Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced proposed rulemakings regarding airfare and fee disclosures, bumping compensation, a 24-hour refund rule and tarmac delay extension to foreign carriers. (more…)

The Department of Transportation (DOT) has improved their website and has packed it with consumer-friendly information all in one place.

The new website has a process for consumers who want to file complaints about airline service and safety. The new process allows phone calls to a Washington, DC, number, letters to the Aviation Consumer Protection Division and now an online form to report complaints.

And that’s just the beginning.
(more…)

Originally published by Edward Hasbrouck on his blog.

The Consumer Travel Alliance, the Consumer Federation of America, and the Center for Financial Privacy and Human Rights have joined me in comments filed today with the Federal Trade Commission asking the FTC to “include the category of travel data in your agenda for action to protect the privacy of information concerning consumers.” According to our comments:

Personally identifiable information about consumers collected in relation to their reservation, purchase, and use of transportation and travel services is one of the the largest, most sensitive, most intimately revealing, most systematically computerized, most widely dispersed, most globally accessible, and most potentially subject to abuse categories of consumer data. But unlike other categories of consumer data recognized as having special characteristics that warrant special protections and special regulatory attention, there is no sector-specific privacy legislation applicable to travel data in the USA.

This is the first time that national consumer and privacy organizations have explicitly called for recognition of personal information about our travel as a category of consumer data deserving of greater attention and protection. While most of the discussion about travel data since 11 September 2001 has concerned its use by governments, I actually first began working on travel privacy as a consumer privacy issue. That’s the context in which I discussed it The Practical Nomad: How to Travel Around the World (published in February 2001) and in my warnings about what might happen to these commercial records in the event of bankruptcies of travel companies. And I remain at least as concerned about misuse of travel records by commercial entities as by governments.

The consumer and privacy organization join me in calling for a coordinated approach to ensure that travel data privacy doesn’t continue to “fall… through the jurisdictional cracks between multiple … agencies.” We outline the privacy threats posed by the ways travel data is stored, disseminated, and used, and the ways that consumers’ expectations of privacy are routinely violated both by travel industry business practices and by current laws and regulations. And we list some of the most important first steps to protect travellers’ privacy, including:

* Clarification of privacy jurisdiction and harmonization of privacy rules, particularly between the FTC and the Department of Transportation regarding the privacy policies and tariffs of common carriers (airlines, Amtrak, buses, ferries, mass transit operators, etc.).
* Protection of personal information provided to travel companies in response to government orders, or as a condition of transportation on Federally-licensed common carriers.
* Protection of personal information in mixed systems of government data, common-carrier data, and other commercial travel data.
* Reform of the bankruptcy laws to protect personal information (including travel records) from being sold without consumers’ consent.
* Reform of the counter-factual legal assumptions in US contract law as to what uses of travel and other data by commercial entities consumers intend to authorize.
* Protection of travel information stored, transmitted, aggregated, and provided to governments and third parties by Computerized Reservation Systems (CRS’s), also known as Global Distribution Systems (GDS’s): “The FTC can and should tackle the privacy problems of CRS’s/GDS’s immediately.”

No one likes to sit near someone with the sniffles or a cough on the plane, but what about the very real prospect of your seatmate having swine flu? If current airline policies continue, those who have flu-like symptoms and heed the Centers for Disease Control warning to “stay home and avoid travel for 7 days” will face hundreds of dollars in airline fees and penalties. How many will still fly despite their illness and the chance of spreading it?

An unprecedented national effort is being waged to limit the impact and spread of the H1N1 flu (swine flu) virus. Millions of vaccine doses are now being distributed across the country, health care workers are being inoculated en masse, government workers have new medical leave policies, schools are being closed and the head of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) warned, “We have not had a flu season like this in at least 50 years.”

Neither the airlines nor the Department of Transportation (DOT) have made a meaningful response to this pandemic as it sweeps the country. Basic common sense tells us that airplane flights — putting large groups of people in a small, contained space — will facilitate the spread of this virus.

So far, the airline industry’s sole response has been to remove pillows and blankets from many aircraft. Plus, spokespersons for the airlines have said, “If you are sick, stay home.” Yet, our airlines are actually punishing passengers who choose to not fly when infected. The airlines can and should change policy to help slow the spread of H1N1.

Airline passengers have to pay change fees of as much as $150 for domestic flights and $250 for international flights when they opt to change a flight. Then, they are required by the airlines to pay the difference between the original price paid for their flight and the current airline price. (When comparing the cost of an advanced-purchase ticket with the cost of a flight leaving next week, that difference can be dramatic. In fact, it can be up to four times as much or more.)

Getting more people with flu symptoms to comply with the CDC’s suggestion about travel when ill with the flu would be greatly facilitated by the airlines allowing passengers with a health professional’s letter indicating that they have or may have H1N1 to be allowed to reschedule their trip at no additional cost.

Just think of the difference airlines could make in limiting the spread of H1N1 by being proactive and making these changes immediately. But, absent any changes in policy by the airlines, the DOT, in consultation with the CDC, should get in gear and mandate that the airlines eliminate their change and cancellation rules that punish passengers for being good citizens.

During this flu season, swine flu shouldn’t fly. Dropping the airline penalties will help make this happen.

From the Secretary of Transportation’s blog — August 11, 2009

What does it mean that an article from over the weekend on a nightmare flight delay is yesterday’s “Most Viewed” news item in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune? I think it means that reasonable people are outraged at the idea of being stuck on a small plane for seven hours. I think it means that flyers and those who are considering flying want to know that should a delay occur, they will be treated respectfully.
(more…)

Here is a copy of the letter sent by the Judiciary Committee to the Department of Justice and the Department of Transportation regarding the antitrust immunity applications by airline alliances.

——————-

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-6275

December 19,2008

The Honorable Michael B. Mukasey
Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D,C. 20530

The Honorable Mary Peters
Secretary
United States Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Attorney General and Madame Secretary:

We write to express our concern that the Department of Transportation (“DOT”) may grant further antitrust immunity, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 41308, to airline alliances. We understand that United Air Lines, Continental Airlines, Deutsche Lufthansa AG and seven other members of the Star Alliance have filed an application for antitrust immunity that would create the world’s largest airline immunized alliance and that another airline group, the One World Alliance, led by American Airlines and British Airways, is also seeking immunity. The DOT should exercise its statutory authority to grant antitrust immunity sparingly, and only in what we expect would be rare circumstances where parties seeking immunity have sustained their heavy burden of establishing that competition must be supplanted to serve some other public interest.

Where firms engage in conduct that delivers benefits to consumers and does not harm competition, they have nothing to fear from the antitrust laws. A grant of antitrust immunity, therefore, has the effect of enabling conduct that undermines free-market competition and can substantially harm consumer welfare, leading to higher prices, reduced output, lower quality, and reduced innovation for consumers, Given these substantial risks, immunity from the antitrust laws should be granted only in extraordinary circumstances.

The members of the alliances that have filed applications for antitrust immunity argue that these alliances can produce significant benefits. The DOT should consult with the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and thoroughly investigate and examine all aspects of these proposed transactions to ensure that consumers will not be harmed.

Particular attention should be given, with respect to the Star Alliance proposal, to whether cross-ownership by an immunized carrier of a non-immunized domestic competitor will raise competition concerns in the domestic market, and the implications of granting immunity on routes to markets that do not have open skies agreements with the United States. We are also interested to learn what protocols would be in place to ensure that potentially anti-competitive conduct beyond the any immunized arrangement will not occur.

Any analysis of these proposals should be conducted using established principles of antitrust law to identify the air routes where competition may be harmed as a result of the expanded alliances. DOT should give substantial deference to any recommendations made by DOJ applying its antitrust analysis. Further, we recommend that DOT be cognizant of the joint study, currently being undertaken by the United States and the European Commission, on transatlantic aviation markets and competition. This study is scheduled for completion in mid-2009.

Thank you for your attention to these matters.

Sincerely,

PATRICK LEAHY
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary

ARLEN SPECTER
Ranking Republican Member
Committee on the Judiciary

HERB KOHL
Chairman
Subcommittee on Antitrust,
Competition Policy and Consumer Rights

ORRIN HATCH
Ranking Republican Member
Subcommittee on Antitrust,
Competition Policy and Consumer Rights