Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections

OST-2007-0022

November 15, 2007

Comments of Ryan Mikolajczyk | Word

It is hard to strike an appropriate balance between airlines’ rights and passengers’ rights.  I think there needs to be a standard flight cancellation point set.  A flight can be delayed up until the standard cut off and then that’s it.  While delayed people should be entitled to waste removal, water, and medical needs.  If an airline is consistently late is should be labeled deceptive and either penalized or remedied.  There needs to be some accountability on the airlines part for their customer service.  Passengers also need to realize that it is a busy system, and just like rush hour there will be some waiting.  If the past is any indicator though, the costs to implement any of these proposals will eventually get passed down to the consumers themselves.  The question that needs to be asked is how much is your time worth?

December 2, 2007

Form Letter

December 3, 2007

Comments of Coalition for Airline Passengers' Bill of Rights | Word - Form Letter

“Late” should not be defined as arrivals that were more than 30 minutes late.  It should be 15 minutes.  Late is late.  Carriers have already included buffer time in their schedules.  The DOT doesn’t need to add to that buffer.

These provisions will help consumers make better-informed choices when booking flights and this information will have a direct result on which flights they book.  In turn, this should increase carriers’ incentives to correct problem flights through their schedules and operations.

Airlines should be required to provide this information on their websites during the online booking of flights, and also be required to provide this information, on request, when flights are booked by telephone.

Third-party reservation services should also be required to provide this information whether reservations are made by telephone or on-line reservation websites.  Airlines should be required to provide open interfaces for internet applications to access this data from their servers so as not to impose undue costs by third parties.

By: Paul Sheridan

December 4, 2007

Comments of Patrick Schuette - Bookmarked

I think the DOT should set a ceiling on the maximum amount of time that would be required for permissible tarmac delays and for triggering the plan. Those airlines which have already adopted plans to deplane passengers and to provide food and water to passengers after excessive delays likely have spent some amount of time and research in developing these plans. Therefore, I think the high end of those plans should be adopted here. A maximum of five hours for a permissible tarmac delay and a minimum of three hours to trigger the plan to provide basic necessities like food to passengers would most certainly garner support from all of those airlines which already have these kinds of plans in place.

As popular as the internet is, a number of people either choose not to use the internet or do not have access to the internet. These people would be denied delay and complaint information if they were purchasing tickets through means other than the internet. Therefore, I think this data should be disclosed to consumers through channels beyond the internet, such as by requiring travel agents to disclose this information. Moreover, along the same lines, I think airlines should be required to solicit complaints not just through email, but also through the phone and mail. It would also be fair to require airlines to respond to complaints in the manner which the complaints were received for these same reasons.

A legitimate argument could be made stating that weather and other factors beyond the control of air carriers is an important factor that should be considered in enacting this amendment. If there is evidence that shows these factors would cause a number of flights to face DOT antitrust enforcement action, then the DOT must seriously consider these factors in enacting this amendment. Otherwise, this could encourage airlines to shift their priorities toward attempting to prevent unpredictable problems they cannot correct, rather than toward preventing easily correctable problems.

December 5, 2007

Comments of David Tynes

lam writing in support of efforts by the Department of Transportation thru Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections. My wife and I will be in New Orleans volunteering to help those still in need this Christmas. We were forced to relocate after Hurricane Katrina. We are intimately aware of the consequences of failed government action. So were those in the government that have been disgraced and no longer have employment. Fortunately, none of the passengers trapped on aircraft have lost their lives so far. The DOT does not need to be put in the place of Homeland Security by failing to take care of their responsibilities. Act before some traveler dies.

December 5, 2007

Form Letter

Even our prisoners receive meals on a schedule, have access to functioning toilets, and have access to water. Every airline seems to have examples each year, where this does not happen, yet the plane is not lost in a jungle. It is sitting at an airport generally hundreds of feet from these necessities.

Self-regulation is what got us into this mess. DOT must find a common ground between self-regulation and government prescription.

Let the carriers bid on the limited time windows, and the airport authorities and FAA will have more money to do their job properly.

I know that I and others that work for me use this data, and we chose our flights based on the data. If I have a choice between 90% on time and 70%, I will always choose the 90%. Making it available right on web sites by the carriers and travel agencies would be most beneficial.