U.S. PIRG Testimony on Airline Passenger Rights

Before a Hearing of the Advisory Committee 

on Aviation Consumer Protection

Thursday, June 28, 2012 

Washington, DC

The Honorable Lisa Madigan, Chair

Presentation By

Edmund Mierzwinski, Consumer Program Director

and Caitlin Kelmar, Research Assistant
Testimony of U.S. PIRG Before The Advisory Committee on Aviation Consumer Protection

28, June 2012, Page 1

General Madigan, members of the committee: Thank you for the opportunity to testify before 

you today. U.S. PIRG serves as the federation of state Public Interest Research Groups, which 

are non-profit, non-partisan public interest advocacy organizations around the country. 

U.S. PIRG has a longstanding interest in airline passenger rights. We have testified before the 

U.S. Senate, commented to regulators and otherwise supported reforms. 

We commend Secretary LaHood and the Department for the steps it has taken to implement and 

enforce airline passenger rights’ regulations – even before the Congress acted -- and for its 

establishment of this committee, using statutory authority established in Section 411 of the recent 

FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. That law also codified many airline passenger 

rights long-championed by Senators Barbara Boxer and Olympia Snowe and Representative 

Mike Thompson and others. 

This Advisory Committee on Aviation Consumer Protection is an important part of those 

reforms and must continue despite airline opposition. It has the potential to examine and 

recommend changes to unresolved issues and to study the recently-established reforms and 

whether they are working and make recommendations for additional reforms or DOT priorities. 

While the Federal Register notice announcing today’s hearing states that “it is anticipated” that 

your meetings will all be here in this building (and further states that this building apparently 

requires 5 days’ notice to visit, which is more notice than the White House West Wing requires 

by the way), we would encourage you to conduct additional field hearings outside Washington, 

DC, perhaps at airports, to obtain further views of passengers. The airlines have more than 

enough lobbyists and the means to find you; you may have to go out and find passengers to ask 

their views. Use other methods than the Federal Register to reach out. Airline lawyers read the 

Federal Register. Airline passengers do not. 

We don’t pretend that our initial testimony to you today is comprehensive. We intend to simply 

provide topline highlights – including a few actual consumer stories -- on a range of issues we 

urge you to review. We concur and associate ourselves with the more detailed filings of 

flyersrights.org and the Aviation Consumer Action Project. I have also quickly reviewed the 

testimony of airlinepassengers.org and support many of its recommendations. In particular, we 

support its comment that the preemptive impact of federal aviation rules and laws as interpreted 

by the courts and previous administrations has gone way too far in throttling back the rights of 

consumers to defend themselves in court. 

All consumer organizations believe that it is critical to reinstate consumer and state rights to 

enforce consumer protection laws over airlines, which enjoy a degree of federal immunity from 

state action under consumer protection powers few other firms have. This has allowed them to 
Testimony of U.S. PIRG Before The Advisory Committee on Aviation Consumer Protection

28, June 2012, Page 2

continue to treat consumer complaints with disdain and to fail to comply with longstanding, 

modest disclosure and compensation laws. It remains to be seen what effect this immunity will 

have on their compliance with the new consumer rules. 

Issues for the Committee to Review: 

1. Lack of Concern For Delayed and Canceled Passengers: Investigate the general lack of 

cooperation, information, compensation or protections when handling passengers whose 

flights have been delayed or cancelled: 

In 2007 the “reciprocity rule” quietly expired. That regulation in place for over 20 years allowed 

a passenger to walk over to another air carrier in the event of a flight delay or cancellation and 

the other air carrier would have to honor the ticket at no extra charge. Worse, since 2007 there 

have been numerous changes made to the airlines’ contracts of carriage, none of which are in the 

passenger’s favor. Passengers have no idea their rights have been minimized or eliminated. The 

committee should review all Contracts of Carriage and examine the extent that problems that are 

clearly within the airlines’ control have been falsely labeled Acts of God or “Force Majeure,” or 

out of the airlines’ control. 

For example, United Airlines defines “Force Majeure” to include “Any shortage of labor, fuel, 

or facilities of UA or others.” These are matters under the airline’s control, not forces. 

Passengers not only have no cooperation or information, they have no compensation and few 

protections against delays and cancelation. 

2. Roundabout travel with no compensation: Investigate related problems created because 

mergers and efforts to decrease capacity have resulted in major routing and schedule 

changes that adversely affect passengers. Airlines offer passengers no compensation even if 

there is a significant delay created by the circuitous route they will now be taking. 

A passenger told flyersrights.org: I booked a ticket to go from SFO to Ithaca to Boston 

to Los Angeles to take my son to visit cornell, MIT and Cal-Tech. The first flight was 

Virgin America to Boston, US Airways to Philadelphia and then US Air to 

Ithaca. Originally we were leaving at 6:30 am, arriving in Boston at 3:30 pm, 5:30 

Boston to Philly and 7:30 Philly to Ithaca. US Airways lost their “slots” and the day 

after I made the reservation they changed the itinerary, then the second day after they 

changed the itinerary such that after 5 days of daily changes we weren’t arriving until 

midnight. That significantly increased the stress and fatigue factor and they only 

offered us to either cancel or accept. No alternative even though other code share 

partners had absorbed their prior slots and could have honored our original itinerary. 

Ironically I needed to change the return flight to Boston and they wanted to charge me 

a $150.00 change fee for both tickets (the other irony is that a flight from Ithaca to 

Boston was only $75.00). 

Another consumer told the flyersrights.org hotline that American made a unilateral 

schedule change and moved his return flight a day ahead. That made the trip 
Testimony of U.S. PIRG Before The Advisory Committee on Aviation Consumer Protection

28, June 2012, Page 3

impossible for him due to non-refundable ski tickets and hotel that were pre-paid. The 

airline tried to blame weather, mechanical failure and gate controls. He felt they 

hadn’t sold enough seats, but his entire trip ended up being cancelled because of the 

unilateral change.

A related issue is that if you change the schedule on one leg of a flight, airlines charge you as if 

you are changing both legs even if you are still on the same flights and same seats on the other 

leg, plus a re-faring fee. 

3. Lost or delayed luggage: Airlines not only avoid discussing passenger rights regarding 

cancelled or delayed flights, but they also refuse to discuss the measures passengers can go 

through with the airline to locate lost or delayed baggage. 

Airlines need to take more responsibility for the baggage they lose, including their failure to 

inform passengers of their rights to compensation for either delayed or lost luggage. Of course, 

when consumers have no private right of action and state attorneys’ general have their hands tied 

by preemption, this statutory duty to provide compensation for lost or delayed luggage falls on 

DOT to enforce.

In addition to a failure to disclose compensation rights or provide adequate compensation for lost 

luggage, flyersrights.org believes that the airline system for recovering lost luggage is inadequate 

and slanted in favor of earning revenue from sales to firms such as unclaimedbaggage.com for up 

to $3/pound. 

But it is worse; according to flyersrights.org, only 6% of all baggage claims are paid. Passengers 

are not given any information up front about having to have receipts for items lost, damaged or 

stolen in baggage and that those items will be depreciated for their age. They are not given good 

information on exclusions in the contract of carriage for electronics and other valuables. 

A story from the flyersrights.org hotline: Raymond’s bag was lost on Jet Blue airlines 

on June 28, 2011. They lost his luggage and they are refusing to compensate him for 

it. He’s very frustrated and feels he’s being stonewalled. He still does not have his bag 

nor has been paid any compensation. 

Passengers shouldn’t find themselves in real life episodes of those odd reality shows “Storage 

Wars” or “Pawn Stars.” If adequate compensation was required and rules were enforced, fewer 

pieces of luggage would be lost and more would be found before compensation had to be paid. 

Lost or delayed luggage payments are simply being treated as a modest cost of business, not a 

potential penalty. Making consumers aware of their rights will make the airlines pay more, 

ideally enough to force them to improve both service and compliance. 

 
Testimony of U.S. PIRG Before The Advisory Committee on Aviation Consumer Protection

28, June 2012, Page 4

4. Families Are Separated: No matter how smooth a passenger’s travels are leading up to 

the flight and following the trip, recent changes in airline policies have inconvenienced 

travelling families, for whom flying is already enough of a hassle at both ends of the trip, 

including helping small children through security before the flight and keeping track of 

kids while looking for their baggage after the flight. 

United Airlines has taken the lead and other airlines are following suit with new anti-family rules 

related to the new reliance on charging a different price for every seat on the plane up until the 

minute the doors are closed. According to flyersrights.org, United and others have discontinued 

pre-boarding for families with small children, are withholding aisle and window seats for 

frequent flyers and/or charging more for them. Families are now being separated only to sit in 

the middle seat in different rows. 

Airlines appear to be moving passengers who have paid for and booked aisle seats in order to sit 

next to their children, in favor of their loyalty card members. 

Story reported to flyersrights.org: Greetings, is it right that United Airlines can move a 

12 year old child away from her mother when I paid extra to get a row closer to the 

front of the plane? Brief history, I purchased three tickets for my daughter in law and 

my two grandchildren to fly from CA to MA to see us this upcoming July 3rd i bought 

these tickets in April 2012. I paid extra to move them to aisle 8 seats D, E, F. This 

morning I noticed that my 12 year old granddaughter was moved out of 8E to the back 

of the plane all by herself. I called customer service and all she saw on her computer 

was due to "reconciliation" they moved her. I was not happy that their current 

"system" allows them to move a child away from their parent. Are they allowed to do 

this? In speaking with customer service this am they were able to move her to row 9 

aisle seat, but it is still not with her mother! Her reply was to ask 8e (her original seat) 

to switch with her. Why should we beg another passenger to trade seats when we paid 

the extra fee for that seat? I cannot believe that United moves a child like cattle. I paid 

extra for her seat, then they just kick her out and move her to the back of the plane. I 

am beside myself that United would do this. I have emailed customer service, which I'll 

probably get a canned reply. Do I have any other recourse? Thanks for taking the time 

reading this email.

5) Economy Seats Deserve Safety Review: Another issue passengers face while flying is the 

lack of leg room in economy seating. It is not only uncomfortable, but can pose as a safety 

issue as well. Leg room has become a safety issue in Economy. 

The life-threatening condition of Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT), also known as Economy Class 

Syndrome, is not a new issue. Former Vice President Dan Quayle’s issues with it were reported 

in 1994. Yet, the problem may be worsening due to the incredible shrinking economy class seat. 

According to flyersrights.org, FAA has set no basic minimum standards for legroom in economy 

class. They have regulated the bulkhead legroom and aisles for egress in case of an emergency 

but have never regulated legroom or seat pitch for other seats. The airlines are moving toward 
Testimony of U.S. PIRG Before The Advisory Committee on Aviation Consumer Protection

28, June 2012, Page 5

even less legroom and tighter seating in many of their flights and we believe this issue should be 

reviewed because of the severe medical problems that could occur. 

As reported to flyersrights.org: Unfortunately, my husband died from a blood clot that 

apparently formed on his flight to Hawaii from California. He was in the ocean 

swimming after the flight and drowned. It will be a year this Father’s Day. My children 

are still dealing with it (of course). The clot caused a cramp in his leg. Very sad. I do 

know how dangerous that can be. I don’t know how long he was stuck immobilized on 

the plane but assume he had been sitting in cramped space for hours unable to get up 

and moved around. His legroom was diminished and he was squished in the back of 

the plane in a substandard arrangement. 

6) Shopping based on complaints is too hard: The DOT Air Travel Consumer Report 

(http://airconsumer.dot.gov/reports/index.htm), while once ahead of its time, is now sadly 

stuck in the 20th century. The database needs to be updated and made user-friendly and 

searchable and include richer narratives (with consumer information redacted) of 

problems. 

According to the pdf Air Travel Consumer Report, for January – December 2011: 

Total baggage reports: 1,907,769 

Enplaned passengers: 562,944,498 

Reports per 1,000 passengers: 3.39 

On a quick review, we were unable to find a downloadable database enabling us to drill down 

inside these and related data and learn more. Was there any clustering, what dates, airlines and 

airports were worst or best? 

Agencies including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (consumerfinance.gov) and the 

Consumer Product Safety Commission (saferproducts.gov) are pioneering new, searchable 

consumer databases with rich amounts of information, rather than statistical summaries in static 

pdf formats. 

Complaint and on-time and other data important for consumers should be presented in machine 

readable format (such as xml or rdf, certainly not pdf) accessible by API (Application 

Programming Interface) software that will allow reporters, researchers, consumer advocacy 

groups and others to easily conduct additional analysis of identified problems in the aviation 

marketplace. 

7) Lack of Funding for Aviation Consumer Advocacy Is A Concern: Consider the Illinois 

and Oregon Citizen Utility Boards as a model; consider recommending that a penny of 

aviation taxes go directly to funding aviation consumer protection. 

Aviation consumer organizations do not have adequate funding mechanisms. A model of 

enlisting citizens as regulatory monitors is the CUB movement. CUB stands for Citizens Utility 

Board. The original idea was that utility ratepayers may voluntarily check a box on their utility 
Testimony of U.S. PIRG Before The Advisory Committee on Aviation Consumer Protection

28, June 2012, Page 6

bill to fund organized advocacy vis-à-vis state utility regulators, just as workers have rights to 

petition for similar checkoffs to fund unions to represent their interests. Rather than simply 

expanding or complicating regulation, government-chartered citizen groups can balance the 

power of regulated firms and keep their regulators from being captured. Wisconsin legislators 

established the first Citizens Utility Board in 1979. Then, in 1984, citizens in Oregon and elected 

officials in Illinois approved the establishment of their own CUBs. Following a 1986 U.S. 

Supreme Court decision (which has since been rolled back) holding that a similar mechanism for 

a California utility consumer group was unconstitutional, the movement stalled. The Illinois and 

Oregon CUBs, however, developed alternate funding that has allowed them to maintain their 

effectiveness. 

As you know, General Madigan, the Illinois CUB, in particular, has been successful. It sought a 

legislative amendment to place its checkoff inserts in larger state government mailings, such as 

motor vehicle renewals, instead of in the utility envelopes. It claims to have saved Illinois 

consumers over $10 billion in refunds and blocked rate hikes. 

The Oregon CUB uses intervenor funding, where a portion of utility user fees paid to the state 

for regulation is allocated to effective citizen groups for their participation in rate case 

negotiations. Groups, including CUB, apply in a governmental process for fees to cover their 

legal and other costs to represent their members and ratepayers in cases before the commission. 

The Advisory Committee should consider ways to fund a similar group for aviation consumers, 

as U.S. PIRG, flyersrights.org and ACAP all support. One model would be to dedicate one penny 

of each airline ticket taxes toward a fund established under the DOT’s jurisdiction. ACAP has 

suggested that such a tax could raise $6-10 million annually and that passengers could select 

from a list of certified aviation consumer groups which one to allocate their penny to. This would 

give consumer groups real representation against the phalanx of airline, airport, air transport and 

other lobbyists that have collectively controlled airline legislation and regulation for years and 

steered billions of dollars in subsidies and direct payments their way. As former FCC 

Commissioner Nick Johnson once said, “government only stands upright when it is leaned on 

from all sides.” 

 
Testimony of U.S. PIRG Before The Advisory Committee on Aviation Consumer Protection

28, June 2012, Page 7

In conclusion: 

1) The Department of Transportation should both evaluate and regulate the airlines’ 

notification to passengers during flight delays, cancellations and schedule changes of 

their rights to compensation, hotel rooms and taxis. The DOT should also evaluate flight 

codings to ensure that they match with “reality” as GAO concluded that only 7% of all 

flight delays are extreme weather, but up to 48% of flight codings are determined to be 

weather. 

2) The DOT should disaggregate “mishandled” baggage into three categories “lost,” 

“damaged” and “stolen” items. It should also do a study on the claims made vs. claims 

paid by the airlines and mandate that passengers get a response to their complaints within 

2 days and an appropriate resolution within 3 weeks. 

3) DOT should mandate, for safety reasons alone, basic minimum standards for seat pitch, 

seat size, leg room. 

4) DOT should mandate that an schedule change must not “damage” the passenger or their 

itinerary, or the airline should be responsible for those losses and returning the passenger 

to “whole” 

In sum, airline passengers have a paucity of information to help them make decisions when 

flying. Whether it’s hidden fees, lost baggage, schedule changes or a lack of help and 

information when something goes awry the deck is stacked sorely against the flying public. We 

need to level the playing field, an almost impossible task given the downward spiral that is air 

travel customer service. But this committee has the potential to make a difference. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present our views. We look forward to working with you to 

help make air travel a better experience for passengers.