The shame of the airline industry continues with yet another money grab.

The airlines are now pushing a separate $59 fee for aisle and window seats, forcing poorer families to be separated to middle seats throughout the planes.

This blatant appeal to the affluent, this slap in the face to the less fortunate, was criticized by Sen. Charles Schumer of New York on Sunday. Good for Schumer, a family man who can see the injustice of this latest fee.

Admittedly, the airlines are coping with the cost of fuel. But their response has been to give up all amenities. Many of my friends are turned off by flying, saying, “It’s nothing like it used to be.”

Unable to balance their budgets, the CEOs – with their gigantic salaries and payoffs when they fail – have come up with a system of fees.

This same class of lavishly-rewarded CEOs -- in the banking industry -- has come up with unadvertised $25 fees for services that had previously been part of banking. This is why I do not fret about Jamie Dimon’s little multi-billion-dollar shortfall at JP Morgan Chase. Dimon will keep his salary and his bonus and his pension when he finally goes – partially because you will be contributing hidden fees to his going-away present.

In fact, it is probably costing you a $25 banking fee just for having read the past paragraph.

Airlines have the fee disease, too. In recent years they got the smart idea of charging a $25 fee for each piece of checked luggage. This of course encourages passengers to carry their life belongings onto the plane.

I sympathize with people trying to save $25. But how much does it cost the airline in fuel and surcharges when the pilot misses his slot on the runway because somebody is still trying to cram a steamer trunk into a space designed to hold pillows?

Now the airlines are perpetuating class warfare by offering prime seats for $59 extra. The social implications are that a family of four may not have multiples of $59 to shell out for each good seat.

If the affluent can upgrade to aisle seats, airline agents are sure to cold-heartedly force families to split up on the flight. Children – and sometimes the elderly – need companionship even for an hour or two on shorter flights.

Goodness knows, a lot of people have $59 to spend for their comfort and status. But I say, let them stay in posh hotels and patronize chi-chi restaurants.

However, one thing might discourage the executives’ scheme to separate families. This possibility was pointed out by a lady with whom I travel on occasion: the yuppie in designer clothing who just paid $59 for an aisle seat gets to sit next to a squirming child  many rows away from family supervision.

Inconvenience – plus, let’s say, a bout of projectile vomiting -- could hamper corporate avarice more than corporate shame ever will.

Your comments on airline greed? 

 

 


Comments

05/28/2012 11:30am

Fly Southwest. They now get 100% of my business. Folks also act far less entitled when not given an assigned seat. Without fail I have seen people change seats to allow families sit next to one another, when asked. Besides they just treat you like a human being, and frankly I notice no difference in seat dimensions when compared to coach class of major airlines (better, in some cases.)

Reply
George Vecsey
05/28/2012 11:47am

Patrick, thanks. Now that I am flying on my own dime, I am going to have to get smarter. So you think the open seating brings out the humanity in people? Interesting experiment. GV

Reply
05/31/2012 5:46am

Nice blog giving information about the airlines,thanks for such a wonderful post.

Reply
07/18/2012 9:37am

Really shame on Airline Industry, how mean they are. They are seeing their own profit whether it is putting people in trouble. Thanks for posting this post which make readers aware from such selfish airline industries.

bruce picken
05/28/2012 12:02pm

george,

good to see you branching out from sports.

i normally fly air canada (or a star alliance partner like lufthansa or air new zealand). they have a policy of paying about $100 (i think it is) for a seat in the rows behind biz class; not sure if that's just for international travel. i'm an elite member based on flying more than 35,000 miles a year so i don't have to pay for that so called privilege.

the whole fuel surcharge is a rather large joke. the airlines can advertise a price, for example, $500 from toronto to tokyo. however, they'll add $650 as a fuel surcharge. pathetic.

air canada always bills themselves as the best airline in north america as mentioned in something or other. i've told them in my various conversations/emails that it's like being called the tallest person at a vertically challenged convention when you're comparing to american airlines. you're still short.

i was a travel writer in a previous life. this paying for tickets yourself really sucks, don't it? not to mention flying with the common folk, eh!

cheers,

bruce

Reply
Alan Rubin
05/28/2012 2:34pm

It is possible that the hub system is part of the problem. My most recent flight to Milwaukee, WI originated in Albany with a change in Philadelphia. How much fuel was wasted flying south on the way west? There are several major airports along the way.

The hub system also limits the number of non-stop flights.

Reply
05/28/2012 9:38pm

Executive greed is not confined to airlines. How about NY Times $24 million payout to Janet Robinson to prevent her from suing for wrongful dismissal? I'll bet they didn't offer you that kind of going away gift. Joe Hagan's NY Mag piece http://nymag.com/news/features/new-york-times-2012-6/ says a lot about how little journalism matters to the fortunate heirs and their minions.

Regarding airlines, I'm 6-3 and 69 years old. No matter how I book my ticket, I always seem to draw a middle seat, back of the plane. If it's a flight of three hours or more, I pay the premium for extra leg room. But I wouldn't if I knew I was keeping children and parents apart. Lawyers, banks and airlines: can't live with 'em, but can't live without 'em.

Reply
George Vecsey
05/29/2012 7:11pm

Joe, thanks for calling my attention to that article.
We all know the world is separated by money and power. I just think it's shabby and mean to scrounge for an extra few dollars and force families to sit apart. But the CEOs need their fortunes. That's why they're in it. GV

Reply
Ed
05/29/2012 5:09pm

Just crossed the Atlantic on a ship. Cost less than 100 a day per person. The food was wonderful and service excellent with waiters wanting to bring you another appetizer, etc. Room steward learned our names the first day.

We flew back. At 5'11 I did not have legroom. To watch the video/movie was $8. Flying part of the journey in the US bags were $25 each if checked and food on th,e 3-4 h,our flight was for sale, neither good nor cheap.
Only Jet Blue gets kudos for Leg room and snacks and they sell more leg room, not necessary for me for $20-40. Hotels even at four times the price can not touch ship' service and not the extra cost lines are my example.




Reply
George Vecsey
05/29/2012 7:15pm

Ed, never took a cruise -- longest was an overnight horror from one Greek island to another, everybody smoking.
My wife says it would be cheaper to sail around the world perpetually than to buy a retirement condo.
GV

Reply
Brian Savin
05/29/2012 9:41pm

Corporatism is no different in airlines than in any other concentrated industry that lacks free market characteristics, and all of them have gone virtually unregulated by the last administrations of both parties (vertically integrated oil, pharmaceuticals, insurance, financial institutions, autos, health care and hospital mergers, integrated telecom carriers, and on and on, are all similar). To progressive thinkers, the current Administration is perhaps the most disappointing and very possibly most damage inflicting of all. The only thing different about air travel from all of these other sectors is the interesting history of air travel's industry structure and how it came about from the very beginning.

During WWI, popular literature and news commentary touted the allied superiority in air warfare, the so-called glorious air dog fights, the defeat of the Red Baron, and on and on. It was generally billed as the tide turning element, albeit doubtful upon study. After the Great War, the popular press fueled public imagination about the promised near future of air travel, viz., common man vehicular ownership and mass travel by small planes similar to the freedom being brought about by the automobile. It didn't turn out that way, however. Many small and a few large entrepreneurs were also attracted -- and therein lies the story!

A very small group of industrialists and financiers combined together with a plan. They "persuaded" the Congress to assert federal preemptive jurisdiction over the air in a way that handed them the future on a silver platter. Doing their bidding, the Congress mandated federal pilot licensing, took over standards for training, and effected a regulatory scheme that carefully controlled airplane design "safety" and the building of commercially significant airports. The scheme was effective in its preemptive intent.

The only popular literature even hinting at this history (at least that I have ever seen) is contained in the fairly recent movie of about the life of Mr. Hughes depicted in "The Aviator." There was a fair amount of time devoted to the Congressional hearings that put the scheme in place. I once had the chance to ask the lead producer of that film why, but it was going to be my next question and I never got to ask it.

The concentrated nature of the the industry, it's mostly lock step cumulative assaults on consumers, and its minimalistic competitive innovations -- limited to a very few and occasional new entrant upstarts -- plagues us to this day.

Reply
05/30/2012 10:09am

It seems to me the root of the problem is a lack of real competition in the industry in this country. The airlines have (almost)all winked at each other and agreed to collaboratekeep revenues as high as possible(and isn't that against the law?). But it's not just the traveling public getting hosed here, but also airline employees who, in many cases, agreed to "givebacks" and reductions in wages and benefits when the airlines were threatening to go bankrupt or out of business entirely. Then declaring bankruptcy became the strategy of choice for shedding obligations and bringing reluctant unions to heel. Where are the government watchdogs in all this? I thought they were supposed to protect the public from price-fixing and unfair competition. It used to be that the USA was the place you could fly at reasonable prices but those days are over. In the meantime there has been an explosion of small, low-cost carriers within Europe, where air travel used to be prohibitively expensive. If it can work there, why not here? In the meantime, if I can drive to my destination in a reasonable amount of time, I do so. It's usually more fun and generally costs less too.

Reply
George Vecsey
05/30/2012 10:27am

Every few years another airline makes a claim on our heart. I still miss Laker airlines, cheap and easy and friendly from NY. Jetblue from JFK to Seattle was amazing when the Mariners were in the post-season. Now people tell me about Southwest. But it seems all these perky and reasonable airlines get big -- and start sticking us with fees and higher prices.
As for driving, we now have to stop and consider the price of gas -- the real world intruding on us. But John is right. The airlines and the TSA make driving seem like a better alternative. GV

Reply
Alan Rubin
05/30/2012 10:40am

Congress's sellout to the auto industry, which began under the Eisenhower Administration with the creation of our interstate highway system, came at the expense of developing a vibrant national railway system.

One typical example was when the Long Island Expressway (LIE) was under construction. Robert Moses's engineers recommended that two center lanes be reinforced to support light commuter rail service at the cost of $10 M, not much considering the total cost of the project. He rejected it with the same disdain that went into his requirement that the bridges on the parkways going out to Long Island be low enough so that church buses could not pass under them.

Initially, the George Washington Bridge also contained two center lanes to be used for the future expansion of the NY subway system. Imagine how much auto traffic would have been eliminated if both plans had been utilized for commuter transit. The might have actually been linked.

Airlines benefit from the lack of a viable national railroad system, particularly in their short and medium flights. A high speed commuter rail system between Washington and Boston would offer significant competition to them, which is needed.

Reply
George Vecsey
05/30/2012 11:58am

Alan, Americans hate rail service as a communist plot. The disgrace of Amtrak is proof. GV

Reply
Alan Rubin
05/30/2012 5:20pm

I commuted an hour each way from Suffern, NY to the Upper West Side for 24 years. It was double that by either train to Hoboken or by bus to the PA. It made for too long a day, considering that I worked retail, so I abandoned my car when my wife was also going to be in the city. However, I could read, sleep or just relax and not worry about the traffic. The train was a litter longer, but the bus was also susceptible to traffic.

Communist plot or not, if the service was good enough--people will come.

bruce picken
05/30/2012 1:22pm

george,

anybody who's travelled amtrak or via in canada after using the shinkansen in japan or TGV in france should pray for communist plots......

Reply
05/31/2012 12:05am

One of the best things about the 2006 World Cup in Germany was being able to travel everywhere on the wonderful German train system. I didn't fly once. Of course, the fact that we could ride the train for free didn't hurt either. But I would have trained it even if I had to pay.

Reply
Hansen Alexander
05/31/2012 10:50am

George,
The dirty secret of the airlines business is that they have never really made profits, it has all been on paper with accounting. That is why they, like banks, are going the way of fees---for luggage, for legroom, that they can count on. Essentially the entire aviation industry has been subsidized by the taxpayer from the cost of the runway to the tax writeoff for costs and expenses. It has never been a cost effective or comfortable way to travel, absent first class. A regional system of super trains, with the track built by the government, would be more cost effective and vastly more comfortable in the long run. And you would not need 2 hours to take the subway back to Manhattan after a journey to JFK. What prevents sanity is the Congress where representatives literally pick routes convenient for them to get home in exchange for supporting this wasteful arrrangement.

Reply
George Vecsey
05/31/2012 11:47am

John, you recall the extra trains in Germany, overnight -- and our media passes got us into the club lounge in stations where they had good, free coffee. But the reason they could provide amazing service during the World Cup was because they had a superb system in place. Of course, the relative size of countries makes a great system possible.
Hansen, with your West Virginia ties, you know about the crack train that used to stop in Almost Heaven at convenient hours direct to DC., Oh, because Jennings Randolph was in Congress?
Generally, railroads (and soccer) remind Americans of Europe (and Asia,) and that makes many Americans nervous. GV

Reply
Hansen Alexander
06/01/2012 7:59am

George, My wife did tell me about the story of Almost Heaven and those West Virginia pols who know how to take care of their state. You know, I never heard an American complain about a cheaper medical prescription, a pleasant train trip through the Alps, or the French outside of an ideological debate. As I like to say, we Americans hate Europe and Canada so much for their socialist ways that we can't wait to retire there.

Alan Rubin
05/31/2012 11:57am

Hansen,

Although it will never happen in my lifetime, an efficient regional system of super trains as you suggest could possibly help the airlines in the long run. They could substantially reduce their short flights and concentrate on the longer ones. An increase in the number of non-stop flights would also be possible.

Innovation occurs whenever there is serious competition, which is what is needed.

I'm envious of you world travelers discussing the merits of traveling from city to city watching the World Cup. My experience was limited to Suffern-Hoboken and an occasional NYC-Washington runs.

Reply
George Vecsey
05/31/2012 8:12pm

Alan, you're right. Plenty of flights within Europe. But downtown to downtown by train is the way to go.
I think I recall a hot meal served on the Eurostar -- no fee.

As for the experiences, I have covered 8 world cups -- so far -- four of them significantly by train -- 90 in Italy, 98 in France, 02 in Korea and Japan, and 06 in Germany.
Special trains overnight -- arriving in Seoul or Berlin at dawn. So civil. And enabling reporters to get to great matches every day.
Wonder what Brazil will be like. GV

Hansen Alexander
06/01/2012 7:53am

Alan,
You may be right. The one real improvement in the entire aviation industry in a generation is more fuel efficient planes. Maybe the airlines should stick to long haul flights. The hub and spoke system allows them to concentrate loads in particular markets and save money but it is very inconvenient and time consuming for us passengers. And of course, the more legs you have to fly in a plane trip the more possibility of mechanical failures and other delays.My wife and I flew Newark to Boise and back last summer, six legs because of the connections, and all six flights were delayed by one problem or another.




Leave a Reply