Overview:

The Consumer Travel Alliance recently conducted an analysis of hidden airline fees and what portion of a typical traveler’s air travel costs might be unknown or undisclosed to the traveler at the time the ticket is purchased.

The analysis focused on four popular flight itineraries taken by millions of travelers each year – New York-Los Angeles, Boston-Washington, Chicago-Miami, and Washington-Orlando – and included just two of the many common fees now charged by airlines: checked baggage and extra legroom.
(more…)

Charlie Leocha, the Director of the Consumer Travel Alliance was invited by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation to testify about the proposed merger of Continental and United Airlines. Here is his oral statement made before the committee. (more…)

Rules proposed yesterday by the Department of Transportation (DOT) will force airlines to reveal total air travel costs, including airfares, surcharges and fees. Once these fees are made public, travel agents and airfare websites will be able to create ways for travelers to use this information. (more…)

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced proposed rulemakings regarding airfare and fee disclosures, bumping compensation, a 24-hour refund rule and tarmac delay extension to foreign carriers. (more…)

During a House Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Technology and innovation hearing last week, Homeland Security Undersecretary Brad Buswell and Dr. Penrose Albright, Principal Associate Director for Global Security at the Livermore National Laboratory, noted that full-blown studies to create what amounts to an artificial dog’s nose are funded and underway.

The dog’s nose is the Holy Grail for bomb detection.
(more…)

The FAA has released a clarification to its policy on what can be stowed in aircraft seat pockets. The wording of the current policy stated, “the only items allowed in seat back pockets should be magazines and passenger information cards.” The clarification notes that items up to three pounds in weight can be safely stowed in these seat pockets.

Recently some FAA inspectors have pointed out this restriction to airlines who were sending flight attendants through the aisles having passengers remove paperback books, baby bottles, blankets, etc. prior to landing. The Consumer Travel Alliance wrote to the FAA asking it to revisit this policy that had not been changed since 1998.
(more…)

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…)

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…)

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.