Five people. That’s how many bothered to comment on the Transportation Department’s latest rulemaking proposal that would force airlines to report more details about delays. If you’re not shocked – no, outraged – by that number, read on. You will be.
You don’t have to be an inside-the-beltway politician to or a policy wonk to know why the proposal, which was quietly released for public comments on Nov. 20, is critically important. The proposed rule would have required airlines to report complete on-time and tarmac delay data about flights that may depart from a gate more than once, flights that are canceled after having left the gate and flights that are diverted to another airport.
Do we really need a history lesson?
So who bothered to comment?
A joint comment was received from the Air Transport Association of America (ATA) and the Regional Airline Association (RAA), representing 18 air carriers currently reporting performance data. Other comments were received from Delta Air Lines, the National Business Travel Association (NBTA), the American Society of Travel Agents (ASTA), the Coalition for an Airline Passengers Bill of Rights, and from five private citizens/airline consumers.
Translation: the government heard a lot from special interest groups — and a little from travelers.
Very little, in fact. It appears at least two of the comments were submitted by what I like to call airline apologists.
Of the five citizen comments, two stated that airlines should report all delays and publish their delay data on their websites, and one stated that the Department should fine air carriers $1 million for their first lapse in reporting.
That leaves two unaccounted for, and knowing what I do about this process, I have to assume the worst. But I digress.
How is it that only five citizens bothered to speak up?
First, finding out about a proposed rulemaking is incredibly difficult. You have to query this page on the BTS Web site. No rulemaking notices are sent to the public, as far as I can tell.
If I didn’t know any better, I’d say the government doesn’t want us to comment on its proposed rule changes. Maybe it prefers to hear from special interests and a handful of civic-minded individuals.
Fortunately, this rule change passed.
But I’m appalled. Yes, I think that’s the right word. Appalled.
If the deeply disgruntled airline passengers I deal with every day had an opportunity to share their thoughts on the Transportation Department’s rulemaking initiatives, I believe they would. And I believe they should.
✓ 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 
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
Are you talking about this: http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=0900006480366e55 Comments are past due on that.
Could you please link to the actual regulations.gov page you were talking about?
Off course the government does not want us to talk to it. It has trouble enough ignoring those five hundred something fools in Congress.
I’ll be honest with you Chris. When you told us about this awhile back (weeks ago?), my first thought was, “Gee! Now the airlines are gonna have to be just a bit more inventive about their reporting.” It’s not gonna be impossible, but maybe a tad more difficult. You know, as long as the plane actually backs away from the gate, it’s departed. It doesn’t matter that it sits there for another hour. And I’m sure that “weather delays” will remain “not our fault” and will show an alarming increase. And “on time” will be redefined to mean “sometime within the hour”. You don’t really thing that the airlines are gonna stand up and admit any fault, do you? And I’m sure the Feds will be just as diligent as they have been in making sure the flying public is taken care of. Call me jaded, but I continue to believe that the only way to affect change is by voting with your wallet. A few of the really bad airlines go under due to low passenger numbers and the others will have to sit up and take notice. That also requires the passengers to show some backbone, too. If you continue to patronize that lousy airline just because they have the lowest airfare, you really have no one to blame but yourself.
@ MarkA: The problem with voting with your wallet, is that is convinces airline bean counters that they need to cut more cost, and introduce more separate fees and surcharges (seat assignment surcharge, hygiene control fee (for toilet usage), cabin personnel tip).
It’s like in the record industry. Customers are clearly not happy with the current business model, are voting with their wallets, and trying different ways, but the CEOs and bean counters only hang to their ancient business model.
Jasper – “Voting with your wallet” does not mean purchasing the cheapest of anything. It simply means spending money on what is important to you. If you feel that Customer Service is the most important feature, then “vote with your wallet” and patronize – spend money – on those airlines that provide good Customer Service.
@ MarkA: I am not purchasing the cheapest of anything. I am very willing to pay for quality. Problem is that these days, quality is not for sale in the airline industry. So am purchasing as little as I can to get by. The result is that airlines sell less, and think that I think their product is too expensive. That’s not true. I think their product is a pain.
You could argue that business class and first class are more quality that coach, but they don’t save you from the interactions with frustrated and underpaid staff, from the insane TSA, from more and more surcharges and fees, from weather delays under a clear sky (plane is coming in from bla bla), nor from delays caused by mechanical defects, sorry, weather delay.