I start with the Aristotelian proposition that the airlines exist for the passengers, and not the other way around. If that premise is granted, then it follows that the passenger has demandable rights against the airline, and these rights are engendered not only by the contract of carriage that creates a juridical bond between the carrier and the passenger, but also because airlines hold themselves out to the public—and create corresponding expectations— as capable of carrying goods and passengers safely, efficiently and capably. Whoever defines his relation to others in one way or another obligates himself to the consequences of such a relation.
Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the self-understanding of airlines—there is a conceptual perversity that they pass on to their employees and agents and servants (borrowing the terms of law and not meaning anything derogatory thereby). Aside from laying down the terms of the contract about which the passenger is completely helpless if he desires the convenience and the ease of air travel, airlines are very much the despots of the transportation industry that is, in every respect, the antithesis of the anti-absolutist bias of our society. No matter how oppressive the terms, unreasonable the conditions and shabby the treatment, passengers acquiesce—because we have unwittingly subscribed to the myth that once at the airport, in front of the check-in counter, we forfeit all our civil and political rights in favor of an omnipotent air transport corporation, and when seated inside the airplane, become the meek and docile subjects of “the god-in-the cockpit” who deigns to communicate with the passengers once or twice during the flight through the PA system and effects his absolute commands through his underlings, the flight attendants and cabin crew. This degree of tolerance we have for absolutism surprises me, given that we have loud cries against even the memory of Martial Law!
First, there is the matter of “overbooking.” By every account under the provisions of the Civil Code, this is “anticipatory breach”: the airline sells more seats than are available on the flight, with the consequence the it is prepared to “off-load” some with confirmed tickets. But if every ticket bought and issued is a confirmed contract of carriage, how does one skirt liabilities for breaching a contract? First, there is a loathing for litigation. There is a term that we use for retainer fees of lawyers: “Taga”—literally, “a hack wound.” And because many fear that the costs of counsel may outweigh whatever they may be awarded as damages, they keep the outrage to themselves.
A second reason is guile: Airlines have mastered the art of coaxing passengers our of their contractual rights. So it is that very often they offer passengers free overnight stays in some hotel, with a guaranteed seat on the flight the very next day and, very often, there are passengers who waive their rights under a pre-existing contract and accept this manner of resolution. While one can always say that this is the passenger’s choice, what this does, in fact, is breed a lackadaisical attitude towards contracts and a trivialization of its obligations.
Then there is the matter of perennially delayed, if not cancelled flights. Very frequently, the excuse will be: “Air traffic conditions at the airport,” followed by the perfunctory “We sincerely apologize…,” to be sure, a pre-recorded apology! True, airlines do not control the use of the airport, and the runways of the Manila airport were constructed by one who obviously failed the course in logic! But that the transport companies are quite content to leave matters as they are, consigning it to the fates to determine whether their aircraft take off or land on time, without any serious attempt to dialogue, cajole, perhaps even threaten airport managers is deplorable. And such matters as “late arrival of turn-around aircraft” and “additional aircraft servicing” are within the control of the company. Quite clearly, to me, the prevailing attitude seems to be: Bayaan mo silang maghintay. It is even worse when flights are cancelled because there are not enough passengers to make the flight economically viable. Then some excuse like “weather conditions at destination” or “mechanical problems” will be proffered—although clearly the adverse conditions and vexing problems are neither climatological nor mechanical but attitudinal!
How, exactly, are airline personnel, both ground and flight crew, trained? My recent experience should be sufficiently illustrative. The association that had invited me for a lecture at Iloilo purchased the Iloilo to Manila ticket that should have taken off from Iloilo International Airport at 9.30. I purchased the Manila to Tuguegarao leg that had an ETD of 12.45 pm, but every normal account, more than ample time. In Iloilo, I requested that my bags be tagged to Tuguegarao—since I was taking the very same airline to Tuguegarao from Manila, and leaving from the very same terminal. I was told that that was not possible since my flight was not a connecting flight! I demanded to know why not since the same airline had issued me two tickets—one for the Iloilo to Manila leg, the second for the Manila to Tuguegarao leg. It was then introduced to the peculiar vocabulary of the airline: A connecting flight is one where the ticket says “connecting” and where the tickets are bought at the same time—no matter that they may in fact be connecting. Clearly, there was some cognitive connecting that had to be done in the brains of these personnel—which is why I think that a good measure of logic and critical thinking should go into the training of airline personnel.
Passengers of the world, unite. You have nothing but the whims and caprice of humongous airline corporations to lose, and a whole world of convenience, reason and reliability to gain!