![]() |
Biden wants cash to pax for cancelled flights
Standing in front of a mostly blank background containing simply the text “holding airlines accountable,” President Biden announced intentions to force airlines to pay cash to passengers whose flights have been cancelled for “controllable” reasons.
Having personally endured dozens of NYC/FL meltdowns and seen thousands flights cancelled due to the DOT’s chronic ineptitude and mismanagement of the ATC system, I noted there are no plans to require the government to provide cash to the many passengers whose flights are cancelled due to air traffic control failures. https://www.npr.org/2023/05/08/1174727479/flight-delay-cancellation-payments-to-passengers-transportation-department |
What exactly is a controllable reason?
|
This is something I can absolutely get behind under certain circumstance listed below. Seeing some of the meltdowns at my airline even though weather related and dumping pax on the street to fend for themselves is atrocious. Some airlines do a decent job of accommodating while others take advantage of the lax rules to avoid costs. Too much have certain airlines had a poor operation as a cost saving measure and at the expense of pax. If airlines want to save money by not investing in and having a good operation it should cost them.
1 controllable delays or cancellations are specifically defined and specifically does not include weather or maintenance related, acts of nature and safety reasons 2 it becomes a crime to falsely label a controllable delay as uncontrollable to avoid compensation. 3 the compensations are just and and nonpunitive |
Originally Posted by Justabusdriver1
(Post 3634171)
This is something I can absolutely get behind under certain circumstance listed below. Seeing some of the meltdowns at my airline even though weather related and dumping pax on the street to fend for themselves is atrocious. Some airlines do a decent job of accommodating while others take advantage of the lax rules to avoid costs. Too much have certain airlines had a poor operation as a cost saving measure and at the expense of pax. If airlines want to save money by not investing in and having a good operation it should cost them.
1 controllable delays or cancellations are specifically defined and specifically does not include weather or maintenance related, acts of nature and safety reasons 2 it becomes a crime to falsely label a controllable delay as uncontrollable to avoid compensation. 3 the compensations are just and and nonpunitive |
Things cancelling for whatever reason bothers me way less than forcibly removing passengers (or denying boarding of passengers) due to oversale/weight restriction/seat inop/etc with a voucher, with an expiration date no less.
Auction up the space if it’s oversold to whoever will take the least, and pay cash. Actual cancellations? Seems too hard to track what is controllable vs uncontrollable. I’ve certainly seen an airline manipulate the details of the “why” to make it a weather delay/cancellation versus a maintenance delay/cancellation… if that’s how we’re defining controllable vs uncontrollable. |
Another "feel-good", not very-well-thought-out order from this administration. I fully expect the airlines to price this in to their ticket prices. When people start complaining about high ticket prices, point right at this administration, shrug, and say "sorry, cost of doing business. There's Greyhound across town..."
|
Biden literally wants to throw money at anything and everything that might help him get votes.
|
Originally Posted by av8or
(Post 3634256)
Biden literally wants to throw money at anything and everything that might help him get votes.
|
Originally Posted by highfarfast
(Post 3634215)
Things cancelling for whatever reason bothers me way less than forcibly removing passengers (or denying boarding of passengers) due to oversale/weight restriction/seat inop/etc with a voucher, with an expiration date no less.
Auction up the space if it’s oversold to whoever will take the least, and pay cash. Actual cancellations? Seems too hard to track what is controllable vs uncontrollable. I’ve certainly seen an airline manipulate the details of the “why” to make it a weather delay/cancellation versus a maintenance delay/cancellation… if that’s how we’re defining controllable vs uncontrollable. Lastly, SWA cancelled flights for three days this winter and said it was due to snow in Denver (WX). So "controllable" cancellations are going to be a little harder to pin down. |
Good. Maybe now my airline will stop selling tickets for flights that we clearly don’t have the staffing for.
|
Originally Posted by nene
(Post 3634315)
This is literally the way DAL has been operating for last few years, they "bid" off extra pax in the form of an AMEX gift card good as cash for wherever amex is accepted. This winter alone I saw a family of 6 get "bought" off an oversold ATL-EGE flight with a guarantee for the next day to the tune of over $24K ($4K per ticket). That was for what they said was about $3K in tickets originally.
Lastly, SWA cancelled flights for three days this winter and said it was due to snow in Denver (WX). So "controllable" cancellations are going to be a little harder to pin down. see to me having aircraft out of position because you had poor planning and poor operation are controllable. Shouldnt call is wx and uncontrollable if 4 days ago a storm caused cancellations and every aircraft and crew are out of position. Only call it uncontrollable if the direct inbound is delayed due to wx your departure city/enroute/arrival has wx causing a ground stop. also delays triggering compensation should have a time on them such as over 4 hrs or something higher. A 1 hr delay shouldn’t trigger anything. It should be significant delays |
Originally Posted by Gspeed
(Post 3634334)
Good. Maybe now my airline will stop selling tickets for flights that we clearly don’t have the staffing for.
|
Originally Posted by three1five
(Post 3634402)
at some point here (probably already happening) people are going to have to decide between buying food and buying airplane tickets. “Well meaning” policies like this have a real risk of not accomplishing anything actually meaningful for disrupted pax, but being very expensive with detrimental secondary impacts to employee groups.
|
Dear Leader is protecting us from greedy corporations yet again. Rejoice comrades.
Regulation Nation is here. |
Originally Posted by Justabusdriver1
(Post 3634171)
This is something I can absolutely get behind under certain circumstance listed below. Seeing some of the meltdowns at my airline even though weather related and dumping pax on the street to fend for themselves is atrocious. Some airlines do a decent job of accommodating while others take advantage of the lax rules to avoid costs. Too much have certain airlines had a poor operation as a cost saving measure and at the expense of pax. If airlines want to save money by not investing in and having a good operation it should cost them.
1 controllable delays or cancellations are specifically defined and specifically does not include weather or maintenance related, acts of nature and safety reasons 2 it becomes a crime to falsely label a controllable delay as uncontrollable to avoid compensation. 3 the compensations are just and and nonpunitive |
Originally Posted by Gspeed
(Post 3634334)
Good. Maybe now my airline will stop selling tickets for flights that we clearly don’t have the staffing for.
|
Originally Posted by Hotel Kilo
(Post 3634481)
Telling me you never read the fine print on the issued ticket. It's all there in black and white, albeit at pico-font. The ignorance here is on pax who fail to know the terms of conveyance. Perhaps the government should provide some education on that versus placing undo cost burden on airlines. But that would take away a talking point. Most delays (the government keeps stats on that stuff, its easily located at DoT) are due to weather events (acts of God) and/or ATC flow controls. Maintenance issues are usually handled pretty well by most carriers. This is nothing more than government interjecting itself into private business which usually ends up being catastrophic. Really bad idea.
|
Originally Posted by GogglesPisano
(Post 3634427)
Dear Leader is protecting us from greedy corporations yet again. Rejoice comrades.
Regulation Nation is here. |
It's a great move if the DOT is also put under the gun to improve ATC infrastructure.
|
Originally Posted by Gspeed
(Post 3634495)
Desantis thinks it’s a pretty nifty idea down in #floridaman country.
Name 1 policy. I'll start: Disney can no longer self-govern its land and properties to the extent that they were. They have to now actually follow State rules as it pertains to building codes and other benefits they had. Those benefits gave them a distinct advantage over the other recreational businesses in FL. (and there are many) And we like our grade schoolers to learn Math, English and the Sciences vs. having a green haired goblin dedicate class time to pronouns and telling impressionable kids they can choose and change they'll gender at will. Do you know how easy it is to infiltrate the mind of a child. I could have one of my kids in surgery within a month if I so choose. Kids can be persuaded to do and think anything. (Except hopefully mine, mine shoot guns and know boys have a penis and girls have a vagina) Interesting, Desantis went on local FL television and started reading one of the "banned books". Gender Queer, written by someone who looks like a mix of a boy and a girl. Local news had to cut the live feed for the inappropriate language and pictures in the book that they all thought should be ok for kids. We also liked not having to wear masks, oh the horror. |
Originally Posted by Gspeed
(Post 3634496)
I too prefer the 2008 style of unregulated catastrophe. The weak and poor get what they deserve, amirite?
|
Originally Posted by Gspeed
(Post 3634496)
I too prefer the 2008 style of unregulated catastrophe. The weak and poor get what they deserve, amirite?
2008 happened because of faulty loans and a faulty credit rating agency that was allowed to capitalize on whatever credit score they chose to dole out for a new financial instrument called a credit default swap. (often AAA scores for property bundles that had some good loans and a bunch of over extended terrible loans) Anyone who was dumb enough to take out a loan for $800k in CA and then put in a pool with their equity gains that happened a month after they bought on a 5/1 arm, all the while earning $50k as a tire service center employee, yeah pretty much should have to accept the consequences without the more intelligent purchasers bailing them out. I know I was taught about financials in school, as well as to not do drugs. Not my fault if others didn't listen. A-B=C A is your income, B are your expenses C is what's left over and that has to be positive to survive. It doesn't get much simpler than that. |
Originally Posted by Gspeed
(Post 3634496)
I too prefer the 2008 style of unregulated catastrophe. The weak and poor get what they deserve, amirite?
This will just negatively effect middle and upper class travelers trying to go to Orlando in the name of equity. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3634419)
Well they're winding down Spirit.
Because of up coming merger? I havent been following that lately |
Originally Posted by Rhdicjkwso
(Post 3634612)
Forcing airlines to pay out when things go wrong isn’t remotely comparable to a global financial crisis.
This will just negatively affect middle and upper class travelers trying to go to Orlando in the name of equity. Most here would’ve been dead long ago without them. |
Originally Posted by Gspeed
(Post 3634637)
It was aimed at his ridiculous insinuation about regulations being bad. It’s super ironic when I hear an airline pilot make a comment like that while they then go takeoff in an airplane with near-guaranteed performance requirements and capabilities due to……regulations.
Most here would’ve been dead long ago without them. |
Originally Posted by Bestglide
(Post 3634642)
Apples to Oranges my lefty friend…huge differences here….
|
Originally Posted by Gspeed
(Post 3634637)
It was aimed at his ridiculous insinuation about regulations being bad. It’s super ironic when I hear an airline pilot make a comment like that while they then go takeoff in an airplane with near-guaranteed performance requirements and capabilities due to……regulations.
Most here would’ve been dead long ago without them. |
Originally Posted by Rhdicjkwso
(Post 3634654)
We all agree there needs to be regulations that’s not what we are talking about. Needless and excessive regulations on the other hand….
The axe in the cockpit yet still having to get "randomed" 8 outta 10 times.. comes to mind. Unless the point of security is to prevent drug trafficking, which last I checked wasn't what TSA was for. |
Originally Posted by Gspeed
(Post 3634644)
Not at all, my friend. A lack of guardrails (regulations) helped to create the 2008 meltdown. Implying that regulations are inherently bad, a misguided right wing talking point, is dumb. My friend.
|
Originally Posted by Gspeed
(Post 3634496)
I too prefer the 2008 style of unregulated catastrophe. The weak and poor get what they deserve, amirite?
|
I like it.
I’m tired of apologizing to pax for preventable poor performance, it’s embarrassing. Also, the regulations as proposed seem very fair. AND this is a NPRM, so an actual reg is easily many months away. There’s plenty of time for management to fix ops to prevent gross delays. Doesn’t seem like a tall order the week after everyone reported very strong Q1 demand. Selfishly, it would quite possibly make my life better, I’m also sick of hours long delays, reroutes, and minimum overnights. Seems to me that airline execs have made the implicit decision over the last year to not really care about customer satisfaction, because hey, where are they gonna go in this seat constrained environment? I know you guys care deeply about safety, competence, and being on-time. Wouldn’t it be great If management cared about the quality of their product too? Would be nice to have pride in my employer. |
Originally Posted by bay982
(Post 3634716)
I like it.
I’m tired of apologizing to pax for preventable poor performance, it’s embarrassing. Also, the regulations as proposed seem very fair. AND this is a NPRM, so an actual reg is easily many months away. There’s plenty of time for management to fix ops to prevent gross delays. Doesn’t seem like a tall order the week after everyone reported very strong Q1 demand. Selfishly, it would quite possibly make my life better, I’m also sick of hours long delays, reroutes, and minimum overnights. Seems to me that airline execs have made the implicit decision over the last year to not really care about customer satisfaction, because hey, where are they gonna go in this seat constrained environment? I know you guys care deeply about safety, competence, and being on-time. Wouldn’t it be great If management cared about the quality of their product too? Would be nice to have pride in my employer. |
Originally Posted by Rhdicjkwso
(Post 3634654)
We all agree there needs to be regulations that’s not what we are talking about. Needless and excessive regulations on the other hand….
Do you know how much MORE money our companies could pocket if they didn’t have to deal with all of these excessive regulations? 10 hours minimum rest? 1500 hours to get an ATP? Forced retirement at 65? The government should butt out and let the industry set the bar. I’m sure it will all be okey-dokey. :rolleyes:
Originally Posted by Grumpyaviator
(Post 3634748)
These regulations are nothing more than an attempt to find something that appeals to voters because they’ve failed at everything else. This will be a big backfire also with lots of loopholes for airlines.
|
Originally Posted by Gspeed
(Post 3634757)
Again, irony.
Do you know how much MORE money our companies could pocket if they didn’t have to deal with all of these excessive regulations? 10 hours minimum rest? 1500 hours to get an ATP? Forced retirement at 65? The government should butt out and let the industry set the bar. I’m sure it will all be okey-dokey. :rolleyes: I see. |
Originally Posted by highfarfast
(Post 3634769)
So you’re saying it has to be either ALL regulations are good or NO regulations are good. There is no middle ground.
I see. |
Originally Posted by Gspeed
(Post 3634774)
No, I'm making fun of the people who appear to believe that. Keep up.
|
Originally Posted by Gspeed
(Post 3634644)
Not at all, my friend. A lack of guardrails (regulations) helped to create the 2008 meltdown. Implying that regulations are inherently bad, a misguided right wing talking point, is dumb. My friend.
|
As others have said, there is room for some sensible regulation on this topic, but dollars to doughnuts this administration will majorly overreach. No one in DC ever seems to mention that one big reason for increased flight cancellations is the Tarmac Delay Program penalties Congress saddled the airlines with last time they decided to 'help' the hapless air traveler through regulation (Passenger Bill of Rights, anyone?) :rolleyes:
|
Originally Posted by Gspeed
(Post 3634496)
I too prefer the 2008 style of unregulated catastrophe. The weak and poor get what they deserve, amirite?
Ignorance is a sin. 2008 was caused by too much gov interference. We shouldn't have bailed anyone out. But I guess some people need daddy gov to govern them harder. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:33 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands