Troops Pay For Bags When Going On Planes to War

[Greenday]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...travel-to-war/

Basically, soldiers heading over to Iraq and Afghanistan are being charged by the airlines for bringing extra luggage with them. A soldier, who is going into an active war-zone, is being used to make profit off of, and the airline industry sees nothing wrong with that? What the hell is wrong with these people? Reimbursement my ass. Do they not think the soldiers have better things to do with bullets flying past them and IEDs blowing up around them?

[Flyndaran]

Soooo, you're mad that businesses don't do things for free?

[Greenday]

They are charging the TROOPS for their baggage. Not the military. There is something vastly wrong with that.

[Flyndaran]

That sounds like a slam on the military for not paying to ship the soldiers. The fact that businesses demand payment from those that will actually pay is not unusual. Again, airlines are not charities.
Place the blame where it belongs and don't get distracted by the administration's diversions.

[Greenday]

I'm placing blame on those who deserve it. Those controlling money for the military have no idea whether a soldier is taking 2 bags or 3 with him onto a plane. The military will reimburse the soldiers, but soldiers would have to fill out a ton of paperwork, and when will they have time for that when they are in Iraq or Afghanistan? That takes away blame from the military itself. So instead of billing the military, the airline companies screw over the troops themselves.

[Flyndaran]

How on earth is excessive expense dodging military beuracracy the airline's fault? The airline needs to get paid, so they bill the one's flying. That doesn't seem strange to me.
If someone ordered a soldier to go into a store to buy something needed for military purposes, would you expect the propriator to simply give it to him? ...even if the soldier had proof that it was for legitimate use?
Of course not. The store owner deserves to get paid for his merchandise. The onus falls upon the military for not supplying its troops.

[Greenday]

How on earth is excessive expense dodging military beuracracy the airline's fault? The airline needs to get paid, so they bill the one's flying. That doesn't seem strange to me.
If someone ordered a soldier to go into a store to buy something needed for military purposes, would you expect the propriator to simply give it to him? ...even if the soldier had proof that it was for legitimate use?
Of course not. The store owner deserves to get paid for his merchandise. The onus falls upon the military for not supplying its troops.

When business is done away from the computer, such as when traveling or something, specific credit cards are used so that the military gets billed directly. Now, common soldiers generally don't get these credit cards, but they also generally do not get sent out to get military supplies. That's what DoD civilians do. Soldiers never buy anything themselves.

It's not like the airlines will never see the money if they bill the military directly. They will get the money. They get paid. So why, instead of just doing that, do they screw over the troops themselves?

[Norton]

It's not like the airlines will never see the money if they bill the military directly. They will get the money. They get paid. So why, instead of just doing that, do they screw over the troops themselves?

Well, they can't just bill the military without the military's permission, right? I have to agree that it seems the military is at fault for this.

[Greenday]

Well, they can't just bill the military without the military's permission, right? I have to agree that it seems the military is at fault for this.

Just doesn't seem like the airlines brought it up with the military. Granted, it should be covered in the contract, but whoever got together from both groups definitely screwed it up and the person who approves contracts for the military didn't think about it either. But couldn't they just start billing them now instead of continuing to charge the troops, now that people are aware of the problem?

[Sylvia727]

Initially, I see no fault with the airline. But immediately after the first flight where this issue was raised, they should have been on the phone with the military coordinator to resolve the issue. I'm not sure who's refusing to play ball here, the military or the airline, but it should never have gone to the second flight.

The airline should let the soldiers fly, no charge, and send the bill to the military anyway. Let the lawyers argue it out.

[Boozy]

I'm of two minds about this.

First, the airline industry is so heavily subsidized that I'd like to think the government would have thought to attach some strings to all them cheques. Like, say, in times of war the airlines can't be pricks about soldiers' baggage.

On the other hand, without those strings-attached, the airlines are independent businesses who shouldn't be coerced by the government into financial strain. Instituting a system whereby they track the number of soldiers' bags and bill the military later isn't going to be cheap. Besides, the fuel costs for that flight are long paid for before the military comes back with a cheque, so the airlines would be essentially spotting the government a loan.

In the end, I feel it's the military's fault. They have a long history of treating their personnel as disposable.

[ebonyknight]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...travel-to-war/

Basically, soldiers heading over to Iraq and Afghanistan are being charged by the airlines for bringing extra luggage with them. A soldier, who is going into an active war-zone, is being used to make profit off of, and the airline industry sees nothing wrong with that? What the hell is wrong with these people? Reimbursement my ass. Do they not think the soldiers have better things to do with bullets flying past them and IEDs blowing up around them?

When it comes down to it, it's the government's responsibility to get them over there. They should be flying military transport. If they want to contract the airlines, then they airlines have no obligation to treat them any different from commercial customers, unless contractually obligated.

Now in good times, it would be a nice gesture not to charge them. But these are hard times for the airlines and they have no obligation to go "above and beyond". Should they, maybe. But that is up to them being generous, not being obligated.

Personally, I think this is just another politically motivated smokescreen to make someone look bad.

I personally think the issue is not why a commercial airline is charging military troops, but why THE HELL they aren't flying military transport aircraft?!?!? The troops shouldn't have to worry about being compensated for the reasons you said, but it's the government's fault for not providing transport, not the airlines for fulfilling a contract.

[Greenday]

American Airlines has announced they will waive the fee for troops with extra baggage. Huzzah!

I do believe though that whoever is on the military side of the contract with the airlines gets off his ass and does his job. I cannot stand seeing people take their sweet time to do their jobs.

[machinest]

My question is the extra baggage part of the soldiers required gear and thus part of "transporting the troops" or is it personal baggage that the soldiers are choosing to take with them. If the first it is part of the contract with the airline if the second then it is the soldiers responsibility.

[Arcade Man D]

I'm placing blame on those who deserve it. Those controlling money for the military have no idea whether a soldier is taking 2 bags or 3 with him onto a plane. The military will reimburse the soldiers, but soldiers would have to fill out a ton of paperwork, and when will they have time for that when they are in Iraq or Afghanistan? That takes away blame from the military itself. So instead of billing the military, the airline companies screw over the troops themselves.

How would they not have time on the hours-long flight to fill out the paperwork?