=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/2008/04/01/ED9DVTD7V.= DTL --------------------------------------------------------------------- Tuesday, April 1, 2008 (SF Chronicle) A passengers' bill of rights On the list of annoying air-travel experiences, the trapped-alive feeling that goes with a long wait on the runway is a special form of passenger abuse. Add it the familiar complaints that flying is costly, cramped and unreliable. But Washington should step up and oblige airlines to answer for extreme cooped-up conditions in the cabin. The flying public is entitled to the basics - food, water, fresh air and clean lavatories caused by long, plane-bound waits. The issue was pushed forward in snowy blizzards during the winter months of 2006-07. Horror stories came to light when planes were stuck on the tarmac for up to eight hours while crews ran out of snacks and water and toilets backed up. There was a deserved uproar, but it's fizzled out on two fronts. A feder= al appeals court has rejected a bid by New York state to require that airlines provide the bare necessities during long waits or face fines up to $1,000 per passenger. The judges said the federal law that deregulated the airline industry in 1978 prohibits state action in determining levels of service, such as the comfort rules during lengthy delays. California is drawing up its own measure in a bill authored by Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, who believes his version sidesteps federal legal trouble. Lawyering to the side, these state efforts wouldn't be needed if Washington hadn't lost interest in the topic. Two proposals - one in the Senate co-written by California Democrat Barbara Boxer and the other in the House authored by Napa Democrat Mike Thompson - would oblige airlines to offer the food-water-facilities guarantee after a three-hour wait on the ground. Both were born of the passenger furor generated a year ago and drew instant support in the months after the airline incidents. But these bills have gone nowhere because of conflicts over an aviation funding bill and airline objections. The industry, hurting over higher fuel bills and tough competition, does not want another mandate. Hauling the extra provisions costs money, for example. And telling pilots to return to terminals after waiting in long takeoff lines - as some critics want - may infuriate travelers even more. Don't stick us with a patchwork system of state-by-state rules, airlines add. Faced with a determined foe, Washington legislators have chosen to pass on a difficult decision. Sorry, but it's not convincing. Passengers - those fare-paying cattle in the back of the plane - deserve respectful treatment and not hazy promises that it won't happen again. In case no industry leader has noticed, the public is simmering over ever-declining service levels such as charging for puny meals, extra bags and legroom. The whole flying experience - from removing shoes at the start of the security line to the long wait for luggage at the destination - doesn't need another infuriating chapter. The court case in New York should slap Congress into doing its duty. Requiring basic service in extreme situations isn't much to ask. Passengers deserve better treatment. --------------------------------------= -------------------------------- 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".