Allegiant Strands PAX in Vegas

  • Hi Guest, welcome to the help forum. You can get fast answers to your customer service questions here. We have a dedicated team of advocates who are ready to help. Just go to the section that matches your question and ask us!
  • If you've posted a question or issue for our advocates to assist with, please be sure to check back frequently for responses and requests for clarification.
  • Did you know you can get email notifications when something new posts to your favorite forum? It's easy. Just click the "watch" link right next to the "post new thread" button at the top of your favorite forum. The rest is easy. Now you'll never miss another conversation.
  • Want to become an expert user? Drop by the How to use this forum section and all will be revealed. We'll show you how to make the most of your experience.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jul 27, 2016
846
1,041
93
#21
My point was when something goes wrong with a plane, and it leads to a several days cancellation, you create the perfect storm of the haves and the have nots. I know of no legislation that states that those who pay more are entitled to more when a plane breaks down. That's my point.
Do you know of any law that states that an airline CAN'T treat their better customers better?
 
Nov 14, 2016
374
930
93
48
#22
Of course, you pay more, you get more. That was never the point. Same as with hotels, cruises, rentals, etc. I've akways understood that.

My point was when something goes wrong with a plane, and it leads to a several days cancellation, you create the perfect storm of the haves and the have nots. I know of no legislation that states that those who pay more are entitled to more when a plane breaks down. That's my point.

I cannot fathom a public that thinks a multi day delay, from their own home base, is acceptable, under any circumstances. Forget the fare paid, this is just another case of a carrier doing as it pleases. I'm just surprised to see so many in support. "They did all they are required to do". While that may be technically true, it's not very consumer friendly.

That's been my point all along. Im not trying to change the industry, but with Frontier practically declaring war on some routes, if these tactics work and take away from the Legacy carriers, we will see the same changes in other carriers. I feel for those who have to deal with this kind of headache. I'd hate to see other carriers take after Alligients model.
You're confusing "support" with cold realization. I don't think anyone here supports a crappy carrier like Allegiant but they are what they are. They meet all FAA requirements. Again, your issue is with your lack of legal rights as a passenger. Rule 240 doesn't exist anymore. If you think that we should lobby to bring it back that's fine. But that's for Congress to do and that responsibility isn't Allegiant. Then again, the price of airline tickets was considerably higher back then too.

Also, remember they did MORE than they were required to do.
 
Likes: ADM
Oct 6, 2016
85
129
33
56
#23
Posters keep coming back to the ability of carriers to treat their better paying passengers better. And yes, I understand "cold realization". Everyone seems to think I'm advocating for them taking away perks. I never said anything about that.

I was only advocating that in these kind of extreme circumstances, and this is one, that all paxs should be treated the same. And that they could and should do better than a multi day delay.

But, I give up. As much as I love this site, this conversation has turned into a discussion that those who have, should receive the service first and better, than those who don't, who paid the cheapest ticket. I'm not talking wine, seating or dinner. Im talking about getting people home or to their destination.

Consumer advocacy should never turn on the cost of an item. Yet, this is precisely what these comments are telling me. That these people who wete stranded should almost be thankful that Alligient went beyond what they had to do. I see nothing that shows Alligient deserves thanks and I see nothing but people telling me that in order to treat thesecliw ticket paxs better, that higher costs will follow.

Christopher does a great job with this site. He's a true hero. My meager contributions mean little, but ill always fight for the underdog. And to me, it's a sad day when a marginal carrier is supported by doing only what was required by them to do. It's a sign of the past 6 months that the divide between the haves and have nots has grown larger and some revel in that fact. That's sad.

So, keep up the good fight. But remember the little guy, the poor. Those that fly the ULCC may have been saving for years for a trip, which we all deserve. But just because they paid less, doesn't mean they should receive less in circumstances such as this. If anything, they need advocacy more than ever.

But I'm outta here, it's too hard trying to advocate for the less fortunate, when people think im advocating taking away perks. Please.....i did no such thing.

I just asked for equality in extraordinary circumstances. Parity, in a sense. But, apparently thats too much to ask for.
 
Nov 14, 2016
374
930
93
48
#24
Taking away perks? Huh? Who suggested that?

There's no reason to get upset, my friend. We just have different perspectives. If you want to advocate then you have to look at all sides of the issue. You can't just say "they deserve such-and-such" without understanding that (A) those requirements have to passed by Congress and (B) those requirements drive up costs which then get passed on to those same "little guys", who then might not be able to afford the tickets at all. In this case, Allegiant doesn't have a spare plane. Exactly how are they expected to get pax to that destination without a plane and without interline agreements? Do you expect them to lease a spare plane from someone? The issue here isn't Allegiant, it's the rules that allow Allegiant to provide that level of service.

There's no magic wand to wave that allows for better service at the same prices. The ULCCs have cut everything to the bone because that's their business model. We're talking about the same airline that starts qualified pilots off at $34k a year with a per diem of $1/hour. That's bottom of the barrel wages. I agree with you that I hate that business model. I'd happily increase airfares for better consumer protection which includes more safety inspections (Allegiant had well-known safety issues in 2015). I have no problem in requiring EU 261-type penalties. I have no problem with requiring interline agreements. But I can't stand here and say that's helping the little guy because they're going to pay higher fares. The money is going to come from the consumer and I'm okay with that. But until we have those requirements, I think it's unrealistic to expect bottom-feeders to do anything more than the bare minimum because they're simply not going to do so. It's not in their nature.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.