DOT proposes broad new passenger protection regulations

By Perry Flint | June 3, 2010

The US Dept. of Transportation issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking yesterday to extend the requirements of the so-called tarmac delay rule to foreign airlines' US operations and to require all carriers to adopt delay contingency plans at all US airports they serve.

Currently the rule only applies to large and medium hub airports. The wide-ranging rulemaking also proposes to boost the minimum compensation offered passengers involuntarily bumped from flights from $400/$800 at present to $650/$1,300 and establishes a CPI-based formula that would see payments rise automatically with inflation. It would require airlines to refund checked baggage fees if bags are lost or delayed, prohibit price increases (such as fuel surcharges) after a ticket is purchased and set new requirements for advertising fares.

It would permit customers to hold reservations at the quoted fare without payment, or cancel without penalty, for at least 24 hr. after the reservation is made. Many of the rule’s provisions are extended to non-US airlines serving the US.

"Airline passengers have rights and should be able to expect fair and reasonable treatment when they fly," Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood said. Denied boarding compensation would be extended to people who used frequent-flyer miles to purchase their ticket and airlines would have to provide customers with sufficient information to make informed choices as to whether they should voluntarily surrender their tickets in an overbooking situation or wait to be bumped.

Tarmac delay contingency plans would need to be included airlines' contracts of carriage, as would customer service plans. Carriers would be required "promptly" to notify passengers in the boarding gate area that is open for that flight of any delays or schedule changes. The rule would require "adequate notice" for ancillary charges such as checked bag fees.

DOT also is resurrecting the issue of whether the serving of peanuts should be made illegal in order to accommodate travelers with severe food allergies. Past efforts were blocked in Congress.

In a statement, the US Air Transport Assn. said its member airlines' "shared goal is to provide a safe, efficient, reliable and economically viable air transportation system consistent with the expectations of their customers, employees and shareholders." It added that the NPRM "will be evaluated against that standard, with a focus on minimizing potential passenger inconvenience."

Airports Council International-North America said it "commended the rule" and cited the extension of the tarmac delay requirements to all airports and airlines. "To the passenger, the effects of delays are the same no matter where the delay occurs or which airline actually operates the airplane," ACI-NA President Greg Principato said.

Discuss this news 18

03 Jun01:38

DOT has given the total

By khawaja javaid

DOT has given the total liberty to the airlines for delays,with almost no rights to passengers.DOT must adopt more tougher rules,with heavy penalties for Tarmac delays,canceled flights.Mega carriers have monopoly at Mega airports,with zero facilities to passengers

03 Jun04:10

All finer and dandy until, on

By Anonymous

All finer and dandy until, on a bad weather day, terminals can't accept all the passengers back into their buildings, and it becomes impractical to deplane without jetty facilities.

let's have some common sense here.

03 Jun04:21

How hypocritical. It is

By ray

How hypocritical. It is amazing to what extent governments -especially politicians will go to make it appear they have the peoples interest at heart.Coming up with "tougher" rules for the airlines as being one of them. Why do they conveniently forget to mention the taxes and surcharges which the airlines collect on their behalf and in cases make almost half of the fare the passenger pays for aside from the taxes and restrictions they impose upon the airline that also presents an additional burden on an already troubled industry.
Furthermore why does the general public keep on thinking that it's okay for train, bus companies to raise their fares but not the airlines -and most important, why do people think it is okay for banks, oil companies etc to rake in massive profits but for airlines to function as charitable institutions?

03 Jun07:47

Yes, the cost of taxes and

By Anonymous

Yes, the cost of taxes and fees versus airfare should be both clearly visible and tied to services. A simple approach would be to charge airspace users air traffic contol fees per aircraft regardless of aircraft size and landing fee rates tied to weight. Airlines could easily calculate and show potential customers the basis for fares they are asked to pay, highlighting the portion the airline will retain. Airlines are not expected to be charitable institutions. The present common airline business model, undercharging for uncomfortable coach seats while rapaciously overcharging for alternatives, is a choice. Passengers, real and potential, tend to think that the cost of economy tickets covers the cost of operating the flight. This adds to resentments fostered by the lack of seating comfort and respect by airlines. There is no reason to feel sorry for airlines that make poor business decisions, poor choices. Treating people as valued rather than captive customers would probably change the business climate to enable needed fare hikes and more profit. Like any other business, if airlines cannot learn to operate at a profit, they should not exist.

03 Jun09:40

This NPRM creates a new set

By Anonymous

This NPRM creates a new set of problems for everyone. Who will be required to do what due to weather delays, airport construction, airport facilities, etc. Add to that passengers that arrive late. Did they arrive at the airport late, airline checkin delay, security delay, connecting flight, etc. Any regulation needs to be very careful in determining who, passenger, airport, or airline is responsible for what.

03 Jun10:13

Thanks to tougher rules, more

By Fonz

Thanks to tougher rules, more flights will be cancelled due to weather conditions, to avoid planes getting stuck on the runway. It'll be cheaper to cancel due to uncontrollable factors such as weather than to risk a plane losing time due to queues at de-icing, clearing runways... so winter's going to be lovely.
And maybe airlines should for once show a breakdown of the cost to fly let's say a 777 from JFK to LHR showing the real cost per seat before adding taxes, calculating every seat at a similar price people will be shocked at how cheap many seats go... sold at a loss!

03 Jun10:31

There is ample justification

By Sue

There is ample justification for the DOT to even the playing field. Right now, airlines hold all the cards. Pax are treated as cattle, shoved into too-small seats, left there for hours when the carrier unilaterally deems it necessary. Flying used to be such a pleasure - now it is a punishment, a necessary evil for too many.

Because there is virtually no difference in how badly customers are treated from carrier to carrier, there is no incentive for any passenger to choose one over another other than price of the ticket. That is the largest mistake these companies have made over the last two decades - everyone falling to the lowest common denominator.

03 Jun11:09

Another band aid on the real

By Rob

Another band aid on the real problem....weather delays aren't exactly something within the airlines' control nor something the FAA (read GOVERNMENT) currently has the ability to completely mitigate - despite spending billions of dollars on a still lagging ATC system - yet the "fault" for this is blamed on the airlines.
I agree there are certainly times when delays go from bad to worse, mainly because of the steep staffing cuts among airline employees since the early 2000's and the resulting reduction in customer service.
However, until the FAA gets its act together this is a hypocritical "solution", in my opinion and a classic case of passing the buck (while keeping 26% for its outdated services).

03 Jun12:57

Here we go, just what we

By Frank

Here we go, just what we need, more government. Why can't free enterprise take care of this? Unless it's a safety issue, the government should let airlines live or die on their own merits or failings. Every passenger already has the right to choose another airline if they are not treated fairly, I did! The government is working toward making every airline (& other business) provide the exact same level of service for everyone. I tell you, that is when you will have no choices. I can't wait until the government gets into my local supermarket's business or my doctor's.....opps, sorry, they already are!

03 Jun13:05

amen brother. well said.

By Anonymous

amen brother. well said.

03 Jun13:08

Ray put it best...

By Anonymous

Ray put it best...

03 Jun13:38

I thought the airlines were

By Duane Fritz

I thought the airlines were deregulated! Now it looks like the government wants to not only re-regulate but have total control of everything connected with the airlines. I agree that except for safety issues, the government should back away form setting and adding rules restricting and controlling airlines when in most cases the airlines aren't to blame for the problem or delay but will be made responsible because of a government DOT rules.
I choose the airline I want to fly based first on price and then on service. This is the same way most shippers chose trucking companies. Price and then service. To much government control results in companies going out of business resulting in people loosing jobs. Let the company run their own business and either succeed or fail on their own!

03 Jun14:01

The Department of

By cerilyc

The Department of Transportation has begun its open comment period on the proposed regulations through www.regulationroom.org.

Anyone with comments or concerns they would like to address to the DoT about the proposed changes are encouraged visit the site and post.

04 Jun01:23

The comment period for the

By Anonymous

The comment period for the new regulation is now open for discussion at www.regulationroom.org. This is the official site for the public to comment on the new regulations for the consideration of the Department of Transportation.

04 Jun07:41

the tarmac delay rule is the

By Anonymous

the tarmac delay rule is the proof that the deregulation policy of 1978 was wrong and against passenger intrest

04 Jun10:21

Yesterday I had to divert

By steve

Yesterday I had to divert form an international flight due to strong thunderstorms. There were no U.S. customs available so I could not deplane my passengers. I wonder how the new rules apply in this case. Are the airlines still responsible for the large fine with regards to the 3 hour rule?

06 Jun13:21

DOT,Congress,Mega carriers

By khawaja javaid

DOT,Congress,Mega carriers are equally responsible for the troubles for the passengers.Airlines don't give any compensation to travel agents for their hard work on business.first class business.World Mega carriers(specially US & European carriers)are operated by anti consumer management teams.Mega carriers top executives are working 24/7 to fill their pockets with millions every day.Mega carriers top executives are fighting with employees,passengers,share holders,distribution channels,at the same token they want the airlines to be profitable.World mega carriers top executives are living in fools paradise.IATA is a social club of world airlines in Montreal,doing nothing.ATA in washington is lobbying arm of US airlines,to protect all the wrong doings of airlines.

06 Jun13:49

I think you should read the

By T

I think you should read the Deregulation Act of 1978 for the airlines. This act explanes it all. A passenger does not have a right to fly. It is a privilege to fly on an airplane.