Response to DOT Docket: Airlines request extension of 3 hour rule

BEFORE THE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
WASHINGTON, D.C.

--------------------------------------------------
In the matter of: :
:
Final Rule : Docket No. DOT-OST-2007-0022 :
Enhancing Airline Passenger :
Protections :
:
--------------------------------------------------

COMMENTS OF FLYERSRIGHTS.ORG
ON REQUESTS OF VARIOUS AIRLINES
FOR TEMPORARY EXEMPTIONS FROM 14 C.F.R. § 259.4
AT JOHN F. KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

FlyersRights.org, representing the interests of airline passengers, has reviewed the requests of JetBlue Airways Corporation (“JetBlue”) and Delta Air Lines, Inc., (“Delta”) for the Secretary of Transportation to grant temporary exemptions from the application of that provision in DOT’s newly-promulgated regulation, Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections, that will require U.S. airlines serving John F. Kennedy International Airport (“JFK”) to comply and adhere to a contingency plan pursuant to which the requesting airlines will not permit an aircraft to remain on the tarmac for more than three hours or, in the case of international flights, for a determined period of time. 14 C.F.R. §§ 259.4(b)(1) and (b)(2).

The airlines request this exemption from April 29, 2010, when the new regulation becomes effective, until November 2010, the estimated period of time during which Runway 13R-31L (“Bay Runway”) at JFK will continue to be closed for reconstruction.

FlyersRights.org strongly opposes DOT’s granting any exemption from this regulation to these or to any other airlines serving JFK.

In brief, the airlines are asking the Secretary of Transportation, who has statutory authority to protect airline passengers, to give those airlines Federal permission to keep their passengers stranded for more than three hours on taxiways at JFK because airlines have arrogantly overscheduled operations beyond the capacity of the JFK runway system during this temporary period. This overscheduling is possible because the FAA Administrator, who reports to the DOT Secretary, has failed to require the airlines serving JFK to reduce their scheduled operations there to avoid multi-hour departure delays before takeoff during the Bay Runway reconstruction period.

-- These Requests for Exemptions Must be Summarily Denied

The DOT Secretary should deny these airline requests out of hand and direct FAA Administrator Babbitt to meet promptly with the airlines and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, JFK’s operator, to require the airlines to realistically schedule airline operations correlated to available JFK runway capacity during this construction period.

-- FAA Has Failed to Manage “Flow Control” Over Unreasonably Long Taxiway Queuing

Airline passengers should not have to endure multi-hour delays on JFK’s taxiways because the FAA refuses to manage “flow control” over the ground movements of aircraft scheduled for departure. FlyersRights.org has recommended for years that FAA’s air traffic controllers at congested airports like JFK should be required to prohibit airlines from pushing their aircraft back from the gate when an unreasonably long taxiway delay before takeoff is inevitable. FAA has resisted, not wanting to preclude the airlines from using those taxiways as passenger parking lots.

-- The Airlines Have Had Many Months to Plan for the Reconstruction of the Bay Runway

The exemption-requesting airlines have long known about the approaching need for the Bay Runway to be closed temporarily for reconstruction. They have had many months to develop alternative solutions that wouldn’t make passengers suffer long tarmac delays: e.g., scheduling larger capacity aircraft, and adjusting departure schedules. Instead, they now propose distorting a new DOT regulation that was designed to protect airline passengers during occasional “irregular operations” (such as weather) to insulate themselves from the consequences of their chronic, everyday overscheduling of flights.

-- DOT’s Granting These Requested Exemptions Would Set a Bad Precedent

Worse, DOT’s granting the requested exemptions during JFK’s runway reconstruction would set a bad precedent. When other airports need to reconstruct their runways, the airlines won’t need to adjust or reduce their schedules to reflect the airport’s temporarily constrained runway capacity; they’ll just petition DOT to switch the burden to airline passengers to be exposed to uncontrolled tarmac delay time.

Respectfully submitted,


Kate Hanni, Executive Director
FlyersRights.org
159 Silverado Springs Drive
Napa, CA 94558

March 12, 2010

cc: J. Randall Babbitt
FAA Administrator

Susan M. Baer
Director of Aviation
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

FlyersRights.org 2009 Real Air Travel Consumer Report Card
February 15, 2010
Kate Hanni, Executive Director
Frederick Foreman PHD Research Director
159 Silverado Springs Drive, Napa, CA 94558
(707) 337-0328
FlyersRights.org
Page 2 of 34
Executive Summary
This report card is based on government statistics, press reports, airline website data, FlyersRights hotline reports, and eye witness accounts provided by our coalition members for the period from January 2009 through December 2009.
Released on the eve of the third anniversary of the infamous St. Valentine’s Day 2007 Ice Storm and horrific airline tarmac strandings that resulted, conditions have not gotten any better for airline passengers. Even with an enormous drop in air travel due to the economy, airlines continue to strand passengers on tarmacs without food, water, access to medical facilities and with overflowing toilets and lack of access to medications.
Fortunately, some progress has been made. On December 21st 2009 the DOT announced their enforceable version of a 3 hour rule, as ordered by President Obama in an executive order of the same date. And the outlook is good for some form of Congressional legislation to pass early this year. They also announced a new 2nd rulemaking that will further enhance the rights of airline passengers which FlyersRights.org and the public will be able to contribute to by commenting once posted to the DOT docket.
The goals of the Coalition for an Airline Passenger’s Bill of Rights follow:
1) What’s Possible:
a. That airline passengers’ general well being and needs are provided for by all airlines.
2) What We Intend as an Outcome:
a. Legislation to hold airlines accountable to honoring basic passenger rights
b. When CAPBOR Scorecards indicate excellence in Customer Service, Honesty and Execution of the newly defined minimum standards
Additional Information
Although our prior report cards have decidedly focused on government data for those reporting air carriers; now we have a rule through DOT that will protect domestic passengers on those reporting air carriers and other flights with 30 seats or more. So this new report card focuses primarily on airlines that report either no performance data to the U.S. Department of transportation such as international flights, or those flights with less than 1% of the GDS that are not required to report time on the tarmac. The data included herein is empiracle data reported by passengers and media who have been on these planes reporting the amount of time they’ve been trapped without the ability to deplane, and media accounts that covered these events.
Codeshares
Decidedly we are incorporating code-shares in the statistics for their parent airline who are ultimately responsible for the results. In some cases we have combined these code shares with the major carriers who are their parent companies and who generally accept responsibility for those air carriers and their performance.
Airports: We are including an airport report card this year because it appears that many of these stranding events are repeated frequently at certain airports and these airports bear some responsibility for making gates available and for devising a plan to care for passengers who have been stuck on delayed aircraft on the tarmac. Airports play a significant role in the prevention of these issues and as you will see there are some predictable reasons why these events happen more frequently at certain airports.
FlyersRights.org
Page 3 of 34
Report Card Contents
 The Real Story of Passenger Tarmac Strandings in 2009 What the Department of Transportation can’t tell consumers … they don’t have the data for international flights for Time on the Tarmac, and the data they do have cannot be verified … FlyersRights does.
 The Real Story of Government Tarmac and Delay Statistics What the DOT doesn’t tell consumers … padded airline schedules and defective statistics reporting. FlyersRights.org takes a different look at the data the DOT does collect.
 The Real Story behind Airline Contracts of Carriage, Food and Airline Water What the airlines won’t tell consumers … airline public relations departments write customer service plans, but their lawyers write the contracts of carriage. Flyersrights.org presents an analysis of the major carrier’s contracts of carriage, the availability of food during extended tarmac delays, and reproduces a media report from last year on the quality of airline water.
 FlyersRights.org 2009 Awards
o When You’re on the Ground, They Treat You Like Dirt
o Most Absurd Event
o Flying Fickle Finger of Fate
o My Heavens
 FlyersRights.org Department of Transportation and Air Transport Association Report Cards for 2009
 Department of Transportation Report Card
 Air Transport Association Report Card
 Airport Report Card
The Real Story of Passenger Tarmac Strandings in 2009
Since the government began collecting and reporting monthly airline performance data in 1995, they have not kept track of a wide variety of flights such as diversions, canceled flights, international flights, etc. We provide more detail on this later. To fill this gaping hole and give voices to disenfranchised stranded passengers, FlyersRights.org developed a hotline in June of 2007. Since then our hotline volunteers have handled thousands of calls from airline passengers that are stranded on tarmacs and victims of other airline customer service issues. In the following report cards, we present some of that data as well as reports from media outlets.
 Unreported Tarmac Delays Shows known tarmac strandings based on press reports and eyewitness accounts. DOT does not yet collect or report this data.
 Longest Known Tarmac Delays Lists worst known tarmac strandings based on press reports and eyewitness accounts. DOT does not collect or report this data.
 Crisis Management (During Extended Tarmac Delays) Based on both eyewitness accounts and press reports.
FlyersRights.org
Page 4 of 34
FlyersRights.org 2009 Real Air Travel Consumer Report Card
Most Wanted:
FAA & DOT
Air Travel Ombudsman to be appointed to liase between passengers/DOT/FAA to ensure that all powers are aware of issues, trends and deceptive practices as reported by both employees of airlines and the flying public.
Fines imposed for tarmac stranding’s should be apportioned in part to the Flying public to help cover their losses during long tarmac delays, similar to the EU regulations and those of India
Unaccompanied Minors should be able to travel unmolested and the airlines should perform as committed to in their contract of carriage regarding the services they offer for unaccompanied minors including never leaving that child alone to find their way to a connecting flight and accommodating them per the COC
Fines should be imposed for every 24 hours a bag is not returned to it’s owner, and if folks need to replace items due to lost, damaged or pilfered items in baggage they should get reimbursed immediately upon providing receipts for said items
Any “Blue Ribbon Panel should include Kate Hanni as the Passengers’ Representative
DOT should have the authority to mediate individual complaints and monies should be appropriated to handle the increase in workload due to mediating every complaint that comes to DOT
FAA should consider the air travel ombudsman position to further show the flying public that the airlines are no longer their primary client, but that the safety of the passengers are tantamount to their success
The FAA should mandate that a portion of the AIP grants should be specifically allocated for the purchase of Co-Bus’s which will increase capacity near term until the modernization of the system can be completed
FlyersRights.org
Page 5 of 34
FlyersRights.org 2009 Real Air Travel Consumer Report Card
Grade
Unreported Tarmac Delays 3+ Hours on Tarmac
(based on press and passenger accounts)
Flights
Spirit Airlines
Delta 510
FlyersRights.org
Page 6 of 34
FlyersRights.org 2009 Real Air Travel Consumer Report Card
Grade
Unreported Tarmac Delays Continued
(based on press and passenger accounts)
Flights
AirTran
Air Tahiti
Virgin America
JFK/SFO 4
JFK/SFO 5
US Airways
Continental Airlines
FlyersRights.org
Page 7 of 34
FlyersRights.org 2009 Real Air Travel Consumer Report Card
(We have changed our reporting to reflect total time in aircraft + time on the tarmac)
Grade
Longest Time on the Tarmac / Stranding (based on press and passenger accounts)
Hours
F
10 hours on aircraft, 6 hours on Tarmac Rochester – Continental Flight 2816 (Operated by ExpressJet) –Link Christin: (612-805-3079) http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/travel/minnesota/79825577.html
10+
Aggregated
F
12 hours in aircraft, 9 hours on the tarmac at Columbus Ohio: Air Tran flight 373 Terry Elkin January 28th 2009 Terry Elkin and his wife (740) 964-6693 http://www2.nbc4i.com/cmh/news/local/article/passengers_sit_in_plane_for_hours_after_icy_conditions/12285/
12 Aggregated
F
12 hours in aircraft, 9 hours overnight on tarmac. Sprit Airlines #268, Three different flights to Atlantic City - 9 hours overnight on tarmac) Passenger contact : Craig Contegiacomo (732-598-4473): http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=6816174
12 times 2
F
10 Hours in aircraft, 5 hours in basement cell in Columbia South Carolina: Delta Flight 510, Turks & Caicos to Atlanta diverted to Columbia SC. Passenger contact : Dr. Shawn O’brien: C: (608-770-2902)
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2009/04/29/throw-this-stock-away.aspx
10
FlyersRights.org
Page 8 of 34
F
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124087571331061425.html
10 hours in aircraft: American Eagle Flight 642, Colorado Springs to Dallas 7.5 hours on tarmac, Gorden McKracken (703-362-1144) (Must read story, horrifying on so many levels)
10
F
18 hours in the aircraft 4 hours on the tarmac in Portland - AeroMexico -
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2009-01-23-aeromexico-stranded-portland_N.htm “Paramedics bring Big Macs to Passengers.
18
F
11 British Airways sat 11 hours at JFK on the tarmac only to be cancelled. They had no food, no water and no servicing of the toilets. Greg Nyilasy called media to report being held hostage but the reporter only wanted to cover domestic flights.
11
F
Air Jamaica 8 hours on tarmac at BWI: Passenger called ABC every hour to report the plane had not moved. Flight was canceled. http://www.wbaltv.com/news/22014551/detail.html
8
FlyersRights.org
Page 9 of 34
The Real Story of Government Tarmac and Delay Statistics
Government Statistics available to consumers are flawed at best. What the DOT doesn’t tell consumers openly is that the criteria for reporting on time departures and arrivals has changed and it’s not in the consumer’s favor ex: padded airline schedules and defective statistics reporting as evidenced in the October, November and December Tarmac Delay statistics for diverted and canceled flights. The average consumer would not be able to cipher these statistics, even if they knew where to find them. FlyersRights.org takes a different look at the data the DOT does collect and reports it so that consumers have a better view of the real data not released in a viable way for consumers to interpret.
We have reason to believe that the statistics reported for October to December have inaccuracies and have alerted the DOT who has assured us of an audit. We have made a request of IG to do an audit also. The key issue is that statistics reported by the airlines for Oct. Nov. and Dec. would have the flying public believe that when a flight is diverted they will likely be allowed off of the plane to rest comfortably in an airport. This “flies” in the face of normal airline protocol for diverted flights. Hence we have requested an audit be prepared by BTS and the IG’s office to determine how many of those diverted flights actually allowed passengers off of them.
Tarmac Delays of 4+ Hours
Based on official BTS data or Taxi-out times, this report card compares 2006, 2007 and 2009 tarmac delays of four hours or more.
Scoring, 0 - 5 = A, 6 - 10 = B, 11 – 15 = C, 16 – 20 = D, 21 and higher = F. Every 21 is an F.
Most Tarmac Delays of Two Hours or More
Based on official BTS data for taxi-out times, this report card compares 2006, 2007 and 2009 tarmac delays of two hours or more.
Scoring is based on a percentage of completed flight operations: .00% - .04% = A .05% - .09% = B .10% - .14% = C .15% - .19% = D .20% and above = F
Fewest Tarmac Delays of Two Hours or More
Based on official BTS data, this report card compares 2006, 2007 and 2009 tarmac delays of two hours or more.
Scoring is based on a percentage of completed flight operations:
.00% - .04% = A .05% - .09% = B .10% - .14% = C
FlyersRights.org
Page 10 of 34
.15% - .19% = D .20% and above = F
Padded Airline Schedules
Are airports getting further apart or are airlines improving on-time performance by padding schedules?
In 2006, scheduled flight times from LaGuardia or JFK to Reagan (DCA) or Dulles (IAD) in Washington, DC ranged from 59 to 101 minutes. According to government data, the distance from the two NY airports to DCA and IAD didn’t change between 2006 and 2009 - 213 and 228 miles respectively. Yet in 2009, the schedules for those same flights increased to between 63 and 111 minutes.
In October 2006 over 33% of flights from NYC to DC airports arrived late. In October 2009, only 10% were late. Average air time for these flights is 44 minutes, so the padding for these flights ranges from a reasonable 15 minutes to the absurd 67 minutes.
October 2006 – 1955 total flights
October 2009 - 1447 total flights
FlyersRights.org
Page 11 of 34
FlyersRights.org 2009 Real Air Travel Consumer Report Card
Tarmac Delays of 4+ Hours
20071
20092
4-5
5+
Worst
Grade
4-5
5+
Worst
Grade
Frontier
1
0
N/A
A
1
0
N/A
A
Pinnacle
1
0
N/A
A
3
1
5:06
A
Hawaiian
0
0
N/A
A
0
0
N/A
A
Southwest
7
2
5:16
B
1
1
5:05
A
Skywest
5
1
6:8
B
3
0
N/A
A
Northwest
3
0
4:25
A
4
0
N/A
A
AirTran
2
1
5:27
A
2
0
N/A
A
Mesa
3
0
4:49
A
0
0
N/A
A
Alaska
1
0
4:11
A
0
0
N/A
A
American Eagle
9
0
4:57
B
1
5
5:35
B
United
18
7
6:22
D
9
2
5:37
C
Atlantic Southeast
0
0
N/A
A
11
1
5:22
C
ExpressJet
49
7
6:32
F
12
10
7:09
F
Continental
33
7
6:23
F
13
15
6:26
F
Delta
32
6
6:43
F
44
14
7:02
F
US Airways
26
2
5:17
F
27
2
6:33
F
JetBlue
13
11
7:15
D
44
7
6:07
F
American
20
1
5:25
D
22
2
5:40
F
Comair
11
1
5:22
B
18
7
6:14
F
TOTALS
234
46
215
67
FlyersRights.org
Page 12 of 34
FlyersRights.org 2009 Real Air Travel Consumer Report Card
Fewest Tarmac Delays of Two Hours or More
2006
2007
2009
Grade
Hawaiian Airlines (0% of total flights)
0
1
0
A
Alaska Airlines (.01% of total flights)
27
20
16
A
Southwest Airlines (.02% of total flights)
218
270
206
A
Frontier Airlines (.03% of total flights)
29
46
34
A
Pinnacle (.05% of total flights)
N/A
101
134
B
Mesa Airlines (.06% of total flights)
164
207
157
B
Atlantic Southeast Airlines (.07% of total flights)
80
139
209
B
Northwest (.07% of total flights)
238
267
252
B
Air Tran (.09% of total flights)
171
207
248
B
** Effective 10/08 DOT changed reporting methodology
FlyersRights.org
Page 13 of 34
FlyersRights.org 2009 Real Air Travel Consumer Report Card
Most Tarmac Delays of Two Hours or More
2006
2007
2009
Grade
American Eagle (.11% of total flights)
678
733
547
C
United (.12% of total flights)
884
778
580
C
US Airways (.12% of total flights)
545
702
545
C
American Airlines (.15% of total flights)
1206
1275
909
D
Delta (.16% of total flights)
410
778
738
D
Express Jet (.19% of total flights)
1135
1055
726
D
Comair (.20% of total flights)
222
415
397
F
Continental (.21% of total flights)
795
875
647
F
Jet Blue (.25% of total flights)
294
671
502
F
FlyersRights.org
Page 14 of 34
The Real Story behind Airline Contracts of Carriage, Food and Airline Water
Contracts of Carriage
FlyersRights analyzed the contracts of carriage and customer service commitments for the major airlines. We found that while many of the airlines had posted all sorts of customer friendly policies in their customer service commitments, that these policies are completely voluntary and unenforceable by passengers. Only one carrier, Southwest, mentions the Customer Service Commitment in their contract of carriage as an integral extension to that contract.
“The Southwest Airlines Customer Service Commitment (CSC), attached as an Addendum hereto, is incorporated by reference in this Contract of Carriage. Carrier’s CSC further explains, augments, and expands upon Carrier’s policies, procedures, methods of operation, obligations, and dedication to Customer safety, service, and satisfaction.”
For this reason, we made an exception in the case of Southwest and considered their CSC in this evaluation.
Continental Airlines, following wide-scale stranding incidents in Houston in December, announced that they had incorporated policies in their customer service commitment that would enable passengers to deplane aircraft after 3 hours. And while their CSC does explain in great detail what they might do in such an event, any mention of this policy is conspicuously absent from their contract of carriage which says simply;
“CO will use reasonable efforts [emphasis added] to provide food, water, lavatory facilities and medical attention, if needed, when an aircraft remains on the tarmac for an extended period of time without access to the terminal, consistent with Passenger and employee safety and security concerns.”
American Airlines mentions in their contract of carriage what they will do for passengers during a tarmac delay, but they immediately follow that by saying We are not responsible for any special, incidental or consequential damages if we do not meet this commitment.
Several airlines don’t even bother to discuss the matter of tarmac delays in their contracts of carriage; Alaska, Air Tran among them.
This report card grades each carrier’s Contract of Carriage in regard to what services are offered to stranded passengers.
Airline Food
We don’t grade the quality of airline food. We grade whether or not there’s enough food on board to feed hungry passengers in the event of a long tarmac delay. Gleaned from airline websites February 6, 2009, this report card alerts passengers to the types of flights they should ensure they bring their own food on-board. Shorter flights of less than 1.5 hours are notorious for having little or no essential needs available, while at the same time spending hours on airport tarmacs. This report card shows red spaces for those flights on which the most risk exists to have no food on board. Yellow is used where only snacks are available (pretzels, chips, etc.), usually consisting of too few calories to make a difference in an extended delay. Green indicates that a meal is available. Question marks are used for prices where carrier's website does not publish prices or indicate whether provisions are complimentary. Scoring is red space = 2 pts, yellow = 1 pt, green = 0. Rating 8-7=F, 6-5=D, 4-3=C, 2-1=B, 0=A.
We found some websites that were contradictory. For example, Northwest Airlines website says in one place that;
“Northwest has discontinued meal service on most domestic flights and eliminated many special meals. We recommend that you bring your own food and beverages with you.”
FlyersRights.org
Page 15 of 34
While elsewhere they describe what they do provide. We gave them the benefit of the doubt here.
Airline Water: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/publicnotification/pdfs/guide_publicnotification_pnhandbook.pdf
People with severely compromised immune systems, infants, and some elderly may be at increased risk. These people should seek advice about drinking water from their health care providers. General guidelines on ways to lessen the risk of infection by microbes are available from EPA's Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1-800-426-4791.
.In 2009 the EPA created a final rule to force airlines to test their drinking water to ensure it’s not contaminated, however the testing mandates are infrequent and the airlines may choose the facility they want to test their water and the facility does not have to be certified by EPA. No checks and balances…therefore FlyersRights.org recommends DON’T DRINK THE WATER. Take bottled water or drink sodas.
On Thursday, February 14, 2009, KGO – San Francisco published an article on information they gathered through the Freedom of Information Act. They found that “fewer than half the airlines ordered as early as 2005 to begin testing their water have done so. Meantime, it's clear that some water on planes is contaminated.”
“In 2004, tests conducted on 327 planes by the Environmental Protection Agency found 15-percent of the aircraft evaluated had water contaminated with coliform.” "Coliform bacteria can indicate that the water has been contaminated and it could be contaminated by something that can make people sick," explains June Weintraub, an epidemiologist with the San Francisco Department of Public Health.
In fact, since 2005, 45 airlines have signed orders agreeing to test the water on those planes. But through the Freedom of Information Act, we discovered only 16 of those airlines have actually released results of those tests. Those tests results show water samples taken from 2,200 aircraft found coliform 10-percent of the time. Meantime, 29 airlines either haven't completed or begun their first round of testing or haven't released their test results.
Delta, Continental, Northwest and United have released test results. However, American and US Airways are refusing to allow their data to be made public, claiming the results are "confidential business information.
Among the major airlines that have released data, 12-percent of the 323 planes tested by Delta over two years came back positive with coliform contaminated water. Delta says the overwhelming majority of its water samples came back negative. Sampling on Continental revealed 16-percent of the 883 aircrafts tested found water contaminated with coliform. The airline believes that data is seriously inflated due to faulty testing procedures it is now working to improve.
Other averages include Northwest at 4-percent and United at 5.6-percent. United says it provides bottled water for brushing teeth and antiseptic napkins with every meal. Northwest says keeping its water supply free from contamination is a top priority.
According to the EPA, the tolerance for coliform in water is zero.
"We don't like to see any bacteria, especially coliform bacteria, in potable water, and especially not water that's being served to passengers," says Solomon.
A regional East Coast airline that served 12 million passengers in 2006 had the highest rate of positive tests for coliform -- 49-percent of the 84 aircraft tested by Atlantic Southeast contained water samples testing positive for coliform. The airline says if it detects coliform; it deactivates the water system until the problem is cleared.
FlyersRights.org
Page 16 of 34
"What you need on board an airplane in every restroom is a little placard on the wall that when they do the testing, they sign off on it and they tell you that the water is clean," says Wilson.
We've compiled all the data we've obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, including test results from each airline and a list of the airlines that have not yet completed or even begun testing. View the data below.
AIRLINES THAT HAVE NOT MADE THEIR WATER TEST RESULTS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC:
 American Airlines
 US Airways
These airlines have submitted test results to the Environmental Protection Agency, but they are challenging ABC7's Freedom of Information Act request for that information. The EPA has yet to rule on that challenge. If the data is released to us, we will update the test results.
AIRLINES THAT HAVE NOT SUBMITTED WATER TEST RESULTS TO THE EPA THROUGH FEBRUARY 11, 2009:
 American Eagle
 ExpressJet
 Freedom Airlines
 GoJet
 Horizon Air
 Jet Blue
 Mesa Airlines
 Skyway Airlines
 Southwest Airlines
 Spirit Airlines
Airlines must have their water testing plans approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. The following airlines have not had their testing plans approved and have not submitted testing data to the EPA.
 Comair
 Frontier
 Mesama
 Miami Air
 North American Airlines
 Pace Airlines
 Pinnacle Airlines
 Primaris Airlines
 Republic Airways
 Ryan International
 Sierra Pacific Airlines
 Sky King Airlines
 Sky West Airlines
 Sun Country Airlines
 Tem Enterprises
 USA3000 Airlines
 PSA Airlines
FlyersRights.org
Page 17 of 34
FlyersRights.org 2009 Real Air Travel Consumer Report Card
Grade
Airline
Minimum
Service
0 - 1.5 Hours
1.5 - 3 Hours
3 – 4.5 Hours
> 4.5 Hours
B
Alaska3
Bev. ($0) None SB($5) SB($5), M($5) SB($5), M($5)
B
American4
Bev. ($0) None SB($3-10) SB($3-10) SB($3-10)
B
Air Tran5
Bev. ($0) None SB($3-6) SB($3-6) SB($3-6)
B
Continental6
Bev. ($0) S SB($0), M($0) SB($0), M($0) SB($0), M($0)
B
Delta7
Bev. ($0) S SB($3-8) SB($3), M($6-8) SB($3), M($6-8)
A
Frontier8
Bev. ($0)
N/A SB($3), M($5) SB($3), M($5) SB($3), M($5)
C
JetBlue9
Bev. ($0) M ($5) M ($5) M ($5) M ($5)
B
Northwest10
Bev. $3-$5 None M($10) S($3-5) M (10) S($3-5) M (10)
B
Southwest11
Bev. ($0) S S SB($0) SB($0)
C
United12
Bev. ($0) None S($9) S($3) SB($6) SB($6), M($9)
C
US Air13
Bev. ($5) None SB($5), M($7) SB($5), M($7) SB($5), M($7) M = Meal SB = Snack Box (Important to determine if there is enough food :Yellow: 50 calories or lessGreen: Paid Snack or Snack box over 100 caloriesRed: No snack hot Pink: Snack, Snack Box or Meal that there is no charge for
FlyersRights.org
Page 18 of 34
FlyersRights 2009 Real Air Travel Consumer Report Card
Airline Contracts of Carriage
Grade
JetBlue14
Southwest 15
Continental16/Continental Express
Delta17/Comair/Atlantic Southeast/Pinnacle/SkyWest
Hawaiian
Northwest18/Pinnacle
American19/American Eagle
United20/SkyWest
AirTran21
Alaska22
Frontier23
US Airways24
FlyersRights.org
Page 19 of 34
Contract of Carriage Details
AIRLINE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 Score*
AirTran
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
Alaska
0
0
0
0
0
0
1(1)
0
0 1
American Airlines/Eagle
1(2)
0
.75(7)
1
0
0
1 (3)
0
0 4.25
Continental
1(4)
0
1(4)
1(4)
0
0
1(3)
.5(5)
0 6.5
Delta
1
0(6)
.75(7)
1
1(8)
0
1(3)
0
0 6.25
Frontier
0
0
0
0
0
0
1(3)
0
0 1
Hawaiian
1(10)
1
.75(7)
1
0
0
1(3)
0
0 8.25
Jet Blue
1
1(11)
.75(7)
1
0
1(12)
0
1
0 9.25
Northwest
1(13)
0
.75(7)
1
0
0
1(3)
0
0 8.5
Southwest
1
1(14)
.75(7)
1
1
0
1(3)
0
0 10.25
United
1(15)
0
.75(7)
1
0
0
1(3)
0
0 5.25
US Airways
1(16)
0
0
0
0
0
1(3)
0
0 2 Weighting 1 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 1
*Final Scores out of 15 possible points See legend and footnotes below
NOTES:
Scoring/Grading:
12.0-15.0 = A 9.0-11.9 = B 6.0-8.9 = C 3.0-5.9 = D 0.0-2.9 = F
Legend:
1. Does Contract of Carriage (“CoC”) specifically address stranding, long tarmac confinements, and diversions?
2. Does CoC provide for passengers to deplane after 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or more hours?
3. Does CoC provide for a/c, food, water, sanitary conditions to be maintained during long tarmac delays?
4. Does CoC provide for medical treatment for passengers in need of such?
5. Does CoC provide for passengers to communicate with the outside world?
FlyersRights.org
Page 20 of 34
6. Does CoC provide for compensation for long tarmac confinements? (If so how much or what in kind?)
7. Does CoC provide for hotel, ground transportation, and/or alternative transportation?
8. Is there a dispute resolution system? (If so, does it provide for a neutral decision maker?)
9. What if any penalty is there if an airline does not comply with its customer service plan or contract of carriage?
Scoring methodology: Items 2 and 3 given triple weight and item 5 double weight as judged most important by stranded passengers. Footnoted items may be given partial credit.
Footnotes:
1. Except for air traffic control, a weather situation, or another extraordinary circumstance beyond our control, delay of 1 hour = phone call, 2 hours or more = $25 or 1000 FF miles. If canceled more than 100 miles from home, hotel and associated ground transportation.
2. “In the case of extraordinary events that result in very lengthy onboard delays, American Airlines and American Eagle will make every reasonable effort to ensure that essential needs of food (snack bar such as Nutri-Grain®), water, restroom facilities, and basic medical assistance are met. We are not responsible for any special, incidental or consequential damages if we do not meet this commitment.”
3. Alternate transportation yes….only if airlines at fault; Not for reasons caused by ATC or weather.
4. “CO will use reasonable efforts to provide food, water, lavatory facilities and medical attention, if needed, when an aircraft remains on the tarmac for an extended period of time without access to the terminal, consistent with Passenger and employee safety and security concerns.”
5. Assigns a company representative.
6. If an on-board ground delay exceeds the anticipated taxi time by more than one hour for an arriving flight or two hours for a departing flight, we will: • Make timely announcements regarding the flight status on a consistent basis. • Allow customers to use cell phones and laptop computers and move freely about the cabin, in accordance with safety and federal guidelines. • Provide snacks and beverages to customers when reasonable and safe to do so. • Offer free headsets and activate In-Flight Entertainment (IFE) systems (on aircraft equipped with an IFE system). • Make every reasonable effort to ensure the aircraft is properly serviced and appropriately provisioned based on factors such as aircraft type and trip length. • Monitor on-board cabin conditions and notify Delta operational officials to accelerate actions when necessary. Every Delta station has developed clear and consistent procedures to ensure safety and limit inconvenience during extensive on-board delays. This includes gate and ramp sharing with other airlines and making essential services available inside the airport. When necessary and operationally safe to do so, we will deplane customers remotely via stairs and guide them to the terminal. Also, we will review incidents of lengthy on-board delays to identify trends and causes and implement solutions to mitigate future similar events.
7. Does not mention maintaining a reasonable cabin temperature.
8. After 1 hour on an arriving flight and 2 hours for a departing flight.
9. Does not mention maintaining a reasonable cabin temperature.
10. If extended delays (over two- (2) hours) are encountered for passengers already boarded, HA will attempt to arrange for deplaning. If that is not possible or deplaning would only lengthen the delay, HA
FlyersRights.org
Page 21 of 34
will provide food (snack mix, pretzels etc.), water, juice and/or soft drinks, rest room facilities and access to medical treatment, consistent with passenger and employee safety.
11. JetBlue will provide Customers experiencing a Ground Delay with food and drink, access to restrooms and, as necessary, medical treatment. In addition to the relief under subsections E and F of this Section, for Customers who experience a Ground Delay for more than 5 hours, JetBlue will take necessary action so that Customers may deplane.
12. $25 - $50 vouchers for “controllable irregularity” of 1-4 hour delay. Credit on future flights for 4-6 hour delay. Double credit or $100 voucher for 6+ hours delay.
13. AS APPROPRIATE IN EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONSISTENT WITH PASSENGER AND EMPLOYEE SAFETY AND SECURITY CONCERNS, NW WILL MAKE EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT TO PROVIDE FOR FOOD, WATER, RESTROOM FACILITIES AND ACCESS TO MEDICAL TREATMENT FOR PASSENGERS ABOARD AN AIRCRAFT THAT IS ON THE GROUND FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME WITHOUT ACCESS TO THE TERMINAL. NW WILL PREPARE CONTINGENCY PLANS TO ADDRESS SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AND WORK WITH OTHER CARRIERS AND THE AIRPORT TO SHARE FACILITIES AND MAKE GATES AVAILABLE IN AN EMERGENCY.
14. However, if weather, gate-space limitations, visibility, airport conditions, mechanical problems, ATC requirements, or other uncontrollable circumstances cause ground delays of more than two hours, we will endeavor to: 4. Work with airport officials and other airlines to share or acquire equipment such as available gates, portable stairs, buses, vans, or other means by which Customers may deplane and be safely escorted to a terminal or other reasonable facility.
15. IN ADDITION, WHERE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES RESULT IN THE EXTENDED DELAY OF AN AIRCRAFT ON THE GROUND WITHOUT ACCESS TO THE TERMINAL, WHETHER PRIOR TO DEPARTURE OR AFTER LANDING, UNITED WILL MAKE EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH AN ESTABLISHED CONTINGENCY PLAN, TO ENSURE THAT ITS PASSENGERS ARE PROVIDED WITH FOOD, WATER, RESTROOM FACILITIES, AND ACCESS TO MEDICAL TREATMENT CONSISTENT WITH CUSTOMER AND EMPLOYEE SAFETY AND SECURITY.
16. US Airways defines a long delay as starting at one hour from the time an aircraft pushes back from the gate. After one hour, real−time, automated systems alert operations managers so that the airline can manage the situation quickly and with accurate information. While away from the gate, US Airways’ flight crews communicate frequently with customers onboard the airplane. US Airways’ flights may be returned to the gate at any point during a delay depending on each flight’s specific situation. At three hours, information about the flight is escalated through US Airways’ senior operations management for a decision about returning to the gate. Inputs into that decision−making are based on situation−specific factors such as customer safety and comfort, airport capabilities, and crew status.
FlyersRights.org
Page 22 of 34
FlyersRights 2009 Real Air Travel Consumer Report Card
Don’t Drink the Water!
Grade
Airline
Coliform %
B
AirTran
3%
B
Northwest
4%
B
United
6%
C
Delta
12%
C
Continental
16%
D
Alaska
28%
F
Atlantic Southeast
49%
F
American
Refused Data Release
F
US Airways
Refused Data Release
F
American Eagle
No Tests
F
ExpressJet
No Tests
F
JetBlue
No Tests
F
Mesa
No Tests
F
Southwest
No Tests
F
Comair
No Plan
F
Skywest
No Plan
FlyersRights.org
Page 23 of 34
FlyersRights.org Best and Worst 2009 Awards:
 When You’re on the Ground, They Treat You Like Dirt
 Nausea
 Most Absurd Event
 Flying Fickle Finger of Fate
 My Heavens
“Fickle Flying Finger of Fate” Award
Spirit Airlines 3 jets diverted to Philadelphia and held all night on the tarmac
Spirit Airlines 3 jets diverted to Philadelphia and held all night on the tarmac
“Welcome to our Country” Awards
Air Jamaica: Gentleman called a local news station every hour on the hour to report they were still on the tarmac. 8 hours. How Air Jamaica did not get the message is a mystery. Flight was canceled and no help was offered the passengers
“When you’re on the ground they treat you like dirt” Award
Delta Airines continues to cause pain and suffering and deplorable customer service.
“Nausea” Award
Continental Airlines/Express jet Rochester: 3 babies screaming for 8 hours! Toilets unusable, deplorable conditions
“Most Absurd Event” Award
Gorgen McKracken lost his house due to AA holding him on the tarmac 7 hours. He was diverted for a mechanical issue to Witchita Falls, sat for 7 hours on the tarmac, FlyersRights ordered 10 pizza’s and 12 liters of soda which were delivered to the airport with instructions to get them out to the plane. Those pizza’s were never seen again.
FlyersRights.org
Page 24 of 34
British Airways 11 hours on Tarmac only to cancel the flight and offer no help to the passengers
Aeromexico: 18 hours on plane, diverted from Seattle to Portland many diabetics in shock, when they asked to get off the plane to purchase food they were told if you ask again you’ll be arrested. Paramedics purchased big mac’s for entire plane. Then the plane flew all the way back to Mexico instead of to Seattle. Crew’s hours had long since expired
“My Heavens” Award
Southwest Airlines
They treat you like you matter!
Southwest airlines has customers in mind. They say “The airline industry is complicated, but taking care of the passengers is simple”.
WOW what a concept.
FlyersRights.org
Page 25 of 34
U.S. Department of Transportation Report Card A+
Although the DOT’s Enforcement Division and their Consumer Affairs Division receive an A+ for all of their work on the Rulemaking for Tarmac Delays, and their help with our members who have exhausted all efforts to get help from the airlines, there are still gross reporting issues that the BTS could be handling differently in an effort to provide the public with better information on tarmac delays. The BTS rely’s entirely on what the airlines report to them and there are no measures taken to verify the accuracy of those statistics.
However the DOT has released a new improved website that’s going to be much easier for passengers to navigate through. Here is a link to the new site: http://airconsumer.dot.gov. We believe the flying public will appreciate this new format.
Air Transport Association Report Card
The ATA reportedly spent $5.8 million to push their agenda including attempting to defeat the passenger bill of rights in Congress and weakening of proposed passengers’ rights regulations by the DOT. As our report card shows, they’ve been very busy. But they have failed to convince this president and this DOT of the merits of their arguments. We anticipate more consumer friendly regulations in the near future and are grateful to the DOT for hearing our pleas for help and finally putting the consumer first.
This is not your Grandmothers Cadillac to coin a phrase, we are now dealing with a consumer friendly DOT and FAA who are willing to listen and respond to the needs of the flying public.
FlyersRights.org
Page 26 of 34
2009 Real Air Travel Consumer Report Card
Department of Transportation: A+
$175,000 Fine for Rochester Continental, Express Jet/Mesaba incident
Secretary Ray LaHood and the enforcement division of the DOT imposed fines dissuasive enough to discourage airlines from making promises in their Customer Services Commitments that they cannot keep.
Consumer Affairs response to complaints forwarded by FlyersRights.org A+
Spirit Airlines Consent Order: $375,000
Denied Boarding Compensation, Baggage, Full Fare Advertising Rule
$215,000 paid immediately; $160,000 due if within 1 year Spirit violates any aspect of this consent order
United Airlines: $75,000 for false advertising and deceptive practices related to United Airlines advertising “special deals” that did not contain appropriate notice of the amount or nature of additional taxes and fees that were excluded from the advertised fare
2nd Passenger Protection Rulemaking
DOT is considering a 2nd passenger protections rulemaking that could include international flights for time on the tarmac.
Statistics for Tarmac Delays
DOT enacted rules to require airlines to more accurately report tarmac delays beginning October 1st. However, the new rules still omit reporting by international flights (including domestic airlines), and airlines that don’t account for at least 1% of domestic traffic (even though collectively these airlines account for 20-25% of all traffic).
In addition, DOT failed to recognize that the data reported was made up “out of thin air”. To prevent FlyersRights from analyzing the data futher, November data was hidden from the public necessitating a FOIA request to access data that should be available to the public.
Hawaiian Airlines: $50,000 fine for not disclosing code share arrangements implying that the passengers would be traveling on Hawaiian airlines and not one of their code share partners
Univair Airlines (a charter airline) ordered to cease and desist from unauthorized transporation
FlyersRights.org
Page 27 of 34
between US and Canada and was assessed a compromised civil penalty of $15,000
US Airways fined $70,000 for violation of code share disclosure rules
Paragon Air was assessed a $25,000 civil penalty for not providing refunds due to passengers at all or in a timely manner
Delta Airlines fined $375,000 dollars related to the oversales rule. The violations stem from the carrier’s failure 1 to solicit volunteers before involuntarily denying boarding to passengers on oversold flights, 2) to furnish the required written notice to passengers who were denied boarding involuntarily (“bumped”), and 3) to provide bumped passengers with the appriopriate amount and type of denied boarding compensation DBC in a timely manner. The order directs Delta to cease and desist from such further violations and assesses the carrier a civil penalty of $375,000.00
United Airlines violated the Departments code-share disclosure rule and the statutory prohibition against unfair and deceptive practices. The order directs United to cease and desist from future violations of part 257 and assesses the carrier $80,000 in civil penalties.
In other words United must declare if you are booking on a code share flight
Gate 1: a ticket agent was fined $50,000 for deceiving consumers about airport taxes and fees
Air Ambulance Worldwide, Inc fined
$12,000 for unfair and deceptive practices and unfair methods of competition
Holiday Airways was fined $50,000 for purporting to the public it was an airline with public charter service when in fact it had not applied or been approved for such air transportation services. Holiday air held out service on it’s Internet website in a manner that could confuse the public into believing it was an airline, and distributed advertisements that failred to comply with the Departments rule on full fare advertising
Angel Medflight fined$10,000 for purporting is is a direct air carrier, when in fact it is a service providing nurses and medical personnel for ill patients.
smartTours was fined $40,000 in penalties for failing to published the entire price to be paid by the passenger to the firm for certain air transportation
Turismo Public Charter Operator was fined $40,000 for unfair and deceptive practices by failing to maintain an escrow account and improperly used and handled charter participant funds in violation of 14 CFR parts 380
Condor Flugdienst GmbH (“Condor”) that violate the Department advertising requirements were fined $22,000 in civil penalties
Miami Air International Inc. was fined $50,00 for violations of accounting and reporting requirements per 14 CFR Part 241
FlyersRights.org
Page 28 of 34
Statistics for Tarmac Delays
DOT enacted rules to require airlines to more accurately report tarmac delays beginning October 1st. However, the new rules still omit reporting by international flights (including domestic airlines), and airlines that don’t account for at least 1% of domestic traffic (even though collectively these airlines account for 20-25% of all traffic).
In addition, DOT failed to recognize that the data reported was made up “out of thin air”. To prevent FlyersRights from analyzing the data futher, November data was hidden from the public necessitating a FOIA request to access data that should be available to the public.
Liberty Travel Inc., a ticket agent, failed to comply with the Department’s rule on full fare advertising. A civil Penalty of %55,000 was assessed and Liberty was asked to cease and desist from future similar violations
Virgin America fined $40,000 for violating accounting and reporting requirements by failing to report certain quarterly financial reports with the Department for both the first and second calendar quarters of 2008.
Pascan Air, a charter airline traveling between Canada and US provides passenger and cargo charter air service. DOT fined them $20,000 US for failing to obtain safety authority from FAA
DOT ANNOUNCES “TARMAC RULE” DEC. 21ST 2009: WE WON!
In December on the 21st DOT announced their long awaiting “tarmac delay rule”. President Barak Obama gave an executive order mandating that no longer can the airlines hold you for longer than 3 hours without giving you the option to deplane, and after 2 hours of confinement in an aircraft they must give you access to potable water, food, hygienic toilets (toilets must be serviced), access to medications etc. April 29th 2010 the new rule takes effect!
Spirit Airlines Consent Order: $375,000
Denied Boarding Compensation, Baggage, Full Fare Advertising Rule
$215,000 paid immediately; $160,000 due if within 1 year Spirit violates any aspect of this consent order
United Airlines: $75,000 for false advertising and deceptive practices related to United Airlines advertising “special deals” that did not contain appropriate notice of the amount or nature of additional taxes and fees that were excluded from the advertised fare
2nd Passenger Protection Rulemaking
DOT is considering a 2nd passenger protections rulemaking that could include international flights for time on the tarmac.
Statistics for Tarmac Delays
DOT enacted rules to require airlines to more accurately report tarmac delays beginning October 1st. However, the new rules still omit reporting by international flights (including
FlyersRights.org
Page 29 of 34
domestic airlines), and airlines that don’t account for at least 1% of domestic traffic (even though collectively these airlines account for 20-25% of all traffic).
In addition, DOT failed to recognize that the data reported was made up “out of thin air”. To prevent FlyersRights from analyzing the data futher, November data was hidden from the public necessitating a FOIA request to access data that should be available to the public.
DOT Increased Bumping Compensation: Doubled from 200/400 to 400/800
There are several folks at DOT that deserve above and beyond awards in the Enforcement Division: Sam Podberesky, Dayton Lehman, Robert Rivkin, Secretary Ray Lahood
There are several people in the Consumer Affairs Division who have gone above and beyond to help our members with complicated isses: Norman Strickman and Patrick Nemons and Kathleen Blankreither to name a few. Although the DOT has no obligation to mediate individual complaints, when we send them a complaint for which we have run in to a dead end, they have stepped in and saved the day and for that we are really grateful! This new administration is truly consumer oriented and we appreciate all of their help. We would be remisce in not mentioning President Obama who’s insistence that passengers deserve better caused the executive order to be implemented and a 2nd rulemaking on the way.
FlyersRights.org
Page 30 of 34
FlyersRights 2009 Real Air Travel Consumer Report Card
New Tarmac Data: Oct.
Volume
Airline Reporting Grade*
Diversions
Of 867 diverted flights, airlines claimed that 92 of those flights were on the ground for 10 minutes or less, that 565 of these flights deplaned passengers at a diverted airport – and then took off again - many of them in under ten minutes, and scores of other flight records couldn’t pass a basic math test.
Cancellations
Of all cancelled flights in October, according to the airlines, 128 of those were canceled after they left the gate. 27 were supposedly canceled after 15 minutes.
128
Completed Flights
Of those flights that had one or more trips to the gate before they took off, 692 indicate they returned to the gate to let passengers get off, and then left again, took off - all inside 15 minutes.
2145
The Other "25%"
Approximately 25% of commercial traffic for which no performance statistics are collected at all (smaller carriers, international flights, etc.).
25%
FlyersRights.org
Page 31 of 34
*Continental and Express Jet appear to have made a gallant effort at reporting diverted and canceled flights correctly.
FlyersRights 2009 Real Air Travel Consumer Report Card
ATA (Lobby group for the Airlines)
Subject
Grade
Opposes giving passengers a bottle of water and a granola bar when stranded for 3 hours.25
F
Continues to deceive media and public and the DOT about the frequency of lengthy tarmac delays.26
F
Objects to the private right of action for consumers to sue the airlines at the State level.27
F
Claims that blood clots are NOT caused by confinement in an aircraft.
F
Claims to be advocating for additional delay reporting requirements but in fact opposes reporting of diversion tarmac delays to DOT.
F
Opposes legislated "patchwork quilt" or minimum standards – prefers their own "patchwork quilt" with no standards.
F
Contends that complaint contact information should only be provided on carrier's websites – ignoring the well-known digital-divide that discriminates against lower income people.
F
Objects to providing flight delay information on their websites on the basis that average consumers possess the software engineering expertise to download enormous BTS databases to acquire this information.
F
FlyersRights.org
Page 32 of 34
Summary of Report Cards
Airline
1. Tarmac Delays 4+ Hours
2. Tarmac Delays 2+ Hours
3. Unreported Tarmac Delays 3+ Hours
4. Longest Tarmac Delays
5. Menu
6. CoCs Final Grade
AirTran
A
B
A
F
B
F C
Alaska
A
A
N/A
N/A
B
F B
American
F
D
A
F
B
D D
American Eagle
B
C
A
B
B
D C
Atlantic Southeast
C
B
N/A
C
N/A
C N/A
Continental
F
F
F x 3
F
B
C F-
Comair
F
F
N/A
F
N/A
C N/A
Delta
F
D
F x 15
F
B
C F---
ExpressJet
F
D
N/A
F
N/A
C N/A
Frontier
A
A
N/A
A
A
F B
JetBlue
F
F
N/A
F
C
B F
Mesa
A
B
N/A
A
N/A
D N/A
Northwest
A
B
N/A
A
B
C B
Pinnacle
A
B
N/A
A
N/A
C N/A
Southwest
A
A
A
A
A*
B A
United
C
C
A
F
C
D C
US Airways
F
C
F
F
C
F F
This report card is not an overall consumer performance evaluation. It focuses on how airlines react to extended ground delays. In the absence of necessary DOT information, it relies on press accounts and empirical data collected by the Coaltion. Grading system is A-F with points awarded 1-5 (A=1). Incomplete data = 0.
FlyersRights.org
Page 33 of 34
Due to the incomplete way that the DOT collects data, this is the most prevalent grade. In order to get a final grade, there had to be more than four categories graded. So for example, Atlantic Southeast is not considered for a final grade because they have only 4 categories graded.
*Southwest Airlines makes snacks available upon request, so you are not limited to one snack in the event of a long on ground delay.
Endnotes
1 http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/taxi_out_times/html/by_carrier_2007.html
2 http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/taxi_out_times/html/by_carrier_2008.html
3 http://www.alaskaair.com/as/www2/help/faqs/MealService.asp
4 http://www.aa.com/aa/pubcontent/en_US/travelInformation/duringFlight/dining/domesticMealService.jsp
5 http://www.airtran.com/inflight_entertainment.aspx
6 http://www.continental.com/web/en-US/content/travel/inflight/dining/beverages/default.aspx
http://www.continental.com/web/en-US/content/travel/inflight/dining/domestic/default.aspx
7 http://www.delta.com/traveling_checkin/inflight_services/food/index.jsp
8 http://www.frontierairlines.com/frontier/flight-info/inflight-catering.do
9 http://www.jetblue.com/about/whyyoulllike/about_why2.html
10 http://www.nwa.com/services/onboard/special/meals.html
11 http://www.southwest.com/about_swa/customer_service_commitment/customer_service_commitment.pdf
12 http://www.united.com/page/article/0,6722,51501,00.html
13 http://www.usairways.com/awa/content/traveltools/intheair/default.aspx
14 http://www.jetblue.com/p/jetblue_coc.pdf
http://www.jetblue.com/about/ourcompany/promise/index.html
15 http://www.southwest.com/travel_center/coc.pdf
http://www.southwest.com/about_swa/customer_service_commitment/customer_service_commitment.pdf
FlyersRights.org
Page 34 of 34
16 http://www.continental.com/web/en-US/content/co_contract_of_carriage.2008012901.pdf
17 http://www.delta.com/legal/contract_of_carriage/index.jsp
18 http://www.nwa.com/plan/contract2.pdf
http://www.nwa.com/plan/
19 http://www.aa.com/aa/i18nForward.do?p=/customerService/customerCommitment/conditionsOfCarriage.jsp
20 http://www.united.com/ual/asset/COC04feb08final.pdf
http://www.united.com/page/article/0,1360,2981,00.html
21 contract of carriage - Customer Service Commitment http://www.airtranairways.com/about-us/customer_service_commitment.aspx
22 Domestic Contract of Carriage; http://www.alaskaair.com/as/www2/company/tariff/domestic/tariff_domestic_toc.asp
23 http://www.frontierairlines.com/frontier/pdf/Contract_of_Carriage.pdf
24 http://usairways.com/common/resources/_downloads/aboutus/US_contract_of_carriage.pdf
Customer Service Plan
http://www.usairways.com/awa/content/aboutus/customersfirst/customerserviceplan.aspx
25 Christian Science Monitor, January 8, 2008; http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0108/p02s02-usgn.htm
26 The Seattle Times, January 23, 2008 et al; http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=airlines23m&date=20080123
27 DOT Docket Management System, ATA Response to ANPRM (DOT-OST-2007-0022-0189.1) http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=DOT-OST-2007-0022
Spirit Airlines 3 flights diverted to Philadelphia, 2 sat for 9 hours on tarmac
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=6816174

FlyersRights.org Annual Report Card and Surprise Announcement

February 16, 2010

Contacts:
Kate Hanni
(707) 337-0328
kate@flyersrights.com


For Immediate Release

Flyersrights.org to Unveil its 2009 Air Travel Report Card in Washington, DC

Live Press Conference Planned for February 16th, at 10 am, the National Press Club

Napa, CA (February 12, 2010) – Flyersrights.org, the nation’s foremost airline passenger advocacy group, is poised to release its 2009 Real Air Travel Consumer Report Card, and the grades are not good for several air carriers.

The report card, issued on the third anniversary of the infamous Valentine’s Day ice storm which left passengers nationwide stranded on airplanes, grades the nation’s airlines on several categories including tarmac delays, water quality and adherence to the contract of carriage. Flyersrights.org also gives some not-so-prestigious awards to several airlines for their roles in various incidents in 2009.

Four major airlines all received failing grades overall, while only one airline received an “A” in this year’s report card. The airlines that failed scored lowest in the categories related to tarmac delays. In fact, one carrier had more than 300 flights in 2009 that sat idle, with passengers, for more than three hours.

Flyersrights.org also plans to give an award to President Obama for his outstanding service to airline passengers, and make two significant announcements regarding the organization and our expansion.

The organization’s founder and president, Kate Hanni, will review the full report card and be on hand to answer questions from the media on Monday, February 16, 2010 at the National Press Club, 529 14th Street NW, Washington, DC 20045 at 11:00am.

“This report card represents a comprehensive overview of how each airline treats its customers across several categories. We base our data on government statistics, press reports, airline website data, Flyrsrights.org hotline reports and eyewitness accounts provided by members of our coalition. We especially want Congress to take notice of this report and pass the FAA Reauthorization Act that has been dormant for several years. President Obama’s Administration, via the Department of Transportation, has already said ‘enough is enough’ when it comes to tarmac delays and it is now time for Congress to follow suit,” said Hanni.

Flyersrights.org now boasts 27,400 people and many accomplishments that are the first of their kind incuding the new 3 hour rule. For more info: www.flyersrights.org or call the hotline at 1-877-FLYERS6.
###

FlyersRights.org iphone app is ready for you NOW!

"The FlyerRights iPhone App is ready to download. Search for flyersrights in the App Store.

Use the app to learn about the new tarmac delay law and what to do if you get stranded.

Help support this non-profit by purchasing this app. A portion of the revenue goes directly to FlyersRights who is fighting for your rights as an airline passenger."

Full-Body Scanners Offer a Sneak Peek at TSA Bumbling: By Kate Hanni

Full-Body Scanners Offer a Sneak Peek at TSA Bumbling
By Kate Hanni
Posted January 19, 2010
Kate Hanni is executive director of FlyersRights.org, a nonprofit advocacy group that represents airline travelers.

On December 25, when the media reported on Umar Farouk Adbulmutallab's alleged attempt to detonate an explosive device aboard an airliner bound for Detroit, images of 9/11 were once again conjured up in the minds of Americans across the country. More significant was the national groan from millions of air travelers who anxiously anticipated the next wave of invasive and ineffective security procedures from the Transportation Security Administration.


Since 9/11, the flying public has been subjected to myriad new rules as lines at security checkpoints reached unbearable levels at many of the busiest airports. Air travelers have faced supplemental gate pat downs, the removal of shoes, and restrictions on liquids and gels. Additionally, the TSA and security personnel abroad tout the use of state-of-the-art X-ray machines and contraband detection methods. Despite these so-called advances in security training and technology, no person or machine detected the explosives reported to be on Abdulmutallab's person Christmas Day, more than eight years after the most brazen and fatal airline hijackings in history.

Once again, federal officials are back to square one on airport security, despite nearly a decade of effort and billions of dollars in investment. Now the TSA, backed by the federal government, believes that full-body scanners manufactured by Rapiscan hold the absolute answer to the world's airport security woes. And let's not forget the praises of these scanners sung by former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff. It all sounds perfect.

Does that mean that passengers nationwide can now breathe a collective sigh of relief? Well, not quite. It turns out that Chertoff failed to mention that he is a paid consultant for Rapiscan.

Despite the government's ironclad guarantee that full-body scanners are the answer, despite the fact that the TSA has bought 150 Rapiscan units and is poised to buy 300 more at a cost of $76 million to taxpayers, and despite Chertoff's assertion that the scanners are the pinnacle of airport security evolution, there is no consensus that they are even capable of detecting explosives like those carried aboard the airliner on Christmas.

When President Obama's top counterterrorism aide, John Brennan, was asked on Meet the Press whether full-body scanners would have detected the explosives, he responded, "I think it's an unknown," hardly a ringing endorsement.

Fortunately, some experts believe there are simpler, less invasive, more cost-effective solutions. Kenneth G. Furton, professor of chemistry at the International Forensic Research Institute at Florida International University, has done extensive research on the reliability of canines in the detection of forensic specimens and is convinced that the use of dogs is a far more effective, and certainly less expensive, tactic for sniffing out (pardon the pun) explosive materials than the use of full-body scanners.

In a 2005 research article published in the Canadian Journal of Police & Security Services, Furton made this assertion: "Overall, detector dogs still represent the state of the art in real-time detection of items of forensic interest. There will likely be no replacement for the use of detector dogs in the foreseeable future unless numerous compromises are made in terms of speed, accuracy, sensitivity, selectivity, reliability, and mobility."

Still, even Furton believes that there is not one end-all, be-all way to prevent terrorists from smuggling explosives on board airliners. What's best, he concludes, is a multilayered approach to security that is efficient, accurate, cost-effective, and minimally invasive.

The Rapiscan full-body scanner displays none of those traits. In fact, though it can depict a person's unclothed body with shocking detail (a virtual strip search), it is capable of detecting only objects within one tenth of an inch of the outer skin on a human body. Translation: A terrorist who conceals explosives in a body cavity, crevice, adult diaper, feminine protection, etc., will walk through a full-body scanner completely undetected.

James Carafano of the Heritage Foundation, who takes an opposing view on the scanners, assured the Washington Post that the machines "cover up the dirty bits." Pardon our ignorance, but wouldn't a terrorist be likely to hide an explosive in those "dirty bits" if he or she had that information?

The bottom line is that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to improving airport security, and it is irresponsible of the government to freely spend taxpayer money on new technology without research to support its effectiveness. Moreover, Americans aren't willing to be humiliated every time they fly, particularly if these scanners won't even improve security.

If the flood of messages from ­FlyersRights.org's members is any indication as to the general state of mind of the nation's air travelers regarding full-body scanners, then the airlines may need to brace themselves for a very lean 2010.

Ready why fliers should fear bombers, not body scans, by James Jay Carafano of the Heritage Institute.

Check out our political cartoons.
Become a political insider: Subscribe to U.S. News Weekly, our digital magazine.

Whole Body Scan vs. Your Privacy: How Far Is Too Far?

ABC's Aaron Katersky Reports:

On June 4, 2009 the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill, H.R. 2200, that would limit the use of whole-body imaging (WBI) systems in airports. The amendment prohibits the use of full-body scanners as a primary screening method. They can be used as secondary screening and in such a case “would require the TSA to give passengers the option of a pat-down search in lieu of going through a WBI machine.”

The sponsor, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) said at the time “to suggest that every single American--that my wife, my 8-year-old daughter--needs to be subjected to this, I think, is just absolutely wrong.”

Reached today by phone, Chaffetz told ABC News he still supports only limited use of WBI technology.

“We have to find the right balance between personal privacy and the need to secure an aircraft,” Chaffetz said. “The technology exists to be more effective and yet less invasive.”

The Senate has not taken up the matter and Chaffetz conceded there’s little chance it would pass now.

The Justice department is currently being sued by the Electronic Privacy Information Center over WBI, but as of October 1, 2009, the TSA ordered an additional 150 WBI machines for use in airports.

Privacy is not the only reason the TSA has not deployed them en masse. WBI technology costs ten times as much as what’s in place at airports now, and there are questions about whether it’s worth it. Experts say the technology would almost certainly find a gun or knife but not necessarily something carried the way the Nigerian carried his explosives.

“The full-body scan is not the answer,” said Charles Slepian of the Foreseeable Risk Analysis Center in New York. “Even with a full-body scan if you went through there with nothing on but you had something in the crevices of your body you won’t see it in the full-body scan.”

Full Body Scanners used on air passengers may damage human DNA

Full-body scanners used on air passengers may damage human DNA
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) In researching the biological effects of the millimeter wave scanners used for whole body imaging at airports, NaturalNews has learned that the energy emitted by the machines may damage human DNA.

Millimeter wave machines represent one of two primary technologies currently being used for the "digital strip searches" being conducted at airports around the world. "The Transportation Security Administration utilizes two technologies to capture naked images of air travelers - backscatter x-ray technology and millimeter wave technology," reports the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a non-profit currently suing the U.S. government to stop these electronic strip searches. (http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/b...)

In order to generate the nude image of the human body, these machines emit terahertz photons -- high-frequency energy "particles" that can pass through clothing and body tissue.

The manufacturers of such machines claim they are perfectly safe and present no health risks, but a study conducted by Boian S. Alexandrov (and colleagues) at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico showed that these terahertz waves could "...unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication."

In layman's terms, any time you're talking about interfering with "gene expression" and "DNA replication," you're essentially talking about something that could be a risk to human health.


Never approved as safe for humans
"At first glance, it's easy to dismiss any notion that they can be damaging," reports TechnologyReview.com (http://www.technologyreview.com/blo...). "But a new generation of cameras are set to appear that not only record terahertz waves but also bombard us with them. And if our exposure is set to increase, the question that urgently needs answering is what level of terahertz exposure is safe."

And yet no such long-term safety testing has ever been conducted by a third party. There have been no clinical trials indicating that multiple exposures to such terahertz waves, accumulated over a long period of time, are safe for humans. The FDA, in particular, has never granted its approval for any such devices even though these devices clearly qualify as "medical devices."

(If you try to sell an X-ray imaging device yourself, without FDA approval, you'll be arrested. So why do these TSA suppliers get away with selling human body imaging equipment that has never been adequately safety tested or approved by the FDA?)

The study cited in the TechnologyReview article mentioned above is visible at: http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294

There, study authors conclude: "Based on our results we argue that a specific terahertz radiation exposure may significantly affect the natural dynamics of DNA, and thereby influence intricate molecular processes involved in gene expression and DNA replication."

In other words, millimeter wave scanning devices may damage your DNA.


(These images depict what the TSA sees when air passengers are subjected to full-body scans using millimeter wave technology and / or backscatter X-rays.)


Could these scans cause cancer and birth defects?
Could these scans cause infertility? Cancer? Shortened lifespan? We don't yet know the answers to these questions, but then again neither does the TSA. This technology is being recklessly rolled out without adequate safety testing that would prove it safe for long-term use.

How many times in the past have the "experts" told us technologies were perfectly safe and then later we found out they were dangerous? X-Rays were once used in shoe stores to see if new shoes would fit the bone structure of your feet. High-voltage power lines are perfectly safe, we're told -- but then why do children who live closer to those lines have higher rates of cancer?

Dentists still claim that mercury fillings are perfectly safe for your health -- a preposterous notion -- and cell phone companies continue to insist that cell phone radiation isn't hazardous to your health at all. Time and time again, the public has been lied to by the authorities during the roll-out of some new technology. Why should we believe that full-body scanners are safe when they've never been proven safe? Furthermore, there is now reason to believe they may damage human DNA.

What if the experts are wrong about their safety and ten years later we find out that there is cumulative DNA damage that causes infertility and cancer? What if air travelers who subject themselves to this radiation wind up suffering some currently-unknown health condition as a result? At no time in the history of human civilization have large numbers of humans ever been subjected to terahertz bombardment of this type and frequency.

Sure, you can argue that you get more radiation sitting in an airplane at high altitude than you get from a full-body scanner, or you can explain that cell phones emit far more radiation on the whole (which they do, when you're talking on them anyway). But if there's one thing we all should have learned about radiation by now it's that frequencies matter. The terahertz frequencies have never been rolled out en masse in a scanning technology. Who's to say they're going to be safe?

What about pregnant women? Can the TSA absolutely guarantee that these full-body scanners won't damage the DNA of the unborn babies? What if this technology becomes the next Thalidomide and ten months from now women start giving birth to mutant babies who were damaged by terahertz radiation?

I'm not saying this is going to happen, but wouldn't it be wise to determine the safety of this technology in advance of its global rollout?

As the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements admitted in a 2002 report that studied these security devices: (http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/AC...)

"[We] cannot exclude the possibility of a fatal cancer attributable to radiation in a very large population of people exposed to very low doses of radiation."

Barring solid evidence of the safety of this terahertz-emitting technology, the TSA would be wise to follow the Precautionary Principle which states that we should err on the side of caution when it comes to the roll out of new technologies. Unfortunately, the TSA appears to be erring on the side of stupidity by subjecting the public to an unproven, "experimental" technology with unknown long-term effects on human DNA.

And here's the real kicker: These full-body scanners do nothing to stop terrorists because they can't detect powder explosives in the first place. A determined terrorist can hide all sorts of powder in a shoe, or a sleeping pillow, or a plastic bag sewn into the side of his carry-on luggage. There are a thousand places for terrorists to hide explosives that won't be caught on full-body scanners, no matter how detailed the images are.

Besides, in order to avoid engaging in child pornography (because these machines offer very detailed depictions of body parts), the rules will allow people under 18 years of age to bypass them. So all you need then, if you're a terrorist, is a 17-year-old terrorist assistant who can pack explosives in his own underwear.


Radiology experts claim full-body scanners are safe
Radiology experts are claiming that the radiation emitted from these full-body scanners is perfectly safe for you. Then again, they also claim mammograms are safe, and recent science has now proven that mammograms cause cancer.

When it comes to radiation safety, you can't trust radiologists. They say all that radiation is safe for YOU, but then they flee the room when the X-rays are turned on, ever notice that? They really have zero credibility when talking about the long-term safety of medical imaging devices. Most doctors, similarly, don't have any real clue how much radiation is emitted by a CT scan!

As BusinessWeek reports: (http://www.businessweek.com/lifesty...)

"The health effects of the more common millimeter-wave scanners are largely unknown, and at least one expert believes a safety study is warranted.

'I am very interested in performing a National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements study on the use of millimeter-wave security screening systems,' said Thomas S. Tenforde, council president."

The New York Times adds: (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/h...)

"Collectively, the radiation doses from the scanners incrementally increase the risk of fatal cancers among the thousands or millions of travelers who will be exposed, some radiation experts believe."

NYT goes on to state that the TSA has entered into a contract under which it could purchase 900 full-body scanners to be deployed in airport all across the country.


Resources:
Physics Letters, January 8, 2010
http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294

Technology Review:
http://www.technologyreview.com/blo...

Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millim...

New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/h...

Editorial: Obama's Gift to Airline Passengers

Seattle Times
December 25th, 2009

Obama's gift of humane treatment to airline passengers held prisoner on tarmac
The Obama administration jumps into the fray over long waits for airline passengers on the tarmac. Huge fines will begin in the spring, and it's the right thing to do.

AIRPLANE passengers are not cattle. And they should not be stuck on the tarmac for six, seven or even 10 hours without food, water and clean facilities. There ought to be a rule against such treatment of customers. Reasonably, there will be.

The Obama administration announced a Christmas gift of sorts for U.S. airline passengers traveling on domestic flights: stiff penalties on airlines that unduly keep passengers stranded on the tarmac without food or water or allowing them to disembark.

According to a new federal rule taking effect in the spring, passengers cannot be kept longer than two hours without food and water. By similar logic, a plane sitting on the tarmac for three hours has to offer passengers a chance to leave the aircraft. Fines proposed by Ray LaHood, Obama's transportation secretary, are steep — $27,500 per passenger — and they should be.

LaHood referred to the new rules as the president's passenger bill of rights, though administration fines are separate from efforts in Congress to protect the flying public and do not require congressional approval.

Obviously, new rules on one end of flying create trouble at another end. Airlines worry they will have to abandon a place in line for takeoff, return to the gate and have baggage removed. They may have to de-ice an extra time. Crews may not be able to remain with a flight if a delay is prolonged.

All of these present huge headaches for the airlines, a hassle that should not be understated. But the equation of flying involves give and take. As airlines press passengers to pay for more things a la carte — checked luggage, meals, blankets and, (who knows?) restrooms — customers also have needs.

Sitting on a plane for an elongated period of time can aggravate numerous medical conditions. Health organizations have said that the risk of such things as pulmonary embolism doubles after four hours of immobility.

Food, water and clean restrooms are essential, along with the right to move around. The rules require some adjustments, but flying will improve over time because passengers will be treated humanely.

January 9, 2010: Cancer Risks Debated on Full Body Scanners

Matt Wald, New York Times

WASHINGTON — The plan for broad use of X-ray body scanners to detect bombs or weapons under airline passengers’ clothes has rekindled a debate about the safety of delivering small doses of radiation to millions of people — a process some experts say is certain to result in a few additional cancer deaths.

The scanning machines, called “backscatter scanners,” deliver a dose of ionizing radiation equivalent to 1 percent or less of the radiation in a dental X-ray. The amount is so small that the risk to an individual is negligible, according to radiation experts. But collectively, the radiation doses from the scanners incrementally increase the risk of fatal cancers among the thousands or millions of travelers who will be exposed, some radiation experts believe.

Full-body scanners that are already in place in some airports around the country and abroad use a different type of imaging technology, called millimeter wave, that uses less powerful, non-ionizing radiation that does not pose the same risk.

But those machines also produce images that are less clear. And in the wake of the attempted bombing of an airplane traveling to Detroit from Amsterdam on Dec. 25, the United States is turning to backscatter scanners for routine security checks. Congress has appropriated funds for 450 scanners to be placed in American airports. On Thursday, President Obama called for greater use of “imaging technology” to spot weapons and explosives.

Some other countries may follow suit. Britain plans to use whole-body scanners and may test the backscatter system. On Friday, the French government said it would begin testing a few scanners of the millimeter wave type at Charles de Gaulle and Orly airports, for flights bound for the United States. Italy and the Netherlands also plan to use the millimeter-wave scanners.

Most discussion about full-body scanners has focused on privacy issues surrounding the nude images that would result. The American Civil Liberties Union has denounced the practice as a “virtual strip search.”

Some experts argue that the broad use of the scanners raises the same question that pertains to any other routine exposure to small doses of
radiation: Do the benefits outweigh the risks?

“The guiding principle is not whether Mother Nature is going to kill you one day,” said Arjun Makhijani, a nuclear physicist. “It’s whether we can justify doing something to each other based on the benefit you’re going to get.”

Officials at the Transportation Security Administration say they have already tried out a handful of backscatter scanners. They could acquire 450 from the manufacturer, Rapiscan Systems, by the end of September.
The agency has a contract under which it could buy 900 of the scanners.
The machines have been used for years at prisons and other places where the authorities look for weapons, including at nuclear power plants.

In a 2002 report on the safety of backscatter scanners, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, which is highly influential in setting regulatory standards, said it “cannot exclude the possibility of a fatal cancer attributable to radiation in a very large population of people exposed to very low doses of radiation.”

One author of that report, David J. Brenner, a professor of radiation biophysics at Columbia and director of the university’s Center for Radiological Research, said that risk might be increased as the transportation agency moves from using the scanning machines as a second-round check after metal detectors and hand searches to using them as a first-line screening system.

“When we were looking at these a few years back, it was always going to be as a secondary screening tool,” he said. “In that scenario, I don’t think there’s too much concern.” But, he said, if millions or tens of millions of passengers a year were scanned with the backscatter X-ray, he said, the risk would be higher.

The health effect of small doses of radiation is not observed, but inferred from the visible effects of higher doses. Dr. Makhijani said that if a billion passengers were screened with the dose assumed by the radiation protection council, that would mean 10 more cancer deaths a year.

Those deaths would represent only a tiny increment over the existing cancer rate, he said, just as the extra dose was a tiny fraction of the natural background dose of radiation people get from everyday exposures, but he added that they should still be considered.

Edward Lyman, a nuclear expert at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said that the additional deaths would be indistinguishable from cancers resulting from other causes. But he said, “Just because they can’t be attributed in an epidemiology study to the additional radiation, it doesn’t mean they’re not there.”

Other experts, however, including David A. Schauer, the radiation council’s executive director, disputed the idea that collective doses of radiation increased risks significantly.

Doses divided into tiny portions among millions of people are not the same as those concentrated on a few people, Dr. Schauer said.

“I personally don’t buy it,” he said. “From a public health point of view, it’s a bit of a stretch.”

The radiation council sets standards for doses to radiation workers and to the general public, but does not set a standard for a collective dose.

Robert Barish, a radiation consultant in New York and the author of a
1996 book, “The Invisible Passenger,” said the doses delivered by the scanners were tiny by any standard, and passengers would get the same dose in a few minutes in a high-altitude jet, where most of the earth’s atmosphere is not available to shield people from cosmic rays.

A spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration, Kristin Lee, said that even for pregnant women, children and people whose genetic makeup made them more susceptible to X-ray damage, “It would take more than 1,000 screenings per individual per year” to exceed radiation standards.

According to a blog published by the Transportation Security Administration, the radiation dose from the scanner is about the same amount as an average American receives from natural background sources in four minutes on the ground.

But Dr. Lyman, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, noted that at one point the blog had listed a much higher dose for the scanners. When the discrepancy was pointed out, the agency corrected the blog to the lower figure.

Backscatter scanners work by shooting a beam of X-rays at a subject. But rather than making an image from what passes through the body, as a doctor’s diagnostic X-ray machine does, backscatter machines measure what bounces back, producing an image of the passenger without clothing.
The X-rays are a form of ionizing radiation, that is, radiation powerful enough to strip molecules in the body of their electrons, creating charged particles that cause cell damage and are thought to be the mechanism through which radiation causes cancer.

Nicola Clark contributed reporting from Paris.

Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company

If you think the Rapiscan Scanners will work: Read On "The Butt Bomb"

The Butt Bomb
Al Qaeda's hidden weapon.
Michael Crowley

Michael Crowley
Senior Editor
view bio contact me
The Butt Bomb
Obama and Nuclear Deterrence
John Brennan: No to Waterboarding, but Maybe Yes to Some Rough Stuff
January 7, 2010 | 12:00 am
2 comments


Related Articles
What You Need to Know About Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula
No One Yet Has Said He's A Nutcake. But What Does "Isolated Extremist" Really Mean?
Today at TNR (December 29, 2009)
How the Taliban and Al Qaeda Are Merging--And Why We Should Be Very Worried
Beware: Do Not Read if All You Want Is an Intellectual Fix for One of Your Political Prejudices. This Is Serious Stuff!


More From this Author
Obama and Nuclear Deterrence
John Brennan: No to Waterboarding, but Maybe Yes to Some Rough Stuff
Whack A Mole, al Qaeda Edition

In the wake of the failed bombing attempt by Nigerian Al Qaeda operative Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, airport security experts are wringing their hands over how to stop the next underwear bomber. X-ray machines don’t detect the type of explosive, known as PETN, that Abdulmutallab carried. Only a careful pat-down around Abdulmutallab’s crotch, where the explosive had been sewn into his undies, would have detected his deadly cargo. But Abdulmutallab’s al Qaeda handlers knew that pat-downs are rare and that social mores make highly intrusive, crotch-fondling searches almost unheard of. In the wake of the Abdulmutallab episode, however, standards will change. Pat downs will become more common—and more intrusive. We may not see the famous vision of the crazed dictator from Woody Allen’s Bananas—“Underwear shall be worn on the outside!”—but those searches by hand are likely to get a little more, shall we say, intimate.

Even a pat-down thorough enough to simulate foreplay, however, won’t protect us completely—not from a threat that sounds even more absurd than an underwear bomb and that is also more alarming: the butt bomb.

The concept is simple. Rather than sew explosives into his underwear, a terrorist might actually plant a bomb, which can weigh as little as a pound, inside his anal cavity. Like drug mules, would-be butt bombers could store the explosives inside a condom.

Sound crazy? Perhaps. But security experts initially believed that a terrorist’s derriere nearly killed a top Saudi Arabian counterterrorism official last fall. Back in August, an Al Qaeda-connected militant named Abdullah Assiri offered to turn himself into Saudi authorities and enlist in a state-run terrorist rehabilitation program. Exhibiting a healthy skepticism, the Saudis reportedly subjected Assiri to two airport-style X-ray scans and other security checks. Finding no weapons or explosives on his body, security agents ushered Assiri into the palace of the counterterrorism chief, Prince Muhammad Bin Nayef, who is also the son of a likely heir to the Saudi throne.

Instead of surrendering, however, Assiri exploded. Nayef survived the blast, but the Saudis were bewildered by this incredible breach of their security. At first, they were convinced the explosive had been hidden in Assiri’s anal cavity—a scenario that other security experts didn’t discount. After further investigation, the Saudis concluded that Assiri didn’t have a butt bomb after all, but rather that he stashed the explosive in his underwear much like Abdulmutallab. (The device may have been detonated by a text message sent to Assiri’s cell phone; exactly how the phone triggered the bomb is unclear. Like Abdulmutallab, incidentally, Assiri appears to have gotten his assignment and materials in Yemen.)

Prince Nayaf himself flew to Washington to warn Obama administration officials about this new underwear bomb threat, according to Newsweek—which also recently disclosed a joint report produced by the National Counterterrorism Center, in conjunction with the Department of Homeland Security and the CIA, on the threat of both underwear and butt bombs. That report had both good and bad news about the alarming concept of explosive Al Qaeda asses. On the downside, the report found that even full-body-image scanners at airports might not detect anally stashed explosives. The upside is that much of the blast from such a rear-end bomb would be absorbed by the terrorist’s body—perhaps enough of the explosion that the airplane would not crash.

But don’t exhale just yet. It stands to reason that a terrorist who wants to down a plane needs only to smuggle his PETN onboard, much like a drug mule with a cocaine-stuffed rectum. After that, he can excuse himself to the lavatory and extract his cargo, then return to his seat to detonate the explosive outside his body.

Fortunately this scenario remains speculative; if it were easy and reliable, Abdulmutallab might have tried it. But if a terrorist does succeed in detonating a butt bomb, airport security might be in for a radical change. You think taking off your shoes is bad? Try bending over for a TSA worker wearing green surgical gloves.

Michael Crowley is a senior editor of The New Republic.