Airline form letter lying to Dominican victims
I read with interest my colleague Chris Elliott’s blog posting this morning about US Airways’ response to its customers stranded in Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, after their flight was canceled due to a tropical storm and they were “escorted” from the terminal by armed guards.
I know a good form letter when I see it. I ought to; I’ve got plenty of practice. For nearly 20 years, I worked in a major airline’s customer relations office, and for a good chunk of that time, I was the guy responsible for actually writing the drivel we sent to our passengers.
Form letters are a necessary evil in the world of customer relations - sad but true. But this one tells an out-and-out lie to its recipients.
In order to ensure that all carriers remain focused on safety, aviation regulations do not require airlines to pay compensation for consequential expenses because of delayed or canceled flights. This would include such items as hotel expenses, telephone calls, lost wages, missed meetings and other personal expenses including purchasing alternate transportation.
That is not true, or at best the wording is deceptive. Airlines are deregulated, for the most part. In cases like this, they are free to do as they wish. Their statement should be rewritten to say that US Airways’ policy and its Conditions of Contract don’t require them to pay such items.
Elliott was right when he said the airline technically owes its customers nothing. The airline erred when it used the Feds as its defense — and I suspect Washington wouldn’t like being blamed.
Situations like this one, where things get horribly out of hand (what else can you call it when people with guns have to poke and prod to get passengers out of an airport?) are exactly why Representative James Oberstar (D-Minn.) and his cohorts have introduced the Air Service Improvement Act of 2008.
If you’ve read any of my blog postings on that subject, you know I’m not a big fan of that legislation, but Draconian, even deceitful responses like US Airways’ only add fuel to Oberstar’s fire.
As I’ve also said in some of my other posts, there are other avenues to pursue than just contacting the airline. Try writing the DOT if you want the airline to stand up and take notice.
You may also be interested in these articles
Comments
4 Responses to “Airline form letter lying to Dominican victims”
Please share your thoughts...
As badly as the situation was handled, the highlighted statement (”aviation regulations do not require airlines to pay compensation for consequential expenses”) is nonetheless true. The statement doesn’t say that [federal] regulations prevent compensation; it merely says the regulations do not require compensation.
Thanks, Larry. I’ve clarified things for other readers.
The point here is that there are no regulations surrounding the compensation of customers for situations like this. The airline’s reply suggests that the government has an opinion one way or another on the subject of compensation and that there is an intentional, regulatory release of airline culpability to encourage safe operations.
That is untrue, and it’s deceitful to suggest otherwise as a way of wiggling out of doing what’s right for the customer.
Thanks for pointing this out so I could clarify the blog posting.
David
Actually, I didn’t read it that way. To me, it rather clearly said “since the government doesn’t require us to, we’ve chosen to not pay you any compensation” . Of course, I’ve been flying pretty regularly since the 1950’s, and I’ve read a LOT of airline drivel… :-)
Hurrican SEASON………wouldnt it be WISE to have TRAVEL INSURANCE?
Secondly, the AIRLINE didnt remove the passengers from the terminal…..AIRPORT EMPLOYEES/GUARDS did.
Clearly, a WEATHER ISSUE.
Should passengers be PUT UP in a hotel everytime there’s FOG in SFO?