You pay for this and they give you that...

[Evan]

I think we all agree that, in case of force majeure, the airline not only can but should do its best to minimize the impact on the customer, and that may include a substitute plane from a substitute airline.

And I suspect this is far away from force majeure. I suspect this was a case of booking more flights than equipment, or underselling one of their 757 flights. Even if it was a maintenance issue, force majeure is a stretch.

[ATLcrew]

This is exactly what I mean by one-sided, coercive commerce. You are agreeing to the terms under duress, because you have to fly and there is no other option available.

You're kidding, right?

[elaw]

Can you suggest a good alternative when you're in Houston and your employer says he needs you in DC the next day?

Perhaps Evan should have written "it's the only reasonable option" but the general idea is the same.

[ATLcrew]

Can you suggest a good alternative when you're in Houston and your employer says he needs you in DC the next day?

Skype.

[elaw]

There are numerous common situations where Skype won't do the job, the most common one being the boss just won't go along with the idea.

Another common one is you need to bring something physical with you. A live human organ is a good example - I'm pretty sure a kidney transplant's never been accomplished via Skype.

[ATLcrew]

There are numerous common situations where Skype won't do the job, the most common one being the boss just won't go along with the idea.

Another common one is you need to bring something physical with you. A live human organ is a good example - I'm pretty sure a kidney transplant's never been accomplished via Skype.

Human organs for transplant don't usually fly commercial (for obvious reasons). As for you boss being an asshole, that's not the airline's problem. The airline isn't making you fly "under duress", your boss is.

[3WE]

Nice, lingering debate on the semantics of "whether you have to fly or it's optional".

The issue isn't that, but instead the largely diminished competition, meaning that when you have to fly (or want to fly, it doesn't matter which.), the choices are more limited and the airlines less willing "give" you stuff: including:

-Their own big-iron aircraft that "live in" a strong safety culture
-Pilots who appear to be more competent than the Colgan crew and are paid more
-Those glorious two more inches of legroom
-Free standby and no change fees
-FA's who 1) don't yell at people and 2) don't over react if you don't initially hear them.
-...et al.

[Evan]

Skype.

Does that work for airline pilots?

Didn't think so.

It doesn't work for a lot of people. Flying is a necessity for a lot of people today and mergers have eviscerated competition. Terms and conditions are both mandatory and non-negotiable, and for that reason, meaningless as a "contract" in a free-market society. The point I am making is that governments (and regulatory bodies) have the power to limit what can be put into those terms and conditions. They need to do a better job of it, starting with a requirement to provide customers the option of declining an operator swap, reclaiming their money or accepting a reasonable alternative flight on the original operator's equipment at the customer's discretion.

Why would you resist that?

[ATLcrew]

The point I am making is that governments (and regulatory bodies) have the power to limit what can be put into those terms and conditions. They need to do a better job of it, starting with a requirement to provide customers the option of declining an operator swap, reclaiming their money or accepting a reasonable alternative flight on the original operator's equipment at the customer's discretion.

STARTING with that? Everything else that governments (and regulatory bodies) have power over is already so peachy-keen, THAT has to be priority one?

I've told you this before, Evan, if you don't want to fly (for whatever reason), just stay home. No need to dig up more and more stuff that Your Royal Highness finds wrong with the industry. I'm sure Greyhound will be thrilled to have ya.

[TeeVee]

STARTING with that? Everything else that governments (and regulatory bodies) have power over is already so peachy-keen, THAT has to be priority one?

I've told you this before, Evan, if you don't want to fly (for whatever reason), just stay home. No need to dig up more and more stuff that Your Royal Highness finds wrong with the industry. I'm sure Greyhound will be thrilled to have ya.

IF this guy is really a crew member, i believe one would call his statements in this thread, self-injurious.

i for one don't believe he is a crew member, unless we
are talking about ramp personnel.......

[Gabriel]

IF this guy is really a crew member, i believe one would call his statements in this thread, self-injurious.

i for one don't believe he is a crew member, unless we
are talking about ramp personnel.......

You know... McDonald's call their restaurant personnel "crew", and there are a lot of McDonald's in Atlanta.

Attending hands-on training.
Providing hands-on training.
Doing a job that requires working on-site (repairing equipment, taking care of a patient, building a building).
Doing audits.
Signing very critical documents.
Visiting a family member that is about to die of Cancer.
Providing assistance to victims of disasters.
Performing an accident or crime investigation.

The list could go on forever.
There are lots of things that require that you be physically on-site.
If said site is far away or across an ocean, the only realistic way to be on-site is taking a plane.

I want to see you, ATLcrew, do simulator training or practice deploying a chute by Skype.

[Evan]

STARTING with that? Everything else that governments (and regulatory bodies) have power over is already so peachy-keen, THAT has to be priority one?

Yes, starting with that most basic right to choose the operator you will fly on. Starting with that most basic right to receive the brand you purchased. That's priority one.

By now we all know there are pay-to-fly, puppymill pilots out there who may not have what it takes to get into big iron at a major airline. We all know that they often find themselves a front seat in the big iron of a less scrupulous discount charter operation. We all know that these charter airlines don't always enforce the same standards for pilot training, recurrent training or checkrides and tend to underpay pilots and keep them to more challenging duty rosters. The low margin in commercial aviation means that beating the big guys on price involves cutting whatever costs the FAR's will allow. This sometimes includes prolonging maintenance compliance as long as possible or cutting corners (bolts are bolts, right?).

By now we also know that most plane crashes today are caused by gross pilot error indicative of insufficient ON-TYPE training, poor CRM, skipped over procedure or lax maintenance discipline and corner-cutting. In other words, almost all crashes today are caused by a poor safety culture. When was the last United Airlines fatal crash? Delta? American? KLM? BA? The reason AirFrance 447 was so shocking was the revelation that they had a weak safety culture, the kind you would expect from a no-name charter outfit...

Now, before I get flamed, Yes, many charters have excellent pilots and safety records and occasionally a bad apple makes it into the big leagues. Every rule has it's exceptions. That's not the point here. The point is in knowing where the probability for a strong safety culture is greater.

The point is that, given the choice between an operator I know to have a strong, perhaps legendary safety culture and a charter I know nothing about, I will tend to choose the former over the latter as a means of self-defense against this regulatory weakness in the industry. That is my right to choose and my right to self-defense.

If the operator then swaps me onto an unknown charter airline, my right to choose has been violated and my life may be put into greater danger. My right to decline the flight without losing my money is also removed. Current terms and conditions allow them to do this. This violates the basic principals of free commerce that modern societies are based upon. A simple act of regulatory law could prevent it. And by every measure of fairness it should.

So why doesn't it? Airline mergers that have slithered around anti-trust laws. Insider influence has poisoned the legislatures and regulatory bodies. Contract law unfairly favors industry over consumers. A paralysed and corrupt Congress does nothing all day and a general ignorance on the part of the public prevents the sort of activism needed to wake them up.

I have a problem with that. And I have to fly. So when a bunch of very anxious Israelis refuse to accept an operator swap and the charter crew has to suffer for it, I understand why this happened. I see a predictable situation (did Arkia really think these pax wouldn't have an issue with that?) that could be easily avoided by a bit of basic legislation. And I see an industry that prevents that kind of reform for sake of profits over civic decency.