Airline Passenger Rights Legislation in the 107th Congress

Congressional research reportAug 17, 2001

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Order Code RL30940

CRS Report for Congress

Received through the CRS Web

Airline Passenger Rights Legislation

in the 107th Congress

Updated August 17, 2001

Robert S. Kirk

Economic Analyst, Transportation

Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Airline Passenger Rights Legislation in the 107th

Congress

Summary

Congressional advocates of enhanced airline passenger rights have

introduced legislation in the 107 th Congress that proposes remedies to a variety

of consumer complaints. Most of the bills include provisions requiring prompt

and truthful disclosure of reasons for delays, cancellations, and diverted flights.

Others, found in some of the bills, include: preventing airlines from assessing

a fee against, or prohibiting a ticket holder from using, only part of a ticket;

requiring airlines to make available information on all fares offered through any

media (phone, internet, etc.); and giving passengers the right to exit flights

delayed on the ground beyond a certain length of time. Some bills would

increase penalties for violating aviation consumer protection law or increase the

airlines’ liability for mistreatment of passengers.

During the 1 0 6 t h Congress, the Air Transport Association (ATA), which

represents the major air carriers, successfully forestalled major legislation

using three major strategies. First, the ATA took issue with the perceived extent

of consumer dissatisfaction by comparing the relative number of complaints

reported to the Department of Transportation (DOT) to the high passenger

volume. Second, the ATA argued that most delays were due to the weather and

to the air traffic control system. Finally, to mitigate the perception of some

Members of Congress that legislation was needed, the ATA proposed a voluntary

“Airline Customer Service Commitment,” hereafter referred to as the Service

Commitment. All the major carriers would develop customer service plans that

would include their commitment to promises such as offering the lowest fare

available; notifying customers of known delays, cancellations and diversions;

providing on time baggage delivery of checked baggage; and being more

responsive to customer complaints.

On February 13, 2001, the DOT Office of the Inspector General (IG)

released its report on how well the airlines have met their Service

Commitments. It concluded that, while the airlines were making some progress

on some of the Commitments, that there were significant shortfalls on others.

Two bills, introduced following release of the IG’s report–the Air

Customer Service Improvement Act (S. 319) and the Fair Treatment of Airline

Passengers Act (S. 483)– incorporate many of the IG’s recommendations,

including provisions to make the Service Commitments enforceable. After

incorporating a significant number of provisions from S. 483, the Senate

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported out S. 319, on

February 13, 2001.

After two summers of record delays, cancellations, and consumer

complaints, these indicators have improved significantly during the first half of

2001. It remains to be seen if this improvement will be enough to forestall the

proposed legislative remedies in the 107 th Congress.

Contents

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Airline Consumer Rights legislation in the 106 th Congress . . . . . . . . . . 1

The Air Carriers’ Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

The Re-emergence of Airline Passenger Rights Issues . . . . . . . . . 3

The IG’s Report on the Airline Customer Commitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Proposed Legislative Remedies of the 107 th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Access to All Fares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Access to Services and the Right to Deplane From

Delayed Aircraft During Emergencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Baggage Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Bumping and Overbooking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Delays, Cancellations, and Diversions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Chronically Delayed or Cancelled Flights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Information System Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Enforcement Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Federal Preemption of State Consumer Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Partial Ticket Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Travel Agent Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Other Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

The Airline Customer Notification Act (H.R. 571) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Consumer-Friendly Airline Ticket Transfer Act (H.R. 1074) . . . . . . . 10

The Aviation Delay Prevention Act (S. 633) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

The Airline Passenger Treatment bill (H.R. 1407) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Side-by-Side Comparison of Passenger Rights Legislation

in the 107 th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

List of Tables

Index of Legislative Topics of Airline Passenger Rights Bills . . . . . . . . . . 12

Table 1: Side-by-Side Comparison of Selected Provisions

From Airline Passenger Rights Legislation: 107 th Congress . . . . . . . 14

Airline Passenger Rights Legislation in the

107th Congress

In the 107 th Congress, supporters of enhanced airline passenger rights have

introduced legislation significantly influenced by both legislation introduced in

the 106 th Congress and the airline industry’s response to that threat of

legislative remedies. As a group, the various bills’ provisions address the issue

of how to respond to a reported growing consumer dissatisfaction with airline

service. Also at issue is the appropriate degree of federal involvement in

protecting airline customers. Two summers of record delays and flight

cancellations by the major airlines, and a perception of complacency by airlines

concerning customer discontent, have led to a variety of proposed remedies to

consumer complaints, related to delays, cancellations, lost or misrouted

baggage, partial ticket use, and the provision of complete fare information. For

2001, delays, cancellations, and consumer complaints have all declined from the

high levels of 1999 and 2000. It remains to be seen, however, if this

improvement will be enough to forestall the momentum toward legislative

remedies in the 107 th Congress.1

This report examines legislation pertaining to airline consumer protection

in the 107 th Congress. For background it first summarizes legislation proposed

in the 106th Congress and the airlines’ response. The report then briefly

examines the findings of the Department of Transportation Inspector General’s

February 13, 2001 report on airline customer service. It then discusses the

legislative remedies proposed in the 107 th Congress. Finally, a side-by-side

presentation of provisions from six airline passenger rights bills is set forth.

Background

Airline Consumer Rights legislation in the 106th Congress

Early in the 106 th Congress, a number of bills, referred to collectively in

the press as “airline passenger bill of rights” legislation, were introduced in both

Better weather, lower capacity utilization because of the slowing economy, schedule

changes at certain congested airports, the absence of the ComAir fleet because of a strike,

as well as industry efforts to improve customer service, are among the reasons mentioned

in discussions of the improvements in the delay and cancellation rates and the reduced

number of consumer complaints filed with DOT in 2001.

CRS-2

the House and Senate . 2 Their introduction followed close on the heels of a

major airline consumer event. Just days before the 106 th Congress first met, a

powerful storm swept across the upper midwest dropping nearly a foot of snow

on the Detroit Metropolitan-Wayne County Airport. In the high winds and low

temperatures that followed the snowfall, nearly 50 aircraft, loaded with

passengers, were trapped on the airport’s taxiways and aprons. Some of the

flights were not allowed to deplane for over seven hours and, as the time wore

on, some aircraft ran out of food, water, and functioning toilets. The extreme

nature of the Detroit incident, the seeming complacency of the initial airline

response, and wide press coverage helped increase public attention to already

growing airline passenger discontent with airline customer service and business

practices.

The bills introduced in the 106 th Congress included a variety of legislative

remedies as well as a range of enforcement mechanisms and penalties. All the

bills required prompt announcement and truthful disclosure of any flight delays,

cancellations, or diversions. About half of the bills required full access to fare

information regardless of the technology or method of access (e.g. via

telephone or internet). Other consumer rights provisions addressed in two or

more bills included: partial ticket use; the right of access to services and the

right to deplane from delayed aircraft; restrictions on federal preemption of

state consumer protection laws; and a number of provisions of benefit to travel

agents. About half of the bills provided for fines for violation of the acts’

provisions or set airline financial liability for each passenger subject to a nonsafety delay or cancellation. Other bills would have made violation of certain

provisions subject to existing DOT enforcement procedures as “unfair or

deceptive practices” and “unfair methods of competition” under 49 U.S.C.

41712. None of these free-standing passenger rights bills were enacted.

The Air Carriers’ Response. The Air Transport Association (ATA),

which represents the major air carriers, responded to these passenger rights bills

in several ways.3 In testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee, on

March 11, 1999, ATA President, Carol Hallett, said that the airlines would

accept responsibility for the service failures that are within their control. She

also, however, pointed to severe weather and air traffic control as the two main

causes of delay (the most common customer complaint). She charged that 65%

of delays were attributable “directly to the ATC [air traffic control] system.”

Finally, the ATA argued that legislation to improve customer treatment was

unnecessary because the air carriers were voluntarily making changes that would

improve their customer service.

For a detailed examination of passenger rights bills in the 106th congress see, Airline

Passenger Rights legislation in the 106th Congress, by Robert S. Kirk. CRS Report

RL30691.

See Statement of Carol B. Hallett, President and Chief Executive Officer, Air

Transport Association of America, before the Senate Commerce Committee Hearing on

S. 383, the Airline Passenger Fairness Act. Washington, March 11, 1999. 6 p.

CRS-3

The ATA Airline Customer Service Commitment. On June 17, 1999,

the ATA announced that each of the major air carriers would develop voluntary

customer service plans guided by a twelve part “Airline Customer Service

Commitment.” In their Service Commitments the ATA carriers claim they will:

! Offer the lowest fare available [from the airline’s telephone reservation

system]

! Notify customers of known delays, cancellations and diversions

! Provide on-time baggage delivery [return misdirected bags within 24

hours]

! Support an increase in the lost baggage liability limit

! Allow reservations to be held or canceled [for 24 hours]

! Provide prompt refunds [7 day credit card; 20 days for cash]

! Properly accommodate disabled and special needs passengers

! Meet customers’ essential needs during long on-aircraft delays

! Handle “bumped” passengers with fairness and consistency

! Disclose travel itinerary, cancellation policies, frequent flyer rules and

aircraft configuration

! Ensure good customer service from code-share partners

! Be more responsive to customer complaints.

An ATA transmittal letter to the Senate Commerce Committee stated that its

view was that only a voluntary commitment from the industry could improve

customer service without “unintended and costly consequences.”

The Re-emergence of Airline Passenger Rights Issues. After the

release of the ATA voluntary plan, many thought airline passenger rights would

not be an issue for the rest of the first session. However, although some

Members of Congress supported giving the ATA plan a chance, others voiced

skepticism of the likely effectiveness of voluntary industry commitments. In

the waning days of the first session of the 106 th Congress, during floor debate

in the Senate, both on the DOT FY2000 appropriations bill and the FAA

reauthorization bill, airline passenger protection issues reemerged in the form

of multiple amendments to the two bills.

The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21 st

Century (P.L. 106-181; AIR21) and the FY2000 DOT Appropriations Act (P.L.

106-69) included provisions that both alte red some consumer protection

provisions of Title 49, and also included provisions that called for investigatory

studies by the DOT Inspector General (IG) and the General Accounting Office

(GAO). The changes to the aviation consumer protection statutes were few in

number and included raising the maximum penalty for violating the passenger

consumer protection provisions to $2,500, ordering DOT to raise the maximum

liability for lost luggage, and making the failure of an air carrier or ticket agent

to notify a purchaser of an e-ticket of its expiration date an “unfair or deceptive”

practice. More significant for the 107 th Congress are the investigatory studies,

especially the one that required the IG to monitor the implementation of any of

the voluntary airline customer service plans submitted to DOT by the air

carriers. For this study, the IG was required to report on the effectiveness of the

CRS-4

customer service plans and to make recommendations for improving

accountability, enforcement, and consumer protections for airline passengers.

There was no further legislative action in the 106 th Congress. Most

members of Congress were willing to wait and see what the IG’s final report

concluded and recommended. Some would argue that the ATA’s strategy had

successfully forestalled passage of an airline passenger rights bill in the 106 th

Congress. On the other hand, the congressionally mandated studies of the air

carriers’ implementation of their customer service plans and other business

practices insured that the airline passenger rights issue would remain alive into

the 107 th Congress.

The IG’s Report on the Airline Customer Commitment

On February 13, 2001 the DOT Office of the Inspector General (IG)

released its final report analyzing the progress made by the airlines under their

voluntary “Customer Service Commitment.” 4 The IG report concluded that,

although progress had been made, there were still significant shortfalls,

especially in provisions that “trigger when there is a flight delay or

cancellation.” These provisions include keeping customers informed of delays

and cancellations and also meeting customers’ “essential needs” during extended

on-aircraft delays. The report also found a need for improvement in regard to

the provision for fairness and consistency in bumping practices on flights that

are oversold. The IG concluded that the policies for accommodating passengers

delayed overnight were often inconsistent with the Service Commitment or the

airlines contracts of carriage. On the positive side the report found that, in

general the airlines were complying with the commitment to offer the lowest

fare, to provide prompt ticket refunds, to be more responsive to customer

complaints, and to support a higher payout for lost baggage. The report,

however, pointed out that the Service Commitments did nothing to address the

underlying problem of delays and cancellations.

The IG recommended that:

! the Customer Service Commitments be made enforceable either by

requiring their inclusion in the airlines’ contracts of carriage or by

regulation;

! a commitment be added to establish a quality assurance and performance

measurement system and to audit compliance with the commitment;

! the resources allocated to the DOT division responsible for consumer

protection be significantly increased;

Department of Transportation. Office of the Inspector General. Final Report on the

Airline Customer Service Commitment. Washington, the Office. 127 p. Internet address:

[http://www.oig.dot.gov/audits/av2001020.htm]

CRS-5

! at the time of booking and without being asked, the prior month’s on-time

performance rate for consistently delayed and/or cancelled flights be

disclosed to consumers;

! airlines clarify in their customer service plans what is meant by an

“extended period of time” and “emergency” so passengers know what to

expect. The airlines should also ensure that comprehensive customer

service contingency plans specify the efforts that will be made to get

passengers off the aircraft when delayed for extended periods;

! DOT should establish a standard check-in time and disclose it on the

ticket jacket; assure that all bumped volunteers are equally compensated;

increase compensation to bumped passengers; and disclose orally to

passengers that involuntarily bumped passengers must be compensated in

advance of payments being offered to volunteers;

! a uniform system for tracking delays, cancellations, and their causes be

established and implemented;

! capacity benchmarks for the nations top 30 airports be established to

provide a common framework for understanding what maximum arrival

and departure rate can physically be accommodated by an airport by time

of day under optimum conditions.

By early June 2001, 14 ATA member airlines had voluntarily incorporated

the ATA customer service commitments into their contracts of carriage.

Critics, however, argue that the vagueness of the language of the commitments

limits the importance of their inclusion in the contracts of carriage for

consumers.

Proposed Legislative Remedies of the 107th Congress

Most of the passenger rights bills introduced in the 107 th Congress are

influenced by legislation introduced in the 106 th Congress or by the findings of

the DOT IG, or both. Four of the bills, S. 200, the Air Travelers Fair Treatment

Act (Senator Reid), H.R. 332, the Aviation Consumer Right to Know Act

(Representatives DeFazio and Slaughter), H.R. 384, the Airline Passenger Fair

Treatment Act (Representatives Sweeny), and H.R. 907, the Airline Competition

and Passenger Rights Act (Representative Dingell) all revived numerous

provisions from legislation first introduced in the 106 th Congress. Following

release of the IG report on the airlines’ customer service performance, two new

bills, S. 319, the Airline Customer Service Improvement Act (Senators McCain,

Hollings, Hutchison) and S. 483, the Fair Treatment of Airline Passengers Act

(Senator Wyden), were introduced. These bills include provisions to make the

voluntary service commitments enforceable. They also include provisions that

would implement many of the IG’s other recommendations. During a Senate

Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation mark-up, a significant

number of provisions from S. 483 were added by amendment in the nature of a

substitute to S. 319, which was reported on March 15, 2001, with Senator

Wyden becoming the fourth sponsor. In early May Representatives Sweeny and

CRS-6

Dingell combined many or the provisions of their two bills (H.R. 384 and H.R.

907) and introduced H.R. 1734, the Airline Passenger Bill of Rights Act.5

Although there are significant differences in provisions of the airline

passenger consumer rights bills introduced in the 107 th Congress, it is possible

to place many of the provisions into comparable issue categories. This section

describes these provisions in a general way and does not include provisions that

are unique to a one bill. For detail on six individual bills, see the side-by-side

comparison that is set forth in the table at the end of this report.6

Access to All Fares

About half of the bills introduced would require air carriers to make

available to customers information on all fares charged by an airline regardless

of the technology or means used to access the information. The heart of this

issue is the “lowest fare available” debate. Under this provision, for example,

if someone contacts an air carrier by telephone the air carrier’s agent would

have to notify the customer if there were a cheaper fare being offered via

internet or through travel agencies. Two of the bills (S. 319 and S. 483) would

simply require the airlines to notify customers that cheaper fairs may be

available through other distribution systems.

Access to Services and the Right to Deplane From Delayed

Aircraft During Emergencies

Three bills (H.R. 1734, S. 200, and H.R. 907), included language that would

have limited to one hour the length of time airlines can require passengers to

stay aboard an aircraft during ground-delayed departures or arrivals at an airport.

H.R. 907 also requires DOT to issue regulations that require air carriers ensure

access to necessary services and conditions including food, water, restroom

facilities, and also provide for an ability to deplane in the event of a weather or

other emergency. S. 319, H.R. 1734, and H.R. 907 require air carriers to ensure

that comprehensive emergency plans are maintained and coordinated with local

airport authorities and the FAA.

Baggage Handling

S. 319 and S. 483 would both require more detailed and accurate

information on mishandled baggage. S. 319 would require a luggage tracking

system be established and a toll free telephone number passengers can call to

From here on in the text H.R. 384, because virtually all of its provisions were incorporated

in H.R. 1734 will not be mentioned.

The side-by-side includes H.R. 1734, S. 200, S. 332, H.R. 907, S. 483, and S. 319. H.R.

571, the Airline Customer Right to Know Act (Representative Bilirakus), H.R. 711, “to

clarify that State attorneys general may enforce State consumer protection laws with respect

to air transportation...” (Representatives Trancredo and Schaffer) and S. 633, the Aviation

Delay Prevention Act (Senators Hutchison and Rockefeller) are discussed in the text.

CRS-7

check on the status of their delayed luggage. It also requires that passengers

who do not check luggage not be counted when calculating the rate of

mishandled luggage. S. 483 sets forth specific statistical categories that must

be reported and requires air carriers to establish performance goals aimed at

reducing the incidence of mishandled baggage.

Bumping and Overbooking

S. 319 and S. 483 have similar provisions that require: DOT to establish a

uniform check-in deadline and require airlines to disclose it on their ticket

jackets; notification that involuntarily bumped passengers must be offered

compensation before any offers are made to volunteers. S. 483 also requires

that air carriers, on request, tell a passenger whether a flight is oversold. H.R.

1734 and H.R. 907 would also push the boarding deadline right up to the time

that the aircraft’s door is closed.

Delays, Cancellations, and Diversions

Virtually all the bills introduced include provisions that require prompt

notification and truthful explanation of any flight delays, cancellations, o r

diversions.

Chronically Delayed or Cancelled Flights. Four bills (S. 319, S. 483,

H.R. 1734, and H.R. 907) include provisions that require air carriers to disclose,

without being asked, to customers when they are making a reservation or

purchasing a ticket, the on-time performance and cancellation rate for any

chronically-delayed or cancelled flights. H.R. 1734 and H.R. 907 would make

failure to make such a disclosure an unfair or deceptive practice and unfair

method of competition. S. 319 would require that DOT include a table in the Air

Travel Consumer report that shows, for the most recent three month period,

flight numbers of flights delayed by 15 minutes or more 40% of the time or

more and flights canceled 30% of the time or more.

Information System Provisions. Four bills (S. 319, S. 483, H.R. 1734,

and H.R. 907) also include a variety of information system requirements,

including setting up a notification system that would notify passengers before

they leave for the airport that their flight will be cancelled or delayed. These

three bills also require that air carriers coordinate with airport officials to

assure that master airport flight display monitors contain up-to-date flight

information and are consistent with their own monitors. Another provision, in

S. 319 and S. 483, would require air carriers to post the on-time performance

for each scheduled flight for the previous month on their web sites.

Enforcement Provisions

Airline passenger rights legislation introduced in the 107 th Congress

includes a variety of approaches to enforcement. S. 319 and S. 483 both

contain provisions that would implement a number of the IG recommendations

regarding enforcement. These bills would require the major air carriers to write

CRS-8

their customer service plans into their contracts of carriage, thus making the

provisions enforceable in court under contract law (as mentioned earlier, in

early June, 14 of the ATA airlines announced that they had voluntarily

incorporated the customer service commitments into their contracts of

carriage).7 S. 319, in addition, requires that DOT monitor compliance to

provisions of the bill and to take enforcement actions as necessary. The agency

is to monitor customer service quality assurance and performance measurement

systems and review the airlines’ internal audits. S. 319 and S. 483 would also

amend 49 U.S. C. Section 46301 to extend the $2,500 per occurrence penalty

to violations of any of the bill’s provisions. The other bills rely on existing

enforcement mechanisms or expanding the coverage of existing law under 49

U.S. C. 41712 relating to “unfair or deceptive trade practices” or “unfair

methods of competition.” 8 Finally, these bills call for DOT to increase

resources for the airline passenger consumer protection activities of the

Department.

Both the monitoring requirements and the expanded Section 41712

practices would be the responsibility of the DOT Assistant General Counsel for

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings. At this writing, this office has a staff

of 22, including 8 attorneys and 9 transportation industry and consumer analysts.

Some argue that the proposed enforcement provisions could overwhelm the

Assistant General Counsel’s staff.9 AIR21 authorized a significant increase in

funding but appropriations for this activity have been significantly below the

authorized level.

Some of the enforcement provisions refer to the air carrier contract of carriage. When a

passenger purchases a ticket from an airline the passenger’s rights and responsibilities as

well as the limits of the air carrier’s responsibilities and liabilities are set forth in a “contract

of carriage” (COC). On the back of the ticket, in the ticket jacket, or on the ticket jacket

itself is a summary of selected provisions of the COC and a reference to the full text. As

mentioned in the text, by writing the customer commitments into their COCs, the air carriers

could be held liable under contract law for violating their commitments. Some airlines have

made the full text of their COCs available on their internet web sites others still require that

a request be made to their customer service departments.

Some would argue that failure of the airlines to fulfill the ATA customer commitments could

be considered a deceptive trade practice and could therefore lead to enforcement actions by

the Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings.

As reported in the IG’s final report the Office staff is half as large as it was in 1985, when

the Offic e had a staff of 40. The decline in staffing has continued even as consumer

complaints received by the office have gone from 6,026 in 1995to 23,381 in 2000. In 2000

the Office had a staff of 17. Five new positions were authorized for FY2001. AIR21 also

added other responsibilities to be carried out by the Office including a provision requiring

comprehensive investigation of each disability-related complaint (there were 595 in CY1999

and 676 in CY2000); extension of the disabled passenger discrimination law to international

flights; and a variety of data collection and reporting requirements. The House-passed

FY2002 appropriations bill (H.R. 2299) provides for 9 of the 20 new staff requested by

DOT. The Senate-passed bill (S. 2278) fully funds the request.

CRS-9

Some of the bills would increase the airline liability for specific violations.

For example, S. 319, S. 483, and H.R. 907 all would modify bumping regulations

to increase the maximum compensation amount. H.R. 907 includes a unique

airline liability provision. The bill would set the airline liability for a delay of

between two and three hours at 200% of the price paid for a ticket on the

delayed flight and another 100% for each additional hour or portion of an hour

above three hours delay. Delays caused by certain air traffic control directives,

mechanical, and other safety concerns are exempted.

Federal Preemption of State Consumer Law

Six bills include a provision designed to narrow the scope of federal

preemption of the application of state consumer protection laws to air

transportation.10 The intent of these provisions is to allow state and local

officials to enforce state consumer protection laws with respect to air

transportation and the advertisement of air transportation services. One of the

bills, H.R. 711(Representatives Tancredo/ Schaffer) presents this provision as

a stand-alone bill.

Partial Ticket Use

Four bills (H.R. 1734, H.R. 332, H.R. 1074, and H.R. 907) include

provisions that would prevent air carriers from assessing a fee against or

prohibiting a ticket holder from using only part of a ticket. This would shield

consumers who use “back-to-back” round trip ticketing or “hidden city”

ticketing. Back-to-back ticketing generally refers to purchasing two round trip

discount tickets but only using one way on each ticket (usually to avoid the

weekend stay-over requirements). Hidden city ticketing refers to a passenger

who wishes to fly to a hub destination but buys a cheaper ticket to a city served

through the hub. The passenger simply gets off the plane at the hub airport and

does not use the ticket for the final leg of the flight. Airlines argue that they

must be allowed, when a passenger does not show up for a trip segment, to

cancel any remaining trip segments. Otherwise, they argue, especially when

demand is high, they could deny a passenger a reservation when an empty seat

actually exists.

AIR21 included a provision that required the General Accounting Office

(GAO) to study the potential impacts of legalization of partial ticket use. The

study, released at the end of July 2001, concludes that “restricting the ability of

airlines to forbid hidden-city and back-to-back ticketing is unlikely to help

consumers...[and] would likely have unintended consequences that could hurt

some consumers. Nevertheless, consumer advocates and passengers have

Preemption is the “Doctrine adopted by U.S. Supreme Court [based on the U.S.

Constitution’s supremacy clause] holding that certain matters are of such a national, as

opposed to local, character that federal laws preempt or take precedence over state laws.

As such, a state may not pass a law inconsistent with the federal law.” Blacks Law

Dictionary. St. Paul, Minnesota, 1990. p 1177. See also State and Local Sanctions:

Some Constitutional Issues, by Jean J. Grimmett. CRS Report 98-795 A.

CRS-10

legitimate concerns that some fares are higher than what might be expected in

a more competitive market.”11

Travel Agent Provisions

Three bills (H.R. 1734, S. 200, and H.R. 907) include provisions that could

be seen as benefitting travel agents. Their provisions require that air carriers

provide 90 days notice to a ticket agent if the carrier wishes to cancel,

terminate, or not renew the agent’s appointment as a carrier agent. It would give

the agent 60 days to correct any deficiency identified by the air carrier as a

reason for ending the agent’s appointment.

Other Legislation

The Airline Customer Notification Act (H.R. 571)

The Airline Customer Notification Act (Representative Bilirakis), amends

the consumer protection provisions of Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Its provisions

require air carriers to announce the reason or reasons for: a delay of two or

more hours or cancellation of a flight; the dive rsion of a flight to another

airport; a one hour delay of deplaning after touchdown; and, in the case of a

delay, the expected length of the delay. Passengers may request the reason or

reasons in writing. The passenger’s right to notification must be posted at the

gate or ticket counter. Finally, the bill includes a prohibition on false or

misleading explanations. Because of H.R. 571’s conciseness, it is not included

in the side-by-side.

Consumer-Friendly Airline Ticket Transfer Act (H.R. 1074)

The Consumer-Friendly Airline Ticket Transfer Act (Representative

Gibbons), requires DOT to issue regulations, within 90 days of enactment, that

require air carriers to make paper tickets for intrastate or interstate air

transportation, transferrable at no cost. Also within 90 days DOT is to make

recommendations to Congress relating to the transfer of electronic tickets. As

mentioned earlier, H.R. 1074 also includes provisions to prevent air carriers

from prohibiting or assessing a fee for partial ticket use.

The Aviation Delay Prevention Act (S. 633)

The Aviation Delay Prevention Act (Senators Hutchison and Rockefeller)

was proposed as an amendment to S. 319, but was withdrawn during mark-up and

General Accounting Office. Aviation Competition: Restricting Airline Ticketing Rules

Unlikely to Help Consumers. GAO-01-831. July 31, 2001. Washington, GAO, 2001. p.

44-45.

CRS-11

was later introduced as a stand-alone bill. The intent of the bill was to provide

some near term relief to airport congestion and delay by spreading out peak hour

schedules and also accelerating capacity-enhancing airport projects . As

introduced, S. 633 had three main provisions. First, it called for a review of and

report on air carrier over-scheduling at large hub airports, an analysis of the

congestion mitigation authority of DOT, and recommendations for increasing

DOT’s authority. Second, the bill would have provided air carriers with a limited

exemption from the antitrust laws allowing them to discuss, in the presence of

a DOT representative, cooperative scheduling arrangements to reduce overscheduling. Third, the bill called for DOT to implement an expedited

coordinated environmental and judicial review process (done concurrently not

consecutively) for airport capacity-enhancement projects.

In committee, an amendment in the nature of a substitute significantly

altered the text and scope of S. 633. The Senate Commerce Committee version

of the bill shifts the initiative for action from the airlines to the DOT and also

adds a number new provisions. The bill, as reported, requires that, within one

year of enactment and for each of the next five year s, DOT must complete a

review and report on air carrier over-scheduling and scheduling practic e s ,

including flight cancellations for economic reasons, at large hub airports and

must include an analysis of the congestion mitigation authority of the Secretary

and make recommendations for providing additional authority. The bill provides

that the Secretary of DOT may request that air carriers meet with the

administrator of the FAA to discuss flight reductions at severely congested

airports. The bill provides for short-term “stormy weather agreement” limited

antitrust exemptions for airlines to meet to discuss schedules. The Secretary

of DOT is to identify airports--from among those included in the Airport

Capacity Benchmark Report--where delays occur that significantly affect the

national airport and airway system. If any of those identified airports have no

plans in place to increase airport capacity, DOT is to create a task force to

conduct capacity enhancement studies these airports. Any airport for which a

capacity enhancement study recommends building a new runway or

reconfiguring its existing runways becomes a National Capacity Project. DOT

is required to complete an environmental review within five years and expedite

funding for the project. Airports not following through with the recommended

capacity expansion can loose funding for non-capacity projects as well as loss

of passenger facility charge revenues. The bill includes a five year pilot

program that would allow airport sponsors to pay for additional environmental

specialists and attorneys from outside the U.S. government to assist in providing

an appropriate level of planning and environmental review of runway

development projects for designated national capacity projects. The PFC

eligibility for gate related airport improvements is expanded and AIP funds

would be available for construction of air traffic control towers. The bill would

raise the noise set-aside for AIP discretionary funds to 35%. This provision

also appears to make National Capacity Projects eligible for AIP noise

mitigation funds without having to meet the requirement of having an FAA

approved “Part 150" noise mitigation plan. DOT is also directed to provide a list

of categorical exclusions currently recognized and a list of additional proposed

categorical exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

CRS-12

The Airline Passenger Treatment bill (H.R. 1407)

As reported (H. Rept. 107-77, part 2), The Airline Passenger Treatment Act

(Representative Young) allows air carriers at an airport to file a request with the

Attorney General (AG) for authority to discuss with one or more other air

carriers, agreements or cooperative arrangements relating to limiting flights at

an airport during a time period that the AG determines that scheduled flights

exceed the capacity of the airport. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss

reducing delays during that time period. The bill would allow for limited

antitrust exemption. The AG must, however, find that the voluntary adjustments

could lead to a substantial reduction in travel delays and improved service

without substantially lessening competition or tending to create a monopoly.

Three days notice must be given to all carriers providing service or seeking to

provide service at the airport under discussion. The AG or his/her representative

will attend and monitor the meeting. Unanimous agreement of the carriers at the

airport is required. Participants may not discuss rates, fares, charges, in-flight

service, or service to any city pair. The meetings are to be public. The AG will

consult with the Secretary of DOT in making the decision. The legislation’s

provisions would expire after September 30, 2003.

Side-by-Side Comparison of Passenger Rights

Legislation in the 107th Congress

The side-by-side comparison (Table 1) sets forth provisions of six airline

passenger rights bills that have been introduced so far during the 107 th Congress.

The analysis does not include bills or provisions that have been written to

increase competition or to increase service to underserved areas. A complete

indexed list of passenger rights topics covered in the bills is provided on the

next page, to enhance the side-by side comparison that follows.

CRS-13

Index of Legislative Topics of Airline Passenger Rights Bills

Topic

319

H.R. 1734

H.R. 332

S. 200

S. 483

H.R. 907

Page

Baggage: information system

Baggage: DOT’s method of

calculating mishandled baggage

Baggage: handling performance

goals

Bumping: check-in deadlines

Bumping: passenger compensation

priorities

Bumping: compensation in

addition to existing law

Bumping: compensation

Bumping: disclosure of oversold

flights, on request

Bumping: policy disclosure

Bumping: regulation modification

Civil penalties

Code sharing

Compliance assurance

(DOT functions)

Compliance assurance

(Air Carrier functions)

Contracts of carriage:

availability of copies

Contracts of carriage:

incorporation of Customer Service

Commitments/ customer service

plans

Customer service plan modification

Customer service plan adoption

Delays/cancellations: chronically

delayed flight information

publication

Delays/cancellations: definition of

chronically delayed/cancelled

flights

Delays/cancellations: right to deplane

CRS-14

Topic

319

H.R. 1734

H.R. 332

S. 200

S. 483

H.R. 907

Page

Delays/cancellations: disclosure of

chronically-delayed or canceled

flights

Delays/cancellations: notification

Delays/cancellations:

advance information...

Delays/cancellations: public

information...telephone/WEB

Delays/cancellations: disclosure of on-time performance

Delays: improvement targets for

delayed or cancelled flights

Delays: liability for excessive...

Disabled and special needs

services

Disabled passengers’ equipment

Emergency medical services

Emergency plans

Enforcement funding: funding for

DOT enforcement of airline

passenger protection provisions

Fares: access to lowest fares

Federal preemption of state

consumer law

Frequent flyer information

Information monitors: coordination

of displays

Initial response reports

---

Insecticide warnings

Overnight accommodations: plans

for passengers stranded...

Partial ticket use

Passenger rights publication

Review of regulations

Safety: access to safety

information

Safety: performance review reports

Small air carrier exception

CRS-15

Topic

319

H.R. 1734

H.R. 332

S. 200

S. 483

H.R. 907

Ticket agent appointment

cancellation

Victims assistance: civil penalties

for failure to provide safety or

victims’ assistance information

Victims’ assistance toll free

telephone

Victims’ assistance coordination

Victims’ right to information

Page

CRS-16

Table 1: Side-by-Side Comparison of Selected Provisions From Airline Passenger Rights Legislation: 107th Congress

Topic

Airline Customer

Airline Passenger Bill of

Aviation Consumer

Air Travelers Fair

Service Improvement Act Rights Act (H.R. 1734) Right to Know Act (H.R. Treatment Act (S. 200)

(S. 319)

Introduced May 3, 2001

332)

Introduced Jan. 29, 2001

Reported March 15, 2001

(Sweeny/ Dingell)

Introduced Jan. 31, 2001

(Reid)

(McCain/Hollings/

(DeFazio/Slaughter)

Hutchison/Wyden)

Fair Treatment of

Airline Passengers Act

(S. 483)

Introduced March 7,

2001 (Wyden)

Baggage: information

system

Within 90 days of

-enactment air carriers shall:

develop and implement a

system for tracking and

documenting the amount of

time between receipt of a

claim for missing baggage

and its delivery; and

establish a toll free

telephone number that

passengers can use to

check the status of their

delayed baggage.

Within 6 months of

-enactment air carriers shall

revise their reporting of

mishandled baggage to

show: the percentage of

checked baggage

mishandled during the

reporting period; the

number of mishandled

bags; and the average

length of time between the

receipt of a passenger’s

claim for missing baggage

and its delivery to the

passenger.

Baggage: DOT’s method

of calculating mishandled

baggage

In calculating and reporting -the rate of mishandled

baggage, DOT shall not

take into account

passengers who do not

check any baggage.

Within 6 months of

enactment DOT shall

revise its method of

reporting the rate of

mishandled baggage to

reflect the reporting

requirements of the Act.

Baggage: handling

performance goals

Within 6 months of

-enactment air carriers shall

establish performance

goals designed to minimize

incidents of mishandled

baggage.

Airline Competition and

Passenger Rights Act

(H.R. 907)

Introduced March 7,

2001 (Dingell)

CRS-17

Topic

Airline Customer

Airline Passenger Bill of

Aviation Consumer

Air Travelers Fair

Service Improvement Act Rights Act (H.R. 1734) Right to Know Act (H.R. Treatment Act (S. 200)

(S. 319)

Introduced May 3, 2001

332)

Introduced Jan. 29, 2001

Reported March 15, 2001

(Sweeny/ Dingell)

Introduced Jan. 31, 2001

(Reid)

(McCain/Hollings/

(DeFazio/Slaughter)

Hutchison/Wyden)

Fair Treatment of

Airline Passengers Act

(S. 483)

Introduced March 7,

2001 (Wyden)

Airline Competition and

Passenger Rights Act

(H.R. 907)

Introduced March 7,

2001 (Dingell)

Bumping: check-in

deadlines

DOT will initiate within

Passengers shall be eligible -30 days of enactment a

for involuntary denied

rule- making to establish a boarding compensation if

uniform check-in deadline the passenger checks in at

and require airlines to

the appropriate airport

disclose it both on the

gate at any time before the

ticket jackets and contracts door of the aircraft for the

of carriage.

flight segment is closed.

Virtually identical to

S. 319.

Identical to H.R. 1734.

Bumping: passenger

compensation priorities

Air carriers must tell all

passengers on a flight that

they are required to pay

passengers involuntarily

denied boarding before

making offers to

passengers who volunteer

their seats.

Identical to S. 319.

Bumping: compensation

in addition to existing law

In addition to the

-compensation set forth in

existing law, air carriers

shall provide for

passengers involuntarily

bumped: alternate

transportation to their final

destination; reasonable and

immediate compensation

for food; and hotel costs if

departure time of

alternative is not within

the same day.

Identical to H.R. 1734.

CRS-18

Topic

Airline Customer

Airline Passenger Bill of

Aviation Consumer

Air Travelers Fair

Service Improvement Act Rights Act (H.R. 1734) Right to Know Act (H.R. Treatment Act (S. 200)

(S. 319)

Introduced May 3, 2001

332)

Introduced Jan. 29, 2001

Reported March 15, 2001

(Sweeny/ Dingell)

Introduced Jan. 31, 2001

(Reid)

(McCain/Hollings/

(DeFazio/Slaughter)

Hutchison/Wyden)

Fair Treatment of

Airline Passengers Act

(S. 483)

Introduced March 7,

2001 (Wyden)

Airline Competition and

Passenger Rights Act

(H.R. 907)

Introduced March 7,

2001 (Dingell)

Bumping: compensation

DOT will initiate within

30 days a rule-making,

under 14 C.F.R. 250.5, to

increase the maximum

compensation amount.

Virtually identical to

S. 319.

Within 90 days of

enactment, DOT shall

modify regulations

contained in 14 CFR 250

to conform with the

bumping provisions of the

act and to adjust the dollar

compensation amounts for

inflation.

Bumping: disclosure of

oversold flights, on

request.

Upon request, air carrier

shall inform a ticketed

passenger whether the

passenger’s flight is

oversold.

Bumping: policy

disclosure

Air carriers must disclose -on their web sites and on

ticket jackets their criteria

for determining which

passengers will be

involuntarily denied

boarding on an oversold

flight and its procedures

for offering compensation

to bumped passengers.

CRS-19

Topic

Airline Customer

Airline Passenger Bill of

Aviation Consumer

Air Travelers Fair

Service Improvement Act Rights Act (H.R. 1734) Right to Know Act (H.R. Treatment Act (S. 200)

(S. 319)

Introduced May 3, 2001

332)

Introduced Jan. 29, 2001

Reported March 15, 2001

(Sweeny/ Dingell)

Introduced Jan. 31, 2001

(Reid)

(McCain/Hollings/

(DeFazio/Slaughter)

Hutchison/Wyden)

Fair Treatment of

Airline Passengers Act

(S. 483)

Introduced March 7,

2001 (Wyden)

Airline Competition and

Passenger Rights Act

(H.R. 907)

Introduced March 7,

2001 (Dingell)

Bumping: Regulation

modification

Civil penalties

Amends U.S. Code 49 sec. -46301to extend the $2,500

per occurrence penalty to

any violations of the

consumer provisions of S.

319. [added in committee

from S. 483]

Identical to S. 319.

Code sharing

Within 90 days of

-(the sharing of assets, such enactment, any large air

as flight numbers, by

carrier that maintains a

different air carriers)

domestic code-share

arrangement shall conduct

an annual audit of the code

share carrier’s compliance

with the airline customer

service commitment.

Requires that within 90

-days of enactment, DOT

modify regulations in 14

CFR title 250, to conform

to the bill’s subsection on

bumping and also to

implement the IG’s

recommendations in its

report on airline customer

service commitment.12

The text of this provision makes it unclear if the intent is for DOT to modify regulations to implement all the IG’s recommendations or just those related to

overbooking and bumping.

CRS-20

Topic

Compliance assurance

(DOT functions)

Airline Customer

Airline Passenger Bill of

Aviation Consumer

Air Travelers Fair

Service Improvement Act Rights Act (H.R. 1734) Right to Know Act (H.R. Treatment Act (S. 200)

(S. 319)

Introduced May 3, 2001

332)

Introduced Jan. 29, 2001

Reported March 15, 2001

(Sweeny/ Dingell)

Introduced Jan. 31, 2001

(Reid)

(McCain/Hollings/

(DeFazio/Slaughter)

Hutchison/Wyden)

Fair Treatment of

Airline Passengers Act

(S. 483)

Introduced March 7,

2001 (Wyden)

Airline Competition and

Passenger Rights Act

(H.R. 907)

Introduced March 7,

2001 (Dingell)

DOT shall: monitor

-compliance to provisions

of the Act and take

enforcement action if

necessary; monitor air

carrier customer service

QA and performance

measurement systems; and

review the air carriers’

internal audits of their QA

and performance

measurement systems.

Also [added in Committee]

DOT shall monitor, in

particular, air carrier

performance of the

information disclosure

provisions of the Act

concerning delay,

cancellations, lowest fares,

on-time performance, and

bumping priorities,

focusing on practices and

patterns of conduct.

CRS-21

Topic

Airline Customer

Airline Passenger Bill of

Aviation Consumer

Air Travelers Fair

Service Improvement Act Rights Act (H.R. 1734) Right to Know Act (H.R. Treatment Act (S. 200)

(S. 319)

Introduced May 3, 2001

332)

Introduced Jan. 29, 2001

Reported March 15, 2001

(Sweeny/ Dingell)

Introduced Jan. 31, 2001

(Reid)

(McCain/Hollings/

(DeFazio/Slaughter)

Hutchison/Wyden)

Fair Treatment of

Airline Passengers Act

(S. 483)

Introduced March 7,

2001 (Wyden)

Compliance assurance

(Air Carrier functions)

Within 90 days of

-enactment each large air

carrier must: establish a

customer service quality

assurance (QA) and

performance system;

establish an internal audit

process to measure

compliance with the

commitments and its

customer service plan; and

cooperate with any DOT

audit of its QA system.

Similar to S. 319, except

-that time frame after

enactment is 6 months and

the air carriers are required

to consult with the DOT

IG. The bill also requires

that air carrier QA plans

and audit systems be

submitted to DOT for

review and approval.

Contracts of carriage:

availability of copies

Air carriers must post

-their contracts of carriage

on their internet web sites

and notify all ticketed

customers that the contract

is available upon request

or on the carrier’s web

site.

Airline Competition and

Passenger Rights Act

(H.R. 907)

Introduced March 7,

2001 (Dingell)

CRS-22

Topic

Airline Customer

Airline Passenger Bill of

Aviation Consumer

Air Travelers Fair

Service Improvement Act Rights Act (H.R. 1734) Right to Know Act (H.R. Treatment Act (S. 200)

(S. 319)

Introduced May 3, 2001

332)

Introduced Jan. 29, 2001

Reported March 15, 2001

(Sweeny/ Dingell)

Introduced Jan. 31, 2001

(Reid)

(McCain/Hollings/

(DeFazio/Slaughter)

Hutchison/Wyden)

Fair Treatment of

Airline Passengers Act

(S. 483)

Introduced March 7,

2001 (Wyden)

Airline Competition and

Passenger Rights Act

(H.R. 907)

Introduced March 7,

2001 (Dingell)

Contracts of carriage:

Within 60 days air carriers -incorporation of Customer shall incorporate the

Service Commitments/

provisions of the “Airline

customer service plans

Customer Service

Commitment” in their

contracts of carriage. Also

[added in committee from

S. 483] provisions of

carriers’ customer service

plans to the extent that the

plan is more specific or

broader than the service

commitment.

Virtually identical to

S. 319 as reported.

Customer service plan

modification

Any modification of any

air carrier’s customer

service plan must be

promptly incorporated in

the carrier’s contract of

carriage, submitted to the

DOT, and posted on the

carrier’s web site.

Customer service plan

adoption

Air carriers, if they have

-not done it already, must

develop and adopt a

customer service plan

based on the ATA Service

Commitments. The plan

must be submitted to the

DOT. [taken from S.483

and added in committee]

Identical to S. 319 as

reported.

CRS-23

Topic

Airline Customer

Airline Passenger Bill of

Aviation Consumer

Air Travelers Fair

Service Improvement Act Rights Act (H.R. 1734) Right to Know Act (H.R. Treatment Act (S. 200)

(S. 319)

Introduced May 3, 2001

332)

Introduced Jan. 29, 2001

Reported March 15, 2001

(Sweeny/ Dingell)

Introduced Jan. 31, 2001

(Reid)

(McCain/Hollings/

(DeFazio/Slaughter)

Hutchison/Wyden)

Delays/cancellations:

DOT shall include a table -chronically delayed or

in the Air Travel

cancelled flight information Consumer Report that

publication

shows flights chronically

delayed by 15 minutes

40% of the time or more

and flights canceled 30%

of the time or more for the

most recent 3-month

period.

Fair Treatment of

Airline Passengers Act

(S. 483)

Introduced March 7,

2001 (Wyden)

Airline Competition and

Passenger Rights Act

(H.R. 907)

Introduced March 7,

2001 (Dingell)

Similar to S. 319 but does -not include the provision

including the information

in a table of the Air Travel

Consumer Report. It also

sets the “consistently

canceled” level at 20%.

Delays/cancellations:

Chronically-delayed flight Virtually identical to S.

-definitions of chronically- means a flight that has

319 except that section

delayed or canceled flights. failed to arrive on time (i.e. 209 of H.R. 1734 requires

15 minutes or more after

DOT, within 60 days of

published arrival time) at enactment, issue final

least 40% of the time

regulations defining what

during the last 3 months

constitutes a delay of a

for which data are

flight and what constitutes

available. Chronically

chronically delayed flights.

canceled flight means a

flight cancelled at least

30% of the time during the

most recent 3-month

period for which data are

available.

A “consistently delayed or -canceled flight” means a

flight that arrives 15

minutes or more, after its

published arrival time, 40

percent of the time during

the 3 most recent months

for which data are

available; or at least 20%

of the departures of which

have been canceled during

the most recent 3 months

for which data are

available.

CRS-24

Topic

Airline Customer

Airline Passenger Bill of

Aviation Consumer

Air Travelers Fair

Service Improvement Act Rights Act (H.R. 1734) Right to Know Act (H.R. Treatment Act (S. 200)

(S. 319)

Introduced May 3, 2001

332)

Introduced Jan. 29, 2001

Reported March 15, 2001

(Sweeny/ Dingell)

Introduced Jan. 31, 2001

(Reid)

(McCain/Hollings/

(DeFazio/Slaughter)

Hutchison/Wyden)

Fair Treatment of

Airline Passengers Act

(S. 483)

Introduced March 7,

2001 (Wyden)

Airline Competition and

Passenger Rights Act

(H.R. 907)

Introduced March 7,

2001 (Dingell)

Delays/cancellations: right -to de-plane.

Air carriers shall not

-prevent a passenger from

leaving the aircraft if the

aircraft is at the gate with

access to ramp facilities

and the aircraft has

remained at the gate for

more than an hour and the

captain has not been

informed by ATC that the

aircraft can be cleared for

departure in 15 minutes.

Identical to H.R. 1734.

Delays/cancellations:

Large air carriers must

disclosure of chronically- disclose, without being

delayed or canceled flights. asked, the on-time

performance and

cancellation rate for any

chronically-delayed or

cancelled flights whenever

a customer makes a

reservation or buys a

ticket.

Failure to disclose,

-without being asked, the

on-time performance and

cancellation rate for a

chronically delayed or

chronically canceled flight

whenever a customer

makes a reservation or

purchases a ticket on such

a flight is defined as an

unfair or deceptive trade

practice and unfair method

of competition under 49

U.S.C. 41712.

Identical to S. 319.

Failure of an air carrier to

inform the consumer that a

requested flight includes a

segment that in the

preceding calendar month

was either cancelled or

delayed, 40% of the time,

at least 30 minutes past

arrival time is made an

unfair or deceptive

practice and unfair method

of competition.

CRS-25

Topic

Delays/cancellations:

notification

Airline Customer

Airline Passenger Bill of

Aviation Consumer

Air Travelers Fair

Service Improvement Act Rights Act (H.R. 1734) Right to Know Act (H.R. Treatment Act (S. 200)

(S. 319)

Introduced May 3, 2001

332)

Introduced Jan. 29, 2001

Reported March 15, 2001

(Sweeny/ Dingell)

Introduced Jan. 31, 2001

(Reid)

(McCain/Hollings/

(DeFazio/Slaughter)

Hutchison/Wyden)

Fair Treatment of

Airline Passengers Act

(S. 483)

Introduced March 7,

2001 (Wyden)

Airline Competition and

Passenger Rights Act

(H.R. 907)

Introduced March 7,

2001 (Dingell)

Within 60 days air carriers

shall implement a policy

to require that air carriers

provide in a timely,

reasonable, and truthful

manner, the best available

information regarding each

delay, cancellation, or

diversion, including: the

cause of the delay,

cancellation, or diversion;

and in the case of a

delayed flight the carrier’s

best estimate of the

departure time. [taken

from S. 483 and added in

Committee]

Failure of an air carrier to

provide a passenger with

an accurate explanation of

the reasons for a flight

delay, cancellation, or

diversion from a ticketed

itinerary is defined as an

“unfair or deceptive

practice” and “unfair

method of competition”

under 49 U.S.C. 41712.

Virtually identical to

S. 319 as reported. Does

not set a 60 day

implementation target.

Identical to H.R. 1734.

Within 6 months of

Identical to H.R. 1734.

enactment, air carriers shall

establish a reasonable

system for notifying

passengers before their

arrival at the airport, when

the carrier knows

sufficiently in advance that

the flight will be canceled

or delayed by an hour or

more.

Requires that air carriers,

Identical to S. 319.

when announcing a delay,

cancellation, or diversion

of a flight segment,

provide, in a timely and

truthful fashion, must

include an explanation of

the reason or reasons for

the delay, cancellation, or

diversion. Requires DOT,

not later than 1 year after

the date of enactment, to

issue guidance to assist air

carriers in carrying out the

notification requirements.

Delays/cancellations:

Within 90 days of

Air carriers, whenever

-advance information on

enactment, large air carriers practicable, shall attempt

delayed or cancelled flights shall establish a system

to provide a passenger

that allows passengers,

with notice of a delay or

before they leave for the

cancellation of a flight

airport, to determine

segment before passengers

whether a flight has been depart for the airport.

cancelled or if there is a

lengthy delay.

CRS-26

Topic

Airline Customer

Airline Passenger Bill of

Aviation Consumer

Air Travelers Fair

Service Improvement Act Rights Act (H.R. 1734) Right to Know Act (H.R. Treatment Act (S. 200)

(S. 319)

Introduced May 3, 2001

332)

Introduced Jan. 29, 2001

Reported March 15, 2001

(Sweeny/ Dingell)

Introduced Jan. 31, 2001

(Reid)

(McCain/Hollings/

(DeFazio/Slaughter)

Hutchison/Wyden)

Delays/cancellations:

-public information

(phone/WEB) on delayed,

cancelled, or diverted

flights

Fair Treatment of

Airline Passengers Act

(S. 483)

Introduced March 7,

2001 (Wyden)

Airline Competition and

Passenger Rights Act

(H.R. 907)

Introduced March 7,

2001 (Dingell)

Air carriers that have a

telephone number or web

site for the public to

obtain flight status shall

ensure that the number or

web site will reflect the

best and most current

information on delays,

cancellations, and

diversions.

Delays/cancellations:

disclosure of on-time

performance

By the 5th of each month, -air carriers must post the

on-time performance for

each scheduled flight for

the previous month on the

air carrier websites.

Virtually identical to

-S. 319, but does not set the

5th day of the month

deadline for posting ontime performance.

Delays: improvement

targets for delayed or

cancelled flights

Within 90 days of

-enactment, large air carriers

shall establish realistic

targets for reducing

chronically-delayed flights.

CRS-27

Topic

Delays: liability for

excessive delays

Airline Customer

Airline Passenger Bill of

Aviation Consumer

Air Travelers Fair

Service Improvement Act Rights Act (H.R. 1734) Right to Know Act (H.R. Treatment Act (S. 200)

(S. 319)

Introduced May 3, 2001

332)

Introduced Jan. 29, 2001

Reported March 15, 2001

(Sweeny/ Dingell)

Introduced Jan. 31, 2001

(Reid)

(McCain/Hollings/

(DeFazio/Slaughter)

Hutchison/Wyden)

Fair Treatment of

Airline Passengers Act

(S. 483)

Introduced March 7,

2001 (Wyden)

Airline Competition and

Passenger Rights Act

(H.R. 907)

Introduced March 7,

2001 (Dingell)

Liability for delay of

between 2 and 3 hours is

set at 200% of price paid

for the ticket. Liability

over 3 hours is an

additional 100% for each

additional hour or portion

of hour above 3 hours

delay. Exempts delays

caused by certain ATC

directives, mechanical, and

other safety concerns.

Disabled and special needs Within 90 days of

-services

enactment, large air carriers

shall monitor and report

their efforts to improve

services for passengers

with disabilities and

special needs.

Disabled passengers’

equipment

Requires DOT to study

-incidents of damage to the

equipment (such as wheel

chairs) of passengers with

disabilities.

CRS-28

Topic

Airline Customer

Airline Passenger Bill of

Aviation Consumer

Air Travelers Fair

Service Improvement Act Rights Act (H.R. 1734) Right to Know Act (H.R. Treatment Act (S. 200)

(S. 319)

Introduced May 3, 2001

332)

Introduced Jan. 29, 2001

Reported March 15, 2001

(Sweeny/ Dingell)

Introduced Jan. 31, 2001

(Reid)

(McCain/Hollings/

(DeFazio/Slaughter)

Hutchison/Wyden)

Fair Treatment of

Airline Passengers Act

(S. 483)

Introduced March 7,

2001 (Wyden)

Airline Competition and

Passenger Rights Act

(H.R. 907)

Introduced March 7,

2001 (Dingell)

Emergency medical

services

DOT shall issue

-regulations to establish

minimum standards for

resuscitation, emergency

medical, and first-aid

equipment and supplies to

be carried on board an

aircraft operated by an air

carrier that is capable of

carrying more than 30

people. Requires

consultation with the

Surgeon General.

Identical to S. 319.

Emergency plans

Within 90 days of

enactment air carriers shall

ensure that comprehensive

passenger service

contingency plans are

properly maintained and

that the plans and any

changes to the plans are

coordinated with local

airport authorities and the

FAA.

Within 180 days of

enactment DOT shall issue

final regulations requiring

air carriers to submit

emergency plans to ensure

passenger access to

necessary services and

conditions, including food,

water, restroom facilities,

and the ability to deplane

in the event of a weather

or other emergency.

An Air carrier shall assure -access to necessary

services and conditions,

including food, water,

restroom facilities, and the

ability to deplane in the

event of a weather or other

emergency. Not later than

180 days of enactment,

DOT will require air

carriers to submit

emergency plans

describing how they will

meet this assurance.

CRS-29

Topic

Airline Customer

Airline Passenger Bill of

Aviation Consumer

Air Travelers Fair

Service Improvement Act Rights Act (H.R. 1734) Right to Know Act (H.R. Treatment Act (S. 200)

(S. 319)

Introduced May 3, 2001

332)

Introduced Jan. 29, 2001

Reported March 15, 2001

(Sweeny/ Dingell)

Introduced Jan. 31, 2001

(Reid)

(McCain/Hollings/

(DeFazio/Slaughter)

Hutchison/Wyden)

Fair Treatment of

Airline Passengers Act

(S. 483)

Introduced March 7,

2001 (Wyden)

Enforcement funding:

funding for DOT

enforcement of airline

passenger consumer

protection provisions

Calls for DOT to increase -the Department resources

for airline passenger

consumer protection of

airline passengers and for

oversight and enforcement

of laws and regulations.

Within 60 days of

enactment, DOT shall

report to the Senate

Commerce Committee and

the House, Transportation

and Infrastructure

Committee of measures

taken to increase resources

and request additional

funds or measures needed.

Specifies that in utilizing -enforcement monies

authorized in AIR21 DOT

shall give priority to the

areas identified by the IG

as needing improvement in

its final report on the

Airline Customer Service

Commitment. Requires

consultation with the IG.

Fares: access to lowest

fares

Within 60 days, large air

Failure of an air carrier to Requires air carriers to

-carriers must implement

provide full access to all

policies, when quoting the fares provided by the

fares regardless of the

lowest fares, to: include

carrier, regardless of the

technology used to access

fares available at the air

method used to contact an the fares. Requires that air

carrier’s ticket offices and air carrier is defined as an carriers, on request of any

ticket counters; and notify unfair or deceptive

person, permit the person

customers that lower fares practice and unfair method to purchase air

may be available through

of competition per 49 U.S. transportation provided by

other distribution systems, C. 41712.

the carrier at any

including internet web

published fare.

sites.

Airline Competition and

Passenger Rights Act

(H.R. 907)

Introduced March 7,

2001 (Dingell)

Virtually identical to

S. 319, except that the

H.R. 1734.

provision does not require

notification of lower fares

on the internet.

CRS-30

Topic

Federal preemption of

state consumer law

Airline Customer

Airline Passenger Bill of

Aviation Consumer

Air Travelers Fair

Service Improvement Act Rights Act (H.R. 1734) Right to Know Act (H.R. Treatment Act (S. 200)

(S. 319)

Introduced May 3, 2001

332)

Introduced Jan. 29, 2001

Reported March 15, 2001

(Sweeny/ Dingell)

Introduced Jan. 31, 2001

(Reid)

(McCain/Hollings/

(DeFazio/Slaughter)

Hutchison/Wyden)

Fair Treatment of

Airline Passengers Act

(S. 483)

Introduced March 7,

2001 (Wyden)

Airline Competition and

Passenger Rights Act

(H.R. 907)

Introduced March 7,

2001 (Dingell)

Identical to H.R. 1734.

Narrows the federal

Identical to H.R. 1734.

preemption of state laws,

specifying that only state

laws that directly

prescribe a price, route, or

level of service provided

by an air carrier are

preempted.

Frequent flyer information Within 90 days of

-enactment, large air carriers

shall make available to the

public a comprehensive

report of frequent flyer

redemption information,

including: percentage of

successful redemption

awards; and number of

seats available in the

carrier’s top 100 origin and

destination markets.

Identical to H.R. 1734.

On request, carriers must -disclose the number or

percentage of seats that

will be made available for

frequent flyer award

passengers on any specific

date and route.

Virtually identical to

-S. 319. However, also

requires the reporting of

the overall percentage of

successful redemptions by

each air carrier.

CRS-31

Topic

Airline Customer

Airline Passenger Bill of

Aviation Consumer

Air Travelers Fair

Service Improvement Act Rights Act (H.R. 1734) Right to Know Act (H.R. Treatment Act (S. 200)

(S. 319)

Introduced May 3, 2001

332)

Introduced Jan. 29, 2001

Reported March 15, 2001

(Sweeny/ Dingell)

Introduced Jan. 31, 2001

(Reid)

(McCain/Hollings/

(DeFazio/Slaughter)

Hutchison/Wyden)

Fair Treatment of

Airline Passengers Act

(S. 483)

Introduced March 7,

2001 (Wyden)

Airline Competition and

Passenger Rights Act

(H.R. 907)

Introduced March 7,

2001 (Dingell)

Information monitors:

coordination of departure

and arrival displays

Within 90 days of

enactment each large air

carrier shall ensure that

master airport flight

information display

monitors contain accurate,

up-to-date flight

information and are

consistent with the

carriers’ own flight

information display

monitors

Initial response reports

Within 90 days of

-enactment, each large

carrier shall report to the

DOT on its

implementation of the

obligations imposed by the

act. Within 270 days the

Secretary of DOT shall

report on the

implementation by the

large carriers of the

obligations imposed on

them by the terms of this

Act.

Air carriers shall ensure

that information monitors

at the airport concerned

display timely and

accurate arrival and

departure information.

Identical to S. 319.

CRS-32

Topic

Airline Customer

Airline Passenger Bill of

Aviation Consumer

Air Travelers Fair

Service Improvement Act Rights Act (H.R. 1734) Right to Know Act (H.R. Treatment Act (S. 200)

(S. 319)

Introduced May 3, 2001

332)

Introduced Jan. 29, 2001

Reported March 15, 2001

(Sweeny/ Dingell)

Introduced Jan. 31, 2001

(Reid)

(McCain/Hollings/

(DeFazio/Slaughter)

Hutchison/Wyden)

Fair Treatment of

Airline Passengers Act

(S. 483)

Introduced March 7,

2001 (Wyden)

Airline Competition and

Passenger Rights Act

(H.R. 907)

Introduced March 7,

2001 (Dingell)

Insecticide warnings

Overnight

accommodations: plans

for passengers stranded

overnight

Within 60 days of

If an involuntarily bumped -enactment air carriers must passenger’s scheduled

establish a plan with

alternative departure time

respect to passengers who is not within the same day

must unexpectedly remain the passenger shall receive

overnight due to flight

reasonable and immediate

delays, cancellations, or

compensation for hotel

diversions.

costs.

Prohibits air carriers from -selling tickets for a flight

on which an insecticide is

planned to be used in the

aircraft while passengers

are on board unless the

carrier or ticket agent

selling the ticket notifies

the customer and provides

the name of the insecticide.

CRS-33

Topic

Airline Customer

Airline Passenger Bill of

Aviation Consumer

Air Travelers Fair

Service Improvement Act Rights Act (H.R. 1734) Right to Know Act (H.R. Treatment Act (S. 200)

(S. 319)

Introduced May 3, 2001

332)

Introduced Jan. 29, 2001

Reported March 15, 2001

(Sweeny/ Dingell)

Introduced Jan. 31, 2001

(Reid)

(McCain/Hollings/

(DeFazio/Slaughter)

Hutchison/Wyden)

Fair Treatment of

Airline Passengers Act

(S. 483)

Introduced March 7,

2001 (Wyden)

Airline Competition and

Passenger Rights Act

(H.R. 907)

Introduced March 7,

2001 (Dingell)

Partial ticket use

Any action by an air

Airlines may not assess a -carrier to prohibit or

fee against or prohibit a

impose an additional fee or passenger from using only

charge on a person that

part of a ticket (including

purchases air

1-way travel on a roundtransportation from using trip ticket).

only a portion of the ticket

purchased (including 1way use travel instead of

round trip travel) is

defined as an unfair or

deceptive practice and

unfair method of

competition per 49 U.S.C.

14712.

Identical to H.R. 1734.

Passenger rights

publication

Within 180 days of

-enactment DOT shall, by

rule: issue a statement that

outlines consumer rights of

air passengers; require air

carriers to provide the

statement to each

passenger by conspicuous

written material

including–on a safety

placard given to passenger

on the aircraft; on

information available at the

ticket counter; and on or

with the passenger’s

ticket.

Identical to H.R. 1734.

CRS-34

Topic

Airline Customer

Airline Passenger Bill of

Aviation Consumer

Air Travelers Fair

Service Improvement Act Rights Act (H.R. 1734) Right to Know Act (H.R. Treatment Act (S. 200)

(S. 319)

Introduced May 3, 2001

332)

Introduced Jan. 29, 2001

Reported March 15, 2001

(Sweeny/ Dingell)

Introduced Jan. 31, 2001

(Reid)

(McCain/Hollings/

(DeFazio/Slaughter)

Hutchison/Wyden)

Fair Treatment of

Airline Passengers Act

(S. 483)

Introduced March 7,

2001 (Wyden)

Airline Competition and

Passenger Rights Act

(H.R. 907)

Introduced March 7,

2001 (Dingell)

Review of regulations

Within one year of

enactment DOT shall

complete a thorough

review of the

Department’s regulations

that relate to air carriers’

treatment of customers,

and make such

modifications as may be

necessary or appropriate

to ensure the

enforceability of those

regulations and the

provisions of this

Act.[provision of S.483

that was added in

committee]

Virtually identical to

-S. 319, except that the

specific areas of review are

set forth.

Safety: access to safety

information

Air carriers must provide,

upon passenger request,

information on safety

inspection reviews, the

carrier’s safety ranking,

and crew certification.

Safety: performance

review reports

Annually DOT will

-submit a performance

review report to Congress

that includes each carrier’s

number of accidents and

the makes of aircraft

involved.

CRS-35

Topic

Airline Customer

Airline Passenger Bill of

Aviation Consumer

Air Travelers Fair

Service Improvement Act Rights Act (H.R. 1734) Right to Know Act (H.R. Treatment Act (S. 200)

(S. 319)

Introduced May 3, 2001

332)

Introduced Jan. 29, 2001

Reported March 15, 2001

(Sweeny/ Dingell)

Introduced Jan. 31, 2001

(Reid)

(McCain/Hollings/

(DeFazio/Slaughter)

Hutchison/Wyden)

Fair Treatment of

Airline Passengers Act

(S. 483)

Introduced March 7,

2001 (Wyden)

Small air carrier exception

Small air carriers that

-operate no aircraft with

more than 30 seats are

excepted from the

provisions of proposed

sections 41722 and 41723

of the Act.

Ticket agent appointment

cancellation

Air carriers must provide -90 days notice to a ticket

agent whose appointment

the carrier wishes to

cancel, terminate, or not

renew, giving a full written

statement of the reasons.

The ticket agent must then

be given 60 days to correct

any deficiency.

Identical to H.R. 1734.

Victims assistance: civil

-penalties for failure to

provide safety or victims’

assistance information

An air carrier that fails to -provide information

required under the bill’s

safety and victims

assistance provisions shall

be liable for a civil penalty

not to exceed $100,000 per

violation.

Victims’ assistance toll

free telephone

The NTSB will establish a -toll free telephone number

to provide victims access

to accident information.

Airline Competition and

Passenger Rights Act

(H.R. 907)

Introduced March 7,

2001 (Dingell)

Identical to H.R. 1734.

Topic

Airline Customer

Airline Passenger Bill of

Aviation Consumer

Air Travelers Fair

Service Improvement Act Rights Act (H.R. 1734) Right to Know Act (H.R. Treatment Act (S. 200)

(S. 319)

Introduced May 3, 2001

332)

Introduced Jan. 29, 2001

Reported March 15, 2001

(Sweeny/ Dingell)

Introduced Jan. 31, 2001

(Reid)

(McCain/Hollings/

(DeFazio/Slaughter)

Hutchison/Wyden)

Fair Treatment of

Airline Passengers Act

(S. 483)

Introduced March 7,

2001 (Wyden)

Airline Competition and

Passenger Rights Act

(H.R. 907)

Introduced March 7,

2001 (Dingell)

Victims’ assistance

coordination

The NTSB will coordinate -with the Red Cross and

federal agencies to assure

the coordination of the

disclosure of information

and assistance to victims

of aircraft accidents.

Victims’ rights to

information

The National

Transportation Safety

Board (NTSB) will

establish and run a

program for victims and

survivors of aircraft

accidents. Victims are to

receive immediate and

unrestricted access to

information from the

carrier, federal, state, and

local governments.

–

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.