Smaller club of airlines taking passengers for a ride
Kevin Rafferty says a passenger charter with basic requirements is needed to force fairer deals
Economic reform is surely a good thing for any self-respecting country seeking to provide jobs and opportunities for its people. Deregulation is often essential to get rid of tedious rules and bureaucratic hang-ups.
Unfortunately, when governments put these elements together, they don't add up. That is happening in aviation, where oligopolistic airlines are taking advantage of deregulation and unequal markets to take passengers for an expensive ride.
In the bad old days 40 years ago, the joke was that the club of airlines, the International Air Transport Association (Iata), used to regulate everything on flights, down to the thickness and cut of the cucumber sandwiches the airlines served.
Governments controlled traffic rights, including where, when and how often an airline could fly, and regulated ticket prices tightly. If airlines wanted to change fares, they had to get government permission first. Many airlines were government-owned, national flag carriers, literally.
Airlines like Cathay Pacific, which refused to join Iata and offered free drinks, quality meals, free entertainment and inflight service that other carriers could only dream of, helped to break up the cosy system.
Landmark deregulation came in the US with a 1978 act. This led first to new airlines, and then to consolidation, which saw famous legacy airlines, such as Pan American World Airways, disappear.
Today, the US has just four major airlines, American, Delta, United and Southwest, carrying 193 million, 165 million, 139 million and 133 million passengers, respectively.
In Europe, the reluctance of national carriers to change offered opportunities for brash low-cost airlines. Ryanair is the biggest airline in Europe by passengers carried - 81 million a year - though it also habitually comes top in terms of passenger complaints.
Supporters of deregulation claim passengers benefited from lower fares as airlines were freed from their government nannies. That was initially true, but the balance has swung against passengers since there are fewer airlines, all competing to maximise revenue.
Airlines have become adept at slicing and dicing, charging for things previously free, such as checked luggage, sometimes for carry-on luggage, seat selection, letting children sit next to their parents, boarding early, food and drink, blankets and pillows, changes to flights. Ancillary revenue came to almost US$50 billion last year, and is rising with each money-grabbing new wheeze.
Ryanair's boss Michael Leary infamously suggested his airline might charge for using the toilet, and investigated standing-room only areas to cram in more passengers. Ryanair charges passengers who do not print their boarding passes.
It is one thing for self-styled no-frills airlines to charge for little extras like food and drink on one- to three-hour short hops. It is another for supposedly full-service airlines to charge for basic needs on crowded long-haul flights.
These days, there is no such thing as a regulation fare. Prices fluctuate wildly. Checking return flights between Asia and Europe over a 10-day period, I found business class flights that were half or even one-third of the stated "cheapest economy fare" on several airline websites for other days.
There are three or four classes of service on board, but airlines' classes for ticket pricing run from A to Z, with computers carefully calculating "yield management", to maximise money from every seat.
Even on pricey business class fares of US$4,000-plus, some airlines are imposing lifestyle restrictions, such as Saturday night stays, without which the price jumps to US$7,000.
Seat pitch is being squeezed, so that 32 and even 31 inches is becoming the norm in economy, and airlines are looking covetously at thinner seats to add rows. Japanese airlines have adapted the typical nine-abreast configuration of the Boeing 777 to make it 10-abreast.
Airlines have begun to charge swingeing penalties for changes. One passenger paid US$1,500 to an American airline for a return ticket from Japan to Seattle. She finished her work early and asked about returning a day earlier. Seats were available. The airline agent told her she would have to buy a new ticket "at today's price", or US$2,900, plus a US$250 "cancellation fee" for not using the original return.
Defenders of the system say this is the working of "the free market" or that passengers should read the "terms and conditions" of their tickets.
We don't want to go back to the nanny state but governments must insist airlines offer reasonable seating and travelling conditions and do not hook passengers on unequal contracts. Passengers are not free to amend airline "terms and conditions", which makes them unfair contracts.
Let's devise a passengers' charter to insist airlines must provide - at least - minimum 33-inch seat pitch, free essential hand-carry luggage, free water or soft drinks on flights of more than two hours, no junk food and at least a free flight change.
