[Senate Hearing 110-1207]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-1207
AIRLINE SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 11, 2007
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
79-662 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West TED STEVENS, Alaska, Vice Chairman
Virginia JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts TRENT LOTT, Mississippi
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
BARBARA BOXER, California OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
BILL NELSON, Florida GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
Margaret L. Cummisky, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Lila Harper Helms, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and Policy Director
Christine D. Kurth, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel
Kenneth R. Nahigian, Republican Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 11, 2007................................... 1
Statement of Senator Boxer....................................... 2
Statement of Senator Inouye...................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 1
Statement of Senator Lautenberg.................................. 5
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Statement of Senator Lott........................................ 28
Prepared statement........................................... 28
Statement of Senator Rockefeller................................. 26
Statement of Senator Snowe....................................... 24
Statement of Senator Stevens..................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Witnesses
Chandran, Rahul, Program Coordinator, Center on International
Cooperation.................................................... 59
Prepared statement........................................... 61
Hanni, Kate, Executive Director, Spokesperson, and Founder,
Coalition for Airline Passengers' Bill of Rights............... 44
Prepared statement........................................... 48
Letter, dated February 9, 2007 from Sheila Pfister to Hon.
Mike Thompson, First District of California................ 52
Article dated January 17, 2007 from Business Wire entitled
``Allied Pilots Association Outraged That Executive Bonuses
Could Match or Exceed American Airlines' 2006 Net Profit''. 53
Letter dated April 2, 2007 from Roger Barbour, Jr. to Kate
Hanni...................................................... 54
Letter dated April 6, 2007 from Katharine ``Katty'' Biscone
to Kate Hanni.............................................. 57
Hudson, Paul, Executive Director, Aviation Consumer Action
Project (ACAP)................................................. 35
Prepared statement........................................... 36
May, James C., President and CEO, Air Transport Association of
America, Inc................................................... 62
Prepared statement........................................... 64
Mierzwinski, Edmund, Consumer Program Director, U.S. Public
Interest Research Group........................................ 29
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Mitchell, Kevin P., Chairman, Business Travel Coalition.......... 40
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Reynolds, Michael W., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aviation and
International Affairs, U.S. Department of Transportation....... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Scovel III, Hon. Calvin L., Inspector General, U.S. Department of
Transportation................................................. 11
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Appendix
Kerry, Hon. John F., U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, prepared
statement...................................................... 77
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell
to:
James C. May................................................. 88
Edmund Mierzwinski........................................... 88
Kevin P. Mitchell............................................ 89
Michael W. Reyolds........................................... 87
Hon. Calvin L. Scovel III.................................... 88
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye
to:
Michael W. Reynolds.......................................... 78
Hon. Calvin L. Scovel III.................................... 84
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. John F. Kerry to:
Michael W. Reynolds.......................................... 80
Hon. Calvin L. Scovel III.................................... 85
Thune, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from South Dakota, prepared
statement...................................................... 77
AIRLINE SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m. in room
SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
The Chairman. The quality of passenger service offered by
our Nation's domestic airlines is an issue all Members of
Congress hear about from their constituency regularly. So, this
Committee remains active in providing oversight on the issue in
an effort to ensure that air carriers maintain an appropriate
level of service. This special hearing was asked for by Senator
Boxer.
I will ask that my statement be made part of the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inouye follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Daniel K. Inouye, U.S. Senator from Hawaii
The quality of passenger service offered by the Nation's domestic
airlines is an issue all Members of Congress hear about from their
constituents regularly. This Committee remains active in providing
oversight of the issue in an effort to ensure that air carriers
maintain an appropriate level of service.
The Commerce Committee first held hearings in the summer of 2000,
when air travelers experienced record delays. In 2001 an additional
hearing was held to assess the progress airlines had made in addressing
the problems highlighted the previous year.
At the time of those hearings, the majority of the Nation's
domestic airlines had begun to take a number of voluntary steps to
address service quality concerns, in an effort to avoid a legislative
mandate. The Air Transport Association's (ATA) member airlines agreed
to implement an ``Airline Customer Service Commitment'' in 1999 which
addressed, among other issues, delay notification and on-time baggage
delivery provisions.
In its 2001 report, the Department of Transportation (DOT)
Inspector General noted that airlines had made some progress on these
commitments, but there was still room for improvement.
While service appeared to improve during the past several years,
the recent significant growth in airline travel has revealed that these
problems remain. Specifically, over the past several months there have
been a number of events that have set off alarms about the underlying
quality of airline passenger service.
Last December and over Valentine's Day weekend, we had a number of
cases where passengers were delayed in planes on the ground for nine or
more hours. Further, DOT statistics show February's delays rose to the
second highest level ever.
Airlines point out that these problems are primarily attributable
to weather or other uncontrollable air traffic operational problems.
While weather can be a factor, poor management decisions by air
carriers, a problem that is controllable, have also contributed to
these problems.
When American Airlines and JetBlue experienced problems earlier
this year, the absence of sufficient staff at the right locations was a
major factor. US Airways has experienced continuing service issues
resulting from computer problems associated with the integration of
America West. These types of problems are within the control of the
airlines and should be anticipated and managed appropriately.
The solution to these increasing problems with airline service
quality is not clear. It appears that the voluntary commitments made by
the airlines 8 years ago to improve service are not enough to improve
existing conditions, much less sustain quality as capacity continues to
increase. Yet, any comprehensive legislative solution risks
micromanaging airlines, and possibly creating more problems through a
one-size-fits-all approach.
I look forward to hearing our witnesses' perspectives on the
issues, and working with them and FAA to find effective solutions.
The Chairman. May I recognize Ms. Boxer?
STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman, for
holding this hearing to shed light on an issue recently in the
news, airlines trapping passengers on the ground in delayed
planes for hours and hours without adequate food, water, or
bathrooms. While this problem is not new, it's received
increased attention since recent debacles in which airlines
failed to properly prepare for adverse weather conditions on
Valentine's Day and the New Year's holiday.
Over New Year's Eve weekend, American Airlines had to
divert flights because of weather problems at various airports.
This isn't uncommon. All of us who travel know that weather
can, of course, impact flights. However, what followed was
disastrous, and it caused Senator Snowe and I to get together
and write bipartisan legislation that we call ``A Passenger's
Bill of Rights.''
Passengers sat trapped on the ground in delayed planes for
over 9 hours. Nine hours, Mr. Chairman, with nothing to eat but
pretzels, while toilets overflowed and tempers flared.
Six weeks later, a JetBlue airplane sat on the tarmac at
JFK Airport in New York for 10 and a half hours. More than half
a dozen other JetBlue flights sat on the tarmac for more than 6
hours. Again, for the passengers, the conditions were awful.
There wasn't enough food or potable water, and the bathrooms
stopped working. Even worse, many passengers were given
incomplete or misleading information, or they were refused
help, or they were treated indifferently or disrespectfully by
airline employees.
Now, I'm sure many of us have been stuck on the tarmac many
times. Certainly, it's happened to me on my travels back and
forth to California. Sometimes, with weather and security in a
post-9/11 world, delays are unavoidable. But it seems to me,
and it seems to Senator Snowe and I, that airlines must have a
plan to ensure that their passengers, who often include infants
and the elderly, are not held what's equivalent to being
hostages on a plane for hours and hours.
This is not the first time that Congress has taken a look
at the airlines' inability and unwillingness to take
responsibility for the well-being of their passengers, who are
their bread and butter. In 1999, after a Northwest plane was
delayed on the tarmac for 9 hours, with poor conditions, many
Members of Congress were outraged, and several introduced
comprehensive Passenger Bill of Rights legislation. While those
bills did not become law, the thought of congressional action
had a somewhat sobering effect on the airlines, who
subsequently agreed to a 12-point, and I quote, ``Airline
Customer Service Plan,'' unquote. In the plan, the airlines
committed to providing passengers with better information about
ticket prices and delays; better efforts to retrieve lost
luggage; fairer bumping policies; and to meeting essential
needs during long on-aircraft delays. Now, let me reiterate
this. The airlines themselves have a 12-point plan called the
Airline Customer Service Plan, and on that plan it says that
they need to make sure that essential needs are met during long
on-aircraft delays.
And we did see some improvements. And we thanked the
airlines for that after 1999 and after that 12-point plan. But
in recent years, as the industry has grown even more
competitive in the post-9/11 environment, airlines are
increasingly operating with no margin of error. Planes are
completely sold out, gates are continuously utilized, airport
facilities and our air traffic control system are stretched
thin. This means that when bad weather hits, the airlines can
find themselves unable to readily accommodate delays and
cancellations. And the results, as we've seen this winter, can
be a disaster. That is why, again, Senator Snowe and I
introduced the Airline Passengers' Bill of Rights Act of 2007.
The legislation requires airlines to offer passengers the
option of safely leaving a plane that they've boarded once that
plane has sat on the ground 3 hours after the plane door has
closed. So, it's not 3 hours after the departure schedule, but
3 hours after the door has closed.
This legislation also requires airlines to provide
passengers with necessities, such as food, potable water,
adequate restroom facilities, while a plane is delayed on the
ground.
Our legislation provides two exceptions to the 3-hour
option. The pilot may decide to not allow passengers to deplane
if he or she reasonably believes their safety or security would
be at risk due to extreme weather or other emergencies. So, we
give the pilot a tremendous amount of discretion here. The
pilot.
Alternately, if the pilot reasonably determines the flight
will depart within 30 minutes after the 3-hour period, he or
she can delay the deplaning option for an additional 30
minutes.
To be clear, the Boxer-Snowe bill does not require the
plane to return to the gate, as some have suggested. The
passengers can be retrieved with stairs and a bus, as long as
it's safe to do so, as was the case of a stranded JetBlue
flight at Kennedy. Passenger safety must be the number-one
priority. So, if there's dangerous weather, the plane is not
safely accessible on the ground, or there are any other safety
or security concerns, again, the pilot can choose not to allow
the passengers to deplane.
I believe this legislation is common sense and fair. It
will benefit consumers, while not hurting airline operations or
their revenues. Airlines provide a vital service in a
competitive business climate, and we all want them to succeed;
I can surely tell you that I do. Indeed, the Federal Government
has been a longstanding partner to the aviation industry,
providing assistance with airport infrastructure, air traffic
control services, and, after the September 11 recovery,
straight-out money. But, on the issue of passenger rights the
airline industry is once again urging Congress to stay on the
sidelines.
That's exactly what happened in 1999. Back then, Congress
gave airlines the benefit of the doubt. We gave them a chance
to do right by their customers. This winter's events made clear
that airlines have failed to live up to their own promises,
that they literally had written down in their own Passenger
Bill of Rights.
Now, I do commend the efforts of companies like JetBlue,
which responded admirably to this winter's delay by introducing
a new Consumer Bill of Rights, their own Customer Bill of
Rights. While this was a definite step forward, history shows
we must do more.
So, today I'm interested to hear what the Department of
Transportation is doing about this problem. They also have a
role to play in tracking and following up on consumer
complaints and better managing flight operations in bad
weather. And I also look forward to hearing from the Air
Transport Association to better understand the airlines'
concerns. But, most important, I want to hear from the
passengers and the consumer groups to understand the human
impact when airline operations break down to the extent that
they have done so recently.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you so much. I know you have a heavy
schedule of hearings. I do appreciate your scheduling this. I
thank the Ranking Member, as well.
The Chairman. I can assure the Senator we're here because
we're similarly concerned.
Senator Stevens?
STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Stevens. Mr. Chairman, just put my statement in the
record, will you, please? I'd like to hear from the witnesses--
--
The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
Senator Stevens.--since I do have some conflicts this
afternoon. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Stevens follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ted Stevens, U.S. Senator from Alaska
I would like to thank Chairman Inouye for calling the hearing
today. The topic of improved airline service and airline customer
relations has been on many minds the last few months.
Recently, the FAA forecasted that approximately 770 million
passengers will fly this year, and more than one billion by the year
2015, and up to 1.2 billion by the year 2020. The sheer number of
passengers will be a challenge for the FAA and the airlines to cope
with in terms of developing and implementing a modern air traffic
control system to meet this demand. For the airlines, an important
aspect of the system will have to be the need for improved customer
service.
Like many of my colleagues, because of the nature of our business,
we tend to travel often and at peak times. Over the years, we have all
experienced less than ideal air transport situations. While most of the
traveling public has become tolerant of modest flight delays, it is
important that the airlines take note of the lessons learned over the
past few months and take adequate steps to address the increasing rift
between airlines and the traveling public.
It is also important, with traffic rebounding like it is, that the
FAA and the Department of Transportation further work and research into
predictive weather models and regulatory oversight of the users of the
system. They need to take continued steps toward how they manage delays
in the aviation system.
While the unintended consequences of legislating the customer
service operations of airlines may not be the best route of action,
airlines need to take the situation seriously. As an industry, they
should voluntarily update their individual ground operation procedures
and emergency situation protocols along with providing vastly improved
disclosure of flight data and communication with their customers.
I think we can all agree that delays will never be avoided
altogether, but how we deal with them can certainly be improved.
Again, Chairman Inouye, thank you for calling the hearing and I
look forward to the testimony.
The Chairman. Senator Lautenberg?
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, I, too, would ask that my
statement, even though it's very brief, be included in the
record. And I would like to make just a couple of comments.
[The prepared statement of Senator Lautenberg follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
U.S. Senator from New Jersey
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today's hearing.
Airlines are more than just private companies trying to earn a
profit.
Airlines are ``public carriers,'' which means that they have
certain responsibilities when they offer services to everyday
travelers.
Weather can delay a flight. But the biggest reason the airlines
don't live up to their responsibilities is poor planning.
The summer of 2000 was one of the worst on record for delays.
As for airlines themselves, some airlines are using smaller
regional jets and overbooking them to increase their bottom line. But
these fuller, smaller planes end up contributing to the delays.
The end result here is that travelers suffer: They get stuck
sitting in jets on the tarmac, sometimes for hours on end.
And there is no excuse for not providing those passengers with
basic needs such as food, water and functioning bathrooms.
We thought the industry got the message in 1999. But apparently
not.
I am a proud cosponsor of Senator Boxer's Passenger Bill of Rights.
It's a good start.
Senator Lautenberg. I'm delighted to be a cosponsor of
Senator Boxer's bill on passenger rights. And I just think back
a little bit, what might have happened inside those cabins if I
hadn't authored a bill to ban smoking in airplanes. Could you
imagine the battle between the smokers and the nonsmokers
inside the cabin? ``I've got to light up.'' ``No, you can't.''
Well, we know what might have happened there.
And I ask a question here. What kind of risks might we be
encouraging by having the crew fatigue, sitting out there 8 or
9 hours hours. It's not well thought out. And we have
overcrowding in the skies that's going to get worse with the
advent of the very light jets that are coming; 5,000 are
predicted to be in the air in the next 10 years. And I see it
regularly, when I try to get an airplane to the New York/New
Jersey region, get in the plane, the pilot reminds us that it's
36 minutes of flying time, and then tells us that we have an
hour and a half wait before we start the flying time going. And
so, things are really terribly mixed up. And the inhumane
treatment of passengers, and including pets that are in the
airplane, also unable to control what--their activities, and
what kind of a intolerable commission--condition exists in
these airplanes.
So, I think the airline industry has to get together and
think through a policy that says relief must be supplied. What
happens if the fuel gets low? They don't just take off when--
with a lesser amount of fuel than they need. And why shouldn't
the passengers be treated the same way? I mean, at some point,
they're out of condition, out of acceptable humane condition,
that there isn't some relief mechanism, whether it's sending
buses out there or something else, you're not going to have
people load and unload with their baggage problems, security
problems attached.
I'll close with one thought and one quick story. My son
came in. He lives in Colorado, and tried to land in New York--
it was a few years ago--in the snow, and they sent--diverted
them up to Albany, New York. And they were on the plane a few
hours. It was late at night.
And my son got the idea to call Dominos Pizza, and the
truck was allowed out on the airport, and everybody had a piece
of pizza, which gave them some sense of relief. But I close,
Mr. Chairman, by saying that if I've ever seen an argument for
high-speed rail in this country of ours, it's now.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. It is now. The highways are jammed. The
airports are jammed. People sitting on the floor--very often,
you trip over people. They say, ``Don't leave your baggage
around.'' Don't leave your people around, because you trip on
them as you walk through.
So, we've got to think very broadly about this, Mr.
Chairman and figure out what alternatives there can be to these
terrible delays and discomforts.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
And now we'll hear from the experts. We have two panels.
The first panel, Mr. Michael Reynolds, Deputy Assistant
Secretary, United States Department of Transportation, and the
Honorable Calvin L. Scovel III, Inspector General, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Office of Inspector General.
May I first recognize Mr. Reynolds?
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL W. REYNOLDS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR AVIATION AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Reynolds. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, members of
the Committee, thank you for inviting me to this hearing. I
appreciate the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the
Department of Transportation.
With your permission, I would like to summarize my written
statement, which I ask be made part of the record.
The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Reynolds. Since deregulation of the airline industry
nearly 30 years ago, the Department has sought to balance the
public interest in protecting consumers from unreasonable
practices with our statutory mandate to allow market forces to
operate to the maximum extent possible in order to determine
what services are best provided by airlines. We continue to
believe that this approach is the proper one.
The cornerstone provision of DOT's Consumer Protection
Program is a section of the U.S. Code that broadly prohibits
unfair and deceptive practices and unfair methods of
competition in air transportation. The Department's Office of
the General Counsel acts as the prosecuting office for aviation
consumer enforcement cases under that statute, which is
enforceable in its own right, and, more importantly, serves as
the basis for DOT policies and rulemakings.
That office also handles all consumer complaints and
inquiries, and publishes the Department's monthly Air Travel
Consumer Report, which summarizes airline data on flight
delays, mishandled baggage, and denied boardings, and also
lists, by airline, the number of complaints registered with
DOT. It's important to note that between 2000 and 2006,
complaints filed with the Department went down by nearly two-
thirds; however complaint numbers are starting to rise this
year.
Let me now touch upon the incidents of this past winter,
involving airline passengers being trapped for many hours on
aircraft on the ground. The most highly publicized events
involved American Airlines, in late December of last year, and
JetBlue Airways, in February, both of which were related to
adverse weather. Although these two carriers received extensive
media attention, virtually all carriers have had problems
related to customer service, including, on occasion, flights
that experience long tarmac delays.
Secretary Peters and the Department were troubled by
incidents like these, particularly to the extent that food,
water, and other basic needs were not being met by the
airlines. That is why we are pleased to see that the airlines
involved in these specific incidents appear to be taking some
corrective actions.
In response to its December incident, American Airlines
reportedly instituted new guidelines which implemented--which
included limiting tarmac delays to no more than 4 hours.
JetBlue very publicly accepted responsibility for its
shortcomings and took a number of steps, including adopting
what it terms a Customer Bill of Rights.
Although extended tarmac delays are statistically rare, as
I'll discuss in a moment, airlines must have adequate plans in
place to deal with these types of situations as they arise.
Clearly, stranding hundreds of passengers aboard aircraft
sitting on tarmacs for as many as 9 hours is not acceptable.
And incidents like these raise serious concerns about planning
for such events. Passenger carriers should do everything
possible to ensure situations like this do not occur again.
The Department strongly prefers that the airlines address
their customer service issues, rather than the Federal
Government, but sometimes outside action may be necessary. That
is why Secretary Peters formally asked the Department's
Inspector General to conduct an investigation into these
incidents. The Secretary further requested that the IG examine
how the major air carriers are doing on the commitment they
made nearly 9 years ago to ensure that basic needs of
passengers are met during long ground delays. After the IG's
review, we will consider what, if any, further action is
appropriate.
It is important to keep the issue of tarmac delays in
context. Airline networks are extremely complex operations that
balance many operational, mechanical, safety, regulatory, and
other constraints. Any new requirement has the potential to add
to the complexity and costs of these operations.
Also, between 2000 and 2006, complaints to DOT about tarmac
delays have decreased significantly, both in absolute number
and as a percentage of total complaints.
With regard to recent tarmac delays, DOT's statistics show
that in 2006 less than two-hundredths of 1 percent of all
flights by the largest 20 airlines were delayed by more than 3
hours in taking off after leaving the gate. Further, your
chances, last year, of being on the tarmac for more than 5
hours after leaving the gate were about 1 in 200,000. Of
course, we recognize that statistics mean nothing to the
passengers who are victims of lengthy tarmac delays, and,
therefore, statistics cannot be the sole factors to consider.
We empathize with passengers delayed on airplanes for long
periods of time. We also empathize with passengers who want to
get to their destinations and, despite weather-induced delays,
would like airlines to make every effort to get them there as
quickly as possible. I can assure the Committee that the
Department will review the IG's report carefully, and, if
necessary, take appropriate actions to ensure that airlines are
adequately protecting consumers in relation to the possibility
of extended on-ground delays.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify, and I'd
be happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reynolds follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael W. Reynolds, Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Aviation and International Affairs, U.S. Department of
Transportation
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, and Members of the Committee,
thank you for inviting me to this hearing. I appreciate the opportunity
to testify today on behalf of the Department of Transportation.
I want to emphasize to the Committee at the outset of my statement
that the issue prompting this hearing today, which involves the
treatment of consumers by airlines during extended on-ground flight
delays, commonly referred to as tarmac delays, is being taken seriously
by the Department, as evidenced by our prompt action following the
recent incidents, which I will discuss shortly. Before I discuss that
action, however, I would like to give you a broad overview of our
authority to regulate in matters involving airline consumer protection,
including tarmac delays, and our continuing efforts to ensure that
passenger carriers meet their obligations to consumers.
Since deregulation of the airline industry nearly 30 years ago, the
Department--as well as its predecessor, the Civil Aeronautics Board--
has sought to balance the public interest in protecting consumers from
unreasonable practices with our statutory mandate to permit market
forces to operate to the maximum extent possible in order to determine
what services are best provided the public by airlines. When action has
been required, we have tried, wherever possible, to implement measures
to enhance the functioning of the marketplace, such as publishing
carrier performance data, or requiring the airlines themselves to
disclose data to consumers that may be of use in making their choices
of which carriers to use. We continue to believe this approach to be
the proper one.
The cornerstone provision for DOT's consumer protection program
covering all economic regulatory matters, as opposed to those involving
safety, is section 41712 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code, which broadly
prohibits unfair and deceptive practices and unfair methods of
competition in air transportation. The Secretary's Office of the
Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings
(Enforcement Office) acts as the prosecuting office for aviation
consumer enforcement cases, including those involving unfair and
deceptive practices. That office may act on its own initiative, and it
also reviews formal third-party complaints alleging violations of the
statute or the Department's consumer protection rules and either
dismisses them or pursues enforcement action. It also has the authority
to enter into settlements relating to those cases. Section 41712 is
enforceable in its own right, but violations can be difficult to
demonstrate. Even if a prosecution is ultimately successful, such cases
are resource intensive, time consuming, and of limited precedential
value because each is highly dependent on its own set of facts. That
section is more important as the basis for DOT rulemaking and
policymaking, where the public interest dictates, to define the extent
of its statutory reach. For example, section 41712 provides the
statutory basis for our airline full fare advertising and oversales
compensation rules.
The Aviation Consumer Protection Division, within the Enforcement
Office, handles all consumer complaints and inquiries involving
economic regulatory matters and works with airlines and other companies
to resolve informal consumer complaints relating to air transportation.
Complaints filed with that division are often helpful to us in
reviewing specific problem areas or industry trends that may need to be
addressed through administrative action. That division also
investigates apparent violations of consumer protection requirements,
refers matters to the Enforcement Office where appropriate, and
performs consumer protection rulemaking functions. In addition, the
Aviation Consumer Protection Division has significant public
information, education, and outreach programs, including publications
that provide general air travel consumer information, such as the
Department's monthly Air Travel Consumer Report. That report summarizes
data filed with DOT by carriers on flight delays, mishandled baggage,
and denied boardings, and also lists by carrier the number of
complaints registered in a variety of areas, including baggage,
refunds, and flight irregularities. Complaints filed with the
Department over the past several years have trended downward from a
high of about 23,000 in calendar year 2000, with about 8,300 being
filed with us last year. However, complaint numbers are starting to
increase this year.
Let me now touch upon the incidents of this past winter involving
airline passengers being trapped for many hours on aircraft on the
ground. The most highly-publicized events included serious service
disruptions and lengthy tarmac delays experienced by American Airlines
in late December of last year after severe weather hit the Southwest.
Also, more recently, JetBlue Airways experienced severe flight
irregularities and lengthy on-ground delays on Valentine's Day and the
days that followed during a period of adverse weather in the Northeast.
Although American and JetBlue received extensive media attention,
virtually all carriers have had problems related to customer service,
including, on rare occasion, flights that experience long tarmac
delays.
Secretary Peters and the Department were troubled by incidents like
these, particularly to the extent that food, water, and other basic
needs were not being met by the airlines. That is why we were pleased
to see that the airlines involved in these specific incidents appeared
to be taking substantial corrective actions. In response to its
December incident, American Airlines reportedly instituted new
guidelines, which included limiting tarmac delays to no more than 4
hours. JetBlue very publicly accepted responsibility for its
shortcomings and took a number of steps to address its customers'
concerns. Significantly, it adopted what it termed a ``Customer Bill of
Rights,'' by which it promises to (1) provide passengers on lengthy on-
board delays with food, water, and medical care, if necessary; (2)
compensate passengers for extended tarmac delays; and (3) set a time
limit of 5 hours on the maximum duration of any tarmac delay. This
policy has been widely disseminated and made available to the public on
the carrier's website. Importantly, JetBlue incorporated its bill of
rights into its contract of carriage, providing passengers a legally
binding avenue of redress if the carrier fails to follow through on its
promises.
Although extended tarmac delays are statistically rare (as I'll
discuss in a moment), airlines must have adequate plans in place to
deal with these situations as they arise. Clearly, stranding hundreds
of passengers aboard aircraft sitting on tarmacs for as many as 9 hours
is not acceptable, and incidents like these raise serious concerns
about planning for such events. Passenger carriers should do everything
possible to ensure that situations like these do not occur again.
The Department strongly prefers that the airlines address customer
service issues rather than the Federal Government, but sometimes
outside action may be necessary. That is why Secretary Peters formally
asked the Department's Inspector General (IG) to conduct an
investigation into these incidents and further requested that the IG
examine how all the major airlines are doing on the commitment they
made nearly 8 years ago to ensure that the basic needs of passengers
are met during long ground delays. After the IG's review, we will
consider what, if any, further action is appropriate. This review will
also look at whether any ``best practices'' exist that can afford an
opportunity for all carriers to learn from these experiences and ensure
they are not repeated.
It is important to keep the issue of tarmac delays in context. Our
Aviation Consumer Protection Division records complaints concerning the
number of unreasonable tarmac delays, which have ranged from 753 during
the year 2000 to just over 100 last year. Tarmac delay complaints have
not only generally decreased in absolute numbers over the years, but
importantly, the number of such complaints as a percentage of total
complaints has decreased from 3.2 percent in the year 2000 to only 1.3
percent last year.
Separately, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics collects data
regarding taxi-out times for the 20 largest airlines. With regard to
recent tarmac delays, our statistics show that in 2006, out of a total
of more than 7.14 million flights, just under 1,300 (1,295) were
delayed more than 3 hours in taking off after leaving the gate.
Excluding flights that were diverted or ultimately canceled (our
reporting requirements do not capture data on delays associated with
such flights), this means that less than two-hundredths of 1 percent
(0.018 percent) of all these flights experienced tarmac delays in
excess of 3 hours after leaving the gate. Last year, your chances of
being on the tarmac for more than 5 hours after leaving the gate were
about 1 in 200,000.
Of course, we recognize that statistics mean nothing to the
passengers who are themselves the victims of unreasonable tarmac delays
and therefore statistics cannot be the sole factor to consider in
determining what, if anything, we should do to address tarmac delays.
Indeed, the Department is of the firm belief that each carrier should,
at a minimum, make clear what passengers can expect with regard to
extended ground delays and, in particular, should have in place
comprehensive plans to ensure that efforts will be made to get
passengers off an aircraft when ground delays, involving either
departing or arriving flights, are expected to extend beyond a
reasonable period of time.
What the Secretary has asked the Inspector General to do is a
challenging task. I assure the Committee that the Department will
review the report carefully and, if necessary, take appropriate actions
to ensure that airlines are adequately protecting consumers in relation
to the possibility of extended on-ground delays.
As policymakers consider these incidents, it is important to
understand that airline networks in the 21st century are extremely
complex operations involving myriad operational, mechanical, safety,
regulatory, and other constraints. Unlike many other service industries
and despite technological advances, air transportation is still a
complicated process that requires close coordination among many
different organizations, including various divisions of an airline, an
airport, the FAA's Air Traffic Organization, and many ground service
and maintenance providers. As we have seen, when complex airline
operating systems are interrupted by weather or other irregularities, a
breakdown in the business or operational practices anywhere in the
system can have significant ripple effects from which it becomes
increasingly difficult to recover.
Given this complexity, we believe the facts must be better
understood before determining what, if any, action by the government is
warranted. We empathize with passengers delayed on airplanes for long
periods of time. We also empathize with passengers who want to get to
their destinations and--despite weather-induced delays--would like
airlines to make every effort to get them there as quickly as possible.
We first need to understand better the root causes of extended tarmac
delays and determine whether the causes are specific to an individual
airline's business and operational procedures or more systemic in
scope. That is why we asked the IG to investigate with a view toward
not only understanding the issues, but also exploring industry best
practices that may address them.
A discussion of what today's aviation passenger faces in our
current system would not be complete without a discussion of our plans
for transforming the system to the Next Generation Air Transportation
System (NextGen). I know this Committee held hearings last month on the
work of the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO), but it is
worth a brief mention here because unless we lay the foundation today
for NextGen, airline passengers will encounter untold delays and
service disruptions in the future. If an overloaded system begins to
grind to a halt, it will matter little how well airlines handle
customer service.
We already see the impact of the effects of increased demand for
service on the air transportation system. Last year stands as one of
the worst on record for delays, with about one in four flights of the
20 largest carriers arriving late. This year is looking no better. In
February, only 67.3 percent of the domestic flights by those carries
arrived on time, making it the 5th worst month for on-time performance
since 1995. Looking well down the road, we predict delays will increase
62 percent by 2014 without NextGen. There is simply no way we can
overcome congestion of this magnitude without transforming the air
traffic management system. Other issues, ranging from environmental
concerns to the complexities of homeland security, are placing
additional stress on the system. It's a sobering picture. Without
NextGen, some parts of the system will ``freeze'' first. Then other
areas will follow. The system will reach its absolute breaking point,
and our customers, especially the passengers, will be the ones who
suffer.
The people whom we serve--our customers--don't deserve to be mired
in congestion. Investing now in NextGen systems will avoid that
outcome. We must replace our outdated air traffic control architecture
with a 21st century satellite-based navigation system. Such a system
will safely handle dramatic increases in the number and type of
aircraft using our skies, without being overwhelmed by congestion. The
JPDO released the NextGen Concept of Operations for public comment on
February 28. It is now available on the JPDO website for review and
comment by aviation stakeholders. The NextGen Enterprise Architecture
and the Integrated Work Plan should be released within the next few
months. These documents provide us with that picture of where we want
to go and the plans for how to achieve it.
As you know, the Administration believes that the current funding
system is out of step with critical future needs. Without a rational
funding mechanism that is tied to costs and future infrastructure
development needs, the best laid plans for the NextGen system could be
wasted, and long delays, on the ground and in the air, will only get
worse. In other words, passenger well-being in the future depends on
what the Federal Government does now as much as what the airlines do. I
know you've had hearings on the specifics of our funding proposal, so I
won't repeat them here. I would, however, like to emphasize the urgent
need for a more equitable system of fees that more accurately reflects
the true cost of services that various types of users actually consume.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. I would be happy
to answer any questions you may have.
The Chairman. I thank you very much.
And may I now recognize Mr. Scovel?
STATEMENT OF HON. CALVIN L. SCOVEL III, INSPECTOR
GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Scovel. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, and members of
the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify this
afternoon. This hearing is both timely and important, given the
recent events this past winter involving extended ground delays
with passengers stranded onboard aircraft for extended periods,
some for 9 hours or longer.
Secretary Peters has serious concerns about this issue, and
has asked my office to review the airlines' customer service
commitments and policies for dealing with extended ground
delays and the airlines' contingency planning for such events.
As this Committee is aware, airline customer service took
center stage in January 1999, when a similar situation
occurred, with hundreds of passengers trapped onboard planes on
snowbound runways in Detroit. Following congressional hearings
at that time, member airlines of the Air Transport Association,
ATA, agreed to execute a voluntary airline customer service
commitment to demonstrate their dedication to improving air
travel.
In February 2001, we reported that the ATA member airlines
were making progress toward meeting the commitment, which has
benefited air travelers in a number of important areas.
However, the commitment did not directly address the underlying
cause of deep-seated customer dissatisfaction: flight delays,
and cancellations. And this is still the case.
The debate today is over the best way to ensure improved
airline customer service, whether it's voluntarily implemented
by airlines, legislated by Congress, further regulated by the
Department, or some combination thereof. This is clearly a
policy issue for Congress to decide.
Today, I would like to discuss three important points
regarding airline customer service, as we see them, based on
the results of our previous airline customer service reviews
and our ongoing work.
First, the airlines must refocus efforts to improve
customer service. In November 2006, we reported that ATA member
airlines' customer service plans were still in place to carry
out the provisions of their commitment, including meeting
passengers' essential needs during long onboard delays.
However, we found several areas where the airlines needed to
refocus efforts to improve customer service.
The airlines needed to resume efforts to self-audit their
customer service plans. A quality assurance and performance
measurement system, combined with self-audits, are necessary to
ensure the success of both the commitment and the customer
service plans. In our 2006 review, however, we found that just
five of the ATA airlines had quality assurance systems and
performed self-audits.
Next, the airlines must also emphasize to their customer
service employees the importance of providing timely and
accurate flight information to passengers.
Further, the airlines must disclose chronically delayed
flights to customers. We recommended, in our 2001 report, that
the airlines disclose to their passengers, at the time of
booking and without request, the on-time performance for those
flights that are consistently delayed. To date, none of the
airlines have adopted this recommendation.
Second, the Department should take a more active role in
airline customer service issues. DOT is responsible for
oversight and enforcement of air travelers consumer protection
requirements. However, when DOT discovered violations and
assessed penalties, it almost always forgave the penalty if the
airline agreed to mitigate the condition for which the penalty
was assessed. DOT's follow-up to ensure compliance was limited,
and, in some cases, there was no follow-up monitoring at all.
Also, instead of onsite compliance reviews, the Department has
primarily relied on air carriers' self-certifications.
Third, the airlines must overcome challenges in mitigating
extraordinary flight disruptions. In 2006, approximately 10
percent of all commercial flights were delayed due to poor
weather conditions. As I mentioned earlier, meeting passengers'
essential needs during long onboard delays is a serious concern
of Secretary Peters. She asked my office to examine the
airlines' customer service plans for dealing with these events,
especially the recent events at American and JetBlue, and
provide recommendations as to what can be done to prevent a
recurrence of such events.
We are in the early stages of this review, and plan to
brief the Secretary in June, and issue our report and
recommendations shortly thereafter. However our work, thus far,
has shown that there are a number of actions that airlines,
airports, the Department, and FAA can undertake immediately,
without congressional action, to improve airline customer
service.
One, airlines should implement quality assurance and
performance measurement systems, and conduct internal audits of
their compliance with the commitment provisions.
Two, the Department should revisit its current position on
chronic delays and cancellations, and take enforcement actions
against air carriers that consistently advertise flight
schedules that are unrealistic, regardless of the reason.
Three, the airlines, airports, and FAA should establish a
task force to coordinate and develop contingency plans to deal
with lengthy delays, such as working with carriers and airports
to share facilities and make gates available in an emergency.
Finally, the Department, in collaboration with FAA, the
airlines and airports, should review incidents involving long
onboard ground delays and their causes, identify trends and
patterns in such events, and implement workable solutions for
mitigating extraordinarily flight disruptions.
This concludes my statement. I'd be glad to answer any
questions you or other members of the Committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Scovel follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Calvin L. Scovel III, Inspector General,
U.S. Department of Transportation
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, and Members of the Committee:
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss airline
customer service. This hearing is both timely and important given the
recent events that occurred this past winter involving extended ground
delays. In some cases, passengers were stranded aboard aircraft at the
gate or on the airport tarmac for 9 hours or more due to severe weather
conditions.
It is also important to recognize that Secretary Peters has serious
concerns about the airlines' treatment of passengers during extended
ground delays; as such, she requested that we examine the airlines'
customer service plans, contracts of carriage,\1\ and internal policies
dealing with long, onboard delays and the specific incidents involving
American Airlines and JetBlue Airways when passengers were stranded
onboard aircraft for extended periods of time. She also requested that
we provide recommendations on what actions should be taken to prevent a
recurrence of such events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A contract of carriage is the document air carriers use to
specify legal obligations to passengers. Each air carrier must provide
a copy of its contract of carriage free of charge upon request. The
contract of carriage is also available for public inspection at
airports and ticket offices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, the debate is over the best way to ensure improved
airline customer service: either through voluntary implementation by
the airlines, legislation, additional regulations, or some combination
of these. This is clearly a policy issue for Congress to decide. Our
testimony today is based on the results of our previous airline
customer service reviews as well as our ongoing work. I would like to
discuss three key points dealing with actions that would help to
improve customer service:
The airlines must refocus their efforts to improve customer
service. In November 2006, we reported \2\ that Air Transport
Association (ATA) \3\ airlines' customer service plans were still in
place to carry out the provisions of the Airline Customer Service
Commitment that the airlines promised to execute. These provisions
include meeting passengers' essential needs during long, onboard
delays. However, we found that the airlines must refocus their efforts
on airline customer service by resuming efforts to self audit their
customer service plans, emphasizing to their customer service employees
the importance of providing timely and adequate flight information,
disclosing to customers chronically delayed flights, and focusing on
the training for personnel who assist passengers with disabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ OIG Report Number AV-2007-012, ``Follow-Up Review: Performance
of U.S. Airlines in Implementing Selected Provisions of the Airline
Customer Service Commitment,'' November 21, 2006. OIG reports and
testimonies can be found on our website: www.oig.dot.gov.
\3\ The Air Transport Association is the trade association for
America's leading air carriers. Its members transport over 90 percent
of all the passenger and cargo traffic in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department should take a more active role in airline customer
service issues. Oversight and enforcement of air traveler consumer
protection rules are the responsibility of the Department's Office of
General Counsel. These rules encompass many areas, including unfair and
deceptive practices and unfair methods of competition by air carriers
and travel agents, such as deceptive advertising. We found that while
the Office has made efforts to enforce civil rights violations, it
needs to improve its oversight of consumer protection laws, including
its efforts to monitor compliance with the terms and conditions of
enforcement actions. In recent years, the Office has not conducted
onsite compliance reviews, relying instead on self-certifications and
company-prepared reports submitted by the air carriers without
supporting documentation.
The airlines must overcome challenges in mitigating extraordinary
flight disruptions. This past winter's severe weather events
underscored the importance of improving customer service for passengers
who are stranded onboard aircraft for extended periods of time.
According to the Department's Bureau of Transportation Statistics,
approximately 722,600 flights were delayed in 2006 due to poor weather
conditions (10 percent of all commercial flights). Meeting passengers'
essential needs during long, onboard delays is a serious concern of
Secretary Peters and the Department. Therefore, she asked our office to
examine the American Airlines and JetBlue Airways events of December
29, 2006, and February 14, 2007, respectively, and provide
recommendations as to what, if anything, the airlines, airports, or the
Government--including the Department--might do to prevent a recurrence
of such events.
Before I discuss these points in detail, I would like to briefly
describe why airline customer service is a ``front-burner'' issue and
highlight a few statistics on the development of the current aviation
environment.
As this Committee is aware, airline customer service took center
stage in January 1999, when hundreds of passengers remained in planes
on snowbound Detroit runways for up to 8 and a half hours. After those
events, both the House and Senate considered whether to enact a
``passenger bill of rights.''
Following congressional hearings on these service issues, ATA
member airlines agreed to execute a voluntary Airline Customer Service
Commitment \4\ to demonstrate their dedication to improving air travel
(see figure 1), with provisions such as meeting passengers' essential
needs during long, on-board delays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ATA signed the Commitment on behalf of the then 14 ATA member
airlines (Alaska Airlines, Aloha Airlines, American Airlines, American
Trans Air, America West Airlines, Continental Airlines, Delta Air
Lines, Hawaiian Airlines, Midwest Express Airlines, Northwest Airlines,
Southwest Airlines, Trans World Airlines, United Airlines, and US
Airways).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1. Provisions of the Airline Customer Service Commitment
Offer the lowest fare available.
Notify customers of known delays, cancellations, and
diversions.
Deliver baggage on time.
Support an increase in the baggage liability limit.
Allow reservations to be held or canceled.
Provide prompt ticket refunds.
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.
Source: Airline Customer Service Commitment, June 1999.
However, aviation delays and cancellations continued to worsen,
eventually reaching their peak during the summer of 2000. In 2000, more
than 1 in 4 flights (26 percent) were delayed, with an average arrival
delay of 51 minutes.
Congress then directed our office to evaluate the effectiveness of
the Commitment and the customer service plans of individual ATA
airlines.
We issued our final report \5\ in February 2001. Overall, we found
that the ATA airlines were making progress toward meeting the
Commitment, which has benefited air travelers in a number of important
areas. We found that the airlines were making the greatest progress in
areas that are not directly related to a flight delay or cancellation,
such as offering the lowest fare available, holding reservations, and
responding in a timely manner to complaints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ OIG Report Number AV-2001-020, ``Final Report on Airline
Customer Service Commitment,'' February 12, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the ATA airlines made progress toward meeting the
Commitment, we found that the Commitment did not directly address the
underlying cause of deep-seated customer dissatisfaction--flight delays
and cancellations. This is still the case today.
Since our 2001 report, the air carrier industry has faced a series
of major challenges, including a weakened economy; the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001; the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
epidemic; the war in Iraq; and soaring fuel prices. As we reported in
November 2006, the network air carriers generated about $58 billion in
net losses from 2001 through 2005. They have also made unprecedented
changes to their operations to regain profitability. Eight commercial
air carriers have filed bankruptcy, two major air carriers have merged,
and one has ceased operations. While four of the eight air carriers
have emerged from bankruptcy, fuel prices continue to climb; this makes
cost control a key factor in not only sustained profitability but also
in overall survival of an airline.
We revisited airline customer service issues to a limited extent
following the December 2004 holiday travel period, when weather and
other factors led to severe service disruptions in some parts of the
country. While our review \6\ focused on the inconveniences experienced
by Comair and US Airways passengers, we found that nearly half of all
flights, system-wide, during the 7-day travel period were either
delayed or canceled, affecting hundreds of thousands of passengers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ OIG Report Number SC-2005-051, ``Review of December 2004
Holiday Air Travel Disruptions,'' February 28, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flight delays and cancellations continue as a major source of
customer dissatisfaction. A review of vital statistics shows the
environment that air travelers faced in 2006 compared to peak year
2000.
Traffic and Capacity
The number of scheduled flights (capacity) declined from 8.1
million in 2000 to 7.6 million in 2006, a drop of 6.4 percent.
Scheduled seats declined by 9.5 percent between 2000 and 2006,
from 921 million to 834 million.
Even as the number of flights and scheduled seats declined,
passenger enplanements were up nearly 7 percent, from 699
million passengers in 2000 to 745 million passengers in 2006.
Reduced capacity and increased demand led to fuller flights.
For 2006, load factors averaged nearly 80 percent for 10 of the
largest ATA airlines, compared to average load factors of just
over 72 percent for 2000.
Reduced capacity and higher load factors can also result in
increased passenger inconvenience and dissatisfaction with
customer service. With more seats filled, air carriers have
fewer options to accommodate passengers from canceled flights.
Flight Delays
The number of delayed flights has declined from 2.09 million
in 2000 to 2.02 million flights in 2006, a decrease of 3.5
percent.
The percentage of delayed flights also declined from
approximately 26 percent in 2000 to 25 percent in 2006.
Nevertheless, the average flight delay increased from 51
minutes in 2000 to 53 minutes in 2006.
While flight delays have declined nationwide since 2000,
some individual airports experienced significant reductions in
service and a subsequent reduction in delays. However, traffic
and delays continued to increase at other airports. For
example, between 2000 and 2006, George Bush Intercontinental/
Houston Airport experienced a 27 percent increase in scheduled
flights and a 55 percent increase in delays. This increase is
important to note because Houston added a new runway in 2003 at
a cost of $267 million that was supposed to alleviate delays.
In comparison, Newark International Airport had a 3 percent
reduction in scheduled flights but experienced a 34 percent
increase in flight delays during this same time period.
Consumer complaints are rising. While the 2006 Department of
Transportation (DOT) Air Travel Consumer Report disclosed that
complaints involving U.S. airlines for 2006 had declined by 6.6 percent
(6,900 to 6,448) compared to complaints in 2005, February 2007
complaints increased by 57 percent (423 to 666) over complaints in
February 2006, with complaints relating to delays, cancellations, and
missed connections nearly doubling (127 to 247) for the same period.
Over the last several years, DOT ranks flight problems (i.e.,
delays, cancellations, and missed connections) as the number one air
traveler complaint, with baggage complaints and customer care \7\
ranked number two and number three, respectively. As shown in figure 2,
flight problems accounted for more than one-quarter of all complaints
the Department received in 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Complaints such as poor employee attitude, refusal to provide
assistance, unsatisfactory seating, and unsatisfactory food service are
categorized as customer care complaints.
Historically, most chronically delayed and canceled flights occur
during the busy summer travel season--which will soon be upon us. The
extent to which delays and cancellations will impact passengers in 2007
depends on several key factors, including weather conditions, the
impact of the economy on air traffic demand, and how existing capacity
is managed at already congested airports.
I would now like to turn to my three points on airline customer
service.
Airlines Must Refocus Their Efforts To Improve Customer Service. In
June 2005, the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Aviation requested
that we follow up on the performance of U.S. air carriers in
implementing provisions of the Commitment since the issuance of our
2001 report.
Unlike our prior work, which reviewed each provision, this review
focused on selected Commitment provisions.\8\ We reviewed
implementation of the selected Commitment provisions by the 13 current
ATA member airlines; this included JetBlue Airways, which became an ATA
member in 2001. JetBlue has not adopted the June 1999 Commitment and
does not consider itself bound by its provisions. We also reviewed
implementation of the selected provisions by two non-ATA airlines that
are not signatories to the Commitment--AirTran Airways and Frontier
Airlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Our 2006 review focused on notifying passengers of delays and
cancellations, accommodating passengers with disabilities and special
needs, improving frequent flyer program issues, and overbooking and
denied boardings. We did not include the Commitment provision regarding
on-time checked baggage delivery, which was subject to a hearing before
the House Subcommittee on Aviation in May 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2006, we reported that the ATA airlines' customer
service plans were still in place to carry out the provisions of the
Commitment and that the Commitment provisions were still incorporated
in their contracts of carriage, as we recommended in our 2001 review.
This is important because unlike DOT regulations, which are enforced by
the Department and may result in administrative or civil penalties
against an air carrier, contracts of carriage are binding contracts
enforceable by the customer against the air carrier.
However, we found that the airlines must refocus their efforts on
airline customer service by taking the following actions.
Resuming Efforts To Self Audit Their Customer Service Plans: In our
2001 report, we recommended, and the ATA airlines agreed, that the
airlines establish quality assurance and performance measurement
systems and conduct internal audits to measure compliance with the
Commitment provisions and customer service plans.
In June 2001 (about 5 months later), we confirmed that 12 of the 14
ATA airlines that were signatories to the Commitment had established
and implemented their quality assurance and performance measurement
systems. In our 2006 review, however, we found that the quality
assurance and performance measurement systems were being implemented at
just five of the ATA airlines.\9\ The other ATA airlines had either
discontinued their systems after September 11, 2001, or combined them
with operations or financial performance reviews where the Commitment
provisions were overshadowed by operational or financial issues. We
also found that the two non-ATA airlines we reviewed did not have
comprehensive quality assurance and performance measurement systems or
conduct internal audits to measure compliance with their customer
service plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ At the time of our 2006 review, quality assurance and
performance measurement systems were being implemented at Alaska
Airlines, Continental Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Northwest Airlines,
and United Airlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A quality assurance and performance measurement system is necessary
to ensure the success of the Commitment and customer service plans.
Therefore, the success of the customer service plans depends upon each
airline having a tracking system for compliance with each provision
along with an implementation plan for the Commitment. These systems and
audit procedures will also help DOT to more efficiently review the
airlines' compliance with the Commitment.
Emphasizing to Their Customer Service Employees the Importance of
Providing Timely and Adequate Flight Information: The ATA airlines
committed to notify customers who are either at the airport or onboard
an affected aircraft of the best available information regarding
delays, cancellations, and diversions in a timely manner.
All of the airlines included in our 2006 review made up-to-date
information available about their flights' status via their Internet
sites or toll-free telephone reservation systems. However, we still
found that the information provided in boarding areas about delays and
cancellations was not timely or adequate during our tests. In 42
percent of our observations, airline gate agents did not make timely
announcements (defined as approximately every 20 minutes) about the
status of delays, and the information they provided was not adequate
about 45 percent of the time.
This is one area where the airlines' self-audits would be effective
in monitoring compliance with the Commitment provision and their own
internal policies.
Disclosing Chronically Delayed Flights to Customers: On-time flight
performance data should also be made readily available to passengers at
the time of booking. We recommended in our 2001 report that the
airlines disclose to passengers at the time of booking--without being
asked--the prior month's on-time performance for those flights that
have been consistently delayed (i.e., 30 minutes or greater) or
canceled 40 percent or more of the time. We have recommended this
several times, but none of the airlines to date have chosen to adopt
it.
Currently, the airlines are required to disclose on-time
performance only upon request from customers. However, the information
that the agents provide about on-time performance through the airlines'
telephone reservation systems is not always accurate or adequate. In 41
percent of our 160 calls to the airlines' telephone reservation
systems, we were told that the information was not available or the
agents either guessed what they thought the on-time performance was or
gave the data for only the previous day.
The on-time performance for consistently delayed or canceled
flights is readily available to the airlines. Continuing to operate
chronically delayed flights could potentially constitute a deceptive
business practice. Not disclosing such chronic delays on a flight could
be viewed as contributing to such a deceptive practice. Therefore, we
continue to believe--as we recommended in 2001--that on-time
performance should be disclosed at the time of booking for those
flights that have been consistently delayed and should not require a
customer request.
Focusing on the Training for Personnel Who Assist Passengers With
Disabilities. The needs and perspectives of passengers with
disabilities are of paramount importance in providing satisfactory
service. This is especially true during extended flight delays whether
the passengers are onboard aircraft or in the airlines' gate area.
The ATA airlines committed to disclose their policies and
procedures for assisting special needs passengers, such as
unaccompanied minors, and for accommodating passengers with
disabilities in an appropriate manner.
In our 2001 review, the airlines performed well with respect to
this provision. However, in our 2006 review, we found that the majority
of airlines (11 of 15) and their contractor personnel who interact with
passengers with disabilities were not complying with the Federal
training requirements or with their own policies. In over 15 percent of
the 1,073 employee training records we reviewed, airline employees were
either not trained, not promptly trained, did not have records to
support completion of training, or were not current with annual
refresher training.
The airlines need to refocus their attention in this area and
ensure that employees who assist passengers with disabilities are
properly trained.
The Department Should Take a More Active Role in Airline Customer
Service Issues. Oversight and enforcement of air traveler consumer
protection rules are the responsibility of the Department's Office of
General Counsel. These rules encompass many areas, including unfair and
deceptive practices and unfair methods of competition by air carriers
and travel agents, such as deceptive advertising.
In our 2001 customer service report, we recommended that the
Department be given additional resources to investigate and enforce
cases under its statutory authority, and Congress did so. As part of
our 2006 review, we examined how the Department has used the additional
resources Congress appropriated to oversee and enforce air travel
consumer protection requirements.
We found that DOT was using its additional resources to oversee and
enforce air travel consumer protection requirements with a focus on
investigations and enforcement of civil rights issues, including
complaints from passengers with disabilities. But, when DOT discovered
violations and assessed penalties, it almost always forgave the penalty
if the air carrier agreed to mitigate the conditions for which the
penalty was assessed. DOT's follow-up monitoring of compliance with
these conditions was limited, and in some cases there was no follow-up
monitoring at all. In recent years, DOT has not conducted onsite
compliance reviews, relying instead on air carriers' self-
certifications and company-prepared reports submitted without
supporting documentation.
We also found that DOT's increased responsibilities--especially as
they relate to civil rights issues--had diverted resources away from
its other consumer protection activities, such as regular on-site
consumer protection and related compliance and enforcement visits to
airlines.
Given the results of our 2006 review and the extended ground delays
that stranded passengers onboard aircraft this past winter, DOT should
take a more active role in overseeing airline customer service.
The Airlines Must Overcome Challenges in Mitigating Extraordinary
Flight Disruptions. The airlines continue to face challenges in
mitigating extraordinary flight disruptions, including long, on-board
delays during extreme weather. According to DOT's Bureau of
Transportation Statistics, approximately 722,600 flights were delayed
in 2006 due to poor weather conditions (10 percent of all commercial
flights). For that same year, over 73,000 flights experienced taxi-out
and taxi-in times of 1 hour or more. The airlines, the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), and the Department cannot prevent significant
weather events. What they can do, however, is work together to plan for
such events and minimize the impact on passengers.
This past winter's severe weather events underscored the importance
of improving customer service for passengers who are stranded onboard
aircraft for extended periods of time.
On December 20, 2006, severe blizzards closed Denver's
airport, causing several airplanes to divert to other airports.
United Airlines diverted two flights to Cheyenne, Wyoming. The
following morning, United's flight crew and attendants boarded
the aircraft and departed, leaving all 110 passengers behind to
fend for themselves.
On December 29, 2006, the Dallas-Fort Worth area experienced
unseasonably severe weather that generated massive thunder,
lightning storms, and a tornado warning; this caused the
airport to shut down operations several times over the course
of an 8 hour period. American Airlines diverted over 100
flights and many passengers were stranded onboard aircraft on
the airport tarmac for 6 hours or more.
On February 14, 2007, snow and ice blanketed the
northeastern United States. JetBlue Airways stranded scores of
passengers aboard its aircraft on the tarmac at John F. Kennedy
International Airport (JFK). At 1 point during that day,
JetBlue had 52 aircraft on the ground with only 21 available
gates. JetBlue has publicly admitted shortcomings in its
systems that were in place at the time for handling such
situations.
On March 16, 2007, an ice storm hit the Northeast, causing
numerous delays and cancellations and forcing passengers to
endure long, on-board flight delays. In fact, several Office of
Inspector General staff were flying that day and experienced a
9 hour, on-board delay.
Meeting Passengers' Essential Needs During Long, Onboard Delays Is
a Serious Concern of Secretary Peters and the Department. As a result
of the December 29, 2006, and February 14, 2007, incidents; Secretary
Peters expressed serious concerns about the airlines' contingency
planning for such situations. On February 26, 2007, she asked our
office to do the following:
Examine the airlines' customer service commitments,
contracts of carriage, and policies dealing with extended
ground delays aboard aircraft.
Look into the specific incidents involving American and
JetBlue, in light of whatever commitment these carriers made
concerning policies and practices for meeting customers'
essential needs during long, on-board delays.
Provide recommendations as to what, if anything, the
airlines, airports, or the Government--including the
Department--might do to prevent a recurrence of such events and
highlight any industry best practices that could help in
dealing with such situations.
Our work in this area began March 12, 2007, with site visits to
JetBlue Airways in New York (including JFK) and American Airlines in
Texas--specifically, Dallas-Fort Worth International and Austin-
Bergstrom Airports. During the past 30 days, we have done the
following:
Collected voluminous amounts of information and data from
American and JetBlue regarding the events of December 29, 2006,
and February 14, 2007. We are in the process of analyzing this
information. While we are in the early stages of our review, we
can report that American and JetBlue have revised their
operating practices for mitigating long, on-board delays. For
example, American instituted a new policy designed to prevent
on-board delays from exceeding 4 hours. JetBlue also set a time
limit of 5 hours maximum duration for any long, on-board delay
away from a gate.
Received information from other carriers providing service
from Dallas-Fort Worth, Austin, and New York airports and met
with officials from FAA air traffic control and those three
airports. We are in the process of receiving contingency plans
from the ATA airlines (system-wide plans) and the major
airports they serve (each airport operator's plan).
We expect to brief the Secretary by the end of June and issue a
report shortly thereafter.
Airlines Must Implement More Effective Contingency Plans. One
observation we can share today regarding our current review is that
contingency planning for extreme weather is not a new concern for
airlines, as evidenced by the June 1999 Commitment provision, which
states that:
The airlines will make every reasonable effort to provide
food, water, restroom facilities, and access to medical
treatment for passengers aboard an aircraft that is on the
ground for an extended period of time without access to the
terminal, as consistent with passenger and employee safety and
security concerns.
Each carrier will prepare contingency plans to address such
circumstances and will work with carriers and the airport to
share facilities and make gates available in an emergency.
However, as we noted in our 2001 report, the airlines had not
clearly and consistently defined terms in the Commitment provision such
as ``an extended period of time.'' We also noted only a few airlines'
contingency plans specify in any detail the efforts that will be made
to get passengers off the aircraft when delayed for extended periods,
either before departure or after arrival. Our opinion was then, as it
is now, that this should be a top-priority area for the airlines when
implementing their contingency plans, especially with long, on-board
delays on the rise from 2005 to 2006--particularly those exceeding 4
hours.
In response to our 2001 report recommendations, the airlines agreed
to do the following:
Clarify the terminology used in their customer service plans
for extended delays.
Establish a task force to coordinate and develop contingency
plans with local airports and FAA to deal with lengthy delays.
While a task force was formed, the effort never materialized as
priorities shifted after September 11, 2001. We are examining airline
and airport contingency planning as part of our ongoing review.
JetBlue and ATA Announced Initiatives To Address Long, Onboard
Delays but More Needs To Be Done. These two initiatives address the
recent events. First, on February 20, 2007, JetBlue published its own
customer bill of rights. JetBlue plans to offer compensation in the
form of vouchers for flight disruptions, such as cancellations. While
this is a step in the right direction, this bill of rights is limited;
JetBlue needs to clarify some of the terms. The JetBlue bill of rights
only addresses 3 of the 12 Commitment provisions: flight delays and
cancellations, onboard delays, and overbookings. Also, JetBlue needs to
clearly define all terms in its bill of rights, such as ``Controllable
Irregularity,'' so that passengers will know under what specific
circumstances they are entitled to compensation.
While JetBlue believes that its bill of rights goes beyond the
Commitment provisions in some areas, re-accommodating passengers for
flight cancellations is already required under its contract of
carriage. Additionally, while JetBlue will compensate its customers for
being bumped from their flights, compensation is already required under
an existing Federal regulation but not to the extent of JetBlue's
compensation of $1,000.
Second, on February 22, 2007, ATA announced the following course of
action:
Each airline will continue to review and update its policies
to ensure the safety, security, and comfort of customers.
Each airline will work with FAA to allow long-delayed
flights to return to terminals in order to offload passengers
who choose to disembark without losing that flight's position
in the departure sequence.
ATA will ask the Department to review airline and airport
emergency contingency plans to ensure that the plans
effectively address weather emergencies in a coordinated manner
and provide passengers with essential needs (food, water,
lavatory facilities, and medical services).
ATA will ask the Department to promptly convene a meeting of
air carrier, airport, and FAA representatives to discuss
procedures to better respond to weather emergencies that result
in lengthy flight delays.
While we understand the pressures that ATA and its member airlines
face in maintaining profitability in today's environment, we are
concerned that the actions proposed merely shift responsibility from
ATA to the Department. We agree that the Department must be an active
partner, but ATA's proposed course of action is not significantly
different than what the airlines agreed to do in response to our 2001
recommendations, such as ``to establish a task force to coordinate and
develop contingency plans with local airports and FAA to deal with
lengthy delays.''
As mentioned earlier, how to ensure airline customer service is
clearly a policy issue for Congress to decide. Given the problems that
customers continue to face with airline customer service, Congress may
want to consider making the Airline Customer Service Commitment
mandatory for all airlines.
However, there are actions that the airlines, airports, the
Department, and FAA can undertake immediately without being prompted by
Congress to do so. For example:
Those airlines that have not already done so should
implement quality assurance and performance measurement systems
and conduct internal audits of their compliance with the
Commitment provisions. The Department should use these systems
to more efficiently review the airlines' compliance with those
Commitment provisions governed by Federal regulation.
The Department should revisit its current position on
chronic delays and cancellations and take enforcement actions
against air carriers that consistently advertise flight
schedules that are unrealistic, regardless of the reason.
The airlines, airports, and FAA should establish a task
force to coordinate and develop contingency plans to deal with
lengthy delays, such as working with carriers and the airport
to share facilities and make gates available in an emergency.
The Department's Office of General Counsel; in collaboration
with FAA, airlines, and airports; should review incidents
involving long, on-board ground delays and their causes;
identify trends and patterns of such events; and implement
workable solutions for mitigating extraordinary flight
disruptions.
That concludes my statement. I would be glad to answer any
questions you or other Members of the Committee might have.
The Chairman. I thank you very much, sir.
And, Senator Stevens?
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I would very much like to hear the second panel, so I'm not
going to submit any questions at this time.
The Chairman. Senator Lautenberg?
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
One thing I noticed in the testimony or Mr. Scovel----
The Chairman. You got your mic on?
Senator Lautenberg.--opened with a comment that says that
oversight and enforcement of air traveler consumer protection
rules are the responsibility of the Department, Office of
General Counsel. Now, is that in the present format of the
structure of the Transportation Department, the aviation
division itself? Does the Counsel have an opportunity, or an
obligation, to intervene in these things, or is this done at
the Secretary's level? And should that be the policy,
generally, as opposed to saying that a more active role should
be taken by the General Counsel?
Mr. Scovel. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg.
As you pointed out, responsibility for pursuing and
enforcing consumer protection requirements resides at the
Department level, not with the FAA, which is sometimes a
misconception on the part of many observers. The FAA plays an
important role regarding flight rules; for instance, flight pay
for flight time for pilots, duty time, departure sequence
rules, and so forth; but, when it comes to consumer protection
requirements, that's the responsibility of the Office of
Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings within the Office of
General Counsel at the Department. Their responsibility
specifically is to enforce regulations that the Department has
issued regarding customer service-related items, such as
nondiscrimination on the basis of disability, fare changes,
overbooking, baggage liability and responsibility, check-in
requirements, and refund conditions and limits.
The Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings does
have responsibility to investigate when complaints are
presented to it. One of the findings of my staff in its 2006
audit review was that the Office of Aviation Enforcement and
Proceedings has sometimes been lax in pursuing those
investigations. For instance, in 2006 we discovered at least
one case, dating back to 2004, that, in fact, my staff had
referred to OAEP, involving customer service provisions that
had not yet been investigated by that office. I related, as
well, in my opening statement, and my testimony for the record
lays this out further, that sometimes the Office of Aviation
Enforcement and Proceedings does not execute onsite compliance
reviews, and, in our view, does not pursue sufficient
compliance monitoring when a settlement agreement is reached
with an airline as a result of a customer's complaint.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Scovel, does the DOT Airline
Enforcement Office have sufficient staff working on general
consumer complaints?
Mr. Scovel. To be entirely fair to the Department, it is my
understanding that their resources have been limited in recent
years. I give credit to the Congress. A number of years ago,
perhaps 5 or 6 years ago, they received a special appropriation
with the idea of increasing the resources for this office so
that they could pursue customer service-related inquiries. The
Department has focused those inquiries largely on the civil
rights side, and deservedly so; however, that has operated
somewhat to the disadvantage on the consumer protection side,
and, in recent years, their budget, especially their travel
budget, for instance, to perform compliance reviews at the site
of airline or airport complaint sites, has been limited.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Scovel, just because your review
seemed so thorough as I listened to your statement, is there
any question raised about the fatigue factor within the crew of
an airplane by extending their hours of service far beyond what
it should normally be?
Mr. Scovel. I know that's--that is a concern for both
pilots, for airlines, certainly for passengers, and for the
FAA. It's--I--I'm hesitant, at this time, to express any
opinion on that, since it has not been a part of our ongoing
study, specifically, crew fatigue. We haven't pursued that as a
part of our ongoing study for the Secretary.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks.
Mr. Chairman, I have one more question, for Mr. Reynolds.
We know that rail service can free up precious airport
slots for more profitable long-distance flights. What is the
administration doing to help develop efficient passenger rail
service?
Mr. Reynolds. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg.
My office deals mostly with the aviation and international
affairs aspects of the Department, so I am not as intimately
familiar with the--all the details, but I do know that the
Department feels that, you know, intercity passenger rail plays
a role, and I think that a lot of that has been laid out in the
President's budget proposal.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Boxer?
Senator Boxer. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the panel.
Mr. Reynolds, your basic point to us, in your opening
statement, was, ``We would prefer it if the airlines did fix
the problem, and not the Federal Government.'' I think that's
right, we all would rather we weren't here today having to have
people come before us and tell us of the horrors of what
happened. But I will tell you this, that our constituents--in
my opinion--don't really care who fixes it, they just want it
fixed. They can't be treated like they're not human beings, and
that's what has happened. So, whether the airlines fix it or we
fix it, it needs to be fixed.
Now, Senator Snowe and I, after long and careful
consideration, have put together a pretty modest bill that I
think treats customers as human beings. And I think that's
something that Congress needs to pass, because the airlines are
not willing to pay attention to their own--their own document,
their own pledge.
Now, I really appreciate the work of the Inspector General
here. And, Mr. Reynolds, I want to ask you to respond to two of
his recommendations. He's very clear here. He says, ``Without
Congress having to pass one thing, you, sir, are in a position
to make things better.'' And he suggested three ideas. I'm
going to focus in on two.
He points out that, when the airlines don't disclose
chronic delays, that could be viewed as a deceptive practice--
not telling people that you have these chronic delays. And he
suggests that the Department should revisit its current
position on chronic delays, and take enforcement actions
against air carriers that consistently advertise flight
schedules that are unrealistic, regardless of the reason.
That's the first one. I want you to tell me if you agree with
that.
And, second, he says that the FAA, airports, and airlines
should establish a task force to coordinate and develop
contingency plans to deal with lengthy delays--such as working
with carriers and the airports to share facilities and make
gates available in an emergency. Now, this seems like a
brilliant common sense idea to me, because you sit out there,
and the pilot gets on there, and he says, ``Folks, I'm really
sorry. I know you've been sitting here for 2 hours, but, guess
what? Somebody's at the gate, they won't back up, we can't
figure it out, no one's helping us, we have no option but to
sit here.'' So, to have a task force that's ready to move in
and solve the problem, seems to me to make sense.
So, those are two things. Are you willing to take these two
ideas and implement them without Congress having to push you to
do that?
Mr. Reynolds. Senator Boxer, the Department is, of course,
very aware of the Inspector General's recommendations. They
were part of his report in November. And the Office of Aviation
Enforcement and the Department has taken them very seriously,
and we are looking at them. We've responded to a variety of
the--a variety of these recommendations, and, in fact, we are
trying to--right now, we are looking at ways to better examine
chronically delayed flights in terms of unrealistic scheduling
to see if there's anything there. It is----
Senator Boxer. Well, sir, if I might----
Mr. Reynolds. Yes.
Senator Boxer. I'm sorry. And I do respect your view on the
point, but I want to just get at it a little bit more--because
I'm finished after this question.
You have an Inspector General. He's come in, and he's said,
``You don't have to wait around for anything. You can do three
things.'' I've asked you about two. One of them is pretty easy:
start taking enforcement actions. And what you're saying is,
``Gee, we've seen a lot of these things.'' I'm asking you about
these two. Can you answer me? Are you open to taking
enforcement actions against air carriers that continually
advertise flight schedules that are unrealistic? And are you
ready to develop contingency plans to deal with these lengthy
delays?
Mr. Reynolds. Yes, we're absolutely open to taking----
Senator Boxer. Good.
Mr. Reynolds.--enforcement actions. And the Department has
done that in the past. In the last 1980s----
Senator Boxer. I know, but I'm asking you about now.
Mr. Reynolds.--we had----
Senator Boxer. So----
Mr. Reynolds. Yes. I mean, and we always remain----
Senator Boxer.--I'm glad you said that. And could you
follow this up in writing, in the next week, to tell me what
you decided to do, and when?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Reynolds. Absolutely.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Snowe?
STATEMENT OF HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I first want to say that I'm very pleased to join
Senator Boxer in introducing this legislation concerning a
Passenger Bill of Rights. Frankly, the airlines have no
accountability, and it's obvious that the--that your Department
is not demanding accountability on the part of the airlines. I
mean, these are instances--when you're having these prolonged
delays on the tarmac--that can be potentially life-threatening
situations. You know, when you look at the American Airlines, 9
and 10 hours sitting on the tarmac. It was a diabetic
individual that was in serious danger, that they finally
returned to the gate. It doesn't matter what the statistics
say, although I think the statistics are rather alarming. I
mean, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics indicated that
the high--that delays in February are the second highest rate
ever. And then, when you combine that with the number of
baggage lost, for example, when you think about one-quarter of
all flights arrive late, more passengers got bumped in 2006
than in the previous year that this was reported in one of the
press accounts, in all combinations, doesn't describe a very
positive picture.
And I think the time has come to at least demand a
reasonably based position, and that's why we're here today. And
I think the legislation that Senator Boxer and I have
introduced--for example, 3--basically 3 and a half hours
sitting on the tarmac--3 hours, and it gives--if the pilot
knows that the plane will be departing within a half hour, it
would be 3 and a half hours, total.
And then it's left to the pilot's discretion in case it,
you know, endangers passenger safety to leave the plane, for
example. So, then it's up to the discretion of the pilot. I
think that's a very modest approach.
These situations should not occur. That is the bottom line
here. And so, Mr. Reynolds, why is that so difficult? I mean,
why would you, you know, be opposed to that kind of
requirement? Because your Department is not enforcing that
standard, you're not enforcing accountability. This should not
be happening.
And then, when you look at the record of the airlines with
respect to their own policy at self-regulation--we had hearings
here in 1999, because we had a series of incidents with another
airline, as you'll recall, and I think it was in the Detroit-
Fort Wayne Airport. And so, at that point, the airline industry
said, ``Yes, we will implement the Airline Customer Service
Commitment.'' You listened to Mr. Scovel and his report. Pretty
abysmal, when you think that during their review, they
discovered that quality assurance and performance measurement
systems are being implemented at just five of the ATA airlines
out of 13 members. Only five.
And then, if you go and look at the report, again, with
respect to notification of delays to customers, you know, in--
at the gates at the airports, said, ``Based on our
observations, 13 of 15 airlines at 17 airports nationwide,
airline gate agents did not make timely announcements during 42
percent of the observations.'' And it goes on and on.
So, we have a problem here. People make significant
investments, you know, in buying--in purchasing a ticket, not
to mention the cascade effect that it has, whether it's their
vacation plans, or it could be a family emergency, whatever the
case may be. And I see that there's no accountability. I mean,
we're at the airports every week. You know, we have a chance to
observe. That's the problem here. But it goes beyond the
imagination to require anybody to sit on a plane for 9, 10, or
11 hours. And that should not happen. It shouldn't happen once.
And that's what this is all about here today.
And so, our legislation is a very modest approach to what
could be a very serious situation where people have no choice,
because, you know, they've been perpetrated with this abuse of
sitting on the plane for that long, and have no choice, no
functioning restrooms, no basic necessities, let alone of
whether or not they have access to their medications. They
might have been checked.
So, that's what the situation is here at hand, and I don't
hear anything to suggest that--how this is going to be altered,
because they've already abandoned, to an extent, this airline
customer service commitment.
So, do you have any response to that? And how do you think
that they're going to correct it, to have the self-correcting,
self-regulating policy that they've already distanced
themselves from, they've retreated from, in many instances
already, based on the Inspector General's report?
Mr. Reynolds. Well, we certainly understand and appreciate
all the efforts that people are undertaking to address tarmac
delay issues, and we're studying the proposals that are out
there. Obviously, we've asked the Inspector General to look
further into the specific incidents and offer recommendations.
Secretary Peters and the Department were very troubled by these
incidents, as well, and the fact that people were out there for
extended periods of time. Of course, again, as a general
matter, we'd like to see the marketplace discipline them. And
we've already seen a little bit of that at work with American
Airlines and JetBlue taking some steps in the wake of the
incidents that they experienced. Nevertheless, we are awaiting
the outcome of the Inspector General's report, in light of,
also, his earlier report, in November, to see what might be the
further appropriate action for us to take.
Senator Snowe. Do you think 3 hours is long enough?
Mr. Reynolds. That's a very difficult question.
Again, I don't know that we want to, you know--a specific
remedy, at this point, it's difficult to say. One-size-fits-all
solution has--can have many downsides. Some passengers may want
to wait an extra hour if it means getting to their destination;
if they have to get off the aircraft, or the aircraft has to be
diverted to a gate, it may mean that the plane never makes its
destination at all that day. And some people may need to--want
to continue their flights. So, there are a lot of factors.
Some--for some, it may be 4 hours, it may be more. Certainly,
it's an issue when passengers are on a plane for an extended
period of time, that some of their basic needs to--are being
met. And that's one of the things specifically that we asked
the Inspector General to look into.
Senator Snowe. Well, I, frankly, think that if all airlines
had to abide by the same standard, that the system would work.
And there is a point in drawing that line. The question is, you
never know. One hour becomes another hour, so you've got 3
hours, 4 hours, 5 hours, and 6 hours, and, obviously, on and on
it goes, because they never know. And I think that's the
problem, that ultimately, as we saw, you know, in these two
instances, where good judgment was not exercised, and the
passengers have no control over that circumstance of that
situation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Rockefeller?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Rockefeller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Reynolds, I think, in some ways, actually, this sort of
helps you, but it may embarrass you. The--I was not here,
because we had an extraordinarily long caucus, which caused
Frank, and then Barbara and myself, to be very late, for which
we apologize. But the testimony that you gave, you didn't sit
down last week or last night and write that, did you? That
testimony, in fact, had to be vetted by the Office of
Management and Budget before it could be presented to us. Is
that correct?
Mr. Reynolds. That's true.
Senator Rockefeller. And I want the audience to understand
the meaning of that. This is true with every single Agency--and
it's true in the intelligence community--committees--every
single relatively high representative of any of our Cabinet
agencies, they are not free to say what they feel. Now, there
may be a convergence from time to time about what they are
allowed to say by the Office of Management and Budget, which,
as far as I know, doesn't have a whole slew of people out at
any airports, but it needs to be understood that, in a sense,
it doesn't demean this hearing, but it downgrades it from your
point of view and from mine. I'm not going to ask the IG,
because I assume that the IG does his own.
Mr. Scovel. That is correct, sir. We are subject to
screening by no one.
Senator Rockefeller. That's correct. And that's good. So,
you are answering questions, which you might answer in a very
different fashion if you were a free person, even though you're
a very high official.
[Laughter.]
Senator Rockefeller. And I want people to understand that,
because it's true in every committee--in Armed Services, in
Commerce, and anywhere else, it's always true, the Office of
Management and Budget--the budget being the amount of dollars
that you have; management being what kind of policy you will
have--is determined by them, and you have to follow.
Now, having said that, I am particularly offended by what I
thought we'd discussed here quite a long time ago and Senator
Boxer brought up, and that's the question of delay and
cancellation notices. There has been some modicum of
improvement--and I'm traveling a lot, but it still is way off
the mark. And it causes people to miss flights which they might
otherwise make, knowing that they were not going to make that
flight. Happened to me the other day in Tennessee, where there
was a flight that was canceled, and I said, ``Good, well, we
can make this next one coming up.'' And then, it turned out
that the flight which was canceled actually wasn't, and it was
actually about to land at the airport. And so, it was a--it was
a happy ending. But there can be no excuse for that.
Now, that's my first point. And I'm not asking you to
respond to it.
The second is, I think that this panel, which Trent Lott
and I co-chair under the direction of Senator Inouye and
Senator Stevens--and I agree on virtually all matters--that you
don't have money. I mean, it's like this question of Veteran's
hospital, building number 18. What are the Veterans doing about
it--what are the Veterans hospitals doing about it? They're
under a budget. The war is not in the budget. That's borrowed
money from China, Japan, South Korea, et cetera. So, it's not
in the budget. But the Veterans Administration is in the
budget, and it has to live within that budget. That budget has
always been short, under both Democrats and Republicans. It has
always been short. And now we have people coming back with
wounds that they never even conceived were possible, and we
don't have the finances to be able to help them. Well, we're
going to change that this year. We're going to change that this
year. I simply share the frustration of customer service.
Now, I'll say one thing, which may depart a little bit from
what others have said. I think the airline business is the most
complicated business in the world. You're basically having to
operate off an analog air traffic control system. We do not
have the money, at this point, to come up with a digitalized
air traffic control system. When we do, we're going to have to
build one, while still operating the other; therefore, paying
for two--so that the measurement between how close planes are
to each other, how quickly they could land, what the difference
in altitude and all of that is, will--is just one of the
complications that we face.
I don't think that you can cure all customer problems. We
had an example here a number of years ago where somebody wanted
to actually lay out the number of inches which could apply
between seats in economy class. A Member of Congress saying
there can be this many inches, and there has to be, on every
single plane. And, frankly, on that, I don't think Congress has
any business doing that, simply because we don't know, and we
can't. But I think the performance--I think you're trying, but
you don't have any money, so you don't have any people. And I
wish you could just say that. I'd almost like to ask you to,
but I don't want you to, because it would be--I don't know what
it would do to you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Rockefeller. But you don't have the people to go
out and investigate all of these different problems. The
customer service plans that were agreed to, you know, you don't
have the people to go out and look at all that. And so long as
that's true, problems are going to continue.
So, Mr. Chairman, I just apologize for taking more time
than I should, but it's a great frustration to me, because
Americans now do travel. I can remember--West Virginia is not--
it's not San Francisco, let me put it that way. All right? And
it used to be that a lot of our people didn't fly. Now a lot of
our people do fly. So, this becomes more and more important--
hold-ups, cancellations; in bigger airports, huge crowds. Is it
your fault that we haven't reconfigured O'Hare Airport? If we
spent $12 billion, reconfigure those eight landing runways, we
could change the entire American aviation system, make it 30
percent more efficient. We don't have that money. You haven't
pushed for that money. My guess is, you want that money.
I went out to Chicago for a hearing on that. Everybody in
the world agrees with it. But the Department of Transportation
doesn't, and that's for a budget reason, because money is being
spent for different ventures overseas or tax cuts or for other
things that are felt to be more important.
So, my, sort of, sense of this is that it's very sad--a
very sad situation, because, number one, if you had the people,
you could do a lot better. Second, if you had the people who
had the--and they had the authority, they could go in, and they
could take some situations and really scare some airlines, and
make enormous improvements, as you indicated JetBlue and
American have made some improvements. And I'm not here to judge
that. I'm simply here to say that the system of where the
executive branch of Government cannot come clean to the
legislative branch of Government in a formal hearing is, I
think, a great sadness. And I wish that system would end and
you could talk exactly how you feel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Lott?
STATEMENT OF HON. TRENT LOTT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI
Senator Lott. Mr. Chairman, I'll pass for now. I'd like to
hear the next panel. Thank you very much for having the
hearing.
[The prepared statement of Senator Lott follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Trent Lott, U.S. Senator from Mississippi
I am pleased that Senator Inouye has called this afternoon's
hearing on airline service improvements.
Recent forecasts show that we need to modernize our air traffic
control system by 2015 or face severe gridlock in our skies. With such
a large amount of people who depend on air travel in the U.S., it is
vital that we address these issues sooner, rather than later.
The recent incidents in which airline passengers were delayed for
several hours have given us a taste of what the aviation industry could
be like if we don't move out aggressively on modernizing our air
traffic control system.
Now, I think I can safely say that just about everybody in this
room has experienced some sort of delay or inconvenience while
traveling on an airline--I know I most certainly have. Some experiences
are worse than others, which is understandable, but that's just the
nature of the beast.
I think the real solution to this problem will come from
modernizing the air traffic control system to reduce delays and not
having the Federal Government dictate how long you have to sit on the
tarmac before you get a glass of water. We need an air traffic control
system that reduces congestion and that does a better job of dealing
with bad weather.
But, this shouldn't let the airlines off the hook. With traffic
back to pre-9/11 levels and still on the rise, airlines need to come up
with their own plans for properly managing severe delays that best fit
their structure and allow them to provide safe and comfortable flights.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses.
The Chairman. I have just one question.
Much has been said about delays and cancellations, et
cetera. Do you believe that legislation is necessary?
Mr. Reynolds. Again, Senator, I think we'd like to think a
little bit more on the problem, have the benefit of the
Inspector General's report on these particular incidents, and
see what further recommendations his office may provide to us.
Of course, we're always willing to work with this Committee
on anything that it may be moving forward.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Mr.
Reynolds and Mr. Inspector General.
Our next panel is the Consumer Program Director of the U.S.
Public Interest Research Group, Mr. Ed Mierzwinski; Executive
Director of the Aviation Consumer Action Project, Mr. Paul
Hudson; Chairman of the Business Travel Coalition, Mr. Kevin
Mitchell; Spokesperson and Founder, Coalition for Airline
Passengers' Bill of Rights, Ms. Kate Hanni; Program
Coordinator, Center on International Cooperation, Mr. Rahul
Chandran; and President and CEO, Air Transport Association of
America, Mr. James C. May.
On behalf of the Committee, welcome to the hearing, and
thank you all for your testimony.
May I call upon Mr. Mierzwinski? I know I've mispronounced
it, but--how do you pronounce that name, sir?
Mr. Mierzwinski. Mierzwinski, sir. And I hope I pronounce
Inouye right.
The Chairman. That's pretty close.
Mr. Mierzwinski. That's pretty close?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Mierzwinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OF EDMUND MIERZWINSKI, CONSUMER
PROGRAM DIRECTOR, U.S. PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP
Mr. Mierzwinski. I'm Ed Mierzwinski, and I am the Consumer
Program Director for the Public Interest Research Groups. And,
Chairman Inouye, Senator Stevens, and members of the Committee,
it's a privilege to represent the nonpartisan, nonprofit PIRGs
here at this hearing today.
We are here today to support, on behalf of our one million
members and air travelers in general, S. 678, the bipartisan
Airline Passengers' Bill of Rights Act of 2007 offered by
Senators Boxer and Snowe.
We believe that consumers have often complained about a
number of problems on airplanes. They've complained about being
late, they've complained about chronically being late, they've
complained about the seat sizes on some airlines, they've
complained about the new fees, but things have gotten to a new
level with the recent problems that customers have faced when
they have been stranded on the tarmac, or even left at airports
by planes that have taken off without them, in some of the
recent cases. And my fellow witnesses, who have been victims of
some of these cases, are better qualified than I am to speak
about some of these matters. So, in the interest of time, I
won't comment on them.
But whether these delays and significant hassles passengers
are facing are due to the weather, due to air traffic control
systems, due to security after 9/11, due to carriers gaming the
on-time takeoff data system to appear to be better than they
actually are, or due to airline cost-squeezing, is not the
point today. What is at issue is simple: consumers should not
be treated like cattle and they should have rights and remedies
when they are so treated.
Safety is our most important factor, and security is as
important as safety. But customers should not be simply treated
on the basis of the market. I thought that I heard the
Department's testimony today infer that, ``Well, a couple of
airlines have had a couple of problems. They've said they're
going to do better.'' Does that mean that every airline will
get one bite of the apple? Does that mean that every airline
will have a chance to mess up as badly, and then say, ``We're
sorry, we'll do better''? We think we need minimum standards,
enforceable minimum standards.
As has been widely pointed out by several of the witnesses
and Senators today, these are not one-off incidents, these are
incidents that have been occurring for years. The airlines made
promises that they have not kept, 8 years ago, and that has
been a problem, as well.
The proposed legislation from Senators Boxer and Snowe
should be enacted immediately. It simply states that passengers
on planes that have left the gate have a Federal right to
adequate food, potable water, and working toilets during
delays, and, importantly, a right to deplane if the problem
lasts for more than 3 hours, or 3 and a half hours. We would
urge you to add to this bill the right to adequate ventilation,
reasonable temperatures, and medical access, if needed. We
would urge you to consider extension of appropriate rights to
passengers whose planes have left without them after they've
been diverted to other airports, as well.
We also believe that any final legislation should make
these rights more enforceable to consumers, by consumers. And,
as has been pointed out by the Inspector General, the
enforcement by the Department has been inadequate. They enforce
the rules under their unfair and deceptive practices
regulations, but they don't often impose fines or penalties.
One of the big problems here is that a 1992 Supreme Court
decision took away the right of State attorneys general to
enforce their unfair and deceptive practices rules and
regulations against the airlines in an interpretation of the
1978 Act. We would encourage any final legislation to also
reinstate the right of State attorneys general to enforce at
least the Federal law, and, ideally, to enforce their own
unfair and deceptive practices under all of their State laws.
In addition, we would urge you to give consumers greater
private rights of action in the contracts of carriage, which
are currently merely contracts of adhesion that largely
immunize the airlines, rather than provide a fair contract.
Second, we would urge you to increase the penalties for bumping
and the penalties for lost baggage. The penalties for bumping,
in particular, have been frozen at $400 for years and years and
years.
We would also urge you to consider taking a small amount of
airline funds and form an independent congressionally chartered
consumer group to represent consumers before the Department.
And whether or not such a passenger advocacy group is
established, the Committee should compel the FAA and the DOT to
do a better job.
Finally, I would point out that--some of the comments that
Senator Lautenberg made--in my written testimony I do point out
that consumer groups have long supported his proposals. The
airlines use scarce resources--gates, runways, and other public
resources--that might be better served by giving us different
modes of transportation, by encouraging high-speed rail and
taking some of the pressure off the airlines.
So, I thank you for the opportunity to testify today in
support of a strong Passenger Bill of Rights bill.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mierzwinski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Edmund Mierzwinski, Consumer Program Director,
U.S. Public Interest Research Group
Mr. Chairman Inouye, Senator Stevens, Senator Boxer and members of
the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
the U.S. Public Interest Research Group,\1\ which serves as the non-
profit, non-partisan federation of state PIRGs. We are pleased today,
on behalf of our one million members and all airline passengers, to
support S. 678, a proposed Airline Passengers' Bill of Rights, as
introduced by Senators Boxer and Snowe, and to offer other comments on
airline customer service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ .uspirg.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The frustrations travelers generally have with airlines are widely-
reported. Major newspapers have columns, such as The Wall Street
Journal's ``The Middle Seat,'' and The New York Times' ``On the Road''
and ``Memo Pad'' from Joe Sharkey. Frustrated consumers have created
websites such as http://www.untied.com/ (United), .northworstair.org/
(Northwest) and .dontflycontinentalairlines.com.\2\ Travel sites and
online newsletters provide tips to frequent travelers about a wide
variety of problems air travelers face. Among the issues discussed are
the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Note that these are examples. Not all these sites are still
active. Others exist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
flights that are chronically late,
what to do if the airline loses your bags,
the latest Transportation Security Administration issues,
your incredibly shrinking airline miles (due to increased
mileage requirements for ``free flights,'' more blackout dates,
and the threat of airline bankruptcy),
shrinking seat sizes on some airlines, where you pay extra
for a ``real'' seat,
obnoxious fees and harsh restrictions for changing your
flight for virtually any fare class, or new nuisance fees for
all-of-a-sudden overweight or ``too-manypieces'' of luggage,
and even fees for so-called ``snacks'' or ``meals'' onboard,
the non-responsiveness of airlines to reasonable and
legitimate service complaints, and
numerous other problems.
But lately, the news has been about more than these hassles. It's
about passengers being trapped on planes sitting on runways, in
primitive non-hygienic conditions, or even left at airports to fend for
themselves. The incidents appear to be getting worse:
Hundreds of JetBlue passengers were stranded for hours in
planes on runways in mid-February, when weather incidents
affecting some flights cascaded into a multi-day fiasco. While
JetBlue has made all the right promises, it is only one
airline.
Similarly, in late December, American Airlines passengers
were stranded on runways in Austin, as my fellow witness Kate
Hanni is more qualified to explain, since she was there for 9
hours, stuck on one of those planes, without food, water or
working toilets, or even helpful information other than airline
propaganda announcements.
220 passengers on two separate flights were left stranded in
Cheyenne on 21 December by United Express after their diverted
planes inexplicably took off without them.\3\ In February, two
more planes, a United Express and an American Connection
flight, similarly abandoned passengers in Nebraska.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Airline officials say the jets flew without passengers to
Kansas City and Indianapolis on Dec. 21 because the jets were needed
for other routes.'' See ``Abandoned'' In Cheyenne, by Gary Stoller, USA
Today, 20 February 2007, available at http://www.usatoday.com/travel/
flights
/2007-02-19-cheyenne-coverusat_x.htmst visited 10 April 2007.
\4\ See ``2 more flights abandoned fliers on way to Denver,'' by
Gary Stoller, USA Today, 21
February 2007, available at http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/
2007-02-20-airport-abandoned-usat_x.htmst visited 10 April 2007.
Whether these delays and significant hassles passengers face are
due to the weather, the air traffic control system, increased security
due to 9/11, carriers gaming the on-time takeoff data or airline cost-
squeezing is not at issue here today.
What is at issue is simple: consumers should not be treated like
cattle and should have rights and remedies when they are so treated.
It is important to note that these incidents are not new isolated
one-off incidents. Similar runway problems--such as a well-publicized
Detroit snowstorm that left passengers stranded for 8\1/2\ hours in
1999--as well as an increasing number of passenger complaints, led to
Congressional consideration of an airline bill of rights in 1999-2000.
As then state attorney general and current U.S. Senator Ken Salazar
wrote to his Congressional delegation in 2000:
As you are aware, airline passengers in Colorado and throughout
the country are experiencing a disturbing number of flight
delays and cancellations. This is particularly true with United
Airlines, the primary carrier serving Colorado. I am
particularly concerned about the reported accounts of United's
failure to provide its advertised air transportation services,
and by allegations that United is providing false or misleading
information to the traveling public. Additionally, there are
accounts of United failing to accommodate its stranded
customers pursuant to applicable airline regulations.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Letter of 9 Aug. 2000 to Congressional delegation re
``Deceptive Practices by Air Carriers'' available at http://
www.ago.state.co.us/press_detail.cfm?pressID=567 Last visited 10 April
2007.
Yet, following a series of largely-failed voluntary promises by the
airlines, this promising airline bill of rights effort was delayed. In
February 2001, DOT Inspector General Kenneth Mead had told this
committee \6\ that delays and complaints were up, despite the voluntary
commitment,\7\ which included a promise to ``Meet customers' essential
needs during long on-aircraft delays.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Hearing on the DOT Inspector General's Final Report on Airline
Customer Service, U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, Statement of The Honorable Kenneth M. Mead, Inspector
General, Department of Transportation, 13 February 2001, available at
http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/0213mea.pdf Last visited 10 April
2007.
\7\ From the Mead testimony: The Airlines Commit to: Offer the
lowest fare available, Notify customers of known delays, cancellations,
and diversions. On-time baggage delivery, Support an increase in the
baggage liability limit, Allow reservations to be held or canceled,
Provide prompt ticket refunds, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then, any review of the airline promises was largely shelved after
the tragic events of 9/11. As it should have, attention turned to
safety and security. Yet, the decline in air travel that occurred may
have masked the strains on the system that now is again at the breaking
point. Now, 6 years after 9/11, with air travel volumes again at peak
levels, the same customer service problems that were not addressed in
1999 have returned.
In our view, while safety and security must remain the top
priorities of our air travel system, passengers still deserve an
enforceable bill of rights. The market has failed to adequately provide
customers with the minimum standards of civilization when they travel.
Neither airlines nor Federal regulators are adequately accountable.
The proposed legislation from Senators Boxer and Snowe should be
enacted immediately. S. 678, the Airline Passengers' Bill of Rights,
addresses the worst of these problems in a well-thought-out and
appropriate way. It simply states that passengers on planes that have
left the gate have a Federal right to adequate food, potable water and
working toilets during delays, and importantly, also have a right to
deplane if the delay lasts more than 3 hours.
We would urge you to extend these basic rights to include rights to
adequate ventilation, reasonable temperatures and medical access if
needed.
We would urge you to consider extension of appropriate rights to
passengers of diverted flights as well.
In the 21st century, nearly one hundred years after scheduled
passenger airline service began internationally and nearly forty years
since men first walked on the moon, these are reasonable requests.
We also believe that any final legislation should make these rights
enforceable. We would also urge the Committee to review some of the
other effects of the 1978 Airline Deregulation Act. For example,
following concerns raised by state attorneys general in the 1980s that
the Act had resulted in violations of state unfair practices acts, and
a failure by Federal regulators to protect passenger rights, the
attorneys general proposed a set of standards, after finding in 1988
that:
Consumer dissatisfaction with the airline industry has reached
crisis proportions. Federal agencies have focused their
attention on airline scheduling problems, on time performance,
safety, and other related issues, but have not addressed
airline advertising and frequent flyer programs. Unchecked, the
airlines have engaged in practices in these areas that are
unfair and deceptive under state law.
Yet, after the attorneys general attempted to negotiate with the
airlines to treat consumers more fairly, the airlines successfully
obtained a Supreme Court ruling sweepingly eliminating any state
authority over airlines, even against deceptive advertising of their
prices.
A 2000 letter \8\ to Congress by Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller
explains:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Letter of 15 September 2000 to U.S. Senator Tom Harkin,
available at http://www.state.ia.us/government/ag/consumer/
press_releases/airline-preemption-releasefor_web.html. Last visited 10
April 2007.
Under a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision \9\, Morales v. Trans
World Airlines, Inc., U.S. 374 (1992), State Attorneys General
are blocked from enforcing their state consumer protection laws
against airlines. The Court held that states are preempted
under the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 [Pub. L. 95-504]
from taking action against airlines, even if the airlines have
engaged in deceptive and unfair practices. The decision says
states are preempted from taking action relating to
advertisement of rates, services, and other matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The opinion of the Court, including the Attorney General
Revised Guidelines as an appendix, is available here http://
www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1604.ZO.html Last visited 10 April
2007.
Attorney General Miller's 2000 letter went on to support an
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
amendment, which we support today.
We are asking Congress to eliminate the preemption. . . . The
amendment would simply state that the Airline Deregulation Act
does not prevent State Attorneys General ``from enforcing any
state laws prohibiting unfair or deceptive business practices
or unfair methods of competition with respect to air
transportation or the advertisement and sale of air
transportation services.''
In addition to the rights enumerated in S. 678 and the
reinstatement of attorney general authority, we urge that any final
legislation adopt additional rights for airline passengers:
1. Make involuntary bumping and lost/damaged baggage rules
subject to automatic inflationary increases. Require that
bumping reimbursement, including for voluntary bumping, always
be in cash or cash-equivalent flight coupons, not in what are
often currently-provided--future air travel coupons that are
often impossible to redeem due to blackout dates and other
limits.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Even the DOT acknowledges these deficiencies and warns
passengers to ask: If the airline offers you a free ticket, ask about
restrictions. How long is the ticket good for? Is it ``blacked out''
during holiday periods when you might want to use it? Can it be used
for international flights? Most importantly, can you make a
reservation, and if so, how far before departure are you permitted to
make it? See http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/publications/flyrights.htm.
Last visited 10 April 2007.
2. Give consumers greater private rights of action in contracts
of carriage, which are currently merely contracts of adhesion
that largely immunize airlines rather than provide a fair
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
contract.
3. Establish an independent airline consumer protection group
with some small increment of currently-collected passenger and
airline facility taxes. The group should have party-intervenor
status to represent passengers in any administrative
proceedings of the Department of Transportation, the right to
file comments at the DOT and FAA, the capacity to publish an
independent and passenger-friendly analysis of the on-time,
complaint and other data now merely data-dumped by the FAA, to
advise consumers on airline complaints, etc.
4. Whether or not such a passenger advocacy group is
established, the Committee should compel the FAA/DOT to more
effectively use the power of the Internet to provide passengers
with more and enhanced information about the cost of flights,
chronically delayed flights and other airline quality
indicators. The department's current websites are not helpful
to consumers.
5. Airlines themselves should be required to post information
about their own lowest-cost flights on their Internet sites,
and should be required to inform prospective customers more
clearly than in current murky codings about the on-time
performance of chronically-delayed and canceled flights.
Airlines should be required to post the Airline Passenger Bill
of Rights at gates in terminals as well as on ticket jackets
and websites.
6. The Airline Passenger Bill of Rights disclosures should
include clearer and better disclosure of other rights, such as
the involuntary bumping and lost/damaged baggage compensation
rules.
7. We also urge the Committee to conduct additional oversight
of the DOT's customer satisfaction and complaint handling
effectiveness.
In addition, we would urge the Committee to consider some of the
larger issues about the U.S. transportation system that have led to
some of the pressures that the airlines are under that may contribute
to these on-time and runway stranding problems. We call your attention
to prescient testimony by Mark Cooper of the Consumer Federation of
America before this committee \11\ immediately following 9/11:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Hearings on the Financial Status of the Airline Industry, U.S.
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 20 September
2001, statement of Dr. Mark Cooper, Consumer Federation of America,
available at http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/092001
Cooper.pdf. Last visited 10 April 2007.
In the longer term, building a survivable transportation
network requires redundancy and diversity of transportation
options, as well as air travel decentralization. Here are some
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ideas that should be considered and debated.
First, we should improve ground transportation, particularly
high-speed rail in high density air corridors. This could
relieve a substantial part of the load in the most densely
traveled routes without imposing significant indirect costs
(increased travel time) on the public. It would also ease
runway overcrowding at some airports. It would probably require
the airlines to cut back on some of their most densely traveled
and profitable routes for the sake of the public interest.
Commercial operations that require plane changes by driving
traffic through hub and spoke networks make economic sense for
the air carriers, but they are heavy users of very scarce
resources--take offs, landings and air traffic control. For
consumers, however, the hub and spoke system has led to
domination of routes in some regions by a single carrier,
resulting in higher ticket prices. These networks also impose a
transaction cost on the public that may increase
substantially--boarding time. Concentrating traffic is
profitable for the airlines and it may even be efficient, but
it may not be in the public interest, given the new traveling
reality.
We want to thank you for the opportunity to provide our views to
the Committee today. We look forward to assisting the Committee as you
move forward on this important legislation.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, sir.
May I now recognize Mr. Hudson?
STATEMENT OF PAUL HUDSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AVIATION CONSUMER
ACTION PROJECT (ACAP)
Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
for asking me to testify here today, Chairman Inouye and
members of the Committee.
My name is Paul Hudson. I am Executive Director of the
Aviation Consumer Action Project that's acted as a voice for
air travelers on national aviation issues since, believe it or
not, 1971.
I was actively involved the last time this came up, now
about 7 years ago, in the Congress. That is, to enact some
rights for airline passengers. Unfortunately, at that time, it
did not pass. The airlines, as has been pointed out here, said
they would do it voluntarily. Well, we're now in take 2, and
clearly it has not worked.
I think a large reason why we haven't seen the problems
that we're now seeing is because shortly after that
congressional effort was abandoned, we had a recession. That
lowered air traffic. Then we had 9/11, and it dropped off a
cliff. And it only came back very slowly. So, just now, we are
seeing air traffic reach the levels it was at prior to that
time.
The root cause is obviously too much air traffic for the
infrastructure we have, but there are many things that could be
done, with appropriate regulation, that would greatly
ameliorate the problems we have now. When I hear that, you
know, we should let the market take care of delays and
scheduling and air traffic, I would say, does anyone believe
that if we have congestion on roadways, we should leave it up
to the drivers and to their employers? Should we get rid of
stop signs and traffic lines and let the market take care of
it?
Now, after 9/11, the market took care of it, and, while all
air traffic went down, short-haul flights dropped off a cliff.
The market said, ``You're too unreliable, you're too slow, and
we're getting in our cars with our cell phones, we're getting
on teleconferences, and we're just not going to do it.''
Now, there are bad actors in the present system, and
there's bad behavior. What you're seeing with--I would not call
it stranding. That used to be considered what happened when you
were in an airport. I would call it wrongful imprisonment. In
fact, when cases have been brought, like the Detroit cases,
where I--I represented ACAP and a number of people there; and,
by the way, the number was not a few hundred, it was 4,500--the
courts have said, ``You can't do that. It's intolerable.'' And
to keep people even 3 hours, I think, is unacceptable, when you
consider that most flights are 2 hours or less.
If you go look behind this, you'll find that much of the
reason has nothing to do with weather. In fact, the DOT report
that has come out most recently would indicate only 5 percent
of delays are based on extreme weather. Most of these delays
are based on financial decisions made by the airlines. And my
testimony goes into the details of this.
But I would just like to leave the Committee with four
points that we think would greatly ameliorate the present
situation:
One is robust disclosure of the on-time statistic, which is
now available, but you have to ask for it. Most people will not
book a flight if it's going to be late 50, 60, 80, even 100
percent of the time.
Second would be appropriate compensation for delays that
are excessive and are clearly the fault of the airlines. And
that can be defined, it doesn't require elaborate
investigations.
Third, get rid of deceptive scheduling. Last statistic is,
as of February, there were 175 flights that were regularly--
that is over 80 percent of the time--delayed. And these weren't
small delays. We're talking half an hour to 2 hours. My
testimony lists some of the worst cases.
Fourth, there needs to be enforcement of rights. If rights
have no enforcement, they are meaningless. The passenger--
customer service procedures of the airlines basically say that
if you write them a complaint, in 60 days or so they'll send
you a response. Most likely it's going to be, ``We don't agree
with you. End of story.'' That does not provide any relief.
ACAP gets many of these complaints that are copied from the
Department, and we see this all the time.
And finally, there needs to be mandatory minimum reserve
capacity. Since deregulation, airlines are now operating with
generally less than 1 percent reserve capacity. That means
that, every single day when pilots are sick, planes are out for
maintenance or for other reasons, flights are canceled. No
system can operate reasonably, reliably, unless there is a
reserve capacity. It's in each individual airline's interest to
keep that reserve very low. And now what has happened is, the
cost is being passed to the passenger and to the public and,
finally, to the U.S. economy.
I'd be glad to answer any questions, and I'd ask that my
written testimony be submitted for the record.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hudson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul Hudson, Executive Director,
Aviation Consumer Action Project (ACAP)
Introduction
Good Afternoon Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Stevens and members
of the Committee. My name is Paul Hudson. I am Executive Director of
the Aviation Consumer Action Project (ACAP) which has acted as a voice
for air travelers on national aviation issues of safety, security, and
airline passenger rights and interests since 1971. Thank you for
inviting me to testify today. I would like to make some brief summary
comments and would request that my full written testimony be submitted
for the record.
The Situation, How Bad Is It?
The situation today can best be described as ``deja vu all over
again'', as the problems that nearly brought the national air
transportation to its knees in 1999-2000 have now re-emerged. With one
of three flights now delayed, one of twenty flights being canceled, one
of 100 checked bags being mishandled, and most recently passengers on
JetBlue and some other airlines being involuntarily detained in
aircraft for up to 11 hours on the tarmac at Kennedy Airport, the
situation requires prompt government and congressional action to
prevent a new crisis, one that will not only cause hardship for airline
passengers, but could negatively impact safety and the U.S. economy.
The root cause of the current movement toward chronic air
transportation congestion and periodic gridlock is record high air
traffic that strains the air transportation infrastructure. The
inadequate number of airports around Chicago, New York and a few other
cities which are major choke-points in the system, the lack of reserve
capacity of aircraft and flight crews, the lack of government oversight
of airline scheduling practices and contingency planning for
disruptions, has resulted in an air transportation system that is both
vulnerable and deteriorating. It now takes longer to travel by air than
it did 30 years ago, and the situation is much worse in high traffic
areas and at peak travel times. In the past year alone, flight delays
are up nearly 20 percent, denied boarding or bumping is up 20 percent,
mishandled baggage is up 32 percent, and formal passenger complaints
are up 50 percent. (Source: April 2007 Air Travel Consumer Report, U.S.
DOT and statistics at U.S. DOT website).
What Should Congress Do?
Over 35 years ago, Congress enacted legislation that deregulated
the airline industry, abolished the Federal agency that had regulated
air fares and terms of service, the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB). The
remaining Federal agency, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
regulates air safety, operates the air traffic control system and
provides subsidies and grants to airports. There is also a small
aviation consumer office in the U.S. DOT that receives airline service
complaints, collects data from the airlines and publishes monthly
statistical reports. And of course since 9/11, the Transportation
Security Administration has operated the aviation security system. U.S.
airports are still owned and operated by local government authorities,
who control the access to major airports by airlines.
Airlines are now free to set fares as they see fit, and can compete
on price, service and amenities. Barriers to entry of new airlines are
now lower than they have ever been. This has brought benefits to the
traveling public, but also has resulted in new problems that now demand
your attention.
Congress must, in our view, not only address the problems that have
caused national headlines in February and are the top passenger
complaints (i.e., flight delays and cancellations and mishandled
baggage), but are only the tip of the iceberg. It must also address the
underlying problems of the national air transportation system.
Stranding and Involuntary Detention in Grounded Aircraft
Passengers should be given the opportunity to deplane when a flight
is delayed more than 2 hours, and airlines should also be required to
compensate passengers for more than a 2 hour delay on a per hour basis.
In many cases passengers can get alternate transportation or may want
to cancel their trip, if they can escape the wrongful imprisonment that
airlines now increasingly impose on passengers.
There is a little known financial incentive that flight crews have
to pull away from the gate (and not go back) even if they know the
flight is not taking off for a long time, if at all. Most airlines only
pay flight attendants and sometimes pilots from the time that the cabin
door closes. This work rule goes a long way to explaining some of the
more ridiculous stranding situations.
This reform would also remove another financial incentive airlines
now have to over-schedule flights that they know are going to be
delayed or canceled due to overcrowding or weather conditions. By lying
to and fooling the passengers, then involuntarily detaining them on
aircraft, they avoid the massive cancellations, defections to other
airlines, and financial losses that would occur if they provided honest
disclosure and scheduling. Instead airlines usually blame the weather,
FAA air traffic control or mechanical problems rather than their own
practices.
Delay and Cancellation Abuses
Reducing stranding and delay abuses also requires enhanced
disclosure of the on-time statistic for each flight. This figure is now
available, but the passenger must ask for it. All persons providing
reservations services should be required to disclose the percentage
that a particular flight is on time, and have available the average
delay and cancellation rate. Chronically delayed flights should be
posted on the carrier's and a DOT website, as well as frequently
canceled flights.
It is unlikely that many passengers will want to book flights that
are delayed or canceled more than 50 percent of the time, thereby
causing the airlines to discontinue such flights and rationalize their
schedules, based on reality and truth in scheduling rather than
deceptive scheduling.
While the number one cause of delays is air traffic congestion, the
number two cause of delays and cancellations is the airlines' lack of
reserve capacity of aircraft and flight crews which now runs at 1
percent or less. Extreme weather causes less than 5 percent of delays.
No system can operate reliably without an adequate reserve capacity,
sick pilots or mechanical problems now invariably cause daily avoidable
delays and cancellations. Accordingly, mandating a minimum reserve
capacity would be the fastest and cheapest way to improve reliability
of the national air transportation system.
However, there also needs to be a requirement that deceptively
scheduled flights be canceled. These are flights that are delayed over
80 percent of the time or are frequently canceled (e.g., Over 8-10
percent of the time). As of February 2007 there were 175 flights that
are regularly late over 80 percent of the time, typically for 30-120
minutes. The worst examples of this Schedule Lying include Mesa Air
Flight 7174 from Birmingham to Chicago late 100 percent of the time an
average of over 2 hours, US Airways flight 154 from Philadelphia to San
Francisco late 100 percent of time averaging over an hour, and Comair
flight 1435 from Reagan National to JFK (actual flight time less than
25 minutes) late 93 percent of the time an average of 79 minutes.
For economic reasons, some airlines engage in the practice of
deceptive scheduling. Since airline deregulation the FAA and airports
exercise little if any control over airline flight scheduling. As a
result, some busy airports now have many more flights scheduled to
depart or land than the airport capacity will allow during certain time
periods.
Airlines have an incentive to schedule flights at the most popular
times even if they know that the scheduled times cannot be met due to
airport capacity and overcrowding. Such practices should be banned as
they amount to a fraud on the public and may give airlines willing to
engage in such dishonest practices an unfair competitive advantage.
(c.f., JetBlue, Express Jet, Mesa and Comair have 8-10 percent of their
flights regularly late over 70 percent of the time, while Southwest,
Delta, Alaska, Hawaiian, and Aloha are at only 0.0 to 0.2 percent of
their flights).
The FAA also should be required to ensure that airlines do not
chronically over-schedule, particularly at choke-point airports, as
such practices have a negative affect on the national air traffic as
well as flights originating or terminating at such airports. These
airports include Chicago O'Hare, Atlanta Hartsfield, New York
LaGuardia, Kennedy and Newark Airports, Los Angeles International, and
San Francisco. The current non-system is analogous to having no traffic
lights or traffic control rules to control congestion on our Nation's
roadways.
The next reform needed is to provide compensation for passengers
for flights canceled by the airline for economic reasons less than 2
hours before flight time. While the airlines will not admit it, such
cancellations are common and amount to breach of contract and fraud. If
a flight has so few passengers that the airline wants to cancel it, it
should do so at least 2 hours before, so that passengers do not come to
the airport unnecessarily, and provide passengers with alternate
transportation within an hour of the canceled flight time plus a ticket
refund.
Otherwise, the airlines should provide passengers with compensation
that is equivalent to normal breach of contract compensation (normally
the cost of the covering the service defaulted upon with another
provider and sometimes consequential damages) or at least equivalent to
bumping compensation, perhaps capped at several thousand dollars. In
case of any dispute, it should be presumed that a flight was canceled
for economic reasons if there was no ground hold by air traffic control
and the flight was was less than 30 percent booked.
Passengers, who are stranded by airline delays and cancellations
overnight, away from their home city, should receive ground
transportation and overnight accommodations. Airlines use to provide
this as a matter of course, but now many do not or do so only for
certain favored passengers. This has led to chronic choke-point
airports like O'Hare in Chicago being dubbed ``Camp O'Hare'' with over
50,000 passengers per year being stranded and cots being set up in the
baggage claim areas after midnight during the last high air traffic
years (1998-2000).
Inflation Adjustment for Bumping and Lost Baggage
Legislation is also needed for automatic inflation increases in
compensation for bumping (involuntary denied of boarding of passengers
with confirmed reservations due to airline overbooking). The present
rule caps cash compensation at $400 or $200 and has not been changed or
updated for inflation for over 25 years.
The compensation cap for lost or damaged luggage on international
flights to or from the U.S. is about $1,500 (this cap is based on an
arcane treaty which provides for a compensation cap based on IMF
special drawing rights or SDRs, this compensation cap is now badly
outdated.) Under the common law of bailment, airlines would have
unlimited liability. While legislation cannot change this treaty, it
could mandate excess liability insurance be offered to passengers by
airlines flying to or from the United States.
On domestic flights, the U.S. DOT has recently increased lost
baggage compensation limit to $3,000 from $2,800 under an inflation
adjustment rule.
Enforcement
Finally, a bill of rights for airline passengers needs to include a
way for passengers to enforce their rights in a timely and inexpensive
way. This is something totally lacking in the present system.
Complaints to airlines or the U.S. DOT are regularly blown off (ACAP
gets copies of some of these and a study can easily be done of the
thousands of complaints to the U.S. DOT consumer affairs office that
are simply logged for statistical purposes).
ACAP suggests mandating a small claims arbitration process (which
could be a private alternate dispute resolution service that uses
retired judges, consumer affairs, or experienced arbitrators), as is
typical in insurance and securities industry contracts with consumers,
with the option for the customer going into local small claims court if
the dispute is over a certain amount, like $1,000. For disputes
involving many passengers, and millions of dollars of claims, class
actions in state or Federal courts should be authorized, as well as
through arbitration. There also needs to be a provision that would
require the airline to pay the litigation expenses of the passenger if
the resulting decision exceeds a rejected settlement offer. Now, there
is no arbitration process, and airlines who are sued in state courts
try to get the cases dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.
Conclusion
The above provisions would cover the largest number of complaints
of airline passengers, which are Flight Delays and Cancellations and
Lost or Mishandled Luggage, as well as their most egregious complaints
and abuses of Stranding and Wrongful Imprisonment. These reforms would
also enhance and reward honest competition among the airlines and U.S.
economic productivity by discouraging abusive scheduling and service
practices now causing unnecessary air transportation delays by reducing
flight delays and cancellations that now impose unnecessary costs on
the overall economy as well as individual passenger inconvenience and
hardship.
Specific comments on the legislation recently introduced by
Senators Boxer and Snowe, and by Congressperson Thompson of California
are contained in Appendix A to this testimony. Thank you for holding
this important and timely hearing. I look forward to responding to any
questions of the Committee.
Appendix A. Comments on S. 678 and H.R. 1303--Airline Passengers' Bill
of Rights Act of 2007
Overall Comment: Such legislation is necessary and long overdue. It
should be comprehensive and address the major complaints of airline
passengers which are flight delays and cancellations, mishandled
baggage, and the lack of any enforceable rights are for service
complaints. Finally, there should be consideration of rights of
passengers concerning aviation security measures which have become a
major concern since 9/11.
Specific Comments:
S. 678 (by Senators Boxer and Snowe) as introduced February 17,
2007:
Sec. 41781(a)(2) Right to Deplane
The right to deplane should be triggered after 2 hours or less, not
three. Most flights are under 2 hours duration. Many passengers can
obtain alternate transportation if they are permitted to deplane.
Wrongful imprisonment lawsuits have resulted in recovery for
unreasonable detention as short as 2 hours. This provision could be
used by the airlines to legitimize involuntarily detaining passengers
for 3 hours or more, and therefore could be a step backward for
passenger rights and could potentially lead to an increase in stranded
and involuntarily detained passengers.
H.R. 1303 (Mr. Thompson of California, et. al) as introduced March
1, 2007:
Sec. 41782 Standards for air carrier passenger services
(a) This provision would allow for no change in existing procedures
for handling passenger complaints, which give air carriers the near
absolute power to reject complaints with no effective recourse or
remedy for the complaints. Airline procedures generally provide that
any pro-consumer policies and practices are not part of the contract
for carriage and legally unenforceable, and there is no neutral third
party mediation or arbitration for unresolved complaints.
(2) methods of notification--Should also provide for and include
direct notification of passengers by telephone or e-mail of flight
delays. Airlines now have phone numbers for all passengers and often e-
mail for passengers and should be required to directly notify them of
delays or cancellations that are known more than 2 hours before flight
time. This will prevent unnecessary or untimely travel to, congestion
at airports, and general cost and aggravation for all concerned.
(1) right of passengers to exit an aircraft--Same comment as under
Right to Deplane above.
After section on Chronically Delayed Flights there should be a
section for Frequently Cancelled Flights (canceled more than 5-10
percent of the time) that requires such to be discontinued and
compensation paid to passengers as in bumping regulations.
Sec. 41783 Procedures for Departure Delays
(a) Should also include permitting deplaning passengers without
returning to gate which is often feasible especially where passengers
are transported to aircraft by bus.
(2) meeting--This provision should include representatives of
passengers, not just government and industry representatives.
Goal of contingency plans should be ``graceful degradation'' of
national air traffic in weather related, natural, or man made disasters
and emergencies, using diversion to pre-designated alternative and
secondary airports and enhanced ground transportation. The current
system effectively causes national air traffic brownouts and blackouts
that take as long as a week to recover from, whenever a major airport
is unavailable.
The Chairman. I thank you very much.
May I recognize Mr. Mitchell?
STATEMENT OF KEVIN P. MITCHELL, CHAIRMAN,
BUSINESS TRAVEL COALITION
Mr. Mitchell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee, for inviting the Business Travel Coalition to
testify before this Committee again, and to provide our views
on the subject of airline passenger service.
I'm here representing corporations that purchase millions
of dollars in air tickets each year and dispatch millions of
travelers on the road each day. Formed in 1994, BTC has
consistently advocated the need for improved airline service,
and has provided the Congress and DOT with suggestions on how
to ensure such service is implemented in the marketplace.
However, legislation in this area is not needed, and, in BTC's
view, would make matters worse, in terms of safety margins,
flight cancellations, and higher airfares.
These recent unfortunate incidents do not rise to a level
of national seriousness to warrant Federal laws governing
airline industry customer service. As pointed out earlier,
massive delays are unusual. This is not to say, however, that
Congress does not have an important role here. Indeed, this
hearing is timely in a larger customer-service sense.
Progress, at the beginning of this decade, against airline
service commitments was recorded for a few quarters. Then the
tragedy of 9/11 and new security requirements struck, followed
by SARS, the Iraqi War, sky-high jetfuel prices and $40 billion
in losses. Airlines, press, the DOT, the Congress, consumer
groups, we all lost focus on these customer service
commitments.
Indeed, it is time for airlines to refocus. Importantly,
DOT is already moving on this issue. In addition, the FAA is
examining its role in contributing to extended delays. For
example, with the confusion created during the New York storm
in February by varying interpretations of the regulation
concerning ice pellets.
DOT, Congress, passenger groups, and the press are a potent
combination, a highly visible bully pulpit to inform consumers,
who then make purchasing decisions that drive the market.
Reporters and customers pounded JetBlue in the aftermath of its
customer-service fiasco. Customers do have choices, the power
to effect change. In the case of JetBlue, the operational
debacle cost it millions of dollars and tarnished its image.
The effectiveness of management in responding with changes to
policies and procedures will determine its future success. The
marketplace is, indeed, holding JetBlue accountable.
In addition, in the aftermath of the terrible conditions
American Airlines customers endured in December, as noted, the
airline implemented new policies and procedures. Legislation,
in our view, is not the answer.
One proposal calls for the return of jets to gates after 3
hours. Consider a Friday afternoon scenario at O'Hare. Arriving
planes take up most of the gates, 50 jets are lined up, but
unable to take off due to worsening weather conditions. At the
3-hour point, like a line of dominoes, the aircraft become
paralyzed in a regulatory limbo, with nowhere to go. The impact
would ripple through the system. Travelers would be stuck in
Chicago for the weekend, those in distant cities would,
likewise, be stranded in their aircraft, or because their
aircraft is at--are at O'Hare. There is little doubt that such
legislation would lead to higher airline staffing, operational
costs, and increased business airfares. If you can legislate 3
hours, why not 2 hours? It doesn't make sense.
Another proposal would require compensation to passengers
when airlines fail to deliver services, as promised. It is
imprudent to mix government-imposed financial incentives and
penalties with airline go/no-go decisions and safety judgments.
On February 19, 2005, the number-two engine of a Boeing 747
failed after takeoff from LAX on a flight to Heathrow with 351
passengers onboard. The captain decided to continue anyway,
with three engines. Because it was unable to attain normal
cruising speeds and altitudes, the aircraft was forced to
divert to Manchester, England. Under European Union passenger
rights legislation, had the plane returned to LAX, BA would
have had to compensate passengers some $250,000. BA denies the
penalty influenced its decision.
A recent BTC survey underscores the safety concern. Of 144
corporate travel managers surveyed, only 10 percent would
support a passenger bill of rights in the absence of an
ironclad commitment that safety margins would not be decreased.
There are actions the Federal Government can take to
improve the experience of the flying public:
One, increase airline competition through Open Skies
Agreements and a promotion of new entrants, such as Virgin
America. Prevent radical consolidation of the airline industry;
the greater the competition, the more influence the customer
has in driving airline service improvements.
Number two, invest in new satellite system--a new satellite
system for air traffic control to reduce delays and improve
system efficiency, especially during times of severe weather
systems. Pass FAA reauthorization so that the Government and
the industry can head off a real crisis in passenger service.
Three, build more runways, such as at O'Hare.
Four, insist on better decisionmaking on rules promulgated
by the FAA to prevent highly confusing and service-degrading
circumstances, such as with the pellet--the ice pellet
situation.
Five, and finally, require greater DOT enforcement of
existing carrier commitments and existing laws and regulations.
In conclusion, while BTC believes that the airlines must do
more to reduce delays and minimize customer hardship during
delays, we believe that the Federal legislation would prove to
be counterproductive and something we cannot support.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kevin P. Mitchell, Chairman,
Business Travel Coalition
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting
the Business Travel Coalition (BTC) to testify before this Committee
again and to today provide our views on the subject of airline
passenger service. I am here representing the interests of corporations
that purchase billions of dollars of commercial air transportation
services, and dispatch millions of travelers each day.
Formed in 1994, BTC has consistently advocated on behalf of
business travelers the need for improved airline service and has
provided the Congress and U.S. Department of Transportation specific
suggestions on how to ensure such improved service in the marketplace.
However, Federal legislation in this area is not needed and, in BTC's
view, would make matters worse, not better, in terms of reduced safety
margins, more flight cancellations and higher airfares.
Background
BTC testified in 1999 against proposed passenger rights
legislation. The Coalition believed it was a bad idea then, and
believes it still is today. Congressional mandating of customer service
standards in any industry represents a dangerous precedent. In the case
of the airline industry, such legislation would increase business
travel costs, stifle innovation and raise safety issues.
The proximate cause of the legislative initiative in 1999 was a
Northwest Airlines' plane and its passengers that had been stuck on the
tarmac in Detroit during a horrendous snow storm in January of that
year. Investigative reporters at The Wall Street Journal later
uncovered that it was managerial incompetence manifest in a series of
poor decisions that led to the customer service meltdown. That
discovery certainly would not have appeased any passenger that was on
that plane that day.
Threshold for Legislation
However, like the present day's issue during recent storms in Texas
and New York, these unfortunate incidents do not rise to a level of
national seriousness to warrant Federal laws governing airline industry
customer service. Massive delays are unusual. According to the Bureau
of Transportation Statistics, in 2006 just 36 out of 7.1 million
commercial flights sat on the ground for 5 hours or more.
In vivid contrast, an aviation issue that has reached the threshold
of national seriousness, sufficient to warrant Federal legislation, is,
by way of example, that of outsourcing aircraft heavy maintenance to
overseas contractors with less expertise, virtually no background
checks on mechanics and woefully inadequate oversight. It is literally
an accident waiting to happen.
The Bully Pulpit
This is not to say that Congress does not have an important role to
play. Indeed, this hearing is timely in a much larger airline industry
customer service sense. Progress at the beginning of the decade against
airline voluntary customer service commitments was recorded for several
quarters, but then fell off.
Suddenly in early 2001, a fundamental marketplace shift caught the
airlines off guard. Then the tragedy of September 11 and new security
requirements struck, followed by SARS, the Iraq war, sky-high jet fuel
prices and $40 billion in losses. Painful restructurings eliminated
more than 147,000 airline industry jobs--many were customer-facing.
During this period, cutbacks in customer service and passenger
amenities were implemented just for basic survival. Airlines,
passengers, consumer groups, press and government all lost their focus
on the industry customer service commitment.
Indeed, it is time for airlines to refocus on customer service.
Importantly, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) is already
moving on the issue. Secretary Mary Peters recently issued an urgent
call for the Department's Inspector General to review the current state
of airline customer service and to develop proposals to address any
problems. In addition, the FAA is examining its own role in
contributing to extended delays. For example, the confusion created
during the New York storm by the varying interpretations of the FAA
regulation concerning ice pellets.
DOT, Congress, passenger groups and the press are a potent
combination, a highly visible bully pulpit to inform consumers who in
turn make purchasing decisions that drive the market. Reporters and
customers, for example, pounded JetBlue in the aftermath of its
customer service fiasco.
``Thousands of fuming JetBlue passengers were grounded this weekend
. . .'' said The New York Post. ``JetBlue red-faced over strandings at
JFK'' read a Star-Ledger headline. ``In today's society we as citizens/
customers have the opportunity to disrupt a company's reputation,''
stated the founder of JetBlueSucks.net. ``The cancellations raise new
questions about whether JetBlue's management is equal to its
ambitions,'' exclaimed The New York Times.
Marketplace Solutions
In the marketplace for commercial airline services, customers do
have choices and the power to effect change. In the case of JetBlue,
the operational debacle cost it millions of dollars in near-term lost
revenue and higher costs, and badly tarnished its superior customer
service image. The effectiveness of management in responding with
changes to policies and procedures will determine its future success.
The marketplace is holding JetBlue accountable, and like competitors
before them, the pounding has led to positive change with a passenger
bill of rights and a compensation plan for inconvenienced customers.
JetBlue's CEO David Neeleman is a smart, world-class entrepreneur
and an airline industry icon. He will be driven to make sensible
adjustments for the benefit of his customers and shareholders. In the
immediate aftermath of the terrible conditions American Airlines'
customers endured on December 29, 2006, during a storm that paralyzed
air traffic in Texas, the airline implemented new policies and
procedures. The infamous January 1999 debacle at Detroit, during a
horrendous snow storm, led to structural changes at Northwest Airlines
and the justification of a new runway at Detroit Metro Airport.
The Problem with a Legislative Solution
Legislation is not the answer. One proposal calls for the return of
jets to gates after 3 hours. Consider this Friday afternoon scenario at
O'Hare: arriving planes take up most of the gates, 50 jets are lined
up, but unable to take off due to deteriorating weather. At the three-
hour point, like a line of dominos, the aircraft become paralyzed in
regulatory limbo with nowhere to go. The impact would ripple through
the system. Travelers would be stuck in Chicago for the weekend; those
in distant cities would likewise be stranded as their aircraft are at
O'Hare. There is little doubt that such legislation would lead to
higher airline staffing and operational costs, and increased business
airfares.
Another proposal would require compensation to passengers when
airlines fail to deliver services as promised. This may be well
intentioned, but it is an example of a dangerous idea with all manner
of potential unintended consequences. It is imprudent to mix
government-imposed financial incentives and penalties with airline
operations, go, no-go decisions and safety judgments.
On February 19, 2005, the No. 2 engine of a Boeing 747 failed after
takeoff from LAX on a flight to Heathrow with 351 passengers onboard.
The captain decided to continue anyway with 3 engines. Because it was
unable to attain normal cruising speeds and altitudes, the aircraft was
forced to divert to Manchester, England. Under European Union passenger
rights legislation, had the plane returned to LAX, BA would have had to
compensate passengers some $250,000. BA denies that the penalty
influenced its go, no-go decision.
A BTC survey underscores the safety concern. Of 144 corporate
travel managers recently surveyed, only 10 percent would support a
Passenger Bill of Rights in the absence of an ironclad guarantee that
safety margins would not be decreased. There are safety concerns as
well as questions regarding the efficacy of Congressional intervention.
Consider this representative comment from survey participants:
``Not to minimize this recent event, but let's focus on the
millions of airline flights across America and the world that
take place every day without incident. Do we really need the
government legislating ``common sense'' customer service. No
doubt, JetBlue will handle the bad publicity and attempt to
appease those unfortunate passengers. No amount of vouchers or
free tickets can undo their intolerable experience. How about
we take a business approach and let the marketplace decide what
retribution JetBlue should suffer, if any.''
The Coalition has never adopted the premise of ideological purists
who insist the marketplace will solve all of the travel industry's
ills. There's a place for regulation. It's just that it's not in this
arena, and not at this point.
As aviation attorney Susan Jollie states, ``The questions I wished
politicians asked themselves are, `Is there a significant persistent
market failure that can only be remedied by government involvement?'
And perhaps more importantly, `Why do I believe that government
personnel would have the necessary background, intelligence, integrity
and dedication to make better decisions than those in industry whose
role they would be taking over?' ''
Steps Government Can Take to Improve the Flying Experience
There are actions the Federal Government can take to improve the
experience of the flying public.
1. Increase airline competition through Open Skies Agreements
and the promotion of new entrants such as Virgin America.
Prevent radical consolidation of the airline industry. The
greater the level of competition, the more influence the
consumer has in driving the market and airline service
improvements.
2. Invest in a new satellite system for air traffic control to
reduce delays and improve system efficiency, especially during
times of severe weather systems. Pass FAA reauthorization so
that the government and the industry can head off a real crisis
in passenger service.
3. Build more runways such as the Chicago O'Hare modernization,
which BTC supported.
4. Insist on better, more inclusive decisionmaking on rules
promulgated by the FAA to prevent highly confusing and service
degrading circumstances such as the ice pellet regulation.
5. Require greater DOT enforcement of existing carrier
commitments and existing regulations and laws.
While BTC believes that the airlines can and must do more to reduce
delays and minimize consumer hardship during delays, we believe that
Federal customer service legislation would prove to be
counterproductive and thus something BTC cannot support.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Mitchell.
May I now recognize Ms. Hanni?
STATEMENT OF KATE HANNI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
SPOKESPERSON, AND FOUNDER, COALITION FOR AIRLINE PASSENGERS'
BILL OF RIGHTS
Ms. Hanni. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Kate Hanni, and, on behalf of the Coalition for
an Airline Passengers' Bill of Rights, I'd like to thank the
Committee--Commerce Committee Chairman Inouye, Aviation
Subcommittee Chairman Rockefeller, Senator Boxer, and Senator
Olympia Snowe, and all the other members of the Committee, for
the opportunity to address you today.
I am here in part because of the cruel and inhumane manner
in which my family and thousands of other stranded passengers
were treated on several American Airlines flights during the
holiday season of 2006, and, most importantly, our mission to
ensure that no other airline passenger has to endure our
horrific ordeal ever again.
First, I want to offer a brief synopsis of what happened to
us on December 29, 2006, and then I will inform the
distinguished members of this Committee why we have formed this
coalition, our mission, and what we hope Congress will do in
order to safeguard the flying public.
We were headed to Point Clear, Alabama, from San Francisco,
for a needed family holiday vacation which started off much
like our other trips, since my husband and I are frequent
business flyers, but what should have been a short trip turned
into an odyssey that lasted more than 57 hours and almost 3
days.
The most desperate hours of our ordeal--9, to be precise--
were spent stranded on the tarmac of Austin International
Airport with no food, no potable water, overflowing toilets,
and anger toward American Airlines for turning what was
supposed to be a holiday vacation into a chaotic and traumatic
experience for myself, my husband, and both of my children, one
which I am certain the hundreds of passengers aboard our plane
will never forget.
During those 9 exasperating hours, we were besieged with an
overwhelming sense of fear and desperation, not knowing when,
and if, we would ever be able to get out of the aircraft. Our
pilot did the best he could under the circumstances. He
reminded us to be patient. But after 9 hours of being held
against your will in an airplane, knowing full well that we
could have spent that time at least in the airport, we could no
longer remain calm.
We had just had to endure the foul stench of overflowing
toilets for 9 hours, as our ventilation was turned off. Some
people with medical conditions, such as diabetes, ran out of
medication, others had no water with which to take their
medications. We were, and remain, extremely angry and
disappointed that American Airlines--at American Airlines for
having failed miserably at providing its passengers the very
basic level of customer service during and after our horrific
experience.
According to thousands of e-mails--and I have my left hand
on the 15,000 e-mails that I've received from flyers who have
not filed their complaints with the Department of
Transportation----
Two days later, when we finally arrived at our destination,
I contacted my Congressman's office asking for help. I had
never contacted him before. I explained that we were trying to
reach American Airlines to finally receive some explanation as
to how they can hold people on an aircraft for so long, but
have received no response from them. Our e-mails were kicked
back, and our telephone calls were rebuked. They told us, ``Do
not blame us for the weather.''
Congressman Mike Thompson wrote a letter to Gerard Arpey,
President of American Airlines, on our behalf. There was no
response to that letter, other than a perforated postcard
several weeks later, stating that they had received our
correspondence. It actually said, ``Dear Valued Customer, We
have received your correspondence.'' But it was not a direct
response to our letter or our requests.
That was the tipping point for me. I had had enough. As I
began to contact the other passengers on our flight through
blogs, which I had never done before, and through a Google
search, all of the other stranded flights in Austin began to
appear. I realized the problem was much bigger than just three
or four American Airlines planes that we thought had been
stranded. My husband started a blog and a petition, forming the
Coalition for Airline Passengers' Bill of Rights.
Since forming the Coalition, there has been an epidemic
number of strandings just this year alone. Similar situations,
different airlines, different airports, but with the same level
of frustration and anger against an airline industry that puts
the well-being and welfare of its passengers last, and is much
more concerned with their own bottom line.
Members of the Committee, this is simply unacceptable. We
all know about the JetBlue Valentine's Day strandings. One of
the passengers, Michael Skolnik, a film producer trying to get
to an important meeting in Los Angeles, was not only stranded
on one jet for 11 hours, but, when they finally deplaned him,
shell-shocked and dumbfounded, he happened to have his carry-on
baggage only, so they said, ``If you'll just run to get on this
other flight, we can get you to Los Angeles.'' He then sat for
another 6 and a half hours on a second plane on the tarmac at
JFK. Seventeen and a half hours in two JetBlue planes in one
24-hour period, with no water, adequate food, adequate
ventilation. I don't know how a person can tolerate that.
Then United Airlines stranded people at Chicago O'Hare for
8 hours in the middle of the night. Then you have Philadelphia
and JFK, 2 weeks later. One particular passenger, who's sitting
next to me and will testify, Rahul Chandron, was a second-time
victim, having been on the Northwest Airlines incident in
Detroit in 1999. The airlines say it's improbable. Evidently
not.
There's another crisis to address, and it happened in
Cheyenne and in Scott's Bluff, Nebraska. It's abandonment by
the airlines. Entire planeloads of diverted passengers were
dropped off in an airport, not their destination, and left
there with no resources. Roger Barbour was trying to get to his
wedding, when he was dropped in Cheyenne by United Airlines. It
ended up costing him $3,000 to get home. I just received the
video of the planes leaving the airport and leaving all the
passengers last week.
But that's not even close to being the full story. Airline
and government agencies intentionally fail to maintain
statistics for flights that never reach their destinations. So,
if an airline leaves the gate, but never takes off, neither the
airlines nor the government keep statistics about those
flights. And I'm actually referring more to the strandings of
American Airlines, where we were already departed from the
airport and put down in Austin. And I actually have the data
log from our American Airlines flight 1348 that doesn't show
that we ever landed in Austin; it shows not any time on the
tarmac, and it shows at no point when were--when we replaned
and left that airport. There's just a single flight
cancellation in the Government's book. That means that there
are no time-on- the-tarmac statistics kept for the American
Airlines December 29 diversions, JetBlue and other flights that
sat on the Newark, New Jersey, tarmac for 11 hours in February,
nor for the more recent flights that were held for over 9 hours
at JFK in March. To the Secretary of Transportation, it's as if
they never happened.
We found out that, on December 29, 2006, due to
thunderstorms over Dallas/Fort Worth area, in addition to our
flight, 71 other flights were diverted from Dallas/Fort Worth
to land at other regional airports. Those flights held 5,000
passengers.
Except for the people trapped on those runways, like us and
other members of our coalition on other flights, no one knows
exactly how long all of those flights were held, because there
are no statistics kept. The reality is, the airlines,
conveniently, aren't required to report the amount of time
those planes sat on those runways.
Why is the failure to maintain these statistics so
important? The problem may be orders-of-magnitude greater than
delay statistics currently maintained by the Government; but,
without valid statistics, nobody knows the full extent of the
problem, including our lawmakers.
To get some idea, we can look at one statistic that is
kept. Last year, 16,186 flights were diverted to other
airports. Assuming at least 100 passengers per flight, that
means over 1.6 million Americans may have experienced
circumstances similar to the December 29, 2006, Austin debacle.
And those numbers aren't apparent to us anywhere. We can't find
anywhere that statistically records those.
That is why, members of the Committee, we have turned anger
into advocacy. That is one of the few bright spots of our
ordeal and the reason why I'm here speaking in front of you
today.
It is with a great deal of determination that we have
formed the Coalition for Airline Passengers' Bill of Rights. In
just 3 short months, we have become the fastest-growing airline
passengers organization in the country. Our membership is
15,000, and continues to expand. We know the airlines wish we
would just go away, but there's one key factor the airlines
have discounted, and that is the will and anger of airline
passengers that are saying, ``Enough is enough.''
This is why we are here today, urging members of this
distinguished Committee and Congress to adopt the Airline
Passengers' Bill of Rights, as written by Barbara Boxer and
Olympia Snowe. And I'm very proud that it's a bipartisan piece
of legislation that's been brought forward. I am very impressed
with these ladies for bringing it, and so is the entire
coalition.
Congress must now step up, and--once again, in the latest
annual airline quality rating report, Congress must now step up
and use FAA reauthorization legislation to ensure that airlines
make passengers' rights a top priority, once and for all. The
last thing that we should do is provide more giveaways to the
airlines and less accountability to consumers and Congress,
while airlines continue to strand passengers in communities all
across the country.
In addition, I understand that the airlines plan for
reauthorization would wrongly slash funds by $600 million,
jeopardizing efforts to modernize our air traffic control
system. Safety and well-being should be our focus, not tax
breaks. The flying public needs a voice and legal recourse so
that we can stop these horrific stories experienced by
thousands of stranded passengers from happening, once and for
all. For the last 8 years and longer, the airlines have had the
opportunity to make good on their promises, their commitments,
to improve customer service and ensure basic human rights for
passengers. It's time for Congress to ensure that airlines make
passengers their top priority.
Thank you, once again, for the opportunity to address
members of the Committee and for allowing me to share our story
on behalf of the Coalition for an Airline Passengers' Bill of
Rights. I am happy to answer any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hanni follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kate Hanni, Executive Director, Spokesperson, and
Founder, Coalition for Airline Passengers' Bill of Rights
My name is Kate Hanni and on behalf of the Coalition for Airline
Passenger's Bill of Rights, I'd like to thank Commerce Committee
Chairman Inouye, Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Rockefeller, Senator
Boxer and members of the Committee for the opportunity to address you
today.
I am here in part because of the cruel and inhumane manner in which
my family and thousands of other stranded passengers were treated on
several American Airlines flights during the holiday season of 2006 and
more importantly, our mission to ensure that no other airline passenger
has to endure our horrific ordeal ever again. First, I want to offer a
brief synopsis of what happened to us on December 28, 2006 and then I
will inform the distinguished members of this Committee why we have
formed this Coalition, our mission and what we hope Congress would do
in order to safeguard the flying public.
We were headed to Point Clear, Alabama from San Francisco for a
needed family holiday vacation, which started off much like our other
trips since my husband and I are frequent business flyers, but what
should have been a short trip turned into an odyssey that lasted more
than 57 hours and almost 3 days. The most desperate hours of our
ordeal--9 to be precise--were spent stranded on the tarmac of Austin
International Airport with no food, no running water, overflowing
toilets and anger toward American Airlines for turning what was
supposed to be a holiday vacation into a chaotic and traumatic
experience--one which I am certain the hundreds of passengers aboard
our plane will never forget.
During those 9 exasperating hours, we were besieged by an
overwhelming sense of fear and desperation, not knowing when and if we
would ever be able to get out of the aircraft. Our pilot did the best
he could under the circumstances, he reminded us to be patient, but
after 9 hours of being held against your will in an airplane--knowing
full well that we could have spent that time at least at the airport--
we could no longer remain calm. We had just had to endure the fowl
stench of overflowed toilets for 9 hours as our ventilation was turned
off. Some people with medical conditions such as diabetes ran out of
medication, and others had no water with which to take theirs.
We were and remain extremely angry and disappointed at American
Airlines for having failed miserably at providing its passengers the
very basic level of customer service during and after our horrific
experience. According to thousands of e-mails and phone calls I've
received since then, the same thing was happening in several other
airports around the region.
Two days later when we finally arrived at our destination, I
contacted my Congressman's office asking for help. I explained that we
were trying to reach American Airlines to finally receive some
explanation as to how they can hold people on an aircraft for so long,
but had received no response. Congressman Mike Thompson wrote a letter
to Gerald Arpey, President of American Airlines, on our behalf. There
was no response to that letter, other than a perforated post card
several weeks later stating they had received our correspondence. That
was the tipping point for me--I had had enough.
As I began to contact the other passengers on our flight and other
stranded flights in Austin, I realized the problem was much bigger than
just the 3 or 4 American Airlines planes that we thought had been
stranded. My husband started a blog and a petition, forming the
Coalition for Airline Passengers' Bill of Rights. Since forming the
Coalition, there has been an epidemic number of similar strandings just
this year alone--similar situations, different airlines, different
airports but with the same level of frustration and anger against an
airline industry that puts the well-being and welfare of its passengers
last and is much more concerned with their own bottom line.
Members of the Committee--this is simply unacceptable!!
We all know about the JebBlue Valentine's Day strandings. One of
the passengers, Michael Skolnik, a film producer trying to get to an
important meeting in Los Angeles, was not only stranded on one jet for
11 hours, but when they finally deplaned them--shell-shocked and
dumbfounded--he then sat for another 6.5 hours on another JebBlue
aircraft stuck to the tarmac, still trying to get to Los Angeles. 17.5
hours in two JebBlue planes in 1 day?
Then United Airlines stranded people at Chicago O'Hare for 8 hours
in the middle of the night.
Then, you have Philly and JFK strandings. One particular passenger,
Rahul Chandron, was a second time victim having been on the Northwest
Airlines incident in Detroit in 1999.
The airlines say it's improbable . . evidently not.
There is another crisis to address and it happened in Cheyenne and
Scotts Bluff, Nebraska. It's abandonment by the airlines. Entire plane
loads of diverted passengers were dropped off at an airport, not their
destination, and left there with no resources. Roger Barbour was trying
to get to his wedding when he was dropped in Cheyenne by United
Airlines. It ended up costing him $3,000.00 to get home.
But that's not even close to being the full story. Airline and
government agencies intentionally fail to maintain statistics for
flights that never reach their destinations. So, if an airplane leaves
the gate but never takes off, neither the airlines nor the government
keep statistics about those flights--they're just a single flight
cancellation in the government's book. That means there are no ``time
on the tarmac'' statistics kept for the American Airlines December 29
diversions, JebBlue and other flights that sat on the Newark, NJ tarmac
for eleven hours in February, nor for the more recent flights that were
held for over 9 hours at JFK in March. To the Secretary of
Transportation, it is as if they never happened!
We found out that on December 28, 2006, due to thunderstorms over
the Dallas/Fort Worth area, in addition to our flight, 70 other flights
were diverted from DFW to land at other regional airports. Except for
the people trapped on those runways like us and other members of our
Coalition on other flights--no one knows exactly how long all of those
flights were held because there are no statistics kept. The reality is
that airlines conveniently aren't required to report the amount of time
those planes sat on those runways.
Why is the failure to maintain these statistics so important? The
problem may be orders of magnitude greater than delay statistics
currently maintained by the government, but without valid statistics
nobody knows the full extent of the problem, including our lawmakers.
To get some idea, we can look to one statistic that is kept. Last year,
16,186 flights \1\ were diverted to other airports. Assuming at least
100 passengers per flight, that means over 1.6 million Americans may
have experienced circumstances similar to the December 28, 2006 Austin
debacle. And those numbers aren't reported anywhere!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Source: http://www.transtats.bts.gov/
HomeDrillChart_Month.asp?Sel_Year=2006&Arr_
Del=1&Sel_Carrier=000&Sel_Airport=000&URL_SelectYear=2007&URL_SelectMont
h=1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is why, Members of the Committee--we have turned anger into
advocacy --that is one of the few bright spots of our ordeal and the
reason why I am here speaking in front of you today.
It is with a great deal of determination that we have formed the
Coalition for Airlines Passengers' Bill of Rights. In just three short
months, we have become the fastest growing airline passenger's
organization in the country and our membership of 15,000 continues to
expand.
I'm here to urge Members of this Committee, the Senate and Congress
to enact legislation of an Airline Passengers' Bill of Rights that
holds airlines accountable to their customers, while providing the very
basic level of customer service.
The Airline Passengers' Bill of Rights is not about:
This is not about reasonable and inevitable flight delays or route
diversions due to weather conditions.
This is not about delays for mechanical problems that could affect
the safety of a flight.
This is not about putting unreasonable pressures on airline
professionals that would compromise passenger safety in any way.
This is not about adding unreasonable financial burden to the
airline industry.
The focus of our Coalition is about:
Passengers being held as veritable hostages and the whim and
convenience of the airlines due to completely controllable
events and airline practices.
Passengers having the right to be returned to the gate after
a reasonable amount of time.
Passengers on flights being allowed to deplane to make
travel arrangements.
Passengers being provided basic services such as food, clean
water and toilet facilities when passengers must be held on the
plane for valid safety reasons.
Airlines ending the practice of holding passengers hostage
in airplanes after pushing back from the gate, with full
knowledge . . . to preserve ``on-time'' status.
An industry with so few rules and such poor oversight by so
many governmental agencies that even in the face of epidemic
strandings and reports that point to a continued and massive
decline in customer service, refuses to police themselves and
take necessary actions to correct their mistakes.
Passing legislation for controllable events that the
airlines in the past have acknowledged exist, yet have failed
to adopt.
We know the airlines wish we would just go away. But there's one
key factor the airlines have discounted and that is the will and anger
of airline passengers that are saying: Enough is Enough!
This is why we are here today, urging Members of this distinguished
Committee and Congress to adopt the Airline Passenger's Bill of Rights
and not let the airlines off the hook once again with their empty
promises. After years of broken promises and declining customer
service--as we saw once again in the latest Annual Airline Quality
Rating Report--Congress must now step up and use FAA reauthorization
legislation to ensure that airlines make passengers' rights a top
priority once and for all. The last thing that we should do is provide
more giveaways to the airlines and less accountability to consumers and
Congress while airlines continue to strand passengers in communities
all across the country. In addition, I understand that the airlines'
plan for reauthorization would wrongly slash funds by $600 million,
jeopardizing efforts to modernize our air traffic control system.
Safety and well-being should be our focuses, not tax breaks.
The flying public needs a voice and legal recourse so that we can
stop these horrific stories, experienced by thousands of stranded
passengers, from happening once and for all. For the last 8 years and
longer, the airlines have had the opportunity to make good on their
promises to improve customer service and ensure basic rights for
passengers. It's time for Congress to ensure that airlines make
passengers their top priority.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to address members of the
Committee and for allowing me to share our story on behalf of the
Coalition for an Airline Passenger's Bill of Rights.
* * * * *
Below is a detailed account of the 9 hours of sheer frustration and
exasperation endured by our family and hundreds of other passengers on
American Airlines flight 1348 on the tarmac of Austin International
Airport.
3 AM Dec. 29th my family left our home in Napa, CA for the San
Francisco airport. We travel a lot, but hadn't been all together for a
long time and this was to be a restorative vacation that my husband
negotiated in exchange for doing wine programs at the Marriot Grand
Hotel in Point Clear, Alabama. It was my first trip since being
brutally assaulted in a vacant home in Napa in June of 2006.
5 AM. We arrived at the airport for our 6:30 a.m. departure,
scheduled to land in DFW at 11:30 a.m., where we would catch our
connecting flight and be in Mobile, AL by 3 p.m. Wouldn't that have
been nice?
From approximately 5:30 until 6:15 a.m. they moved us from one gate
to another, to another 3 gates.
We finally boarded at the third gate at 6:30 a.m. There had been a
mechanical problem so we were subject to a short delay. The flight was
uneventful until we got to DFW airspace. The pilot came on and said
that there were some ``Fingers of weather'' rolling through Dallas and
that we would be able to get there, but would have to divert to Austin
briefly to wait out the ``Wave/Finger of weather currently hitting
DFW.'' We put down in Austin sometime around 12 p.m. We pulled into a
parking lot type situation and were first in line and closest to the
terminal so we could see the gates and traffic as it came and went.
It was a sunny landing, the weather was clear in Austin.
Hour one: Pilot says still awaiting clearing of weather. Passengers
restless and nervous about connecting flights, but still okay.
Hour two: Pilot still giving us 15 minute updates and telling us
he's sure we'll take off, but weather still not clear and heavy traffic
in the sky preventing take off. People becoming more restless. Several
people who live in Austin and have weddings, funerals, parents' deaths
to attend to are now upset and want off the plane. Pilot says he'll ask
for a bus to come get some folks off, but accompanies that with a
threat ``if you deplane you are on your own, you cannot get back on,
you have no guarantee of when you will get your luggage.''
Two and \1/2\ hours: He gets clearance to take off, but he decides
it's not safe, he can see an impending thunder head and says we must
wait 5-10 minutes for it to clear. It blows through, but he loses
clearance to take off. People are getting angry and calling AA Customer
Service to find out about their connecting flights. AA states they will
surely make their connections, just stay put and that all flights have
been delayed out of DFW, not canceled.
Three hours: Pilot says a bus is coming for some passengers if
would we be so kind as to allow the passengers who are disabled,
elderly and folks with small children to deplane first. Again he
accompanies it with a threat of losing your luggage, etc. We don't try
to deplane at this point as my kids are older and the bus only holds 15
people. People storm the back of the plane. We see the people with the
kids, the elderly and disabled return to their seats but there are a
few less people onboard. That is the last bus . . .
Three and \1/2\ hours: Flight isn't going to fly. Pilot informs us
he is waiting now for a gate and has made a request. Many planes have
gathered next to us in the parking lot. All of them originated in
California--all American Airlines. None get gates. The pilot opens the
cockpit door and invites us to speak to him in the front if we want to.
Hour 4: People are very frustrated, hungry, angry, restless and
needing their medications.
Hour 5: The toilets begin to stink a little, the pilot is still
telling us he has requested busses to get us off, requested a gate,
requested food and beverages be brought to the plane. None arrives.
Hour 6: The stewardess passes out a bag of pretzels and water from
the bathroom sinks in plastic cups. A woman has run out of diapers and
is making one out of a t-shirt. We have kids screaming and running up
and down the aisles and people are fed up.
Hour 7: The toilets really stink, the pilot lets us know he is
still requesting and being promised busses, to deplane us, bring food
and beverages and to empty the toilets. He is angry they aren't giving
us a gate and tells us so. He is also angry they aren't bringing us
food.
Hour 8: There is another onset of thunder and lightning and
suddenly a transformer is hit and all the lights go out around us. I
can see a man flashing SOS signs out the window of his plane, I see
people out on the tarmac walking their dogs, I see an ambulance and
police car circling a plane. At this point I'm totally freaked out. I
go to the front of the plane. The pilot is exiting the bathroom and I
want to enter it. He holds the door shut and says enter at your own
risk. I was already aware the rear toilets weren't usable so I entered
at my own risk. The smell was intoxicating in a bad way. I could hardly
stand it. I exit the bathroom and there is a crowd around the cockpit.
I overhear a pilot from an adjacent aircraft state that a dog has
``defecated'' all over some passengers and that a woman is now throwing
up and the air quality onboard has deteriorated to an inexplicable
extreme. He was summarily told to stop asking for a gate. We could see
available gates, but we weren't being allowed to go to them. I then see
Hazmat going to a plane and the police entering another plane. An
ambulance and paramedics have entered another aircraft. All were denied
gates. Feeling so much anxiety that I was having chest tightness, I
asked the pilot whether if I were to have a medical emergency would
they allow him a gate. He said no, they will send out an ambulance to
get you like they are doing over there. I now know that flight 534 on
our tarmac had a diabetic paraplegic who was going into shock. They
tried to treat him onboard but couldn't, but when they tried to remove
him on the tarmac, the passengers began to revolt. At that point they
asked his brother to declare an entire onboard emergency. He did and
they were allowed a gate. They were the only plane that evening allowed
to a gate prior to the restaurants closing in the terminal.
9 Hours: Our pilot again says he is not being allowed a gate. He
says he's talking to the number one and number two managers at the
airport and the number one and number two managers at the airlines and
being rejected. The rear of our plane was beginning to get very noisy.
People were angry and trying very hard not to yell, they walked to the
front of the plane and talked to the pilot. There was one particular
gentleman that wasn't going to take it any more. He went to the front
of the plane and had a heart to heart with the pilot. Voices were
raised. At that point the pilot came on and said that he felt that it
was no longer safe to hold the plane and that he may lose his job, but
was taking the plane in anyway. He turned out the lights in the cabin,
we applauded, he shut the cockpit door and began to move at a snails
pace since he didn't have the appropriate guidance and clearance to
pull in. It appeared he was pulling toward the path of an incoming jet.
It was very scary. He made a series of U-Turns and pulled up behind
another jet and waited until they backed away from the jet way. They
did and he pulled forward. It was another 15 minutes or so before the
jet way moved into position for us to deplane.
The pilot, Jesse Fedoro, told us they will get our bags off for us,
so we should go to Baggage Claim 3 and wait there for our bags. As we
deplaned it was like aliens coming off of a spacecraft on a different
planet. We were shell-shocked. You could see it in everyone's face. The
restaurants had closed 30 minutes earlier so we couldn't even buy a
meal. We went down to baggage claim and there were the media, The
Dallas Morning News, CBS Channel 42 and others. I was interviewed by
CBS and pointed out that the arrivals board didn't have our flight
mentioned. My kids were tired, hungry and angry. My youngest went to
sleep on the tile floor in baggage claim. My oldest bought Doritos and
sodas for sustenance. We waited 2.5 hours for our bags and they never
arrived. There were now a sea of bags and an even larger sea of people.
We asked a security guard who was standing next to the baggage claim
about the bags. She said, ``Oh, they decided 2 hours ago not to remove
the bags, just come back in the morning and `resume' your flight.''
``Resume?'' You mean the flight isn't over? How do we get back in the
airport without boarding documents?
We went in the middle of the night to Waffle House and got a hotel
room. We returned the next day to 700 of our new best friends at the
airport trying to get in and couldn't. I bought a copy of The Dallas
Morning News which had our flight on the front page. Good thing. I was
able to tip the curbside guy and get a dummied up boarding pass, both
of which had different times on them. We made it to the gate and our
crew was there. They said our flight wasn't going to fly, so we went
standby on another flight. They gave no explanation for why it didn't
fly. We took off from Austin and headed for Dallas, our baggage still
in Austin. We were upset about that. Being in the same clothes for 2
days and counting, I wanted my bags. We got to Dallas and as we landed
the pilots said if there is a flight at a gate going to where you are
going, then get to it. We had called the night before and had confirmed
that we ``should'' be on the flight since we didn't make the night
before. We got clear across the DFW airport and the gate agent said,
``I have good news Mrs. Hanni, your bags are on the plane. But I have
bad news, Mrs. Hanni, you are not.'' I looked at the pilot armed with
The Dallas Morning News and said, ``You have no idea what we've been
through here.'' He said, ``Unless you are the Queen of England, you
aren't getting on this plane.'' I asked him repeatedly to remove our
bags and they declined. When we complained, they said ``don't blame us
for the weather.'' They said that they were even removing people from
the plane with ``confirmed'' seats against their will due to a baggage
overage. We asked for a voucher for the hotel and the gate agent said,
``Don't blame us for the weather.''
We spent the second night in Dallas, and contacted AA again. They
said we had confirmed seats to get to Mobile the next day. We returned
and did make our flight to Mobile. Our bags were there waiting for us.
When we did get to our hotel, they had given our rooms to someone else,
thinking we weren't going to arrive. My husband had lost the vacation
portion of the trip for him, but had to complete the work over the next
4 days as committed.
57 hours in total. Enough is enough!
______
Azusa, CA, February 9, 2007
Hon. Mike Thompson,
First District of California
Washington, DC.
Re: A.A. Flight #2412 (Known as the Dog Pooped on Passenger's Flight)
Stranded in Austin
Flight 2412 left LAX at 6:30 a.m. to arrive in DFW at 11:40 a.m.
After circling DFW for 40 min. due to weather we were diverted to
Austin for refueling and to wait clearance back to DFW. According to
cell phone records upon arrival at Austin tarmac time was 12:32 p.m.
There were several other planes to our right and left. The weather upon
arrival was fair no severe thunder or lighting storms. The captain came
on in intervals telling us that due to storms back at DFW and current
weather conditions he would have to wait for clearence.We were aware of
other planes taking off and in fact 2 AA planes to our right did
finally depart. During the time on the plane they had run out of snack
boxes, sodas, and water. You could drink the water from the bathroom
tap but as the toilets were getting full to the point that you couldn't
flush them as the contents had no where to go!
Three major incidents on my flight were: 1. Back at DFW my daughter
who has an Autistic 2 yr. old was driving around the airport wondering
where I was. Finally after a phone call from me she parked went to the
AA ticket counter to ask for information which was rudely told ``Its
the weather haven't you been watching TV?'' to which she replied she
had been circling the airport. When ask when the flight would arrive
she was told it the weather. The customer service was horrible. 2. I
had a woman on my flight that had recently had back/hip surgery. Upon
taking her pain medication with no food she vomited. She asks the
stewardess to take the bag and dispose of it and her reply was we have
no trash bags you'll have to hold on to it. 3. There was a small lap
dog who had doggie poop on the seat and the owner upon being given
napkins for the passenger to clean up the mess she also was told to
hold on to the mess as there were no trash bags. Not only was the smell
horrific and people were also getting sick but the Captain announced to
the pilots of the other planes the truth. . . . We just had a dog s--t
and our cabin air has just gone to h--l. According to my phone records
at somewhere between 5:23 and 6:03 p.m. we knew we were not going to be
able to get to DFW. At that time I had my daughter look for lodging as
well as a flight out the next day. We were told by the crew that if we
left the plane we would be responsible for finding our way to our final
destination and that our luggage would remain on the plane. We did have
a few Austin bound only passengers allowed off after a 1 hour plus wait
for the 15 person van. If the weather was the issue and yes there was a
thunder/lighting storm but it did not last the entire length we sat on
the tarmac, and if safety was a concern of the airline as it should be
(we were told that is why we couldn't taxi to the terminal if a gate
became available safety for the ground crew as well) why were people
let off the plane next to us to walk there dogs on the tarmac! We were
told due to certain regulations the crew would had to get off the plane
and suddenly a gate became available. We deplaned 9:04 p.m.
Upon exiting we were told to go to a certain gate to get
information which no one was there so we were directed to the ticket
counter where it was also a chaotic mess. We were issued a piece of
paper and told make you own arrangements as our flights are booked and
we can't help. Luckily my daughter had called and we were able to get a
distressed passenger rate at the Austin Hilton. (How ironic that a
hotel had a distressed passenger program) I passed the phone number
around to other passengers so they didn't have to sleep in a closed
airport with no restaurants open and empty vending machines BUT working
bathrooms. This was all out of our pocket there were no vouchers issued
for anything. Upon my arrival at the airport the next day to my dismay
my flight 1250 which was scheduled to leave at 6:40 was delayed not due
to weather but they couldn't find a flight crew!!
Shelia Pfister.
______
Business Wire--January 17, 2007
Allied Pilots Association Outraged That Executive Bonuses Could Match
or Exceed American Airlines' 2006 Net Profit
``Aren't Bonuses Normally Paid for a Job Well Done?''
Fort Worth, Texas--The Allied Pilots Association, collective
bargaining agent for the 12,000 pilots of American Airlines (NYSE:AMR),
expressed its outrage over executive bonuses scheduled for payout in
April that could match or even exceed the airline's Fiscal Year 2006
net profit of $231 million announced today by parent company AMR Corp.
Based on yesterday's closing price of $40.23 per share for AMR
stock, the April bonuses will total some $218 million. The exact amount
of executive bonuses depends on the price of AMR stock on April 18. A
disproportionate share of those payouts will go to a select group of
around 50 senior executives.
``It's clear that American Airlines' financial performance has
improved substantially, thanks in large measure to the deep sacrifices
by our pilots and other employees beginning in 2003,'' said Captain
Ralph Hunter, APA President. ``The $1.1 billion improvement in AMR's
results would not have been possible without the $1.6 billion in annual
concessions agreed to by AA non-management employees, who are the real
heroes behind American's return to profitability. While line employees
are still carrying the burden of these massive cuts in pay and
benefits, it is insulting for senior managers to be receiving a
windfall that may equal or exceed all of our airline's earnings in
2006.
``It is particularly egregious to pay large bonuses when our
airline has been experiencing such serious operational problems. What
we have today is a small set of underperforming managers whose personal
financial recovery is out of line with American's troubled performance
in the field. Aren't bonuses normally paid for a job well done?''
Hunter cited the widely publicized incidents that occurred on Dec.
29, 2006--such as American Airlines Flight 1348, which sat on the
tarmac in Austin, Texas for some 8 hours with no food or water and
overflowing toilets before the Captain elected to taxi to the terminal,
despite on-duty managers' refusal to provide a gate--as symptomatic of
a management team more concerned with its compensation than with
improving the airline's lagging operational performance. According to
an article last week in The Wall Street Journal about this and similar
incidents aboard various American Airlines flights that day, ``This
wasn't a story about the `perfect storm,' but about corporate cultures
that don't put customer service first.''
According to Hunter, when APA contacted management to ask how it
planned to prevent such operational miscues in the future, management
justified its performance by noting that no one was hurt on Dec. 29.
``Safe transportation is the absolute minimum our passengers expect
and deserve. Not injuring anyone is a wholly unsuitable measure of
success,'' Hunter said.
He also cited American Airlines' fourth-place performance in the
November 2006 Department of Transportation (DOT) A+14 Dependability and
fifth-place finish in Survey America's (SAM) ``Overall Travel
Experience'' measure as further indication that serious work remains to
be done to improve the airline's operational performance and customer
experience.
``In announcing these latest results to employees, management
appeared to celebrate the fact that the airline had improved upon its
dismal prior showings in both surveys,'' Hunter said. ``We believe the
airline would be better served by management focusing on how to improve
customer service, rather than celebrating mediocrity.''
``Management's recent decision to amend its application for DFW-
Beijing service to include a Chicago stopover on the outbound leg is
another indication of misplaced priorities,'' Hunter said. ``The China
route award was within American's grasp, yet management made little
more than superficial attempts to negotiate the necessary pilot
contractual provisions to make it happen. Management gave away a
profitable route by rejecting a fair and reasonable APA proposal that
would have cleared the way for American Airlines to win the Dallas-
Beijing route award.
``This outcome is particularly inexplicable in light of the fact
that APA's proposal was actually less expensive than the amended route
proposal management ultimately submitted and the DOT rejected. We still
fail to see the business case behind management's decision to abandon
negotiations with its pilots, withdraw its application for a valuable
new international route and forgo hundreds of millions in additional
revenue for both the airline and the region.''
``Management's recent decisions are costing American Airlines
millions in lost opportunities. They should stop rewarding themselves
for their failures.''
Founded in 1963, APA is headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. There
are currently more than 2,800 American Airlines pilots on furlough. The
furloughs began shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Also, several
hundred American Airlines pilots are on full-time military leave of
absence serving in the armed forces. The union's website address is
www.alliedpilots.org. American Airlines is the Nation's largest
passenger carrier.
______
April 2, 2007
Abandoned by United Airlines
To Whom It May Concern:
My name is Roger Barbour, Jr. I was on the United Airlines Flight
7529 Dec. 20, 2006 that left its passengers in Cheyenne, Wyoming with
no help or support. Here is my story of what happened to me and the
disgraceful misconduct of United Airlines for abandoning us.
I first purchased my round trip United Airlines ticket in November
because my father's health was declining and I had not seen my parents
for over 4 years. However, I had purchased my ticket to leave in
December and see my family. I never though I would never see my father
again. He passed away in his sleep on November 20, 2006 before I could
see him.
The day that I arrived at the International Airport in Edmonton,
United Airlines was behind at that very moment. They told us to be
there at 4 a.m. and did not open the ticket counter till about 6 a.m.
The custom agents were not happy. I hope that this would be the only
problem that I would encounter. The flight from there to Cedar Rapids,
Iowa was uneventful.
On December 20, 2006 my best friend Mike drove me to the Cedar
Rapids airport. I arrived very early in the morning without a thought
of any problems. When I arrived at the aircraft gate for United
Airlines the passengers were informed that there was a mechanical
problem with the computer systems of the aircraft because the night
before it had a hard landing. They did not fix the problem till over 2
hours later. Most of the people were fine with this little problem
thinking that though we would be late United Airlines would call ahead
and take care of any problems that the passengers might have with
connecting flights.
After 2 hours we finally boarded the aircraft and headed to Denver,
Colorado and this is when everything started to go wrong. When we
entered Denver airspace we were informed that we would be in a holding
pattern to land at Denver International Airport. We were in the air
flying in a holding pattern for an hour. Then we were informed that we
were going to land in Cheyenne, Wyoming to refuel the aircraft and then
we would depart for another airport. We were on the plane for an hour
or more before the pilot said he would let us off till they got the
planes refueled. We waited in the terminal for about 2 hours waiting
for the planes. There was also another United Airlines plane that was
diverted with us. This senior pilot started to offer people a seat on
their aircraft for Chicago if anyone wanted to go there to catch
another flight. I asked him if I could go, but then changed my mind and
would stay with my aircraft.
While at the airport people started to leave since their final
destination was Denver, Colorado and their relatives were coming to
pick them up. So, the rest of the passengers just waited. Then after
about 2 hours we were allowed back on the planes after a security check
was preformed on every passenger. We were then again on the plane for
about an hour or so before the pilot said the deicer that was being
used was freezing before we could take off again and for safety reason
we should wait till the next day to fly to a major airport. This was
fine with all the passengers because the last thing we wanted to do is
crash on take off. However, this started the major problems.
When we were back in the terminal as we waited for our luggage to
be offloaded we thought that United Airlines would help us with this
problem. When we got the luggage off the airlines everyone started to
make calls and try to find a place to stay. This was a major problem
for me since I only had $600 in U.S. currency on me at that time. This
money is all I had left to help pay my tuition (though this was not
even close to being enough to pay it off). Since my father passed away
all of his retirement pay and any money that my parents had were frozen
by the government. I had given my mother some money to help here and my
professor said he would find me a job at my university to help me out
when I got back.
The pilots and crew from both aircraft were taken to the Holiday
Inn first with the passenger waiting for a ride to go there. We thought
that United Airlines would help us with the rides to the Holiday Inn,
but they did nothing. Each person paid about $5 U.S. to get to the
Holiday Inn. Ann Kinney, another lady, and I were helped with a ride
from the outfitter company for hunters at the airport. We paid him for
taking us to the Inn. By the time we left the airport it was dark
outside and the weather was getting worse. Once at the Holiday Inn we
got our rooms (most people had 2-3 roommates to help pay for the
rooms). Each person paid about $35 U.S. for the room. Everyone was
trying to get information of what was going on and trying to figure out
what we should do.
I started to make calls to United Airlines as soon as I could. It
took sometimes over an hour to get through to the ticket agents. After
talking with them for about 30 minutes they were able to get me another
plane that would be leaving on the 21st if I remember right. That was
fine and the person provided me with standby for other aircraft. The
one thing that scared me though is that United Airlines did not even
know that we were stranded in Cheyenne, Wyoming till we called them.
After I came downstairs I was talking with the senior pilot from
the other aircraft. He was helpful and told everyone that he would do
anything he could to get us out of Cheyenne, Wyoming and that he wanted
us to be at the airport in the morning at 10:30 a.m. Anyone who wanted
to come with him could. He then told us that the airport in Denver was
closed till December 22, 2006. I was shocked since the man at United
Airlines had informed me that the airport would be open in the morning
and that I would be able to leave on the 21st of December. So I had to
call them back again and see what I could get. At that time it was very
difficult to get anything. When I was able to connect I was hung up on
by the United Airlines representative.
When I woke up in the morning I headed downstairs with my luggage
ready to head back to the Cheyenne Wyoming Airport. When I got
downstairs to the main lobby the senior pilot was eating breakfast. I
spoke with him and told him I was trying to get back home to get
married and that my father had just passed away and I just wanted to
get home. He called up his office that very moment and they told him
that the plane would be leaving with passengers that morning (This was
around 7:30 a.m. December 21). He told me to get to the airport by
10:30 a.m. and he gave me his room number and told me to call him.
Around 9:45-9:50 a.m. I called him and he told me to head to the
airport and that is what I did. The pilot of our aircraft was rude and
did not inform us of anything and did not even want to talk with us at
all when we asked him questions.
Once I went outside the sky was blue and it was warm. The snow was
melting and we thought without question we would be leaving. I arrived
at the airport a little before 10:30 a.m. Almost all the passengers
were there and we started to feel happy, but cautious at the same time.
The time then was 11 a.m. and the pilots were nowhere to be seen. We
were not sure what was going on. Then around 11:30 a.m. someone spotted
the pilots outside with the aircrafts. This caught us off guard since
they just went right to the planes and did not even talk with us.
Then someone found out that one of the passengers that was waiting
with us was a United Airlines pilot in training and he told us that the
aircraft was leaving without us so it could fly to another city to pick
up passengers. We were shocked by what he said! He told us he had
called his headquarters and they told him this. Then right in front of
us he called them again and was told the same thing! We did not know
what to do. The pilots did not even come into the terminal and talk
with us and tell us what was going on. Then the plane pulled up close
to the terminal and the pilot-in-training was screened and his bags
were screened by the security personal. We were shocked sitting there
watching the planes take off without us. At that very moment people
started to sign a paper to take legal action against United Airlines
(this paper was given to me). Then people started to take pictures and
video of the aircrafts leaving us behind with no help. We were
abandoned by United Airlines. We paid for service that was not
provided.
At this moment we knew we were on our own and we tried our best to
find rental cars and what not to get away from this super small airport
because we had no options for flying out since the only airline that
operated from this airport was closed and when it opened they said they
would have no fights till December 26, 2006. Also, the small airline
only flies to Denver International Airport. So the only option was to
get a rental car and go from there.
Everyone was looking for a rental car or anything that would get us
out of this place. After a few hours of people trying to get cars the
ticket counter for the small airline company told us that United
Airlines had called them and told them that tomorrow they might send a
bus to pick us up and drive us to Denver International Airport. This
was not good enough since most of the people needed to get home before
that date. Half of people wanted to head to Salt Lake City, Utah to get
to the airport there (The pilots told us we could have went to Salt
Lake, but they wanted to land in Cheyenne Wyoming) and get a flight. A
very nice man gave me $40 to get something to eat since I had not eaten
for one full day because I was scared to spend any money.
After the sun was going down, 5 people and myself were fortunate to
get a minivan to drive to Denver. This cost everyone about $30-$35
each. One of the guys that were with me has become a good friend. His
name Sean Moleski and he is a U.S. Marine. As of March 30, 2007 he is
now serving in Iraq and told me to keep him up-to-date with what is
going on. We drove as a group to Denver International Airport and saw
that no one was there. So we headed to another hotel to wait till the
morning. That night I had to again call to get another ticket to fly
out of Denver. I was told I could be put on standby for another flight
sometime during the week.
When the morning came we all pitched in another $35 for the hotel
and got something to eat (For me this was 2 days without eating so I
ate a lot that morning). When we got to the airport we were shocked
with how many people were there. We all had to wait for 6 hours just to
talk with someone. All the other people with me were able to get
flights. I was told I could be put on standby for a flight on December
23 and that is all they could do. I found out by myself that Air Canada
was part of an airline alliance with United Airlines. I called them up
and was able to get a ticket that cost me about $200 U.S. to leave on
the 23 December without question. The manager at the Florida office
told me he knew what I was going though and did everything he could to
help. I ended up getting a $1,599 U.S. dollar ticket for a little over
$200. Later I was told though that the airlines were canceling flights
to Edmonton. I called Air Canada back up and within 2 minutes the guy
had got me a flight out of Denver that very night at 8:30 p.m. flying
into Toronto, Canada with a connection flight to Edmonton at 8 a.m. in
the morning. This would allow me to arrive in Edmonton on December 23
at 10:30 a.m. I was so happy and got the ticket.
I went and bought something to eat while I was waiting for the
aircraft. Something strange though started to happen. The aircraft was
delayed due to rain in Toronto and was pushed back till 9 p.m., then 10
p.m., and then it dropped off the board. I was shocked and people were
all wondering what was going on. Then we saw the aircraft and the
French Canadian pilot came out and said we were getting off the ground
in a few minutes to make sure we don't get stuck in Denver. That pilot
got us off the ground and flew so fast we arrived almost 40 minutes
early in Toronto. I was never so happy to see an Air Canada plane and
was so happy that they came to pick us up. I was able to make it to my
wedding on the 29th of December.
In about a month after I was home in 2007 I checked how much I owed
on for my cell phone bill. I saw $100+ Canadian on it and was very
happy. The next day however I received a bill that was almost $800
Canadian! I was shocked and did know what do to! I called up my service
provider and they were able to get it down to about $550. However, that
was still more money than what I could spend. Then when my professor
helped me out with a job and I played it off and hoped for the best. I
also used my savings that was just about $200 U.S. to help pay it off.
I was broke after this and was very worried. I spoke with the Dean of
Computer Science and he got me a teaching job to help me out. Also, the
scholarship for graduate students that I had applied for I received and
it helped. This helped me get out dept, but I was still hurt
financially. I did call United Airlines up and was hung up on not once
but two times.
A week or so later I received a call from Gary Stoller a News
reporter for USA Today news group called me and told me he had heard
about what United Airlines had done to the passengers or should I say
what they did not do for the passengers. I helped him the best way that
I could with his story. The story ran front page on USA Today news
papers across the Nation. I was so happy that someone was helping us. I
was then contacted by the Denver Post and told the news reporter there
about what had happened. However, with all this happening United
Airlines did not even contact me and most of the other passengers. When
Mr. Stoller asked them why they did not contact me (since I was one of
the main individuals in the news article) they told him that they did
not have any contact information for me. I bought my ticket using my
credit card and provided them with contact numbers so Mr. Stoller and I
thought this was very odd and untruthful.
Then later after Mr. Stoller told them that he would be running
another story about what happened I received a phone call from United
Airlines. They told me they would provide me with a $300 voucher to fly
again and it would expire in 1 year. I will not write down the words
that I said to this individual over the phone, but it was along the
effect of ``You can take that voucher and put it were the sun does not
shine!'' I also told this individual that I had spoken with a major law
firm that sues airlines and they told me that I can take full legal
action against them. Another thing I told her was what makes her think
that I would ever want to fly with them again! They treated us like
garbage and did not care one bit about what happened to us and the only
reason they called was because of the story in USA Today.
I was absolutely shocked that United Airlines would treat us this
way. For my plane we had over 2 hours of mechanical problems and under
law they have to help us and they did not! They then call us up only
for damage control to protect themselves after the world found out what
they had done to us and offer us a minor incentive that does nothing
for our loss and to keep us from talking! I find this down right
insulting and legal action should be taken against them. The amount of
funds that each individual paid out of their own pocket we thought
United Airlines would reimburse us, but what we found out was they
treated us like garbage and inhuman when we asked for help! We were
something they could discard because no one would take us serious or
care about what happens. One more thing that really made me angry was
that I found out after I had returned home from my sister a few months
later, that when my mother heard about what had happened to me she
became so worried that she had a nervous breakdown. After a few weeks
my sister was able to get her to go to the hospital. The passing of my
father and what happened to me did this to my mother.
As of this day April 2, 2007 United Airlines has not called me back
after they spoke with Gary Stoller and said they would. They also told
him they would offer us anything we wanted since they found out that
Mr. Stoller was going to publish another story about us on April 4,
2007 and as of this date I know they have only contacted two passengers
from my flight that are CEOs at two other companies. This shows without
a shadow of a doubt their lack of respect and conduct for their
passengers! They showed no respect or concerns for any of us!
Sincerely,
Roger Barbour, Jr.
______
New York, NY, April 6, 2007
To Whom It May Concern:
My name is Katharine ``Katty'' Biscone and I was a passenger on
JebBlue flight 351, JFK to Burbank, that was supposed to depart JFK at
6:45 a.m. Feb. 14, 2007, Valentine's Day. After boarding the plane at
6:15 a.m., my flight was basically held hostage and forced to sit on
the tarmac for the next eleven hours. We never left the runway, never
made it back to a gate, and never had any protection under the current
law. JebBlue is claiming it was a weather issue, but there is much more
to this story than that.
After we boarded the plane at 6:15 a.m., we all thought, even
though the weather wasn't perfect, it must be okay for us to fly or
else they would have never boarded us. If there was a chance we would
get canceled, they would have had us just wait in the terminal, right?
Wrong. JebBlue said after taxi-ing at 6:45 a.m., we were going to have
to wait a few minutes to leave until the weather cleared up just a
little. That began the eleven-hour game of cat and mouse that the
airline played with us. They would put us in the taxi line, then say we
had to be de-iced, then they would tell us we froze to the runway, then
they would put us back in line to leave, then they said we would
deplane as soon as a gate opened up. But, a gate never opened up, so
they put us back in the line to leave. This went on forever, and the
entire time we were forced to stay seated. Remember, we were supposed
to be the first flight out that day, and we ended up being the last to
get de-planed.
My very full flight was loaded with the elderly (who are very
susceptible to blood clots), people with new babies and toddlers, and a
handful of pregnant women. I had shoulder surgery last summer and am
still healing from it, so I knew a 6-7 hour flight would test my body,
including my back and hips, but I thought I could handle it with no
problem. Unfortunately, at around hour 8, my hips, shoulder and back
began to throb, and I've had problems with all three ever since the
ordeal and I'm know I'm not alone in my physical pain. People all
through the plane were complaining of back and body issues the entire
time.
During these 11 hours, they never told us why they couldn't get us
back to a gate, and to this day I still don't know why. They kept
promising at any moment we would leave. But, at one point, the air
system froze, and it became sweltering in the plane. The satellite
froze up, so the TV was on and off constantly, and the worst was when
the lavatories filled up completely, and we could no longer use the
bathrooms the last few hours of the ordeal. There was also no beverage
or food service. If you went to the back of the plane and begged, they
would give you a tiny bottle of water, and maybe a bag of chips or
cookies. But, after 11 hours, that was not enough. It was cruel. And
there was nothing we could do about it. In the current state of airport
security, people don't bring food or beverages with them from home. I
know a lot of people counted on sleeping during the flight, but when we
were put in a constant state of flux, no one really slept, and people
were hungry and thirsty. People were behaving well, but some people
really started to panic and get claustrophobic, and who wouldn't after
being stuck on a small, crowded plane for a day. I've had panic attacks
ever since. They usually occur when I'm on a very crowded subway and it
starts to get hot. I feel trapped, just like I did on Valentine's Day
on my flight. JebBlue also reminded us if anyone tried to force their
way off the plane, they would get 20 years in jail automatically
because of the PATRIOT Act. There was even an emergency AA meeting in
the aisle by the rear lavatories. People didn't know what to do. There
was nothing we could do. We were absolutely trapped, and had no
protection, no recourse. I have to say, I thought that the passengers
were really amazing and totally patient. The fact that no one lost his
or her mind is still shocking to me. JebBlue was very, very lucky!
To add insult to injury, when we tried to call and reschedule our
flights from our cell phones on the plane, JebBlue wouldn't let us
because they kept saying our flight had not been canceled . . . even
though we had been trapped for over 6 hours at that point. If they had
at least given us a chance to figure out another way to get to Burbank
. . . but they even took that option away from us. They did not
officially cancel the flight until the 10th hour, and by that time,
there wasn't room on any of their flights until Saturday, and when I
asked if they could book me on a different airline . . . we got
``disconnected.'' It was obvious that our welfare meant nothing to
JebBlue. All they care about is the bottom line, and the fact they
would torture and entire plane of passengers and crew is just evil. The
final reason we ended up not taking off is because our crew would have
technically been illegal to go because of the hours they are allowed to
work. The second their time ran out, somehow JebBlue was able to get a
staircase to the plane and put us on buses to the terminal. Which mean,
They could have done that the entire timE!!! Or at least bused out food
or drained our bathrooms or something! Anything! We were lied to,
abused, and held hostage with absolutely no options what so ever. We
have got to start protecting passengers.
They had no one helping us to figure out what to do when we got off
the plane. We just wandered around the airport until we figured out
which 4-hour line to stand in to get help. At that point, they couldn't
even get me out until Saturday night. Remember, this was a dawn flight
on Wednesday. I never even went to California. I missed my best
friend's first movie premiere ever, and it took me weeks to not be in
constant pain. God knows what other people lost by being stuck on that
plane. The only good thing that came out of that experience is I can
win any ``Worst Valentine's Day Ever'' contest. Please, please, please
pass this bill of rights. I don't ever want this to happen to anyone
else ever again.
Thank you,
Katty Biscone.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Hanni.
Now may I call upon Mr. Chandran?
STATEMENT OF RAHUL CHANDRAN, PROGRAM COORDINATOR, CENTER ON
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
Mr. Chandran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, honorable Committee
members. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
I am a frequent flier, and I don't represent anyone.
Over 8 years have passed since I was first stranded on the
tarmac in Detroit, courtesy of Northwest Airlines. It was now--
it's an infamous incident by now, and I'm sure that you've
heard plenty of the details. I simply recall many hours of
miserable monotony, unpunctuated by either water or food, the
frequent refusal to allow customers to use the facilities, and
a complete lack of information or communication. In the furor
that surrounded this incident, the airlines promised us greater
self-regulation, arguing there was no need for legislative
protection of passengers, as the airlines had our best
interests at heart. So, I continued to fly. It's my job. I have
no choice.
Shortly thereafter, in early 2000, I was on a United flight
at Washington Dulles in the middle of the summer, a sweltering
summer's day, and it was a short hop up to New Haven,
Connecticut. We left the gate sometime around 1 p.m. We
returned back to the gate around 5:30, having sat in a tiny,
terribly hot turboprop, with neither water nor food nor access
to the bathrooms, and certainly no information. We sat there,
in near silence, for 4 and a half hours, on a D.C. tarmac under
the hot sun, no air conditioning. I'm sure you can imagine how
much fun that was. There were no more than eight people aboard
this flight, but eight people trapped in a metal tube designed
to retain heat on that tarmac for 4 hours are still eight
people on the boundaries of reasonable tolerance.
On the 16th of March, less than 1 month ago, I suppose
having not learned my lesson and continuing to fly regularly--
--
[Laughter.]
Mr. Chandran.--and just 1 month after the incidents that
affected JetBlue, you know, 10 weeks after the American
Airlines incidents, I arrived at JFK Airport at 8 p.m. There
had been some snow and earlier flight cancellations at other
airports, but the website for the airline that I was flying,
Cathay Pacific, assured me that the flight would take off, as
scheduled.
Having flown over a million miles, I came with several
Heath Bars, a couple of bottles of water, and made sure my
laptop was juiced up, because I figured there would be some
delay. After two, two and a half hours of waiting, we boarded
the plane at midnight. I exited the same plane at 9:43 in the
morning, 9 hours and 43 minutes after we had left the gate. The
intervening period had been passed on the runway, waiting--
waiting for de-icing fluid, waiting for gates to become
available, waiting for taxi space. In short, waiting. Waiting,
that is, with our seatbelts securely fastened, our tray tables
stowed, and our seatbacks upright, so no ability to enjoy even
the little, but incredibly important, 3 inches of recline that
you get in economy.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Chandran. Now, in certain respects, and in all fairness
to Cathay Pacific, this was the best terrible, intolerable
delay that I have ever encountered. The captain was reasonably
communicative. He promised us 45 minutes of resolution every
hour and a half; and then, every hour and a half, told us that,
in fact, the problem had not been resolved. The crew generously
allowed us to use the restrooms, which was fairly exciting, but
they didn't offer us water, so that we weren't encouraged to
use the restrooms too often. We were actually, in fairness,
watered after 1 hour, and then again after 6 and a half hours.
Eventually, when the flight was canceled, and prior to a
final 2-and-a-half-hour wait for a gate, they fed us what was
supposed to be our dinner. Now, given that almost all the
dining establishments in the terminal had stopped serving food
around 10 p.m., this meant a good 10 and a half hours since
most people--and it was a flight full of kids--since most
people--10 and a half hours since people had had any food,
during which they had stayed awake, with their seatbacks fully
upright.
So, we were watered twice, fed once, and sent upon our way.
Upon disembarking, we received a $15 voucher for food available
at the terminal, and passengers were asked to wait around. I
chose not to wait any further, and decided to go home and live
my life.
Honorable Senators, I'm sure, as you are all aware from
your experience, there comes a point where the consequences of
a series of poor decisions accrete and you have an intolerable
outcome. Plane delays happen. I continue to fly. I've been
delayed in over 30 countries, for reasons that range from the
very, very real and salient to the slightly incredible. I
recognize that pilots need to respond both to the profit
motives of their airlines and to make a good-faith effort to
try and get passengers off the ground, airborne--and safely.
But it is clear to me, through all of these experiences, that
the companies that run airlines have failed to implement the
measures that will prevent the intolerable outcome: passengers
trapped on a plane on the tarmac for more than 5 hours. That,
ladies and gentlemen, is simply intolerable.
We continue to fly--I think I speak for all air
passengers--because air travel is part of the engine of
economic growth that has made America great. It's simply a
necessity. It's no longer a luxury. A simple bill of rights
that provides passengers with the confidence that airlines will
take care of our basic needs--we are like plants, we need to be
fed, we need to be watered, and occasionally we need our
compost cleaned--airlines must take care of our basic needs and
prevent us from being confined in intolerable conditions. We
must ensure that they are responsible to us, and held
accountable. And this, and only this, will secure our continued
confidence in flying.
If this type of incident is truly infrequent, and if
airlines truly consider confining passengers to the airplanes
aberrant, then it will do so at little cost to the industry, as
these are measures the airlines have long claimed to have in
place.
An earlier witness talked about the possible [inaudible]. I
can't speak for anybody else but myself. I can, however, tell
you this with confidence. If I am on an airplane for more than
4 hours, I want to get off. I want to go home. I want to
continue my work. I want to make sure my children will be fed.
I want to make sure my family is OK, and make sure a dog
somewhere--I don't have a dog, but I'm sure there are many
hypothetical dogs out there--that the dog is taken care of and
walked. And I recognize that the system has experienced
problems and needs time to recover. And recover, it will.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I will be
glad to take any questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chandran follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rahul Chandran, Program Coordinator,
Center on International Cooperation
Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Stevens, honourable Committee
Members, it is an honor to testify today, and I thank you for the
opportunity to discuss the need for improvements to airline services.
Over 8 years have passed since I was first stranded on a tarmac in
Detroit, courtesy of Northwest Airlines during the now infamous
incident of January 1999. I have not thought about the incident for
many years, and I am sure that the honorable members of the Committee
are familiar with the incident; I simply recall many hours of miserable
monotony, unpunctuated by water or food, the frequent refusal to allow
customers to use the ``facilities,'' and a complete lack of information
or communication.
In the furor that surrounded this incident, the airlines promised
greater self-regulation, arguing that there was no need for legislative
protection of passengers as the airlines had their best interest at
heart. The free round-trip ticket I received from Northwest as
``compensation'' for the ordeal, I returned to Northwest.
Shortly thereafter, in early 2000, I was on a United flight at
Washington Dulles, during a sweltering summer day, for a short-hop up
to New Haven, CT. We left the gate, sometime around 1 p.m.
Approximately 4 hours later, having sat in a tiny turbo-prop, with
neither water, nor access to the bathrooms--and certainly no clear
information, we returned to a position near a gate, and the door was
opened as the passengers were near rioting. There were, I believe, no
more than eight people onboard this flight. Eight people, trapped in a
metal tube designed to retain heat, on the tarmac in the hot summer
sun, without air-conditioning or refreshment for 4 hours, are still
eight people on the boundaries of reasonable tolerance.
On the 16th of March, less than 1 month ago, and just 1 month after
the series of incidents that affected JebBlue, I arrived at JFK airport
at 8 p.m. Although there had been some snow, and earlier flight
cancellations at other airports, the website for Cathay Pacific--the
airline that was slated to carry me to Vancouver--suggested that flight
889 would take off as scheduled. I came prepared, as several hundred
thousand miles of flying have left me convinced that airline websites
are rarely up-front about delays.
After about 2 hours of waiting, we boarded the plane at midnight. I
exited the same plane at 9:43 a.m, 9 hours and forty-three minutes
after had left the gate. The intervening period had been passed on the
runway, waiting for de-icing fluid, waiting for gates to become
available, waiting for taxi space--in short, waiting. Waiting, that is,
with our seat-belts securely fastened, our seat-backs upright and tray-
tables stowed, and no ability to enjoy even the little--but important--
comfort of the three-inch recline that economy class offers.
Now in certain respects, this was the best delay I have ever
encountered. The captain was reasonably communicative about the delays,
although his promises of a forty-five minute resolution were only
reported as having failed after about an hour and a half. The crew
allowed passengers to use the restrooms, and offered us water. Twice
that is--once after about 1 hour, and once after six and a half hours.
Eventually, when the flight was canceled--and prior to the last 2 hour
wait for a gate--they fed us what was supposed to be our dinner. Given
that almost all the dining establishments in the terminal had stopped
serving food around 10 p.m, this was a good ten and a half hours after
most people had last had any food, during which they had been kept
awake.
So we were watered twice, fed once, and sent about our way. Upon
disembarking, we received a $15 voucher for food available at the
terminal. I chose not to wait any further, and went home.
Honorable Senators, as I am sure you are all aware from your
experiences, there comes a point when the consequences of a series of
poor decisions accrete, and you have an intolerable outcome. Plane
delays happen--I continue to fly, and have been delayed in over 30
countries, for reasons that range from the real to the incredible.
Pilots need to respond to the profit-motive of their masters, and to
make a good-faith effort to get their passengers off the ground, and
airborne, safely.
It is, however, clear to me through all of these experiences that
the companies that run airlines have failed to implement management
procedures that prevent the intolerable outcome--passengers trapped on
airplanes for more than 6 hours.
We continue to fly because air travel is part of the engine of
economic growth that has made America the success story that it remains
today. A simple bill of rights that provides passengers with confidence
that airlines will take care of their basic needs, prevents them from
being confined in intolerable conditions, and ensures that airlines are
responsible and held accountable for their actions will help to ensure
that this remains the case.
Thank you for your time.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
May I now call upon Mr. May?
STATEMENT OF JAMES C. MAY, PRESIDENT AND CEO,
AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.
Mr. May. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I--and members of the
Committee--I'm pleased to be here today on behalf of nearly
400,000 passenger airline employees, who, every day, make it
their mission to transport over 2 million passengers throughout
the United States, and the world, as quickly and smoothly as
possible.
Much has been said today about the quality of airline
customer service; some of it harsh, some of it fair and
deserved. While we don't always get it right, with more than
20,000 flights a day, we do get it right most of the time. What
troubles me is the suggestion that our members and their
employees don't care about how passengers are treated. That's
simply not true. They care deeply about their customers and the
service that they receive. And suggestions to the contrary are
wrong.
Following safety, on-time service is the most important
factor for success in the airline business. The reputations
that the airlines earn for good service is the currency they
have to offer in the marketplace for passengers.
This afternoon, I'd like to emphasize two key points.
You can't effectively legislate operational response to
what we call irregular operations, including severe weather;
and, two, arbitrary deadlines and inflexible standards have
serious unintended consequences.
Delays and cancellations are the enemies of every airline.
They're costly, they interfere with customers' plans, they
drive missed connections and mishandled bags, they upset
carefully constructed flight schedules, and create a cascading
effect that can spread to many cities and disrupt passengers'
plans for several days. The DOT estimates that delays cost
airline passengers $9\1/2\ billion in 2005--I think that's
2006; and the airlines, nearly $6 billion. Thus, passengers and
airlines have an identical goal of completing scheduled flights
safely and on time.
And I think these factors alone are incentive enough for
airline members to work hard to avoid delays and cancellations.
But there's another powerful incentive at work, and it's the
marketplace.
Recent events have clearly caused all carriers to review
their policies and procedures, update contingency plans, and
engage their key airports in discussions about dealing with
severe weather situations. In addition, as you heard earlier,
the DOT Inspector General is reviewing these incidents very
specifically, and will soon issue a report that should clarify
exactly what did, or did not, happen, and make appropriate
recommendations. ATA, our board, actually called for DOT to
review these incidents, following our February board meeting,
and we very much look forward to the Inspector General's
report.
Finally, extended delays are, in fact, rare, and the
extraordinary weather that triggered these events cannot be
overlooked. The decisions American and JetBlue made as their
situations unfolded involved extensive and ongoing internal
coordination, consultation with ATC and FAA officials, and were
made with the goal of getting passengers to their destinations
safely. As it turned out, on December 29, 2006, American
Airlines experienced more diversions than on any other day in
the entire airline's history, with the exception of 9/11.
Moreover, delay statistics maintained by DOT show that just 36,
out of more than 7 million flights in 2006, had delays of more
than 5 hours. And about 1,260 flights were delayed between 3
and 5 hours. Even if you were to triple or quadruple those
numbers in response to Ms. Hanni's concern, that is a very
small percentage of the 7.2 million flights annually in the
United States.
Now, in short, I don't think Congress can legislate good
weather or the best way to respond to bad weather, because
every situation is clearly unique. A strict 3-hour limit, even
with a 30-minute extension, would eliminate carrier flexibility
to deal with these unique situations, and inconvenience, we
think, more, not fewer, passengers. No passenger likes a
delayed flight. But what they like even less is not being able
to reach their destination at all.
The proposed legislation will force airlines to
inconvenience planeloads of people to satisfy the demands of a
few to deplane. And we don't think that is good customer
service. By forcing carriers to deplane passengers, which, in
most cases, would require--most cases, not all--would require
the plane to return to the terminal, the legislation could lead
to an overall increase in cancellations, unplanned overnight
stays for individuals, including unaccompanied minors, more
bags missing connections, missed meetings, vacations, and
cascading cancellations and delays caused by planes and crews
out of position. Moreover, fully loaded airplanes make
rebooking passengers on flights increasingly difficult. And I'd
like to re-emphasize that point. With full load factors, if we
cancel a flight, rebooking those passengers on future flights
is increasingly difficult.
So, in conclusion, I think flexibility is the best tool an
airline has in responding to these situations. More passengers
will be inconvenienced by a strict rule requiring airlines to
deplane them, instead of letting the airlines deal with these
extremely rare situations using their knowledge and experience.
What is in the best interest of passengers is, in fact, in
the best interest of the airlines, which is limiting
cancellations and completing flights safely. Airlines and their
customers need crews and planes to get to their destination to
keep the system running. With 42,000 city pairs and more than
20,000 flights a day, carriers require that flexibility to
respond to irregular operations and get passengers safely to
their destinations.
Thank you for allowing me to appear today, and I obviously
expect there'll be a few questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. May follows:]
Prepared Statement of James C. May, President and CEO,
Air Transport Association of America, Inc.
Introduction
The hallmark of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (``ADA'') was
Congress' policy determination to place ``maximum reliance on
competitive market forces and on actual and potential competition'' \1\
among airlines to drive efficiency, innovation and low prices, and to
provide ``the variety and quality of, and determine prices for, air
transportation services.'' \2\ While not always neat and clean,
marketplace competition in the airline industry has produced stunning
consumer benefits in the form of low fares, expanded service options
and product differentiation, and a steady flow of new airlines eager to
challenge incumbents. As a result, more Americans fly for business and
pleasure, and ship goods by air, than ever before. Air transportation
has become an indispensable element of America's infrastructure and our
Nation's economic well-being.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 49 U.S.C. Sec. 40101(a)(6).
\2\ 49 U.S.C. Sec. 40101(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed Airline Passenger Bill of Rights Act of 2007 (the
``Bill'') was offered in response to specific delay events involving
two ATA member airlines. These events were serious and regrettable, and
travelers' unhappiness is understandable. As explained below, however,
the concerns that this Bill seeks to address do not require new
legislation. The market forces the ADA unleashed, bolstered by existing
regulatory mechanisms, are fully capable of bringing about appropriate
changes to airline policies and procedures. Indeed, those changes are
underway already. On the other hand, this Bill would undermine
Congress' judgment to place ``maximum reliance'' on market forces, add
costs for airlines and reduce consumer benefits going forward. In
addition, the Bill would have numerous unintended consequences that
would increase, rather than prevent, customer inconvenience.
Airlines Care about and Provide Good Customer Service
It should be obvious that no one cares more about completing
scheduled flights on time than the airlines and their employees. After
safety, on-time service is critical for success in the airline
business. Good service and on-time performance are what the airlines
sell, and the reputation an airline earns for good customer service is
the currency it has to offer in the marketplace for passengers. Good
service and on-time performance ensure repeat business, and that is the
goal for all airlines because it leads to commercial success. On the
other hand, poor service and on-time performance drive customers away
and, ultimately, lead to failure. No airline is in business to fail.
Every year, airlines spend millions of dollars on new products and
upgrades, reservations and check-in systems, online systems, personnel
and training to make it easier for passengers to purchase tickets,
print boarding passes, obtain special services, and enhance the
inflight experience. They do this not only because of competition to
differentiate themselves from their competitors and to drive customer
satisfaction, but also because the easier it is for passengers to
access their flights and services, the more efficient the airline
operation becomes. This, in turn, drives down costs and frees up
resources for growth, capital spending and further product
enhancements.
A good example is online check-in. Many airlines have now deployed
this service, which allows passengers to print their boarding passes at
home or work and bypass traditional airport passenger processing. This
benefits passengers and airlines alike, reducing the passenger's time
at the airport, easing crowded airport lobbies, and allowing gate
agents and customer service representatives to focus on passengers who
need personal assistance.
Other examples abound. Airlines have begun introducing Spanish-
language check-in kiosks, and many airlines are adding check-in kiosks
throughout their systems as e-ticketing becomes more prevalent. New
terminals are being constructed and aircraft interiors are being
refurbished with new seats and entertainment systems.
In response to the 1999 Customer Service Commitment, ATA member
airlines instituted a variety of measures and developed new systems to
improve customer service, such as automated voice and Internet
messaging about delays and schedule changes, automated re-booking
systems when severe weather forecasts lead airlines to proactively
cancel flights in advance of extreme weather conditions, and re-booking
hotlines. They also have developed internal policies and procedures to
monitor delay situations, including taxi-out delays, and to implement
event-specific plans to minimize customer inconvenience.
Notwithstanding these varied customer service initiatives, airline
customer satisfaction is measured first and foremost by on-time service
and flight completion. Airline operations are incredibly complex,
intricate systems with a significant number of moving parts that
airlines can control, but also two major external factors that are
completely out of their control: weather and the air traffic control
(ATC) system. These two factors greatly affect on-time performance and
flight completion and, for this reason, can be the source of great
frustration for airlines. Together they accounted for approximately 66
percent of all delays in 2006, according to FAA data.\3\ When bad
weather hits, the best efforts of the airlines sometimes cannot
overcome the impact on operations. That was the case in December 2006
and February 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ FAA Opsnet, http://www.apo.data.faa.gov/opsnet/entryOPSNET.asp.
The Bureau of Transportation Statistics, which DOT uses for its monthly
``Air Travel Consumer Report,'' uses slightly different data and
categories, reported that just under 60 percent of 2006 delays were
caused by weather and ATC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legislation Is Not Needed
Unusual Weather Conditions Triggered Unusual Delays
The two delay events that led to the proposed Bill were caused by
extraordinary weather conditions. This factor alone distinguishes these
two events. In the case of American Airlines on December 29, a storm
pattern in north Texas affecting Dallas-Ft. Worth International Airport
(DFW) that normally would have dissipated relatively quickly (often in
less than an hour) kept reforming over a period of 8 hours. Every time
it appeared that an operational window was about to open, the storm
refocused and the window slammed shut. The storm literally defied years
of experience and weather forecasting expertise. On almost any other
day, the planes diverted to Austin would have recovered to DFW within
two or 3 hours. In fact, American experienced more diversions on that
day than any other day in its history except 9/11.
Likewise, in the case of JetBlue Airways, the winter storm that
struck John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), which also affected
most of the northeastern U.S., was extremely intense and unlike
forecasts for much of the time consisted of a particular type of
precipitation known as ``ice pellets.'' FAA recently had dictated
severe departure restrictions in ice pellet conditions and these
restrictions unexpectedly but effectively prevented JetBlue and other
airlines from being able to operate departures. The airport continued
to accept arrivals, however, and it quickly became gridlocked, with
aircraft unable to either takeoff or return to the terminal.
In both cases, there were numerous factors that led to passengers
being onboard some airplanes much longer than ever expected. Chief
among them were (1) the reasonable expectation, based on past
experience and current forecasts, that weather and airport conditions
would change and permit operations to resume; (2) the knowledge that
the overwhelming majority of passengers much prefer to take a delay but
get to their destinations rather than have their flights canceled,
especially over holiday travel periods; (3) crew members, like
passengers, prefer to depart late and get home or to their intermediate
destination rather than have a flight canceled--particularly if the
flight has been diverted; and (4) operational recovery occurs more
quickly, and all upcoming passengers benefit, if as many airplanes and
crew members as possible are able to reach their scheduled
destinations, even if delayed. In short, these incidents are classic
cases of ``creeping delays'' and best intentions of carriers gone awry.
In hindsight, could these situations have been handled better?
Undoubtedly so, as the carriers themselves have stated. But it is also
true that these airlines, and every other U.S. airline, learned
valuable lessons from these incidents. As a result, ATA member airlines
are all taking steps to prevent a recurrence of events such as these.
Can we say they will never occur again? In truth, no. But the
likelihood they will is extremely small.
Extreme Delays are Rare
Another reason why this legislation is not needed is that extreme
taxi-out delays are rare. In 2006, 36 out of 7,141,922 flights reported
had delays of more than 5 hours after pushing back from the gate. That
is just 0.0005 percent, or five ten-thousandths of a percent. This
statistic is hardly reason to justify legislation to substitute the
judgment of Congress for that of the executives who not only run these
businesses on a daily basis but also are responsible for their safe and
timely operation.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ To put that number into perspective, the chance of a flight
delay of greater than 5 hours (approximately one-in-200,000) is
approximately the same as dying from falling down the stairs, based on
National Safety Council statistics. See: http://www.nsc.org/lrs/
statinfo/odds.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if this number were to double in 2007, which we do not believe
will be the case, it would not support new governmental impositions on
the airlines. Likewise, if we consider the 2006 delays of three to 5
hours, there were only 1,259 flights affected. That amounts to 0.00018
percent of the 7,141,922 flights reported. In short, for a system that
operates 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, that must respond to winter
snowstorms and summer thunderstorms, and that safely moves more than
740 million passengers and 2.5 million tons of cargo annually, there
are remarkably few extreme delays.
Delays are Costly for Airlines and Passengers
Delays and cancellations are the enemies of every airline. They
interfere with customers' plans, drive missed connections and
mishandled baggage, upset carefully balanced flight schedules, throw
off carefully planned crew scheduling, and potentially create a
cascading effect that can spread to many cities and disrupt passengers'
plans for several days. DOT has estimated the cost of delays to U.S.
airline passengers in 2005 at $9.4 billion. At $62 in direct operating
costs per minute of flight delay, DOT has estimated that in 2005 delays
cost airlines an additional $5.9 billion.
Market Forces and Existing Regulatory Oversight are Working
Regulation of an industry or enterprise is justified when market/
economic forces do not cause that industry or enterprise to conform to
social norms or to protect the health and safety of workers and the
public. That is not the case here. On the contrary, the intense media
coverage of the negative public reaction to these incidents caused both
American and JetBlue to promptly modify their policies and procedures.
American, for example, has adopted an internal policy that will prevent
onboard delays from exceeding 4 hours. Likewise, JetBlue voluntarily
adopted a policy that will prevent onboard delays of more than 5 hours.
JetBlue also implemented its own Customer Bill of Rights that covers
(and in certain cases compensates for) delays and cancellations. This
positive response by both carriers demonstrates that the pressure of
market forces is working and that government intervention is not
necessary.
Other carriers likewise have heard customer concerns and have
responded by initiating internal reviews of their policies and
procedures to deal with extended delays, by reviewing and updating
contingency plans, and by engaging their key airports in discussions
about how best to deal with these kinds of situations. Carriers also
are examining the capacity of their call systems, adopting contingency
plans for handling high volumes during emergencies, as well as
evaluating computer-based systems that would automatically re-book
passengers whose flights are canceled.
In addition to airlines' voluntary responses, Department of
Transportation (DOT) Secretary Peters has asked the DOT Inspector
General (IG) to investigate these incidents in light of the airlines'
commitment to meet customers' essential needs during extended onboard
delays and to have contingency plans in place for such events. The 1999
``Airline Customer Service Commitment'' by 14 ATA member airlines
provides that ``the airlines will make every reasonable effort to
provide food, water, restroom facilities and access to medical
treatment'' in the event of extended onboard delays consistent with
safety considerations. The Secretary also requested the IG to provide
recommendations on what airlines, airports and the government might do
to prevent a recurrence of these kinds of extended delays and to
highlight industry best practices. American and JetBlue, as well as
many other airlines, have cooperated with the IG's office during this
investigation and have provided numerous documents and extensive data
not only about these events, but also about their internal policies and
procedures.
The IG's report, due in mid-May, thus will identify potential
measures for carriers and other stakeholders to consider adding to
their policies and procedures with respect to avoiding, and responding
to, significant delays. ATA looks forward to the IG's report because it
will also clarify the facts of these incidents--and correct inaccurate
media reports indicating that particular flights had no food, water or
working lavatories. We understand that neither American nor JetBlue
flights were without food, drinks or water, and at least one working
lavatory.
Finally, the proposed legislation is unnecessary because DOT
already has existing authority to investigate air carrier compliance
with its consumer protection regulations, including the prohibition
against unfair and deceptive trade practices, and to fine carriers for
violations of these obligations. DOT's enforcement office executes this
authority and has a long history of actively protecting consumer
rights, including issuing fines to airlines.
Congress' determination to rely on market forces clearly was the
right judgment. As the carrier responses to the recent problems
demonstrate, market forces are driving improvements to customer
service. And the market-driven responses already undertaken by airlines
have been bolstered by the Secretary's request for an investigation and
report by the IG. When issued, the IG's report may identify additional
measures the carriers can take. Finally, not to be overlooked is the
significance of congressional hearings like this one and the upcoming
hearing before the House Aviation Subcommittee. Together, these
measures are more than adequate to ensure that consumer rights and
interests are protected.
Airline Operations Are Complex and the Proposed Bill Would Have Adverse
Consequences for Passengers
The proposed Bill provides that any passenger who wants to get off
an airplane delayed on departure for 3 hours must be deplaned if safe
to do so, unless the pilot reasonably believes the plane will takeoff
within 30 minutes. A hard and fast rule like this will have numerous
unintended consequences that, ultimately, will create even more
inconvenience for passengers and lead to even more flight
cancellations.
No passenger likes delay, especially long delays. But what the
majority of passengers like even less is not being able to get to their
destination at all. A late flight is better than no flight, and can
mean the difference between attending and not attending an important
event or long-planned vacation. If the flight returns to the gate and
is canceled, then the passengers will very likely be delayed at least
into the next day, if not longer. Even if the flight is not canceled,
planes will lose their place in line to depart by being forced to go
back to the terminal or getting out of line to deplane passengers by
air stairs. This, necessarily, will cause even longer delays for
everyone else. Consequences that will occur, particularly from a return
to the gate to deplane a passenger, include:
Cancellations because crews ``time out.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ FAA regulations on duty limits and rest requirements for pilots
and flight attendants, as well as carrier collective bargaining
agreements that go beyond the regulations, limit the amount of time
pilots may be on duty without a rest break. Limited provisions that
allow the duty day to be extended because of reasons beyond the control
of the airline assist in dealing with weather related delays. However,
the utility of these provisions will be curtailed significantly by
forcing planes back to the gate to deplane passengers.
Flights delayed because they lose their place in the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
departure line.
Unplanned overnight stays for unaccompanied minors.
Mishandled baggage.
Missed meetings and vacations.
Cascading cancellations and delays caused by planes and
crews out of position, especially when diversions are involved.
An overall increase in cancellations because airlines will
pre-cancel flights to limit passenger inconvenience and
operational complications caused by the Bill's requirements.
These consequences are likely to be exacerbated if a flight cancels
at a city to which it has been diverted.
The impact of flight cancellations extends beyond the passengers on
the canceled flight. Operationally, the consequences for airlines and
the next day's passengers include:
Crews and aircraft are ``out of position'' and the next
day's schedule is compromised.
Passengers at the destination city must wait for the
aircraft to arrive the following day, delaying or canceling
their departures.
Flight crews ``deadheading'' on the canceled flight will not
reach their destinations and will not be available to operate
their scheduled flights.
Aircraft will be forced to traverse congested runways/
taxiways when logistically possible (as it was not for long
periods at JFK during the storm gridlock) to return to the
terminal.
Airline Customer Service in the Post-9/11 Era
On a broader basis, airline customer service in the post-9/11 is a
relevant discussion point for this hearing. Good customer service is
important to our members and they understand it drives consumer
choices. But, as with virtually every other aspect of airline
operations, the effects of 9/11 continue to be felt in the customer
service area. While our members have done much to address customer
service concerns over the last five-plus years, they also recognize
that in some respects customer service is not at the level they want it
to be or provided in the preferred manner. The reasons for this are
many. Chief among these are the operating limitations imposed by an
aged and inefficient air traffic control (ATC) system.
The Air Traffic Control System is at Capacity
The current ATC system relies on a series of ground-based platforms
that are linked to form a very complex network system that supports
airways, through which aircraft fly. The system was designed to create
point-to-point routings which we now recognize are inherently limiting
and inefficient. Today, airways increasingly resemble many highways:
they have become saturated. Even in good weather, the system is just
able to handle the traffic demand. When severe weather disrupts the
airway system, the impact on airline operations is immediate and often
widespread. FAA has developed a number of programs to ensure safe
operations in these conditions, but the effect of these programs is
flight delays and cancellation, which inexorably leads to unhappy
passengers.
Government must do everything it can both in the near term and long
term to improve airspace capacity and system performance, particularly
during adverse weather conditions. Point-to-point airways cannot
produce substantial new capacity, or allow operations in weather
conditions that today force FAA to reduce airway capacity. In the long
term, we have no choice but to introduce new technology to generate
needed capacity and new operating capabilities. Potential capacity
enhancements and efficiency improvements, so critical to meeting
growing air traffic demand and responding to environmental concerns,
will remain unrealized unless the ATC system is promptly and thoroughly
transformed. In the near term, incremental capacity enhancements must
be pursued vigorously. These include the New York and Chicago airspace
redesign projects, ADS-B implementation and expedited development of
RNAV/RNP procedures.
Most Airlines Remain Financially Precarious
The well-documented drop in traffic after 9/11 and the related
external shocks of SARS, the Gulf War and skyrocketing jet fuel prices
brought the industry to its knees. From 2001 through 2006, the industry
lost $33 billion, including 2006 estimated net earnings of $2 billion
in 2006.\6\ These conditions put four major airlines into Chapter 11
and forced the industry to shed jobs and airplanes, slash capital
spending, and take on massive amounts of new debt, just to survive.
Through 2006, airlines cut more than 150,000 jobs, shed more than $8
billion in annual labor costs and parked hundreds of airplanes. At its
peak in 2004, industry debt is estimated to have exceeded $107 billion,
and most recently stood at approximately $79 billion. In short, the
airline industry as a whole remains in extremely fragile condition.
Earnings in 2006 and projected earnings for 2007 are helping to revive
the industry, but it is far from where it needs to be to weather the
next exogenous shock or economic recession. In fact, only one U.S.
passenger airline enjoys an investment-grade credit rating from
Standard and Poor's. Moreover, the industry's recovery remains hostage
to stable oil prices, as the recent spike in oil prices stemming from
Iran's capture of twelve British sailors demonstrates. In short, the
projected 2007 earnings would quickly disappear should oil and jet fuel
prices surge for a sustained period of time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ By comparison, the industry earned only $23 billion in 1995-
2000, the industry's most profitable period ever. DOT has not yet
released airline industry financial results for the fourth quarter of
2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost and Capacity Discipline Remain Critical
Assuming the industry recovery continues, airlines have many
financial demands. These include repairing their balance sheets,
funding fleet acquisitions to meet growing demand while reducing growth
in emissions, improving wages and benefits for their employees--who
have endured significant reductions since 9/11, funding airport
development projects intended in part to improve customer service,
acquire or upgrade ground service equipment to meet both operational
needs and emissions reductions targets, modernize reservations and
online booking systems to meet customer needs, and so forth. The point
here is that as much as airlines might like to redirect financial
resources at improving customer service--by hiring lots of new staff
and deploying new equipment--they must act deliberately to make sure
that all priorities, including those related to passenger safety, are
met and that they do not lose control of their costs. Airlines simply
cannot afford a ``fix it at any cost'' mentality.
The same holds true with respect to capacity. The industry was
finally able to achieve a profit in 2006 largely because supply began
to align with demand. Prior to that point, supply--seat capacity--
outstripped demand and, as a result, revenue could not keep up with
costs. While our members recognize that increased capacity could,
perhaps, make planes less crowded and provide a cushion to accommodate
passengers when their flights are canceled, the unfortunate truth is
that this would greatly increase airline costs. Airlines either would
have to raise prices, which is difficult to do in a highly competitive
pricing environment driven by low-cost carriers, find new ways to cut
costs--which could include more service cuts, or slip back into the
category of money losing enterprises.
The Current FAA Funding System Hobbles the Airlines
As we have stated in previous testimony concerning FAA
reauthorization, the current funding system for the FAA unfairly
burdens commercial airlines. There is no correlation today between
revenue collected and services consumed. Airlines pay well over 90
percent of Trust Fund revenues but drive less than 70 percent of ATC
system costs. The result of this inequity is that airlines, and
ultimately their customers, are heavily subsidizing other users of the
system--corporate aviation users in particular. A cost-based usage fee
system would correct this disparity and, in the process, free up
significant resources for airlines that can be used for, among other
things, improving customer service.
Conclusion
While commendable for its goals, the Bill is neither necessary nor
prudent. Extreme weather conditions of the kind that struck in December
2006 and February 2007 are unusual, and DOT statistics demonstrate
that, in fact, extreme delays are rare. And just as Congress
anticipated when it enacted the Airline Deregulation Act, market forces
have already caused airlines to change the way they prepare for, and
respond to, extreme weather conditions and resulting delays and
cancellations. Additionally, existing regulatory mechanisms are
ensuring appropriate action by carriers and protect consumer interests.
As we all know, weather remains, by far, the chief cause of airline
delays and cancellations. When weather hits, FAA slows down the system
and airports often lose runway capacity. Because the existing ATC
system is, for all intents and purposes, maxed out, the ripple effect
on airline operations that results from ATC responses is enormous.
Rather than layer on additional regulatory burdens that could prove
costly and result in greater numbers of passengers being
inconvenienced, we urge the Committee to pass legislation that will
enable FAA to modernize the ATC system as quickly as possible.
Expanding system capacity and putting technology in place that will
allow better operations when weather hits is the most effective action
for improving customer service.
The Chairman. I thank you very much, Mr. May.
And now may I recognize Senator Boxer?
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Mr. May, I find your testimony incredulous. I'm stunned by
your testimony. I don't know whether you travel--do you travel?
Do you have a private plane or do you travel commercial?
Mr. May. I travel commercial, exclusively.
Senator Boxer. OK, good for you. So do I. And I can tell
you, your testimony, to me, sounds like you're living in a
dreamworld. I just find--I find your testimony even arrogant.
You say you don't always get it right, you get it right most of
the time. Good. Thank goodness, yes, you do. And I think I've
flown more than a million miles by now, because I got elected
to Congress in 1982 and have been going back and forth ever
since, and I'm a loyal flyer of United Airlines. You get it
right most of the time. You should. You better. I mean, we're
trusting you with our lives. So, good, you get it right most of
the time.
But I say, when you don't get it right, on those few
occasions you say it is, just a few occasions, then you ought
to welcome the fact that we want to stop compounding the
problem, and you ought to work with us, and you ought to say,
``Good, sure, we're not afraid of a passenger bill of rights,
Senator Snowe and Senator Boxer. We want to work with you.''
You say that we set arbitrary deadlines. And, Mr. Mitchell,
who represents business flyers--but none of them that I know
today, sir, in your attitude toward our bill, if I might say
that--``arbitrary deadlines,'' what does that mean? Is it an
arbitrary deadline that we vote at 18? Yes, you might say it,
but it's common sense. We figured if you can go to war, you
should be able to vote. Most states, you can have a drink at
21. Is it too--is it arbitrary? Yes, I suppose you could say it
is--21. We get Social Security either at 62, 65, or 70.
Arbitrary? Yes, I guess you could say. Common sense, though,
pretty much. Medicare at 65, you could argue that one. But
whether it's marriage age or any other age or any other
decisions you make in your life--when you tell your kid, ``Come
home a certain time or you're grounded''--there are no
absolutes in life. But what Olympia and I have tried to do is
put our heads together, listen to what people are telling us
happen, look at your own customer first 12-point customer
service commitment, which I ask unanimous consent to place in
the record, and I will so do.
[The information previously referred to follows:]
Customers First 12 Point Customer Service Commitment
ATA members are committed to providing the highest possible level
of service to our customers. Each participating airline has published a
Customer Service Plan: Please consult your airline's Website for the
particulars of its customer commitment. Copies of those plans have been
provided to Congress and the Department of Transportation.
Each participating airline commits to:
1. Offer the lowest fare available--Each airline will offer the
lowest fare available for which the customer is eligible on the
airline's telephone reservation system for the date, flight and class
of service requested.
2. Notify customers of known delays, cancellations and diversions--
Each airline will notify customers at the airport and onboard an
affected aircraft, in a timely manner, of the best available
information regarding known delays, cancellations and diversions. In
addition, each airline will establish and implement policies for
accommodating passengers delayed overnight. A clear and concise
statement of airlines' policies in these respects will also be made
available to customers.
3. On-time baggage delivery--Each airline will make every
reasonable effort to return checked bags within 24 hours and will
attempt to contact any customer whose unclaimed, checked luggage
contains a name and address or telephone number.
4. Support an increase in the baggage liability limit--The airlines
successfully petitioned the Department of Transportation to increase
the baggage liability limit.
5. Allow reservations to be held or canceled--Each airline will
allow the customer either to hold a telephone reservation without
payment for 24 hours or (at the election of the carrier) to cancel a
reservation without penalty for up to 24 hours, in order to give
customers an opportunity to check for lower fares through other
distribution systems, such as travel agents or the Internet.
6. Provide prompt ticket refunds--Each airline will issue refunds
for eligible tickets within 7 days for credit card purchases and 20
days for cash purchases.
7. Properly accommodate disabled and special-needs passengers--Each
airline will disclose its policies and procedures for handling special-
needs passengers, such as unaccompanied minors, and for accommodating
the disabled in an appropriate manner.
8. Meet customers' essential needs during long on-aircraft delays--
The airlines will make every reasonable effort to provide food, water,
restroom facilities and access to medical treatment for passengers
aboard an aircraft that is on the ground for an extended period of time
without access to the terminal, as consistent with passenger and
employee safety and security concerns. Each carrier will prepare
contingency plans to address such circumstances and will work with
other carriers and the airport to share facilities and make gates
available in an emergency.
9. Handle ``bumped'' passengers with fairness and consistency--Each
airline will disclose to a passenger, upon request, whether the flight
on which the passenger is ticketed is overbooked, if, within the usual
and ordinary scope of such employee's work, the information is
available to the airline employee to whom the request is directed. Each
airline will also establish and disclose to the customer policies and
procedures, including any applicable requirements (such as check-in
deadlines), for managing the inability to board all passengers with
confirmed reservations.
10. Disclose travel itinerary, cancellation policies, frequent
flyer rules and aircraft configuration--Each airline will disclose to
the customer: (i) any change of aircraft on a single flight with the
same flight number; (ii) cancellation policies involving failures to
use each flight segment coupon; (iii) rules, restrictions and an annual
report on frequent flyer program redemptions; and (iv) upon request,
information regarding aircraft configuration, including seat size and
pitch.
11. Ensure good customer service from code-share partners--Each
airline will ensure that domestic code-share partners make a commitment
to provide comparable consumer plans and policies.
12. Be more responsive to customer complaints--Each airline will
assign a Customer Service Representative responsible for handling
passenger complaints and ensuring that all written complaints are
responded to within 60 days. Each airline will develop and implement a
Customer Service Plan for meeting its obligations under the Airline
Customer Service Commitment. Customer Service Plans will be completed
and published within 90 days and will be fully implemented within 6
months. Airline implementation will include training for airline
reservation, customer service and sales personnel to enhance awareness
of the responsibilities involved in implementation of the Customer
Service Commitment and Plans. The Airlines will publish and make
available their Customer Service Plans: (i) on airline Internet
websites; (ii) at airports and ticket offices (upon request); and,
(iii) to travel and reservation agents.
Senator Boxer. And we came up with an idea. Some people
said it was too weak, actually. We had a recommendation to add
ventilation and medicine. I'm willing to look at that, for
sure. But we've put together something that you should embrace,
it seems to me, and work with us on, instead of fighting us and
fighting the people who pay every day to fly. If it's so rare,
then what's wrong about a simple bill that gives the pilot the
flexibility. You used the word ``flexibility.'' We give the
pilot 100 percent flexibility, period. I trust pilots a lot. I
worked with Bob Smith so that pilots could carry guns on the
planes, if they were so trained to be air marshals, after 9/11.
I trust them--a lot more than I trust some guy with a green
eyeshade sitting in an office somewhere, saying, ``Oh, boy,
don't bring that plane back, we could lose X number of
dollars.''
You are dealing with real lives here. You sat next to two
people here. How could you be so unmoved by what they said it's
like?
I had a daughter trapped on a plane for about 4 hours. She
called me from the airplane. She was desperate, because she had
to get home to see her kid. She just wanted to know what was
going on. I called the airline. No information. Zippo. Nothing.
These are human beings, treated in the worst possible way.
I was so hopeful, when the Chairman said he was going to have
this hearing, that we could come together, rather than have a
battle--again. And I just hope the Senate is going to treat its
constituents with dignity. What if someone gets a heart attack
on one of your airplanes because of the stress, or a stroke?
What happens? Oh, then you'll be up here, saying, ``Gee,
Senator, I guess I was wrong. I should have given the pilot,
you know, some discretion.'' But it could happen.
And I think this legislation is a modest step, because, you
know what? I trusted you before. I was here. Guess what? I
didn't fight you. I joined you. I said, ``You're willing to do
this 12-point plan. I trust you.'' Well, look at this. ``We
will properly accommodate disabled and special-needs
passengers.'' And here, you have people who had special needs
who couldn't even get to their medicine. They will--you ``will
meet customers' essential needs during long on-aircraft
delays''--food, water, restroom facilities, medical treatment--
your words. If I did this--I could be thrown out of the Senate
if I said, ``I pass this law, and I will uphold it,'' and I
didn't uphold it. I don't know why you can't help us with this.
``Insure good customer service from code share partners.'' ``Be
more responsive to customer complaints.'' And Ms. Hanni, who I
admire so much, she didn't need this in her life, she just
said, ``I cannot put it out of my mind.'' Everybody does that,
and we all have this, we move on. We say, ``It was awful, let's
not think about it.'' It's like after you give birth, you know,
you forget about the pain and everything you went through.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. And you just don't want to go back and
remember the pain and the aggravation, because we're all
optimists. But we have to fix this. And Mr. Mitchell says,
``Fix it by getting new runways, getting more air traffic
controls.'' Amen. I'm with you, sir. And we will work toward
that, because, Senator Rockefeller is right, we don't have
enough money. But we need to do that. And we will do that. But
that's not tomorrow. We need to do this tomorrow. And I'm going
to fight hard. And I know that Senator Snowe agrees. We're a
team, and we're going to push this on every bill that we can to
get this thing done, because it isn't right, it isn't fair. We
backed off in 1999. We trusted you, sir. I don't mean you,
personally--your industry. You put it in writing, and you
didn't live up to it.
I have one question, for Ms. Hanni. Do you react the same
way I'm reacting to Mr. May? I mean, not--it's not a personal--
he may be a lovely gentleman, but, I mean, his attitude of----
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer.--you know, ``Leave us alone, this is
ridiculous and arbitrary, and go away.'' Does this bother you?
Ms. Hanni. I feel furious inside.
Senator Boxer. Well, tell me about it a little.
Ms. Hanni. Well, I just get that, unless someone has
experienced what we experienced, that it's hard for them to
have the same visceral reaction that I have. And I feel it now
whenever I hear another stranding story, because I know what it
felt like to be in that situation and not know what to do, not
know what to tell my children, my husband trying to keep me
calm, other people discussing in the plane, ``Maybe there's
terrorism going on in the airport. There must be some greater
reason why we're being held than simply someone decided not to
let us off the plane,'' when there were clearly gates
available. And it is so troubling to me to hear these baseless
arguments, basically, for something so simple and humane as
what has been put together, that would protect us.
And the things that we witnessed that day from our plane,
people walking their dogs on the tarmac, police cars going to
planes and arresting people, ambulances going to planes to
treat people on the tarmac, rather than allowing those planes
to go into a gate and safely deplane the diabetic paraplegic
with a colostomy bag on flight 534, and people flashing SOS
signs out their windows--you know, tarmac rage was imminent on
our plane, when our pilot decided against orders to take the
plane in. And he told us, every few--you know, 45 minutes or
so, what was going on, and that he was being refused a gate,
even though there were gates. So, it was extremely confusing,
troubling. I just don't think people's tolerances, for a
variety of reasons, can handle it. And there was conversation
of popping the emergency exits, just before he decided to pull
the plane in. And I don't know--you know, it wouldn't have been
safe for us to jump from the plane.
Senator Boxer. Well, the problem that's compounding it now
is, of course, any action when you're in an airplane----
Ms. Hanni. Is arrestable.
Senator Boxer.--is deemed a hostile act.
Ms. Hanni. Correct.
Senator Boxer. And any one of those airline people could do
something pretty desperate to stop you. So, it's sort of
putting you in a very--extremely dangerous situation. Well----
Ms. Hanni. Yes. And the----
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Ms. Hanni.--flight attendants are in a dangerous situation.
I have over 1,000 flight attendants that have e-mailed, saying
that they want this bill to be passed. They are tired of being
trapped with us in the planes.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Hanni. That's what they've said. They're scared.
They don't have any training to deal with that type of
situation, beyond a certain amount of time. The hostility is
entirely directed at them.
Senator Boxer. Right.
Ms. Hanni. And there are so few of them, in relationship to
the number of passengers on the plane. Clearly, our flight
attendant did not know what was going on, and said, ``I just
don't know why they're not letting us go to a gate. Maybe
they're afraid that 1,000 angry passengers would be too much
for the terminal after that many hours,'' because there were so
many planes on the tarmac that needed to go in. It was--it was
unbelievable. I--it was surreal, and we felt like aliens
arriving----
Senator Boxer. Well, I was going to----
Ms. Hanni.--you know----
Senator Boxer.--say, the sense that I have, having just a
little bit of this experience, but nothing like what you've
had--which is a miracle, in itself--is that, Mr. Chairman the
people there really lose their individuality and are viewed as
sort of the enemy, in a way, by the airline, that they have to
just deal with them and shut them up and keep them quiet. And
it's just--this isn't American. This isn't how we do things.
Each of us has a story, each of us has a reason why we're on an
airplane. Usually it's--very urgent reason or a happy reason or
something. And we pay a lot of money for the privilege of
getting that ticket.
Well, thank you. I am just more bound and determined to get
this done than I've ever been before, so I wanted to make that
comment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Snowe?
Senator Snowe. Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman.
I mean, the issue here is, Mr. May, that there is just no
accountability on the part of the airlines. I mean, there
aren't choices when you're sitting in an aircraft, enclosed for
an extended period of time. It's inconceivable, as I said
earlier, to be trapped in a plane, with no choices, not being
able to move, not to be able to use the restroom. It goes on
and on. And I think we've heard some of the stories here today,
with Ms. Hanni and Mr. Chandran, and we've heard other graphic
stories.
And listening to the Inspector General earlier, I'm
somewhat surprised, Mr. May, that you would not have responded
to the issues that were raised, because, if anything, he was
describing an industry that is essentially retreating when it
comes to customer satisfaction. In fact, I think that you need
to respond, your industry needs to respond. And I realize
they're going to be doing another report, but this was issued
in November of last year, and it describes an industry that
really is, at best, paying lipservice to some dimensions of
customer service.
There's no choice. It's not as if you don't like the
restaurant, you're going to get up and go to the next one.
People make considerable investments. If I go to the store and
I buy an appliance, and things don't work, I can take it back.
There's really, essentially, no recourse. And it has--and, as I
said, it has a reverberating effect. If you have a vacation,
you know, that you lose days in which you've paid for, or a
rental car. It goes on and on, not to mention family weddings
or funerals. And when you're emplaned and entrapped, there's
nothing that you can do.
Congress has a responsibility, in terms of public safety.
We have an obligation in an industry that is regulated and
controlled, you know, if you think about air traffic control,
ground control, the infrastructure, the airports, publicly
funded, passenger fees and taxes that are imposed by the
Government. So, it is a controlled and regulated industry. In
fact, not too long ago, the FAA--with respect to the FAA
reauthorization, I understand the industry, you know, would
like to have a new aviation safety account, to be primarily
funded out of the General Fund of the Federal budget, because
it is a public safety issue, as the industry indicated.
This is an issue of public safety. You know, this isn't the
lottery, well, you know, 4 hours, 5 hours, maybe 6 hours. Have
you ever sat on a plane when they told you specifically--and I
understand the exigencies with weather conditions. But what we
heard here earlier, that the delays attributed to weather were
5 to 10 percent of the overall flights--so, the question is all
the other issues, and it's exercising good judgment. And the
pilot was constrained, and when he finally was so exasperated,
he went back to the airport, the American Airline pilot. He
finally--he just finally decided to do it, irrespective of what
was being handed down from within the company.
So, I think that that is the issue here today. We've got a
matter of public safety. This is, you know, a minimal standard
that ought to be adhered to. And that's what we're--that's what
we have to face, because we don't want an incident that results
in a death and that we're back here discussing that. I don't
want that to happen. Barbara doesn't want that to happen.
That's why we're--I mean, that's why we've taken this approach,
because it is a matter of life and death; it's a potentially
life-threatening situation.
This isn't an issue of marketing. This is an issue of
public safety. And that's why we're compelled to introduce this
legislation, because obviously the industry is not engaged in
self-policing, and that is certainly evident with the report
that was issued by the Inspector General that was released in
November of 2006. So, this isn't just an old report. And
February was the second highest rate for delays ever. And sure,
some were attributed to weather, but there were a lot of other
exigencies, as we all know--we've heard it all--from paperwork
to lost crews, it goes on and on. So, we understand all that.
The question is, is accountability.
And what disturbs me more than anything else is that, above
and beyond these tragic situations, we find that the industry
is not adhering to its own, you know, Passenger Bill of Rights,
the one that it had promised to adhere to, back in 1999 and
2000. The fact is, as the IG said, and I'll say it again, only
5 of the 13 members of your association are doing anything with
respect to quality assurance or performance measurements
systems. There are no audits of customer service protection
plans, not looking at what's happening with delays and
cancellations, and going to the gates and understanding, you
know, whether or not they're providing timely announcements,
and on and on it goes. And if you say that--it's really an
abysmal report, in describing the industry. So, the industry is
not policing itself.
And I think it really has--you know, for all practical
purposes, has really given tremendous disregard to customer
service. And that's what, I think, you know, is something that
we obviously have to address. But in this specific instance, it
is critical. We have an obligation and responsibility, because
billions and billions of dollars are spent by the Federal
Government and the Federal taxpayers to support the industry,
because it's in our national interest to do so, and because of
matters of public safety.
So, I don't understand why you would think that being
entrapped on a plane without having the access to basic
necessities is something that, you know, is warranted, and why
any instance that has already been described here today would
have happened under any circumstances, the kind of training
that has not been provided and the kind of standards
established by the industry itself, so it would avert these
types of situations, irrespective of the reason.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
I've learned, a long time ago, that when Senator Snowe and
Senator Boxer get involved and latch onto an issue, it will be
resolved.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. I'd like to thank all of you for appearing
today to testify. It's been very helpful. I know that it has
been difficult in some cases, but I can assure you that the
Committee will give your testimony very serious consideration.
Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 4:35 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Hon. John F. Kerry,
U.S. Senator from Massachusetts
Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this important hearing. There
have been some high profile delays recently in which passengers have
been stranded on planes, calling into question consumer protections
within the airline industry. In January, an American Airlines flight
bound for Dallas/Ft. Worth was stuck on the runway for 9 hours in
Austin. In February, passengers on a JetBlue flight departing from
Kennedy Airport were trapped on the plane for 11 hours. In both cases,
the airlines were unable to get passengers back to the gate after it
was obvious that these flights would be canceled. Passengers lacked not
only adequate food and sanitary conditions, but just basic information
as well.
Perhaps the most striking aspect of these delays is the lack of
Federal laws and regulations to protect passengers. Since 1999, the
airlines have been operating under a voluntary agreement to address
customer service issues including delays, complaints, lost baggage, and
other issues. I think it's pretty clear that this voluntary approach is
not working. In fact, it has allowed the airlines take a lackadaisical
approach to their responsibilities and the Department of Transportation
to skirt any serious oversight of customer service issues.
I personally believe Congress should revisit the idea of a
``Passenger Bill of Rights'' first proposed during the Clinton
Administration and provide aggressive oversight to ensure that air
travelers are protected when the airlines fail their customers. I know
the airlines oppose any regulation in this area and prefer a market-
based solution, but it is clear to me that ``voluntary enforcement'' is
not the answer. The airlines should not be policing themselves. There
is no excuse for keeping passengers on the runway for 11 hours, and
Congress needs to take action to solve these problems.
I look forward to questioning the witnesses and working with the
Chairman and Co-Chairman on these issues. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Thune, U.S. Senator from South Dakota
Chairman Inouye/Rockefeller, Vice Chairman Stevens/Lott, thank you
for holding this hearing today. I would also like to thank our
witnesses for their testimony. Nearly everyone who has ever flown has a
disaster story of their own. Some are worse than others. Some of the
stories that are being highlighted at today's hearing are among the
worst.
Senators are heavy users of our aviation system. I try to fly home
to South Dakota every weekend to see my wife and one daughter still at
home. I'm sure some of the members of the Committee think their flight
delay and cancellation stories rank right up there with the worst of
them. Unfortunately for the airlines, we get to see the good and the
bad in their industry on a weekly basis.
At first glance, the recent horror stories might seem like
aberrations in an otherwise decent air service system. But if you look
at the bigger picture, from say--the 30,000 foot level (pardon the
pun)--the story remains the same. Flight delays are not decreasing.
Airline customer service is not improving.
Airlines on-time arrival rate according to the Department of
Transportation was 73.1 percent in January 2007, down from 78.8 percent
in January 2006. 588 flights waited on the tarmac for more than 2 hours
in January 2007. This is nearly twice as many as January 2006, which
had 298.
The annual Airline Quality Rating report was released on April 2,
2007. It found that on-time performance worsened across the industry
with 75.5 percent flights arriving on time in 2006 compared with 77.3
percent in 2005. More passengers were bumped from flights and more bags
were lost or stolen last year than in 2005 as well. Perhaps the most
disappointing statistic from the report was that despite worse
performances by the airlines in 2006, complaints held steady. There
were approximately 0.88 complaints for every 100,000 passengers,
similar to 2005. Experts agree that customers are lowering their
expectations.
The airlines are arguing that further government regulation is not
the answer. They lay out that airline operations are extremely complex,
and that new, cumbersome regulations will not give them the flexibility
they need to provide the best service. They also argue that the current
market forces are strong enough to change airline behavior.
I believe the jury is still out on their first point, but the
second point is simply not the case. Passengers need more information
about their flight options. If relevant airline performance information
was presented to consumers when purchasing tickets and receiving their
tickets, consumers would be in a better position to use this
information to make educated travel decisions.
It is for this reason that I have introduced the ``Informed Air
Traveler Act'' today that would equip passengers with more information
about their flight options. Passengers should be able to easily access
on-time data, cancellation rates, and other information on the flights
they are thinking about taking. Better informed travelers would make
better decisions about which air carrier they will choose to get them
to their destination in a timely manner. That should mean more
competition as well. Airlines will have a greater incentive to improve
their on-time performance if they know their customers will have this
information and will be making purchasing decisions based on it.
I am introducing this bill to get the debate going over what might
be the best course of action necessary to reinvigorate competition
among the airlines for not only price, but also the quality of service
they provide. I hope we can make changes that will help turn around the
statistics that have been offered up by me and other members of the
Committee here today.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Michael W. Reynolds
Question 1. There are reports that when flights are canceled, it is
taking much longer for airlines to accommodate passengers on later
flights than it has in the past. In some cases it is reported to take
up to 3 days for passengers to find alternative flights.
a. Why is it taking longer to find alternative flights for
displaced passengers?
b. What can the airlines do to address this growing problem?
c. What can the Department of Transportation do?
Answer. We have occasionally received anecdotal reports that it is
taking longer to find alternative flights for passengers whose flights
have been canceled. We are not aware of specific data indicating to
what extent this problem has worsened. However, record load factors on
passenger airlines (exceeding 80 percent), reductions in domestic
capacity, and layoffs of customer service agents prompted by persistent
financial losses for legacy carriers since 2001 all obviously
contribute to the problem in re-accommodating passengers whose flights
are canceled (or who miss their connecting flights). Until these
problems are corrected, it is unlikely that the airlines will
materially improve their performance in this regard. Mandates such as
requirements that airlines accommodate their competitors' passengers,
that they provide additional compensation, or maintain additional crew
are not likely to work and would in any case impose massive costs on
the industry. The Department is currently examining ways to ameliorate
this problem, among other things, through more comprehensive disclosure
by airlines to their customers of their rights in the event of a
cancellation.
Question 2. One proposal during the last round of hearings on this
issue was to improve services for notifying travelers of delays. Nearly
all airline travelers today have a cell phone, and some airlines
already send a message to individual passengers telling them whether or
not a flight is on time. How many airlines have a system in place to
notify passengers of delays?
Answer. The table below includes responses from the largest U.S.
carriers regarding notification systems:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current plans or
contemplated
Have system for initiatives to make
notifying more seats
Carrier passengers about available to
expected delays? reroute passengers
whose flights were
canceled?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
United We proactively Will do indirect
contact passengers reroutings and,
via the contact when necessary,
info provided with rerouting on other
their reservation. carriers with whom
Also, passengers UA has an
can sign up for a agreement (243
UA system called carriers
``EasyUpdate'' worldwide).
which will notify ``A new initiative
them of schedule activated by our
irregularities via Inventory
telephone, e-mail, Management
text message, division provides
pager, or fax. for additional
seat inventory for
rebooking during
irregular
operations. This
is possible due to
higher customer no-
show rates during
the same time and
has proven to be
very successful
during recent
irregular
operations. From
April 3 through
April 25, 2007, we
were able to
accommodate an
additional 3,614
customers during
irregular
operations.''
Also, UA's
automated system
for rebooking
passengers
affected by
canceled flights
and potential
misconnections is
being enhanced to
permit less-direct
routings and
service on other
carriers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continental Passengers can sign CO strategically
up to receive ``pre-cancels''
voicemail or e- flights likely to
mail messages be affected by
about schedule severe weather.
irregularities.
If passenger does
not sign up, CO
contacts
passengers via the
contact
information in the
reservation.
However, 49
percent of CO
reservations
arrive via third
parties (travel
agent, Expedia,
etc.), and some of
them don't provide
passenger contact
information for
competitive
reasons..
By the end of the
year CO will begin
asking every
passenger no later
than check-in for
a means of contact
that the carrier
can use for the
rest of the
passenger's trip.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Passengers affected ``Northwest has not
by a canceled experienced any
flight are material
rebooked by an difficulty in
automated system rerouting
and receive phone passengers
messages from affected by a
another automated flight
system. irregularity.
Passengers can sign Because this has
up to receive not been a problem
notice of schedule for us, we have no
irregularities via plans or proposed
e-mail, pagers, or initiatives to
PDAs. modify our current
procedures.''
Typical rerouting
on NW and other
carriers with whom
they have
agreements
In the ``rare''
instance when it
is appropriate, NW
may substitute a
larger aircraft in
order to
accommodate
passengers
rerouted from a
canceled flight
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delta ``Delta Messenger'' Typical rerouting
system: passengers on DL, DL
who sign up are codeshare
advised of flight carriers, and
delays and other carriers (in
cancellations via that order). DL
phone, pager or e- will ``often''
mail (passenger's substitute a
preference). Goal larger aircraft on
is to do so 3 the next flight to
hours prior to accommodate
flight. passengers
affected by a
schedule
irregularity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest ``Flight Status * Construct
Messaging'': unpublished
Passengers who connections on
sign up will existing flights.
receive a text They add ``flag
messages to his/ stops'' to nonstop
her cell phone, flights when
pager, PDA or e- necessary to
mail address. accommodate
Before the December passengers
holidays Southwest affected by a
hopes to have a schedule
system that will irregularity.
automatically call
passengers
affected by a
schedule
irregularity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 3. Is there a system in place that tracks delays and their
causes, and notifies passengers of the reason so they can seek
compensation if appropriate?
Answer. Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 234, the largest U.S. carriers are
required to file monthly on-time performance data with the Department,
which data includes one of five causes of delay: weather; carrier
(e.g., mechanical or crew); National Airspace System (e.g., FAA ground
hold and airport construction); security (e.g., closing of a concourse
for security-related purpose); and late arriving aircraft. Including
two carriers that voluntarily file on-time performance data, a total of
20 carriers file such data. That information is available to the public
on the website of the Department's Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
There is no requirement that carriers notify passengers directly of the
cause of a delayed flight. However, most carriers that have instituted
customer commitments promise to update passengers about the delay
status of their flights.
Question 4. Has the DOT been looking at any options to provide
consumers with better information about the history of their flights in
the event they are chronically delayed or canceled?
Answer. Yes. Based on the on-time reporting required of carriers
under 14 CFR Part 234, the Department's Bureau of Transportation
Statistics maintains historical data regarding the on-time performance
of all flights operated by the reporting carriers, including the number
of canceled and diverted flights. On-time information by flight number,
including the percentage of flights that are at least 15 minutes late,
the length of delays and the percentage of cancellations, is available
to the public on the website of the Department's Bureau of
Transportation Statistics. Under Part 234, carriers that are required
to file on-time performance data with the Department are currently
required to advise passengers, upon request, of the on-time performance
of any flight about which the passenger is inquiring, whether or not it
has been chronically late or canceled. In addition, in its monthly Air
Travel Consumer Report (ATCR), the Department identifies specific
flights that arrived late at their destination at least 80 percent of
the time and provides general information regarding the percentage of
each carrier's total flights that arrived late at least 70 percent of
the time. The ATCR also provides an hour-by-hour breakdown of on-time
arrival performance at the Nation's major airports so that consumers
can see the best and worst times to arrive at these destinations. The
ATCR is available on the Department's website. We are in the process of
reviewing various ideas and proposals relating to airline consumer
data, but we do not have any formal proposals at this time.
We are considering improvements to the data reported by the
airlines under Part 234. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics held a
public meeting on June 20 to receive comments on how flights that
depart the gate, return to the gate and depart again should be
reported. BTS also asked for comments on reporting tarmac times for
flights that are subsequently canceled and reporting additional
information on diverted flights. The docket (RITA-2007-28522) remains
open for comments until about the end of July.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John F. Kerry to
Michael W. Reynolds
Question 1. Many of the customer service issues addressed at the
hearing are governed by a voluntary industry-wide agreement in 1999. It
would help if you could clarify the Department of Transportation's
(DOT) role in preventing incidents like the American and JetBlue delays
and its authority to protect passengers from poor service and
mistreatment. Does the DOT have the authority to require an airline to
return passengers to the gate during delays or allow them to exit in
some other manner? If yes, why didn't it intervene with American and
JetBlue? If not, should it?
Answer. Yes, the Department has the authority to require an airline
to return passengers to the gate or permit them to exit the aircraft in
some other manner during a delay, but there is currently no rule
covering such situations. The Department would be required to pursue
any such requirements through a rulemaking proceeding. Any such rule
would have to take into account the logistical issues created by a
requirement of this sort including the possibility that it would
exacerbate delays for passengers who do not desire to de-plane. The
Department believes it is important that airlines live up to the
commitments made several years ago to meet passengers' essential needs
(food, water and access to working lavatories) during prolonged on-the-
tarmac delays. Secretary Peters has asked the Department's Inspector
General to investigate the American and JebBlue situations and to
provide her with recommendations. We are awaiting his report, including
any recommendations, to determine if rulemaking might be in the public
interest.
Question 1a. Can you describe the Department's response to the
American Airlines and JetBlue incidents?
Answer. In response to the American and JetBlue incidents,
Secretary Peters asked the Department's Inspector General to
investigate the situations and provide her with recommendations.
Question 1b. Was the DOT or Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
aware that these planes were sitting on the runway?
Answer. Yes, the FAA Air Traffic Controllers were aware that the
American and JetBlue aircraft were on the respective runways involved.
Question 1c. Was there any discussion about intervening?
Answer. Absent extraordinary circumstances, such as those affecting
the safe operation of a flight, it is not the Department's, including
the FAA's, practice to intervene in a carrier's decision about whether
to maintain its aircraft on a tarmac waiting for a break in inclement
weather so that it could transport its passengers to their ultimate
destination.
With respect to JetBlue, the FAA'sAir Traffic Control System
Command Center and local JFK facility contacted JetBlue to determine
whether they required assistance. In these situations, the FAA can
offer assistance in the form of reprioritization of flights and revised
traffic flow management strategy. JetBlue did not avail themselves of
this assistance.
The same was true for American Airlines. They also elected not to
avail themselves of the services that could have been provided by the
FAA.
Question 1d. Did the DOT touch base with airline officials and
express concern?
Answer. A decision about whether or not to stay on the tarmac
awaiting a break in the weather in order to take off is generally a
matter within the purview of each individual carrier. The FAA
intervenes in such matters only if necessary to preserve safety or
system efficiency. Subsequent to the incidents, the Department
contacted each carrier and asked for an explanation of the respective
incidents.
Question 1e. Can the DOT fine American and JetBlue for these
inexcusable delays? If so, will it?
Answer. No regulation prohibits a carrier from deciding to maintain
its aircraft on a tarmac while waiting for a break in inclement weather
so that it can transport its passengers to their ultimate destination.
Therefore, neither carrier violated any rule that would give rise to a
civil penalty. Air transportation is subject to conditions of carriage
that the airlines must disclose to their passengers; carriers that
violate these conditions can be held accountable for breach of
contract.
Question 2. In his written testimony, the DOT Inspector General
Scovel concludes that the Department has not done enough to respond to
passenger complaints. Specifically, as a part of a 2006 review, he
explains that:
DOT was using its additional resources to oversee and enforce
air travel consumer protection requirements with a focus on
investigations and enforcement of civil rights issues,
including complaints from passengers with disabilities. But,
when DOT discovered violations and assessed penalties, it
almost always forgave the penalty if the air carrier agreed to
mitigate the conditions for which the penalty was assessed.
DOT's follow-up monitoring of compliance with these conditions
was limited, and in some cases there was no follow-up
monitoring at all. In recent years, DOT has not conducted on-
site compliance reviews, relying instead on air carriers' self-
certifications and company-prepared reports submitted without
supporting documentation.
Is this criticism valid? Is the airline industry policing itself?
Answer. We believe this testimony creates a misimpression as to how
these matters have been, and continue to be, handled. In a deregulated
environment it is initially the carriers' responsibility to provide
acceptable levels of customer service. However, the airline industry
has not been left to police itself. If the Department has evidence that
a carrier or the industry is engaged in an unfair or deceptive
practice, it may through individual enforcement actions brought by its
Aviation Enforcement Office, or through industry-wide rulemaking, where
appropriate, act to prohibit such conduct. The Aviation Enforcement
Office does not forgive civil penalties assessed a carrier solely
because ``the carrier agree[d] to mitigate the conditions for which the
penalty was assessed.'' Rather, in the typical case resulting in a
consent order, the carrier must come into compliance before the
Aviation Enforcement Office will agree to settle the violations in
question. While, as part of a settlement of violations the Aviation
Enforcement Office often suspends up to 50 percent of the assessed
civil penalty for a period of time, it is important to note that the
consent orders require that before the suspended portion of the
assessed civil penalty can be ultimately forgiven, the carrier must
have first paid the portion of the assessed penalty that was due and
have committed no additional violations of a similar nature over the
12-24 month period following the issuance of the order. In all consent
orders, carriers are required to cease and desist in perpetuity from
the conduct that gave rise to the penalty. Some consent orders contain
``offsets'' in which a carrier agrees to take remedial action above and
beyond that which is required by law in exchange for a reduction in the
portion of the assessed civil penalty that would otherwise be paid to
the government.
Through these types of settlements of potential violations, the
Aviation Enforcement Office seeks to provide carriers a strong
incentive to comply with Department requirements and to improve airline
customer service instead of merely requiring civil penalties to be paid
into the U.S. Treasury. While the Aviation Enforcement Office's follow-
up monitoring of carrier compliance with enforcement orders has been
more limited, due to both monetary and personnel resource limitations,
than the Inspector General felt appropriate, importantly he did not
note a single case where a carrier had failed to implement the
compliance matters that it had certified to the Aviation Enforcement
Office as having been completed. As described below, the Aviation
Enforcement Office has nevertheless taken steps to improve its
monitoring of carrier compliance.
Question 2a. Can you explain what you are doing to address these
deficiencies?
Answer. As stated above, we believe that the Inspector General's
statement gives the wrong impression regarding our actions in this
area. Nevertheless, the Aviation Enforcement Office has revised its
monitoring efforts, including implementing a computerized tracking
system to improve its monitoring of compliance with enforcement orders.
In addition, that office has a plan to conduct on-site compliance
reviews, resources permitting, of carriers in connection with its
review of chronically delayed flights.
Question 2b. Would the Department support new legislation to
improve service within the airline industry?
Answer. The Department would need to have an opportunity to review
such legislation before being able to comment. The Department generally
believes that our focus should be on ensuring that consumers have
complete and adequate information regarding airline service
commitments--and their remedies in event of failure to provide promised
services--at the point of purchase such that marketplace forces
incentivize airlines to improve.
Question 2c. Would it support enacting the 1999 voluntary agreement
into law?
Answer. The customer commitments are already part of the contract
of carriage of most airlines and are therefore enforceable by consumers
to the extent that carriers fail to abide by their terms.
Question 2d. Would Secretary Peters support a bill requiring the
airlines to return passengers to the gate after a 3-hour delay?
Answer. Secretary Peters is awaiting the report of DOT's Inspector
General regarding the American and JetBlue situtations, including any
recommendations he might make, to determine what if any action might be
in the public interest.
Question 2e. Six months from now, absent Congressional
intervention, what changes will the Department have implemented to
improve oversight over customer service issues?
Answer. The Department's Aviation Enforcement Office has a number
of pending enforcement cases involving consumer protection matters that
should be completed by then and anticipates opening many more within
the next 6 months. In addition, following receipt of the Inspector
General's report, the Department will consider what other measures are
needed.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Michael W. Reynolds
Question 1. In the early 1990s, the U.S. Supreme Court made it
clear that the U.S Department of Transportation and not State Attorneys
General have the authority to pursue unfair and deceptive practices and
unfair methods of competition with respect to an air carrier or ticket
agent. In your testimony, you cite a section of U.S. Code that
addresses this subject (49 U.S.C. 41712). To paraphrase, the Secretary
may begin an investigation based on a complaint of a U.S. or foreign
air carrier, ticket agent or on the Secretary's own initiative if it is
in the public interest. If the Secretary finds that a party is engaged
in an unfair or deception practice, the Secretary shall order them to
stop. Under Secretary Peters, how many investigations have been
initiated under this section of the U.S. Code? How many have been
completed?
Answer. Since September 30, 2006, the date Secretary Peters was
confirmed by the U.S. Senate, at least 80 cases involving potential
violations of 49 U.S.C. 41712 have been opened by the Department's
Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings. Additionally, since
Secretary Peters' confirmation, the Aviation Enforcement Office has
continued or completed work on numerous other cases involving potential
violations of section 41712 that were opened before her confirmation.
Question 2. Of the total, how many of the investigations were
started at the Secretary's initiative? How many of these investigations
involved airline consumer complaints?
Answer. The Department's Office of Aviation Enforcement and
Proceedings is responsible for instituting investigations involving
potential violations of 49 U.S.C. 41712. Many resulted in whole or in
part from consumer complaints but records are not kept in this regard.
Question 3. Are the results of these investigations public? If so,
outside of what the Secretary asked Mr. Scovel to look into, could you
provide me with an example where the Department initiated an
investigation involving consumer complaints and what the resulting
remedy was?
Answer. The results of investigations that have been completed are
publicly available. An example of an enforcement action initiated due
to consumer complaints involves the Enforcement Office's investigation
and enforcement action against Ritetime Travel and Tours, which
stranded hundreds of charter passengers in Nigeria and the United
States when it failed to pay for charter flights as promised. That
investigation, begun as a result of consumer complaints, resulted in
two consent orders to cease and desist from violations of the
Department's charter rules: one against World Airways assessed civil
penalties totaling $350,000; the other against Ritetime and its
principal assessed civil penalties of $220,000 and banned the principal
from involvement with public charter operations for 1 year.
Question 4. Should the current rules be changed to allow the
Secretary to initiate investigations based on airline consumer
complaints?
Answer. There is no need to do so. The Department already has
statutory authority and rules in place that permit investigations based
on consumer complaints.
Question 5. In your testimony, you say that the 49 U.S.C. 41712 is
enforceable but violations can be difficult to demonstrate. How so?
Answer. Enforcement actions based on section 41712 require the
Aviation Enforcement Office to demonstrate that the conduct in question
amounts to an unfair and deceptive practice. Proving violations of this
standard remains, in the absence of an specific regulations proscribing
certain conduct, highly fact specific. Because the statute requires the
carrier to be engaging in a course of conduct that amounts to an unfair
or deceptive ``practice,'' such cases require extensive investigation
to prove violations. Enforcement investigations that are not based on
existing regulations are therefore very resource intensive and the
outcome is not assured.
Question 6. If the Secretary finds a carrier is engaged in an
unfair or deceptive practice, outside of ordering them to stop, what
authority under current law does the Secretary have to penalize the
carrier for its actions?
Answer. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 46301, carriers are subject to civil
penalties of up to $25,000 per violation and, in the case of a
continuing violation, $25,000 for each day each such violation
continues.
Question 7. Mr. Scovell testified that if a carrier agrees to fix
violations discovered by the Department, the Department, as a matter of
practice, has not assessed penalties against the carrier. That does not
seem as much of a deterrent. It seems to me that the Secretary may need
explicit authority to penalize parties found to be in violation. Do you
agree?
Answer. The Department already has authority to penalize parties
found to have violated applicable statutes or Department regulations
and orders and its Aviation Enforcement Office uses that authority
vigorously. The Aviation Enforcement Office has never had a practice of
not assessing a civil penalty in an enforcement order against a carrier
if the carrier agrees to fix the violation in question. Between October
2006 and May 2007, cases brought by the Aviation Enforcement Office
have resulted in more than 15 consent orders directing carriers and
travel companies such as air charter brokers and travel agencies to
cease and desist from further violative conduct and assessing them a
total of almost $1.5 million in civil penalties. In each of those cases
the Aviation Enforcement Office demands that the airline or other
respondent agree to cease and desist from future violations. A civil
penalty was not assessed in only one of those cases.
The Aviation Enforcement Office, on occasion, may close a matter
without seeking civil penalties or with only a warning, where
appropriate, such as where the company involved is a small business (a
factor Congress requires be taken into account) and/or where the
violation is inadvertent, minor or an isolated instance and the matter
is corrected immediately or resolved to consumers' satisfaction.
Between October 2006 and May 2007, the Enforcement Office issued 25
warning letters to carriers and travel companies. Thus, with the
exception of these limited circumstances, the Aviation Enforcement
Office seeks an enforcement order when it can prove violations and in
those cases it obtains enforcement orders that invariably include civil
penalties even in instances where a carrier agrees to correct a
violation.
There has been some misunderstanding regarding the Enforcement
Office's use of forgiveness provisions and offset provisions in
connection with its settlement of enforcement cases. The Aviation
Enforcement Office does seek to provide carriers every incentive to
comply with the law and Department regulations. Moreover, it seeks to
have carriers provide services, beyond what is required under law or
Department rules, that are beneficial to consumers. In this regard,
enforcement orders often include a provision whereby one-half of an
assessed civil penalty is paid and the other half is suspended and will
ultimately be forgiven after a period of time, usually one or 2 years,
if the carrier commits no further violations during that time period.
Carriers subject to this form of order thus have an additional
incentive to achieve future compliance. Other enforcement orders seek
to obtain from carriers services or benefits to consumers that are
above and beyond what would be required under existing law and
Department rules. For example, although there is no requirement that
carriers provide civil rights training to their employees, several
recent consent orders required that individual carriers expend as much
as $1,500,000 in such efforts in lieu of civil penalties. Additional
services or benefits are also agreed upon as offsets to civil penalties
assessed and otherwise due and payable. Thus, to the extent, carriers
are able to expend funds toward those agreed upon matters, the
unexpended funds would be paid to the U.S. Treasury in the form of a
civil penalty.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Hon. Calvin L. Scovel III
Question 1. In your testimony, you state the DOT, through its
office of the General Counsel, should take a more active role in and
increase scrutiny of airline customer service issues. What additional
activities do you propose, and how would they address the various
airline operational problems that have occurred over the past several
months?
Answer. There are at least two actions that the Department can
undertake immediately to address the various airline operational
problems that occurred this past winter. First, the Department's Office
of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings (OAEP)--in collaboration with
FAA, airlines, and airports--should review incidents involving long,
on-board ground delays and their causes; identify trends and patterns
of such events; and implement workable solutions for mitigating
extraordinary flight disruptions.
Second, to provide a better sense of the magnitude of long, on-
board delays, the Department should require that each air carrier's
monthly Airline Service Quality Performance Report include gate
departure times when an aircraft returned to the gate, since some
carriers report initial gate departure times and others report a second
gate departure time. Carriers should also report gate departure times
when a flight is ultimately canceled, which they are not currently
required to do. The Department is examining these reporting issues; DOT
officials met with industry groups and airlines on June 20, 2007, to
discuss better ways of reporting flight delays caused by cancellations
and diversions.
Question 2. I understand the difficulty in determining a cut-off
time at which passengers who choose to deplane are permitted to get off
the aircraft. In these cases of extreme delay, I am told that there is
often a credible expectation by the pilots, the airline, and air
traffic controllers that the flight will be able to leave within the
next \1/2\ hour, but that time can extend to several hours because of a
snowballing sequence of events. From an operational standpoint, what
would be the process for permitting a plane to return to a gate to
deplane passengers while still retaining its place in line for take
off?
Answer. The process for permitting a plane to return to a gate to
deplane passengers while still retaining its place in line for take off
is properly within the purview of the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA). FAA has operated for many years under a ``first come, first
serve'' rule when it comes to the departure sequence. However, the
standing rule has been that the plane must go to the end of the queue
if it needs to return to a staging area to de-ice or to a gate to
deplane passengers.
There are some exceptions. Airlines have what they call
``advocates'' in the air traffic control tower who may be able to
negotiate on a one-time basis a return to a higher place in the queue;
but generally, the aircraft goes back to the end of the queue. As far
as regulatory barriers, FAA certainly possesses the ability to change
its current rule.
Question 3. Understanding that luggage would be an obvious problem,
what is the feasibility of allowing some sort of ground transportation,
such as a bus, out to a plane waiting in line to pick up passengers
wishing to deplane because of an extended delay?
Answer. The practice of using ground transportation, such as
portable people movers or buses, to pick up passengers wishing to
deplane because of an extended delay exists at all large and medium-
sized airports and probably at many smaller commercial airports.
Passengers were deplaned via ground transportation at some airports in
the December 2006 incident involving American Airlines and the February
2007 incident at JFK involving JetBlue and other airlines. Some
airlines operate their own ground transportation while others contract
this service with a third party or request assistance from airports
that operate their own ground transportation. Of course, deplaning
passenger in this way would be highly safety dependent and would depend
on the passengers' conditions and the ability of ground personnel to
move about safely under all conditions, especially in severe weather
conditions.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John F. Kerry to
Hon. Calvin L. Scovel III
Question 1. Can you describe the scope of your investigation into
the American Airlines and JetBlue delays?
Answer. Our review of American Airlines and JetBlue Airways, which
was requested by Secretary Peters, focuses primarily on the events that
occurred on December 29, 2006, at Dallas/Fort Worth International (DFW)
and Austin-Bergstrom International Airports and on February 14, 2007,
at JFK involving long, on-board ground delays. We are examining whether
passengers' essential needs were met; especially those who were
stranded aboard aircraft on the airport tarmac, in some cases, for 9
hours or longer. We are also reviewing what actions American Airlines
and JetBlue Airways have taken to prevent a recurrence of such events.
We can report that American and JetBlue have revised their operating
practices for mitigating long, onboard delays. For example, American
instituted a new policy designed to prevent onboard delays from
exceeding 4 hours. JetBlue also set a time limit of 5 hours maximum
duration for any long, on-board delay away from a gate.
Question 2. Did American and JetBlue violate any Federal
regulations? What authority does the Department have to penalize them?
Answer. Based on our review of the events of December 29, 2006, and
February 14, 2007, we are not aware of any Federal regulations that
American Airlines or JetBlue Airways violated, including violations of
access for air travelers with disabilities. The Airline Customer
Service Commitment provision dealing with ``meeting passengers'
essential needs during long, on-board delays'' is not governed under
the Department's existing air travel consumer protection rules, so the
Department cannot penalize the airlines for non-compliance with the
provision.
Question 3. The airlines claim that it is difficult to bring
passengers back to a gate when there are delays. Is this true? Are you
investigating the availability of gates at Dallas/Ft. Worth and Kennedy
airports to determine if American and JetBlue could have brought their
passengers back to the terminal earlier?
Answer. There may be situations or conditions that make it
difficult to bring passengers back to a gate during long, on-board
delays. What we identify as problems, mainly, are the physical layouts
of the airports. Some airports; by virtue of their location, design,
and more modern age; may be able to safely accommodate this type of
aircraft movement. Other airports, because they are much more crowded
and narrow, may not be able to accommodate aircraft moving about in
this way or guarantee passenger safety.
In our review of the American Airlines and JetBlue Airways
incidents, we examined whether gate availability was a factor in
passengers being stranded aboard aircraft for extended periods of time.
For American Airlines at DFW on December 29, 2006, gate availability
was not a factor, and the few long, on-board delays that American's
passengers experienced there resulted from a series of ramp closures
due to lightning, which effectively shut down the airport for extended
periods of time.
On that same day at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport, a
combination of factors resulted in American's passengers experiencing
long, on-board delays, including gate availability, staffing shortages,
and communications breakdowns between flight crews and American's local
dispatch office at the airport. At one point, the airport made a gate
available for 1 of American's 11 diverted flights, but American did not
have the ground crew available to direct a flight safely to the gate.
For JetBlue Airways at JFK on February 14, 2007, gate availability
was the primary factor in passengers experiencing long, on-board
delays. JetBlue operates 21 gates at JFK and at one point during the
day had 52 aircraft scattered around the airport. JetBlue called other
airlines, including foreign airlines, to see about available gates, but
no gates were available. The airport also unsuccessfully tried to
assist JetBlue in finding gates for its flights. Based on our review of
the events of that day, it appears that the airlines and airports were
trying to help each other; however, the severe weather hampered much
movement of aircraft on the airfield.
Question 4. Do you believe the voluntary agreement governing
airline service is working?
Answer. There are certain areas where the Commitment provisions are
working well but the greatest progress is not directly associated with
whether a flight is delayed or canceled. These areas are: quoting the
lowest fare, holding non-refundable reservations without penalty,
responding in a timely manner to complaints, and paying larger sums for
lost luggage. However, as we found in our 2006 review of selected
Commitment provisions, the airlines must refocus their efforts on
airline customer service by resuming efforts to self audit their
customer service plans, emphasizing to their customer service employees
the importance of providing timely and adequate flight information,
disclosing to customers chronically delayed flights, and focusing on
the training for personnel who assist passengers with disabilities.
Question 5. Should it be mandatory under Federal law?
Answer. Currently, the debate is over the best way to ensure
improved airline customer service: either through voluntary
implementation by the airlines, legislation, additional regulations, or
some combination of these. This is clearly a policy issue for Congress
to decide. As it did in 1999 and 2001, Congress is again considering
whether to enact a ``passenger bill of rights,'' with legislation
pending in both the House and Senate.
Question 6. Do you think a ``Passenger Bill of Rights'' is a good
idea?
Answer. Many of the provisions of the Airline Customer Service
Commitment are already governed under existing Federal regulations,
such as baggage liability limits, proper accommodations for passengers
with disabilities and special needs, prompt ticket refunds, and denied
boarding compensation. There are also provisions that Federal
regulations require to be in the airlines' contracts of carriage, such
as disclosing policies for flight cancellations and ticket refunds.
We are not opposed to a legislative mandate that would require
airlines to do what they promised to do, that is: (1) define what
constitutes a long, onboard delay, (2) set a time limit on delay
durations before deplaning passengers, (3) incorporate such policies in
their contracts of carriage and post them on their websites, and (4)
work with airports to minimize long, on-board delays. With regard to
other issues, such as the provision of meeting passengers' essential
needs, a consistent policy across the industry would certainly be
helpful to customers. We would certainly endorse that.
Question 7. In my statement, I said I am concerned that the airline
industry is policing itself and that the DOT has taken a lackadaisical
approach to its oversight responsibilities. Do you agree with this
assessment?
Answer. The Department's OAEP is the division within the Office of
the General Counsel that enforces the Department's air travel consumer
protection rules. These rules encompass many areas, including unfair
and deceptive practices and unfair methods of competition by carriers
and travel agents.
The OAEP also has the authority to investigate and enforce
violations of rules governing denied boarding compensation, access for
travelers with disabilities, ticket refunds, and airline quality
service performance reporting. When violations occur, the OAEP can
pursue enforcement action, which may range from warning letters, to
civil penalties, to litigation in U.S. District Courts.
In our 2006 review of selected airline customer service areas, we
found that while the OAEP has made efforts to enforce civil rights
violations, it needs to improve its oversight of consumer protection
laws, including its efforts to monitor compliance with the terms and
conditions of enforcement actions. In recent years, the OAEP has not
conducted onsite compliance reviews; instead, it relies on air
carriers' self-certifications and company-prepared expense summaries
submitted without supporting documentation.
We also found that the enactment of new laws such as AIR-21
mandated several additional consumer protection responsibilities to be
carried out by the OAEP, including: a new aviation civil rights
provision; a provision requiring individual, comprehensive
investigations of each disability-related complaint received by the
OAEP; a provision extending the air carrier disabled passenger
discrimination law (Air Carrier Access Act) to foreign air carriers;
and new data collection and reporting requirements. The new workload
has drawn OAEP resources away from its more traditional consumer
protection activities. Traditional consumer protection activities that
have been curtailed include investigating the availability of
advertised fares and consumers' ability to redeem frequent flyer award.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Hon. Calvin L. Scovel III
Question 1. Mr. Scovel, do you think the legal authority Mr.
Reynolds cites under 49 U.S.C. 41712 provides an adequate framework for
the Department to address airline consumer complaints? Do you think
that the current process is effective?
Answer. 49 U.S.C. Section 41712 provides indirect rather than
direct authority to address airline consumer complaints. During our
work on airline customer service issues over the last several years, we
have found that, historically, the broad unfair and deceptive practice
authority in section 41712 has not been used effectively by the
Department to address airline customer service issues.
Question 2. It seems to me that it is a high hurdle to translate
airline passenger complaints into the language of an unfair and
deceptive practice. For example, in Mr. Hudson's testimony, he says
airlines have an incentive to schedule flights at the most popular
times even if they know that the scheduled times cannot be met due to
airport capacity and overcrowding. Do you know if the Department has
looked into this issue at all?
Answer. First, the Department maintains--and we agree--that 49
U.S.C. Section 41712 provides the legal authority to pursue
investigation and take enforcement actions for unrealistic scheduling
practices. The theory is that when airlines schedule flights that
rarely arrive or depart as scheduled, their actions are deceptive to
the consumer.
Second, we understand that the Department has launched an
investigation into unrealistic scheduling practices and has sent
investigatory letters to all major carriers to understand how a flight
could be late 70 or 80 percent of the time for 2 to 3 consecutive
months.
Question 3. Should the current rules be changed to allow the
Secretary explicitly to initiate investigations based on airline
passenger complaints?
Answer. The Office of the Secretary has such authority, through the
Office of General Counsel, to initiate investigations based on airline
passenger complaints and shall, by law, investigate all complaints it
receives from air travelers with disabilities. In our 2006 review on
airline customer service issues, we found that the Department oversees
and enforces air travel consumer protection requirements with a focus
on investigation and enforcement of civil rights issues, including
complaints from passengers with disabilities. Investigations based on
other airline passengers complaints, such as availability of advertised
fares and consumers' ability to redeem frequent flyer award, are
limited and the Department can only take enforcement action when
violations occur.
But, when DOT discovered violations and assessed penalties, it
almost always either forgave the penalty as an incentive for the air
carrier's future compliance or offset a significant portion of the
penalty if the air carrier agreed to improve service to the consumer
above and beyond what is required by existing rules or the air
carrier's contract of carriage. DOT's follow-up monitoring of
compliance with these conditions was limited, and, in some cases, there
was no follow-up monitoring at all. In recent years, DOT has not
conducted onsite compliance reviews; instead, it relies on air
carriers' self-certifications and company prepared reports submitted
without supporting documentation.
Question 4. Should the Office of the Secretary have explicit
authority to penalize a carrier if it finds it is engaged in an unfair
or deceptive practice?
Answer. 49 U.S.C. Section 41712 provides the Office of the
Secretary with authority to take enforcement actions when it finds an
air carrier engaged in unfair and deceptive practices. When violations
occur, the Department pursues enforcement action, which may range from
warning letters, to civil penalties, to litigation in U.S. District
Courts.
Question 5. Do you think the Department might benefit from looking
into how the Federal Trade Commission addresses unfair and deceptive
practices and unfair methods of competition?
Answer. During our 2006 review of airline customer service issues,
we met with Federal Trade Commission lawyers and examined the
Commission's model for best practices. The Department would benefit
from learning more about how the Federal Trade Commission handles the
industries it regulates.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
James C. May
Question. You testified that market mechanisms will bring about the
appropriate changes in addressing airline passenger service complaints.
At larger airports, where there are multiple carriers competing on
routes, I can understand your point. But as the Subcommittee has
learned in earlier hearings, there are a number of regional and smaller
markets where consumers have limited choices to get from point A to B.
In these instances, I am concerned that there is not sufficient
competition for market mechanisms to sort things out on its own. How do
you respond?
Answer. The fact that there may be fewer flight choices at some
airports does not affect the marketplace impact on air carriers with
respect to customer service because this is not an airport-specific or
market-specific issue. In today's world, customer service problems at
even the smallest commercial service airports draw media coverage and
attention.
My comment about market mechanisms and customer service relates to
the fact that our airline members have set national policies for the
treatment of passengers in their contracts of carriage and on their
websites. Those national policies on customer service differentiate
among passenger airlines; they differentiate our carriers as well as
non-ATA airlines from each other.
That policy is the same for very rural, middle-sized or large
airports. So while only one airline may serve a very rural area, there
is competition among the carriers on a national basis to offer quality
service. This creates market incentives for each airline to offer
reliable and efficient customer services throughout the Nation.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Maria Cantwell to
Edmund Mierzwinski
Question 1. As you know, in 2000, existing airlines agreed to
include an Airline Customer Service Commitment into their customer
agreements, called ``conditions of carriage,'' which are legally
enforceable by the customer against the airline. How difficult is it
for consumers to enforce these agreements? Do you have any good
examples?
Answer. It is U.S. PIRG's understanding that only some airlines
have made their Customer Service Plan (CSP) commitments part of their
Contract of Carriage. Of the 8 airlines that the Aviation Consumer
Action Project and the Coalition for an Airline Passengers' Bill of
Rights recently surveyed for the CAPBOR Airline Stranding Report Card,
as of 6/12/07 United, Delta, Continental and Southwest had CSPs that
were not legally binding, American had some essential needs commitments
in its contract of carriage but these were qualified as ``subject to
availability", and only US Airways, JetBlue and Northwest do include
their CSP commitments in their contract of carriage.
But the CSPs--even if in the Contracts of Carriage--are not
enforceable as a practical matter because:
(a) airlines claim Federal law (using language in the Airline
Deregulation Act of 1978) pre-empts any legal action in state
courts, including small claims courts where such enforcement
would normally occur,
(b) such claims generally could not be brought in Federal
courts for jurisdictional and cost reasons,
(c) the DOT and airlines have no arbitration or dispute
resolution system as is customary for consumer disputes in many
industries (the CSPs typically only provide that the airline
will ``respond'' to a customer complaint/claim within 60 days),
and no provision for a neutral decisionmaker for customer
disputes,
(d) there is no penalty for violations of CSPs and all
Contracts of Carriage state they exclude punitive damages,
consequential damages, out of pocket expenses for alternate
transportation and expenses, pain and suffering, inconvenience,
therefore generally limiting damages to ticket refunds or lost
baggage compensation up to the regulatory limit of $3,000, etc.
What is needed are specific provisions that are required by statute
or regulation to protect consumers that must be included in the
contract of carriage as is customary for insurance contracts, and most
other contracts of adhesion that are imposed on consumers by providers
of services to the general public, where there is no realistic
possibility of negotiation of the terms of the contract. Also
enforcement provisions that are low cost and speedy (like small claims
court or non-binding arbitration with time limits) are a necessity for
consumer disputes. Another possibility is to provide for treble damages
and/or attorney fees where an airline rejects a customer claim that is
later upheld by a court or arbitrator. Fines for a pattern of CSP
violations or egregious behavior or bad faith rejections of consumer
claims should also by imposed by DOT. And because DOT has a long
history of lax or no enforcement and waiving the low fines it does
impose, consumers should be empowered as in antitrust cases to bring
class actions or enforcement actions in the public interest in court to
stop deceptive, unfair, bad faith, or fraudulent airline practices with
treble damage provisions (such as the practice of confining passengers
for extended periods in aircraft to prevent ``passenger migration'' and
avoid refunds and other expenses associated with flight cancellations
and extended delays now apparently used by American Airlines).
Question 2. Do you believe the Department and consumers would
benefit by DOT creating a senior position of ``consumer advocate'',
among other things, to address airline passenger complaints?
Answer. We understand that a DeFazio amendment passed twenty years
ago provided for such an office and even a phone number, but that it
has never been funded, staffed or advertised. A consumer advocate at
DOT could be useful, but with such a history of such positions being
created but not funded nor given enforcement or defined powers and
duties shows they have limited effect and can be ignored with impunity
if the regulator or airline chooses. Such an advocate should have the
power to go into court on behalf of consumers for relief if the
regulator or airline is unresponsive (this is a power which state
attorneys general usually possess but consumer agency advocates
generally do not). Such an advocate could also be empowered and given
the duty to propose rules, remedial legislation, submit amicus briefs,
intervene in disputes of general interest, issue an annual report on
the status of airline passenger customer service rights and problems.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Kevin P. Mitchell
Question 1. In your testimony, you state that Department
enforcement of existing carrier commitments, regulations and laws would
address many of the concerns raised. Do you believe that the
Department's current enforcement serves as an adequate deterrent?
Answer. I do not believe the DOT/FAA is aggressive enough in
enforcement action or just using the Bully Pulpit to improve airlines'
responsiveness.
Question 2. In your testimony, you state that the FAA's recent
rules regarding planes taking off when ice pellets are falling may have
made the JetBlue situation worse. My understanding is the FAA is
concerned that ice pellets will stick to a plane's wings and throw off
its aerodynamics. In a sentence or two can you explain what the basis
of the disagreement with the FAA is about regarding this rule? Do you
know if the FAA is reviewing its rule?
Answer. The issue here is that the FAA was not inclusive or
effective enough in its rulemaking regarding the pellet issue. There
was confusion amoung the airlines and among FAA inspectors about the
rule and its interpretation.
Question 3. In general, do you believe that there are actions the
FAA can take with respect to how air traffic controllers at an airport
deal with outbound flights during extreme weather situations that could
improve the situation for air passengers? Would these changes require
legislation, a rulemaking, or could they just be implemented
administratively?
Answer. There are common sense things that can help such as
(depending on the configuration of a given airport) allowing a plane to
return to a gate without losing its takeoff slot.