Airline Passengers’ "Bill of Rights" Gaining Traction... ‘There oughta be a law'

A few recent stories on the web point the some instances where the Airline Passengers Bill of Rights might be gaining traction & legitimacy at the State level as well as the Federal level. See elsewhere in this Blog for links and information on one of the bill of rights proposed CAPBOR as there are several proposals being considered by Congress and the Department of Transportation. But pundants believe all face "uphill battle against time, political gridlock and industry pressure" says an MSNBC report. That being said, New York put into effect their own Passenger Bill of Rights last year. After surviving a court challenge from the Air Transport Association (ATA), an industry trade group, last month, the bill became law on January 1.

An example of their rights is that whenever passengers are delayed on board a plane for more than 3 hours prior to takeoff, the airline must provide:

• Electric generation service and temporary power for fresh air and lights
  
• Waste removal service in order to service the holding tanks for on-board restrooms, and ...
  
• Adequate food, drinking water and other refreshments
  

Seems pretty reasonable, no? However, the media and web are ripe with examples (even this past year) where passengers went 7, 8, 9 hours (due to delays) on the tarmac with out these simple 'amenities'. Unfortunately this states bill does not provide rights for us in situations where there is a delay upon landing as it does not address allowing passengers to disembark from stuck planes nor does it offer compensation for the inconvenience. It does, however, allow the state to fine airlines up to $1,000 per passenger for non-compliance to those rights that are in place and broken.

Nevertheless, it does get the ball rolling in the right direction as the prospect of dozens of individual state laws may actually prompt the federal government to take meaningful action. As a matter of fact, MSNBC states that similar efforts are underway in CA and AZ and that RI State Senator Leonidas Raptakis introduced a similar bill recently in his state, and that "31 of 38 senators signed on. Furthermore, he says, “I’ve been talking to colleagues in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Minnesota …”"

California Assemblyman Mark Leno said it best when he talked about needing federal level - versus state level - legislation on this issue when he stated, " We’ve all been stuck on a plane and thought, ‘There oughta be a law.’”

Airports to charge landing fees.. GREAT! (unti they pass it on to us in the form of higher ticket prices)

A story on MSNBC reports on a new federal policy concerning Landing Fees that will allow said fees to be charged to the airport based on time of day and traffic volume. Previous fees have been based on plane weight. The goal here is to make it easier for airports to reduce delays by encouraging airlines to spread their flights more evenly throughout the day. And, it should foster competition among airports in that other airports may try to pick up the slack of those trying to mitigate fees.

Naturally, and it takes no 'industry analyst' or pundit to guess this one... consumers ultimately will foot the bill or be put into picking from ever decreasing number of flights to select from for convenience. We won't recap all the stories of 2007 that mention the airlines horrible arrival rates (read though our blog to see all of that), nor the other attempts at legislation that have been put into motion (flight caps, opening air space, etc.), so add this as one more step to try to address that issue.

That being said, because at face value it seems a reasonable effort, a few good counter points were raised in this story:

"It's good the (Federal Aviation Administration) is focusing on the delays issue, but these small steps don't address the fundamental problem when dramatic action is needed," according to a Port Authority statement. "The right solution is expanding capacity through 21st century technologies, working with the airlines on more rational schedules and better customer service."

"Unfortunately, (the policy) does nothing to fix the primary cause of delays — our nation's increasingly antiquated air traffic control system," ATA President and CEO Jim May said in a statement. "Additional fees ... will only increase the cost of flying for the consumer."

"Consumers flying at peak travel times should not be singled out just because the airports are charging airlines more for their flights, but all travelers likely will see ticket prices rise as carriers distribute the additional cost"

We're Internet Junkies.. Well, over 50% of us are at Least

It appears more and more Americans are making the move to book their travel online. In my case, I book 100% of my travel online, and have for the last 4-5 years actually. I do all of my research and buying thanks to the web and at this stage, find my use far and few between for an airline agent, and even less for a travel agent.

MSNBC reported today that "The year 2007 was the first in which more travel was purchased online than off-line in the U.S., according to the PhoCusWright Consumer Travel Trends Survey." They go on to quote the report further which states that, "the gap between online and off-line will continue to widen as more and more travelers shift behavior to online shopping and buying." The numbers showed that in 2007, 51% of airline travel was booked online with an expected increase to 56% in 2008 and 60% in 2009.

Count me among those that use the online options. With all the airlines online booking options and all the great discount ticket resellers.... I have personally saved a bundle of money and a lot of time via just taking care of all airline travel (and hotels and trains for that matter) via the web. As I see it, any other method is antiquated at best. As a matter of fact, in most instances now not using the web can cost you money as many airlines charge a fee to book via an agent.

Which Airport is the Busiest in the USA?

Not what you might think...

No, it is not JFK (not even in the top 3). O'Hare? Close, but it was #2. The winner is.... for the third straight year.... Atlanta. Better known as Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta.

It was reported by MSNBC today that Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta logged 994,466 flights (takeoffs and landings) in 2007, up 1.8 percent from 976,447 flights in 2006 with Chicago O'Hare International Airport only logging a mere 935,000 flights in 2007. That number was down 2.4 percent from the 958,643 flights it had in 2006. 70% of those Atlanta flights were thanks to Delta.

These 2 airports also compete as the busiest airports in the world with Atlanta claiming the #1 spot, in terms of passengers, with 41.35 million passengers in 2006 with Chicago not far behind with 36.82 million passengers. Not a huge surprise as it also boasts both the largest hub in the world (Delta) and the world's largest low-cost carrier hub (AirTran).

The moral of the story? Visit AirportGyms.com for your Atlanta and Chicago airport gyms listings... your going to need them sooner or later!