Ever wished there was a law that forces airlines to disclose all extras on their tickets? Right up front. While you’re shopping for flights.
Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) apparent does, so he’s proposed bill that would do just that. The Clear Airfares Act of 2009 would ensure that before passengers are required to submit personal or payment information, they’re given a full and clear breakdown of their airfare, as well as any other possible fees that might be incurred on the flight (such as baggage, meal and pet fees).
The proposal comes at a great time. This year, airlines have instituted a new holiday surcharge of as much as $50 per flight on the busiest travel days during the holiday season. For consumers, it requires clicking to peripheral Web pages and wading through often confusing text to understand whether or not their airfare includes these surcharges and what other taxes and fees may have been added, according to Menendez.
What’s more, he says, Americans deserve full disclosure when they buy an airline ticket.
For too long, it has been too difficult for airline passengers to figure out exactly what they are paying for when they buy a ticket.
Trying to navigate through the different components in your airfare is like an airline pilot trying to land a plane in a thunderstorm without electronic instruments or a map – it’s technically possible, but it sure isn’t easy.
What airline passengers deserve is something much simpler and clearer.
The legislation would require airlines or third-party Web sites to clearly and conspicuously disclose any fees, charges or surcharges, including holiday fees, for consumers to be able to clearly view before having to input their name and credit card information. This would include disclosure of possible fees that would be applied after the ticket is purchased. It would also limit airline fuel surcharges in a meaningful new way.
Here’s the proposed bill in its entirety:
A BILL
To amend chapter 417 of title 49, United States Code, to require air carriers and ticket agents to notify consumers of all taxes and fees applicable to airline tickets in a timely manner, to prohibit the imposition of fuel surcharges that do not correlate to the fuel costs incurred by air carriers, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Clear Airfares Act of 2009’’.
SEC. 2. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE SALE OF AIRLINE TICKETS; RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN FUEL SURCHARGES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 41712 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
(c) NOTICE OF TAXES AND FEES APPLICABLE TO TICKETS FOR AIR TRANSPORTATION.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—It shall be an unfair or deceptive practice under subsection (a) for an air carrier, foreign air carrier, or ticket agent to sell a ticket for air transportation unless the air carrier, foreign air carrier, or ticket agent, as the case may be—
(A) displays information with respect to the taxes and fees described in paragraph (2), including the amount and a description of each such tax or fee, simultaneously with and in reasonable proximity to the price listed for the ticket; and
(B) in the case of a ticket for air transportation sold on the Internet, provides to the purchaser of the ticket information with respect to the taxes and fees described in paragraph (2), including the amount and a description of each such tax or fee, before requiring the purchaser to provide any personal information, including the name, address, phone number, email address, or credit card information of the purchaser.
(2) TAXES AND FEES DESCRIBED.—The taxes and fees described in this paragraph are all taxes, fees, and charges applicable to a ticket for air transportation, including—
(A) all taxes, fees, charges, and surcharges included in the price paid by a purchaser for the ticket, including fuel surcharges and surcharges relating to peak or holiday travel; and
(B) any fees for checked baggage, seating assignments, and optional in-flight goods and services, and other fees that may be charged after the ticket is purchased.
(d) PROHIBITION ON FUEL SURCHARGES NOT CORRELATED TO COST.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—It shall be an unfair or deceptive practice under subsection (a) for an air carrier or foreign air carrier to impose a fuel surcharge with respect to a ticket for air transportation unless the amount of the fuel surcharge correlates to the amount paid by the air carrier for fuel and to the amount of fuel used by the air carrier to provide the purchaser with such air transportation.
(2) DETERMINATIONS OF CORRELATION.—The Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, shall prescribe standards to be used in determining under paragraph (1) whether a fuel surcharge imposed by an air carrier correlates to the amount paid by the air carrier for fuel and to the amount of fuel used by the air carrier to provide air transportation.
(b) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out subsections (c) and (d) of section 41712 of title 49, United States Code, as added by subsection (a) of this section.
I can’t see a “down” side for airline passengers to this proposed new rule.
(Photo: yushimoto_02/Flickr Creative Commons)
✓ Get the latest travel news, tips and commentary from Elliott’s E-Mail, the subversive newsletter from industry gadfly Christopher Elliott. You’ll travel like a pro. Sign up here. It’s free.
Sign up for my 
{ 53 comments… read them below or add one }
This is some of the best travel news I’ve heard in a while! The issue with hidden fees when searching for airline tickets has been a thorn in my side for a long time. It increases the search time exponentially, because you can’t just compare fares – you have to go through almost the entire purchase process before you can find out what the ticket is actually going to cost you. I have seen situations in which one web site shows a fare for several hundred dollars less than another…but once you get through all the steps, it turns out to be several hundred dollars MORE!
Kudos to Senator Menendez for introducing legislation that truly helps his constituents…and, in fact, the entire traveling public.
Thanks for sharing this, Christopher. I will be keeping my fingers crossed that it passes. Please keep us informed!
This is great news! I am one of those travelers that is tired of finding my ticket price doubled at checkout because of all the fees. I hope they take this seriously and kudos to the Senator for getting the ball rolling.
This should be great news, providing the airlines don’t simply decide to tack a fuel surcharge onto every single airfare based on distance (“Sorry, it’s automatic – 500 miles is $50, so say the Feds, nothing we can do about it.”). They might also attempt to attach a fuel surcharge to frequent flyer tickets.
It’s good that foreign carriers are included. Copa Airlines, which I use frequently to fly to Colombia, is particularly egregious.
For example: on a recent search from LAX to Medellin via Panama, there was no fuel surcharge. But if I had wanted to get off in Panama I’d pay a $240 fuel surcharge; or if I had originated in Medellin I’d pay a $227 surcharge. I understand charging different fares for different origins and different destinations, even if you’re flying the same planes on the same routes. But different fuel surcharges for the same actual flights exposes the lie.
And that’s what fuel surcharges are: a lie. Worse still, there’s no need to lie.
It is certainly about time that something like this was done! I’m happy to read that the Senator is taking this initiative – thank you, sir! It’s unfortunate that the consumer even needs a bill like this to get clear information from the airlines or agencies. Why do they have to be forced into doing something they could simply do on their own, something that is fair and the right thing to do? (That’s really just a rhetorical question.)
If a law is indeed required and this passes through all the requisite votes, I hope someone will make sure that the airlines will have the shortest time frame possible to put the new regulations in place. I don’t think they could gouge (sp?) the consumer as much as the credit card companies have tried during the time they had between passage of the CARD act and required compliance, but you never know.
Iam happy that some legislation has been proposed. Iam also cynical about the actual motives. Actually baggage charges, fuel charges etc. could be away for airlines to raise faresand not be taxed on that added revenue. I could be incorrect. However,that quite a bit of legislation that comes down the road is designed to benefit the corporation,non-profit .so callled charitable, and religious groups who provide substantial political contributions. Remember there is not one U.S. Senator who is not at least a millionaire.
Also remember that one of the most praised and almost worshiped politician who passed away had quite a bit of money stashed away in accounts in non taxable islands -thus avoiding US tax laws.
barbie45 – there you go, spouting your nonsensical drivel again! What does any of that have to do with the article? What does any of it even mean? I never cease to be amazed at the complete nonsense that comes spewing out of your keyboard.
You seem determined to comment on every single one of Mr. Elliott’s articles, whether you have anything to say or not. And most of the time, it’s “not.”
Most of what you wrote above can’t even be translated, and the rest of it is just plain absurd. For example, you wrote some hooey about how most legislation is “designed to benefit the corporation, non-profit…religious groups” etc. HUH? Can you point to a single aspect of this proposed legislation that in any way benefits a corporation, non-profit or religion?
And what in heck are you spouting off about, when you mentioned some dead politician who had money “stashed away in accounts in non-taxable islands?” What on earth does that have to do with THIS legislation, THIS Senator? How does that have anything to do with this article at all?
It doesn’t. You are just feeding your obsession with Mr. Elliott’s blog, posting whatever ludicrous mumbo-jumbo pops into your mostly-empty head. Please, spare us!
Barbie, if you have nothing of consequence to say, just be quiet. There’s an old saying: “Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.” You are the ultimate example of truth in this pithy quote. And every one of your inane comments just adds to your publish foolishness. STOP it already!
Actually, Senator Menendez comes from very humble beginnings. The son of Cuban immigrants, his father was an auto mechanic and his mother was a seamstress.
Gosh – doesn’t sound like he comes from a millionaire family to me. ;-)
Though he did become a private practice lawyer, and probably earned a decent amount of money doing that. His wife is a public school teacher, though, and we know they don’t make much.
Merlin:
Actually, I would not be so harsh on barbie45. I truly think she meant well – a certain amount of skepticism is healthy where politics is concerned. Unfortunately, she is correct in a certain context – some of our politicians have ulterior motives for what they do. However, I will agree that some of her remarks seem “misplaced” and not applicable in the overall context of this article.
Since there doesn’t seem to be any initial evidence that Senator Menendez has ulterior motives for proposing this legislation, I’m more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I hope this legislation works out with the good intent it seems to have, to the benefit of all air travelers.
Only issue I see is that it says “Clean Airfares Act” – how about making it more expansive, to also apply to price quotes of car rental companies, hotels, etc.? They’re also just as guilty of tacking on fees, without them being adequately declared. If the “Clean Airfares Act” could be expanded to include situations like that, it would also be very nice.
Still, this is a step in the right direction. Thank you, Senator Menendez!
Merlin, What exactly does your posting have to do with the proposed legislation if you are able to. Also deregulation of airlines was heavily supported if not iniated by a a certain dead or deceaced politicians.I believe this legislation is partially responsible for some complaints against airlines. I hope you can read and comprehend this posting.
@Jeanne – thanks for stepping in to defend Senator Menendez. He has been a champion of the common people, promoting balanced immigration policies and opposing hefty bonuses to corporate recipients of federal bailout funds. As a Cuban-American with working-class roots, he was the first Hispanic to hold a leadership poistion in Congress, and has provided important support to labor causes, environmental issues, and universal health care, while also becoming a leading voice on foreign policy issues.
I find it to be completely inappropriate, not to mention irresponsible, to brand him with unwarranted negativity that has nothing whatsoever to do with the senator himself. Just because some other (unnamed) politicians are in bed with corporate interests, and/or have shady personal finances, that does not give anyone the right to suggest that ALL American politicians are the same. One should always make ones own decision about our lawmakers based on their actual records…not some uneducated, malicious insinuations on an internet blog.
This proposed legislation is the first positive governmental action for the benefit of travelers that I have seen in a long time…at least, the first action that might actually have some beneficial results. And while I agree that it would be great to extend it to other aspects of travel, that might be biting off more than he can chew in one bill. There is already precedence for applying governmental restrictions on air fares; hotels and car rentals, not so much. BUT…if he is able to get this bill passed, it could open the door for future legislation that could take a swipe at such unethical pricing practices by other travel entities in the future. I’ll be watching this!
barbie45, I wish I could “comprehend” your posting…but sadly, it’s simply not humanly possible. It’s not written in any normal kind of usage of the English language. It’s written in some bizarre hybrid that confuses tenses and dangles participles. My wife is a former English teacher, and I must tell you, we roar with laughter over your postings. So even though they rarely have anything of value to say, they are at least good for our daily entertainment!
I find it hilarious that you asked ME what my posting had to so with the proposed legislation. It didn’t, because it was responding to YOUR posting, which also had zero to do with the proposed legislation. It was just your typical irrational sputum.
Can’t you find some other blog to defile? This one simply doesn’t suit you. Go read some articles on Yahoo news…they often have comments sections in which people with a similar command of the English language participate. I’m sure you’d feel much more at home there.
@barbie45 – will you ever stop contaminating these boards will your nonsensical, factless stupidity? I’m amazed that Chris still hasn’t shown some leadership like he does when representing consumers and ban you from leaving comments.
For your information (not that facts or information have any value to you), there are 6-7 Senators who are worth less than $100,000 (that’s one-hundred *thousand* dollars).
According to public records, more than 25% of all U.S. Senators have an estimated net worth of less than $1 million. Even our Vice-President has a net worth of less than $500,000! http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php?type=W&year=2008&filter=S&sort=A
As for the millionaires, that should be EXPECTED since many are older and have been saving for retirement their entire lives. Maybe you don’t understand responsible retirement planning, but if you haven’t banked at least $1 million by the time you’re in your 60s, you’d better hope you don’t live past your 70s!
And don’t whine that it’s difficult to accumulate that much money. All you need is time, compounding interest, and dollar-cost averaging. Invest $200 each month from age 22 to 64 at an average 9% return and you’ll be a millionaire too in your golden years too. http://www.wellsfargoadvantagefunds.com/wfweb/wf/education/tools/compound.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes
As for the actual topic of this column…while Menendez’s language does sound promising, you can’t count out the airline lobby’s ability to kill legislation, nor can you discount Congress’ ability to sabotage themselves if it’s even remotely possible to do so. Better hope Senator Lieberman is OK with this, or you can kiss the necessary 60-vote margin goodbye due to all the childish partisanship running rampant on Capitol Hill. Start writing to your Senators and Representative NOW!
@Merlin – You better watch out! I saw a typo in your post, and you-know-who loves to pounce on typos. ;-) You are a brave man! BAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
It is about the only bill he has proposed that I support.As a resident of Florida On the whole I am completely opposed.I have a right to be . He is unfortunately my senator also.
Sorry opposed to most of his votes period.
It might help if we contacted our Senators to support this bill. Google & email, takes about 5 minutes.
Chris, please ban barbie45. He/She/It really doesn’t contribute anything. (A male main character in Steven King’s new novel Under the Dome is called Barbie so who knows?)
@EricR & Dave – you’re right, we definitely should begin writing to our Senators to support the bill. I will do that today! Thanks for the reminder that we need to take an active role in our government if we want to effect change that will benefit us.
To all of you who are sick and tired of “barbie’s” useless comments: thanks for speaking up! I’m relieved to know that there are others who feel the same way, and are not afraid to stand up and say so.
@Christopher – you might want to give some serious thought to the suggestions of so many of your frequent contributors here, and ban barbie. This is an exceedingly high-quality blog, and the comments section is one of the most intelligent I’ve ever seen on the net. It’s usually a joy to participate in discussions with like-minded people who have similar interests, issues, and intellect. I often learn as much from the comments to your articles as I do from the articles themselves…or at the very least, I gain some food for thought to rethink my own opinions. That’s what a high-quality forum like this can do.
But then there’s barbie, who mucks it all up with her nonsensical comments. It’s clear to many of us that she is obsessed with you and your blog, and seems to feel a need to post something on every one of your articles, no matter how inane.
Fortunately she seems to have tamed her propensity for racist, anti-semitic comments. But I know of at least a couple readers who stopped posting in your comments section because of her. I have Jewish friends won’t even come to your site anymore, because of her horrific attacks on Jews.
You have a popular uprising here. Hint hint!
I’ll jump on the Ban Barbie Bandwagon! I think you all know MY vote. Oh, and my wife’s too. Although we’ll miss the nightly laugh-fest. But in all seriousness, is a laugh-fest really what Mr. Elliott wants his message forum to be?
@Merlin, @LeeAnne and others. HELP! I don’t know what to do about the Barbie situation. If I flip the switch and ban her, I’m creating a whole new set of problems. If I let her stay, I make the comments section uncomfortable for some of my readers.
Does anyone have any suggestions?
@Christopher – I feel your pain. But just remember that this is YOUR site, YOUR blog, YOUR forum. And YOUR reputation. I recall in some article, you mentioned that you’d been noticed as having one of the most intelligent comments forums on the net. It’s up to you if you want to keep it that way.
You have a faithful following of frequent travelers who know that this is a place where we can keep up with what’s going on in the travel industry, written in an accessible and always entertaining style. Your website tends to draw bright, thinking people who are both travel-savvy and web-savvy. It’s a joy to be able to come here and converse with similar people with similar concerns, issues, and experiences. We don’t always agree with each other, but we always learn something from each other.
Every now and then some anonymous bozo will post something bizarre…but usually that person doesn’t come back, and we just ignore it and move on with the real discussion.
But then there’s barbie. For some reason she has zeroed in on your forum. Maybe she thinks you’re cute, who knows? ;-) And I will say that ever since she got called out on her insults, racism and anti-semitism, her posts have been largely innocuous, rather than the poison she used to spew. But then she comes in here and starts casting negativity on a Senator who is doing something GOOD for us travelers. And what for? What did her comments bring to the table? What do they EVER bring to the table?
That’s why I think you should ban her. She fomments bad feelings in here, for no reason. It’s not like she’s bringing up valid issues and alternative opinions that generate good debates. She just spews nonsense…and sometimes, it’s hate-filled nonsense that hurts. Look at her history – attacks on Jews, people of Middle-Eastern descent, parents traveling with children…insulting people for no reason. She is a bad element in here.
What whole new set of problems will arise if you just ban her IP? She’s one person. I haven’t seen anyone else infect your forum like she has. But if they do…well, that’s the job of a forum owner. If you want your comments forum to continue to be one of the most intelligent on the internet, then you have to take a leadership role, and do some actual moderating.
That’s my position…and I’d venture to guess I’m not the only one who feels this way. I’d be happy to chat with you offline about this. You have my email from before.
Here’s another vote: BAN HER! She doesn’t belong here, and her comments are nothing but an irritating distraction for your readers. Take a stand.
Mr. Elliott,
I am a huge fan of your column, and love to read through the posts afterward. I find it lively, intelligent conversation, with great respect for differing opinions.
There seems to be one fly in the ointment, and that is “Barbie”. While I support free speech, that does not give someone the right to interject venom and hatred simply for the joy they get from peoples reactions (Not to mention she doesn’t even seem to make any coherent statements!).
This is ultimately your forum, and your decision. I understand and sympathize with the quandry you find yourself in, but please, is there any way you can restrict her?
Chris,
I don’t know if your forum has the ability, but some bbs have the ability to allow readers/poster to place certain posters on ignore. Then, when they post all they see is a series of dashes or the phrase, “you have this person on ignore”
In regards to the legislation, it sounds great. That most likely means it won’t pass through congress.
First, let me say that the proposed legislation is a great idea and long overdue. I am tired of seeing prices advertised only to find out that with various other fees such as taxes, that the prices have doubled. Now I am not only saying this because of airline policies, but in general across hotels, rental agencies, and even cell phone companies… The fine print merely says that taxes and fees will be charged up to a certain percentage. In the case of a cell phone I just got, the fine print said up to 36%. Now that is a huge amount for taxes on what should be a fairly simple bill. if you took an airline ticket and added in all the other surcharges I am sure it could easily cost more than the ticket.
This really needs to be applied to all businesses across the country, from cruise lines to rental agencies. Give the consumer the total price up front, including all options and let them decide.
As to barbie, I do not enjoy her posts one bit. They do not make sense most of the time and rarely deal with the topic at hand. As mentioned Christopher, it is your website and you are in charge of moderating and providing content that is acceptable to you and your advertisers. (and customers to an extent) You could always just delete her posts and send her a warning about future posts. As someone else has mentioned, the help and advice you have given is top notch and the posters almost always have a clear, thought out response that adds, not detracts from your columns. I value this forum and advice and do not wish to see half the comments dealing with a troublemaker rather than the topic at hand. thank you.
@Christopher – I think you have your answer. :-)
Allow us to continue to find all of the value we usually find in your articles, AND your forum. I agree with Hester: take a stand against negativity, hatred, anti-semitism, racism. Heck, take a stand against incoherence!
I was among the first to begin calling out “barbie” on her venomous posts, and I took some heat for it in here. I’d like to just say that I am gratified to see that others have joined me in speaking up. Thank you, everyone!
@william2009 – you wrote: “In regards to the legislation, it sounds great. That most likely means it won’t pass through congress.”
HAHAHAHA!!!! Thanks for the laugh. (A bittersweet laugh, unfortunately, because you are probably right!)
I hope this legislation passes but I, too, am very skeptical of the airlines’ abilities to skirt around it. The legislation does not have an effective date yet so if it does pass, I’m betting we’ll see an across-the-board airfare increase just prior to the legislation’s implementation, like we see with the credit card companies.
As for Barbie, I agree with William2009 as to implementing an ignore feature but I have only seen that on forums rather than on blogs. I have to say, with the exception of the religion comments, I am rather amused by Barbies’ incoherent ramblings. I think of it as a brain teaser to try to figure out what she’s trying to say, what her first language is as it’s clearly not English, etc. Ban her IP, she’ll just use another computer. I think that other posters should ignore her comments rather than engage her. I think she’s getting exactly what she wants– attention.
Mr. Elliott, you asked for suggestions, and it seems you are getting some. My suggestion (which will come as a surprise to no one) is to go ahead and flip the switch. What’s the worst that will happen? You’ll weed out one undesirable poster? You’ll lose one incoherent reader? Your Jewish, Middle Eastern, and traveling-parent readers will come back? Where’s the downside?
William2009 – this is a pretty low-tech message board in terms of features, so I doubt that there is any kind of “ignore” function available. But even if there was, that is not necessary a viable option to resolve the barbie problem. I participate in various message boards, and can tell you that most participants don’t use the “ignore” feature in situations like these. That’s because people like barbie tend to direct their nastiness at others…and if you can’t see her posts, you don’t know if she said something directly attacking YOU. I, for one, want to know if someone is besmirching me publicly, so I can defend myself. So the “ignore” feature is not really a solution.
I think Mr. Elliott knows what the solution is. And if he does the deed, he will hear his readers across the nation stand up and applaud!
I wish to stay on this blog. This is a concerted effort of some very nasty people. I have not been abusive,used foul language. I also believe you are against censorhip. I do recall your dislike of Flyer Talk because of their censorship. I know that you frown on the possibility of Trip Advisors not allowing negative reviews. The comments against me are just negative and mean spirited.
PS. I happen to be Jewish.
barbie, nobody is using foul language here either. But we all do have vivid memories of many of your nasty posts. Your attacks on Hassidic Jews (how ironic that you now tell us you’re Jewish), parents who travel with kids, breast-feeding mothers, a poor young man of Middle-Eastern descent, and many others…t’s all still on here for anyone to see. You have been hateful, objectionable, and – yes – abusive.
And that’s when you’ve been coherent at all. Even this most recent post is incoherent. Clearly you don’t understand the word “censorship” – you are complaining that we are “against censorhip” [sic]? Are you saying you are FOR censorship? You might want to pull out a dictionary.
And who even brought up “Flyer Talk”? What does that have to do with the price of beans in Jamaica?
The only concerted effort going on here is to bring the quality of this comments forum back to what it used to be. If you want to be taken seriously, and not generate the kind of smirking responses that most of your posts do, then try NOT POSTING when you have nothing to say. And if you think you have something of value to say, try writing in comprehensible English.
And try dialing back on the negativity. After you were called on the carpet for some of your earlier, venomous posts, you seemed to get better, and everyone pretty much ignored you. But then you came in here and started blasting away at a Senator that you clearly knew nothing about. And everything started up again.
If Mr. Elliott allows you to stay (and personally I still hope he just bans you), I would strongly urge you to rethink your posting strategy. You really don’t need to comment on every single one of his articles. Most of your comments have nothing to do with anything, include no facts or even coherent opinions, and add nothing to the conversation. Why post them at all? Before you hit that “Submit” button, ask yourself if you really have anything of value to say. And if not, don’t. And if you really think you do, if you just can’t help yourself, here’s another tip: try re-reading your post before you hit “Submit.” Clean up the language. Think about what point you are trying to make.
Or, better yet, go find some other blog to fixate on.
I agree that if you ban Barbie45 she will just pop up on another computer with another name. I think the best thing the rest of us can do is just skip over her comments and not spur her on to further responses. If she ends up having a continuous monologue then Chris should start deleting so the list of silly comments does not get too long. It seems to me this should work if the rest of us can manage to restrain ourselves! After all, my comments do not incite responses very often, (it’s really ok, that is exactly what I expect!) so why can’t we treat her the same way?
I have to admit sometimes it does get quite funny, but really, we all do need to get a life. Or go play FarmVille on FaceBook.
BTW, I think this legislation is great and considering that nearly every Representative or Senator has to get on planes to go home frequently, they all should see the benefit of this no matter who contributes to their campaign funds. Go for it, Senator Menendez! It may take legislation so every airline sees they are being compared equally, I can understand that the first one to do this voluntarily might feel they would lose some business. Doing the right thing because it is the right thing has not been a feature of business policy lately for the vast majority of any companies. Maybe this will be a start…..
@barbie45 – why do you keep filling in the “Website” field for your comments with “aol” so that your handle links to http://aol/ ? Do you even understand how that field is supposed to work? It’s for you to put in your OWN personal website address, not America Online’s! If you’re not going to do that, just leave it blank and look a little less stupid.
Chris – I’m voting for “flipping the switch” too. This isn’t censorship; this is housekeeping.
Christopher, You asked for our help. As you know, a big part of giving proper help is having all the facts. What is this “whole new set of problems” you create by exercising your responsibilities as moderator?
Reserving the option of providing additional feedback once I understand more about the (potential) new problems, I offer my opinion here:
Whenever I leave a comment here I get a blurb that it’s awaiting moderation. That implies to me that you, as moderator, approve or disapprove each individual comment for posting. You could always just not approve any objectionable comments no matter who writes them, and if you really care you could let the poster know why. Perhaps the individual attention is too time-consuming, and you pretty much just rubber-stamp everything that comes through?
I’ve also belonged to groups where the moderators inserted comments (disclaimers sometimes) about the post, or a note that “this is the sort of thing that won’t be tolerated here”, etc. You’ve tried that and it seems to have helped. The recent comments about the senator didn’t have the invective tone of some previous posts. The assertions were quickly disproved by other posters. And public figures are fair game for rather more pot-shots than the rest of us, anyway.
I don’t think Barbie should be banned completely because not all her posts are objectionable. Some are, but the worst that can be said about most is their lack of coherence. She’s entitled to her opinion and should be allowed to express it in non-derogatory ways (since you invite public comments and she’s a member of the public); her poor writing skills are a reflection merely on her, not on anyone else except possibly her parents and teachers, and even then they can’t force a person to learn. She has made efforts recently to clean up her grammar and express herself more clearly. I don’t mean to imply I agree with much of anything she says, just that I can now generally understand the gist of it.
But I don’t think that just because you invite public comments you are obligated to publish those that cross the line of common decency. That line is not hard and fast (some are more responsive than others), but it’s not completely invisible, either. I think enough posters have been specific about what kinds of comments they find really objectionable versus which they think are simply silly, that you know what your readers think and where they draw the line.
The bottom line (to change the metaphor if not the term), Christopher, is that only you can decide whether she adds more to your blog than she takes from it. Certainly she gets a reaction, and that increases traffic, and that’s got to be good for your advertising appeal. And to those who wish to see her banned: if she’s not I offer what is generally the only recourse in a society that values freedom above personal responsibility or certainly courtesy—don’t read her posts. It’s the same as not reading magazines to which you object, changing the channel on television programs to which you object, not buying tickets to movies whose contents you find offensive. It’s what our society has been saying for the last 40 years or more to those who object to having their values drug through the mire.
@Ames, I’m fine with ignoring her. In fact, I was doing a fine job of ignoring her, until she started a campaign of finding all of my posts and making snarky comments about my typos! Which was pretty funny, considering her own issues with language and spelling.
But therein lies the problem…it’s fine to suggest we ignore her, until she starts launching attacks on us.
I highly doubt that she’d be able to get back on here if Christopher bans her IP. I highly doubt she even knows what an IP is. But if she does manage to re-emerge, then hopefully her banning would teach her to be a little less obtrusive and objectionable in here…and none of us will notice her. Problem solved.
Ultimately, the decision rests with Christopher as to how he wants to run his comments forum. I personally think she has wreaked enough havoc in here to lose her posting priviledges…but that’s just my humble opinion. I’m a moderator on another forum, and I have banned people for less. For me, hate-speech is a line that is only crossed once…and she crossed it some time ago.
@KathyJ – Thank you for your articulate, well-thought-out opinion. I do agree with you that Barbie’s comments did get less objectionable after the earlier racism dust-up. I also agree that most of her recent comments are more annoying than anything…although I haven’t seen an appreciable improvement in her coherence. She does seem to be using the occasional multi-syllable word, so perhaps she bought herself a thesaurus.
In any case, regarding the “moderation” of this forum – I suspect that you are correct: Christopher probably doesn’t have the time to truly moderate this forum. If he did, how would he ever have the time to produce all of these fascinating articles? ;-)
That’s why I personally advocate banning her. While she has been less abusive than in the past, she has continued to exhibit some troubling behavior (e.g. her fixation on my mispellings), not to mention her propensity for posting inaccurate information (e.g. that all Senators a millionaires).
But like you say…it’s up to Christopher.
Thanks for joining in the conversation, anyway! For a while I thought it was only me. Good to know I’m not alone!
We are so off-topic on this post. I feel as if we’re doing the senator and his terrific new law a disservice by getting distracted. But I understand why people are concerned about this situation.
I do review every comment that’s posted. I started that a few months ago, when I was threatened with a lawsuit.
I look for content that is obviously defamatory in a legal sense of the term, trade secrets, etc. Otherwise, I try to leave the comments as is, to encourage a freewheeling discussion.
One way of managing this issue would be for me to disapprove comments with lots of grammatical and spelling errors.
I don’t know. Let me give this some thought.
On the topic of the posting here: Hallelujah! While I, too, am somewhat skeptical of the liklihood that a useful and sensible law will make it through Congress without some horrid loophole or other problem, at least someone is trying to do something. Change may come at a glacial pace, but glaciers do move eventually!
On the subject of barbie:
I believe there are several issues at play here. First, as for Chris’s dilemma, while I understand you feel conflicted and want advice, in the end, it is YOUR blog and therefore your decision and your responsibility. No matter what the rest of us say, the final decision has to be based on what you want here. If you let barbie continue to post, then you have to accept that other people will either leave or reduce the comments they make. If you decide on a ban, you have to accept that there are limits to what people can post here and decide what those limits are.
While the spelling, grammar, etc. issues are annoying, they are not relevant. If Chris banned someone solely for bad spelling, we would all think that he was nuts. If you can’t understand the post, ignore it.
Off-topic posts are also occasionally annoying. Some forums/blogs are very strict about not allowing these, but I’ve also seen some fascinating and wonderfully educational conversations arise spontaneously from an off-topic posting. Again, not something most people would consider it fair to ban someone for.
Intolerant, prejudical, postings or attacks on other people, however are an entirely different issue and certainly, I think, worthy of banning. At the same time, I do think barbie toned his/her rhetoric down quite a lot after the last round of this discussion, and I would be reluctant to dismiss that. So, I propose that either Chris spend his time reviewing all the comments (which I think he does anyway) and remove/edit any that are obviously intolerant or inflammatory, or that he implement a 2 strikes and you’re out rule. One warning, then banning. It’s generally not fair to make rules retroactive, so if implemented, I would consider this barbie’s “warning” with the next intolerant post/attack leading to a ban.
@Liz – and yet another outstanding voice of reason. I would be satisfied with Christopher issueing a “final warning” to barbie…and then following through with the banning if she violates the basic rules of net etiquette one more time.
And that includes pouncing on posters for their occasional typos! ;-) (Although I must admit I got some good laughs out of that…)
@LeeAnne
“it’s fine to suggest we ignore her, until she starts launching attacks on us.”
Why can’t the attacks be ignored, too? I mean, how does it really hurt you? I don’t mean it’s pleasant, but…how is it harmful? If the worst anyone can say about you is that you make typos, you’re doing awfully well!
“She does seem to be using the occasional multi-syllable word, so perhaps she bought herself a thesaurus.”
As gently as I can say this (imagine the softest tone and body language you can–got it? ok, read on), isn’t that the kind of comment to which you object? It would be funny if there was a basis of mutual respect between you, but since there’s not…it’s just funny at her expense, which is not exactly derogatory but is still Not Nice. You, being a writer, surely you use tools such as a thesaurus?
@Liz, I like the two-strikes deal and your take on ridiculous rules.
And yes, way to go Senator Menendez!
This legislation looks awesome!
And barbie who? ;-)
@ Lianne
The legislation does look awesome! We should all write to our Senators and tell them.
Right on ! :-)
@KathyJ – re my “thesaurus” comment – point taken, and mea culpa. But the key is that I lost all vestiges of respect back when the racism and other offenses started. So I acknowledge I have been less than kind. I also acknowledge that I was kinda hoping that the wellspring of open distaste for her posts (by many more people than just me!) would cause her to go away. If it doesn’t, I will do my best to take the other Lianne’s approach. ;-) But I do draw the line at public racism, religious intolerance, and blatant attacks on groups of people. I believe in standing up for what’s right…and I will stand up to that. Hopefully it won’t come to that again.
Meanwhile, I have written MY Senator in support of this legislation…who else has? Let’s hear it! :-D
I’ve emailed my two Senators – Go Therefore and Do Likewise. Disclosing up front what your product costs is not unreasonable.
To get back on topic here…
I don’t know if a law will work here. Look at what the law to protect citizens against deceptive credit card practices is doing to the credit card industry…BofA charging 8% + Prime, Citibank charging 9%+ Prime! All in an effort to squeeze their fees in at the last minute so that they can be grandfathered in when the new laws take affect in January…
Now fees, interest and costs to own a credit card makes it prohibitive to even use the card!
I’m afraid that the same thing will happen to the airline industry…and we will see plane tickets begin to spiral out of control! but…unfortunately, I don’t have an answer either…but strict regulation and laws have proven to not be very effective in keeping costs under control, regardless of the industry!
Ed
Re: Clear Airfares Act
Thank you Senator Menendez for the bill and for doing your best to get it through Congress. I have to admit to pessimism as to the final result because of the added “pork” that gets tacked on. The original bill often seems lost in the mess. However, I’ll send my emails to my senators showing my support.
Re: Barbie45
Until recently, I have been a “road warrior” for many years (1K or elite on mutiple carriers) and have enjoyed Christopher’s Blog from the beginning. There has been a solid base of like-minded business travelers and professionals in the travel industry. I have relied quite a bit on the information here to help me as I now travel mostly for pleasure ( need to burn up those miles before they are totally useless!). There have always been some “ranters” and an occasional nasty attack by a poster who doesn’t return, but this year I have really noticed a distressing trend toward the kind of junk found on many general online blogs. Unfortunately, I have to agree that most of the turmoil seems to be written or caused by Barbie45. I was just about to dicontinue reading your blog, Christopher, when the first uprising happened. After that she/he seemed to tone down the postings – I still don’t understand her, but usually not as inflammatory.
I appreciate the comments made by KathyJ and Liz – I can deal with spelling and grammar, but I don’t come here for the nastiness.
Beth, I have been the victim of a hate campaign. They have a ring leader who has taken postings I have written out of context. I had hoped this hate campaign would stop. For a while it did. I have been the victim of some of some pretty spiteful and darn right cruel comments. This ring leader has no expertise on any aspect of the travel industy. I enjoy this blog because of its excellent posts by Chris. I have learned quite a bit from very well- written posts by people who have expertise in the legal and hopitality fields.
If anything, the bill’s purpose is to force the airlines to state what fees are to be expected and “appropriately” charged as stated earlier. A question, then, is how will the travelling public react to this if it takes effect.
barbie the only person who has spread hate on this blog has been you. Anyone who has been reading this site for a while is very familiar with your offensive and hate-spewing posts. Nobody took them out of context. You said what you said and no amount of backpedaling now can change that. They are all still here for anyone to see.
There is no ringleader. I’ve lost count of the number of regular posters in here who have commented on how objectionable your posts are. It’s a veritable uprising! There was one person who had the backbone to first bring up the problem publicly, and I applaud her. But she was just one voice among many. Go count them up, barbie. See for yourself.
And I think its pretty funny that you seem to be appealing to this last poster, Beth. Did you not read her post? Even she wrote that most of the turmoil in here is written or caused by you. So your appeal to he is ironic. I don’t think you are going to find any sympathy there.
I hear tell you folks gotta blogging problem you need fixin.
There’s no living with a killing. There’s no goin’ back from one. Right or wrong, it’s a brand… a brand sticks.
Here lies a low-down Yankee liar.
Nobody was faster