I’m on record as supporting a Passengers Bill of Rights. But today I’m changing my vote.
I don’t want a Bill of Rights — in particular, I don’t back a proposed provision in the FAA Reauthorization Bill that would force airlines to return to the gate after a three-hour wait.
Why?
It’s not because everyone else in the world seems to be lining up behind the popular turn-back rule, including business travel groups, their lobbyists, and passenger rights advocates. No, I’m not just being a contrarian. I support their efforts to push for other important passenger rights reforms, including the establishment of a consumer complaints hotline for air travelers and tougher notification requirements for airlines.
I wish them well.
It’s not because the airline apologists have convinced me with their arguments that a turn-back rule would cost too much and create confusion. Their reasoning is weak, their motives questionable. These airline defenders claim to have our best interests in mind, but I believe nothing could be further from the truth.
I’m not casting a vote against a Passengers Bill of Rights for ideological reasons, either. Full disclosure is in order, though. I’m an American citizen who believes in free enterprise. I’m a registered independent, but I spent my formative years in Europe, where government was often seen as a solution to problems — not as the problem.
I think government can solve this problem.
But not like this.
Here’s why the turn-back rule won’t work: I’ve watched a similar law in Europe, designed to protect the interests of airline passengers, since 2004. It started with the best of intentions and the way I understood the language of the law, it seemed watertight.
But the airline industry found a way around it. It redefined a few terms, rendering the rules meaningless. What’s more, the EU courts were slow to act, and they essentially let carriers run roughshod all over the new regulations.
I have no doubts that the American airline industry will find a way around any turn-back rule.
So what’s the solution?
I believe the real key to protecting passenger rights is reforming the Transportation Department. The DOT is supposed to protect the interests of airline passengers. Instead, the agency has allowed airlines to do more or less whatever they want.
Consider the recent series of fines leveled against airlines for failing to follow the DOT’s already-generous fare advertising rules. Although the agency denies it, these fines were laughably small — a proverbial slap on the wrist.
I think Finland has a better idea. If you get a speeding ticket, it’s calculated as a percentage of your income. One unlucky motorist got a six-figure ticket a few years ago. Similar action by the DOT might stop further airline violations.
Here’s another huge loophole: The agency allows airlines to write their own rules (their contract of carriage) and only imposes these insignificant fines when they don’t follow them. This is absurd on many levels. The DOT needs to tell airlines what to do, not allow them to invent their own rules — it’s their job.
What does any of this have to do with passenger rights, and tarmac delays in particular?
Well, here you have an agency that lets the companies it regulates make up their own rules. It’s wishy-washy on fines. (In fact, given its preliminary findings on the recent Continental/ExpressJet tarmac stranding, it’s unlikely any fines will be issued.) What’s more, it allows airlines to load up their fares with dishonest fees and surcharges, claiming it doesn’t have the mandate to regulate airfares.
And these government watchdogs are supposed to enforce a turn-back rule?
No, they can’t. And no, they won’t.
Until we address the core problem, which is that the Transportation Department is more concerned with promoting the airline industry than promoting the interests of airline passengers — and until we give the DOT a reason and the resources to enforce existing rules — a Passenger Bill of Rights will be completely meaningless.
We need cops on the beat, not cheerleaders.
(Photo: philippe leroyer/Flickr Creative Commons)
✓ Get the latest travel news, tips and commentary from Elliott’s E-Mail, the subversive newsletter from industry gadfly Christopher Elliott. You’ll travel like a pro. Sign up here. It’s free.
Sign up for my 
{ 9 trackbacks }
{ 22 comments… read them below or add one }
Great post Chris. Finally, someone is giving us some substance rather than sound bites. The three-hour rule sounds good on paper, but in reality nothing much will change, except this will provide one more excuse for airlines to cancel flights. All this, in the name of passenger service.
Bah humbug Elliott and Leocha. Christmas is coming. Let’s give a new reg a spin for a while and see what happens. Besides lawyers will love the new “rights” regs, they can earn more money for trying to fight for or against their prescription . So consider this a “support the lawyering economy” regulation. They have had it tough for a few years now. Give ‘em a break.
On second thought, Chris & Charlie, what you should probably do is consider a position on campaign finance reform because sh*t rolls down hill and when airlines lobby Congressman, Congressmen call their transportation bureaucrats before them on the carpet and say “you ARE the bottom of the hill, so why you treatin’ my airline buds so cruelly?” The DOT eats the crap and looks for some important papers to file while they nurse their flogging marks. That’s how the airline industry gets their way…special interest money talks, and sh*t rolls down hill. The reg is one more check and balance that needs a chance to try.
Charlie pretty much nailed it! I concur completely! At this point the airlines/airline industry are making all the rules and then completely disregarding them at their leisure (I’m surprised more they haven’t started padding the length of time that a specific flight takes so they can claim they aren’t only on-time, but also are EARLY!). Here’s hoping people here about this – I’ll be posting a link to this on my Facebook page and suggest that others do the same there or to other social media!
Well said! I’d still like to see the turn back rule implemented, but you’re right, without sound and consistent enforcement it’s useless. The right answer isn’t more government or less government, it’s better run government. No reason we can’t expect it.
Although proponents of the three-hour rule are well intentioned, they do not understand the complexities of airline and airport operations and the likely consequences of their rule.
In 2008, after a 90-minute maintenance delay before boarding, I endured a 4-hour taxi time for a flight from JFK to Berlin because thunderstorms closed the airport for over an hour during the evening rush hour, when dozens of international flights depart each hour. If the airlines had had to abide by a three-hour rule, many flights would have been cancelled because the crews could not have legally remained on duty long enough to complete the flight. Which result is better for passengers: Enduring a 4-hour taxi time but arriving at their destination, or finding a hotel somewhere and doing the airport check-in and boarding routine all over again on the next day? (During particularly bad weather, airport hotels could fill up.)
In my case, I desperately wanted to get to my destination. I had a prepaid hotel reservation and a flight the next day to Warsaw. I also wanted to do some sightseeing in Berlin. A three-hour rule would have cancelled my flight. I would have lost my prepaid hotel room, I would have missed all sightseeing in Berlin, and I might even have missed my flight to Warsaw.
I assume that passengers on flights want, first and foremost, to get to their destination. A three-hour rule, while freeing passengers from planes, ultimately would delay their travel. Airport and airline operations are too complex to be governed by a three-hour rule. A three-hour rule would seriously delay the travel of many more passengers than it would save from relatively unusual extended tarmac delays.
If you fined the airlines based on their current income the DOT would have to pay the airlines every time they levied a fine
Perhaps carrying out the DOT’s mission–to “ensur[e] a fast, safe, efficient, accessible and convenient transportation system that meets our vital national interests and enhances the quality of life of the American people, today and into the future”–doesn’t require that the DOT levy higher fines and make more rules. It’s ignorant to believe that if the airlines get huge fines, they won’t become a cost of doing business that gets passed on to customers. I hate sitting on the tarmac as much as the next gal (perhaps even more so–I think it’d be interesting if passengers started throwing open the emergency exits thereby forcing the flight crew to allow them disembark), but I really doubt that the DOT telling them that they’re not allowed to do it is going to change my aggregate circumstances much. I might spend less time on the tarmac, but I’m going to pay for it.
A couple of thoughts.
Fines for negligence should not be a percentage of income. The nature of negligence is that accidents happen, they must be rectified, but the fines shouldn’t be bonecrushingly punitive.
Fines for willful actions can be more punitive as those actions are more avoidable.
The logic of doing nothing because it won’t change anything escapes me. It is pessimistic and ultimately self-fulfilling. If you do nothing, then nothing changes.
@Dan
I understand that you were hellbent on reaching your destination. And I’m sure you didn’t mean it, but basically, your post is, I have to reach my destination and to hell with everyone else.
What you also miss is that by keeping passengers on the plane, it denies them the opportunity to make other arrangements, whether by other carriers or driving or rail.
The answer lies within ladies and gentleman!
YES! The Air Transport Association is a powerful well funded lobbyist for the airline industry.
YES! They are very effective in bullying Congress to act in their interest.
YES! They will find a way around any legislation passed just as in Europe
So how do we fight back and ultimately win? It’s really rather simple. Airlines are capitalist enterprises and investors expect a return on their investment. If we as consumers can gain enough strength to alter the financial landscape so that Great Customer Service is the least expensive path then we win! The way we win can be summed up in one word: ACCOUNTABILITY!
We as customers use all of the tools at our disposal to hold airlines accountable for their actions. Here is a list of things we all can and should be doing.
1. If you fly regularly have a copy of your airlines Contract of Carriage in your carry-on. I have had to point to a specific paragraph once in 9 years. The other times merely pulling it out tells the employee that you’re not one to be messed with. In every instance I got what I requested.
2. Educate your fellow travelers. I have little cards that provide brief instructions on how to file a DOT complaint. I titled the cards “How to tell Aunt DOT your story”. Make the cards and every time you see a customer in trouble give them one. Most won’t but some will follow through and it raises the level of pain at an airline. None of them wants to be last in the standings on Consumer complaints
3. Do not be afraid to call your hometown Newspaper. If it’s a slow news day your story might just get printed. Reach out to any media that will listen to you. Airlines hate bad publicity and it’s our job as consumers to embarass them early and often if appropriate.
4. Learn how to draft a short, concise complaint letter. Send it through the proper channels with a deadline for a response. If the answer is either untimely or doesn’t directly address your concerns, go public as described above.
5.While not a personal favorite of mine the “E-mail Carpet Bomb” can also be effective. This technique is where you write everybody at the VP level and above.
6. Small Claims Court can also be effective. Costs an airline a ton of money to show up to fight a claim. Once you get a judgment, collection is not as hard as one might think.as rules are different for a business than they are for a individual. If you have a constable/sheriff who is sympathetic to your cause you can actually go out and seize an aircraft if you do your homework. It’s been done and reported here.
This is not an all inclusive list but all of the above cost airlines tons of money and the only way to get the attention of the MBA spreadsheet gang running airlines today is to hit them in the pocketbook and hit them HARD. Make it cheaper for them to do the right thing and they will. Otherwise standby for business as usual.
I agree completely with Mr. Bad Example. There is an old adage which states that the squeaky hinge gets the most oil, and this is a case where actions such as those Bad Example suggests are highly appropriate and might, in the long run, bring about real change.
Why can’t we have both?? Sure the DOT needs to be reformed and should be, but don’t you think the airline lobby will find a way around the “new” DOT? Of course they will, money talks in DC. It happens in almost every industry. A passenger bill of rights will add a layer of protection.
The problem with Mr. Bad Example (and being the squeaky hinge) is that most people interpret that as yelling at as many people at the airport as possible to try and get things.
Wow,
I’m actually in agreement with much of what Mr BadExample stated. And yes, I checked with my Pastor and he confirmed that Hell had indeed frozen over.
For the record, screaming at everyone and anyone in sight DOES NOT WORK!
I am what my southern friends call “Politely Persistent”. Just because it appears that a particular airline at that very moment in time is acting like the biggest bunch of morons on two feet doesn’t mean the person in front of you is and alienating them will get you nowhere.
it’s a process like mot things in business.
1. Attempt to resolve isues on the spot. Get names of all you speak with, Note the gate as all you’ll usually get is a first name or a made up one.
2. If 1 is unsuccessful take what’s offered and get to your destination as quickly as you can. After all that’s why you boarded the plane in the first place
3. Take time to craft a good letter sticking to the facts. Leave the emotions elsewhere.
4. Have a plan and work your plan. Always prepare all of the options. It’s like a chess game.
5. Know what your desired compensation and how much you’ll bend should you not get your desired result. Also know how far you’re prepared to go in pursuit of redress.
I have gotten compensation even when I haven’t asked for it and I think the reason is that I’m polite professional and display determination even in my writing style.
Just to prove a point I had a miss-connect due to prior late arriving aircraft. I ended up in a hotel that was not very good. So while I was watching TV I dug up the Contract of Carriage and I found a specific list of items NOT eligible for compensation. NOWHERE in this airlines CoC does it state that they will not pay for a hotel if the miss-connect is caused as mentioned above. Took me an e-mail and a return phone call but I got my $80.00 back.
See I LOVE rules because if you give me enough time I’ll figure out a way to bend the rules in my favor.
I agree with Matt. Let’s take what we can get rather than wait for the perfect solution. What would be nice would be rules like those in place in the EU, wher a cancelled flight requires significant compensation, which prevents the outcome suggested by Charlie. It should also be possible to devise a system which prevents a flight that has turned back from losing its place in line, thus avooiding the scenario suggested by Doug.
One more process that could be changed to work with the new rules to make them better… in a case such as an airport being closed for an hour by thunderstorms, instead of having all the planes line up right after the runway re-opens, why not re-schedule the flights in an intelligent way so that people can wait around in the airport for longer if their flight will be farther back in line? An airport knows how many flights can leave in a 1-hour time period, so only re-schedule that many flights for the next hour…. so if an hour’s worth of planes are already boarded when the storm hits, wait at least half an hour after the re-opening until boarding any additional planes for the next hour of departures, and only board 1 hour’s worth of planes once again. Yes, it’s a challenge to get things back on track after a disruption, but be methodical and intelligent about it and you won’t have full planes on the tarmac for hours.
I have an idea where the airlines can actually get some GOOD press for a change . . . if you are ill between Sept 15 and April 30, we’ll let you reschedule your flights and use the full amount of your ticket for a new flight.
Restrictions:
Must rebook ticket for a date and flight certain at time of call
must rebook no earlier than 24 hours before and 48 hours after travel
must certify illness – sure – they’ll be fraud – but some how I think it will be rarer than people think.
You may also designate one change of name in your itinerary from 48 hours prior to travel. [lets people re-sell tickets in a narrow window.
This keeps sick people off airplanes to save $100 and gives the airlines some kudos from health departments and the media.
If you send a letter of complaint seeking damages or compensation, also send along a copy of the small claims complaint you intend to file.
Dear Airline – I want compensation of ‘X’ dollars by such and such a date in the form of cash / check / voucher because of ‘Y.’ Failing to do so by dates such and such shall result in filing of the complaint attached.
Lets them know you are, in fact, serious. And have already filled out the forms.
@ Joe Farrell,
That is a splendid suggestion and should I ever get to that point I’ll take your sage advise. BTW wasn’t it you who published the story of the Constable/Sheriff who seized and aircraft someplace in CA? This might be a good time to repeat the story. It sounds like an Urban Legend, however I know enough about Small Claims to know that it is possible to do exactly what the story relates.
If it was you please re-tell the story.
@desktraveler
If you hold the departing planes at the gate for an extra hour, where do the full arriving ones go? All we’ve accomplished is shifting who sits around on the tarmac.
What pisses me of is this whole “boohoo, I don’t want to be forced by the evil government to return to the gate after 3 hours” attitude of airlines. WTF are you doing 3h on a tarmac anyway?
This whole problem is not hard to fix. Air Traffic Control knows exactly how many planes they can handle per time unit. Airlines know months ahead in time when they want their planes to take off. Airlines also know pretty much to the minute how long it takes to fill up a plane. How hard can it be to plan properly?
Airlines just don’t want to.