777fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2442 posts, RR: 3 Posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1668 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?
ANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1505 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.
777fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2442 posts, RR: 3 Reply 3, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1417 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 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2442 posts, RR: 3 Reply 5, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1346 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.