Airline Passenger Rights Legislation in the 107th Congress

Airline Passenger Rights Legislation in the 107th Congress

Order Code RL30940
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Airline Passenger Rights Legislation
in the 107th Congress
Updated August 17, 2001
Robert S. Kirk
Economic Analyst, Transportation
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Airline Passenger Rights Legislation in the 107th
Congress
Summary
Congressional advocates of enhanced airline passenger rights have
introduced legislation in the 107th Congress that proposes remedies to a variety
of consumer complaints. Most of the bills include provisions requiring prompt
and truthful disclosure of reasons for delays, cancellations, and diverted flights.
Others, found in some of the bills, include: preventing airlines from assessing
a fee against, or prohibiting a ticket holder from using, only part of a ticket;
requiring airlines to make available information on all fares offered through any
media (phone, internet, etc.); and giving passengers the right to exit flights
delayed on the ground beyond a certain length of time. Some bills would
increase penalties for violating aviation consumer protection law or increase the
airlines’ liability for mistreatment of passengers.
During the 1 0 6 th Congress, the Air Transport Association (ATA), which
represents the major air carriers, successfully forestalled major legislation
using three major strategies. First, the ATA took issue with the perceived extent
of consumer dissatisfaction by comparing the relative number of complaints
reported to the Department of Transportation (DOT) to the high passenger
volume. Second, the ATA argued that most delays were due to the weather and
to the air traffic control system. Finally, to mitigate the perception of some
Members of Congress that legislation was needed, the ATA proposed a voluntary
“Airline Customer Service Commitment,” hereafter referred to as the Service
Commitment. All the major carriers would develop customer service plans that
would include their commitment to promises such as offering the lowest fare
available; notifying customers of known delays, cancellations and diversions;
providing on time baggage delivery of checked baggage; and being more
responsive to customer complaints.
On February 13, 2001, the DOT Office of the Inspector General (IG)
released its report on how well the airlines have met their Service
Commitments. It concluded that, while the airlines were making some progress
on some of the Commitments, that there were significant shortfalls on others.
Two bills, introduced following release of the IG’s report–the Air
Customer Service Improvement Act (S. 319) and the Fair Treatment of Airline
Passengers Act (S. 483)– incorporate many of the IG’s recommendations,
including provisions to make the Service Commitments enforceable. After
incorporating a significant number of provisions from S. 483, the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported out S. 319, on
February 13, 2001.
After two summers of record delays, cancellations, and consumer
complaints, these indicators have improved significantly during the first half of
2001. It remains to be seen if this improvement will be enough to forestall the
proposed legislative remedies in the 107th Congress.

Contents
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Airline Consumer Rights legislation in the 106th Congress . . . . . . . . . . 1
The Air Carriers’ Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
The Re-emergence of Airline Passenger Rights Issues . . . . . . . . . 3
The IG’s Report on the Airline Customer Commitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Proposed Legislative Remedies of the 107th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Access to All Fares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Access to Services and the Right to Deplane From
Delayed Aircraft During Emergencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Baggage Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Bumping and Overbooking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Delays, Cancellations, and Diversions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Chronically Delayed or Cancelled Flights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Information System Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Enforcement Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Federal Preemption of State Consumer Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Partial Ticket Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Travel Agent Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Other Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
The Airline Customer Notification Act (H.R. 571) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Consumer-Friendly Airline Ticket Transfer Act (H.R. 1074) . . . . . . . 10
The Aviation Delay Prevention Act (S. 633) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
The Airline Passenger Treatment bill (H.R. 1407) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Side-by-Side Comparison of Passenger Rights Legislation
in the 107th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
List of Tables
Index of Legislative Topics of Airline Passenger Rights Bills . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 1: Side-by-Side Comparison of Selected Provisions
From Airline Passenger Rights Legislation: 107th Congress . . . . . . . 14

Airline Passenger Rights Legislation in the
107th Congress
In the 107th Congress, supporters of enhanced airline passenger rights have
introduced legislation significantly influenced by both legislation introduced in
the 106th Congress and the airline industry’s response to that threat of
legislative remedies. As a group, the various bills’ provisions address the issue
of how to respond to a reported growing consumer dissatisfaction with airline
service. Also at issue is the appropriate degree of federal involvement in
protecting airline customers. Two summers of record delays and flight
cancellations by the major airlines, and a perception of complacency by airlines
concerning customer discontent, have led to a variety of proposed remedies to
consumer complaints, related to delays, cancellations, lost or misrouted
baggage, partial ticket use, and the provision of complete fare information. For
2001, delays, cancellations, and consumer complaints have all declined from the
high levels of 1999 and 2000. It remains to be seen, however, if this
improvement will be enough to forestall the momentum toward legislative
remedies in the 107th Congress.1
This report examines legislation pertaining to airline consumer protection
in the 107th Congress. For background it first summarizes legislation proposed
in the 106th Congress and the airlines’ response. The report then briefly
examines the findings of the Department of Transportation Inspector General’s
February 13, 2001 report on airline customer service. It then discusses the
legislative remedies proposed in the 107th Congress. Finally, a side-by-side
presentation of provisions from six airline passenger rights bills is set forth.
Background
Airline Consumer Rights legislation in the 106th Congress
Early in the 106th Congress, a number of bills, referred to collectively in
the press as “airline passenger bill of rights” legislation, were introduced in both
1 Better weather, lower capacity utilization because of the slowing economy, schedule
changes at certain congested airports, the absence of the ComAir fleet because of a strike,
as well as industry efforts to improve customer service, are among the reasons mentioned
in discussions of the improvements in the delay and cancellation rates and the reduced
number of consumer complaints filed with DOT in 2001.

CRS-2
the House and Senate .2 Their introduction followed close on the heels of a
major airline consumer event. Just days before the 106th Congress first met, a
powerful storm swept across the upper midwest dropping nearly a foot of snow
on the Detroit Metropolitan-Wayne County Airport. In the high winds and low
temperatures that followed the snowfall, nearly 50 aircraft, loaded with
passengers, were trapped on the airport’s taxiways and aprons. Some of the
flights were not allowed to deplane for over seven hours and, as the time wore
on, some aircraft ran out of food, water, and functioning toilets. The extreme
nature of the Detroit incident, the seeming complacency of the initial airline
response, and wide press coverage helped increase public attention to already
growing airline passenger discontent with airline customer service and business
practices.
The bills introduced in the 106th Congress included a variety of legislative
remedies as well as a range of enforcement mechanisms and penalties. All the
bills required prompt announcement and truthful disclosure of any flight delays,
cancellations, or diversions. About half of the bills required full access to fare
information regardless of the technology or method of access (e.g. via
telephone or internet). Other consumer rights provisions addressed in two or
more bills included: partial ticket use; the right of access to services and the
right to deplane from delayed aircraft; restrictions on federal preemption of
state consumer protection laws; and a number of provisions of benefit to travel
agents. About half of the bills provided for fines for violation of the acts’
provisions or set airline financial liability for each passenger subject to a non-
safety delay or cancellation. Other bills would have made violation of certain
provisions subject to existing DOT enforcement procedures as “unfair or
deceptive practices” and “unfair methods of competition” under 49 U.S.C.
41712. None of these free-standing passenger rights bills were enacted.
The Air Carriers’ Response. The Air Transport Association (ATA),
which represents the major air carriers, responded to these passenger rights bills
in several ways.3 In testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee, on
March 11, 1999, ATA President, Carol Hallett, said that the airlines would
accept responsibility for the service failures that are within their control. She
also, however, pointed to severe weather and air traffic control as the two main
causes of delay (the most common customer complaint). She charged that 65%
of delays were attributable “directly to the ATC [air traffic control] system.”
Finally, the ATA argued that legislation to improve customer treatment was
unnecessary because the air carriers were voluntarily making changes that would
improve their customer service.
2For a detailed examination of passenger rights bills in the 106th congress see, Airline
Passenger Rights legislation in the 106th Congress, by Robert S. Kirk. CRS Report
RL30691.
3See Statement of Carol B. Hallett, President and Chief Executive Officer, Air
Transport Association of America, before the Senate Commerce Committee Hearing on
S. 383, the Airline Passenger Fairness Act. Washington, March 11, 1999. 6 p.

CRS-3
The ATA Airline Customer Service Commitment. On June 17, 1999,
the ATA announced that each of the major air carriers would develop voluntary
customer service plans guided by a twelve part “Airline Customer Service
Commitment.” In their Service Commitments the ATA carriers claim they will:
! Offer the lowest fare available [from the airline’s telephone reservation
system]
! Notify customers of known delays, cancellations and diversions
! Provide on-time baggage delivery [return misdirected bags within 24
hours]
! Support an increase in the lost baggage liability limit
! Allow reservations to be held or canceled [for 24 hours]
! Provide prompt refunds [7 day credit card; 20 days for cash]
! Properly accommodate disabled and special needs passengers
! Meet customers’ essential needs during long on-aircraft delays
! Handle “bumped” passengers with fairness and consistency
! Disclose travel itinerary, cancellation policies, frequent flyer rules and
aircraft configuration
! Ensure good customer service from code-share partners
! Be more responsive to customer complaints.
An ATA transmittal letter to the Senate Commerce Committee stated that its
view was that only a voluntary commitment from the industry could improve
customer service without “unintended and costly consequences.”
The Re-emergence of Airline Passenger Rights Issues. After the
release of the ATA voluntary plan, many thought airline passenger rights would
not be an issue for the rest of the first session. However, although some
Members of Congress supported giving the ATA plan a chance, others voiced
skepticism of the likely effectiveness of voluntary industry commitments. In
the waning days of the first session of the 106th Congress, during floor debate
in the Senate, both on the DOT FY2000 appropriations bill and the FAA
reauthorization bill, airline passenger protection issues reemerged in the form
of multiple amendments to the two bills.
The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st
Century (P.L. 106-181; AIR21) and the FY2000 DOT Appropriations Act (P.L.
106-69) included provisions that both alte red some consumer protection
provisions of Title 49, and also included provisions that called for investigatory
studies by the DOT Inspector General (IG) and the General Accounting Office
(GAO). The changes to the aviation consumer protection statutes were few in
number and included raising the maximum penalty for violating the passenger
consumer protection provisions to $2,500, ordering DOT to raise the maximum
liability for lost luggage, and making the failure of an air carrier or ticket agent
to notify a purchaser of an e-ticket of its expiration date an “unfair or deceptive”
practice. More significant for the 107th Congress are the investigatory studies,
especially the one that required the IG to monitor the implementation of any of
the voluntary airline customer service plans submitted to DOT by the air
carriers. For this study, the IG was required to report on the effectiveness of the

CRS-4
customer service plans and to make recommendations for improving
accountability, enforcement, and consumer protections for airline passengers.
There was no further legislative action in the 106th Congress. Most
members of Congress were willing to wait and see what the IG’s final report
concluded and recommended. Some would argue that the ATA’s strategy had
successfully forestalled passage of an airline passenger rights bill in the 106th
Congress. On the other hand, the congressionally mandated studies of the air
carriers’ implementation of their customer service plans and other business
practices insured that the airline passenger rights issue would remain alive into
the 107th Congress.
The IG’s Report on the Airline Customer Commitment
On February 13, 2001 the DOT Office of the Inspector General (IG)
released its final report analyzing the progress made by the airlines under their
voluntary “Customer Service Commitment.”4 The IG report concluded that,
although progress had been made, there were still significant shortfalls,
especially in provisions that “trigger when there is a flight delay or
cancellation.” These provisions include keeping customers informed of delays
and cancellations and also meeting customers’ “essential needs” during extended
on-aircraft delays. The report also found a need for improvement in regard to
the provision for fairness and consistency in bumping practices on flights that
are oversold. The IG concluded that the policies for accommodating passengers
delayed overnight were often inconsistent with the Service Commitment or the
airlines contracts of carriage. On the positive side the report found that, in
general the airlines were complying with the commitment to offer the lowest
fare, to provide prompt ticket refunds, to be more responsive to customer
complaints, and to support a higher payout for lost baggage. The report,
however, pointed out that the Service Commitments did nothing to address the
underlying problem of delays and cancellations.
The IG recommended that:

! the Customer Service Commitments be made enforceable either by
requiring their inclusion in the airlines’ contracts of carriage or by
regulation;
! a commitment be added to establish a quality assurance and performance
measurement system and to audit compliance with the commitment;
! the resources allocated to the DOT division responsible for consumer
protection be significantly increased;
4Department of Transportation. Office of the Inspector General. Final Report on the
Airline Customer Service Commitment. Washington, the Office. 127 p. Internet address:
[http://www.oig.dot.gov/audits/av2001020.htm]

CRS-5
! at the time of booking and without being asked, the prior month’s on-time
performance rate for consistently delayed and/or cancelled flights be
disclosed to consumers;
! airlines clarify in their customer service plans what is meant by an
“extended period of time” and “emergency” so passengers know what to
expect. The airlines should also ensure that comprehensive customer
service contingency plans specify the efforts that will be made to get
passengers off the aircraft when delayed for extended periods;
! DOT should establish a standard check-in time and disclose it on the
ticket jacket; assure that all bumped volunteers are equally compensated;
increase compens ation to bumped passengers; and disclose orally to
passengers that involuntarily bumped passengers must be compensated in
advance of payments being offered to volunteers;
! a uniform system for tracking delays, cancellations, and their causes be
established and implemented;
! capacity benchmarks for the nations top 30 airports be established to
provide a common framework for understanding what maximum arrival
and departure rate can physically be accommodated by an airport by time
of day under optimum conditions.
By early June 2001, 14 ATA member airlines had voluntarily incorporated
the ATA customer service commitments into their contracts of carriage.
Critics, however, argue that the vagueness of the language of the commitments
limits the importance of their inclusion in the contracts of carriage for
consumers.
Proposed Legislative Remedies of the 107th Congress
Most of the passenger rights bills introduced in the 107th Congress are
influenced by legislation introduced in the 106th Congress or by the findings of
the DOT IG, or both. Four of the bills, S. 200, the Air Travelers Fair Treatment
Act (Senator Reid), H.R. 332, the Aviation Consumer Right to Know Act
(Representatives DeFazio and Slaughter), H.R. 384, the Airline Passenger Fair
Treatment Act (Representatives Sweeny), and H.R. 907, the Airline Competition
and Passenger Rights Act (Representative Dingell) all revived numerous
provisions from legislation first introduced in the 106th Congress. Following
release of the IG report on the airlines’ customer service performance, two new
bills, S. 319, the Airline Customer Service Improvement Act (Senators McCain,
Hollings, Hutchison) and S. 483, the Fair Treatment of Airline Passengers Act
(Senator Wyden), were introduced. These bills include provisions to make the
voluntary service commitments enforceable. They also include provisions that
would implement many of the IG’s other recommendations. During a Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation mark-up, a significant
number of provisions from S. 483 were added by amendment in the nature of a
substitute to S. 319, which was reported on March 15, 2001, with Senator
Wyden becoming the fourth sponsor. In early May Representatives Sweeny and

CRS-6
Dingell combined many or the provisions of their two bills (H.R. 384 and H.R.
907) and introduced H.R. 1734, the Airline Passenger Bill of Rights Act.5
Although there are significant differences in provisions of the airline
passenger consumer rights bills introduced in the 107th Congress, it is possible
to place many of the provisions into comparable issue categories. This section
describes these provisions in a general way and does not include provisions that
are unique to a one bill. For detail on six individual bills, see the side-by-side
comparison that is set forth in the table at the end of this report.6
Access to All Fares
About half of the bills introduced would require air carriers to make
available to customers information on all fares charged by an airline regardless
of the technology or means used to access the information. The heart of this
issue is the “lowest fare available” debate. Under this provision, for example,
if someone contacts an air carrier by telephone the air carrier’s agent would
have to notify the customer if there were a cheaper fare being offered via
internet or through travel agencies. Two of the bills (S. 319 and S. 483) would
simply require the airlines to notify customers that cheaper fairs may be
available through other distribution systems.
Access to Services and the Right to Deplane From Delayed
Aircraft During Emergencies
Three bills (H.R. 1734, S. 200, and H.R. 907), included language that would
have limited to one hour the length of time airlines can require passengers to
stay aboard an aircraft during ground-delayed departures or arrivals at an airport.
H.R. 907 also requires DOT to issue regulations that require air carriers ensure
access to necessary services and conditions including food, water, restroom
facilities, and also provide for an ability to deplane in the event of a weather or
other emergency. S. 319, H.R. 1734, and H.R. 907 require air carriers to ensure
that comprehensive emergency plans are maintained and coordinated with local
airport authorities and the FAA.
Baggage Handling
S. 319 and S. 483 would both require more detailed and accurate
information on mishandled baggage. S. 319 would require a luggage tracking
system be established and a toll free telephone number passengers can call to
5From here on in the text H.R. 384, because virtually all of its provisions were incorporated
in H.R. 1734 will not be mentioned.
6The side-by-side includes H.R. 1734, S. 200, S. 332, H.R. 907, S. 483, and S. 319. H.R.
571, the Airline Customer Right to Know Act (Representative Bilirakus), H.R. 711, “to
clarify that State attorneys general may enforce State consumer protection laws with respect
to air transportation...” (Representatives Trancredo and Schaffer) and S. 633, the Aviation
Delay Prevention Act (Senators Hutchison and Rockefeller) are discussed in the text.

CRS-7
check on the status of their delayed luggage. It also requires that passengers
who do not check luggage not be counted when calculating the rate of
mishandled luggage. S. 483 sets forth specific statistical categories that must
be reported and requires air carriers to establish performance goals aimed at
reducing the incidence of mishandled baggage.
Bumping and Overbooking
S. 319 and S. 483 have similar provisions that require: DOT to establish a
uniform check-in deadline and require airlines to disclose it on their ticket
jackets; notification that involuntarily bumped passengers must be offered
compensation before any offers are made to volunteers. S. 483 also requires
that air carriers, on request, tell a passenger whether a flight is oversold. H.R.
1734 and H.R. 907 would also push the boarding deadline right up to the time
that the aircraft’s door is closed.
Delays, Cancellations, and Diversions
Virtually all the bills introduced include provisions that require prompt
notification and truthful explanation of any flight delays, cancellations, o r
diversions.
Chronically Delayed or Cancelled Flights. Four bills (S. 319, S. 483,
H.R. 1734, and H.R. 907) include provisions that require air carriers to disclose,
without being asked, to customers when they are making a reservation or
purchasing a ticket, the on-time performance and cancellation rate for any
chronically-delayed or cancelled flights. H.R. 1734 and H.R. 907 would make
failure to make such a disclosure an unfair or deceptive practice and unfair
method of competition. S. 319 would require that DOT include a table in the Air
Travel Consumer report that shows, for the most recent three month period,
flight numbers of flights delayed by 15 minutes or more 40% of the time or
more and flights canceled 30% of the time or more.
Information System Provisions. Four bills (S. 319, S. 483, H.R. 1734,
and H.R. 907) also include a variety of information system requirements,
including setting up a notification system that would notify passengers before
they leave for the airport that their flight will be cancelled or delayed. These
three bills also require that air carriers coordinate with airport officials to
assure that master airport flight display monitors contain up-to-date flight
information and are consistent with their own monitors. Another provision, in
S. 319 and S. 483, would require air carriers to post the on-time performance
for each scheduled flight for the previous month on their web sites.
Enforcement Provisions
Airline passenger rights legislation introduced in the 107th Congress
includes a variety of approaches to enforcement. S. 319 and S. 483 both
contain provisions that would implement a number of the IG recommendations
regarding enforcement. These bills would require the major air carriers to write

CRS-8
their customer service plans into their contracts of carriage, thus making the
provisions enforceable in court under contract law (as mentioned earlier, in
early June, 14 of the ATA airlines announced that they had voluntarily
incorporated the customer service commitments into their contracts of
carriage).7 S. 319, in addition, requires that DOT monitor compliance to
provisions of the bill and to take enforcement actions as necessary. The agency
is to monitor customer service quality assurance and performance measurement
systems and review the airlines’ internal audits. S. 319 and S. 483 would also
amend 49 U.S. C. Section 46301 to extend the $2,500 per occurrence penalty
to violations of any of the bill’s provisions. The other bills rely on existing
enforcement mechanisms or expanding the coverage of existing law under 49
U.S. C. 41712 relating to “unfair or deceptive trade practices” or “unfair
methods of competition.”8 Finally, these bills call for DOT to increase
resources for the airline passenger consumer protection activities of the
Department.
Both the monitoring requirements and the expanded Section 41712
practices would be the responsibility of the DOT Assistant General Counsel for
Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings. At this writing, this office has a staff
of 22, including 8 attorneys and 9 transportation industry and consumer analysts.
Some argue that the proposed enforcement provisions could overwhelm the
Assistant General Counsel’s staff.9 AIR21 authorized a significant increase in
funding but appropriations for this activity have been significantly below the
authorized level.
7Some of the enforcement provisions refer to the air carrier contract of carriage. When a
passenger purchases a ticket from an airline the passenger’s rights and responsibilities as
well as the limits of the air carrier’s responsibilities and liabilities are set forth in a “contract
of carriage” (COC). On the back of the ticket, in the ticket jacket, or on the ticket jacket
itself is a summary of selected provisions of the COC and a reference to the full text. As
mentioned in the text, by writing the customer commitments into their COCs, the air carriers
could be held liable under contract law for violating their commitments. Some airlines have
made the full text of their COCs available on their internet web sites others still require that
a request be made to their customer service departments.
8Some would argue that failure of the airlines to fulfill the ATA customer commitments could
be considered a deceptive trade practice and could therefore lead to enforcement actions by
the Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings.
9As reported in the IG’s final report the Office staff is half as large as it was in 1985, when
the Offic e had a staff of 40. The decline in staffing has continued even as consumer
complaints received by the office have gone from 6,026 in 1995to 23,381 in 2000. In 2000
the Office had a staff of 17. Five new positions were authorized for FY2001. AIR21 also
added other responsibilities to be carried out by the Office including a provision requiring
comprehensive investigation of each disability-related complaint (there were 595 in CY1999
and 676 in CY2000); extension of the disabled passenger discrimination law to international
flights; and a variety of data collection and reporting requirements. The House-passed
FY2002 appropriations bill (H.R. 2299) provides for 9 of the 20 new staff requested by
DOT. The Senate-passed bill (S. 2278) fully funds the request.

CRS-9
Some of the bills would increase the airline liability for specific violations.
For example, S. 319, S. 483, and H.R. 907 all would modify bumping regulations
to increase the maximum compensation amount. H.R. 907 includes a unique
airline liability provision. The bill would set the airline liability for a delay of
between two and three hours at 200% of the price paid for a ticket on the
delayed flight and another 100% for each additional hour or portion of an hour
above three hours delay. Delays caused by certain air traffic control directives,
mechanical, and other safety concerns are exempted.
Federal Preemption of State Consumer Law
Six bills include a provision designed to narrow the scope of federal
preemption of the application of state consumer protection laws to air
transportation.10 The intent of these provisions is to allow state and local
officials to enforce state consumer protection laws with respect to air
transportation and the advertisement of air transportation services. One of the
bills, H.R. 711(Representatives Tancredo/ Schaffer) presents this provision as
a stand-alone bill.
Partial Ticket Use
Four bills (H.R. 1734, H.R. 332, H.R. 1074, and H.R. 907) include
provisions that would prevent air carriers from assessing a fee against or
prohibiting a ticket holder from using only part of a ticket. This would shield
consumers who use “back-to-back” round trip ticketing or “hidden city”
ticketing. Back-to-back ticketing generally refers to purchasing two round trip
discount tickets but only using one way on each ticket (usually to avoid the
weekend stay-over requirements). Hidden city ticketing refers to a passenger
who wishes to fly to a hub destination but buys a cheaper ticket to a city served
through the hub. The passenger simply gets off the plane at the hub airport and
does not use the ticket for the final leg of the flight. Airlines argue that they
must be allowed, when a passenger does not show up for a trip segment, to
cancel any remaining trip segments. Otherwise, they argue, especially when
demand is high, they could deny a passenger a reservation when an empty seat
actually exists.
AIR21 included a provision that required the General Accounting Office
(GAO) to study the potential impacts of legalization of partial ticket use. The
study, released at the end of July 2001, concludes that “restricting the ability of
airlines to forbid hidden-city and back-to-back ticketing is unlikely to help
consumers...[and] would likely have unintended consequences that could hurt
some consumers. Nevertheless, consumer advocates and passengers have
10 Preemption is the “Doctrine adopted by U.S. Supreme Court [based on the U.S.
Constitution’s supremacy clause] holding that certain matters are of such a national, as
opposed to local, character that federal laws preempt or take precedence over state laws.
As such, a state may not pass a law inconsistent with the federal law.” Blacks Law
Dictionary. St. Paul, Minnesota, 1990. p 1177. See also State and Local Sanctions:
Some Constitutional Issues, by Jean J. Grimmett. CRS Report 98-795 A.

CRS-10
legitimate concerns that some fares are higher than what might be expected in
a more competitive market.”11
Travel Agent Provisions
Three bills (H.R. 1734, S. 200, and H.R. 907) include provisions that could
be seen as benefitting travel agents. Their provisions require that air carriers
provide 90 days notice to a ticket agent if the carrier wishes to cancel,
terminate, or not renew the agent’s appointment as a carrier agent. It would give
the agent 60 days to correct any deficiency identified by the air carrier as a
reason for ending the agent’s appointment.
Other Legislation
The Airline Customer Notification Act (H.R. 571)
The Airline Customer Notification Act (Representative Bilirakis), amends
the consumer protection provisions of Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Its provisions
require air carriers to announce the reason or reasons for: a delay of two or
more hours or cancellation of a flight; the dive rsion of a flight to another
airport; a one hour delay of deplaning after touchdown; and, in the case of a
delay, the expected length of the delay. Passengers may request the reason or
reasons in writing. The passenger’s right to notification must be posted at the
gate or ticket counter. Finally, the bill includes a prohibition on false or
misleading explanations. Because of H.R. 571’s conciseness, it is not included
in the side-by-side.
Consumer-Friendly Airline Ticket Transfer Act (H.R. 1074)
The Consumer-Friendly Airline Ticket Transfer Act (Representative
Gibbons), requires DOT to issue regulations, within 90 days of enactment, that
require air carriers to make paper tickets for intrastate or interstate air
transportation, transferrable at no cost. Also within 90 days DOT is to make
recommendations to Congress relating to the transfer of electronic tickets. As
mentioned earlier, H.R. 1074 also includes provisions to prevent air carriers
from prohibiting or assessing a fee for partial ticket use.
The Aviation Delay Prevention Act (S. 633)
The Aviation Delay Prevention Act (Senators Hutchison and Rockefeller)
was proposed as an amendment to S. 319, but was withdrawn during mark-up and
1 1 General Accounting Office. Aviation Competition: Restricting Airline Ticketing Rules
Unlikely to Help Consumers. GAO-01-831. July 31, 2001. Washington, GAO, 2001. p.
44-45.

CRS-11
was later introduced as a stand-alone bill. The intent of the bill was to provide
some near term relief to airport congestion and delay by spreading out peak hour
schedules and also accelerating capacity-enhancing airport projects . As
introduced, S. 633 had three main provisions. First, it called for a review of and
report on air carrier over-scheduling at large hub airports, an analysis of the
congestion mitigation authority of DOT, and recommendations for increasing
DOT’s authority. Second, the bill would have provided air carriers with a limited
exemption from the antitrust laws allowing them to discuss, in the presence of
a DOT representative, cooperative scheduling arrangements to reduce over-
scheduling. Third, the bill called for DOT to implement an expedited
coordinated environmental and judicial review process (done concurrently not
consecutively) for airport capacity-enhancement projects.
In committee, an amendment in the nature of a substitute significantly
altered the text and scope of S. 633. The Senate Commerce Committee version
of the bill shifts the initiative for action from the airlines to the DOT and also
adds a number new provisions. The bill, as reported, requires that, within one
year of enactment and for each of the next five year s, DOT must complete a
review and report on air carrier over-scheduling and scheduling practic e s ,
including flight cancellations for economic reasons, at large hub airports and
must include an analysis of the congestion mitigation authority of the Secretary
and make recommendations for providing additional authority. The bill provides
that the Secretary of DOT may request that air carriers meet with the
administrator of the FAA to discuss flight reductions at severely congested
airports. The bill provides for short-term “stormy weather agreement” limited
antitrust exemptions for airlines to meet to discuss schedules. The Secretary
of DOT is to identify airports--from among those included in the Airport
Capacity Benchmark Report--where delays occur that significantly affect the
national airport and airway system. If any of those identified airports have no
plans in place to increase airport capacity, DOT is to create a task force to
conduct capacity enhancement studies these airports. Any airport for which a
capacity enhancement study recommends building a new runway or
reconfiguring its existing runways becomes a National Capacity Project. DOT
is required to complete an environmental review within five years and expedite
funding for the project. Airports not following through with the recommended
capacity expansion can loose funding for non-capacity projects as well as loss
of passenger facility charge revenues. The bill includes a five year pilot
program that would allow airport sponsors to pay for additional environmental
specialists and attorneys from outside the U.S. government to assist in providing
an appropriate level of planning and environmental review of runway
development projects for designated national capacity projects. The PFC
eligibility for gate related airport improvements is expanded and AIP funds
would be available for construction of air traffic control towers. The bill would
raise the noise set-aside for AIP discretionary funds to 35%. This provision
also appears to make National Capacity Projects eligible for AIP noise
mitigation funds without having to meet the requirement of having an FAA
approved “Part 150" noise mitigation plan. DOT is also directed to provide a list
of categorical exclusions currently recognized and a list of additional proposed
categorical exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

CRS-12
The Airline Passenger Treatment bill (H.R. 1407)
As reported (H. Rept. 107-77, part 2), The Airline Passenger Treatment Act
(Representative Young) allows air carriers at an airport to file a request with the
Attorney General (AG) for authority to discuss with one or more other air
carriers, agreements or cooperative arrangements relating to limiting flights at
an airport during a time period that the AG determines that scheduled flights
exceed the capacity of the airport. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss
reducing delays during that time period. The bill would allow for limited
antitrust exemption. The AG must, however, find that the voluntary adjustments
could lead to a substantial reduction in travel delays and improved service
without substantially lessening competition or tending to create a monopoly.
Three days notice must be given to all carriers providing service or seeking to
provide service at the airport under discussion. The AG or his/her representative
will attend and monitor the meeting. Unanimous agreement of the carriers at the
airport is required. Participants may not discuss rates, fares, charges, in-flight
service, or service to any city pair. The meetings are to be public. The AG will
consult with the Secretary of DOT in maki ng the decision. The legislation’s
provisions would expire after September 30, 2003.
Side-by-Side Comparison of Passenger Rights
Legislation in the 107th Congress
The side-by-side comparison (Table 1) sets forth provisions of six airline
passenger rights bills that have been introduced so far during the 107th Congress.
The analysis does not include bills or provisions that have been written to
increase competition or to increase service to underserved areas. A complete
indexed list of passenger rights topics covered in the bills is provided on the
next page, to enhance the side-by side comparison that follows.

CRS-13
Index of Legislative Topics of Airline Passenger Rights Bills
Topic
S .
H.R. 1734
H.R. 332
S. 200
S. 483
H.R. 907
Page
319
Baggage: information system
X
--
--
--
X
--
14
Baggage: DOT’s method of
X
--
--
--
X
--
14
calculating mishandled baggage
Baggage: handling performance
X
--
--
--
X
--
14
goals
Bumping: check-in deadlines
X
X
--
--
X
X
15
Bumping: passenger compensation
X
--
--
--
X
--
15
priorities
Bumping: compensation in
--
X
--
--
--
X
15
addition to existing law
Bumping: compensation
X
--
--
--
X
X
16
Bumping: disclosure of oversold
--
--
--
--
X
--
16
flights, on request
Bumping: policy disclosure
--
--
--
--
X
--
16
Bumping: regulation modification
--
X
--
--
--
--
17
Civil penalties
X
--
--
--
X
--
17
Code sharing
X
--
--
--
--
--
17
Compliance assurance
X
--
--
--
--
--
18
(DOT functions)
Compliance assurance
X
--
--
--
X
--
19
(Air Carrier functions)
Contracts of carriage:
--
--
--
--
X
--
19
availability of copies
Contracts of carriage:
X
--
--
--
X
--
20
incorporation of Customer Service
Commitments/ customer service
plans
Customer service plan modification
--
--
--
--
X
--
20
Customer service plan adoption
X
--
--
--
X
--
20
Delays/cancellations: chronically
X
--
--
--
X
--
21
delayed flight information
publication
Delays/cancellations: definition of
X
X
--
--
X
--
21
chronically delayed/cancelled
flights
Delays/cancellations: right to de-
--
X
--
X
--
X
22
plane

CRS-14
Topic
S .
H.R. 1734
H.R. 332
S. 200
S. 483
H.R. 907
Page
319
Delays/cancellations: disclosure of
X
X
--
--
X
X
22
chronically-delayed or canceled
flights
Delays/cancellations: notification
X
X
X
X
X
X
23
Delays/cancellations:
X
X
--
--
X
X
23
advance information...
Delays/cancellations: public
--
--
--
X
--
24
information...telephone/WEB
Delays/cancellations: dis-
X
--
--
--
X
--
24
closure of on-time performance
Delays: improvement targets for
X
--
--
--
--
--
24
delayed or cancelled flights
Delays: liability for excessive...
--
--
--
--
--
X
25
Disabled and special needs
X
--
--
--
--
--
25
services
Disabled passengers’ equipment
X
--
--
--
--
--
25
Emergency medical services
X
--
--
X
--
--
26
Emergency plans
X
X
--
--
--
X
26
Enforcement funding: funding for
X
--
--
--
X
--
27
DOT enforcement of airline
passenger protection provisions
Fares: access to lowest fares
X
X
X
--
X
X
27
Federal preemption of state
--
X
X
X
--
X
28
consumer law
Frequent flyer information
X
--
X
--
X
--
28
Information monitors: coordination
X
X
--
--
X
X
28
of displays
Initial response reports
X
--
--
--
--
---
29
Insecticide warnings
--
--
X
--
--
--
29
Overnight accommodations: plans
X
X
--
--
--
--
29
for passengers stranded...
Partial ticket use
--
X
X
--
--
X
30
Passenger rights publication
--
X
--
--
--
X
30
Review of regulations
X
--
--
--
X
--
31
Safety: access to safety
--
--
--
X
--
--
31
information
Safety: performance review reports
--
--
--
X
--
--
31
Small air carrier exception
--
--
--
--
X
--
32

CRS-15
Topic
S .
H.R. 1734
H.R. 332
S. 200
S. 483
H.R. 907
Page
319
Ticket agent appointment
--
X
--
X
--
X
32
cancellation
Victims assistance: civil penalties
--
--
--
X
--
--
32
for failure to provide safety or
victims’ assistance information
Victims’ assistance toll free
--
--
--
X
--
--
32
telephone
Victims’ assistance coordination
--
--
--
X
--
--
33
Victims’ right to information
--
--
--
X
--
--
33
-

CRS-16
Table 1: Side-by-Side Comparison of Selected Provisions From Airline Passenger Rights Legislation: 107th Congress
Topic
Airline Customer
Airline Passenger Bill of
Aviation Consumer
Air Travelers Fair
Fair Treatment of
Airline Competition and
Service Improvement Act
Rights Act (H.R. 1734)
Right to Know Act (H.R.
Treatment Act (S. 200)
Airline Passengers Act
Passenger Rights Act
(S. 319)
Introduced May 3, 2001
332)
Introduced Jan. 29, 2001
(S. 483)
(H.R. 907)
Reported March 15, 2001
(Sweeny/ Dingell)
Introduced Jan. 31, 2001
(Reid)
Introduced March 7,
Introduced March 7,
(McCain/Hollings/
(DeFazio/Slaughter)
2001 (Wyden)
2001 (Dingell)
Hutchison/Wyden)
Baggage: information
Within 90 days of
--
--
--
Within 6 months of
--
system
enactment air carriers shall:
enactment air carriers shall
develop and implement a
revise their reporting of
system for tracking and
mishandled baggage to
documenting the amount of
show: the percentage of
time between receipt of a
checked baggage
claim for missing baggage
mishandled during the
and its delivery; and
reporting period; the
establish a toll free
number of mishandled
telephone number that
bags; and the average
passengers can use to
length of time between the
check the status of their
receipt of a passenger’s
delayed baggage.
claim for missing baggage
and its delivery to the
passenger.
Baggage: DOT’s method
In calculating and reporting --
--
--
Within 6 months of
--
of calculating mishandled
the rate of mishandled
enactment DOT shall
baggage
baggage, DOT shall not
revise its method of
take into account
reporting the rate of
passengers who do not
mishandled baggage to
check any baggage.
reflect the reporting
requirements of the Act.
Baggage: handling
--
--
--
--
Within 6 months of
--
performance goals
enactment air carriers shall
establish performance
goals designed to minimize
incidents of mishandled
baggage.

CRS-17
Topic
Airline Customer
Airline Passenger Bill of
Aviation Consumer
Air Travelers Fair
Fair Treatment of
Airline Competition and
Service Improvement Act
Rights Act (H.R. 1734)
Right to Know Act (H.R.
Treatment Act (S. 200)
Airline Passengers Act
Passenger Rights Act
(S. 319)
Introduced May 3, 2001
332)
Introduced Jan. 29, 2001
(S. 483)
(H.R. 907)
Reported March 15, 2001
(Sweeny/ Dingell)
Introduced Jan. 31, 2001
(Reid)
Introduced March 7,
Introduced March 7,
(McCain/Hollings/
(DeFazio/Slaughter)
2001 (Wyden)
2001 (Dingell)
Hutchison/Wyden)
Bumping: check-in
DOT will initiate within
Passengers shall be eligible --
--
Virtually identical to
Identical to H.R. 1734.
deadlines
30 days of enactment a
for involuntary denied
S. 319.
rule- making to establish a
boarding compensation if
uniform check-in deadline
the passenger checks in at
and require airlines to
the appropriate airport
disclose it both on the
gate at any time before the
ticket jackets and contracts door of the aircraft for the
of carriage.
flight segment is closed.
Bumping: passenger
Air carriers must tell all
--
--
--
Identical to S. 319.
--
compensation priorities
passengers on a flight that
they are required to pay
passengers involuntarily
denied boarding before
making offers to
passengers who volunteer
their seats.
Bumping: compensation
--
In addition to the
--
--
--
Identical to H.R. 1734.
in addition to existing law
compensation set forth in
existing law, air carriers
shall provide for
passengers involuntarily
bumped: alternate
transportation to their final
destination; reasonable and
immediate compensation
for food; and hotel costs if
departure time of
alternative is not within
the same day.

CRS-18
Topic
Airline Customer
Airline Passenger Bill of
Aviation Consumer
Air Travelers Fair
Fair Treatment of
Airline Competition and
Service Improvement Act
Rights Act (H.R. 1734)
Right to Know Act (H.R.
Treatment Act (S. 200)
Airline Passengers Act
Passenger Rights Act
(S. 319)
Introduced May 3, 2001
332)
Introduced Jan. 29, 2001
(S. 483)
(H.R. 907)
Reported March 15, 2001
(Sweeny/ Dingell)
Introduced Jan. 31, 2001
(Reid)
Introduced March 7,
Introduced March 7,
(McCain/Hollings/
(DeFazio/Slaughter)
2001 (Wyden)
2001 (Dingell)
Hutchison/Wyden)
Bumping: compensation
DOT will initiate within
--
--
--
Virtually identical to
Within 90 days of
30 days a rule-making,
S. 319.
enactment, DOT shall
under 14 C.F.R. 250.5, to
modify regulations
increase the maximum
contained in 14 CFR 250
compensation amount.
to conform with the
bumping provisions of the
act and to adjust the dollar
compensation amounts for
inflation.
Bumping: disclosure of
--
--
--
--
Upon request, air carrier
--
oversold flights, on
shall inform a ticketed
request.
passenger whether the
passenger’s flight is
oversold.
Bumping: policy
--
--
--
--
Air carriers must disclose
--
disclosure
on their web sites and on
ticket jackets their criteria
for determining which
passengers will be
involuntarily denied
boarding on an oversold
flight and its procedures
for offering compensation
to bumped passengers.

CRS-19
Topic
Airline Customer
Airline Passenger Bill of
Aviation Consumer
Air Travelers Fair
Fair Treatment of
Airline Competition and
Service Improvement Act
Rights Act (H.R. 1734)
Right to Know Act (H.R.
Treatment Act (S. 200)
Airline Passengers Act
Passenger Rights Act
(S. 319)
Introduced May 3, 2001
332)
Introduced Jan. 29, 2001
(S. 483)
(H.R. 907)
Reported March 15, 2001
(Sweeny/ Dingell)
Introduced Jan. 31, 2001
(Reid)
Introduced March 7,
Introduced March 7,
(McCain/Hollings/
(DeFazio/Slaughter)
2001 (Wyden)
2001 (Dingell)
Hutchison/Wyden)
Bumping: Regulation
--
Requires that within 90
--
--
--
--
modification
days of enactment, DOT
modify regulations in 14
CFR title 250, to conform
to the bill’s subsection on
bumping and also to
implement the IG’s
recommendations in its
report on airline customer
service commitment.12
Civil penalties
Amends U.S. Code 49 sec. --
--
--
Identical to S. 319.
--
46301to extend the $2,500
per occurrence penalty to
any violations of the
consumer provisions of S.
319. [added in committee
from S. 483]
Code sharing
Within 90 days of
--
--
--
--
--
(the sharing of assets, such enactment, any large air
as flight numbers, by
carrier that maintains a
different air carriers)
domestic code-share
arrangement shall conduct
an annual audit of the code
share carrier’s compliance
with the airline customer
service commitment.
12The text of this provision makes it unclear if the intent is for DOT to modify regulations to implement all the IG’s recommendations or just those related to
overbooking and bumping.

CRS-20
Topic
Airline Customer
Airline Passenger Bill of
Aviation Consumer
Air Travelers Fair
Fair Treatment of
Airline Competition and
Service Improvement Act
Rights Act (H.R. 1734)
Right to Know Act (H.R.
Treatment Act (S. 200)
Airline Passengers Act
Passenger Rights Act
(S. 319)
Introduced May 3, 2001
332)
Introduced Jan. 29, 2001
(S. 483)
(H.R. 907)
Reported March 15, 2001
(Sweeny/ Dingell)
Introduced Jan. 31, 2001
(Reid)
Introduced March 7,
Introduced March 7,
(McCain/Hollings/
(DeFazio/Slaughter)
2001 (Wyden)
2001 (Dingell)
Hutchison/Wyden)
Compliance assurance
DOT shall: monitor
--
--
--
--
--
(DOT functions)
compliance to provisions
of the Act and take
enforcement action if
necessary; monitor air
carrier customer service
QA and performance
measurement systems; and
review the air carriers’
internal audits of their QA
and performance
measurement systems.
Also [added in Committee]
DOT shall monitor, in
particular, air carrier
performance of the
information disclosure
provisions of the Act
concerning delay,
cancellations, lowest fares,
on-time performance, and
bumping priorities,
focusing on practices and
patterns of conduct.

CRS-21
Topic
Airline Customer
Airline Passenger Bill of
Aviation Consumer
Air Travelers Fair
Fair Treatment of
Airline Competition and
Service Improvement Act
Rights Act (H.R. 1734)
Right to Know Act (H.R.
Treatment Act (S. 200)
Airline Passengers Act
Passenger Rights Act
(S. 319)
Introduced May 3, 2001
332)
Introduced Jan. 29, 2001
(S. 483)
(H.R. 907)
Reported March 15, 2001
(Sweeny/ Dingell)
Introduced Jan. 31, 2001
(Reid)
Introduced March 7,
Introduced March 7,
(McCain/Hollings/
(DeFazio/Slaughter)
2001 (Wyden)
2001 (Dingell)
Hutchison/Wyden)
Compliance assurance
Within 90 days of
--
--
--
Similar to S. 319, except
--
(Air Carrier functions)
enactment each large air
that time frame after
carrier must: establish a
enactment is 6 months and
customer service quality
the air carriers are required
assurance (QA) and
to consult with the DOT
performance system;
IG. The bill also requires
establish an internal audit
that air carrier QA plans
process to measure
and audit systems be
compliance with the
submitted to DOT for
commitments and its
review and approval.
customer service plan; and
cooperate with any DOT
audit of its QA system.
Contracts of carriage:
--
--
--
--
Air carriers must post
--
availability of copies
their contracts of carriage
on their internet web sites
and notify all ticketed
customers that the contract
is available upon request
or on the carrier’s web
site.

CRS-22
Topic
Airline Customer
Airline Passenger Bill of
Aviation Consumer
Air Travelers Fair
Fair Treatment of
Airline Competition and
Service Improvement Act
Rights Act (H.R. 1734)
Right to Know Act (H.R.
Treatment Act (S. 200)
Airline Passengers Act
Passenger Rights Act
(S. 319)
Introduced May 3, 2001
332)
Introduced Jan. 29, 2001
(S. 483)
(H.R. 907)
Reported March 15, 2001
(Sweeny/ Dingell)
Introduced Jan. 31, 2001
(Reid)
Introduced March 7,
Introduced March 7,
(McCain/Hollings/
(DeFazio/Slaughter)
2001 (Wyden)
2001 (Dingell)
Hutchison/Wyden)
Contracts of carriage:
Within 60 days air carriers --
--
--
Virtually identical to
--
incorporation of Customer shall incorporate the
S. 319 as reported.
Service Commitments/
provisions of the “Airline
customer service plans
Customer Service
Commitment” in their
contracts of carriage. Also
[added in committee from
S. 483] provisions of
carriers’ customer service
plans to the extent that the
plan is more specific or
broader than the service
commitment.
Customer service plan
--
--
--
--
Any modification of any
--
modification
air carrier’s customer
service plan must be
promptly incorporated in
the carrier’s contract of
carriage, submitted to the
DOT, and posted on the
carrier’s web site.
Customer service plan
Air carriers, if they have
--
--
--
Identical to S. 319 as
--
adoption
not done it already, must
reported.
develop and adopt a
customer service plan
based on the ATA Service
Commitments. The plan
must be submitted to the
DOT. [taken from S.483
and added in committee]

CRS-23
Topic
Airline Customer
Airline Passenger Bill of
Aviation Consumer
Air Travelers Fair
Fair Treatment of
Airline Competition and
Service Improvement Act
Rights Act (H.R. 1734)
Right to Know Act (H.R.
Treatment Act (S. 200)
Airline Passengers Act
Passenger Rights Act
(S. 319)
Introduced May 3, 2001
332)
Introduced Jan. 29, 2001
(S. 483)
(H.R. 907)
Reported March 15, 2001
(Sweeny/ Dingell)
Introduced Jan. 31, 2001
(Reid)
Introduced March 7,
Introduced March 7,
(McCain/Hollings/
(DeFazio/Slaughter)
2001 (Wyden)
2001 (Dingell)
Hutchison/Wyden)
Delays/cancellations:
DOT shall include a table
--
--
--
Similar to S. 319 but does
--
chronically delayed or
in the Air Travel
not include the provision
cancelled flight information Consumer Report that
including the information
publication
shows flights chronically
in a table of the Air Travel
delayed by 15 minutes
Consumer Report. It also
40% of the time or more
sets the “consistently
and flights canceled 30%
canceled” level at 20%.
of the time or more for the
most recent 3-month
period.
Delays/cancellations:
Chronically-delayed flight
Virtually identical to S.
--
--
A “consistently delayed or --
definitions of chronically-
means a flight that has
319 except that section
canceled flight” means a
delayed or canceled flights. failed to arrive on time (i.e. 209 of H.R. 1734 requires
flight that arrives 15
15 minutes or more after
DOT, within 60 days of
minutes or more, after its
published arrival time) at
enactment, issue final
published arrival time, 40
least 40% of the time
regulations defining what
percent of the time during
during the last 3 months
constitutes a delay of a
the 3 most recent months
for which data are
flight and what constitutes
for which data are
available. Chronically
chronically delayed flights.
available; or at least 20%
canceled flight means a
of the departures of which
flight cancelled at least
have been canceled during
30% of the time during the
the most recent 3 months
most recent 3-month
for which data are
period for which data are
available.
available.

CRS-24
Topic
Airline Customer
Airline Passenger Bill of
Aviation Consumer
Air Travelers Fair
Fair Treatment of
Airline Competition and
Service Improvement Act
Rights Act (H.R. 1734)
Right to Know Act (H.R.
Treatment Act (S. 200)
Airline Passengers Act
Passenger Rights Act
(S. 319)
Introduced May 3, 2001
332)
Introduced Jan. 29, 2001
(S. 483)
(H.R. 907)
Reported March 15, 2001
(Sweeny/ Dingell)
Introduced Jan. 31, 2001
(Reid)
Introduced March 7,
Introduced March 7,
(McCain/Hollings/
(DeFazio/Slaughter)
2001 (Wyden)
2001 (Dingell)
Hutchison/Wyden)
Delays/cancellations: right --
Air carriers shall not
--
Identical to H.R. 1734.
--
Identical to H.R. 1734.
to de-plane.
prevent a passenger from
leaving the aircraft if the
aircraft is at the gate with
access to ramp facilities
and the aircraft has
remained at the gate for
more than an hour and the
captain has not been
informed by ATC that the
aircraft can be cleared for
departure in 15 minutes.
Delays/cancellations:
Large air carriers must
Failure to disclose,
--
--
Identical to S. 319.
Failure of an air carrier to
disclosure of chronically-
disclose, without being
without being asked, the
inform the consumer that a
delayed or canceled flights. asked, the on-time
on-time performance and
requested flight includes a
performance and
cancellation rate for a
segment that in the
cancellation rate for any
chronically delayed or
preceding calendar month
chronically-delayed or
chronically canceled flight
was either cancelled or
cancelled flights whenever
whenever a customer
delayed, 40% of the time,
a customer makes a
makes a reservation or
at least 30 minutes past
reservation or buys a
purchases a ticket on such
arrival time is made an
ticket.
a flight is defined as an
unfair or deceptive
unfair or deceptive trade
practice and unfair method
practice and unfair method
of competition.
of competition under 49
U.S.C. 41712.

CRS-25
Topic
Airline Customer
Airline Passenger Bill of
Aviation Consumer
Air Travelers Fair
Fair Treatment of
Airline Competition and
Service Improvement Act
Rights Act (H.R. 1734)
Right to Know Act (H.R.
Treatment Act (S. 200)
Airline Passengers Act
Passenger Rights Act
(S. 319)
Introduced May 3, 2001
332)
Introduced Jan. 29, 2001
(S. 483)
(H.R. 907)
Reported March 15, 2001
(Sweeny/ Dingell)
Introduced Jan. 31, 2001
(Reid)
Introduced March 7,
Introduced March 7,
(McCain/Hollings/
(DeFazio/Slaughter)
2001 (Wyden)
2001 (Dingell)
Hutchison/Wyden)
Delays/cancellations:
Within 60 days air carriers Requires that air carriers,
Identical to S. 319.
Failure of an air carrier to
Virtually identical to
Identical to H.R. 1734.
notification
shall implement a policy
when announcing a delay,
provide a passenger with
S. 319 as reported. Does
to require that air carriers
cancellation, or diversion
an accurate explanation of
not set a 60 day
provide in a timely,
of a flight segment,
the reasons for a flight
implementation target.
reasonable, and truthful
provide, in a timely and
delay, cancellation, or
manner, the best available
truthful fashion, must
diversion from a ticketed
information regarding each
include an explanation of
itinerary is defined as an
delay, cancellation, or
the reason or reasons for
“unfair or deceptive
diversion, including: the
the delay, cancellation, or
practice” and “unfair
cause of the delay,
diversion. Requires DOT,
method of competition”
cancellation, or diversion;
not later than 1 year after
under 49 U.S.C. 41712.
and in the case of a
the date of enactment, to
delayed flight the carrier’s
issue guidance to assist air
best estimate of the
carriers in carrying out the
departure time. [taken
notification requirements.
from S. 483 and added in
Committee]
Delays/cancellations:
Within 90 days of
Air carriers, whenever
--
--
Within 6 months of
Identical to H.R. 1734.
advance information on
enactment, large air carriers practicable, shall attempt
enactment, air carriers shall
delayed or cancelled flights shall establish a system
to provide a passenger
establish a reasonable
that allows passengers,
with notice of a delay or
system for notifying
before they leave for the
cancellation of a flight
passengers before their
airport, to determine
segment before passengers
arrival at the airport, when
whether a flight has been
depart for the airport.
the carrier knows
cancelled or if there is a
sufficiently in advance that
lengthy delay.
the flight will be canceled
or delayed by an hour or
more.

CRS-26
Topic
Airline Customer
Airline Passenger Bill of
Aviation Consumer
Air Travelers Fair
Fair Treatment of
Airline Competition and
Service Improvement Act
Rights Act (H.R. 1734)
Right to Know Act (H.R.
Treatment Act (S. 200)
Airline Passengers Act
Passenger Rights Act
(S. 319)
Introduced May 3, 2001
332)
Introduced Jan. 29, 2001
(S. 483)
(H.R. 907)
Reported March 15, 2001
(Sweeny/ Dingell)
Introduced Jan. 31, 2001
(Reid)
Introduced March 7,
Introduced March 7,
(McCain/Hollings/
(DeFazio/Slaughter)
2001 (Wyden)
2001 (Dingell)
Hutchison/Wyden)
Delays/cancellations:
--
--
--
--
Air carriers that have a
--
public information
telephone number or web
(phone/WEB) on delayed,
site for the public to
cancelled, or diverted
obtain flight status shall
flights
ensure that the number or
web site will reflect the
best and most current
information on delays,
cancellations, and
diversions.
Delays/cancellations:
By the 5th of each month,
--
--
--
Virtually identical to
--
disclosure of on-time
air carriers must post the
S. 319, but does not set the
performance
on-time performance for
5th day of the month
each scheduled flight for
deadline for posting on-
the previous month on the
time performance.
air carrier websites.
Delays: improvement
Within 90 days of
--
--
--
--
--
targets for delayed or
enactment, large air carriers
cancelled flights
shall establish realistic
targets for reducing
chronically-delayed flights.

CRS-27
Topic
Airline Customer
Airline Passenger Bill of
Aviation Consumer
Air Travelers Fair
Fair Treatment of
Airline Competition and
Service Improvement Act
Rights Act (H.R. 1734)
Right to Know Act (H.R.
Treatment Act (S. 200)
Airline Passengers Act
Passenger Rights Act
(S. 319)
Introduced May 3, 2001
332)
Introduced Jan. 29, 2001
(S. 483)
(H.R. 907)
Reported March 15, 2001
(Sweeny/ Dingell)
Introduced Jan. 31, 2001
(Reid)
Introduced March 7,
Introduced March 7,
(McCain/Hollings/
(DeFazio/Slaughter)
2001 (Wyden)
2001 (Dingell)
Hutchison/Wyden)
Delays: liability for
--
--
--
--
--
Liability for delay of
excessive delays
between 2 and 3 hours is
set at 200% of price paid
for the ticket. Liability
over 3 hours is an
additional 100% for each
additional hour or portion
of hour above 3 hours
delay. Exempts delays
caused by certain ATC
directives, mechanical, and
other safety concerns.
Disabled and special needs Within 90 days of
--
--
--
--
--
services
enactment, large air carriers
shall monitor and report
their efforts to improve
services for passengers
with disabilities and
special needs.
Disabled passengers’
Requires DOT to study
--
--
--
--
--
equipment
incidents of damage to the
equipment (such as wheel
chairs) of passengers with
disabilities.

CRS-28
Topic
Airline Customer
Airline Passenger Bill of
Aviation Consumer
Air Travelers Fair
Fair Treatment of
Airline Competition and
Service Improvement Act
Rights Act (H.R. 1734)
Right to Know Act (H.R.
Treatment Act (S. 200)
Airline Passengers Act
Passenger Rights Act
(S. 319)
Introduced May 3, 2001
332)
Introduced Jan. 29, 2001
(S. 483)
(H.R. 907)
Reported March 15, 2001
(Sweeny/ Dingell)
Introduced Jan. 31, 2001
(Reid)
Introduced March 7,
Introduced March 7,
(McCain/Hollings/
(DeFazio/Slaughter)
2001 (Wyden)
2001 (Dingell)
Hutchison/Wyden)
Emergency medical
DOT shall issue
--
--
Identical to S. 319.
--
--
services
regulations to establish
minimum standards for
resuscitation, emergency
medical, and first-aid
equipment and supplies to
be carried on board an
aircraft operated by an air
carrier that is capable of
carrying more than 30
people. Requires
consultation with the
Surgeon General.
Emergency plans
Within 90 days of
An Air carrier shall assure
--
--
--
Within 180 days of
enactment air carriers shall access to necessary
enactment DOT shall issue
ensure that comprehensive services and conditions,
final regulations requiring
passenger service
including food, water,
air carriers to submit
contingency plans are
restroom facilities, and the
emergency plans to ensure
properly maintained and
ability to deplane in the
passenger access to
that the plans and any
event of a weather or other
necessary services and
changes to the plans are
emergency. Not later than
conditions, including food,
coordinated with local
180 days of enactment,
water, restroom facilities,
airport authorities and the
DOT will require air
and the ability to deplane
FAA.
carriers to submit
in the event of a weather
emergency plans
or other emergency.
describing how they will
meet this assurance.

CRS-29
Topic
Airline Customer
Airline Passenger Bill of
Aviation Consumer
Air Travelers Fair
Fair Treatment of
Airline Competition and
Service Improvement Act
Rights Act (H.R. 1734)
Right to Know Act (H.R.
Treatment Act (S. 200)
Airline Passengers Act
Passenger Rights Act
(S. 319)
Introduced May 3, 2001
332)
Introduced Jan. 29, 2001
(S. 483)
(H.R. 907)
Reported March 15, 2001
(Sweeny/ Dingell)
Introduced Jan. 31, 2001
(Reid)
Introduced March 7,
Introduced March 7,
(McCain/Hollings/
(DeFazio/Slaughter)
2001 (Wyden)
2001 (Dingell)
Hutchison/Wyden)
Enforcement funding:
Calls for DOT to increase
--
--
--
Specifies that in utilizing
--
funding for DOT
the Department resources
enforcement monies
enforcement of airline
for airline passenger
authorized in AIR21 DOT
passenger consumer
consumer protection of
shall give priority to the
protection provisions
airline passengers and for
areas identified by the IG
oversight and enforcement
as needing improvement in
of laws and regulations.
its final report on the
Within 60 days of
Airline Customer Service
enactment, DOT shall
Commitment. Requires
report to the Senate
consultation with the IG.
Commerce Committee and
the House, Transportation
and Infrastructure
Committee of measures
taken to increase resources
and request additional
funds or measures needed.
Fares: access to lowest
Within 60 days, large air
Failure of an air carrier to
Requires air carriers to
--
Virtually identical to
Virtually identical to
fares
carriers must implement
provide full access to all
provide full access to all
S. 319, except that the
H.R. 1734.
policies, when quoting the
fares provided by the
fares regardless of the
provision does not require
lowest fares, to: include
carrier, regardless of the
technology used to access
notification of lower fares
fares available at the air
method used to contact an the fares. Requires that air
on the internet.
carrier’s ticket offices and
air carrier is defined as an
carriers, on request of any
ticket counters; and notify
unfair or deceptive
person, permit the person
customers that lower fares
practice and unfair method to purchase air
may be available through
of competition per 49 U.S. transportation provided by
other distribution systems, C. 41712.
the carrier at any
including internet web
published fare.
sites.

CRS-30
Topic
Airline Customer
Airline Passenger Bill of
Aviation Consumer
Air Travelers Fair
Fair Treatment of
Airline Competition and
Service Improvement Act
Rights Act (H.R. 1734)
Right to Know Act (H.R.
Treatment Act (S. 200)
Airline Passengers Act
Passenger Rights Act
(S. 319)
Introduced May 3, 2001
332)
Introduced Jan. 29, 2001
(S. 483)
(H.R. 907)
Reported March 15, 2001
(Sweeny/ Dingell)
Introduced Jan. 31, 2001
(Reid)
Introduced March 7,
Introduced March 7,
(McCain/Hollings/
(DeFazio/Slaughter)
2001 (Wyden)
2001 (Dingell)
Hutchison/Wyden)
Federal preemption of
--
Narrows the federal
Identical to H.R. 1734.
Identical to H.R. 1734.
--
Identical to H.R. 1734.
state consumer law
preemption of state laws,
specifying that only state
laws that directly
prescribe a price, route, or
level of service provided
by an air carrier are
preempted.
Frequent flyer information Within 90 days of
--
On request, carriers must
--
Virtually identical to
--
enactment, large air carriers
disclose the number or
S. 319. However, also
shall make available to the
percentage of seats that
requires the reporting of
public a comprehensive
will be made available for
the overall percentage of
report of frequent flyer
frequent flyer award
successful redemptions by
redemption information,
passengers on any specific
each air carrier.
including: percentage of
date and route.
successful redemption
awards; and number of
seats available in the
carrier’s top 100 origin and
destination markets.

CRS-31
Topic
Airline Customer
Airline Passenger Bill of
Aviation Consumer
Air Travelers Fair
Fair Treatment of
Airline Competition and
Service Improvement Act
Rights Act (H.R. 1734)
Right to Know Act (H.R.
Treatment Act (S. 200)
Airline Passengers Act
Passenger Rights Act
(S. 319)
Introduced May 3, 2001
332)
Introduced Jan. 29, 2001
(S. 483)
(H.R. 907)
Reported March 15, 2001
(Sweeny/ Dingell)
Introduced Jan. 31, 2001
(Reid)
Introduced March 7,
Introduced March 7,
(McCain/Hollings/
(DeFazio/Slaughter)
2001 (Wyden)
2001 (Dingell)
Hutchison/Wyden)
Information monitors:
Within 90 days of
Air carriers shall ensure
--
--
Identical to S. 319.
Identical to S. 319.
coordination of departure
enactment each large air
that information monitors
and arrival displays
carrier shall ensure that
at the airport concerned
master airport flight
display timely and
information display
accurate arrival and
monitors contain accurate,
departure information.
up-to-date flight
information and are
consistent with the
carriers’ own flight
information display
monitors
Initial response reports
Within 90 days of
--
--
--
--
--
enactment, each large
carrier shall report to the
DOT on its
implementation of the
obligations imposed by the
act. Within 270 days the
Secretary of DOT shall
report on the
implementation by the
large carriers of the
obligations imposed on
them by the terms of this
Act.

CRS-32
Topic
Airline Customer
Airline Passenger Bill of
Aviation Consumer
Air Travelers Fair
Fair Treatment of
Airline Competition and
Service Improvement Act
Rights Act (H.R. 1734)
Right to Know Act (H.R.
Treatment Act (S. 200)
Airline Passengers Act
Passenger Rights Act
(S. 319)
Introduced May 3, 2001
332)
Introduced Jan. 29, 2001
(S. 483)
(H.R. 907)
Reported March 15, 2001
(Sweeny/ Dingell)
Introduced Jan. 31, 2001
(Reid)
Introduced March 7,
Introduced March 7,
(McCain/Hollings/
(DeFazio/Slaughter)
2001 (Wyden)
2001 (Dingell)
Hutchison/Wyden)
Insecticide warnings
--
--
Prohibits air carriers from
--
--
--
selling tickets for a flight
on which an insecticide is
planned to be used in the
aircraft while passengers
are on board unless the
carrier or ticket agent
selling the ticket notifies
the customer and provides
the name of the insecticide.
Overnight
Within 60 days of
If an involuntarily bumped --
--
--
--
accommodations: plans
enactment air carriers must passenger’s scheduled
for passengers stranded
establish a plan with
alternative departure time
overnight
respect to passengers who is not within the same day
must unexpectedly remain
the passenger shall receive
overnight due to flight
reasonable and immediate
delays, cancellations, or
compensation for hotel
diversions.
costs.

CRS-33
Topic
Airline Customer
Airline Passenger Bill of
Aviation Consumer
Air Travelers Fair
Fair Treatment of
Airline Competition and
Service Improvement Act
Rights Act (H.R. 1734)
Right to Know Act (H.R.
Treatment Act (S. 200)
Airline Passengers Act
Passenger Rights Act
(S. 319)
Introduced May 3, 2001
332)
Introduced Jan. 29, 2001
(S. 483)
(H.R. 907)
Reported March 15, 2001
(Sweeny/ Dingell)
Introduced Jan. 31, 2001
(Reid)
Introduced March 7,
Introduced March 7,
(McCain/Hollings/
(DeFazio/Slaughter)
2001 (Wyden)
2001 (Dingell)
Hutchison/Wyden)
Partial ticket use
--
Any action by an air
Airlines may not assess a
--
--
Identical to H.R. 1734.
carrier to prohibit or
fee against or prohibit a
impose an additional fee or passenger from using only
charge on a person that
part of a ticket (including
purchases air
1-way travel on a round-
transportation from using
trip ticket).
only a portion of the ticket
purchased (including 1-
way use travel instead of
round trip travel) is
defined as an unfair or
deceptive practice and
unfair method of
competition per 49 U.S.C.
14712.
Passenger rights
--
Within 180 days of
--
--
--
Identical to H.R. 1734.
publication
enactment DOT shall, by
rule: issue a statement that
outlines consumer rights of
air passengers; require air
carriers to provide the
statement to each
passenger by conspicuous
written material
including–on a safety
placard given to passenger
on the aircraft; on
information available at the
ticket counter; and on or
with the passenger’s
ticket.

CRS-34
Topic
Airline Customer
Airline Passenger Bill of
Aviation Consumer
Air Travelers Fair
Fair Treatment of
Airline Competition and
Service Improvement Act
Rights Act (H.R. 1734)
Right to Know Act (H.R.
Treatment Act (S. 200)
Airline Passengers Act
Passenger Rights Act
(S. 319)
Introduced May 3, 2001
332)
Introduced Jan. 29, 2001
(S. 483)
(H.R. 907)
Reported March 15, 2001
(Sweeny/ Dingell)
Introduced Jan. 31, 2001
(Reid)
Introduced March 7,
Introduced March 7,
(McCain/Hollings/
(DeFazio/Slaughter)
2001 (Wyden)
2001 (Dingell)
Hutchison/Wyden)
Review of regulations
Within one year of
--
--
--
Virtually identical to
--
enactment DOT shall
S. 319, except that the
complete a thorough
specific areas of review are
review of the
set forth.
Department’s regulations
that relate to air carriers’
treatment of customers,
and make such
modifications as may be
necessary or appropriate
to ensure the
enforceability of those
regulations and the
provisions of this
Act.[provision of S.483
that was added in
committee]
Safety: access to safety
--
--
--
Air carriers must provide,
--
--
information
upon passenger request,
information on safety
inspection reviews, the
carrier’s safety ranking,
and crew certification.
Safety: performance
--
--
--
Annually DOT will
--
--
review reports
submit a performance
review report to Congress
that includes each carrier’s
number of accidents and
the makes of aircraft
involved.

CRS-35
Topic
Airline Customer
Airline Passenger Bill of
Aviation Consumer
Air Travelers Fair
Fair Treatment of
Airline Competition and
Service Improvement Act
Rights Act (H.R. 1734)
Right to Know Act (H.R.
Treatment Act (S. 200)
Airline Passengers Act
Passenger Rights Act
(S. 319)
Introduced May 3, 2001
332)
Introduced Jan. 29, 2001
(S. 483)
(H.R. 907)
Reported March 15, 2001
(Sweeny/ Dingell)
Introduced Jan. 31, 2001
(Reid)
Introduced March 7,
Introduced March 7,
(McCain/Hollings/
(DeFazio/Slaughter)
2001 (Wyden)
2001 (Dingell)
Hutchison/Wyden)
Small air carrier exception
--
--
--
--
Small air carriers that
--
operate no aircraft with
more than 30 seats are
excepted from the
provisions of proposed
sections 41722 and 41723
of the Act.
Ticket agent appointment
--
Air carriers must provide
--
Identical to H.R. 1734.
--
Identical to H.R. 1734.
cancellation
90 days notice to a ticket
agent whose appointment
the carrier wishes to
cancel, terminate, or not
renew, giving a full written
statement of the reasons.
The ticket agent must then
be given 60 days to correct
any deficiency.
Victims assistance: civil
--
--
--
An air carrier that fails to
--
--
penalties for failure to
provide information
provide safety or victims’
required under the bill’s
assistance information
safety and victims
assistance provisions shall
be liable for a civil penalty
not to exceed $100,000 per
violation.
Victims’ assistance toll
--
--
--
The NTSB will establish a --
--
free telephone
toll free telephone number
to provide victims access
to accident information.

Topic
Airline Customer
Airline Passenger Bill of
Aviation Consumer
Air Travelers Fair
Fair Treatment of
Airline Competition and
Service Improvement Act
Rights Act (H.R. 1734)
Right to Know Act (H.R.
Treatment Act (S. 200)
Airline Passengers Act
Passenger Rights Act
(S. 319)
Introduced May 3, 2001
332)
Introduced Jan. 29, 2001
(S. 483)
(H.R. 907)
Reported March 15, 2001
(Sweeny/ Dingell)
Introduced Jan. 31, 2001
(Reid)
Introduced March 7,
Introduced March 7,
(McCain/Hollings/
(DeFazio/Slaughter)
2001 (Wyden)
2001 (Dingell)
Hutchison/Wyden)
Victims’ assistance
--
--
--
The NTSB will coordinate --
--
coordination
with the Red Cross and
federal agencies to assure
the coordination of the
disclosure of information
and assistance to victims
of aircraft accidents.
Victims’ rights to
--
--
--
The National
--
–
information
Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB) will
establish and run a
program for victims and
survivors of aircraft
accidents. Victims are to
receive immediate and
unrestricted access to
information from the
carrier, federal, state, and
local governments.