Rarely do we hear stories anymore about planes waiting hours for
take-off with irritable passengers complaining of steamy cabins,
no food, no water and overflowing toilets.
Now, you’re more likely to hear passengers grumbling about canceled flights to weddings, key business meetings and pivotal sporting events — an obstacle not easily overcome when airlines run fewer and fuller flights.
A surge in flight cancellations — in Kansas City and nationally — is casting doubt on the value of a new federal rule promising to come down hard on airlines that leave passengers stranded on the tarmac for more than three hours.
Now, you’re more likely to hear passengers grumbling about canceled flights to weddings, key business meetings and pivotal sporting events — an obstacle not easily overcome when airlines run fewer and fuller flights.
A surge in flight cancellations — in Kansas City and nationally — is casting doubt on the value of a new federal rule promising to come down hard on airlines that leave passengers stranded on the tarmac for more than three hours.
Critics
of the rule — backed up by a new federal audit — say it’s causing
thousands of passengers to miss flights canceled by nervous
airlines that don’t want to pay the $27,500-per-passenger fine for
violating the time limit on the tarmac.
“It was plain and clear what was going to happen,” said Joshua Marks, an aviation industry consultant. “There are millions of passengers impacted by cancellations that you likely would not have seen canceled prior to the rule.”
The bad publicity also is causing consumer advocates to get anxious about the rule’s future should a new president be elected in 2012. They dispute whether the rule has led to more canceled flights.
Kate Hanni, a consumer rights advocate for
“It was plain and clear what was going to happen,” said Joshua Marks, an aviation industry consultant. “There are millions of passengers impacted by cancellations that you likely would not have seen canceled prior to the rule.”
The bad publicity also is causing consumer advocates to get anxious about the rule’s future should a new president be elected in 2012. They dispute whether the rule has led to more canceled flights.
Kate Hanni, a consumer rights advocate for
airline
passengers, said cancellations change wildly from year to year and
most are caused by bad weather, a point echoed to an extent by some
airlines. She questioned the audit’s conclusions.
“There’s no easy way to quantify the number of flights canceled because of the tarmac-delay rule,” she said.The tarmac rule was imposed at the end of April 2010 after the federal government became fed up with the growing number of lengthy delays.
While the new rule has nearly eliminated tarmac delays of three hours or more, a recent audit by the Government Accountability Office concludes that it appears to be associated with an increased number of cancellations — far more than initially predicted.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق