Get ready to spend nine hours on the tarmac without food or water. Senate Republicans yesterday shoved the Passenger’s Bill of Rights into the chamber’s overhead bin, killing off hope that the bill will pass before the elections. Even worse, the shot-down bill had transformed into a gleaming marvel of consumer protection.
Here’s what happened: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) filed a motion for cloture—Senate-speak for shut-up and stay on topic—which requires a supermajority of 60 votes for approval. Without cloture, Senators can yack forever like a bunch of riled-up monkeys. The vote on cloture failed 49-42, empowering Republicans to filibuster our beautiful piece of legislation into the ground.
What protections have Senate Republicans stolen from you? Let’s look at Senator Rockefeller’s (D-WV) substitute amendment sporting the new, improved Passenger’s Bill of Rights:
TITLE IV–AIRLINE SERVICE AND SMALL COMMUNITY AIR SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS
SEC. 401. AIRLINE CONTINGENCY SERVICE REQUIREMENTS.
(a) IN GENERAL.–Chapter 417 is amended by adding at the end the following:
SUBCHAPTER IV–AIRLINE CUSTOMER SERVICE “§.41781. AIRLINE CONTINGENCY SERVICE REQUIREMENTS.
(a) IN GENERAL.–Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of the Aviation Investment and Modernization Act of 2008, each air carrier shall submit a contingency service plan to the Secretary of Transportation for review and approval. The plan shall require the air carrier to implement, at a minimum, the following practices:
(1) PROVISION OF FOOD AND WATER.–If the departure of a flight of an air carrier is substantially delayed, or disembarkation of passengers on an arriving flight that has landed is substantially delayed, the air carrier shall provide–
(A) adequate food and potable water to passengers on such flight during such delay; and
(B) adequate restroom facilities to passengers on such flight during such delay.
(2) RIGHT TO DEPLANE.–
(A) IN GENERAL.–An air carrier shall develop a plan, that incorporates medical considerations, to ensure that passengers are provided a clear timeframe under which they will be permitted to deplane a delayed aircraft. The air carrier shall provide a copy of the plan to the Secretary of Transportation, who shall make the plan available to the public. In the absence of such a plan, except as provided in subparagraph (B), if more than 3 hours after passengers have boarded a flight, the aircraft doors are closed and the aircraft has not departed, the air carrier shall provide passengers with the option to deplane safely before the departure of such aircraft. Such option shall be provided to passengers not less often than once during each 3-hour period that the plane remains on the ground.
(B) EXCEPTIONS.–Subparagraph (A) shall not apply–
(i) if the pilot of such flight reasonably determines that such flight will depart not later than 30 minutes after the 3 hour delay; or
(ii) if the pilot of such flight reasonably determines that permitting a passenger to deplane would jeopardize passenger safety or security.
(C) APPLICATION TO DIVERTED FLIGHTS.–This section applies to aircraft without regard to whether they have been diverted to an airport other than the original destination.
(b) POSTING CONSUMER RIGHTS ON WEBSITE.–An air carrier holding a certificate issued under section 41102 that conducts scheduled passenger air transportation shall publish conspicuously and update monthly on the Internet website of the air carrier a statement of the air carrier’s customer service policy and of air carrier customers’ consumer rights under Federal and State law.
(c) REVIEW AND APPROVAL; MINIMUM STANDARDS.–The Secretary of Transportation shall review the contingency service plan submitted by an air carrier under subsection (a) and may approve it or disapprove it and return it to the carrier for modification and resubmittal. The Secretary may establish minimum standards for such plans and require air carriers to meet those standards.
(d) AIR CARRIER.–In this section the term `air carrier’ means an air carrier holding a certificate issued under section 41102 that conducts scheduled passenger air transportation.”.
(b) REGULATIONS.–Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall promulgate such regulations as the Secretary determines necessary to carry out the amendment made by subsection (a).
So what’s different from the old versions?
- Compliance: Airlines now have 60 days, not 90 days, to get their act together and slap together a contingency plan;
- Advertising: Congress wants this Bill of Rights placed “conspicuously” on each arline’s website. No burying the Bill of Rights in a site index;
- Not Just For Departures: The substitute amendment now covers delayed arrivals.
We’re not wild about the absence of civil penalties, or empowering pilots to stall if they “reasonably determine” that take-off is less than 30 minutes away. As compensation for these losses, Senator Rockefeller tossed in this gem of a sweetener:
SEC. 402. PUBLICATION OF CUSTOMER SERVICE DATA AND FLIGHT DELAY HISTORY.
Section 41722 is amended by adding at the end the following:
(f) CHRONICALLY DELAYED FLIGHTS.–
(1) PUBLICATION OF LIST OF FLIGHTS.–An air carrier holding a certificate issued under section 41102 that conducts scheduled passenger air transportation shall publish and update monthly on the Internet website of the air carrier, or provide on request, a list of chronically delayed flights operated by the air carrier.
(2) DISCLOSURE TO CUSTOMERS WHEN PURCHASING TICKETS.–An air carrier shall disclose the following information prominently to an individual before that individual books transportation on the air carrier’s Internet website for any flight for which data is reported to the Department of Transportation under part 234 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, and for which the air carrier has primary responsibility for inventory control:
(A) The on-time performance for the flight if it is a chronically delayed flight.
(B) The cancellation rate for the flight if it is a chronically canceled flight.
(3) CHRONICALLY DELAYED; CHRONICALLY CANCELED.–The Secretary of Transportation shall define the terms `chronically delayed flight’ and `chronically canceled flight’ for purposes of this subsection.”.
If an flight is chronically late, not only must the airline broadcast their shame on their website, but they must also warn travelers before selling tickets that their flight will likely be delayed.
The Passenger’s Bill of Rights was tacked onto a much larger bill reauthorizing the FAA. Members of Congress could rip out the Bill of Rights and and pass it separately, but the Congressional calendar crowds up before elections, and our important little bill has little hope of standing out.
Like a Price Is Right Danger Price loser, we don’t get the contingency plans; we don’t get the food or water; and we don’t get the chronically delayed flight notifications. We get nothing. Thanks, Senate Republicans!
Air safety, passenger rights bill hits dead end in Senate [AP]
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Rockefeller Amdt. No. 4627 (Subst.) to H.R. 2881 ) [U.S. Senate]
(Photo: Getty)
More From Consumerist
-
Should An Airline Be Allowed To Say Your Shirt Is Too Offensive?
-
Disney Cruise Line Places Alleged iPhone Thief On Administrative Leave
-
Senate Panel Gives Thumbs-Up To Confirming CFPB Director Cordray
-
When Flying, Maybe Leave Your Grenade-Shaped Lighter At Home
-
Here’s Why Everyone Is Talking About The U.S. Government Minting A Trillion-Dollar Coin
@Tux the Penguin:
Did I say you were a Republican? No I didn’t. I said it was a typical Republican talking point.
Don’t start talking constitutional rights with me….if you wanna go there, lets talk about all of the constitutional rights that the FISA Act is trouncing!
We taxpayers are already subsidising the healthcare and pharmaceutical community with a plan that clearly isn’t working.
You already did dignify me with a rebuttal on MSNBC by your statement!
I don’t care if they show the Wiggles from 8am-10pm, that doesn’t mean that I’m wrong about the all of the people that I noted.
John Stossell may be registered Libertarian but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have right leanings (most Libertarians do). And I don’t care if he’s on one time per week or not, he’s been there for MANY years and spews his right leaning views and often bends and quotes incorrect statistics to make his case! Google it if you’d like.
MEDICARE is a successful program….but I’m sure you think it’s gonna be bankrupt next year…right. And until the Bush administration made the VA another political operation (like they did everything else),the VA Hospital system has been noted in many studies as a model on how healthcare can work!
If you think your idea is so good, why isn’t John McCain or for that matter, why didn’t Romney, Ron Paul, Huckabee or Guiliani, Hunter, Brownback, Tancredo, Thompson(s), etc. back it?
You can get dropped from your car insurance for driving mistakes. If so, maybe you can enter the state funded program at their UNGODLY rate or just use public transportation. But if I got dropped from my health insurance for too many illnesses or a pre-existing condition, who’s gonna pay my medical bills then? Nobody? The gov’t??????
I get the idea that you think if everybody just buckles down, they can pay their insurance bills….that’s just not the case if you lose your job due to illness, thus can’t pay your insurance premium but are still sick…thus can’t get back to work to make any money…thus can’t get the proper healthcare to get better, and on and on and on….
.
Dearest Well-Intentioned Less-Government Clan: Market forces won’t bring about airline services during extreme delays simply because no airline will spend the money as it would place them at a competitive disadvantage in a very competitive business. Unfortunately, we’re left with only the government to level the playing field and set minimum standards for basic human needs.
@Cranky Customer:
Good point that brings me back on track to what this post was originally about.
Thx, I realize that I should use my time wiser(-;
@Bladefist:
I love it when clueless people try to make themselves look informed. Here’s your takedown, pal.
@Bladefist: [www.talkleft.com]
Clearly you don’t know what you’re talking about here, so I’ll explain it to you. This is not a ratings book. This is a blog that admits that it is citing Drudge. This is not the ratings book.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and presume that your professors never explained the difference between primary, secondary and tertiary sources to you. If you want to cite numbers, you need to go to the source. Let me know if you need some help with that.
@Bladefist: [www.multichannel.com]
This is also not a ratings book. This is called a “news story.” It’s also called an “old” news story, because it is nearly six months old. Something else you should know about it is that Multichannel News is part of Reed Elsevier, Inc., a large international publishing and content corporation. That’s all well and good, but Reed Elsevier has been criticized for a number of ethical lapses, not the least of which is their involvement with the international arms trade. Given that sort of conservative-friendly environment, I’m sure you’ll understand when I say that I don’t consider Multichannel News to be objective on this topic. Or maybe you won’t; it doesn’t really matter. At the end of the day, this link’s no more useful than your first one.
In any event, the story contains only bits and fragments of theratings book figures, generously predigesting them for our (and, I’m sure, your) convenience. Uh huh. No thanks. I prefer to get my information straight from the source so I can draw my own conclusions.
@Bladefist: [www.mediabistro.com]
Man-oh-man. Where to start here? Let’s just toss out a critique of a the first page’s worth of ratings and see what we find.
Tuesday, May 6: Olbermann wasn’t even aired. Neither was O’Reilly.
Monday, May 4: Hey, that’s what it says. If these guys can’t even keep their DATES straight, what does that say about their stats? Monday was the 5th, kids.
Friday, May 2: O’Reilly 376, Olbermann 313. CNN & Headline each had about half of Olbermann’s total that night.
Thursday, May 1: O’Reilly 694, Olbermann 452. CNN & Headline each had roughly a third of Olbermann’s total that night.
Tell me, Mr. Media Maven – what were the AQI and Cume figures for the Cabbage Patch Kids on those days? Hah?
Look, if you don’t like Olbermann, that’s fine and dandy, but do you even read the links you post? This one in particular pretty much puts the lie to the notion that his ratings are in the basement.
@Bladefist: [www.broadcastingcable.com]
Another “news story.” Yawn. You’re making it too easy to discredit your arguments.
@Bladefist: “There you go Mr. Informed.”
(laughing)
I knew it. You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.
@Bladefist: “Read the links. There are several angles on the ratings.”
(eyes roll)
Yeah, that’s why I observed that you don’t actually read the ratings BOOK, ‘Mr. Informed.’ Running off to Google and scraping up a bunch of media links doesn’t make you Teh Meedjya Pundit; it just makes you a pugnacious internet bloviator.
@Bladefist: “Just do your HW before you try to argue with people that actually follow politics.”
(laughing) I’m quite sure that you follow politics. However, I’m also quite sure that you don’t follow media ratings, which is what the Olbermann vs O’Reilly issue is.
Next time, maybe you ought to do some homework of your own before throwing a passel of Google links out, cowboy.
@Bladefist: “And Olberman is welcome to invite anyone on his show to increase his ratings. But why bother? Nobody watches it.”
Your own link above (Mediabistro) proves you wrong. Once again, do you even read these links before you post them?
@Bladefist: “Please provide your own ratings that show I am wrong.”
Please provide some evidence that your assertion (“Olberman? A huge bafoon with worse ratings then the cabbage patch kids.”) is correct.
I eagerly await your reply.
@thegirls: FISA is not trouncing any constitutional rights. To be able to “tap” the “domestic” calls, the person in the US must be calling someone OUTSIDE this country and that person must be on a specific list. All that FISA contains is basically the same rules that we played by in WW1 and WW2 when trying to catch spies in operating in the US. But lets not get sidetracked by FISA since its been blown WAY out of proportion.
If you’ll note in my response (which you glazed over) that I have no problem with a plan to cover those who cannot get coverage due to illness. Limited scope plans (Medicare, Medicaid, VA, etc) often do work because they are LIMITED IN SCOPE. I have no problem creating “Med-Ill-Full” or some other program to cover those who need it.
But lets not destroy everything to help the maybe 10% who can’t get healthcare due to illness. Considering the 46 million number is quoted so often, that accounts for roughly 15% of the population. I think that breakdown between illness preventing and cost prevention is generous.
–
Let me repose the question: If I have the Penguin News Network and I have Rush Limbaugh on for an hour each night, does that make me a right-wing news station? What if for the rest of the 24-hour day I have Soros-backed, extreme far left anchors, reporters, and producers. Does that suddenly change the picture? That’s the point I was trying to make about the list you mentioned. Its called a “token” and people do it all the time. When I first made partner, it was a really pale group. I knew I was a “token” minority. But that didn’t mean suddenly the firm was “minority-run.”
—-
Auto/Health: So, if you get dropped from your auto insurance, the state coverage is UNGODLY (your words). But, of course, a government-run universal medical system would be “affordable”, right?
I know that if you work hard you can accomplish anything. Ultimately, however, it comes down to one cruel, cruel question: how much is your life worth? Its unpopular to talk about it. But ultimately its the question that must be answered. At some point, we all have to decide whether our life is worth the costs to prolong it. At 25, its harder to answer that than it is for me at nearly 65. But is it worth bankrupting myself for another 10 years? 20 years? 5 years? That’s the question we all make, whether us personally or our insurance company. At least when our insurance company says “no” we have options (lawsuits, media, etc). Most of those options go away if we have the government making those decisions.
@BigElectricCat: Digging your hole deeper. You cant prove me wrong, and your attempts to disprove me, the only person who brought real data to the table, is futile. So laugh at me all you want, but you just got dominated.
@Applekid:
Cause if they talked about how Dems voted against it too it wouldn’t fit in with their Agenda here. Shoulda noticed that about 5,000 stories ago.
@Bladefist:
“Digging your hole deeper.”
(laughing)
“You cant prove me wrong,”
Child, you can’t even prove yourself right. So what’s there to disprove? You made a BS claim, fired off a bunch of links that don’t even support your claim and you triumphantly declare victory.
Well la-de-effing da, I’m the King of Siam. Prove me wrong.
(laughing)
So, would you like to try actually proving your claim this time? Here, I’ll repost it for you:
“Olberman? A huge bafoon with worse ratings then the cabbage patch kids.”
Go ahead. Have at it. I’m loving this.
(laughing)
“and your attempts to disprove me, the only person who brought real data to the table,”
Your data don’t say what you claim they do. That makes you either clueless or a liar. I pick clueless, since I have no reason to suspect that you’re willfully dishonest.
“is futile.”
(laughing)
Man, I knew you were clueless, but I never imagined that I was dealing with Nitwitticus of Borg here.
“So laugh at me all you want, but you just got dominated.”
No, little boy, you got OWNED. One, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Two, your “data” don’t support your claim. Three, if you can’t *prove* your claims, then there’s not much point in anyone *dis*proving them.
I am the King of Siam. Prove I’m not.
Your tuition bill is in the mail.
@BigElectricCat: cabbage patch kids was a joke. I thought they were a doll, do they have a show?
I’m sorry you are so offended over this.
@Tux the Penguin:
No, actually I didn’t miss it. The minority party always does stuff like this. The Republicans have just taken it to a new level. When the Democrats become the minority again, I’m sure they’ll engage in the same tit-for-tat strategy.
I noticed that Bladefist ignored my post about FAA. Maybe he thinks it’s non-related but I think more likely that he’s unsure how to defend his position on it. When the fox watches the henhouse you can expect trouble. It’s true and on point with the thread. He ignores it to argue about TV ratings. Hmmm…
@Bladefist: “cabbage patch kids was a joke.”
(laughing)
It’s a joke that you apparently took pretty seriously, “Mr. Informed;” seriously enough to try to bamboozle us all with BS statistics that don’t even support your claim. The next time you decide to run over to Google in order to try to use statistics to defend a joke, take a moment, breathe deeply and reconsider.
And then be absolutely certain that you have a strong grounding in statistics before you try to use them in an argument. Stats are a two-edged sword, and if you don’t have a firm grip on the hilt, your opponent might just whack you with your own weapon.
@Bladefist: “I thought they were a doll, do they have a show?”
You said Olbermann had worse ratings than they did. So which is it now, pal? Were you joking, or were you just plain wrong? Given your rather ardent defense of your claim over your last few posts, you certainly don’t appear to be joking.
Do you defend all your jokes as vehemently? Or is it just that you’ve been caught out and you’re backpedaling now? If you’re joking, then man up and admit it. If you’re seriously arguing, then bring it on. But it looks to me like you’ve realized your mistaken argument and are now trying to back down without admitting you got in over your head.
To use your own words, you’re just “digging your hole deeper.”
(laughing)
@Bladefist: “I’m sorry you are so offended over this.”
(laughing)
As I said upthread, don’t try applying to the Psychic Friends Network; you’re woefully underqualified.
I’m not offended; I’m simply pointing out that your argument was nothing but a bunch of hot air, and that your statistics didn’t support your BS argument, “Mr. Informed.”
You might be well-advised to ask questions more often and pontificate less frequently. Asking questions leads to wisdom, whereas pontificating leads to an eventual smackdown.
You might possibly recognize that last part, as it just happened to you.
@BigElectricCat: No point arguing with Bladefist dude. Read my post and understand. He’s either a bot or a GOP spy which essentially is the same thing. Lifeless. Soul-less. Heartless.
@ninjatales: Oh, I don’t think of it as arguing. He’d have to have an actual point for it to be arguing. Maybe when he gets a point (other than the one on the top of his head) we would be able to argue at that time.
Noisy kids like that are just internet chew-toys to me.
@ninjatales: Well if being a capitalist means you’re heartless, then ya.
At age 20 if you are not a Liberal you are heartless, at age 40 if you are not Conservative, you are brainless.
-Winston Churchill
Proof that the Liberals are incapable of governing
1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on
demand.
2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression, and governments create prosperity.
3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.
4. You have to believe that there was no art before federal funding.
5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical documented changes in the earth’s climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV’s.
6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, but being homosexual is natural.
7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.
8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can’t teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
9. You have to believe that hunters don’t care about nature, but activists, who have never been outside of San Francisco, do.
10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make The Passion Of The Christ for financial gain only.
12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Robert E. Lee, and Thomas Edison.
15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.
16. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn’t worked anywhere it’s been tried is because the right people haven’t been in charge.
17. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
18. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, Right Wing conspiracy.
Oh, look. More “proof” that doesn’t actually prove anything.
(laughing)
Is that all you’ve got for a response, boy? A silly e-mail list of BS that’s mostly non-sequiturs, partly conservative tropes and shibboleths, about a third blue-sky fantasy and the whole thing nothing but unproven bloviation?
Maaaaan. No one *has* to believe any of those things, your silly list notwithstanding. Clearly, your fear of the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy has badly impaired your critical thinking faculties.
(laughing)
Getting back to the point at hand, you were just plain wrong in your assertion in re: Mr. Olbermann, and your cowardly claim that you were ‘only joking’ has been noted and debunked. I’ve reposted your claim and have invited you to clarify your position, but you have, predictably, failed to do so. I’m sure you have your reasons for that; as for me, I expect you realize that you had your hind end handed to you in that part of the discussion.
No matter. When you’re ready to behave with some decorum, I will remain available to teach you how to critically assess and evaluate supporting information, how to marshal your facts, how to cite them, how to present them, and most importantly, how to defend them when someone like me debunks the living daylights out of your ‘argument.’
And don’t bother with your conservative cheerleading, boy; it doesn’t impress me a bit. I’m a gun-owning disabled veteran who cast his first Presidential vote for Ronald Reagan and who joined the Army during the Reagan Administration. But my association with the GOP is at an end, and I don’t anticipate voting for another GOP candidate any time in the foreseeable future.
If you want a political argument, then I am most assuredly your man. But have a care, as you may find that I know your side’s arguments as well as — if not better than — you do.
Now then, boy — are you going to clarify your position on your Olbermann claim, or are you just going to post some more silly crap from Free Republic or Little Green Footballs?
(laughing)
@BigElectricCat: Refer to #18 on the list. Man you’re windy. I read like the first paragraph and gave up. I’m done with you.
@BigElectricCat: I went back and skimmed your post, wow you’re a veteran who voted for Reagan? By the way you talk, with all your “(laughing)
” I figured you were 13.
@Bladefist: “Refer to #18 on the list.”
(laughing)
For the third time, don’t try applying to the Psychic Friends Network. Your mindreading abilities are absolutely worthless. Why don’t you try something easier, like guessing how tall I am? We’ll see how close you are with that before we move on to the harder things.
(laughing)
@Bladefist: “Man you’re windy.”
Awww, do all the big words make your head hurt? Do I need to keep everything to words of two syllables or less? Or should we increase your dose of Adderall to help with that attention-deficit problem of yours?
(laughing)
@Bladefist: “I read like the first paragraph and gave up.”
That doesn’t surprise me. These days, “conservatives” talk a tough game, but when they’re confronted, they cover up, turn tail and run.
Besides, considering my post was about the same length as your list, that’d make you windy too, cowboy.
(laughing)
@Bladefist: “I’m done with you.”
As I said, ‘cover up, turn tail and run.’ You’re pathetic. You’re not even man enough to admit you screwed up with your Olbermann comment, “Mr. Informed.” Either grow a pair or get your purse and take a friggin’ hike.
(laughing)
@Bladefist: “I went back and skimmed your post, wow you’re a veteran who voted for Reagan?”
A gun-owning disabled veteran who voted for Reagan. So you can shove your list where the sun doesn’t shine, boy.
“By the way you talk, with all your “(laughing)
” I figured you were 13.”
I’m sure you missed it, but I’m laughing at you, loser.
And once again, Bladefist fails to respond to my post about the FAA. It’s on point and tells a great deal about why we’ve arrived at the point we’re at with regard to the FAA and it’s role of oversight.
Bladefist backed down once again because apparently he can’t cement his own argument or shoot holes in mine.
A shame indeed.
Clearly, he has recovered his purse and taken a friggin’ hike, as I suggested.
I know I’m taking that chance that he’ll hit me with it by pointing that out, but c’est la vie.
Oh, Bladefist? That’s *French.* Just another reason for you to dislike me, at no added charge.