The stories are far too voluminous to recount in full, but the meltdown of Spirit Airlines last week demonstrates why we need more rights for passengers who find their flights delayed or cancelled, particularly when the airline is to blame.
More Passenger Rights Needed After Spirit Airlines Meltdown
Take Nick Havener. He’s 25 years old and lives in Southern California. He took advantage of a cheap round-trip on Spirit Airlines to fly to Phoenix to visit a friend. But when he showed up for his return flight, back to Santa Ana (SNA) on August 2nd, he found confusion at the gate.
His plane was there. But there was no crew…and gate agents had no answer other than telling passengers to be patient. The departure time came and went. For the next 2.5 hours, at regular 15-minute intervals, passengers were simply told to be patient.
All of a sudden, all passengers received an email from Spirit Airlines that their flight was cancelled. Havener was rebooked the following day. He had no money for a hotel, but found a friend with an extra cot.
As for any assistance from Spirit Airlines, he received only a $7 meal voucher that would not even cover a meal at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport.
The next day, his flight cancelled again.
And the next day.
Spirit provided no further compensation, not even meal vouchers. Havener resorted to eating $2 pizza at Costco.
Three days later, he finally got home. He had called American, which also serves the route, but their price was several times more expensive than Spirit.
Now your gut reaction might be to tell Havener “you get what you pay for.” Indeed, Spirit’s lack of interline partners and point-to-point scheduling make delays and cancellations far more irksome than with a legacy carrier.
But Spirit Airlines, and every other carrier in the USA, should be required to meet a bare minimum standard of service if it wishes to serve in the U.S. market. That should include actual meals and lodging when delays happen like the meltdown Spirit experienced.
I realize the business model doesn’t support it, but customers should not be afraid they will be hungry and homeless if they book a Spirit Airlines ticket. That should not be part of the risk calculation when booking with Spirit.
These delays and cancellations may have started due to bad weather, but they really happened because Spirit Airlines was stretched to the max and could not handle any complications. It simply did not have the staffing or aircraft to deal with a ripple in the schedule, creating a ripple effect that stranded tens of thousands. That’s not an act of God…that’s Spirit’s own ineptitude; a gamble it chose to make.
I think we’d all agree airlines should not be able to opt out of safety standards, even if consumers agree to indemnify the airline in exchange for substantial cost savings. Similarly, airlines should not be permitted to trade away basic standards of care because that incentivizes an airline to act recklessly with its staffing and scheduling.
Spirit sought to save money by the way it runs its business – that’s fine. But when it all collapses, consumers should not be left holding the bag when they do no receive the product promised.
I’m not advocating for draconian new rights or even cash compensation. Rather, I’m simply saying that when an airline cancels or delays a flight, particularly for reasons within its control, consumers should not have to go hungry and should have a place to lay their head.
CONCLUSION
I focus on Spirit Airlines because the meltdown last week was so pervasive and the compensation so stingy, but similar analysis applies to any airline doing business in the USA. It’s very simple: people should have a reasonable expectation that an airline will operate on time and that a storm system will not cripple an airline for several days. Sometimes, delays and cancellations occur, but when they do consumers should not be left to totally fend for themselves or insulted with such meager compensation they cannot even buy a drink with their hamburger.
If that’s the case, then similar standard needs to apply for all transportations, including Amtrak, Greyhound, Car rentals. This seems excessive.
Airlines have a contract to transport from point A to point B, and if they cannot deliver, a refund and voided contract should suffice. It should not be airline’s responsibility because the passenger does not have any emergency savings to pay for additional lodging or food.
I would rather have the options to pay for a cheaper fare and deal with the hassle of delays/cancellations rather than government mandate for lodging/food and a more expensive fare.
It might be nice if a similar standard applied, but incremental progress is better than none at all.
But a voided contract does not make a consumer whole. If consumers detrimentally rely on a carrier for transport, that carrier should deliver on its end; a (delayed) refund is not sufficient.
The airline industry is already highly-regulated and consumer recourse is limited by the ironically-titled Airline Deregulation Act. Allowing carriers to skirt their end of the bargain emboldens them to run operations in a sloppy way.
That’s why we have trailor trash airlines like spirit and others because people like you are too cheap to pay for decent service. You would never tolerate this kind of service from any other business.
I have to agree with ZC. It sees like we are singling out the airline industry and holding them to a standard we don’t hold other modalities of transport.
If a person has to worry about going hungry and/or homeless if a flight is cancelled perhaps that person should have never traveled in the first place.
I thought about this as well particularly if someone is so poor that they literally will be homeless and hungry if a flight is delayed a day. Should such a person responsibly consider travel for anything more than the most dire of emergencies?
THAT being said, car rental agencies from what I understand will give you a better rental if the one you booked isn’t available. Hotels usually will put someone up AT ANOTHER HOTEL (at the hotel’s cost for the difference) rather than just cancel an over-reserved reservation. It’s bait-and-switch to offer low fares and get someone’s commitment to fill capacity and then just leave them hanging.
Heck, if there’s an argument to be made it should be to expand consumer protection to OTHER areas rather than a race to the bottom.
I’m reminded of a post a few months ago about how Spirit was expanding their frequent flier program and making it quite desirable and competitive. No matter how competitive it may be, does a business class traveler want to risk getting stranded for it?
Car rental companies certainly have left consumers hanging lately with the lack of vehicles.
Fair point about hotel, that customers gets treated better in these scenarios. Hotels walk customers to alternative hotels because they have less moving parts compared to airlines and rarely need to involuntarily walk someone and therefore can afford to do it. And at the end of the day, there is no contractual requirement or government mandate, which is how it should be.
What an arrogany, snob comment!!!
I do have to agree with Pete though if you didn’t bring enough money or a credit card to cover meals and a hotel you should have stayed home. Point Im making though it was spirits fault.
Honestly, while I sympathize with all of the people who Spirit rear ended over the past 2 weeks, I also have to say that if you can’t swing a night at the nearest Comfort Inn, or a meal at McDonald’s you probably shouldn’t be flying places. Seriously I know this story (and dozens of others in the media) are written to generate sympathy, to me they generate questions. Like why is an apparently destitute person flying out for the weekend? I recognize that 99% of Spirit’s customers aren’t going to have Priority Pass membership or a premium card that offers travel protection. But still, don’t travel if you’re so low on funds that you can’t manage a budget hotel room and some cheap meals for a night or two.
That doesn’t make it ok that Spirit offered up a shrug and walked away from it’s customers. Not at all. And yes, the passengers should absolutely get their money back for services not rendered.
I say we call it the Spirit Passenger’s Bill of Rights.
Just don’t fly spirit. They will crash one of their school bus conversations some day trying to save a buck and then everyone will be sorry. The people who get stranded without food or shelter are called vagrants if they have no money, and there is laws on the books against it.therefore spirit should be responsible for them. No matter what I tell everyone I know to not fly spirit. Why can’t someone start an airline better than the rest instead of trying to be the worst.
Spirit couldn’t even find hotels for their own crew , what makes you think they would have found hotels for passengers?
They might have to pay up…
I do find it interesting that Mr. Havener claims to not be able to afford a hotel in Phoenix in the middle of August, but is able to afford Uber or Car rental around town a few times, and apparently has a Costco membership. Perhaps he should have considered bus service back to Orange County.
Regardless, I think something like EU 261 would be a good thing in the United States. It has been anything but a hindrance on the growth of low fare travel in Europe, so I’m sure the additional cost burden to American consumers would be nil.
I agree with the author..this sort of thing just happened to me on United..storm in Chicago resulted in a ground stop for all flights. Then as they restarted, ground control was swamped with flights needing to fly into OHare. Meanwhile flights around the country were delayed, since every flight from 3 pm was still waiting to fly to Chicago. The gate agent in KC was suffering all the wrath of 100 passengers, as it became known the delay would mean no one would make their connecting flight. Was there an offer to give people in KC lodging for the night? No. Nothing. Just news of more delays. No other united personnel showed up to help the 2 heroic gate agents as they worked on rebooking all of these people. Bad for United, bad for the gate agents, bad for suffering passengers all across the country who had to fly into O’Hare. Next time I will drive, it is faster !
Spirit got billions from US taxpayers. And they give the middle finger to the. people who funded them. Congress is broken.
A real passenger bill of rights is long overdue.
+1
Ryanair and other ULCC airlines manage just fine in Europe so we know for a fact that airlines can provide protections in a first world setting without sacrificing safety.
YES! more government involvement in our lives. SAVE it! Travel is a privilege, not a right. does spirit suck?….yes! Should they treat customers better?….yes! Do they owe you pizza and snacks… no. Choose another airline next time, but stop looking to the gov’t to save you. This is just another post that scares the shit out of me seeing the mentality of people and where this country is headed. PLEASE government.. save me form the companies that I willingly do business with in a free market. I mean…dang!!!!
I mean, let Spirit deal with their own safety, right? No oversight needed. And seatbelts should be optional, since they add to the weight of the aircraft and thereby add to fuel consumption. Plus, if pilots or flight attendants want to work 70 hours straight, more power to them. It’s all about the free market!*
*until carriers crawl to the federal government asking for taxpayer bailouts not afforded to other people or industries.
The fact people are relating bailouts is even worse… you pretty much want the government to fully control business…just scary. Just because a company receives a bailout (which I also do not agree with even being in the industry ) does not mean they should then be run by the gov’t.
An approach similar to EU261 does not equate to an airline being “run by the government.”
No, thanks. I have not read, heard, or seen anything the EU has that I want in my life.
I would say the “duty of care” you propose is good, but I think an even better thing is laying out exactly when airlines are required to book passengers on another airline, or be required to compensate the passenger if refused.
Something like allowing 25 hours after departure (or after a weather event ends if something like a blizzard) for the airline to have that passenger on a plane. If they cannot do that, the passenger can book another airline in the same class of service to the same destination and the original airline must pick up the bill.
Given how all airlines price their tickets so last minute tix generally cost way more than advance purchase, it is irresponsible for airlines to only offer a refund or make the passenger wait until a flight is available. IROPS at a hub during the holidays could mean pax have to wait a week or more, or face a ticket price potentially 10x more rebooking at the last minute.
Spirit sucks and almost everyone knows it.
But this story is more a human interest story to me on the lack of judgment so many Americans of all ages seem to be lacking. I saw stories similar to this guys on TV from the Orlando market. Travelers complaining they had no money for food, etc. I assume they don’t have Credit Cards or family that could load some dollars on a debit card for them. Honestly if you are that broke, get a 2nd job and don’t spend your bottom dollar on a cheap flight for a vacation.
Seems like common sense to me, I must be old school.
And yea, Spirit still sucks.
I agree the guy was irresponsible not to be prepared. But still, I don’t think one should have to wonder if they will run out of money if they fly Spirit. Spirit brings a whole new class of traveler with its cheap base fares.
Sorry, but no. At a certain point, you need to a smart consumer. And if have so little money to your name that you cannot withstand the not entirely outside the realm of possibility of a delay, then you should not be traveling. At least not by air.
So you’re telling me that you factor in to your budget the potential for multiple short-notice nights of hotels and a short-notice flight (both of which have variable pricing, and therefore are tough to predict) every time you travel, just in case the airline decides not to uphold it’s end of the contract? You and I are fortunate enough to have the luxury to not be greatly burdened when this occurs, but to say that anyone who can’t afford an unexpected, rare, and indeterminate amount of expense every time they travel is absurd and unnecessarily elitist.
Take this to an extreme: If the airline gets you to your location, but then for a reason of their own doing can’t get you back to your departure airport, should you be expected to pay for your own accommodations for 1 week? 2 weeks? 4 weeks? What if the airline tells you each day that they’ll get you out later that day. At some point you stop believing them, but they’re free to make empty promises that cost you money? What if other flights are entirely unavailable out of that location, so you can’t just book a flight (on your own dime) on another airline? And no rental cars are available? By your logic, I should be financially prepared to effectively relocate to any city I travel to. Or be prepared to spend ANY amount of money required to return home.
Traveling in the US is a totally one-sided contract. We pay in advance for a service, and the airlines are clearly under no obligation to provide said service. And the amount they reimburse (if anything) is entirely at their discretion. Show me other industries where it’s normal to pay in advance for something and then be okay if the company decides to replace it, for whatever reason, with something of significantly lesser value. In every other example I can think of, you’re often agreeing (at worst) to be refunded or have the item replaced by something of equal or great value, but certainly not less value. You don’t buy an iPad and then accept a Kindle tablet because the store oversold iPads and doesn’t want to refund your money, so why do airlines get away with it? Or maybe I should use an example of a good/service rather than just a good: You don’t pay to have your roof replaced, and then settle when the roofer just removes the original roof and doesn’t install a new one. Getting you to your destination and not returning you in a reasonable period of time and then not compensating you for it WHEN IT’S THE AIRLINE’S FAULT is similar to removing the roof but not installing the new one. They’re not fulfilling their end of the transaction and you’re going to have to pay much more to someone else to get them onsite ASAP to install a new roof, or be prepared to pay for all the damage incurred while you wait without a roof.
What I don’t understand from the article and the discussion in the comments is how tort law operates in the USA. In England it’s really clear cut and has been before the advent of 261 and consumer protection legislation,
Let’s say I buy a £100 ticket to fly to Istanbul via CDG on AF in six months. Six months down the line, I turn up at the airport and they tell me that the flight to Paris is 3 hours late so I would miss the connection and do I want to come back tomorrow? I point out that TK have a direct flight, they refuse to rebook me on it and I spend £450 on a ticket with TK. AF is liable for the extra £350 I had to fork out, not because of 261, but because I made a bona fide purchase from them in the expectation they would deliver me to my destination on the agreed day.
Previous comments seem to imply that in the USA I would only receive £100 and AF would not need to rejmburse me for the losses they caused me. Is that really the case?
Spirit still stinks but what I don’t understand is travel insurance. If you bought travel insurance, then does Spirit have the obligation to put you on another flight? Cause god for bid I fly spirit, I’ll be getting that! But if it doesn’t cover it, then what’s the point of it!
The way travel insurance generally works is that you buy the new ticket and hope to be compensated for it after the fact.
I’m going to assume here that the guy was so broke – that maybe, just maybe he took the 44th Street Valley Metro bus line from 44th and Washington up to Costco – and then back to the airport. A one-day pass is $4.00, or $2.00 each way. Probably used the free SkyTrain from the terminals out to 44th Street little transit hub. He could have gone right across the street to QuikTrip or Circle K and grabbed a couple of hot dogs.
Hell, I can remember when I was broke. If I had a few shekels in my pocket – I was certain that I was going to eat and take care of myself – even if that meant stale Matzo and a bag of potato’s from the A&P or Waldbaum’s. I was hardly entertaining the thought of “cheap” travel on the likes of PanAm or TWA and later PEOPLExpress.
Who makes dumbo decisions like that?
I do not agree that Spirit, or any airline is required to have ANY interline agreements with any airline whatsoever. It’s their choice whether they should – or should not. Allegiant doesn’t nor does Frontier. Same with Southwest – whom do they interline with?
The Contract of Carriage/Conditions of Contract is quite clear – Spirit makes no warranty or provisions for accommodations (food. lodging, onward transportation) in regard to cancelled flights.
Unless the flight is oversold/overbooked, then Spirit does have a requirement under regulation to first ask for volunteers or compensate those who are actually removed due to an oversold flight – always ask for cash compensation – and never a voucher.
If one were to read the Contract of Carriage for the airline you intend to fly, you will see what the airline will provide (usually – not much) in the case of a cancellation. That’s why you rarely see the big boys of AA, DL, and UA outright cancel flights as they do offer some amenities. However, the big gotcha is weather – and the big airlines almost always use “weather” as the reason a flight is cancelled.
An attorney could probably make a case in federal court that an airline(s) is cancelling flights – using “weather” as the catch-all – when in many cases, weather is not the reason for the cancellation, and tie that back to that individual airline(s) Contract of Carriage for mis-representation and sue for damages for not wanting to pay out the amenities that may be offered within the Contract of Carriage.
I am not in agreement for any new, added, changed or more regulations that affect airline carriers in terms of flight cancellations and/or irregular operations. The Airline Deregulation Act freed the airlines of many of these requirements, especially when many like to bring up the previous CAB Rule “240” – which was used for many years after deregulation was in force – but the airlines have no legal obligation to offer.
One could make the argument that Spirit has the lowest fares, but smart shoppers will find Basic Economy fares that are almost on par, and sometimes less than Spirit’s own airfares – especially on routes where Spirit competes with the Big 3. Isn’t that why Doug Parker at AA densified and Oasis-sized his aircraft to better compete with Spirit, Allegiant and Frontier and offer lower fares and charge fees for everything? DL and UA are no better in their coach sections in terms of legroom and pitch – many of the seats in their fleets are 30″. Spirit is at what 29/30″. I guess that’s why they offer and sell their non-reclining Big Front Seat to take the pain away – somewhat, all while you are drinking their “famous” BuzzBalls.
You could even say that AA is just as “bad” as Spirit because in many of the rules of their Basic Economy fares. AA has incorporated rules that require any re-bookings to made in the Basic Economy fare class of service “B” – and not just any coach inventory. Is that wrong? – I say no, because those are the restrictions of the Basic Economy fare – but nobody is yelling at AA when they do this to their Basic Economy passengers – in essence making those passengers wait until Basic Economy space becomes available and not permit the AA agent to freely book any available coach seat.
However, the same issue holds true with the other airlines, if they cancel flights, you’re basically on your own, Sure, maybe the big boys may operate more frequent service than Spirit -which compounds the issue when Spirit may only fly a certain route 2 or 3 rimes a week and it’s harder to get re-booked when 150+ passengers are all vying for a seat from a now cancelled flight(s).
The same is true at Allegiant and Frontier – those two airlines operate many routes where they only fly 2 or 3 times a week. Even Southwest and most recently American and United were (and are) operating Saturday-only flights.
So, no more regulations placed on top of the current Contract of Carriage. If the airlines themselves can’t make it work, then they themselves are to blame when passengers fly on other airlines.
Based on the author’s suggestion, this would re-open a whole new level of unnecessary government regulation, added bureaucracy and more taxpayer-funded employees to regulate at the author’s suggestion which what should be handled by the free market. If Spirit can’t handle it themselves – they will eventually run out of passengers – or so goes the thinking.
People are going to remember Spirit’s most recent operational meltdown when they are planning their upcoming travel in the next few months – and we will see their bookings take a hit – but they have a bunch of new aircraft coming on-line – which means more new routes and new service.
Guess what? If people see the low fares – they are going to purchase them.
Stack’em deep and Sell’em cheap!
NO MORE REGULATIONS…PERIOD!
SO_CAL_RETAIL_SLUT
Matthew, safety oversight does fall under some government responsibility, but not what amenities an airline provides you when things go bad. Personally, I take AMAZING care of passengers. Promise you, If I am on the flight deck and you’re delayed at an outstation you’re getting pizza and sodas. I have flight attendants give me tight connections when we are delayed and call ops to see if we can hold a connection or see if we can provide the customer assurance that their connection is help. . I will do everything I can for you ANYTHING in my power. What I do not want to see is the government telling us how to handle anything. even their safety oversight is not so great, trust me. Name one thing the government does efficiently and effectively.
Are there no consumer protections in the US for this sort of thing?
Nope.
Several years ago I was booked on USAir from New Hampshire through CLT back to Florida on a Thursday in February. A snow storm in Charlotte on Wednesday cascaded across the country and I found myself without a flight Thursday morning, the hotel wanting me to check out, and the rental car company waiting for my rental return. I did not expect the airline to support me while I made alternate travel, lodging, and rental car plans. I eventually got a flight into La Guardia on Delta and ended up stranded there Saturday night when our loaded for departure aircraft struck the de-icing truck just after we pushed back from the gate. Flight grounded and cancelled.
I got home Sunday afternoon without ranting and raving at the helpless gate agents or ticket agents.
In hindsight I probably should have kept the All Wheel Drive rental car in New Hampshire and driven to Florida. I would have arrived home sooner.
I think this is an Apples and Oranges comparison. I didn’t think Matt’s article was suggesting that the airline should be on the hook when it’s weather related. But when it’s their own negligence or incompetence, then they should be on the hook for it.