What’s wrong with air travel?

What’s your biggest airline problem?

That’s a question I ask almost every day, and it’s coincidentally one that a new Transportation Department panel is trying to answer.

The Advisory Committee for Aviation Consumer Protection, created by the latest Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill and established in May, is charged with reviewing current aviation consumer protection programs and recommending improvements, if needed. It has held one public meeting so far, with another scheduled for Tuesday, so it still has a long way to go before determining where passengers hurt the most.

Disclosure: I have a horse in this race. I co-founded the Consumer Travel Alliance and serve as its volunteer ombudsman. The group’s president, Charlie Leocha, is the consumer representative on the committee. Leocha maintains that the single biggest fixable problem is price transparency, or knowing how much your ticket will cost.

During presentations to the committee, other advocates for air travelers have made compelling cases for different causes, including making it easier to sue airlines and adopting tougher regulations concerning safety and tarmac delays.

If I’d made my own pitch, I’d have argued that air travelers are most frustrated by the impression that airlines seem to be able to make up their own rules with little oversight.

So who’s right?

To find out, I looked outside the Beltway, asking consumer advocates and service experts to name their top airline problem. If anyone knows where air travelers are hurting, they should.

Edward Hasbrouck, a San Francisco-based consumer advocate and author of “The Practical Nomad: How to Travel Around the World,” says that air travelers want to know what they’re buying. Airlines could do a far better job of disclosing so-called codeshare agreements and revealing what’s included in the price of a ticket as well as the ticket terms. Air carriers aren’t currently required to reveal any of those details on your ticket. “I think those are the big issues,” he says.

Mitch Lipka, who writes a consumer advocacy column for the Boston Globe, says that passengers are frustrated with new airline fees and charges that give the false impression that they’re spending less for their flights when they’re actually spending more.

Most recently, news that some airlines are reserving more aisle and window seats for passengers willing to pay a premium prompted angry complaints that families with small children wouldn’t be able to sit together without paying extra. “That seems to have irked a lot of people,” Lipka says.

Richard Laermer, a marketing expert and commentator for the public radio show “Marketplace,” says that air travelers are weary of being hammered by fees. “Fees for legroom, fees for seat reservations, fees for being first on board,” he says. “Worse, instead of passengers knowing what the price of a ticket covers, they’re growing more confused as airlines come up with new surcharges.” Laermer wants to see the end of “us vs. them.”

So, that’s three votes for price transparency.

Look a little closer, and you’ll understand why. These new fees and surcharges affect almost every passenger’s wallet in a direct, measurable way. A decade ago, the price of an airline ticket included checking two bags, confirming a seat, paying with a credit card. If you wanted to check an overweight bag or change your ticket, you paid a little more. Today, some tickets cover none of those things; they are, to use a term popular with the airlines, “unbundled.”

It’s not the unbundling itself that’s problematic, but the way it has been executed. With only one or two exceptions, airlines have quietly removed integral components of the ticket from the base price and then buried the disclosure on their Web site. That has allowed them to continue quoting the low fares that passengers want. It has also let them profit from the public’s assumption that those fares continue to be more or less inclusive, which they aren’t.

The money that airlines make from these extra fees is referred to as “ancillary” revenue, and the airline industry is awash in it today. In two years, worldwide ancillary airline revenue jumped 66 percent, to
$22.6 billion in 2011, according to a recent survey by IdeaWorks, an airline consulting company that specializes in ancillary revenue. The industry leader, United Airlines, collected $5.2 billion in ancillary fees last year.

But United is a big airline. The real ancillary revenue leaders are the so-called “low-fare” carriers, which pile on the extras. Spirit Airlines, for example, reaps about 33 percent of its revenue from fees, making it the world’s most aggressive air carrier when it comes to extras, IdeaWorks says.

Air travelers have plenty of problems. But this one — the issue of ticket price — keeps bubbling up in discussions.

The fix seems pretty easy: Require airlines to release all their data regarding fares and optional extras and to publish those fees everywhere they sell their tickets. At the moment, they’re not required to do so; current regulations say only that their fares must include mandatory fees and taxes. Obviously, it’s not enough. The optional fees are the ones that surprise consumers and hurt their wallets.

The advisory committee should recommend that the Transportation Department adopt a rule requiring airlines to put every component of their fares on the table, for every passenger to see, regardless of how and where they’re buying a ticket. That would quickly close a shameful chapter in the airline industry’s history, in which it deceived passengers into paying more for their tickets and earned billions based on its subterfuge.

No government should allow a business to lie to its customers, even if that business is a beloved airline.

  • bodega3

    We all pay more for less and there is still arithmetic to do if we want what we use to have at the price we are currently paying.

  • bodega3

    Because someone like Charlie Leocha wants it all in front of him in one place. He whines, over and over and over again about this. Lazy? Yes, never thought of that, but yes, that applies.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OEPJGQPIEB75YYDE5CJY6R3VFE Carver Clark Farrow II

    I’m sorry about your father in law. The question is who should pay for that time? Assuming the attorney is not a personal friend why would you expect a freebie?

    Several travel agents have griped, quite legitimately, about potential clients having them do work, getting a great deal, then booking the deal themselves to avoid the commission. That is unethical.

    Just as you rightfully expect to be paid for your time and effort, so does everyone else. If you don’t find the attorneys time valuable, don’t hire one.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OEPJGQPIEB75YYDE5CJY6R3VFE Carver Clark Farrow II

    But that’s a cherry picked example. To be persuasive we would need to have some numbers and behind the scenes experience to quantify the situation. I learned this the hard way after getting completely schooled in a discussion about hotels and corporate discounts. How a company which guarantees its employees will spend X hotel nights per year can get a better rate than a business that wants say twice as many hotel nights per year.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OEPJGQPIEB75YYDE5CJY6R3VFE Carver Clark Farrow II

    I don’t get the code share issue. Anyone with enough frequent flier experience to qualify for perks is an experienced enough traveler that code shares shouldn’t mystify them. I mean, I dealt with code sharing as a stupid teenager, I think a college sophomore,. It really wasn’t that traumatic.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OEPJGQPIEB75YYDE5CJY6R3VFE Carver Clark Farrow II

    +1

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OEPJGQPIEB75YYDE5CJY6R3VFE Carver Clark Farrow II

    MarkieA

    Obviously I know tons of attorneys. Most are people of excellent morals and character. There are of course the lowlifes who just want to make a buck. This is true in every field. We don’t like dealing with them any more than you do because it makes conversations like this necessary.

    Regarding McDonalds, I would recommend that you get the facts.

    The McDonalds case was about McDonalds purposely selling coffee 30 degree hotter than industry standard to increase McDonald’s profits. Hotter coffee means it stays above the discard threshhold longer, i.e. less wasted coffee = more profit. Most fast food coffee is sold at 160ish degrees, this was almost 200 degrees. The boiling point of water is 212.

    McDonalds had received numerous complaints. The plaintiff in that case wanted to settle for a a little over her hospital bills. McDonalds refused thus she had a choice of either suing McDonalds are being out thousands of dollars in medical bills.

    She was a 70 year old woman who received third degree burns to her lady parts. Thats right, third degree burns to her lady parts.

    The jury, who listened to all the facts ( and not just sound bites), were so outraged by McDonalds conduct that they awarded a high sum (admittedly to high) to punish McDonalds.

    Hardly a frivolous case. McDonalds spin doctors have been working overtime since then.

  • Joe Farrell

    How do you think he gets the question answered? Do you want him to guess? Or do you want him to spend three hours looking through documents or charge you for a 10 min phone call?
    I know lawyer hating is blood sport but if you would think about it for a moment – you might see that he is charging you less than not calling you would cost . . .

  • MarkieA

    I do indeed know the facts of the McDonald’s case; hence the reason I referred to it in the abstract – in order to illustrate my point – instead of directly. I also don’t really think that I need to consult a lawyer in order to mow my lawn, either. You didn’t think I meant that one literally, did you? Taking one of my points – a point I meant as illustrative – and using it to try and discredit the entire train of thought while ignoring the other points is, well… very lawyerly of you.

    I will get more specific if you want; I lay a ton of blame for our huge medical costs in this country squarely on the lawyer community. Without ridiculous lawsuits aimed at the medical professionals, doctors – especially those in the OB/GYN fields – wouldn’t need to spend outrageous sums of money on malpractice insurance. This, in turn, leads to exorbitant medical insurance costs for you and I.

  • Joe Farrell

    Guys – people ASK lawyers whether they can do what they want to do – the decisions are made by airline management after the lawyers give them the parameters of what they can get away with – the lawyers don’t MAKE the stupid decisions . . . .

  • Michael__K

    Another entitled customer who screwed up, didn’t read the contract, didn’t ask the right questions at the critical time, and then expects something for nothing.

    This is what happens when you use the DIY method or free online resources to find the right attorney. If you used a brick and mortar professional attorney referral service, then you would know what fees to expect and when.

    </sarcasm> <!– just in case it wasn’t obvious –>

  • Michael__K

    I’m all ears if you prefer different example(s).

    When equitable un-bundling requires setting up new fee collection points or new customer information collection points (which I think is the case for most though not all of the recently added airline fees) then I don’t see a way around the dynamics I described.

    It works better for customized product purchases (like computers or cars) because the custom option selections and the payments are collected all at once.

  • bodega3

    People don’t mind pay for a service, But when someone doesn’t know what they are doing, or doing it well, you do mind the charge. It applies to any profession.

  • http://www.facebook.com/CarverFarrow Carver Clark Farrow

    Since when is asking a question indicative of not knowing what you are doing? If the question was legitimate then it was a proper charge. Its often faster, aka cheaper, to ask than to sift through mountains of papers which may be outdated.

  • travelagentman

    De-Regulation back in the Jimmy Carter range originally began the destruction of today’s airlines. Re-regulation will never happen. There are too many freedom of ?.@#$#@@ acts to allow it to happen. Why are travel agents making a comeback, because we are tending to keep up with all of this crap. What we don’t do, it teach it to the internet people to circumvent us. I have had not one complaint about our travel information re: flights, carry-ons, seat charges, seat locations. I listen at the airport to all of the displeased people, but travel agents save trips, and if you are too cheap to pay for one, then live with what the airlines decide that they want to give you.

  • Kyle Cline

    @twitter-54321804:disqus ‘s is the first comment on here that actually makes any sense.

    Ever heard of regulatory capture? It’s a technique used by large corporations to engender government regulations that either block or inhibit potentially competitive firms from entering a given market. This is exactly what is going on in the airline industry (among many others). All government intervention can do is stifle competition. Increased competition leads to falling prices, enhanced services, and an overall more responsive environment to consumers’ demands. It’s getting old quick hearing pseudo-intellectual diatribes about unsophisticated and unrealistic consumers. By and large, people’s marketplace expectations are informed and spot-on, despite an overly vocal minority asking for the sky.

    @yahoo-OEPJGQPIEB75YYDE5CJY6R3VFE:disqus While you are correct that “the robust flow of truthful information” is a cornerstone of a free market, to say that such a free market necessitates government oversight is a fallacy, straight from the Keynesian horse’s mouth. Given an /actual/ free economy devoid of government’s so-called “protections”, information is propagated by the market itself, or through auxiliary markets. Which “truthful information” is even useful to consumers and/or firms? Only competition can provide an accurate answer.