Feds Declare NY Pax Rights Law Unconstitutional

[eolesen]

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that New York's new state law interferes with federal law governing the price, route or service of an air carrier.

"If New York’s view regarding the scope of its regulatory authority carried the day, another state could be free to enact a law prohibiting the service of soda on flights departing from its airports, while another could require allergen-free food options on its outbound flights, unraveling the centralized federal framework for air travel. On this point, the decisions of the Fifth and Ninth Circuits finding preemption of state common law claims for failure to warn of the risk of deep vein thrombosis are instructive. See Montalvo, 508 F.3d at 473 (“[A] state [is not] free to require any announcement it wishe on all planes arriving in, or departing from, its soil . . . .")

In light of our determination that the [Passenger Bill of Rights] is preempted by the [Airline Deregulation Act], however, we need not address the scope of any FAA preemption, and we decline to do so here. Although the goals of the PBR are laudable and the circumstances motivating its enactment deplorable, only the federal government has the authority to enact such a law. We conclude, then, by reiterating our holding that the PBR’s substantive provisions, codified at section 251-g(1) of the New York General Business Law, are preempted by 49 U.S.C. § 41713(B)(1).

 

[Nor'Easta]

Ha!

 

[WingNaPrayer]

It will be back, in one form or another. Either that or Congress will just go ahead and enact their version, which is much more stringent and carries more bucks.

 

[WingNaPrayer]

[quote name='Nor'Easta' post='585639' date='Mar 25 2008, 02:32 PM']Ha! [/quote]

Ha?

If you think that it is ok for an airline to hold passengers hostage on a tarmac for ten hours (and actually seem to revel in the idea) then you're a bigger idiot than you come off as.

This will do nothing but drive passengers to carriers without a history of doing so - of which AA is NOT one of! In fact, they are the worst repeat offender!

 

[eolesen]

Hmm. AA's the worst offender? Where exactly are you getting that statistic from? Daily Kos?

DOT doesn't keep track of ground delays on arrival or diversions. If you're only basing your "fact" on news reports and anectdotal data from a couple of activist blogs, you're probably missing quite a bit of data...

Should Congress do something? Will Congress do something?.... I'd rather see them focus on real issues like the budget and killing off pork barrel spending projects like the Bridge to Nowhere. In the area of air travel, there are far more pressing issues, such as giving the FAA enough resources to really monitor the overseas repair stations...

PBR's are just fluff. The end result of any legislation will be knee-jerk cancellations whenever it looks like there's going to be delays. Personally, I'd rather just get home at the end of a long day, and not be shuttled back to the gate or forced to spend one more night on the road.

 

[WingNaPrayer]

Hmm. AA's the worst offender? Where exactly are you getting that statistic from? Daily Kos?

DOT doesn't keep track of ground delays on arrival or diversions. If you're only basing your "fact" on news reports and anectdotal data from a couple of activist blogs, you're probably missing quite a bit of data...

Should Congress do something? Will Congress do something?.... I'd rather see them focus on real issues like the budget and killing off pork barrel spending projects like the Bridge to Nowhere. In the area of air travel, there are far more pressing issues, such as giving the FAA enough resources to really monitor the overseas repair stations...

PBR's are just fluff. The end result of any legislation will be knee-jerk cancellations whenever it looks like there's going to be delays. Personally, I'd rather just get home at the end of a long day, and not be shuttled back to the gate or forced to spend one more night on the road.

Personally, I agree with everything you said and yes, I'm basing my assumptions on the fact that AA dominated the headlines last year for such hostage situations. I realize that when you're the largest carrier, you're going to rank number one in good things and some not so good things as well.

For me, if I am on that plane and it has been sitting on the tarmac for two or three hours, then yes, I want off. Perhaps it could be made an elective among passengers. Most of a carrier's refusal to return to the gate has little to do with take off slots and more to do with paying another fee to the airport. Perhaps Congress should address excessive airport fees for carriers, or force the airports to make exceptions when unloading becomes necessary. Perhaps airports could give carriers a certain amount of free passes, or gimmes per year based on their use frequency. Regardless of what the fed may or may not come up with, it will be a big mess like everything else the fed touches.

As far as anything overseas that the carriers do in order to avoid American wages and benefits - I'd love to see Congress slap massive fees on them designed to cover the cost of having the overseas work inspected, checked, then double and triple checked when the aircraft returns to the USA before it can take on passengers. When much of what we see coming out of Europe and Asia is crap, why should we believe that foreign work product is any different?

I would rather have knee-jerk cancellations than being held hostage. It would be more than worth it to me to spend a night in a hotel with a comfy bed vs. spending 10 hours in a tube with nothing but a seat that makes my ass sore after 20 minutes! I'm one of those unfortunate travelers that has motion claustrophobia. When that plane is moving, I'm fine but when it's not after a period of time, I become agitated.

To date I've been lucky and have only been tarmac-stranded once, for 3 hours and some sundry minutes and it was on Delta in Salt Lake City. I remember it being extremely uncomfortable and my own agitation was just exacerbated by the agitation of those around me. When I wrote to complain to them later, I got 500 miles put into my account and a rather curt "sh1t happens" letter. All we need in the future before congress will act is for someone to become so agitated that they go postal inside the plane.

Again, this issue will come back, I'm certain of that. Especially if the next 10 hour hold happens to a plane load of congressional leaders on their way back from some big conference on air traffic delays

 

[Bob Owens]

The 2nd district court is just a rubber stamp for corporate America.

That said the fact is the Airlines have been treating customers badly in that they are not getting what they expected from their flying experience but thats what the customers wanted. When people get stuck in the subway you dont hear them complain that they didnt get fed. You can't expect to pay less to fly than it costs to take a cab to the airport and expect that the airlines will keep enough equipement, staff and materials to deal with the variables.

Ironically Jet Blue is the one thats been the most publicized transgressor and they are the ones that the State of New York has been subsidizing. Instead of a broad bill they should tie their subsidies to minimum service requirements. The Feds couldnt interfere with that.

 

[rjh]

Long delays on the tarmac will not improve until the FAA and ATC figure out a better system for "slots" when weather is affecting departures at an airport. If arrivals are affected, they put out a ground delay program or ground stop. You are assigned an arrival time, and a "wheels up" time is calculated based on the ETE of the flight.

If an airport has departure delays--the flights can only get in line and wait. If they get OUT of line to go back to the gate, the flight loses its spot and has to start over again.

 

[hollyberrie]

Perhaps this Passengers' Bill of Rights will hasten this better system.
In the case of bad weather it seems that the sensible thing to do is not board the airplane until takeoff is possible.

 

[Bob Owens]

Perhaps this Passengers' Bill of Rights will hasten this better system.
In the case of bad weather it seems that the sensible thing to do is not board the airplane until takeoff is possible.

That could cause other problems as there may not be enough room in the terminals for everyone.

 

[hollyberrie]

That could cause other problems as there may not be enough room in the terminals for everyone.

I had the pleasure of being in the courtroom when this case was heard. The ATA brought in a big gun - a former Solicitor General whose job description is to
supervise and conduct government litigation in the United States Supreme Court. The three judges were practically genuflecting for him.
It was clear from their questions what the ruling would be. For example...what if an airplane (puddle Jumper) doesn't have a restroom?
and...will the airlines be required to avoid trans fats in the food? Duh

Not enough room in the terminals...that also sounds like another excuse.

 

[happy01]

Perhaps this Passengers' Bill of Rights will hasten this better system.
In the case of bad weather it seems that the sensible thing to do is not board the airplane until takeoff is possible.

That might be the simplest and most logical idea. Because, honestly how do you safely get passengers off a plane out on the tarmac in the middle of a weather situation?