Airline Passenger Rights Legislation in the 107th Congress

CRS Report for Congress
Airline Passenger Rights Legislation
th
in the 107 Congress
Updated August 17, 2001
Robert S. Kirk
Economic Analyst, Transportation
Resources, Science, and Industry Division


Congressional Research Service The Library of Congress

Airline Passenger Rights Legislation in the 107
Congress
Summary
Congressional advocates of enhanced airline passenger rights have
introduced legislation in the 107th Congress that proposes remedies to a variety
of consumer complaints. Most of the bills include provisions requiring prompt
and truthful disclosure of reasons for delays, cancellations, and diverted flights.
Others, found in some of the bills, include: preventing airlines from assessing
a fee against, or prohibiting a ticket holder from using, only part of a ticket;
requiring airlines to make available information on all fares offered through any
media (phone, internet, etc.); and giving passengers the right to exit flights
delayed on the ground beyond a certain length of time. Some bills would
increase penalties for violating aviation consumer protection law or increase the
airlines’ liability for mistreatment of passengers.
During the 106th Congress, the Air Transport Association (ATA), which
represents the major air carriers, successfully forestalled major legislation
using three major strategies. First, the ATA took issue with the perceived extent
of consumer dissatisfaction by comparing the relative number of complaints
reported to the Department of Transportation (DOT) to the high passenger
volume. Second, the ATA argued that most delays were due to the weather and
to the air traffic control system. Finally, to mitigate the perception of some
Members of Congress that legislation was needed, the ATA proposed a voluntary
“Airline Customer Service Commitment,” hereafter referred to as the Service
Commitment. All the major carriers would develop customer service plans that
would include their commitment to promises such as offering the lowest fare
available; notifying customers of known delays, cancellations and diversions;
providing on time baggage delivery of checked baggage; and being more
responsive to customer complaints.
On February 13, 2001, the DOT Office of the Inspector General (IG)
released its report on how well the airlines have met their Service
Commitments. It concluded that, while the airlines were making some progress
on some of the Commitments, that there were significant shortfalls on others.
Two bills, introduced following release of the IG’s report–the Air
Customer Service Improvement Act (S. 319) and the Fair Treatment of Airline
Passengers Act (S. 483)– incorporate many of the IG’s recommendations,
including provisions to make the Service Commitments enforceable. After
incorporating a significant number of provisions from S. 483, the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported out S. 319, on
February 13, 2001.
After two summers of record delays, cancellations, and consumer
complaints, these indicators have improved significantly during the first half of
2001. It remains to be seen if this improvement will be enough to forestall the
proposed legislative remedies in the 107th Congress.



Contents
Background ..................................................... 1
Airline Consumer Rights legislation in the 106th Congress..........1
The Air Carriers’ Response................................2
The Re-emergence of Airline Passenger Rights Issues.........3
The IG’s Report on the Airline Customer Commitment.............4
Proposed Legislative Remedies of the 107th Congress.................5
Access to All Fares..........................................6
Access to Services and the Right to Deplane From
Delayed Aircraft During Emergencies.......................6
Baggage Handling............................................6
Bumping and Overbooking.....................................6
Delays, Cancellations, and Diversions...........................6
Chronically Delayed or Cancelled Flights....................7
Information System Provisions.............................7
Enforcement Provisions......................................7
Federal Preemption of State Consumer Law......................8
Partial Ticket Use............................................9
Travel Agent Provisions.......................................9
Other Legislation................................................9
The Airline Customer Notification Act (H.R. 571)................9
Consumer-Friendly Airline Ticket Transfer Act (H.R. 1074).......10
The Aviation Delay Prevention Act (S. 633).....................10
The Airline Passenger Treatment bill (H.R. 1407)................11
Side-by-Side Comparison of Passenger Rights Legislation
in the 107th Congress .......................................11
List of Tables
Index of Legislative Topics of Airline Passenger Rights Bills..........12
Table 1: Side-by-Side Comparison of Selected Provisions
From Airline Passenger Rights Legislation: 107th Congress.......14



Airline Passenger Rights Legislation in the
th
107 Congress
In the 107th Congress, supporters of enhanced airline passenger rights have
introduced legislation significantly influenced by both legislation introduced in
the 106th Congress and the airline industry’s response to that threat of
legislative remedies. As a group, the various bills’ provisions address the issue
of how to respond to a reported growing consumer dissatisfaction with airline
service. Also at issue is the appropriate degree of federal involvement in
protecting airline customers. Two summers of record delays and flight
cancellations by the major airlines, and a perception of complacency by airlines
concerning customer discontent, have led to a variety of proposed remedies to
consumer complaints, related to delays, cancellations, lost or misrouted
baggage, partial ticket use, and the provision of complete fare information. For
2001, delays, cancellations, and consumer complaints have all declined from the
high levels of 1999 and 2000. It remains to be seen, however, if this
improvement will be enough to forestall the momentum toward legislative
remedies in the 107th Congress.1
This report examines legislation pertaining to airline consumer protection
in the 107th Congress. For background it first summarizes legislation proposed
in the 106th Congress and the airlines’ response. The report then briefly
examines the findings of the Department of Transportation Inspector General’s
February 13, 2001 report on airline customer service. It then discusses the
legislative remedies proposed in the 107th Congress. Finally, a side-by-side
presentation of provisions from six airline passenger rights bills is set forth.
Background
Airline Consumer Rights legislation in the 106th Congress
Early in the 106th Congress, a number of bills, referred to collectively in
the press as “airline passenger bill of rights” legislation, were introduced in both


1Better weather, lower capacity utilization because of the slowing economy, schedule
changes at certain congested airports, the absence of the ComAir fleet because of a strike,
as well as industry efforts to improve customer service, are among the reasons mentioned
in discussions of the improvements in the delay and cancellation rates and the reduced
number of consumer complaints filed with DOT in 2001.

the House and Senate.2 Their introduction followed close on the heels of a
major airline consumer event. Just days before the 106th Congress first met, a
powerful storm swept across the upper midwest dropping nearly a foot of snow
on the Detroit Metropolitan-Wayne County Airport. In the high winds and low
temperatures that followed the snowfall, nearly 50 aircraft, loaded with
passengers, were trapped on the airport’s taxiways and aprons. Some of the
flights were not allowed to deplane for over seven hours and, as the time wore
on, some aircraft ran out of food, water, and functioning toilets. The extreme
nature of the Detroit incident, the seeming complacency of the initial airline
response, and wide press coverage helped increase public attention to already
growing airline passenger discontent with airline customer service and business
practices.
The bills introduced in the 106th Congress included a variety of legislative
remedies as well as a range of enforcement mechanisms and penalties. All the
bills required prompt announcement and truthful disclosure of any flight delays,
cancellations, or diversions. About half of the bills required full access to fare
information regardless of the technology or method of access (e.g. via
telephone or internet). Other consumer rights provisions addressed in two or
more bills included: partial ticket use; the right of access to services and the
right to deplane from delayed aircraft; restrictions on federal preemption of
state consumer protection laws; and a number of provisions of benefit to travel
agents. About half of the bills provided for fines for violation of the acts’
provisions or set airline financial liability for each passenger subject to a non-
safety delay or cancellation. Other bills would have made violation of certain
provisions subject to existing DOT enforcement procedures as “unfair or
deceptive practices” and “unfair methods of competition” under 49 U.S.C.

41712. None of these free-standing passenger rights bills were enacted.


The Air Carriers’ Response. The Air Transport Association (ATA),
which represents the major air carriers, responded to these passenger rights bills
in several ways.3 In testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee, on
March 11, 1999, ATA President, Carol Hallett, said that the airlines would
accept responsibility for the service failures that are within their control. She
also, however, pointed to severe weather and air traffic control as the two main
causes of delay (the most common customer complaint). She charged that 65%
of delays were attributable “directly to the ATC [air traffic control] system.”
Finally, the ATA argued that legislation to improve customer treatment was
unnecessary because the air carriers were voluntarily making changes that would
improve their customer service.


2For a detailed examination of passenger rights bills in the 106th congress see, Airline
Passenger Rights legislation in the 106th Congress, by Robert S. Kirk. CRS Report
RL30691.
3See Statement of Carol B. Hallett, President and Chief Executive Officer, Air
Transport Association of America, before the Senate Commerce Committee Hearing on
S. 383, the Airline Passenger Fairness Act. Washington, March 11, 1999. 6 p.

The ATA Airline Customer Service Commitment. On June 17, 1999,
the ATA announced that each of the major air carriers would develop voluntary
customer service plans guided by a twelve part “Airline Customer Service
Commitment.” In their Service Commitments the ATA carriers claim they will:
!Offer the lowest fare available [from the airline’s telephone reservation
system]
!Notify customers of known delays, cancellations and diversions
!Provide on-time baggage delivery [return misdirected bags within 24
hours]
!Support an increase in the lost baggage liability limit
!Allow reservations to be held or canceled [for 24 hours]
!Provide prompt refunds [7 day credit card; 20 days for cash]
!Properly accommodate disabled and special needs passengers
!Meet customers’ essential needs during long on-aircraft delays
!Handle “bumped” passengers with fairness and consistency
!Disclose travel itinerary, cancellation policies, frequent flyer rules and
aircraft configuration
!Ensure good customer service from code-share partners
!Be more responsive to customer complaints.
An ATA transmittal letter to the Senate Commerce Committee stated that its
view was that only a voluntary commitment from the industry could improve
customer service without “unintended and costly consequences.”
The Re-emergence of Airline Passenger Rights Issues. After the
release of the ATA voluntary plan, many thought airline passenger rights would
not be an issue for the rest of the first session. However, although some
Members of Congress supported giving the ATA plan a chance, others voiced
skepticism of the likely effectiveness of voluntary industry commitments. In
the waning days of the first session of the 106th Congress, during floor debate
in the Senate, both on the DOT FY2000 appropriations bill and the FAA
reauthorization bill, airline passenger protection issues reemerged in the form
of multiple amendments to the two bills.
The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st
Century (P.L. 106-181; AIR21) and the FY2000 DOT Appropriations Act (P.L.
106-69) included provisions that both altered some consumer protection
provisions of Title 49, and also included provisions that called for investigatory
studies by the DOT Inspector General (IG) and the General Accounting Office
(GAO). The changes to the aviation consumer protection statutes were few in
number and included raising the maximum penalty for violating the passenger
consumer protection provisions to $2,500, ordering DOT to raise the maximum
liability for lost luggage, and making the failure of an air carrier or ticket agent
to notify a purchaser of an e-ticket of its expiration date an “unfair or deceptive”
practice. More significant for the 107th Congress are the investigatory studies,
especially the one that required the IG to monitor the implementation of any of
the voluntary airline customer service plans submitted to DOT by the air
carriers. For this study, the IG was required to report on the effectiveness of the



customer service plans and to make recommendations for improving
accountability, enforcement, and consumer protections for airline passengers.
There was no further legislative action in the 106th Congress. Most
members of Congress were willing to wait and see what the IG’s final report
concluded and recommended. Some would argue that the ATA’s strategy had
successfully forestalled passage of an airline passenger rights bill in the 106th
Congress. On the other hand, the congressionally mandated studies of the air
carriers’ implementation of their customer service plans and other business
practices insured that the airline passenger rights issue would remain alive into
the 107th Congress.
The IG’s Report on the Airline Customer Commitment
On February 13, 2001 the DOT Office of the Inspector General (IG)
released its final report analyzing the progress made by the airlines under their
voluntary “Customer Service Commitment.”4 The IG report concluded that,
although progress had been made, there were still significant shortfalls,
especially in provisions that “trigger when there is a flight delay or
cancellation.” These provisions include keeping customers informed of delays
and cancellations and also meeting customers’ “essential needs” during extended
on-aircraft delays. The report also found a need for improvement in regard to
the provision for fairness and consistency in bumping practices on flights that
are oversold. The IG concluded that the policies for accommodating passengers
delayed overnight were often inconsistent with the Service Commitment or the
airlines contracts of carriage. On the positive side the report found that, in
general the airlines were complying with the commitment to offer the lowest
fare, to provide prompt ticket refunds, to be more responsive to customer
complaints, and to support a higher payout for lost baggage. The report,
however, pointed out that the Service Commitments did nothing to address the
underlying problem of delays and cancellations.
The IG recommended that:
!the Customer Service Commitments be made enforceable either by
requiring their inclusion in the airlines’ contracts of carriage or by
regulation;
!a commitment be added to establish a quality assurance and performance
measurement system and to audit compliance with the commitment;
!the resources allocated to the DOT division responsible for consumer
protection be significantly increased;


4Department of Transportation. Office of the Inspector General. Final Report on the
Airline Customer Service Commitment. Washington, the Office. 127 p. Internet address:
[http://www.oig.dot.gov/audits/av2001020.htm]

!at the time of booking and without being asked, the prior month’s on-time
performance rate for consistently delayed and/or cancelled flights be
disclosed to consumers;
!airlines clarify in their customer service plans what is meant by an
“extended period of time” and “emergency” so passengers know what to
expect. The airlines should also ensure that comprehensive customer
service contingency plans specify the efforts that will be made to get
passengers off the aircraft when delayed for extended periods;
!DOT should establish a standard check-in time and disclose it on the
ticket jacket; assure that all bumped volunteers are equally compensated;
increase compensation to bumped passengers; and disclose orally to
passengers that involuntarily bumped passengers must be compensated in
advance of payments being offered to volunteers;
!a uniform system for tracking delays, cancellations, and their causes be
established and implemented;
!capacity benchmarks for the nations top 30 airports be established to
provide a common framework for understanding what maximum arrival
and departure rate can physically be accommodated by an airport by time
of day under optimum conditions.
By early June 2001, 14 ATA member airlines had voluntarily incorporated
the ATA customer service commitments into their contracts of carriage.
Critics, however, argue that the vagueness of the language of the commitments
limits the importance of their inclusion in the contracts of carriage for
consumers.
Proposed Legislative Remedies of the 107th Congress
Most of the passenger rights bills introduced in the 107th Congress are
influenced by legislation introduced in the 106th Congress or by the findings of
the DOT IG, or both. Four of the bills, S. 200, the Air Travelers Fair Treatment
Act (Senator Reid), H.R. 332, the Aviation Consumer Right to Know Act
(Representatives DeFazio and Slaughter), H.R. 384, the Airline Passenger Fair
Treatment Act (Representatives Sweeny), and H.R. 907, the Airline Competition
and Passenger Rights Act (Representative Dingell) all revived numerous
provisions from legislation first introduced in the 106th Congress. Following
release of the IG report on the airlines’ customer service performance, two new
bills, S. 319, the Airline Customer Service Improvement Act (Senators McCain,
Hollings, Hutchison) and S. 483, the Fair Treatment of Airline Passengers Act
(Senator Wyden), were introduced. These bills include provisions to make the
voluntary service commitments enforceable. They also include provisions that
would implement many of the IG’s other recommendations. During a Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation mark-up, a significant
number of provisions from S. 483 were added by amendment in the nature of a
substitute to S. 319, which was reported on March 15, 2001, with Senator
Wyden becoming the fourth sponsor. In early May Representatives Sweeny and



Dingell combined many or the provisions of their two bills (H.R. 384 and H.R.

907) and introduced H.R. 1734, the Airline Passenger Bill of Rights Act.5


Although there are significant differences in provisions of the airline
passenger consumer rights bills introduced in the 107th Congress, it is possible
to place many of the provisions into comparable issue categories. This section
describes these provisions in a general way and does not include provisions that
are unique to a one bill. For detail on six individual bills, see the side-by-side
comparison that is set forth in the table at the end of this report.6
Access to All Fares
About half of the bills introduced would require air carriers to make
available to customers information on all fares charged by an airline regardless
of the technology or means used to access the information. The heart of this
issue is the “lowest fare available” debate. Under this provision, for example,
if someone contacts an air carrier by telephone the air carrier’s agent would
have to notify the customer if there were a cheaper fare being offered via
internet or through travel agencies. Two of the bills (S. 319 and S. 483) would
simply require the airlines to notify customers that cheaper fairs may be
available through other distribution systems.
Access to Services and the Right to Deplane From Delayed
Aircraft During Emergencies
Three bills (H.R. 1734, S. 200, and H.R. 907), included language that would
have limited to one hour the length of time airlines can require passengers to
stay aboard an aircraft during ground-delayed departures or arrivals at an airport.
H.R. 907 also requires DOT to issue regulations that require air carriers ensure
access to necessary services and conditions including food, water, restroom
facilities, and also provide for an ability to deplane in the event of a weather or
other emergency. S. 319, H.R. 1734, and H.R. 907 require air carriers to ensure
that comprehensive emergency plans are maintained and coordinated with local
airport authorities and the FAA.
Baggage Handling
S. 319 and S. 483 would both require more detailed and accurate
information on mishandled baggage. S. 319 would require a luggage tracking
system be established and a toll free telephone number passengers can call to


5From here on in the text H.R. 384, because virtually all of its provisions were incorporated
in H.R. 1734 will not be mentioned.
6The side-by-side includes H.R. 1734, S. 200, S. 332, H.R. 907, S. 483, and S. 319. H.R.
571, the Airline Customer Right to Know Act (Representative Bilirakus), H.R. 711, “to
clarify that State attorneys general may enforce State consumer protection laws with respect
to air transportation...” (Representatives Trancredo and Schaffer) and S. 633, the Aviation
Delay Prevention Act (Senators Hutchison and Rockefeller) are discussed in the text.

check on the status of their delayed luggage. It also requires that passengers
who do not check luggage not be counted when calculating the rate of
mishandled luggage. S. 483 sets forth specific statistical categories that must
be reported and requires air carriers to establish performance goals aimed at
reducing the incidence of mishandled baggage.
Bumping and Overbooking
S. 319 and S. 483 have similar provisions that require: DOT to establish a
uniform check-in deadline and require airlines to disclose it on their ticket
jackets; notification that involuntarily bumped passengers must be offered
compensation before any offers are made to volunteers. S. 483 also requires
that air carriers, on request, tell a passenger whether a flight is oversold. H.R.
1734 and H.R. 907 would also push the boarding deadline right up to the time
that the aircraft’s door is closed.
Delays, Cancellations, and Diversions
Virtually all the bills introduced include provisions that require prompt
notification and truthful explanation of any flight delays, cancellations, or
diversions.
Chronically Delayed or Cancelled Flights. Four bills (S. 319, S. 483,
H.R. 1734, and H.R. 907) include provisions that require air carriers to disclose,
without being asked, to customers when they are making a reservation or
purchasing a ticket, the on-time performance and cancellation rate for any
chronically-delayed or cancelled flights. H.R. 1734 and H.R. 907 would make
failure to make such a disclosure an unfair or deceptive practice and unfair
method of competition. S. 319 would require that DOT include a table in the Air
Travel Consumer report that shows, for the most recent three month period,
flight numbers of flights delayed by 15 minutes or more 40% of the time or
more and flights canceled 30% of the time or more.
Information System Provisions. Four bills (S. 319, S. 483, H.R. 1734,
and H.R. 907) also include a variety of information system requirements,
including setting up a notification system that would notify passengers before
they leave for the airport that their flight will be cancelled or delayed. These
three bills also require that air carriers coordinate with airport officials to
assure that master airport flight display monitors contain up-to-date flight
information and are consistent with their own monitors. Another provision, in
S. 319 and S. 483, would require air carriers to post the on-time performance
for each scheduled flight for the previous month on their web sites.
Enforcement Provisions
Airline passenger rights legislation introduced in the 107th Congress
includes a variety of approaches to enforcement. S. 319 and S. 483 both
contain provisions that would implement a number of the IG recommendations
regarding enforcement. These bills would require the major air carriers to write



their customer service plans into their contracts of carriage, thus making the
provisions enforceable in court under contract law (as mentioned earlier, in
early June, 14 of the ATA airlines announced that they had voluntarily
incorporated the customer service commitments into their contracts of
carriage).7 S. 319, in addition, requires that DOT monitor compliance to
provisions of the bill and to take enforcement actions as necessary. The agency
is to monitor customer service quality assurance and performance measurement
systems and review the airlines’ internal audits. S. 319 and S. 483 would also
amend 49 U.S. C. Section 46301 to extend the $2,500 per occurrence penalty
to violations of any of the bill’s provisions. The other bills rely on existing
enforcement mechanisms or expanding the coverage of existing law under 49
U.S. C. 41712 relating to “unfair or deceptive trade practices” or “unfair
methods of competition.”8 Finally, these bills call for DOT to increase
resources for the airline passenger consumer protection activities of the
Department.
Both the monitoring requirements and the expanded Section 41712
practices would be the responsibility of the DOT Assistant General Counsel for
Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings. At this writing, this office has a staff
of 22, including 8 attorneys and 9 transportation industry and consumer analysts.
Some argue that the proposed enforcement provisions could overwhelm the
Assistant General Counsel’s staff.9 AIR21 authorized a significant increase in
funding but appropriations for this activity have been significantly below the
authorized level.


7Some of the enforcement provisions refer to the air carrier contract of carriage. When a
passenger purchases a ticket from an airline the passenger’s rights and responsibilities as
well as the limits of the air carrier’s responsibilities and liabilities are set forth in a “contract
of carriage” (COC). On the back of the ticket, in the ticket jacket, or on the ticket jacket
itself is a summary of selected provisions of the COC and a reference to the full text. As
mentioned in the text, by writing the customer commitments into their COCs, the air carriers
could be held liable under contract law for violating their commitments. Some airlines have
made the full text of their COCs available on their internet web sites others still require that
a request be made to their customer service departments.
8Some would argue that failure of the airlines to fulfill the ATA customer commitments could
be considered a deceptive trade practice and could therefore lead to enforcement actions by
the Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings.
9As reported in the IG’s final report the Office staff is half as large as it was in 1985, when
the Office had a staff of 40. The decline in staffing has continued even as consumer
complaints received by the office have gone from 6,026 in 1995to 23,381 in 2000. In 2000
the Office had a staff of 17. Five new positions were authorized for FY2001. AIR21 also
added other responsibilities to be carried out by the Office including a provision requiring
comprehensive investigation of each disability-related complaint (there were 595 in CY1999
and 676 in CY2000); extension of the disabled passenger discrimination law to international
flights; and a variety of data collection and reporting requirements. The House-passed
FY2002 appropriations bill (H.R. 2299) provides for 9 of the 20 new staff requested by
DOT. The Senate-passed bill (S. 2278) fully funds the request.

Some of the bills would increase the airline liability for specific violations.
For example, S. 319, S. 483, and H.R. 907 all would modify bumping regulations
to increase the maximum compensation amount. H.R. 907 includes a unique
airline liability provision. The bill would set the airline liability for a delay of
between two and three hours at 200% of the price paid for a ticket on the
delayed flight and another 100% for each additional hour or portion of an hour
above three hours delay. Delays caused by certain air traffic control directives,
mechanical, and other safety concerns are exempted.
Federal Preemption of State Consumer Law
Six bills include a provision designed to narrow the scope of federal
preemption of the application of state consumer protection laws to air
transportation.10 The intent of these provisions is to allow state and local
officials to enforce state consumer protection laws with respect to air
transportation and the advertisement of air transportation services. One of the
bills, H.R. 711(Representatives Tancredo/ Schaffer) presents this provision as
a stand-alone bill.
Partial Ticket Use
Four bills (H.R. 1734, H.R. 332, H.R. 1074, and H.R. 907) include
provisions that would prevent air carriers from assessing a fee against or
prohibiting a ticket holder from using only part of a ticket. This would shield
consumers who use “back-to-back” round trip ticketing or “hidden city”
ticketing. Back-to-back ticketing generally refers to purchasing two round trip
discount tickets but only using one way on each ticket (usually to avoid the
weekend stay-over requirements). Hidden city ticketing refers to a passenger
who wishes to fly to a hub destination but buys a cheaper ticket to a city served
through the hub. The passenger simply gets off the plane at the hub airport and
does not use the ticket for the final leg of the flight. Airlines argue that they
must be allowed, when a passenger does not show up for a trip segment, to
cancel any remaining trip segments. Otherwise, they argue, especially when
demand is high, they could deny a passenger a reservation when an empty seat
actually exists.
AIR21 included a provision that required the General Accounting Office
(GAO) to study the potential impacts of legalization of partial ticket use. The
study, released at the end of July 2001, concludes that “restricting the ability of
airlines to forbid hidden-city and back-to-back ticketing is unlikely to help
consumers...[and] would likely have unintended consequences that could hurt
some consumers. Nevertheless, consumer advocates and passengers have


10 Preemption is the “Doctrine adopted by U.S. Supreme Court [based on the U.S.
Constitution’s supremacy clause] holding that certain matters are of such a national, as
opposed to local, character that federal laws preempt or take precedence over state laws.
As such, a state may not pass a law inconsistent with the federal law.” Blacks Law
Dictionary. St. Paul, Minnesota, 1990. p 1177. See also State and Local Sanctions:
Some Constitutional Issues, by Jean J. Grimmett. CRS Report 98-795 A.

legitimate concerns that some fares are higher than what might be expected in
a more competitive market.”11
Travel Agent Provisions
Three bills (H.R. 1734, S. 200, and H.R. 907) include provisions that could
be seen as benefitting travel agents. Their provisions require that air carriers
provide 90 days notice to a ticket agent if the carrier wishes to cancel,
terminate, or not renew the agent’s appointment as a carrier agent. It would give
the agent 60 days to correct any deficiency identified by the air carrier as a
reason for ending the agent’s appointment.
Other Legislation
The Airline Customer Notification Act (H.R. 571)
The Airline Customer Notification Act (Representative Bilirakis), amends
the consumer protection provisions of Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Its provisions
require air carriers to announce the reason or reasons for: a delay of two or
more hours or cancellation of a flight; the diversion of a flight to another
airport; a one hour delay of deplaning after touchdown; and, in the case of a
delay, the expected length of the delay. Passengers may request the reason or
reasons in writing. The passenger’s right to notification must be posted at the
gate or ticket counter. Finally, the bill includes a prohibition on false or
misleading explanations. Because of H.R. 571’s conciseness, it is not included
in the side-by-side.
Consumer-Friendly Airline Ticket Transfer Act (H.R. 1074)
The Consumer-Friendly Airline Ticket Transfer Act (Representative
Gibbons), requires DOT to issue regulations, within 90 days of enactment, that
require air carriers to make paper tickets for intrastate or interstate air
transportation, transferrable at no cost. Also within 90 days DOT is to make
recommendations to Congress relating to the transfer of electronic tickets. As
mentioned earlier, H.R. 1074 also includes provisions to prevent air carriers
from prohibiting or assessing a fee for partial ticket use.
The Aviation Delay Prevention Act (S. 633)
The Aviation Delay Prevention Act (Senators Hutchison and Rockefeller)
was proposed as an amendment to S. 319, but was withdrawn during mark-up and


11General Accounting Office. Aviation Competition: Restricting Airline Ticketing Rules
Unlikely to Help Consumers. GAO-01-831. July 31, 2001. Washington, GAO, 2001. p.

44-45.



was later introduced as a stand-alone bill. The intent of the bill was to provide
some near term relief to airport congestion and delay by spreading out peak hour
schedules and also accelerating capacity-enhancing airport projects. As
introduced, S. 633 had three main provisions. First, it called for a review of and
report on air carrier over-scheduling at large hub airports, an analysis of the
congestion mitigation authority of DOT, and recommendations for increasing
DOT’s authority. Second, the bill would have provided air carriers with a limited
exemption from the antitrust laws allowing them to discuss, in the presence of
a DOT representative, cooperative scheduling arrangements to reduce over-
scheduling. Third, the bill called for DOT to implement an expedited
coordinated environmental and judicial review process (done concurrently not
consecutively) for airport capacity-enhancement projects.
In committee, an amendment in the nature of a substitute significantly
altered the text and scope of S. 633. The Senate Commerce Committee version
of the bill shifts the initiative for action from the airlines to the DOT and also
adds a number new provisions. The bill, as reported, requires that, within one
year of enactment and for each of the next five years, DOT must complete a
review and report on air carrier over-scheduling and scheduling practices,
including flight cancellations for economic reasons, at large hub airports and
must include an analysis of the congestion mitigation authority of the Secretary
and make recommendations for providing additional authority. The bill provides
that the Secretary of DOT may request that air carriers meet with the
administrator of the FAA to discuss flight reductions at severely congested
airports. The bill provides for short-term “stormy weather agreement” limited
antitrust exemptions for airlines to meet to discuss schedules. The Secretary
of DOT is to identify airports--from among those included in the Airport
Capacity Benchmark Report--where delays occur that significantly affect the
national airport and airway system. If any of those identified airports have no
plans in place to increase airport capacity, DOT is to create a task force to
conduct capacity enhancement studies these airports. Any airport for which a
capacity enhancement study recommends building a new runway or
reconfiguring its existing runways becomes a National Capacity Project. DOT
is required to complete an environmental review within five years and expedite
funding for the project. Airports not following through with the recommended
capacity expansion can loose funding for non-capacity projects as well as loss
of passenger facility charge revenues. The bill includes a five year pilot
program that would allow airport sponsors to pay for additional environmental
specialists and attorneys from outside the U.S. government to assist in providing
an appropriate level of planning and environmental review of runway
development projects for designated national capacity projects. The PFC
eligibility for gate related airport improvements is expanded and AIP funds
would be available for construction of air traffic control towers. The bill would
raise the noise set-aside for AIP discretionary funds to 35%. This provision
also appears to make National Capacity Projects eligible for AIP noise
mitigation funds without having to meet the requirement of having an FAA
approved “Part 150" noise mitigation plan. DOT is also directed to provide a list
of categorical exclusions currently recognized and a list of additional proposed
categorical exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.



The Airline Passenger Treatment bill (H.R. 1407)
As reported (H. Rept. 107-77, part 2), The Airline Passenger Treatment Act
(Representative Young) allows air carriers at an airport to file a request with the
Attorney General (AG) for authority to discuss with one or more other air
carriers, agreements or cooperative arrangements relating to limiting flights at
an airport during a time period that the AG determines that scheduled flights
exceed the capacity of the airport. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss
reducing delays during that time period. The bill would allow for limited
antitrust exemption. The AG must, however, find that the voluntary adjustments
could lead to a substantial reduction in travel delays and improved service
without substantially lessening competition or tending to create a monopoly.
Three days notice must be given to all carriers providing service or seeking to
provide service at the airport under discussion. The AG or his/her representative
will attend and monitor the meeting. Unanimous agreement of the carriers at the
airport is required. Participants may not discuss rates, fares, charges, in-flight
service, or service to any city pair. The meetings are to be public. The AG will
consult with the Secretary of DOT in making the decision. The legislation’s
provisions would expire after September 30, 2003.
Side-by-Side Comparison of Passenger Rights
Legislation in the 107th Congress
The side-by-side comparison (Table 1) sets forth provisions of six airline
passenger rights bills that have been introduced so far during the 107th Congress.
The analysis does not include bills or provisions that have been written to
increase competition or to increase service to underserved areas. A complete
indexed list of passenger rights topics covered in the bills is provided on the
next page, to enhance the side-by side comparison that follows.



Index of Legislative Topics of Airline Passenger Rights Bills
TopicS.H.R. 1734H.R. 332S. 200S. 483H.R. 907Page
319
Baggage: information systemX------X--14
Baggage: DOT’s method ofX------X--14
calculating mishandled baggage
Baggage: handling performanceX------X--14
goals
Bumping: check-in deadlinesXX----XX15
Bumping: passenger compensationX------X--15
priorities
Bumping: compensation in--X------X15
addition to existing law
Bumping: compensationX------XX16
Bumping: disclosure of oversold--------X--16
flights, on request
Bumping: policy disclosure--------X--16
Bumping: regulation modification--X--------17
Civil penaltiesX------X--17
Code sharingX----------17
Compliance assuranceX----------18
(DOT functions)
Compliance assuranceX------X--19
(Air Carrier functions)
Contracts of carriage:--------X--19
availability of copies
Contracts of carriage:X------X--20
incorporation of Customer Service
Commitments/ customer service
plans
Customer service plan modification--------X--20
Customer service plan adoptionX------X--20
Delays/cancellations: chronicallyX------X--21
delayed flight information
publication
Delays/cancellations: definition ofXX----X--21
chronically delayed/cancelled
flights
Delays/cancellations: right to de---X--X--X22


plane

TopicS.H.R. 1734H.R. 332S. 200S. 483H.R. 907Page
319
Delays/cancellations: disclosure ofXX----XX22
chronically-delayed or canceled
flights
Delays/cancellations: notificationXXXXXX23
Delays/cancellations: XX----XX23
advance information...
Delays/cancellations: public------X--24
information...telephone/WEB
Delays/cancellations: dis-X------X--24
closure of on-time performance
Delays: improvement targets forX----------24
delayed or cancelled flights
Delays: liability for excessive...----------X25
Disabled and special needsX----------25
services
Disabled passengers’ equipmentX----------25
Emergency medical servicesX----X----26
Emergency plansXX------X26
Enforcement funding: funding forX------X--27
DOT enforcement of airline
passenger protection provisions
Fares: access to lowest faresXXX--XX27
Federal preemption of state--XXX--X28
consumer law
Frequent flyer informationX--X--X--28
Information monitors: coordinationXX----XX28
of displays
Initial response reportsX-----------29
Insecticide warnings----X------29
Overnight accommodations: plansXX--------29
for passengers stranded...
Partial ticket use--XX----X30
Passenger rights publication--X------X30
Review of regulationsX------X--31
Safety: access to safety------X----31
information
Safety: performance review reports------X----31
Small air carrier exception--------X--32



TopicS.H.R. 1734H.R. 332S. 200S. 483H.R. 907Page
319
Ticket agent appointment--X--X--X32
cancellation
Victims assistance: civil penalties------X----32
for failure to provide safety or
victims’ assistance information
Victims’ assistance toll free------X----32
telephone
Victims’ assistance coordination------X----33
Victims’ right to information------X----33
-



CRS-16
Table 1: Side-by-Side Comparison of Selected Provisions From Airline Passenger Rights Legislation: 107th Congress
TopicAirline CustomerAirline Passenger Bill ofAviation ConsumerAir Travelers FairFair Treatment ofAirline Competition and
Service Improvement Act Rights Act (H.R. 1734)Right to Know Act (H.R.Treatment Act (S. 200)Airline Passengers ActPassenger Rights Act
(S. 319)Introduced May 3, 2001332) Introduced Jan. 29, 2001(S. 483) (H.R. 907)
Reported March 15, 2001 (Sweeny/ Dingell)Introduced Jan. 31, 2001(Reid)Introduced March 7,Introduced March 7,
(McCain/Hollings/(DeFazio/Slaughter)2001 (Wyden)2001 (Dingell)
Hutchison/Wyden)
Within 90 days of------Within 6 months of--
enactment air carriers shall: enactment air carriers shall
develop and implement arevise their reporting of
system for tracking andmishandled baggage to
documenting the amount ofshow: the percentage of
time between receipt of achecked baggage
iki/CRS-RL30940claim for missing baggagemishandled during the
g/wand its delivery; andreporting period; the
s.orestablish a toll freenumber of mishandled
leaktelephone number thatpassengers can use tobags; and the averagelength of time between the
://wikicheck the status of theirdelayed baggage.receipt of a passenger’sclaim for missing baggage
httpand its delivery to the
passenger.
In calculating and reporting------Within 6 months of--
the rate of mishandledenactment DOT shall
baggage, DOT shall notrevise its method of
take into accountreporting the rate of
passengers who do notmishandled baggage to
check any baggage.reflect the reporting
requirements of the Act.
--------Within 6 months of--


enactment air carriers shall
establish performance
goals designed to minimize
incidents of mishandled
baggage.

CRS-17
TopicAirline CustomerAirline Passenger Bill ofAviation ConsumerAir Travelers FairFair Treatment ofAirline Competition and
Service Improvement Act Rights Act (H.R. 1734)Right to Know Act (H.R.Treatment Act (S. 200)Airline Passengers ActPassenger Rights Act
(S. 319)Introduced May 3, 2001332) Introduced Jan. 29, 2001(S. 483) (H.R. 907)
Reported March 15, 2001 (Sweeny/ Dingell)Introduced Jan. 31, 2001(Reid)Introduced March 7,Introduced March 7,
(McCain/Hollings/(DeFazio/Slaughter)2001 (Wyden)2001 (Dingell)
Hutchison/Wyden)
DOT will initiate withinPassengers shall be eligible----Virtually identical to Identical to H.R. 1734.
30 days of enactment afor involuntary deniedS. 319.
rule- making to establish aboarding compensation if
uniform check-in deadlinethe passenger checks in at
and require airlines tothe appropriate airport
disclose it both on thegate at any time before the
ticket jackets and contractsdoor of the aircraft for the
of carriage.flight segment is closed.
iki/CRS-RL30940Air carriers must tell all------Identical to S. 319.--
g/wpassengers on a flight that
s.orthey are required to pay
leakpassengers involuntarily
denied boarding before
://wikimaking offers to
httppassengers who volunteertheir seats.
--In addition to the------Identical to H.R. 1734.


compensation set forth in
existing law, air carriers
shall provide for
passengers involuntarily
bumped: alternate
transportation to their final
destination; reasonable and
immediate compensation
for food; and hotel costs if
departure time of
alternative is not within
the same day.

CRS-18
TopicAirline CustomerAirline Passenger Bill ofAviation ConsumerAir Travelers FairFair Treatment ofAirline Competition and
Service Improvement Act Rights Act (H.R. 1734)Right to Know Act (H.R.Treatment Act (S. 200)Airline Passengers ActPassenger Rights Act
(S. 319)Introduced May 3, 2001332) Introduced Jan. 29, 2001(S. 483) (H.R. 907)
Reported March 15, 2001 (Sweeny/ Dingell)Introduced Jan. 31, 2001(Reid)Introduced March 7,Introduced March 7,
(McCain/Hollings/(DeFazio/Slaughter)2001 (Wyden)2001 (Dingell)
Hutchison/Wyden)
DOT will initiate within------Virtually identical to Within 90 days of
30 days a rule-making,S. 319.enactment, DOT shall
under 14 C.F.R. 250.5, tomodify regulations
increase the maximumcontained in 14 CFR 250
compensation amount.to conform with the
bumping provisions of the
act and to adjust the dollar
compensation amounts for
iki/CRS-RL30940 inflation.
g/w--------Upon request, air carrier--
s.orshall inform a ticketed
leakpassenger whether the
passenger’s flight is
://wiki oversold.
http--------Air carriers must disclose--


on their web sites and on
ticket jackets their criteria
for determining which
passengers will be
involuntarily denied
boarding on an oversold
flight and its procedures
for offering compensation
to bumped passengers.

CRS-19
TopicAirline CustomerAirline Passenger Bill ofAviation ConsumerAir Travelers FairFair Treatment ofAirline Competition and
Service Improvement Act Rights Act (H.R. 1734)Right to Know Act (H.R.Treatment Act (S. 200)Airline Passengers ActPassenger Rights Act
(S. 319)Introduced May 3, 2001332) Introduced Jan. 29, 2001(S. 483) (H.R. 907)
Reported March 15, 2001 (Sweeny/ Dingell)Introduced Jan. 31, 2001(Reid)Introduced March 7,Introduced March 7,
(McCain/Hollings/(DeFazio/Slaughter)2001 (Wyden)2001 (Dingell)
Hutchison/Wyden)
--Requires that within 90--------
days of enactment, DOT
modify regulations in 14
CFR title 250, to conform
to the bill’s subsection on
bumping and also to
implement the IG’s
recommendations in its
iki/CRS-RL30940report on airline customerservice commitment.12
g/w
s.orAmends U.S. Code 49 sec.------Identical to S. 319.--
leak46301to extend the $2,500
per occurrence penalty to
://wikiany violations of the
httpconsumer provisions of S.319. [added in committee
from S. 483]
Within 90 days of----------


enactment, any large air
carrier that maintains a
domestic code-share
arrangement shall conduct
an annual audit of the code
share carrier’s compliance
with the airline customer
service commitment.
12The text of this provision makes it unclear if the intent is for DOT to modify regulations to implement all the IG’s recommendations or just those related to
overbooking and bumping.

CRS-20
TopicAirline CustomerAirline Passenger Bill ofAviation ConsumerAir Travelers FairFair Treatment ofAirline Competition and
Service Improvement Act Rights Act (H.R. 1734)Right to Know Act (H.R.Treatment Act (S. 200)Airline Passengers ActPassenger Rights Act
(S. 319)Introduced May 3, 2001332) Introduced Jan. 29, 2001(S. 483) (H.R. 907)
Reported March 15, 2001 (Sweeny/ Dingell)Introduced Jan. 31, 2001(Reid)Introduced March 7,Introduced March 7,
(McCain/Hollings/(DeFazio/Slaughter)2001 (Wyden)2001 (Dingell)
Hutchison/Wyden)
DOT shall: monitor----------


compliance to provisions
of the Act and take
enforcement action if
necessary; monitor air
carrier customer service
QA and performance
measurement systems; and
iki/CRS-RL30940review the air carriers’internal audits of their QA
g/wand performance
s.ormeasurement systems.
leakAlso [added in Committee]
DOT shall monitor, in
://wikiparticular, air carrier
httpperformance of theinformation disclosure
provisions of the Act
concerning delay,
cancellations, lowest fares,
on-time performance, and
bumping priorities,
focusing on practices and
patterns of conduct.

CRS-21
TopicAirline CustomerAirline Passenger Bill ofAviation ConsumerAir Travelers FairFair Treatment ofAirline Competition and
Service Improvement Act Rights Act (H.R. 1734)Right to Know Act (H.R.Treatment Act (S. 200)Airline Passengers ActPassenger Rights Act
(S. 319)Introduced May 3, 2001332) Introduced Jan. 29, 2001(S. 483) (H.R. 907)
Reported March 15, 2001 (Sweeny/ Dingell)Introduced Jan. 31, 2001(Reid)Introduced March 7,Introduced March 7,
(McCain/Hollings/(DeFazio/Slaughter)2001 (Wyden)2001 (Dingell)
Hutchison/Wyden)
Within 90 days of------Similar to S. 319, except--
enactment each large airthat time frame after
carrier must: establish aenactment is 6 months and
customer service qualitythe air carriers are required
assurance (QA) andto consult with the DOT
performance system;IG. The bill also requires
establish an internal auditthat air carrier QA plans
process to measureand audit systems be
iki/CRS-RL30940compliance with thecommitments and itssubmitted to DOT forreview and approval.
g/wcustomer service plan; and
s.orcooperate with any DOT
leakaudit of its QA system.
://wiki--------Air carriers must post--


httptheir contracts of carriageon their internet web sites
and notify all ticketed
customers that the contract
is available upon request
or on the carrier’s web
site.

CRS-22
TopicAirline CustomerAirline Passenger Bill ofAviation ConsumerAir Travelers FairFair Treatment ofAirline Competition and
Service Improvement Act Rights Act (H.R. 1734)Right to Know Act (H.R.Treatment Act (S. 200)Airline Passengers ActPassenger Rights Act
(S. 319)Introduced May 3, 2001332) Introduced Jan. 29, 2001(S. 483) (H.R. 907)
Reported March 15, 2001 (Sweeny/ Dingell)Introduced Jan. 31, 2001(Reid)Introduced March 7,Introduced March 7,
(McCain/Hollings/(DeFazio/Slaughter)2001 (Wyden)2001 (Dingell)
Hutchison/Wyden)
Within 60 days air carriers------Virtually identical to --
shall incorporate theS. 319 as reported.
provisions of the “Airline
Customer Service
Commitment” in their
contracts of carriage. Also
[added in committee from
S. 483] provisions of
iki/CRS-RL30940carriers’ customer serviceplans to the extent that the
g/wplan is more specific or
s.orbroader than the service
leakcommitment.
://wiki--------Any modification of any--
httpair carrier’s customerservice plan must be
promptly incorporated in
the carrier’s contract of
carriage, submitted to the
DOT, and posted on the
carrier’s web site.
Air carriers, if they have------Identical to S. 319 as--


not done it already, mustreported.
develop and adopt a
customer service plan
based on the ATA Service
Commitments. The plan
must be submitted to the
DOT. [taken from S.483
and added in committee]

CRS-23
TopicAirline CustomerAirline Passenger Bill ofAviation ConsumerAir Travelers FairFair Treatment ofAirline Competition and
Service Improvement Act Rights Act (H.R. 1734)Right to Know Act (H.R.Treatment Act (S. 200)Airline Passengers ActPassenger Rights Act
(S. 319)Introduced May 3, 2001332) Introduced Jan. 29, 2001(S. 483) (H.R. 907)
Reported March 15, 2001 (Sweeny/ Dingell)Introduced Jan. 31, 2001(Reid)Introduced March 7,Introduced March 7,
(McCain/Hollings/(DeFazio/Slaughter)2001 (Wyden)2001 (Dingell)
Hutchison/Wyden)
DOT shall include a table------Similar to S. 319 but does--
in the Air Travelnot include the provision
Consumer Report thatincluding the information
shows flights chronicallyin a table of the Air Travel
delayed by 15 minutesConsumer Report. It also
40% of the time or moresets the “consistently
and flights canceled 30%canceled” level at 20%.
of the time or more for the
iki/CRS-RL30940most recent 3-monthperiod.
g/w
s.orChronically-delayed flightVirtually identical to S.----A “consistently delayed or--


leakmeans a flight that has319 except that sectioncanceled flight” means a
failed to arrive on time (i.e.209 of H.R. 1734 requiresflight that arrives 15
://wiki15 minutes or more afterDOT, within 60 days ofminutes or more, after its
httppublished arrival time) atleast 40% of the timeenactment, issue finalregulations defining whatpublished arrival time, 40percent of the time during
during the last 3 monthsconstitutes a delay of athe 3 most recent months
for which data areflight and what constitutesfor which data are
available. Chronicallychronically delayed flights.available; or at least 20%
canceled flight means aof the departures of which
flight cancelled at leasthave been canceled during
30% of the time during thethe most recent 3 months
most recent 3-monthfor which data are
period for which data areavailable.
available.

CRS-24
TopicAirline CustomerAirline Passenger Bill ofAviation ConsumerAir Travelers FairFair Treatment ofAirline Competition and
Service Improvement Act Rights Act (H.R. 1734)Right to Know Act (H.R.Treatment Act (S. 200)Airline Passengers ActPassenger Rights Act
(S. 319)Introduced May 3, 2001332) Introduced Jan. 29, 2001(S. 483) (H.R. 907)
Reported March 15, 2001 (Sweeny/ Dingell)Introduced Jan. 31, 2001(Reid)Introduced March 7,Introduced March 7,
(McCain/Hollings/(DeFazio/Slaughter)2001 (Wyden)2001 (Dingell)
Hutchison/Wyden)
--Air carriers shall not--Identical to H.R. 1734.--Identical to H.R. 1734.
prevent a passenger from
leaving the aircraft if the
aircraft is at the gate with
access to ramp facilities
and the aircraft has
remained at the gate for
more than an hour and the
iki/CRS-RL30940captain has not beeninformed by ATC that the
g/waircraft can be cleared for
s.ordeparture in 15 minutes.
leak
Large air carriers mustFailure to disclose,----Identical to S. 319.Failure of an air carrier to
://wikidisclose, without beingwithout being asked, theinform the consumer that a
httpasked, the on-timeperformance andon-time performance andcancellation rate for arequested flight includes asegment that in the
cancellation rate for anychronically delayed orpreceding calendar month
chronically-delayed orchronically canceled flightwas either cancelled or
cancelled flights wheneverwhenever a customerdelayed, 40% of the time,
a customer makes amakes a reservation orat least 30 minutes past
reservation or buys apurchases a ticket on sucharrival time is made an
ticket.a flight is defined as anunfair or deceptive
unfair or deceptive tradepractice and unfair method
practice and unfair methodof competition.


of competition under 49
U.S.C. 41712.

CRS-25
TopicAirline CustomerAirline Passenger Bill ofAviation ConsumerAir Travelers FairFair Treatment ofAirline Competition and
Service Improvement Act Rights Act (H.R. 1734)Right to Know Act (H.R.Treatment Act (S. 200)Airline Passengers ActPassenger Rights Act
(S. 319)Introduced May 3, 2001332) Introduced Jan. 29, 2001(S. 483) (H.R. 907)
Reported March 15, 2001 (Sweeny/ Dingell)Introduced Jan. 31, 2001(Reid)Introduced March 7,Introduced March 7,
(McCain/Hollings/(DeFazio/Slaughter)2001 (Wyden)2001 (Dingell)
Hutchison/Wyden)
Within 60 days air carriersRequires that air carriers, Identical to S. 319.Failure of an air carrier toVirtually identical to Identical to H.R. 1734.
shall implement a policywhen announcing a delay,provide a passenger withS. 319 as reported. Does
to require that air carrierscancellation, or diversionan accurate explanation ofnot set a 60 day
provide in a timely,of a flight segment,the reasons for a flightimplementation target.
reasonable, and truthfulprovide, in a timely anddelay, cancellation, or
manner, the best availabletruthful fashion, mustdiversion from a ticketed
information regarding eachinclude an explanation ofitinerary is defined as an
delay, cancellation, orthe reason or reasons for“unfair or deceptive
iki/CRS-RL30940diversion, including: thecause of the delay,the delay, cancellation, ordiversion. Requires DOT,practice” and “unfairmethod of competition”
g/wcancellation, or diversion;not later than 1 year afterunder 49 U.S.C. 41712.
s.orand in the case of athe date of enactment, to
leakdelayed flight the carrier’sissue guidance to assist air
best estimate of thecarriers in carrying out the
://wikideparture time. [takennotification requirements.
httpfrom S. 483 and added inCommittee]
Within 90 days ofAir carriers, whenever----Within 6 months ofIdentical to H.R. 1734.


enactment, large air carrierspracticable, shall attemptenactment, air carriers shall
shall establish a systemto provide a passengerestablish a reasonable
that allows passengers,with notice of a delay orsystem for notifying
before they leave for thecancellation of a flightpassengers before their
airport, to determinesegment before passengersarrival at the airport, when
whether a flight has beendepart for the airport.the carrier knows
cancelled or if there is asufficiently in advance that
lengthy delay.the flight will be canceled
or delayed by an hour or
more.

CRS-26
TopicAirline CustomerAirline Passenger Bill ofAviation ConsumerAir Travelers FairFair Treatment ofAirline Competition and
Service Improvement Act Rights Act (H.R. 1734)Right to Know Act (H.R.Treatment Act (S. 200)Airline Passengers ActPassenger Rights Act
(S. 319)Introduced May 3, 2001332) Introduced Jan. 29, 2001(S. 483) (H.R. 907)
Reported March 15, 2001 (Sweeny/ Dingell)Introduced Jan. 31, 2001(Reid)Introduced March 7,Introduced March 7,
(McCain/Hollings/(DeFazio/Slaughter)2001 (Wyden)2001 (Dingell)
Hutchison/Wyden)
--------Air carriers that have a--
telephone number or web
site for the public to
obtain flight status shall
ensure that the number or
web site will reflect the
best and most current
information on delays,
iki/CRS-RL30940cancellations, anddiversions.
g/w
s.orBy the 5th of each month,------Virtually identical to --
leakair carriers must post theS. 319, but does not set theth
on-time performance for5 day of the month
://wikieach scheduled flight fordeadline for posting on-
httpthe previous month on theair carrier websites. time performance.
Within 90 days of----------


enactment, large air carriers
shall establish realistic
targets for reducing
chronically-delayed flights.

CRS-27
TopicAirline CustomerAirline Passenger Bill ofAviation ConsumerAir Travelers FairFair Treatment ofAirline Competition and
Service Improvement Act Rights Act (H.R. 1734)Right to Know Act (H.R.Treatment Act (S. 200)Airline Passengers ActPassenger Rights Act
(S. 319)Introduced May 3, 2001332) Introduced Jan. 29, 2001(S. 483) (H.R. 907)
Reported March 15, 2001 (Sweeny/ Dingell)Introduced Jan. 31, 2001(Reid)Introduced March 7,Introduced March 7,
(McCain/Hollings/(DeFazio/Slaughter)2001 (Wyden)2001 (Dingell)
Hutchison/Wyden)
----------Liability for delay of
between 2 and 3 hours is
set at 200% of price paid
for the ticket. Liability
over 3 hours is an
additional 100% for each
additional hour or portion
of hour above 3 hours
iki/CRS-RL30940delay. Exempts delayscaused by certain ATC
g/wdirectives, mechanical, and
s.orother safety concerns.
leak
Within 90 days of----------
://wikienactment, large air carriers
httpshall monitor and reporttheir efforts to improve
services for passengers
with disabilities and
special needs.
Requires DOT to study----------


incidents of damage to the
equipment (such as wheel
chairs) of passengers with
disabilities.

CRS-28
TopicAirline CustomerAirline Passenger Bill ofAviation ConsumerAir Travelers FairFair Treatment ofAirline Competition and
Service Improvement Act Rights Act (H.R. 1734)Right to Know Act (H.R.Treatment Act (S. 200)Airline Passengers ActPassenger Rights Act
(S. 319)Introduced May 3, 2001332) Introduced Jan. 29, 2001(S. 483) (H.R. 907)
Reported March 15, 2001 (Sweeny/ Dingell)Introduced Jan. 31, 2001(Reid)Introduced March 7,Introduced March 7,
(McCain/Hollings/(DeFazio/Slaughter)2001 (Wyden)2001 (Dingell)
Hutchison/Wyden)
DOT shall issue----Identical to S. 319.----
regulations to establish
minimum standards for
resuscitation, emergency
medical, and first-aid
equipment and supplies to
be carried on board an
aircraft operated by an air
iki/CRS-RL30940carrier that is capable ofcarrying more than 30
g/wpeople. Requires
s.orconsultation with the
leakSurgeon General.
://wikiWithin 90 days ofAn Air carrier shall assure------Within 180 days of
httpenactment air carriers shallensure that comprehensiveaccess to necessaryservices and conditions,enactment DOT shall issuefinal regulations requiring
passenger serviceincluding food, water,air carriers to submit
contingency plans arerestroom facilities, and theemergency plans to ensure
properly maintained andability to deplane in thepassenger access to
that the plans and anyevent of a weather or othernecessary services and
changes to the plans areemergency. Not later thanconditions, including food,
coordinated with local180 days of enactment,water, restroom facilities,
airport authorities and theDOT will require airand the ability to deplane
FAA.carriers to submitin the event of a weather
emergency plansor other emergency.


describing how they will
meet this assurance.

CRS-29
TopicAirline CustomerAirline Passenger Bill ofAviation ConsumerAir Travelers FairFair Treatment ofAirline Competition and
Service Improvement Act Rights Act (H.R. 1734)Right to Know Act (H.R.Treatment Act (S. 200)Airline Passengers ActPassenger Rights Act
(S. 319)Introduced May 3, 2001332) Introduced Jan. 29, 2001(S. 483) (H.R. 907)
Reported March 15, 2001 (Sweeny/ Dingell)Introduced Jan. 31, 2001(Reid)Introduced March 7,Introduced March 7,
(McCain/Hollings/(DeFazio/Slaughter)2001 (Wyden)2001 (Dingell)
Hutchison/Wyden)
Calls for DOT to increase------Specifies that in utilizing--
the Department resourcesenforcement monies
for airline passengerauthorized in AIR21 DOT
consumer protection ofshall give priority to the
airline passengers and forareas identified by the IG
oversight and enforcementas needing improvement in
of laws and regulations. its final report on the
Within 60 days ofAirline Customer Service
iki/CRS-RL30940enactment, DOT shallreport to the SenateCommitment. Requiresconsultation with the IG.
g/wCommerce Committee and
s.orthe House, Transportation
leakand Infrastructure
Committee of measures
://wikitaken to increase resources
httpand request additionalfunds or measures needed.
Within 60 days, large airFailure of an air carrier toRequires air carriers to--Virtually identical to Virtually identical to
carriers must implementprovide full access to allprovide full access to allS. 319, except that theH.R. 1734.


policies, when quoting thefares provided by thefares regardless of theprovision does not require
lowest fares, to: includecarrier, regardless of the technology used to accessnotification of lower fares
fares available at the airmethod used to contact anthe fares. Requires that airon the internet.
carrier’s ticket offices andair carrier is defined as ancarriers, on request of any
ticket counters; and notifyunfair or deceptiveperson, permit the person
customers that lower farespractice and unfair methodto purchase air
may be available throughof competition per 49 U.S.transportation provided by
other distribution systems,C. 41712.the carrier at any
including internet webpublished fare.
sites.

CRS-30
TopicAirline CustomerAirline Passenger Bill ofAviation ConsumerAir Travelers FairFair Treatment ofAirline Competition and
Service Improvement Act Rights Act (H.R. 1734)Right to Know Act (H.R.Treatment Act (S. 200)Airline Passengers ActPassenger Rights Act
(S. 319)Introduced May 3, 2001332) Introduced Jan. 29, 2001(S. 483) (H.R. 907)
Reported March 15, 2001 (Sweeny/ Dingell)Introduced Jan. 31, 2001(Reid)Introduced March 7,Introduced March 7,
(McCain/Hollings/(DeFazio/Slaughter)2001 (Wyden)2001 (Dingell)
Hutchison/Wyden)
--Narrows the federalIdentical to H.R. 1734.Identical to H.R. 1734.--Identical to H.R. 1734.
preemption of state laws,
specifying that only state
laws that directly
prescribe a price, route, or
level of service provided
by an air carrier are
preempted.
iki/CRS-RL30940Within 90 days of--On request, carriers must--Virtually identical to--


g/wenactment, large air carriersdisclose the number orS. 319. However, also
s.orshall make available to thepercentage of seats thatrequires the reporting of
leakpublic a comprehensivewill be made available forthe overall percentage of
report of frequent flyerfrequent flyer awardsuccessful redemptions by
://wikiredemption information,passengers on any specificeach air carrier.
httpincluding: percentage ofsuccessful redemptiondate and route.
awards; and number of
seats available in the
carrier’s top 100 origin and
destination markets.

CRS-31
TopicAirline CustomerAirline Passenger Bill ofAviation ConsumerAir Travelers FairFair Treatment ofAirline Competition and
Service Improvement Act Rights Act (H.R. 1734)Right to Know Act (H.R.Treatment Act (S. 200)Airline Passengers ActPassenger Rights Act
(S. 319)Introduced May 3, 2001332) Introduced Jan. 29, 2001(S. 483) (H.R. 907)
Reported March 15, 2001 (Sweeny/ Dingell)Introduced Jan. 31, 2001(Reid)Introduced March 7,Introduced March 7,
(McCain/Hollings/(DeFazio/Slaughter)2001 (Wyden)2001 (Dingell)
Hutchison/Wyden)
Within 90 days ofAir carriers shall ensure----Identical to S. 319.Identical to S. 319.
enactment each large airthat information monitors
carrier shall ensure thatat the airport concerned
master airport flightdisplay timely and
information displayaccurate arrival and
monitors contain accurate,departure information.
up-to-date flight
information and are
iki/CRS-RL30940consistent with thecarriers’ own flight
g/winformation display
s.ormonitors
leak
Within 90 days of----------


://wikienactment, each large
httpcarrier shall report to theDOT on its
implementation of the
obligations imposed by the
act. Within 270 days the
Secretary of DOT shall
report on the
implementation by the
large carriers of the
obligations imposed on
them by the terms of this
Act.

CRS-32
TopicAirline CustomerAirline Passenger Bill ofAviation ConsumerAir Travelers FairFair Treatment ofAirline Competition and
Service Improvement Act Rights Act (H.R. 1734)Right to Know Act (H.R.Treatment Act (S. 200)Airline Passengers ActPassenger Rights Act
(S. 319)Introduced May 3, 2001332) Introduced Jan. 29, 2001(S. 483) (H.R. 907)
Reported March 15, 2001 (Sweeny/ Dingell)Introduced Jan. 31, 2001(Reid)Introduced March 7,Introduced March 7,
(McCain/Hollings/(DeFazio/Slaughter)2001 (Wyden)2001 (Dingell)
Hutchison/Wyden)
----Prohibits air carriers from------
selling tickets for a flight
on which an insecticide is
planned to be used in the
aircraft while passengers
are on board unless the
carrier or ticket agent
selling the ticket notifies
iki/CRS-RL30940the customer and providesthe name of the insecticide.
g/w
s.orWithin 60 days ofIf an involuntarily bumped--------


leakenactment air carriers mustpassenger’s scheduled
establish a plan withalternative departure time
://wikirespect to passengers whois not within the same day
httpmust unexpectedly remainovernight due to flightthe passenger shall receivereasonable and immediate
delays, cancellations, orcompensation for hotel
diversions. costs.

CRS-33
TopicAirline CustomerAirline Passenger Bill ofAviation ConsumerAir Travelers FairFair Treatment ofAirline Competition and
Service Improvement Act Rights Act (H.R. 1734)Right to Know Act (H.R.Treatment Act (S. 200)Airline Passengers ActPassenger Rights Act
(S. 319)Introduced May 3, 2001332) Introduced Jan. 29, 2001(S. 483) (H.R. 907)
Reported March 15, 2001 (Sweeny/ Dingell)Introduced Jan. 31, 2001(Reid)Introduced March 7,Introduced March 7,
(McCain/Hollings/(DeFazio/Slaughter)2001 (Wyden)2001 (Dingell)
Hutchison/Wyden)
--Any action by an airAirlines may not assess a----Identical to H.R. 1734.
carrier to prohibit orfee against or prohibit a
impose an additional fee orpassenger from using only
charge on a person thatpart of a ticket (including
purchases air1-way travel on a round-
transportation from usingtrip ticket).
only a portion of the ticket
purchased (including 1-
iki/CRS-RL30940way use travel instead ofround trip travel) is
g/wdefined as an unfair or
s.ordeceptive practice and
leakunfair method of
competition per 49 U.S.C.
://wiki 14712.
http--Within 180 days of------Identical to H.R. 1734.


enactment DOT shall, by
rule: issue a statement that
outlines consumer rights of
air passengers; require air
carriers to provide the
statement to each
passenger by conspicuous
written material
including–on a safety
placard given to passenger
on the aircraft; on
information available at the
ticket counter; and on or
with the passenger’s
ticket.

CRS-34
TopicAirline CustomerAirline Passenger Bill ofAviation ConsumerAir Travelers FairFair Treatment ofAirline Competition and
Service Improvement Act Rights Act (H.R. 1734)Right to Know Act (H.R.Treatment Act (S. 200)Airline Passengers ActPassenger Rights Act
(S. 319)Introduced May 3, 2001332) Introduced Jan. 29, 2001(S. 483) (H.R. 907)
Reported March 15, 2001 (Sweeny/ Dingell)Introduced Jan. 31, 2001(Reid)Introduced March 7,Introduced March 7,
(McCain/Hollings/(DeFazio/Slaughter)2001 (Wyden)2001 (Dingell)
Hutchison/Wyden)
Within one year of------Virtually identical to --
enactment DOT shallS. 319, except that the
complete a thoroughspecific areas of review are
review of theset forth.
Department’s regulations
that relate to air carriers’
treatment of customers,
and make such
iki/CRS-RL30940modifications as may benecessary or appropriate
g/wto ensure the
s.orenforceability of those
leakregulations and the
provisions of this
://wikiAct.[provision of S.483
httpthat was added incommittee]
------Air carriers must provide,----
upon passenger request,
information on safety
inspection reviews, the
carrier’s safety ranking,
and crew certification.
------Annually DOT will----


submit a performance
review report to Congress
that includes each carrier’s
number of accidents and
the makes of aircraft
involved.

CRS-35
TopicAirline CustomerAirline Passenger Bill ofAviation ConsumerAir Travelers FairFair Treatment ofAirline Competition and
Service Improvement Act Rights Act (H.R. 1734)Right to Know Act (H.R.Treatment Act (S. 200)Airline Passengers ActPassenger Rights Act
(S. 319)Introduced May 3, 2001332) Introduced Jan. 29, 2001(S. 483) (H.R. 907)
Reported March 15, 2001 (Sweeny/ Dingell)Introduced Jan. 31, 2001(Reid)Introduced March 7,Introduced March 7,
(McCain/Hollings/(DeFazio/Slaughter)2001 (Wyden)2001 (Dingell)
Hutchison/Wyden)
--------Small air carriers that--
operate no aircraft with
more than 30 seats are
excepted from the
provisions of proposed
sections 41722 and 41723
of the Act.
iki/CRS-RL30940--Air carriers must provide90 days notice to a ticket--Identical to H.R. 1734.--Identical to H.R. 1734.
g/wagent whose appointment
s.orthe carrier wishes to
leakcancel, terminate, or not
renew, giving a full written
://wikistatement of the reasons.
httpThe ticket agent must thenbe given 60 days to correct
any deficiency.
------An air carrier that fails to----
provide information
required under the bill’s
safety and victims
assistance provisions shall
be liable for a civil penalty
not to exceed $100,000 per
violation.
------The NTSB will establish a----


toll free telephone number
to provide victims access
to accident information.

TopicAirline CustomerAirline Passenger Bill ofAviation ConsumerAir Travelers FairFair Treatment ofAirline Competition and
Service Improvement Act Rights Act (H.R. 1734)Right to Know Act (H.R.Treatment Act (S. 200)Airline Passengers ActPassenger Rights Act
(S. 319)Introduced May 3, 2001332) Introduced Jan. 29, 2001(S. 483) (H.R. 907)
Reported March 15, 2001 (Sweeny/ Dingell)Introduced Jan. 31, 2001(Reid)Introduced March 7,Introduced March 7,
(McCain/Hollings/(DeFazio/Slaughter)2001 (Wyden)2001 (Dingell)
Hutchison/Wyden)
------The NTSB will coordinate----
with the Red Cross and
federal agencies to assure
the coordination of the
disclosure of information
and assistance to victims
of aircraft accidents.
------The National--


Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB) will
iki/CRS-RL30940establish and run a
g/wprogram for victims andsurvivors of aircraft
s.oraccidents. Victims are to
leakreceive immediate and
://wikiunrestricted access toinformation from the
httpcarrier, federal, state, and
local governments.