There was a news story this week about a Hawaiian Airlines flight that was diverted to Los Angeles because of an unruly passenger. Frankly, the most important aspect of the story was not the diversion but the reason: the airline charges $12 for a passenger to have a simple blanket. We have been discussing how airlines are stripping away basic human comforts and turning flights into cattle calls. On top of that, the airlines are charging fees for every possible comfort, including reducing leg space to virtually zero and then charging for small increments of space in coach. However, a $12 blanket truly represents a new low — particularly on a long flight to Hawaii.
This is a scene from dinner time on Hawaiian Airlines:
The boy was later jettisoned over the Pacific.
The culprit on this trip was a 66-year-old man who wanted a blanket and insisted he should not have to pay because it was cold on the plane. He has an obvious point. However, during an in-flight call with an airline representative, the man said he “would like to take someone behind the woodshed for this.” That appears to have been over a phone and, if that is the full extent of the statement, it does not sound particularly threatening. It sounds like a cranky older person who wanted a blanket. However, he was proclaimed an “unruly passenger” by Hawaiian Airlines and the captain diverted the Honolulu-bound flight to Los Angeles. Police and FBI then rushed into the plane and determined that the man was just cold and cranky.
Now one would think that Hawaiian Airline would be covered in shame over its policy and its response. Guess again. The man was put on another flight (sans any blanket of course) and the airline said “Diverting a flight is clearly not our first choice, but our crew felt it was necessary in this case to divert to Los Angeles and deplane the passenger before beginning to fly over the Pacific Ocean.”
The flight was delayed by four hours, but the airline was able to avoid giving out a free blanket.
Everyone is getting caught up in some nonsense regarding the plane being diverted over a $12.00 blanket. That’s not what happened. The plane wasn’t diverted over a $12.00 blanket; the plane was diverted due to an “unruly” passenger who didn’t want to pay for a $12.00 blanket. UNRULY. The key word–UNRULY. Yes, that is sufficient reason to divert the plane. The reason for the individual’s lack of control–whether it’s a $12.00 blanket, a bag of honey roasted peanuts that had one too few nuts, having to sit next to an individual wearing a shirt declaring, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN–is irrelevant. Airline personnel have been trained to handle UNRULY passengers in various ways. If the captain, who by the way, was actually flying said plane and new the details, which we do not, made the conscious decision to divert the plane because of this old fool, then, due to the fact that I was not a witness to what transpired with this man, I will defer to the captain’s judgment and assume that this was the proper procedure given the circumstances. Getting hung up that the disruption was due to a blanket is missing the point. The cause of the disruption is irrelevant. The manner in which that disruption manifested itself is the only crucial issue.
The pilot was forced to divert to Los Angeles after the man’s ‘threatening behavior’.
‘During the in-flight call he allegedly said “I would like to take someone behind the woodshed for this” and the pilot deemed that to be threatening behavior and ordered that the plane be diverted to Los Angeles,’ he said.
The oh so scary dude is depicted here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4298902/Man-escorted-Hawaiian-Airlines-flight.html
Ever been on a flight to Hawaii? It’s one, long trip. The pilot deemed him a threat. Period. I support the pilot in whatever he believed to be appropriate action given the circumstances. Easy to second guess someone’s actions when you, personally, didn’t witness the entire episode. All you are reading is the comment which was made, which I am quite sure, did not occur in a vacuum.
bam bam – I must ask, what part of the plane is the woodshed?
The part behind which he, apparently, wants to take somebody.
Ever been on a flight to Hawaii?
4x back and forth, during an era when they didn’t charge you for blankets in economy class.
The pilot deemed him a threat. Period.
Maybe the pilot borrowed a brain from you.
He obviously did borrow one from you.
Mine’s actually worth borrowing.
You’d make a good match for the nutjob, flying alone and having a meltdown over a $12.00 blanket. You’re a whack job.
Don’t fly much. Over a time span of nearly 50 years, I’ve managed to not get into disputes with any stewardesses, train conductors, or long-haul bus drivers, so I’m a whack job they can live with.
You don’t need to convince me, or anyone else here, that you are incapable of getting along and coexisting with others unfortunate enough to cross your path. No convincing necessary.
Very few of the people I meet in meatworld have their heads filled with conspirazoid tripe, or are in a continual spitting rage against Emirati Muslims they wouldn’t know from a cord of wood, or lie blatantly to my face, or maintain an artifice so thorough it requires the same skill as lying blatantly to someone’s face, or have heads filled with vicious red haze tripe, or babble on like David Helfgott. Purveyors of pure Whiggery not seen in intellectual life since Henry Steele Commager’s mid-career writings are somewhat more common, as are witless partisan Democrats. If I ‘got along’ with most of you, it would be evidence of people-pleaser tendencies which were truly pathological in severity.
Thanks for proving my point.
Should’ve been– he obviously DIDN’T borrow one from you.
dds – if the pilot had said “Give the damn man a free blanket and shut him up!” it would have solved the problem. The pilot made a bad decision, which cost his airline a lot of money and bad will with a lot of customers and potential customers, including me.
I doubt the decision was the pilot’s.
dds – if the decision to turn around was the captain’s then the decision to give him a blanket could be his. He is God in the sky.
bam bam – the proximate cause is the $12 blanket and the drop in cabin temperature. Had they given him the blanket there would not have been a problem. Or if they had charged him a reasonable amount.
The cause is irrelevant. He was deemed unruly. The cause has no bearing.
bam bam – evidently, the FBI didn’t think so.
Given the expense involved, and the negative publicity,
it’s almost certain that Hawaiian Air does NOT consider the cause to be irrelevant.
Based on the JT’s column, the guy complained after being told of the $12 charge.
Customer service being what it is, he may have gotten more pissed as a result of calling them.
It’s true that the captain has absolute authority in the decision to remove a passenger.
It’s also true that some with absolute authority may not always use the best judgement, so I don’t automatically defer to the judgement of the captain/crew in handling the situation.
Based on the facts as presented in the column, it looks like waiving the $12 fee in this case may have resolved the situation.
Hawaiian Air is going to have to rent a hell of a lot of blankets to pay for diverting the flight back to LAX.
While their generic public statements are supportive of the crew’s decision, their internal investigation may not come to the same conclusion.
There are all sorts of disturbed and delusional individuals roaming around in the public. This individual’s age and his apparent ability to afford a flight to Hawaii are inconsequential, as is his reasoning for becoming unhinged at the denial of a free blanket. Airplanes, by their very nature, present a different set of conditions, as passengers and crew have no avenue of escape from unruly and often dangerous individuals in flight. Both you and I are clueless as to what precisely transpired on that plane; however, it rose to such a level that the pilot risked his career and reputation with the carrier in making a decision to divert the plane. Hardly a decision made without consideration of the consequences involved. Given that, I believe that the pilot believed that this action was justified.
There is no indication from the media reports he was ‘unhinged’. He insisted on talking to some sort of customer service functionary on the ground. That’s ‘irate’ not unhinged. He can be seen quietly leaving the plane when it landed. Unless more information comes out, it appears the pilot (perhaps under direction of management) elected to make a costly maneuver of aborting the flight and jettisoning fuel because this man complained.
I wouldn’t expect you, in particular, to recognize unhinged.
BamBam…
-There are all sorts of us roaming around in private, too.☺
Paul, you have to ask yourself–where does this end? What if, instead of a blanket, a belligerent passenger demanded an alcoholic beverage, which carries an additional cost, yet refused to pay, making a veiled threat pertaining to safety? What then? Does it really matter whether the fracas is over a glass of wine, the person next to whom he is seated or the cost of a blanket? It doesn’t. Only one thing matters– if someone is deemed to be a threat. That’s it. Do you expect the flight attendant to relent because a 66 year old fool doesn’t know how to conduct himself in public, on a plane, no less, and is having a fit?
Of course the other passengers were inconvenienced. Of course this cost more than the $12.00 blanket. I am, however, relieved to see that the pilot chose safety over money–chose to maintain the safety of those on the flight, which he perceived as being at risk, by diverting the plane. He did so knowing of the impending blowback, which makes me believe that there’s far more to this story than the scant details revealed to the public. Again, no mention of the old buzzard’s antics which accompanied his bizarre behavior.
bam bam – being an ‘old buzzard’ myself, had this happened to me, I would have ripped them a new one. All of the flight crew would be treated for PTSD. I take no prisoners.
Something, obviously, happens to the brain as one ages. The filter, which distinguishes between wrong and right, appropriate and inappropriate, disintegrates. I get it. Sort of. That doesn’t mean that tantrums, on a plane, where there has been some sort of threat leveled, should be tolerated. Ever. Who throws tantrums when asked to pay for items which, at one point in time, were free? A lunatic, that’s who. The world has changed. Have you stayed in a hotel lately? I have. I just returned from a stay at a high-end hotel in Vegas. There are charges for everything–EVERYTHING–WiFi, whether you used it or not, a resort fee, whatever the heck that is, etc. Fees for everything. Don’t even think about touching or breathing on the mints or bottles of water in the room, unless one wants to be charged five times the going rate for such items. While one may not be thrilled by the unending charges, a normal and sane person doesn’t have a meltdown because there are fees which are relatively new in the marketplace. You roll with the punches or you at stay home, on your sofa, and you watch reruns of All in the Family. The rest of the world is not sympathetic to ill-tempered and belligerent people that cause drama wherever they roam. When one is out in public, and, especially on a plane, one needs to behave in a respectful and sane manner. If not, don’t be surprised by the consequences.
BamBam…
The sort of “threat leveled” seemed pretty mild.
As far as his age being a likely factor in being ill-tempered and belligerent, airline employees routinely and successfully deal with truly scary women with PMS.
I don’t know what a “mild threat” is any more than I know what it means to be “mildly poisonous” or “slightly pregnant”–you either are or you are not. The crew and the captain considered him a threat. Thats it. A threat. Given the volume of individuals passing through these planes on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, and the rarity of such extreme measures taken by this flight, the mere fact that the crew and pilot made the determination to classify this idiot as a threat and divert the plane tells me that there’s far more to this story.
That’s it, not thats it.
Say to a customer service rep that he’d like to take somebody to the woodshed is what I would comsider a mild threat.
” Saying “Ihave a bomb on board ” is not a mild threat.
A drunken passenger threatening to punch a passenger or crew member is a real thteat.
There actually are “levels” of threatening behavior.
And a variety of options available in respondiing to the degree of “threatening behavior”.
I think what bam bam is trying to tell you is that he got a write-up three weeks ago for pissing off a customer.
bam bam – the effect, as you get older, is “I am too old to put up with this s**t.” The feeling is freeing.
Some advice–free yourself before you board a commercial flight. Tantrums, meltdowns or belligerent behavior, in flight, will result in having you restrained or booted from the plane. Again, the mere fact that only a tiny, miniscule fraction of commercial flights are ever diverted due to passenger behavior causes me to believe that there are more details to this story which have not been revealed. Remember, these crews deal with cantankerous, demanding and rude people on a daily basis, yet, somehow, we don’t routinely hear of flights being diverted due to said societal misfits. That’s because they are the run of the mill cranky misfits who are viewed with derision but not perceived as a threat. This episode, obviously, was different. Grandpa’s behavior, which I am quite sure that he perceived as freeing and liberating, was perceived as egregious enough to spend the time and money to address in a more extreme manner. Clips of him shuffling off of a plane, looking forlorn or despondent, don’t impress me.
bam bam – I fly Allegiant (no frills). If Allegiant doesn’t go where I want, I drive. With Allegiant I know everything is extra, it is a given. When you are retired every penny counts. $12 for a cheap blanket is obscene.
Paul, I always have a small blanket in my carry-on. Always. And, by the way, I don’t believe that I am unusual. It’s no great surprise that flights, especially ones lasting hours and hours, can be quite cold. A man, who has managed to survive on this planet for 66 years, should know to do the same. Unless, of course he has been in a coma for all of these years or is just emerging from serving years as a secluded monk, where he made jam or candles, he should know what to expect on such a flight. I routinely carry some non-perishable snacks, as well, in case I am hungry. Not rocket science. Just plain, common sense. It’s called, being prepared. It’s called taking responsibility for your own safety and comfort. Grandpa didn’t do that and wanted the rest of the world to be responsible for his ineptitude. There isn’t enough money in the world for me to use one of those dirty, filthy, unwashed blankets, that used to be passed around the cabin. And, that was when they were for free. However, if I were cold and needed to purchase a blanket for $12.00, on flight, with no other choicex I would gladly do so, chalking it up to a part of the travel experience. If Grandpa didn’t have $12.00 in his pocket, going to Hawaii, there’s something wrong. Terribly wrong.
bam bam – as Michael and I have complained about, men do not get a carry-one like their wife’s do.
In this day and age, there are no excuses. It’s 2017. You are transgender. Simply tell the airlines that you identify as a female and that you are carrying a handbag or a purse, loaded with cosmetics, along with your carry-on. No big deal. Problem solved.
bam bam – I have a full beard and moustache so that is really going to work.
You’re just a butch woman. Plenty of women with beards and moustaches. Who are they to judge?
bam bam – maybe I could claim membership in Dykes on Bikes. 😉
More power to ya, sista!
SPOT ON. You articulated perfectly what I was about to post . No doubt there was way more to this story than what is being reported. The last thing any crew wants is a diversion or a return, they have nothing to be gained from it and lots to lose. A no win situation. Pilots take something like this very seriously and it is not a whim decision, or a ego decision. You are not going to hear Hawaiian’s side of this. They will not be able to publicly discuss what was behind the decision making process. It is just a cheap shot by the media. A slow news day sympathy combo : Airlines (unending supply of folks ready to jump on the blast an airline bandwagon ) and an Old Person (poor innocent soul who should be given a free pass for his actions because of how many birthdays he has had). The crew is well trained in decerning the difference between a cranky old man and a more elevated threat to the safety of everyone on that plane.
Pilots take something like this very seriously and it is not a whim decision, or a ego decision. You are not going to hear Hawaiian’s side of this. They will not be able to publicly discuss what was behind the decision making process.
They’ve already issued a statement, so you have heard their side.
Amen, sister! You get it.
trixeyfairfield – they are not as well trained as they used to be.
bam bam – taking one behind the woodshed is old-school talk for a spanking. When the plane creates a situation where they then sell blankets, some people go old school.
I’m familiar with the expression, yet it is not as innocuous as you describe. I’ve always believed that it was an expression pertaining to a beating.
Only one thing matters– if someone is deemed to be a threat. That’s it.
Again, a video of him leaving the plane is incorporated within news stories. The smart money says he was about as threatening or non-threatening as any randomly selected man of 66.
Scott – if they drop the temperature in the plane and then try to sell/rent blankets for $12, I am going to bitch, too. Turning the flight around was a bad decision, costing them a lot of fuel.
Michael – I agree with you about the two bag policy. I think my wife should keep her stuff in a wallet. The two bags are just an excuse to carry more crap on. 🙂
Paul Schulte,…
– According to CBS News, “.. the pilot made the decision to dump fuel in order to land at LAX”.
It’d be interesting to tally up the total costs of the decision to turn back.
Plus the bad publicity, pissed off passengers ( four hour delay in taking off again), etc.
From reading an earlier post, I learned that all of this could have been avoided had the Democrats won the presidency.
“Reagan, Bush, and DDT” were the actual villains in blanketgate.
You could never make a business case for what the airline did. There has to be a lawyer behind it somewhere.
tnash – so this blanket for $12 policy has been in since Reagan?
Paul Schulte….
I just learned of Reagan’s culpability in blanketgate from Isaac’s 9:28 AM post.😉
I’ll have to do some research; my guess is that the blanket rental fee started under Reagan, was done away with under Clinton, reinstated by Bush, removed again by Obama.
Then “DDT” comes along, and the blanket rental fee is back again, higher than ever.
tnash – you don’t suppose Trump has branded the blankets and that is why the price went up?
Do what Bam Bam recommends. Tell the airlines you identify as a woman that day and your carryon your tote purse. lol. love it!
You can be sure the fine print on his ticket says he agreed to pay $12 for a blanket.
He’s 66 and flying to Honolulu. Not only is the government confiscating money from young workers to pay his Medicare and give him a monthly stipend for avoiding the Grim Reaper for 65 years, but I assume if he is retired and travelling to Hawaii he probably has a pension or nest egg set aside also. Or maybe he’s still working. Either way, he is probably financially secure but he decided to be a dick over $12 and ruin everyone’s experience because he’s greedy.
Consumer greed put this airline into bankruptcy in 2003. That’s consumers refused to pay fare prices high enough for the airline to recover it’s costs. It emerged from bankruptcy in 2005 with a lower cost structure by screwing over its creditors. That was necessary to satisfy the demands of greedy consumers who were unwilling to pay the higher prices for tickets.
Greedy consumers? Not greedy executives? Ever bother to check out what the top brass in these airlines make a year in terms of salary, benefits, pensions, stock options, etc.? Check it out. The very definition of greed, while the consumer is squeezed for ever dime.
Every dime, not ever dime.
What Scott’s trying to tell you is that he’s a union rep.
He’s 66 and flying to Honolulu. Not only is the government confiscating money from young workers to pay his Medicare and give him a monthly stipend for avoiding the Grim Reaper for 65 years, but I assume if he is retired and travelling to Hawaii he probably has a pension or nest egg set aside also. Or maybe he’s still working. Either way, he is probably financially secure but he decided to be a dick over $12 and ruin everyone’s experience because he’s greedy.
He indubitably paid his payroll taxes for 40-odd years, paying the current rate for about 55% of his time in the labor force and rates around 15% lower during his earlier leg in the labor force. The younger generation will pay those rates while you’re retired, unless, in a fit of graceless resentment, apoplexy takes you first.
I’ll bet anything that the old cheap fart hadn’t been in a commercial plane in decades and didn’t know that things had changed. Drastically changed. Still living in a time warp. That’s my guess. Didn’t realize that a little thing like 9/11 occurred, causing folks on airlines to be overly cautious of irate and irrational old buffoons who won’t settle down and shut the f up over a $12.00, diease-infested blanket, which, most probably, hadn’t been washed for years. Didn’t comprehend that those days, of throwing hissyfits, while in a big, closed, aluminum, flying sardine can, are, thankfully, over. I’ll also assume that he was perplexed to find the door, leading to the pilots, bolted shut during flight and agitated that his painful and arthritic knees were numb from the lack of space provided for him during that long and exhausting flight. No doubt, his pacemaker skipped a beat when he boarded the plane for his dream trip to the islands and suddenly realized that those once glamorous, beautiful and sexy stewardesses, er, I mean flight attendants, who held a part of his now fading memory, had been replaced with gum-chewing, overweight, unattractive and unkempt beings, who bore no resemblance to Ann Margaret or Lonnie Anderson. Yeah. This wasn’t just about a $12.00 blanket. It was sensory overload. Too much for him to take in all at once.
The answer is simple. boycott the airlines unless going to Hawaii in a flying Greyhound bus is all that big a deal Then bring your own blanker. There are a ton of the light weight space savings kind used by back packers REI or check Amazon.
My objection is why do I get only one carry on small bag and women get two? I have a wallet they have hand bags big enough for a weeks groceries for a family of six. and last I looke dthey wanted to put my laptop in baggage compartment. That AND TSA was enough to make me rethink the need for flying anywhere and I certainly would fly United, Hawaii, US Air or any that sell you a big plane ticket then cram you into a commuter cattle car.
I’ll take the stage coach
No one is stopping you from carrying a purse. Carry one. Load it up with gum, TUMS, magazines and tampons. On your way to the plane, stop off in the women’s restroom. After all, this is 2017. No one has the right to keep you, as a man, out of there. Let your freak flag fly. You are living in the past. Get with the times. While in the bathroom, as you are washing your hands, complain loudly about your painful period and Donald Trump. It’s your right.
Caveat emptor. He bought a product with reasonable but false expectations. Next time bring a coat, sweater or your own blanket (if allowed).
No, no, no. It’s not the airlines initiating these steps – it’s us…we all select flights based on price! The lower the better. So, the airlines, regardless of fuel costs or labor costs, must respond by holding their prices down. And, this is the result. In fact, it’s a user fee not a tax. People who want a blanket pay for it…or plan ahead (wow) and bring warm clothes…instead of everyone on the plane paying for that person’s blanket. Want more leg-room? Pay for it!
Pay the $12 and then challenge the charge with the credit-card company and/or the airline. Or don’t pay it and then complain to the airline later.
But delaying everyone else onboard while also making a scene is what’s ridiculous. Maybe he should do some minimal research before buying his ticket. Boo-hoo.
In case you hadn’t noticed, he wasn’t at the controls of the plane nor was he in a position to give orders to the pilot. The only thing he could do was make an irritant of himself to the stewardess.
News flash. They’re called flight attendants. Not stewardesses. It’s 2017. Not 1968.
The next step for airlines is to serve beer for free, as much as you’d like, on long flights, while charging you $200 for each visit to the bathroom.
🙂
On Air France one might meet a nice female flight attendant who will come to your hotel room after the flight lands in Paris and serve some more tangeray.
Our soldiers fight and die so that we can deregulate anti trust laws as part of true manly Capitalism (spelt: D-E-M-O-C-R-A-C-Y, or “king of the hill” or “American Religion”) which should be obvious since major US Airlines have consolidated to just 3 in the last 10 years, not to mention we have the most privatized airports in the world. They can charge and do what they damn well please. Snort! Does no one have any respect for the #1 & #2 laws of the
jungleland: profit and monopoly, anymore? What do they think this is about, some sort of goods or service for the people? Cattle prods are too good.Anyone who is a patriot and has any respect for our brave soldiers and the sacrifices they make for the American way should be proud to set a real patriot’s example and jettison this old fart from the airline; yes, mid flight is the only way. Tough love perhaps, but we hope he’ll have the opportunity to thank us later for curing him of such blatantly Communistic behavior. Expecting something for free! In this case, “decency”, which he should know is only available in first class for the very reasonable fee of 2x the price of the ticket squared.
Alas, a true freeloading hater. As our French ami, Air France, might say, Allez-opp!
There are 8 supraregional airlines and a scrum of regional carriers. The ownership regime of airports is irrelevant to the competitive pressures which make this sort of nickel-and-diming attractive to analysts (and, while we’re at it, airports are generally owned by local government authorities).
It would appear that, up to 2014 at least, you are actually correct about airport ownership in the US. That, however, is changing as investors seek ever new opportunities for rent extraction and look to London and other European countries for models.
https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/privatize-aviation
For the rest, you are full of it as usual.
As to the cost of private airports,
Generally, prices go up by about 30% once a major infrastructure asset (such as highways) goes private. France’s highway system is an excellent example. While a great deal of fanfare is made about reducing the government deficits and responsibility and the
rapaciousnessefficiency of private enterprise; all of that is really double speak for a big effort by lobbyists to get major public assets sold to their transnational client companies at fire sale prices at the expense of the local tax payer. Private enterprise operates for profit and by it’s kissing cousins, monopoly and corruption, and any “efficiencies” are more than swallowed up by those realities.As to the consolidation of US airlines, let’s hear from Forbes,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeboyd/2015/10/18/more-us-airline-consolidation-is-already-happening/#6a79579c50b5
Airport and associated costs, remove the “ADD_” below and paste rest of line in URL section of your favorite browser,
ADD_HTTP://lifehacker.com/why-plane-tickets-cost-so-much-and-how-you-can-still-g-485767079
Generally, prices go up by about 30% once a major infrastructure asset (such as highways) goes private.
The private operator gets his revenue from tolls and fares, not from tax receipts. It’s not surprising when ‘price goes up’. That’s costs being made transparent to the customer, not costs appearing out of the air.
Private enterprise operates for profit and by it’s kissing cousins, monopoly and corruption, and any “efficiencies” are more than swallowed up by those realities.
If you fancy public agencies are immune to ‘corruption’, buy my bridge. Monopolies are characteristic of a very narrow slice of demand-constrained industries and are subject to mercantile regulation when they are not public enterprises outright.
As to the consolidation of US airlines, let’s hear from Forbes,
Consolidation is a matter of scant interest to the consumer.
—
Brooklin Bridge, I have news for you. Ralph Nader is an economic illiterate. If you take your cues from him, you’ll be wrong, pretty much all the time and about everything.
You’ve responded to nothing.
“Consolidation is a matter of scant interest to the consumer.” B.S. Consolidation = monopoly = higher cost as my last link points out.
As to corruption, public services such as Medicare are some of the most efficient models there are and are far less prone to corruption than private enterprise, but when you combine corruption with monopoly in private enterprise, things really get out of hand. Airports would be highly prone to such.
Your Ralph Nader quip is simply a double insult – very typical of you and your kind and the way you replace rational argument with smear. 1) Insult someone on left 2) imply (nonexistent) relationship.
B.S. Consolidation = monopoly = higher cost as my last link points out.
It means nothing of the kind, which you’d know if you weren’t paying attention to Nader. There is no monopoly in air travel services nor do you require an ant heap of competitors to have something approaching perfect competition in that sector. Low profit margins are characteristic of airlines.
Your Ralph Nader quip is simply a double insult – very typical of you and your kind and the way you replace rational argument with smear. 1) Insult someone on left 2) imply (nonexistent) relationship.
When you learn to recognize what a ‘rational argument’ is, you can rebuke people in this manner without looking like a jackwagon. You’re not there yet.
This isn’t a complicated subject, but it is one you know nothing about, so it’s a pity you’re so opinionated about it.
Indeed, It is only because of the mergers (what you euphemise as “consolidation”) and resultant lack of competition, along with collusion among those remaining, that the airlines can get away with this whole trend of constant chiseling away at the consumer by additional charges for every thing under the sun, such as snacks, drinks, extra space, luggage weight, and on and on.
Air ports are almost a natural monopoly since there is usually little or no choice for departure and arrival. Do you seriously think that private airports won’t do exactly the same thing?
Indeed, It is only because of the mergers (what you euphemise as “consolidation”) and resultant lack of competition, along with collusion among those remaining, that the airlines can get away with this whole trend of constant chiseling away at the consumer by additional charges for every thing under the sun, such as snacks, drinks, extra space, luggage weight, and on and on.
Um, no. It’s a Bertraind oligopoly. They’re motivated to attempt petty economies because they have very circumscribed profit margins.
Drivel. Fuel costs are still remarkably low. They are making a killing and simply want more.
Correction:
Drivel. Fuel costs are still remarkably low and prices never went down, only up. They are making a killing and simply want more.
No airline is a price-maker, so it does not matter what they ‘want’. Fuel costs have accounted for about 24% of total costs in the air transportation industry in recent years. The ratio of operating surplus to total output is 0.16 for the air transport industry v. 0.24 for the generic industry, so, no, they’re not making off like bandits.
It’s not rocket science,
-Christopher Elliot, The Huffington Post:
The above quote was from a 2014 article.
Brooklin Bridge…
-The deregulation of the airline ( and trucking) industry started in 1978 under Jimmy Carter/ Alfred Kahn.
Over the next c. 35 years, the airline industry lost a total of c.$60 Billion.
Almost every carrier went into bankruptcy.
Southwest Air and Alaska Air are the only two I can think of that avoided bankruptcy.
Most came out of Chapter 11…..overs ( Braniff, Eastern, Continental, Pan Am) are gone.
Interesting to watch pre-1980s movies and see these casualties when they wers once major carriers, industry leaders, for decades.
It’s just been within the last several years that most carriers have become solidly profitable.
The consumer benefited enormously from the feriocious price competion for decades, and we now have far fewer carriers beating each others’ brains out in continuing price war.
While deregulation was a boon for consumers for decades, the tide has likely turned.
As cyclical as this industry is, I’m reluctant to say that the turnaround is permanent, that carriers will maintain their pricing power.
I benefited from cheap tickets when the airlines were banrupting each other in their price wars.
Many who now complain about the “obscene profits” of the carriers weren’t too upset by the decades-long “obscene losses”.
Overall, I think deregulation worked in the consumers favor for many years.
There was no great push from consumers for re-regulation during that period.
The last few years has seen more calls for government action to influence
fares, this seems to me like the end result of c.40 years of deregulation, and deregulation is now a permanent feature for the industry.
I think It is the very deregulation you mention that set the stage for the long consolidation that equals close to a monopoly today, and not just for airlines Airline prices became very inexpensive in the mid to late 60’s because of competition, well before deregulation even started. So the deregulation didn’t foster competition, it allowed its elimination which was slow simply because there were so many airlines to start with. As to deregulation being from Carter, I’m very bipartisan when it comes to leveling criticism. Carter was a neoliberal, or at least he adopted such policy, even if he subsequently had many lucid ideas and observations. Regan was the last president to really hold the bankers feet the fire after a melt down (the savings and loan fiasco). He put over 1000 bankers in jail. Jail! And thus made it clear to everyone that crime doesn’t pay. Neither Bush II nor Obama ever even came close to them balls (though there is a defensible argument that Regan did so because the Overton window was so much further to the left back then).
That said, the solution to the modern airline monopoly issue would not have been possible for the likes of Regan, Bush, or Clinton (or Obama or Trump). It would have been one of re-establishing regulations or placing price controls on the airlines after they had been whittled down to 4 or 5; none of which was ideologically conceivable to any of them.
Capitalism with out some regulation is like a farm with out the farmer; a tangled mess of weeds all competing for the sunlight and clobbering each other until just about everyone dies; then rince, repeat. This is not what Adam Smith envisioned.
There is no monopoly outside the space between your ears.
There are no monopolies in Air transport, bar some localized one’s at particular air terminals. No, I’m not going to bother with the Huffington Post.
No, there’s no need for government or social intervention and management, at all. Big pharma in the US = highest drug prices anywhere. No regulation in the health insurance industry = highness health costs anywhere for the 37th best health care. Now, no regulation at the EPA will = more pollution and greater retardation of American technology. That’s right folks, the boys after the fast bucks are here again. You remember Reagan, Bush, and now the greatest Buffoon of all time, DDT.
Cost control over the so called medical profession. Same with the airline monopolies.
Do you folks all notice how the discussion on the health care crisis is all about how to pay the insurance coverage and not a whine or whimper about maybe controlling the costs of pills, hospital beds, doctor pats on the head, operations, et al?
Ask Paul Ryan why a drug prescription for one pill costs $4,000 in NY City and $4.00 in Paris (converted into Euros).
Paul: where did you get the weeny haircut?
Jack
It is the illusion of free enterprise-it’s not free. It’s the illusion of market driven economy-it’s not the market. It’s the illusion of freedom of choice-choices are determined, either pay through the nose or with or without vaseline, depending on your premium. It’s the illusion of supply and demand-it’s what the market will bear, sometimes with and sometimes without vaseline.
Americans still live under the illusion that if we just leave things alone they will work themselves out. This is being expressed right now as we leave things to the wolves to guard the chicken coop. The only thing free about all these ideological illusions is the freedom to pay through the nose unless regulations are placed. In the 37 other countries that have better health care systems, they cost less and perform better with citizens paying lower premiums. In almost all of these systems garbage ranging from Ding Dongs/sugar to booze is taxed to contribute. In all of these better systems doctors get paid extremely well, nurses and care givers get paid better, corporations make lots of money for their investors. However, administrative costs are a fraction of what they are in this ‘free enterprise’ system. Costs are controlled by a strong central government, something the US lacks, for some obtuse ideological reason. Perhaps when stuff is convoluted it allows the individual the illusion that he or she is John Wayne, Davey Crockett, whatever.
Canada is allowed to negotiate with US Big Pharma for savings, but the US Government is not. Start right there.
“Costs are controlled by a strong central government, something the US lacks, for some obtuse ideological reason.”
LOL! It’s called a difference in worldviews and you would need to fully assimilate into your US citizenship to begin to understand. Keeping one foot in your socialist world and the other in a free-market world has produced obvious conflicts in your expectations of government. You are an individual representation of a “house divided”. Until you resolve that, then your schizophrenia will always been on full display.
If it would have calmed the passenger simply by giving him a blanket for free it is surely cheaper than diverting a flight and upsetting the remaining passengers. I wonder how fast twelve dollars in fuel burned up resolving the matter as the airline did.
The $12 charge was indubitably dreamed up by an analyst in their pricing apparat or by an accountant. They were not asked (and may not have the tools) to make an actuarial calculaiton of the expected cost of incidents like the one in question. It’s a reasonable wager that the decision to divert was made by a functionary under the influence of legal counsel. Legal counsel are innumerate, so know nothing of cost accounting.
Its been 20 years since I heard this number from airline pilots, but they said it take around $5000 plus of jet fuel….to take off from the airport runway. So that blanket was a $5000 blanket for an unscheduled stop, and takeoff. Not including are the airport landing fees.
which tells me there is more to the story than what is being reported. NO carrier would make an expensive decision like this without more compelling evidence.
It’s remarkable how seemingly intelligent people refuse to grasp the concept that there is, surely, far more to the story than what the public knows.
Wonders never cease.
JT I laughed watching the video and your comment that the boy was jettisoned over the Pacific
We come a long way, baby!
Airline travel in the late 1950’s.
https://youtu.be/ITBQDApTsm0
1. Air travel was, if not a niche product, something for which the clientele was dominated by patrician and professional-managerial types who had certain expectations of personal service.
2. The market for air travel was, from 1938 to 1978 a cartel administered by the Civil Aeronautics Board. Price competition was atypical (governed by procedures which allowed your competitors to inhibit price cuts and discounts). To the extent their was competition, it had to be through productive efficiencies which allowed you to offer more amenity.
So, yeah it was nice. It was federally-administered cartel, however, with rents distributed to shareholders, management, and union employees. For wage-earners, flying in a civilian aircraft was a twice-in-a-lifetime event.
I was hired in 1978 by a major carrier due to Deregulation. Its was certainly a hey-day.
Now its a glorified bus trip. ( :
Buses are slow (the stops, mostly), but actually fairly comfortable. I find it much easier to read on Greyhound than on a plane.
No Muslims or minorities on that flight: “Make America White Again!”
There’s a black passenger depicted at 2:36 and the hand of a black crew member elsewhere therein. There are about 30 actors in the video and the number of blacks depicted likely comes close to the demographics of air travel the year the film was made (1954).
The muslim population of the United States is currently about 1% of the total and was inconsequentially small in 1954. They’re not readily distinguished either unless their complexion or garb says ‘near east’.
The $12 for the blanket tells you the accounting department has the upper hand over the marketing department at Hawaiian Airlines.
Airlines are a ‘Bertrand’ oligopoly. Industries with that kind of market structure have very thin profit margins so there’s pressure to cut corners. If my last ride on a plane is representative, the seating situation is now a danger to safety. I’ve been told by my doctors to refrain from flying without taking blood thinners first.
Diverting the plane in response to a dispute like this sounds like bureaucratic stupidity. I’ll wager the legal department was behind it.
This is poppycock! They already made out like bandits when the fuel prices came down but NOT ticket prices.
“On top of that, the airlines are charging fees for every possible comfort, including reducing leg space to virtually zero …”
**************************************
I want the class action case for the DVTs caused by these cramped seating areas.
Maybe the old fast should be better prepared for his next HA flight by eating plenty to of onions, radishes, cabbage, celery, carrots, brussel sprouts, broccoli, cauliflower and legumes.
What did the person who would be sitting next to him on such a flight ever do to him. The authors of this are faceless bureaucrats on the ground that he’ll never see.
Sufficient passenger flatulence results in some interesting possibilities:
1. Passengers get sufficiently upset to never fly that carrier again, and/or tell their contacts – which results in reduced ridership; and/or,
2. The vast amount of flammable intestinal gas released causes the plane to blow up.
Either way, the result is at least a stock devaluation, and possible permanent grounding for that airline company.
HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: DOESN’T A FREE BLANKET NOW SOUND LIKE A *GREAT* DEAL?