How To Irritate The Press By Us Airways

[orwell]

You're correct. Customers are such whiners.

"Whhaaaa, we don't want to be stuck on a runway in Detroit for 8 hours in a snowstorm with no working lavatories."

"Whhaaaa, we actually wanted to get where we were going on time, and we don't support the United Airlines pilot sick-out (i.e. summer from hell)."

"Whhaaaa, we want to get reimbursed for luggage that was lost 4 YEARS ago."

We're such whiners.

Do you want to know why US Airways and other legacy carriers are held to a "higher standard" than WN or B6? Perhaps it's because WN and B6 don't RAPE you for last minute fares, and because they get you there on-time (and sometimes with ammenities such as TV or blue chips).

If you charge someone $2,000 to go from PHL-LAX last minute, you better be prepared to hear some "whining" when luggage is lost, the plane is late, etc.

Are there passengers that complain too much? I'm sure. But to insinuate that the "passengers' rights" movement was initiated because of people getting sick of 45 minute weather delays is completely inaccurate.

Like many passenger-rights advocates, you’re going back to the time-honored tradition of dredging up the infamous “8 hours on the runway” caper in DTW. Do you want to know one of the reasons why this happened? Because NW – like any other US carrier – is terrified to use mobile stairs in conditions like that.

As you must know, because of a huge snowstorm – I know, I know, airlines control the weather so this is a moot point, but hear me out for fun – there were far more planes than gates. Reason would suggest: “Hey, let’s bring out some mobile stairs to deplane the passengers. They may have to hump it to the terminal, and use some common sense to avoid falling on their rears, but it’s better than sitting in a plane for hours.”

But of course that didn’t – couldn’t – happen. Why? Because of WHINING passenger lawsuits. NW knew that if one idiot slipped and fell, it would probably cost them way more than all the compensation they paid out to those stuck for that long. If I remember correctly, some of that comp was actual cash, and they gave it voluntarily. Of course, it didn’t satisfy everyone and there were lawsuits.

Now – can’t you see that at least part of this problem was from a culture of “where’s my stuff” that was – and still is – flourishing among American consumers. Nowhere is this more evident than with airline consumers. Airlines can’t win – no matter what they do. As I always point out, when the seatbelt sign is on, the passengers whine about that. Turn it off and something happens, they’re going to sue you and say the sign should have been on.

Before you accuse me of defending what happened in this case – I of course don’t think this was good customer service. But is it a reason to have outrageously ridiculous laws that say an airline has to pay several hundred in cash to someone who is delayed –and who paid less than that for the ticket to begin with? Are airlines supposed to PAY people to fly them?

That’s the kind of garbage Elliott supported. If you want a passengers rights bill, reregulate the industry and pay all airline workers government jobs rates and benefits. You can’t have it both ways.

 

[Scamp]

please take note:
during sessions to deal with the airbus issue at IAM,there were several options brought up as to doing some type of advertising campain against the company's position regarding airbus 's' checks...well during these brainstorming sessions{yes we still have several people in IAM capable of this function}it was brought up that we should advertise in USA TODAY....well we were informed that 1] the cost and 2]they are US AIRWAYS freindly and wouldn't accept an anti-U ad.
well does this do anything to add light to this subject?

...and a representative from USA Today said this to you, specifically, when?

 

[biztraveller29]

C'mon Orwell. You can't do the "we can't win for losing" routine with airlines. When times were good, airlines (including US) were raking in billions of dollars. There are specific reasons that passengers started demanding service: It's because "service" became non-existent. You can look at the delays, lost luggage, and cancelled flight stats from '99-'00 'ish, and the were abyssmal!

Yeah, you can blame passengers, but I want to know, how were passengers to blame for the United pilot sick-out, the AA f/a sick-out, and UA management's complete overscheduling of some of their shuttle routes (i.e. LAX-SFO), causing massive delays at both airports? These are some of the events that drove calls for passenger rights.

Yes, lawsuits occur. Sometimes it truly does feel like you can't win for losing. But I think that the advent of these "ombudsmen" such as Elliott and the Conde Nast Ombudsman reflect a welcome change from when many passengers who tried to complain were faced with an uncaring, monolithic airline bureaucracy.

 

[delldude]

please take note:
during sessions to deal with the airbus issue at IAM,there were several options brought up as to doing some type of advertising campain against the company's position regarding airbus 's' checks...well during these brainstorming sessions{yes we still have several people in IAM capable of this function}it was brought up that we should advertise in USA TODAY....well we were informed that 1] the cost and 2]they are US AIRWAYS freindly and wouldn't accept an anti-U ad.
well does this do anything to add light to this subject?

...and a representative from USA Today said this to you, specifically, when?

no,it was IAM sources claimed U advertises on USA today and wouldn't accept anti ads.

 

[orwell]

C'mon Orwell. You can't do the "we can't win for losing" routine with airlines. When times were good, airlines (including US) were raking in billions of dollars. There are specific reasons that passengers started demanding service: It's because "service" became non-existent. You can look at the delays, lost luggage, and cancelled flight stats from '99-'00 'ish, and the were abyssmal!

Yeah, you can blame passengers, but I want to know, how were passengers to blame for the United pilot sick-out, the AA f/a sick-out, and UA management's complete overscheduling of some of their shuttle routes (i.e. LAX-SFO), causing massive delays at both airports? These are some of the events that drove calls for passenger rights.

Yes, lawsuits occur. Sometimes it truly does feel like you can't win for losing. But I think that the advent of these "ombudsmen" such as Elliott and the Conde Nast Ombudsman reflect a welcome change from when many passengers who tried to complain were faced with an uncaring, monolithic airline bureaucracy.

I admit I was writing with a bias - but I was trying to counter the ridiculous bias Elliott and others publish daily.

Poor customer service was and is rampant in the industry - you're right about that. That's one issue - but it doesn't change the fact that the airlines are hamstrung by this "now you're regulated, now you're not" treatment by the government. In that sense, the "can't win for losing" argument is valid.

As far as the sick outs, those were of course tactical moves by unions who realize the best way to bite the hand that feeds them is to punish the revenue source - passengers. It's the same mentality as terrorists who claim "we have nothing against Americans citizens individually, but hurting them is the only way we'll get the government to listen." It isn't right, but it sure is effective.

 

[FlyingHippie]

Its not tough to think USA Today and US Airways didn't talk about Christopher Elliott's stories. Their offices are practically next to each other in Crystal City. Duh!

 

[USFlyer]

Its not tough to think USA Today and US Airways didn't talk about Christopher Elliott's stories. Their offices are practically next to each other in Crystal City. Duh!

USA Today moved to Tyson's Corner, Va.

 

[Scamp]

please take note:
during sessions to deal with the airbus issue at IAM,there were several options brought up as to doing some type of advertising campain against the company's position regarding airbus 's' checks...well during these brainstorming sessions{yes we still have several people in IAM capable of this function}it was brought up that we should advertise in USA TODAY....well we were informed that 1] the cost and 2]they are US AIRWAYS freindly and wouldn't accept an anti-U ad.
well does this do anything to add light to this subject?

...and a representative from USA Today said this to you, specifically, when?

no,it was IAM sources claimed U advertises on USA today and wouldn't accept anti ads.

uh HUH...

 

[FlyingHippie]

USA Today moved to Tyson's Corner, Va.

So much for that.