Taken together, recent Department of Transportation rules and the final version of the FAA Reauthorization Act amount to good, but not great news for consumers. First, and this was important, we didn’t lose anything. Gains are modest, consisting mainly of provisions under consideration for quite a while, but solid and welcome.
The FAA Act made one big save: Language from the House version would have killed the DoT full-fare advertising rule, and that was dropped from the final version. The gold standard of price advertising is “what you see is what you pay,” and the Department of Transportation (DoT) has diligently enforced its full-fare rule. I really don’t know why killing this useful rule is a big deal to the House, but a few years back it passed a stand-alone bill along the same lines—it didn’t go anywhere, either.
Among the positive developments is a one-two punch: both DoT and Congress established a rule requiring airlines to refund fares for canceled or delayed flights promptly. Specifics vary a bit, but before the end of the year you'll have a legal right to a full fare refund if your flight is canceled or delayed for any reason, for more than three hours on a domestic flight and six hours for an international flight. Prompt refunds are also required for any ancillary fees, such as checked baggage and seat assignment. Refunds are supposed to be automatic, but some trade groups warn that this provision could put travel agencies in a bind. In circumstances where passengers accept vouchers rather than refunds, vouchers should be valid for at least five years.
Earlier, DoT published new rules requiring airlines to disclose selected “junk fees,” such as checked baggage and seat assignment fees from the get-to in airfare displays. Airlines are already challenging such rules as unworkable and likely to cause confusion. This may be in court for quite a while.
Traveling families will now have a legal right to have any minor children seated next to an adult member of the travel group without the need to pay seat-assignment fees. This has been a top priority on everyone’s list, and it’s finally welcome.
Procedurally, DoT has arranged that state attorneys general can assist in investigation of airline abuses of consumer protection laws. It’s not clear how this will work out in practice, but presumably it will improve enforcement.
Perhaps the most contentious part of the FAA Act is the provision, for the second time in federal legislation, directing the FAA to establish minimum airline seat size. So far, FAA has ignored this request, but we’ll see if the pressure is high enough now to get something done.
This issue is a sticky wicket: the basis for regulating seat size is to make sure passengers can evacuate a crashed plane safely, not passenger comfort. It’s easy to see why FAA wants to avoid this issue. If seat width is found to be critical to safety, there is nothing airlines can do to make seats any wider on the ubiquitous six-across B737 and A320 seating plans.
The FAA bill includes a lot of new provisions for disabled travelers and their equipment designed to make flying easier for those folks. I didn’t see much opposition to these provisions.
Consumer advocates didn’t get all they wanted out of either the DoT or the FAA bill. They have vigorously lobbied for greater protections for travelers who receive airline vouchers, for example, including cash conversion. They also aren’t getting any of the extended protections European travelers enjoy.
Before you run off and pop a cork, keep in mind that in Washington hardly anything happens quickly. Most new provisions won’t be effective until late this year, or later. Still, kudos to Mayor Pete for a productive term, and it isn’t over yet. Still, to some, it’s the first-ever DoT review of frequent flyer programs, where there is a lot of low-hanging fruit of deceptive and unfair practices.
