In a regulatory filing that should anger just about any consumer, airline lobbyists are begging the Trump administration to eliminate the limited number of protections that us consumers in the United States have. Frommers has an excellent analysis of this, and it’s kind of wild (thanks to TravelinWilly for flagging this).
In this post:
Airlines lobby Trump to cut consumer protections
On May 5, 2025, the Department of Transportation started seeking public comments on “Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementation of the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Deregulatory Agenda.” Trump has stated that for every new regulation issued, he wants to eliminate 10 regulations.
Airlines, being the charitable businesses that they are, were more than willing to help with this agenda. Airlines for America (A4A), which is the airline lobbying group representing Alaska, American, Delta, Southwest, and United, submitted a 93-page document outlining all kinds of regulations that can and should be cut.
A4A is calling on the “re-deregulation” of airlines in order to “unleash American prosperity and the new ‘golden age’ of air travel in America.” So, how are we going to unleash the golden age of air travel? Well, by basically giving consumers no rights. The cuts that A4A wants are far-reaching.
For example, the DOT has the Air Travel Consumer Report, which publishes data that compares airline flight delays, cancelations, complaints, mishandled bags, denied boarding, and more. This is an important tool for consumers to have access to, and it does a lot to keep airlines honest, and operating as well as they can.
Airlines think that’s complete government overreach, where the industry is “singled out for regulatory oversight.” So they want to eliminate that, but they’re doing it for us — “to save the American taxpayer from unnecessary costs and bureaucracy, the DOT should limit this report to that information required by statute.”
A4A also wants to eliminate the refund rules that were imposed under Biden and Buttigieg, arguing that they “lack statutory authority and impose significant costs that outweigh the benefits.” For example, they want to eliminate the requirement for airlines to offer credits or vouchers when people can’t travel due to serious communicable disease circumstances, like if there’s a quarantine at a destination, or government regulations limiting travel.
They argue that those regulations aren’t necessary — customers instead have so many options for how they can handle that, like booking refundable tickets (maybe 10x the price of a regular economy ticket), buying travel insurance, etc.
A4A is also calling on an end to the family seating and flight disruption reimbursement policies that were introduced under Biden and Buttigieg, arguing that they “exceed the DOT’s authority and are a Trojan Horse to reregulate airlines.” A4A argues that airlines don’t need to have these kinds of regulations, because they have a “longstanding and proven commitment to customer service.”
There’s so much more in here, but this just gives you a small taste of what’s being asked for…
These asks are enough to make your blood boil
In fairness, I suppose I can’t blame airlines for trying to have consumer protections eliminated. I mean, these are publicly traded companies, and their only obligations are to their shareholders. Of course less regulation is good for airlines, because what industry wants to be regulated?!
Obviously this is inherently political, since you have an airline lobbying group essentially calling many of the consumer protections of a previous administration “unlawful,” knowing that this administration wants to eliminate regulations.
But politically, I also tend to think that we’re a lot more similar than we try to give ourselves credit for. Sure, a lot of people who support Trump may want less regulation (in theory), but do they really want this kind of “less regulation?”
Like, I don’t think the average Trump supporter who booked a ticket during the early stages of the pandemic and was then refused a refund by the airline said “yeah, that’s awesome, small government, woot!” As consumers, we want to be treated with respect, and sometimes that requires government intervention.
Similarly, I think most reasonable people agree that the reimbursement policies set by Biden and Buttigieg were good, whereby airlines have to reimburse you for certain expenses as a result of irregular operations. I don’t think there are many people out there who side with the airlines there.
The airline lobbying argument is basically just “look, we can be trusted to regulate ourselves, and consumers should be able to choose airlines based on which they think they can trust.” Let me point out that when Delta (arguably the most premium airline in the US) had its CrowdStrike meltdown in 2024 (which destroyed the carrier’s operation), the airline didn’t want to reimburse tickets on other airlines until the government forced it to.
It’s also funny to see A4A argue that it wants to save taxpayers money by having a dashboard giving them a sense of how airline operational statistics compare, after taking $54 billion in taxpayer funds at the start of the pandemic.
Essentially, airlines are rewriting the narrative of what has happened in the past, like arguing that airlines “are already committed and have proven their commitment to taking care of their customers when flight cancellations occur or when flights are significantly delayed, including the issuance of over $43B in customer refunds from January 2020 through December 2023.”
That’s such a distortion of history, because airlines certainly weren’t forthcoming with refunds at first, until pressure was put on airlines to do the right thing.
Bottom line
Airlines in the United States want to “unleash American prosperity and the new ‘golden age’ of air travel,” by re-deregulating the industry. To airlines, this basically means eliminating any sort of progress that has been made with consumer protections over the years, as they argue that this has too high of a cost for consumers, and that it represents government overreach.
Given the Trump administration’s goal of eliminating 10 regulations for each new regulation added, I do have concerns about airlines getting their ways on some of these things. But regardless of the political beliefs one has, I don’t think there are many consumers who would cheer if these changes were made…
What do you make of the changes that airlines are lobbying for?
After reading all the comments in support of gutting regulations (rather than taking a nuanced approach) people should no longer wonder how can America vote for an orange buffoon. This lot is proudly stupid and worrying part is not only they vote but they breed to produce more buffons.
Man, it was only like 7-10 years ago when I thought content like "Ready Player 1" or "Continuum" was far fetched.
With how much simping people are doing for corps now though, the most far fetched elements of those is that humanity wins in the end.
@JoePro -- Right? The corporate simping in these threads is unreal. Defending airlines after delayed refunds, consent orders, and $54B in taxpayer bailouts… if I didn’t know any better, I’d think a high-level Delta exec was running a sock puppet on this very blog!
And they are doing it for free.
Totally agreed. It's astonishing that we either have an army of bots fighting for corporations in niche comment sections, or some people really do live in an alternate reality.
Well now! Between Ben and Tim, with their comments, the subject article has really wound up the keyboard warriors. Like fighting cocks in a tavern yard, the entertainment value is immense. One hopes that Ben benefits from all the clicks, while the silent observers simply shake their heads in wonderment …. :-)
Loser.
Well now! Between Ben and Tim, with their comments, the subject article has really wound up the keyboard warriors. Like fighting cocks in a tavern yard, the entertainment value is immense. One hopes that Ben benefits from all the clicks, while the silent observers simply shake their heads in wonderment …. :-)
The only consumer protections that should be cut and the only area where airlines should self-police should be the elimination of TSA and the return to security at the gate like it was before 9/11.
The extent to which many individuals identify (and over-identify) with airlines is shockingly demonstrated in these comments.
A basic, reasonable rule like: cash refund for a cancelled flights is hardly even a regulation, more like a basic component of reasonable contract law that would apply in any other commercial transaction. Arguing against it is pretty silly (Tim Dunn).
A regulation like: all fares should be refundable would be an example of an unreasonable burden on...
The extent to which many individuals identify (and over-identify) with airlines is shockingly demonstrated in these comments.
A basic, reasonable rule like: cash refund for a cancelled flights is hardly even a regulation, more like a basic component of reasonable contract law that would apply in any other commercial transaction. Arguing against it is pretty silly (Tim Dunn).
A regulation like: all fares should be refundable would be an example of an unreasonable burden on the free market to find good solutions to complex pricing questions.
people like you that can't read what I wrote and jump to incorrect interpretations based on incorrect understanding of what I said is the problem.
I fully understand that failure to deliver does provide relief but virtually every contract allows some sort of substitution and now allows the consumer to agree to arbitration if the company does not like what is offered.
Airlines have had refund policies for decades. The issue w/ refunds specifically is...
people like you that can't read what I wrote and jump to incorrect interpretations based on incorrect understanding of what I said is the problem.
I fully understand that failure to deliver does provide relief but virtually every contract allows some sort of substitution and now allows the consumer to agree to arbitration if the company does not like what is offered.
Airlines have had refund policies for decades. The issue w/ refunds specifically is that there are people who buy non-refundable fares far in advance who want refunds when the airline does routine schedule changes. The regulations which were proposed and enacted require refunds even if the flight number was changed.
The result is that airlines IN PRACTICE have chosen to simply refund those tickets rather than work w/ the customer.
Being told by an airline that we can't meet your requirements so we will refund your ticket and you are forced to buy a much more expensive ticket is not consumer friendly.
There are reasonable limits for how far an airline can go with what it expects a consumer to go but the regulations that were enacted go too far and too many airlines have simply been too happy to refund tickets.
and the same can be said for multiple other rules including the 3 hour tarmac rule. Some airline execs have said under oath that they cancel more flights than they otherwise would because they don't want to face the risk of being fined.
Again, tell me how that black and white rule which has resulted in more cancellations is good for the consumer?
What does a 'routine schedule change' mean here?
Most likely you are intentionally misstating the content of the 2024 DOT rule which simply states that if an airline cancels a flight or significantly delays it (3 hours domestic, 6 hours international), a passenger has the option to either continue working with the airline for rebooking or can insist on a cash refund and take their money to another carrier.
In practice, the airline would prefer to keep the revenue and keeps trying to...
Most likely you are intentionally misstating the content of the 2024 DOT rule which simply states that if an airline cancels a flight or significantly delays it (3 hours domestic, 6 hours international), a passenger has the option to either continue working with the airline for rebooking or can insist on a cash refund and take their money to another carrier.
In practice, the airline would prefer to keep the revenue and keeps trying to rebook rather than provide the refund, but it's excellent for consumers to have the option to insist on cash and go forward with another carrier without dramatic steps like arbitration which is not a practical course of action to pursue against US carriers.
@Tim Dunn -- Your argument assumes airlines operate in a competitive market where poor service naturally gets punished. But four carriers control 80% of domestic routes with extensive barriers to entry and route monopolies at hub airports.
In truly competitive markets, airlines that cancel flights to avoid tarmac fines or refuse refunds for cancellations would lose customers to competitors. Instead, they can externalize costs onto passengers because switching options are limited. That's why regulations become...
@Tim Dunn -- Your argument assumes airlines operate in a competitive market where poor service naturally gets punished. But four carriers control 80% of domestic routes with extensive barriers to entry and route monopolies at hub airports.
In truly competitive markets, airlines that cancel flights to avoid tarmac fines or refuse refunds for cancellations would lose customers to competitors. Instead, they can externalize costs onto passengers because switching options are limited. That's why regulations become necessary - they force airlines to internalize costs they'd otherwise dump on consumers.
And suggesting passengers pursue individual arbitration against airlines' legal teams isn't a solution - it's designed to make claiming legitimate compensation so difficult that people give up.
The $54 billion in taxpayer bailouts while simultaneously fighting basic consumer protections proves airlines don't operate under true market discipline. You can't claim "free market principles" while relying on government protection from market consequences.
@Eric -- You've nailed the core issue. There's a huge difference between basic contract enforcement (getting what you paid for) and market interference (dictating pricing structures).
Cash refunds for canceled flights shouldn't even be controversial - it's just enforcing the original transaction. The airline took your money promising to fly you somewhere on a specific date, then unilaterally decided not to provide that service. In any other industry, that's called breach of contract.
The airline...
@Eric -- You've nailed the core issue. There's a huge difference between basic contract enforcement (getting what you paid for) and market interference (dictating pricing structures).
Cash refunds for canceled flights shouldn't even be controversial - it's just enforcing the original transaction. The airline took your money promising to fly you somewhere on a specific date, then unilaterally decided not to provide that service. In any other industry, that's called breach of contract.
The airline lobby is trying to frame basic contract law as "government overreach" while simultaneously arguing they should be trusted to self-regulate. It's remarkable how many people are buying into corporate talking points that would eliminate their own consumer rights.
again, the point is that you can't dictate that consumers can demand their money back w/o allowing airlines to choose to refund a ticket because they no longer want to deliver the service they can't provide for any number of reasons including weather and ATC constraints that leave an airline w/ far more passengers than they can carry during a certain period of time.
Government interference in the free market always results in excesses on...
again, the point is that you can't dictate that consumers can demand their money back w/o allowing airlines to choose to refund a ticket because they no longer want to deliver the service they can't provide for any number of reasons including weather and ATC constraints that leave an airline w/ far more passengers than they can carry during a certain period of time.
Government interference in the free market always results in excesses on one side and companies pushing the limits on the other.
The problem is not that some undefined trigger should allow customers to get a refund but that you can't regulate consumer benefits w/o giving companies some recourse - and companies will almost always act in some ways that are harmful to consumer interests
@Tim Dunn -- You're arguing that airlines should have the right to unilaterally cancel service and keep customers' money when it's inconvenient for them, while customers should have no recourse when airlines fail to deliver. That's not how contracts work in any other industry.
Your "weather and ATC constraints" argument is particularly weak - airlines already don't pay compensation for weather delays under current regulations. But when they oversell their capacity or can't manage...
@Tim Dunn -- You're arguing that airlines should have the right to unilaterally cancel service and keep customers' money when it's inconvenient for them, while customers should have no recourse when airlines fail to deliver. That's not how contracts work in any other industry.
Your "weather and ATC constraints" argument is particularly weak - airlines already don't pay compensation for weather delays under current regulations. But when they oversell their capacity or can't manage their operations, that's a business risk they should bear, not externalize onto passengers.
The "government interference always results in excesses" claim ignores that we're talking about basic contract enforcement. When you pay for a service and don't receive it, getting your money back isn't an "excess" - it's fundamental to how markets function.
You keep making theoretical arguments about free markets while defending an oligopoly that took $54 billion in taxpayer money. That's not free market capitalism - that's corporate welfare seeking special exemptions from normal business obligations.
If we are doing away with government intervention in the industry, that should include the regulations giving US airlines dominance over domestic travel - allow fifth freedom rights for all airlines and see how much the US airlines keep pushing for "deregulation".
sure... as long as US airlines can get a similar benefit in other countries. China and India are about the only other countries in the world that have air travel markets that could ever remotely be as large as the US market.
but that will not happen which is why cabotage can never happen.
if the other countries decided to get rid of consumer protections, then sure. So you think that US airlines should be allowed to totally benefit from de-regulation but not have to bear any burdens? C'mon Tim...we've all seen your weak arguments before but this one is particularly bad
consumer protections and access to foreign markets have nothing to do with each other and any regulator can see that.
If there is a problem w/ consumer protections, then task the industry w/ fixing that - but you also have to undo the Deregulation Act of 1978 which kept the feds or states from doing most of the things that people here want to happen.
and the US should not open any industry to foreign...
consumer protections and access to foreign markets have nothing to do with each other and any regulator can see that.
If there is a problem w/ consumer protections, then task the industry w/ fixing that - but you also have to undo the Deregulation Act of 1978 which kept the feds or states from doing most of the things that people here want to happen.
and the US should not open any industry to foreign companies if US companies cannot obtain something of value in return.
No doubt they thought this up at Conquistadores del Cielo.
100% they did. Bleed the pigs (passengers) dry.
Some of the regulations make sense like refunds/credits. The family seating one does not and creates a bit of a burden on the airline in many situations and other travelers. Communicable disease is vague and canceling flights for those types of things don't make sense. If the plane can still fly, there and you paid for the ticket it's kind of on you if you want to go or not. Mentioning the money, they received...
Some of the regulations make sense like refunds/credits. The family seating one does not and creates a bit of a burden on the airline in many situations and other travelers. Communicable disease is vague and canceling flights for those types of things don't make sense. If the plane can still fly, there and you paid for the ticket it's kind of on you if you want to go or not. Mentioning the money, they received during covid is a strange argument as well, since it was the government after all that forced them to alter operations in ways that we now know weren't effective means anyways.
@Komma, I strongly disagree with your statement that "The family seating one does not [make sense]." I'm a single Dad who regularly travels with a 5 year old and 12 year-old. This Summer, I had a 12 hour flight to Dubai with my children on Emirates. For whatever reason, they assigned the three of us three completely seats in different sections of economy. Can you imagine a 5 year-old being seated by himself on that...
@Komma, I strongly disagree with your statement that "The family seating one does not [make sense]." I'm a single Dad who regularly travels with a 5 year old and 12 year-old. This Summer, I had a 12 hour flight to Dubai with my children on Emirates. For whatever reason, they assigned the three of us three completely seats in different sections of economy. Can you imagine a 5 year-old being seated by himself on that kind of flight amidst complete strangers? Even a 12 year old? Without this common sense regulation, the airline would have had no obligation to find a way to seat my kids and I together.
Two years ago, on a Southwest flight (recall that Southwest traditionally has had an open seating policy), I was traveling with three minors and we were the last to board due to an issue at security that prevented us from arriving at the gate in a timely manner. The only available seats on that sold-out flight were scattered throughout the plane. Again, what's worse--seating a (then 4 year-old), a (then 11 year old) and a 10-year old kid completely separately, wedged in between strangers, or putting us all together, whereby the adult traveling with those kids can tend to their needs? Without gov't regulation mandating that the airline seat us together, that situation would have been a disaster, not only for the kids and me, as the responsible adult, but also for the passengers sitting next to the kids, who would have had to deal with annoying kid stuff that I'm prepared to handle the entire time.
Sorry Phred, but most airlines allow you to assign seats for a fee. If seating together is important to you, then pay the fee. Why should you be given something for free (that other customers have to pay for) just because you choose to fly with a bunch of small kids?
@SBS, 100% agreed
@SBS
Basic economy does not allow seat selections at all. Families are necessarily going to be more price-sensitive since they're having to buy more tickets to begin with, and probably don't want to spend another $70 per head to pick their seats. The base consumer assumption is that if I'm booking everybody on one PNR, we should be all seated together even if we booked basic economy. We don't care WHICH seats we get on the plane, as long as those seats are together.
Friends, I guess the difference comes down to attitude. The traditional American attitude is “what’s mine is mine” and “not my problem.” (Most of) the rest of the world functions under more of a community mentality: “we’re in this together,” “I understand the situation you’re in, so let’s try to figure out what’s best for everyone.” I would argue that (most of) the rest of the world understands intuitively that families have additional needs and...
Friends, I guess the difference comes down to attitude. The traditional American attitude is “what’s mine is mine” and “not my problem.” (Most of) the rest of the world functions under more of a community mentality: “we’re in this together,” “I understand the situation you’re in, so let’s try to figure out what’s best for everyone.” I would argue that (most of) the rest of the world understands intuitively that families have additional needs and it’s just common sense for parents and kids to be seated together. To expect that I have to pay extra just for the “privilege” of being seated adjacent to my little kids is ludicrous. We’ve been conditioned by the airlines to pay for “special” seating when those seats traditionally were open to everyone. Our culture (political and social) allows this nickel and diming to perpetuate.
It pains me to read that people just don’t care. Maybe I’m just different than most. If there’s a person in need and I’m able to help, I’ll happily try to accommodate within reason. It’s no sweat off my back.
In any case, family seating can be assigned easily (and usually is) at the time of ticket purchase. Pre-assignment doesn't prevent someone else from purchasing whatever seat he/she wants and doesn't force somebody to give up a pre-paid seat. If the airline makes a mistake (e.g., the Emirates example above), or makes the game-time decision to force somebody out of a pre-assigned seat (like in the Southwest example, above--although I doubt that anybody had a...
In any case, family seating can be assigned easily (and usually is) at the time of ticket purchase. Pre-assignment doesn't prevent someone else from purchasing whatever seat he/she wants and doesn't force somebody to give up a pre-paid seat. If the airline makes a mistake (e.g., the Emirates example above), or makes the game-time decision to force somebody out of a pre-assigned seat (like in the Southwest example, above--although I doubt that anybody had a pre-paid seat there), I would argue that that's the airlines problem, not mine. The airline needs to do a better job in ensuring that families, particularly with small children, can be seated next to each other. It can't be that hard. Government regulation just provides a backstop so that airlines, when they mess up, are held accountable.
I agree with Dusty and Phred here.
There's definitely a cultural issue and selfishness that comes out in certain discussions. Not sure why but you can spot these comments as they usually take the form of 'Why should___' comments or 'You chose___'
With luck this story will be picked up by Google News and the major news outlets. This isn’t the kind of regulatory change that will get any public support, and I suspect the airlines will back off if they get a lot of heat from the press on this.
I don't think any major corp is worried that much about bad press right now. Look at how many of them rolled over as fast as humanly possible on matters like fact checking and diversity the moment Trump took office.
I don’t think removing regulations will lower prices.
Pricing is based on what the customer will pay and competition. Don’t think anybody really does cost plus pricing anymore. Removing regulations will have an impact of boosting profit margins but there probably will be no impact on prices.
You are correct!
Just a thought, if the airlines want to save money maybe they should just bribe Trump to remove the tariffs on all the stuff they need in order to run their operations instead. You know, things like planes, fuel, tools, tires, uniforms, etc. Just meet him in the Oval Office and hand him a big golden airplane in return. It worked for Apple!
This is sadly accurate and a workable strategy under Drumpf.
This is terrible for fliers. Airlines are essentially asking to eliminate every consumer protection we've fought for - no more guaranteed refunds when they cancel your flight, no transparency on delays and baggage issues, no reimbursement when they strand you overnight, and no family seating protections. Their argument that they can "self-regulate" is laughable given how they refused to provide basic refunds during COVID until the government forced them to, and how Delta fought reimbursing...
This is terrible for fliers. Airlines are essentially asking to eliminate every consumer protection we've fought for - no more guaranteed refunds when they cancel your flight, no transparency on delays and baggage issues, no reimbursement when they strand you overnight, and no family seating protections. Their argument that they can "self-regulate" is laughable given how they refused to provide basic refunds during COVID until the government forced them to, and how Delta fought reimbursing passengers during their CrowdStrike meltdown until regulators stepped in. These companies took $54 billion in taxpayer bailouts but now want to eliminate the modest protections that keep them honest - this is pure corporate greed disguised as "unleashing prosperity" when it's really just unleashing airlines to treat passengers however they want with zero accountability.
Just like the banks - take millions of public dollars and then try to screw the public.
Your statements highlight precisely why you “just regulate them” crowd is frustrated
The purpose of covid aid to airlines was to keep employees on the payroll at a time when travel demand collapsed to less than 10% of normal; US airlines would have laid off hundreds of thousands of employees. That prospect was particularly scary in an election year which 2020 was esp. given that the largest number of airline employees are in Texas and...
Your statements highlight precisely why you “just regulate them” crowd is frustrated
The purpose of covid aid to airlines was to keep employees on the payroll at a time when travel demand collapsed to less than 10% of normal; US airlines would have laid off hundreds of thousands of employees. That prospect was particularly scary in an election year which 2020 was esp. given that the largest number of airline employees are in Texas and Florida.
US airlines faced a massive cash crunch because of the falloff in bookings and the fact that they had passengers w/ tickets that were entitled to refunds at the time covid hit. AA and UA did not have access to sufficient lines of credit to refund the volume of tickets they faced. DL and WN had large lines of credit which they accessed once the banking system became operational again.
Although the purpose of covid aid to airlines was to maintain employment – and that was generally said to be the reason for most aid to businesses, it would not have been reasonable to require airlines to refund tickets if the customer requested that over a travel credit.
The problem w/ government aid was that it went on and on well after the most in-depth crisis was over.
And government aid does not have anything to do with WN’s Christmas/New Years meltdown, UA’s EWR overscheduling meltdown that spread across its system in June 2023, or DL’s CrowdStrike meltdown. You cannot keep saying that “you received help then so you have to live by a bunch of rules we want to make up now” Airlines and businesses have to be held accountable for the rules that were in place when the aid was given and then that is the end.
And DL still has a lawsuit in process against CrowdStrike while WN was fined by and settled w/ the DOT for its handling of its meltdown including its inability to transfer tickets to other airlines. Every airline continues to grapple w/ how to reaccommodate passengers when there are massive system meltdowns and the airline’s ability to be contacted is far less than the demand for help from passengers. That should be addressed but from an industry perspective.
@Tim Dunn -- You're making my point for me. Airlines took $54 billion in taxpayer money specifically because they couldn't handle a crisis, then immediately started lobbying to eliminate the very protections that ensure they treat customers fairly during future crises.
You mention Delta's lawsuit against CrowdStrike, but conveniently ignore that Delta initially refused to reimburse passengers for tickets on other airlines during that meltdown until regulators forced them to. That's exactly why we need...
@Tim Dunn -- You're making my point for me. Airlines took $54 billion in taxpayer money specifically because they couldn't handle a crisis, then immediately started lobbying to eliminate the very protections that ensure they treat customers fairly during future crises.
You mention Delta's lawsuit against CrowdStrike, but conveniently ignore that Delta initially refused to reimburse passengers for tickets on other airlines during that meltdown until regulators forced them to. That's exactly why we need these protections - airlines consistently choose shareholders over passengers until compelled otherwise.
The "rules that were in place when aid was given" argument doesn't hold water. When you take public money during a crisis, you don't get to claim immunity from future accountability measures designed to protect the same public that bailed you out.
Airlines were given federal money to keep employees on the payroll and not for regulators or people like you to keep holding that over their head because they do something you don't like.
If you are an American, you received money from the feds. I am sure that I can find ways that you manage your money that I don't like today so, using your logic, I should be able to demand that you return...
Airlines were given federal money to keep employees on the payroll and not for regulators or people like you to keep holding that over their head because they do something you don't like.
If you are an American, you received money from the feds. I am sure that I can find ways that you manage your money that I don't like today so, using your logic, I should be able to demand that you return what you were given -
or you can admit that airlines were given money to keep people employed and they did that - and that is the end of the argument about what they received.
Doesn't matter what DL or UA or WN did INITIALLY. Regulators didn't FORCE any of those airlines to do anything. They complained and DL and UA both offered refunds including for travel on other airlines. The DOT didn't think that WN did enough, WN got fined and most of the fine went to a future fund that WN might tap into in the future - IOW, it was pretty spineless -because WN likely could have won a case against the DOT that it had no legal basis for fining WN in the first place.
Your argument doesn't hold water and the fact that you continue to argue that what happened in the past should dictate policy now is why you won't succeed and will be as frustrated as Ben is.
@Tim Dunn — Relief checks to households aren’t remotely the same as a $54B targeted bailout. Taxpayers funded that program; airlines were the beneficiaries. Families didn’t walk away with preserved shareholder value, executive pay, and market dominance — airlines did. With that comes accountability.
And the record is clear: Delta and United only expanded reimbursements after DOT pressure. Southwest’s 2022 meltdown ended in a $140M consent order because its response wasn’t voluntary. That’s not regulators...
@Tim Dunn — Relief checks to households aren’t remotely the same as a $54B targeted bailout. Taxpayers funded that program; airlines were the beneficiaries. Families didn’t walk away with preserved shareholder value, executive pay, and market dominance — airlines did. With that comes accountability.
And the record is clear: Delta and United only expanded reimbursements after DOT pressure. Southwest’s 2022 meltdown ended in a $140M consent order because its response wasn’t voluntary. That’s not regulators being “spineless,” that’s regulators doing their job.
The past matters because it shows a pattern: airlines resist protecting passengers until they’re forced. That’s not “frustration,” it’s the rationale for stronger rules.
Bottom line: taxpayers funded a $54B bailout, yet airlines only reimbursed passengers after regulatory pressure and faced consent orders like Southwest 2022 — framing the aid as a “free pass” misrepresents the public’s stake and airlines’ repeated reluctance to protect customers.
This effort is not inconsistent with the philosophy and actions of this Administration. If you don't like what's going on, as the old expression goes: vote the bums out.
How do you propose to do it with Electoral College and expansive gerrymandering?
Good point, globetrotter. The old saw about voting the bums out may need to be retired in an era where the GQP has gerrymandered themselves into districts of people they provide with low education opportunities, combined with algorithm enhanced stupidity from their amoral partners in Silicon Valley.
New England doesn't have a single Republican House member. Gerrymandering is equal opportunity for both parties. Dems definitely game the system too.
@Brian W
First, you're cherrypicking if your definition of New England is Vermont, NH, Mass, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Maine. A bunch of these states either only have the population for one or two districts, and population distribution makes it near impossible to draw a GOP district without explicitly drawing a partisan district.
Examples, for Maine the 2nd district is actually very competitive despite being around 70% rural voters and elected a Republican rep...
@Brian W
First, you're cherrypicking if your definition of New England is Vermont, NH, Mass, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Maine. A bunch of these states either only have the population for one or two districts, and population distribution makes it near impossible to draw a GOP district without explicitly drawing a partisan district.
Examples, for Maine the 2nd district is actually very competitive despite being around 70% rural voters and elected a Republican rep in 2014 and 2016. For Massachusetts, the GOP "problem" as it were is that their voters are spread out all over the state in non-contiguous and low density areas. There literally isn't a way to draw a GOP-leaning district with Massachusetts' population distribution without gerrymandering it for the GOP.
I'll also point out that outside of New England proper, New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey all have GOP districts, and Pennsylvania currently sends more GOP reps to the House than Democrat.
The Democrat party has gamed the system in the past, but within the past decade the Democrat party is the only party that's actually passed state-level legislation and proposed Federal-level legislation to end gerrymandering. Meanwhile Republicans draw crap like Texas' 35th district or split Salt Lake City into 3 separate districts diluted with the rest of the freaking state.
We rid ourselves of nine helpful regulations, so that means Trump can make a new one? A State of Emergency for air travel? He likes those.
If everything is an emergency, nothing is an emergency.
Currently scheduling a housing emergency for the Fall
Like how Big Pharma and the Medical Industrial Complex "self regulate?" No thank you. I could only imagine a COVID like scam with air travel leaving millions stranded while the airline executives collect a huge paycheck off that misery.
I remember that tendency on the C suite's part to line their pockets off our misery every time I hear the announcement on a plane stating, "Your safety is our number one priority."
I think there is a bit of nuance to this. I do think regulations have gone too far.
Why should someone who paid to select a seat have to move to accommodate a family who didn’t want to pay?
Communicable disease refunds is BS. Why should an airline or its shareholders be responsible for assuming the risk a traveler took by booking a ticket to some place? If the airline can fly there, so can...
I think there is a bit of nuance to this. I do think regulations have gone too far.
Why should someone who paid to select a seat have to move to accommodate a family who didn’t want to pay?
Communicable disease refunds is BS. Why should an airline or its shareholders be responsible for assuming the risk a traveler took by booking a ticket to some place? If the airline can fly there, so can people.
That said, if an airline cancels a flight or reschedules it more than say 3h to your destination you should be eligible for a refund. In my mind, at that point you no longer are receiving what you paid for (getting to x destination by x time). Just like credit card protections allow you to dispute transactions if you didn’t get what you paid for.
So some regulation is necessary, but I do think it has been taken too far. But if I understand correctly, the A4A isn’t actually proposing to eliminate ALL regulations, is it?
@ JustinB -- I agree that not every regulation is necessary, but A4A is essentially calling for the elimination of all non-safety regulations. And I also think it's important to be accurate about what's actually going on.
For example, "why should someone who paid to select a seat have to move to accommodate a family who didn’t want to pay?" Keep in mind that's not actually what regulations call for. Nobody has to be reseated...
@ JustinB -- I agree that not every regulation is necessary, but A4A is essentially calling for the elimination of all non-safety regulations. And I also think it's important to be accurate about what's actually going on.
For example, "why should someone who paid to select a seat have to move to accommodate a family who didn’t want to pay?" Keep in mind that's not actually what regulations call for. Nobody has to be reseated to accommodate families. The idea is that if there are vacant seats next to one another, airlines have to assign those to families at no extra cost.
Interesting. I assumed the regulation held above all else so if a family checked in last minute and the airline only had 4 middle seats available they had to accommodate the family and move others around.
@JustinB - You're misunderstanding what the communicable disease regulation actually covers. This isn't about passengers choosing not to travel due to personal health concerns - it's about situations where government-imposed quarantines or travel restrictions make travel impossible due to external health emergencies.
Pandemic level, "...serious communicable disease circumstances, like if there's a quarantine at a destination, or government regulations limiting travel," are not circumstances that passengers should be expected to plan for.
Airlines want...
@JustinB - You're misunderstanding what the communicable disease regulation actually covers. This isn't about passengers choosing not to travel due to personal health concerns - it's about situations where government-imposed quarantines or travel restrictions make travel impossible due to external health emergencies.
Pandemic level, "...serious communicable disease circumstances, like if there's a quarantine at a destination, or government regulations limiting travel," are not circumstances that passengers should be expected to plan for.
Airlines want to have it both ways - they don't have to pay out when a flight is delayed by weather (not under their control) but they expect us to pay extra with refundable tickets or travel insurance to protect against these scenarios (that are not under our control).
I agree with the commentor NSS honestly. Let these things go away so we can actually see what was protecting us. I think we can all agree that flying 20 years ago was better than it is today. Better quality staff, onboard product and customer base.
Also the fact that A4A is advocating for these changes and they represent basically the industry as a whole, I don't see an issue with that. If businesses as...
I agree with the commentor NSS honestly. Let these things go away so we can actually see what was protecting us. I think we can all agree that flying 20 years ago was better than it is today. Better quality staff, onboard product and customer base.
Also the fact that A4A is advocating for these changes and they represent basically the industry as a whole, I don't see an issue with that. If businesses as a whole want change, let them. If you think airlines are here for you and your protection then you're just sadly mistaken and largely emotional based. Not logical.
@ Alonzo -- "I think we can all agree that flying 20 years ago was better than it is today." I'm actually going to disagree with this narrative. For one, travel is way more affordable than it used to be. Therefore if you were to pay the same amount for a ticket now (inflation adjusted), you could have a way better experience than you had 20 years ago. For example, you're likely going to pay...
@ Alonzo -- "I think we can all agree that flying 20 years ago was better than it is today." I'm actually going to disagree with this narrative. For one, travel is way more affordable than it used to be. Therefore if you were to pay the same amount for a ticket now (inflation adjusted), you could have a way better experience than you had 20 years ago. For example, you're likely going to pay less for an extra legroom economy seat nowadays than you would've paid for a standard economy seat back in the day.
Nowadays you have so many planes with seat back TVs, free high speed Wi-Fi, reasonably priced first class tickets, and premium cabins are better than ever before.
If we purely view the airline industry in terms of the worst products offered, then your point is true. But otherwise, I have a different take.
Can we stop with "air travel is more affordable" and therefore that's been great for the consumer. Hitching a ride on the back of an old unsafe chicken truck would be cheaper than air travel but not a good situation for consumers. Just because something is cheap doesn't make it worthwhile.
@ George N Romey -- So how would you judge the quality of the industry? If we're going to be free market advocates, then I'd assume things are all working perfectly, because flights are full, and there's record demand, right? After all, people are choosing to take these flights, rather than "hitching a ride on the back of an old unsafe chicken truck."
"Full flights" also make rebooking more challenging since there's nothing available to put them on.
I agree, let's stop with this more affordable stuff. Most things adjusted for inflation are more expensive. They are supposed to be. The value of things does not stand still with time. The value of your home is higher, the average person's wages have skyrocketed and so have retirement account balances.
Seat width was better 20 years ago. Fly attendants were more pleasant and cared about their appearance and service. The quality of us who...
I agree, let's stop with this more affordable stuff. Most things adjusted for inflation are more expensive. They are supposed to be. The value of things does not stand still with time. The value of your home is higher, the average person's wages have skyrocketed and so have retirement account balances.
Seat width was better 20 years ago. Fly attendants were more pleasant and cared about their appearance and service. The quality of us who board and fly these planes, were better. Can't even remember the last time I've flown a plane with seatback entertainment. That's just me personally.
Of course airlines want less regulation. Every person with a phone wants to record everything, complain on social media, cancel and boycott businesses and try to ruin reputations. We see it daily. Look at Target.
If lower airline ticket prices were such a huge factor then Spirit would survive and Frontier would be dominating the industry. People don't give a fuck about more affordable flying.
@Alonzo -- The "let's see what was protecting us" approach is exactly how we got bank bailouts in 2008. We tried financial deregulation, it blew up spectacularly, and taxpayers footed the bill while executives kept their bonuses.
Airlines already showed us what happens without oversight during COVID - they pocketed refunds, changed cancellation definitions on the fly, and fought basic passenger protections until regulators stepped in. Now they want to roll back those same protections...
@Alonzo -- The "let's see what was protecting us" approach is exactly how we got bank bailouts in 2008. We tried financial deregulation, it blew up spectacularly, and taxpayers footed the bill while executives kept their bonuses.
Airlines already showed us what happens without oversight during COVID - they pocketed refunds, changed cancellation definitions on the fly, and fought basic passenger protections until regulators stepped in. Now they want to roll back those same protections while keeping the $54 billion in taxpayer bailout money.
The "better customer base" argument is telling - you're essentially saying regulations are bad because they protect people you don't want flying. That's not how consumer protection should work.
I'm not sure how the "race to the bottom" is a net positive for airlines. Yes, seats are cheaper but so is the quality of service, and the quality of your fellow passengers' manners. Domestic first class is a joke compared to Asian airlines.
Recommended reading for all: basic economics (printed in 7 languages) It explains how economics actually work.
The inability to think beyond the initial consequence of particular policies is alive and well!
The book references the Soviet days of Aeroflot (“Myths about Markets” chapter: section titled “Brand Names”).
Anyway, I feel like the crowd that reads this blog doesn’t like the truth, and likes to rely pretty heavily on government intervention.
Why do I read the...
Recommended reading for all: basic economics (printed in 7 languages) It explains how economics actually work.
The inability to think beyond the initial consequence of particular policies is alive and well!
The book references the Soviet days of Aeroflot (“Myths about Markets” chapter: section titled “Brand Names”).
Anyway, I feel like the crowd that reads this blog doesn’t like the truth, and likes to rely pretty heavily on government intervention.
Why do I read the blog? For the great reviews and deals highlighted.
Lucky, despite our disagreements, I appreciate your hard work!
I don’t think a book called ‘basic economics’ will explain ‘how economics actually work’ (whatever this means). Very qualified academics spend their entire careers studying the positive and negative impacts of regulation on the market. You clearly missed the chapters on monopoly / oligopoly and on market failure.
@Ni -- The airline industry is literally a textbook example of why Sowell's "basic economics" falls short in the real world. We have a domestic oligopoly where four carriers control 80% of the market, with extensive barriers to entry and route monopolies at hub airports.
Your Aeroflot comparison is not relevant - we're not talking about state-run airlines, but basic consumer protections in a consolidated market. The EU has similar passenger rights (EU261) and their...
@Ni -- The airline industry is literally a textbook example of why Sowell's "basic economics" falls short in the real world. We have a domestic oligopoly where four carriers control 80% of the market, with extensive barriers to entry and route monopolies at hub airports.
Your Aeroflot comparison is not relevant - we're not talking about state-run airlines, but basic consumer protections in a consolidated market. The EU has similar passenger rights (EU261) and their airlines remain profitable and competitive.
The "unintended consequences" you're worried about already happened during deregulation - we got massive consolidation, reduced service to smaller cities, and airlines that immediately ran to taxpayers for $54 billion when they hit trouble (hardly a laissez faire solution). Markets work great when there's actual competition, but pretending this industry resembles a competitive market is economically illiterate.
Do any of the regulations actually work? Or work well? You're a famous blogger and even you have trouble getting paid for delays, cancellations, other issues that warrant compensation. You've written about being on with customer service for hours to get a problem solved. Think of the rest of us without millions and billions of followers. What really is the practical implication of regulations going away?
Some will say being on hold for hours to...
Do any of the regulations actually work? Or work well? You're a famous blogger and even you have trouble getting paid for delays, cancellations, other issues that warrant compensation. You've written about being on with customer service for hours to get a problem solved. Think of the rest of us without millions and billions of followers. What really is the practical implication of regulations going away?
Some will say being on hold for hours to get a voucher is better than no regulations. Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe it would be better to know we're not protected than pretending we are.
@ NSS -- Regulations are never going to be perfect, but the fact that they exist at least gives us a better shot of getting what we're entitled to than if they didn't exist.
Massive progress has been made in this regard in recent years. As an example, airlines clearly defining their refund rules, and now largely following them, is a much better situation than it used to be.
In the early phase of the...
@ NSS -- Regulations are never going to be perfect, but the fact that they exist at least gives us a better shot of getting what we're entitled to than if they didn't exist.
Massive progress has been made in this regard in recent years. As an example, airlines clearly defining their refund rules, and now largely following them, is a much better situation than it used to be.
In the early phase of the pandemic, United redefined what a canceled flight is. Regulators said that airlines had to refund passengers "when the carrier cancels the passenger’s scheduled flight or makes a significant schedule change." United changed the definition of a canceled flight, arguing it's when "a flight is removed, and we cannot accommodate the customer."
we hear incessantly about how hard it is for consumers to get compensation under Europe's air traveler consumer protection laws and how airlines work overtime to find exclusions to those rules - and yet some people continue to believe that adding more government regulations will work here.
as much as people diss Ryanair, they are one of the most reliable airlines in Europe and undoubtedly pay out very little in compensation as a result. being...
we hear incessantly about how hard it is for consumers to get compensation under Europe's air traveler consumer protection laws and how airlines work overtime to find exclusions to those rules - and yet some people continue to believe that adding more government regulations will work here.
as much as people diss Ryanair, they are one of the most reliable airlines in Europe and undoubtedly pay out very little in compensation as a result. being reliable is not just about paying out little compensation but because running a reliable operation generates the best profits for a whole host of reasons.
I think what is actually the most infuriating is that airlines know perfectly well how to treat customers properly. They just choose to apply it selectively, and yes I understand the financial reality behind what I am about to say.
I'm a DL million miler, currently a Diamond. I never wait on hold for a rep, the reps are lovely and can do everything I need very quickly, and often waive fees if there...
I think what is actually the most infuriating is that airlines know perfectly well how to treat customers properly. They just choose to apply it selectively, and yes I understand the financial reality behind what I am about to say.
I'm a DL million miler, currently a Diamond. I never wait on hold for a rep, the reps are lovely and can do everything I need very quickly, and often waive fees if there even are any. The gate agents and the folks welcoming me into the SkyClub are lovely and thank me for being a Diamond. IRROPS are rarely painful.
Even being Platinum felt like having no status. Endless wait times, no thanks for being a Platinum, no fees ever waived.
And the regulations, in my experience, didn't help.
@ Tim Dunn -- As the person who always loves to argue based on facts, do you have any data to support that Ryanair doesn't pay out much in compensation? Yes, the airline has good reliability, but it also carries a huge volume of passengers, given the number of flights it operates every day.
you need only look at the reasons for why EU airlines have to pay compensation and irregular operations are the primary reasons.
Ryanair simply runs a far more reliable operation than most of the Euro flags; it isn't hard to know that they don't have to pay out near as much in compensation. Given their low fares, they wouldn't be able to afford to pay out compensation if they operated poorly. Ryanair also happens to...
you need only look at the reasons for why EU airlines have to pay compensation and irregular operations are the primary reasons.
Ryanair simply runs a far more reliable operation than most of the Euro flags; it isn't hard to know that they don't have to pay out near as much in compensation. Given their low fares, they wouldn't be able to afford to pay out compensation if they operated poorly. Ryanair also happens to be one of the most profitable airlines in Europe. Reliable operations make sense for a lot of reasons; paying out the lowest amount of compensation as possible is just one reason.
@Tim: your analysis fails to take into account the possibility (I would say likelihood) that Ryanair is fairly reliable at least in part *because* of EU261. The regulation has probably improved reliability across the board.
@Tim Dunn -- You're also ignoring that Ryanair's "reliability" comes from aggressively gaming regulatory loopholes and fighting enforcement. Just in 2024, Ryanair was hit with a €108M fine from Spain for abusive baggage charges and $545K from Hungary for failing to inform passengers about delays. They've also been fined €5.6M for refusing strike-related compensation.
They literally added a €2.50 surcharge per ticket to offset EU261 compliance costs and classify labor strikes as "extraordinary circumstances" to...
@Tim Dunn -- You're also ignoring that Ryanair's "reliability" comes from aggressively gaming regulatory loopholes and fighting enforcement. Just in 2024, Ryanair was hit with a €108M fine from Spain for abusive baggage charges and $545K from Hungary for failing to inform passengers about delays. They've also been fined €5.6M for refusing strike-related compensation.
They literally added a €2.50 surcharge per ticket to offset EU261 compliance costs and classify labor strikes as "extraordinary circumstances" to avoid payouts. This isn't operational excellence - it's regulatory arbitrage that externalizes costs onto passengers.
@NSS
>Do any of the regulations actually work? Or work well?
If they don't actually work or work consistently to the point that it actually harms airlines, then why not leave them on the books? Since this is arguing that they don't actually do anything but represent text on paper?
It seems quite clear to me that airlines don't like these regulations because these regulations DO cost the airlines money, and they want...
@NSS
>Do any of the regulations actually work? Or work well?
If they don't actually work or work consistently to the point that it actually harms airlines, then why not leave them on the books? Since this is arguing that they don't actually do anything but represent text on paper?
It seems quite clear to me that airlines don't like these regulations because these regulations DO cost the airlines money, and they want to take advantage of a bribable POTUS to remove them for their own bottom line. You and I as customers don't matter in that decisionmaking, we're a captive audience and have no choice but to fly them.
Just because this is now public, don't think that the airlines haven't brought this to the table before. People like to conveniently think that just because of this administration these things are being brought to light. Never underestimate what's going on in the dark behind the scenes. Just cause we ain't heard it doesn't mean airlines haven't been lobbying for this for awhile.
Alonzo -- I concur. Well put.
@NSS -- You're inadvertently making the case FOR regulations. The fact that airlines can provide excellent service to high-status customers proves they have the capability - they just choose not to extend it to everyone else without being forced to.
Regulations level the playing field so ordinary passengers get basic protections that shouldn't depend on elite status. The alternative isn't airlines magically treating everyone like Diamonds - it's airlines treating everyone like basic economy passengers...
@NSS -- You're inadvertently making the case FOR regulations. The fact that airlines can provide excellent service to high-status customers proves they have the capability - they just choose not to extend it to everyone else without being forced to.
Regulations level the playing field so ordinary passengers get basic protections that shouldn't depend on elite status. The alternative isn't airlines magically treating everyone like Diamonds - it's airlines treating everyone like basic economy passengers with zero recourse.
1. There never will be a "golden age" of flying. American Airlines much like anything made in USA are trash. Substandard food, substandard conditions of aircraft, a joke of a business class, rude endlessly needy employees.
2. Of all the Airlines that could bring a "Golden Age" United most certainly will not be ushering that in. Anyone fly that trash heap lately? What a joke of a CEO for even suggesting this. Trash can only compete with trash.
Ben makes an astute observation in the comments, which bears repeating: air ticket prices are at an all-time low, when adjusted for inflation. (I remember $900 flights to Europe in the 1980s, about the same cost as today - except that $900 in 1985 is worth $2700 in 2025 dollars.) If airlines can manage to get prices this low, while still surviving both intense competition AND the current level of regulation, then, from the consumer...
Ben makes an astute observation in the comments, which bears repeating: air ticket prices are at an all-time low, when adjusted for inflation. (I remember $900 flights to Europe in the 1980s, about the same cost as today - except that $900 in 1985 is worth $2700 in 2025 dollars.) If airlines can manage to get prices this low, while still surviving both intense competition AND the current level of regulation, then, from the consumer perspective, why would we want the current regulations to be REDUCED?
In fact, the current regulations are a remarkable success story: they provide at least minimal consumer protections while the airline industry thrives and is able to provide low-cost flights anywhere we want to go. We all benefit from the current system.
Pricing is based on competition and what the customer is willing to pay. Regulations have little to do with it. The threat of regulation increasing prices long term is based on an outdated concept that airlines do cost plus pricing. Almost nobody does that now.
Regulations do affect the profit margin of a company.
the enforcements that were put in place are either legal under the Deregulation Act of 1978 or they are not
You cannot tell US airlines for 48 years that they are free to economically manage themselves by free market rules and then start throwing in rules that take that power away.
Refund rules are absolutely economically based - have nothing to do with safety. Not a single US airline has their entire fare products non...
the enforcements that were put in place are either legal under the Deregulation Act of 1978 or they are not
You cannot tell US airlines for 48 years that they are free to economically manage themselves by free market rules and then start throwing in rules that take that power away.
Refund rules are absolutely economically based - have nothing to do with safety. Not a single US airline has their entire fare products non refundable. If you buy a non-refundable product, why should the government dictate that you should be able to wiggle out of those rules just because.
We aren't talking about safety which is heavily regulated and should be.
We aren't even talking about failure to deliver service such as the 3 hour tarmac rule which requires basic water service and access to lavs or to let people get off the plane.
We are talking about purely economic issues which deregulation was supposed to return to the marketplace.
Either you support the idea or you ditch the whole thing. You can't piecemeal throw deregulation out.
@ Tim Dunn -- Simple question for you, since it's economic rather than safety related. Do you think there are any circumstances under which airlines should legally be required to provide a refund for a schedule change?
For example, if an airline sells you a ticket for August 10, and then reschedules you for August 24, should you legally be entitled to a cash refund? Or it's up to the airline if they want to...
@ Tim Dunn -- Simple question for you, since it's economic rather than safety related. Do you think there are any circumstances under which airlines should legally be required to provide a refund for a schedule change?
For example, if an airline sells you a ticket for August 10, and then reschedules you for August 24, should you legally be entitled to a cash refund? Or it's up to the airline if they want to provide that or not, since the contract of carriage essentially gives them unlimited power?
your hypothetical simply does not exist in reality, Ben.
and airlines have had rules for refunds regarding reaccommodation anyway.
The simple result which other people including Cranky have covered is that forcing airlines to refund far beyond what makes sense is that airlines simply refund tickets at the drop of the hat - including for a change in flight number which the rules require but have zero impact to a passenger - rather than take...
your hypothetical simply does not exist in reality, Ben.
and airlines have had rules for refunds regarding reaccommodation anyway.
The simple result which other people including Cranky have covered is that forcing airlines to refund far beyond what makes sense is that airlines simply refund tickets at the drop of the hat - including for a change in flight number which the rules require but have zero impact to a passenger - rather than take the time to work w/ a passenger on a low fare booking that doesn't like the itinerary they have reaccommodated to.
There need to be some consumer protection requirements. Airlines did far more than you give them credit for. The new rules only made things worse and cause more harm to consumers than what existed before.
@ Tim Dunn -- "your hypothetical simply does not exist in reality, Ben." Of course it exists!
So let me give you a concrete example, which I also shared upthread. "In the early phase of the pandemic, United redefined what a canceled flight is. Regulators said that airlines had to refund passengers 'when the carrier cancels the passenger’s scheduled flight or makes a significant schedule change.' United changed the definition of a canceled flight, arguing...
@ Tim Dunn -- "your hypothetical simply does not exist in reality, Ben." Of course it exists!
So let me give you a concrete example, which I also shared upthread. "In the early phase of the pandemic, United redefined what a canceled flight is. Regulators said that airlines had to refund passengers 'when the carrier cancels the passenger’s scheduled flight or makes a significant schedule change.' United changed the definition of a canceled flight, arguing it's when 'a flight is removed, and we cannot accommodate the customer.'"
Do you think that's a fair way to redefine the word?
covid was not business as usual for anyone and yet some people thought and still think that major crises provide an opportunity to change the rules which last forever.
UA was by far the most vocal in not wanting to refund tickets during covid because they knew they didn't have the cash to process enormous numbers of refunds; AC was in that camp as well.
what happened in covid is not and should not be...
covid was not business as usual for anyone and yet some people thought and still think that major crises provide an opportunity to change the rules which last forever.
UA was by far the most vocal in not wanting to refund tickets during covid because they knew they didn't have the cash to process enormous numbers of refunds; AC was in that camp as well.
what happened in covid is not and should not be the basis for how any company does business on a long-term basis.
UA and other airlines allowed refunds and changes under some circumstances before and still do and the degree of refunds and what can be changed is determined by the fare paid.
Airlines like every other business needs to disclose their fare rules but the regulations that were proposed required a detailed reading of those rules which would have added a very long time to any voice discussion with an airline about fares; there is no way that any airline would have agreed to that type of regulation. The result would have been that an agent would have suggested the appropriate fare, told the customer a machine would have read all of the fare rules, the customer would have been returned to a res agent after another wait and the transaction would have been processed.
how is that process consumer friendly because some bureaucrat in Washington things that "informed consent" requires reading every bit of detail about a fare including in a phone conversation?
@Tim Dunn -- You're moving the goalposts. First you claimed major schedule changes "don't exist in reality," then dismissed Ben's concrete example as "COVID wasn't business as usual."
Your "pure deregulation" argument falls apart when airlines took $54 billion in taxpayer funds while simultaneously redefining "cancellation" to avoid refunds. That's not free market capitalism - that's privatized profits and socialized losses.
The 1978 Deregulation Act removed price controls and route restrictions, not basic...
@Tim Dunn -- You're moving the goalposts. First you claimed major schedule changes "don't exist in reality," then dismissed Ben's concrete example as "COVID wasn't business as usual."
Your "pure deregulation" argument falls apart when airlines took $54 billion in taxpayer funds while simultaneously redefining "cancellation" to avoid refunds. That's not free market capitalism - that's privatized profits and socialized losses.
The 1978 Deregulation Act removed price controls and route restrictions, not basic consumer protections. Safety regulations coexist with deregulation just fine, as do contract law and fraud protections. Your "all or nothing" argument would eliminate every consumer protection in every deregulated industry.
@Timm Dunn
Just mindblowing that ANYONE in their right mind think getting your ticket refunded as cash when your flight is cancelled, or getting hotel and food vouchers from the airline for long delays, is somehow "harming" you.
@Tim Dunn gotta admire your perseverance. No matter how much it hurts up in your head, you never give up.
"You can't just make a law and then make another law!" - TD
Someone should remind Trump that the US govt gave airlines free money, and under the Intel precedent he set, the Trrasury should get 10% ownership for nothing.
And Trump should remind someone that it was the US Government that effectively closed the airlines down in March 2020, so the "free money" was actually reimbursement for having their businesses shut down.
@ David -- How did the government shut down airlines? I assume you're saying because travel restrictions were put in place that reduced demand. Yet keep in mind that now airlines are arguing that they shouldn't have to provide refunds when those restrictions are put in place. So are you advocating for consumers to not get refunds even when the US government effectively shuts down airlines?
@Ben - no I am not advocating for consumers not to get refunds for a cancelled flight. My response was to the statement that the airlines got "free money". I am arguing it was reimbursement for travel regulations that greatly reduced demand. This affected airlines and airline suppliers and without it probably would have left several companies to permanently close (like mine).
The government highly restricted flights and basically closed them down, so it makes sense in that regard. Not to mention every other business and person in the country that was receiving handouts in that time period as well. That's also ignoring all the flights that were often flown empty or nearly empty purely to keep their "slots" active.
„In fairness, I suppose I can’t blame airlines for trying to have consumer protections eliminated. I mean, these are publicly traded companies, and their only obligations are to their shareholders“
Is this what living under Trump does to American brains, or are you on drugs ?
Have you heard of sarcasm?
@ Michael_FFM -- It doesn't reflect my personal beliefs, but I'm just being realistic in saying that I can't think of many publicly traded companies that want themselves to be regulated more closely. Ideally it wouldn't be that way, but it's a simple truth, in my opinion.
It needs not be a zero sum game. Shareholders do not work to advance the company because they only reap the benefits on the backs of employees while the executives only focus on quarterly earnings to maximize their compensation package by raising stock values. Not to mention the devastating impacts of their
executive decisions on the environment and wildlife. We should leave the planet in better position than when we found it.
Man... that totally went over your head, didn't it. Geez.
Michael_FFM -- LOL well done!
MAGA voted for this. They should see it through!
There are a couple of reasons why I avoid US Airlines if possible. That would add some more.
And the good old argument that regulation gets prices up… there is a thing called total cost of ownership.
So how do you travel within the US?
"Sigh"
Some tried to compare Singapore with Russia and North Korea in the comments a few articles back. Surely these people will have no difficulty in adding the USA to that list, if the Tango Trump concedes defeat to the airlines lobby.
I think you may be somewhat unfairly characterizing Trump supporters, but I get it with your completely insane media environment. And I can only imagine the company you keep.
Trump supporters are fairly traditional populists, meaning they support a range of policies across the spectrum. Tariffs, for example, are usually a left-wing tool. It's fairly wild to see self-described Socialists lament those.
Old-time Republicans, however, should favor this. And should favor a LOT more competition...
I think you may be somewhat unfairly characterizing Trump supporters, but I get it with your completely insane media environment. And I can only imagine the company you keep.
Trump supporters are fairly traditional populists, meaning they support a range of policies across the spectrum. Tariffs, for example, are usually a left-wing tool. It's fairly wild to see self-described Socialists lament those.
Old-time Republicans, however, should favor this. And should favor a LOT more competition on airports as well as the long-overdue privatization of those (like in Europe).
Unfair lol Sorry but Trump supporters, along with those that follow Farage in the UK, are Christian national imbeciles.
icarus, I know you think this gives you points, but let's keep this apolitical, shall we?
There are no women lining up to sleep with you for quippin' little beta points here.
The fact of the matter is if the system breaks down, we're back to violence as a problem-solver. And that would take around 4 minutes and then the "imbeciles" would have won and people who say "Maldives" as MARRRRRRRRLDIVES while gagging on...
icarus, I know you think this gives you points, but let's keep this apolitical, shall we?
There are no women lining up to sleep with you for quippin' little beta points here.
The fact of the matter is if the system breaks down, we're back to violence as a problem-solver. And that would take around 4 minutes and then the "imbeciles" would have won and people who say "Maldives" as MARRRRRRRRLDIVES while gagging on themselves will be summarily offed.
So pick you battles, lil' boi.
Nigel Farage will indeed be the next PM of the UK and ‘em mam if you want to rebook on the 13:20 flight to Liverpool that will be £400 dear.
Trump supporters are white nationalists.
That is a racist comment.
The ten poorest states in the country are red MAGA states. They have the lowest medical care services, education levels and advance opportunities for women at the same time the highest child poverty level in the country. The US government is currently a combination of plutocracy, oligarchy and a mad dash to fascism. Trump is an one eyed leader in the kingdom of the blind who hijacked the populist movement. The populist movement never aspires...
The ten poorest states in the country are red MAGA states. They have the lowest medical care services, education levels and advance opportunities for women at the same time the highest child poverty level in the country. The US government is currently a combination of plutocracy, oligarchy and a mad dash to fascism. Trump is an one eyed leader in the kingdom of the blind who hijacked the populist movement. The populist movement never aspires to oligarchs and fascists. Trump base will soon find out and live with how fast Trump WH and Congress will plunge the country into the recession, hospital closures, inflation, social welfare cutbacks, etc... to name a few. Those of us who did not vote for Trump can now see the tsunami fast approaching before 2028 election is around the corner as we are reeling in recession, but we won't hear and read about it possibly a year from when it begins.
By the way, when you mentioned Socialists, any chance you are familiar with
corporate socialism that is prevalent and brazen in the government right now-- it coincides with the subject matter we are discussing . I am confident you do not have the foggiest idea what socialism is. When Americans talk about socialism, Venezuela and Cuba come to mind. What about the Scandinavian countries? They have a higher standard living than us.
What do you expect from Conquistadors of The Sky?
The reality is that when you put corporate greed, militant consumers, gamers, lobbyists and finally consumer lawyers all into one sandbox you end up with this back and forth madness.
FYI, it’s similar to how civil wars start.
Self policing worked out so well for big finance and companies like Boeing that we should definitely allow big Airlines to self police their own selves.
History hath shown no industry capable of adequate self-regulation.
Oh, good! Let Americans get exactly what they voted for! I’ll keep my EU/UK 261, thanks. You can enjoy your golden wig age
The regulations that are being advocated against sound nice, but they result in higher ticket prices for everyone.
For example, in retail, some stores have a 30 day return policy, some have 90 days, a few allow 1 year, and warehouse clubs have no time limit for most items. On the other hand, there are small non-chain local stores where all sales are final.
If a national regulation was set in place for...
The regulations that are being advocated against sound nice, but they result in higher ticket prices for everyone.
For example, in retail, some stores have a 30 day return policy, some have 90 days, a few allow 1 year, and warehouse clubs have no time limit for most items. On the other hand, there are small non-chain local stores where all sales are final.
If a national regulation was set in place for retail (say, 45 days), stores with less generous return policies would inevitably have to raise the prices. While other stores who already have more generous return policies might be tempted to tighten those to 45 days.
And nobody wins / everyone loses.
@ Simon -- Ticket prices are more or less at a historical all-time low (adjusted for inflation), so if these are the higher ticket prices we need to allow for decent regulations, then I'm fine with that.
There's a difference between a store's return policy and being required to refund an airline ticket if the flight doesn't operate as booked. It's not a fair comparison, in my opinion.
Okay, @ Ben — I’ll bite. What would be a fair comparison then?
@ Simon -- There are so many elements to this, I'm not sure which specifically you'd like a comparison for, or how a comparison helps with making any point? Like, eliminating rights for those with disabilities, or family seating, or refunds on tickets, or basic protections when an airline strands you?
In my opinion, stores should be able to set their own policies for refunds, as long as the policies are clearly stated. That's much...
@ Simon -- There are so many elements to this, I'm not sure which specifically you'd like a comparison for, or how a comparison helps with making any point? Like, eliminating rights for those with disabilities, or family seating, or refunds on tickets, or basic protections when an airline strands you?
In my opinion, stores should be able to set their own policies for refunds, as long as the policies are clearly stated. That's much more complicated for airlines.
Keep in mind it's only due to regulation that airlines are required to provide cash refunds when they cancel a flight, in any sort of a clearly defined way. So I guess if you'd really like a retail comparison, let's go with that. It would be like a store selling you a product, demanding that you bring it back, and then still not offering you a cash refund, but instead, only a store credit.
Let's start with no delivery services, and only 3 stores within an hour's drive.
Then we are talking not about whether they accept a return when the customer changes their mind, but whether when something breaks the next day, you get a replacement/store credit/refund or nothing at all!
I don't think we can use a fair comparison between retail vs. airline, try hotel vs. airline.
However, for the sake of silly comparison, let's dive into this situation:
Let's say you pre-order a book from a retail store for USD 50, to be picked up on Tuesday morning next week (9 Sep, 11:00 AM).
Then on 9 Sep 10:50 AM, when you want to pick-up the book, somehow the store told...
I don't think we can use a fair comparison between retail vs. airline, try hotel vs. airline.
However, for the sake of silly comparison, let's dive into this situation:
Let's say you pre-order a book from a retail store for USD 50, to be picked up on Tuesday morning next week (9 Sep, 11:00 AM).
Then on 9 Sep 10:50 AM, when you want to pick-up the book, somehow the store told you that either the book cannot be delivered due to weather, or they give your book to somebody else because they think you won't make it... and they are not responsible to give a refund, but hey... you can buy the same book at 12:00 PM for USD 500 :)
I'd rather pay a higher price with certain TnCs and regulations than pay lower price with no/less regulation.
Also, I don't see any correlation between no/less regulation vs. lower ticket price. They can jack up the price anytime they want.
Even with specific regulations, airlines try to cheat and lie to the consumers (especially for delays, IRROPS), what would happen if there is no/less regulation?
When has an airline ever had a flight delay and then ask to charge you extra to rebook? Even prior to the Biden admin regulations I've never had that happen or heard of anyone that did. I'm sure certain demanding customers that wanted something specific had that happen. "I refuse this 6pm flight and want a seat on the full one leaving at 5pm instead". Perhaps those people were offered paid options.
@Simon -- Your retail comparison misses the fundamental difference between voluntary return policies and mandatory protections when businesses fail to deliver. We don't argue that FDA drug testing or USDA food inspections "hurt consumers with higher prices" - we recognize them as necessary baseline protections.
Airline regulations mostly cover situations where airlines don't provide the service you paid for - cancellations, major delays, stranding you overnight. By your logic, we should eliminate all consumer protections...
@Simon -- Your retail comparison misses the fundamental difference between voluntary return policies and mandatory protections when businesses fail to deliver. We don't argue that FDA drug testing or USDA food inspections "hurt consumers with higher prices" - we recognize them as necessary baseline protections.
Airline regulations mostly cover situations where airlines don't provide the service you paid for - cancellations, major delays, stranding you overnight. By your logic, we should eliminate all consumer protections because they "raise costs." Airlines are highly profitable and ticket prices are at historic lows - they're not struggling to absorb basic consumer protection costs.