U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

34–801 PDF 2007

AVIATION CONSUMER

ISSUES

(110–29)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

AVIATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

APRIL 20, 2007

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD, 

California 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

(II)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois, Chairman 

BOB FILNER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD, 

California 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

(Ex Officio) 

(III)

(V)

CONTENTS Page

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vii 

Listing of Hearings on Aviation Passenger Issues and Delays since 1999 ......... 48

TESTIMONY 

Hanni, Kate, Executive Director, Coalition for an Airline Passengers Bill 

of Rights ................................................................................................................ 29

May, James C., President And CEO, Air Transportation Association Of America, Inc. .................................................................................................................. 29

Meeks, Hon. Gregory W., a Representative in the United States Congress 

from the State of New York ................................................................................ 7

Mitchell, Kevin P., Chairman, Business Travel Coalition ................................... 29

Neeleman, David, Chief Executive Officer, JetBlue Airways Corporation ......... 29

Ruden, Paul M., Senior Vice President, Legal and Industry Affairs, American 

Society of Travel Agents ...................................................................................... 29

Schmidt, Hon. Jean, a Representative in the United States Congress from 

the State Of Ohio ................................................................................................. 7

Scovel, III, Hon. Calvin L., Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 12

Steinberg, Hon. Andrew B., Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs, U.S. Department of Transportation, Accompanied by: Dan 

Smiley, Operations Manager, FAA Command Center ...................................... 12

Thompson, Hon. Mike, a Representative in the United States Congress from 

the State of California ......................................................................................... 7

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri ......................................................................... 50

Cohen, Hon. Stephen I., of Tennessee ................................................................... 52

Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois .......................................................................... 53

Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, of Texas .................................................................. 60

Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona ....................................................................... 66

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 70

Salazar, Hon. John T., of Colorado ........................................................................ 72

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Hanni, Kate .............................................................................................................. 74

May, James C. .......................................................................................................... 92

Mitchell, Kevin P. .................................................................................................... 101

Neeleman, David ...................................................................................................... 106

Ruden, Paul M. ........................................................................................................ 116

Scovel III, Calvin L. ................................................................................................. 136

Steinberg, Andrew B. .............................................................................................. 152

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD 

May, James C., President And CEO, Air Transportation Association Of America, Inc., responses to questions from Rep. Lipinski ......................................... 162

Mica, Hon. John L., of Florida, letter to the Hon. Mary E. Peters, Secretary, 

U.S. Department of Transportation .................................................................... 5

Scovel, III, Hon. Calvin L., Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation, responses to questions from Rep. Lipinski ............................................ 164

Steinberg, Hon. Andrew B., Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs, U.S. Department of Transportation, responses to questions 

from Rep. Lipinski ............................................................................................... 168

Page

VI

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Association of Flight Attendants - CWA, AFL CIO, Patricia A. Friend, International President, written testimony ................................................................ 172

Health Communications, Inc., Adam Chafetz, President and CEO, written 

testimony .............................................................................................................. 180

www.kidsafefilms.org, Jesse Kalisher, Co-Founder, written testimony .............. 183

U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Edmund Mierzwinski, Consumer Program Director, written testimony ....................................................................... 188

vii


34801.001
viii


34801.002
ix


34801.003
x


34801.004
xi


34801.005
xii


34801.006
(1)

HEARING ON AVIATION CONSUMER ISSUES 

Friday, April 20, 2007, 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION, AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC

BUILDINGS AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Jerry F. 

Costello [chair of the committee] presiding. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Subcommittee will come to order. 

The Chair will ask all members, staff and everyone to turn off 

electronic devices or to put them on vibrate. 

The Subcommittee meeting today is to hear testimony on the 

aviation consumer issues. I want to inform everyone that I have 

been informed that around 10:30 to 10:45 we will have a series of 

votes, probably as many as seven or eight votes, up to an hour. So 

I will give my opening statement, call on the Ranking Member of 

the full Committee and the Subcommittee to make remarks, then 

we will go directly to our colleagues, who will make up the first 

panel. 

I would like to welcome everyone here today to our Subcommittee hearing on Aviation Consumer Issues. This hearing is 

timely given the recent string of delayed and canceled flights, resulting in lengthy tarmac delays and again, highlighting customer 

service issues. Voluntary efforts by the industry to improve airline 

service have come under strong criticism, and I believe closer oversight of the aviation industry is needed. 

While I question a one size fits all legislative approach to regulating consumer issues, changes must be made and they must be 

made now. As I have said before, if the industry does not take action to address these issues, then Congress will. 

For anyone to gloss over the problems by saying that these instances are few and far between, or outside the norm, is missing 

the point. To force anyone to be stranded on a tarmac for eight, 

nine, ten or more hours just one time is unacceptable. 

This hearing is the first in a series of hearings that this Subcommittee will hold to review aviation consumer issues. If anyone 

in the industry thinks that if we can get by this hearing that we 

will go back to business as usual, they are wrong. We are not going 

back to business as usual, and if the industry does not take action, 

we will. 

A 2006 audit by the Department of Transportation’s Inspector 

General office found that only five of the airlines that had signed 

2

onto the voluntary 1999 Customer Service Commitment had internal quality assurance and performance measurement systems in 

place to meet their promises, including addressing passengers’ essential needs during delays. I find it very hard to believe that this 

is progress, as some have claimed. 

Further, I am disappointed that the progress was not made on 

implementing well-defined contingency plans. This is not a new 

issue. Airlines were aware of the need for contingency plans to deal 

with extreme weather back in 1999. However, the DOT Inspector 

General notes that only a few airlines’ contingency plans specify in 

any detail the efforts that will be made to get passengers off the 

aircraft when delayed for extended periods, either before departure 

or after arrival. With long onboard delays on the rise from 2005 to 

2006, this must be a priority for the airlines and the industry. 

I was pleased that in response to the December 2006 American 

Airlines incident and the February 2007 JetBlue incident, the Department of Transportation requested that the DOT Inspector General review those incidents, as well as the airlines’ 1999 voluntary 

commitments, so it can consider what action can be taken and 

should be taken by the Department of Transportation. I am interested in hearing from the DOT and the Inspector General on the 

progress of this report. 

I was also pleased that after JetBlue’s February debacle they 

took immediate action by creating a customer bill of rights and incorporating those rights into a contract of carriage. Passengers 

make an investment when purchasing a ticket. They expect to get 

to their destination safely and on time. There is a cascade effect 

that a delay or a cancellation has on passengers and their plans. 

Like most members of this Subcommittee and of this Congress, 

I travel frequently. I see first-hand the frustrations and customer 

service issues passengers encounter each and every day from being 

trapped on the tarmac for hours to lost luggage to being stranded 

at a location not of one’s choosing or simply a lack of information 

regarding reasons for delays and cancellations. 

Many times the airlines’ answer to a problem is to give passengers an 800 number and simply send them on their way and 

wish them good luck. This is simply unacceptable. Communication 

is the key to improving any customer service system. The airlines 

must make customer service a priority. They must make every effort to inform passengers of delays and the cause, provide for passengers’ essential needs when delays or cancellations occur, and ensure that passengers are informed of airline policies and the customer’s rights before they fly. 

Greater transparency by the airlines also is important. Airlines 

must put policies in place and inform their passengers of these 

policies. It should not be a guessing game or left up to the passenger to try and sort it out. 

With that, I again want to make it clear to everyone that this 

is the first in a series of hearings on this issue. This Subcommittee 

intends to closely monitor the actions taken by the airlines and we 

will hold additional hearings to check on their progress. 

Before I recognize the Ranking Member of the full Committee for 

his opening statement or comments, I would ask unanimous consent to allow two weeks for all members to revise and extend their 

3

remarks and to permit the submission of additional statements and 

materials by members and witnesses. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

With that, the Chair recognizes the Ranking Member of the full 

Committee, Mr. Mica, for his opening statement or remarks. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Costello. I want to thank you as the 

Chair of the Subcommittee, and also Mr. Petri, our Ranking Member, for taking this difficult issue head-on. I think it is an important issue. We will have members testifying in a few moments, and 

then hear from leaders in industry and Government as to how we 

can do a better job in guaranteeing the safety and the passage of 

people through our aviation system, particularly in difficult times. 

I would like to point out just a couple of things, though. If we 

look at the situation we face, most long airline delays are due and 

related specifically to weather, severe weather. For the most part, 

these situations are extremely rare. Valid statistics and facts will 

point that out, any analysis will point that out. 

Long taxi-out delays, such as occurred with American Airlines in 

December and JetBlue in February, are also very rare instances. 

However, the nature of the industry has changed. Part of what 

has happened is, with the advent of discount airlines, what has occurred is the discount airlines are doing a faster turnaround of 

their aircraft. And to compete, all airlines are now doing this. And 

if you look at the situation that emanates from this, in a severe 

weather situation, we may have planes coming in, passengers being 

unloaded, another plane coming in quickly, that plane going out, 

not able to take off. 

So what we have created with this rapid turnaround is having 

planes with no place to go. They can’t take off, they can’t come 

back to the gate. Which is an interesting phenomenon, most people 

don’t look at what has happened in the industry. But that is part 

of what happened in these two instances that we look at. 

Now, while some airlines have already begun to establish some 

self-imposed policies to better accommodate passengers affected by 

delays, caused by extreme weather, I think we have to do a better 

job in having a policy, a uniform policy, to deal with health and life 

safety situations. Passenger safety and life safety is a shared responsibility between airlines, airports and the Government. 

But let’s face it, folks, the Government cannot guarantee customer satisfaction. That is one of the things that we cannot do. We 

have all seen the bad press that the airlines have received, and 

some of them have made, as I said, voluntary changes. However, 

where safety and health hazards are exposed upon passengers, airports and airlines should have in place contingency plans. We 

should have a uniform requirement for that, to remove passengers 

from those hazardous situations. 

In that regard, I have sent today, actually should receive it 

today, we sent it out last night, to Secretary Peters a request and 

asked respectfully that the Federal Aviation Administration, and a 

copy to Marion Blakey, develop a uniform policy to determine acceptable procedures for extraordinary flight delays, particularly 

when health and life safety of passengers may be at risk. So it is 

hard for us to legislate that, but I think we have a responsibility 

for the Department and FAA to do that. 

4

So each airline and each airport would be given the flexibility to 

develop its own plan, due to varying environments and situations 

and configurations at the many airports and airline hubs that we 

have across the Nation. 

At the end of the day, these events painfully demonstrate that 

our ever more critical need to modernize our Nation’s air traffic 

control system, we also are better able to deal with these types of 

delays, which will in fact become more frequent this summer, and 

in continuing months again when we get into severe winter weather because of our system’s congestion and inability to have the 

technology available to deal with this. 

I thank you for the opportunity to participate. I am right on 

time. 

[Information follows:]

5


34801.007
6

Mr. COSTELLO. I thank the Chairman for his comments. 

The Chair recognizes the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, 

Mr. Petri. We will follow and enforce the five minute rule because 

of the time constraints that we are facing. Mr. Petri? 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much. 

I would ask unanimous consent that a statement from Mr. Mica 

be placed into the record. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. PETRI. I am happy to welcome all the witnesses here today, 

along with our Chairman. Recent high profile incidents in New 

York and Dallas have brought a lot of attention to long flight 

delays on the tarmac. While these instances are rare, they raise 

important concerns of how the industry and the FAA can safely 

and efficiently operate our national air space system. 

First responsibility to the passenger from both Government and 

industry obviously is the safety of the traveling public and that 

passenger. In Dallas, a freak lightning storm that stalled over the 

Dallas Fort Worth Airport prevented American Airlines from safely 

getting its passengers to their destination. In New York, unanticipated ice storm conditions prevented JetBlue aircraft from safely 

launching flights and in some cases, even froze the wheels of the 

aircraft to the tarmac. In both cases, weather was the major cause 

of delays. 

Because most of the causes of long delays, such as weather, are 

out of human control, it is important to consider the steps that the 

industry has and can take to mitigate the effect of delays on their 

customers. I look forward to hearing what policy changes the airline industry, both JetBlue Airlines individually and the Air Transport Association collectively, has taken to better respond to weather delays. Over the last eight years or so, the Department of Transportation’s Office of Inspector General has been active in investigating and evaluating major delay events. Over the years, the industry has voluntarily adopted recommendations made by the Inspector General, much to the benefit of the traveling public. 

Shortly after this February’s ice storm incident in New York, 

Secretary Peters asked the Office of Inspector General to review 

and evaluate the most recent major delays and report its findings. 

I look forward to hearing from the Inspector General and particularly learning about any recommendations he may have for the industry. 

At the end of the day, major delay events painfully demonstrate 

the ever more critical need to modernize the Nation’s air traffic 

control system. In some sense, long tarmac delays are really just 

the tip of the iceberg. With the anticipated growth in operations 

over the next 10 to 15 years, these types of delays will not be limited to days when there is severe weather. They might become the 

norm, rather than an anomaly. 

Therefore, I believe Congress must focus its attention on ensuring the transformation of the air traffic control system during consideration of the FAA reauthorization. 

I thank all of our witnesses, particularly our colleagues, for appearing before the Subcommittee today to share your concerns and 

points of view. With that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

7

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes 

the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this important and timely hearing. 

I actually introduced my first passenger bill of rights in 1987 

with then-Representative, now Senator Cardin. We are still falling 

far short of the mark. A number of times Congress has been deterred from imposing a basic floor for customer protections. I would 

hope that we won’t be again. 

Some would point to the DOT numbers and say, well, look, there 

is only a few thousand complaints. Who knows that the DOT takes 

complaints? Nobody. I established that office. But unfortunately, I 

couldn’t get the other provision, which is a mandatory printing of 

a 1-800 number, or these days, a web site reference on everybody’s 

ticket or boarding pass and posted at the airport. Nobody knows 

DOT is there. They don’t know they can take complaints there. 

Most people don’t even know what it is. 

So that would be the most minimal thing we could do, is get a 

real measure of how big these problems are, by providing that access to our citizenry. Certainly security and safety come first. But 

we cannot ignore consumer protection. I am pleased we are having 

this hearing and look forward to the actions the Committee is going 

to take. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman from Oregon. 

Let us go to our first panel of witnesses. We have three colleagues 

that I will recognize in order. The gentleman from New York’s 

Sixth District, Congressman Gregory Meeks; next will be Congressman Mike Thompson from the First District of California; and last 

will be Congresswoman Jean Schmidt from the Second District of 

Ohio. 

Congressman Meeks, welcome. We welcome all of you here today. 

We look forward to hearing your testimony and the Chair recognizes you at this time. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE GREGORY W. MEEKS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS FROM 

THE STATE OF NEW YORK; THE HONORABLE MIKE THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; THE HONORABLE 

JEAN SCHMIDT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN THE UNITED STATES 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Petri and all members of this Subcommittee. 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to add my voice to this 

debate. 

Throughout my tenure in the House, the members of this distinguished Committee and its able staff have provided me the opportunity of giving my opinion and hearing my voice, so that I can 

help shape public policy on aviation issues. As you have just indicated, as the representative from New York’s John F. Kennedy Airport, I am grateful for the many professional courtesies extended 

to me by this Committee. 

Let me begin by stating that passengers should not ever be 

stranded for untold hours on an airplane. That is unacceptable. 

8

The Valentine’s Day ice storm, which caused havoc up and down 

the eastern coast, saved its worst damage for New York, specifically at JFK Airport. The storm resulted in hundreds of canceled 

flights and stranded passengers. It resulted in a media firestorm 

for several days, and once again raised issues by this Committee 

and the Congress in the late 1990s. 

Could some things have been done differently during this unfortunate incident? Absolutely. Should some things have been done 

differently? Absolutely. The airlines can do better, and we expect 

them to do better. But we should also understand that there are 

mechanisms in place to achieve that currently. 

When the airline industry was deregulated 30 years ago, the 

Congress adopted a policy to put market forces in place to address 

commercial air transportation issues. The airline industry is one of 

the most competitive of any industry today, with the legacy passenger carriers directly competing against each other and against 

new entrants. As a result, the public has benefitted. Today, consumers have more choices among airlines, more destinations, lower 

fares, innovative amenities and better service. 

The proof of that continues to be the record amounts of individuals who travel each year, now going over one billion. Today, U.S. 

airlines conduct approximately 14 million takeoffs and landings a 

year. As indicated earlier, according to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation Bureau of Statistics in 2006, there were 36 flights 

out of the more than 7.1 million that were delayed five hours or 

more after pulling away from the gate. While this ratio is statistically insignificant, the frustration felt by those affected is very 

real. 

The question is, what leads to these unusual delays? There is a 

combination of multiple factors that contribute to this problem. 

Most often, these factors include severe weather and air traffic control directives. I personally experience some of this every week 

going back and forth, traveling through JFK and LaGuardia, we 

have delays that are related to airport and airspace capacity challenges. 

These factors are beyond the control of the individual airlines. It 

is driven more by the fact of our national airspace ATC system is 

built on outdated technology that was deployed in the 1950s. Until 

a new, satellite-based ATC navigation system is employed, passengers will continue to experience longer and longer delays. If the 

ATC system is not modernized, the delays will continue to mount. 

While the delays passengers experience were serious and regrettable, we also must let market forces work so that it can begin to 

address some of the concerns and issues that we have. In a competitive environment, as is the airline industry, carriers cannot afford to lose customers to competitors, especially when profitability 

is often determined by those paying passengers as well as the everrising, increasing cost of fuel. 

Furthermore, the airline industry is very capital-intensive. Much 

of the investments that they make improve the traveling experience of its passengers. For example, when an airline builds a new 

terminal or upgrades its facilities at an airport, the passengers 

benefit. When a consumer can fly free because of purchases made 

through a credit card, that is a benefit. Today passengers can check 

9

online 24 hours in advance to avoid lines at the airport, that is a 

benefit. And of course, there are many others. 

Like other deregulated industries, such as telecommunications 

and financial services, airline passengers and the general public 

have reaped many benefits from deregulation. Competition is alive 

and well and market forces are working. As a result, the focus of 

this Committee, I believe, should rightly be on how airlines prepare 

for, accommodate and respond to passenger needs when delays 

caused by unusual conditions are encountered. 

I am here, Mr. Chair, because JFK Airport is the economic heartbeat of my district. My concern is that this situation is more complex and legislation is not necessarily the answer. All options, all 

options need to be evaluated carefully so we avoid unintended consequences that will handcuff an industry that is already on life 

support. Rushing to legislate can potentially jeopardize the livelihood of thousands of my constituents who earn their living and access to the American dream based on the survival of this industry. 

I will stop there, I have something else, but I know we are getting onto the FAA reauthorization. I have some comments about 

that also, because it affects my airport and others in New York, 

very definitely. But that is in the record, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman for his thoughtful testimony. 

Let me announce that there is a vote that is occurring right now. 

We have exactly 11 minutes left on the vote. There are nine votes, 

so it will be at least an hour, probably an hour. But we will return 

immediately after the last vote, which we anticipate will be in 

about an hour. 

But we would like to get Mr. Thompson and Congresswoman 

Schmidt, if you could summarize your testimony, we would like to 

accept it now, if you would. Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Petri and members of the Committee, for holding this important 

hearing. 

I also want to acknowledge and thank Ms. Kate Hanni, who is 

here today. You will hear from her later. She is a constituent of 

mine. She has really led the effort to improve customer service by 

the airlines. 

Mr. Chairman and members, she was on the flight on December 

29th from San Francisco to Dallas that was diverted to Austin. 

After flying to Austin, or whatever, that takes a couple of hours, 

two and a half hours, she then sat with everyone else on that plane 

for nine hours on the tarmac. As numerous people have stated 

today, that is just absolutely unacceptable. 

Passengers on that flight experienced toilets that didn’t work. 

They didn’t have appropriate food. They didn’t have safe drinking 

water. There were pets on board that were making a mess, causing 

other problems. And parents even had to resort to making makeshift diapers for their babies out of adult clothing. I think we know 

that that is unacceptable. 

On the same day, Little Rock, Arkansas, folks sat on the tarmac 

four or five hours. There are a number of examples of this. It is 

not the limited instances that have been referenced today. 

10

As you know, and I think Mr. DeFazio mentioned, the industry 

in the past has said that they were going to take voluntary action 

to fix this problem. And as we also know, when the Wendell H. 

Ford Aviation Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century was 

passed, that mandated the Department of Transportation Office of 

Inspector General analyze the progress made by the airlines under 

their voluntary actions. As we also know, that analysis by the Inspector General suggests that also some progress was made, there 

is still a long way to go. 

February this year, the Orlando Sentinel editorialized, and I 

think they said it best, they said, leaving it to the airlines to provide customers with better standard of service has not worked. 

That is wy I applaud your effort, and I think it is time that we step 

up efforts here in Congress to improve things. 

The bill that I have introduced gives passengers the right to 

deplane after three hours, with two exceptions: if the pilot determines it is unsafe to do so, obviously that wouldn’t happen; and if 

the pilot determines within a reasonable amount of time, 30 minutes, that they can take off, we allow for two extensions of that. 

It also requires that passengers have food, clean water and that 

the toilets work. 

It also calls the FAA, the Department of Transportation, in on 

this. It has been referenced today. There are problems. We need to 

figure out how to work through some of those problems. Infrastructure problems, no question. The regulatory morasses that is out 

there, if a plane leaves the queue to let somebody off, they can’t 

get back in, those are all things that we need to do. 

But I believe it is time that we do this, and I look forward to 

working with you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Petri and other members of 

the Committee, to make sure that passengers have the ability to 

know what they can expect out of their airlines, without putting 

the airlines into some sort of terrible box, as Mr. Meeks has mentioned today. 

Thank you, and I would like to submit my entire testimony for 

the record. 

Mr. COSTELLO. We will accept your testimony, and let me thank 

you for your thoughtful testimony. 

Let me ask you, Congresswoman Schmidt, can you summarize 

your testimony in four minutes? 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Absolutely. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the panel. I would venture to guess that all of us at one time or another have been on 

the tarmac for a certain period of time. Given the amount of time 

that we in Congress spend on planes, we have spent some time in 

a delay. 

The recent incidents, some of which are deeply troubling, have 

brought light on an issue, and I believe can create some positive 

results. I decided to launch my own research project on this issue 

to find out what was happening and why. Based on data provided 

to me by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, I randomly chose 

delays from last year and asked each airline to explain the cause 

of each delay. While I am still compiling the results, this morning 

I do have some preliminary findings. 

11

All of this data is for calendar year 2006. In 2006, commercial 

air traffic system handled over 7.1 million flights, carrying some 

740 million passengers. That amounts to 19,000 flights averaged 

per day. During 2006, there were 1,295 flights that the BTS reported were delayed on the tarmac for more than three hours. That 

is 2/100ths of a percent of all flights. 

So if you were like me and found yourself on one of those flights, 

congratulations, you really beat the odds. But the data is quite revealing. 

However, one data set that is not collected by the BTS that needs 

to be is diverted flights. These flights, like the now infamous American Airlines flight, do not fall into the category collected by the 

BTS. As this Committee puts together an FAA reauthorization bill, 

I hope that it will include language directing the BTS to compile 

statistics on diverted flights. This information should give us a 

clearer picture of the situation. 

Of these 1,295 flights, I randomly chose 100 of them in a sample 

with all the major carriers. Most of those carries have responded 

with their explanations. While I am still compiling the data, some 

patterns are quickly emerging. The vast majority of these delays 

are caused by weather officially. As a frequent flyer, I am extremely grateful we are not flying in bad weather. 

But the underlying cause, more than the weather, appears to be 

a horribly inadequate air traffic control system that simply must 

be modernized. Mechanical delays, what I will term as regulatory 

delays, are also a factor in a much smaller scale. An even smaller 

factor, but more frustrating, is human error. That would include 

the just dumb mistakes like grounds drops with planes a few feet 

from the gate, or managers that simply forgot to call to appeal to 

the tower. 

While modernization would not have eliminated all 1,295 of 

those delays, it appears to me that a vast majority of them would 

have either been reduced dramatically in duration or totally eliminated. While my research project does not deal with the frustration 

passengers have experience, I strongly feel that the best course for 

our Committee is to try to eliminate the root causes of these 

delays, which I believe is outdated technology. 

Once I have completed my report, I look forward to sharing it 

with every member of this Committee. Truly, I believe together we 

can make great strides in eliminating these very uncomfortable 

delays. Thank you again for this opportunity. I look forward to continuing to work with you on this important issue. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks you for your testimony, and 

you came in under four minutes. So we appreciate that as well. 

The Subcommittee will stand in recess until after the last vote. 

As I said, we anticipate that we will have at least an hour that we 

will be on the Floor. So after the last vote, the Subcommittee will 

come back and hear our second panel. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Subcommittee will come to order. 

We will now hear from our first panel after we heard from the 

three members of Congress. The next panel is the Honorable Calvin Scovel, Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Transportation; the Honorable Andrew Steinberg, the Assistant Secretary 

12

for Aviation and International Affairs, with the U.S. Department of 

Transportation. And I understand that he in fact is accompanied 

by Dan Smiley, Operations Manager of the FAA Command Center. 

With that, the Chair recognizes Mr. Scovel to summarize his testimony under the five minute rule. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE CALVIN L. SCOVEL, III, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; THE HONORABLE ANDREW B. STEINBERG, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR AVIATION AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ACCOMPANIED BY: DAN SMILEY, OPERATIONS MANAGER, FAA COMMAND CENTER 

Mr. SCOVEL. Thank you, Chairman Costello, Ranking Member 

Petri and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify this afternoon. This hearing is both timely and important, given the recent events this past winter involving extended ground delays with passengers stranded aboard aircraft for 

extended periods, some for 9 hours or longer. 

Secretary Peters has serious concerns about this issue and has 

asked my office to review the airlines’ customer service commitments and policies for dealing with extended ground delays and 

their contingency plans for such events. 

As this Subcommittee is aware, airline customer service took 

center stage in January 1999 when a similar situation occurred 

with hundreds of passengers trapped onboard planes on snowbound 

runways in Detroit. At that time, following congressional hearings, 

member airlines of the Air Transport Association, ATA, agreed to 

execute a voluntary airline customer service commitment to demonstrate their dedication to improving air travel. 

In February 2001, we reported that the ATA member airlines 

were making progress toward meeting the commitment, which has 

benefited air travelers in a number of important areas. However, 

the commitment did not directly address the underlying cause of 

deep-seated customer dissatisfaction: flight delays and cancellations. This is still the case today. 

The debate again is over the best way to ensure improved airline 

customer service, whether it is voluntarily implemented by the airlines, legislated by the Congress, further regulated by the Department, or achieved through some combination of these. This is clearly a policy issue for Congress to decide. 

Today, I would like to discuss three important points regarding 

airline customer service as we see them, based on the results of our 

previous airline customer service reviews and our ongoing work. 

First, the airlines must refocus their efforts to improve customer 

service. In November of 2006, we reported that ATA member airlines’ customer service plans were still in place to carry out the 

provisions of the commitment, including meeting passengers’ essential needs during long, on-board delays. 

However, we found several areas where airlines need to refocus 

their efforts to improve customer service. The airlines need to resume self-audits of their customer service plans. A quality assurance and performance measurement system and these audits are 

necessary to ensure the success of the commitment and the cusVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:45 Nov 13, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\34801 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
13

tomer service plans. In our 2006 review, however, we found that 

just five of the ATA airlines had quality assurance systems and 

performed self-audits. 

The airlines must also emphasize to their customer service employees the importance of providing timely and adequate flight information to passengers. Further, the airlines must disclose chronically delayed flights to customers. We recommended in our 2001 

report that airlines disclose to their passengers, at the time of 

booking and without request, the on-time performance for those 

flights that are consistently delayed. To date, none of the airlines 

have adopted this recommendation. 

Second, the Department should take a more active role in airline 

customer service issues. DOT is responsible for oversight and enforcement of air traveler consumer protection requirements. However, when DOT discovered violations and assessed penalties, it almost always forgave or offset the penalties if airlines agreed to 

mitigate the condition for which the penalties were assessed. 

DOT’s follow-up monitoring of compliance was limited. In some 

cases, there was no follow-up monitoring at all. Also, instead of onsite compliance reviews, the Department has primarily relied on 

air carriers’ self-certifications. 

Third, the airlines must overcome challenges in mitigating extraordinary flight disruptions. In 2006, approximately 10 percent of 

all commercial flights were delayed due to poor weather conditions. 

While it is too early to tell what this summer will hold, the picture 

in 2007 so far shows that the number of delays and cancellations 

is increasing and the length of delays is longer. 

As I mentioned earlier, meeting passengers’ essential needs during long, on-board delays is a serious concern of Secretary Peters. 

She asked my office to examine the airlines’ customer service plans 

for dealing with these events, especially the recent events at American Airlines and JetBlue Airways, and provide recommendations 

as to what can be done to prevent a recurrence. 

We are in the early stages of this review and plan to brief the 

Secretary in June and issue our report and recommendations shortly thereafter. However, our work thus far has shown that there are 

a number of actions that airlines, airports, the Department, and 

FAA can undertake immediately, without congressional action, to 

improve airline customer service. 

One: airlines should implement quality assurance and performance measurement systems and conduct internal audits of their 

compliance with the provisions. Two: the Department should revisit 

its current position on chronic delays and cancellations and take 

enforcement actions air carriers that consistently advertise unrealistic flight schedules, regardless of the reason. 

Mr. Chairman, I see that I am at my time. If I can have one 

more minute, please, I can finish up. Thank you. 

Three: the airlines, airports, and FAA should establish a task 

force to coordinate and develop contingency plans to deal with 

lengthy delays, such as working with carriers and airports to share 

facilities and make gates available in an emergency. 

Finally, the Department—in collaboration with FAA, airlines, 

and airports—should review incidents involving long, on-board 

ground delays and their causes; identify trends and patterns of 

14

such events; and implement workable solutions for mitigating extraordinary flight disruptions. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be glad to 

answer any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee might have. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Steinberg. 

Mr. STEINBERG. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to testify today on behalf of DOT. I will try and keep this brief, just hitting the main 

points of my written statement, which I would ask to be made part 

of the record. 

Since deregulation of the airline industry almost 30 years ago, 

the Government has tried to balance the interest in protecting consumers against unreasonable business practices against the basic 

mandate of deregulation, which is to let the marketplace decide 

customer service issues. We continue to think that this is the right 

approach, but we also recognize that sometimes a regulatory action 

is necessary. Of course, our broad regulations over safety are such 

an example. 

When the marketplace doesn’t work, we do have tools at our disposal to address deficiencies. The cornerstone of our consumer protection program is our very broad authority to prohibit unfair and 

deceptive practices, as well as unfair methods of competition in air 

transportation. You should know that the Department’s Office of 

General Counsel is the Department that brings aviation consumer 

action cases under the statute. And that office handles all consumer complaints and inquiries and publishes a monthly air travel 

consumer report, which summarizes airline data on the kinds of 

complaints we get, delays, mishandled bags, denied boardings and 

so on. 

Between 2000 and 2006, complaints with DOT actually fell by 

nearly two-thirds. But we are beginning to see complaints increase 

again. Most focus on airline performance problems, including 

delays. We have already heard testimony today about the most 

highly publicized incidents, involving JetBlue and American Airlines this year and last year. The fact is that, however, all carriers 

at one time or another have similar problems. 

The Inspector General is right, that Secretary Peters was troubled by the incidents that were reported, particularly, I would say, 

over the reports that food, water and other basic needs were not 

being met by the airlines. If those reports are true, it begins to 

cross the line between inconvenience and discomfort and health 

and safety issues. That is why she asked the Inspector General to 

conduct an investigation, to see specifically how the airlines were 

doing on this commitment that they made eight years ago to deal 

with on the ground delays, because that commitment was not covered in the prior Inspector General report, and to make recommendations. And as indicated, after that review is completed, we 

will decide what to do. 

Although these very lengthy tarmac delays are statistically rare, 

it is clear that airlines must have adequate contingency plans in 

place to deal with these situations. Stranding hundreds of passengers for many hours aboard aircraft is not acceptable. Incidents 

like these raise questions about the planning for such events. 

15

So we were pleased to see that following these events, both of the 

carriers involved announced corrective actions. In American’s case, 

they announced that they would limit any tarmac delay to four 

hours. In JetBlue’s case, of course, they had a very highly publicized customer bill of rights that I am sure you will hear more 

about later. 

I would say the Department prefers that airlines address these 

issues directly, rather than the Federal Government. But again, we 

recognize sometimes action may be necessary. 

We do need to keep tarmac delays in the context of a vast system 

of more than 7 million flights a year. Airline networks are complex 

operations in which the airlines are constantly juggling operational, mechanical, safety, human resource, regulatory constraints. So what I would ask the Committee to consider is that 

any new requirement be assessed in terms of, will it fix the problem, does it have the potential to make the problem actually worse 

by creating more delays and what is the public benefit from it. 

I want to just conclude by saying that we are all personally empathetic with people that are on planes on the ground for unacceptable lengths of time. We have all been there. And we don’t just look 

at statistics. The question is, how to fix this problem when it occurs. The Secretary has indicated that we will wait until we get the 

Inspector General’s reports and we have all the facts and all the 

information before recommending a course of action. 

Thank you. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I thank you. And let me follow up on your testimony and comment that I am, while you point out, and it has been 

accurately pointed out before, both in the written testimony that 

we will receive and hear from the next panel, these circumstances 

and situations are rare. They are oftentimes caused by weather. 

The fact of the matter is, what we need to do is find a solution. 

I am also pleased that you acknowledge that the airlines need to 

do more. 

In that regard, let me ask Mr. Scovel a couple of very quick questions. You indicate in your testimony, as I did in my opening statement, that the airlines need to adopt policies that are very clear, 

very accessible and easy to understand by the flying public. You indicate that they must implement more effective contingency plans. 

What items should be addressed in these plans, in your opinion, 

Mr. Scovel? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Sir, I would start with defining the extended period of time, 

which relates back, in fact, to the June 1999 customer service commitment that all member airlines of ATA at that time joined. At 

that time, that term was not defined. When we pointed it out in 

our 2001 report, the airlines at that point agreed that it would be 

a priority for them and that they would undertake steps to make 

that definition. To date, however, 5 of 13 airlines do not specify in 

their customer service plans what is meant by an ‘‘extended period 

of time’’ with regard to meeting passengers’ essential needs. 

Now, that term would also apply to situations where passengers 

should be deplaned after an extended tarmac delay. We have found 

that seven of the ATA member airlines do not define the term for 

16

the purposes of setting a time limit for deplaning passengers. The 

range for those airlines that do is 1 to 5 hours. 

That would certainly be a tremendous starting point. A uniform 

definition for time limits for both of those, we believe, would go 

miles toward reassuring the public that the airlines take their commitment to customer service seriously. 

Mr. COSTELLO. You also in your written testimony state that you 

acknowledge that JetBlue and American Airlines responded after 

their incidents, but you indicate that ATA has shortly after the 

JetBlue and American Airlines incidents announced several initiatives and requested that the Department of Transportation convene 

a task force among other things. You indicate that you have a concern that ATA’s action merely shifts responsibility from ATA to the 

Department. I wonder if you might elaborate on that. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Yes. We believe that it would shift responsibility 

from the airlines to the Department. We believe the airlines have 

a continuing responsibility, for instance, to execute their contingency planning, to define the terms that we have outlined, to take 

steps to provide for passengers’ essential needs, and to make plans 

to deplane passengers when appropriate. 

The airlines and the airports should be continually taking those 

steps on their own, rather than relying on the Department’s review 

or judgment. At some point, the Department’s involvement will be 

necessary. In fact, one of our recommendations for immediate action, even without any congressional intervention, should the Congress decide to go that route, is for the Department to convene a 

meeting of the airlines in order to review all of that. 

But, in the meantime, we believe that this is a continuous process for the airlines, if they are to make any headway in this area. 

Mr. COSTELLO. So instead of attempting to shift responsibility to 

the Department, they should assume responsibility and be 

proactive in an attempt to address these issues internally? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Absolutely, sir. And if I may, I want to be clear on 

part of my earlier statement, when I was talking about defining an 

extended period of delay specifically with respect to deplaning passengers. We consider that a one size fits all policy, which is, we 

would caution the Congress about going down that route, should 

the Congress decide that legislation is necessary. 

We think, on the other hand, that a uniform definition of a time 

period for provision of passengers’ essential needs may certainly be 

helpful to the customer. However, we realize there are many more 

moving parts when it comes to deplaning passengers, including 

safety for passengers, the layout of the airport, whether it is physically possible, and if it were to become desirable, if FAA were to 

reexamine its departure sequence rule so that the desires of passengers who may want to continue on a flight that may be promised a departure window at some point, as opposed to those passengers who are simply fed up and want to get off. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I think I made clear in my opening statement, my 

concern about a one size fits all legislative approach, however, the 

airlines have had the opportunity to address this issue and in fact 

committed to doing so back in 1999. And obviously some have been 

a little more proactive than others, as you indicate in your testiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:45 Nov 13, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\34801 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
17

mony. But you know, the bottom line is that either they are going 

to address the problem or we are. 

And number two, let me say that it is easy to just blame the airlines. They made a commitment in 1999, and it was our responsibility in this Congress to provide aggressive oversight to make certain that they in fact were complying with their commitments. 

That is one of the reasons why I made very clear early in this hearing that this is the first in a series of hearings. We are not just 

going to close the book on this at the end of the day. We are going 

to hold additional hearings and we are going to provide aggressive 

oversight on this issue. 

So they will either comply and address the issue on their own or 

we will certainly be back in this room examining what action or the 

lack of action they have taken. 

With that, let me recognize the Ranking Member if he has questions at this time. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I will be brief, Mr. Chairman, thank you very 

much. 

Just a couple of questions, gentlemen. What are some of the 

logistical and operational challenges as well as safety-related kind 

of regulatory barriers that currently would prevent, if nay, airlines 

from simply returning to the gate and offloading passengers who 

don’t wish to continue? Has the Office of Inspector General considered how to overcome some of those challenges, if they do exist, 

and what are they? Does the DOT have the authority, if it needs 

to address these challenges right now? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Thank you, sir. We have not undertaken a detailed 

study of that. We believe that is properly within the purview of 

FAA. As you may know, sir, the FAA has operated for many years 

under a first come, first served rule when it comes to the departure 

sequence. However, when we come up against situations involving 

extended on-ground delays caused by weather and a long queue of 

aircraft awaiting departure; when an aircraft may need to return 

for either de-icing, as happened in February at JFK with JetBlue, 

or perhaps even to return to a gate to deplane passengers, the 

standing rule has been that the plane must go to the end of the 

queue. 

There are some exceptions. Airlines have what they call ‘‘advocates’’ in the air traffic control tower who may be able to negotiate, 

on a one-time basis, a return to a higher place in the queue. But 

generally, it is back to the end of the line. 

As far as regulatory barriers, certainly FAA possesses the ability, 

we think, to change that. What we identify as problems, mainly, 

are the physical layout of airports themselves. Some airports by 

virtue of their location and their design and their more modern age 

may be able to safely accommodate aircraft moving about in such 

a fashion. Other airports, because they are much more crowded 

and narrow, may not be able to have aircraft move about in that 

fashion and guarantee passenger safety. 

I think you mentioned deplaning passengers, and one method for 

that, of course, and that happened in some locations in the December incident involving American Airlines, was buses moving to the 

location of the aircraft and taking passengers off in that way. That, 

of course, would be highly safety-dependent, depending on whether 

18

the passengers’ own conditions and so forth, and the ability of 

ground personnel to move about safely under all those conditions. 

But, that would require some detailed study. We have not spoken 

in detail with FAA about it. But to the extent this Congress or the 

airlines would anticipate undertaking a more precise definition of 

an extended period of time for the purposes of deplaning passengers, a key element of that, we think, would be re-examining 

FAA’s departure sequence rules, so that passengers who may want 

to remain aboard aircraft, as I mentioned, and try to make a departure window, will have that option, while other passengers who are 

fed up can get off the gate or exit the aircraft and get on a bus. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Am I hearing, though, that in your opinion, 

there would be a problem with a one size fits all kind of approach 

to consumer issues, including these issues? Am I reading you correctly, or am I just making that up entirely? 

Mr. SCOVEL. We see problems with a one size fits all approach, 

specifically when it comes to deplaning passengers. Frankly, in 

other areas, we think a more uniform policy across the airlines 

would be helpful to the customers. So, I don’t think I can at this 

point say, one size fits all is not a good approach across the spectrum of customer service concerns. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Let me ask you, and I don’t know who should 

answer this, are there right now requirements, either in contracts, 

of either carriers or in regulation, that direct airlines and airports 

to have contingency plans, clear contingency plans for accommodating, for protecting the health and safety of the travelers? For example, should there be an extreme event, whether it is weather-related or otherwise, are there clear contingencies, or is it through 

contracting? Is it through regulation? Who can answer that? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Let me defer to Mr. Steinberg. 

Mr. STEINBERG. As a result of the customer commitments that 

were given in 1999, I believe that most of the airlines have looked 

at the issue of contingency planning and have incorporated some 

language on it in their contracts. Whether that language is adequate or not and whether the commitments are explicit enough is 

another matter. I suspect that is something that the Inspector General will look at as he determines whether they have met the commitments that they made. 

There are no regulations per se that really cover the situation, 

except that to say that of course the FAA has many regulations 

dealing with passenger safety, including when passengers are on 

the ground. But none to my knowledge that cover food, water and 

those kinds of things. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

The gentleman from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio is recognized. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the Chairman. 

To Mr. Scovel, don’t you think that, and we talk about one size 

fits all and the disadvantages of Federal mandates, but wouldn’t it 

be prudent to set a floor? What I observe in the industry is that 

you have some very responsible carriers, and then you have others 

who have adopted the old Ma Bell model, which is, we don’t care, 

we don’t have to. There is not one size fits all in the industry. 

19

If you set a floor for customer protections across a broad range 

of issues, then even the worst actors have to meet it. And if the 

best ones, for competitive reasons or just because they are good 

folks, want to exceed it, that is great. But absent that floor, I don’t 

know how we are going to get and assure the kinds of protections 

and deal with the abuses we are talking about here. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Mr. DeFazio, I think I was speaking specifically in 

terms of deplaning passengers when I was expressing some reluctance to endorse a one size fits all policy. However, I did say too 

that with regard to other issues, specifically, provision of passengers’ essential concerns, a consistent policy across the industry 

would certainly be helpful to customers. Whether you would term 

that a floor, and hopefully the good citizens in the industry would 

want to exceed that in providing for their customers. We would certainly endorse that. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I don’t know if you were here earlier. But when I 

got the Office of Consumer Complaints established in a prior FAA 

authorization, unfortunately due to objections by the industry and 

concerns by that Administration about having to staff the office, in 

case too many people had complaints, we ended up with a secret 

office of complaint. And they don’t get a lot of calls. 

Don’t you think if we are going to have such an office, to get a 

meaningful measure it would be useful to have it made known? Do 

you think it would be overly burdensome if we required, when you 

print out your boarding pass, that the computer program actually 

prints, if you have problems with this flight, this number is available? Or on tickets? 

Mr. SCOVEL. It sounds like a reasonable approach. I will note 

that the Department has on its web site a way to access the Office 

of Aviation——

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right, but that means that we have a consumer 

who knows there is a Department of Transportation or an FAA and 

they sort of parse their way through it. But for a lot of people who 

aren’t frequent travelers, and even for frequent travelers, I think 

it would be a useful thing. Thank you. 

The denied boarding issue, I was puzzled. I guess I wasn’t aware 

of the exemption for the smaller planes. It says here, I think you 

said in your testimony, consider extending it to planes between 31 

and 60 seats? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Yes. That refers to the over-booking and over-sold 

provision. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. 

Mr. SCOVEL. We recommended in our 2001 report that the airlines petition the Department to change the rules so that instead 

of starting the protection for consumers with over-bookings that 

occur aboard aircraft at 60 seats, that it be reduced, if you will, to 

aircraft with 30 seats. That would have greatly expanded the number of carriers reached and would amount to the many tens of millions of passengers who would be potentially protected by such a 

rule. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Sure, well, my mid-size, non-hub airport is no 

longer served by planes larger than 60 seats. This must be a fairly 

archaic rule. 

20

Mr. SCOVEL. Precisely. I don’t know when the 60 seat part of the 

rule originated. But I can say that, to their credit, very shortly 

after our 2001 report was released, ATA member airlines endorsed 

it and did indeed petition the Department in 2001. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Oh, okay. So do we know what action the Department has taken? The petition was when, in 2001? 

Mr. SCOVEL. In 2001. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. The industry asked to be regulated in 2001. Okay, 

so where are we? 

Mr. SCOVEL. They did, in April 2001. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. 

Mr. SCOVEL. This month, in fact, the Department’s Office of General Counsel, I presume, began circulating an advanced notice of 

proposed rulemaking addressing the airlines’ petition. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Let’s see. Six years after being asked by a regulated body, we are finally circulating a petition to advance rulemaking. That is great. Do we have someone who can address that 

issue here? Let’s see. Mr. Steinberg, you are international affairs. 

I don’t think either of the other witnesses are really accountable 

for that. 

Mr. STEINBERG. I can address it. We are actively working on it 

now. I can’t explain the number of years that it took. I would just 

note that, of course, there was September 11th and a lot of intervening events that affected that. It is not an excuse. It shouldn’t 

take us that long. 

I can assure you that a rulemaking is imminent. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes, because, with the changes in the characteristics of the industry, yes, 10 years ago, my city was served by planes 

up to 130 seats. But now with the industry changes, this is really 

essential. 

One last thing, Mr. Chairman, if I might. Again, Mr. Scovel, I 

was not aware, is this rule of back to the end of the line, is that 

custom and practice or is that at each airport, or is there some actually promulgated regulation or rule that governs all airports that 

says if anyone pulls out of line they have to go to the end of the 

line? 

Mr. SCOVEL. It is my understanding that by longstanding custom 

and practice that indeed is the practice. I cannot quote you chapter 

and verse which FAA regulation, if any, addresses that. Perhaps 

Mr. Steinberg would have that information, or I would be happy to 

get that for you for the record. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I am curious if there is any statutory or regulatory 

underpinning or if it is just something that we have been doing and 

never thought about. 

Mr. STEINBERG. It is something that we have thought about. It 

is part of the way that the FAA manages traffic. I might defer to 

Mr. Smiley, who is the Manager of the Command Center for the 

FAA. Perhaps he can provide more detail. 

Mr. SMILEY. Yes, sir, thank you. 

I don’t know of any rule that says that. However, it is often a 

logistical issue at the airports, that if you take a flight out of line 

that is in a line-up for departure, and are able to bring it back to 

the terminal, often that is a problem in and of itself. Then if they 

were to take the passengers off and maybe even have to take their 

21

luggage off, time goes by, they turn around and try and get back 

in the line, their space is gone, in essence. They get back in the 

back of the line and starting coming back out. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I understand operationally and congestion. But 

what I am looking at here is the perverse incentives that we are 

establishing, if there are five planes, ten planes out there, I am 

tenth in line, and it is probably not likely we are going to leave, 

but maybe we can leave, people have been on the plane five hours 

and if I go back, that other plane is coming, or if I am one in a 

line of ten, it seems to me it should have some flexibility for adverse conditions and maybe it needs to be more than just understood custom and practice since Orville and Wilbur first went up, 

that maybe we want to, so we won’t abuse the passengers. We 

want to say, gee, look, if the weather’s bad and the pilot has had 

people out there for more than a certain period of time, he should 

go back and not feel he has to stay in line, because he might get 

to take off soon and he is going to lose his place in line, or her 

place in line. Do you think that would be reasonable? 

Mr. STEINBERG. Mr. DeFazio, I just want to note for your benefit 

that the FAA does have customer advocates. It isn’t quite as inflexible as it perhaps has been presented. When an airline is in a 

situation where they have had passengers onboard for several 

hours, that can be communicated to the customer advocate. Subject 

to the logistical constraints that you mentioned, they can be moved. 

And that happens on a daily basis. It is not quite inflexible. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I thank the gentleman, and let me comment if I 

can that as I mentioned about the lack of aggressive oversight by 

this Subcommittee and the Committee concerning the agreement in 

1999, I think when we talk about the agency to come out with regulations to regulate the industry, and it is six years later and we 

are still waiting, it is another reason why this Committee needs to 

provide aggressive oversight. 

The Chair recognizes the Chairman of the full Committee, the 

distinguished gentleman who is chairing the full Committee, Mr. 

Oberstar. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much for holding these hearings, 

Mr. Costello. You have moved the ball forward considerably on all 

of the subjects of aviation, as we prepare for the reauthorization of 

FAA. I compliment you and Mr. Petri on a very thorough in-depth 

review, which will continue over a period of weeks to come. 

The Chairman just a moment ago referred to the lack of oversight on this Committee on the passenger bill of rights issue, 

among many others. That lack of oversight is exceeded only by the 

failure of the Department of Transportation to exercise its own 

oversight and its own enforcement of Section 41712 of Title 49 of 

the U.S. Code that deals with unfair and deceptive practices and 

unfair competition. 

The ATA testimony goes on at length about the benefits derived 

from the Deregulation Act of 1978. I sat right here in this Committee room and rubbed my worry beads about the effects of deregulation and in the end, I voted for it. There was a great deal 

of protection for small cities and essential air service written into 

22

the legislation, and hold-ins and all the rest. And with the assurance that there was going to be vigorous oversight by the existing 

Administration, the Carter Administration, of the passenger concerns and of the community concerns. 

Unfortunately, they didn’t last long enough to exercise that oversight. The election of 1980 changed the course. And the protection 

that passengers were anticipating and expecting hasn’t been forthcoming consistently from the airlines, despite the pats on the back 

that the ATA’s testimony gives themselves. And we have had these 

meltdowns over a period of time. It is hard to call a snowstorm a 

meltdown, in which case it is only a figure of speech. 

I think of all the testimony, which I have read over, all the testimony submitted today, that of the Inspector General is the most 

compelling and the most, creates with me the greatest concern. 

When I see, Mr. Steinberg, from your testimony that oh, shucks, 

violations are difficult to demonstrate, this section is enforceable in 

its own right but violations are difficult to demonstrate, prosecution is ultimately successful, it is resource-intensive, time consuming, of limited precedential value, because each case is highly 

dependent on its own set of facts, baloney. If you don’t exercise 

oversight, they are going to continue to do stuff that the public 

doesn’t want. You are already recognizing that there is an increase 

in complaints. The reason there haven’t been more complaints is 

that nothing much is done about them. That is why we have had 

a parade of our colleagues in the Congress coming here and saying, 

fix this. 

Now, the Inspector General’s statement, when DOT discovered 

violation of assessed penalties and almost always forgave or offset 

a portion of the penalty, there are cases when that is appropriate. 

Why spend money on a fine if they will spend the same money fixing the problem? I have no problem with that. 

When it came to U.S. Air, I think it was, that did not approve 

vouchers for lodging or meals, one of the many complaints that 

DOT looked into and if they turned around and gave money and 

compensate, make up for it later, or if I think, I think it was Southwest that was getting a fine for not having wheelchair storage, and 

they said, we will spend the money on wheelchair storage, I think 

that makes up for the problem. 

But if these are random enforcement, the airlines don’t take 

them seriously, then people get discouraged and they are not going 

to file complaints. DOT says the IG has not conducted on-site compliance reviews, relied on air carrier self-certification and companyprepared reports. It has not found supporting documentation. 

Chronically delayed and canceled flights are clearly examples of deceptive practices by the airlines. 

This isn’t new. We went over this almost 10 years ago in a hearing of this Committee, at Dallas Fort Worth. There were 57 flights, 

regularly scheduled for departure at 7:00 a.m. No airport in the 

world can depart 57 flights at the same time. And the airlines, in 

a parade before this Committee, said, we know that we are not 

being candid with the public. FAA said the same thing. And everybody knows this. 

So you mean all the travelers are in on the gag? I sign up for 

a 7:00 o’clock flight knowing it is not going to leave until 8:00? BaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:45 Nov 13, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\34801 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
23

loney. I sign up for a 7:00 o’clock flight expecting to leave at 7:00. 

And I know that 57 aren’t going to depart at the same time and 

you know it. So why don’t you do something about it? The reason 

we are having hearings is that the Department hasn’t done anything about it and the airlines haven’t and the FAA hasn’t. Without waiting for your responses, I am just telling you that a case is 

building for something to be done in the upcoming authorization. 

And that something is going to be, in my mind, a fine that means 

something, that takes some pain out of the airline, and enforcement that we will direct to be done. I don’t want to send through 

this Committee, a series of amendments by members are on the 

House Floor, about how many inches are going to be from one knee 

to the seat in front of you and how much of an incline will be allowed on the seat recline from the passenger just ahead of you. We 

were all set for that sort of thing seven, eight years ago. That is 

not productive. 

Airlines signed up for a passenger bill of rights. They said, let’s 

cure the problem. It was up to your department to enforce it, 

whether you were there or someone else, your predecessor or your 

successor, it hasn’t been done. And the airlines have to clean up 

their act. We have had Northwest with their mess in Detroit and 

JetBlue with theirs. Each has tried to correct their problems. But 

the problems come up with some other carrier. They don’t seem to 

learn from each other. 

And you are the court of last resort. If deregulation is going to 

mean anything, if we are going to hang onto it and hold onto it, 

then you have to start taking these complaints seriously and taking 

action on them. Or as I said, we will bring a bill to the Floor and 

have a flood of amendments as to how many bags you can put in 

the overhead, what size they should be, what size should the overhead compartment be. You think these issues are—wait until we 

get to the Floor. We are going to have 433 people offering amendments. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. OBERSTAR. The airlines will all go berserk. 

So I am just telling you, we are going to have some tougher enforcement, we are going to have tougher fines, tougher penalties. 

If you want to keep the Government out of deciding market entry 

and pricing for air carriers, then the air carriers have to do their 

job of serving the public, and that means more than what they are 

doing now. You don’t need to respond. It would be painful for you 

to respond. You might say something that would get you in trouble 

at the Department, or in trouble up here, or in trouble with the airlines. 

Mr. STEINBERG. If you would like me to respond, I can address 

some of the many questions. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. You are welcome. 

Mr. STEINBERG. Let me start by saying that we agree, the airlines have to do a better job. It is our job to oversee their compliance with their promises to their customers. We have a lot of empathy when things go wrong. 

It isn’t in fact the case that we are doing nothing. Obviously, Mr. 

Chairman, we are not doing enough. But by your account and by 

many other of your colleagues accounts, but——

24

Mr. OBERSTAR. I encourage you on that point to take the IG’s report home with you, put it at your bedside table and read it over 

tonight. When you wake up at 3:00 in the morning, read it again. 

Mr. STEINBERG. Of course we will look at it and study it. We 

have a pretty good track record of working with the IG’s office. 

But just to give you a few examples, over the last six years, the Department has assessed roughly $22 million in penalties. Yes, a 

lot of them were offset. To explain our policy on that, I think the 

Inspector General, with all due respect, may not understand completely what we do. We don’t give an offset for just coming into 

compliance with our current rules. Where we give an offset, it typically is paying for improvements that aren’t required by regulation. 

And so we make a judgment that it makes sense, because we can 

get more for the public by doing it that way. 

We do forgive part of the penalties, typically about half, but 

there again, sort of the reason is that we hold that out over them. 

It is not an unconditional forgiveness. If they violate the consent 

order that is signed, then we collect the penalty. So I did want to 

correct that. 

With respect to the issue of enforcement on scheduling items, 

first let me tell you that the Office of Enforcement, which of course 

is part of the General Counsel’s Office at DOT, is right now in the 

midst of settling or going through consent order proceedings with 

eight carriers on the specific issue of whether they disclose the ontime performance statistics as they are required to do when a customer requests it. That is a result of an investigation that involved 

about 20 carriers, and they found that 8 were seriously out of compliance. 

I am also told that we are launching an investigation specifically 

into unrealistic scheduling. As you probably know, we have a regulation that prohibits unrealistic scheduling as a deceptive practice. 

Now we are looking at stepping up enforcement efforts there. We 

are sending investigatory letters out or will be shortly to all major 

carriers. We want to understand, as you pointed out, sir, how it is 

possible that a flight could be late 70 or 80 percent of the time and 

that information is not disclosed in an adequate way to the customer. So I expect you will see activity from General Counsel’s office on that as well. 

Just one final comment, sir. The Office of Aviation Enforcement 

has about 30 people. They are very skilled, 20, 30 years experience 

typically. They have been focused in ways that Congress has directed us. Several years ago, there was more of an emphasis on 

dealing with disabled passengers and civil rights issues. So there 

were many consent proceedings brought on that basis. I can assure 

you that we are listening and that resources are being shifted to 

focus on these issues that have been raised today. Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Steinberg. I want to commend 

the Inspector General on the splendid service your office has provided with this report. It is a very detailed report, and the report 

last fall. I want to assure you, the Chairman is going to keep an 

eagle eye out. We need more, we need a lot more people in the Department. We need more air traffic controllers. We need more inspectors in the maintenance positions. We need more inspectors 

overseas for foreign repair stations. And we clearly need more peoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:45 Nov 13, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\34801 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
25

ple to defend the public interest in aviation. That is the role of the 

Department, to stand between the traveling public and the airlines 

in the public interest. 

Yes, you have done a good job, and I should have commended you 

at the outset on the civil rights issues and responsibilities that we 

urged upon you in legislation. But this is the next frontier. What 

has gone before us is not satisfactory to a large segment of the 

traveling public. We will address it in the upcoming legislation. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for your vigilance in holding 

these hearings. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding 

this hearing today. 

I want to start out with what may be an embarrassing admission. Until this hearing, I did know there was a Department of 

Transportation and an FAA. However, I did not know that there 

was a phone number to call to register a complaint about any problems with a flight on an airline. I wholeheartedly concur with 

Chairman DeFazio about that, that it needs to be made more public. We are talking here about, and Mr. Steinberg talked about the 

marketplace and allowing the marketplace to make sure that 

things are operating well, operating efficiently. We oftentimes will 

do that, we talk about marketplace imposing its own regulation. 

One of the things that is very important when we are talking 

about a market, for a market to operate efficiently there needs to 

be perfect information. If you go back, look at your economics textbook, it assumes perfect information if you are going to have a perfectly efficient market. Obviously, if information is not available 

and people do not fly often enough to really get information, just 

collect it for themselves and then know further down the line who 

they may not want to fly. 

So there has to be a greater collection of this information. Like 

I said, I had no idea there was such a number. 

Now, I want to ask Mr. Scovel about the, I know in the airline 

customer service commitments, they include a provision specifying 

how bumped passengers can be handled with fairness and consistency. Now, how has this provision been implemented by the carriers? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Thank you, sir. To respond to your question, we 

have found uneven implementation of that specific provision of the 

customer service commitment. In fact, we have found in our previous reports that passengers bumped from the same flight have 

been offered different amounts of compensation. Our understanding 

of the provision is that passengers bumped from the same flight 

should be offered the same compensation. And we have reported 

such. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. I know that I experienced a long delay recently, I 

was flying with my wife. I received an e-mail saying that I was 

going to be compensated with 10,000 frequent flyer miles, something like that. I told my wife, and she said, I didn’t receive anything like that. So I am not really sure why that was the case. 

But I want to go further, another issues besides being bumped. 

There are concerns that I hear from people, although they haven’t 

26

been raised here, about canceled flights. Not because of weather, 

but what is termed, because of mechanical problems. And there are 

some questions about why this happens, what these mechanical 

problems may be. I think at the very least, I have not seen this, 

maybe Mr. Scovel you have, this has been in an IG report, but is 

there any effort to collect information on cancellations of flights 

and the reasons for the cancellation of flights? 

Mr. SCOVEL. I should defer to Mr. Steinberg to ask whether the 

Department or FAA may have undertaken any such study. I can 

say that, for my office, we have not examined that particular cause 

for the event. 

Mr. STEINBERG. We do collect information on cancellations. I am 

not certain whether we have the data divided by the reasons given 

for cancellations. I will say this, that is one of the most common 

questions that I get is, the plane seemed empty and they suddenly 

came on and said, the flight was canceled, and I am suspicious. 

The reason that that happens is that when the airlines are required by circumstances, say a mechanical problem, to cancel a 

flight, if there is identical equipment, the same aircraft at the airport, they try to figure out the least number of passengers to impose the inconvenience on. Therefore, if they can substitute an aircraft for the flight that had the mechanical but had the most passengers leaving, they will do that. 

Why it is explained the way it is, again, that is a fair question. 

But it isn’t the case, to my knowledge, that airlines look at load 

factors and say, let’s cancel that flight because there are not a lot 

of passengers. It would be illogical for them to do that, because the 

equipment needs to get to its next destination for their schedules 

to work. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cohen. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not sure who to direct this to, so whoever wants it can just take off with it. 

I want to talk about the St. Patrick’s Day weekend massacre. I 

was supposed to fly to Memphis. A lot of people were supposed to 

fly everywhere and the flights were canceled because of ice. Was 

that the cause of there not being enough de-icing machines at the 

airports? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Sir, my office has not had occasion to examine how 

airports have tried to prepare for events such as ice storms. I can 

say, and you may have noticed in our testimony, too, that some of 

my staff were caught in the same ice storm over St. Patrick’s Day 

weekend. 

Mr. COHEN. Right. I understand that. It makes me feel no better. 

Mr. SCOVEL. I know. 

Mr. COHEN. Whose responsibility it is, the airport or the airlines, 

to have de-icing equipment? 

Mr. SCOVEL. My understanding, sir, it is the airport. Now, the 

airlines are certainly interested in that. They have the immediate 

economic interest in being able to move their equipment and passengers. 

Mr. COHEN. So airlines don’t have their own de-icing equipment, 

it is all the airport’s? 

27

Mr. SCOVEL. That is my understanding. 

Mr. COHEN. Anybody else have a different understanding? 

Mr. STEINBERG. I am not sure. I think there are situations where 

the airlines have their own de-icing equipment. I could follow up 

and get you a direct answer on that. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, sir. I read somewhere where it was the 

airlines and they didn’t have enough de-icing equipment and that 

is why flights were canceled. 

Mr. STEINBERG. One of the things I think we are observing now 

is that because of what happened on Valentine’s Day and last December, the airlines are being a bit more cautious and canceling 

flights more often than they were before. We were actually seeing 

that in some of their financial results. That just goes to illustrate 

the complexity of the system. If you do something over here, it 

tends to——

Mr. COHEN. What is the policy when the flights cancel like that? 

Just tough luck because it was God’s will? Is that it, you have to 

go Sunday and Friday night and kind of work on it that way? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Well, the airlines have different policies. JetBlue, 

when it announced its customer service commitment, or bill of 

rights, after its Valentine’s Day event, it addressed cancellations. 

But it is in terms of what they term a ‘‘controllable irregularity,’’ 

I believe. In other words, something that may have been under 

their control, perhaps mechanics——

Mr. COHEN. Let me ask you more directly. What could you do on 

behalf of the public to have some regulations to require that there 

be compensation adequate to compensate people. You get a round 

trip ticket to Washington, as some people who were traveling with 

me had. They were told they couldn’t, on Friday evening they 

couldn’t get out until Monday morning. They didn’t want to go back 

to the hotel at a thousand bills a night, stay in a hotel for two or 

three more days. So we rented a car and did the journey back to 

Memphis, like the Pope used to do it, more or less. Fifteen hours 

later, we arrived. 

They don’t need that return trip ticket. Shouldn’t they have some 

redress? 

Mr. SCOVEL. In terms of——

Mr. COHEN. Yes, who wants a one way ticket from Washington? 

You have to get here to use the ticket, you have to get on your 15 

hour drive to drive up here again, or rent a car and take advantage 

of it? 

Mr. SCOVEL. A refund of that portion of the ticket. 

Mr. COHEN. Shouldn’t that be mandatory? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Sir, I would leave that as a policy decision for the 

Congress. That involves certain economic considerations, and, as 

Inspector General, I believe my role is just to present facts and 

data for your information and consideration——

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Steinberg, do you have a different role? Anybody 

got a role on this? 

Mr. STEINBERG. Our understanding is that generally if a flight 

is canceled, completely, and a passenger is not re-accommodated, 

they get a refund. I think that is the policy of all major carriers 

today. The situation does arise, of course, when they are accommodated, but in a way that is not completely satisfactory and what 

28

do they get in exchange for that. My belief is that the practices of 

the airlines vary all over the lot in terms of vouchers and now we 

have seen JetBlue set forms of compensation. 

But we do not have a regulation specifically that requires refunds in the case where the passenger is involuntarily denied 

boarding, where we do have a regulation. 

Mr. COHEN. And I guess some of that issue is, was it involuntarily denied, or should the airlines have had de-icing equipment? 

That is an issue we haven’t determined a factual basis for, whether 

it was the airline or the airport. But it was reported in one major 

publication that it was the airlines who didn’t want to spend the 

money on de-icing. 

I can understand it, but if they save money on de-icing, they 

ought to spend the money on taking care of the passenger. The passenger I am talking about bought their tickets through some type 

of a special thing with Merrill Lynch. They gave up oodles of 

amounts of points to get these tickets, first class tickets. Well, you 

compensate them somehow. I don’t think they were. 

Mr. Smiley, do you have an answer? 

Mr. SMILEY. Yes. With regard to the de-icing equipment, I am familiar with what occurred in Newark, and Continental Airlines in 

particular had some equipment that broke after a period of time 

during that weekend long ice storm that they had. I don’t know the 

number, maybe seven or eight machines, and two or three of them 

failed after a period of time. 

So I believe that it can be either the airport or the airlines that 

own the equipment and operate the de-icing pans. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman from Tennessee. 

And let me thank all three of our witnesses for being here today, 

and in particular Mr. Scovel, let me compliment you on your work 

as Chairman Oberstar did. We had a chance to read your testimony and discuss it, and we appreciate the information that you 

were able to provide to us. 

The Chair at this time would ask the next panel to come forward 

as I introduce you. My understanding is that Mr. Neeleman and 

Mr. May both are on tight schedules here, so we will try and get 

you up and get your testimony as quickly as we can. 

Mr. David Neeleman, who is the Chief Executive Officer of 

JetBlue Airways Corporation; Mr. James May, President and CEO 

of the Air Transportation Association of America; Mrs. Kate Hanni, 

the Executive Director of the Coalition for Airline Passengers’ Bill 

of Rights; Mr. Kevin Mitchell, the Chairman of Business Travel Coalition; and Mr. Paul Ruden, Senior Vice President for Legal and 

Industry Affairs of the American Society of Travel Agents. 

If you will take your seats, and we will begin by recognizing Mr. 

May, the President of the Air Transport Association. We would ask 

all of our witnesses, your entire statement will be submitted into 

the record and we will ask you to summarize your statements 

under the five minute rule. 

29

TESTIMONY OF JAMES C. MAY, PRESIDENT AND CEO, AIR 

TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.; DAVID 

NEELEMAN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, JETBLUE AIRWAYS 

CORPORATION; KATE HANNI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COALITION FOR AN AIRLINE PASSENGERS BILL OF RIGHTS; KEVIN 

P. MITCHELL, CHAIRMAN, BUSINESS TRAVEL COALITION; 

PAUL M. RUDEN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, LEGAL AND INDUSTRY AFFAIRS, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF TRAVEL AGENTS 

Mr. MAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the interest of time, I 

will truncate my oral even more severely than I would have otherwise. I am pleased to be here on behalf of the nearly 400,000 passenger airline employees who every day make it their mission to 

safely and smoothly transport over 2 million passengers throughout 

the United States and the world. Much has been said today about 

the quality of airline customer service, some of it fairly harsh, some 

of it fair and well-deserved. With more than 20,000 flights a day, 

we may not get it right every time, but we do get it right most of 

the time. For the times we don’t, we do apologize. 

What troubles me ius the suggestion that our members and employees don’t care about how passengers are treated, which is not 

true. They care deeply, and the service they receive is very important. 

Following safety, on-time service is the most important factor for 

success in the airline business. The reputations that airlines earn 

for good service is the currency they have to offer in the marketplace. 

I would like to make two fundamental points. I don’t think you 

can effectively legislate airline industry response to irregular operations, especially when severe weather strikes. Arbitrary deadlines 

and inflexible standards will have serious unintended consequences. 

Extreme weather delays and cancellations are the enemy of 

every airline, crew member and passenger. They are costly. They 

drive missed connections, mis-handled bags, upset flight schedules. 

And in the worst case, they have a cascading effect that can spread 

to many cities and disrupt passengers’ plans for several days. We 

saw in the St. Patrick’s Day storm that there were over 3,300 cancellations, stranding thousands of passengers and upsetting spring 

break plans for many. If we don’t have any place to put the passengers on succeeding flights, that is when we have those cascading effects. 

So those factors are incentive enough for our airlines members 

to avoid cancellations and delays whenever possible. It is in our 

best interest to complete as many flights as possible. 

Recent events have caused us, however, to review our policies 

and procedures, update contingency plans and engage key airports 

in discussions about dealing with severe weather conditions. In addition, as you heard earlier, the DOT Inspector General is reviewing these incidents and will issue a report shortly. 

Mr. Chairman, we are not waiting for those reports. I have just 

concluded a tour of our company headquarters, and we are aggressively pursuing updating our plans. We requested the IG DOT investigation. I think it will yield some very positive results. And we 

look forward to the opportunity to not only aggressively update our 

30

plans, but to meet with the Inspector General, key members of this 

Committee and the Secretary of Transportation to address those 

recommendations. 

I don’t think, however, that Congress can legislate good weather 

or the best way to respond to bad weather. Because every situation 

is in fact unique. As I said earlier, every irregular operation is different. In December it was recurring thunderstorms. In February 

it was snow, and very importantly ice pellets, a subject that we 

ought to talk more about. This week, it was intense rain and high 

winds along the East Coast. Operational flexibility is needed if passengers, crew members and airplanes are to reach their destinations when different types of adverse weather conditions arise. 

A strict three hour limit, even with two extensions, I think eliminates much of the flexibility that we need to actually complete 

those flights whenever possible. No passenger likes a delayed 

flight, including me. What they like even less, however, is not 

being able to get to their destination at all, or to have a two or 

three day delay in reaching their final destination. 

So in conclusion, flexibility is the best tool the airline has to respond to severe weather conditions. With 42,000 city pairs, more 

than 20,000 flights a day, we needed flexibility to respond to irregular operations and get passengers to their destinations safely, 

which is our ultimate goal. 

Have we made mistakes in terms of our customer service? You 

bet. Do we apologize? Absolutely. Can we do better? For sure. We 

are committed to work with this Committee and the Department 

of Transportation to make sure that happens. 

Thank you. 

Mr. COSTELLO. We thank you. 

Mr. Neeleman, you are recognized at this time. 

Mr. NEELEMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, for this opportunity to speak to you today. 

We were invited here and agreed to come by our own volition. We 

are the only airline that has agreed to do so. I think it exemplifies 

our up-front nature of what happened in the events of Valentine’s 

Day. What happened was unacceptable to our customers and it was 

unacceptable to our for our crew members. We are deeply sorry for 

those events. It really has become a defining moment in our company as we have changed so many things. 

What happened on that day, and it was interesting, Congressman Cohen’s comments about de-icing, there is a relatively new 

Federal mandate that says we can’t fly in certain conditions. We 

are basically grounded. That is now being reevaluated by the FAA. 

We have been flying lots of years and never had that problem in 

these conditions. It was mandated. 

So that is what started the series of events. I am not blaming 

that for what happened to our people that were stranded on airplanes. We have now come up with contingency plans. As long as 

I am head of this company, it will never happen again. We have 

purchased extra equipment and we have extra places to evacuate 

customers with extended delays. We have new systems, procedures 

and leadership. 

31

So I am confident that these things, the way it happened on St. 

Valentine’s Day will never happen again as far as stranding our 

customers. Like I said, it was unacceptable. 

We have also enacted a customer bill of rights, which we have 

disseminated on our web site and to our customers that spells out 

exactly what is expected of them with us, and defined compensation, explaining what is controllable, what is uncontrollable and 

what remedies they have in the case that they have a bad experience with us. So we are really focused on our customers. We have 

always been a customer service company. It is something that we 

pride ourselves in. We have won award after award. So our reaction to this event is not dissimilar to the way we have treated customers in the past. 

I think the reason I agreed to come and be here today and testify 

is, I am concerned about the legislation that has been proposed. 

Sometimes the best intentions, and we are going to hear from Kate 

Hanni here in a second about her horrible experience, and I know 

it was a horrible experience. But I think if you have the best intentions, you can really come up with some really bad unintended consequences. 

On just a good day in New York, in the summertime, you can 

have taxi-out times of an hour, hour and a half. We get a thunderstorm that will come over the field and close departures for a couple of hours, it would be very easy to have somebody on a plane 

over a three hour period of time. To the extent that our pilots were 

mandated to bring people back to the gate at that limit, chaos 

would reign at a place like LaGuardia, where there is very little 

maneuverability. 

I think it would be interesting for Congressman DeFazio and Mr. 

Chairman to come out to Kennedy on a night when it is snowing. 

We are not talking about 10 airplanes in line, we are talking about 

80 airplanes or 100 airplanes that are trying to get out. If we were 

to have to come back to the gate, it would be physically impossible 

in some places, to get to the gate to let people off, if two or three 

people wanted to get off an airplane, it would be very, very difficult 

to do that. It would, more importantly, create a huge disservice to 

the other 98 percent of the customers that are on board that don’t 

want to get out of line, don’t want to go back to the gate, and their 

planes could be stranded. We could find ourselves in a position 

where we had thousands of people in the airport sleeping overnight 

instead of going on to their destination, if this was mandated. 

Now, I take all of your comments to heart. This industry has to 

regulate itself. We have to have evacuation plans, we have to have 

contingency plans. And JetBlue is committed to doing that in the 

future. 

But let us work together with the Department of Transportation, 

with the FAA, to figure out how to not keep airplanes, and to make 

sure that we don’t strand customers and have ways of letting people off without mandating these hard limits, which during an irregular operation would potentially prove catastrophic for our customers, which is the last thing that we want to do. 

Thank you very much for the time. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. 

32

Before we hear the testimony of the other witnesses, we will respect your time commitment, so I am going to ask a couple of questions and see if other members have questions or Mr. May or Mr. 

Neeleman. 

Mr. Neeleman, let me just say to you that both, Mr. May commented that you can’t legislate good weather and you indicated 

that the weather, of course, is beyond your control. I have flown 

out of JFK on a night where the weather was bad and we had 

delays. I think everyone understands that. Everyone understands. 

No one is telling you that you have to control the weather. 

The issue here is communication, communicating with the people 

who in fact are your customers. As I said in my opening statement, 

I was pleased that you took the action at JetBlue that you did immediately after your incident. 

But the other airlines have not. Some have, better than others. 

But it defies logic to me why the other airlines wouldn’t be doing 

exactly what JetBlue has done, why they wouldn’t communicate to 

their passengers what circumstances you control, and what other 

things you can’t control. What happens if in fact because of weather, a flight is canceled, communicating with them, giving them information and telling them what their rights are. That hasn’t been 

done. 

When the airlines say today, we are going to work, please don’t 

legislate and we will try and work this out internally, that was 

said in 1999. Everyone trusted the airlines to do that. In fact, here 

we are back again doing these hearings because one, the airlines 

didn’t live up to their promises; two, the department, the DOT 

didn’t handle the responsibility in making certain that the promises that were made in fact were carried out; and three, this Subcommittee and the Congress did not do their job in oversight of the 

agency and of the industry. 

I am inclined, as I said in my opening statement, not to legislate 

these things or to do a one size fits all. But unless the industry addresses this and addresses it now, there is going to be Congressional action. There is no question about it. As Chairman Oberstar 

said, in a markup of the FAA reauthorization, unless there is something in place and evidence that in fact the airlines are following 

the policies that they put in place that can clearly be understood 

by their passengers, then when we do a markup of the FAA reauthorization, if that is not in place and being followed, then you are 

going to see members offering amendments and you are going to 

see an industry that will in fact be regulated when it comes to passengers and their rights. 

So I just wanted to comment, and I wanted to ask Mr. May, you 

heard the Inspector General talk about the action that was taken 

by ATA after both the American Airlines incident in December and 

JetBlue in February. Basically the IG, as I take it, says that ATA 

is really just taking the ball away from the airlines and putting the 

responsibility on the agency. I want to give you a chance to comment on that. 

Mr. MAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know that that can be an 

interpretation, but as somebody who sat in the board meeting and 

participated in the discussion prior to that, I can tell you that it 

was with the most sincere objectives and motives that this industry 

33

went to the Department of Transportation, to the Secretary of 

Transportation, asked her to have the IG look at the specific circumstances surrounding not just the Austin event but the events 

in New York with JetBlue and elsewhere and how we are responding. We have provided our customer service plans to the IG. We 

have provided our contingency plans to the IG, while at the same 

time assuring that we are, as I said in my oral statement, sitting 

down to re-review those and make sure that we are updating them 

and making the changes that are necessary. 

I think this is a very different industry, from the leadership right 

on down, than it was in the last event, in 1999, when this took 

place. I think our CEOs are absolutely committed to the most positive kinds of changes when it comes to customer care. 

I would reiterate that we don’t think that legislating behavior 

from the perspective of when we take off and when we land, we 

want to leave safety as the primary consideration, and the opportunity to get where we are going and get our passengers where 

they are going safely is the primary. So Mr. Neeleman and I are 

absolutely in accord on all of these points. 

I think our board also recognizes that customer service is a critical component. We have to equally address that. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair recognizes Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I guess we keep focusing on very specific legislation and behavior 

that could impinge operations. I am not sponsoring nor recommending any legislation that would do that. And my past attempts 

on this issue haven’t either. 

What we are talking about, though, is establishing a basic floor. 

For instance, Mr. Neeleman, you have here, it says, customers are 

experiencing an onboard ground delay for more than five hours, 

JetBlue will take necessary action so that customers may deplane. 

Well, I think it would be worth going through an FAA rulemaking 

and determining if that is a good standard for the entire industry. 

Because right now, apparently some airlines don’t have that standard. And if we say, well, we don’t want to impede operations, well, 

sorry, it was ten hours. I think five hours might be right, maybe 

not. Maybe it could be a little less. 

But I think establishing a floor makes sense. I just don’t understand. And Mr. May, I would hope that you would agree with that. 

We shouldn’t leave it to the vicissitudes of the marketplace, because nobody knows what their contract of carriage said, except the 

people at JetBlue now, about how long they might be kept prisoner 

on a plane without any offer of getting off. 

So we are talking about some really basic floor. And then if anybody wants to compete over and above that, maybe the FAA would 

say it was ten hours. Whatever. But then JetBlue says, hey, we are 

only five, we will advertise it. So when people know that they are 

stuck at JFK, they are only going to be stuck on the plane for five 

hours. 

It seems to me, and I had this discussion when I was a freshman 

with Mr. Bolger who preceded you in this job. I said, you do not 

want to represent the industry to the lowest common denominator 

of your organization, and you don’t do the ATA or the industry a 

service by doing that. I know it is hard to run a large organization 

34

like yours and if you have someone who is a substandard actor over 

here, you are trying to urge them to move up, but then again, you 

don’t want them to pull out of the organization, so you are not 

going to beat them over the head with a club. So you come and say 

these sorts of things. 

But my point would be, we have made your job easier if we say, 

in reasonable areas where we can agree, where we are identifying 

sort of ongoing chronic problems, we are going to have the FAA 

knowing about operational stuff come up with a reasonable rule 

and everybody will have to follow it and anybody who wants to exceed it can. Wouldn’t that be reasonable? I am not talking about 

arbitrary stuff here. 

Mr. MAY. I think the key, Congressman DeFazio, is making sure 

that we don’t have a standard that doesn’t acknowledge that 

JetBlue operates in certain markets with certain equipment and 

certain conditions that can be very different from some of the competitors in the business, United Airlines, American Airlines and so 

forth. So I think probably we can take a long look at trying to find 

some basic——

Mr. DEFAZIO. I understand your caveat. It is a good caveat. But 

I don’t think that humans vary that much. And a human trapped 

on United Airlines at Denver for five hours is not going to be any 

happier than a human trapped for five hours at Kennedy or gee, 

maybe even in beautiful Paris, France, when I am trapped for five 

hours on the ground, I am still trapped five hours in a can with 

a bunch of people who run out of water, the lavs are getting ready 

to overflow and we are sitting there and no one can tell us what 

is going to happen. 

That is what we are talking about here. I just think that we are 

going to have to look very carefully as a committee of those sorts 

of what I think would be reasonable floor standards, understanding, I know it has been 21 years, I understand operational 

stuff, I have flown over 3 million miles, I am pretty well versed in 

what is good, what is bad, what works, what doesn’t. And I don’t 

think that you are going to find the Committee doing things that 

are unreasonable, going to impinge the operations. But they are, I 

think, going to set a basic floor. 

Let us go to maybe something we can agree about. 

Mr. NEELEMAN. Can I respond to that for just one second? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Sure. 

Mr. NEELEMAN. Just from our perspective. I met with some people who were on our planes that were on for nine hours, on the 

plane. They said that the pilot announced at five hours that there 

was a break in the weather, the ice pellets were potentially going 

to stop, and they said, we are going to leave. Everybody on the 

plane cheered after five hours. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Just like when they used to announce they were 

going to ban smoking. I understand. We are all captive. We want 

to go somewhere. 

Mr. NEELEMAN. Nobody wanted to get off the airplane. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. That is fine. 

Mr. NEELEMAN. They all wanted to go——

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay, well, then, maybe we will mandate that we 

have a vote after five hours, and you can have a ballot. 

35

Mr. NEELEMAN. If you had that vote, if you were number one for 

takeoff, nobody would——

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes, I know. But the point is, I think that this 

needs further deliberation, rather than just allowing it to just stay 

out there and let market forces, because the market is not transparent. Let me go to, one thing I think we can agree on, I think, 

is the 30-60 rule, apparently. I have no idea why that would still 

exist, since many communities are served now by commuter jets 

that are less than 60 seats. 

Mr. MAY. Correct. 

Mr. NEELEMAN. We agree on that. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay, good. 

Mr. NEELEMAN. And we don’t over-book our flights. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. We will do what the FAA can find out why. And 

then this end of the line thing. It seems to me if operationally it 

would be possible, I know there are extraordinary constraints at 

Kennedy and elsewhere. But there are some times, some places 

where applying the end of the line rule might not make sense, for 

instance, at Denver, where there is a lot more capacity for planes 

to return to a terminal. It may not be your gate, but there are lots 

of gates there. Or some other place. I mean, it just seems that that 

should, the FAA apparently has some process to break that rule 

with the customer service representative, whoever that is, wherever they are and however they can be contacted by the pilot. I 

think we ought to be taking a look at that. 

Mr. NEELEMAN. I think it is a good question, but when you think 

about it in practical terms, even if we could get back in line or back 

to the front of the line, if two people in the back of the plane said, 

my business meeting, I am not going to make it, I want off the airplane, this is——

Mr. DEFAZIO. Nobody is taking it to that extreme. I have been 

there with people, yes, there are a lot of people you don’t want to 

be on a plane with. 

Mr. NEELEMAN. But if two people can affect 148 people, delay 

their trip another two hours because two people say——

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right, and I have been on planes where I had to 

come back and I was delayed four hours out of Dulles because a 

woman was very nervous about the flight and the pilot went back. 

I said, I can’t believe you went back because that woman was nervous. But they did and she got off and then they had to find her 

bags, which, since we don’t offer RFID on baggage, it took about 

an hour and a half to find her bags. Then we got to leave. 

So I understand that. But again, that doesn’t mean we exclude, 

we say, gee, we will just keep the in-line thing and it will be totally 

inflexible, or you will have to find the elusive customer—I am saying some level of review and scrutiny. I think the point the Chairman is trying to make is that having an industry-friendly Administration is not always the best thing you can have. They will let a 

rule languish that the industry wants because they, we don’t want 

to make any rules on the industry. 

So it is not necessarily serving your needs. And not having oversight by the committee of jurisdiction, you let these things get pent 

up, and then you get some of our colleagues who don’t understand 

36

the industry introducing legislation that might become popular and 

might move if there is another incident or two. 

So just kind of work with us here. 

Mr. MAY. We hear the counsel of the Chairman very clearly. 

Mr. NEELEMAN. And we are working, all we care about is customers. If we didn’t have our customers, we wouldn’t be in business. So all we are trying to do is help our customers. We think 

some of this legislation, and I know you haven’t sponsored it, but 

it could actually hurt customers. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I understand. That is why I am not a co-sponsor 

of those particular bills. 

But again, and just two more quick points, Mr. Chairman, thank 

you for being generous. I think these are important. 

If you do look, and I am sure you have, the IG report, there are 

two things that again, the disclosing of chronically delayed flights. 

Yes, there are a couple of web sites where you can go and get some 

fragmentary data about airline performance, and I have done that. 

But I think they make a good point there about disclosure. If we 

want to talk about something that is market-based, for consumers, 

if you go back and read Adam Smith, it has to be, it can’t be 

opaque, it has to be transparent. Everybody has to have perfect information. 

So I would think that the airlines would rush to provide this information, except maybe there are a few who have such miserable 

records with certain flights, they don’t want to disclose it. And then 

everybody else kinds of says, well, they are not doing it, so we are 

not going to do it. So again, this is an area that we are going to 

have to look at, if the industry doesn’t do a better job there. And 

then just the emphasizing to customer service the importance of 

providing timely and adequate flight information. 

I had one, everybody relates to it, but you say, oh, yes, they will 

do that. But there are times it doesn’t quite work. They have what 

I call a random excuse generator, because you can go to the gate 

and they will look at the computer and they will say, oh, it is this. 

Then you go to the Red Carpet room and oh, it is this. And I will 

say, well, that is really different. They said they didn’t have a crew, 

you said it is a—and there is this ongoing credibility problem. 

United once had this great ad campaign. They knew this was what 

upset business travelers. I told the former CEO, I said, this is the 

greatest ad campaign I have ever seen, you guarantee people, you 

were going to tell them, no more than 15 minutes, you will tell 

them exactly what is going on. I said, but you had better follow 

through on it or you are going to be in a world of hurt. And they 

didn’t, and they were. Thank you. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Texas, 

Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 

for having this hearing. It is very interesting. 

I have experienced, since I have been here now a little while, 

around 15 years, every kind of weather you can think of, all over 

the Country, the airlines had to stop. I would much rather be on 

the ground when we have that kind of weather, even if I had to 

sit for eight hours, than to be up in the air. 

37

And let me say that I have observed some improvements in the 

way that the information is coming. I was six weeks ago or something like that, I was stuck in Abilene, Texas, for six hours on a 

plane trying to get to Dallas. And the pilot offered the opportunity 

for people to get off. He did say, if you get off, you can’t get back 

on because of security. If you wanted to rent a car or whatever. 

And some did get off. 

They did pass out additional water, and they ordered pizza. It 

was just that by the time, the pizza didn’t get there by the time 

we got a notice to leave. 

I am trying to figure out what else the airlines can do to accommodate passengers when this comes. I ride one two ways almost 

every week. And I know that I am not going to avoid the weather. 

And I can’t challenge the weather. But I am trying to figure out 

what else the airlines can do. 

I saw this ad that JetBlue printed, which I thought was very, 

very well done. So I want to ask the two CEOs here from airlines, 

what else can you do? 

Mr. NEELEMAN. I will tell you, since St. Valentine’s Day, the 

storm that we had, we have been racking our brains to try and figure out what we can do more for our customers. I think the difficulty arises that if you are going into like the President’s Day 

weekend and you have to cancel 200 flights because of an ice storm 

in which you can’t take off, now you have all those customers that 

are on canceled flights, and the flights are full through the holiday 

weekend, that is a very disruptive thing for our customers. It is 

really disruptive if you can’t get through on the phones and talk 

to anybody. 

So our focus has really been about notifying people of the cancellation before they get to the airport, and we did this this last 

weekend with the nor’easter that came through, much better. And 

then offering them the ability to re-book their tickets with no additional change fee or no additional charge so that they can go a different weekend. And do it quickly, through the internet, where 

they can push a button and have it automatically changed over. 

But to the extent that if you want to go on that day at that time, 

and now you can’t go any more because of weather event, that is 

a hard thing to talk to customers about. I think just the ease of 

information, letting people know what it is, letting them get in 

touch with you quickly and receive an alternative or a full refund. 

I think one of the things that wasn’t quite clear maybe on the other 

panel, if we cancel a flight, a customer, by Federal law, is entitled 

to a full refund. We don’t hold onto people’s money if we cancel a 

flight. 

So I think it is just the communication and letting people know. 

As you said, weather will come. And so it is just trying to communicate better with our customers and letting them communicate 

back with us a lot easier. That is really all we can do when things 

are really, really bad on weather. 

Mr. MAY. Congresswoman, I think certainly I endorse everything 

that Mr. Neeleman said, and reinforce from our perspective that I 

think the suggestions made by many members on this panel, by the 

IG, the DOT and others, are things that we have to pay particular 

attention to and incorporate wherever is reasonable into our game 

38

plan. We thank you for your attention to this issue. It is very important to us. 

But at the end of the day, completing those flights is the most 

important thing, and doing it safely. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much for your response. My time 

is expiring. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I thank the gentlelady. The Chair recognizes now 

the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I actually have a plane 

to catch so I will make this quick. 

Mr. MAY. So do we. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Hopefully, it will be going out. 

Information, that I can’t emphasize, information I think should 

be available. There should be, the airlines should, there is absolutely no reason the airlines should not be making information 

available about delayed flights, and cumulative information available about delayed flights, the most important thing, in the short 

term, for everyone sitting there waiting for a flight, in the long 

term for people being able to make decisions, judge airlines, et 

cetera. 

I have a question that had come to my mind during what happened with JetBlue. Is it possible to have a system where if you 

don’t have any gates at airports, you can still take passengers off 

the plane, bring stairs up there, have an area where the plane 

could go and get passengers off in that way? Is that logistically possible? 

Mr. NEELEMAN. Absolutely. In preparation for our next event, we 

always have to have these contingency plans. We have, in the process of purchasing equipment, we have an area, and we have a luxury at JFK because we have this area, other airlines don’t have it. 

But we have leased a large area where we can bring airplanes back 

and we will have stairs there. Because what happened on St. Valentine’s Day, all the planes were at the gate, they were stuck to 

the gates, the wheels were stuck to the ground, we couldn’t push 

them off, we couldn’t push them on. But we could have done better. 

We have reevaluated what could have been done better. So we will 

take those planes over there. 

There was concern about people falling down stairs and hurting 

themselves. We didn’t hurt anyone on that day, we just made their 

lives very, very miserable. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. You could have just carried them down. 

Mr. NEELEMAN. That is right. We did that eventually, but we 

should have done it much sooner. So yes, we have contingency 

plans for that. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Do you think this is possible to be something that 

is done regularly by all airlines, to have that available? 

Mr. NEELEMAN. I think it depends on the airport. Jim can answer that. But I think every airport should have a plan in place, 

an evacuation plan, where you have to go to a gate if it is open. 

If it is open, you have to be allowed to go there. But if there is another plane coming to that gate, you could delay another plane. 

39

Every airport should come up with a space, a plan to be able to 

pull something together to make sure that customers can get off 

airplanes, be it in Austin or in JFK. 

Mr. MAY. And Congressman Lipinski, I would endorse what Mr. 

Neeleman has said and point out to you also that in many of these 

circumstances, and we are working with the airports to try and update our contingency plans. But in many of these circumstances, 

when you have these terrible weather events, you may have 80, 

100, 110 planes on the ground that are not expected to be on the 

ground at that particular time. Those are in addition to those that 

are sitting at the gate. 

So one of the complications, again, depending on the airport, and 

the bigger the airport, the bigger the problems, Chicago being one 

where you could have just no place to put some of those planes for 

extended periods of time. That is why we want to have as much 

flexibility in our contingency plans and make sure they are adjusted airport by airport, and try not to have a mandate of one size 

fits all. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Very quickly, Mr. May, the Inspector General said 

that there has not really been, the uniform compliance with the 

compensation for people who are bumped from flights, what is the 

reason for this? 

Mr. MAY. My sense is, and I would be happy to come back to you, 

review my members and give you a more defined answer, but my 

sense is that it is an airline by airline issue. 

Mr. NEELEMAN. Maybe I could comment on that quickly. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Well, I am out of time. 

Mr. NEELEMAN. As an airline, I can just tell you that involuntary 

separation from an airline is a federally mandated amount of 

money. There is no variation on that. But until you get that 

amount, I think it is $500, airlines can negotiate with customer 

and get volunteers to come off and can offer less money or free tickets if they want to do it. So that may have led to the variability 

he was speaking of. 

But there is Federal law that says if you involuntarily take 

someone from an airplane, there is a specific amount, which ours 

is $1,000, theirs I think is $500, which is Federal. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. That is something I think it would be good for passengers to know. I would also like to put forward the possibility of, 

as I brought up before, of flights being canceled, not due to weather 

but mechanical problems, the possibility of there being some sort 

of compensation for that. It certainly has happened to me, happened twice in a row coming out here, and I needed to be here and 

expected the flight to go out at a certain time. 

I think that is also something that should certainly be considered, at least. 

Mr. NEELEMAN. That is what is in our bill of rights. That is the 

difference between controllable and uncontrollable. I can tell you 

that there is an infinitesimal percentage of flights that are canceled 

due to maintenance compared to weather. It is vastly different. We 

would be happy, if you wanted us to provide that, to provide it. But 

it is very small. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. I very much would like to see that type of information available out there. 

40

Thank you. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman from Illinois and 

thanks Mr. May and Mr. Neeleman for being here today and offering your testimony. We will see you in the not too distant future 

as we continue our series of hearings. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Hanni, under the five minute 

rule, to please present your testimony. Then we will recognize the 

other members of the panel after your testimony and then have 

questions for you at the end of Mr. Ruden’s testimony. 

Mrs. HANNI. Okay, thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the 

Committee, my name is Kate Hanni. Thank you for the opportunity 

to testify on behalf of the 15,000 members of the Coalition for an 

Airline Passenger’s Bill of Rights. Some of them, all volunteers, 

paid their own way to be here today. 

Plus, I also want to note that all of the Nation’s leading consumer protection organizations, including the Aviation Consumer 

Action Project, U.S. PIRG, Public Citizen, Consumer’s Union, and 

the Consumer Federation of America support this legislation on behalf of their 15 million members. 

I have included as a part of my testimony the letter which all 

of these groups, including APBOR, sent to the full House this 

week. 

Before I begin, I would like to point out that I am the only person here today exclusively representing consumers, your constituents. Before December, I had no knowledge of airlines and regulations. But after my stranding, I have taken it upon myself to fight 

for the rights of millions of people. Passenger rights matter to anyone boarding a plane. I hope today to give the flying public a voice. 

We appreciate your efforts and ask for your help in ensuing our 

safety and well-being when boarding an aircraft. 

We need a new law that will hold the airlines accountable. On 

December 29th, my family, I, my husband Tim and my sons 

Landon and Chase Costello, and 5,000 other passengers were treated inhumanely on 121 diverted American Airlines flights. The horrific conditions and treatment we suffered that night could have 

been prevented with legislation protecting the flying public. Our 

tires were not glued to the tarmac. 

We departed San Francisco aboard American Airlines Flight 

1348 en route to Point Clear, Alabama, by way of Dallas Fort 

Worth, for a much-needed holiday vacation. Still recovering from a 

violent assault, this was my first trip away with both of my children and my husband. Due to thunderstorms, we were diverted to 

Austin. Nearly nine hours later, we were still sitting on the tarmac 

with twelve other jets. 

During those nine intolerable hours, we ran out of water, toilets 

overflowed and we were given only one 45 calorie bag of pretzels, 

which I gave to my 11 year old son. As time ticked by slowly, passengers started to get frustrated, angry and feel helpless. We were 

left with no information on how long we would be held on the 

plane. 

Because of the lack of care and service, a mother made diapers 

out of tee-shirts for her baby. People walked their dogs on the 

tarmac, while lightning exploded a transformer. Flight 534, a diabetic paraplegic was in such distress that paramedics were called. 

41

The passengers revolted. Because they were unable to remove the 

patient, the pilot declared an onboard emergency so the plane could 

go to a gate. On another aircraft, police arrested brawling people. 

Flight 2412, a small dog defecated on passengers who began vomiting and were told to hold their own vomit bags, due to full trash 

receptacles. People ran out of medications and others had no water 

with which to take theirs. 

Finally, against orders, our pilot drove the airplane to a gate, 

where we eventually deplaned. In order to assure we didn’t leave, 

the airlines refused to unload our bags and said they would resume 

the flight the next day. By not canceling our flights, they did not 

have to refund our money. 

My husband and I were so disappointed with the airline that we 

turned our anger into advocacy. We started a blog and a petition 

and then finally, the coalition. Yet since coalescing, there have continued to be an epidemic number of strandings by different airlines 

in different airplanes, proving the airlines see passengers as cargo. 

These events are not new. They have just been tolerated until 

now. 

Two fourteen, JetBlue. Michael Skolnik, one guy, two jets, 17 

and a half hours on the JetBlue tarmac. Three five, United Airlines, Chicago O’Hare; 3/17, Philly and JFK. Rahul Chandron, I 

have submitted his testimony in my written statement. He has 

three strandings, starting with Northwest Airlines in 1999. 

Just when you thought it couldn’t get more absurd, Cheyenne, 

Wyoming and Scotts Bluff, Nebraska, abandonment by the airlines. 

Four planeloads of diverted passengers were dropped off at two airports, not their destination, and left there with no resources. Roger 

Barbour was trying to get to his own wedding when he was 

dropped in Coney by United Express, and the planes later flew 

away empty. It ended up costing him $3,000 to get home. This is 

simply unacceptable. 

I have told you some of our stories. I want to tell you that believe 

the DOT and the industry are severely under-stating the number 

of tarmac strandings. The airlines have said that all these events 

are statistically improbable. Evidently not. In fact, our analysis of 

the written DOT testimony reveals that the widely-reported number of 36 planes held for 5 hours or more doesn’t include planes 

that never took off. This phrase in the DOT’s written testimony 

shows their oral testimonies are an attempt to dissuade this Committee with statistics that don’t include some of the more severe incidents that have taken place. 

The DOT and ATA tell us that tarmac delays have improved and 

complaints are down since the airlines promised to self-regulate in 

1999. By this, they must mean that an increase of 19,000 tarmac 

delays of one hour or more over the year 2000 is a good thing. But 

the rest of us want these numbers to decrease, not increase. If we 

use tarmac delays of over three hours since 2000 and extrapolate 

to 100 passengers per flight, then only 800,000 passengers have 

been affected. 

This slide shows 16,186 diverted flights last year. If we extrapolate to 100 passengers per flight, over 1.6 million passengers may 

have experienced tarmac delays like ours in Austin. But there are 

no tarmac statistics for any of those flights. 

42

Is that the full extent of the problem? Not even close. This slide 

simply shows that the statistics the DOT and the ATA are using 

account for only 75 percent of all domestic passenger travel. Therefore, the Cheyenne and Scotts Bluff strandings would not be accounted for anywhere. 

I have outlined today why Congress needs to enact legislation to 

curb these outrageous practices and require the airlines to report 

all tarmac delays. We need to keep the public informed and cannot 

let strandings continue to happen. 

As I conclude my testimony, let’s watch a clip of the United Express flights leaving passengers in Cheyenne, Wyoming. Congress 

must now step up and use the current FAA reauthorization legislation as an opportunity to ensure that airlines make passengers’ 

rights a top priority once and for all. 

In 2001, the airlines made commitments which they haven’t 

kept. And why should they? There are no consequences for their actions. The DOT forgives most of the fines imposed, so they are virtually meaningless. Please impose meaningful consequences in this 

bill, so that the legislation has some hope of making a difference 

to the flying public. 

Thank you, Committee members, for giving me the honor of 

speaking here today, and a special thank you to Representative 

Mike Thompson for taking the first step and proposing this lifesaving legislation. Thank you. I am available for questions. 

Mr. COSTELLO. We thank you for your testimony. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Mitchell under the five minute 

rule. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting the Business Travel Coalition to testify before this Committee again and to provide our views on the subject of airline passenger service. I am here representing corporations that purchase 

billions of dollars of air tickets and dispatch millions of travelers 

each day. Formed in 1994, BTC has consistently advocated the 

need for improved airline service and has provided Congress and 

the DOT with suggestions on how to ensure such improved service 

in the marketplace. 

However, legislation in this area is not needed, in BTC’s view, 

and could make matters worse in terms of safety margins, flight 

cancellations and higher airfares. These unfortunate incidents do 

not rise to a level of national seriousness to warrant Federal laws 

governing airline industry customer service. Massive delays are not 

usual in this industry. 

That is not to say that Congress does not have an important role. 

Indeed, this hearing is timely in the larger customer service sense. 

Progress at the beginning of the decade against airline customer 

commitments was recorded for several quarters. Then the tragedy 

of 9/11, new security requirements, followed by SARS, the Iraq 

war, sky-high jet fuel prices and $40 billion of airline losses hit. As 

was said in a few different ways today so far, airlines, the press, 

the Government, all lost focus on these customer service commitments. 

Indeed, it is time for the airlines to refocus. Importantly, DOT 

is already moving on this issue, as we saw on a previous panel. In 

43

addition, the FAA is examining its role in contributing to extended 

delays, for example, with the confusion created during the February storm in New York regarding the varying interpretations of 

the regulation concerning ice pellets. 

DOT, Congress, passenger groups and the press are a potent 

combination, a highly visible bully pulpit, to inform consumers who 

in turn take purchasing decisions that drive the market. Reporters 

and customers pounded JetBlue in the aftermath of its customer 

service fiasco. Customers do have choices, and power to effect to 

change. In the case of JetBlue, the operational debacle cost it millions of dollars and tarnished its high-flying image. The effectiveness of management in responding with changes to policies and 

procedures will determine JetBlue’s future success. The marketplace is holding them accountable. 

In addition, in the immediate aftermath of the terrible conditions 

that American Airlines’ customers endured in December, the airline implemented new policies and procedures. 

There are actions the Federal Government can take to improve 

the experience of the flying public. One, increase airline competition through open skies agreements and the promotion of new entrants, such as Virgin America. Prevent radical consolidation of the 

airline industry. The greater the competition, the more influence 

the customer has in driving service improvements. 

Number two, invest in a new satellite system for air traffic control, to reduce delays and improve system efficiency, especially during times of severe weather systems. Pass FAA reauthorization, so 

the Government and the industry can head off a real crisis in passenger service. Number three, build more runways, such as at 

O’Hare, the modernization program there that BTC supported. 

Number four, insist on better decision making on rules promulgated by the FAA to prevent highly confusing and service degrading circumstances, such as with the ice pellet regulation. And five, 

require greater DOT enforcement of existing carrier commitments 

and existing regulations and laws. 

In conclusion, while BTC believes the airlines must do more, a 

lot more to reduce delays and minimize customer hardships during 

delays, we believe that Federal legislation would be proven to be 

counter-productive and something that we as an organization 

couldn’t support. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. COSTELLO. We thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Ruden. 

Mr. RUDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for permitting ASTA to 

share its views today. 

Since the ATA airlines adopted the 12 so-called voluntary passenger service commitments in 1999, DOT Inspectors General have 

twice found and soon will find a third time that there has been 

widespread non-performance of the promises made to the Government and the public. On behalf of the travel agents who serve a 

substantial majority of air travelers, enough is enough. It is time, 

after eight years of futility, to achieve closure with these problems. 

Absent a clear threat to safety, passengers should not be forced 

to remain on aircraft for periods such as six, eight or even more 

hours while waiting to take off. That does not mean that six hours 

44

is okay. Six hours is not okay. I will return to how that number 

can be determined in a moment. 

ASTA rejects the position that tarmac detentions are too infrequent and unpredictable or affect too few passengers or that real 

solutions are too costly to warrant intervention. Severe snowstorms 

and thunderstorms happen every year. It is time to stop looking for 

reasons not to deal with these problems and to act decisively with 

a program to change the culture of denial and resistance to change. 

Market forces are not going to resolve these issues for us. The 

airlines do not compete on customer service as a general rule, and 

after eight years, marketplace forces have failed to do the job. 

There is no reason to withhold decisive action. The question is, 

what action? 

A meaningful solution should address all parts of the airlines’ 

unfulfilled commitments. We need a fundamental and principled 

solution, combining legislative, regulatory and yes, perhaps some 

self-help by the airlines. An approach that attacks the roots of the 

problem, as well as the symptoms, and that applies to all airlines, 

not just members of the Air Transport Association. 

There are three steps that Congress could take right away. First, 

limit the scope of statutory preemption of State consumer protection laws and restore consumer access to State courts and State 

law. Empowering the States to act against abuses of air travelers’ 

interest in the same way they can act against other industries 

would in one simple step effect a major change in airline attitudes 

and performance. 

Second, appropriate funds to equip DOT’s enforcement staff with 

the resources needed to compel compliance with DOT’s unfair and 

deceptive practices authority. 

Third, mandate that all elements of the airlines’ passenger service commitments be made part of their contracts of carriage. Provable violations of real promises would then be actionable in State 

courts as breaches of contract. Such action by Congress, however, 

is not sufficient. The Department of Transportation can and should 

play a critical role in refining the operational issues, either for regulatory intervention, industry action or, if necessary, further Congressional action. 

DOT should bring together the parties necessary to craft an informed regime that assures that airline customers will be treated 

properly. Yet in doing so, we must be sensitive to possible unintended consequences form imposing regulations on a complex and 

highly networked system. A joint fact-finding process would identify the relevant facts, risks and opportunities. Does it matter, for 

example, whether the flight is a domestic two hour trip or a twelve 

hour international trip? Is the position in line guarantee as requested by ATA even feasible? 

Under FAA rules and airline operating procedures, who makes 

the decisions regarding return to the gate? Is it the pilot? Company 

managers? The FAA? What is the influence of FAA and airline 

flight crew work rules on flight delays, detentions and cancellations? 

Representatives of interested and responsible parties should be 

convened by DOT to develop a factual understanding of what 

drives bad outcomes and how they can be avoided. Most imporVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:45 Nov 13, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\34801 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
45

tantly, Mr. Chairman, joint fact-finding should not be limited to insiders such as the airlines and the agencies. To earn legitimacy, 

joint fact-finding must include representatives of consumers and 

travel agents, along with the airlines, the airports, FAA, assisted 

by the independent Inspector General. 

The airlines, Mr. Chairman, are resisting compulsion, promising 

again as they did before, to do better. DOT prefers marketplace solutions that have no history or chance of success. The public frustration with repeated mistreatment must be at or near an all-time 

high. The time for voluntary passenger service commitments has 

passed. 

Congress and DOT should act now, then, to limit Federal preemption of State consumer protection laws, require service policies 

be integrated into contracts of carriage, replenish DOT’s enforcement budgets and promptly convene a meeting of responsible interests, including ASTA and representatives of consumers, airlines, 

airports, the FAA and the Inspector General, to develop a plan as 

we have described. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. COSTELLO. We thank you for your testimony. 

Mrs. Hanni, I wonder if you might just, a few questions. One, 

you have had an opportunity, obviously, to take a look at JetBlue’s, 

what they would call a passenger bill of rights, spelling out what 

passengers’ rights are, compensation for delays, canceled flights 

and so on. I wonder if you might comment on their policies that 

they have adopted. 

Mrs. HANNI. I admire very much that he came out immediately 

and first of all, gave the passengers a refund for their ticket and 

a free round-trip ticket somewhere, which I think was extremely 

admirable. I also admire that they canceled flights the next time 

that there was a serious weather event that they knew they were 

going to have people either out on the tarmac or stuck in the terminal. That was extremely proactive. I was up all night, by the 

way, on March 17th, with a woman whose daughter was lost in the 

Philadelphia airport, from a different airline. So JetBlue did the 

right thing. 

I think their customer bill of rights is pretty comprehensive. I 

don’t know yet how many people are or are not being compensated. 

I have had a few people say they are not and a few say they are. 

So it is very hard for me to tell how it is working so far. Although 

I am getting a lot of reports, now that I have become the advocate 

for airline rights, I have people text messaging me when they are 

stuck on the tarmac or if their wives are. So I guess the biggest 

problem is that it is not binding unless it is in their contract of carriage, and I am not aware that it has been made a part of their 

contract of carriage. 

The other thing is with the airlines, whatever they give us, they 

can take it away. So that appears to be what has happened in the 

past, that there have been agreements made that they can then 

summarily remove for one reason or another. I don’t know if those 

agreements were ever incorporated in their contracts of carriage, 

the agreement with the ATA, the 12 points. What scares me is that 

they can. And for any reason, that they can make a management 

decision that may benefit them financially, but not the passengers. 

46

Mr. COSTELLO. Let me ask, and of course, the policy has only 

been in place a very short time. 

Mrs. HANNI. Right. 

Mr. COSTELLO. In reviewing what JetBlue did as far as their customer bill of rights, is there anything that you would add? Would 

you say that it is pretty comprehensive, as you said, is there anything missing? 

Mrs. HANNI. I don’t think chronically delayed flights were mentioned in their customer bill of rights. Also, the whole idea of the 

controllable irregularities. As I understand it, that means that if 

there is a weather delay for 24 hours, then they don’t have to compensate. But then if there is an additional 24 hours, that is where 

a controllable irregularity becomes an issue and they get to determine. See, the big problem is that they get to determine what is 

weather, they get to determine what is a controllable irregularity. 

It is not us, it is not the FAA. It is them. 

So also, in our situation, we were diverted, but we knew were 

weren’t going to fly after three hours. So our situation was very different than the JetBlue strandings. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Mitchell, you indicate in your testimony that 

how management responds at JetBlue will determine the future 

success of JetBlue. Do you want to elaborate on that? 

Let me ask, maybe the first question is, you heard what Mrs. 

Hanni just said, that there have been some reports that some people have not been compensated. One, have you had, either Mr. 

Mitchell, or Mr. Ruden, have you had any feedback concerning the 

JetBlue policy not being adhered to, and number two, I ask both 

of you about, in particular Mr. Mitchell, the effectiveness of what 

management does with their policy will determine the future of the 

company. 

Mr. MITCHELL. To address your second question, I have not 

heard any feedback about passengers being treated unevenly 

against JetBlue’s new policy. It could be, I am just not aware of 

it. 

I think the marketplace is watching JetBlue very carefully. I can 

speak very specifically about the corporate marketplace that 

JetBlue has been endeavoring to enter for the last six to eight to 

twelve months. Travel managers and purchasing managers in particular are watching the follow-up and the follow-through and the 

actual commitment of JetBlue. 

So they would be hurt in that market, one that they desperately 

want to break into. I am talking about the large corporations that 

buy business travel. 

So I think as well, as long as the press stays on the issue and 

this Committee and the DOT and consumer groups keep a bright 

light shined on JetBlue, they will empower the marketplace to further reward or penalize JetBlue for the effectiveness. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. 

Mr. Ruden? 

Mr. RUDEN. Mr. Chairman, I don’t have any information indicating that JetBlue is not complying with what they said. It would 

be surprising if they weren’t. There may be individual mistakes 

being made here and there, but I don’t expect that they will deviate 

materially from what they have done. 

47

Whether this is going to have the influence on the marketplace 

that Mr. Mitchell suggests, I am highly skeptical, based on the experience of the last eight years. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Well, before we conclude the hearing, let me just 

say that we appreciate your being here today, your testimony and 

your advocacy, in particular, Mrs. Hanni, on behalf of customers 

and the flying public. You heard me say earlier, more than once, 

that we are not going to conclude this hearing, put it on the shelf 

and walk away from it. We are going to be aggressive in our oversight. We will work very hard to make certain that either from a 

legislative standpoint or a standpoint of the industry coming together and doing what JetBlue and American Airlines both have 

done in proposing a passenger bill of rights or customer bill of 

rights, and making certain that they are followed, that is one of the 

major problems, in my judgment, from 1999, is that there is an 

agreement, and the agreement was that Congress said, you work 

it out, they worked it out, it was acceptable, there were promises 

made but promises were not kept. 

The DOT did not do its job in making certain that the airlines 

lived up to their promises, and the Congress did not do its job in 

proper oversight. I assure you that I am committed, and members 

of this Subcommittee are committed to following through with this 

to make certain that customers are protected, that they understand 

their rights, they understand the procedures when they book their 

flight from the beginning of the process to the end. 

So we thank you for your testimony. 

Before I conclude the hearing, the Ranking Member has asked 

that we submit for the record hearings on various issues that have 

been conducted by the Subcommittee since 1999. So we will enter 

the hearing list without objection. 

[Information follows:]

48


34801.008
49

Mr. COSTELLO. And with that, we again thank you, and this concludes the Subcommittee’s hearing. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 2:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

50


34801.009
51


34801.010
52


34801.011
53


34801.012
54


34801.013
55


34801.014
56


34801.015
57


34801.016
58


34801.017
59


34801.018
60


34801.019
61


34801.020
62


34801.021
63


34801.022
64


34801.023
65


34801.024
66


34801.025
67


34801.026
68


34801.027
69


34801.028
70


34801.029
71


34801.030
72


34801.031
73


34801.032
74


34801.033
75


34801.034
76


34801.035
77


34801.036
78


34801.037
79


34801.038
80


34801.039
81


34801.040
82


34801.041
83


34801.042
84


34801.043
85


34801.044
86


34801.045
87


34801.046
88


34801.047
89


34801.048
90


34801.049
91


34801.050
92


34801.051
93


34801.052
94


34801.053
95


34801.054
96


34801.055
97


34801.056
98


34801.057
99


34801.058
100


34801.059
101


34801.060
102


34801.061
103


34801.062
104


34801.063
105


34801.064
106


34801.065
107


34801.066
108


34801.067
109


34801.068
110


34801.069
111


34801.070
112


34801.071
113


34801.072
114


34801.073
115


34801.074
116


34801.075
117


34801.076
118


34801.077
119


34801.078
120


34801.079
121


34801.080
122


34801.081
123


34801.082
124


34801.083
125


34801.084
126


34801.085
127


34801.086
128


34801.087
129


34801.088
130


34801.089
131


34801.090
132


34801.091
133


34801.092
134


34801.093
135


34801.094
136


34801.095
137


34801.096
138


34801.097
139


34801.098
140


34801.099
141


34801.100
142


34801.101
143


34801.102
144


34801.103
145


34801.104
146


34801.105
147


34801.106
148


34801.107
149


34801.108
150


34801.109
151


34801.110
152


34801.111
153


34801.112
154


34801.113
155


34801.114
156


34801.115
157


34801.116
158


34801.117
159


34801.118
160


34801.119
161


34801.120
162


34801.121
163


34801.122
164


34801.123
165


34801.124
166


34801.125
167


34801.126
168


34801.127
169


34801.128
170


34801.129
171


34801.130
172


34801.131
173


34801.132
174


34801.133
175


34801.134
176


34801.135
177


34801.136
178


34801.137
179


34801.138
180


34801.139
181


34801.140
182


34801.141
183


34801.142
184


34801.143
185


34801.144
186


34801.145
187


34801.146
188


34801.147
189


34801.148
190


34801.149
191


34801.150
192


34801.151
193


34801.152
194

Æ


34801.153