Governor Eliot Spitzer of New York has signed into law a passenger bill of rights. Lawmakers took action after the recent high profile stories of passengers being stranded on airliners for hours, most notably the Valentine’s Day ice storm where passengers on Jet Blue flights were held for up to 11 hours. On that one toilets were over flowing, passengers were hungry and thirsty, and fresh air was a hard find. New York has more air travel delays then any other state, and no, they’re not caused by general aviation. Most, if not all of it, is weather related.
The new legislation will take effect on January 1st. The Governor’s Press Release states that when planes have left the gate (but haven’t departed) for more than three hours, the following is now mandatory under the law:
Fresh Air and Lighting
Portable ground power and air conditioning units must be connected to the airplane is my take on this one. This one raises a question in my mind.. Didn’t these airplanes have APU’s (airborne power units)??? An APU is a small engine in the tail which produces power and air conditioning. An APU would do the same thing unless it was deferred or was shut down to conserve fuel. I can’t understand why it would have been shut down (even to conserve fuel, you could always go back for more 11 hours later) for the safety implications of no lighting with passengers on board.
Lavatory Service
Self explanatory. Thank God. (Imagine walking up to a porta-potty only to see a river coming towards you- A River Runs Poo It).
Drinking water, snacks, etc.
Imagine the new “Crisis Support Vehicle” or CSV for short, that will sit all dang year until winter rolls around and then we’ll see it speeding from stuck plane to stuck plane with basic necessities like food and water. (If the airlines charge for this I will quit).
According to the press release, a new office is now set up within the consumer protection board called the Office of Airline Consumer Advocate which will handle complaints from passengers. It will be the airline’s responsibility to provide passengers with information on their New York specific bill of rights and on how to complain. Depending on the situation, the New York Attorney General can seek a civil penalty of up to $1000 per passenger; which also brings up another interesting point- If a big legacy carrier has both a (small) 737 and a (large) 777 stuck on the ramp, which aircraft do you suppose they are going to attend to first under the threat of a $1000 fine per passenger?
The Air Transport Association, representing the airlines, lobbied hard against this new legislation, saying the airlines were capable of handling the situation themselves. Really? They also said that customer service ‘can’t be legislated.’ Perhaps they knew that not even the law could force a smile on an over worked gate agents face, but things like basic survival needs can be legislated and that’s precisely what New York did by enacting this law.
California, Florida and Texas are also looking at their own passenger bill of rights, and different versions of similar legislation are currently before Congress. The Air Transport Association may consider a legal challenge to the new New York law.
~Capt’n chris
Below is the actual Passenger Bill of Rights Copied from the New York State Assembly web site:
BILL NUMBER:A8406B REVISED 6/11/07
TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the executive law and the general busi-
ness law, in relation to creating a consumer bill of rights regarding
airline passengers
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:
This bill creates a consumer bill of rights regarding airline passengers
and establishes an Office of the Airline Consumer Advocate under the
auspices of the Consumer Protection Board.
SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS:
Bill SS1, 2 and 3 amend Executive Law S553 to empower the executive
director of the Consumer Protection Board, in conjunction with the new
Office of the Airline Consumer Advocate, to carry out the responsibil-
ities assigned under new Article l4-A of the General Business Law.
Bill S4 amends the General Business Law by adding a new Article l4-A
entitled “Airline Passenger Rightsâ€:
> S251-f defines “carrier,†“aircraft,†and other terms used in the
article.
> S251-g sets forth a bill of rights for airline passengers - whenever
passengers have boarded an aircraft but have been delayed from takeoff
for more than three hours, the carrier must provide services including
electronic generation for the purpose of providing fresh air and lights,
waste removal services, and adequate food and drinking water. All carri-
ers must clearly and conspicuously post consumer complaint information,
including explanations of passengers` rights and contact information for
Federal aviation agencies and the Office of the Airline Consumer Advo-
cate.
> S251-h creates the Office of the Airline Consumer Advocate under the
auspices of the Consumer Protection Board and sets forth the powers and
duties of the Office. The Office is empowered, in conjunction with the
Board, to assist in resolving consumer complaints concerning air travel,
to investigate violations of the bill of rights, and to refer cases to
the Attorney General for potential legal action. The Attorney General
can seek a civil penalty of up to $1000, or up to$l 000 per passenger
for violations involving failure to provide required services to strand-
ed passengers.
> S251-i provides that Article 14-A shall not be construed to require
taking any action in contravention of any written directive of the
Federal Aviation Administration or other federal authority.
> S251-j sets forth the legislative intent regarding the severability of
the various provisions in the bill.
SUMMARY OF AMENDMENTS:
The bill has been amended as described above to maximize consistency
with other statutory and operational parameters relating to the Consumer
Protection Board, and to provide a flexible approach that will facili-
tate protection of consumer rights in this area.
EFFECTS OF PRESENT LAW WHICH THIS BILL WOULD ALTER:
There are no current statutory requirements for minimum airline passen-
ger rights, nor any specific authorization for a state official to advo-
cate on behalf of such passengers. The absence of any specific legal
protections has created unhealthy and unconscionable conditions for New
York consumers.
JUSTIFICATION:
Several incidents that occurred during the winter of 2007 involved
airline passengers who were detained on the runway for many hours. On
Valentine`s Day, passengers were held aboard a JetBlue flight at JFK for
10 hours without food, water, fresh air, or the ability to use the rest
room. Several other JetBlue flights were similarly stalled on the
runway. Subsequently, on 81. Patrick`s Day, at JFK passengers were stuck
on board a Royal Air Maroc flight at JFK for more than 14 hours. People
on a Swiss Air flight to Zurich were trapped on board for eight hours, a
Virgin Atlantic flight to London left 9~ hours late, and a Cathay Pacif-
ic flight to Vancouver was finally canceled after more than nine hours
of waiting at JFK. Passengers were also stuck for seven hours at JFK on
board a Korea-bound Asiana Airlines flight.
These episodes demonstrate the need for statutory changes to protect
airline consumers from this type of treatment. In spite of carriers`
voluntary commitments that these episodes will not recur, passengers
continue to be subject to lengthy detentions on aircraft without basic
services. New York is home to some of the world`s busiest airports, and
so should take the lead in adopting common sense measures that empower
consumers and prevent outrageous incidents like these from recurring.
The bill of rights and the creation of an independent advocate for
airline passengers will provide a needed measure of consumer protection
in New York`s airports.
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: New bill.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: Minimal.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The first of January succeeding the date of enactment.
Filed under: TidBits | 
| 
Ever since reading this story: (Measure banning Blue Angels from San Francisco skies is rejected - SFGate.Com), I’ve had this sick feeling in my stomach. It’s about San Francisco Supervisor Chris Daly’s now failed attempt at banning the Blue Angels from performing in San Francisco. Yes, banning them!!! Can you imagine that?!? I certainly can’t! If so you’ve never been to a Blue Angel’s performance, I take it…
So I can’t help but speculate that something deeper is going on here. Banning the Blues is like banning ice cream. (Oh, and ice cream is about as statistically dangerous as the Blue Angels are by the way). Why would Daly want to ban something so many people in San Francisco still love and cherish (in spite of what he thinks are “dangers”), if all he really wanted to do was represent the people?
~Capt’n Chris
New York’s Passenger Bill of Rights
~Capt’n Chris
The 
~Capt’n chris
Capt’ ;n Chris
