"WASHINGTON, Sept 4 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's administration said on Thursday it will drop a plan by his predecessor to require airlines to pay passengers cash compensation when U.S. flight disruptions are caused by carriers.


In December, the U.S. Department of Transportation under then-President Joe Biden sought public comment on the rulemaking process about whether airlines should be required to pay $200-$300 for domestic delays of at least three hours and up to $775 for longer delays. U.S. airlines sharply criticized the proposal."


I spent years as a high tech road warrior. There were airlines who didn't manage scheduling well. At the end of the month --> no flights for you.

If it is the airlines fault, I am definitely in favor of compensation. No compensation, no pain. No pain, no reason to get better. Not much competition on many routes.





https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-drops-biden-plan-require-airlines-pay-compensation-disrupted-flights-2025-09-04/

It's a free market & you're free to find a different way to travel


It's not the government's job to force companies to give customers rebates

How do you determine which delays are the fault of the carrier? Do you want them to ignore a problem when something comes up during pre-flight out of fear that they will have to pay passenger compensation?

If you are in a market served by a single airline, you may not have much choice, but there are other routes where there is competition to send signals.

Pichael Thompson said:

---

It's a free market & you're free to find a different way to travel


It's not the government's job to force companies to give customers rebates

---

EOT on the first reply.

Agree. A pilot has to do a squawk list after every flight to give to the maintenance ground crew of anything he had a problem with. I don't want an airline to be so concerned about paying money out that they put a plane back in the air that maybe unsafe.

Quote:

---

pay passengers cash compensation

---

Setting up Lufthansa lift 2.0?



That much cash?

I don't want airlines trying to beat a deadline and a mechanic rushes a repair job

FIDO*98* said:

---

I don't want airlines trying to beat a deadline and a mechanic rushes a repair job

---

They do enough of that now. My opinion.

the problem is airlines are fat and lazy. when **** goes wrong they are bailed out.

one of the biggest issues we face in america is everyone wants a quick buck and no one takes pride in their work anymore. tbis especially hits home with big auto and airline.


the government can't fix that and we don't have a truly free market so even the consumer doesn't have final say.

Pichael Thompson said:

---

It's a free market & you're free to find a different way to travel


It's not the government's job to force companies to give customers rebates

---

I'm good with that but Trump has no problems interfering in the free market.

Did the airlines have a case to fight back with all the admitted ATC problems? I don't recall what is in bounds or out of bounds for the Bootygig fines but generally I favor holding airlines accountable.

Just wandering if this was a friendly gesture to the airlines or they had some issue with it legally. Our speculation. Just tossing it out there.

A poster above makes a good point about how you want to incentivize and decentralize airlines as cost and safety are oft at odds.

Quote:

---

Did the airlines have a case to fight back with all the admitted ATC problems?

---

That is a trial issue, for a jury to decide. That takes years.

One reform I could absolutely support would be prohibiting airlines from selling more seats than exist on a plane. If I buy a confirmed seat, then I've got a confirmed seat. Don't tell me when I show up that it's oversold. That is BS. If that means the cost of a ticket increases for everybody, then so be it. But selling something you don't really have to sell is deceitful.

Pichael Thompson said:

---

It's a free market & you're free to find a different way to travel


It's not the government's job to force companies to give customers rebates

---

It is definitely not a free market at any level of air travel

MemphisAg1 said:

---

One reform I could absolutely support would be prohibiting airlines from selling more seats than exist on a plane. If I buy a confirmed seat, then I've got a confirmed seat. Don't tell me when I show up that it's oversold. That is BS. If that means the cost of a ticket increases for everybody, then so be it. But selling something you don't really have to sell is deceitful.

---

Disagree. Keep overselling planes. Every once and a while I get a pay day for waiting a few extra hours. Mean time, I'm saving money on average on my tickets because the airlines can sell a few extra, which according to their algorithms go unfilled (they don't want to compensate passengers for not going).

Aston04 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

One reform I could absolutely support would be prohibiting airlines from selling more seats than exist on a plane. If I buy a confirmed seat, then I've got a confirmed seat. Don't tell me when I show up that it's oversold. That is BS. If that means the cost of a ticket increases for everybody, then so be it. But selling something you don't really have to sell is deceitful.

---

Disagree. Keep overselling planes. Every once and a while I get a pay day for waiting a few extra hours. Mean time, I'm saving money on average on my tickets because the airlines can sell a few extra, which according to their algorithms go unfilled (they don't want to compensate passengers for not going).

---

Nope. It is deceitful to oversell when your model is for people to pay in advance. Just because some people benefit from it doesn't make it right.

Logos Stick said:

---

Pichael Thompson said:

---

It's a free market & you're free to find a different way to travel


It's not the government's job to force companies to give customers rebates

---

I'm good with that but Trump has no problems interfering in the free market.

---

that's his classical '90s Democrat tendencies rearing up.

Everybody oversells. Hotels, car rental, hotels. Part of the reason it uses the moniker of "reservation". You bought a spot that is subject to a whole contract of carriage (for airfare).

I e been walked at car rentals, hotels, and more than a couple flights. Pays to be loyal, patient and nice when those situations come up.

Telling them they are being deceitful probably not going to help. YMMV.

Pichael Thompson said:

---

It's a free market & you're free to find a different way to travel


It's not the government's job to force companies to give customers rebates

---

If this is the case….then fire all air traffic controllers and have airlines pay off any or all public debt that financed airports

flown-the-coop said:

---

Everybody oversells. Hotels, car rental, hotels. Part of the reason it uses the moniker of "reservation". You bought a spot that is subject to a whole contract of carriage (for airfare).

I e been walked at car rentals, hotels, and more than a couple flights. Pays to be loyal, patient and nice when those situations come up.

Telling them they are being deceitful probably not going to help. YMMV.

---

Lol, how I feel about this and how I act are two different things. It never pays to be nasty with the person on the other end of the issue. And it's almost always never their fault personally.

To your examples, overselling hotels is another area where I would strongly support government regulation to stop it. When you reserve a room with a credit card and commit to paying even if you don't show, then they are good and made whole. There is no reason they should oversell. It is simple greed and deceitful. Why should one party be held to the commitment (the customer) and not the other (hotel, airline)?

I'm a fan of small government on most things, and I've worked for corporations my entire career so I fully understand profit incentives, etc., but deceit is just wrong and needs to be confronted. If businesses won't do it thru their own code of ethics, then bring in the regulators to clamp down on them.

LOL at anyone who thinks air travel is a free market.

It's a few big corporations completely protected and coddled by the federal government.

I once showed up at the Hampton Inn in DC at about 4am needing a shower before my 9am flight out of DCA. They no showed me. Then told me they didn't have a room.

So I reserved a room, they billed my credit card for a no show equal to one night, then when I showed up wanting a room and still agreeing to be out by check out, they refused… initially. We reached a better understanding.

I get what you are saying, except for the deceitful part. Their policies are all widely available and you also agree to them. Buyer beware and such.

flown-the-coop said:

---

I once showed up at the Hampton Inn in DC at about 4am needing a shower before my 9am flight out of DCA. They no showed me. Then told me they didn't have a room.

So I reserved a room, they billed my credit card for a no show equal to one night, then when I showed up wanting a room and still agreeing to be out by check out, they refused… initially. We reached a better understanding.

I get what you are saying, except for the deceitful part. Their policies are all widely available and you also agree to them. Buyer beware and such.

---

Well, it is deceitful to charge someone for a room and not let them have it... force majeure reasons (fire, weather, mechanical, etc.) as exceptions of course.

There's really no other way to paint it. It's been embedded in the way they operate forever that many people just accept it, but that doesn't make it right.

The boomerang will come back around at some point and go too far with excessive regulations. If they would just clean up their act on stuff like this there wouldn't be enough momentum to ever get started.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Aston04 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

One reform I could absolutely support would be prohibiting airlines from selling more seats than exist on a plane. If I buy a confirmed seat, then I've got a confirmed seat. Don't tell me when I show up that it's oversold. That is BS. If that means the cost of a ticket increases for everybody, then so be it. But selling something you don't really have to sell is deceitful.

---

Disagree. Keep overselling planes. Every once and a while I get a pay day for waiting a few extra hours. Mean time, I'm saving money on average on my tickets because the airlines can sell a few extra, which according to their algorithms go unfilled (they don't want to compensate passengers for not going).

---

Nope. It is deceitful to oversell when your model is for people to pay in advance. Just because some people benefit from it doesn't make it right.

---

I like getting cheaper tickets every time and getting paid when I don't care about waiting.

And the market has spoken- given airlines have done this for decades- people prefer (like me- consciously or subconsciously) this without nanny government telling the airline no.

Aston04 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Aston04 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

One reform I could absolutely support would be prohibiting airlines from selling more seats than exist on a plane. If I buy a confirmed seat, then I've got a confirmed seat. Don't tell me when I show up that it's oversold. That is BS. If that means the cost of a ticket increases for everybody, then so be it. But selling something you don't really have to sell is deceitful.

---

Disagree. Keep overselling planes. Every once and a while I get a pay day for waiting a few extra hours. Mean time, I'm saving money on average on my tickets because the airlines can sell a few extra, which according to their algorithms go unfilled (they don't want to compensate passengers for not going).

---

Nope. It is deceitful to oversell when your model is for people to pay in advance. Just because some people benefit from it doesn't make it right.

---

I like getting cheaper tickets every time and getting paid when I don't care about waiting.

And the market has spoken- given airlines have done this for decades- people prefer (like me- consciously or subconsciously) this without nanny government telling the airline no.

---

Except the conversation isn't over. At some point, this will get reined in because it's fraudulent for airlines to accept money from people for something they don't have. I'm not predicting when... it could go on for quite a while, but it will get trued up at some point. Unfortunately, it will probably go too far because these things get swept up in a much bigger movement. For example, I don't support the OP topic of paying passengers for things beyond an airline's control like weather or breakdowns, but you can bet there are people clamoring for it.

How is it fraudulent if they tell you that upfront?

Pichael Thompson said:

---

It's a free market & you're free to find a different way to travel


It's not the government's job to force companies to give customers rebates

---

Not really. Airports and airport authorities control which airlines get gates. And they often protect airlines with a larger regional presence.

As much as I get pissed off at airlines, I don't think the government should be mandating this.

"Up front" as in tiny print embedded in some long legalese document that much of the population is too illiterate and uninformed to actually comprehend? I understand the principle of a slight overbooking based on data of projected actual shows. It makes sense. But it's not like they advertise up from you are paying for a 98% chance of a flight or hotel room in bold writing on their pricing and advertising. It's in Willy Wonka type of language embedded deep in the fine print. You often only become aware of these terms when it finally happens to you.

My only real concern would be if they oversell and then by policy keep raising prices and then systematically bump the customers who committed early at lower pricing to take other last minute customers who are willing to pay more. To me, unless they are bold letter front page up front about this on early purchases at lower rates that you are only paying for good odds on the day you are booking instead of a sure thing, it edges very close to a systematic fraudulent practice.

Again, I agree with the principle that it is most economical for everyone involved to slightly overbook to the level where actual occupancy is maximized after cancellation and no shows but care against abuse of this window also needs to be taken.

All great points.

It's still not fraud

MemphisAg1 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Everybody oversells. Hotels, car rental, hotels. Part of the reason it uses the moniker of "reservation". You bought a spot that is subject to a whole contract of carriage (for airfare).

I e been walked at car rentals, hotels, and more than a couple flights. Pays to be loyal, patient and nice when those situations come up.

Telling them they are being deceitful probably not going to help. YMMV.

---

Lol, how I feel about this and how I act are two different things. It never pays to be nasty with the person on the other end of the issue. And it's almost always never their fault personally.

To your examples, overselling hotels is another area where I would strongly support government regulation to stop it. When you reserve a room with a credit card and commit to paying even if you don't show, then they are good and made whole. There is no reason they should oversell. It is simple greed and deceitful. Why should one party be held to the commitment (the customer) and not the other (hotel, airline)?

I'm a fan of small government on most things, and I've worked for corporations my entire career so I fully understand profit incentives, etc., but deceit is just wrong and needs to be confronted. If businesses won't do it thru their own code of ethics, then bring in the regulators to clamp down on them.

---

So unelected bureaucrats with bones to pick is your solution? The last thing we need is more government control.

AtticusMatlock said:

---

LOL at anyone who thinks air travel is a free market.

It's a few big corporations completely protected and coddled by the federal government.

---

Then drive or take a train or a boat. People traveled the world long before airplanes.

Technically it isn't because we have given a set of legal notification/disclosure parameters and they do at least the minimum required in their boilerplate contract for service fine print. I just think it would be better if the sellers were more clear to the public that they are buying a high odds opportunity for something vs a sure thing. It may be understood by those with awareness of how these things work but such awareness is increasingly less common.

I guess in the end caveat emptor and read what you sign, though I will say you'll waste an unreasonable portion of your life here on earth reading miserable copy paste edit legalese if you actually do so.

Travelers will be in fight or flight mode.

jt16 said:

---

Pichael Thompson said:

---

It's a free market & you're free to find a different way to travel


It's not the government's job to force companies to give customers rebates

---

Not really. Airports and airport authorities control which airlines get gates. And they often protect airlines with a larger regional presence.

---

This. Having spent time working for SWA, they are the Texas mafia. Want more gates at Love? Good luck.

The airlines get billions in federal subsidies YoY.

They are as protected as it gets in terms of mass transportation. Anyone noticing an increase in service? Efficiency? Flight availability?

For example, SWA's masterful fuel hedging deal ended a while back that Gary facilitated. Now they pack you in like cattle, limit the number of flights, and try to squeeze as much revenue per flight as they can. Less flights means less opportunities for alternative options. One plane messes up the chain and it cascades down to everyone else in their stack. They're doing this to "streamline" operations and reduce the beforementioned financial pressure.

This brings us back full circle to gates. No gates means no alternative flight options.