The Passenger Facility Charge is NOT a Tax
This afternoon you received an email calling on Senators to “Ground the Ticket Tax”. Grounding the ticket tax will ground all passenger and cargo aviation in the United States. The federal ticket tax is a 7.5 percent excise tax imposed by the federal government on every passenger ticket purchased. The money raised by this ticket tax goes directly into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF). AATF funds the FAA, air traffic control and the Airport Improvement Program (AIP).
Senator DeMint needs to dust off his copy of the Federal Statute. The Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) created in the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (PL 101-508) is a user fee not a tax and has nothing to do with the 7.5 percent ticket tax:
“PFC means a passenger facility charge covered by this part imposed by a public agency on passengers enplaned at a commercial service airport it controls.”
The Congressional Research Service doesn’t think it’s a tax (IB10026):
“Although the FAA oversees the PFC program, the agency does
not impose the fee. The PFC is a state, local, or port authority fee, not a federally imposed tax.”
In fact, in the original preamble to the PFC regulations the FAA states:
“The PFC will be a local charge generating local revenue to be used locally”
There are currently $47.3 billion in safety and capacity projects in progress or planned to prevent passenger delays and congestion. AIP funding covers only a fraction of the infrastructure projects required and is insufficient to modernize and expand facilities needed to implement the necessary system changes to ensure the traveling public can fully realize the benefits of NextGen.
Under the terms of U.S. federal legislation, this e-mail may be considered an "advertisement" or "solicitation." If you do not wish to receive any further emails from ACI-NA, please send an email to: jcalderwood@aci-na.org with the words "OPT-OUT" in the subject line. You may notify us with your decision to opt-out within 30 days of receiving this email. If you choose to opt out of receiving e-mail from ACI-NA, you will no longer receive ACI-NA e-newsletters, notices of upcoming meetings, sponsorship opportunities, etc. If you prefer to unsubscribe from certain electronic publications rather than opt-out from email communications entirely, please email such request to communications@aci-na.org. It may take up to 10 days to process your request. The postal address for ACI-NA is 1775 K Street, N.W., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20006.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Testimony House Aviation Subcommittee on Airline Fees
Testimony
Submitted for the Record by
Kate Hanni
Executive Director and Spokesperson
FlyersRights.org
on
AIRLINE FEES
Before the
Subcommittee on Aviation
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.
July 14, 2010
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Petri:
FlyersRights.org, representing the interests of some 29,000+ airline passenger activists, wishes to have its views on airline fees considered by the members of the Subcommittee when its public hearing on this highly important subject is held. Frustration and anger on this issue is very high according to the phone calls made to the FlyersRights Hotline (1-877-FLYER56).
There are two reasons for this high level of passenger frustration:
1. Extra fees make calculating the true cost of flying very difficult.
Our members believe that the complexity of the "optional and ancillary fees" now being imposed by most of the major U.S. domestic airlines makes it very difficult for airline passengers to calculate the true cost of a proposed flight. This degrades the passenger's ability to compare the total costs of flying on competing airlines. Passengers' having accurate and easily comparable information about flight costs on competing airlines has been one of the major benefits that modern – internet - technology has made possible. This advantage is being lost by the proliferation of these new and changing airline fees that are added to the listed airfare before purchase or are paid later at the airport of departure.
2. Congress should enact legislation this year to control airline fees.
The U.S. Department of Transportation has indicated in a pending rulemaking that it would be satisfied if passengers were just given accurate information about these "optional and ancillary fees." A Senate amendment to the FAA Reauthorization Bill now being negotiated with House aviation leaders would be similarly limited.
FlyersRights.org members strongly disagree with this "information only" approach and believe that this Congress must act promptly to set statutory limits on what kinds of fees and charges can be imposed by airlines and under what conditions.
Needed Components of New Federal Legislation
to Control Ancillary Airline Fees
1. Prohibit Airlines from Charging Any Fee for Carry-on Bags That Comply with Airline's Size, Weight, etc., Limitations and, Prospectively, for Use of Restrooms on Aircraft.
Congress should legislate that a passenger's right to carry on-board a properly-sized bag for storage in the overhead rack and for access to the aircraft's restrooms are basic elements of air travel that should be included in the passenger's base airfare for air transportation.
As you've heard, starting on August 1, Spirit Airlines is planning to impose a fee of up to $45 for each carry-on bag. Ryanair, a European carrier, has been threatening for more than a year to impose a 1£ or 1 euro charge for use of its on¬board lavatories. Congress should act soon to convince these and other airlines not to implement such planned fees. This would simultaneously convince the U.S. flying public that its Federal Government will protect passengers from other unreasonable forms of airline fees and charges.
2. "Even the Playing Field" by Imposing a Federal Aviation User Tax on Airline Fees for Checked Bags and Other Items That Previously Had Been Included in the Published Airfare.
Until they started to "unbundle" their costs, the domestic airlines had imbedded their costs for carrying checked bags within the base airfare on which a 7.5% Federal air transportation tax had been collected. These proceeds were deposited into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund for use for airport and airway system improvements. According to recent DOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) data, the airlines this year will generate about $3 billion in checked bag revenue, completely free of Federal aviation taxation unless Congress acts.
FlyersRights.org believes that this checked bag revenue should be treated by the Internal Revenue Code as "taxable air transportation," thus adding about $225 million annually to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. Will the airlines or their passengers pay this Federal aviation tax? Since the airlines are already charging passengers as high a base airfare as they can get the other airlines to support, it seems likely that any Federal aviation tax on the fees charged for checked bags would probably be a cost that the airlines can't pass along to their passengers. This situation would be no different than the current Federal aviation tax collected on the base airfare.
This solution would also "even the playing field" among competing carriers. Southwest Airlines and Jet Blue don't impose checked bag fees; thus they (or their passengers) are paying a 7.5% tax on that portion of their base airfare that reflects the costs for carrying checked baggage. Their competitors are currently paying no Federal aviation tax on their checked bag fee revenues and this doesn't seem fair.
3. Require Airlines to Refund Passengers Their Checked Bag Fees Whenever Those Bags Don’t Arrive on the Same Flight as Passengers
FlyersRights.org believes that basic "fairness" requires that carriers promptly refund any checked bag fees collected if those bags are misplaced, misdirected or otherwise don't arrive at the destination airport when the passengers do. Some of the revenue from checked bag fees should be used to provide a higher quality/more timely service for joining passengers to their checked baggage without delay.
4. Require Airlines to Honor Reservations Without Penalty or Higher Fare for 24 Hours So Passengers Can Compare Total Costs of Flying on Other Airlines or From Other Sources.
Calculating the total costs of flying when different airlines charge (or don't charge) different amounts for various "optional and ancillary fees" is very complicated and takes time. Passengers should by statute be granted a grace period of 24 hours after making a plane reservation to compare the total costs available for the same trip from other airlines or through designated agents of the airlines (Orbitz, Travelocity, etc.). To require a passenger to pay a higher fare during that interim period or to suffer a financial penalty for cancelling a just- made reservation would exert pressure resulting too often in making a hurried, financially disadvantageous decision.
5. Authorize the Secretary of Transportation to Review the Reasonableness of Airline Fees Imposed for Changing or Cancelling a Confirmed Reservation, and Requiring Better Advance Notice of Such Fees.
Many passengers complain that they must suffer an up-to-$250 charge to change or cancel their confirmed reservations. These airline fees generate some $2 billion in added revenue annually. FlyersRights.org believes that DOT should be statutorily authorized to review the reasonableness of such charges, comparing the costs to the airlines for implementing such changes against the need for a reasonable disincentive factor so passengers won't be continually changing their flight plans.
6. Prohibit Airlines From Imposing "Surcharges" if the Extra Costs to be Recovered Aren't Documented or if They Are Only Imposed in Selected Markets.
A "surcharge" connotes to the average passenger an extra fee that is imposed to cover identified higher costs, to be collected only during the period when those extra costs are being incurred, and that is imposed on all those who benefit from those higher costs being expended to provide a valuable service. Not so in U.S. civil aviation. Airlines impose fuel or other "surcharges" when they want to and can, with no required correlation to time or cost, and they impose them selectively and not across the board in all markets. FlyersRights.org believes that the Secretary of Transportation should be authorized to prohibit any airline "surcharges" that don't correlate to costs incurred and to markets/passengers charged.
In sum, FlyersRights.org urges the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure promptly to draft and pass implementing legislation this summer to carry out our above recommendations. I would be pleased to respond to any questions from members of the Subcommittee on Aviation or their staffs to that end.
Thank you for considering these views.
Attachments
A BILL
To prohibit air carriers from charging fees for carry-on baggage, or for use by passengers of restrooms on aircraft, to require disclosure of passenger fees, to treat air carrier fees on checked baggage as taxable transportation, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON FEES FOR CARRY-ON BAGGAGE OR FOR USE OF RESTROOMS ON AIRCRAFT; DISCLOSURE OF PASSENGER FEES.
(a) IN GENERAL.-Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall complete a rulemaking that-
(1) prohibits each air carrier operating in the United States under part 121 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, from charging any fees for carry-on baggage that falls within the restrictions imposed by the air carrier with respect to the weight, size, or number of bags and from charging any fee for use by passengers of restrooms on aircraft.
(2) requires each such air carrier to make detailed information about restrictions with respect to the weight, size and number of carry-on baggage available to passengers before they arrive at the airport for a scheduled departure on the air carrier; and
(3) requires each such air carrier to make available to the public and to the Secretary a list of all passenger fees and charges (other than airfare) that may be imposed by the air carrier, including fees for-
(A) checked baggage or oversized or heavy baggage, including specialty items such as bicycles, skis, and firearms;
(B) meals, beverages, or other refreshments;
(C) seats in exit rows, seats with additional space, or other preferred seats in any given class of travel;
(D) purchasing tickets from an airline ticket agent or travel agency; or
(E) any other good, service, or amenity provided by the air carrier, as required by the Secretary
(b) PUBLICATION; UPDATES.-In order to ensure that the fee information required by subsection (a)(3) is both current and widely available to the traveling public, the Secretary-
(1) may require an air carrier to make such information available to travel agencies, and to notify passengers of the availability of such information when advertising airfares; and
(2) shall require air carriers to update the information as necessary, but no less frequently than every 90 days unless there has been no increase in the amount or type of fees shown in the most recent publication.
SECTION 2. FEES FOR CHECKED BAGGAGE TREATED AS PAID FOR TAXABLE TRANSPORTATION.
(a) IN GENERAL.-Section 4261(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following-
"(5) AMOUNTS PAID FOR CHECKED BAGGAGE.-Any amount paid by an airline passenger to check baggage for transit on the aircraft carrying such passenger shall be treated for purposes of subsection (a) as an amount paid for taxable transportation.".
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.-The amendment may by this section shall apply to transportation beginning on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Submitted for the Record by
Kate Hanni
Executive Director and Spokesperson
FlyersRights.org
on
AIRLINE FEES
Before the
Subcommittee on Aviation
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.
July 14, 2010
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Petri:
FlyersRights.org, representing the interests of some 29,000+ airline passenger activists, wishes to have its views on airline fees considered by the members of the Subcommittee when its public hearing on this highly important subject is held. Frustration and anger on this issue is very high according to the phone calls made to the FlyersRights Hotline (1-877-FLYER56).
There are two reasons for this high level of passenger frustration:
1. Extra fees make calculating the true cost of flying very difficult.
Our members believe that the complexity of the "optional and ancillary fees" now being imposed by most of the major U.S. domestic airlines makes it very difficult for airline passengers to calculate the true cost of a proposed flight. This degrades the passenger's ability to compare the total costs of flying on competing airlines. Passengers' having accurate and easily comparable information about flight costs on competing airlines has been one of the major benefits that modern – internet - technology has made possible. This advantage is being lost by the proliferation of these new and changing airline fees that are added to the listed airfare before purchase or are paid later at the airport of departure.
2. Congress should enact legislation this year to control airline fees.
The U.S. Department of Transportation has indicated in a pending rulemaking that it would be satisfied if passengers were just given accurate information about these "optional and ancillary fees." A Senate amendment to the FAA Reauthorization Bill now being negotiated with House aviation leaders would be similarly limited.
FlyersRights.org members strongly disagree with this "information only" approach and believe that this Congress must act promptly to set statutory limits on what kinds of fees and charges can be imposed by airlines and under what conditions.
Needed Components of New Federal Legislation
to Control Ancillary Airline Fees
1. Prohibit Airlines from Charging Any Fee for Carry-on Bags That Comply with Airline's Size, Weight, etc., Limitations and, Prospectively, for Use of Restrooms on Aircraft.
Congress should legislate that a passenger's right to carry on-board a properly-sized bag for storage in the overhead rack and for access to the aircraft's restrooms are basic elements of air travel that should be included in the passenger's base airfare for air transportation.
As you've heard, starting on August 1, Spirit Airlines is planning to impose a fee of up to $45 for each carry-on bag. Ryanair, a European carrier, has been threatening for more than a year to impose a 1£ or 1 euro charge for use of its on¬board lavatories. Congress should act soon to convince these and other airlines not to implement such planned fees. This would simultaneously convince the U.S. flying public that its Federal Government will protect passengers from other unreasonable forms of airline fees and charges.
2. "Even the Playing Field" by Imposing a Federal Aviation User Tax on Airline Fees for Checked Bags and Other Items That Previously Had Been Included in the Published Airfare.
Until they started to "unbundle" their costs, the domestic airlines had imbedded their costs for carrying checked bags within the base airfare on which a 7.5% Federal air transportation tax had been collected. These proceeds were deposited into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund for use for airport and airway system improvements. According to recent DOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) data, the airlines this year will generate about $3 billion in checked bag revenue, completely free of Federal aviation taxation unless Congress acts.
FlyersRights.org believes that this checked bag revenue should be treated by the Internal Revenue Code as "taxable air transportation," thus adding about $225 million annually to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. Will the airlines or their passengers pay this Federal aviation tax? Since the airlines are already charging passengers as high a base airfare as they can get the other airlines to support, it seems likely that any Federal aviation tax on the fees charged for checked bags would probably be a cost that the airlines can't pass along to their passengers. This situation would be no different than the current Federal aviation tax collected on the base airfare.
This solution would also "even the playing field" among competing carriers. Southwest Airlines and Jet Blue don't impose checked bag fees; thus they (or their passengers) are paying a 7.5% tax on that portion of their base airfare that reflects the costs for carrying checked baggage. Their competitors are currently paying no Federal aviation tax on their checked bag fee revenues and this doesn't seem fair.
3. Require Airlines to Refund Passengers Their Checked Bag Fees Whenever Those Bags Don’t Arrive on the Same Flight as Passengers
FlyersRights.org believes that basic "fairness" requires that carriers promptly refund any checked bag fees collected if those bags are misplaced, misdirected or otherwise don't arrive at the destination airport when the passengers do. Some of the revenue from checked bag fees should be used to provide a higher quality/more timely service for joining passengers to their checked baggage without delay.
4. Require Airlines to Honor Reservations Without Penalty or Higher Fare for 24 Hours So Passengers Can Compare Total Costs of Flying on Other Airlines or From Other Sources.
Calculating the total costs of flying when different airlines charge (or don't charge) different amounts for various "optional and ancillary fees" is very complicated and takes time. Passengers should by statute be granted a grace period of 24 hours after making a plane reservation to compare the total costs available for the same trip from other airlines or through designated agents of the airlines (Orbitz, Travelocity, etc.). To require a passenger to pay a higher fare during that interim period or to suffer a financial penalty for cancelling a just- made reservation would exert pressure resulting too often in making a hurried, financially disadvantageous decision.
5. Authorize the Secretary of Transportation to Review the Reasonableness of Airline Fees Imposed for Changing or Cancelling a Confirmed Reservation, and Requiring Better Advance Notice of Such Fees.
Many passengers complain that they must suffer an up-to-$250 charge to change or cancel their confirmed reservations. These airline fees generate some $2 billion in added revenue annually. FlyersRights.org believes that DOT should be statutorily authorized to review the reasonableness of such charges, comparing the costs to the airlines for implementing such changes against the need for a reasonable disincentive factor so passengers won't be continually changing their flight plans.
6. Prohibit Airlines From Imposing "Surcharges" if the Extra Costs to be Recovered Aren't Documented or if They Are Only Imposed in Selected Markets.
A "surcharge" connotes to the average passenger an extra fee that is imposed to cover identified higher costs, to be collected only during the period when those extra costs are being incurred, and that is imposed on all those who benefit from those higher costs being expended to provide a valuable service. Not so in U.S. civil aviation. Airlines impose fuel or other "surcharges" when they want to and can, with no required correlation to time or cost, and they impose them selectively and not across the board in all markets. FlyersRights.org believes that the Secretary of Transportation should be authorized to prohibit any airline "surcharges" that don't correlate to costs incurred and to markets/passengers charged.
In sum, FlyersRights.org urges the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure promptly to draft and pass implementing legislation this summer to carry out our above recommendations. I would be pleased to respond to any questions from members of the Subcommittee on Aviation or their staffs to that end.
Thank you for considering these views.
Attachments
A BILL
To prohibit air carriers from charging fees for carry-on baggage, or for use by passengers of restrooms on aircraft, to require disclosure of passenger fees, to treat air carrier fees on checked baggage as taxable transportation, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON FEES FOR CARRY-ON BAGGAGE OR FOR USE OF RESTROOMS ON AIRCRAFT; DISCLOSURE OF PASSENGER FEES.
(a) IN GENERAL.-Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall complete a rulemaking that-
(1) prohibits each air carrier operating in the United States under part 121 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, from charging any fees for carry-on baggage that falls within the restrictions imposed by the air carrier with respect to the weight, size, or number of bags and from charging any fee for use by passengers of restrooms on aircraft.
(2) requires each such air carrier to make detailed information about restrictions with respect to the weight, size and number of carry-on baggage available to passengers before they arrive at the airport for a scheduled departure on the air carrier; and
(3) requires each such air carrier to make available to the public and to the Secretary a list of all passenger fees and charges (other than airfare) that may be imposed by the air carrier, including fees for-
(A) checked baggage or oversized or heavy baggage, including specialty items such as bicycles, skis, and firearms;
(B) meals, beverages, or other refreshments;
(C) seats in exit rows, seats with additional space, or other preferred seats in any given class of travel;
(D) purchasing tickets from an airline ticket agent or travel agency; or
(E) any other good, service, or amenity provided by the air carrier, as required by the Secretary
(b) PUBLICATION; UPDATES.-In order to ensure that the fee information required by subsection (a)(3) is both current and widely available to the traveling public, the Secretary-
(1) may require an air carrier to make such information available to travel agencies, and to notify passengers of the availability of such information when advertising airfares; and
(2) shall require air carriers to update the information as necessary, but no less frequently than every 90 days unless there has been no increase in the amount or type of fees shown in the most recent publication.
SECTION 2. FEES FOR CHECKED BAGGAGE TREATED AS PAID FOR TAXABLE TRANSPORTATION.
(a) IN GENERAL.-Section 4261(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following-
"(5) AMOUNTS PAID FOR CHECKED BAGGAGE.-Any amount paid by an airline passenger to check baggage for transit on the aircraft carrying such passenger shall be treated for purposes of subsection (a) as an amount paid for taxable transportation.".
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.-The amendment may by this section shall apply to transportation beginning on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Testimony FlyersRights.org regarding Airline Fees and Surcharges et. al.
FlyersRights.org
Testimony
Submitted for the Record by
Kate Hanni
Executive Director and Spokesperson
on
AIRLINE FEES
Before the
Subcommittee on Aviation
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.
July 14, 2010
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Petri:
FlyersRights.org, representing the interests of some 29,000+ airline passenger activists, wishes to have its views on airline fees considered by the members of the Subcommittee when its public hearing on this highly important subject is held. Frustration and anger on this issue is very high according to the phone calls made to the FlyersRights Hotline (1-877-FLYER56).
There are two reasons for this high level of passenger frustration:
1. Extra fees make calculating the true cost of flying very difficult.
Our members believe that the complexity of the “optional and ancillary fees” now being imposed by most of the major U.S. domestic airlines makes it very difficult for airline passengers to calculate the true cost of a proposed flight. This degrades the passenger’s ability to compare the total costs of flying on competing airlines. Passengers’ having accurate and easily comparable information about flight costs on competing airlines has been one of the major benefits that modern – internet – technology has made possible. This advantage is being lost by the proliferation of these new and changing airline fees that are added to the listed airfare before purchase or are paid later at the airport of departure.
2. Congress should enact legislation this year to control airline fees.
The U.S. Department of Transportation has indicated in a pending rulemaking that it would be satisfied if passengers were just given accurate information about these “optional and ancillary fees.” A Senate amendment to the FAA Reauthorization Bill now being negotiated with House aviation leaders would be similarly limited.
FlyersRights.org members strongly disagree with this “information only” approach and believe that this Congress must act promptly to set statutory limits on what kinds of fees and charges can be imposed by airlines and under what conditions.
Needed Components of New Federal Legislation to Control Ancillary Airline Fees
1. Prohibit Airlines from Charging Any Fee for Carry-on Bags That Comply with Airline’s Size, Weight, etc., Limitations and, Prospectively, for Use of Restrooms on Aircraft.
Congress should legislate that a passenger’s right to carry on-board a properly-sized bag for storage in the overhead rack and for access to the aircraft’s restrooms are basic elements of air travel that should be included in the passenger’s base airfare for air transportation.
As you’ve heard, starting on August 1, Spirit Airlines is planning to impose a fee of up to $45 for each carry-on bag. Ryanair, a European carrier, has been threatening for more than a year to impose a 1 £ or 1 euro charge for use of its on-board lavatories. Congress should act soon to convince these and other airlines not to implement such planned fees. This would simultaneously convince the U.S. flying public that its Federal Government will protect passengers from other unreasonable forms of airline fees and charges.
2. “Even the Playing Field” by Imposing a Federal Aviation User Tax on Airline Fees for Checked Bags and Other Items That Previously Had Been Included in the Published Airfare.
Until they started to “unbundle” their costs, the domestic airlines had imbedded their costs for carrying checked bags within the base airfare on which a 7.5% Federal air transportation tax had been collected. These proceeds were deposited into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund for use for airport and airway system improvements. According to recent DOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) data, the airlines this year will generate about $3 billion in checked bag revenue, completely free of Federal aviation taxation unless Congress acts.
FlyersRights.org believes that this checked bag revenue should be treated by the Internal Revenue Code as “taxable air transportation,” thus adding about $225 million annually to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. Will the airlines or their passengers pay this Federal aviation tax? Since the airlines are already charging passengers as high a base airfare as they can get the other airlines to support, it seems likely that any Federal aviation tax on the fees charged for checked bags would probably be a cost that the airlines can’t pass along to their passengers. This situation would be no different than the current Federal aviation tax collected on the base airfare.
This solution would also “even the playing field” among competing carriers. Southwest Airlines and Jet Blue don’t impose checked bag fees; thus they (or their passengers) are paying a 7.5% tax on that portion of their base airfare that reflects the costs for carrying checked baggage. Their competitors are currently paying no Federal aviation tax on their checked bag fee revenues and this doesn’t seem fair.
3. Require Airlines to Refund Passengers Their Checked Bag Fees Whenever Those Bags Don’t Arrive on the Same Flight as Passengers.
FlyersRights.org believes that basic “fairness” requires that carriers promptly refund any checked bag fees collected if those bags are misplaced, misdirected or otherwise don’t arrive at the destination airport when the passengers do. Some of the revenue from checked bag fees should be used to provide a higher quality/more timely service for joining passengers to their checked baggage without delay.
4. Require Airlines to Honor Reservations Without Penalty or Higher Fare for 24 Hours So Passengers Can Compare Total Costs of Flying on Other Airlines or From Other Sources.
Calculating the total costs of flying when different airlines charge (or don’t charge) different amounts for various “optional and ancillary fees” is very complicated and takes time. Passengers should by statute be granted a grace period of 24 hours after making a plane reservation to compare the total costs available for the same trip from other airlines or through designated agents of the airlines (Orbitz, Travelocity, etc.). To require a passenger to pay a higher fare during that interim period or to suffer a financial penalty for cancelling a just-made reservation would exert pressure resulting too often in making a hurried, financially disadvantageous decision.
5. Authorize the Secretary of Transportation to Review the Reasonableness of Airline Fees Imposed for Changing or Cancelling a Confirmed Reservation, and Requiring Better Advance Notice of Such Fees.
Many passengers complain that they must suffer an up-to-$250 charge to change or cancel their confirmed reservations. These airline fees generate some $2 billion in added revenue annually. FlyersRights.org believes that DOT should be statutorily authorized to review the reasonableness of such charges, comparing the costs to the airlines for implementing such changes against the need for a reasonable disincentive factor so passengers won’t be continually changing their flight plans.
6. Prohibit Airlines From Imposing “Surcharges” if the Extra Costs to be Recovered Aren’t Documented or if They Are Only Imposed in Selected Markets.
A “surcharge” connotes to the average passenger an extra fee that is imposed to cover identified higher costs, to be collected only during the period when those extra costs are being incurred, and that is imposed on all those who benefit from those higher costs being expended to provide a valuable service. Not so in U.S. civil aviation. Airlines impose fuel or other “surcharges” when they want to and can, with no required correlation to time or cost, and they impose them selectively and not across the board in all markets. FlyersRights.org believes that the Secretary of Transportation should be authorized to prohibit any airline “surcharges” that don’t correlate to costs incurred and to markets/passengers charged.
In sum, FlyersRights.org urges the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure promptly to draft and pass implementing legislation this summer to carry out our above recommendations. I would be pleased to respond to any questions from members of the Subcommittee on Aviation or their staffs to that end.
Thank you for considering these views.
Attachments
A BILL
To prohibit air carriers from charging fees for carry-on baggage, or for use by passengers of restrooms on aircraft, to require disclosure of passenger fees, to treat air carrier fees on checked baggage as taxable transportation, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON FEES FOR CARRY-ON BAGGAGE OR FOR USE OF RESTROOMS ON AIRCRAFT; DISCLOSURE OF PASSENGER FEES.
(a) IN GENERAL.-Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall complete a rulemaking that-
(1) prohibits each air carrier operating in the United States under part 121 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, from charging any fees for carry-on baggage that falls within the restrictions imposed by the air carrier with respect to the weight, size, or number of bags and from charging any fee for use by passengers of restrooms on aircraft.
(2) requires each such air carrier to make detailed information about restrictions with respect to the weight, size and number of carry-on baggage available to passengers before they arrive at the airport for a scheduled departure on the air carrier; and
(3) requires each such air carrier to make available to the public and to the Secretary a list of all passenger fees and charges (other than airfare) that may be imposed by the air carrier, including fees for-
(A) checked baggage or oversized or heavy baggage, including specialty items such as bicycles, skis, and firearms;
(B) meals, beverages, or other refreshments;
(C) seats in exit rows, seats with additional space, or other preferred seats in any given class of travel;
(D) purchasing tickets from an airline ticket agent or travel agency; or
(E) any other good, service, or amenity provided by the air carrier, as required by the Secretary
(b) PUBLICATION; UPDATES.-In order to ensure that the fee information required by subsection (a)(3) is both current and widely available to the traveling public, the Secretary-
(1) may require an air carrier to make such information available to travel agencies, and to notify passengers of the availability of such information when advertising airfares; and
(2) shall require air carriers to update the information as necessary, but no less frequently than every 90 days unless there has been no increase in the amount or type of fees shown in the most recent publication.
SECTION 2. FEES FOR CHECKED BAGGAGE TREATED AS PAID FOR TAXABLE TRANSPORTATION.
(a) IN GENERAL.-Section 4261(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following-
“(5) AMOUNTS PAID FOR CHECKED BAGGAGE.-Any amount paid by an airline passenger to check baggage for transit on the aircraft carrying such passenger shall be treated for purposes of subsection (a) as an amount paid for taxable transportation.”.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.-The amendment may by this section shall apply to transportation beginning on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Virgin Atlantic Story you Haven't Heard...Horrifying.
Hi Kate,
I am writing in regards to the investigation concerning Virgin Atlantic flight VS001 on June 22, 2010. Below is a detailed description of events. Given my profession as a journalist, I took notes during the ordeal.
Virgin Flight VS 001 was scheduled to leave at 16:20 UK time (11:20 U.S. time) on Tuesday, June 22, 2010. At 15:30 a flight agent informed passengers in the boarding area that boarding would be delayed due to the extreme temperature inside of the plane. Over the microphone, the flight agent stated that “it [was] 40 degrees [Celcius] and passengers could not board” until the temperature dropped. At this point, not even cabin crew were permitted on board.
Fifteen minutes later, cabin crew were allowed on the aircraft; but at 16:05, the same flight agent returned for an update and reiterated that the temperature was “still at 40,” that “the cause was unknown,” and that boarding would be delayed by at least another 20 minutes. After the sympathetic flight agent returned a third time around 16:30 to apologize again, at 17:00 a different (and sterner) flight agent stated “Virgin Atlantic flight VS001 [was] now ready for boarding.”
According to the new flight agent, the temperature had not changed inside the aircraft, but boarding would proceed. Passengers were ominously handed bottles of water before entering the plane.
The plane was stifling. Though it only took 25 minutes to completely board the plane, two passengers with checked bags failed to board. We had to wait for these passengers and the unloading of their bags for another 35 minutes. In total, passengers waited impatiently in the heat for approximately a little more than one hour. The pilot and flight crew apologized repeatedly for the situation. Once, the aircraft doors were closed, it was announced that a total of 295 passengers and 5 infants were on board.
Once airborne, the air began to flow; and we flew comfortably for around 7 hours.
About 19:40 US time, the pilot said that because of bad weather Newark airport was closed and that we would divert to “Bradley Airfield” (not airport) and then return to Newark when the bad weather subsided.
We landed at Bradley airport in Connecticut at 20:30 US TIME, positioned at the end of the tarmac. As soon as the engines had been turned off, the temperature began to rise again. Within minutes, the power on the plane failed, leaving us in darkness. In 20 minutes the plane’s temperature felt identical to the sauna-like temperatures upon boarding, around 40 Celcius (108 Farenheit).
The events that followed were confusing for passengers. The information we were given via the pilot’s announcements and flight crew announcements seemed incoherent and bizarre. First we were told that the power unit had to be replaced to get power back on board. Additionally, we needed to refuel to get to Newark. This began to cause speculation as to why we had even landed at Bradley. Most of us had spoken to relatives at Newark via cell phone, who told us that everything in Newark was fine. Passengers began wondering if the plane was short on fuel or if something else had prompted our landing at Bradley.
The replacement power unit was installed but then “caught on fire” according to the pilot, leaving us in darkness again. Passengers were instructed to remain seated since refueling was taking place. The pilot stated that there were “issues with refueling” but did not elaborate. Nearly one hour later, the pilot said that fuel had been “placed in the wrong tank.” At this point, nearly two hours after we landed, the heat was really starting to affect people. Oxygen was being administered. Babies were screaming and crying. Old people were feeling faint. The baby in front of us was naked, bright red, and screaming. Some flight attendants were attempting to cool the baby down with cold towels, but other flight attendants seemed to have disappeared during the entire incident. During these first two hours (and even during the next 2.5 hours), passengers were not even offered water.
As passengers continued to sweat, burn up, and grow impatient, the pilot said that we had to wait for the fuel situation to be rectified. Soon after the pilot told us that the flight hours of the crew and pilots were about to end, even beyond their 2-hour margin, and that the flight would indeed terminate at Bradley. We were told that buses would come take us from the tarmac to the immigration and customs building shortly. The flight crew also announced that Virgin would provide accommodation for passengers and that ground handling agents would also help us re-arrange our forward journey, plans, and New York hotel/car/onward flight cancellations (even though Virgin did not have any of its own staff working Bradley).
The buses never arrived, and the pilot exited the plane to work on a solution. After passengers had been locked in the plane for 3. 5 hours in the potentially deadly heat, the pilot returned and said we would move the plane to the building since buses could not be arranged. When the pilot attempted to start the plane, the engines failed. He announced the engine failure over the loudspeaker, apologized profusely, and said that in his entire career as a pilot, he had never had a day like this one. He also said that we did not deserve what we had endured and that we had every right to be upset and frustrated.
But at this point, the pilot’s apologies were not enough. People were feeling extremely ill and faint. We felt our rights as passengers had been violated being held against our will. Several elderly passengers were complaining of shortness of breath and worrying about potential heart attacks. Meanwhile, the flight crew’s attitude did not match the pilot’s. Flight crew were more concerned with themselves and their discomfort than passengers. While the pilot apologized repeatedly and took a very sympathetic tone with passengers, the flight crew were unavailable and often downright rude! It should be noted that the head flight attendant, Rebecca, disappeared during this entire ordeal. In my class, premium economy, passenger complaints, concerns and frustrations were met with a classless, “I can’t be bothered” attitude from flight attendants. Attempting to assuage the misery, at two brief points, the pilot ordered two of the aircraft doors open to try and improve air circulation on the plane. However, this only brought cool area to the immediate area in front of the doors (though it did allow infants and elders to get a few minutes of fresh air).
After four hours and thirty minutes (between 12:45 and 1AM), passengers were finally going to be let off the plane. As passengers lined up, a woman collapsed and began have seizures. A man said he thought he was having a heart attack. Several people, including myself, felt exceptionally claustrophobic and anxious. The scene was again dramatic and scary.
Two tiny Hertz buses were waiting at the bottom of the wet stairway to transport passengers from the tarmac to the arrivals area, about 1-2 dozen at a time. Passengers exited the plane in the rain and arrived in the immigration hall in small batches. Several passengers were taken away in ambulances.
Between 1AM and 3:30AM, passengers sat in the immigration hall with few updates. We were told that customs could not process us because there was no one to take our bags off the plane. Passengers were processed from 3:30AM to 5:30AM.
As one of the first passengers through customs, I met with the flight crew upon collecting my bags. Two of the girls, including Rebecca, said they “could not help us any longer.” The told us that the situation was “not their fault. It was an Act of God. [They] cannot control the weather.” But what about the fact that plane had problems before take off and several things went wrong with the plane upon landing. That was and is Virgin’s fault!
The staff were attempting to wash their hands clean of the entire situation. I asked about the promised accommodations, about missing my connecting flight, and help re-organizing my onward journey. I was told that since no Virgin employees work at Bradley, I would receive no help. This IS NOT what we were told on the plane! There was one flight attendant (a heavy set flamboyant male) who did the best he could to help passengers. The rest of his team, however, sat on the other side of the arrivals hall, away from passengers, avoiding them at all costs. The situation had gone from ridiculous to even more ridiculous. At 3:40 AM, the flight crew and pilot left in a bus shortly, leaving passengers STRANDED at Bradley, with ONE ground agent trying to take care of 300 passengers. The Virgin staff had not made any announcements since leaving the aircraft and kept passengers uninformed and confused after collecting bags. This was DISPICABLE!
The ground agent arranged for several passengers to rest in the lobby of the Bradley Airport Sheraton Hotel. 57 passengers, including me, boarded the ONE BUS for Newark, which left at 3:57AM and arrived at Newark at 6:55 AM, with no Virgin staff to greet us or take care of us in Newark. Other passengers remained in Bradley airport to late the next morning and early afternoon.
I had personally begun my journey in Dubai on another Virgin flight and was simply connecting in London and then New York to reach my intended destination – my home in Fort Lauderdale. By the time I reached my destination and went through costly efforts to still get down to Fort Lauderdale the next day, I had not slept in 40 hours. I was exhausted and unable to work for several days. The experience threw me off for a good week.
In total, the situation was inexcusable. We should not have been held against our will for 4.5 hours on the tarmac in the treacherous heat. The airline put passengers’ physical and mental health in a very compromising situation. The airline also made false promises to help passengers once off the aircraft. We were not offered food and water during our 4.5 hours on the tarmac.
Two weeks later, I have not been contacted by the airline in any form whatsoever with an apology or offer of compensation. I read that Virgin customer service emailed the AP that passengers would receive a free ticket. I wrote the Virgin press office about this and am waiting to hear back.
The airlines should be required to have a contingency plan in place so that this does not happen again. Additionally, I hope that this is an impetus for the new passenger’s rights law to apply to international carriers such as Virgin Atlantic.
Please do not hesitate to contact me for further information.
Kind regards,
Paul Rubio
Freelance writer
Winner 2010 NATJA Award - Best Travel Guide
Winner 2010 NATJA Award - Best Local Lifestyles article
I am writing in regards to the investigation concerning Virgin Atlantic flight VS001 on June 22, 2010. Below is a detailed description of events. Given my profession as a journalist, I took notes during the ordeal.
Virgin Flight VS 001 was scheduled to leave at 16:20 UK time (11:20 U.S. time) on Tuesday, June 22, 2010. At 15:30 a flight agent informed passengers in the boarding area that boarding would be delayed due to the extreme temperature inside of the plane. Over the microphone, the flight agent stated that “it [was] 40 degrees [Celcius] and passengers could not board” until the temperature dropped. At this point, not even cabin crew were permitted on board.
Fifteen minutes later, cabin crew were allowed on the aircraft; but at 16:05, the same flight agent returned for an update and reiterated that the temperature was “still at 40,” that “the cause was unknown,” and that boarding would be delayed by at least another 20 minutes. After the sympathetic flight agent returned a third time around 16:30 to apologize again, at 17:00 a different (and sterner) flight agent stated “Virgin Atlantic flight VS001 [was] now ready for boarding.”
According to the new flight agent, the temperature had not changed inside the aircraft, but boarding would proceed. Passengers were ominously handed bottles of water before entering the plane.
The plane was stifling. Though it only took 25 minutes to completely board the plane, two passengers with checked bags failed to board. We had to wait for these passengers and the unloading of their bags for another 35 minutes. In total, passengers waited impatiently in the heat for approximately a little more than one hour. The pilot and flight crew apologized repeatedly for the situation. Once, the aircraft doors were closed, it was announced that a total of 295 passengers and 5 infants were on board.
Once airborne, the air began to flow; and we flew comfortably for around 7 hours.
About 19:40 US time, the pilot said that because of bad weather Newark airport was closed and that we would divert to “Bradley Airfield” (not airport) and then return to Newark when the bad weather subsided.
We landed at Bradley airport in Connecticut at 20:30 US TIME, positioned at the end of the tarmac. As soon as the engines had been turned off, the temperature began to rise again. Within minutes, the power on the plane failed, leaving us in darkness. In 20 minutes the plane’s temperature felt identical to the sauna-like temperatures upon boarding, around 40 Celcius (108 Farenheit).
The events that followed were confusing for passengers. The information we were given via the pilot’s announcements and flight crew announcements seemed incoherent and bizarre. First we were told that the power unit had to be replaced to get power back on board. Additionally, we needed to refuel to get to Newark. This began to cause speculation as to why we had even landed at Bradley. Most of us had spoken to relatives at Newark via cell phone, who told us that everything in Newark was fine. Passengers began wondering if the plane was short on fuel or if something else had prompted our landing at Bradley.
The replacement power unit was installed but then “caught on fire” according to the pilot, leaving us in darkness again. Passengers were instructed to remain seated since refueling was taking place. The pilot stated that there were “issues with refueling” but did not elaborate. Nearly one hour later, the pilot said that fuel had been “placed in the wrong tank.” At this point, nearly two hours after we landed, the heat was really starting to affect people. Oxygen was being administered. Babies were screaming and crying. Old people were feeling faint. The baby in front of us was naked, bright red, and screaming. Some flight attendants were attempting to cool the baby down with cold towels, but other flight attendants seemed to have disappeared during the entire incident. During these first two hours (and even during the next 2.5 hours), passengers were not even offered water.
As passengers continued to sweat, burn up, and grow impatient, the pilot said that we had to wait for the fuel situation to be rectified. Soon after the pilot told us that the flight hours of the crew and pilots were about to end, even beyond their 2-hour margin, and that the flight would indeed terminate at Bradley. We were told that buses would come take us from the tarmac to the immigration and customs building shortly. The flight crew also announced that Virgin would provide accommodation for passengers and that ground handling agents would also help us re-arrange our forward journey, plans, and New York hotel/car/onward flight cancellations (even though Virgin did not have any of its own staff working Bradley).
The buses never arrived, and the pilot exited the plane to work on a solution. After passengers had been locked in the plane for 3. 5 hours in the potentially deadly heat, the pilot returned and said we would move the plane to the building since buses could not be arranged. When the pilot attempted to start the plane, the engines failed. He announced the engine failure over the loudspeaker, apologized profusely, and said that in his entire career as a pilot, he had never had a day like this one. He also said that we did not deserve what we had endured and that we had every right to be upset and frustrated.
But at this point, the pilot’s apologies were not enough. People were feeling extremely ill and faint. We felt our rights as passengers had been violated being held against our will. Several elderly passengers were complaining of shortness of breath and worrying about potential heart attacks. Meanwhile, the flight crew’s attitude did not match the pilot’s. Flight crew were more concerned with themselves and their discomfort than passengers. While the pilot apologized repeatedly and took a very sympathetic tone with passengers, the flight crew were unavailable and often downright rude! It should be noted that the head flight attendant, Rebecca, disappeared during this entire ordeal. In my class, premium economy, passenger complaints, concerns and frustrations were met with a classless, “I can’t be bothered” attitude from flight attendants. Attempting to assuage the misery, at two brief points, the pilot ordered two of the aircraft doors open to try and improve air circulation on the plane. However, this only brought cool area to the immediate area in front of the doors (though it did allow infants and elders to get a few minutes of fresh air).
After four hours and thirty minutes (between 12:45 and 1AM), passengers were finally going to be let off the plane. As passengers lined up, a woman collapsed and began have seizures. A man said he thought he was having a heart attack. Several people, including myself, felt exceptionally claustrophobic and anxious. The scene was again dramatic and scary.
Two tiny Hertz buses were waiting at the bottom of the wet stairway to transport passengers from the tarmac to the arrivals area, about 1-2 dozen at a time. Passengers exited the plane in the rain and arrived in the immigration hall in small batches. Several passengers were taken away in ambulances.
Between 1AM and 3:30AM, passengers sat in the immigration hall with few updates. We were told that customs could not process us because there was no one to take our bags off the plane. Passengers were processed from 3:30AM to 5:30AM.
As one of the first passengers through customs, I met with the flight crew upon collecting my bags. Two of the girls, including Rebecca, said they “could not help us any longer.” The told us that the situation was “not their fault. It was an Act of God. [They] cannot control the weather.” But what about the fact that plane had problems before take off and several things went wrong with the plane upon landing. That was and is Virgin’s fault!
The staff were attempting to wash their hands clean of the entire situation. I asked about the promised accommodations, about missing my connecting flight, and help re-organizing my onward journey. I was told that since no Virgin employees work at Bradley, I would receive no help. This IS NOT what we were told on the plane! There was one flight attendant (a heavy set flamboyant male) who did the best he could to help passengers. The rest of his team, however, sat on the other side of the arrivals hall, away from passengers, avoiding them at all costs. The situation had gone from ridiculous to even more ridiculous. At 3:40 AM, the flight crew and pilot left in a bus shortly, leaving passengers STRANDED at Bradley, with ONE ground agent trying to take care of 300 passengers. The Virgin staff had not made any announcements since leaving the aircraft and kept passengers uninformed and confused after collecting bags. This was DISPICABLE!
The ground agent arranged for several passengers to rest in the lobby of the Bradley Airport Sheraton Hotel. 57 passengers, including me, boarded the ONE BUS for Newark, which left at 3:57AM and arrived at Newark at 6:55 AM, with no Virgin staff to greet us or take care of us in Newark. Other passengers remained in Bradley airport to late the next morning and early afternoon.
I had personally begun my journey in Dubai on another Virgin flight and was simply connecting in London and then New York to reach my intended destination – my home in Fort Lauderdale. By the time I reached my destination and went through costly efforts to still get down to Fort Lauderdale the next day, I had not slept in 40 hours. I was exhausted and unable to work for several days. The experience threw me off for a good week.
In total, the situation was inexcusable. We should not have been held against our will for 4.5 hours on the tarmac in the treacherous heat. The airline put passengers’ physical and mental health in a very compromising situation. The airline also made false promises to help passengers once off the aircraft. We were not offered food and water during our 4.5 hours on the tarmac.
Two weeks later, I have not been contacted by the airline in any form whatsoever with an apology or offer of compensation. I read that Virgin customer service emailed the AP that passengers would receive a free ticket. I wrote the Virgin press office about this and am waiting to hear back.
The airlines should be required to have a contingency plan in place so that this does not happen again. Additionally, I hope that this is an impetus for the new passenger’s rights law to apply to international carriers such as Virgin Atlantic.
Please do not hesitate to contact me for further information.
Kind regards,
Paul Rubio
Freelance writer
Winner 2010 NATJA Award - Best Travel Guide
Winner 2010 NATJA Award - Best Local Lifestyles article
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Passenger Relief at JFK with Less Tarmac Delays
Passenger relief at JFK with Less Tarmac Delays
July 02, 2010 12:25 PM
Courtesy of Bloomberg News as published in Crains New York
A trial program that limits the number of planes on the taxiway during peak hours to 12 aircraft has been extended.
The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey and the Federal Aviation Administration are extending a trial program through the end of the year that limits the number of planes that can queue up on the taxiway during peak hours to between eight and 12 aircraft at a time. Gone are the days of sitting in an airplane, on the runway, waiting for the 20 flights ahead of yours to take off—at least at John F. Kennedy International Airport.
The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey and the Federal Aviation Administration are extending a trial program through the end of the year that limits the number of planes that can queue up on the taxiway during peak hours to between eight and 12 aircraft at a time.
This means that once passengers board a plane and it taxis out to the runway, there won’t be more than eight or so aircraft in line to take off; a worst-case waiting scenario would be a line of 12 planes, which roughly translates to an hour of wait-time, according to the Port Authority
July 02, 2010 12:25 PM
Courtesy of Bloomberg News as published in Crains New York
A trial program that limits the number of planes on the taxiway during peak hours to 12 aircraft has been extended.
The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey and the Federal Aviation Administration are extending a trial program through the end of the year that limits the number of planes that can queue up on the taxiway during peak hours to between eight and 12 aircraft at a time. Gone are the days of sitting in an airplane, on the runway, waiting for the 20 flights ahead of yours to take off—at least at John F. Kennedy International Airport.
The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey and the Federal Aviation Administration are extending a trial program through the end of the year that limits the number of planes that can queue up on the taxiway during peak hours to between eight and 12 aircraft at a time.
This means that once passengers board a plane and it taxis out to the runway, there won’t be more than eight or so aircraft in line to take off; a worst-case waiting scenario would be a line of 12 planes, which roughly translates to an hour of wait-time, according to the Port Authority
Monday, June 14, 2010
FlyersRights.org calls on DOT to investigate potential Fraud by Spirit Airlines
The Honorable Ray LaHood
Secretary
Department of Transportation
Dear Mr. Secretary:
We write to express our serious concerns about the recent actions of Spirit Airlines and its CEO Ben Baldanza in connection to claims and promises he and his airline have made to passengers leading up to, during and after the current pilot strike. As you are aware, the strike has caused widespread stranding and dislocation of passengers. On June 9th, just before Sprit Airlines pilots walked off the job, Spirit spokeswoman Missy Pinson told The Associated Press that the carrier was “partnering with other air carrier providers to continue to serve our customers.” The airline has also stated it would provide a $100 voucher in addition to free passage home. So far these claims have proven to be false.
We have direct information from passengers across the nation and in international locations that their tickets issued by Spirit are without value on other airlines. Furthermore we have been informed that Spirit is depriving passengers of information on how they will care for them. One mother called us to say that her daughter and a friend are stranded in Aruba. The family was assured before the trip that Spirit would not strand the girls, but they have now told them to buy their own tickets, and they will be reimbursed later. Or, they can come back in a week for a booking on Spirit. The girls’ credit cards and cell phones do not work in Aruba, and they have no cash even for food. Spirit officials in Aruba confirmed that Spirit has no agreements with any other airline. This is just one example of the dislocation and distress that Spirit’s actions and unfulfilled promises are causing.
We are also troubled by statements and actions taken by Spirit leading up to the strike. The airline was also engaged in active sales of airline tickets leading up to strike, despite the fact that it knew or should have known a disruption in service was imminent. We believe that these actions, coupled with the other false statements, the mistreatment of passengers, the withholding of vital information and broken promises constitute a global fraud upon the flying public. As such, we call upon you to use the full power of your Department to investigate this incident and once you have determined all the facts, apply the strongest sanctions available to make passengers whole while punishing Spirit for its unethical behavior.
Sincerely,
Kate Hanni
Secretary
Department of Transportation
Dear Mr. Secretary:
We write to express our serious concerns about the recent actions of Spirit Airlines and its CEO Ben Baldanza in connection to claims and promises he and his airline have made to passengers leading up to, during and after the current pilot strike. As you are aware, the strike has caused widespread stranding and dislocation of passengers. On June 9th, just before Sprit Airlines pilots walked off the job, Spirit spokeswoman Missy Pinson told The Associated Press that the carrier was “partnering with other air carrier providers to continue to serve our customers.” The airline has also stated it would provide a $100 voucher in addition to free passage home. So far these claims have proven to be false.
We have direct information from passengers across the nation and in international locations that their tickets issued by Spirit are without value on other airlines. Furthermore we have been informed that Spirit is depriving passengers of information on how they will care for them. One mother called us to say that her daughter and a friend are stranded in Aruba. The family was assured before the trip that Spirit would not strand the girls, but they have now told them to buy their own tickets, and they will be reimbursed later. Or, they can come back in a week for a booking on Spirit. The girls’ credit cards and cell phones do not work in Aruba, and they have no cash even for food. Spirit officials in Aruba confirmed that Spirit has no agreements with any other airline. This is just one example of the dislocation and distress that Spirit’s actions and unfulfilled promises are causing.
We are also troubled by statements and actions taken by Spirit leading up to the strike. The airline was also engaged in active sales of airline tickets leading up to strike, despite the fact that it knew or should have known a disruption in service was imminent. We believe that these actions, coupled with the other false statements, the mistreatment of passengers, the withholding of vital information and broken promises constitute a global fraud upon the flying public. As such, we call upon you to use the full power of your Department to investigate this incident and once you have determined all the facts, apply the strongest sanctions available to make passengers whole while punishing Spirit for its unethical behavior.
Sincerely,
Kate Hanni
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Terry Wassink's flight from Hell: Compliments American Airlines
Flight Information:
• Scheduled 11:35 am (ET) - 1:05 CT (total 2.5 hours flight time).
• Flight diverted to Houston (IAH) landing at 12:59 pm (CT).
• Flight resumed from IAH to DFW at 4:48 pm CT - total time on tarmac 3.8 hours.
• Our flight landed at approximately 5:59 pm CT in DFW and pulled up to the gate. An additional 35 minutes (0.6 hours) were required to deplane as the ramp would not line up to the plane and eventually all passengers deplaned through stairs at the back of the plane. 10 engineers were at that time standing around who could not get the ramp to work. The incompetence at this time was unbelieveable.
• TOTAL DELAY: 4.4 hours
Details while on the tarmac in Houston:
• A granola bar was offered to all economy passengers upon landing in Houston; no other food was provided either during the initial flight or when waiting on the tarmac. Orange, apple or cranberry juice was offered at that time.
• Approximately 30 minutes after landing, passengers originally scheduled to land in Houston were given the opportunity to deplane through stairs brought to the back of the plane. However, they could not get any checked bags but the bags would be delivered to them later by courier service.
• Over an hour after landing, the customer service rep brought 6 oz bottles of water on the plane which were distributed to all passengers. Only one bottle was allowed per passenger. This would be on the only water distributed during the entire 3.49 minutes on the tarmac.
Information relayed by the crew or the customer service rep:
• The captain indicated:
> We had been rerouted to Houston because of weather in DFW. Planes were landing but were in a hold pattern circling the airport while the heaviest weather cleared out. However, we could not circle as we did not have enough gas. We needed to refuel and wait for the weather to clear. As flights are usually held before takeoff when bad weather is eminent, I didn't understand why that didn't occur in this case. The plane was refueled.
* We were about 500-700 yards from the concourse gates. There were firetrucks and emergency vehicles between the planes on the tarmac that were not at gates, I assume because of risk of fire when refueling when not at the gate through the safety systems.
> The captain indicated that American only had 3 gates at IAH and they were all full so we would not be able to pull up to a gate to deplane. If a gate cleared, we would be allowed to deplane. This never materialized. After another hour on the tarmac, the passengers were in agreement that we would all take up an offering of $5 each ($1000 total) to pay Continental to temporarily use a gate but the crew said this was not an option.
• Approximately 1 hour after landing, I asked the flight crew and customer service representative when we would be allowed to deplane. I was told:
> If we deplaned via the back stairs, we would not be allowed back on the plane to continue our flight to Dallas. When further questioned, the customer service rep indicated it was because they had no way to determine who was reboarding which was a security risk.
> We could not get checked luggage no matter what, if we got off the plane.
• The plane started getting very hot. The crew advised us to close the window shade and turn all vents wide open. This did very little to alleviate the heat. The pilot indicated that an additional air conditioning until had been requested to cool off the plane. I do not believe that one was ever brought as the temperature never improved, only got hotter. My mother, who had open heart surgery 1 year ago starting retaining water on the flight due to the heat, and having heart palpitations due to the increased heartbeat due to the heat. She is still not fully recovered today (24 hours later) and we are now trying to get her additional medication to alleviate these symptoms fully. AA is very lucky this did not turn into an emergency situation or tragedy!
• At 2.3 hours after landing, the customer service rep again got on the plane and indicated that he was trying to get us more water. However, that never materialized.
• The customer service rep also advised that any passenger could depart the plane at this time with their bag delivered via courier at a later date.
> I asked the male flight attendant (not Brent but the other male attendant) for details, as I have family in Houston and I could get to my final destination of Waco, TX by deplaning in Houston. Specifically, I wanted to know how quickly my bags would arrive as I had a Baylor University graduation the next morning (5/15) at 9:30 am and needed my bag before then. However, I was told the bag could take 3-4 days to catch up to me. As I would be returning to Atlanta on 5/16, this was not a good option for me. Additionally, my mother's medication was in her checked bags
and we could not deplane without it.
> As the 3 hour mark was approaching (2.3 hours thus far on the tarmac). I asked when they would allow us to deplane to the terminal. He reiterated what the flight attendant had told me, and said if I got off, I could not get back on the plane, even though the flight would continue on to Dallas/Ft. Worth. I challenged the customer service rep and said they would have to let us off at the 3 hour mark, as required via the passenger bill of rights. He said that he was following the letter of the law by allowing us to get off; but they were not required to let us back on to continue the flight that we
had paid for. In essence, we would forfeit our rights to travel if we deplaned.
> The customer service rep also threatened that there were 9 other planes that had been rerouted to Houston, with 400-500 passengers at his customer service desk trying to reroute plans to get home. He intimated that if we deplaned, our seats would be given to those passengers.
• At about 3 hours after landing, the crew started a headcount of all passengers. When I asked why, I was told that they were trying to determine seat availability for any additional passengers. I asked how they could load passengers onto the plane, but could not allow us to leave the plane and reboard. If they were able to load any passengers, that should include the current passengers for reboarding. That apparently scrapped their plans and no passengers were added to the flight.
A friend of mine who is with a flight crew from a different carrier indicated that this issue may have been created because of the unionized crew rules. Basically she indicated that the crew would have to be changed out or paid for an additional flight. Since AA would not have had another crew available since they were in Houston and not Dallas, I truly hope this was not the case of the airline putting the crew's needs above the passengers.
If you need any additional details or information on the flight, please call me at xxxxx. I appreciate you acting as our advocate to see this matter addressed. I will be sending a similar email to AA for redress as well.
Sincerely,
Terry A. Wassink, PMP
Certified Project Manager
xxxxxx
• Scheduled 11:35 am (ET) - 1:05 CT (total 2.5 hours flight time).
• Flight diverted to Houston (IAH) landing at 12:59 pm (CT).
• Flight resumed from IAH to DFW at 4:48 pm CT - total time on tarmac 3.8 hours.
• Our flight landed at approximately 5:59 pm CT in DFW and pulled up to the gate. An additional 35 minutes (0.6 hours) were required to deplane as the ramp would not line up to the plane and eventually all passengers deplaned through stairs at the back of the plane. 10 engineers were at that time standing around who could not get the ramp to work. The incompetence at this time was unbelieveable.
• TOTAL DELAY: 4.4 hours
Details while on the tarmac in Houston:
• A granola bar was offered to all economy passengers upon landing in Houston; no other food was provided either during the initial flight or when waiting on the tarmac. Orange, apple or cranberry juice was offered at that time.
• Approximately 30 minutes after landing, passengers originally scheduled to land in Houston were given the opportunity to deplane through stairs brought to the back of the plane. However, they could not get any checked bags but the bags would be delivered to them later by courier service.
• Over an hour after landing, the customer service rep brought 6 oz bottles of water on the plane which were distributed to all passengers. Only one bottle was allowed per passenger. This would be on the only water distributed during the entire 3.49 minutes on the tarmac.
Information relayed by the crew or the customer service rep:
• The captain indicated:
> We had been rerouted to Houston because of weather in DFW. Planes were landing but were in a hold pattern circling the airport while the heaviest weather cleared out. However, we could not circle as we did not have enough gas. We needed to refuel and wait for the weather to clear. As flights are usually held before takeoff when bad weather is eminent, I didn't understand why that didn't occur in this case. The plane was refueled.
* We were about 500-700 yards from the concourse gates. There were firetrucks and emergency vehicles between the planes on the tarmac that were not at gates, I assume because of risk of fire when refueling when not at the gate through the safety systems.
> The captain indicated that American only had 3 gates at IAH and they were all full so we would not be able to pull up to a gate to deplane. If a gate cleared, we would be allowed to deplane. This never materialized. After another hour on the tarmac, the passengers were in agreement that we would all take up an offering of $5 each ($1000 total) to pay Continental to temporarily use a gate but the crew said this was not an option.
• Approximately 1 hour after landing, I asked the flight crew and customer service representative when we would be allowed to deplane. I was told:
> If we deplaned via the back stairs, we would not be allowed back on the plane to continue our flight to Dallas. When further questioned, the customer service rep indicated it was because they had no way to determine who was reboarding which was a security risk.
> We could not get checked luggage no matter what, if we got off the plane.
• The plane started getting very hot. The crew advised us to close the window shade and turn all vents wide open. This did very little to alleviate the heat. The pilot indicated that an additional air conditioning until had been requested to cool off the plane. I do not believe that one was ever brought as the temperature never improved, only got hotter. My mother, who had open heart surgery 1 year ago starting retaining water on the flight due to the heat, and having heart palpitations due to the increased heartbeat due to the heat. She is still not fully recovered today (24 hours later) and we are now trying to get her additional medication to alleviate these symptoms fully. AA is very lucky this did not turn into an emergency situation or tragedy!
• At 2.3 hours after landing, the customer service rep again got on the plane and indicated that he was trying to get us more water. However, that never materialized.
• The customer service rep also advised that any passenger could depart the plane at this time with their bag delivered via courier at a later date.
> I asked the male flight attendant (not Brent but the other male attendant) for details, as I have family in Houston and I could get to my final destination of Waco, TX by deplaning in Houston. Specifically, I wanted to know how quickly my bags would arrive as I had a Baylor University graduation the next morning (5/15) at 9:30 am and needed my bag before then. However, I was told the bag could take 3-4 days to catch up to me. As I would be returning to Atlanta on 5/16, this was not a good option for me. Additionally, my mother's medication was in her checked bags
and we could not deplane without it.
> As the 3 hour mark was approaching (2.3 hours thus far on the tarmac). I asked when they would allow us to deplane to the terminal. He reiterated what the flight attendant had told me, and said if I got off, I could not get back on the plane, even though the flight would continue on to Dallas/Ft. Worth. I challenged the customer service rep and said they would have to let us off at the 3 hour mark, as required via the passenger bill of rights. He said that he was following the letter of the law by allowing us to get off; but they were not required to let us back on to continue the flight that we
had paid for. In essence, we would forfeit our rights to travel if we deplaned.
> The customer service rep also threatened that there were 9 other planes that had been rerouted to Houston, with 400-500 passengers at his customer service desk trying to reroute plans to get home. He intimated that if we deplaned, our seats would be given to those passengers.
• At about 3 hours after landing, the crew started a headcount of all passengers. When I asked why, I was told that they were trying to determine seat availability for any additional passengers. I asked how they could load passengers onto the plane, but could not allow us to leave the plane and reboard. If they were able to load any passengers, that should include the current passengers for reboarding. That apparently scrapped their plans and no passengers were added to the flight.
A friend of mine who is with a flight crew from a different carrier indicated that this issue may have been created because of the unionized crew rules. Basically she indicated that the crew would have to be changed out or paid for an additional flight. Since AA would not have had another crew available since they were in Houston and not Dallas, I truly hope this was not the case of the airline putting the crew's needs above the passengers.
If you need any additional details or information on the flight, please call me at xxxxx. I appreciate you acting as our advocate to see this matter addressed. I will be sending a similar email to AA for redress as well.
Sincerely,
Terry A. Wassink, PMP
Certified Project Manager
xxxxxx
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Volcano Air Travel Update: Travel Insurance in EU offers help to Stranded passengers
The largest Travel Insurance companies like Elvia/Mondial, Unigarant, Achmea, Europeesche have all publicly announced they WILL pay costs incurred like hotel/meals/communications while being stuck.
The funny thing is that the large Touroperators (big insurance sellers) and the Airlines (even bigger insurance sellers see; http://www.mondial-us.com/img/mag/301007-PR-KLM-Mondial-Assistance-trave
l-insurance-EN_tcm192-109232.pdf ) don't mention it. In the KLM/Monidal press release KLM did mention though in 2007: This makes KLM.com an even more attractive place to do business with KLM. Moreover, travel insurance is an important source of ancillary revenues." My question:
who is protecting who?
Hendrik Noorderhaven EUCLAIMS.com
Member FlyersRights.org
The funny thing is that the large Touroperators (big insurance sellers) and the Airlines (even bigger insurance sellers see; http://www.mondial-us.com/img/mag/301007-PR-KLM-Mondial-Assistance-trave
l-insurance-EN_tcm192-109232.pdf ) don't mention it. In the KLM/Monidal press release KLM did mention though in 2007: This makes KLM.com an even more attractive place to do business with KLM. Moreover, travel insurance is an important source of ancillary revenues." My question:
who is protecting who?
Hendrik Noorderhaven EUCLAIMS.com
Member FlyersRights.org
FlyersRights.org asks DOT Secretary Ray LaHood to deny airlines blanket requests for exemption from 3 hour rule due to runway construction
FlyersRights.org
April 20, 2010
Honorable Ray LaHood
Secretary of Transportation
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20590
Re: Docket No. DOT-OST-2007-0022
Comments on Carriers’ Temporary Exemption Requests from DOT’s Tarmac
Delay Rules for JFK, EWR, LGA and PHL Operations
-- No Waiver of “3-Hour Rule” When Airlines Overschedule Flights
Dear Mr. Secretary:
FlyersRights.org on April 9 filed its opposition to the pending requests by five airlines for various or blanket exemptions from the “three-hour passenger-option-to-deplane” rule (“3-hour rule”) included in your “Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections” regulation (December 30, 2009) at up to four major Northeast airports (listed in the caption) during the months the Bay Runway at the John F. Kennedy International Airport will be closed for reconstruction.
In our filing we feared that, if you granted any relief from the “3-hour rule” now for this temporary runway closing, other airlines would want similar relief in the future whenever the runway capacity of any other airport was temporarily reduced for reconstruction or otherwise. As if on cue, United Air Lines, Inc., (“United”) has since boldly requested that you now grant advance blanket relief from enforcement of the 3-hour rule for all future “temporary airfield operational closures.”
Mr. Secretary, the airline filings in response to your March 30 request for comments on these exemption requests make evident that they all want to be freed of your Department’s possible enforcement of the 3-hour rule whenever and wherever they have overscheduled operations beyond the normal or temporarily-reduced capacity of any airport, and want just to have the regulation applied (if then!) to their treatment of airline passengers whenever occasional irregular operations (e.g., extremely bad weather) occur.
-- Deny All Exemption Requests Resulting from Voluntary “Overscheduling” of Airline Flights
As we indicated in our prior filing, FlyersRights.org believes that you should deny all the pending exemption requests, as well as United’s recent request for blanket exemptions now for future tarmac delays whenever runway capacity is inadequate. The FAA Administrator must control overscheduling of airline operations at congested airports so that waivers of any violations of the 3-hour rule because of overscheduling are mooted. Our members will strenuously oppose DOT’s (or FAA Air Traffic Control’s) giving waivers from the three-hour rule, or DOT’s choosing not to bring enforcement action, whenever the cause of the excessive tarmac delay is overscheduled airline operations.
The FAA Administrator already has power to control overscheduling. Airline passengers shouldn’t have to be imprisoned on airport taxiways for more than three hours because the FAA Administrator chooses not to fully exercise his authority.
-- Support “FAA Control of Airline Overscheduling” Provision in FAA Reauthorization Bill
In this regard, FlyersRights.Org is urging the conferees on the FAA Reauthorization Bill to accept the language of section 423 of the House-passed legislation to reinforce the FAA Administrator’s obligation to control the flow of airline aircraft on airport tarmacs to minimize the chances of 3-hour delays for passengers. Enactment and implementation of this provision would eliminate future airline requests, as here, for blanket exemptions from compliance with the 3-hour rule.
Now, when the number of scheduled airline flights is reduced, is a good time for the FAA Administrator to decide to eliminate airline overscheduling during peak hours at U.S. airports.
We urge the Obama Administration similarly to support this clarifying legislative provision with the House-Senate conferees.
Thank you for considering our views.
Sincerely,
Kate Hanni, Executive Director
FlyersRights.org
159 Silverado Springs Drive
Napa, CA 94558
cc: Honorable J. Randolph Babbitt
FAA Administrator
Docket No. DOT-OST-2007-0022
Honorable James L. Oberstar
Honorable John L. Mica
Honorable John P. (Jay) Rockefeller IV
Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison
April 20, 2010
Honorable Ray LaHood
Secretary of Transportation
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20590
Re: Docket No. DOT-OST-2007-0022
Comments on Carriers’ Temporary Exemption Requests from DOT’s Tarmac
Delay Rules for JFK, EWR, LGA and PHL Operations
-- No Waiver of “3-Hour Rule” When Airlines Overschedule Flights
Dear Mr. Secretary:
FlyersRights.org on April 9 filed its opposition to the pending requests by five airlines for various or blanket exemptions from the “three-hour passenger-option-to-deplane” rule (“3-hour rule”) included in your “Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections” regulation (December 30, 2009) at up to four major Northeast airports (listed in the caption) during the months the Bay Runway at the John F. Kennedy International Airport will be closed for reconstruction.
In our filing we feared that, if you granted any relief from the “3-hour rule” now for this temporary runway closing, other airlines would want similar relief in the future whenever the runway capacity of any other airport was temporarily reduced for reconstruction or otherwise. As if on cue, United Air Lines, Inc., (“United”) has since boldly requested that you now grant advance blanket relief from enforcement of the 3-hour rule for all future “temporary airfield operational closures.”
Mr. Secretary, the airline filings in response to your March 30 request for comments on these exemption requests make evident that they all want to be freed of your Department’s possible enforcement of the 3-hour rule whenever and wherever they have overscheduled operations beyond the normal or temporarily-reduced capacity of any airport, and want just to have the regulation applied (if then!) to their treatment of airline passengers whenever occasional irregular operations (e.g., extremely bad weather) occur.
-- Deny All Exemption Requests Resulting from Voluntary “Overscheduling” of Airline Flights
As we indicated in our prior filing, FlyersRights.org believes that you should deny all the pending exemption requests, as well as United’s recent request for blanket exemptions now for future tarmac delays whenever runway capacity is inadequate. The FAA Administrator must control overscheduling of airline operations at congested airports so that waivers of any violations of the 3-hour rule because of overscheduling are mooted. Our members will strenuously oppose DOT’s (or FAA Air Traffic Control’s) giving waivers from the three-hour rule, or DOT’s choosing not to bring enforcement action, whenever the cause of the excessive tarmac delay is overscheduled airline operations.
The FAA Administrator already has power to control overscheduling. Airline passengers shouldn’t have to be imprisoned on airport taxiways for more than three hours because the FAA Administrator chooses not to fully exercise his authority.
-- Support “FAA Control of Airline Overscheduling” Provision in FAA Reauthorization Bill
In this regard, FlyersRights.Org is urging the conferees on the FAA Reauthorization Bill to accept the language of section 423 of the House-passed legislation to reinforce the FAA Administrator’s obligation to control the flow of airline aircraft on airport tarmacs to minimize the chances of 3-hour delays for passengers. Enactment and implementation of this provision would eliminate future airline requests, as here, for blanket exemptions from compliance with the 3-hour rule.
Now, when the number of scheduled airline flights is reduced, is a good time for the FAA Administrator to decide to eliminate airline overscheduling during peak hours at U.S. airports.
We urge the Obama Administration similarly to support this clarifying legislative provision with the House-Senate conferees.
Thank you for considering our views.
Sincerely,
Kate Hanni, Executive Director
FlyersRights.org
159 Silverado Springs Drive
Napa, CA 94558
cc: Honorable J. Randolph Babbitt
FAA Administrator
Docket No. DOT-OST-2007-0022
Honorable James L. Oberstar
Honorable John L. Mica
Honorable John P. (Jay) Rockefeller IV
Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Travel Weekly Top 33 Most Influential in Travel names Kate Hanni
Club 33: The most influential people in the travel industry (11/20/2007)
1 >> 2
Travel Weekly's list of the 33 most influential people in travel is not populated by folks with fancy titles who pull the right strings and make the industry behave as it should.
It's not about that sort of influence.
It's filled with people who, often working in isolation, had ideas that veered from the status quo and succeeded so spectacularly that the industry jumped out of its rut and followed. They're the ones who, when they set their own agendas, set ours as well.
We didn't give people much credit for their great deeds of yesteryear. If they're on this list today, it's because they've influenced the course travel is taking in 2007, and we think they'll be just as influential in 2008.
Though this list is a celebration of accomplishment, we also note with some discomfort that most of those who effect the greatest changes in travel are still surprisingly homogenous: mostly male and disproportionately white.
Brad and Van Anderson, co-presidents, America's Vacation Center/American Express
The brothers Anderson reinvented the way hosts and independent contractors do business. They developed technology to maximize commission opportunity, deliver qualified leads to contractors and push appropriate offers to clients. The result is a formula that enables AVC to keep 70% of commissions but still retain the loyalty of its best contractors, many of whom earn six-figure incomes. Their formula also earns AVC the undivided attention of cruise lines: In 2006, it was agency of the year for three of them.
Adam Aron, senior operating partner, Apollo Management Co.
Aron, whose career has landed him in senior positions at United and Hyatt, on the board of Starwood and at the helm of NCL and Vail Resorts, is now scouting travel companies for Apollo, a New York-based equity firm. Following Aron's guidance, Apollo not only became the first equity group to become a major cruise industry player, but quickly became a certified powerhouse cruise conglomerate, acquiring Oceania Cruises, half of NCL Corp. and (any minute now) Regent Seven Seas -- all in 2007. With Apollo's $12 billion equity fund backing him, Aron certainly has the rapt attention of the cruise industry's reigning giants, Carnival Corp. and Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.
Bobby Baldwin, chief design and construction officer, MGM Mirage
After meeting the colorful Baldwin, a World Series of Poker champ, in a card game in 1982, Steve Wynn was so impressed that he offered Baldwin a job as a consultant for gaming. Baldwin quickly became Wynn's top protege, assigned to open the Mirage, Treasure Island and the Bellagio for his boss. Baldwin migrated to MGM Mirage when Wynn sold that company his properties, and MGM Mirage has now given Baldwin the biggest development project in Las Vegas (and, for that matter, the entire U.S.): CityCenter, the $7.4 billion mid-Strip campus. In a city accustomed to high-stakes gambles, there is none higher.
Lisa Bauer, senior vice president of North American sales, Royal Caribbean International
Bauer has been with Royal Caribbean since October 2002, but she arguably made her biggest mark by signing her name to the letter stating that Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. would no longer do business with so-called "card mills." We don't know who at RCCL actually made the decision, but Bauer became the public face of the stance. The move caused an outcry of love and hate for RCCL and continues to shake up the industry. Just last week, Perillo Tours ceased doing business with YTB, a multilevel marketing travel agency banned by RCCL, and IATA cancelled affiliation with four U.S. agencies for what may be similar reasons.
Richard Branson, founder and chairman of Virgin Atlantic Airways and Virgin Group
In 1984, Virgin created a niche in the hotly competitive New York-London market with fun and flair. And unlike any other airline brand before or since, Virgin spread beyond national boundaries, operating in Australia, Nigeria and the U.S. (coming soon, outer space). Branson was the first airline exec to go green, and today the powerful Virgin brand combines business acumen with a sense of style and social responsibility that has spread to 200 companies around the world in entertainment, travel, leisure, finance, communications and other fields -- and there is no doubt that it all flows from Sir Richard.
Pier Luigi Foschi, chairman and CEO, Costa Cruises
Foschi is not well known in the U.S., but he's a global powerhouse, the man behind Carnival Corp.'s international expansion plans. He heads the first major cruise line venture in mainland China and obtained the first license to base an international cruise ship in Beijing. (He also was the first to homeport in Dubai and Mauritius.) He'll be at the helm of Carnival's new joint venture in Spain, and he had been pegged to run the TUI joint venture in Germany before that project ran into regulatory difficulties. Costa is already king of the Mediterranean, the most profitable cruising area in the world, and Foschi has five additional ships on order for Costa. With Foschi running the show, his rivals are left scrambling to try to keep up.
Jerre Fuqua, president, First Choice Expeditions
Shortly after First Choice Holidays (Travcoa, TCS Expeditions, International Expeditions, Country Walkers and Intrav) merged with European travel conglomerate TUI to form TUI Travel, Fuqua became the U.S. front man for one of the largest tour operator roll-ups worldwide. He then laid out some aggressive expansion plans for the stateside division. Student travel, international escorted tours, adventure travel and online content companies are all on First Choice Expeditions' acquisition radar, and he's signaled that there may yet be some announcements in the waning weeks of 2007. Tour operators tend to hold their cards pretty close to their chest, so it's unusual, and refreshing, to hear him tout such bullish expansion plans. We suspect we're not the only ones paying close attention to what comes next.
Terestella Gonzalez Denton, executive director, Puerto Rico Tourism Co.
There's no question that Gonzalez Denton holds her own among the macho men on her island (and the Caribbean in general). She got the ear of the governor by confronting tough issues, such as dengue fever, worker walkouts and soft stayover and cruise visitor numbers. "Explore Beyond the Shore," the tourism mantra, is her credo and she pushes it hard, and with success, to send visitors outside the city limits of the capital, San Juan.
Al Gore, former U.S. vice president and Nobel Laureate
The Norwegian Nobel Committee said it best: In the effort to raise awareness about global climate change, Gore "is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted." Gore did not start the green movement, but his film, "An Inconvenient Truth," turbo-charged it, and green travel seems to be the focus of global travel conferences in 2007, from the World Travel and Tourism Council summit in Lisbon to the International Luxury Travel Market program in Cannes, France. Most travel CEOs seem committed, or resigned, to a green course. Though not all yet agree on the cause of global warming, they're convinced that the change in the social and business climate is real.
Peter Greenberg, commentator
Love him or hate him, you can't ignore him. Greenberg is everywhere: on television, on radio, blogging, writing magazine articles, publishing books, speaking at industry events. If he likes you, you're blessed with glowing coverage. But get on his wrong side, as EasyGroup CEO Stelios Haji-Ioannou did earlier this year, and you'll find yourself blasted in every medium Greenberg has at his command. His gig at NBC's "Today" show launched him to industry prominence, but he has shown himself to be a master of the travel punditry game, moving his eponymous brand into new territory at every opportunity.
Kate Hanni, founder, Coalition for an Airline Passengers' Bill of Rights
Hanni, a passenger stuck on the tarmac on an American flight for nearly nine hours last December, channeled her anger to create and grow a 17,000-member coalition via the Internet and media publicity. Airlines hate her, but she's shown the power of an aggrieved passenger, particularly in the networked Internet age, and has become a familiar face in the national media and on Capitol Hill. Her efforts put passenger rights on the congressional agenda and forced the Transportation Department and airlines to respond.
Bjorn Hanson, principal, Hospitality and Leisure Practice, PricewaterhouseCoopers
Hanson is the go-to guy when media seek knowledgeable commentary on lodging. If you haven't read what he's saying, you must be trying hard to ignore him. He has been quoted in more than 275 articles in the past 15 months, from the Wall Street Journal and New York Times to insider publications such as Commercial Property News, Real Estate Forum and, of course, Travel Weekly. His quotability is based on the extensive research he oversees on hospitality trends, and his presentations at conferences play to packed houses because his forecasts of industry performance are unerringly on target.
Henry Harteveldt, vice president and principal analyst, Forrester Research
When travel web-heads mention the name "Henry," there's no doubt to whom they're referring. Harteveldt's insights and the data generated by Forrester, coupled with his extensive insider contacts, give him a voice that is not only heard but respected. His recent call to arms over falling online travel bookings and a need to revamp how Web sites market travel was the most widely discussed commentary among online travel agencies and their suppliers this year.
Steve Kaufer, co-founder, president and CEO, TripAdvisor
Before the label "blogosphere" ever appeared, Steve Kaufer had already defined its potential with TripAdvisor. The 25 million monthly visitors who read, opine, whine, praise and rant on his multiple sites make it the largest online travel community in cyberspace. And its power has all other travel sites and suppliers trying to manipulate ratings and land atop his link positions, and quaking in their boots that they'll be royally flamed.
Sol Kerzner, chairman and CEO, Kerzner International
This straight-talking hotelier and entrepreneur's story continues to be about carving out a niche and wowing guests. The tagline on his home page states, "Core value #1: Blow away the customer," and he certainly does his best to live up to it. He has pumped billions into expansions and upgrades for his powerful flagship brand, Atlantis, whose Paradise Island property in the Bahamas will soon have a sister on a palm-shaped island in Dubai. And as the pair of Atlantises delivers the wows en masse, the elite enjoy a rarefied version in the nine One&Only locations, a brand whose stated ambition is to be no less than the
1 >> 2
Travel Weekly's list of the 33 most influential people in travel is not populated by folks with fancy titles who pull the right strings and make the industry behave as it should.
It's not about that sort of influence.
It's filled with people who, often working in isolation, had ideas that veered from the status quo and succeeded so spectacularly that the industry jumped out of its rut and followed. They're the ones who, when they set their own agendas, set ours as well.
We didn't give people much credit for their great deeds of yesteryear. If they're on this list today, it's because they've influenced the course travel is taking in 2007, and we think they'll be just as influential in 2008.
Though this list is a celebration of accomplishment, we also note with some discomfort that most of those who effect the greatest changes in travel are still surprisingly homogenous: mostly male and disproportionately white.
Brad and Van Anderson, co-presidents, America's Vacation Center/American Express
The brothers Anderson reinvented the way hosts and independent contractors do business. They developed technology to maximize commission opportunity, deliver qualified leads to contractors and push appropriate offers to clients. The result is a formula that enables AVC to keep 70% of commissions but still retain the loyalty of its best contractors, many of whom earn six-figure incomes. Their formula also earns AVC the undivided attention of cruise lines: In 2006, it was agency of the year for three of them.
Adam Aron, senior operating partner, Apollo Management Co.
Aron, whose career has landed him in senior positions at United and Hyatt, on the board of Starwood and at the helm of NCL and Vail Resorts, is now scouting travel companies for Apollo, a New York-based equity firm. Following Aron's guidance, Apollo not only became the first equity group to become a major cruise industry player, but quickly became a certified powerhouse cruise conglomerate, acquiring Oceania Cruises, half of NCL Corp. and (any minute now) Regent Seven Seas -- all in 2007. With Apollo's $12 billion equity fund backing him, Aron certainly has the rapt attention of the cruise industry's reigning giants, Carnival Corp. and Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.
Bobby Baldwin, chief design and construction officer, MGM Mirage
After meeting the colorful Baldwin, a World Series of Poker champ, in a card game in 1982, Steve Wynn was so impressed that he offered Baldwin a job as a consultant for gaming. Baldwin quickly became Wynn's top protege, assigned to open the Mirage, Treasure Island and the Bellagio for his boss. Baldwin migrated to MGM Mirage when Wynn sold that company his properties, and MGM Mirage has now given Baldwin the biggest development project in Las Vegas (and, for that matter, the entire U.S.): CityCenter, the $7.4 billion mid-Strip campus. In a city accustomed to high-stakes gambles, there is none higher.
Lisa Bauer, senior vice president of North American sales, Royal Caribbean International
Bauer has been with Royal Caribbean since October 2002, but she arguably made her biggest mark by signing her name to the letter stating that Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. would no longer do business with so-called "card mills." We don't know who at RCCL actually made the decision, but Bauer became the public face of the stance. The move caused an outcry of love and hate for RCCL and continues to shake up the industry. Just last week, Perillo Tours ceased doing business with YTB, a multilevel marketing travel agency banned by RCCL, and IATA cancelled affiliation with four U.S. agencies for what may be similar reasons.
Richard Branson, founder and chairman of Virgin Atlantic Airways and Virgin Group
In 1984, Virgin created a niche in the hotly competitive New York-London market with fun and flair. And unlike any other airline brand before or since, Virgin spread beyond national boundaries, operating in Australia, Nigeria and the U.S. (coming soon, outer space). Branson was the first airline exec to go green, and today the powerful Virgin brand combines business acumen with a sense of style and social responsibility that has spread to 200 companies around the world in entertainment, travel, leisure, finance, communications and other fields -- and there is no doubt that it all flows from Sir Richard.
Pier Luigi Foschi, chairman and CEO, Costa Cruises
Foschi is not well known in the U.S., but he's a global powerhouse, the man behind Carnival Corp.'s international expansion plans. He heads the first major cruise line venture in mainland China and obtained the first license to base an international cruise ship in Beijing. (He also was the first to homeport in Dubai and Mauritius.) He'll be at the helm of Carnival's new joint venture in Spain, and he had been pegged to run the TUI joint venture in Germany before that project ran into regulatory difficulties. Costa is already king of the Mediterranean, the most profitable cruising area in the world, and Foschi has five additional ships on order for Costa. With Foschi running the show, his rivals are left scrambling to try to keep up.
Jerre Fuqua, president, First Choice Expeditions
Shortly after First Choice Holidays (Travcoa, TCS Expeditions, International Expeditions, Country Walkers and Intrav) merged with European travel conglomerate TUI to form TUI Travel, Fuqua became the U.S. front man for one of the largest tour operator roll-ups worldwide. He then laid out some aggressive expansion plans for the stateside division. Student travel, international escorted tours, adventure travel and online content companies are all on First Choice Expeditions' acquisition radar, and he's signaled that there may yet be some announcements in the waning weeks of 2007. Tour operators tend to hold their cards pretty close to their chest, so it's unusual, and refreshing, to hear him tout such bullish expansion plans. We suspect we're not the only ones paying close attention to what comes next.
Terestella Gonzalez Denton, executive director, Puerto Rico Tourism Co.
There's no question that Gonzalez Denton holds her own among the macho men on her island (and the Caribbean in general). She got the ear of the governor by confronting tough issues, such as dengue fever, worker walkouts and soft stayover and cruise visitor numbers. "Explore Beyond the Shore," the tourism mantra, is her credo and she pushes it hard, and with success, to send visitors outside the city limits of the capital, San Juan.
Al Gore, former U.S. vice president and Nobel Laureate
The Norwegian Nobel Committee said it best: In the effort to raise awareness about global climate change, Gore "is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted." Gore did not start the green movement, but his film, "An Inconvenient Truth," turbo-charged it, and green travel seems to be the focus of global travel conferences in 2007, from the World Travel and Tourism Council summit in Lisbon to the International Luxury Travel Market program in Cannes, France. Most travel CEOs seem committed, or resigned, to a green course. Though not all yet agree on the cause of global warming, they're convinced that the change in the social and business climate is real.
Peter Greenberg, commentator
Love him or hate him, you can't ignore him. Greenberg is everywhere: on television, on radio, blogging, writing magazine articles, publishing books, speaking at industry events. If he likes you, you're blessed with glowing coverage. But get on his wrong side, as EasyGroup CEO Stelios Haji-Ioannou did earlier this year, and you'll find yourself blasted in every medium Greenberg has at his command. His gig at NBC's "Today" show launched him to industry prominence, but he has shown himself to be a master of the travel punditry game, moving his eponymous brand into new territory at every opportunity.
Kate Hanni, founder, Coalition for an Airline Passengers' Bill of Rights
Hanni, a passenger stuck on the tarmac on an American flight for nearly nine hours last December, channeled her anger to create and grow a 17,000-member coalition via the Internet and media publicity. Airlines hate her, but she's shown the power of an aggrieved passenger, particularly in the networked Internet age, and has become a familiar face in the national media and on Capitol Hill. Her efforts put passenger rights on the congressional agenda and forced the Transportation Department and airlines to respond.
Bjorn Hanson, principal, Hospitality and Leisure Practice, PricewaterhouseCoopers
Hanson is the go-to guy when media seek knowledgeable commentary on lodging. If you haven't read what he's saying, you must be trying hard to ignore him. He has been quoted in more than 275 articles in the past 15 months, from the Wall Street Journal and New York Times to insider publications such as Commercial Property News, Real Estate Forum and, of course, Travel Weekly. His quotability is based on the extensive research he oversees on hospitality trends, and his presentations at conferences play to packed houses because his forecasts of industry performance are unerringly on target.
Henry Harteveldt, vice president and principal analyst, Forrester Research
When travel web-heads mention the name "Henry," there's no doubt to whom they're referring. Harteveldt's insights and the data generated by Forrester, coupled with his extensive insider contacts, give him a voice that is not only heard but respected. His recent call to arms over falling online travel bookings and a need to revamp how Web sites market travel was the most widely discussed commentary among online travel agencies and their suppliers this year.
Steve Kaufer, co-founder, president and CEO, TripAdvisor
Before the label "blogosphere" ever appeared, Steve Kaufer had already defined its potential with TripAdvisor. The 25 million monthly visitors who read, opine, whine, praise and rant on his multiple sites make it the largest online travel community in cyberspace. And its power has all other travel sites and suppliers trying to manipulate ratings and land atop his link positions, and quaking in their boots that they'll be royally flamed.
Sol Kerzner, chairman and CEO, Kerzner International
This straight-talking hotelier and entrepreneur's story continues to be about carving out a niche and wowing guests. The tagline on his home page states, "Core value #1: Blow away the customer," and he certainly does his best to live up to it. He has pumped billions into expansions and upgrades for his powerful flagship brand, Atlantis, whose Paradise Island property in the Bahamas will soon have a sister on a palm-shaped island in Dubai. And as the pair of Atlantises delivers the wows en masse, the elite enjoy a rarefied version in the nine One&Only locations, a brand whose stated ambition is to be no less than the
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
