Southwest is called out in the article as an example of an airline doing things right.
I fly Southwest and prefer it to other domestic airlines, but are they actually beating the other airlines? I just looked up their Q4 earnings out of curiosity, and they seem to be doing well compared to their competitors:
Southwest Q4 2016: $522M net profit on $5.1B revenue United Q4 2016: $397M net profit on $9.1B revenue American Q4 2016: $289M net profit on $9.7B revenue
This piece fits much better as a NYT article. Maybe one day soon I'll learn to read properly.
I had read elsewhere this is specifically to avoid an incentive that would otherwise exist for airlines to fly in potentially unsafe conditions.
And as a backstop, still give the airline the power to decide on a no-go... even if the "weather service" says it's ok to fly, if the captain doesn't feel comfortable, they can make that call.
Probably. Even then, though, what's the significance of the airline paying? On a practical level, this means they raise prices to account for that risk (and likely a higher estimate to be on the safe side) and consumers are paying anyway.
So the real choice is whether you want to charge the consumers that booked the flight that got cancelled for the cost of the hotel rooms when this happens or all consumers a smaller amount to account for it. Like an insurance policy, basically.
I guess at the end of the day, I understand not wanting people to be stuck in an airport for a while because they have no money in an unfamiliar place, but I also feel like occasional bad weather is a fact of life and legislating more complexity onto the airlines is moving the wrong direction.
> And as a backstop, still give the airline the power to decide on a no-go... even if the "weather service" says it's ok to fly, if the captain doesn't feel comfortable, they can make that call.
This has always existed, as far as I'm aware. You just don't want to put airlines in that position, and it's pushing it to expect captains to overrule that decision when the airline is paying their salary.
Southwest is a great example that the current model is working. Don't want to pay baggage fees, and get nickeled and dimed for everything? Fly Southwest.
I frequently recommend them as the best domestic airline for people who don't fly enough to get airline status, and aren't willing to pay for first/business class travel. They've got a pretty good route network, and the difference between the highest tier passenger on a Southwest flight and the lowest tier passenger on a Southwest flight is far less than traditional carriers.
I hope the free market punishes the ultra-economy fares that traditional carriers are offering. Flying a traditional carrier on an economy ticket without status is already such a degrading experience. Hopefully passengers won't be willing to suffer further degradation, and will just switch their business to Southwest, Alaska or another carrier that doesn't offer ultra-economy fares.
There is also real competition occurring at many airports throughout the country. For example, Delta and Alaska Air are waging an all-out war in Seattle right now, with both airlines aggressively pursuing flyers in that market.
Now, I do think some additional regulation is necessary. The fact that airlines aren't responsible to take care of stranded passengers during weather delays is inexcusable, and increased fare transparency would help the competitive side of the marketplace. And I agree with the article that regulators should also be much more skeptical of mergers that decrease competition and establish de facto monopolies.