I don't think I'll fly Delta anymore. I'm not under any illusion that they'll miss me, or that without my business they'll go bankrupt again, or that my impotent whining will somehow result in a change of Delta's policies. I realize that, given the situation I'm about to relate here, most every other airline in the world would have behaved in similar fashion. And yet, the fact remains: Delta airlines took over $500 of my money and gave me nothing of value in return. So you can understand my reluctance to ever give them another dime, ever.

Chapter One: Delta Takes My Money, Flips Me the Bird

The story is not particularly novel. We purchased two round-trip tickets from Salt Lake City to Phoenix, under the names of two of my children. Circumstances beyond our control rendered their trip impossible. We had purchased the standard "non-refundable, non-transferable" tickets that have become standard fare. But the customer service people at the airport explained that, while the tickets were non-refundable and non-transferable, we would receive credit for the tickets, good for one year. Aprilynne specifically asked whether she could apply this credit to any ticket she might purchase for any passenger; this customer service answered in the affirmative. As far as Delta was concerned, we'd returned the merchandise for store credit.

Well, more or less. The "re-booking" fee for accessing this credit would be $100, which is not exactly small potatoes. But this makes some sense--there are costs associated with rescheduling, and while the airline may be able to fill your seat from the standby line, their profit-per-flight will not go unaffected. And hey, an additional $100 per round-trip flight seems pretty reasonable when the alternative is, "Thanks for the $500, sucker."

So imagine my surprise tonight when I tried to book a flight using this credit and Delta told me that the credit was "non-transferable." I was told by Nicole in Salt Lake City, quite possibly the least courteous, least sympathetic "customer service" representative I've ever had the displeasure of dealing with, that the credits could only be used by my children because they had been purchased in my childrens' names. I was told that there was no need to talk to her supervisor because her supervisor could not help me. She also patiently suggested that unless my wife had gotten her promises in writing, I should go fly a kite (preferably in court). "You wasted $500," she stated frankly. Eventually, apparently frustrated that after fifteen whole minutes of top-notch customer service I hadn't slammed down the receiver in anger, she hung up on me so she could go "help" other customers. I was told that no one in the company could help me because this is the policy. Tickets can never be transferred, because then people could "barter tickets" (!?), which Nicole patiently explained is illegal.

But... wait. I wasn't trying to transfer a ticket. While the forbidding of ticket transferal is annoying, there are actually some entirely reasonable arguments against it. From the article:

...the policy is designed to prevent fraud and reduce the airline overhead that ticket swapping would entail. It also protects the airlines' bottom lines: Because of the peculiar nature of airline tickets' pricing structure, whereby fares typically skyrocket as the travel date nears, [passengers] could fall prey to speculators, who would snap up blocks of tickets at the reduced prices and then resell them later, undercutting the airlines' last-minute fares. Nontransferability prevents such shenanigans, which have the potential to completely undo the airlines' fragile economics.

Kind of interesting, right? But, naturally, none of this rationale applies to credits, especially with a $100 fee to cover the overhead plus any price differential in the tickets we'd canceled and the tickets we wanted to purchase. I wanted to buy new tickets with my credit, and so booking them for a new passenger would not qualify as a transfer, right?

Wrong! Those tickets were never canceled! Rather, Nicole kindly informed me, the itinerary was canceled. Thus (notwithstanding the verbal promises of Delta's airport agents) my children are the only people who can use the $500 I gave to Delta, by getting new itineraries for their non-canceled tickets. If this were any other contract, Delta would have been forced to mitigate damages by re-selling the "itinerary" and then owe me the difference (in credit, as they disclaim refunds). Since we canceled a month in advance, I'm sure this wasn't a problem. Delta didn't lose money on this deal; they made $500 more than usual. *best Jubal Early voice* Does that seem right to you?

So, first lesson: you buy "tickets" but you cancel "itineraries." Know your obscure airline vocabulary! Their terms of service do not mean what you think they mean.

Chapter Two: Something Completely Different

You know, the mechanisms exist to fix the problem described above. Death, misspelled names, all sorts of circumstances exist wherein Delta is more than happy to fix your problem. But only if your problem, whatever it is, falls within a certain narrowly-defined class of problems. On some deep human level, I feel bad for Nicole; I sympathize with her plight in a way she clearly did not sympathize with mine. Her hands were tied, because she is trained and empowered to solve this given range of problems only. She had the ability, but not the authority, to solve my problem--and make Delta a couple of bucks in the process!

And that's what really killed me about this entire unpleasant exchange. Delta took $500 from me and, when was unable to take advantage of the associated services, Delta said, "That's okay! You can take advantage of our services later, for a reasonable processing fee." So I called them up and said, "Remember me? I gave you that $500, can I give you $100 more and get that flight you promised?"

"Sure," says Delta, "But only if the person in the seat has the same name as the one you already gave us." None of their (normally valid) arguments against transferal have any relevance here, but they use them anyway, for no discernible reason.

And suddenly it hits me: that's what you do in a market lacking competition. That's what you do when you're big and powerful and your customers are small and weak. Lopsided bargaining positions combined with oligopoly powers result in a take-it-or-leave-it market, and the consumer gets screwed.

Every. Freaking. Time.

"Wait wait wait!" I hear you cry. "There are lots of airlines to choose from! Delta's got loads of competition!" Well, that's kind of true. The crazy thing about airlines is that for some stupid reason the United States government keeps giving them wheelbarrows full of money. I noted at the outset that I'm only mildly pissed at Delta because they happened to be the airline we'd chosen for this unfortunate transaction. I have no doubt every other airline would have treated me with the same sneering contempt. But that's just it! This sort of behavior should have put several airlines out of business, permanently, years ago. I believe that other, better approaches to air travel would have risen up to fill the void and satisfy the demand. But the airlines have been repeatedly bailed out by congress. And by propping up failing business models, the government just encourages continued bad behavior--whether we're talking about customer service or bad investments or whatever.

And here's where we transition into the present market situation, where the ostensibly capitalist United States of America undertakes government seizure of private assets for the good of the economy. I'm not an economist and others more capable than me have already said some interesting things about last week's insanity. But I would like to suggest that the present question--"should we regulate more stringently?"--is the wrong one. When the government proscribes certain behavior, the so-called capitalists come out of the woodwork to complain that regulation is inappropriate in a free market economy. But those same "capitalists" are nowhere to be seen when their company is getting a handout, or a tax break, or a bailout, or whatever. We talk a good game about "stimulating the economy" and "attracting business" and "trickle-down economics," but here's a syllogism: regulation begets regulation, corporate welfare is a form of market regulation, ergo corporate welfare begets market regulation!

So before turning the latest market fiasco into an indictment of the (truly) free market, stop for a moment and ask how long it's been since we really had a "free" market. We want to be "free" to succeed, but we don't want to be "free" to fail. This is always the trap of federal money; when you take federal money, you agree to play by the fed's rules. It is so easy to say, "hey, the government is handing out money, let's get some!" No one thinks of that as "regulation." But it is. Regulation is, tautologically, all about maintaining the status quo. But free market capitalism is dynamic; it is ruthlessly Darwinist. It is a forest fire, clearing away the clutter of the past so that fresh new growth can take root.

Free market capitalism can be terrifying. And like forest fires, it can rage out of control. There is a certain seductive appeal in the idea that the State can channel this power, protect us from it, deprive us of our choices for our own good. And I'm open to the possibility that, were we to honestly and genuinely undertake the stringent demands of a command-and-control economy, American ingenuity and work-ethic would find a way to make it work. But as things stand, we mostly pretend to have a free market economy. We're sitting on the fence. And have been for a long, long time.

The result is a take-it-or-leave-it market. We as Americans put time and money into building a life for ourselves and for our children. We get to vote with our ballots and with our dollars, and when we vote a really big company off the continent, the government stands ready to step in and bail them out. The end result is a lot of companies with "screw the customer" attitudes. They don't answer to the customer, the consumer, the citizen; they answer to the government. As long as they're "too big to fail," they're safe. Take it or leave it. If you don't like security theater or onerous EULAs or warrantless wiretaps... don't fly on planes or use software or make phonecalls. That's your right! But if you're going to wait around for realistic alternatives to rise up and compete by offering customer-friendly policies, just... don't hold your breath.

Ultimately, while Delta's horrible service makes me wish another bankruptcy on their sorry corporate self, it is just one more thing that damages my faith in the market generally. Free market? Command economy? What does it matter if I have to wince every time I enter an economic transaction? Why do I have to flatly expect that no one I deal with is looking for a fair exchange? That every company I have to do business with in order to exist in modern society is actively seeking ways to alienate me by ripping me off? The list of companies I feel comfortable dealing with on a regular transactional basis is disturbingly short. (Maybe I'll share that list one of these days!)

Do you corporate-type people not realize that screwing me once will make you a lot less money over time than encouraging repeat business!?

Oh, right. The bailout thing. (Let's just ignore my erroneous implication that the MBAs and JDs and accountants and shareholders running these megacorporations have any intention of pursuing long term profitability...)

Well. To review: Delta airlines took over $500 of my money and gave me nothing of value in return. While it is largely unreasonable to blame Delta specifically, they have nevertheless sacrificed some small amount of future business because they have been unjustly enriched by my misfortune, which has me seriously annoyed. This is somehow the fault of the federal government's inability to fish or cut bait on complex matters of economic ideology. Part rant, part armchair economics, all impotent whining about forces well beyond my control.

I think my work here is done. d^_^b