View Full Version : Appeals court overturns passenger rights law
kg4kww
03-25-2008, 06:11 PM
NEW YORK (AP) -- A federal appeals court has rejected a law requiring airlines to provide food, water, clean toilets and fresh air to passengers trapped in a plane delayed on the ground.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that New York's new state law interferes with federal law governing the price, route or service of an air carrier. It was the first law in the nation of its kind.
full story (http://www.cnn.com/2008/TRAVEL/03/25/passenger.rights.ap/index.html)
One more reason I'm DRIVING to Dayton this year.
One more reason I'm DRIVING to Dayton this year.
Many conservatives will not be concerned because they don't use them anyway.
KG4JYD
03-25-2008, 11:29 PM
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that New York's new state law interferes with federal law governing the price, route or service of an air carrier. It was the first law in the nation of its kind.Well the federal government doesn't have any authority under the Constitution to regulate travel :rolleyes:
wa8rti
03-25-2008, 11:46 PM
JYD: In what school of law did you study constitutional law? Your take on the Constitution is definitely unique and I suspect a somewhat minority view? Two hundred years + of interpretation and precedent that you blow off with a few quick sentences. Why not get yourself in a position to get an appointment to a Federal bench so that you would be able to do more than just talk about what is wrong with the current application of the Constitution to the American legal scene. You could put your philosophy into practice. :D
The court is right unfortunately, the Federal government has jurisdiction over interstate commerce. That means trucks, trains and planes as well.
Too bad they won't do anything that might impede the profit of any company, even if it is the right thing to do.
n2ize
03-26-2008, 12:02 AM
Capitalism at it's finest. To heck with the passengers. They can drop dead once they've paid for their boarding ticket for all they care.
Fortunately I don't fly but if I was ever in a job which required frequent flying I think I'd rather get my own pilots license and do my own flying rather than put my life in the hands of these stingy people.
Unless relinquished by the Feds, the states can no more regulate the airlines than they can those laws enforced by the FCC or regulate interstate commerce.
Apparently some ZED members went to the same law school as the New York lawyers that came up with the law.
n2ize
03-26-2008, 02:00 AM
Unless relinquished by the Feds, the states can no more regulate the airlines than they can those laws enforced by the FCC or regulate interstate commerce.
Apparently some ZED members went to the same law school as the New York lawyers that came up with the law.
Okay, so the law was reliquished. Perhaps the state didn't have the authority to regulate. However, the law was originally passed due to this situation and others like it
The law was passed after thousands of passengers were stranded aboard airplanes for up to 10 hours on several JetBlue Airways flights at Kennedy International Airport on Valentine's Day last year. They complained they were deprived of food and water and that toilets overflowed. A month later, hundreds more passengers of other airlines were stranded aboard planes at JFK after a daylong ice storm.
Now, what, if any, solution do YOU propose should be done that will prevent outrageous and unnacceptable incidents and conditions like this from happening in the future ?
KG4JYD
03-26-2008, 04:38 AM
JYD: In what school of law did you study constitutional law? Your take on the Constitution is definitely unique and I suspect a somewhat minority view? I try to take a strict narrow view of it which is how the Founders intended. But I pull from many different sources and schools of thought.
Two hundred years + of interpretation and precedent that you blow off with a few quick sentences.Wll hey ya know... when courts are wrong they are wrong.. :rolleyes:
Why not get yourself in a position to get an appointment to a Federal bench so that you would be able to do more than just talk about what is wrong with the current application of the Constitution to the American legal scene. You could put your philosophy into practice. :DI often think about doing it on a daily basis. I would love to but I'm already in debt from my undergrad (which has nothing to do with law) and to go back to school, quit working, and devote 6-8 years of study with very little pay and accruing more debt is just not something I want to do for a job I'll probably hate.
I mean I love to sit around and ponder this, and I would like a formal education in law, but compared to my day job, it would bore the hell out of me. Plus I tend to be a bit lazy and one thing for sure is that law school is not for those who are the least bit lazy.
KG4JYD
03-26-2008, 04:40 AM
The court is right unfortunately, the Federal government has jurisdiction over interstate commerce. That means trucks, trains and planes as well.Incorrect. The federal government has the ability to make commerce regular among the several States. That does not = regulating travel.
KG4JYD
03-26-2008, 04:42 AM
Capitalism at it's finest. To heck with the passengers. They can drop dead once they've paid for their boarding ticket for all they care.Sorry, but the airlines don't operate in a free market "capitalistic" atmosphere. It's very regulated and subsidized by the government.
A true free market would mean lower fares and better service.
Sorry, but the airlines don't operate in a free market "capitalistic" atmosphere. It's very regulated and subsidized by the government.
A true free market would mean lower fares and better service.
You are FUNNY!
A true free market would mean that they would do what ever they wanted without restriction, which equates to as little as possible to make maximum profit.
Less maintenance (that IS mandated and they still try to cheat), the same onboard service (that is already NOT regulated so it is basically free market already) and as much over booking as possible (they already do it to the stated maximum as is). Not to mention making the pilots live in the cockpit (they already try that but the Feds mandate a maximum awake time for them to fly on).
You free marketers are a hoot! Must take enormous will power to ignore the facts as you do.
wa8rti
03-26-2008, 09:08 AM
JYD: Thank you for at least answering the questions posed. Better than some of the link and run crowd who will never answer a question straight up. Unfortunately, such strict constructionist views if carried into practice would most likey lead to the same problems caused by the Articles of Confederation. Its short comings were the reason it was replaced by the founding fathers. And even Hamilton would not recognize a world were the courts have given corporate entities the same rights as individuals and who therefore need rules to follow and someone to make sure they do so. And I think Jefferson would be on the side of the little guy in his fight against the overwhelming power of the big companies. Elsewhere you posted that the power of trade associations and comsumer choice would suffice. I heartly disagree. The government is the only "we the people" with the collective ability to ensure a truely level playing field for "the people" :)
Incorrect. The federal government has the ability to make commerce regular among the several States. That does not = regulating travel.
Try again. The airline industry falls under interstate commerce rules. Just like the interstate trucking industry does, just different cargo involved.
Sorry, but the airlines don't operate in a free market "capitalistic" atmosphere. It's very regulated and subsidized by the government.
A true free market would mean lower fares and better service.
Deregulation in a lot of other industries has meant the exact opposite.
Stick to music, Matt because obviously economics is not your forte.
Well the federal government doesn't have any authority under the Constitution to regulate travel :rolleyes:
No.......the state of New York doesn't have any authority to regulate air travel, that's for the FAA. Just like the state of New York doesn't have any authority to regulate radio/TV, which is regulated by the FCC.
The Commerce Clause in the Constitution, if you care to take the time to read it, this might help.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/p/United+States+Constitution/Commerce+Clause
n2ize
03-27-2008, 03:09 AM
The Commerce Clause in the Constitution, if you care to take the time to read it, this might help.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/p/United+States+Constitution/Commerce+Clause
That's fine. But what are you going to do about people who have to sit in an airplane for 10+ hours with no food, no water, and overflowing toilets ? I figured you wouldn't have an answer for that one. Apparently neither does the federal government.
N4VGB
03-27-2008, 03:36 AM
Sorry, but the airlines don't operate in a free market "capitalistic" atmosphere. It's very regulated and subsidized by the government.
A true free market would mean lower fares and better service.
UH, you really slept through the deregulation of the airlines in the U.S.???
The trouble I'm having with this whole concept is exactly who has ever been trapped in a plane on the ground for any great length of time? I've flown a lot over the years and have never had it happen to me. I guess about the longest time ever was maybe 30-45 minutes or so.
That's fine. But what are you going to do about people who have to sit in an airplane for 10+ hours with no food, no water, and overflowing toilets ? I figured you wouldn't have an answer for that one. Apparently neither does the federal government.
A fifth grader can figure it out, let Congress pass the same legislation, which, if I am not mistaken, was just introduced, and would have equal application in the entire country.
n2ize
03-27-2008, 02:57 PM
A fifth grader can figure it out, let Congress pass the same legislation, which, if I am not mistaken, was just introduced, and would have equal application in the entire country.
Very Good !! Maybe the NYS law wasn't so bad after all. It got the ball rolling to assure that passengers won't be subject to what happened in JFK.
n2ize
03-27-2008, 02:59 PM
UH, you really slept through the deregulation of the airlines in the U.S.???
The trouble I'm having with this whole concept is exactly who has ever been trapped in a plane on the ground for any great length of time? I've flown a lot over the years and have never had it happen to me. I guess about the longest time ever was maybe 30-45 minutes or so.
If you read the article it said clearly that on more than one occaisions passengers were trapped inside the plane for more than 10 hours at JFK. During that 10 hours the airline gave them no food, no water, and the toilets were filled to overflowing. The law was enacted to ensure that such a thing wouldn't happen again, and/or that there would be legal recourse if it ever did. Rare ? maybe yes. But not rare enough.
I find it ironic when Hams complain that the states have no right to regulate radio communications; that only the federal government via the FCC has that right. Then they complain when the states try to regulate the airline industry. Well guess what? Only the federal government via the FAA has the right to regulate the airline industry. Both communications and airlines are regulated by the federal government for exactly the same reason--that the federal government regulates interstate commerce and once the federal government passes laws in areas where there is federal authority, the states cannot interfere.
The proper place to change the regulation of either communication or the airline industry is at the federal level.
n2ize
03-27-2008, 03:17 PM
I find it ironic when Hams complain that the states have no right to regulate radio communications; that only the federal government via the FCC has that right. Then they complain when the states try to regulate the airline industry. Well guess what? Only the federal government via the FAA has the right to regulate the airline industry. Both communications and airlines are regulated by the federal government for exactly the same reason--that the federal government regulates interstate commerce and once the federal government passes laws in areas where there is federal authority, the states cannot interfere.
The proper place to change the regulation of either communication or the airline industry is at the federal level.
True. But NYS found itself in a tough predicament. They had to regulate common courtesy into the practices of airlines. One would think that an airline would, out of common courtesy and basic human decency, provide some food, and plenty of water for it's passengers , especially if they are stranded for hours. Some people may be diabetic, or have other illnesses that require they have some water and maybe a little food. Not to mention it's just common decency to offer such things regardless. Apparently corporate greed overrides common courtesy so, at least the state tried to do something about it. Now at least we have a federal law proposed that would do the same thing, if passed. But who knows if it will. Who ever thought that greed would become so prevalent and severe that common courtesy would have to be legislated.
Very Good !! Maybe the NYS law wasn't so bad after all. It got the ball rolling to assure that passengers won't be subject to what happened in JFK.
Here you go........
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jI20MR3Xinejtid51wrBxNvyg7FwD8VL9LVO0
n2ize
03-27-2008, 06:30 PM
Here you go........
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jI20MR3Xinejtid51wrBxNvyg7FwD8VL9LVO0
Well, I'm glad to see that congress is acting on this. However it'a a shame that it's taking so long. I think people (including myself) need to call our reps and urge them to get a move on.
NEW YORK (AP) -- A federal appeals court has rejected a law requiring airlines to provide food, water, clean toilets and fresh air to passengers trapped in a plane delayed on the ground.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that New York's new state law interferes with federal law governing the price, route or service of an air carrier. It was the first law in the nation of its kind.
full story (http://www.cnn.com/2008/TRAVEL/03/25/passenger.rights.ap/index.html)
Why should passengers on a plane be entitled to any compensation at all. After all, what about passengers on trains stuck for hours in tunnels, cars in traffic jams, buses full of passenger stuck in the same traffic jams and overflowing toilets etc.
Its simple and you don't need any laws passed. Just hold a stewardess hostage and the plane will return to the terminal. All fellow passengers deny anything happened and no witnesses.
K2WN
KD6NIG
03-27-2008, 06:54 PM
The New York law passed was likely what you could refer to as an "outrage law" passed mostly because people were outraged, and by doing so they got themselves a nice pat on the back and a well done (and maybe it was remembered during election season also).
In the end though, everyone wins, because the end result is the proper authority (Congress, AKA the "US Government") will pass the law and enact it. Cheers from the people.
But lets not forget the other winners:
-The lawyers from both sides who will be handsomely rewarded by the lawsuit.
-The lawyers from both sides who enacted the first piece of legislation
-Congress, who will get a pat on the back for passing the law
-Anyone who flies, though.....
The losers?
-Anyone who flies as the price for this lawsuit will be partly borne on the defendants, the airlines.
-Anyone who lives in this country since it went as far as it did. (and thus required taxpayer funding to do so)
-Anyone who lives in New York State since I'm sure the law had to be defended using the publics money.
In other words, common sense could have been used, Congress could have passed the law in the first place. A law telling the airlines to use common sense and realize their fellow man (and woman) prefers not to sit on the ground for hours, and if they do, they need food, drink, and clean toilet facilities in order to avoid rioting on a plane.
Seems like every day the cost of Common Sense increases.