The U.S. Department of Transportation by its March 9 deadline received a few dozen submissions from industry associations, airlines, airport authorities, passenger advocacy groups and other interested parties regarding the department's proposed rulemaking on a series of air travel consumer protections. The responses were decidedly mixed.
DOT's proposals would require airlines to "adopt contingency plans for lengthy tarmac delays and to incorporate these plans in their contracts of carriage," respond to consumer problems and adopt other customer service programs. DOT also proposed to "declare the operation of flights that remain chronically delayed to be an unfair and deceptive practice and an unfair method of competition" and require airlines to provide flight delay data on their Web sites.
The National Business Travel Association stated general opposition in its filing to DOT, writing that "customer service is a market-driven issue." NBTA added that while it "believes the federal government has an interest in mandating certain baseline consumer protections for airline customer service ... in general, airlines are in a much better position to ascertain what their customers expect and whether certain practices are worth the cost they entail. Basic economics dictate that government mandates create private sector costs, and those costs are going to be borne, directly or indirectly, by the traveling public."
US Airways described DOT's proposals as "well-intentioned" but "overreaching," adding that many operational difficulties are beyond airlines' control (including weather and congested air traffic infrastructure), and that the government's proposed remedies would impose substantial new burdens on carriers. "Air carriers get the message," the airline continued. "Running a chronically delayed airline is not something passengers will tolerate. We respectfully submit that it is this message, and not additional government regulation, on which air carriers should remain focused."
The Air Transport Association wrote that "while we share DOT's goal, we disagree with the view that additional regulation is necessary to achieve it."
Those generally favoring DOT's proposals included the American Society of Travel Agents, Airports Council International-North America and airport officials in Atlanta and Dallas/Ft. Worth.
The proposed requirement that airlines "adopt contingency plans for lengthy tarmac delays" and "incorporate these plans in their contracts of carriage" appeared to be the most polarizing component.
ATA said this element is its "biggest concern" and suggested that "DOT does not have the authority to dictate contract terms between airlines and their passengers, and the operational nature of these plans makes them ill-suited as contract terms. This particular proposal is not only legally flawed but will have the perverse effect of leading to more cancellations, increased passenger inconvenience and, ultimately, make flying more expensive."
NBTA supports airline contingency plans but contended such plans should not be required by regulation. "An airline, working through its pilot with local air traffic control and airport operators, is more likely to resolve a tarmac delay in a manner most beneficial to the largest number of passengers than trying to resolve through previously prepared scenarios," the association wrote. Those airlines that fail to enact and execute contingency plans "are extremely likely to provide poor service to passengers in lengthy delay situations" and, therefore, "are likely to be considered a much less desirable travel option."
ASTA and ACI-NA favored requirements for contingency plans. ACI-NA added that it "strongly" opposes limiting the requirement only to airlines operating aircraft with more than 60 seats, which is one variation considered by DOT. "Given the fact that regional airlines exclusively serve the vast majority of airports in the United States, it is essential that their operations be covered by this requirement," ACI-NA wrote. "It is incomprehensible that DOT would deny passengers traveling on half of the flights in the United States the customer service and legal rights afforded to other passengers."
Both ATA and ACI-NA agreed with the requirement for carriers to acknowledge a consumer complaint within 30 days of receipt and provide a substantive response within 60 days. NBTA did not. "This type of micromanagement of airlines' customer service is unnecessary to meet the needs of business travelers," NBTA wrote. "Most, if not all, airlines have customer service departments specifically designed for this type of mission and have specific managers to handle key client needs. Regulating a well-established practice would unnecessarily burden the air carriers and create duplicative and redundant services."
There also was disagreement over DOT's plans to "declare the operation of flights that remain chronically delayed to be an unfair and deceptive practice and an unfair method of competition." ATA and NBTA said the definition of chronically late flights should be those arriving more than 15 minutes late more than 70 percent of the time in a quarter. But ASTA and ACI-NA argued that the 70 percent level is not appropriate. ASTA said such a standard would allow airlines "to engage in unrealistic scheduling a large part of the time." Instead, ASTA and ACI-NA suggested a 50 percent standard. "Many passengers, including business travelers and people connecting to cruises or tours with fixed departure times, would be very interested to know that their chance of arriving on time was only 50-50," ASTA wrote.
ASTA also said it was "adamantly opposed" to DOT's consideration of excusing chronically delayed flights from the unfair and deceptive label when consumers are informed of a flight's performance at the time of purchase. "This idea incentivizes the airlines to continue operating chronically delayed flights while shifting a new cost burden onto the retail distribution system to inform the public about the practice on a flight-by-flight basis," ASTA wrote. "The exception would consume the rule."
Added ACI-NA, "We question how DOT could determine that 'every prospective passenger using any available channel of purchase' could be informed before buying a seat on a flight that the flight is chronically delayed."
Meanwhile, most commenters agreed that airlines should be required to publish delay data on their Web sites, but some objected to exactly which data. ATA suggested that providing more information than what is currently reported to the government would be costly. "In some cases, significant reprogramming of internal software, rebuilding portions of Web sites and the delay of critical technology projects and of other government-mandated programming would be required," the association wrote.
NBTA agreed, writing that performance data requirements should be "aligned with performance reports that carriers must file with DOT."
In a related comment, ACI-NA suggested airlines should be required to provide delay information on all domestic codeshare flights, as well as their own operations. "If DOT does not adopt this requirement," the group wrote, "the department should specifically provide justification as to why air travelers on domestic codeshare flights should not be provided the same level of information as consumers on other flights, in order to make more informed travel decisions."
The Interactive Travel Services Association, meanwhile, said it was "gratified" that DOT tentatively opted not to extend the delay data requirement to global distribution systems, online travel agencies and other third parties, as the costs "would vastly outweigh the benefits to consumers."
Most commenters also supported DOT's proposal to require carriers to adopt customer service plans, incorporate these in their contracts of carriage and audit their adherence to their plans. The plans would include offering lowest available fares, delivering bags on time, allowing reservations to be held or canceled, providing prompt ticket refunds, properly accommodating disabled and special-needs passengers, meeting customers' essential needs during long on-aircraft delays, fairly handling 'bumped' passengers and ensuring good customer service from codeshare partners.
Both NBTA and ASTA, however, objected to self-auditing, which the latter described as "self-defeating." Both groups instead suggested DOT conduct customer service audits.
DOT has not detailed a schedule for finalizing its plans. It previously proposed to put new consumer protection rules in force 180 days after a final rule is published.
Meanwhile, airline passenger rights bills introduced in January in both the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives were referred to aviation subcommittees.