A federal court has ruled that the Federal Aviation Administration must review seat size and legroom on aircraft from the standpoint of safety issues. Federal Judge Patricia Millet, called it "the case of the incredible shrinking airline seat."
This is a victory for flyers, citizens and consumers.
Could this incident point to the beginning of a swinging back of the pendulum, away from the concentration of corporate power and back toward the passenger?
The courts are practically the last hope for consumers to have any weight in the argument anymore.
The parts of the government tasked with regulating the airlines have effectively fallen under the lobbying spell of the same airlines and almost cater to them. Thus, the entire domestic airline market is in the hands of a few players who control the market, divvy it up among themselves like gentlemen and don't really compete.
With competition effectively neutralized, the consumer has few alternatives and no way to voice his preferences.
With nothing to stop them, the airlines have continued shrinking their seat size, leg room, amenities, storage space, you name it-everything nice the airlines used to offer to be competitive.
They know they don't have to care what the flying public wants.
When the consumer group Flyers Rights petitioned the FAA about the problem of the ever shrinking airline seat, the FAA gave them the cold shoulder. That is business as usual in Washington now.
The regulatory agencies of the executive branch cater to the industries they were created to regulate. The airlines control the FAA practically as much as the reverse.
The FAA listens with an open heart to the sad stories of the airlines, but hears the cries of consumers as only a distant, vague buzz-like cicadas on a summer evening in Kansas. The same is true of the Justice Department and Congress. When the airlines want to merge again, Congress and the DOJ simply smile at them like adoring puppies.
So, Flyers Rights went to court, filed a suit against the FAA. Fortunately, there are still some judges who see the public's side of the story against the airlines.
Four giant airlines now control nearly 90 percent of air traffic in the United States. They openly admit that they decline to compete with the others in certain hubs because it's easier to just concentrate on their own.
To each other they are gentlemen, but to their customers, they are not always so gallant. Occasionally, a news story such as the Dragging of Dr. Dao erupts to show us a case that is so egregious it stirs the outrage of the country for a few news cycles.
[READMORE]READ MORE: Airlines Continue to Push for Standing Seats[/READMORE]
Bring Back Competition
Ideally, in a really free marketplace, if one airline treats you badly, you book with another one. That's the way it used to be decades ago. Now, in many cities, there are few choices.
Antitrust laws exist to prevent takeover and control of markets by a few companies. It's a common dynamic for the large fish to force out the small fish until it gets down to a few players, and those can cooperatively control a market to the benefit of only them. What you are left with is an oligopoly-something like a cartel-a few companies that monopolize a market and divide it among themselves.
In monopolized markets, the consumer no longer has a voice.
Now that the Justice Department has let our airline system consolidate until we have but four giant players, we have some problems. Prevention would have been a lot easier. Why the justice department waived antitrust for the airline system, I don't know. But it doesn't work, and we need to take action to restore competition to the marketplace, even if it means breaking up the airlines.
[READMORE]READ MORE: Why Are Airlines Really So Profitable?[/READMORE]
Bottom Lines
The real bottom line is not the bottom line of the airlines, it's the fact that the United States must have a functioning airline system. It is a necessity for economic functioning and for national security. In that sense, it is like highways, electricity grids, running water.
An airline system is a utility, a necessary public service.
The airlines were quick to point this out after 9/11 when their CEOs went before Congress for a bailout. The gentle knife at the throat was an implicit reminder that without a functioning airline system, the country would literally come to a standstill.
They got a $15 billion bailout and, once they became profitable, they forgot about the fact that they exist not only to make a profit for themselves, but also to serve the public interest.
They reduce their seat size gradually so we won't scream too much. When we get used to the new smaller size, they can ratchet it down again. They don't have to care what consumers think anymore.
It is still an open question whether or not an airline can be a profitable business and still serve the public interest.
Venture capitalist Peter Thiel, quoted in Priceonomics, said, "In the entire hundred year history of the airline business, the profits in the U.S. have been approximately zero."
Lately, they have found ways to become profitable, and the flying experience for consumers has become ever more impoverished.
They may stop flying to your city altogether if they think they can make more money using that aircraft for a route to Rio de Janeiro. But in the international arena, they will have to really compete in a relatively open marketplace.
This ruling by a federal court forces the FAA to act on its mandate to regulate the airlines and figure out if this rat-crowding experiment they are conducting over the decades is really in the public interest.
If it means getting comfortable seats again, I am all for it.
For the latest travel news, updates and deals, subscribe to the daily TravelPulse newsletter.
Topics From This Article to Explore
