The Passenger Facility Charge is NOT a Tax
This afternoon you received an email calling on Senators to “Ground the Ticket Tax”. Grounding the ticket tax will ground all passenger and cargo aviation in the United States. The federal ticket tax is a 7.5 percent excise tax imposed by the federal government on every passenger ticket purchased. The money raised by this ticket tax goes directly into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF). AATF funds the FAA, air traffic control and the Airport Improvement Program (AIP).
Senator DeMint needs to dust off his copy of the Federal Statute. The Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) created in the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (PL 101-508) is a user fee not a tax and has nothing to do with the 7.5 percent ticket tax:
“PFC means a passenger facility charge covered by this part imposed by a public agency on passengers enplaned at a commercial service airport it controls.”
The Congressional Research Service doesn’t think it’s a tax (IB10026):
“Although the FAA oversees the PFC program, the agency does
not impose the fee. The PFC is a state, local, or port authority fee, not a federally imposed tax.”
In fact, in the original preamble to the PFC regulations the FAA states:
“The PFC will be a local charge generating local revenue to be used locally”
There are currently $47.3 billion in safety and capacity projects in progress or planned to prevent passenger delays and congestion. AIP funding covers only a fraction of the infrastructure projects required and is insufficient to modernize and expand facilities needed to implement the necessary system changes to ensure the traveling public can fully realize the benefits of NextGen.
Under the terms of U.S. federal legislation, this e-mail may be considered an "advertisement" or "solicitation." If you do not wish to receive any further emails from ACI-NA, please send an email to: jcalderwood@aci-na.org with the words "OPT-OUT" in the subject line. You may notify us with your decision to opt-out within 30 days of receiving this email. If you choose to opt out of receiving e-mail from ACI-NA, you will no longer receive ACI-NA e-newsletters, notices of upcoming meetings, sponsorship opportunities, etc. If you prefer to unsubscribe from certain electronic publications rather than opt-out from email communications entirely, please email such request to communications@aci-na.org. It may take up to 10 days to process your request. The postal address for ACI-NA is 1775 K Street, N.W., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20006.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Testimony House Aviation Subcommittee on Airline Fees
Testimony
Submitted for the Record by
Kate Hanni
Executive Director and Spokesperson
FlyersRights.org
on
AIRLINE FEES
Before the
Subcommittee on Aviation
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.
July 14, 2010
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Petri:
FlyersRights.org, representing the interests of some 29,000+ airline passenger activists, wishes to have its views on airline fees considered by the members of the Subcommittee when its public hearing on this highly important subject is held. Frustration and anger on this issue is very high according to the phone calls made to the FlyersRights Hotline (1-877-FLYER56).
There are two reasons for this high level of passenger frustration:
1. Extra fees make calculating the true cost of flying very difficult.
Our members believe that the complexity of the "optional and ancillary fees" now being imposed by most of the major U.S. domestic airlines makes it very difficult for airline passengers to calculate the true cost of a proposed flight. This degrades the passenger's ability to compare the total costs of flying on competing airlines. Passengers' having accurate and easily comparable information about flight costs on competing airlines has been one of the major benefits that modern – internet - technology has made possible. This advantage is being lost by the proliferation of these new and changing airline fees that are added to the listed airfare before purchase or are paid later at the airport of departure.
2. Congress should enact legislation this year to control airline fees.
The U.S. Department of Transportation has indicated in a pending rulemaking that it would be satisfied if passengers were just given accurate information about these "optional and ancillary fees." A Senate amendment to the FAA Reauthorization Bill now being negotiated with House aviation leaders would be similarly limited.
FlyersRights.org members strongly disagree with this "information only" approach and believe that this Congress must act promptly to set statutory limits on what kinds of fees and charges can be imposed by airlines and under what conditions.
Needed Components of New Federal Legislation
to Control Ancillary Airline Fees
1. Prohibit Airlines from Charging Any Fee for Carry-on Bags That Comply with Airline's Size, Weight, etc., Limitations and, Prospectively, for Use of Restrooms on Aircraft.
Congress should legislate that a passenger's right to carry on-board a properly-sized bag for storage in the overhead rack and for access to the aircraft's restrooms are basic elements of air travel that should be included in the passenger's base airfare for air transportation.
As you've heard, starting on August 1, Spirit Airlines is planning to impose a fee of up to $45 for each carry-on bag. Ryanair, a European carrier, has been threatening for more than a year to impose a 1£ or 1 euro charge for use of its on¬board lavatories. Congress should act soon to convince these and other airlines not to implement such planned fees. This would simultaneously convince the U.S. flying public that its Federal Government will protect passengers from other unreasonable forms of airline fees and charges.
2. "Even the Playing Field" by Imposing a Federal Aviation User Tax on Airline Fees for Checked Bags and Other Items That Previously Had Been Included in the Published Airfare.
Until they started to "unbundle" their costs, the domestic airlines had imbedded their costs for carrying checked bags within the base airfare on which a 7.5% Federal air transportation tax had been collected. These proceeds were deposited into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund for use for airport and airway system improvements. According to recent DOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) data, the airlines this year will generate about $3 billion in checked bag revenue, completely free of Federal aviation taxation unless Congress acts.
FlyersRights.org believes that this checked bag revenue should be treated by the Internal Revenue Code as "taxable air transportation," thus adding about $225 million annually to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. Will the airlines or their passengers pay this Federal aviation tax? Since the airlines are already charging passengers as high a base airfare as they can get the other airlines to support, it seems likely that any Federal aviation tax on the fees charged for checked bags would probably be a cost that the airlines can't pass along to their passengers. This situation would be no different than the current Federal aviation tax collected on the base airfare.
This solution would also "even the playing field" among competing carriers. Southwest Airlines and Jet Blue don't impose checked bag fees; thus they (or their passengers) are paying a 7.5% tax on that portion of their base airfare that reflects the costs for carrying checked baggage. Their competitors are currently paying no Federal aviation tax on their checked bag fee revenues and this doesn't seem fair.
3. Require Airlines to Refund Passengers Their Checked Bag Fees Whenever Those Bags Don’t Arrive on the Same Flight as Passengers
FlyersRights.org believes that basic "fairness" requires that carriers promptly refund any checked bag fees collected if those bags are misplaced, misdirected or otherwise don't arrive at the destination airport when the passengers do. Some of the revenue from checked bag fees should be used to provide a higher quality/more timely service for joining passengers to their checked baggage without delay.
4. Require Airlines to Honor Reservations Without Penalty or Higher Fare for 24 Hours So Passengers Can Compare Total Costs of Flying on Other Airlines or From Other Sources.
Calculating the total costs of flying when different airlines charge (or don't charge) different amounts for various "optional and ancillary fees" is very complicated and takes time. Passengers should by statute be granted a grace period of 24 hours after making a plane reservation to compare the total costs available for the same trip from other airlines or through designated agents of the airlines (Orbitz, Travelocity, etc.). To require a passenger to pay a higher fare during that interim period or to suffer a financial penalty for cancelling a just- made reservation would exert pressure resulting too often in making a hurried, financially disadvantageous decision.
5. Authorize the Secretary of Transportation to Review the Reasonableness of Airline Fees Imposed for Changing or Cancelling a Confirmed Reservation, and Requiring Better Advance Notice of Such Fees.
Many passengers complain that they must suffer an up-to-$250 charge to change or cancel their confirmed reservations. These airline fees generate some $2 billion in added revenue annually. FlyersRights.org believes that DOT should be statutorily authorized to review the reasonableness of such charges, comparing the costs to the airlines for implementing such changes against the need for a reasonable disincentive factor so passengers won't be continually changing their flight plans.
6. Prohibit Airlines From Imposing "Surcharges" if the Extra Costs to be Recovered Aren't Documented or if They Are Only Imposed in Selected Markets.
A "surcharge" connotes to the average passenger an extra fee that is imposed to cover identified higher costs, to be collected only during the period when those extra costs are being incurred, and that is imposed on all those who benefit from those higher costs being expended to provide a valuable service. Not so in U.S. civil aviation. Airlines impose fuel or other "surcharges" when they want to and can, with no required correlation to time or cost, and they impose them selectively and not across the board in all markets. FlyersRights.org believes that the Secretary of Transportation should be authorized to prohibit any airline "surcharges" that don't correlate to costs incurred and to markets/passengers charged.
In sum, FlyersRights.org urges the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure promptly to draft and pass implementing legislation this summer to carry out our above recommendations. I would be pleased to respond to any questions from members of the Subcommittee on Aviation or their staffs to that end.
Thank you for considering these views.
Attachments
A BILL
To prohibit air carriers from charging fees for carry-on baggage, or for use by passengers of restrooms on aircraft, to require disclosure of passenger fees, to treat air carrier fees on checked baggage as taxable transportation, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON FEES FOR CARRY-ON BAGGAGE OR FOR USE OF RESTROOMS ON AIRCRAFT; DISCLOSURE OF PASSENGER FEES.
(a) IN GENERAL.-Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall complete a rulemaking that-
(1) prohibits each air carrier operating in the United States under part 121 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, from charging any fees for carry-on baggage that falls within the restrictions imposed by the air carrier with respect to the weight, size, or number of bags and from charging any fee for use by passengers of restrooms on aircraft.
(2) requires each such air carrier to make detailed information about restrictions with respect to the weight, size and number of carry-on baggage available to passengers before they arrive at the airport for a scheduled departure on the air carrier; and
(3) requires each such air carrier to make available to the public and to the Secretary a list of all passenger fees and charges (other than airfare) that may be imposed by the air carrier, including fees for-
(A) checked baggage or oversized or heavy baggage, including specialty items such as bicycles, skis, and firearms;
(B) meals, beverages, or other refreshments;
(C) seats in exit rows, seats with additional space, or other preferred seats in any given class of travel;
(D) purchasing tickets from an airline ticket agent or travel agency; or
(E) any other good, service, or amenity provided by the air carrier, as required by the Secretary
(b) PUBLICATION; UPDATES.-In order to ensure that the fee information required by subsection (a)(3) is both current and widely available to the traveling public, the Secretary-
(1) may require an air carrier to make such information available to travel agencies, and to notify passengers of the availability of such information when advertising airfares; and
(2) shall require air carriers to update the information as necessary, but no less frequently than every 90 days unless there has been no increase in the amount or type of fees shown in the most recent publication.
SECTION 2. FEES FOR CHECKED BAGGAGE TREATED AS PAID FOR TAXABLE TRANSPORTATION.
(a) IN GENERAL.-Section 4261(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following-
"(5) AMOUNTS PAID FOR CHECKED BAGGAGE.-Any amount paid by an airline passenger to check baggage for transit on the aircraft carrying such passenger shall be treated for purposes of subsection (a) as an amount paid for taxable transportation.".
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.-The amendment may by this section shall apply to transportation beginning on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Submitted for the Record by
Kate Hanni
Executive Director and Spokesperson
FlyersRights.org
on
AIRLINE FEES
Before the
Subcommittee on Aviation
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.
July 14, 2010
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Petri:
FlyersRights.org, representing the interests of some 29,000+ airline passenger activists, wishes to have its views on airline fees considered by the members of the Subcommittee when its public hearing on this highly important subject is held. Frustration and anger on this issue is very high according to the phone calls made to the FlyersRights Hotline (1-877-FLYER56).
There are two reasons for this high level of passenger frustration:
1. Extra fees make calculating the true cost of flying very difficult.
Our members believe that the complexity of the "optional and ancillary fees" now being imposed by most of the major U.S. domestic airlines makes it very difficult for airline passengers to calculate the true cost of a proposed flight. This degrades the passenger's ability to compare the total costs of flying on competing airlines. Passengers' having accurate and easily comparable information about flight costs on competing airlines has been one of the major benefits that modern – internet - technology has made possible. This advantage is being lost by the proliferation of these new and changing airline fees that are added to the listed airfare before purchase or are paid later at the airport of departure.
2. Congress should enact legislation this year to control airline fees.
The U.S. Department of Transportation has indicated in a pending rulemaking that it would be satisfied if passengers were just given accurate information about these "optional and ancillary fees." A Senate amendment to the FAA Reauthorization Bill now being negotiated with House aviation leaders would be similarly limited.
FlyersRights.org members strongly disagree with this "information only" approach and believe that this Congress must act promptly to set statutory limits on what kinds of fees and charges can be imposed by airlines and under what conditions.
Needed Components of New Federal Legislation
to Control Ancillary Airline Fees
1. Prohibit Airlines from Charging Any Fee for Carry-on Bags That Comply with Airline's Size, Weight, etc., Limitations and, Prospectively, for Use of Restrooms on Aircraft.
Congress should legislate that a passenger's right to carry on-board a properly-sized bag for storage in the overhead rack and for access to the aircraft's restrooms are basic elements of air travel that should be included in the passenger's base airfare for air transportation.
As you've heard, starting on August 1, Spirit Airlines is planning to impose a fee of up to $45 for each carry-on bag. Ryanair, a European carrier, has been threatening for more than a year to impose a 1£ or 1 euro charge for use of its on¬board lavatories. Congress should act soon to convince these and other airlines not to implement such planned fees. This would simultaneously convince the U.S. flying public that its Federal Government will protect passengers from other unreasonable forms of airline fees and charges.
2. "Even the Playing Field" by Imposing a Federal Aviation User Tax on Airline Fees for Checked Bags and Other Items That Previously Had Been Included in the Published Airfare.
Until they started to "unbundle" their costs, the domestic airlines had imbedded their costs for carrying checked bags within the base airfare on which a 7.5% Federal air transportation tax had been collected. These proceeds were deposited into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund for use for airport and airway system improvements. According to recent DOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) data, the airlines this year will generate about $3 billion in checked bag revenue, completely free of Federal aviation taxation unless Congress acts.
FlyersRights.org believes that this checked bag revenue should be treated by the Internal Revenue Code as "taxable air transportation," thus adding about $225 million annually to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. Will the airlines or their passengers pay this Federal aviation tax? Since the airlines are already charging passengers as high a base airfare as they can get the other airlines to support, it seems likely that any Federal aviation tax on the fees charged for checked bags would probably be a cost that the airlines can't pass along to their passengers. This situation would be no different than the current Federal aviation tax collected on the base airfare.
This solution would also "even the playing field" among competing carriers. Southwest Airlines and Jet Blue don't impose checked bag fees; thus they (or their passengers) are paying a 7.5% tax on that portion of their base airfare that reflects the costs for carrying checked baggage. Their competitors are currently paying no Federal aviation tax on their checked bag fee revenues and this doesn't seem fair.
3. Require Airlines to Refund Passengers Their Checked Bag Fees Whenever Those Bags Don’t Arrive on the Same Flight as Passengers
FlyersRights.org believes that basic "fairness" requires that carriers promptly refund any checked bag fees collected if those bags are misplaced, misdirected or otherwise don't arrive at the destination airport when the passengers do. Some of the revenue from checked bag fees should be used to provide a higher quality/more timely service for joining passengers to their checked baggage without delay.
4. Require Airlines to Honor Reservations Without Penalty or Higher Fare for 24 Hours So Passengers Can Compare Total Costs of Flying on Other Airlines or From Other Sources.
Calculating the total costs of flying when different airlines charge (or don't charge) different amounts for various "optional and ancillary fees" is very complicated and takes time. Passengers should by statute be granted a grace period of 24 hours after making a plane reservation to compare the total costs available for the same trip from other airlines or through designated agents of the airlines (Orbitz, Travelocity, etc.). To require a passenger to pay a higher fare during that interim period or to suffer a financial penalty for cancelling a just- made reservation would exert pressure resulting too often in making a hurried, financially disadvantageous decision.
5. Authorize the Secretary of Transportation to Review the Reasonableness of Airline Fees Imposed for Changing or Cancelling a Confirmed Reservation, and Requiring Better Advance Notice of Such Fees.
Many passengers complain that they must suffer an up-to-$250 charge to change or cancel their confirmed reservations. These airline fees generate some $2 billion in added revenue annually. FlyersRights.org believes that DOT should be statutorily authorized to review the reasonableness of such charges, comparing the costs to the airlines for implementing such changes against the need for a reasonable disincentive factor so passengers won't be continually changing their flight plans.
6. Prohibit Airlines From Imposing "Surcharges" if the Extra Costs to be Recovered Aren't Documented or if They Are Only Imposed in Selected Markets.
A "surcharge" connotes to the average passenger an extra fee that is imposed to cover identified higher costs, to be collected only during the period when those extra costs are being incurred, and that is imposed on all those who benefit from those higher costs being expended to provide a valuable service. Not so in U.S. civil aviation. Airlines impose fuel or other "surcharges" when they want to and can, with no required correlation to time or cost, and they impose them selectively and not across the board in all markets. FlyersRights.org believes that the Secretary of Transportation should be authorized to prohibit any airline "surcharges" that don't correlate to costs incurred and to markets/passengers charged.
In sum, FlyersRights.org urges the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure promptly to draft and pass implementing legislation this summer to carry out our above recommendations. I would be pleased to respond to any questions from members of the Subcommittee on Aviation or their staffs to that end.
Thank you for considering these views.
Attachments
A BILL
To prohibit air carriers from charging fees for carry-on baggage, or for use by passengers of restrooms on aircraft, to require disclosure of passenger fees, to treat air carrier fees on checked baggage as taxable transportation, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON FEES FOR CARRY-ON BAGGAGE OR FOR USE OF RESTROOMS ON AIRCRAFT; DISCLOSURE OF PASSENGER FEES.
(a) IN GENERAL.-Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall complete a rulemaking that-
(1) prohibits each air carrier operating in the United States under part 121 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, from charging any fees for carry-on baggage that falls within the restrictions imposed by the air carrier with respect to the weight, size, or number of bags and from charging any fee for use by passengers of restrooms on aircraft.
(2) requires each such air carrier to make detailed information about restrictions with respect to the weight, size and number of carry-on baggage available to passengers before they arrive at the airport for a scheduled departure on the air carrier; and
(3) requires each such air carrier to make available to the public and to the Secretary a list of all passenger fees and charges (other than airfare) that may be imposed by the air carrier, including fees for-
(A) checked baggage or oversized or heavy baggage, including specialty items such as bicycles, skis, and firearms;
(B) meals, beverages, or other refreshments;
(C) seats in exit rows, seats with additional space, or other preferred seats in any given class of travel;
(D) purchasing tickets from an airline ticket agent or travel agency; or
(E) any other good, service, or amenity provided by the air carrier, as required by the Secretary
(b) PUBLICATION; UPDATES.-In order to ensure that the fee information required by subsection (a)(3) is both current and widely available to the traveling public, the Secretary-
(1) may require an air carrier to make such information available to travel agencies, and to notify passengers of the availability of such information when advertising airfares; and
(2) shall require air carriers to update the information as necessary, but no less frequently than every 90 days unless there has been no increase in the amount or type of fees shown in the most recent publication.
SECTION 2. FEES FOR CHECKED BAGGAGE TREATED AS PAID FOR TAXABLE TRANSPORTATION.
(a) IN GENERAL.-Section 4261(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following-
"(5) AMOUNTS PAID FOR CHECKED BAGGAGE.-Any amount paid by an airline passenger to check baggage for transit on the aircraft carrying such passenger shall be treated for purposes of subsection (a) as an amount paid for taxable transportation.".
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.-The amendment may by this section shall apply to transportation beginning on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Testimony FlyersRights.org regarding Airline Fees and Surcharges et. al.
FlyersRights.org
Testimony
Submitted for the Record by
Kate Hanni
Executive Director and Spokesperson
on
AIRLINE FEES
Before the
Subcommittee on Aviation
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.
July 14, 2010
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Petri:
FlyersRights.org, representing the interests of some 29,000+ airline passenger activists, wishes to have its views on airline fees considered by the members of the Subcommittee when its public hearing on this highly important subject is held. Frustration and anger on this issue is very high according to the phone calls made to the FlyersRights Hotline (1-877-FLYER56).
There are two reasons for this high level of passenger frustration:
1. Extra fees make calculating the true cost of flying very difficult.
Our members believe that the complexity of the “optional and ancillary fees” now being imposed by most of the major U.S. domestic airlines makes it very difficult for airline passengers to calculate the true cost of a proposed flight. This degrades the passenger’s ability to compare the total costs of flying on competing airlines. Passengers’ having accurate and easily comparable information about flight costs on competing airlines has been one of the major benefits that modern – internet – technology has made possible. This advantage is being lost by the proliferation of these new and changing airline fees that are added to the listed airfare before purchase or are paid later at the airport of departure.
2. Congress should enact legislation this year to control airline fees.
The U.S. Department of Transportation has indicated in a pending rulemaking that it would be satisfied if passengers were just given accurate information about these “optional and ancillary fees.” A Senate amendment to the FAA Reauthorization Bill now being negotiated with House aviation leaders would be similarly limited.
FlyersRights.org members strongly disagree with this “information only” approach and believe that this Congress must act promptly to set statutory limits on what kinds of fees and charges can be imposed by airlines and under what conditions.
Needed Components of New Federal Legislation to Control Ancillary Airline Fees
1. Prohibit Airlines from Charging Any Fee for Carry-on Bags That Comply with Airline’s Size, Weight, etc., Limitations and, Prospectively, for Use of Restrooms on Aircraft.
Congress should legislate that a passenger’s right to carry on-board a properly-sized bag for storage in the overhead rack and for access to the aircraft’s restrooms are basic elements of air travel that should be included in the passenger’s base airfare for air transportation.
As you’ve heard, starting on August 1, Spirit Airlines is planning to impose a fee of up to $45 for each carry-on bag. Ryanair, a European carrier, has been threatening for more than a year to impose a 1 £ or 1 euro charge for use of its on-board lavatories. Congress should act soon to convince these and other airlines not to implement such planned fees. This would simultaneously convince the U.S. flying public that its Federal Government will protect passengers from other unreasonable forms of airline fees and charges.
2. “Even the Playing Field” by Imposing a Federal Aviation User Tax on Airline Fees for Checked Bags and Other Items That Previously Had Been Included in the Published Airfare.
Until they started to “unbundle” their costs, the domestic airlines had imbedded their costs for carrying checked bags within the base airfare on which a 7.5% Federal air transportation tax had been collected. These proceeds were deposited into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund for use for airport and airway system improvements. According to recent DOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) data, the airlines this year will generate about $3 billion in checked bag revenue, completely free of Federal aviation taxation unless Congress acts.
FlyersRights.org believes that this checked bag revenue should be treated by the Internal Revenue Code as “taxable air transportation,” thus adding about $225 million annually to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. Will the airlines or their passengers pay this Federal aviation tax? Since the airlines are already charging passengers as high a base airfare as they can get the other airlines to support, it seems likely that any Federal aviation tax on the fees charged for checked bags would probably be a cost that the airlines can’t pass along to their passengers. This situation would be no different than the current Federal aviation tax collected on the base airfare.
This solution would also “even the playing field” among competing carriers. Southwest Airlines and Jet Blue don’t impose checked bag fees; thus they (or their passengers) are paying a 7.5% tax on that portion of their base airfare that reflects the costs for carrying checked baggage. Their competitors are currently paying no Federal aviation tax on their checked bag fee revenues and this doesn’t seem fair.
3. Require Airlines to Refund Passengers Their Checked Bag Fees Whenever Those Bags Don’t Arrive on the Same Flight as Passengers.
FlyersRights.org believes that basic “fairness” requires that carriers promptly refund any checked bag fees collected if those bags are misplaced, misdirected or otherwise don’t arrive at the destination airport when the passengers do. Some of the revenue from checked bag fees should be used to provide a higher quality/more timely service for joining passengers to their checked baggage without delay.
4. Require Airlines to Honor Reservations Without Penalty or Higher Fare for 24 Hours So Passengers Can Compare Total Costs of Flying on Other Airlines or From Other Sources.
Calculating the total costs of flying when different airlines charge (or don’t charge) different amounts for various “optional and ancillary fees” is very complicated and takes time. Passengers should by statute be granted a grace period of 24 hours after making a plane reservation to compare the total costs available for the same trip from other airlines or through designated agents of the airlines (Orbitz, Travelocity, etc.). To require a passenger to pay a higher fare during that interim period or to suffer a financial penalty for cancelling a just-made reservation would exert pressure resulting too often in making a hurried, financially disadvantageous decision.
5. Authorize the Secretary of Transportation to Review the Reasonableness of Airline Fees Imposed for Changing or Cancelling a Confirmed Reservation, and Requiring Better Advance Notice of Such Fees.
Many passengers complain that they must suffer an up-to-$250 charge to change or cancel their confirmed reservations. These airline fees generate some $2 billion in added revenue annually. FlyersRights.org believes that DOT should be statutorily authorized to review the reasonableness of such charges, comparing the costs to the airlines for implementing such changes against the need for a reasonable disincentive factor so passengers won’t be continually changing their flight plans.
6. Prohibit Airlines From Imposing “Surcharges” if the Extra Costs to be Recovered Aren’t Documented or if They Are Only Imposed in Selected Markets.
A “surcharge” connotes to the average passenger an extra fee that is imposed to cover identified higher costs, to be collected only during the period when those extra costs are being incurred, and that is imposed on all those who benefit from those higher costs being expended to provide a valuable service. Not so in U.S. civil aviation. Airlines impose fuel or other “surcharges” when they want to and can, with no required correlation to time or cost, and they impose them selectively and not across the board in all markets. FlyersRights.org believes that the Secretary of Transportation should be authorized to prohibit any airline “surcharges” that don’t correlate to costs incurred and to markets/passengers charged.
In sum, FlyersRights.org urges the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure promptly to draft and pass implementing legislation this summer to carry out our above recommendations. I would be pleased to respond to any questions from members of the Subcommittee on Aviation or their staffs to that end.
Thank you for considering these views.
Attachments
A BILL
To prohibit air carriers from charging fees for carry-on baggage, or for use by passengers of restrooms on aircraft, to require disclosure of passenger fees, to treat air carrier fees on checked baggage as taxable transportation, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON FEES FOR CARRY-ON BAGGAGE OR FOR USE OF RESTROOMS ON AIRCRAFT; DISCLOSURE OF PASSENGER FEES.
(a) IN GENERAL.-Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall complete a rulemaking that-
(1) prohibits each air carrier operating in the United States under part 121 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, from charging any fees for carry-on baggage that falls within the restrictions imposed by the air carrier with respect to the weight, size, or number of bags and from charging any fee for use by passengers of restrooms on aircraft.
(2) requires each such air carrier to make detailed information about restrictions with respect to the weight, size and number of carry-on baggage available to passengers before they arrive at the airport for a scheduled departure on the air carrier; and
(3) requires each such air carrier to make available to the public and to the Secretary a list of all passenger fees and charges (other than airfare) that may be imposed by the air carrier, including fees for-
(A) checked baggage or oversized or heavy baggage, including specialty items such as bicycles, skis, and firearms;
(B) meals, beverages, or other refreshments;
(C) seats in exit rows, seats with additional space, or other preferred seats in any given class of travel;
(D) purchasing tickets from an airline ticket agent or travel agency; or
(E) any other good, service, or amenity provided by the air carrier, as required by the Secretary
(b) PUBLICATION; UPDATES.-In order to ensure that the fee information required by subsection (a)(3) is both current and widely available to the traveling public, the Secretary-
(1) may require an air carrier to make such information available to travel agencies, and to notify passengers of the availability of such information when advertising airfares; and
(2) shall require air carriers to update the information as necessary, but no less frequently than every 90 days unless there has been no increase in the amount or type of fees shown in the most recent publication.
SECTION 2. FEES FOR CHECKED BAGGAGE TREATED AS PAID FOR TAXABLE TRANSPORTATION.
(a) IN GENERAL.-Section 4261(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following-
“(5) AMOUNTS PAID FOR CHECKED BAGGAGE.-Any amount paid by an airline passenger to check baggage for transit on the aircraft carrying such passenger shall be treated for purposes of subsection (a) as an amount paid for taxable transportation.”.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.-The amendment may by this section shall apply to transportation beginning on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Virgin Atlantic Story you Haven't Heard...Horrifying.
Hi Kate,
I am writing in regards to the investigation concerning Virgin Atlantic flight VS001 on June 22, 2010. Below is a detailed description of events. Given my profession as a journalist, I took notes during the ordeal.
Virgin Flight VS 001 was scheduled to leave at 16:20 UK time (11:20 U.S. time) on Tuesday, June 22, 2010. At 15:30 a flight agent informed passengers in the boarding area that boarding would be delayed due to the extreme temperature inside of the plane. Over the microphone, the flight agent stated that “it [was] 40 degrees [Celcius] and passengers could not board” until the temperature dropped. At this point, not even cabin crew were permitted on board.
Fifteen minutes later, cabin crew were allowed on the aircraft; but at 16:05, the same flight agent returned for an update and reiterated that the temperature was “still at 40,” that “the cause was unknown,” and that boarding would be delayed by at least another 20 minutes. After the sympathetic flight agent returned a third time around 16:30 to apologize again, at 17:00 a different (and sterner) flight agent stated “Virgin Atlantic flight VS001 [was] now ready for boarding.”
According to the new flight agent, the temperature had not changed inside the aircraft, but boarding would proceed. Passengers were ominously handed bottles of water before entering the plane.
The plane was stifling. Though it only took 25 minutes to completely board the plane, two passengers with checked bags failed to board. We had to wait for these passengers and the unloading of their bags for another 35 minutes. In total, passengers waited impatiently in the heat for approximately a little more than one hour. The pilot and flight crew apologized repeatedly for the situation. Once, the aircraft doors were closed, it was announced that a total of 295 passengers and 5 infants were on board.
Once airborne, the air began to flow; and we flew comfortably for around 7 hours.
About 19:40 US time, the pilot said that because of bad weather Newark airport was closed and that we would divert to “Bradley Airfield” (not airport) and then return to Newark when the bad weather subsided.
We landed at Bradley airport in Connecticut at 20:30 US TIME, positioned at the end of the tarmac. As soon as the engines had been turned off, the temperature began to rise again. Within minutes, the power on the plane failed, leaving us in darkness. In 20 minutes the plane’s temperature felt identical to the sauna-like temperatures upon boarding, around 40 Celcius (108 Farenheit).
The events that followed were confusing for passengers. The information we were given via the pilot’s announcements and flight crew announcements seemed incoherent and bizarre. First we were told that the power unit had to be replaced to get power back on board. Additionally, we needed to refuel to get to Newark. This began to cause speculation as to why we had even landed at Bradley. Most of us had spoken to relatives at Newark via cell phone, who told us that everything in Newark was fine. Passengers began wondering if the plane was short on fuel or if something else had prompted our landing at Bradley.
The replacement power unit was installed but then “caught on fire” according to the pilot, leaving us in darkness again. Passengers were instructed to remain seated since refueling was taking place. The pilot stated that there were “issues with refueling” but did not elaborate. Nearly one hour later, the pilot said that fuel had been “placed in the wrong tank.” At this point, nearly two hours after we landed, the heat was really starting to affect people. Oxygen was being administered. Babies were screaming and crying. Old people were feeling faint. The baby in front of us was naked, bright red, and screaming. Some flight attendants were attempting to cool the baby down with cold towels, but other flight attendants seemed to have disappeared during the entire incident. During these first two hours (and even during the next 2.5 hours), passengers were not even offered water.
As passengers continued to sweat, burn up, and grow impatient, the pilot said that we had to wait for the fuel situation to be rectified. Soon after the pilot told us that the flight hours of the crew and pilots were about to end, even beyond their 2-hour margin, and that the flight would indeed terminate at Bradley. We were told that buses would come take us from the tarmac to the immigration and customs building shortly. The flight crew also announced that Virgin would provide accommodation for passengers and that ground handling agents would also help us re-arrange our forward journey, plans, and New York hotel/car/onward flight cancellations (even though Virgin did not have any of its own staff working Bradley).
The buses never arrived, and the pilot exited the plane to work on a solution. After passengers had been locked in the plane for 3. 5 hours in the potentially deadly heat, the pilot returned and said we would move the plane to the building since buses could not be arranged. When the pilot attempted to start the plane, the engines failed. He announced the engine failure over the loudspeaker, apologized profusely, and said that in his entire career as a pilot, he had never had a day like this one. He also said that we did not deserve what we had endured and that we had every right to be upset and frustrated.
But at this point, the pilot’s apologies were not enough. People were feeling extremely ill and faint. We felt our rights as passengers had been violated being held against our will. Several elderly passengers were complaining of shortness of breath and worrying about potential heart attacks. Meanwhile, the flight crew’s attitude did not match the pilot’s. Flight crew were more concerned with themselves and their discomfort than passengers. While the pilot apologized repeatedly and took a very sympathetic tone with passengers, the flight crew were unavailable and often downright rude! It should be noted that the head flight attendant, Rebecca, disappeared during this entire ordeal. In my class, premium economy, passenger complaints, concerns and frustrations were met with a classless, “I can’t be bothered” attitude from flight attendants. Attempting to assuage the misery, at two brief points, the pilot ordered two of the aircraft doors open to try and improve air circulation on the plane. However, this only brought cool area to the immediate area in front of the doors (though it did allow infants and elders to get a few minutes of fresh air).
After four hours and thirty minutes (between 12:45 and 1AM), passengers were finally going to be let off the plane. As passengers lined up, a woman collapsed and began have seizures. A man said he thought he was having a heart attack. Several people, including myself, felt exceptionally claustrophobic and anxious. The scene was again dramatic and scary.
Two tiny Hertz buses were waiting at the bottom of the wet stairway to transport passengers from the tarmac to the arrivals area, about 1-2 dozen at a time. Passengers exited the plane in the rain and arrived in the immigration hall in small batches. Several passengers were taken away in ambulances.
Between 1AM and 3:30AM, passengers sat in the immigration hall with few updates. We were told that customs could not process us because there was no one to take our bags off the plane. Passengers were processed from 3:30AM to 5:30AM.
As one of the first passengers through customs, I met with the flight crew upon collecting my bags. Two of the girls, including Rebecca, said they “could not help us any longer.” The told us that the situation was “not their fault. It was an Act of God. [They] cannot control the weather.” But what about the fact that plane had problems before take off and several things went wrong with the plane upon landing. That was and is Virgin’s fault!
The staff were attempting to wash their hands clean of the entire situation. I asked about the promised accommodations, about missing my connecting flight, and help re-organizing my onward journey. I was told that since no Virgin employees work at Bradley, I would receive no help. This IS NOT what we were told on the plane! There was one flight attendant (a heavy set flamboyant male) who did the best he could to help passengers. The rest of his team, however, sat on the other side of the arrivals hall, away from passengers, avoiding them at all costs. The situation had gone from ridiculous to even more ridiculous. At 3:40 AM, the flight crew and pilot left in a bus shortly, leaving passengers STRANDED at Bradley, with ONE ground agent trying to take care of 300 passengers. The Virgin staff had not made any announcements since leaving the aircraft and kept passengers uninformed and confused after collecting bags. This was DISPICABLE!
The ground agent arranged for several passengers to rest in the lobby of the Bradley Airport Sheraton Hotel. 57 passengers, including me, boarded the ONE BUS for Newark, which left at 3:57AM and arrived at Newark at 6:55 AM, with no Virgin staff to greet us or take care of us in Newark. Other passengers remained in Bradley airport to late the next morning and early afternoon.
I had personally begun my journey in Dubai on another Virgin flight and was simply connecting in London and then New York to reach my intended destination – my home in Fort Lauderdale. By the time I reached my destination and went through costly efforts to still get down to Fort Lauderdale the next day, I had not slept in 40 hours. I was exhausted and unable to work for several days. The experience threw me off for a good week.
In total, the situation was inexcusable. We should not have been held against our will for 4.5 hours on the tarmac in the treacherous heat. The airline put passengers’ physical and mental health in a very compromising situation. The airline also made false promises to help passengers once off the aircraft. We were not offered food and water during our 4.5 hours on the tarmac.
Two weeks later, I have not been contacted by the airline in any form whatsoever with an apology or offer of compensation. I read that Virgin customer service emailed the AP that passengers would receive a free ticket. I wrote the Virgin press office about this and am waiting to hear back.
The airlines should be required to have a contingency plan in place so that this does not happen again. Additionally, I hope that this is an impetus for the new passenger’s rights law to apply to international carriers such as Virgin Atlantic.
Please do not hesitate to contact me for further information.
Kind regards,
Paul Rubio
Freelance writer
Winner 2010 NATJA Award - Best Travel Guide
Winner 2010 NATJA Award - Best Local Lifestyles article
I am writing in regards to the investigation concerning Virgin Atlantic flight VS001 on June 22, 2010. Below is a detailed description of events. Given my profession as a journalist, I took notes during the ordeal.
Virgin Flight VS 001 was scheduled to leave at 16:20 UK time (11:20 U.S. time) on Tuesday, June 22, 2010. At 15:30 a flight agent informed passengers in the boarding area that boarding would be delayed due to the extreme temperature inside of the plane. Over the microphone, the flight agent stated that “it [was] 40 degrees [Celcius] and passengers could not board” until the temperature dropped. At this point, not even cabin crew were permitted on board.
Fifteen minutes later, cabin crew were allowed on the aircraft; but at 16:05, the same flight agent returned for an update and reiterated that the temperature was “still at 40,” that “the cause was unknown,” and that boarding would be delayed by at least another 20 minutes. After the sympathetic flight agent returned a third time around 16:30 to apologize again, at 17:00 a different (and sterner) flight agent stated “Virgin Atlantic flight VS001 [was] now ready for boarding.”
According to the new flight agent, the temperature had not changed inside the aircraft, but boarding would proceed. Passengers were ominously handed bottles of water before entering the plane.
The plane was stifling. Though it only took 25 minutes to completely board the plane, two passengers with checked bags failed to board. We had to wait for these passengers and the unloading of their bags for another 35 minutes. In total, passengers waited impatiently in the heat for approximately a little more than one hour. The pilot and flight crew apologized repeatedly for the situation. Once, the aircraft doors were closed, it was announced that a total of 295 passengers and 5 infants were on board.
Once airborne, the air began to flow; and we flew comfortably for around 7 hours.
About 19:40 US time, the pilot said that because of bad weather Newark airport was closed and that we would divert to “Bradley Airfield” (not airport) and then return to Newark when the bad weather subsided.
We landed at Bradley airport in Connecticut at 20:30 US TIME, positioned at the end of the tarmac. As soon as the engines had been turned off, the temperature began to rise again. Within minutes, the power on the plane failed, leaving us in darkness. In 20 minutes the plane’s temperature felt identical to the sauna-like temperatures upon boarding, around 40 Celcius (108 Farenheit).
The events that followed were confusing for passengers. The information we were given via the pilot’s announcements and flight crew announcements seemed incoherent and bizarre. First we were told that the power unit had to be replaced to get power back on board. Additionally, we needed to refuel to get to Newark. This began to cause speculation as to why we had even landed at Bradley. Most of us had spoken to relatives at Newark via cell phone, who told us that everything in Newark was fine. Passengers began wondering if the plane was short on fuel or if something else had prompted our landing at Bradley.
The replacement power unit was installed but then “caught on fire” according to the pilot, leaving us in darkness again. Passengers were instructed to remain seated since refueling was taking place. The pilot stated that there were “issues with refueling” but did not elaborate. Nearly one hour later, the pilot said that fuel had been “placed in the wrong tank.” At this point, nearly two hours after we landed, the heat was really starting to affect people. Oxygen was being administered. Babies were screaming and crying. Old people were feeling faint. The baby in front of us was naked, bright red, and screaming. Some flight attendants were attempting to cool the baby down with cold towels, but other flight attendants seemed to have disappeared during the entire incident. During these first two hours (and even during the next 2.5 hours), passengers were not even offered water.
As passengers continued to sweat, burn up, and grow impatient, the pilot said that we had to wait for the fuel situation to be rectified. Soon after the pilot told us that the flight hours of the crew and pilots were about to end, even beyond their 2-hour margin, and that the flight would indeed terminate at Bradley. We were told that buses would come take us from the tarmac to the immigration and customs building shortly. The flight crew also announced that Virgin would provide accommodation for passengers and that ground handling agents would also help us re-arrange our forward journey, plans, and New York hotel/car/onward flight cancellations (even though Virgin did not have any of its own staff working Bradley).
The buses never arrived, and the pilot exited the plane to work on a solution. After passengers had been locked in the plane for 3. 5 hours in the potentially deadly heat, the pilot returned and said we would move the plane to the building since buses could not be arranged. When the pilot attempted to start the plane, the engines failed. He announced the engine failure over the loudspeaker, apologized profusely, and said that in his entire career as a pilot, he had never had a day like this one. He also said that we did not deserve what we had endured and that we had every right to be upset and frustrated.
But at this point, the pilot’s apologies were not enough. People were feeling extremely ill and faint. We felt our rights as passengers had been violated being held against our will. Several elderly passengers were complaining of shortness of breath and worrying about potential heart attacks. Meanwhile, the flight crew’s attitude did not match the pilot’s. Flight crew were more concerned with themselves and their discomfort than passengers. While the pilot apologized repeatedly and took a very sympathetic tone with passengers, the flight crew were unavailable and often downright rude! It should be noted that the head flight attendant, Rebecca, disappeared during this entire ordeal. In my class, premium economy, passenger complaints, concerns and frustrations were met with a classless, “I can’t be bothered” attitude from flight attendants. Attempting to assuage the misery, at two brief points, the pilot ordered two of the aircraft doors open to try and improve air circulation on the plane. However, this only brought cool area to the immediate area in front of the doors (though it did allow infants and elders to get a few minutes of fresh air).
After four hours and thirty minutes (between 12:45 and 1AM), passengers were finally going to be let off the plane. As passengers lined up, a woman collapsed and began have seizures. A man said he thought he was having a heart attack. Several people, including myself, felt exceptionally claustrophobic and anxious. The scene was again dramatic and scary.
Two tiny Hertz buses were waiting at the bottom of the wet stairway to transport passengers from the tarmac to the arrivals area, about 1-2 dozen at a time. Passengers exited the plane in the rain and arrived in the immigration hall in small batches. Several passengers were taken away in ambulances.
Between 1AM and 3:30AM, passengers sat in the immigration hall with few updates. We were told that customs could not process us because there was no one to take our bags off the plane. Passengers were processed from 3:30AM to 5:30AM.
As one of the first passengers through customs, I met with the flight crew upon collecting my bags. Two of the girls, including Rebecca, said they “could not help us any longer.” The told us that the situation was “not their fault. It was an Act of God. [They] cannot control the weather.” But what about the fact that plane had problems before take off and several things went wrong with the plane upon landing. That was and is Virgin’s fault!
The staff were attempting to wash their hands clean of the entire situation. I asked about the promised accommodations, about missing my connecting flight, and help re-organizing my onward journey. I was told that since no Virgin employees work at Bradley, I would receive no help. This IS NOT what we were told on the plane! There was one flight attendant (a heavy set flamboyant male) who did the best he could to help passengers. The rest of his team, however, sat on the other side of the arrivals hall, away from passengers, avoiding them at all costs. The situation had gone from ridiculous to even more ridiculous. At 3:40 AM, the flight crew and pilot left in a bus shortly, leaving passengers STRANDED at Bradley, with ONE ground agent trying to take care of 300 passengers. The Virgin staff had not made any announcements since leaving the aircraft and kept passengers uninformed and confused after collecting bags. This was DISPICABLE!
The ground agent arranged for several passengers to rest in the lobby of the Bradley Airport Sheraton Hotel. 57 passengers, including me, boarded the ONE BUS for Newark, which left at 3:57AM and arrived at Newark at 6:55 AM, with no Virgin staff to greet us or take care of us in Newark. Other passengers remained in Bradley airport to late the next morning and early afternoon.
I had personally begun my journey in Dubai on another Virgin flight and was simply connecting in London and then New York to reach my intended destination – my home in Fort Lauderdale. By the time I reached my destination and went through costly efforts to still get down to Fort Lauderdale the next day, I had not slept in 40 hours. I was exhausted and unable to work for several days. The experience threw me off for a good week.
In total, the situation was inexcusable. We should not have been held against our will for 4.5 hours on the tarmac in the treacherous heat. The airline put passengers’ physical and mental health in a very compromising situation. The airline also made false promises to help passengers once off the aircraft. We were not offered food and water during our 4.5 hours on the tarmac.
Two weeks later, I have not been contacted by the airline in any form whatsoever with an apology or offer of compensation. I read that Virgin customer service emailed the AP that passengers would receive a free ticket. I wrote the Virgin press office about this and am waiting to hear back.
The airlines should be required to have a contingency plan in place so that this does not happen again. Additionally, I hope that this is an impetus for the new passenger’s rights law to apply to international carriers such as Virgin Atlantic.
Please do not hesitate to contact me for further information.
Kind regards,
Paul Rubio
Freelance writer
Winner 2010 NATJA Award - Best Travel Guide
Winner 2010 NATJA Award - Best Local Lifestyles article
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Passenger Relief at JFK with Less Tarmac Delays
Passenger relief at JFK with Less Tarmac Delays
July 02, 2010 12:25 PM
Courtesy of Bloomberg News as published in Crains New York
A trial program that limits the number of planes on the taxiway during peak hours to 12 aircraft has been extended.
The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey and the Federal Aviation Administration are extending a trial program through the end of the year that limits the number of planes that can queue up on the taxiway during peak hours to between eight and 12 aircraft at a time. Gone are the days of sitting in an airplane, on the runway, waiting for the 20 flights ahead of yours to take off—at least at John F. Kennedy International Airport.
The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey and the Federal Aviation Administration are extending a trial program through the end of the year that limits the number of planes that can queue up on the taxiway during peak hours to between eight and 12 aircraft at a time.
This means that once passengers board a plane and it taxis out to the runway, there won’t be more than eight or so aircraft in line to take off; a worst-case waiting scenario would be a line of 12 planes, which roughly translates to an hour of wait-time, according to the Port Authority
July 02, 2010 12:25 PM
Courtesy of Bloomberg News as published in Crains New York
A trial program that limits the number of planes on the taxiway during peak hours to 12 aircraft has been extended.
The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey and the Federal Aviation Administration are extending a trial program through the end of the year that limits the number of planes that can queue up on the taxiway during peak hours to between eight and 12 aircraft at a time. Gone are the days of sitting in an airplane, on the runway, waiting for the 20 flights ahead of yours to take off—at least at John F. Kennedy International Airport.
The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey and the Federal Aviation Administration are extending a trial program through the end of the year that limits the number of planes that can queue up on the taxiway during peak hours to between eight and 12 aircraft at a time.
This means that once passengers board a plane and it taxis out to the runway, there won’t be more than eight or so aircraft in line to take off; a worst-case waiting scenario would be a line of 12 planes, which roughly translates to an hour of wait-time, according to the Port Authority
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
