This is your Profile page. Use it to check replies to your comments, keep track of comments
you've made or endorsed, and manage your regulation room account.
Banning peanuts and peanut products on flights does not harm anyone and demonstrates the airlines’ (and government’s) reasonable attempt to meet the needs of those with severe peanut allergies. The airlines can’t control what passengers bring onboard, but they can try to regulate it and not have an entire flight full of people eating peanuts. An EpiPen only helps for a few minutes. I’d rather give up peanuts for a few hours than have a child lose his or her life. Is that what it is going to take to resolve this simple issue?
I teach a child with a severe peanut allergy. I can’t 100% prevent individuals from consuming peanut products and coming around the student. But, I can ban peanut products in my classroom and post huge signs on my door saying “do not enter if you have eaten or have been exposed to peanut products”. That demonstrates my reasonable efforts to protect the student.
Most travelers have luggage. It is reasonable to expect that and it should be part of the usual serviceLimited carry-on luggage and one checked bag should be free. Those with medical conditions may need to carry-on multiple medications and/or devices (ex: nebulizer), that take up room. They should not be discriminated against and charged fees for such things. I carry-on extra food and drink (bc I experienced being stuck on the tarmac for 6+ hours years ago w/o food and drink before we had cell phones where we could call the police and/or media and make it a new story as they do). Not to mention, now we are expected to buy lousy airline food onboard, I’d rather bring my own affordable healthy snacks and meals. One free checked bag also prevents discrimination against those that can’t physically cope with carrying luggage around an airport (ex: connecting flights) and putting it in/removing it from the overhead bin. Airlines should meet the needs of their customers and not nickel and dime us to death.
I do not think there should be a compensation cap. If a passenger is bumped from a flight and misses an important business meeting, high school graduation or wedding, there is no price that can compensate for that. Certainly not $1300. In addition, even if the entire flight fare is refunded (easily over $1300 on some long overseas flights), there are other costs that the bumped passenger could face such as non-refundable/prepaid hotel reservations or other travel and travel related expenses. If a passenger can prove that he or she has additional expense above and beyond what the airline offers and the government requires he or she should be awarded more compensation.
As for zero-fare tickets, for the same reasons above, I do not think compensating them with just miles is adequate.
Volunteering: I am happy to volunteer if there is some sort of compensation and I am not in a huge rush or too inconvenienced. I was especially happy to do so when a group of 50+ school students needed to get onboard together to fly from London to Dallas but the airline messed up. Volunteer opportunities and compensation should be posted/announced when one checks in (online, at terminal, etc.) and continue to be posted and announced for all to see/hear until the last minute and the airline has to bump involuntarily.
Compensation should be reasonable, but at least equal to the travelers’ actual monitary losses plus more for inconvenience. That could still be If the airlines can’t determine what is obviously reasonable, let the courts decide. Most judges aren’t stupid.
I speak from experience as someone stuck on the tarmac in Austin for 6 + hours years ago, before we had cell phones and could call police or the media to make a story about it. Yes, uniform time limit on tarmac delays for all flights at all airports. The inconvenience to passengers is no different no matter what airport they are at. 3 hours is inconvenient, but perhaps acceptable and reasonable, but not a minute longer. Yes, allow passengers to deplane with security in place. Not allowing this process is simply because it would likely be more expensive than imprisoning passengers on planes for hours.
Banning peanuts and peanut products on flights does not harm anyone and demonstrates the airlines’ (and government’s) reasonable attempt to meet the needs of those with severe peanut allergies. The airlines can’t control what passengers bring onboard, but they can try to regulate it and not have an entire flight full of people eating peanuts. An EpiPen only helps for a few minutes. I’d rather give up peanuts for a few hours than have a child lose his or her life. Is that what it is going to take to resolve this simple issue?
I teach a child with a severe peanut allergy. I can’t 100% prevent individuals from consuming peanut products and coming around the student. But, I can ban peanut products in my classroom and post huge signs on my door saying “do not enter if you have eaten or have been exposed to peanut products”. That demonstrates my reasonable efforts to protect the student.
Full disclosure of all fees should be clearly listed and in language that the average traveler can understand.
Most travelers have luggage. It is reasonable to expect that and it should be part of the usual serviceLimited carry-on luggage and one checked bag should be free. Those with medical conditions may need to carry-on multiple medications and/or devices (ex: nebulizer), that take up room. They should not be discriminated against and charged fees for such things. I carry-on extra food and drink (bc I experienced being stuck on the tarmac for 6+ hours years ago w/o food and drink before we had cell phones where we could call the police and/or media and make it a new story as they do). Not to mention, now we are expected to buy lousy airline food onboard, I’d rather bring my own affordable healthy snacks and meals. One free checked bag also prevents discrimination against those that can’t physically cope with carrying luggage around an airport (ex: connecting flights) and putting it in/removing it from the overhead bin. Airlines should meet the needs of their customers and not nickel and dime us to death.
I do not think there should be a compensation cap. If a passenger is bumped from a flight and misses an important business meeting, high school graduation or wedding, there is no price that can compensate for that. Certainly not $1300. In addition, even if the entire flight fare is refunded (easily over $1300 on some long overseas flights), there are other costs that the bumped passenger could face such as non-refundable/prepaid hotel reservations or other travel and travel related expenses. If a passenger can prove that he or she has additional expense above and beyond what the airline offers and the government requires he or she should be awarded more compensation.
As for zero-fare tickets, for the same reasons above, I do not think compensating them with just miles is adequate.
Volunteering: I am happy to volunteer if there is some sort of compensation and I am not in a huge rush or too inconvenienced. I was especially happy to do so when a group of 50+ school students needed to get onboard together to fly from London to Dallas but the airline messed up. Volunteer opportunities and compensation should be posted/announced when one checks in (online, at terminal, etc.) and continue to be posted and announced for all to see/hear until the last minute and the airline has to bump involuntarily.
Compensation should be reasonable, but at least equal to the travelers’ actual monitary losses plus more for inconvenience. That could still be If the airlines can’t determine what is obviously reasonable, let the courts decide. Most judges aren’t stupid.
I speak from experience as someone stuck on the tarmac in Austin for 6 + hours years ago, before we had cell phones and could call police or the media to make a story about it. Yes, uniform time limit on tarmac delays for all flights at all airports. The inconvenience to passengers is no different no matter what airport they are at. 3 hours is inconvenient, but perhaps acceptable and reasonable, but not a minute longer. Yes, allow passengers to deplane with security in place. Not allowing this process is simply because it would likely be more expensive than imprisoning passengers on planes for hours.