New airline ground delay rules need a lot of work
As we observe the American Labor Day holiday today, here’s a document that could probably use a little work: the government just released a draft of its contingency plans for lengthy airline onboard ground delays.
Once finalized, it will offer guidance to airlines, airports, government agencies and aviation service providers as a “preplanning tool” to ensure passenger needs are rapidly identified and addressed during lengthy onboard ground delays, according to the document.
Sounds good. But is this a real effort to help air travelers — or just the work of a few clever airline lobbyists who are trying to create new loopholes for their clients?
Here are a few problems:
No time limit. The plans won’t kick in until the “aircraft are delayed on the ground greater than two hours.” (See Chapter 2.5, Section f.) This suggest it’s perfectly acceptable to keep passengers parked on a plane for up to two hours.
Not legally binding. It states that airlines should “develop its contingency plan tailored to its operations using the guidelines provided in this document.” In fact, the airlines have already made promises to the government about ground delays. That’s not reflected in the document. (See Chapter 3.)
A lot of it is optional. There are multiple instances when the world “may” is used instead of “should” or “will.” For example, in Chapter 3.2, Section a., it says, “When practicable, airlines may elect to not board passengers until it is reasonably certain the ground delay not exceed a certain duration of time.”
Wording is weak and unenforcable. Does anyone think wording like this is going to make a difference? Chapter 3.4.3, Section b: “During a lengthy onboard ground delay, the crewmembers should keep the passengers regularly informed.” Yeah, but what if they don’t?
Passenger rights activist Kate Hanni told me the rules in this draft are “seriously watered down.”
“Comments must be made,” she told me. Here’s how.
You may also be interested in these articles
Comments
2 Responses to “New airline ground delay rules need a lot of work”
Please share your thoughts...
I just thought I would point out that this is not a proposed rule or regulation. (Yeah, I know it’s at “regulations.gov”.) The docket clearly states that it is “nonrulemaking”. Given that it uses words like “voluntary”, and explicitly states it is going to use the word “should” to further reinforce this, is an indication that this is more of a “best practices”-like document then any proposed mandatory standard. Think of it as something like the Food Guide Pyramid rather than something you are going to see in the FAR/AIM/CFR any time soon.
I just don’t see commenting calling for mandatory standards being particularly useful here. Comments on government documents are only paid attention to if they are actually about the document in question. Comments calling for stronger mandatory standards in a document made by the “NATIONAL TASK FORCE TO DEVELOP MODEL CONTINGENCY PLANS TO DEAL WITH LENGTHY AIRLINE ONBOARD GROUND DELAYS” are going to be ignored. The whole point of the document is to create voluntary model plans. Yes, regulation is needed, but commenting on a document not intended to create a regulation is not going to make it happen. A better use of time would be further prodding of your elected officials and prodding of the FAA through the passenger complaint process, which is taken surprisingly seriously by both the FAA and the airlines. (I’m not even sure the legislation covering the FAA would even allow them to set mandatory standards for ground delays… remember that regulatory agencies cannot exceed the authority given them by legislation.)
Campaigning to have the weasel words taken out of this document would be like writing the Department of Agriculture because the Food Guide Pyramid didn’t legally ban french fries. It just isn’t going to accomplish anything because the comments would be going to the wrong place.
SirWired
SirWired makes an excellent point.