I feel comfortable declaring unequivocally that flight is broken. It got so bad that I started rating airlines on a curve. Like someone who went on a string of terrible dates where their subpar suitor ended up looking like Ryan Gosling.
Only a week’s delay in picking up the suitcase you left filled with your favorite clothes that went MIA on your way back from Houston? A big sigh of relief. Would he pay $75 for a “premium” seat on a cross-country flight with just an inch of extra legroom? Feeling like a rock star.
Almost unacceptable about the modern flying experience. But surely, somewhere between my Stockholm Syndrome and the misplaced anger that other passengers direct toward flight attendants, there is a rational reaction to the inconvenience, discomfort, and occasional danger of flying on a commercial aircraft. Exists.
That’s where Ganesh Sitharaman, professor at Vanderbilt University School of Law and author of “Why Flying Is Disastrous: And How to Fix It,” comes in. I cornered him on a recent evening in Washington, D.C., and asked him if he really thought so. There is a way to end our misery. It’s not just about paying higher prices.
His answer: “It’s not about what more you can do to survive the flying experience.” Ask the country’s airline for more information.
Sitharaman points out that the U.S. aviation industry received more than $50 billion in government relief during the pandemic because it provides an essential service. However, policymakers are not demanding that Americans be adequately served. He argues that the core of the dysfunction lies in the fact that we treat airplanes like luxuries instead of what they really are.
Before the current era of deregulation that began in the late 1970s, the Federal Civil Aviation Commission set more uniform standards for airline prices and routes, airlines competed on service, and piano bars and They were creating frivolous services such as free round trips to Chivas Regal by bus. . Sitharaman said we will never go back to those days, partly because of high prices. But he believes airlines should be forced to set consistent fares based on the distance traveled, rather than when the ticket was booked. This is similar to how subway fares remain the same regardless of when you purchase them. So whether you bought a ticket due to a last-minute family health emergency or booked months in advance to attend a conference, it takes a long time to catch a nonstop flight from New York to Kansas City. The cost should be the same.
In a new report co-authored with Bill McGee, a former Federal Aviation Administration flight manager and consumer advocate, Sitharaman argues that hubs such as Dallas, Chicago and Atlanta are dominated by one airline. They argue that this should not be allowed, and believe that this will lead to the following problems. Greater competitiveness and resilience. If one airline suffers a software glitch, connecting flights across the city don’t have to be canceled.
They also said that airlines should be asked to return to the practice of honoring passengers’ tickets on other airlines’ flights in the event of canceled or missed connections, and that getting passengers to their destination is their top priority. It is claimed that
Airlines industry leaders often defend the status quo by arguing that the free market produces the best conditions and lowest fares for passengers. However, a truly competitive air travel market has not emerged since deregulation due to high barriers to establishing airlines and achieving economies of scale. Instead, we have seen decades of bankruptcies, consolidation, and fewer and fewer options for reaching America’s small cities.
That’s why I generally agree with Sitharaman and McGee’s policy prescriptions and their view that air travel should be treated more like a public utility. But I’m more skeptical than they are about how the new regulatory landscape will affect ticket affordability.
Sitharaman argues that discouraging airline co-ownership (shareholders investing in multiple competing airlines) could help promote competitive pricing. But without a cap on fares, it could become even more financially difficult for airlines to operate, and it’s hard to imagine how airlines could avoid passing on the costs of new regulatory compliance to consumers. difficult.
The proposals put forward by Sitharaman and McGee are also unlikely to solve the problems of crew shortages, weather cancellations, long security lines, manufacturing errors (dropped doors, anyone?) and other air travel woes. But the most valuable thing about them is that they revive public debate about aviation policy. Even if it doesn’t result in a complete overhaul of the industry, there are narrow but important ways governments can improve air travel.
For example, the FAA or Congress could set a minimum size for legroom for economy class travel, which has shrunk over time. The FAA conducted a public comment period on the topic in 2022, but was unable to regulate seat size or pitch (the distance between the seatback and the seat behind it).
I wholeheartedly agree with Sitharaman that if the country finally invested in high-speed rail (though it may be a political pipe dream) and eased the burden on airports for short trips etc., flights would be much better. This is his suggestion that it will happen. It’s the one I often use between DC and Boston. If he could travel that route by train in less than 7 hours and at a reasonable price, I’d definitely choose it over maneuvering through an airport, which feels like a drill for a zombie apocalypse. .
But U.S. rail travel, run by Amtrak as a government agency, suffers from a different kind of dysfunction and has never enjoyed the same level of public investment as sophisticated rail systems in other countries. Riding the fast, long-distance, and punctual trains in Europe and Japan, while admittedly geographically smaller than this country, shows the political will to get the good stuff in America. I wonder if we can still come together.
McGee, who has spent 40 years working to reform the airline industry, is more of an optimist than I am on this point. He believes American passenger dissatisfaction with air travel has reached a boiling point. “I think the zeitgeist is in our favor,” he told me. “People are finally getting really pissed.”
surely. The question is whether Americans will take our high-altitude anger to the ground and demand more from our airlines and political leaders. First, please consider this my official appeal.