Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Failed Carrier Protection Law Not Renewed In US  
User currently offline777fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2525 posts, RR: 2
Posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2026 times:

I'm not surprised this quietly flew under the radar, seeing as how Congress here can't complete even the simplest of tasks. Fortunately for most US. pax, carriers here are in okay shape. The last carriers of note that ceased ops in the U.S. were National and Independence, IIRC.

Anyone have anymore insight as to why this law wasn't renewed?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel...story_for_1-6jan06,0,7266652.story


777fan


DC-8 61/63/71 DC-9-30/50 MD-80/82/83 DC-10-10/30 MD-11 717 721/2 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 741/2/4 752 762/3 777 A306/319/20/33 AT
5 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineG4resagent From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 300 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1957 times:

Don't forget Southeastern, and Transmeridian...

User currently offlineANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1863 times:

Not certain of the logic of the Government requiring competitors to accept these tickets for $50. While I do see the pro-consumer aspect, this law has the effect of encouraging passengers to ignore common-sense when buying air transport.

If an airline wants to do so, that's fine - but the market should decide these issues not Congress.

Also while $50 may be 'reasonable' for short haul domestic operation, it is not for a long-haul flight where the cost of fuel per passenger would be much higher than this.


User currently offline777fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2525 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1775 times:



Quoting ANother (Reply 2):
this law has the effect of encouraging passengers to ignore common-sense when buying air transport.

I think most pax (at least here in the States) already ignore common sense when purchasing their tickets. This is best exhibited in the 'me-first' attitude that manifests itself in their demand for top notch service while traveling on fares that are worthy of little more than the most basic transportation. I'd be willing to bet that if you were to poll the American public about this law, 99.8% would be completely oblivious to its existence.

My observations suggest that this was a factor only when a bargain hunter knowingly booked a cheap flight on a carrier that was close ceasing operations only to find themselves stranded at their destination. Most in the know (parrticularly biz travelers) are/were savvy enough to steer clear of carriers barely hanging on and/or accepted the risk involved in opting to fly with them.

I guess that in not renewing this law, Congress figured that most U.S. carriers are in decent enough shape to render the policy unnecessary. It'll be interesting, however, to see what happens if a decent sized U.S. carrier - particularly one with international routes - teeters on the brink of liquidation. Will pax learn to heed the warning and accept the risk? Probably not, which will result in their lambasting of other carriers, Congress, etc.


777fan



DC-8 61/63/71 DC-9-30/50 MD-80/82/83 DC-10-10/30 MD-11 717 721/2 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 741/2/4 752 762/3 777 A306/319/20/33 AT
User currently offlineBurnsie28 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 7566 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1707 times:

Well with the looks of things it won't be too long until Skybus (which btw, there was a previous Skybus Airlines) will be gone.


"Some People Just Know How To Fly"- Best slogan ever, RIP NW 1926-2009
User currently offline777fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2525 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1704 times:



Quoting Burnsie28 (Reply 4):
Well with the looks of things it won't be too long until Skybus (which btw, there was a previous Skybus Airlines) will be gone.

Funny, I just posted to the ongoing Skybus thread about service to GYY. That said, I hardly think their absence from the market would strand too many people! Then again, some of their pax might find themselves stranded in cities that aren't served by anyone else.


777fan



DC-8 61/63/71 DC-9-30/50 MD-80/82/83 DC-10-10/30 MD-11 717 721/2 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 741/2/4 752 762/3 777 A306/319/20/33 AT
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Was Concorde Not Allowed In The US? posted Wed Sep 27 2006 03:59:28 by Remcor
Has Any US Carrier Ever Had The A340 In Their Fleet? posted Sun Mar 26 2006 19:15:36 by Josh12815
Why Not More 744's/High Density Aircraft In US? posted Fri Oct 15 2004 22:16:22 by Ual747
Any A340 In US Carrier Fleets? posted Sun Apr 25 2004 14:37:09 by Businessboy
Visit In Cockpit In US Carrier? posted Thu Jun 14 2001 15:44:12 by PolAir
The Next European Carrier To Expand In US posted Sat Sep 9 2000 03:54:26 by DesertJets
Retirment Age 65 About To Be Reailty In US posted Thu Dec 13 2007 13:55:38 by CXB744
ATA To Fight NY Law On Behalf Of US Airlines posted Tue Dec 11 2007 04:02:52 by B777A340Fan
Another Runway Near Miss In US posted Sat Dec 8 2007 06:22:10 by Kaitak
First America West Express CRJ-200 In US Colors posted Sat Jul 28 2007 20:49:53 by Bkircher