Is it time for the government to regulate airlines’ rising passenger fees and cramped seating? (Image: Jim Glab)
When Congress passed the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, the idea was that except for matters of safety, airlines should be free to set their own pricing and service standards without government interference, and let the free market sort things out. But this week some legislators are responding to a growing chorus of consumer outrage by suggesting it might be time for government to stop a heavily consolidated airline industry from abusing passengers by slapping them with ever-higher fees and ever-shrinking personal space.
Congress this month is expected to act on a reauthorization bill for the Federal Aviation Administration, and some Senators are trying to use that as a vehicle for change, introducing amendments to protect consumers from further airline abuse.
First, Democratic Senators Richard Blumenthal (Conn.) and Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) introduced an amendment that would require the FAA to set minimum measurements for airline seating and seat pitch. Blumenthal said the “incredible shrinking airline seat” could pose “a serious threat to the health and safety of passengers,” not only from the dangers of things like blood clots forming in their legs, but also by inhibiting speedy exits in case of emergencies.
That was followed by Blumenthal and Sen. Edward Markey (D.-Mass.) proposing a bill that would bar airlines from assessing passenger fees that are “not reasonable or proportional to the cost of the service.” They cited the growing number and rising levels of “ancillary fees” that have sprung up in recent years, for things like checked bags, itinerary changes and many other amenities and services. The bill’s proposal would be similar in concept to last year’s order from the Transportation Department that airlines assessing fuel surcharges must show a direct relationship between those fee levels and the cost of fuel.
Of course, the airlines are screaming bloody murder about the prospect of any new regulations like the ones above, arguing that they would simply raise the cost of air travel and make it unaffordable for many people.
But consumer groups contend that in order for competition to act as an effective regulator of the airlines, there must be enough competitors to make it work – and that might not be the case following the industry’s rapid consolidation in recent years.
TravelSkills POLL
Loading ...Please click the clear-looking or “vote” button
NOTE: Be sure to click here to see all recent TravelSkills posts about: Should I tip my Uber driver? + Boeing 747 nearing its end? + Bargain hunters travel guide for 2016 + World’s best airline lounge? + Fares to Europe tumble
Do you follow us on Twitter? It’s a great way to keep up with the latest news!
Please join the 125,000+ people who read TravelSkills every month! Sign up here for one email-per-day updates!
If only the government would convene a committee made up of 12 frequent travellers, we could work out guidelines for fees and personal space in a weekend. And we’d all do it for free. This is such a simple problem with a simple solution.
But this country will stagger along doing little until a big plane goes down and 90% of the passengers are incinerated because they can’t evacuate. Such a shame that we have no true leaders.
I’m not sure I agree with the number of carriers available now compared to pre-deregulation but I’m not 100% sure. Internationally there are definitely more for sure. I agree with everything else spot on.
It all depends on if people are getting sick on long haul flights because of the cramped seats.
I know that a lot of people between 50 to 70 tend to have blood flow problems on long flights, the more cramped the seat the worst it is.
We have just reached the point that we have to really make up our minds on seats, do we pay for first/Business Class on long flights or even pay for economy plus?
Regular coach is not very nice.
But the question is, do we have the government step in?? I say no, I say that people will have to make up there minds with their wallets. If they have a choice on United in ten across or Hawaiian air with nine across, that’s easy.
I think the airlines are really making the choice easy. A couple of years ago I would never fly anything but United because of frequent flyer miles. But it’s now so hard to accumulate mileage that there is no more loyality.
Out of disrespect to United, if the fare is the same on United and Southwest, Jet Blue or Virgin, I am now flying those others. Screw giving money to United anymore, they aren’t being very loyal to us, they are just loyal to the bottom line.
Guarantee the people who voted for free market are those that work in
the industry or have a very in-depth understanding of how it works. Once
you have that understanding, you wouldn’t vote to be in favor of any
legislation that isn’t safety or security related.
Let’s first let the government work on the huge delays at security and customs and then they can regulate the airlines. Typical government – their own portion of the experience is the worst and they want to regulate everyone else…
Depending on your point of reference, there’s more competition now than there was before the industry was deregulated in 1978, when fares and the routes airlines were allowed to fly were both highly regulated. With the exception of the 777, seat widths haven’t changed because it’s not possible to squeeze an extra seat across in any of the existing airplanes. Seat pitch can be shorter, but on the other hand customers have more choices than they used to, with some airlines offering four different options on many of their flights.
The real problem is that many customers want champagne service but all they’re willing to pay for is beer. Yes, the airlines are making tons of money right now but until a few years ago, the entire industry had run at a cumulative loss, and that isn’t sustainable.
If customers were happy with the industry structure before it was deregulated, Congress can always bring that back, but customers should be careful what they ask for.
I don’t think seat size should be regulated, with a caveat: airlines should be forced to be extremely transparent about it. If they want to sell 29″ of seat pitch, that’s fine as long as the buyer knows exactly what they’re buying. Width needs to be listed too. This might mean that fare data would need to be published in a highly uniform way to include aircraft info, so that Kayak and Hipmunk can show little bar charts on seat size next to your search results. (The problem with this plan is when airlines switch out the aircraft anytime after having sold some of the seats, which happens reasonably often.)
I feel the same way about change fees; usually airline sites make a distinction between ‘cheap’ vs. ‘flexible’ fares, but they don’t make clear just how draconian the change rules are. To get that info, you have to read through lengthy nonsense.
The ‘invisible hand’ referred to in the poll works only when both sides of the market have ‘perfect information’ – this is microeconomics 101. Too many airfare buyers use only price and number of stops when making their decision; people who aren’t frequent fliers have no idea of the differences between the airlines, and don’t know any better than to fly Spirit. I believe we should at least TRY having better information – which is basically free – before adding regulations that will likely raise airfares.
A reservations agent told me recently that one reason international one-way fares are so high, is that passengers without round trip tickets are way more likely to be denied entry to their destination country. Then the airline that brought them is on the hook to bring them back. Sounds plausible. All the airlines are selling combinable one-way fares domestically, with the exception of stuff like Hawaii.
Well… the great invisible hand can only work its wonders when there is free and fair competition. What George Will once described as the “inelastic supply of airports” in the U.S. has really distorted the economics of air travel in this country. If new airlines could enter the market as easily as hair stylists or plumbers, then maybe that invisible hand might start widening some seats on airplanes. Until then, passengers are at the mercy of the airlines, so government regulation seems reasonable to me.
My biggest gripe isn’t with seats, it’s with one-way fares. It would be nice if the government forced airlines to sell only one-way tickets, which passengers could combine in any way for round-trip travel. Some airlines, like Southwest, are already pretty enlightened about this, but try to get a cheap one-way flight between North America and Europe. They’re usually far more than half the price of a round-trip fare.
And I do think that the smaller seats are a safety hazard. I was reading a review of one airline’s new premium economy seats. When the seats are fully reclined (as they are on red-eye flights) it is actually almost impossible to climb out of a window seat unless you raise the arm rests and slide out while holding your breath. C’est horrible!