Passengers Have No Rights
my work area
Submitted by Dan Jacoby on 25 March 2008 - 3:23pm.
Airline travel | Interstate commerce | Michael Gianaris
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Airline travel | Interstate commerce | Michael Gianaris
A federal appeals court has decided that when you fly you have no rights to fresh air, water, food and bathrooms.
Following several incidents where planes were delayed for many hours, and passengers were stuck on these planes, sitting on the tarmac, without all the amenities listed above, Assembly Member Michael Gianaris sponsored a bill that would require all flights leaving airports in New York to provide these things if the flight is delayed long enough. Governor Spitzer signed the bill into law last August.
Now the law has been struck down, based on the airlines' claim that the "interstate commerce clause" of the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government, and only the federal government, the power to regulate the airline industry. They also used a 1978 law, the "Airline Deregulation Act," to bolster their argument.
The fight over control of interstate commerce goes back to 1824, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in Gibbons v. Ogden, that the state of New York had no power to grant monopoly power over navigation on the Hudson River. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the majority opinion that stated first that navigation was part of "interstate commerce," and then that only the federal government had the power to regulate it.
The result of that case, and others that followed in its footsteps, has come down to us today. According to the NY Times, Assembly Member Gianaris is considering several options, including appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court, trying to rewrite the law, or pushing for a federal "passengers' bill of rights."
As of right now, I believe he has little chance of succeeding in any of these attempts. The Supreme Court is likely to uphold the appeals court decision, any new state law will probably be struck down again, and with a Republican in the White House a federal law won't have enough votes to uphold a certain veto. In order to get this done, we need to get out into the "swing states" and make sure we get a Democratic president.
Just don't fly out there.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| | | | | | | | 
People Have No Rights
Submitted by ROSALIE907 on 26 March 2008 - 8:40pm.
I was once stuck on the runway for 2 hours and let me tell you, it's hell. Tony Bennett was on the same flight and he wanted them to return to the terminal but they didn't, they gave us all free drinks instead (you had to hear what came out of his mouth when we finally landed). I guess if you're drunk you won't feel so bad sitting there. I know how I would react if I was stuck on a plane for 10 hours with no air, filthy bathrooms, and nothing to drink and let me tell you I would be the first to lead the riot and then call my lawyer.
What I don't understand is why they even load planes when they know they can't take off. I know I'd rather sit in a terminal than on a plane. Hello airline industry, if weather conditions are bad in Kansas why are you loading a plane to have it sit on a runway? Think about it and how stupid and what bad publicity you get everytime you do something like this.
As for regulation of interstate commerce, this is correct but what if you're flying from LaGuardia to Buffalo?
» report as spam | 0 points
Why load the plane?
Submitted by Dan Jacoby on 27 March 2008 - 7:38am.
It's simple, really. The airport needs the gate for the next flight, and it's so much simpler for the airline to have a fully loaded plane, just in case a window of opportunity opens up, than have an empty plane sit on the tarmac and then have to get back to the gate (which may be occupied) in order to get everyone on board.
The reason the airline industry is opposed to this is that they would then have to build an infrastructure to meet the record demand, and they don't want to spend the money -- partly because they don't have it to spend, since air travel hasn't been all that profitable since Ronald Reagan fired the PATCO members and deregulated the industry.
» report as spam | 0 points
Federal passengers' bill of rights
Submitted by Dan Jacoby on 31 March 2008 - 10:21am.
Our senior senator is in the news today, pushing for a federal bill to do what Assemblymember Gianaris tried to do for us in New York. According to NY1, Senator Schumer "is asking for swift passage of a year-old federal airline passenger bill of rights."
There are two bills; the House bill is H.R.1303, and the Senate bill is S.678. Both bills require airlines to provide adequate food, water and bathroom facilities. They also require airlines to allow passengers off the plane if the delay exceeds three hours.
The House bill was sponsored by Mike Thompson (D-CA-1), and has 53 cosponsors, including eight New Yorkers (Ackerman, Crowley, Hall, Maloney, McHugh, McNulty, Towns and Walsh), two of whom are Republicans.
The Senate bill was sponsored by Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and has 6 cosponsors (no New Yorkers -- just Cantwell, Feingold, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Reid and Snowe), including the one Republican.
I trust that Senator Schumer will add his name as a cosponsor as soon as the Senate reconvenes. Okay, no I don't trust that he'll put his pen where his mouth is, but I'll be contacting his office at 202-224-6542 to urge him to do so.
» report as spam | 0 points
So...
If I have no right to a bathroom, does that mean I can just pee anywhere?
Honestly, I used to LOVE to fly. Now I hate it and wouldn't travel at all by plane anymore if it wasn't for family in California and the occasional conference.