Passenger Bill of Rights for air travel

[tedtim]

If you codeshare you must abide by code-share rules, or else you opt out and do not share interline travel.There is no assumption, since you either do, or do not. Choice is up to signators that agree to the rules.

I think most of us will agree that something needs to be done and a P B of R is a good start. If nothing else, it gets some airlines, that have treated passengers like so much baggage, to pay more attention and try to conform to humane rules of travel. 11 hours on a parked plane is inhumane.

We have solved problems with more complexity in business, and science, so this should be rather easy.

OK, now you have jumped back to only one clause, that being the stuck on the airplane part. The Proposed Bill of Rights is a package and not something to address just one issue. Have we not exhausted the time stuck on the airplane part. You even stated that we agree on this.

Now, if you truly believe that solving a problem that involves hundreds of airlines, both within and external to the US should be rather easy, then my hat is off to you. Heck, I have worked closely with defence scientists who were trying to solve a problem. The technical part looked to be relatively easy, but there was significant posturing about what the data truly means. Just try to sort out the language of a clause that will apply to hundreds of airlines across many different countries. If this were relatively easy in the case of airlines, it would have been resolved long ago and there would be no hue and cry about a Bill of Rights.

I said before that I prefer to take a look at this in a holistic fashion. You steered the discussion into a one at a time approach. Now, you have shifted off the topic being discussed back to the how long is too long topic. Pick one and stick with it, or lets go at it in a holistic manner.

My point on this is that code sharing is a business agreement among many airlines to allow for more selection in flights for the traveling public. If you want to put a set of rules in place that will reduce code sharing through opt out it will eventually lead to less choice in flights, more cost to book separately on multiple airlines, or both. If this solves one problem it will set the air travel industry back a few years.

OK, let us go at another, related, topic. The next generation large aircraft (Airbus A380) is about to come into full service. This aircraft can hold up to 800 people in one configuration. The infrastructure is not in place at many airports to support the baggage handling requirements. At Heathrow they built a new terminal with consideration of this generation of aircraft in mind. I expect that it will fly into many major airports in the US like JFK and LAX. Just imagine standing at a turnstyle waiting for your luggage with 799 of your closest friends. Should we prevent this aircraft from coming into service until all of the airports that it will fly into have all of the procedures and processes set to handle all of the potential problems. Just how long is too long of a wait for your luggage. Or do you want a separate clause in the Bill of Rights to deal with delays in receipt of your luggage when you arrive at destination.

I think one of the clauses should deal with the quality of toilet paper in the aircraft washrooms. There better not be any perfume or other scents used. They had also better make sure that any of the food that you may get can be certified as not being made with or coming in contact with nuts - gotta watch out for those folks with allergies. How about a separate section for people that travel with kids who continually whine and cry. How about a screening process to prevent anyone with an illness such as the common cold from getting on so as to prevent the virus from spreading throughout the closed environment.

If you want perfect, rent your own private jet. You will still find that there will be delays and there will be a cost to you for those delays.

 

[OHGoDive]

I think one of the clauses should deal with the quality of toilet paper in the aircraft washrooms.

lol. You are obviously what they would call a detail oriented person.

Seriously though, you raise a lot of awfully good points. The problems with worldwide air travel are not trivial, nor are they trivially solved.

Technology exists, or soon will exist, to both solve and to exacerbate many of the problems. Since many countries are not able to embrace and roll out that technology as rapidly as others, it can be both a blessing and a curse.

How about a screening process to prevent anyone with an illness such as the common cold from getting on so as to prevent the virus from spreading throughout the closed environment.

The risk of pandemic is magnified incredibly due to the ease of international air travel. One wonders about the rules that would need to be in place were the risk of infection/transmission discovered in flight. What rules and systems are in place to hold and manage those passengers? Certainly, a list of passenger rights could not trump public health?

As compelling as it seems, a one size fits all set of platitudes, especially one that everyone can merely "opt-out" of if they are not able to perform to its specifications, isn't going to go very far to solve the underlying problems.

 

[pilot fish]

Occams Razor is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities. So I think we can work it out and find a solution.

OK, now you have jumped back to only one clause, that being the stuck on the airplane part. The Proposed Bill of Rights is a package and not something to address just one issue. Have we not exhausted the time stuck on the airplane part. You even stated that we agree on this.

Now, if you truly believe that solving a problem that involves hundreds of airlines, both within and external to the US should be rather easy, then my hat is off to you. Heck, I have worked closely with defence scientists who were trying to solve a problem. The technical part looked to be relatively easy, but there was significant posturing about what the data truly means. Just try to sort out the language of a clause that will apply to hundreds of airlines across many different countries. If this were relatively easy in the case of airlines, it would have been resolved long ago and there would be no hue and cry about a Bill of Rights.

I said before that I prefer to take a look at this in a holistic fashion. You steered the discussion into a one at a time approach. Now, you have shifted off the topic being discussed back to the how long is too long topic. Pick one and stick with it, or lets go at it in a holistic manner.

My point on this is that code sharing is a business agreement among many airlines to allow for more selection in flights for the traveling public. If you want to put a set of rules in place that will reduce code sharing through opt out it will eventually lead to less choice in flights, more cost to book separately on multiple airlines, or both. If this solves one problem it will set the air travel industry back a few years.

OK, let us go at another, related, topic. The next generation large aircraft (Airbus A380) is about to come into full service. This aircraft can hold up to 800 people in one configuration. The infrastructure is not in place at many airports to support the baggage handling requirements. At Heathrow they built a new terminal with consideration of this generation of aircraft in mind. I expect that it will fly into many major airports in the US like JFK and LAX. Just imagine standing at a turnstyle waiting for your luggage with 799 of your closest friends. Should we prevent this aircraft from coming into service until all of the airports that it will fly into have all of the procedures and processes set to handle all of the potential problems. Just how long is too long of a wait for your luggage. Or do you want a separate clause in the Bill of Rights to deal with delays in receipt of your luggage when you arrive at destination.

I think one of the clauses should deal with the quality of toilet paper in the aircraft washrooms. There better not be any perfume or other scents used. They had also better make sure that any of the food that you may get can be certified as not being made with or coming in contact with nuts - gotta watch out for those folks with allergies. How about a separate section for people that travel with kids who continually whine and cry. How about a screening process to prevent anyone with an illness such as the common cold from getting on so as to prevent the virus from spreading throughout the closed environment.

If you want perfect, rent your own private jet. You will still find that there will be delays and there will be a cost to you for those delays.

 

[OHGoDive]

Occams Razor is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities.

If you are going to copy the entire 2nd paragraph from the Wikipedia article on Occam's Razor verbatim http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor, you should probably cite it, lest someone think you are a plagiarist. :shakehead

Unless you actually authored the entire 2nd paragraph of the Wikipedia article on Occam's Razor, then, of course, it is yours to do with as you please.

Anyway, I don't think we even have one solution to the problem, let alone multiple competing ones.

 

[tedtim]

Occams Razor is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities. So I think we can work it out and find a solution.

Simplest solution:

Get in, sit down, shut up, hang on.

No assumptions there.

 

[pilot fish]

Simplest solution:
No assumptions there.

Nor solution

 

[pilot fish]

Additonal quotes did not serve to clarify. It is also not relevant to this discusion to know what religious Order the friar was from."entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity", know what I mean?Verbosity does not help make your point, ohgo


"Occam's razor (also spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or "shaving off", those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae (law of succinctness or parsimony):

entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem,
which translates to:

entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity"

If you are going to copy the entire 2nd paragraph from the Wikipedia article on Occam's Razor verbatim http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor, you should probably cite it, lest someone think you are a plagiarist. :shakehead

Unless you actually authored the entire 2nd paragraph of the Wikipedia article on Occam's Razor, then, of course, it is yours to do with as you please.

Anyway, I don't think we even have one solution to the problem, let alone multiple competing ones.

 

[pilot fish]

Get in, sit down, shut up, hang on.

Is what the airlines have been doing, and what the Passengers Bill of Rights will help correct.

 

[pilot fish]

If you are going to copy the entire 2nd paragraph from the Wikipedia article on Occam's Razor verbatim http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor, you should probably cite it, lest someone think you are a plagiarist. :shakehead

I have no doubt at all that people would think *I* am the author of that theory. :shakehead Please note, I named it, which should give SOME indication of where the theory comes from and whom the author is: OCCAM.

 

[tedtim]

Get in, sit down, shut up, hang on.

Is what the airlines have been doing, and what the Passengers Bill of Rights will help correct.

Over the past few weeks I have tried to remain civil throughout this discussion. You make it very difficult to do so when you dictate a rule for discussion (i.e. single clause at a time), then violate the rule you have made. My interpretation of your position is that the Passenger Bill of Rights will prevent problems. My position is that it is so poorly written that it will not do so. Your position was also that there would be no cost to implement such a Bill of Rights. On this we disagree.

Your very broad statement, quoted above, paints all of the airlines around the world with the same brush. The generalization that you made is certainly inconsistent with what I have experienced with a number of different airlines.

Now you say that the Passenger Bill of Right will help correct the problem. Either you have moderated your position, or you don't really know what the passing of a Passenger Bill of Rights will do. Either way, it is pointless to continue this discussion.