Monday, December 28, 2009
"Christmas Miracle" USA Today Editorial
'Christmas miracle?' DOT promises big fines for long tarmac delays
Comments 47 | Recommend 2
Buzz up!Like this story? Share it with Yahoo! Buzz
Efforts by U.S. airlines to fend off so-called passenger-rights legislation have failed. USA TODAY writes "passenger-rights advocates won a major victory Monday when the Transportation Department announced a rule to let passengers stuck inside stranded planes disembark after three hours. The rule, which will take effect in late April and applies only to domestic flights, prohibits airlines from letting an aircraft remain on an airport tarmac for more than three hours without deplaning passengers. Exceptions are allowed for safety or security, or when air-traffic controllers notify a pilot in command that returning to a passenger terminal would disrupt airport operations."
"Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said the three-hour limit and other new regulations are meant to send an unequivocal message to airlines not to hold passengers hostage on stuck planes," The Associated Press writes. "Airline passengers have rights, and these new rules will require airlines to live up to their obligation to treat their customers fairly," Transportation Department Secretary Ray LaHood says in a press release. Reuters notes "the regulation would take effect just at the start of the spring and summer travel season, the worst for delays."
And the DOT's new rules come with enforcement teeth. AP says "airlines could be fined $27,500 per passenger for each violation of the three-hour limit." Dow Jones Newswires puts that in perspective, writing those fines are "far higher than any penalty so far imposed, and a move that could wipe out industry earnings. Currently, the Transportation Department issues fines for tarmac delays on case- by-case basis."
The Chicago Tribune says "the new measure is tougher than many in the aviation industry expected and represents a significant victory for passenger-rights advocates, analysts said." USA TODAY adds "the rule came as a pleasant surprise to consumer advocates who had grown frustrated that a bill in Congress to help stuck passengers was stalled." Kate Hanni, executive director of FlyersRights.org, tells USA TODAY: "We have achieved our near-term goals of a mandatory three-hour rule, and it's akin to a Christmas miracle."
On other details regarding the new rule, AP says "the regulations apply to domestic flights. U.S. carriers operating international flights departing from or arriving in the United States must specify, in advance, their own time limits for deplaning passengers. Foreign carriers do not fly between two U.S. cities and are not covered by the rules." Foreign flights may eventually be covered by the regulations as well. "This is the beginning," LaHood is quoted as saying by the Toronto Star. "We think we owe it to passengers to really look out for them."
Comments 47 | Recommend 2
Buzz up!Like this story? Share it with Yahoo! Buzz
Efforts by U.S. airlines to fend off so-called passenger-rights legislation have failed. USA TODAY writes "passenger-rights advocates won a major victory Monday when the Transportation Department announced a rule to let passengers stuck inside stranded planes disembark after three hours. The rule, which will take effect in late April and applies only to domestic flights, prohibits airlines from letting an aircraft remain on an airport tarmac for more than three hours without deplaning passengers. Exceptions are allowed for safety or security, or when air-traffic controllers notify a pilot in command that returning to a passenger terminal would disrupt airport operations."
"Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said the three-hour limit and other new regulations are meant to send an unequivocal message to airlines not to hold passengers hostage on stuck planes," The Associated Press writes. "Airline passengers have rights, and these new rules will require airlines to live up to their obligation to treat their customers fairly," Transportation Department Secretary Ray LaHood says in a press release. Reuters notes "the regulation would take effect just at the start of the spring and summer travel season, the worst for delays."
And the DOT's new rules come with enforcement teeth. AP says "airlines could be fined $27,500 per passenger for each violation of the three-hour limit." Dow Jones Newswires puts that in perspective, writing those fines are "far higher than any penalty so far imposed, and a move that could wipe out industry earnings. Currently, the Transportation Department issues fines for tarmac delays on case- by-case basis."
The Chicago Tribune says "the new measure is tougher than many in the aviation industry expected and represents a significant victory for passenger-rights advocates, analysts said." USA TODAY adds "the rule came as a pleasant surprise to consumer advocates who had grown frustrated that a bill in Congress to help stuck passengers was stalled." Kate Hanni, executive director of FlyersRights.org, tells USA TODAY: "We have achieved our near-term goals of a mandatory three-hour rule, and it's akin to a Christmas miracle."
On other details regarding the new rule, AP says "the regulations apply to domestic flights. U.S. carriers operating international flights departing from or arriving in the United States must specify, in advance, their own time limits for deplaning passengers. Foreign carriers do not fly between two U.S. cities and are not covered by the rules." Foreign flights may eventually be covered by the regulations as well. "This is the beginning," LaHood is quoted as saying by the Toronto Star. "We think we owe it to passengers to really look out for them."
Editorial: San Francisco Chronicle "Growing Old on the Tarmac"
Back to Article
Editorial: Growing old on the tarmac
Thursday, December 24, 2009
It was a few days after Christmas 2006 that Napa Valley real estate agent Kate Hanni became a political activist. The airlines drove her to it.
Hanni, her husband and sons were flying from San Francisco to Mobile, Ala., by way of Dallas, when bad weather diverted their flight to Austin. Storms happen, but what followed never should have occurred. The Hannis and their fellow American Airline passengers were stuck on the tarmac for nine grueling hours.
In 2007, Hanni's www.flyersrights.org was born.
Less than three years later, Hanni's activism paid off. Monday, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced new rules that prohibit U.S. airlines from keeping planes on the tarmac for more than three hours - absent a strong security reason - and require airlines to provide food and potable water - as well as working toilets - after two hours of on-the-ground delay. The new rules go into effect after 120 days.
The Air Transport Association has opposed a tarmac time limit on the grounds that a three-hour deadline will only add to delays and cancellations when stormy weather jams the works. What is more, if passengers have the option to deplane, there could be fights between those who want off the plane, and those who want to keep the plane's place in line.
Should such problems arise, the administration should consider tweaking the rules.
Or it could be that the new rules will improve flying and the airlines' image. Hanni did not become enraged because of unforeseeable or unmanageable problems. She got angry because she was stuck in plane for nine hours for no good reason. Passengers aboard a Continental ExpressJet flight who were rerouted to Rochester, Minn., at midnight one August night, and held on board for six hours, voiced similar complaints - smelly toilets and no food, when they were so close to an airport with restrooms and water fountains.
Hanni may have exaggerated when she referred to her experience as "imprisonment" - but it unquestionably isn't healthy.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/24/EDFC1B84AL.DTL
Editorial: Growing old on the tarmac
Thursday, December 24, 2009
It was a few days after Christmas 2006 that Napa Valley real estate agent Kate Hanni became a political activist. The airlines drove her to it.
Hanni, her husband and sons were flying from San Francisco to Mobile, Ala., by way of Dallas, when bad weather diverted their flight to Austin. Storms happen, but what followed never should have occurred. The Hannis and their fellow American Airline passengers were stuck on the tarmac for nine grueling hours.
In 2007, Hanni's www.flyersrights.org was born.
Less than three years later, Hanni's activism paid off. Monday, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced new rules that prohibit U.S. airlines from keeping planes on the tarmac for more than three hours - absent a strong security reason - and require airlines to provide food and potable water - as well as working toilets - after two hours of on-the-ground delay. The new rules go into effect after 120 days.
The Air Transport Association has opposed a tarmac time limit on the grounds that a three-hour deadline will only add to delays and cancellations when stormy weather jams the works. What is more, if passengers have the option to deplane, there could be fights between those who want off the plane, and those who want to keep the plane's place in line.
Should such problems arise, the administration should consider tweaking the rules.
Or it could be that the new rules will improve flying and the airlines' image. Hanni did not become enraged because of unforeseeable or unmanageable problems. She got angry because she was stuck in plane for nine hours for no good reason. Passengers aboard a Continental ExpressJet flight who were rerouted to Rochester, Minn., at midnight one August night, and held on board for six hours, voiced similar complaints - smelly toilets and no food, when they were so close to an airport with restrooms and water fountains.
Hanni may have exaggerated when she referred to her experience as "imprisonment" - but it unquestionably isn't healthy.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/24/EDFC1B84AL.DTL
Thursday, December 24, 2009
An Early Christmas Present for the Flying Public . . . President Obama gives flying Public the 3 hour rule!
An Early Christmas Present for the Flying Public . . .
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to All FlyersRights.org Members!
In case you haven't already heard, on Monday the U. S. Department of Transportation announced strict new rules for airlines, thereby delivering the flying public an early Christmas present! WE GOT OUR RULE PASSED, WRITTEN IN THE STRONGEST LANGUAGE WE COULD HAVE HOPED FOR!
Among other things, the new rules prohibit airlines from making passengers wait on the tarmac for more than three hours, and require that passengers be provided with food, water, functioning lavatories and medical attention. In announcing the new rules, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said, "Airline passengers have rights, and these new rules will require airlines to live up to their obligation to treat their customers fairly."
Well, Mr. LaHood, I couldn't have said it better myself! Airline Passengers having basic rights has now been affirmed in a rule thanks to the leadership at DOT and our President. This is truly something to celebrate!
BUT, WE'RE NOT DONE YET!
Why, you ask? Because a rule does not a law make! The DOT rules have the force of law, but are subject to change by any future administration without review by Congress. To be truly protected from the whims of the airlines, we must get Congress to pass a law codifying these rights.
We are well on our way to realizing this goal. Senate Bill 1451, currently making its way through the Senate committees, is the companion to a House bill passed earlier this year, but it has yet to reach the floor for a vote. It is vital that we continue our push to codify this a law, thereby providing permanent protection for the flying public.
Even when this law is passed, we'll continue to fight for you on lots of other important issues. Here are just a few:
Noting the variety of unbundled fees currently being charged at the point of purchase and the gate (e.g., fees for checked bags that add substantially to the overall ticket price).
Requiring airlines to report chronically delayed or cancelled flights at the point of purchase.
Ensuring that the DOT requires that airlines include the new rules in their contract of carriage so that passengers can enforce the rules, and thereby be eligible to receive some penalties that would otherwise go to the government.
Pushing for a mandated advisory committee to oversee the implementation of the law, and requiring that the public be represented on this committee by at least one member of a non-profit airline passengers rights group.
Please Remember Us at Year-End Planning Time!
We continue to need your help to finish this important work.
Please keep us in mind when making your year-end donations. While our IRS 501(c)(4) status means your contribution is not tax deductible (because it permits us to use funds in lobbying activities that are so critical to effecting law changes), your contributions keep us going. Without your contributions, our efforts cannot continue.
Have a safe and happy holiday season!
Sincerely,
Kate Hanni
kate@flyersrights.org
P.O Box 4022, Napa, CA 94559
(877) 359-3776 (toll-free)
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to All FlyersRights.org Members!
In case you haven't already heard, on Monday the U. S. Department of Transportation announced strict new rules for airlines, thereby delivering the flying public an early Christmas present! WE GOT OUR RULE PASSED, WRITTEN IN THE STRONGEST LANGUAGE WE COULD HAVE HOPED FOR!
Among other things, the new rules prohibit airlines from making passengers wait on the tarmac for more than three hours, and require that passengers be provided with food, water, functioning lavatories and medical attention. In announcing the new rules, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said, "Airline passengers have rights, and these new rules will require airlines to live up to their obligation to treat their customers fairly."
Well, Mr. LaHood, I couldn't have said it better myself! Airline Passengers having basic rights has now been affirmed in a rule thanks to the leadership at DOT and our President. This is truly something to celebrate!
BUT, WE'RE NOT DONE YET!
Why, you ask? Because a rule does not a law make! The DOT rules have the force of law, but are subject to change by any future administration without review by Congress. To be truly protected from the whims of the airlines, we must get Congress to pass a law codifying these rights.
We are well on our way to realizing this goal. Senate Bill 1451, currently making its way through the Senate committees, is the companion to a House bill passed earlier this year, but it has yet to reach the floor for a vote. It is vital that we continue our push to codify this a law, thereby providing permanent protection for the flying public.
Even when this law is passed, we'll continue to fight for you on lots of other important issues. Here are just a few:
Noting the variety of unbundled fees currently being charged at the point of purchase and the gate (e.g., fees for checked bags that add substantially to the overall ticket price).
Requiring airlines to report chronically delayed or cancelled flights at the point of purchase.
Ensuring that the DOT requires that airlines include the new rules in their contract of carriage so that passengers can enforce the rules, and thereby be eligible to receive some penalties that would otherwise go to the government.
Pushing for a mandated advisory committee to oversee the implementation of the law, and requiring that the public be represented on this committee by at least one member of a non-profit airline passengers rights group.
Please Remember Us at Year-End Planning Time!
We continue to need your help to finish this important work.
Please keep us in mind when making your year-end donations. While our IRS 501(c)(4) status means your contribution is not tax deductible (because it permits us to use funds in lobbying activities that are so critical to effecting law changes), your contributions keep us going. Without your contributions, our efforts cannot continue.
Have a safe and happy holiday season!
Sincerely,
Kate Hanni
kate@flyersrights.org
P.O Box 4022, Napa, CA 94559
(877) 359-3776 (toll-free)
Editorial New York Times: Deplane, Deplane!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 24, 2009
Editorial
Deplane, Deplane
Years before the era of tarmac strandings, of airline passengers trapped in metal tubes without food or working toilets, waiting for hours in filth and foul air and frustration for a departure time that might or might not come, the writer Ian Frazier imagined a commercial flight piloted by Samuel Beckett.
“The time of the dark journey of our existence is not revealed,” says Captain Beckett, on a trip from nothingness to empty bleak eternal nothingness, via O’Hare. “When we deplane, I’ll weep for happiness.”
Mr. Frazier was being funny. But time has greatly blurred the distinction between Beckett’s fictional void and the real-life runways on which airlines imprison tens of thousands of passengers a year, neither traveling nor not traveling, unable to escape. This happens when an airline refuses to return a delayed plane to the terminal, lest it lose its place in the takeoff line.
On Monday, the Obama administration imposed a solution that Congress has only talked about. It declared that customer torture cannot be a part of an airline’s business plan. After two hours, it said, give the poor souls food and water. After three hours, let them off the plane. Stop cramming your schedules with too many flights that will never be on time. The administration, speaking in the language airlines understand, mandated stiff cash fines for violators: $27,500 per passenger.
The decisive action by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood punctures the absurdist fiction offered by the airlines — that self-policing and consumer complaints are power enough to get them to act decently and sensibly, and that when long delays occur, it’s best for suffering passengers and crew to pull together to help the bottom line. Predictably, the airlines responded by warning, or threatening, that the new rules will only create more delays.
The flying public has learned to tolerate a lot of discomfort and inconvenience in return for lower fares and higher security. As it should. But when indignity turns to horror — as it did in August for the passengers stuck overnight on a runway in Rochester, Minn., as food and water ran out and toilets overflowed, with the terminal only yards away — some basic protections have to apply.
Having enough pretzels and bottled water, clean toilets and rational schedules — and being willing to let passengers off the plane when the wait grows absurd — should not be beyond the capabilities of even a marginally competent airline, even in straitened times. Perhaps the belief in corporate progress is a vain illusion, but we are glad that the Obama administration is clinging to it.
Home
World U.S. N.Y. / Region Business Technology Science Health Sports Opinion Arts Style Travel Jobs Real Estate Automobiles Back to Top
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
Privacy Policy Terms of Service Search Corrections RSS First Look Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map
December 24, 2009
Editorial
Deplane, Deplane
Years before the era of tarmac strandings, of airline passengers trapped in metal tubes without food or working toilets, waiting for hours in filth and foul air and frustration for a departure time that might or might not come, the writer Ian Frazier imagined a commercial flight piloted by Samuel Beckett.
“The time of the dark journey of our existence is not revealed,” says Captain Beckett, on a trip from nothingness to empty bleak eternal nothingness, via O’Hare. “When we deplane, I’ll weep for happiness.”
Mr. Frazier was being funny. But time has greatly blurred the distinction between Beckett’s fictional void and the real-life runways on which airlines imprison tens of thousands of passengers a year, neither traveling nor not traveling, unable to escape. This happens when an airline refuses to return a delayed plane to the terminal, lest it lose its place in the takeoff line.
On Monday, the Obama administration imposed a solution that Congress has only talked about. It declared that customer torture cannot be a part of an airline’s business plan. After two hours, it said, give the poor souls food and water. After three hours, let them off the plane. Stop cramming your schedules with too many flights that will never be on time. The administration, speaking in the language airlines understand, mandated stiff cash fines for violators: $27,500 per passenger.
The decisive action by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood punctures the absurdist fiction offered by the airlines — that self-policing and consumer complaints are power enough to get them to act decently and sensibly, and that when long delays occur, it’s best for suffering passengers and crew to pull together to help the bottom line. Predictably, the airlines responded by warning, or threatening, that the new rules will only create more delays.
The flying public has learned to tolerate a lot of discomfort and inconvenience in return for lower fares and higher security. As it should. But when indignity turns to horror — as it did in August for the passengers stuck overnight on a runway in Rochester, Minn., as food and water ran out and toilets overflowed, with the terminal only yards away — some basic protections have to apply.
Having enough pretzels and bottled water, clean toilets and rational schedules — and being willing to let passengers off the plane when the wait grows absurd — should not be beyond the capabilities of even a marginally competent airline, even in straitened times. Perhaps the belief in corporate progress is a vain illusion, but we are glad that the Obama administration is clinging to it.
Home
World U.S. N.Y. / Region Business Technology Science Health Sports Opinion Arts Style Travel Jobs Real Estate Automobiles Back to Top
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
Privacy Policy Terms of Service Search Corrections RSS First Look Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
3 Hour Rule is a Christmas Reality!
December 21, 2009
Contact:
Kate Hanni
(707) 337-0328
kate@flyersrights.com
For Immediate Release
Airline Passengers Nationwide Get Early Holiday Gift: DOT to Force Airlines to Deplane Stranded Passengers
Department of Transportation to Impose Limit of Three Hours on the Tarmac for all Domestic Flights
Napa, CA (December 21, 2009) – Flyersrights.org, the nation’s foremost airline passenger advocacy group, is thrilled by today’s decision by the Department of Transportation that all airlines operating in the United States will now be forced to deplane passengers if a tarmac delay extends beyond three hours.
Kate Hanni, Flyersrights.org’s president and founder, issued this statement:
“This is indeed a wonderful holiday gift and a major victory for any airline passenger who has ever been subjected to an unnecessary tarmac delay and has endured endless hours without food, water or adequate toilet facilities. Flyersrights.org has fought for legislation in Congress to limit these delays, yet the bill has languished in the Senate despite bipartisan support. We applaud the Obama Administration and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood for stepping up to the plate and telling the airline industry, and Congress, that ‘enough is enough’.”
Flyersrights.org was formed in 2007 by several passengers who were stranded for nine hours on the tarmac in Austin, Texas. The organization advocates for passengers’ rights, including passage of the Passenger’s Bill of Rights currently being debated in Congress. The organization currently has 27,000 members nationwide. For more information, visit www.flyersrights.org or call the hotline at 1-877-FLYERS6.
###
Contact:
Kate Hanni
(707) 337-0328
kate@flyersrights.com
For Immediate Release
Airline Passengers Nationwide Get Early Holiday Gift: DOT to Force Airlines to Deplane Stranded Passengers
Department of Transportation to Impose Limit of Three Hours on the Tarmac for all Domestic Flights
Napa, CA (December 21, 2009) – Flyersrights.org, the nation’s foremost airline passenger advocacy group, is thrilled by today’s decision by the Department of Transportation that all airlines operating in the United States will now be forced to deplane passengers if a tarmac delay extends beyond three hours.
Kate Hanni, Flyersrights.org’s president and founder, issued this statement:
“This is indeed a wonderful holiday gift and a major victory for any airline passenger who has ever been subjected to an unnecessary tarmac delay and has endured endless hours without food, water or adequate toilet facilities. Flyersrights.org has fought for legislation in Congress to limit these delays, yet the bill has languished in the Senate despite bipartisan support. We applaud the Obama Administration and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood for stepping up to the plate and telling the airline industry, and Congress, that ‘enough is enough’.”
Flyersrights.org was formed in 2007 by several passengers who were stranded for nine hours on the tarmac in Austin, Texas. The organization advocates for passengers’ rights, including passage of the Passenger’s Bill of Rights currently being debated in Congress. The organization currently has 27,000 members nationwide. For more information, visit www.flyersrights.org or call the hotline at 1-877-FLYERS6.
###
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Airline Passengers Rights "Up in the Air"
For Immediate Release Date: 11-20-2009
Contact: Kate Hanni Phone # 707-337-0328
Airline Passengers Rights Still "Up In The Air"
Senate Finance Committee, lead by Max Baucus, gives
airline passengers lump of coal for the holidays
Napa, CA-Today Flyersrights.org President Kate Hanni called on the Senate Finance Committee, and in particular Chair Max Baucus, to stop stalling and pass S1451, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization. This bill would grant airline passengers a long-awaited Passenger’s Bill of Rights, which enjoys bipartisan support in the United States Senate.
Over the past week, two airplanes were stuck on the tarmac at JFK Airport in New York and according to FoxNews, a similar 4-hour lockup was experienced by travelers at Reagan National Airport yesterday. In the former case, a pregnant woman, Nikki Spier, spent 4.5 hours stuck on an immobile Delta Flight; the flight crew told her husband, who was concerned about his wife’s health, that she could only exit the aircraft if there were a “medical emergency.” After spending 287 minutes on the stationery aircraft, Nikki was so ill she couldn’t go to work the next day.
Hanni called this “outrageous,” adding, that, “we were promised by Chairman Baucus that the FAA reauthorization would be passed by the December 31st deadline, yet this important legislation has once again been ignored with its 8th extension now pushing the deadline back to March 31st. It seems passengers aren’t the only ones stuck on a tarmac—so are their rights.”
Not only would this bill require passengers be provided food, water, and hygienic toilets during delays now be limited to 3 hours in length, but Hanni pointed out that it’s also a jobs bill, making it even more vital to pass during these troubled economic times. In fact, the legislation could create as many as 288,000 new jobs, depending upon the funding level approved. This may be why 35 Senators sent a letter to the Senate Finance Committee in November, imploring its members to mark up the FAA Bill and move it to the Senate floor.
With delays likely to mount during the busy holiday season, the best gift Senator Baucus and the Senate Finance Committee could give to those already victimized by long waits and cancelled flights, as well as the 27,000 members of FlyersRights.org and the traveling public, would be to take up FAA reauthorization immediately and pass it in the name of the American public.
-30-
Contact: Kate Hanni Phone # 707-337-0328
Airline Passengers Rights Still "Up In The Air"
Senate Finance Committee, lead by Max Baucus, gives
airline passengers lump of coal for the holidays
Napa, CA-Today Flyersrights.org President Kate Hanni called on the Senate Finance Committee, and in particular Chair Max Baucus, to stop stalling and pass S1451, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization. This bill would grant airline passengers a long-awaited Passenger’s Bill of Rights, which enjoys bipartisan support in the United States Senate.
Over the past week, two airplanes were stuck on the tarmac at JFK Airport in New York and according to FoxNews, a similar 4-hour lockup was experienced by travelers at Reagan National Airport yesterday. In the former case, a pregnant woman, Nikki Spier, spent 4.5 hours stuck on an immobile Delta Flight; the flight crew told her husband, who was concerned about his wife’s health, that she could only exit the aircraft if there were a “medical emergency.” After spending 287 minutes on the stationery aircraft, Nikki was so ill she couldn’t go to work the next day.
Hanni called this “outrageous,” adding, that, “we were promised by Chairman Baucus that the FAA reauthorization would be passed by the December 31st deadline, yet this important legislation has once again been ignored with its 8th extension now pushing the deadline back to March 31st. It seems passengers aren’t the only ones stuck on a tarmac—so are their rights.”
Not only would this bill require passengers be provided food, water, and hygienic toilets during delays now be limited to 3 hours in length, but Hanni pointed out that it’s also a jobs bill, making it even more vital to pass during these troubled economic times. In fact, the legislation could create as many as 288,000 new jobs, depending upon the funding level approved. This may be why 35 Senators sent a letter to the Senate Finance Committee in November, imploring its members to mark up the FAA Bill and move it to the Senate floor.
With delays likely to mount during the busy holiday season, the best gift Senator Baucus and the Senate Finance Committee could give to those already victimized by long waits and cancelled flights, as well as the 27,000 members of FlyersRights.org and the traveling public, would be to take up FAA reauthorization immediately and pass it in the name of the American public.
-30-
Thursday, November 19, 2009
EU Passes Historic Passengers Rights Law!
IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright notice.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)
19 November 2009 (*)
(Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Article 2(l) and Articles 5, 6 and 7 – Concept of flight „delay‟ and „cancellation‟ – Right to compensation in the event of delay –Concept of „extraordinary circumstances‟)
In Joined Cases C-402/07 and C-432/07,
REFERENCES for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) and the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) made by decisions of 17 July and 26 June 2007, received at the Court on 30 August and 18 September 2007 respectively, in the proceedings
Christopher Sturgeon,
Gabriel Sturgeon,
Alana Sturgeon
v
Condor Flugdienst GmbH (C-402/07),
and
Stefan Böck,
Cornelia Lepuschitz
v
Air France SA (C-432/07),
THE COURT (Fourth Chamber),
composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Third Chamber, acting as President of the Fourth Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, E. Juhász, G. Arestis and J. Malenovský (Rapporteur), Judges,
Advocate General: E. Sharpston,
Registrar: R. Şereş, Administrator,
having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 24 September 2008,
after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
– C. Sturgeon, G. Sturgeon and A. Sturgeon, by R. Schmid, Rechtsanwalt,
– S. Böck and C. Lepuschitz, by M. Wukoschitz, Rechtsanwalt,
– Condor Flugdienst GmbH, by C. Marko and C. Döring, Rechtsanwälte,
– Air France SA, by O. Borodajkewycz, Rechtsanwalt,
– the Austrian Government, by E. Riedl, acting as Agent,
– the Greek Government, by S. Chala and D. Tsagkaraki, acting as Agents,
– the French Government, by G. de Bergues and A. Hare, acting as Agents,
– the Italian Government, by I. M. Braguglia, acting as Agent, and W. Ferrante, avvocato dello Stato,
– the Polish Government, by M. Dowgielewicz, acting as Agent,
– the Swedish Government, by A. Falk, acting as Agent,
– the United Kingdom Government, by T. Harris, acting as Agent, and D. Beard, Barrister,
– the Commission of the European Communities, by R. Vidal-Puig and P. Dejmek, acting as Agents,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 2 July 2009,
gives the following
Judgment
1 These references for a preliminary ruling concern the interpretation of Articles 2(l), 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
2 The references were made in proceedings between (i) Mr Sturgeon and his family („the Sturgeons‟) and Condor Flugdienst GmbH („Condor‟) (C-402/07) and (ii) Mr Bock and Ms Lepuschitz and Air France SA („Air France‟) (C-432/07), concerning the refusal of those airlines to pay compensation to the passengers concerned, whose arrival at the airport of destination was delayed by 25 and 22 hours respectively in relation to the scheduled arrival time.
Legal context
3 Recitals 1 to 4 in the preamble to Regulation No 261/2004 state:
„(1) Action by the Community in the field of air transport should aim, among other things, at ensuring a high level of protection for passengers. Moreover, full account should be taken of the requirements of consumer protection in general.
(2) Denied boarding and cancellation or long delay of flights cause serious trouble and inconvenience to passengers.
(3) While Council Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 of 4 February 1991 establishing common rules for a denied boarding compensation system in scheduled air transport [(OJ 1991 L 36, p. 5)] created basic protection for passengers, the number of passengers denied
boarding against their will remains too high, as does that affected by cancellations without prior warning and that affected by long delays.
(4) The Community should therefore raise the standards of protection set by that Regulation both to strengthen the rights of passengers and to ensure that air carriers operate under harmonised conditions in a liberalised market.‟
4 According to Recital 15 in the preamble to Regulation No 261/2004:
„Extraordinary circumstances should be deemed to exist where the impact of an air traffic management decision in relation to a particular aircraft on a particular day gives rise to a long delay, an overnight delay, or the cancellation of one or more flights by that aircraft, even though all reasonable measures had been taken by the air carrier concerned to avoid the delays or cancellations.‟
5 Article 2 of Regulation No 261/2004, headed „Definitions‟, provides:
„For the purposes of this Regulation:
…
(l) “cancellation” means the non-operation of a flight which was previously planned and on which at least one place was reserved.‟
6 Article 5 of that regulation, headed „Cancellation‟, states:
„1. In case of cancellation of a flight, the passengers concerned shall:
(a) be offered assistance by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 8; and
…
(c) have the right to compensation by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 7, unless:
…
(iii) they are informed of the cancellation less than seven days before the scheduled time of departure and are offered re-routing, allowing them to depart no more than one hour before the scheduled time of departure and to reach their final destination less than two hours after the scheduled time of arrival.
…
3. An operating air carrier shall not be obliged to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7, if it can prove that the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.
…‟.
7 Article 6 of Regulation No 261/2004, headed „Delay‟, is worded as follows:
„1. When an operating air carrier reasonably expects a flight to be delayed beyond its scheduled time of departure:
(a) for two hours or more in the case of flights of 1 500 kilometres or less; or
(b) for three hours or more in the case of all intra-Community flights of more than 1 500 kilometres and of all other flights between 1 500 and 3 500 kilometres; or
(c) for four hours or more in the case of all flights not falling under (a) or (b),
passengers shall be offered by the operating air carrier:
(i) the assistance specified in Article 9(1)(a) and 9(2); and
(ii) when the reasonably expected time of departure is at least the day after the time of departure previously announced, the assistance specified in Article 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(c); and
(iii) when the delay is at least five hours, the assistance specified in Article 8(1)(a).
2. In any event, the assistance shall be offered within the time-limits set out above with respect to each distance bracket.‟
8 Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004, headed „Right to compensation‟, provides:
„1. Where reference is made to this Article, passengers shall receive compensation amounting to:
(a) EUR 250 for all flights of 1 500 kilometres or less;
(b) EUR 400 for all intra-Community flights of more than 1 500 kilometres, and for all other flights between 1 500 and 3 500 kilometres;
(c) EUR 600 for all flights not falling under (a) or (b).
In determining the distance, the basis shall be the last destination at which the denial of boarding or cancellation will delay the passenger‟s arrival after the scheduled time.
2. When passengers are offered re-routing to their final destination on an alternative flight pursuant to Article 8, the arrival time of which does not exceed the scheduled arrival time of the flight originally booked
(a) by two hours, in respect of all flights of 1 500 kilometres or less; or
(b) by three hours, in respect of all intra-Community flights of more than 1 500 kilometres and for all other flights between 1 500 and 3 500 kilometres; or
(c) by four hours, in respect of all flights not falling under (a) or (b),
the operating air carrier may reduce the compensation provided for in paragraph 1 by 50%.
…‟
9 Article 8(1) of Regulation No 261/2004 provides that where reference is made to Article 8, passengers are to be offered the choice between, under paragraph 1(a), reimbursement of the ticket and a return flight to the first point of departure or, under paragraph 1(b) and (c), re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their final destination.
10 Article 9(1) of that regulation, where reference is made to Article 9, passengers are to be offered free of charge, under Article 9(1)(a), meals and refreshments and, under Article 9(1)(b) and (c), hotel accommodation and transfer to the place of accommodation; in addition, under Article 9(2), they are to be offered free of charge two telephone calls, telex or fax messages, or e-mails.
The disputes in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
Case C-402/07
11 The Sturgeons booked return tickets with Condor from Frankfurt am Main (Germany) to Toronto (Canada).
12 The return flight from Toronto to Frankfurt was due to depart at 16.20 on 9 July 2005. Following check-in, passengers on that flight were informed that the flight was cancelled, as was indicated on the airport departures board. Their luggage was returned to them and they were then driven to a hotel where they spent the night. The following day, the passengers were checked in at another airline‟s counter for a flight with the same number as that on their booking. Condor did not schedule another flight with the same number for the day concerned. The passengers were given different seats from those they had been allocated on the previous day. The booking was not converted into a booking for a flight scheduled by another airline. The flight concerned arrived in Frankfurt at around 07.00 on 11 July 2005, some 25 hours after its scheduled arrival time.
13 The Sturgeons took the view that, in light of all the abovementioned circumstances, in particular the delay of more than 25 hours, the flight had been not delayed but cancelled.
14 The Sturgeons brought an action against Condor before the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Local Court, Rüsselsheim) (Germany), claiming compensation of EUR 600 per person plus damages, since, in their view, the damage sustained was the result not of a flight delay but of a cancellation.
15 Condor contended that the action as framed should be dismissed on the ground that the flight in question was delayed and not cancelled. Prior to the proceedings before the national court, Condor claimed that the flight had been delayed as the result of a hurricane in the Caribbean but during the proceedings it attributed the delay to technical faults on the plane and illness among the crew.
16 The Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim concluded that the flight had been delayed not cancelled and, consequently, dismissed the Sturgeons‟ claim for compensation. The Sturgeons appealed to the Landgericht Darmstadt (Regional Court, Darmstadt) which upheld the decision of the lower court.
17 The Sturgeons then appealed on a point of law („Revision‟) to the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice).
18 Taking the view that the outcome of the appeal depended on the interpretation of Articles 2(l) and 5(1)(c) of Regulation No 261/2004, the Bundesgerichtshof decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
„(1) Is it decisive for the interpretation of the term “cancellation” whether the original flight planning is abandoned, with the result that a delay, regardless of how long, does not constitute a cancellation if the air carrier does not actually abandon the planning for the original flight?
(2) If Question 1 is answered in the negative: in what circumstances is a delay of the planned flight no longer to be regarded as a delay but as a cancellation? Is the answer to this question dependent on the length of the delay?‟
Case C-432/07
19 Mr Böck and Ms Lepuschitz booked return tickets with Air France from Vienna (Austria) to Mexico City (Mexico) via Paris (France).
20 The Mexico City-Paris flight which Mr Böck and Ms Lepuschitz were due to take was scheduled to depart at 21.30 on 7 March 2005. When they came to check in, they were immediately informed, without the check-in taking place, that their flight was cancelled. The cancellation resulted from a change in the flight planning between Mexico City and Paris, which arose because of a technical breakdown on the aircraft due to fly from Paris to Mexico City and on account of the need to observe the rest period prescribed by law for the crew.
21 In order to get back earlier, Mr Böck and Ms Lepuschitz accepted Air France‟s offer of seats on a flight operated by Continental Airlines, which was scheduled to leave the following day, 8 March 2005, at 12.20. Their tickets were first cancelled and then new tickets were issued to them at the Continental Airlines counter.
22 The other passengers on the Mexico City-Paris flight, who did not take the Continental Airlines flight, left Mexico City, with a number of additional passengers, on 8 March 2005 at 19.35. That flight, whose original number was followed by the letter „A‟, was operated in addition to the regular flight scheduled by Air France on the same day.
23 Mr Böck and Ms Lepuschitz arrived in Vienna almost 22 hours after the scheduled arrival time.
24 Mr Böck and Ms Lepuschitz brought an action against Air France before the Bezirksgericht für Handelssachen Wien (District Commercial Court, Vienna) (Austria), claiming EUR 600 compensation per person for cancellation of their flight, on the basis of Articles 5 and 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 261/2004. That court dismissed their claim on the ground that, despite the evident flight delay, Regulation No 261/2004 did not support the conclusion that there was a flight cancellation. Mr Böck and Ms Lepuschitz appealed against that decision to the Handelsgericht Wien (Commercial Court, Vienna).
25 In those circumstances, the Handelsgericht Wien decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
„(1) Must Article 5, read in conjunction with Articles 2(l) and 6, of Regulation … No 261/2004 …, be interpreted as meaning that a 22-hour delay in the time of departure constitutes a “delay” within the meaning of Article 6?
(2) Must Article 2(l) of Regulation … No 261/2004 be interpreted as meaning that instances in which passengers are transported significantly later (22 hours later) on a flight operating under a longer flight number (original flight number supplemented by an “A”) and carrying only an – albeit large – proportion of the passengers booked on the initial flight, but also additional passengers not booked on the initial flight, constitute “cancellations” rather than “delays”?
If Question 2 is to be answered in the affirmative:
(3) Must Article 5(3) of Regulation … No 261/2004 be interpreted as meaning that technical problems with a plane and the resulting changes to the flight schedule represent extraordinary circumstances (which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken)?‟
26 By order of the President of the Court of 19 October 2007, Cases C-402/07 and C-432/07 were joined for the purposes of the written and oral procedure and of the judgment.
Consideration of the questions referred
27 Before the national courts, the applicants in the main actions claim from Condor and Air France respectively the compensation provided for in Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 on the ground that with those airlines they reached their airports of destination, in the first case, 25 and, in the second case, 22 hours after the scheduled arrival times. Condor and Air France assert that the applicants are not entitled to any compensation, since the flights concerned were not cancelled but delayed and Regulation No 261/2004 provides for a right to compensation only in the case of flight cancellation. Furthermore, the airlines maintain that the late arrival of the flights was attributable to technical faults on the aircraft, which are covered by the concept of „extraordinary circumstances‟ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, and that they are thus released from the obligation to pay compensation.
28 In those circumstances, in order to give the national courts a useful answer, the questions referred should be understood as seeking, in essence, to ascertain:
– whether a flight delay must be regarded as a flight cancellation for the purposes of Articles 2(l) and 5 of Regulation No 261/2004 where the delay is long;
– whether Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are delayed may, for the purpose of the application of the right to compensation laid down in Article 7 of that regulation, be treated as passengers whose flights are cancelled, and
– whether a technical problem in an aircraft is covered by the concept of „extraordinary circumstances‟ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004.
The first part of the questions referred, concerning the concept of delay
29 Regulation No 261/2004 does not contain a definition of „flight delay‟. That concept may, however, be clarified in the light of the context in which it occurs.
30 In that regard, it should be recalled, first, that a „flight‟ within the meaning of Regulation No 261/2004 consists in an air transport operation, performed by an air carrier which fixes its itinerary (Case C-173/07 Emirates Airlines [2008] ECR I-5237, paragraph 40). Thus, the itinerary is an essential element of the flight, as the flight is operated in accordance with the carrier‟s pre-arranged planning.
31 It is clear furthermore from Article 6 of Regulation No 261/2004 that the Community legislature adopted a notion of „flight delay‟ which is considered only by reference to the scheduled departure time and which implies as a consequence that, after the departure time, the other elements pertaining to the flight must remain unchanged.
32 Thus, a flight is „delayed‟ for the purposes of Article 6 of Regulation No 261/2004 if it is operated in accordance with the original planning and its actual departure time is later than the scheduled departure time.
33 Second, according to Article 2(l) of Regulation No 261/2004, flight cancellation, unlike delay, is the result of non-operation of a flight which was previously planned. It follows that, in that regard, cancelled flights and delayed flights are two quite distinct categories of flights. It cannot therefore be inferred from Regulation No 261/2004 that a flight which is delayed may be classified as a „cancelled flight‟ merely on the ground that the delay is extended, even substantially.
34 Consequently, a flight which is delayed, irrespective of the duration of the delay, even if it is long, cannot be regarded as cancelled where there is a departure in accordance with the original planning.
35 In those circumstances, where passengers are carried on a flight whose departure time is later than the departure time originally scheduled, the flight can be classified as „cancelled‟ only if the air carrier arranges for the passengers to be carried on another flight whose original planning is different from that of the flight for which the booking was made.
36 Thus, it is possible, as a rule, to conclude that there is a cancellation where the delayed flight for which the booking was made is „rolled over‟ onto another flight, that is to say, where the planning for the original flight is abandoned and the passengers from that flight join passengers on a flight which was also planned – but independently of the flight for which the passengers so transferred had made their bookings.
37 By contrast, it cannot, as a rule, be concluded that there is a flight delay or cancellation on the basis of a „delay‟ or a „cancellation‟ being shown on the airport departures board or announced by the air carrier‟s staff. Similarly, the fact that passengers recover their luggage or obtain new boarding cards is not, as a rule, a deciding factor. Those circumstances are
not connected with the objective characteristics of the flight as such. They can be attributable to inaccurate classifications or to factors obtaining in the airport concerned or, yet again, they may be unavoidable given the waiting time and the fact that it is necessary for the passengers concerned to spend the night in a hotel.
38 Nor, as a rule, is it conclusive that the composition of the group of passengers who initially held reservations is essentially identical to that of the group subsequently transported. Indeed, as the delay grows longer by reference to the departure time originally scheduled, the number of passengers in the first of those groups may decrease because some passengers have been offered re-routing on another flight and others, for personal reasons, have decided not to take the delayed flight. Conversely, to the extent that seats have become available on the flight for which the booking was made, there is nothing to prevent the carrier accepting, before departure of the plane which is delayed, additional passengers.
39 In view of the foregoing, the answer to the first part of the questions referred is that Articles 2(l), 5 and 6 of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a flight which is delayed, irrespective of the duration of the delay, even if it is long, cannot be regarded as cancelled where the flight is operated in accordance with the air carrier‟s original planning.
The second part of the questions referred, concerning the right to compensation in the event of delay
40 Article 5(1) of Regulation No 261/2004 provides that in the event of cancellation of a flight, the passengers concerned are to have the right to compensation by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 7 of the regulation.
41 By contrast, it does not expressly follow from the wording of Regulation No 261/2004 that passengers whose flights are delayed have such a right. Nevertheless, as the Court has made clear in its case-law, it is necessary, in interpreting a provision of Community law, to consider not only its wording, but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (see, inter alia, Case C-156/98 Germany v Commission [2000] ECR I-6857, paragraph 50, and Case C-306/05 SGAE [2006] ECR I-11519, paragraph 34).
42 In that regard, the operative part of a Community act is indissociably linked to the statement of reasons for it, so that, when it has to be interpreted, account must be taken of the reasons which led to its adoption (Case C-298/00 P Italy v Commission [2004] ECR I-4087, paragraph 97 and the case-law cited).
43 It must be stated that, even though the possibility of relying on „extraordinary circumstances‟, allowing air carriers to be released from the obligation to pay compensation under Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004, is provided for only in Article 5(3) thereof, which concerns flight cancellation, Recital 15 in the preamble to the regulation nevertheless states that that ground may also be relied on where an air traffic management decision in relation to a particular aircraft on a particular day gives rise to „a long delay [or] an overnight delay‟. As the notion of long delay is mentioned in the context of extraordinary circumstances, it must be held that the legislature also linked that notion to the right to compensation.
44 That is implicitly borne out by the objective of Regulation No 261/2004, since it is apparent from Recitals 1 to 4 in the preamble, in particular from Recital 2, that the regulation seeks to ensure a high level of protection for air passengers regardless of whether they are denied boarding or whether their flight is cancelled or delayed, since they are all caused similar serious trouble and inconvenience connected with air transport.
45 That is a fortiori the case since the provisions conferring rights on air passengers, including those conferring a right to compensation, must be interpreted broadly (see, to that effect, Case C-549/07 Wallentin-Hermann [2008] ECR I-0000, paragraph 17).
46 In those circumstances it cannot automatically be presumed that passengers whose flights are delayed do not have a right to compensation and cannot, for the purposes of recognition of such a right, be treated as passengers whose flights are cancelled.
47 Next, it must be stated that, according to a general principle of interpretation, a Community act must be interpreted, as far as possible, in such a way as not to affect its validity (see, to that effect, Case C-403/99 Italy v Commission [2001] ECR I-6883, paragraph 37). Likewise, where a provision of Community law is open to several interpretations, preference must be given to that interpretation which ensures that the provision retains its effectiveness (see, inter alia, Case 187/87 Land de Sarre and Others [1988] ECR 5013, paragraph 19, and Case C-434/97 Commission v France [2000] ECR I-1129, paragraph 21).
48 In that regard, all Community acts must be interpreted in accordance with primary law as a whole, including the principle of equal treatment, which requires that comparable situations must not be treated differently and that different situations must not be treated in the same way unless such treatment is objectively justified (Case C-210/03 Swedish Match [2004] ECR I-11893, paragraph 70, and Case C-344/04 IATA and ELFAA [2006] ECR I-403, paragraph 95).
49 In view of the objective of Regulation No 261/2004, which is to strengthen protection for air passengers by redressing damage suffered by them during air travel, situations covered by the regulation must be compared, in particular by reference to the type and extent of the various types of inconvenience and damage suffered by the passengers concerned (see, to that effect, IATA and ELFAA, paragraphs 82, 85, 97 and 98).
50 In this instance, the situation of passengers whose flights are delayed should be compared with that of passengers whose flights are cancelled.
51 In that connection, Regulation No 261/2004 seeks to redress damage in an immediate and standardised manner and to do so by various forms of intervention which are the subject of rules relating to denied boarding, cancellation and long flight delay (see, to that effect, IATA and ELFAA, paragraph 43).
52 Regulation No 261/2004 has, in those measures, the objective of repairing, inter alia, damage consisting, for the passengers concerned, in a loss of time which, given that it is irreversible, can be redressed only by compensation.
53 In that regard, it must be stated that that damage is suffered both by passengers whose flights are cancelled and by passengers whose flights are delayed if, prior to reaching their destinations, the latter‟s journey time is longer than the time which had originally been scheduled by the air carrier.
54 Consequently, passengers whose flights have been cancelled and passengers affected by a flight delay suffer similar damage, consisting in a loss of time, and thus find themselves in comparable situations for the purposes of the application of the right to compensation laid down in Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004.
55 More specifically, the situation of passengers whose flights are delayed is scarcely distinguishable from that of passengers whose flights are cancelled, who are re-routed in accordance with Article 5(1)(c)(iii) of Regulation No 261/2004 and who may be informed of the flight cancellation at the very last moment, when they actually arrive at the airport (see Case C-204/08 Rehder [2009] ECR I-0000, paragraph 19).
56 First, both categories of passengers are informed, as a rule, at the same time of the incident which will make their journey by air more difficult. Second, even if they are transported to their final destination, they reach it after the time originally scheduled and, as a consequence, they suffer a similar loss of time.
57 That said, passengers who are re-routed under Article 5(1)(c)(iii) of Regulation No 261/2004 are afforded the right to compensation laid down in Article 7 of the regulation
where the carrier fails to re-route them on a flight which departs no more than one hour before the scheduled time of departure and reaches their final destination less than two hours after the scheduled time of arrival. Those passengers thus acquire a right to compensation when they suffer a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours in relation to the duration originally planned by the air carrier.
58 If, by contrast, passengers whose flights are delayed did not acquire any right to compensation, they would be treated less favourably even though, depending on the circumstances, they suffer a similar loss of time, of three hours or more, in the course of their journey.
59 There appears, however, to be no objective ground capable of justifying such a difference in treatment.
60 Given that the damage sustained by air passengers in cases of cancellation or long delay is comparable, passengers whose flights are delayed and passengers whose flights are cancelled cannot be treated differently without the principle of equal treatment being infringed. That is a fortiori the case in view of the aim sought by Regulation No 261/2004, which is to increase protection for all air passengers.
61 In those circumstances, the Court finds that passengers whose flights are delayed may rely on the right to compensation laid down in Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 where they suffer, on account of such flights, a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours, that is to say when they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled by the air carrier.
62 That solution is, moreover, consistent with Recital 15 in the preamble to Regulation No 261/2004. As stated at paragraph 43 of this judgment, it must be held that the legislature, in that recital, also linked the notion of „long delay‟ to the right to compensation. That notion corresponds to a delay to which the legislature attaches certain legal consequences. As Article 6 of the regulation already accepts such legal consequences in the case of certain flights which are delayed for two hours, Recital 15 necessarily covers delays of three hours or more.
63 It is important to point out that the compensation payable to a passenger under Article 7(1) of Regulation No 261/2004 may be reduced by 50% if the conditions laid down in Article 7(2) of the regulation are met. Even though the latter provision refers only to the case of re-routing of passengers, the Court finds that the reduction in the compensation provided for is dependent solely on the delay to which passengers are subject, so that nothing precludes the application mutatis mutandis of that provision to compensation paid to passengers whose flights are delayed. It follows that the compensation payable to a passenger whose flight is delayed, who reaches his final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled, may be reduced by 50%, in accordance with Article 7(2)(c) of Regulation No 261/2004, where the delay is – in the case of a flight not falling under points (a) or (b) of Article 7(2) – less than four hours.
64 The conclusion set out in paragraph 61 of this judgment is not undermined by the fact that Article 6 of Regulation No 261/2004 provides for different forms of assistance under Articles 8 and 9 thereof for passengers whose flights are delayed.
65 As the Court has already stated, Regulation No 261/2004 provides for various forms of intervention in order to redress, in a standardised and immediate manner, the different types of damage constituted by the inconvenience that delay in the carriage of passengers by air causes (see, to that effect, IATA and ELFAA, paragraphs 43 and 45).
66 Those measures are autonomous in the sense that they address different aims and seek to make up for various types of damage caused by such delay.
67 That said, it should be recalled that, with the adoption of Regulation No 261/2004, the legislature was also seeking to strike a balance between the interests of air passengers and those of air carriers. Having laid down certain rights for those passengers, it provided at the
same time, in Recital 15 and Article 5(3) of the regulation, that air carriers are not obliged to pay compensation if they can prove that the cancellation or long delay is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken, namely circumstances which are beyond the air carrier‟s actual control.
68 Moreover, the discharge of obligations pursuant to Regulation No 261/2004 is without prejudice to air carriers‟ rights to seek compensation from any person who caused the delay, including third parties, as Article 13 of the regulation provides. Such compensation may accordingly reduce or even remove the financial burden borne by carriers in consequence of those obligations. Nor does it appear unreasonable for those obligations initially to be borne, subject to the abovementioned right to compensation, by the air carriers with which the passengers concerned have a contract of carriage that entitles them to a flight that should be neither cancelled nor delayed (IATA and ELFAA, paragraph 90).
69 In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the second part of the questions referred is that Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are delayed may be treated, for the purposes of the application of the right to compensation, as passengers whose flights are cancelled and they may thus rely on the right to compensation laid down in Article 7 of the regulation where they suffer, on account of a flight delay, a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours, that is, where they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled by the air carrier. Such a delay does not, however, entitle passengers to compensation if the air carrier can prove that the long delay was caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken, namely circumstances beyond the actual control of the air carrier.
The third question in Case C-432/07, concerning extraordinary circumstances resulting from a technical problem in an aircraft
70 The Court has already held that Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a technical problem in an aircraft which leads to the cancellation of a flight is not covered by the concept of „extraordinary circumstances‟ within the meaning of that provision, unless that problem stems from events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control (Wallentin-Hermann, paragraph 34).
71 The same conclusion applies when Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 is pleaded in the case of flight delay.
72 Thus, the answer to the third question in Case C-432/07 is that Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a technical problem in an aircraft which leads to the cancellation or delay of a flight is not covered by the concept of „extraordinary circumstances‟ within the meaning of that provision, unless that problem stems from events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control.
Costs
73 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.
On those grounds, the Court (Fourth Chamber) hereby rules:
1. Articles 2(l), 5 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied
boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that a flight which is delayed, irrespective of the duration of the delay, even if it is long, cannot be regarded as cancelled where the flight is operated in accordance with the air carrier’s original planning.
2. Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are delayed may be treated, for the purposes of the application of the right to compensation, as passengers whose flights are cancelled and they may thus rely on the right to compensation laid down in Article 7 of the regulation where they suffer, on account of a flight delay, a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours, that is, where they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled by the air carrier. Such a delay does not, however, entitle passengers to compensation if the air carrier can prove that the long delay was caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken, namely circumstances beyond the actual control of the air carrier.
3. Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a technical problem in an aircraft which leads to the cancellation or delay of a flight is not covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision, unless that problem stems from events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control.
[Signatures]
* Language of the case: German.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)
19 November 2009 (*)
(Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Article 2(l) and Articles 5, 6 and 7 – Concept of flight „delay‟ and „cancellation‟ – Right to compensation in the event of delay –Concept of „extraordinary circumstances‟)
In Joined Cases C-402/07 and C-432/07,
REFERENCES for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) and the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) made by decisions of 17 July and 26 June 2007, received at the Court on 30 August and 18 September 2007 respectively, in the proceedings
Christopher Sturgeon,
Gabriel Sturgeon,
Alana Sturgeon
v
Condor Flugdienst GmbH (C-402/07),
and
Stefan Böck,
Cornelia Lepuschitz
v
Air France SA (C-432/07),
THE COURT (Fourth Chamber),
composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Third Chamber, acting as President of the Fourth Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, E. Juhász, G. Arestis and J. Malenovský (Rapporteur), Judges,
Advocate General: E. Sharpston,
Registrar: R. Şereş, Administrator,
having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 24 September 2008,
after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
– C. Sturgeon, G. Sturgeon and A. Sturgeon, by R. Schmid, Rechtsanwalt,
– S. Böck and C. Lepuschitz, by M. Wukoschitz, Rechtsanwalt,
– Condor Flugdienst GmbH, by C. Marko and C. Döring, Rechtsanwälte,
– Air France SA, by O. Borodajkewycz, Rechtsanwalt,
– the Austrian Government, by E. Riedl, acting as Agent,
– the Greek Government, by S. Chala and D. Tsagkaraki, acting as Agents,
– the French Government, by G. de Bergues and A. Hare, acting as Agents,
– the Italian Government, by I. M. Braguglia, acting as Agent, and W. Ferrante, avvocato dello Stato,
– the Polish Government, by M. Dowgielewicz, acting as Agent,
– the Swedish Government, by A. Falk, acting as Agent,
– the United Kingdom Government, by T. Harris, acting as Agent, and D. Beard, Barrister,
– the Commission of the European Communities, by R. Vidal-Puig and P. Dejmek, acting as Agents,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 2 July 2009,
gives the following
Judgment
1 These references for a preliminary ruling concern the interpretation of Articles 2(l), 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
2 The references were made in proceedings between (i) Mr Sturgeon and his family („the Sturgeons‟) and Condor Flugdienst GmbH („Condor‟) (C-402/07) and (ii) Mr Bock and Ms Lepuschitz and Air France SA („Air France‟) (C-432/07), concerning the refusal of those airlines to pay compensation to the passengers concerned, whose arrival at the airport of destination was delayed by 25 and 22 hours respectively in relation to the scheduled arrival time.
Legal context
3 Recitals 1 to 4 in the preamble to Regulation No 261/2004 state:
„(1) Action by the Community in the field of air transport should aim, among other things, at ensuring a high level of protection for passengers. Moreover, full account should be taken of the requirements of consumer protection in general.
(2) Denied boarding and cancellation or long delay of flights cause serious trouble and inconvenience to passengers.
(3) While Council Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 of 4 February 1991 establishing common rules for a denied boarding compensation system in scheduled air transport [(OJ 1991 L 36, p. 5)] created basic protection for passengers, the number of passengers denied
boarding against their will remains too high, as does that affected by cancellations without prior warning and that affected by long delays.
(4) The Community should therefore raise the standards of protection set by that Regulation both to strengthen the rights of passengers and to ensure that air carriers operate under harmonised conditions in a liberalised market.‟
4 According to Recital 15 in the preamble to Regulation No 261/2004:
„Extraordinary circumstances should be deemed to exist where the impact of an air traffic management decision in relation to a particular aircraft on a particular day gives rise to a long delay, an overnight delay, or the cancellation of one or more flights by that aircraft, even though all reasonable measures had been taken by the air carrier concerned to avoid the delays or cancellations.‟
5 Article 2 of Regulation No 261/2004, headed „Definitions‟, provides:
„For the purposes of this Regulation:
…
(l) “cancellation” means the non-operation of a flight which was previously planned and on which at least one place was reserved.‟
6 Article 5 of that regulation, headed „Cancellation‟, states:
„1. In case of cancellation of a flight, the passengers concerned shall:
(a) be offered assistance by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 8; and
…
(c) have the right to compensation by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 7, unless:
…
(iii) they are informed of the cancellation less than seven days before the scheduled time of departure and are offered re-routing, allowing them to depart no more than one hour before the scheduled time of departure and to reach their final destination less than two hours after the scheduled time of arrival.
…
3. An operating air carrier shall not be obliged to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7, if it can prove that the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.
…‟.
7 Article 6 of Regulation No 261/2004, headed „Delay‟, is worded as follows:
„1. When an operating air carrier reasonably expects a flight to be delayed beyond its scheduled time of departure:
(a) for two hours or more in the case of flights of 1 500 kilometres or less; or
(b) for three hours or more in the case of all intra-Community flights of more than 1 500 kilometres and of all other flights between 1 500 and 3 500 kilometres; or
(c) for four hours or more in the case of all flights not falling under (a) or (b),
passengers shall be offered by the operating air carrier:
(i) the assistance specified in Article 9(1)(a) and 9(2); and
(ii) when the reasonably expected time of departure is at least the day after the time of departure previously announced, the assistance specified in Article 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(c); and
(iii) when the delay is at least five hours, the assistance specified in Article 8(1)(a).
2. In any event, the assistance shall be offered within the time-limits set out above with respect to each distance bracket.‟
8 Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004, headed „Right to compensation‟, provides:
„1. Where reference is made to this Article, passengers shall receive compensation amounting to:
(a) EUR 250 for all flights of 1 500 kilometres or less;
(b) EUR 400 for all intra-Community flights of more than 1 500 kilometres, and for all other flights between 1 500 and 3 500 kilometres;
(c) EUR 600 for all flights not falling under (a) or (b).
In determining the distance, the basis shall be the last destination at which the denial of boarding or cancellation will delay the passenger‟s arrival after the scheduled time.
2. When passengers are offered re-routing to their final destination on an alternative flight pursuant to Article 8, the arrival time of which does not exceed the scheduled arrival time of the flight originally booked
(a) by two hours, in respect of all flights of 1 500 kilometres or less; or
(b) by three hours, in respect of all intra-Community flights of more than 1 500 kilometres and for all other flights between 1 500 and 3 500 kilometres; or
(c) by four hours, in respect of all flights not falling under (a) or (b),
the operating air carrier may reduce the compensation provided for in paragraph 1 by 50%.
…‟
9 Article 8(1) of Regulation No 261/2004 provides that where reference is made to Article 8, passengers are to be offered the choice between, under paragraph 1(a), reimbursement of the ticket and a return flight to the first point of departure or, under paragraph 1(b) and (c), re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their final destination.
10 Article 9(1) of that regulation, where reference is made to Article 9, passengers are to be offered free of charge, under Article 9(1)(a), meals and refreshments and, under Article 9(1)(b) and (c), hotel accommodation and transfer to the place of accommodation; in addition, under Article 9(2), they are to be offered free of charge two telephone calls, telex or fax messages, or e-mails.
The disputes in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
Case C-402/07
11 The Sturgeons booked return tickets with Condor from Frankfurt am Main (Germany) to Toronto (Canada).
12 The return flight from Toronto to Frankfurt was due to depart at 16.20 on 9 July 2005. Following check-in, passengers on that flight were informed that the flight was cancelled, as was indicated on the airport departures board. Their luggage was returned to them and they were then driven to a hotel where they spent the night. The following day, the passengers were checked in at another airline‟s counter for a flight with the same number as that on their booking. Condor did not schedule another flight with the same number for the day concerned. The passengers were given different seats from those they had been allocated on the previous day. The booking was not converted into a booking for a flight scheduled by another airline. The flight concerned arrived in Frankfurt at around 07.00 on 11 July 2005, some 25 hours after its scheduled arrival time.
13 The Sturgeons took the view that, in light of all the abovementioned circumstances, in particular the delay of more than 25 hours, the flight had been not delayed but cancelled.
14 The Sturgeons brought an action against Condor before the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Local Court, Rüsselsheim) (Germany), claiming compensation of EUR 600 per person plus damages, since, in their view, the damage sustained was the result not of a flight delay but of a cancellation.
15 Condor contended that the action as framed should be dismissed on the ground that the flight in question was delayed and not cancelled. Prior to the proceedings before the national court, Condor claimed that the flight had been delayed as the result of a hurricane in the Caribbean but during the proceedings it attributed the delay to technical faults on the plane and illness among the crew.
16 The Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim concluded that the flight had been delayed not cancelled and, consequently, dismissed the Sturgeons‟ claim for compensation. The Sturgeons appealed to the Landgericht Darmstadt (Regional Court, Darmstadt) which upheld the decision of the lower court.
17 The Sturgeons then appealed on a point of law („Revision‟) to the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice).
18 Taking the view that the outcome of the appeal depended on the interpretation of Articles 2(l) and 5(1)(c) of Regulation No 261/2004, the Bundesgerichtshof decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
„(1) Is it decisive for the interpretation of the term “cancellation” whether the original flight planning is abandoned, with the result that a delay, regardless of how long, does not constitute a cancellation if the air carrier does not actually abandon the planning for the original flight?
(2) If Question 1 is answered in the negative: in what circumstances is a delay of the planned flight no longer to be regarded as a delay but as a cancellation? Is the answer to this question dependent on the length of the delay?‟
Case C-432/07
19 Mr Böck and Ms Lepuschitz booked return tickets with Air France from Vienna (Austria) to Mexico City (Mexico) via Paris (France).
20 The Mexico City-Paris flight which Mr Böck and Ms Lepuschitz were due to take was scheduled to depart at 21.30 on 7 March 2005. When they came to check in, they were immediately informed, without the check-in taking place, that their flight was cancelled. The cancellation resulted from a change in the flight planning between Mexico City and Paris, which arose because of a technical breakdown on the aircraft due to fly from Paris to Mexico City and on account of the need to observe the rest period prescribed by law for the crew.
21 In order to get back earlier, Mr Böck and Ms Lepuschitz accepted Air France‟s offer of seats on a flight operated by Continental Airlines, which was scheduled to leave the following day, 8 March 2005, at 12.20. Their tickets were first cancelled and then new tickets were issued to them at the Continental Airlines counter.
22 The other passengers on the Mexico City-Paris flight, who did not take the Continental Airlines flight, left Mexico City, with a number of additional passengers, on 8 March 2005 at 19.35. That flight, whose original number was followed by the letter „A‟, was operated in addition to the regular flight scheduled by Air France on the same day.
23 Mr Böck and Ms Lepuschitz arrived in Vienna almost 22 hours after the scheduled arrival time.
24 Mr Böck and Ms Lepuschitz brought an action against Air France before the Bezirksgericht für Handelssachen Wien (District Commercial Court, Vienna) (Austria), claiming EUR 600 compensation per person for cancellation of their flight, on the basis of Articles 5 and 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 261/2004. That court dismissed their claim on the ground that, despite the evident flight delay, Regulation No 261/2004 did not support the conclusion that there was a flight cancellation. Mr Böck and Ms Lepuschitz appealed against that decision to the Handelsgericht Wien (Commercial Court, Vienna).
25 In those circumstances, the Handelsgericht Wien decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
„(1) Must Article 5, read in conjunction with Articles 2(l) and 6, of Regulation … No 261/2004 …, be interpreted as meaning that a 22-hour delay in the time of departure constitutes a “delay” within the meaning of Article 6?
(2) Must Article 2(l) of Regulation … No 261/2004 be interpreted as meaning that instances in which passengers are transported significantly later (22 hours later) on a flight operating under a longer flight number (original flight number supplemented by an “A”) and carrying only an – albeit large – proportion of the passengers booked on the initial flight, but also additional passengers not booked on the initial flight, constitute “cancellations” rather than “delays”?
If Question 2 is to be answered in the affirmative:
(3) Must Article 5(3) of Regulation … No 261/2004 be interpreted as meaning that technical problems with a plane and the resulting changes to the flight schedule represent extraordinary circumstances (which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken)?‟
26 By order of the President of the Court of 19 October 2007, Cases C-402/07 and C-432/07 were joined for the purposes of the written and oral procedure and of the judgment.
Consideration of the questions referred
27 Before the national courts, the applicants in the main actions claim from Condor and Air France respectively the compensation provided for in Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 on the ground that with those airlines they reached their airports of destination, in the first case, 25 and, in the second case, 22 hours after the scheduled arrival times. Condor and Air France assert that the applicants are not entitled to any compensation, since the flights concerned were not cancelled but delayed and Regulation No 261/2004 provides for a right to compensation only in the case of flight cancellation. Furthermore, the airlines maintain that the late arrival of the flights was attributable to technical faults on the aircraft, which are covered by the concept of „extraordinary circumstances‟ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, and that they are thus released from the obligation to pay compensation.
28 In those circumstances, in order to give the national courts a useful answer, the questions referred should be understood as seeking, in essence, to ascertain:
– whether a flight delay must be regarded as a flight cancellation for the purposes of Articles 2(l) and 5 of Regulation No 261/2004 where the delay is long;
– whether Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are delayed may, for the purpose of the application of the right to compensation laid down in Article 7 of that regulation, be treated as passengers whose flights are cancelled, and
– whether a technical problem in an aircraft is covered by the concept of „extraordinary circumstances‟ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004.
The first part of the questions referred, concerning the concept of delay
29 Regulation No 261/2004 does not contain a definition of „flight delay‟. That concept may, however, be clarified in the light of the context in which it occurs.
30 In that regard, it should be recalled, first, that a „flight‟ within the meaning of Regulation No 261/2004 consists in an air transport operation, performed by an air carrier which fixes its itinerary (Case C-173/07 Emirates Airlines [2008] ECR I-5237, paragraph 40). Thus, the itinerary is an essential element of the flight, as the flight is operated in accordance with the carrier‟s pre-arranged planning.
31 It is clear furthermore from Article 6 of Regulation No 261/2004 that the Community legislature adopted a notion of „flight delay‟ which is considered only by reference to the scheduled departure time and which implies as a consequence that, after the departure time, the other elements pertaining to the flight must remain unchanged.
32 Thus, a flight is „delayed‟ for the purposes of Article 6 of Regulation No 261/2004 if it is operated in accordance with the original planning and its actual departure time is later than the scheduled departure time.
33 Second, according to Article 2(l) of Regulation No 261/2004, flight cancellation, unlike delay, is the result of non-operation of a flight which was previously planned. It follows that, in that regard, cancelled flights and delayed flights are two quite distinct categories of flights. It cannot therefore be inferred from Regulation No 261/2004 that a flight which is delayed may be classified as a „cancelled flight‟ merely on the ground that the delay is extended, even substantially.
34 Consequently, a flight which is delayed, irrespective of the duration of the delay, even if it is long, cannot be regarded as cancelled where there is a departure in accordance with the original planning.
35 In those circumstances, where passengers are carried on a flight whose departure time is later than the departure time originally scheduled, the flight can be classified as „cancelled‟ only if the air carrier arranges for the passengers to be carried on another flight whose original planning is different from that of the flight for which the booking was made.
36 Thus, it is possible, as a rule, to conclude that there is a cancellation where the delayed flight for which the booking was made is „rolled over‟ onto another flight, that is to say, where the planning for the original flight is abandoned and the passengers from that flight join passengers on a flight which was also planned – but independently of the flight for which the passengers so transferred had made their bookings.
37 By contrast, it cannot, as a rule, be concluded that there is a flight delay or cancellation on the basis of a „delay‟ or a „cancellation‟ being shown on the airport departures board or announced by the air carrier‟s staff. Similarly, the fact that passengers recover their luggage or obtain new boarding cards is not, as a rule, a deciding factor. Those circumstances are
not connected with the objective characteristics of the flight as such. They can be attributable to inaccurate classifications or to factors obtaining in the airport concerned or, yet again, they may be unavoidable given the waiting time and the fact that it is necessary for the passengers concerned to spend the night in a hotel.
38 Nor, as a rule, is it conclusive that the composition of the group of passengers who initially held reservations is essentially identical to that of the group subsequently transported. Indeed, as the delay grows longer by reference to the departure time originally scheduled, the number of passengers in the first of those groups may decrease because some passengers have been offered re-routing on another flight and others, for personal reasons, have decided not to take the delayed flight. Conversely, to the extent that seats have become available on the flight for which the booking was made, there is nothing to prevent the carrier accepting, before departure of the plane which is delayed, additional passengers.
39 In view of the foregoing, the answer to the first part of the questions referred is that Articles 2(l), 5 and 6 of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a flight which is delayed, irrespective of the duration of the delay, even if it is long, cannot be regarded as cancelled where the flight is operated in accordance with the air carrier‟s original planning.
The second part of the questions referred, concerning the right to compensation in the event of delay
40 Article 5(1) of Regulation No 261/2004 provides that in the event of cancellation of a flight, the passengers concerned are to have the right to compensation by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 7 of the regulation.
41 By contrast, it does not expressly follow from the wording of Regulation No 261/2004 that passengers whose flights are delayed have such a right. Nevertheless, as the Court has made clear in its case-law, it is necessary, in interpreting a provision of Community law, to consider not only its wording, but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (see, inter alia, Case C-156/98 Germany v Commission [2000] ECR I-6857, paragraph 50, and Case C-306/05 SGAE [2006] ECR I-11519, paragraph 34).
42 In that regard, the operative part of a Community act is indissociably linked to the statement of reasons for it, so that, when it has to be interpreted, account must be taken of the reasons which led to its adoption (Case C-298/00 P Italy v Commission [2004] ECR I-4087, paragraph 97 and the case-law cited).
43 It must be stated that, even though the possibility of relying on „extraordinary circumstances‟, allowing air carriers to be released from the obligation to pay compensation under Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004, is provided for only in Article 5(3) thereof, which concerns flight cancellation, Recital 15 in the preamble to the regulation nevertheless states that that ground may also be relied on where an air traffic management decision in relation to a particular aircraft on a particular day gives rise to „a long delay [or] an overnight delay‟. As the notion of long delay is mentioned in the context of extraordinary circumstances, it must be held that the legislature also linked that notion to the right to compensation.
44 That is implicitly borne out by the objective of Regulation No 261/2004, since it is apparent from Recitals 1 to 4 in the preamble, in particular from Recital 2, that the regulation seeks to ensure a high level of protection for air passengers regardless of whether they are denied boarding or whether their flight is cancelled or delayed, since they are all caused similar serious trouble and inconvenience connected with air transport.
45 That is a fortiori the case since the provisions conferring rights on air passengers, including those conferring a right to compensation, must be interpreted broadly (see, to that effect, Case C-549/07 Wallentin-Hermann [2008] ECR I-0000, paragraph 17).
46 In those circumstances it cannot automatically be presumed that passengers whose flights are delayed do not have a right to compensation and cannot, for the purposes of recognition of such a right, be treated as passengers whose flights are cancelled.
47 Next, it must be stated that, according to a general principle of interpretation, a Community act must be interpreted, as far as possible, in such a way as not to affect its validity (see, to that effect, Case C-403/99 Italy v Commission [2001] ECR I-6883, paragraph 37). Likewise, where a provision of Community law is open to several interpretations, preference must be given to that interpretation which ensures that the provision retains its effectiveness (see, inter alia, Case 187/87 Land de Sarre and Others [1988] ECR 5013, paragraph 19, and Case C-434/97 Commission v France [2000] ECR I-1129, paragraph 21).
48 In that regard, all Community acts must be interpreted in accordance with primary law as a whole, including the principle of equal treatment, which requires that comparable situations must not be treated differently and that different situations must not be treated in the same way unless such treatment is objectively justified (Case C-210/03 Swedish Match [2004] ECR I-11893, paragraph 70, and Case C-344/04 IATA and ELFAA [2006] ECR I-403, paragraph 95).
49 In view of the objective of Regulation No 261/2004, which is to strengthen protection for air passengers by redressing damage suffered by them during air travel, situations covered by the regulation must be compared, in particular by reference to the type and extent of the various types of inconvenience and damage suffered by the passengers concerned (see, to that effect, IATA and ELFAA, paragraphs 82, 85, 97 and 98).
50 In this instance, the situation of passengers whose flights are delayed should be compared with that of passengers whose flights are cancelled.
51 In that connection, Regulation No 261/2004 seeks to redress damage in an immediate and standardised manner and to do so by various forms of intervention which are the subject of rules relating to denied boarding, cancellation and long flight delay (see, to that effect, IATA and ELFAA, paragraph 43).
52 Regulation No 261/2004 has, in those measures, the objective of repairing, inter alia, damage consisting, for the passengers concerned, in a loss of time which, given that it is irreversible, can be redressed only by compensation.
53 In that regard, it must be stated that that damage is suffered both by passengers whose flights are cancelled and by passengers whose flights are delayed if, prior to reaching their destinations, the latter‟s journey time is longer than the time which had originally been scheduled by the air carrier.
54 Consequently, passengers whose flights have been cancelled and passengers affected by a flight delay suffer similar damage, consisting in a loss of time, and thus find themselves in comparable situations for the purposes of the application of the right to compensation laid down in Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004.
55 More specifically, the situation of passengers whose flights are delayed is scarcely distinguishable from that of passengers whose flights are cancelled, who are re-routed in accordance with Article 5(1)(c)(iii) of Regulation No 261/2004 and who may be informed of the flight cancellation at the very last moment, when they actually arrive at the airport (see Case C-204/08 Rehder [2009] ECR I-0000, paragraph 19).
56 First, both categories of passengers are informed, as a rule, at the same time of the incident which will make their journey by air more difficult. Second, even if they are transported to their final destination, they reach it after the time originally scheduled and, as a consequence, they suffer a similar loss of time.
57 That said, passengers who are re-routed under Article 5(1)(c)(iii) of Regulation No 261/2004 are afforded the right to compensation laid down in Article 7 of the regulation
where the carrier fails to re-route them on a flight which departs no more than one hour before the scheduled time of departure and reaches their final destination less than two hours after the scheduled time of arrival. Those passengers thus acquire a right to compensation when they suffer a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours in relation to the duration originally planned by the air carrier.
58 If, by contrast, passengers whose flights are delayed did not acquire any right to compensation, they would be treated less favourably even though, depending on the circumstances, they suffer a similar loss of time, of three hours or more, in the course of their journey.
59 There appears, however, to be no objective ground capable of justifying such a difference in treatment.
60 Given that the damage sustained by air passengers in cases of cancellation or long delay is comparable, passengers whose flights are delayed and passengers whose flights are cancelled cannot be treated differently without the principle of equal treatment being infringed. That is a fortiori the case in view of the aim sought by Regulation No 261/2004, which is to increase protection for all air passengers.
61 In those circumstances, the Court finds that passengers whose flights are delayed may rely on the right to compensation laid down in Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 where they suffer, on account of such flights, a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours, that is to say when they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled by the air carrier.
62 That solution is, moreover, consistent with Recital 15 in the preamble to Regulation No 261/2004. As stated at paragraph 43 of this judgment, it must be held that the legislature, in that recital, also linked the notion of „long delay‟ to the right to compensation. That notion corresponds to a delay to which the legislature attaches certain legal consequences. As Article 6 of the regulation already accepts such legal consequences in the case of certain flights which are delayed for two hours, Recital 15 necessarily covers delays of three hours or more.
63 It is important to point out that the compensation payable to a passenger under Article 7(1) of Regulation No 261/2004 may be reduced by 50% if the conditions laid down in Article 7(2) of the regulation are met. Even though the latter provision refers only to the case of re-routing of passengers, the Court finds that the reduction in the compensation provided for is dependent solely on the delay to which passengers are subject, so that nothing precludes the application mutatis mutandis of that provision to compensation paid to passengers whose flights are delayed. It follows that the compensation payable to a passenger whose flight is delayed, who reaches his final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled, may be reduced by 50%, in accordance with Article 7(2)(c) of Regulation No 261/2004, where the delay is – in the case of a flight not falling under points (a) or (b) of Article 7(2) – less than four hours.
64 The conclusion set out in paragraph 61 of this judgment is not undermined by the fact that Article 6 of Regulation No 261/2004 provides for different forms of assistance under Articles 8 and 9 thereof for passengers whose flights are delayed.
65 As the Court has already stated, Regulation No 261/2004 provides for various forms of intervention in order to redress, in a standardised and immediate manner, the different types of damage constituted by the inconvenience that delay in the carriage of passengers by air causes (see, to that effect, IATA and ELFAA, paragraphs 43 and 45).
66 Those measures are autonomous in the sense that they address different aims and seek to make up for various types of damage caused by such delay.
67 That said, it should be recalled that, with the adoption of Regulation No 261/2004, the legislature was also seeking to strike a balance between the interests of air passengers and those of air carriers. Having laid down certain rights for those passengers, it provided at the
same time, in Recital 15 and Article 5(3) of the regulation, that air carriers are not obliged to pay compensation if they can prove that the cancellation or long delay is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken, namely circumstances which are beyond the air carrier‟s actual control.
68 Moreover, the discharge of obligations pursuant to Regulation No 261/2004 is without prejudice to air carriers‟ rights to seek compensation from any person who caused the delay, including third parties, as Article 13 of the regulation provides. Such compensation may accordingly reduce or even remove the financial burden borne by carriers in consequence of those obligations. Nor does it appear unreasonable for those obligations initially to be borne, subject to the abovementioned right to compensation, by the air carriers with which the passengers concerned have a contract of carriage that entitles them to a flight that should be neither cancelled nor delayed (IATA and ELFAA, paragraph 90).
69 In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the second part of the questions referred is that Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are delayed may be treated, for the purposes of the application of the right to compensation, as passengers whose flights are cancelled and they may thus rely on the right to compensation laid down in Article 7 of the regulation where they suffer, on account of a flight delay, a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours, that is, where they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled by the air carrier. Such a delay does not, however, entitle passengers to compensation if the air carrier can prove that the long delay was caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken, namely circumstances beyond the actual control of the air carrier.
The third question in Case C-432/07, concerning extraordinary circumstances resulting from a technical problem in an aircraft
70 The Court has already held that Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a technical problem in an aircraft which leads to the cancellation of a flight is not covered by the concept of „extraordinary circumstances‟ within the meaning of that provision, unless that problem stems from events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control (Wallentin-Hermann, paragraph 34).
71 The same conclusion applies when Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 is pleaded in the case of flight delay.
72 Thus, the answer to the third question in Case C-432/07 is that Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a technical problem in an aircraft which leads to the cancellation or delay of a flight is not covered by the concept of „extraordinary circumstances‟ within the meaning of that provision, unless that problem stems from events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control.
Costs
73 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.
On those grounds, the Court (Fourth Chamber) hereby rules:
1. Articles 2(l), 5 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied
boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that a flight which is delayed, irrespective of the duration of the delay, even if it is long, cannot be regarded as cancelled where the flight is operated in accordance with the air carrier’s original planning.
2. Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are delayed may be treated, for the purposes of the application of the right to compensation, as passengers whose flights are cancelled and they may thus rely on the right to compensation laid down in Article 7 of the regulation where they suffer, on account of a flight delay, a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours, that is, where they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled by the air carrier. Such a delay does not, however, entitle passengers to compensation if the air carrier can prove that the long delay was caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken, namely circumstances beyond the actual control of the air carrier.
3. Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a technical problem in an aircraft which leads to the cancellation or delay of a flight is not covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision, unless that problem stems from events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control.
[Signatures]
* Language of the case: German.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Jason Gibson and Kate Hanni talk about Delta and Metron Aviation hacking incident
http://www.jag-lawfirm.com/news_media.html
Monday, November 2, 2009
Ending Tarmac Delays: Don’t Let Change Die
Ending Tarmac Delays: Don’t Let Change Die
Nov 02, 2009 By: George Dooley TravelAgentCentral 0
Related Stories
Passenger Rights Advocates Gain Momentum
BTC Joins FlyersRights.org to Urge Congressional Action
DOT Investigates Lengthy Tarmac Delay
Tarmac Delays: Momentum Builds for Passenger Rights Laws
Passenger Rights Takes Center Stage, Again!
NBTA Changes Position: Now Backs Passenger Rights Legislation
BTC Seeks Industry Views On Tarmac Delays
ASTA Urges Clear "Back-To-Gate" Limits
ASTA Sees Progress In Tarmac Delay Taks Force Report
No Relief For Airline Passengers
IAPA Applauds DOT Action
DOT Moves To Improve Air Services
Airline Passengers Rights Bill Introduced In Senate
New Consumer Rights Group Focuses On Air Travel
New Bill Of Rights Passed For Airline Passengers
Congress faces a crowded agenda for the balance of 2009 and well into 2010. Health care reform, cap and trade policies, appropriations bills and a host of other issues face lawmakers. But one issue that should not be forgotten is passenger rights legislation and the laudable efforts to get a sensible end to tarmac delays.
Travel agents have a vested interest in supporting changes in policy that would end tarmac delays and they should help the Passenger Rights efforts now underway. In fact, grass roots involvement by agents and the travel industry may be the only way to get meaningful protection for the traveling public. It’s an issue that should not be allowed to slip between legislative cracks.
A Passenger Rights Stakeholder Hearing was held September 22, sponsored by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Representative Mike Thompson (D-CA). Both champion a three-hour national standard for providing passengers the option of deplaning, should a captain decide it is safe to do so. Their bills, S.213 and HR 674, were strongly endorsed by airline passengers, ASTA, FlyersRights.org, the Business Travel Coalition (BTC) other travel groups.
A dozen experts testified at the hearing, both for and against legislation. "The clear outcome from the hearing is that legislation is urgently required to address a growing passenger health and safety problem that airlines are apparently unable or unwilling to fix themselves," Kevin Mitchell , chair of the BTC said of the meeting.
PassengerRights.org Executive Director Kate Hanni testified: "The airline industry has been the voice of 'NO' for too long. The system is broken and passengers have been paying a dear price with their health, lost productivity and missed family events. This hearing shone a bright light on the fallacious arguments put forward by those airlines that seek to continue stonewalling against reforms that will benefit passengers and all airline industry stakeholders."
"There is now a clear expectation that Congress will move to enact legislation to create a national standard beginning with the requirement that airlines provide passengers an option to deplane after three hours," Mitchel said. "Airlines will likely have several months to adjust operations before the law is effective."
"BTC further encourages Congress to phase-in a two-hour standard one year after the initial three-hour rule becomes effective. Congress should likewise make mandatory the U.S. Department of Transportation Tarmac Delay Task Force recommendations," added Mitchell.
For testimony and background on the issue:, visit www.businesstravelcoalition.com.
"In 2008, the Tarmac Delay Task Force, following nearly a year of debate about how to deal with inevitable major delays that routinely inconvenienced passengers for up to eight or even 10 hours, tasked each airline with developing its own standard for when passengers are permitted to deplane in cases of lengthy tarmac delays," said Colin Tooze, vice president of government affairs for ASTA. "ASTA, which had a seat on the Task Force, voted for the final report. While imperfect, the report nevertheless represented a meaningful, positive step forward for airline passengers. Months went by with no action. In the face of continued delays and the evident lack of concrete efforts on the part of the airlines to create a meaningful solution to this problem, it is now our position that only a Congressionally-defined standard will compel the airlines to do what they have long promised to do in this most basic area of customer service."
Robert Crandall, the former chairman and CEO of American Airlines offered qualified support of changes. "I am firmly in favor of requiring airlines, airports, FAA, TSA, Customs, local law enforcement agencies, airline labor unions and any other organization or agency involved to abide by rules that will prevent people who wish to deplane from being held on airplanes for unacceptably long periods," he said. "Most aviation executives I know agree that keeping people involuntarily confined aboard airplanes for extended periods of time is unacceptable."
As Crandall’s testimony makes clear, resolving tarmac delays isn't as simple as it looks to passengers. There are questions about frequency of delays and reporting and many believe that the airlines can fix the problem on their own without government or Congressional intervention. Kicking the issue down the road until the next incident isn’t a solution. Travel agents concerned with their client’s welfare should support constructive change and Congressional action. The next incident of tarmac delay could provoke a fatality - not just bad press or erosion of public confidence in the airlines. Don’t let the issue die!
Nov 02, 2009 By: George Dooley TravelAgentCentral 0
Related Stories
Passenger Rights Advocates Gain Momentum
BTC Joins FlyersRights.org to Urge Congressional Action
DOT Investigates Lengthy Tarmac Delay
Tarmac Delays: Momentum Builds for Passenger Rights Laws
Passenger Rights Takes Center Stage, Again!
NBTA Changes Position: Now Backs Passenger Rights Legislation
BTC Seeks Industry Views On Tarmac Delays
ASTA Urges Clear "Back-To-Gate" Limits
ASTA Sees Progress In Tarmac Delay Taks Force Report
No Relief For Airline Passengers
IAPA Applauds DOT Action
DOT Moves To Improve Air Services
Airline Passengers Rights Bill Introduced In Senate
New Consumer Rights Group Focuses On Air Travel
New Bill Of Rights Passed For Airline Passengers
Congress faces a crowded agenda for the balance of 2009 and well into 2010. Health care reform, cap and trade policies, appropriations bills and a host of other issues face lawmakers. But one issue that should not be forgotten is passenger rights legislation and the laudable efforts to get a sensible end to tarmac delays.
Travel agents have a vested interest in supporting changes in policy that would end tarmac delays and they should help the Passenger Rights efforts now underway. In fact, grass roots involvement by agents and the travel industry may be the only way to get meaningful protection for the traveling public. It’s an issue that should not be allowed to slip between legislative cracks.
A Passenger Rights Stakeholder Hearing was held September 22, sponsored by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Representative Mike Thompson (D-CA). Both champion a three-hour national standard for providing passengers the option of deplaning, should a captain decide it is safe to do so. Their bills, S.213 and HR 674, were strongly endorsed by airline passengers, ASTA, FlyersRights.org, the Business Travel Coalition (BTC) other travel groups.
A dozen experts testified at the hearing, both for and against legislation. "The clear outcome from the hearing is that legislation is urgently required to address a growing passenger health and safety problem that airlines are apparently unable or unwilling to fix themselves," Kevin Mitchell , chair of the BTC said of the meeting.
PassengerRights.org Executive Director Kate Hanni testified: "The airline industry has been the voice of 'NO' for too long. The system is broken and passengers have been paying a dear price with their health, lost productivity and missed family events. This hearing shone a bright light on the fallacious arguments put forward by those airlines that seek to continue stonewalling against reforms that will benefit passengers and all airline industry stakeholders."
"There is now a clear expectation that Congress will move to enact legislation to create a national standard beginning with the requirement that airlines provide passengers an option to deplane after three hours," Mitchel said. "Airlines will likely have several months to adjust operations before the law is effective."
"BTC further encourages Congress to phase-in a two-hour standard one year after the initial three-hour rule becomes effective. Congress should likewise make mandatory the U.S. Department of Transportation Tarmac Delay Task Force recommendations," added Mitchell.
For testimony and background on the issue:, visit www.businesstravelcoalition.com.
"In 2008, the Tarmac Delay Task Force, following nearly a year of debate about how to deal with inevitable major delays that routinely inconvenienced passengers for up to eight or even 10 hours, tasked each airline with developing its own standard for when passengers are permitted to deplane in cases of lengthy tarmac delays," said Colin Tooze, vice president of government affairs for ASTA. "ASTA, which had a seat on the Task Force, voted for the final report. While imperfect, the report nevertheless represented a meaningful, positive step forward for airline passengers. Months went by with no action. In the face of continued delays and the evident lack of concrete efforts on the part of the airlines to create a meaningful solution to this problem, it is now our position that only a Congressionally-defined standard will compel the airlines to do what they have long promised to do in this most basic area of customer service."
Robert Crandall, the former chairman and CEO of American Airlines offered qualified support of changes. "I am firmly in favor of requiring airlines, airports, FAA, TSA, Customs, local law enforcement agencies, airline labor unions and any other organization or agency involved to abide by rules that will prevent people who wish to deplane from being held on airplanes for unacceptably long periods," he said. "Most aviation executives I know agree that keeping people involuntarily confined aboard airplanes for extended periods of time is unacceptable."
As Crandall’s testimony makes clear, resolving tarmac delays isn't as simple as it looks to passengers. There are questions about frequency of delays and reporting and many believe that the airlines can fix the problem on their own without government or Congressional intervention. Kicking the issue down the road until the next incident isn’t a solution. Travel agents concerned with their client’s welfare should support constructive change and Congressional action. The next incident of tarmac delay could provoke a fatality - not just bad press or erosion of public confidence in the airlines. Don’t let the issue die!
Sunday, November 1, 2009
A point of view, not ours, about getting off a plane on the tarmac. Sort of makes our point that without a law, there is no way off.
About 400,000 airline passengers a year get stuck on the tarmac for three hours or more. This counts only domestic flights. Congress has been debating a Passenger’s Bill of Rights since before Abraham was circumcised. The airlines have an infinity of reasons against its enactment. The gruesome details can be read here.
As should be clear by now Congress is not good at problem solving. Individual initiative is required. So here’s how to get off of a plane that’s stuck on the tarmac. Fairness requires that this technique only be used after three hours of waiting time and when basic humanitarian needs are not being met, ie the lavatories no longer work, there’s no food or water available, the baby next to you is puking and screaming – you know the complete list of horrors. While this will work 100% of the time be prudent with its use.
Tell the flight attendant that you have chest pain. If you want to gild the symptomatic lily tell her its sub-sternal (below the breast bone) and that it’s radiating down your left arm. You’ll be off the plane faster than you can say “deregulation”. The plane will most likely return to the gate allowing everyone to exit after you’ve been carried off on a stretcher. But there’s the possibility that an ambulance may be sent to the plane allowing only you to leave. Thus it’s best to recruit a few fellow passengers to also complain of crushing chest pain. This epidemic of putative acute coronary disease will ensure that the plane returns to the gate.
Once off the plane (be sure to take you carry on items with you) you can get up from the stretcher and declare that you want no further treatment. The the paramedics cannot force you to go to the hospital. Parenthetically, this method also gets you to the front of the line at any hospital emergency room, but here the consequences may be undesirable.
Travelers of the world complain. You have nothing to lose but your clots.
As should be clear by now Congress is not good at problem solving. Individual initiative is required. So here’s how to get off of a plane that’s stuck on the tarmac. Fairness requires that this technique only be used after three hours of waiting time and when basic humanitarian needs are not being met, ie the lavatories no longer work, there’s no food or water available, the baby next to you is puking and screaming – you know the complete list of horrors. While this will work 100% of the time be prudent with its use.
Tell the flight attendant that you have chest pain. If you want to gild the symptomatic lily tell her its sub-sternal (below the breast bone) and that it’s radiating down your left arm. You’ll be off the plane faster than you can say “deregulation”. The plane will most likely return to the gate allowing everyone to exit after you’ve been carried off on a stretcher. But there’s the possibility that an ambulance may be sent to the plane allowing only you to leave. Thus it’s best to recruit a few fellow passengers to also complain of crushing chest pain. This epidemic of putative acute coronary disease will ensure that the plane returns to the gate.
Once off the plane (be sure to take you carry on items with you) you can get up from the stretcher and declare that you want no further treatment. The the paramedics cannot force you to go to the hospital. Parenthetically, this method also gets you to the front of the line at any hospital emergency room, but here the consequences may be undesirable.
Travelers of the world complain. You have nothing to lose but your clots.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Flyer advocate says Delta obtained hacked e-mails
Flyer advocate says Delta obtained hacked e-mails
By HARRY R. WEBER (AP) – Oct 13, 2009
ATLANTA — A passenger rights advocate accused Delta Air Lines Inc. in a federal lawsuit Tuesday of conspiring with a Virginia company to obtain hacked e-mails from her computer to help them derail her efforts to protect air travelers from lengthy tarmac delays and other inconveniences.
The suit, filed by Kate Hanni of FlyersRights.org in U.S. District Court in Houston, seeks at least $11 million in damages and a jury trial.
A spokesman for the world's biggest airline operator, Trebor Banstetter, denied that Delta hacked Hanni's e-mail account. He says Delta can't comment further on the lawsuit.
"Obviously, the idea that Delta would hack into someone's e-mail is clearly without merit," Banstetter said in an e-mail to The Associated Press.
Hanni and her group have been a thorn in the side of the airline industry, pushing Congress to enact a passenger bill of rights at a time when airlines are suffering from big revenue declines thanks to weak demand for air travel.
Among other things, Hanni supports a three-hour time limit on how long airlines can strand passengers on airport tarmacs. Legislation pending in the Senate would require that passengers be allowed to deplane after a three-hour wait.
There are exceptions for instances when the pilot believes the plane will take off in the next half-hour or it might be unsafe to leave the plane.
The lawsuit claims that while Hanni was sharing information with a person working for Metron Aviation Inc. of Dulles, Va., her personal computer files and FlyersRights.org e-mail accounts were hacked. She said her service provider, America Online, confirmed the e-mail accounts were hacked.
The lawsuit alleges that in late September, Metron executives confronted the worker with the stolen e-mails and claimed Delta was angry about Hanni getting information that would help pass the passenger bill of rights.
Hanni says that Metron officials claimed that Delta had provided them with the stolen e-mails.
In addition to the e-mails, Hanni said that spreadsheets, lists of donors and personal files were compromised by the alleged hacking.
The lawsuit, which also names Metron as a defendant, does not make clear specifically what was in the e-mails or who exactly committed the alleged hacking.
Metron Aviation, which provides research, airspace design, environmental analysis and software development services to the global air traffic industry and lists Delta as a customer, said in a statement that any allegations that suggest it "has behaved illegally or improperly in this matter are completely baseless and without merit." It said the company would have no further comment.
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Related articles
Passenger rights advocate sues Delta over alleged e-mail hacking
Gadling (blog) - Oct 14, 2009
Delta Airlines accused of computer hacking
CompareCarrentals.com - Oct 14, 2009
Passenger group sues Delta
AZ Central.com - Oct 13, 2009
More coverage (22) »
Add News to your Google HomepageFlyer advocate says Delta obtained hacked e-mails
By HARRY R. WEBER (AP) – Oct 13, 2009
ATLANTA — A passenger rights advocate accused Delta Air Lines Inc. in a federal lawsuit Tuesday of conspiring with a Virginia company to obtain hacked e-mails from her computer to help them derail her efforts to protect air travelers from lengthy tarmac delays and other inconveniences.
The suit, filed by Kate Hanni of FlyersRights.org in U.S. District Court in Houston, seeks at least $11 million in damages and a jury trial.
A spokesman for the world's biggest airline operator, Trebor Banstetter, denied that Delta hacked Hanni's e-mail account. He says Delta can't comment further on the lawsuit.
"Obviously, the idea that Delta would hack into someone's e-mail is clearly without merit," Banstetter said in an e-mail to The Associated Press.
Hanni and her group have been a thorn in the side of the airline industry, pushing Congress to enact a passenger bill of rights at a time when airlines are suffering from big revenue declines thanks to weak demand for air travel.
Among other things, Hanni supports a three-hour time limit on how long airlines can strand passengers on airport tarmacs. Legislation pending in the Senate would require that passengers be allowed to deplane after a three-hour wait.
There are exceptions for instances when the pilot believes the plane will take off in the next half-hour or it might be unsafe to leave the plane.
The lawsuit claims that while Hanni was sharing information with a person working for Metron Aviation Inc. of Dulles, Va., her personal computer files and FlyersRights.org e-mail accounts were hacked. She said her service provider, America Online, confirmed the e-mail accounts were hacked.
The lawsuit alleges that in late September, Metron executives confronted the worker with the stolen e-mails and claimed Delta was angry about Hanni getting information that would help pass the passenger bill of rights.
Hanni says that Metron officials claimed that Delta had provided them with the stolen e-mails.
In addition to the e-mails, Hanni said that spreadsheets, lists of donors and personal files were compromised by the alleged hacking.
The lawsuit, which also names Metron as a defendant, does not make clear specifically what was in the e-mails or who exactly committed the alleged hacking.
Metron Aviation, which provides research, airspace design, environmental analysis and software development services to the global air traffic industry and lists Delta as a customer, said in a statement that any allegations that suggest it "has behaved illegally or improperly in this matter are completely baseless and without merit." It said the company would have no further comment.
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Related articles
Passenger rights advocate sues Delta over alleged e-mail hacking
Gadling (blog) - Oct 14, 2009
Delta Airlines accused of computer hacking
CompareCarrentals.com - Oct 14, 2009
Passenger group sues Delta
AZ Central.com - Oct 13, 2009
More coverage (22) »
Add News to your Google Homepage
By HARRY R. WEBER (AP) – Oct 13, 2009
ATLANTA — A passenger rights advocate accused Delta Air Lines Inc. in a federal lawsuit Tuesday of conspiring with a Virginia company to obtain hacked e-mails from her computer to help them derail her efforts to protect air travelers from lengthy tarmac delays and other inconveniences.
The suit, filed by Kate Hanni of FlyersRights.org in U.S. District Court in Houston, seeks at least $11 million in damages and a jury trial.
A spokesman for the world's biggest airline operator, Trebor Banstetter, denied that Delta hacked Hanni's e-mail account. He says Delta can't comment further on the lawsuit.
"Obviously, the idea that Delta would hack into someone's e-mail is clearly without merit," Banstetter said in an e-mail to The Associated Press.
Hanni and her group have been a thorn in the side of the airline industry, pushing Congress to enact a passenger bill of rights at a time when airlines are suffering from big revenue declines thanks to weak demand for air travel.
Among other things, Hanni supports a three-hour time limit on how long airlines can strand passengers on airport tarmacs. Legislation pending in the Senate would require that passengers be allowed to deplane after a three-hour wait.
There are exceptions for instances when the pilot believes the plane will take off in the next half-hour or it might be unsafe to leave the plane.
The lawsuit claims that while Hanni was sharing information with a person working for Metron Aviation Inc. of Dulles, Va., her personal computer files and FlyersRights.org e-mail accounts were hacked. She said her service provider, America Online, confirmed the e-mail accounts were hacked.
The lawsuit alleges that in late September, Metron executives confronted the worker with the stolen e-mails and claimed Delta was angry about Hanni getting information that would help pass the passenger bill of rights.
Hanni says that Metron officials claimed that Delta had provided them with the stolen e-mails.
In addition to the e-mails, Hanni said that spreadsheets, lists of donors and personal files were compromised by the alleged hacking.
The lawsuit, which also names Metron as a defendant, does not make clear specifically what was in the e-mails or who exactly committed the alleged hacking.
Metron Aviation, which provides research, airspace design, environmental analysis and software development services to the global air traffic industry and lists Delta as a customer, said in a statement that any allegations that suggest it "has behaved illegally or improperly in this matter are completely baseless and without merit." It said the company would have no further comment.
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Related articles
Passenger rights advocate sues Delta over alleged e-mail hacking
Gadling (blog) - Oct 14, 2009
Delta Airlines accused of computer hacking
CompareCarrentals.com - Oct 14, 2009
Passenger group sues Delta
AZ Central.com - Oct 13, 2009
More coverage (22) »
Add News to your Google HomepageFlyer advocate says Delta obtained hacked e-mails
By HARRY R. WEBER (AP) – Oct 13, 2009
ATLANTA — A passenger rights advocate accused Delta Air Lines Inc. in a federal lawsuit Tuesday of conspiring with a Virginia company to obtain hacked e-mails from her computer to help them derail her efforts to protect air travelers from lengthy tarmac delays and other inconveniences.
The suit, filed by Kate Hanni of FlyersRights.org in U.S. District Court in Houston, seeks at least $11 million in damages and a jury trial.
A spokesman for the world's biggest airline operator, Trebor Banstetter, denied that Delta hacked Hanni's e-mail account. He says Delta can't comment further on the lawsuit.
"Obviously, the idea that Delta would hack into someone's e-mail is clearly without merit," Banstetter said in an e-mail to The Associated Press.
Hanni and her group have been a thorn in the side of the airline industry, pushing Congress to enact a passenger bill of rights at a time when airlines are suffering from big revenue declines thanks to weak demand for air travel.
Among other things, Hanni supports a three-hour time limit on how long airlines can strand passengers on airport tarmacs. Legislation pending in the Senate would require that passengers be allowed to deplane after a three-hour wait.
There are exceptions for instances when the pilot believes the plane will take off in the next half-hour or it might be unsafe to leave the plane.
The lawsuit claims that while Hanni was sharing information with a person working for Metron Aviation Inc. of Dulles, Va., her personal computer files and FlyersRights.org e-mail accounts were hacked. She said her service provider, America Online, confirmed the e-mail accounts were hacked.
The lawsuit alleges that in late September, Metron executives confronted the worker with the stolen e-mails and claimed Delta was angry about Hanni getting information that would help pass the passenger bill of rights.
Hanni says that Metron officials claimed that Delta had provided them with the stolen e-mails.
In addition to the e-mails, Hanni said that spreadsheets, lists of donors and personal files were compromised by the alleged hacking.
The lawsuit, which also names Metron as a defendant, does not make clear specifically what was in the e-mails or who exactly committed the alleged hacking.
Metron Aviation, which provides research, airspace design, environmental analysis and software development services to the global air traffic industry and lists Delta as a customer, said in a statement that any allegations that suggest it "has behaved illegally or improperly in this matter are completely baseless and without merit." It said the company would have no further comment.
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Related articles
Passenger rights advocate sues Delta over alleged e-mail hacking
Gadling (blog) - Oct 14, 2009
Delta Airlines accused of computer hacking
CompareCarrentals.com - Oct 14, 2009
Passenger group sues Delta
AZ Central.com - Oct 13, 2009
More coverage (22) »
Add News to your Google Homepage
Passenger Rights Advocate Claims Delta Hacked Her Email
By Jon Hood
ConsumerAffairs.com
October 16, 2009
A leading proponent of the Airline Passenger's Bill of Rights making its way through Congress says that Delta Airlines hacked into her e-mail account in an effort to thwart the legislation.
Kate Hanni's complaint, filed in federal court in Houston, accuses Delta and a contractor of conspiracy and violation of privacy, and seeks at least $11 million in damages, most of them punitive.
Hanni founded the Coalition for an Airline Passengers Bill of Rights, which is lobbying Congress to impose more passenger-friendly requirements for planes stuck on runways for long periods of time. The bill would give passengers the right to disembark any aircraft that has been grounded for at least three hours, unless such an exit is deemed unsafe or the pilot reasonably believes the plane will take off within a half-hour. The legislation also requires airlines to provide adequate access to food, water, and restrooms for grounded passengers. The bill imposes fines for violations, and requires the Department of Transportation to approve airlines' individual plans for delayed flights.
Hanni's computer was illegally accessed over the summer; AOL confirmed that her e-mail account had been compromised. The hacker corrupted and destroyed some files, and copied others to a still-unknown location.
The facts of Hanni's case are bizarre and surprisingly dramatic. Hanni apparently began exchanging data about delays on Delta Airlines with an employee of Metron Aviation, a Virginia-based corporation that specializes in improving traffic flow management and reducing airline delays. Metron counts Delta as a client.
In a sworn affidavit, Frederick Foreman, the Metron employee, said that his superiors approached him in late September and informed him of the breach. They told him that the e-mails at issue were those between himself and Hanni, and that they were sent from his private, rather than company, e-mail account. Worse, Delta was furious that he had access to the flight delay data, despite the fact that it is publicly available information. Foreman was fired on the spot and escorted off of Metron's property.
Delta is fighting back, calling Hanni's allegations "absurd." But the airline certainly has an interest in preventing the legislation from passing. Such a bill would cost airlines at least $40 million in lost revenue.
Airlines have fought for years to keep Bill of Rights-style legislation from being passed. In 1999, the aviation industry headed off a similar bill by promising to meet tighter self-imposed standards. But support for federal legislation surged again in August, when 47 passengers were stranded on a grounded plane in Rochester, Minnesota. Inclement weather forced Continental Express Flight 2816 to divert while en route from Houston to Minneapolis, and passengers sat on the runway for six hours before finally being cleared for takeoff. The crew ran out of food almost immediately, and the small plane's sole toilet quickly filled up and sent a foul smell throughout the cabin.
While Flight 2816 drew its share of negative publicity, it was hardly the first such incident in recent years. In 2007, a JetBlue flight sat on the runway for 11 hours at JFK International Airport in New York, and a 2004 Northwest flight from Amsterdam to Seattle took 28 hours once all was said and done. The Northwest passengers, too, suffered through food and water shortages and an overwhelmed toilet. A passenger told the Today show that "at one point it seemed like we would have a riot towards the end."
Hanni's advocacy is based on personal experience. After being stranded on a tarmac in Austin in 2006, Hanni founded FlyersRights.com and began a determined push to get Congress to act.
Read more: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/10/delta_billofrights_hack.html#ixzz0VUBmKPIm
ConsumerAffairs.com
October 16, 2009
A leading proponent of the Airline Passenger's Bill of Rights making its way through Congress says that Delta Airlines hacked into her e-mail account in an effort to thwart the legislation.
Kate Hanni's complaint, filed in federal court in Houston, accuses Delta and a contractor of conspiracy and violation of privacy, and seeks at least $11 million in damages, most of them punitive.
Hanni founded the Coalition for an Airline Passengers Bill of Rights, which is lobbying Congress to impose more passenger-friendly requirements for planes stuck on runways for long periods of time. The bill would give passengers the right to disembark any aircraft that has been grounded for at least three hours, unless such an exit is deemed unsafe or the pilot reasonably believes the plane will take off within a half-hour. The legislation also requires airlines to provide adequate access to food, water, and restrooms for grounded passengers. The bill imposes fines for violations, and requires the Department of Transportation to approve airlines' individual plans for delayed flights.
Hanni's computer was illegally accessed over the summer; AOL confirmed that her e-mail account had been compromised. The hacker corrupted and destroyed some files, and copied others to a still-unknown location.
The facts of Hanni's case are bizarre and surprisingly dramatic. Hanni apparently began exchanging data about delays on Delta Airlines with an employee of Metron Aviation, a Virginia-based corporation that specializes in improving traffic flow management and reducing airline delays. Metron counts Delta as a client.
In a sworn affidavit, Frederick Foreman, the Metron employee, said that his superiors approached him in late September and informed him of the breach. They told him that the e-mails at issue were those between himself and Hanni, and that they were sent from his private, rather than company, e-mail account. Worse, Delta was furious that he had access to the flight delay data, despite the fact that it is publicly available information. Foreman was fired on the spot and escorted off of Metron's property.
Delta is fighting back, calling Hanni's allegations "absurd." But the airline certainly has an interest in preventing the legislation from passing. Such a bill would cost airlines at least $40 million in lost revenue.
Airlines have fought for years to keep Bill of Rights-style legislation from being passed. In 1999, the aviation industry headed off a similar bill by promising to meet tighter self-imposed standards. But support for federal legislation surged again in August, when 47 passengers were stranded on a grounded plane in Rochester, Minnesota. Inclement weather forced Continental Express Flight 2816 to divert while en route from Houston to Minneapolis, and passengers sat on the runway for six hours before finally being cleared for takeoff. The crew ran out of food almost immediately, and the small plane's sole toilet quickly filled up and sent a foul smell throughout the cabin.
While Flight 2816 drew its share of negative publicity, it was hardly the first such incident in recent years. In 2007, a JetBlue flight sat on the runway for 11 hours at JFK International Airport in New York, and a 2004 Northwest flight from Amsterdam to Seattle took 28 hours once all was said and done. The Northwest passengers, too, suffered through food and water shortages and an overwhelmed toilet. A passenger told the Today show that "at one point it seemed like we would have a riot towards the end."
Hanni's advocacy is based on personal experience. After being stranded on a tarmac in Austin in 2006, Hanni founded FlyersRights.com and began a determined push to get Congress to act.
Read more: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/10/delta_billofrights_hack.html#ixzz0VUBmKPIm
Friday, October 9, 2009
Associated Press Editorial
Surviving dreaded delay on airport tarmac
By Harry R. Weber
Associated Press
Published: Saturday, Sept. 19, 2009 4:23 p.m. MDT
ATLANTA — You're tired, hungry, have a cranky baby on your lap and all you want to do is get off the plane, but you can't because it's been on the tarmac for hours waiting to take off.
A six-hour delay with 47 people aboard a small Continental Express plane at a Minnesota airport recently is the extreme. In June, the most recent month for which data is available, there were 278 tarmac delays of three hours or more. That was the most this year but still only .05 percent of the total number of scheduled flights that month.
Information is the best ammunition in such situations. Experts advise that passengers be prepared. Here are answers to some questions travelers may ask.
Q. Can't I just get off the plane?
A. No. The captain has ultimate control of the plane and generally will determine if and when to return to the gate and allow passengers to get off.
"It's not a democracy," says Robert Mann, an airline industry consultant in Port Washington, N.Y.
Passengers can request that the aircraft return to the gate, or if they have a cell phone they can call airline customer service or their carrier's frequent flier hotline and exert pressure that way. If you have a medical condition or are ill, notify the crew immediately. But taking matters into your own hands is ill-advised. An FAA spokeswoman says unruly passengers who make a run for the aircraft door could be arrested for interfering with the crew.
Q. Why would the airline choose to keep the passengers onboard rather than let them get off?
A. It takes a lot of time to get passengers off a plane and then back on again. If the weather clears up at the airport where you are heading, the crew may have a limited opportunity to take off. Tarmac delays often occur because of bad weather, congestion and air traffic control issues. Further delays could be caused by allowing passengers to get off, which also could mean passengers with connecting flights might miss those connections.
Airline operations also are a factor. Because of weak demand for air travel due to the ailing economy, airlines have taken large chunks of seats out of the air and are offering fewer flights and frequencies to some destinations.
"It may add to the reason there are the tarmac delays and not the cancellations," says Terry Trippler, an airline and travel expert based in Minneapolis. "The airlines realize that there aren't a lot of flights to get them onto alternate flights, and that's why they rather just wait and get them out."
Q. How long can the crew keep me on the plane before heading back to the gate?
A. There's no law or rule mandating that the crew allow you to get off after a certain period. Legislation introduced in the Senate in July would require planes delayed more than three hours to return to a gate. A rule proposed by the Department of Transportation would require airlines to have contingency plans for dealing with lengthy tarmac delays. Some airlines have implemented customer commitments in recent years to try to appease passengers. JetBlue Airways vows to deplane passengers if an aircraft is delayed on the ground for five hours. That was instituted in 2007 after passengers on a JetBlue flight waited 11 hours on the tarmac at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport.
Q. Will I get something to eat and drink while I wait?
A. Airlines generally only stock enough food and drinks for the length of the flight. Passengers on the Continental Express flight later complained about not being offered food and drink during their lengthy tarmac delay. Several airlines have procedures for dealing with onboard delays that include making sure the cabin temperature is appropriate and passengers have access to restrooms, and food and water.
After a recent AirTran Airways flight from Pittsburgh to Atlanta was diverted to Chattanooga, Tenn., flight attendants offered bottled water and pretzels to passengers during the 90-minute tarmac delay.
Delta Air Lines says on its Web site that in the event of onboard ground delays under certain circumstances, it promises to make timely announcements regarding the flight status, allow customers to use cell phones and laptop computers and provide snacks and beverages to customers when "reasonable and safe to do so." Experts advise that passengers should carry food and drink with them on flights in case of a delay while onboard.
"Instead of that extra pair of shoes in your carryon, you put an extra sandwich or an extra bottle of water," Trippler says.
Q. What can I do to pass the time during a tarmac delay?
A. On a long delay you might be hoping that you're not stuck next to someone who wants to share his life story. In that case on-flight TV or radio may be your salvation. What's more, it's always smart to carry something to read to get you through a delay no matter how long.
If you have a connecting flight that you might miss, use your cell phone to call airline customer service and rebook your next flight. The one thing experts agree on is that it is important to stay calm in those situations.
Q. What kind of compensation am I entitled to if I experience a tarmac delay?
A. Typically, circumstances beyond the control of an airline are not covered in terms of passengers being provided compensation, says aviation consultant Mark Kiefer of CRA International in Boston. However, airlines have discretion to help passengers out, and some even have policies for allowing for compensation when there are tarmac delays.
For instance, JetBlue customers who experience an onboard ground delay on arrival for two hours or more after scheduled arrival time are entitled to a voucher. The voucher is good for future travel on JetBlue in the amount paid by the customer for their roundtrip ticket.
Q. Where can I get more information about airline policies regarding tarmac delays?
A. Airline Web sites are a good place to start. Check the airline's contract of carriage, which outlines its responsibilities to customers and the action it will take in various situations.
By Harry R. Weber
Associated Press
Published: Saturday, Sept. 19, 2009 4:23 p.m. MDT
ATLANTA — You're tired, hungry, have a cranky baby on your lap and all you want to do is get off the plane, but you can't because it's been on the tarmac for hours waiting to take off.
A six-hour delay with 47 people aboard a small Continental Express plane at a Minnesota airport recently is the extreme. In June, the most recent month for which data is available, there were 278 tarmac delays of three hours or more. That was the most this year but still only .05 percent of the total number of scheduled flights that month.
Information is the best ammunition in such situations. Experts advise that passengers be prepared. Here are answers to some questions travelers may ask.
Q. Can't I just get off the plane?
A. No. The captain has ultimate control of the plane and generally will determine if and when to return to the gate and allow passengers to get off.
"It's not a democracy," says Robert Mann, an airline industry consultant in Port Washington, N.Y.
Passengers can request that the aircraft return to the gate, or if they have a cell phone they can call airline customer service or their carrier's frequent flier hotline and exert pressure that way. If you have a medical condition or are ill, notify the crew immediately. But taking matters into your own hands is ill-advised. An FAA spokeswoman says unruly passengers who make a run for the aircraft door could be arrested for interfering with the crew.
Q. Why would the airline choose to keep the passengers onboard rather than let them get off?
A. It takes a lot of time to get passengers off a plane and then back on again. If the weather clears up at the airport where you are heading, the crew may have a limited opportunity to take off. Tarmac delays often occur because of bad weather, congestion and air traffic control issues. Further delays could be caused by allowing passengers to get off, which also could mean passengers with connecting flights might miss those connections.
Airline operations also are a factor. Because of weak demand for air travel due to the ailing economy, airlines have taken large chunks of seats out of the air and are offering fewer flights and frequencies to some destinations.
"It may add to the reason there are the tarmac delays and not the cancellations," says Terry Trippler, an airline and travel expert based in Minneapolis. "The airlines realize that there aren't a lot of flights to get them onto alternate flights, and that's why they rather just wait and get them out."
Q. How long can the crew keep me on the plane before heading back to the gate?
A. There's no law or rule mandating that the crew allow you to get off after a certain period. Legislation introduced in the Senate in July would require planes delayed more than three hours to return to a gate. A rule proposed by the Department of Transportation would require airlines to have contingency plans for dealing with lengthy tarmac delays. Some airlines have implemented customer commitments in recent years to try to appease passengers. JetBlue Airways vows to deplane passengers if an aircraft is delayed on the ground for five hours. That was instituted in 2007 after passengers on a JetBlue flight waited 11 hours on the tarmac at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport.
Q. Will I get something to eat and drink while I wait?
A. Airlines generally only stock enough food and drinks for the length of the flight. Passengers on the Continental Express flight later complained about not being offered food and drink during their lengthy tarmac delay. Several airlines have procedures for dealing with onboard delays that include making sure the cabin temperature is appropriate and passengers have access to restrooms, and food and water.
After a recent AirTran Airways flight from Pittsburgh to Atlanta was diverted to Chattanooga, Tenn., flight attendants offered bottled water and pretzels to passengers during the 90-minute tarmac delay.
Delta Air Lines says on its Web site that in the event of onboard ground delays under certain circumstances, it promises to make timely announcements regarding the flight status, allow customers to use cell phones and laptop computers and provide snacks and beverages to customers when "reasonable and safe to do so." Experts advise that passengers should carry food and drink with them on flights in case of a delay while onboard.
"Instead of that extra pair of shoes in your carryon, you put an extra sandwich or an extra bottle of water," Trippler says.
Q. What can I do to pass the time during a tarmac delay?
A. On a long delay you might be hoping that you're not stuck next to someone who wants to share his life story. In that case on-flight TV or radio may be your salvation. What's more, it's always smart to carry something to read to get you through a delay no matter how long.
If you have a connecting flight that you might miss, use your cell phone to call airline customer service and rebook your next flight. The one thing experts agree on is that it is important to stay calm in those situations.
Q. What kind of compensation am I entitled to if I experience a tarmac delay?
A. Typically, circumstances beyond the control of an airline are not covered in terms of passengers being provided compensation, says aviation consultant Mark Kiefer of CRA International in Boston. However, airlines have discretion to help passengers out, and some even have policies for allowing for compensation when there are tarmac delays.
For instance, JetBlue customers who experience an onboard ground delay on arrival for two hours or more after scheduled arrival time are entitled to a voucher. The voucher is good for future travel on JetBlue in the amount paid by the customer for their roundtrip ticket.
Q. Where can I get more information about airline policies regarding tarmac delays?
A. Airline Web sites are a good place to start. Check the airline's contract of carriage, which outlines its responsibilities to customers and the action it will take in various situations.
Seattle Times Editorial
Saturday, September 26, 2009 - Page updated at 11:17 AM
Permission to reprint or copy this article or photo, other than personal use, must be obtained from The Seattle Times. Call 206-464-3113 206-464-3113 or e-mail resale@seattletimes.com with your request.
RICHARD DREW / AP
Travelers wait for flights while planes idle on the tarmac at New York's John F. Kennedy Airport, in this Feb. 15, 2007, file photo. From January to June 2009, 613 planes were delayed on tarmacs for more than three hours, their passengers kept on board, the government says.
Pass bill to set tarmac-bound fliers free after three hours
YOU'VE heard the horror stories: Airplanes stuffed full of passengers sit on tarmacs for six, seven, even 10 hours — while passengers overheat, toilets overflow, and some people become seriously ill.
Congress need not dither long on legislation giving passengers assurance they will be treated better. The legislation, which every member of Congress should support, says passengers must be allowed to disembark if a plane is stuck longer than three hours. Not only is it inhumane to leave people trapped in deplorable conditions, it is physically harmful.
A 2007 World Health Organization study says the risk of developing such things as pulmonary embolism doubles after four hours of seated immobility.
Increased passenger rights, sponsored by Sens. Barbara Boxer and Olympia Snowe, Democrat and Republican, should be part of final Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization legislation this year or passed as a stand-alone bill.
The legislative mechanism is not the point. What matters is swift recognition the flying public deserves better treatment
Airlines also should be required to provide food, water, adequate restrooms, proper ventilation and access to medications as planes await takeoff. After three hours, passengers should be able to return to the terminal and move around. A reasonable exception says passengers need not disembark if the pilot believes he will take off in the next half-hour or if it is hazardous to deplane.
A spokesman for the Air Transport Association, which represents large airlines, worries children who fly alone might be stranded in a strange airport. Possibly, but the airlines can implement clear procedures to assure children traveling alone are not left in airports to fend for themselves
Congress knows this bill is popular. The best bet is to include passenger rights in an extension of FAA reauthorization legislation, which means it would become law quickly.
Airlines have left too many passengers on the tarmac for too many hours. Green-light this legislation and give the flying public the comfort of knowing their basic needs will be respected.
Permission to reprint or copy this article or photo, other than personal use, must be obtained from The Seattle Times. Call 206-464-3113 206-464-3113 or e-mail resale@seattletimes.com with your request.
RICHARD DREW / AP
Travelers wait for flights while planes idle on the tarmac at New York's John F. Kennedy Airport, in this Feb. 15, 2007, file photo. From January to June 2009, 613 planes were delayed on tarmacs for more than three hours, their passengers kept on board, the government says.
Pass bill to set tarmac-bound fliers free after three hours
YOU'VE heard the horror stories: Airplanes stuffed full of passengers sit on tarmacs for six, seven, even 10 hours — while passengers overheat, toilets overflow, and some people become seriously ill.
Congress need not dither long on legislation giving passengers assurance they will be treated better. The legislation, which every member of Congress should support, says passengers must be allowed to disembark if a plane is stuck longer than three hours. Not only is it inhumane to leave people trapped in deplorable conditions, it is physically harmful.
A 2007 World Health Organization study says the risk of developing such things as pulmonary embolism doubles after four hours of seated immobility.
Increased passenger rights, sponsored by Sens. Barbara Boxer and Olympia Snowe, Democrat and Republican, should be part of final Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization legislation this year or passed as a stand-alone bill.
The legislative mechanism is not the point. What matters is swift recognition the flying public deserves better treatment
Airlines also should be required to provide food, water, adequate restrooms, proper ventilation and access to medications as planes await takeoff. After three hours, passengers should be able to return to the terminal and move around. A reasonable exception says passengers need not disembark if the pilot believes he will take off in the next half-hour or if it is hazardous to deplane.
A spokesman for the Air Transport Association, which represents large airlines, worries children who fly alone might be stranded in a strange airport. Possibly, but the airlines can implement clear procedures to assure children traveling alone are not left in airports to fend for themselves
Congress knows this bill is popular. The best bet is to include passenger rights in an extension of FAA reauthorization legislation, which means it would become law quickly.
Airlines have left too many passengers on the tarmac for too many hours. Green-light this legislation and give the flying public the comfort of knowing their basic needs will be respected.
FlyersRights.org has truly made it. Watch Southpark Dead Celebrities!
Southpark the adult cartoon show that is so popular in the US has done an entire episode on "purgatory" that time spent on a plane on the tarmac without goods or services.
We will be editing the video to include only the pertinent parts of this episode and beeping out the inappropriate for all audiences language. But until then you can tune in any night this week and right at minute 9 you'll see the impact we've made on Southpark!
Kate
We will be editing the video to include only the pertinent parts of this episode and beeping out the inappropriate for all audiences language. But until then you can tune in any night this week and right at minute 9 you'll see the impact we've made on Southpark!
Kate
"Don't drink the water"
October 12, 2009
Contact:
Kate Hanni
(707) 337-0328
kate@flyersrights.com
For Immediate Release
Flyersrights.org Plea to Airline Passengers: “Don’t Drink the Water!”
Consumer Advocacy Group Disappointed in Latest EPA Guidelines for Providing Safe Drinking Water Aboard Airplanes
Napa, CA (October 12, 2009) – Flyersrights.org, the national advocacy group for airline passengers in the United States, has gone on record by stating that last week’s finalized EPA guidelines regarding airline drinking water are insufficient and basically allow the airlines to operate as they please without regard to passenger health and safety.
The new EPA guidelines, which are based on a 2004 study in which 15% of airliners tested positive for coliform, call for mandatory testing every five years. In addition, the EPA is only required to do random inspections on airplane water systems and the new rules don’t commence for another 18 months.
Kate Hanni, founder and president of Flyersrights.org does not think the new rules adequately address passenger health concerns.
“Testing water every five years for coliform is simply unacceptable. The flying public trusts the airlines to provide it with basic needs such as potable, hygienic water -and the airlines are failing the task. Now the government has attempted to regulate, yet has clearly bowed down to the airlines with extremely lax new rules that do not address the issue. Our recommendation to passengers is that they do not drink water on board an airplane unless it is bottled, do not brush teeth with bathroom tap water and disinfect further after washing hands in airplane bathrooms”, said Hanni.
Paul Ziots, a passenger who was stranded on the tarmac in Austin in 2006 for almost nine hours, knows the dangers of airplane tap water all too well.
“All we had on board the aircraft was tap water. I became ill with intestinal problems, and had to put myself up for two nights in an airport hotel, at my own expense, before aborting my trip and flying home”, he states.
Flyersrights.org was formed in 2007 by several passengers who were stranded for nine hours on the tarmac in Austin, Texas. The organization advocates for passengers’ rights, including passage of the Passenger’s Bill of Rights currently being debated in Congress. The organization currently has 27,000 members nationwide. For more information, visit www.flyersrights.org or call the hotline at 1-877-FLYERS6.
###
Contact:
Kate Hanni
(707) 337-0328
kate@flyersrights.com
For Immediate Release
Flyersrights.org Plea to Airline Passengers: “Don’t Drink the Water!”
Consumer Advocacy Group Disappointed in Latest EPA Guidelines for Providing Safe Drinking Water Aboard Airplanes
Napa, CA (October 12, 2009) – Flyersrights.org, the national advocacy group for airline passengers in the United States, has gone on record by stating that last week’s finalized EPA guidelines regarding airline drinking water are insufficient and basically allow the airlines to operate as they please without regard to passenger health and safety.
The new EPA guidelines, which are based on a 2004 study in which 15% of airliners tested positive for coliform, call for mandatory testing every five years. In addition, the EPA is only required to do random inspections on airplane water systems and the new rules don’t commence for another 18 months.
Kate Hanni, founder and president of Flyersrights.org does not think the new rules adequately address passenger health concerns.
“Testing water every five years for coliform is simply unacceptable. The flying public trusts the airlines to provide it with basic needs such as potable, hygienic water -and the airlines are failing the task. Now the government has attempted to regulate, yet has clearly bowed down to the airlines with extremely lax new rules that do not address the issue. Our recommendation to passengers is that they do not drink water on board an airplane unless it is bottled, do not brush teeth with bathroom tap water and disinfect further after washing hands in airplane bathrooms”, said Hanni.
Paul Ziots, a passenger who was stranded on the tarmac in Austin in 2006 for almost nine hours, knows the dangers of airplane tap water all too well.
“All we had on board the aircraft was tap water. I became ill with intestinal problems, and had to put myself up for two nights in an airport hotel, at my own expense, before aborting my trip and flying home”, he states.
Flyersrights.org was formed in 2007 by several passengers who were stranded for nine hours on the tarmac in Austin, Texas. The organization advocates for passengers’ rights, including passage of the Passenger’s Bill of Rights currently being debated in Congress. The organization currently has 27,000 members nationwide. For more information, visit www.flyersrights.org or call the hotline at 1-877-FLYERS6.
###
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Fliers on delayed planes get more support
By Gary Stoller, USA TODAY
Airlines are losing another ally in their fight to stop Congress from passing a law that would allow passengers to get off planes delayed at least three hours on airport tarmacs.
The Business Travel Coalition, a group that represents about 300 corporate travel departments, is coming out today in support of such a law after having opposed congressional action.
The coalition's shift comes after it surveyed 649 corporate travel departments, travel agents and business travelers and found that more than 90% of travel departments — and about 80% of travel agents and business travelers — say passengers should have the option to get off flights delayed three hours or longer.
It also follows a similar shift in positions by two other business travel groups — the National Business Travel Association and the American Society of Travel Agents. And it comes as Congress is poised this fall to vote on so-called passenger rights legislation that would force the airlines to give passengers stuck on flights options.
The survey results "reveal a striking change in thinking in the mainstream business community about the need for congressional intervention," says Kevin Mitchell, the coalition's chairman.
"Some of the largest corporations on the planet, for whom government involvement in free markets is anathema, overwhelmingly have concluded that legislation is the best choice after 10 years of shattered promises of self-policing by airlines," he says.
Airlines don't want legislation
Although rare, more than 200,000 domestic passengers have been stuck on more than 3,000 planes for three hours or more waiting to take off or taxi to a gate since January 2007, a USA TODAY analysis of U.S. Transportation Department data has found.
In June, 278 flights waited on the tarmac for at least three hours, the most recent numbers from the department's Bureau of Transportation Statistics show.
The issue has attracted greater attention after an incident last month in which 51 passengers were stuck overnight on a delayed Continental Express flight at the Rochester, Minn., airport. The incident, in which passengers complained of a smelly toilet and not having food or drink, also has drawn greater attention to the legislation.
The House and Senate must decide on final wording of any passenger-rights provisions that now are in a bill to reauthorize and fund the Federal Aviation Administration.
A Senate committee voted in July to require airlines to let people off planes delayed for more than three hours. The House earlier had passed a less specific version that requires each airline to submit to the Department of Transportation a plan to let passengers off.
The Air Transport Association, which represents major U.S. airlines, says long delays "are unacceptable," and it understands why they frustrate passengers. But, the group says, it opposes legislation that would force airlines to return planes to terminals after a set time to let off passengers.
Airlines have established "contingency plans" to deal with long tarmac delays and can handle the problems themselves without government intervention, says David Castelveter, the group's vice president.
"We continue to believe that a hard-and-fast mandatory rule for deplaning passengers will have substantial unintended consequences, leading to even more inconvenience for passengers and, ultimately, more flight cancellations," Castelveter says.
Airlines have spent a lot of money to improve service, he says, "including the use of new technology, the purchase of the most modern aircraft and facility improvement projects."
But passenger-rights groups — and now business groups — are saying they cannot count on the airlines to solve the delays, and Congress must step in and force the airlines to let passengers off planes.
Congress must set 'clear standard'
Kate Hanni of FlyersRights.org says three should be the maximum number of hours before a passenger is allowed off a plane, but many members of her group wonder if the limit should be one or two hours.
"Why in the USA do we even have to ask for a three-hour limit on the ground in a sealed, hot, sweaty metal tube?" she asks. "We thought this country was founded on freedom — freedom to move, freedom to breathe, freedom to eat and drink and have hygienic toilet facilities."
The Business Travel Coalition, which for years has testified at congressional hearings in support of airlines remedying the tarmac-delay problem on their own, now agrees with FlyersRights.org. The two groups have scheduled a Sept. 22 conference in Washington to discuss the issue.
About 80% of the respondents to the coalition's survey, many of whom handle travel for Fortune 500 firms, said the airlines haven't made a compelling case against the legislation.
It was the Aug. 7 delay in Rochester, in which the passengers were held on the Continental Express jet for 5½ hours, that turned the National Business Travel Association around. The association, which represents about 4,200 corporate travel departments and suppliers, had previously taken the position that the airlines should solve the problem.
In July, the American Society of Travel Agents reversed course and urged Congress to act "in the face of continuing delays and the evident lack of concrete efforts on the part of airlines to create a meaningful solution."
Paul Ruden, the society's senior vice president, was on a Transportation Department task force last year that recommended airlines establish time limits at each airport for letting passengers off planes.
But that hasn't worked, he says, and Congress now needs to set "a clear standard for the airlines to follow."
Airlines are losing another ally in their fight to stop Congress from passing a law that would allow passengers to get off planes delayed at least three hours on airport tarmacs.
The Business Travel Coalition, a group that represents about 300 corporate travel departments, is coming out today in support of such a law after having opposed congressional action.
The coalition's shift comes after it surveyed 649 corporate travel departments, travel agents and business travelers and found that more than 90% of travel departments — and about 80% of travel agents and business travelers — say passengers should have the option to get off flights delayed three hours or longer.
It also follows a similar shift in positions by two other business travel groups — the National Business Travel Association and the American Society of Travel Agents. And it comes as Congress is poised this fall to vote on so-called passenger rights legislation that would force the airlines to give passengers stuck on flights options.
The survey results "reveal a striking change in thinking in the mainstream business community about the need for congressional intervention," says Kevin Mitchell, the coalition's chairman.
"Some of the largest corporations on the planet, for whom government involvement in free markets is anathema, overwhelmingly have concluded that legislation is the best choice after 10 years of shattered promises of self-policing by airlines," he says.
Airlines don't want legislation
Although rare, more than 200,000 domestic passengers have been stuck on more than 3,000 planes for three hours or more waiting to take off or taxi to a gate since January 2007, a USA TODAY analysis of U.S. Transportation Department data has found.
In June, 278 flights waited on the tarmac for at least three hours, the most recent numbers from the department's Bureau of Transportation Statistics show.
The issue has attracted greater attention after an incident last month in which 51 passengers were stuck overnight on a delayed Continental Express flight at the Rochester, Minn., airport. The incident, in which passengers complained of a smelly toilet and not having food or drink, also has drawn greater attention to the legislation.
The House and Senate must decide on final wording of any passenger-rights provisions that now are in a bill to reauthorize and fund the Federal Aviation Administration.
A Senate committee voted in July to require airlines to let people off planes delayed for more than three hours. The House earlier had passed a less specific version that requires each airline to submit to the Department of Transportation a plan to let passengers off.
The Air Transport Association, which represents major U.S. airlines, says long delays "are unacceptable," and it understands why they frustrate passengers. But, the group says, it opposes legislation that would force airlines to return planes to terminals after a set time to let off passengers.
Airlines have established "contingency plans" to deal with long tarmac delays and can handle the problems themselves without government intervention, says David Castelveter, the group's vice president.
"We continue to believe that a hard-and-fast mandatory rule for deplaning passengers will have substantial unintended consequences, leading to even more inconvenience for passengers and, ultimately, more flight cancellations," Castelveter says.
Airlines have spent a lot of money to improve service, he says, "including the use of new technology, the purchase of the most modern aircraft and facility improvement projects."
But passenger-rights groups — and now business groups — are saying they cannot count on the airlines to solve the delays, and Congress must step in and force the airlines to let passengers off planes.
Congress must set 'clear standard'
Kate Hanni of FlyersRights.org says three should be the maximum number of hours before a passenger is allowed off a plane, but many members of her group wonder if the limit should be one or two hours.
"Why in the USA do we even have to ask for a three-hour limit on the ground in a sealed, hot, sweaty metal tube?" she asks. "We thought this country was founded on freedom — freedom to move, freedom to breathe, freedom to eat and drink and have hygienic toilet facilities."
The Business Travel Coalition, which for years has testified at congressional hearings in support of airlines remedying the tarmac-delay problem on their own, now agrees with FlyersRights.org. The two groups have scheduled a Sept. 22 conference in Washington to discuss the issue.
About 80% of the respondents to the coalition's survey, many of whom handle travel for Fortune 500 firms, said the airlines haven't made a compelling case against the legislation.
It was the Aug. 7 delay in Rochester, in which the passengers were held on the Continental Express jet for 5½ hours, that turned the National Business Travel Association around. The association, which represents about 4,200 corporate travel departments and suppliers, had previously taken the position that the airlines should solve the problem.
In July, the American Society of Travel Agents reversed course and urged Congress to act "in the face of continuing delays and the evident lack of concrete efforts on the part of airlines to create a meaningful solution."
Paul Ruden, the society's senior vice president, was on a Transportation Department task force last year that recommended airlines establish time limits at each airport for letting passengers off planes.
But that hasn't worked, he says, and Congress now needs to set "a clear standard for the airlines to follow."
Cap on Tarmac Waits Might Get off Ground
TRAVEL
Cap on tarmac waits might get off ground
By Helen Anders
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Monday, September 07, 2009
It's been nearly three years since Kate Hanni sat for more than eight hours in an American Airlines MD-80 parked on the tarmac at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport.
She's still fuming.
"Every time I think about that plane, I get anxious and nervous," says Hanni, who lives in California's Napa Valley and was flying from San Francisco to Dallas on Dec. 29, 2006, when her plane and 15 others were diverted to Austin because of storms in Dallas.
That much-publicized experience prompted Hanni to launch the Coalition for an Airline Passengers' Bill of Rights, whose primary objective has been legislation limiting the time travelers can be trapped in a grounded airplane. That effort might be about to bear fruit.
The U.S. Senate is considering a bill that would compel planes to unload passengers after three hours on the tarmac. The legislation gained momentum last month when a Continental Airlines regional flight out of Houston, run by ExpressJet, sat for more than five hours in Rochester, Minn.
U.S. Department of Transportation records show that from January to June of this year, 613 planeloads of passengers waited on the tarmac for more than three hours.
The National Business Travelers Association recently reversed its stance that the airlines should solve the problem themselves and is supporting the Senate bill.
"Enough is enough," the group's president, Kevin Maguire, said at the time.
Kevin Mitchell, chairman of the Business Travel Coalition, said he agrees that it's unlikely the airlines will act unless Congress forces them to.
"I have testified since 1999 four times against congressional intervention, always saying that the airlines should be able to fix this problem and police themselves," Mitchell said. "The airlines are just not responding." Both this group and the National Business Travelers Association carry the clout of representing corporate travel bookers.
The airlines, represented by the Air Transport Association, oppose any law limiting tarmac waits, saying hard-and-fast rules would result in cancellations and massive stranding of passengers in airports.
Some passenger advocates say the Senate bill doesn't go far enough because it includes exceptions to the three-hour rule, which could be bypassed if a pilot thought he or she had a good chance of getting the plane airborne soon or if unloading passengers would jeopardize safety and security — a subjective call that would be made by the pilot or airline.
Others say the bill won't work because it puts mandates only on the airlines. When planes don't unload passengers, airlines often blame airport management, FAA regulations or Transportation Security Administration and customs policies.
"The airlines can't do it alone," says former American Airlines CEO Robert Crandall, who plans to weigh in at a Sept. 22 hearing in Washington on the legislation. "Any solution must involve cooperation among the airlines, airports, the FAA, the TSA and customs." He said he thinks Congress should scrap the legislation and start over.
The Senate bill faces a battle, and not only on the passenger rights front. It is part of massive legislation reauthorizing the Federal Aviation Administration that also addresses such issues as air traffic control modernization, aircraft maintenance and labor negotiations.
But the recent Minnesota stranding has ratcheted up the rhetoric in favor of passage.
"You can't treat people like cattle on a cattle car," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said.
If the Senate does pass its bill, its wording will have to be reconciled with the House version, which says only that airlines should come up with contingency plans for dealing with tarmac delays. There is no time limit. Both the House and Senate bills would mandate that food, water and adequate restrooms be provided during the delays.
The FAA is operating under a temporary extension of its authorization, and that expires Sept. 30. Congress must either extend that authorization or pass a new bill by that date.
While the legislation is debated, the Department of Transportation is considering enacting its own rule that would require each airline, as part of its contract of carriage (the fine print on the ticket), to set its own limit on tarmac waits. Under the plan, which is still subject to revision, airlines could change those limits as often as they wanted but would face fines up to $27,500 for each transgression. Airlines would be in charge of tracking their own compliance.
Airlines say putting their plans into the contract of carriage could bring a flood of lawsuits. A decision on the rule is expected sometime this fall.
Even if the rule is enacted, Hanni says it would be meaningless because airlines would be policing themselves.
The push for passenger rights was born during one of the worst winter storms in Texas history. As thunderstorms parked over Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, Hanni, her husband and their two sons, ages 11 and 21, were aboard one of 16 flights diverted to Austin, 14 of them American.
Most of these planes were back in the air after an hour or two, having found a window of calm air. But four of the American planes stayed parked, one for six hours, two for more than seven hours and one, Hanni's, for eight hours and 23 minutes, according to Austin-Bergstrom records.
Ten passengers whose ultimate destination was Austin were taken off the plane with mobile stairs, but the others were kept aboard in hopes of an imminent departure.
Shortly after 9 p.m., Hanni's flight did go to a gate. Hanni and her family flew to Dallas the next morning and, 57 hours after their journey began, eventually arrived at their destination, Mobile, Ala. By then, Hanni had decided to abandon her job in real estate and go after the airlines. Her nonprofit organization — its Web site is www.flyersrights.org — runs on private donations. She does not take a salary but reimburses herself for her expenses.
The family also filed a class-action suit against American Airlines, claiming false imprisonment. It is still pending in federal court in California. A similar case filed in Arkansas by one of the passengers stuck on another American Airlines plane on Dec. 26, 2006, was dismissed in April after a judge said that although the airline should have acted differently, it broke no laws.
American gave its stranded passengers $500 vouchers after the 2006 strandings. In last month's Minnesota incident, Continental gave passengers refunds and $200 vouchers.
Airlines have given various reasons for long waits. Usually, the airlines have said they were hopeful that planes could soon be on their way. Sometimes, there aren't enough gates available at the airport — or at least enough gates owned by the airline whose plane is stranded. Mobile stairs can be used, but FAA rules say ramp workers, who move those stairs, must stay indoors when lightning is near.
In the recent Minnesota case, ExpressJet said passengers couldn't get off because there were no security agents in the airport. TSA spokeswoman Andrea McCauley said it has no problem with airlines unloading passengers, even after security checkpoints are closed, as long as passengers stay within the secured area.
International flights diverted to airports without customs officers can't unload because the passengers re-entering the United States need to go through customs. That, Crandall said, needs to change.
"Let them off the airplane," he said. "This is common sense."
After the December 2006 incident, American Airlines established a policy to allow passengers to get off if a plane sits on the tarmac for more than four hours, assuming it can be done safely. United has a similar four-hour policy. Continental's policy is to let passengers deplane after three hours, and spokeswoman Julie King said partners such as ExpressJet are supposed to abide by it, but "that process broke down" in the Minnesota incident.
Airlines say their surveys show passengers prefer to wait out a delay rather than get off and risk having to compete for space on another flight.
Department of Transportation statistics show that taxi-out times — tarmac delays involving planes headed for the runway — dropped in 2008, to 1,231 strandings of more than three hours from 1,654 in 2007. But 67 of those were for more than five hours, compared with 45 strandings of more than five hours in 2007.
In the first six months of this year, there were 415 taxi-out delays of more than three hours. (Tarmac waits of diverted flights can't be compared with past years, because those figures were not tracked until last October.)
Airlines say that they're trying to cut down on delays but that a legislated trigger for letting passengers off will only strand travelers inside airports.
Hanni says no rule will work without a limit on tarmac delays. If the House version of the FAA bill emerges, she said, "I would have to oppose it."
handers@statesman.com; 912-2590
Waiting to take off
Tarmac waits for all airlines from 2005 to present for flights that taxied out from the gate and then sat. Diverted planes are not included because they were not tracked until last October.
Year 3+ hours 5+ hours
2005 1,089 27
2006 1,341 37
2007 1,654 45
2008 1,231 67
2009 (to June) 415 10
Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics
Who kept planes waiting
Tarmac waits of more than three hours for the first six months of 2009. These numbers include taxi-outs, taxi-ins, diversions and planes that waited and then had flights canceled:
Airline 3+ hrs % of flights
All Airlines 613 .021
Comair 44 .055
Delta 100 .046
United 72 .038
JetBlue 38 .038
US Airways 62 .030
American 66 .025
ExpressJet 37 .025
Mesa 27 .023
Northwest 30 .020
American Eagle 40 .018
Pinnacle 18 .013
AirTran 16 .011
Continental 16 .011
Frontier 4 .008
Atlantic Southeast 9 .006
Skywest 14 .005
Southwest 20 .001
Hawaiian 0 0
Alaska 0 0
Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics
2009 flights diverted to Austin
Month Diversions Waits of 3+ hours
January 7 0
February 2 0
March 36 3
April 36 1
May 33 4
No tarmac delays exceeded 5 hours.
Source: Austin-Bergstrom International Airport records
Cap on tarmac waits might get off ground
By Helen Anders
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Monday, September 07, 2009
It's been nearly three years since Kate Hanni sat for more than eight hours in an American Airlines MD-80 parked on the tarmac at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport.
She's still fuming.
"Every time I think about that plane, I get anxious and nervous," says Hanni, who lives in California's Napa Valley and was flying from San Francisco to Dallas on Dec. 29, 2006, when her plane and 15 others were diverted to Austin because of storms in Dallas.
That much-publicized experience prompted Hanni to launch the Coalition for an Airline Passengers' Bill of Rights, whose primary objective has been legislation limiting the time travelers can be trapped in a grounded airplane. That effort might be about to bear fruit.
The U.S. Senate is considering a bill that would compel planes to unload passengers after three hours on the tarmac. The legislation gained momentum last month when a Continental Airlines regional flight out of Houston, run by ExpressJet, sat for more than five hours in Rochester, Minn.
U.S. Department of Transportation records show that from January to June of this year, 613 planeloads of passengers waited on the tarmac for more than three hours.
The National Business Travelers Association recently reversed its stance that the airlines should solve the problem themselves and is supporting the Senate bill.
"Enough is enough," the group's president, Kevin Maguire, said at the time.
Kevin Mitchell, chairman of the Business Travel Coalition, said he agrees that it's unlikely the airlines will act unless Congress forces them to.
"I have testified since 1999 four times against congressional intervention, always saying that the airlines should be able to fix this problem and police themselves," Mitchell said. "The airlines are just not responding." Both this group and the National Business Travelers Association carry the clout of representing corporate travel bookers.
The airlines, represented by the Air Transport Association, oppose any law limiting tarmac waits, saying hard-and-fast rules would result in cancellations and massive stranding of passengers in airports.
Some passenger advocates say the Senate bill doesn't go far enough because it includes exceptions to the three-hour rule, which could be bypassed if a pilot thought he or she had a good chance of getting the plane airborne soon or if unloading passengers would jeopardize safety and security — a subjective call that would be made by the pilot or airline.
Others say the bill won't work because it puts mandates only on the airlines. When planes don't unload passengers, airlines often blame airport management, FAA regulations or Transportation Security Administration and customs policies.
"The airlines can't do it alone," says former American Airlines CEO Robert Crandall, who plans to weigh in at a Sept. 22 hearing in Washington on the legislation. "Any solution must involve cooperation among the airlines, airports, the FAA, the TSA and customs." He said he thinks Congress should scrap the legislation and start over.
The Senate bill faces a battle, and not only on the passenger rights front. It is part of massive legislation reauthorizing the Federal Aviation Administration that also addresses such issues as air traffic control modernization, aircraft maintenance and labor negotiations.
But the recent Minnesota stranding has ratcheted up the rhetoric in favor of passage.
"You can't treat people like cattle on a cattle car," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said.
If the Senate does pass its bill, its wording will have to be reconciled with the House version, which says only that airlines should come up with contingency plans for dealing with tarmac delays. There is no time limit. Both the House and Senate bills would mandate that food, water and adequate restrooms be provided during the delays.
The FAA is operating under a temporary extension of its authorization, and that expires Sept. 30. Congress must either extend that authorization or pass a new bill by that date.
While the legislation is debated, the Department of Transportation is considering enacting its own rule that would require each airline, as part of its contract of carriage (the fine print on the ticket), to set its own limit on tarmac waits. Under the plan, which is still subject to revision, airlines could change those limits as often as they wanted but would face fines up to $27,500 for each transgression. Airlines would be in charge of tracking their own compliance.
Airlines say putting their plans into the contract of carriage could bring a flood of lawsuits. A decision on the rule is expected sometime this fall.
Even if the rule is enacted, Hanni says it would be meaningless because airlines would be policing themselves.
The push for passenger rights was born during one of the worst winter storms in Texas history. As thunderstorms parked over Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, Hanni, her husband and their two sons, ages 11 and 21, were aboard one of 16 flights diverted to Austin, 14 of them American.
Most of these planes were back in the air after an hour or two, having found a window of calm air. But four of the American planes stayed parked, one for six hours, two for more than seven hours and one, Hanni's, for eight hours and 23 minutes, according to Austin-Bergstrom records.
Ten passengers whose ultimate destination was Austin were taken off the plane with mobile stairs, but the others were kept aboard in hopes of an imminent departure.
Shortly after 9 p.m., Hanni's flight did go to a gate. Hanni and her family flew to Dallas the next morning and, 57 hours after their journey began, eventually arrived at their destination, Mobile, Ala. By then, Hanni had decided to abandon her job in real estate and go after the airlines. Her nonprofit organization — its Web site is www.flyersrights.org — runs on private donations. She does not take a salary but reimburses herself for her expenses.
The family also filed a class-action suit against American Airlines, claiming false imprisonment. It is still pending in federal court in California. A similar case filed in Arkansas by one of the passengers stuck on another American Airlines plane on Dec. 26, 2006, was dismissed in April after a judge said that although the airline should have acted differently, it broke no laws.
American gave its stranded passengers $500 vouchers after the 2006 strandings. In last month's Minnesota incident, Continental gave passengers refunds and $200 vouchers.
Airlines have given various reasons for long waits. Usually, the airlines have said they were hopeful that planes could soon be on their way. Sometimes, there aren't enough gates available at the airport — or at least enough gates owned by the airline whose plane is stranded. Mobile stairs can be used, but FAA rules say ramp workers, who move those stairs, must stay indoors when lightning is near.
In the recent Minnesota case, ExpressJet said passengers couldn't get off because there were no security agents in the airport. TSA spokeswoman Andrea McCauley said it has no problem with airlines unloading passengers, even after security checkpoints are closed, as long as passengers stay within the secured area.
International flights diverted to airports without customs officers can't unload because the passengers re-entering the United States need to go through customs. That, Crandall said, needs to change.
"Let them off the airplane," he said. "This is common sense."
After the December 2006 incident, American Airlines established a policy to allow passengers to get off if a plane sits on the tarmac for more than four hours, assuming it can be done safely. United has a similar four-hour policy. Continental's policy is to let passengers deplane after three hours, and spokeswoman Julie King said partners such as ExpressJet are supposed to abide by it, but "that process broke down" in the Minnesota incident.
Airlines say their surveys show passengers prefer to wait out a delay rather than get off and risk having to compete for space on another flight.
Department of Transportation statistics show that taxi-out times — tarmac delays involving planes headed for the runway — dropped in 2008, to 1,231 strandings of more than three hours from 1,654 in 2007. But 67 of those were for more than five hours, compared with 45 strandings of more than five hours in 2007.
In the first six months of this year, there were 415 taxi-out delays of more than three hours. (Tarmac waits of diverted flights can't be compared with past years, because those figures were not tracked until last October.)
Airlines say that they're trying to cut down on delays but that a legislated trigger for letting passengers off will only strand travelers inside airports.
Hanni says no rule will work without a limit on tarmac delays. If the House version of the FAA bill emerges, she said, "I would have to oppose it."
handers@statesman.com; 912-2590
Waiting to take off
Tarmac waits for all airlines from 2005 to present for flights that taxied out from the gate and then sat. Diverted planes are not included because they were not tracked until last October.
Year 3+ hours 5+ hours
2005 1,089 27
2006 1,341 37
2007 1,654 45
2008 1,231 67
2009 (to June) 415 10
Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics
Who kept planes waiting
Tarmac waits of more than three hours for the first six months of 2009. These numbers include taxi-outs, taxi-ins, diversions and planes that waited and then had flights canceled:
Airline 3+ hrs % of flights
All Airlines 613 .021
Comair 44 .055
Delta 100 .046
United 72 .038
JetBlue 38 .038
US Airways 62 .030
American 66 .025
ExpressJet 37 .025
Mesa 27 .023
Northwest 30 .020
American Eagle 40 .018
Pinnacle 18 .013
AirTran 16 .011
Continental 16 .011
Frontier 4 .008
Atlantic Southeast 9 .006
Skywest 14 .005
Southwest 20 .001
Hawaiian 0 0
Alaska 0 0
Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics
2009 flights diverted to Austin
Month Diversions Waits of 3+ hours
January 7 0
February 2 0
March 36 3
April 36 1
May 33 4
No tarmac delays exceeded 5 hours.
Source: Austin-Bergstrom International Airport records
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
