Tuesday, May 27, 2014


Dead Battery

NTSB: FAA Failed To Test 787 Batteries Against Fire
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
Back in March, when the public was consumed with Malaysia Flight 370, the FAA quietly released a report after a year-long probe into the design, certification and manufacturing of the Boeing 787. 

The plane was "fundamentally sound" they ruled.

"Deficiencies" were typical of any new airplane and "are being addressed or have been addressed" by Boeing said the FAA.
However, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has a different perspective. Last week they released a safety recommendation saying the FAA was too reliant on Boeing for battery testing.

The NTSB report directly conflicts with the FAA's internal study that said they had "effective processes in place to identify and correct issues that emerged before and after certification." 
NTSB said, "Boeing underestimated the more serious effects" of problems inside and outside of the novel new batteries it decided to use on the Boeing 787.  They questioned Boeing's use of cobalt oxide lithium ion used as the two large batteries on the plane, the same type of battery used in some laptops
 and cell phones that spontaneously ignited in the mid 2000s. The fires occurred in some public places like airports and videos were posted
LAX Laptop Fire
LAX Laptop Fire
on YouTube.

Earlier, these batteries were the subject of the world's largest industrial recall.

Despite that, Boeing and its subcontractors opted to use the lithium ion batteries, obtaining a special condition from the FAA.

As the NTSB describes the process, Boeing tested the cells it planned to use on the Dreamliner by poking them with nails then sitting back and recording the resulting fireworks.
Boeing tried downplaying the danger and produced a "solution":  a containment box that would supposedly isolate the danger posed by a thermal runaway of a lithium ion battery.
But there was no requirement that Boeing conduct a full examination of what would happen to all the components; not just the cells but the external wiring and battery case. When the NTSB conducted their own tests of how everything worked together, they discovered several faults.

Now, the FAA report on Boeing that described everything as great with the certification process, should be reviewed and taken apart by the NTSB.

The NTSB report said that even now, a year after the Dreamliners returned to the air following two battery-overheating incidents, the standard for lithium ion battery design and safety "does not address all of the unique aspects of a battery's installation on an aircraft." Boeing and other airplane manufacturers "need to evaluate whether additional requirements and testing are necessary to ensure aircraft-level safety."

It is now time for the Boeing report that was produced by the FAA to be thoroughly dissected and analyzed by the NTSB.  It is clear that, contrary to the findings of that report, things are NOT great with the certification process, as they asserted.

"Cozy Self Regulation"

The NTSB acknowledged that the Boeing and FAA insularity distorted perspective and hindered safety. 

The FAA and Boeing conducted an examination of their own actions in the design, building and certification of the Dreamliner. The committee was composed of thirteen: six from the FAA and seven from Boeing who, together and not surprisingly, found 'no flaws in the verification of the airplane'.
The NTSB blamed the FAA for not reaching out to independent experts years ago to get another view of the lithium ion batteries on a commercial aircraft. In short, the FAA let itself be used by Boeing to accept a superficial job.  In what other businesses has "self regulation" resulted in better safety or quality of product for the customer?

In an op-ed by former NTSB chairman, James Hall, he says the aircraft makers persuade the FAA to let them certify their own aircraft so they could save money.

"Problems with the plane's lithium-ion batteries emerged about 14 months after the 787 entered commercial service in November 2011, underscoring the folly of this policy. The agency let Boeing help write the safety standards, develop the testing protocol and then perform those tests. In 2008, a year after standards for the battery system were approved with special conditions on the containment and venting of the batteries, stricter industry guidelines for these batteries were released. But the FAA did not require the 787 to meet those new guidelines."

Hall adds, "Even Boeing's chief engineer on the 787, Mike Sinnett, acknowledged to the NTSB that one of the battery tests had been inadequate and was not "conservative enough."

"The F.A.A.'s recent decision to approve Boeing's plans to fix the lithium-ion battery seems shortsighted and represents a complete failure of government oversight", he concludes.

The 787 is the first commercial jet to rely on rechargeable lithium ion batteries to power key systems. The batteries are lighter, letting airlines save fuel. However, a January 2013 fire occurred aboard a 787 parked at the Boston airport when one battery cell had an uncontrollable increase in temperature and pressure, known as a thermal runaway.

Nobody was injured, but that fire, and a subsequent smoke incident on a separate 787 nine days later, led to a worldwide grounding of the Dreamliner fleet.

The NTSB report concludes that, in devising a process to assess the safety of the battery design, "FAA certification staff members relied primarily on Boeing's expertise and knowledge to define the necessary tests and analyses."

The FAA has a reputation of being in bed with the airlines and Boeing is known for firing engineers who speak out about the 787 Dreamliner.

There are now 140 Dreamliners operating around the world. An additional 891 have been ordered by airlines.

No Short-Circuit Testing

In January 2007, the FAA approved a testing plan proposed by Boeing that did not include testing for short circuits.

To avoid such oversights again, the NTSB suggests the FAA look outside the aviation industry for expertise when approving a new technology.

For instance, the Department of Energy has extensively tested lithium-ion batteries. If the FAA had reached out to that department or other experts, the report says, the FAA could have recognized its tests "were insufficient to appropriately evaluate the risks" of a battery short circuit.

The safety board recommends the FAA review its lithium ion battery testing process. Also, any certification of new technology should involve "independent and neutral experts outside of the FAA and an aircraft manufacturer."

Given the fact that Boeing never came up with the root cause of the battery problem and instead simply built a box to contain the fires, tells us the company was looking for the cheapest possible solution. 
Could it just be just good luck that no passengers have been killed on the 787 Dreamliner? It's had a battery meltdown inflight. But to the credit of the crew and luck, because they were near a landing field, they got the plane on the ground and the passengers out the emergency slides. Jan. 2013 - Passengers leave an All Nippon Airways Boeing 787 after it made an emergency landing at Takamatsu airport in Takamatsu, Kagawa

Issues Go Back To 2004
The safety board says the problems that caused the initial battery incidents go back to September 2004, when Boeing first told aviation regulators of its plans to use lithium ion batteries on the 787. 
What is not said is that a huge number of other very significant issues concerning the 787 were handled the same way. Issues of crashworthiness, flammability, lightning strikes and durability of the composite structure were all managed the same.

"When Boeing and the FAA worked together to set up certification tests in March 2006, they considered the smoke a battery fire might cause but, according to the safety board's report, "Boeing underestimated the more serious effects of an internal short circuit." In January 2007, the FAA approved the testing plan proposed by Boeing. It did not include testing for such short circuits."

Let's make one thing clear: the cause of the battery failure is not understood. So unless the cause is understood, a battery failure is possible again, even likely.
What we see with the FAA certification process is the same kind of streamlining that collapsed the financial markets. The 787 is a keyhole view for the public to see into this process. The Dreamliner has a longstanding tradition of sweeping problems under the rug, giving creative explanations, and fixing only the problems that forcefully creep out again.

This NTSB report confirms our fears about aviation. What about tomorrow? This question is more important than ever.

The FAA has 90 days to respond.

(Sources for article:)
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20140522/dreamliner_batteries-59a62ef788.html   http://mynorthwest.com/15/2527486/Report-FAA-too-reliant-on-Boeing-for-battery-test   http://news.yahoo.com/report-faa-too-reliant-boeing-battery-test-160413178--finance.html  http://townhall.com/news/us/2014/05/22/report-faa-too-reliant-on-boeing-for-battery-test-n1841945
http://www.crescent-news.com/ap travel/2014/05/22/report-faa-too-reliant-on-boeing-for-battery-test 
http://www.stowsentry.com/ap travel/2014/05/22/report-faa-too-reliant-on-boeing-for-battery-test  
http://magesoapbox.blogspot.com/2013_04_01_archive.html  http://worldofwallpaperz.blogspot.com/2013/04/a-back-seat-for-safety-at-faa.html  
http://atwonline.com/blog/why-faa-approved-787-fix-without-root-cause-determined-jal-ana-events  http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/2014/5/23/tougher_tests_needed_for_787_dreamliner.htm  
http://news.yahoo.com/787-safe-fly-ntsb-doesn-t-think-094500241--politics.html  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/28/ntsb-doesn-t-think-the-boeing-787-dreamliner-is-safe-enough-to-fly.html
FlyersRights' Statement

The FAA and DOT should limit the 787 to -at most- flying within two hours of the nearest airport, pending comprehensive testing of its proposed battery fix and a period of at least 24 months of trouble free operations.  

This position is supported by substantial independent expert opinion, prior experience with the lithium ion batteries and prior certification decisions and precedents by US and other regulatory authorities.  


The FAA cleared the Dreamliner for takeoff without completing its own top-to-bottom review of the aircraft's design, and even before the National Transportation Safety Board was able to find out what caused the battery fires in the first place.

Meanwhile, an FAA blue-ribbon panel of industry experts has issued new safety standards for lithium ion batteries in commercial aircraft, but they won't be applied to the Dreamliner.  The government's aviation safety chief, Peggy Gilligan, explained to the House Transportation subcommittee that "it's very difficult to go back and cause an existing product to be retested in accordance with some new standard."

Boeing's persistent problems with its lithium ion batteries have caused its European competitor, Airbus, to announce that it will reject their use altogether for its new counterpart, the A350.

Paul Hudson, president of FlyersRights said, "The FAA has ignored the 2013 FlyersRights petition and has doubled down on wholesale delegation of its safety regulatory authority to Boeing on the 787 Dreamliner.  Now it must be seen if the FAA also ignores the NTSB's recommendations and its own prior safety criteria for lithium ion batteries on airliners." 
Your Letters!
I've been a subscriber to your site for a few years. Thought I'd share with you the First Class seats on Air Canada "Rouge", LAX to Calgary. It's a coach seat!  With a complimentary pillow! The elbow rest doesn't fold up.  I guess they don't sell the middle seat so that's something.  It's the end of biz class as we know it.

It's 6:00 am. Was counting on some sleep since it was a 4 am pickup and all I can say is "this f#%^ing sucks". We used to jokingly call Air Canada "Maple-Flot" as in the Russian airline. All they need to do is add the rope seatbelt.


Dear DS,

Rouge seems to be designed as a cheaper airline.

http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/media/rouge/index.html.  They do not have a First or Business Class, they call it Rouge Plus, (4rows).

(Bottom of page 1).  Apparently some other planes have other configurations, but this looks like the last one in the PDF.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Rouge under Fleet, note on 319 "Middle seats blocked in first three rows".  Not too terrible for a 1,194 miles flight.
(Thanks to Dan Prall)

(Followup by DS)
This is on Air Canada Rouge. They're, according to Wikipedia , serving "...leisure destinations". This seat cost 3500$ USD round trip Calgary to Los Angeles. 
Air Canada proper no longer serves this route. Pretty sure Westjet forced this play since they are a popular one-class airline.

Dear FlyersRights:

Private pilots say border agents go too far. Read more here:http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/05/19/227840/private-pilots-say-border-agents.html#storylink=cpy

The young pilot from Miami was trying to impress a woman with a lunch trip to Key West.

This is very interesting to me as my private pilot son-in-law took our daughter for a romantic flight to a small airport at the ocean (Washington State Coast) 22 years ago to have dinner and to propose marriage.  Had this interception and interrogation happened to them at that time, I also wonder if she would have said "yes."



FlyersRights depends on tax-deductible contributions from those who share our commitment to airline passenger rights. 

Thank you. 

  FlyersRights 4411 Bee Ridge Road 
Sarasota, FL 34233
We value your thoughts and opinions! Please send to Kendallc@FlyersRights.org.

This email was sent to kendall44@gmail.com by kendallc@flyersrights.org  

FlyersRights.org | 4411 Bee Ridge Road | Sarasota | FL | 34233

Tuesday, May 13, 2014

       Not Fare
                                  Deregulation Does Not Mean Lower Airfares
                             Tuesday, May 13, 2014
Was flying cheaper in 1975 or 2014? You'll be surprised by the answer, even factoring in inflation.
The answer is 1975.

It shows the effectiveness of the airlines' smoke and mirrors pricing that fools you into thinking you're getting a good deal.  

But the actual price of flying has risen sharply since deregulation of the airlines, and far outpaces the inflation rate of the last 40 years. It also turns out that these airlines are making a lot of money. Surprise! 
Business Travel Columnist, Joe Brancatelli, came out last week with an eye-opening piece showing that deregulation has not benefited air travelers financially. This is in direct contrast with what the airline's lobbying group, 'Airlines for America', wants you to believe - that airfares have never been lower. 

The truth is that the cost of flying has risen sharply since the dawn of deregulation and has far outpaced the rate of inflation over the last 40 years.

You can always count on obfuscation from Airlines for America, which puts their own interests first. Maybe if they keep telling us it's getting cheaper we might believe it.   

This group is also opposing FlyersRights on the cynically named Transparent Airfares Act, which would make prices more opaque and hide the real cost of flying from travelers. These powerbrokers also fought FlyersRights on a 2012 bill that would require families to be seated together on flights.

How do you prove the cost of an airline ticket was cheaper 40 years ago than today? Factor in the products and services that were stripped out of the ticket by the airline's mission to remove as much as possible from the published airfare, and charge separately for them.

Everything from a comfortable coach seat to an in-flight meal has been "unbundled" and is now sold a la carte. This paradigm shift has brought the airlines record profit, but it also hides the true cost of flying and makes it nearly impossible to do apples-to-apples comparisons.
In fact, the modern airline industry doesn't even care about fares when making financial judgments. Airline executives rely instead on PRASM--passenger revenue per available seat--a statistical measure that more completely represents the total amount you now pay to fly. 
While we don't believe everything needs to be bundled into the airfare like it was in 1975, it is astonishing to see how the airlines have jacked up prices under the guise of offering passengers "choices" by creating an ever-expanding array of fees for services that once were included in the price of a ticket.  
Last week, the cheapest LAX-O'Hare one-way refundable fare sold by American Airlines was $508.

But now come the extras. Want to book your ticket via American's call center, as you would have in 1975? That's a $25 charge. Want the kind of boarding privileges you'd get back in 1975? That's another $25.

Back in 1975, American Airlines flew between Los Angeles and Chicago with widebody DC-10s and seats were wider with more legroom. To approximate the same comfort on the Boeing 737s that American flies today, you must pay $68 to book a seat in the Main Cabin Extra premium-economy section.

An inflight meal was included in 1975's fare, but that'll cost you $10 today.
Then there's luggage. In 1975, your $138 fare included two checked bags that could each weigh 70 pounds. Today, checked bags are an a la carte affair. The first is $25 and the second is $35. But those bags can't weigh more than 50 pounds. Want to check 1975's load? You'll also pay an excess-bag fee of $100 each.
Wear luggage to avoid fees?

Add it all up and you come to $896.

Simply put, you'll pay $896 today to approximate the full value you received in 1975 for an unrestricted coach flight between Los Angeles and Chicago. That's 30 percent more than the inflation-adjusted 1975 fare of $628.

But let's fly on the cheap and see what happens. The lowest fare in the Los Angeles-Chicago market on American in 1975 was $97 one-way based on a round-trip purchase. Add in the premium for frequent flier miles you receive today and adjust for nearly 40 years of inflation and you're talking about the 2014 equivalent of $450.

What will you pay today? Buy the same services
Full mental jacket.  -Andrew Styczynski/The Sun
unbundled from American that you received in 1975 and it's $867. Buy a partially bundled fare product that American calls Choice Plus and you'll pay $622. But subtract $14, the value of a mileage bonus you receive when you purchase a Choice Plus fare, and it's $608. That's still a 26 percent premium above the inflation-adjusted 1975 fare of $450.

Back in 1975, things were simple. All fares were refundable and bundled with a plethora of services. According to a contemporary edition of the OAG North American Edition, the cheapest unrestricted one-way flight on American Airlines cost $138 including taxes. Adjusted for inflation, that's the equivalent of $600 today. 

One perk included with today's prices that didn't exist in 1975 is frequent flier credit, so Brancatelli added $28 to cover the value of the 1,745 American AAdvantage miles you'd earn today. (However, in those days, the miles were still worth something.) Total cost of a 1975 unrestricted one-way fare in today's dollars: $628.

To level the playing field and give travelers a fair look at today's flight costs versus historic prices, please see the pair of charts below. They adjust for inflation and show what you pay today for the same airline product a business traveler purchased in 1975. 

The route is between Los Angeles to Chicago's O'Hare Airport, because, then and now, it is a high-traffic market popular with both leisure and business fliers. Then and now, United and American Airlines dominate at O'Hare and have substantial flight operations at LAX. And the Los Angeles-Chicago market remains extremely competitive because Southwest Airlines flies nonstop between Los Angeles and its hub at Chicago's Midway Airport.
In 1975, airfares were refundable, so this chart compares lowest available refundable fares then and now. 

The comparison is for a nonstop, one-way flight on June 16 between Los Angeles and Chicago/O'Hare on American Airlines. The 1975 fare was published in the OAG North American Edition. 

The current fare was available as of May 5 on AA.com. Unbundled fees are published on AA.com or flight-specific rates offered during the booking process. The 1975 fare included two checked bags that each could weigh 70 pounds. Current charges for checked bags are for 50 pounds; 70-pound bags incur a $100 excess-baggage fee. 

There were no frequent flyer programs in 1975, so the chart calculates the value of a mile at 1.6 cents since a restricted-award ticket between Los Angeles and Chicago costs 25,000 miles for a trip worth $408 roundtrip at current prices.

The 335% inflation rate was calculated by InflationData.com

In 1975, American flew LAX-ORD with DC-10s. Today, it uses Boeing 737s. To match 1975's comfort levels on today's flights, passengers would have to purchase seats in AA's Main Cabin Extra. That's a $68 upcharge on this route.

Notes: The comparison between lowest available fares in 1975 and today is skewed because even the lowest fare in 1975 was refundable. Current lowest fares are nonrefundable. 

The fares listed are one-way based on a roundtrip purchase. The "unbundled" 2014 fare is American's "Choice" fare while the bundled price is American's "Choice Plus," which includes a free checked bag (50 pounds), priority boarding and waiver of ticket-change and same-day standby fees. Choice Plus fares also includes a 50 percent mileage bonus, which have been deducted from the bundled fare at the 1.6-cents-per-mile rate.

But there's an important caveat: 1975 fares, even the cheapest ones, were fully refundable. Today's cheapest fares aren't. Your only alternative is to spend another $50 or so to purchase trip-cancellation insurance from a third party--and even that doesn't guarantee a full refund.

If you really want to finagle the numbers and get 2014's cheapest LAX-O'Hare price down, you can make your reservations online and save the $25 telephone-reservation fee. Keep your baggage to the new normal of 50 pounds and you can save the $200 excess-bag fee. On that bundled fare of $608, that brings you close to the 1975 inflation-adjusted price, but only assuming you ignore the nonrefundable nature of today's comparable tickets.

Fuel Costs, Between 1975 - Now  

To put fuel prices into perspective, it's probably not a factor, because the first OPEC crisis was before 1975, so fuel cost increases are close to the overall inflation rate. Until last year, even with a run up in price, we had not come close to record oil prices in terms of inflation-adjusted dollars. Now, we're blowing that record out of the water. 

The only difference is that in 1973 and 1979, the price almost literally doubled overnight. The recent run-up in prices seems fast, but it's definitely gradual compared to back then.  
Bottom line: FlyersRights is not against profitability, just taking things away and not adjusting downward. Then giving us the option to buy back the services and amenities we want, a la carte, and compounding more profitability in double-dipping fashion.

Also, never believe an airline or its deceptively named trade group when they claim they offer a bargain you haven't seen in 40 years. They're lying.

And we haven't even talked about slashed employee pay/benefits!

Dear Readers: 

At age 73, I thought it was about time for me to tell the story of why I'm a FlyersRights supporter.

In 2007 a musician friend living in NYC flew down to Dallas for the funeral of his niece, and brought his guitar to play a song at her grave.  On the way back, the airline demanded $237 for a seat for his guitar. 

After some argument I paid for the seat, but I was P.O.'ed about how my friend was treated.  A few weeks later he told me about an new organization founded by Kate Hanni, that is now FlyersRights.

Since then I've been a constant supporter.  I've given close to $10,000, got permits from DFW airport for pamphlet handouts, and spent time handing them out.

I now spend some time every Monday along with another dedicated volunteer named Lee, proofreading the work of our editor, Kendall, to try to be sure the newsletter is clean, the links work, and not too many members have complaints about content.

I was raised by my 1950's Republican-believing Regular Army parents to embrace public service.  In my 73 years I've changed my mind about a few things. The point being, your political opinion doesn't matter.  Once we're all stuffed inside that airborne metal tube, ...well, you get the idea.  I spent 6.5 years as a Regular Army Field Artillery officer, including the 101st Airborne, Germany, and Vietnam, and after that I taught chemistry at VMI for 2.5 years and then worked in DEA, ending 26.5 years later and retiring as a Senior Forensic Chemist at the end of 1995, after which I started flying a lot for world-wide SCUBA and solar eclipse trips - although not much lately.

I saw my love for travel seriously eroded after 2001, and  it got worse every year.  Along came FlyersRights and I thought maybe something could be done if only enough people could get behind it.

Or maybe not if it couldn't get enough support to be a contender, up against multi-billion dollar interests.  I'm seriously impressed with the battles FlyersRights has won in its David vs Goliath contests.

I continue to believe in the mission of this organization and I believe in the people I've gotten to know here, who are GOOD people, who believe in our common interest as I do.  They have a great mission that benefits the general public, so what's not to love?  Pony up a few bucks to help yourself in the long run.

I ask you to keep on supporting this organization, because they're fighting the good fight for all of us.  By the way, last week's newsletter was a killer!  I don't care about your politics, but when you fly you deserve to be treated as a rational human being and with respect by these major corporations.

Dan Prall
Your Letters:

Dear FlyersRights: 

Unfortunately, the airline industry is very susceptible to the boom and bust economy by which the US lives and dies, combined with very high airline employee labor costs (hourly rates and benefit packages) and passengers who want excellent safety standards. The flying public needs a basic lesson in economics and more information about the liability and costs of running an airline. 

Airlines are "for profit" organizations, just like the mom and pop doctor, dentist, hospital or the very large medical practice.  I don't recall an MD, pharmacy or hospital offering to stop charging me for the services I use.

If it was cheap to run an airline, many small business owners would open their doors to yet another new hobby, which they call a "business" - like flipping houses, but in this case it would be running their own airline. 

Recently, you were bemoaning the small airline pilot's salaries - now you are bemoaning the fees.  It would be most helpful if you could identify which constituency you are supporting.  It takes $ to purchase new planes, repair them, pay for gas, hire the employees to keep the operation running, develop IT systems to support all aspects of the industry, pay for the liability insurance premiums (since passengers have a tendency to sue airlines), etc. 

As a frequent flyer, I see many passengers dragging bags, which are clearly too large, onto the plane because they don't want the inconvenience of checking their luggage --- in other words, they are just plain rude and inconsiderate of their fellow passengers.  Airline travel is very expensive compared to driving a car and taking the Greyhound bus, but it is faster than taking the train.  There are many alternative modes of transportation and just like when deciding which restaurant to go to (McDonalds, Chili's, Morton's) or stay at home to eat...it all boils down to making good decisions and working with what is in your own wallet.  

If the US Government is not willing to subsidize airlines, then the passengers who choose to fly, for whatever reason, need to pay up.  If your business can't afford the ticket prices then maybe you need to go out of business or turn away the business which requires that you fly to the client--it's all basic economics. 

Frankly, I don't recall any government bail outs when airline employees were losing their retirement benefits and planes were mothballed in the desert post-911.  Pre 911, the airlines paid their taxes and what did it get them-not a lot.  And, passengers were complaining then too!!!! 

FlyersRights.org has a simple philosophy, we support the rights and interests of air travelers in safe, reliable , secure air service at reasonable prices. We are not just complaining and fighting against abuses but have offered affirmative solutions in the proposed Airline Passenger Bill of Rights 2.0. This includes reasonable regulations as consolidation and protection from foreign competition now give airlines unprecedented ability to reduce service and raise prices for US airline passengers. 


If you think starting pilot pay of $25,000 is ok, that airlines should be able to gouge passengers with hidden change fees of $200-500, baggage fees up to $300, shrinking seats and leg room that will soon not be enough for a 12 year old, and if you support the downgrading or elimination of frequent flyer benefits in bad faith, immunity of airlines from all state consumer protection and tort laws excepting only negligence causing physical injury or death, you might also like air travel operated like cable TV or AMTRAK. The public interest is barely heard in Washington DC where special interest money rules.

Since the 1890s, when the term 'Railroaded' was first coined, as airline profits soar while the number of airlines shrink, corporate aviation has increased 10-fold while domestic airline travel is flat, to down, over the past 20 years.  The model of squeezing more out of fewer and fewer passengers is not a good business model for airlines or the public.

Paul Hudson

Editors Note: the airlines did receive a $15 billion government bailout just 17 days after 9/11.


FlyersRights depends on tax-deductible contributions from those who share our commitment to airline passenger rights. 

Thank you. 

  FlyersRights 4411 Bee Ridge Road 
Sarasota, FL 34233