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.
Accurate fare disclosures will be very difficult. Airline fares are subject to routing restrictions, or, basically a list of acceptable cities through which connecting flights can be taken when necessary.
Taxes and fees can vary depending on the connecting city being used which makes full disclosure dependent on knowing the route the fare takes, and whether or not seats are available for any given day.
Keep in mind that advertised prices are very often not available for all flights. They are subject to availability.
One HUGE source of irritation are “surcharges”. They can be zero or as high as $300 round trip, possibly more. These seem never to be disclosed with any clarity, but in conjunction with other taxes and fees can cause the real price to be nearly double the advertised price.
Admittedly, full disclosure would be ideal. But, the tax and fee structure used would require revamping first in order to have adequate consistency to be able to publish a fare with a degree of accuracy.
It would be difficult to justify only addressing peanut allergies and ignore other conditions that threaten the health and well being of passengers. The affected person should bear the responsibility to know their own condition and to properly prepare for managing it. Airlines should be expected to accommodate special diet requests which are made with adequate prior notice. In the case of passengers who are not able to manage their own situations, written disclosures to flight personnel should enable flight personnel to institute an appropriate response.
Offering lowest fare available – reservations software are not all written the same. Convoluted solutions on unusual but valid routings exist but often defy being found. As a matter of practice, with availability changing constantly, it would be a near impossibility to enforce this unless software is rewritten in a consistent manner, plus it would have to track complete historical availability at each instant in order to enforce the rule. The intent is great, but I think unattainable and unenforceable.
I had no idea that peanut allergies can be so severe that proximity was enough to trigger a reaction.
While I sympathize with the situation, the nature of the industry defies an easy fix. With the advent of “food-for-purchase” on airplanes, more and more passengers bring their own food. Not serving peanut products won’t completely protect those who are violently allergic because of what other passengers bring on board.
The only way I can see to ban peanuts altogether is a TSA regulation to ban it on top of an airline ban for their food service. This increases costs of screening and imposes new regulations on all passengers and, in turn, increases the cost of airline tickets, not to mention slowing the TSA screening lines due to increased security to check food products.
I wish I had a creative solution to the problem. But, finding a practical solution will be much harder than may first appear.
Accurate fare disclosures will be very difficult. Airline fares are subject to routing restrictions, or, basically a list of acceptable cities through which connecting flights can be taken when necessary.
Taxes and fees can vary depending on the connecting city being used which makes full disclosure dependent on knowing the route the fare takes, and whether or not seats are available for any given day.
Keep in mind that advertised prices are very often not available for all flights. They are subject to availability.
One HUGE source of irritation are “surcharges”. They can be zero or as high as $300 round trip, possibly more. These seem never to be disclosed with any clarity, but in conjunction with other taxes and fees can cause the real price to be nearly double the advertised price.
Admittedly, full disclosure would be ideal. But, the tax and fee structure used would require revamping first in order to have adequate consistency to be able to publish a fare with a degree of accuracy.
It would be difficult to justify only addressing peanut allergies and ignore other conditions that threaten the health and well being of passengers. The affected person should bear the responsibility to know their own condition and to properly prepare for managing it. Airlines should be expected to accommodate special diet requests which are made with adequate prior notice. In the case of passengers who are not able to manage their own situations, written disclosures to flight personnel should enable flight personnel to institute an appropriate response.
Offering lowest fare available – reservations software are not all written the same. Convoluted solutions on unusual but valid routings exist but often defy being found. As a matter of practice, with availability changing constantly, it would be a near impossibility to enforce this unless software is rewritten in a consistent manner, plus it would have to track complete historical availability at each instant in order to enforce the rule. The intent is great, but I think unattainable and unenforceable.
I had no idea that peanut allergies can be so severe that proximity was enough to trigger a reaction.
While I sympathize with the situation, the nature of the industry defies an easy fix. With the advent of “food-for-purchase” on airplanes, more and more passengers bring their own food. Not serving peanut products won’t completely protect those who are violently allergic because of what other passengers bring on board.
The only way I can see to ban peanuts altogether is a TSA regulation to ban it on top of an airline ban for their food service. This increases costs of screening and imposes new regulations on all passengers and, in turn, increases the cost of airline tickets, not to mention slowing the TSA screening lines due to increased security to check food products.
I wish I had a creative solution to the problem. But, finding a practical solution will be much harder than may first appear.