Unfettered Letters

Airlines aren’t packing in profits

I’m responding to M. Corinne Corley’s ire about airline fees (7/7, Letters, “Baggage fees pack in profits”). She states, “The American people are being gouged to ‘fuel’ the profit of the airlines.” There is no such thing as “the profit of the airlines.” U.S. airlines were on shaky ground before the rise of fuel prices.

The 1978 Airline Deregulation Act is a stunning example of the proverb, “Careful what you wish for — you may get it.” Deregulation brought the opposite of what airlines envisioned.

Ms. Corley needs to direct her anger toward the current price of oil and our government’s reluctance to enforce conservation and or new production.

No, the third checked bag doesn’t increase fuel use by $100, but the airlines must deflect the economic impact of skyrocketing jet fuel. Some are charging for seat assignments.

However the airlines’ larger overhead compartments provide a way around checked baggage. It’s amazing what fits into a carry-on with planning.

Barbara Herrin
Lenexa

Baggage fees pack in profits

Imagine my surprise to learn that the airlines are losing so much money that they have to charge us to take our baggage where we want to go. I was told by the reservations supervisor, who provided me supposedly up-to-date information, that this applies only to travel between American cities, not to travel outside of the United States.

This policy is absurd. I asked her what we got for our money and she said — with surprising honesty — “Nothing. It is to help us defray the higher cost of fuel.”

So if the first bag is $15, the second is $25, the third is $100 and so forth, you could potentially, if you are traveling by air for an extended trip, pay more for your baggage than your ticket. And the only justification is profiteering, since the third bag surely does not increase fuel use by $100 per item.

The American people are being gouged to “fuel” the profit of the airlines, and we should protest this greedy practice.

M. Corinne Corley
Kansas City

Heavy fliers and hefty fees

On a recent airplane trip I was unfortunate enough to sit next to a very obese passenger. I was in the window seat and he sat in the middle seat. The airline personnel had to raise both armrests, as he could not fit in his space. Then he proceeded to spread his legs into my leg space. His enormous rear end was encroaching on my seat and the aisle seat of the other passenger.

I’m a rather small person, but I was scrunched up against the window for two hours. When it was time to deplane, I had to wait until the whole plane was empty so the airline personnel could shovel him out of his seat.

Since I only had half a seat, shouldn’t I only have to pay half fare?

Obese people should pay for and be given two seats.

LaVerne Fieseler
Olathe

Now that the airlines have taken off down the path of piling-on incidental charges for luggage, pillows, meals and the like, it seems only fair for passengers to return the favor by charging the airlines if we depart or arrive late or if they lose our bags.

The fees the airlines are now adding to the ticket price should only increase our expectation for service as advertised. If the airlines fail to deliver, they should pay or refund us.

Ross Boelling
Tonganoxie

Fliers, dress for safety

I wonder if the rule for proper attire by a major airline is for decorum or safety (6/16, Letters, “Flier’s wardrobe comes up short”).

I am amazed when I travel to see passengers wearing shorts, sandals or flip-flops. I wear slacks and sturdy shoes when I travel on an airplane in case there might be an emergency where the passengers have to deplane quickly.

I remember a few years ago that a plane crashed in a nearby cornfield when it ran off the runway at O’Hare. Imagine trying to exit the plane sliding down a chute quickly with no protection on your legs and running through a cornfield wearing sandals or flip-flops.

I like to think the airline requirement is for safety.

Shirley Hurst
Knob Noster, Mo.

Airline dress codes

I am wondering if the person who was gracious enough to give Ms. Cornelius an airfare “buddy pass” also informed her of the dress code for flying on the airline. (6/16, Letters)

I worked for TWA in the ‘70s where the dress code for traveling first class was suit time for men and women wore dresses or paint suits that required jackets.

In coach, no jeans or denim was allowed. When American Airlines came along, the dress code was somewhat relaxed, with business casual dress. Still no shorts were allowed in any class of service.

People traveling on passes or reduced rate of any type are representing the employees of that airline. Not abiding by any of the rules or dress code can put the airline employee’s job in jeopardy.

Dolores Hadsall
(TWA/AA Retiree)
Kansas City

The future of unfriendly flying

If you think Barbara Shelly’s future flyer has problems (6/6, “‘This is the pilot: That’ll cost you 5 bucks’”), imagine future flyer, economy class, with added security.

To the already long lines, arbitrary charges and other indignities, add worldwide background check, strip and cavity searches, electric stun-gunning or sedating (the unconscious passenger is the only truly trustworthy passenger), destinations stapled to foreheads, passenger boarding and deplaning handled in the same reliable time proven methods used to safely transport our luggage — dumped on a carousel, flopped on a conveyor belt and stacked compactly in an area completely without seats. Seats are only necessary when conscious.

This would certainly allow more people to be jammed on the planes and you could do away with snacks, meals and even those inconvenient bathrooms, after the passengers/luggage were deplaned, the compartment could simply be hosed out.

The airlines could make more money, the skies would be safe from terrorists, and the sheep will arrive safely at their destination ready for slaughter or shearing.

Will FitzPatrick
Kansas City

Flier’s wardrobe comes up short

My granddaughter, her husband and baby were at a New York airport on the way to her other grandma’s funeral. Her aunt, an airline employee, gave them free “buddy” passes for the flight.

When they got to the counter, they were told the young man couldn’t go because he was wearing shorts. They were not allowed, according to the dress code for traveling employees and buddy pass holders. Unfortunately, he had brought only shorts, no other pants.

The airline check-in person’s response was, “We cannot make exceptions to the policy.” My granddaughter tearfully explained the purpose of their trip. Check-in person said, “Sorry, please step away from the counter. Now.”

Having watched the scenario, a man walked over to them, took a pair of long pants out of his bag and said, “Here, son.” Then he disappeared. After a quick change from shorts to pants, the young family boarded the plane.

Apparently, this airline doesn’t question whose pants their passengers are wearing, just the length.

Shirley Cornelius
Kansas City

Feds oversight of airlines

In regard to the letter by Reggie Marselus (Letters, 4/13) complaining about the airlines charging more for tickets and fees, he conceded they are claiming losses from fuel costs and are trying to balance their budgets on the backs of the flying public.

Where has he been the last few months while gasoline has been rising in price at an alarming rate almost weekly? An airplane does not use air as fuel. Does he have any idea how much gas one plane can use? Also planes require overall maintenance to keep them flying.

He feels the federal government should take over the entire airline industry. When our U.S. government cannot manage the financial affairs we elected them to, I fail to understand how they could manage the daily financial business of the entire airline industry.

They seem to have a problem using our tax money wisely.

Faye McHenry
Kearney

Aircraft groundings

The grounding of 300 American Airlines MD80 Aircraft is not the fault of the Bush Administration, as alluded to in your editorial of April 11. Rather, it is overreaction due to Southwest Airlines getting caught not performing required maintenance and the local FAA not taking action. The wheel-well wiring bundle correction on the MD80 Aircraft is not a serious safety issue. Common sense would indicate that the aircraft could have been fixed over a 30-day period with minimal service disruption.

Heaven help us. Once Congress got involved, common sense went out the window.

Joe Pollock
Overland Park

Re-regulate airlines

Because of all the troubles that U.S. airlines have caused the public to endure, the entire airline industry should be completely re-regulated by the federal government.

Airlines have stranded passengers, folding operations without notice or attempting to accommodate already sold tickets. Claiming losses from fuel costs, they try to balance their budgets on the backs of the flying public by cutting services and adding outrageous fees and levies to ticket prices.

Airlines have proved themselves incapable of managing their own businesses. So the federal government should step in and manage it for them. Flying on an airplane should not be so complicated and so unnerving that it becomes an experience of suffering rather than an enjoyable way to travel.

Nothing but headaches and heartaches have resulted from a quarter century of experimentation with deregulation. It is time to end it.

Reggie Marselus
Lenexa

Abetting the enemy?

After reading your front page article (4/9, A-1, “If truth be told, you don’t need ID to board a jetliner”), I was reminded how desperate reporters must be to get something published in the paper.

Why must you tell our enemies that there are ways to circumvent the system (even though additional screening is required)? I can see it now: people purposely not bringing their IDs to the airport, overwhelming an already overworked TSA.

This is just another example of the elitist media waving their right to a free press without thinking about its effect on the country as a whole.

Dave Krause
Overland Park

Flying the scary skies

The recent news on United Airlines grounding its entire fleet of 777s (4/3, Business, C-2) because of not properly carrying out maintenance procedures — and at least three other airlines grounding some of their planes — gave me pause. While the flying public dwells on lost baggage and flight delays, maybe we are missing the main point.

The Department of Transportation recently issued its April 2008 Air Travel Consumer Report, and United Airlines was 16 out of 20 for on-time performance for the 12-month period ending in February and 19 out of 20 for having the most consumer complaints for the month of February.

Do the corporate culture and budgets that produce that kind of record give a comfortable feeling that everything possible is being done to ensure a safe and mechanically solid airplane to fly? I’m afraid I have my doubts.

Tom Thornton
Mission Hills

Air safety, NASA

Your Jan. 3 editorial titled “NASA should provide clarity on air-safety report” is misleading on several points.

I told the Congress we would release, by the end of 2007, an initial set of responses to an aircraft pilot survey conducted by NASA. I said the responses would be redacted to protect voluntarily furnished commercial, confidential information — a legal requirement — as well as the anonymity promised to survey respondents. This was a challenging task involving 29,000 survey responses.

The release date of Dec. 31 was not chosen, as some have said, because it was a “slow news day.” It was the earliest date we could achieve.

Concerns have been expressed that the necessary response redaction was overly conservative, that more data could have been released. Again, I promised Congress that a more refined effort would be undertaken, but that will require many months. We will make every effort to expedite the effort.

In our initial denial of a reporter’s request for the survey responses, we gave the unfortunate impression that NASA was putting airline commercial interests ahead of public safety. I regret that. When the matter was brought to my attention, I corrected the situation immediately.

We have expressed concerns about the utility of the survey results because the survey methodology and results have not been validated by peer review. To address such concerns, we will seek an independent assessment of the methodology and the potential utility of the survey responses.

Michael D. Griffin
NASA administrator
Washington, D.C.

Trapped on the runway

No one can tell me that rules requiring airlines to deplane waiting passengers would cause greater delays and more cancellations.

While the Transportation Department’s inspector general believe airlines should set a time limit for how long passengers should have to wait without unloading, the Air Transportation Association disagrees stating, “Deadlines would do more harm then good after a summer of record-setting delays” (9/27, Business, “Airlines oppose time limits on removing passengers”).

This past year when I was traveling from Kansas City to New York, I was trapped for hours in an airplane that did not have one empty seat. Instead of sitting in the black leather chairs near the terminal, all of the passengers were cramped in an airplane with no food, two tiny bathrooms and a lot of irritated people.

We took off at KCI around the same time we were suppose to land at our destination. The airline could have easily unloaded all of the passengers, rather than making everyone stay on the plane. Sure, unloading everyone takes some time, but not four hours.

Although no delays are enjoyable, I would rather spend my time waiting in an airport than in an overcrowded plane.

Kelli Flannery
Liberty

Guns in the airport

In response to Ian Johnston’s letter (9/18), it is not illegal to bring a firearm into airports because many travelers fly with them. This is perfectly legal, and each airline will have its firearm policy and procedures posted on its Web site.

Many of my co-workers and I travel out of state for firearm training classes and hunting trips. We are required to bring our personal firearms with us for these events. If it were illegal, we would have to choose another form of travel.

Bill Maas may have just committed an honest mistake.

John Hoskins
Blue Springs

This is an answer to the letter saying that it should be a crime to carry a weapon into an airport. These people need to know the laws. You can take a weapon into an airport as long as it is broken down, in your luggage with no ammunition.

I’ve done it several times. I have a right-to-carry permit, and I’ve taken weapons to Florida and other places, but you need to declare it at the ticket counter.

Gary Parlier
Independence

Midwest Airlines

If history is any guide, AirTran’s attempt to buy out Midwest Airlines would do the exact opposite of what AirTran Chairman and CEO Joe Leonard says. He states that an AirTran-Midwest consolidation would “add flights, increase jobs and lower fares.”

When one company makes a leveraged buyout of another, the debt used to finance the deal will become the new company’s downfall. Sooner or later the interest payments on the debt will cripple the company.

In AirTran’s case, a Midwest buyout would decrease flights, eliminate jobs and increase fares — in the long run anyway.

The winners will be the larger stockholders who will dump the stock as it reaches a high, post-consolidation. And the army of lawyers and investment bankers who will over see the bankruptcy of AirTran.

The losers will be smaller stockholders who buy into the whole scheme, the employees who will lose their jobs, and, of course, Kansas City and Kansas City International Airport.

Steve Dean
Blue Springs

Midwest Airlines

I have read several letters concerning the AirTran/Midwest merger talks. Without exception, those letters mentioned the roominess of the seats and the amenities on the flight. One letter even mentioned that they couldn’t believe they got all that for such a low fare.

AirTran is a “low cost” carrier; Midwest is not. Wider seats, more legroom and fresh-baked cookies all cost money. However Midwest has been offering fares that are competitive with AirTran and Southwest.

A recent article in The Star, “Airline’s forecast cloudy” (Business), stated that Midwest reported disappointing earnings as a result of lower airfares.

Midwest has fewer seats on its planes, which means that its costs per seat mile are higher than either AirTran or Southwest. Because Midwest is price-matching the true “low cost” carriers, this outlook isn’t going to get any better.

I, too, enjoy flying Midwest, but for it to continue as a for-profit business, its customers must be willing to pay more.

Are you willing to pay more? If not, expect to see more traditional seating arrangements, whether AirTran is successful in its bid or not.

Joe Young
Overland Park

Midwest Airlines

Let’s support the good folks at Midwest Airlines who are trying to do the right thing.
I’m like Dalton Thibodeaux (6/6, Letters) and many other Kansas City business travelers. I choose Midwest every time if they go where I’m going. I pick Southwest next, before moving down the line to other choices — and I do mean down.
As proven by their record, Midwest is on the right track and their first class service is a bargain. Like Southwest, they have good, well-maintained equipment and their excellent customer service is a direct result of their management, staff and all employees being good at and enjoying what they do.
Let’s support Midwest in their time of need by flying with them every chance we get, but also by buying their stock. Let’s get control away from the Wall Street hedge-fund type and into the hands of people who are appreciative.
John Rew
Louisburg, Kan.

Save the cookie?

We here in Kansas City are lucky enough to have a high-quality air carrier that serves many business destinations nonstop, but to rebuke AirTran’s hostile takeover, Midwest Airlines has launched the Save the Cookie campaign. (This refers to the fresh-baked cookies the airline serves in the air.) It includes a new Web site and urges customers to help it fend off AirTran.
Sure, we all prefer better airline service. But there are so many serious issues at play in the United States now — terrorism, immigration, a lack of health insurance for 40 million people, a soon-to-be bankrupt Social Security system. It really saddens me that Americans participate on an advocacy campaign to save the cookie, but not huge problems that affect us all.
I think everyone needs to go to the grocery store before their flight, buy their own cookies, and start worrying about really matters.
Christopher Varady
Kansas City

Midwest, AirTran

I fly about 50,000 miles a year on Midwest Airlines, and they are my first choice when looking at flights, so I’m interested in the AirTran takeover.
I read where AirTran said if they bought Midwest, they would change the two-across seating configuration, among other things, because it is not cost effective (5/30, Business, “Midwest adding seats to add value; The airline will reconfigure planes to boost capacity and revenue”). Call me crazy, but I like having elbow room and being able to sit without my chest being crushed by the seat in front or the person beside me.
I truly hope someone from AirTran reads this because I would like them to know explicitly that I will never fly Midwest again should you take over. Everything that you have stated you would change to improve your bottom line is the exact reason I choose Midwest. If I wanted no-frills, I would fly Southwest.
Dalton Thibodeaux
Olathe