How so? I'm trying to understand the implications. Just wondering how it will hinder people from flying?
I may be wrong, but if you were Joe Public and were looking at tickets, would seeing a company you had never heard of (i.e. ASA, Shuttle America, Comair, etc.) operating your flight, would it affect your decision to purchase knowing that it wasn't Delta mainline or the equivalent.
People are retarded, they think that way.
it wont change. CAL already plainly puts it on our tickets, and it even says we service the flight with non-jet type equiptment to boot. Its not even in fine print, but normal font, yet people never pay attention to it
American Travelers have ADD big time, the lowest fare is all they care.....
__________________
Turbine Maule on floats..now thats a "Wet" Dream...
The problem is in people's understanding of the way a code share works, not in their knowledge of who is operating a flight. For example, I've talked to passengers who believe if they buy a ticket on a United website, and hop on a CRJ painted in United colors, that there is some sort of deep connection to United, as opposed to just a shallow little marketing agreement. They believe there is a connection to United's standards of training, experience, service, quality, etc. This isn't purely by accident, or coincidence. The marketing department at United wants people to have that impression. The aircraft are painted in their colors for a very specific reason. I have no problem with people being informed that the only connection between a regional and a major is paint and paper. However, as others have said, this legislation will fail in that endeavor.
He's not really changing a whole lot by doing this. As previously stated most airlines do tell you when you fly on a regional.
This seems more like a political move on his part than anything based on the common good.
I imagine he's thinking that if he makes it look like he's an advocate for the average traveler he can parade himself in front of everyone telling them how he saved them from the 'dangerous regionals'
Plus this sounds like something that would actually get passed pretty easily. I doubt there'd be much opposition to this. People are afraid and this helps the senate look like they're doing something about the problem, even if it changes absolutely nothing.
Last edited by E6-B : 06-30-2009 at 09:52 AM.
Reason: grammer
Yet another example of politicians clueless to reality trying to look like they are doing something without stepping on any toes of the big league lobbies.
I was jumpseating into EWR one day. Pax sitting next to me kept talking about the great fare he got to got to wherever. When we landed in EWR he looked over and saw the Kallita 747s parked on the north side. Then he said to me excitedly, "Hey where do those guys fly"! Although, I will never know for sure. All I could sense was that he thought he just discovered the newest ultra low fare carrier!
What Shumer doesn't understand, or doesn't want to understand, is it is the job of the federal government to protect the public from their own ignorance. Some smoke and mirrors legislation may look good for his political campaign, but it won't produce any real change in the long run.
Onfinal
I don't recall seeing that in the constitution....
Viva la Nanny State!
__________________
Fly or monitor, I get paid the same.
I may be wrong, but if you were Joe Public and were looking at tickets, would seeing a company you had never heard of (i.e. ASA, Shuttle America, Comair, etc.) operating your flight, would it affect your decision to purchase knowing that it wasn't Delta mainline or the equivalent.
People are retarded, they think that way.
And people choosing only to fly on a mainline carrier is aBad Thing? Did you ever stop to consider that the more people choose to fly the name brand might lead to MORE MAINLINE FLYING AND MORE MAINLINE JOBS?
(Sorry about the caps, but as you say, "People are retarded")
__________________
Fly or monitor, I get paid the same.
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
