BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, DC

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Motion of )

)

Airlines for America (A4A) )

Regional Airline Association (RAA) )

) Docket DOT­OST­2013­0084

for temporary exemption from )

14C.F.R. § 259.4 )

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

CONSUMER TRAVEL ALLIANCE and AIRLINE PASSENGERS.ORG

COMMENTS ON

MOTION OF AIRLINES FOR AMERICA

AND REGIONAL AIRLINES ASSOCIATION

FOR A TEMPORARY EXEMPTION FROM 14 C.F.R. § 259.4

Communications with respect to this document should be addressed to:

Charles Leocha

Director

Consumer Travel Alliance

PO Box 15286

Washington, DC 20003

Telephone: (202) 713­9596

leocha@consumertravelalliance.org

DATED: April 25, 2013

Response to A4A/RAA motion by Consumer Travel Alliance and AirlinePassengers.org

Contact: Charlie Leocha, 202­713­9596, leocha@consumertravelalliance.org 1
BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, DC

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Motion of )

)

Airlines for America (A4A) )

Regional Airline Association (RAA) )

) Docket DOT­OST­2013­0084

for temporary exemption from )

14C.F.R. § 259.4 )

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

CONSUMER TRAVEL ALLIANCE and AIRLINE PASSENGERS.ORG

COMMENTS ON

MOTION OF AIRLINES FOR AMERICA (A4A)

AND REGIONAL AIRLINES ASSOCIATION (RAA)

FOR A TEMPORARY EXEMPTION FROM 14 C.F.R. § 259.4

The Consumer Travel Alliance (CTA) and Airline Passengers.org oppose in the strongest

terms the A4A and RAA request that the Department grant a temporary exemption from its

tarmac­delay regulations. Such an exemption is unnecessary, not in the public interest and

will not provide any acceptable flexibility to help address possible delays and disruptions

caused by the FAA sequestration plan.

Such an action would add insult to injury by adding the possibility of tarmac delays to

schedule uncertainty for passengers. A4A and FAA are treating the cuts made by the FAA

as Armageddon at the airports.

Several airlines, while arguing for their own flexibility in this motion, have dramatically

increased their change fees from $150 to $200 together with other increases. With the

possibility of impending delays, United and US Airways (at the time of this comment) have

acted to impair the flexibility of their passengers to avoid delays and change their tickets

while petitioning the government to grant the airlines more flexibility to confine their

passengers. US Airways’ and United Airlines’ avaricious actions are the strongest

evidence of the need for the current tarmac­delay regulations.

Response to A4A/RAA motion by Consumer Travel Alliance and AirlinePassengers.org

Contact: Charlie Leocha, 202­713­9596, leocha@consumertravelalliance.org 2
In no circumstance should DOT provide airlines a carte­blanche exemption from the current

regulations.

1. Stranding passengers on the tarmac should be the last airline remedy to

sequestration. A4A and RAA should be ashamed that their first action requested from

DOT is a moratorium on passenger protections that deal with human dignity and medical

issues.

2. America does yet know the real impact of FAA sequester implementation plan.

The FAA has said repeatedly that it is trying to mitigate the effects of these personnel

furloughs. A look at FlightStats.com shows that delays for the past days since

sequestration has been in effect have not shown a disasterous increase.

Contrary to comments made by A4A and RAA in their motion, the tarmac­delay rules were

not implemented only for ad­hoc weather delays. They were implemented to protect

passengers from all extraordinary delays, regardless of the reasons. Airline actions since

the implementation of the current tarmac­delay rules show that when properly incentivized

the airlines can eliminate tarmac delays without extraordinary cancellations.

3. The airlines, if faced with extraordinary delays can work with the tools provided

by the current tarmac­delay rules. Airlines can fine­tune their schedule and implement

plans similar to those that they use during periods of inclement weather. Said tools allow

for airports to open unused gates, airlines to share access to their gates with code­share

partners and take other common­sense actions should there be extraordinary delays.

4. Airlines are operating fewer departures in 2012 than they did in the year 2000.

The air traffic control system is staffed by about the same number of air traffic controllers

and airfield operations specialists in 2012 (even with a 10 percent cut) that it was in 2000.

2000 2002 2012 (­10%)

Air Traffic Controllers 23,350 23,410 23,260 (20,924)

Airfield Operations Specialists 4,580 5,910 6,990 (6,291)

Total 27,930 29,320 30,250 (27,225)

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics

Our organizations, though not supporting the drastic sequestration actions of the FAA,

expect that the administration ultimately will be able to mitigate massive delays and

operate as efficient an air transportation network in the coming months as it operated in

2000 and 2002.

Response to A4A/RAA motion by Consumer Travel Alliance and AirlinePassengers.org

Contact: Charlie Leocha, 202­713­9596, leocha@consumertravelalliance.org 3
5. The current rule provides flexibility. Where truly extraordinary circumstances make it

necessary for passengers to remain on planes during tarmac delays, DOT in the current

rule has the flexibility to make a judgement call regarding fining of air carriers.

6. There is no need to degrade passenger welfare. Our organizations understand the

pressures that airlines will face should sequestration efforts by the FAA result in maximum

delays. CTA has worked closely with airline organizations in urging the FAA to refrain from

implementing its sequestration plan.

Our organizations understand that the FAA did not allow an appropriate period of

preparation for the airlines to react to any possible delays. While DOT was obliged to

provide advance notice in adopting the tarmac delay rule, a snowstorm does not so

announce itself. It is, and should be, the business of airlines to adapt to current air traffic

conditions as they find them, without needlessly degrading passenger welfare. A

moratorium on the tarmac­delay rules is not the proper action.

7. Airlines should provide passengers flexibility to deal with unforeseen delays.

Just as A4A and the RAA, consumers were notified on Tuesday April 16, 2013 of the

FAA’s plans. Flights have already been purchased. Vacations have already been planned.

Airline transportation was purchased in good faith based on reasonable expectations.

Airline actions should be to add flexibility to their systems to protect their passengers and

make their travels as smooth as possible, not by making advanced plans to keep them

stranded on runways, but by loosening airline restrictions that limit passengers’ flexibility in

order to change flights and travel plans in reaction to possible delays.

8. Reducing consumer protections when the need is most, makes no sense. It

totally illogical to reduce consumer protections against delays at a time when, according to

the airlines, delays are more likely to occur.

9. The tarmac­delay rule provides basic, humane treatment for the passengers

entrusted to the airlines’ care. Suspending the current rule and permitting the airlines to

confine passengers for periods in excess of three hours might serve the airlines’ business

interests, it certainly cannot serve the public interest.

Alternative proposals

CTA proposes that the airlines take actions within their control to allow passengers

discretion to respond to the consequences of the FAA’s action by being allowed to make

Response to A4A/RAA motion by Consumer Travel Alliance and AirlinePassengers.org

Contact: Charlie Leocha, 202­713­9596, leocha@consumertravelalliance.org 4
changes to their travel plans as possible delays unfold.

• Airlines should declare a moratorium on change and cancellation fees. Immediately,

passengers who have already purchased tickets should be allowed to make changes to

their travel plans with no change fees and no cancellation fees. This will allow passengers

with “flexibility necessary to help address delays and disruptions caused by the FAA

sequestration plan.”

• Airlines should begin to coordinate with airports and their code­share and affiliate

partners to plan ahead for disruptions and make sure that passengers can be handled with

dignity and not face medical issues caused by lengthy tarmac delays.

• As the crunch days of summer come, if indeed air traffic delays develop, airlines should

look at flying fewer flights between some destinations with great capacity rather than

clogging the air traffic control system with small regional jets, especially on routes in and

out of the NYC airspace where the major carriers use many regional jets rather than

full­sized aircraft.

• As the first days of sequestration have shown the country is not faced with chaos and an

immediate crisis. Airlines have the ability to make system­wide shedule adjustments for the

summer months if it appears that FAA cutbacks are having a significant effect.

• In any case, If necessary, the airlines should promptly adjust their advertised schedules

and notify the public accordingly.

Response to A4A/RAA motion by Consumer Travel Alliance and AirlinePassengers.org

Contact: Charlie Leocha, 202­713­9596, leocha@consumertravelalliance.org 5