I'm starting to believe there is a major conspiracy against flying.

Uh, aren't the Democrats a majority in the Senate right now? Where are the other Dems instead of joining the 49 in favor?!

I sure hope that golf game was worth it, guys. :|

@wring: Probably because the rich and powerful want to keep the rabble on the ground where they belong. Flight is too good for the scum-of-the-earth middle class! at some point in the not-too-distant future, only the ruling elite will be able to fly with their private jets, and the skies will be much more clear to deploy unmanned surveillance flight drones to keep an eye on the commoners.

How can they kill it if they need to reauthorize the FAA?

"Passenger bill of rights" What a perfect name. I prefer, "Airline Companies Cant run their private business, lack of rights"

I'm not saying I'm all for this. But Government has no place in private companies. Just think if they passed "Consumers bill of rights" and consumerist was forced to put something on their website. Their would be riots in the server rooms.

To hell with flying. I stopped flying when they started requiring me to remove my flip-flops at security and then took away my wife's lip gloss.

And now they're making women go to a separate room, strip down, and remove your nipple ring if you happen to have one.

They can all kiss my ass and keep their overpriced Greyhound bus with wings.

Look, I think we really need something like this but in reading through it it seems like there are so many loopholes written in that nothing would ever happen. Words and hrases like "adaquate", "substantially delayed", and "reasonably determines" seems way to vague for a passenger to demand anything I believe the spirit of this bill stands for. Yay for legalese!

@Bladefist:

While I'm leaning to agree with you, I still find it criminal to hold people on a grounded plane for 12 hours with no food, water, or restrooms. If they don't want to provide those things then they should let people get off the plane. Isn't that called "Kidnapping"?

@Bladefist:

Wrong. Government does have a place in private comapanies when the government has given millions (billions?) of dollars to these bloated models of inefficiency keeping them from going belly-up.

@Dakine: Boy-cott fixes that problem without having 100 old men arguing about it on our dime.

@wgrune: Good point.

Oh come on, blaming this on Republicans is dishonest. This is a perfect example of politics-as-usual in Washington.

Instead of raising this as a separate bill to be debated, the powers-that-be attached it to something they thought was "safe" to sneak it into law. Unfortunately, it wasn't safe enough. But was it due to this? Or was it due to some other "rider" that was tacked on.

We can only draw two conclusions:
1. Republicans did not like SOMETHING that was included in that bill and had to kill this particular piece with the whole thing, and
2. The Democrats didn't favor this enough to make it its own bill.

So who's really to blame?

@Dakine: And I'm willing to bet its our lovely government that is holding the plane us. IE, I'm guessing they created the problem, now they are going to fix it. And the airline is trapped in the middle. I mean 12 hours of a plane grounded, how much revenue is lost? They would take off in a heart beat if FAA would allow them to. Maybe I'm wrong. Correct me.

@Dakine: Here-here. The last flight I tried to take was canceled within an hour of me leaving the house... despite information right on the confirmation telling you to arrive at the airport the standard two hours ahead of time. No reason given. Barely any other delays at the airport (Ohare) or at the destination (Arkansas). Screw flying. After all this crap, I would rather spend an entire day driving.

@Tux the Penguin: NO! Too logical. It was the evil republicans. They hate you, booga bogga!

@Bladefist: Perhaps, but that't not really why the bill was killed. For the most part, republicans wanted a Passenger Bill of Rights just as much as Democrats. This bill's demise had more to do with unrelated amendments on the bill (by both parties) and plain old senate infighting than anything else.

That said, it's probably unfair to blame the Republicans for this entirely. The Democrats were adding (some unrelated) amendments to this bill and preventing Republicans from doing the same. I don't see how anything ever gets done in the Senate these days -- both parties need a punch in the face sometimes.

The airlines certainly take enough in government subsidies -- I don't hear any complaining from them about government's place in private companies when they get their checks.

@Buran: Congress has extended FAA funding and taxes four times since September. The current extension runs through June. It's like when Congress fails to adopt a budget. We don't run out of money, we just extend the old budget until the new one is signed.

@Shadowman615: Bah. Ninja'd on both counts.

@Bladefist:

I'd agree with you if the government would quit bailing the damn airlines out financially every decade or so.

Zzzzzzzzz... more legislation just makes more red tape. I'll pass on these abortions we call "passenger's rights" bills.

@Jaysyn: Wish they would stop too, but I see why they do it. It's not so much I'm against the PBR. I agree with some of the people above. The democrats appeared to attach a bunch of stuff to it, to sneak it by. I don't think anyting in the PBR is bad enough to get a complete republican black ball.

@Bladefist:

It doesn't matter if it's the airline or the gov at fault for it. Holding people hostage for that long is wrong. An hour is a "delay". 12 hours is "being a prisoner". I'm surprised nobody claimed to have a bomb just to get the door open.

But then it also goes to show how unwilling people are to stand up for themselves. There's enough passengers on a plane to get the door open if they want it open.

@Dakine:
Well it does matter. I agree with you, but, IF the government regulations are holding the plane up, wouldn't you find it unfair that they are almost now making rules to fine the company in a hold up?

The government kicks them in the nuts, the charges them for it.

@Applekid: Missing 2 Senators who are too busy campaining to be bothered with showing up to vote.

If we could just get everyone on the plane to agree to waive their right to a 100%, absolutely SAFE flight, free of terrorists, and waiving their 'right' to sue the airlines for a gazillion dollars (that's an actual number) ... then we could all get on the plane and fly.

In addition, the government can stop bailing out airlines (perhaps the most heavily leveraged businesses in existence) if Americans will stop asking politicians to interfere with the market every time there's a problem.

I say the government should stay out of all this. Disband the FAA, and everyone just bring your own parachute. The government is forcing airlines to meet very high safety guarantees, and now that they are doing so (and some passengers have to wait hours as a result) the government is now being called upon to 'fix' the problem they created!

Considering their track record so far, having Congress do nothing sounds like a dream.

@ravensfire:

It was short seven votes though.

Of course their is a conspiracy against flying. It's the terrorist weapon of choice. No planes flying means no buildings will be crashed into. Shelving this bill is all part of the War on Terrorism the Republicans are so hardy to support.

Conservativism is a metal disorder.

@Bladefist:
I have to disagree with you on this. Airlines have to accept whatever regulation that the people, through their elected represenatives decide they should.

The airlines all utilize the commons of society, in this case the airspace above us. They exist in a situation where only they can perform the kind of service that they offer at the scale they do it. Plus they accepted bailouts after 9/11, so therefore they should actually feel indebted to the people who kept them flying. The bill doesn't require them to do anything that could be considered onerous so what is the problem.

So if I'm trapped on a plane for 12 hours and I demand to be allowed off are they now guilty of wrongful imprisonment? Or does their right to run their private business trump my right to freedom of movement?

On another note, since the government seems to have no business in the regulation of private business could I then require that all planes crossing over my home pay a fee for crossing my property line.

What if I was driving a construction vehicle doing work on your street and I block you in your driveway for untold number of hours. Don't call the police since government has no business telling people how to run their private business. You and I would have to come to some sort of an agreement. Maybe for an extra fee I'll allow you first class access to the street at the end of your driveway.

@Pro-Pain: Wow, such a broad statement based on the limited reporting by a blogger who obviously had an emotional attachment to one of many amendments to the FAA bill...

@Pro-Pain: metal disorder? I just had a blood test, no metal was found.

If I remember correctly, this all started with the JetBlue incident last year. The whole reason the flight sat on the tarmac for hours instead of returning to the gate had to do with FAA limits on the number of hours a pilot could work. How come nobody is considering the fact that maybe its the government that causes these messes, and maybe getting the government out of the way will help make the messes a little less sloppy.

@chargernj: I understand your line of thinking. I don't know if you can compare streets and air space. I guess if you wanted to build a sky scraper in your back yard, I would be in your favor to let you and make the planes go around. But anywho, I'm not going to agree with you fully, but I find your opinion logical. Planes are special I guess. But the government seems to think they own the airspace. Actually they own everything. Imminant domain. I just fight to good fight to not let them get any more into my life. But as I said above, the PBR is not that bad. It's probably the other parts to it that are.

@Bladefist, meant to type mental, and it was just a joke...

I really hope enough changes after the next election to cut down on the games and bickering in Congress. With such a thin majority it is impossible for force anything through. Most of the republicans left there have dug in their heels and seem only interested in corporate handouts and pork. I just wish people could behave like adults and pass a few things that we actually need.

@chargernj: I think what Bladefist means is that although the airlines should be providing for their passengers, this "Bill of Rights" is stepping on their rights to do business as they see fit.

Try and see it from the airlines perspective: someone is coming to them and saying, "This is how you will operate." If the airlines were a public service, that would be perfect, but the airlines are a private business. They are dealing with their money, their property, and they are the only ones who eat the costs, not these regulatory agencies and legislative bodies.

Of course, it's absurd that airlines don't offer these things. So what you should do is refuse to use the airlines. Refuse to do business with any airline that will not provide for you in extreme cases. They will be forced to compensate to stay in business if that's the will of the consumer. It will definitely lead to a price increase, but that's how the world works. You don't pay the price that you want to pay; you pay the price that both parties can afford, as a trade for what both parties agree upon. Every time you purchase a ticket on one of these cattle-car planes, you are agreeing to the conditions they submit you to. Not a legal agreement, but a moral, value-based agreement. Vote with your dollar.

The only other recourse is to lobby for the creation of a public air travel service.

@Bladefist: Get that checked! You need to have iron in your blood, as hemoglobin is based on it!

@bohemian: Read the news. Who is still adding a ton of pork? Obama and Clinton. Who asked for 0 pork? McCain. Come on now. You're better then that.

@Buran: lol nice.

@chrisjames: Agreed. Also, what people vastly don't understand is, any costs associated with more regulation will be passed directly to the consumer. FAA fines AA 5 million for being late, who is paying that 5 million? Is the CEO going to sell his yatch? Or is Joe Blow's fare going to go up $3. Then day later, on consumerist: "AA raises your fare, and there is nothign you can do" then in the comment section, "like omg, why is this happening"

@ravensfire: Missing 3 senators on the campaign trail, to be fair.