Pressure mounting over tarmac delays

After years of discussion, an airline passenger bill of rights may move closer to reality this fall after high-profile strandings brought more attention and momentum to the issue.

Passenger advocates say travelers need basic protections, including the right to get off a plane three hours into a tarmac delay. Airlines, which have fended off such edicts in the past, say they could unintentionally lead to more delays and cancellations if planes are required to head back to gates instead of waiting for clearance.

Incidents this year sparked renewed interest in the issue. The most notable involved a Continental Airlines regional jet with 47 passengers that was stuck on the tarmac for about six hours in Rochester, Minn., in August, after a representative of Delta Air Lines subsidiary Mesaba Airlines incorrectly told the pilots that passengers weren’t allowed into the terminal, according to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

Mesaba said at the time it “respectfully disagrees” with that finding.

“The Rochester Continental Express Flight really illustrated for people just how bad it can be,” said Kate Hanni, executive director of FlyersRights.org, which she formed after being stuck on a delayed American Airlines jet for nine hours. “It was huge.”

Bills to regulate airline practices in unusual delays have gotten bottled up in recent years. But a passenger bill of rights provision – including a right to deplane after a three hour ground delay, a requirement that airlines provide food, water, adequate restrooms, cabin ventilation and access to necessary medical treatment – is now part of a Senate bill to reauthorize funding for the Federal Aviation Administration.

“We see a good chance of passage,” said Caleb Tiller, a spokesman for the National Business Travel Association. “There’s a lot of public support behind it. There’s good momentum for passenger bill of rights broadly and on the Hill specifically.”

The NBTA, which represents corporate travel managers, had been against a rule requiring airlines to allow passengers to deplane after a set number of hours.

“The expectation was that airlines would come up with their own solutions to lengthy tarmac delays, as for many years they’ve been saying they would,” said Tiller. But the Continental Express incident this summer was the last straw, he said.

“The collective sense of the industry and our members has really been ‘enough is enough,’” Tiller said. “We’re not really sure the airlines are going to fix this. It’s been a long time.” After the Rochester, Minn., incident, the NBTA came out in support of passenger rights legislation including a “turnback rule.”

The Air Transport Association, which represents the airline industry, says it has met with the U.S. Department of Transportation to discuss the consequences of regulations – which could be added without legislation – to limit on-board ground delays. Spokesman David Castelveter also said airlines already have their own contingency plans.

“We’ll sit down and we’ll talk to the DOT and the FAA on programs that make sense, that can be practically applied, that will improve on-board service during lengthy tarmac delays,” Castelveter said. “But they cannot have a hard and fast rule without the flexibility for the crew to make the proper decision.”

Hanni called the industry’s discussions with the DOT “actually a big step forward for them in the sense that they had never agreed to a time frame before.” But, she added, “they’re trying to circumvent us, by going to the DOT and have them complete the rulemaking before we can pass a bill.”

Atlanta-based Delta referred questions to the ATA. AirTran Airways executive vice president Stephen Kolski said Orlando-based AirTran, which has its largest hub in Atlanta, favors tighter rules under certain terms.

“Unfortunately, we’ve had too many incidents of airlines just not being able to handle these situations” with long tarmac delays, Kolski said. “Should we keep a flight out there four, five, six hours? I absolutely agree we should not.”

But he said a passenger bill of rights should not be “so inflexible” that airlines can’t use “common sense.” Kolski also said he thinks a DOT rule-making process will yield a “better solution” for consumers and airlines than legislation.

Others say the passenger bill of rights is still not a shoo-in and poses a distraction from larger airline consumer issues that touch more people.

Christopher Elliott, a consumer advocate, columnist and blogger, advocates for other changes, such as greater limits on fees, a right to change names on tickets or resell tickets, improved enforcement of rules and limits on code-sharing.

“Tarmac delays are just a small sliver of things in the universe of problems that airline passengers experience,” Elliott said. The airlines “have us right where they want us – they have us arguing over something of relatively small consequence that will affect a tiny fraction of passengers.” Elliott said he doesn’t believe the tarmac delay limits will be made into law, and if they are, he said they will be difficult to enforce.

Hanni said one of the current bill’s chief backers, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., acknowledged at a recent meeting that the rule will be watered down. At the same meeting, former American Airlines chief executive Robert Crandall suggested going with a four-hour rule initially.

“I would be willing to go along with that, so long as it’s written in a way that’s enforceable,” Hanni said.

Georgia Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson has “concerns with regards to the three hour ‘hard stop,’” said his press secretary, Sheridan Watson. Such a rule goes against recommendations issued last November by the U.S. DOT’s Tarmac Delay Task Force, and Isakson believes the three-hour rule “abrogates the captain’s authority and will only put crews in a position that could create conflict.”