Are Domestic Arlines Really Getting Worse?

[spiderweb]

As a frequent flier, and this is admittedly anecdotal, I'd say yes. I know cheap flights can mean crap customer service, but seriously?

Airport police dragging doctors off planes, "miscommunications" about what can and can't go on the aircraft, FAs killing dogs in overhead bins, etc. Are things getting worse these past few decades, or is it the prevalence of social media?

Then, there was this today: https://www.heraldmailmedia.com/new...cle_f2261185-9661-5436-8b9d-62d344a2868b.html

As I've said before, the reason I became a pilot was to call someone's dare when they thought they were bluffing. Almost twenty years ago after whining about airline shenanigans, a friend said, "why don't you just get your own license, then?" So I did.

The bright side is the outstanding and ever-improving safety record which, of course, is the most important thing.

 

[kgruber]

The advent of jets started the downfall.
Deregulation was the stab in the heart.

 

[wsuffa]

Worse compared to what?

 

[Mike Smith]

It’s not just the airlines, society is dumbing down. It’s happening everywhere.

 

[TCABM]

I’m sorry, but when parents trust their kids to the airlines, that’s just foolish.

Perspective: warehouses full of checked luggage that airlines could not get to the correct destination. Why would you trust them with your 4 year old child?

The parents are part of the dumbed down society.

 

[sarangan]

As a frequent flier, and this is admittedly anecdotal, I'd say yes. I know cheap flights can mean crap customer service, but seriously?

Airport police dragging doctors off planes, "miscommunications" about what can and can't go on the aircraft, FAs killing dogs in overhead bins, etc. Are things getting worse these past few decades, or is it the prevalence of social media?

Then, there was this today: https://www.heraldmailmedia.com/new...cle_f2261185-9661-5436-8b9d-62d344a2868b.html

As I've said before, the reason I became a pilot was to call someone's dare when they thought they were bluffing. Almost twenty years ago after whining about airline shenanigans, a friend said, "why don't you just get your own license, then?" So I did.

The bright side is the outstanding and ever-improving safety record which, of course, is the most important thing.

In real dollars, the cost of air travel has been steadily declining, so something has to give. Safety is regulated by the FAA so there is no room to cut costs there. But everything else, including human decency and service can be eliminated to save cost. There was even a serious discussion of "standing room only" airplanes. However, people still fly only because driving is such an onerous experience. My personal prediction is that when self-driving cars become the norm, all air travel less than 1000 miles will simply disappear.

 

[Lachlan]

As I've said before, the reason I became a pilot was to call someone's dare when they thought they were bluffing.

Ok, that's all fine, but did you call the bluff, too?

 

[spiderweb]

In real dollars, the cost of air travel has been steadily declining, so something has to give. Safety is regulated by the FAA so there is no room to cut costs there. But everything else, including human decency and service can be eliminated to save cost. There was even a serious discussion of "standing room only" airplanes. However, people still fly only because driving is such an onerous experience. My personal prediction is that when self-driving cars become the norm, all air travel less than 1000 miles will simply disappear.

Agree with all of this, except I am not sure about the last sentence.

 

[spiderweb]

Ok, that's all fine, but did you call the bluff, too?

Twice, if you count the IR.

 

[spiderweb]

Worse compared to what?

To the year before this, and the year before that year, and the year before that one. . . .

I think kgruber is right.

 

[OkieFlyer]

Are things getting worse these past few decades, or is it the prevalence of social media?

I think it's the propensity of people to gripe about every dang thing in life these days.

 

[1RTK1]

I remember flying when the planes were not overbook on almost every flight, I remember when on long flights there was at times enough seats open that you could lay down, I remember when you didn’t have to get to the airport hours ahead, I remember when people didn’t dress like slobs and act like idiots.
I remember a lot of things that were different, but then again I am older

 

[GreatLakesFlying]

Are things getting worse these past few decades, or is it the prevalence of social media?

It sure feels to me that the quality of air travel is declining. Social media sometimes may blow things out of proportion, but the decline is real in my opinion. From cramped airplanes to crumbling infrastructure, and from less-and-less helpful airline staff to less-and-less considerate travelers, the experience of flying is increasingly unpleasant.

When rich and important people flew commercial, they maintained some influence over their airline executive buddies and that helped with quality standards, in my opinion. Now that VIPs and even politicians fly private, they don't see how the hoi-polloi are treated by the airlines. Out of sight, out of mind.

The disappointing thing is that no one in the industry seems willing to try a new model. If travelers are indeed fed up by the current and sorry state of affairs, surely we would support a new airline that would treat us with respect, fly us in comfortable aircraft, ensure prompt delivery or luggage, and avoid the outrageous nickeling and diming that the other airlines do.

And yet, such a wonderful airline remains elusive. Are we, passengers, truly fed up then?

 

[Larry in TN]

The metrics (on-time, schedule completion, mishandled bag ratio, safety, etc.) have all improved. Airports have significant more and better concessions, often better seating, (usually) free wifi, and power outlet access. Flying is more affordable than ever.

Load factors are at record highs; reaching 90% . Many airports are behind on their infrastructure maintenance and improvements. This results in crowded airports, long lines, and crowded airplanes.

I think that the crowding is what makes the biggest impact on the passenger experience and overshadows other areas that have improved.

To paraphrase the great Yogi Berra, "Nobody flies anymore because the planes and airports are too crowded!"

It's worse for the infrequent flier. They don't understand the often complex system of airports, airlines, and security which produces a lot of stress. Once a repeat traveler learns the system, the stress level drops significantly and they can navigate the system relatively easily. If they fly enough to earn status with their airline it gets a lot better (waived fees, ability to select better seats, and earlier boarding).

 

[LoneAspen]

If travelers are indeed fed up by the current and sorry state of affairs, surely we would support a new airline that would treat us with respect, fly us in comfortable aircraft, ensure prompt delivery or luggage, and avoid the outrageous nickeling and diming that the other airlines do.

I'd like to think that, too. That people would be willing to pay a little more for better service.

But I'd bet 99% of people buying airline tickets simply sort by lowest price and buy the cheapest ticket they can, even if it's a few bucks less for a worse flight. I'm always amazed at what people will do, and what they're willing to sacrifice, to save a few bucks.

If there was an airline that offered stellar service, no cramped seats, and didn't abuse their customers, even if it cost more (say up to about 25%), I'd gladly pay the higher fare. But I know 99% of other travelers wouldn't. Hence, such an airline will never appear in my lifetime.

 

[1RTK1]

The metrics (on-time, schedule completion, mishandled bag ratio, safety, etc.) have all improved. Airports have significant more and better concessions, often better seating, (usually) free wifi, and power outlet access. Flying is more affordable than ever.

Load factors are at record highs; reaching 90% . Many airports are behind on their infrastructure maintenance and improvements. This results in crowded airports, long lines, and crowded airplanes.

I think that the crowding is what makes the biggest impact on the passenger experience and overshadows other areas that have improved.

To paraphrase the great Yogi Berra, "Nobody flies anymore because the planes and airports are too crowded!"

It's worse for the infrequent flier. They don't understand the often complex system of airports, airlines, and security which produces a lot of stress. Once a repeat traveler learns the system, the stress level drops significantly and they can navigate the system relatively easily. If they fly enough to earn status with their airline it gets a lot better (waived fees, ability to select better seats, and earlier boarding).

Unfortunately security lines and the hoard of people will never change........

 

[GreatLakesFlying]

Airports have significant more and better concessions, often better seating, (usually) free wifi, and power outlet access.

That may be true for some airports (certainly not ours here in Chicago). Personally, I do not go to the airport to eat, nor to lounge by the gate, nor to charge my phone or laptop. My objective is to transit the curb-to-gate space with the least inconvenience and to board in a timely fashion, for an on-time departure.

If there is a delay and I need a meal, I'd rather go to the airport's Subway than the fancy restaurant. At the Subway, I can see the bread baked right there. At the fancy restaurant, that $13.99 burger was grilled or sous-vide'd days ago, and just gets reheated or browed before serving. Why would such a restaurant be a destination or contribute to a quality metric for travel experience?

The three most essential aspects of quality in air travel are, in my opinion: expeditious lines before the flight, comfortable space during it, and timely performance. I think everything else is useful but ancillary in nature.

 

[wsuffa]

To the year before this, and the year before that year, and the year before that one. . . .

I think kgruber is right.

So I'll offer my perspective as someone who accumulated 3 mm miles in one frequent flyer program and 1.5 million in another (with bits and pieces across another 10-20). And that's since about 1986.

In some ways it's better, and some airlines are better. Others are worse, much worse.

I remember being on a TWA flight back in the 90's where a piece of trim fell off the overhead bin and clonked a passenger. The FA didn't even ask how he was, she just said "whadda you want? Cheap fares or good service?"

To this day, I avoid United. I've given them probably $2,000 worth of business since the early 90's. Why? Because the gate agent lied to my face, admitted it, and told me that he did so in order that I would fly with them (severely late flight) rather than a competitor that was on-time. Nearly cost me a pretty substantial contract because I missed a meeting. And the whole experience went downhill from there. Absolutely no remorse.

AA used to be better until they were taken over by America West. Now they are continuing down the ****hole. The 737Max are just plain awful in terms of passenger comfort and they're using 'em on coast-to-coast flying. Benefits keep getting cut, and many of the agents just don't care. I'll not even talk about the PHL hub.

Delta has improved. It long had a decent reputation among flyers (and generally treated me well over the years), but they are making strides to become the best US carrier. Still a few hiccups.

Southwest is Southwest. Good airline, not really better or worse.

We've got tools now that we didn't have before: pricing engines, things like ExpertFlyer that access GDS data, FlightAware/FlightStats, in-flight internet, etc. But we have a degradation of frequent flyer benefits and less flexibility. TSA has made the airport experience miserable, and some airports (like LGA and EWR) aren't much better than glorified bus stations. Food is still bad, and there is less of it.

I much prefer Amtrak where it makes sense (and that includes the DC-PHL-NYC-BOS runs). More legroom, and far less TSA hassles.

 

[spiderweb]

So I'll offer my perspective as someone who accumulated 3 mm miles in one frequent flyer program and 1.5 million in another (with bits and pieces across another 10-20). And that's since about 1986.

In some ways it's better, and some airlines are better. Others are worse, much worse.

I remember being on a TWA flight back in the 90's where a piece of trim fell off the overhead bin and clonked a passenger. The FA didn't even ask how he was, she just said "whadda you want? Cheap fares or good service?"

To this day, I avoid United. I've given them probably $2,000 worth of business since the early 90's. Why? Because the gate agent lied to my face, admitted it, and told me that he did so in order that I would fly with them (severely late flight) rather than a competitor that was on-time. Nearly cost me a pretty substantial contract because I missed a meeting. And the whole experience went downhill from there. Absolutely no remorse.

AA used to be better until they were taken over by America West. Now they are continuing down the ****hole. The 737Max are just plain awful in terms of passenger comfort and they're using 'em on coast-to-coast flying. Benefits keep getting cut, and many of the agents just don't care. I'll not even talk about the PHL hub.

Delta has improved. It long had a decent reputation among flyers (and generally treated me well over the years), but they are making strides to become the best US carrier. Still a few hiccups.

Southwest is Southwest. Good airline, not really better or worse.

We've got tools now that we didn't have before: pricing engines, things like ExpertFlyer that access GDS data, FlightAware/FlightStats, in-flight internet, etc. But we have a degradation of frequent flyer benefits and less flexibility. TSA has made the airport experience miserable, and some airports (like LGA and EWR) aren't much better than glorified bus stations. Food is still bad, and there is less of it.

I much prefer Amtrak where it makes sense (and that includes the DC-PHL-NYC-BOS runs). More legroom, and far less TSA hassles.

I basically agree with all of this, including the Amtrak piece

 

[CC268]

DELTOID!

 

[FlyingElvii]

In real dollars, the cost of air travel has been steadily declining, so something has to give. Safety is regulated by the FAA so there is no room to cut costs there. But everything else, including human decency and service can be eliminated to save cost. There was even a serious discussion of "standing room only" airplanes. However, people still fly only because driving is such an onerous experience. My personal prediction is that when self-driving cars become the norm, all air travel less than 1000 miles will simply disappear.

A long time ago, Southwest determined that 3-4 hours driving time was the "Sweet Spot". Less than that, people tend to drive. In the era of TSA, a more than a 5-6 hour drive is outweighed by the convenience of flying, even if it means a groping.

 

[SkyDog58]

Unaccompanied children under the age of 16 should not be allowed to fly.

 

[Jim_CAK]

A long time ago, Southwest determined that 3-4 hours driving time was the "Sweet Spot". Less than that, people tend to drive. In the era of TSA, a more than a 5-6 hour drive is outweighed by the convenience of flying, even if it means a groping.

I travel almost every week for my job and most of it by car. If the drive sis 6 hours or less - I drive. I have a company car with everything I need in the trunk. I get up early by habit and get on the road and get out ahead of the rush hour traffic. Depending on where I am going and flight availability, I sometimes stretch the decision point to 8 hours.
Either way - it is not a lot of fun.

 

[spiderweb]

I travel almost every week for my job and most of it by car. If the drive sis 6 hours or less - I drive. I have a company car with everything I need in the trunk. I get up early by habit and get on the road and get out ahead of the rush hour traffic. Depending on where I am going and flight availability, I sometimes stretch the decision point to 8 hours.
Either way - it is not a lot of fun.

That sucks. Depressing that in the only superpower on earth, your choices are either 1) leave at 4 AM and drive somewhere for eight hours hoping not to get killed by someone who is drunk or asleep behind the wheel, or 2) take the airlines and get groped, lied to, and generally treated like feces.

Furthermore I found that upgrading to first class – – when I’ve had the chance to do it – – makes only a marginal difference on the overall experience on domestic flights, even up to six or seven hours.

 

[FlyingElvii]

After a few decades of working in the business, I fly to the smallest airports possible, within reasonable driving range. Regular stops for us are Daytona/Melborne instead of Orlando. LGB instead of LAX, RST instead of MSP, etc. Since we will usually have to connect anyway, it just takes that much more stress out of traveling. And it is worth the 20-40 bucks more, to us.

 

[ARFlyer]

Being from both sides of the door I think improving airports, terminals, and keeping aircraft maintained would go a long way.

Our terminals are overcrowded, lack seating, and most importantly OUTLETS!! I've walked the E terminal numerous times in a circle purely looking for a free outlet. Even yesterday I ended up using one behind the flight information board as I needed to finish reports before getting back to the office.

Airports, as an example CLT, weren't built for the levels of traffic they're seeing. Mainline AA is often at their gate in less than 10 minutes while Regional AA takes upwards of 20 minutes because of the one lane ramp at Terminal D and the one lane ramp on the backside of E.

I have flown numerous aircraft that lacked APUs or AC Packs in the summer months. I've sat on the taxiway while the cabin is 100°F and the FA calling up asking us to please hurry.

Flying is safer then ever but even now days nonflight critical items are often MEL'D at these smaller carriers that will greatly effect passenger comfort. This often came out of the airlines paying their MX Dept food stamp wages.

 

[Larry in TN]

That may be true for some airports (certainly not ours here in Chicago).

Which Chicago airport are you talking about?

O'Hare has free wifi and charging stations at the gates. Food ranges from McDonald's and Starbucks to Wolfgang Puck, Tortas Frontera (my favorite), Berghoff Cafe, Nuts on Clark, Billy Goat Cafe, and multiple locations with Chicago dogs, italian beef, and Chicago deep dish. Compare that to the amenities available in airport terminals in the 1990s. Well, they did have a lot more pay phones in the terminals back then.

O'Hare has also built new runways, has another new runway under construction, and will soon be building new, and expanding old, terminals.

 

[James331]

People wanted cheap flights, now there complaining about getting cheap service.

 

[spiderweb]

In all of this, I wonder how many people noticed I used the word, "domestic."

I've flown with some of the Asian airlines and they are generally better, and sometimes a LOT better, especially the customer service, attitude, and knowledge consistency (policies).

 

[James331]

In all of this, I wonder how many people noticed I used the word, "domestic."

I've flown with some of the Asian airlines and they are generally better, and sometimes a LOT better, especially the customer service, attitude, and knowledge consistency (policies).

I'd rather have the cabin crew who looks like the cast of rocky horror picture and cramped seats, knowing the background of the two upfront is legit, than have pretty stews a little more legroom and the guy who just got sent back home from a puppy mill school sitting right seat in the A320.

 

[wsuffa]

All airline executives should have to undertake the same travel experience as the rest of us. And have to do so anonymously.

 

[chartbundle]

Our terminals are overcrowded, lack seating, and most importantly OUTLETS!! I've walked the E terminal numerous times in a circle purely looking for a free outlet. Even yesterday I ended up using one behind the flight information board as I needed to finish reports before getting back to the office.

The places with new-style terminals are pretty nice(San Diego, Sacramento, San Jose, SFO International Terminal) although they tend to only be for part of the flights, for instance San Diego's old Southwest/Alaska terminal is total crap. And then there's the other 'improvements' like the people mover in Sacramento and no option to just walk the 2 minutes instead.

 

[spiderweb]

I'd rather have the cabin crew who looks like the cast of rocky horror picture and cramped seats, knowing the background of the two upfront is legit, than have pretty stews a little more legroom and the guy who just got sent back home from a puppy mill school sitting right seat in the A320.

And this is what airline? And you have proof that your American domestic airline pilot didn't go to a "puppy mill school?" Or are you saying that all non-domestic companies are this way?

 

[ARFlyer]

The places with new-style terminals are pretty nice(San Diego, Sacramento, San Jose, SFO International Terminal) although they tend to only be for part of the flights, for instance San Diego's old Southwest/Alaska terminal is total crap. And then there's the other 'improvements' like the people mover in Sacramento and no option to just walk the 2 minutes instead.

The people mover in IAH makes me laugh every time I see it! It's like an Star Trek prop or something from the old Spaceship Earth ride.

 

[James331]

And this is what airline? And you have proof that your American domestic airline pilot didn't go to a "puppy mill school?" Or are you saying that all non-domestic companies are this way?

Yes I do.

"§121.436 Pilot qualification: Certificates and experience requirements.
(a) No certificate holder may use nor may any pilot act as pilot in command of an aircraft (or as second in command of an aircraft in a flag or supplemental operation that requires three or more pilots) unless the pilot:

(1) Holds an airline transport pilot certificate not subject to the limitations in §61.167 of this chapter;"


And


"§61.159 Aeronautical experience: Airplane category rating.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section, a person who is applying for an airline transport pilot certificate with an airplane category and class rating must have at least 1,500 hours of total time as a pilot that includes at least:

(1) 500 hours of cross-country flight time.

(2) 100 hours of night flight time.

(3) 50 hours of flight time in the class of airplane for the rating sought. A maximum of 25 hours of training in a full flight simulator representing the class of airplane for the rating sought may be credited toward the flight time requirement of this paragraph if the training was accomplished as part of an approved training course in parts 121, 135, 141, or 142 of this chapter. A flight training device or aviation training device may not be used to satisfy this requirement.

(4) 75 hours of instrument flight time, in actual or simulated instrument conditions, subject to the following:

(i) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section, an applicant may not receive credit for more than a total of 25 hours of simulated instrument time in a flight simulator or flight training device.

(ii) A maximum of 50 hours of training in a flight simulator or flight training device may be credited toward the instrument flight time requirements of paragraph (a)(4) of this section if the training was accomplished in a course conducted by a training center certificated under part 142 of this chapter.

(iii) Training in a flight simulator or flight training device must be accomplished in a flight simulator or flight training device, representing an airplane.

(5) 250 hours of flight time in an airplane as a pilot in command, or as second in command performing the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command, or any combination thereof, which includes at least—

(i) 100 hours of cross-country flight time; and

(ii) 25 hours of night flight time."



Not many 250hr wonders are going to meet those requirements.

Also the lack of PIC time many of these FOs in other counties have is scary, look up PICUS, it's basically make believe PIC but you get to log it.

 

[Tantalum]

I'd rather have the cabin crew who looks like the cast of rocky horror picture and cramped seats, knowing the background of the two upfront is legit, than have pretty stews a little more legroom and the guy who just got sent back home from a puppy mill school sitting right seat in the A320.

Yeah. After reading incidents like the turboprop that had the wrong engine secured, a 777 that can't land on a clear VFR day without ILS, etc., I would actively avoid traveling on Asian carriers.. doesn't matter how pretty the crew is

The places with new-style terminals are pretty nice(San Diego, Sacramento, San Jose, SFO International Terminal) although they tend to only be for part of the flights, for instance San Diego's old Southwest/Alaska terminal is total crap

I believe some of the airlines kick in money for that. Delta, UA/CO, AA, etc., that want to be world class would make sense they want to have a world class appeal. SWA's terminal is absolute rubbish. But they're a low cost carrier and their travelers probably care less, or not at all. I actively recommend family and friends to fly something other than SWA/Alaska when coming here because that terminal is embarrassing. I did fly SWA once (before I had my IR and we had plans to be in Vegas) and I didn't get what the mass appeal was. The two times I flew them each flight was delayed, I thought the boarding zone process was bizarre, and there was nothing special about the in flight product or service at all. I don't get it. Granted, I paid $60.

**RE: airlines getting worse
-I was not alive during the PAN AM! golden days.. but from what I've seen and read I would say that today's air travel is superior in just about every aspect.. and for a fraction of the cost. I also believe that the viral spread of social media, etc., calls a lot of this to light. There are thousands of commercial flights in a day, occasionally something bonkers happens like a doctor getting dragged off a plane, a dog dying in the overhead, etc. But at least in the 4 key categories I look at, I think we're doing pretty well

**Comfort
-I will give up a few inches of leg room and seat pitch (I'm 6ft) in order to not fly on those worn cloth seats, have a quieter cabin, have internet connectivity to the world, have entertainment where I can watch TV shows, hundreds of movies, etc. Take all the people who complain about "comfort and luxury" today and send them back to 1965 and put them on a TWA 707 in coach and people would WISH they were flying on today's carriers. Send them back to the 1940s golden era and those "luxury" liners were small, cramped, slow noisy beasts with wicker chairs. There was romance there and people dressed up.. but that's more the result of a changing populace than a worsening product

**Safety
Pan Am alone had 45 accidents from 1950 to 1980.. that is flat out bysmal. 45 accidents in 30 years?

**Scheduling and Convenience and on time
Go to any quasi major or bigger airport (at least as big as SNA, MHT, PBI, etc.) and you can pretty much get on a flight going anywhere in the world within the next few hours. Miss your MSP connection to LAX.. chances are in 45 minutes there's another plane going there.. and if not there then to SNA, SAN, etc. The majority of my flights, more than 9/10 of them, land on time or earlier. Even if there's a small delay at departure there is enough buffer that we're still landing at or before I was told.. and that's what I really care about. We can leave the gate 20 minutes late as long as I'm still home at the advertised time

**Food
We're paying a fraction of the cost for a ticket.. but for <$15 (at least on Delta) I can get one of almost a dozen different "snack" boxes.. you get your salami, pepperoni, cheese, etc. I think I would prefer that to paying orders of magnitude more for a ticket but getting a free trout platter

****If there's anything that is degrading, it's the typical flier. Given that you can get on a plane now for peanuts (pun intended) and that the overall social / moral fabric has eroded they're the number one item to blame. And as long as the majority of people (read, not aviation nuts, not business travelers, etc.) buy their tickets by going to Orbitz or Priceline or Kayak, etc., and pick the absolute cheapest flight they can we're going to continue to see this gentle shift towards greyhound bus type traveling as airlines compete for that lowest common denominator

 

[wsuffa]

I believe some of the airlines kick in money for that. Delta, UA/CO, AA, etc., that want to be world class would make sense they want to have a world class appeal.

I give you the terminal at sEWeR, and LGA for that matter. Even most of the terminals at LAX (excepting the new TBIT). For separate terminals or hub airports, the airlines either contribute or pay for it (JFK, for example, or CVG). Those are generally done with some rent abatement and provisions that they revert to the airport after a certain number of years.

SWA's terminal is absolute rubbish. But they're a low cost carrier and their travelers probably care less, or not at all. I actively recommend family and friends to fly something other than SWA/Alaska when coming here because that terminal is embarrassing. I did fly SWA once (before I had my IR and we had plans to be in Vegas) and I didn't get what the mass appeal was. The two times I flew them each flight was delayed, I thought the boarding zone process was bizarre, and there was nothing special about the in flight product or service at all. I don't get it. Granted, I paid $60.

If I'm going to be stuck in steerage anyway, Southwest is a very attractive option. It and JetBlue have some of the better in-air products. And more legroom.

-I will give up a few inches of leg room and seat pitch (I'm 6ft) in order to not fly on those worn cloth seats, have a quieter cabin, have internet connectivity to the world, have entertainment where I can watch TV shows, hundreds of movies, etc.

I don't. But I've had to shoe-horn myself into seats that were the same pitch as AA proposed on part of their -MAX (they backed off, instead reducing space throughout the cabin to give those rows an extra inch). I'm one that travels enough that it make a big difference. Same reason I owned a Commander single instead of a Lancair.

**Scheduling and Convenience and on time
Go to any quasi major or bigger airport (at least as big as SNA, MHT, PBI, etc.) and you can pretty much get on a flight going anywhere in the world within the next few hours. Miss your MSP connection to LAX.. chances are in 45 minutes there's another plane going there.. and if not there then to SNA, SAN, etc. The majority of my flights, more than 9/10 of them, land on time or earlier. Even if there's a small delay at departure there is enough buffer that we're still landing at or before I was told.. and that's what I really care about. We can leave the gate 20 minutes late as long as I'm still home at the advertised time

Better luck than I. All airlines have delays, but AA seems to be taking the brunt right now - maintenance and crew scheduling. I've had two friends that had AA flights canceled in the last 3 days due to lack of crew. One from the States to LHR, the other from LGA-MIA - and there was no where else to put them (they ended up getting a refund and paying 4 times on another airline as much to get to Miami from EWR). We're talking AA here, not Spirit.

****If there's anything that is degrading, it's the typical flier. Given that you can get on a plane now for peanuts (pun intended) and that the overall social / moral fabric has eroded they're the number one item to blame. And as long as the majority of people (read, not aviation nuts, not business travelers, etc.) buy their tickets by going to Orbitz or Priceline or Kayak, etc., and pick the absolute cheapest flight they can we're going to continue to see this gentle shift towards greyhound bus type traveling as airlines compete for that lowest common denominator

Americans have become conditioned to "cheap". Leisure travelers tend not to care when they buy the ticket, though they have caused an uproar when full-costs are not disclosed in advance (and with basic economy product, they're not). The airlines are lobbying to remove the Federal directive that requires that all displayed fares include taxes/fees - if that gets removed, we go back to cheap teaser fares with very high fees that aren't disclosed until later. Given the barriers to entry, people will buy anyway but complain mightily.[/quote]

 

[spiderweb]

Yes I do.

"§121.436 Pilot qualification: Certificates and experience requirements.
(a) No certificate holder may use nor may any pilot act as pilot in command of an aircraft (or as second in command of an aircraft in a flag or supplemental operation that requires three or more pilots) unless the pilot:

(1) Holds an airline transport pilot certificate not subject to the limitations in §61.167 of this chapter;"


And


"§61.159 Aeronautical experience: Airplane category rating.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section, a person who is applying for an airline transport pilot certificate with an airplane category and class rating must have at least 1,500 hours of total time as a pilot that includes at least:

(1) 500 hours of cross-country flight time.

(2) 100 hours of night flight time.

(3) 50 hours of flight time in the class of airplane for the rating sought. A maximum of 25 hours of training in a full flight simulator representing the class of airplane for the rating sought may be credited toward the flight time requirement of this paragraph if the training was accomplished as part of an approved training course in parts 121, 135, 141, or 142 of this chapter. A flight training device or aviation training device may not be used to satisfy this requirement.

(4) 75 hours of instrument flight time, in actual or simulated instrument conditions, subject to the following:

(i) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section, an applicant may not receive credit for more than a total of 25 hours of simulated instrument time in a flight simulator or flight training device.

(ii) A maximum of 50 hours of training in a flight simulator or flight training device may be credited toward the instrument flight time requirements of paragraph (a)(4) of this section if the training was accomplished in a course conducted by a training center certificated under part 142 of this chapter.

(iii) Training in a flight simulator or flight training device must be accomplished in a flight simulator or flight training device, representing an airplane.

(5) 250 hours of flight time in an airplane as a pilot in command, or as second in command performing the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command, or any combination thereof, which includes at least—

(i) 100 hours of cross-country flight time; and

(ii) 25 hours of night flight time."



Not many 250hr wonders are going to meet those requirements.

Also the lack of PIC time many of these FOs in other counties have is scary, look up PICUS, it's basically make believe PIC but you get to log it.

You’re posting these regulations why? Are you attempting to bolster your argument that most non-domestic airlines have under-qualified pilots? Perhaps some. But as long as you’re doing research, check this out: there are many international airlines which outrank domestic American Airlines on almost every score. They know they have to do so to compete, so that’s what they do. Indeed, many of these airlines specifically send their trainees HERE to America to get their training. Then, they often put them in companies with excellent customer service, better knowledge of company policies, and more advanced and consistent implementation.

American companies are some of the safest, But other airlines of the world are equally safe, often with a far better and more seamless customer experience. For example, I only count to on this list which are domestic airlines:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/safest-airlines-2018/

I love EVA and JAL

 

[James331]

You’re posting these regulations why? Are you attempting to bolster your argument that most non-domestic airlines have under-qualified pilots? Perhaps some. But as long as you’re doing research, check this out: there are many international airlines which outrank domestic American Airlines on almost every score. They know they have to do so to compete, so that’s what they do. Indeed, many of these airlines specifically send their trainees HERE to America to get their training. Then, they often put them in companies with excellent customer service, better knowledge of company policies, and more advanced and consistent implementation.

American companies are some of the safest, But other airlines of the world are equally safe, often with a far better and more seamless customer experience. For example, I only count to on this list which are domestic airlines:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/safest-airlines-2018/

I love EVA and JAL

Yes I am.

 

[spiderweb]

Yes I am.

I don't know what you are doing. Agreeing that you love EVA and JAL?

Otherwise: posting CFRs doesn't prove that only American domestic airlines follow those regulations.

James, I agree with you--as I'm sure anyone would--that America guarantees a certain level of safety. That doesn't mean that there aren't excellent airlines out there outside of our country. There are, and the are very competitive. The only thing they cannot do, of course, is take over domestic routes.

But I hold to my original statement that there are some fantastic international airlines--many of which do it better than AA, UAL, and Delta, in a lot of cases. Indeed, it is interesting to note that the two domestic airlines which made the top 20 list are "niche" airlines--Hawaiian and Alaska--and not the big three.