 |
New York was the first state to pursue a passenger bill of rights that would require airlines to provide tarmac-stranded passengers with things like fresh air, food and water, and clean toilets. While there were some that hoped other states would follow suit, but the ATA had challenged the bill, and it went to court. Today, “The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said New York’s new law interferes with federal law governing the price, route or service of an air carrier.” (from abcNews) While the Court called the goals of the bill “laudable,” the Court has said that only the federal government can pass such regulations. Keep reading for the ATA’s response to the ruling… |
The decision in New York is what the ATA was hoping for, and they were quick to release a statement:
“The court’s decision vindicates the position of ATA and the airlines - that airline services are regulated by the federal government and that a patchwork of laws by states and localities would be impractical and harmful to consumer interests. This clear and decisive ruling sends a strong message to other states that are considering similar legislation.”
So, a “strong message” has been sent to other states. However, that most likely won’t change the attitudes of the many travelers who believe the federal government isn’t doing enough to protect their rights while in the air, and more importantly, while stranded on the ground.
Please let me know your thoughts on the Passenger Bill of Rights. Do you think we’ll see the federal government pick up where New York left off, or is this recent ruling a major step backwards for passenger rights activists?
I’m kind of sad that this bill got trashed. I was stuck on the tarmac in St Louis for 5 hours because of bad communication between United Airlines and the airport tower. It was frustrating to just be sitting there without any food or service for 5 hours while the pilot kept telling us we’ll be back in the air “any minute from now”. Some of the passengers I was stuck with told me some nightmares of being stuck for even longer times.
The costumer service reps that I talked to seemed to be trained to be callous to the complaints I had. So, I think this issue needs to pressed into the policy makers a bit more. Are there any consumer advocate groups that can help passengers that get crappy treatment some compensation?
Comment by supun — March 30, 2008 @ 2:02 am
If passengers want a bill of rights that put time limits on gate returns, that’s fine. But passengers…especially those in high density Northeast, with winter conditions being what they are…better get used to the idea of not flying much. When a bad weather hits at your departure or destination, and you sit for the “alloted” time, when you return to the gate, you’re probably not leaving today…or tomorrow. First of all, when the door opens, the crew’s flight time requirements change…they are Federally limited as to the time they can be on duty time and flight time. Due to the door opening and the time spent on the tarmac now counted as duty and block time, you are most likely going to need a different crew.
Let’s not even think about security checks, bag checks (Every bag is matched with every passenger once the gate closes…and that will have to be redone), refueling the aircraft, getting another release time (every aircraft needs a “slot” to fit into the ATC system), and what about the money that the passengers are going to have to dole out for such extras…you didn’t think the airlines were going to pay for it, did you?
Best of luck with that Bill of Rights…
Comment by Jim — June 5, 2008 @ 7:19 pm