Does it matter if a commuter airline is identified?
There are new laws requiring that airlines identify flights they are selling space on which aren’t actually their airline. In other words, if an airline like Continental has a commuter airline operating flights on its behalf, it’s supposed to identify this fact on the first page showing the flight for booking.
Does it matter? Well, the original implication was about safety which I always thought silly. Regional airlines really are not worse or better than mainline airlines when it comes to safety. Or, rather, let’s say that in the United States, the difference is statistically insignificant. Fly with confidence in that respect.
I think the greater implication is that people should know what they’re buying and I don’t disagree with that. However, it has been possible to identify what you’re buying for a long time. It’s just that it is difficult to “read” unless you learn some things about airlines. In almost all cases, the aircraft type alone identifies a flight on a commuter airline.
I think that consumers should be told what they’re getting but that isn’t going to be truly transparent until we classify things into groups. For instance, if we classified all aircraft with 100 seats or less as “regional” aircraft, we would have some good assurance of the aircraft type. Or would we? An Embraer 170 has near 737-like qualities but just 70 seats. However, an ERJ-145 has about 50 seats that are torture.
I think things should be identifiable but I do also think that consumers need to educate themselves as well. The problem is, there is no central location for consumers to educate themselves or use as reference material. Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to look up a typical 757 or A320 and see what you can expect from such an aircraft versus a typical Dash 8 or Embraer 190? Economy seating and its general pros and cons should be explained as should what to expect for a typical meal service or drink service on both mainline and “regional” routes.
But I don’t think the airlines should have to spoon feed you the information so that everyone is 100% positively clear on what they’re getting into. There is some burden on the consumer to at least make a cursory effort at understanding what you’re buying. You would do the same thing for a $400 television so why can’t you do it for a $400 airplane ticket?

I think things should be identifiable but I do also think that consumers need to educate themselves as well. The problem is, there is no central location for consumers to educate themselves or use as reference material.
I’m down with it. Sort of a hyper-SeatGuru, only not limited to the seating product. SeatGuru could take off on that (pardon the pun) to increase their usefulness, or a third (or fourth?) party could tag on.
There is some burden on the consumer to at least make a cursory effort at understanding what you’re buying. You would do the same thing for a $400 television so why can’t you do it for a $400 airplane ticket?
The airlines have a long and well-documented history of being totally opaque and tight-lipped when it comes to imparting consumer information to consumers (witness: taxes and fees). Consumers could indeed make such an effort if the information was at least somewhat easier to locate.
I really do not see a downside to these new laws.
-R
I think airlines should have a duty (burden) to be transparent but I don’t think they should be compelled to grab someone by the head and rub their nose into facts either.