Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Department of Transportation mulls expanded passenger delay rule
The Department of Transportation is thinking about getting even stricter with the airlines. After implementing a rule last spring that involves heavy fines for carriers that keep passengers on a plane on the ground for at least three hours, the DOT is already considering expanding the scope to small airports and international flights. MSNBC reports:
"The situation is much worse than the [official] statistics indicate," said George Hobica of AirfareWatchdog.com. "We have to include every airport, every type of plane and every type of flight."
Unsurprisingly, the International Air Transport Association isn't crazy about Hobica's approach, with spokesman Steve Lott saying, "If DOT goes ahead with this, they're going to cause a much larger problem than the one they think they're trying to solve."
The final rule won't come down until the spring, so there's plenty of time for both sides to fight this out.
For the airline sector, this measure seems to be seen as a signal of something much worse – the prospect of broad regulation and constraints on its ability to operate
For its part, DOT won't announce a final rule until next spring, but you can expect a lot of others to weigh in before then. Hundreds of last-minute ideas were lobbed over to the DOT, according to MSNBC, addressing all kinds of passenger and watchdog hot buttons, such as: advertising, fee disclosure and compensation for those denied boarding. The big one, of course, was the issue of delays on the tarmac.
International carriers oppose the expanded rules – shocking, right?! Lott, taking the standard industry stance, raises the issue of cancellation instead of risking a $27,500 perpassenger customer fine, telling MSNBC, "I don't think getting stranded in a U.S. city for a day or more is necessarily helping passengers."
This may be a risk, but the data tells the only reliable story:
International carriers oppose the expanded rules – shocking, right?! Lott, taking the standard industry stance, raises the issue of cancellation instead of risking a $27,500 per
This may be a risk, but the data tells the only reliable story:
[photo by williamcho via Flickr]
Meanwhile, as the airline industry and consumer advocates press their points of view, two truths regarding tarmac delays remain. Delays of three hours or more for domestic flights are down substantially since the original rule went into effect - there were only three in July, says DOT, compared to 161 during the same period last year - and international flights do present a much more challenging scenario.
Filed under: North America, United States, Airlines
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Mark S. Oct 1st 2010 11:04PM
Check out this blog from Mon. Sept. 27 to see some of the consequences of the 3 hour rule and how the airlines attempts to keep away from 3 hour delays can cause more problems for the travelers.
http://fl250.blogspot.com/
Joe Oct 2nd 2010 2:13AM
I don't see the problem. The 3-hour rule was put in place so airlines would stop abusing their passengers. I guess you've never been stuck on a flight that's been delayed 5+ hours with no food, drinks, a broken toilet. And passengers ready to revolt.
The rule was put into place because of the airlines negligence.