London’s government appears determined to lower emissions; it also appears strapped for cash. The global capitol introduced an ultra-low emission zone plan in 2019, which imposed a daily fee on polluting vehicles (gas cars built before 2006, diesel engines built before 2015) that came into central London. By 2023, the fees applied throughout Greater London. The goal was to lower the emissions created in the city and encourage greater uses of more sustainable transportation options. Building on these efforts, London’s mayor Sadiq Khan recently suggested adding surveillance systems and monitors throughout the city, to track cars as they entered the ultra-low emission zones. At the same time, the national government reportedly is considering monetizing satellite surveillance technology that could be used to track the vehicles. Seeking these alternative sources of revenue seems critical; efforts to encourage consumers to switch to electric cars promise to eliminate approximately 25 billion pounds worth of revenue that the country currently earns from fuel taxes. Yet shifting the burden to consumers raises some legitimate questions too. The emission plan arguably affects working-class people disproportionately and detrimentally. As the cost of living in London has risen to untenable levels, they have fled to more remote areas, which offer relatively fewer public transportation options. Other challenges to the policies raise questions about their efficacy; an Imperial College London study suggested that the emission zones actually had little effect on air quality, at least in the months following their implementation. Lawmakers must come together quickly, to weigh policy options that will balance fiscal goals with public interest.

Sources: Phillip Inman, “If You Let Google Have Your Data, Why Not the NHS?” The Guardian, October 19, 2024; “The Ultra-Low Emission Zone for London,” London Assembly

Right on Schedule? How the U.S. Department of Transportation Is Dealing with Flight Delays

13 Thursday Mar 2025

Posted by Grewal Levy Marketing in Chapter 04: Conscious Marketing, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Ethics, Chapter 13: Services: The Intangible Product

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Airlines, delay, fine, flying, penalty, regulation

Flight delays are, at some point, unavoidable. There are thousands of elements that must go right for airline travel to happen smoothly and safely, and even if airlines could realistically be expected to avoid every single mechanical issue that might arise in their planes or schedule staff perfectly, they still must deal with the completely uncontrollable influence of weather conditions. Thus, for the most part, airlines can and should be forgiven for reasonable, occasional flight delays and cancellations.

But reasonable and occasional are very different from preventable and chronic, and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) seems determined to establish this distinction. In recent moves, it has fined JetBlue and Frontier for their persistent records of delays. The fines—$2 million to JetBlue, $650,000 charged to Frontier—go partially to compensate affected passengers.

Then it brought a $2.1 million suit against Southwest Airlines, alleging that in 2022, two of the airline’s regularly flight paths featured a habitual pattern of late arrivals. Passengers flying between Chicago and Oakland or between Baltimore and Cleveland—two routes that were scheduled at least 10 times per month—would arrive late (by at least a half hour) more than half of the time. According to the U.S. DOT, that signals a chronic pattern. Furthermore, the DOT has estimated that about 90 percent of those delays were preventable. Therefore, it alleges that the airline failed to live up to its legal obligation, which requires it to establish and publish actually realistic flight schedules so that passengers have ready access to reliable information that supports their own planning efforts.

Beyond the impacts on travelers trying to get to Oakland or Cleveland on time, Southwest’s chronic delays constitutes an anticompetitive practice, according to the DOT. Specifically, it advertised and marketed these flights, as occurring in accordance with the published schedule. Because it could not live up to that promise, Southwest arguably was engaged in deceptive advertising that could give it an unfair competitive advantage.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Southwest denies the allegations. It regards the accusations as outdated and, while recognizing that those routes suffered issues in the past, highlights its successful completion of approximately 20 million on-time flights since the legislation that enforces punishments for chronic delays passed in 2009.

Discussion Questions

Are fines of airlines that run chronically delayed flight paths appropriate? Are they fair? Take the perspective of the punished airline, its competitors, and travelers to develop your answer.
What are some other ways to incentivize airlines to deal with and avoid chronic delays?

Sources: Niraj Chokshi, “U.S. Sues Southwest Airlines over Chronic Delays,” The New York Times, January 15, 2025; Ayana Archie, “The Transportation Department Sues Southwest Airlines for Alleged Oft-Delayed Flights,” National Public Radio, January 16, 2025; “DOT Sues Southwest Airlines for Chronically Delayed Flights,” Department of Transportation, January 15, 2025