about 20 folding chairs.
Over 120 passengers, US citizens guarded by armed security personnel
and police, and nowhere for men, women and children to sit but a cold,
concrete floor. “One elderly woman had to be removed from our “cell” by
paramedics,” said one passenger. Listen here: Hotline Call
U.S. citizens, stuck for six hours on the tarmac, then thrown into a
concrete cell for hours and treated like criminals in their own country.
Some eleven hours after they boarded the plane in Turks and Caicos, the
criminals were moved to the terminal area that was wrapped in police
tape, and finally given the chance to purchase food. One family's
bill came to
$63.85 for seven scrumptious airport hamburgers!
And a couple of hours later Delta bought them pizzas!
Congress is currently considering a new FAA Reauthorization bill that
several consumer groups have urged that passengers’ rights legislation
be included that define specific limits for tarmac delays, and that
would require airlines and airports to develop contingency plans for
such emergencies.
This stranding event is outrageous. Here again we have senior citizens
and children trapped without food and water. And neither the airport
nor the airline had a plan, despite Delta's voluntary "commitments" to
deal effectively with these tarmac strandings.
FlyersRights.org has 25,000 members and is the largest non-profit
airline passengers rights coalition in the U.S. The organization
operates a toll-free hotline 1-877-359-3776 to assist stranded airline
passengers. Please contact Kate Hanni at 707-337-0328 or or
Kate@flyersrights.com.
for Atlanta on April 10th, 2009 started out like any other flight for
vacationing tourists who had spent a week in the sunny Caribbean
paradise. The passengers, spring breakers, families, and retirees were
tired and a little depressed that their vacations were over, but they
had no idea how their vacation would end.
The flight was scheduled to land at Hartsfield International Airport in
Atlanta at 5:04 pm, but the plane circled for a while due to
thunderstorms below, and was ultimately diverted to Columbia, S.C.
Metropolitan Airport where it landed at 5:44 pm. And there they sat,
and sat, and sat. Five and a half hours later they were finally
permitted to get off the plane - not into the terminal, but into a
cold, stark room with about 20 folding chairs.
Over 120 passengers, US citizens guarded by armed security personnel
and police, and nowhere for men, women and children to sit but a cold,
concrete floor. “One elderly woman had to be removed from our “cell” by
paramedics,” said one passenger. Listen here: Hotline Call
U.S. citizens, stuck for six hours on the tarmac, then thrown into a
concrete cell for hours and treated like criminals in their own country.
Some eleven hours after they boarded the plane in Turks and Caicos, the
criminals were moved to the terminal area that was wrapped in police
tape, and finally given the chance to purchase food. One family's
bill came to
$63.85 for seven scrumptious airport hamburgers!And a couple of hours later Delta bought them pizzas!
Congress is currently considering a new FAA Reauthorization bill that
several consumer groups have urged that passengers’ rights legislation
be included that define specific limits for tarmac delays, and that
would require airlines and airports to develop contingency plans for
such emergencies.
This stranding event is outrageous. Here again we have senior citizens
and children trapped without food and water. And neither the airport
nor the airline had a plan, despite Delta's voluntary "commitments" to
deal effectively with these tarmac strandings.
FlyersRights.org has 25,000 members and is the largest non-profit
airline passengers rights coalition in the U.S. The organization
operates a toll-free hotline 1-877-359-3776 to assist stranded airline
passengers. Please contact Kate Hanni at 707-337-0328 or or
Kate@flyersrights.com.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
FLYERSRIGHTS.ORG AND CANADIAN COUNTERPARTS: LET OUR PEOPLE OFF -- THE TARMAC THAT IS!
“Treat them like citizens and paying customers – not cattle,” says Hanni.
WASHINGTON (May 20) – Days before millions of Americans board aircraft for the Memorial Day holiday, airline passengers’ rights advocates from both Canada and the United States joined forces on Capitol Hill today demanding that both countries impose enforceable limits on how long commercial airlines can keep passengers onboard aircraft sitting on the tarmac.
“The House is about to take up reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration, but their bill allows the airlines themselves to decide how long we should sit on the tarmac,” said Kate Hanni, founder and Executive Director of FlyersRights.org, America’s largest consumer organization representing airline passengers. “There aren’t any limits, and airlines get to decide how long passengers can be held -- 6, 7, 8 hours or even longer.”
At a Capitol Hill news conference, Hanni was joined by Hon. Jim Maloway, a New Democrat Member of the Canadian Parliament from Manitoba, who has introduced a tough “Airline Passenger Bill of Rights” bill modeled after a similar measure in effect since 1991 in the European Union, which he says has reduced overbookings and flight cancellations significantly. “American and Canadian international airlines -- Air Canada or American or Continental – have been operating under the European laws for their flights in Europe since 1991. Why should an American or Canadian passenger receive better treatment in Europe than at home?” Maloway asked.
Under his legislation, Canadian passengers would receive compensation in the event of cancellations or overbooking; be provided food vouchers in the event of a flight delay longer than two hours; be given lodging if the delay lasts overnight; and passengers could get off the aircraft if their flights are delayed on the tarmac for longer than one hour. Additionally, passengers would receive $500 for each additional hour that their flight is delayed. Food, water, working bathrooms and temperature controls would also be required. Information and details on MP Maloway’s bill are available at http://www.jimmaloway.ca/airline.html.
Bruce Cran, President of the Consumer Association of Canada, noted that in reaction to Maloway’s bill, four Canadian airlines have voluntarily established a 90-minute limit on tarmac delays. “If four of the Canadian airlines can deplane their passengers after 90 minutes on the tarmac, they can all do so after one hour,” he said.
In contrast to the stringent requirements of the European Union and Maloway’s Canadian proposal, the bill scheduled to be debated in the House of Representatives tomorrow would merely require airlines to provide food, water, and temperature controls during tarmac delays and to disclose records of their delays.
Yet no statutory limits on tarmac delays are contained in the bill, Hanni noted. “Under the pending FAA Reauthorization bill, the airlines themselves will decide how long we have to sit on the tarmac,” she charged.
In remarks prepared for delivery later today before the House Aviation Subcommittee, Hanni acknowledged what she called “improvements” in the legislation compared to a similar measure last year, but implored the subcommittee to “not break our arms patting ourselves on the back for requiring that an airline provide basic human necessities like food, water, temperature controls and working bathrooms – not when passengers are being stranded on a tarmac for seven, eight, even nine hours.”
Urging Congress to include a “single, enforceable, industry-wide limit on the amount of time passengers can be held on board an aircraft on the tarmac,” Ms. Hanni asked lawmakers to “imagine 8 or 9 hours inside a sealed tube: the screaming children, the people in coach, In the middle seats. For them, these are not the ‘Friendly Skies.’ It’s time they’re treated like citizens and paying customers, not cattle.”
CONTACT:
MIKE COLLINS
TEL: (202) 494-6105
EMAIL: mikecollinspr@cox.net
WASHINGTON (May 20) – Days before millions of Americans board aircraft for the Memorial Day holiday, airline passengers’ rights advocates from both Canada and the United States joined forces on Capitol Hill today demanding that both countries impose enforceable limits on how long commercial airlines can keep passengers onboard aircraft sitting on the tarmac.
“The House is about to take up reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration, but their bill allows the airlines themselves to decide how long we should sit on the tarmac,” said Kate Hanni, founder and Executive Director of FlyersRights.org, America’s largest consumer organization representing airline passengers. “There aren’t any limits, and airlines get to decide how long passengers can be held -- 6, 7, 8 hours or even longer.”
At a Capitol Hill news conference, Hanni was joined by Hon. Jim Maloway, a New Democrat Member of the Canadian Parliament from Manitoba, who has introduced a tough “Airline Passenger Bill of Rights” bill modeled after a similar measure in effect since 1991 in the European Union, which he says has reduced overbookings and flight cancellations significantly. “American and Canadian international airlines -- Air Canada or American or Continental – have been operating under the European laws for their flights in Europe since 1991. Why should an American or Canadian passenger receive better treatment in Europe than at home?” Maloway asked.
Under his legislation, Canadian passengers would receive compensation in the event of cancellations or overbooking; be provided food vouchers in the event of a flight delay longer than two hours; be given lodging if the delay lasts overnight; and passengers could get off the aircraft if their flights are delayed on the tarmac for longer than one hour. Additionally, passengers would receive $500 for each additional hour that their flight is delayed. Food, water, working bathrooms and temperature controls would also be required. Information and details on MP Maloway’s bill are available at http://www.jimmaloway.ca/airline.html.
Bruce Cran, President of the Consumer Association of Canada, noted that in reaction to Maloway’s bill, four Canadian airlines have voluntarily established a 90-minute limit on tarmac delays. “If four of the Canadian airlines can deplane their passengers after 90 minutes on the tarmac, they can all do so after one hour,” he said.
In contrast to the stringent requirements of the European Union and Maloway’s Canadian proposal, the bill scheduled to be debated in the House of Representatives tomorrow would merely require airlines to provide food, water, and temperature controls during tarmac delays and to disclose records of their delays.
Yet no statutory limits on tarmac delays are contained in the bill, Hanni noted. “Under the pending FAA Reauthorization bill, the airlines themselves will decide how long we have to sit on the tarmac,” she charged.
In remarks prepared for delivery later today before the House Aviation Subcommittee, Hanni acknowledged what she called “improvements” in the legislation compared to a similar measure last year, but implored the subcommittee to “not break our arms patting ourselves on the back for requiring that an airline provide basic human necessities like food, water, temperature controls and working bathrooms – not when passengers are being stranded on a tarmac for seven, eight, even nine hours.”
Urging Congress to include a “single, enforceable, industry-wide limit on the amount of time passengers can be held on board an aircraft on the tarmac,” Ms. Hanni asked lawmakers to “imagine 8 or 9 hours inside a sealed tube: the screaming children, the people in coach, In the middle seats. For them, these are not the ‘Friendly Skies.’ It’s time they’re treated like citizens and paying customers, not cattle.”
CONTACT:
MIKE COLLINS
TEL: (202) 494-6105
EMAIL: mikecollinspr@cox.net
###
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Stranded on the Tarmac – A Flight from Paradise to Hell When will Congress Act?
Napa, CA – April 22, 2009: Delta flight 510 from Turks and Caicos bound for Atlanta on April 10th, 2009 started out like any other flight for vacationing tourists who had spent a week in the sunny Caribbean paradise. The passengers, spring breakers, families, and retirees were tired and a little depressed that their vacations were over, but they had no idea how their vacation would end.
The flight was scheduled to land at Hartsfield International Airport in Atlanta at 5:04 pm, but the plane circled for a while due to thunderstorms below, and was ultimately diverted to Columbia, S.C. Metropolitan Airport where it landed at 5:44 pm. And there they sat, and sat, and sat. Five and a half hours later they were finally permitted to get off the plane - not into the terminal, but into a cold, stark room with about 20 folding chairs. Over 120 passengers, US citizens guarded by armed security personnel and police, and nowhere for men, women and children to sit but a cold, concrete floor. “One elderly woman had to be removed from our “cell” by paramedics,” said one passenger.
There were passengers taking videos during this ordeal. We urge them come forward so the public at large can see what it's like being stuck for six hours on the tarmac, then thrown into a dungeon for three hours and treated like criminals in their own country.
Congress is currently considering a new FAA Reauthorization bill that several consumer groups have urged that passengers’ rights legislation be included that define specific limits for tarmac delays, and that would require airlines and airports to develop contingency plans for such emergencies.
This latest stranding event is outrageous. Here again we have senior citizens and children trapped without food and water. And neither the airport nor the airline had a plan, despite Delta's voluntary "commitments" to deal effectively with these tarmac strandings.
FlyersRights.org has 25,000 members and is the largest non-profit airline passengers rights coalition in the U.S. The organization operates a toll-free hotline 1-877-359-3776 to assist stranded airline passengers. Please contact Kate Hanni at 707-337-0328 or or Kate@flyersrights.com.
The flight was scheduled to land at Hartsfield International Airport in Atlanta at 5:04 pm, but the plane circled for a while due to thunderstorms below, and was ultimately diverted to Columbia, S.C. Metropolitan Airport where it landed at 5:44 pm. And there they sat, and sat, and sat. Five and a half hours later they were finally permitted to get off the plane - not into the terminal, but into a cold, stark room with about 20 folding chairs. Over 120 passengers, US citizens guarded by armed security personnel and police, and nowhere for men, women and children to sit but a cold, concrete floor. “One elderly woman had to be removed from our “cell” by paramedics,” said one passenger.
There were passengers taking videos during this ordeal. We urge them come forward so the public at large can see what it's like being stuck for six hours on the tarmac, then thrown into a dungeon for three hours and treated like criminals in their own country.
Congress is currently considering a new FAA Reauthorization bill that several consumer groups have urged that passengers’ rights legislation be included that define specific limits for tarmac delays, and that would require airlines and airports to develop contingency plans for such emergencies.
This latest stranding event is outrageous. Here again we have senior citizens and children trapped without food and water. And neither the airport nor the airline had a plan, despite Delta's voluntary "commitments" to deal effectively with these tarmac strandings.
FlyersRights.org has 25,000 members and is the largest non-profit airline passengers rights coalition in the U.S. The organization operates a toll-free hotline 1-877-359-3776 to assist stranded airline passengers. Please contact Kate Hanni at 707-337-0328 or or Kate@flyersrights.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
