=20 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This article was sent to you by someone who found it on SFGate. The original article can be found on SFGate.com here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=3D/c/a/2008/02/03/TRBQUFG5S.= DTL --------------------------------------------------------------------- Sunday, February 3, 2008 (SF Chronicle) Passenger rights: Bills miss a few wrongs Ed Perkins, Tribune Media Services Some sort of federal "Air Passenger Bill of Rights" is looking more like= ly this year. And the impetus for the improved outlook, oddly enough, is coming from individual states rather than the federal government. My reservations about such bills, however, remain: The "rights" you're likely to see apply only in rare occurrences; new rights rules are likely to cause unintended consequences and current proposals ignore some much more pervasive problems. The first new passenger rights law, from New York, went into effect last month, and it has already passed its first legal challenge from the big airlines. Although those airlines may decide to appeal their initial setback in higher court, the law remains in effect. It requires airlines to provide snacks, water, fresh air, and clean restrooms to any passengers stalled on a runway more than three hours awaiting takeoff clearance. Airlines that don't comply are subject to a fine up to $1,000 per passenger. Of course, the New York law applies only to delays at airports in that state, and it does not include delays after landing while planes wait for a gate to unload. According to various trade reports, other states are considering similar laws. Meanwhile, proposed federal requirements are under consideration in both the Senate and the House. The Senate bill includes provisions similar to New York's, but it adds a requirement that travelers be allowed to deplane after three hours. Initially, the big airlines fought against federal rules. But they like a proliferation of state rules even less than new federal rules, so they may actually switch to becoming reluctant supporters of a uniform federal bill - especially if they can succeed in weakening it first. The provisions of these current proposals are in response to several well-publicized instances of travelers being "held hostage" on the ground up to 10 hours by a combination of lousy weather and airline fumbling. And travelers should certainly be protected against such indignities if possible. But the new rules pose a big potential for unintended consequences. Airlines, like other human organizations, will game any system of rules imposed on them. And if those rules penalize them heavily for long waits on the ground, the airlines will make sure they don't happen. But that means canceling delayed flights rather than continuing to wait for clearances. And, once their flights are canceled, passengers could face a tough time finding replacement reservations. I hope I'm wrong, but my current guess is that the new rules will result in an increase in the number of severely disrupted passengers rather than a decrease. Meanwhile, airlines continue to abuse travelers on a daily basis in other areas. Although the Department of Transportation asked for comments on increasing penalties for involuntary bumping last year, I haven't seen any outcome yet - and involuntary bumping affects far more travelers than long delays on the tarmac. E-mail syndicated columnist Ed Perkins at eperkins@xxxxxxxxx =A9 Tribune Media Services ------------------------------------------------------------= ---------- Copyright 2008 SF Chronicle <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you wish to unsubscribe from the AIRLINE List, please send an E-mail to: "listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx". Within the body of the text, only write the following:"SIGNOFF AIRLINE".