This Time, Airline Reforms Are Refreshingly Voluntary

You probably didn’t expect it, and your government didn’t require it, but two of this country’s largest airlines have made a pair of gestures that should please millions of consumers.

One is a 50% cut in prices for children under 2 who occupy child safety seats on domestic flights. American made the move first on July 2, and was followed within 48 hours by at least three competitors.

The other reform, which faces a less certain future, is a campaign to start plainly stating round-trip fares in fare-sale advertisements, instead of printing a nonexistent fare in large type and disclosing in small print that the figure is a “one-way fare based on round-trip purchase.” United moved first on July 1, and at least one other major airline--American--declared that it would follow within a day. But at least in early days, others resisted.

Both actions follow years of complaints that airlines were placing profits ahead of safety and candor. But both moves were voluntary, and both seem to stand a good chance of changing industry practice, thanks to a marketplace in which carriers are lightning-quick to match any move that could give a competitor an advantage.

In other words, market forces may force two reforms that federal regulators have never gotten around to.

Child safety seats: The American announcement followed years of arguments over whether safety seats should be required for children under 2 and who should pay for them. All sides have agreed that children would be better protected in the safety seats than on adults’ laps, and the National Transportation Safety Board has urged that the Federal Aviation Administration require the seats, but the FAA has refused. (The FAA suggested that such a measure would boost the cost of air travel, forcing many families with young children to travel by automobile, which is statistically more dangerous than flying.)

The FAA continues to allow children under 2 to travel free if held in an adult’s lap, and all major airlines follow that policy. On flights that aren’t full, airlines say they try to place “lap children” next to empty seats. But with airline occupancy rates running at 70% and rising, the odds of getting an empty seat grow worse by the day.

The change led by American gives families another option. If they pay 50% of a participating carrier’s published fare (including most discounted fares, but not military and senior citizen fares) and bring their own safety seat, their child is guaranteed a seat.

“There are an awful lot of parents who are going to be delighted with this,” said Ed Perkins, editor of the Consumer Reports Travel Letter. “I think it’s as close to a solution as we’re going to get. The question is whether the ‘hold-your-kid-and-don’t-pay-anything’ option is going to remain.”

In announcing the new policy, American acknowledged recent efforts in Congress to mandate cut rates for children in safety seats, and denounced that idea as “a major step toward re-regulating the airline industry.” But those congressional proposals, American maintained, were not a factor in the new policy.

In the first day after American’s announcement, United, Delta and Northwest airlines adopted the same policy. Other airlines said they were studying the situation. To be sure about a specific carrier--and perhaps help inspire a change in policy--call and ask.

Candid ads: Over the last decade, it became standard practice for airlines to price a round-trip flight at, say, $300, then buy big newspaper ads with the figure $150 in large print. (In smaller print, the ads would note that one-way tickets are not really available at that rate, but if you doubled the pro-rated price that was given, that would give you the true round-trip price.)

This is like advertising the cost of a single shoe in bold headlines, yet federal officials allowed it. So did newspapers and other publications accepting the ads.

Then along came United with a new public relations campaign, prompted by dismal customer-satisfaction survey results and intended to boost travelers’ comfort, reward loyalty, build global access and be more candid in communications. It’s too soon to say how the program will do, but when the airline’s first fare sale of the summer came up, some brave United soul decided that candor in communication meant running the actual cost of a round-trip ticket in large print, rather than the one-way number (which is often a price that the consumer cannot actually get as a one-way fare).

“Most people are purchasing round-trips anyway, so why make them have to do the math?” asked United spokeswoman Mary Jo Holland. Why indeed? Soon American Airlines followed, its spokesman conceding that until United’s gesture, “because of the competitive situation, we felt like we couldn’t” break ranks.

But others hung back. Six days after United’s move, Delta and US Airways were holding to the old way. It will be a shame for consumers if this bid for ad reform dies. But it could happen.

Which brings us back to the United survey that prompted its current campaign. “The U.S. airline industry as a whole consistently failed to meet air travelers’ expectations or needs,” survey analysts concluded.

“It’s been a long time since I remember any major player in any market coming out and saying, ‘Hey, we just found out our customers don’t like us,’ ” said Consumer Reports’ Perkins. If United can follow up with “some real improvements,” he added, it will deserve big kudos.

Reynolds travels anonymously at the newspaper’s expense, accepting no special discounts or subsidized trips. He welcomes comments and suggestions, but cannot respond individually to letters and calls. Write Travel Insider, Los Angeles Times, Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles 90053 or e-mail chris.reynolds@latimes.com.