A disturbing new poll says 51 percent of air travelers say they’d rather fly while infected with the flu than pay a $150 airline change fee.

The survey, conducted by TripAdvisor.com, asked travelers if they would fly while they’re sick in order to avoid paying a booking change fee. A total of 2,327 users responded.

Airlines have resisted calls to loosen their highly profitable change-fee requirements in the face of the H1N1 epidemic. They apparently prefer a Band-Aid solution to the problem.
(more…)

Originally published by the Washington Post, Oct. 25, 2009

The approach of cold-weather season reminds me of tarmac delays.

Like the Northwest Airlines flights grounded during a 1999 blizzard at Detroit’s Metro Airport, leaving passengers without water or working toilets for more than seven hours. Or the JetBlue Airways customers stranded for nearly half a day during an ice storm in New York back in 2007.

But what if those were the only memories that cold weather evoked?

No skiing. No eggnog. No chestnuts roasting on the open fire. That would be absurd, wouldn’t it?

No more absurd than what has happened to the “passenger rights movement.” In the past few months, a series of headline-grabbing tarmac delays has helped a couple of influential lobbyists convince the media and a few elected officials that tarmac delays are the No. 1 passenger rights problem in America.
(more…)

Last week, I published an opinion piece, Why swine flu shouldn’t fly. No sooner had my post hit cyberspace than I received a copy of a letter sent by the husband of an infected passenger who had been socked $200 to change his tickets.

This passenger’s letter provides a stark example of the unconcern Delta registers for any of their passengers. They, as an airline, measured by their cancellation policies, would rather passengers fly sick and infect other passengers and spread this virus rather than do the right thing and allow passengers to make alternative plans without a penalty.
(more…)

In a bureaucratic battle between the Department of Transportation and the Department of Justice, members of the Senate Judiciary committee have raised their voices once again. They are warning about the pending antitrust immunity for the American Airlines/British Airways/Iberia OneWorld Alliance.

Two senators from the Judiciary Committee, one a Democrat and the other the ranking Republican, sent a letter to the DOT today stating that the proposed American Airlines-British Airways antitrust immunity request raises “significant competition issues.” Both senators are part of the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights.

Consumertraveler.com has been covering this issue carefully with the political infighting that has the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation at odds. There are also severe disagreements between the Senate and the House committees responsible for airlines and transportation.

Here’s the latest salvo from the Senate Judiciary Committee sent last week to the Department of Transportation.

————————-

October 13, 2009

Dear Secretary LaHood and Assistant Attorney General Varney:

We write regarding the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) consideration of applications for antitrust immunity for international airline alliances. As we stated in our letter of June 8, it remains our view that the DOT should only grant antitrust immunity applications sparingly and only upon a determination that the immunity sought will not harm competition. We also urge the DOT to give substantial deference to the Justice Department’s recommendations about the competitive effects of antitrust immunity applications.

At the time of our June 8 letter, the DOT was considering the antitrust immunity application of Continental Airlines to join United, Lufthansa and other airlines in the Star Alliance. Prior to our letter, the DOT had granted tentative approval to the Star Alliance antitrust immunity application in its April 7, 2009 Show Cause Order.

We were pleased, therefore, that the DOT modified its original order after receiving our letter and after the Justice Department filed its Comments on June 26, 2009. These Comments expressed serious concern regarding several aspects of the Star Alliance’s antitrust immunity application. While not completely adopting the Justice Department’s recommendations, in its July 10 final decision approving the application, the DOT adopted some of the conditions sought by the Justice Department. Specifically, at the request of the Justice Department, the DOT carved out nine international routes from the grant of antitrust immunity, routes in which the Justice Department found a significant loss of competition from the immunized alliance. We are encouraged by this cooperation and appreciate DOT’s efforts to incorporate some of the Justice Department recommendations.

The antitrust immunity application of American Airlines and British Airways in the OneWorld Alliance is now under consideration by the DOT. While not expressing any views on the ultimate merits of this application, we believe this alliance application raises significant competition issues and we reiterate our views that the DOT act cautiously and only approve the antitrust immunity application should it determine that the granting of antitrust immunity will not significantly harm competition. We implore both agencies to continue to work together when analyzing these applications. It is particularly important that the DOT not act on this alliance application until the Justice Department has had an opportunity to assess the impact a grant of antitrust immunity is likely to have on competition and consumers. And, since the DOT has ultimate authority to grant or deny the applications, we ask that it pay substantial heed to the Justice Department’s recommendations about the competition concerns raised by the application.

We will continue to closely examine international aviation alliances, antitrust immunity applications, and their likely effects on competition in the Antitrust Subcommittee. Specifically, we will examine where the DOT is the appropriate agency to have final authority over the grant of antitrust immunity for international airline alliances, or whether legislation should be drafted to give greater authority to the Justice Department, the agency tasked with enforcement of the antitrust law with respect to this industry. Our paramount consideration will be the preservation and enhancement of competition so that consumers will be best served in international aviation.

Thank you for your attention in these matters.

Sincerely,

Herb Kohl, Chairman, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights

Orrin Hatch, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights

No one likes to sit near someone with the sniffles or a cough on the plane, but what about the very real prospect of your seatmate having swine flu? If current airline policies continue, those who have flu-like symptoms and heed the Centers for Disease Control warning to “stay home and avoid travel for 7 days” will face hundreds of dollars in airline fees and penalties. How many will still fly despite their illness and the chance of spreading it?

An unprecedented national effort is being waged to limit the impact and spread of the H1N1 flu (swine flu) virus. Millions of vaccine doses are now being distributed across the country, health care workers are being inoculated en masse, government workers have new medical leave policies, schools are being closed and the head of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) warned, “We have not had a flu season like this in at least 50 years.”

Neither the airlines nor the Department of Transportation (DOT) have made a meaningful response to this pandemic as it sweeps the country. Basic common sense tells us that airplane flights — putting large groups of people in a small, contained space — will facilitate the spread of this virus.

So far, the airline industry’s sole response has been to remove pillows and blankets from many aircraft. Plus, spokespersons for the airlines have said, “If you are sick, stay home.” Yet, our airlines are actually punishing passengers who choose to not fly when infected. The airlines can and should change policy to help slow the spread of H1N1.

Airline passengers have to pay change fees of as much as $150 for domestic flights and $250 for international flights when they opt to change a flight. Then, they are required by the airlines to pay the difference between the original price paid for their flight and the current airline price. (When comparing the cost of an advanced-purchase ticket with the cost of a flight leaving next week, that difference can be dramatic. In fact, it can be up to four times as much or more.)

Getting more people with flu symptoms to comply with the CDC’s suggestion about travel when ill with the flu would be greatly facilitated by the airlines allowing passengers with a health professional’s letter indicating that they have or may have H1N1 to be allowed to reschedule their trip at no additional cost.

Just think of the difference airlines could make in limiting the spread of H1N1 by being proactive and making these changes immediately. But, absent any changes in policy by the airlines, the DOT, in consultation with the CDC, should get in gear and mandate that the airlines eliminate their change and cancellation rules that punish passengers for being good citizens.

During this flu season, swine flu shouldn’t fly. Dropping the airline penalties will help make this happen.

The long-sought antitrust immunity between British Airways, American Airlines and Iberia for their OneWorld alliance has hit another patch of turbulence with the E.U. as they attempt to gain the same interoperability enjoyed by competing Star Alliance and SkyTeam.

For years and through two previous AA/BA antitrust immunity applications, the E.U. and U.S. regulators have faced problems with the two airlines’ control of Heathrow Airport. But now, some insiders say the tie-up with Iberia has added to some new antitrust concerns

For years, Virgin Atlantic who competes with BA in and out of Heathrow has been adamant against the fruition of this alliance. They have repeatedly stated, “Virgin Atlantic would expect the Commission to find that the proposed alliance would damage competition and consumer interests on all six of the routes from [London] Heathrow to the US on which BA and AA both operate currently. These include Heathrow to New York JFK on which BA and AA together would control 62 percent of all capacity and would have an unassailable grip on time-sensitive premium passengers.”

In the U.S., the OneWorld alliance is the only one of the three major alliances that has not received the blessing of the Department of Transportation (DOT).

SkyTeam with Delta and Air France-KLM as the leading airlines, is in the midst of actually setting up a joint venture that will lead to the closest cooperation possible — bordering on a separate international airline without U.S. domestic rights.

The Star Alliance anchored by Lufthansa, United and (soon) Continental has been exchanging international marketing information and coordinating flights for years. They even have a livery painted as Star Alliance. From the paint job, one wouldn’t know whether they were getting aboard a United, USAirways or Lufthansa plane.

But these alliances are not out of the regulatory woods yet. The FAA Reauthorization Bill passed by the House of Representatives has a controversial “sunset provision” (H.R. 831) that would require a re-examination of the current airline alliances. And the E.U. has signaled that their investigators still are not finished looking at the other two major alliances.

The EC competition watchdog said it had sent a charge sheet to the three airlines. Since April, it has also been investigating similar deals between the 24 members of the rival Star Alliance – including BMI, United (UAUA) and Lufthansa (LHAG.DE) – as well as the SkyTeam partnership of 11 airlines including Air France-KLM (AIRF.PA), Delta (DAL) and Aeroflot (AFLT.RTS). It has yet to move on either inquiry.

Obviously the international alliance game is still afoot.

OpenSkies, once branded as the ultimate competition machine, designed to break the decades-old system of bilateral airline agreements, has not kicked into full gear because of the world’s economic problems. Someday, when funds become available and passengers begin to travel in greater numbers, airlines will be able to focus on more point-to-point routes.

Here at home, the DOT approves alliance antitrust immunity based on phantom customer service improvements and the Department of Justice continues to focus on loss of competition. In the wings congressmen are harboring serious concerns about the growth of airline alliances and their effect on suppliers and airports as well as passengers.

Last June, the House of Representatives, in dramatic fashion voted down using whole-body scanners as primary screening devices at airports. The voice vote was inconclusive and an actual vote count was ordered. The final tally was 310 for the amendment and 118 against. Now, TSA is merrily on its way to defying the will of the House.

This 310 to 118 June 4th vote was taken on the amendment offered by Reps. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, and Carol Shea-Porter, D-N.H., to the TSA authorization bill. Evidently, TSA can’t count. Or, they just don’t give a darn about what our representatives think.

TSA feels that the choice of being strip-searched or groped is as American as apple pie. I’m sorry, but I was joking back in the early 2000s when I said that soon we we will be walking onto our planes naked. The last time I checked, there was a law about “reasonable suspicion” before subjecting someone to a strip search. Is simply the act of getting on a plane now considered “reasonable suspicion”?

Unfortunately, even these $100,000 strip-search machines won’t stop a dedicated terrorist who might find ways to hide explosives inside his body, like this jihadist who hid explosives in his anus. I’m afraid to imagine the operation of TSA’s next “in-body scanner” that is surely being designed as I protest the less-irritating current iteration of search.

Fellow blogger, Jason Barger noted:

So, the naked truth for air travel in the future just may come down to this choice for each passenger – pass through the peep hole or let the wandering hands get frisky? Either way, air travel may just become X-Rated.

I better get a tan.

TSA is using undirected stimulus money to buy these x-rated, x-ray machines, ironically bypassing the House of Representatives, the very place where such funding is normally initiated. In fact, the House has clearly directed that they don’t want money spent on these contraptions as primary scanning gizmos.

Hopefully, Sen. Lieberman, who controls the Senate side of Homeland Security and TSA, will see his way to allowing the Senate to vote on a version of the TSA Authorization Act that has already been debated and passed by the House of Representatives.

If there was ever an agency that needed control, it is TSA. This behemoth has been virtually strip-searching us, collecting travel data, making us walk in socks, confiscating toothpaste and shampoo, rummaging through our luggage and more without any Congressional oversight since its inception.

Someone needs to wallop TSA and Homeland Security with a dose of common sense and a bit of respect for our elected representatives, and remind them who is paying their salaries.

(Photo: Quasimondo/Flickr Creative Commons)