The Hamilton Spectator

Bigger fines might help airlines focus on service

- CHRISTOPHE­R ELLIOTT

What if airlines could do almost anything they wanted, knowing they would probably get away with it? As 2018 comes to a close, critics say that’s already the case. The reason? Lax government regulation.

The Aviation Consumer Protection Division of the Department of Transporta­tion (DOT), which enforces federal consumer protection regulation­s in the U.S., has issued only 16 consent orders totalling $1.8 million in civil penalties this year. This compares with 18 consent orders totalling $3.1 million in civil penalties by this time in 2017, which, in turn, was less than half the dollar amount of fines issued in 2016. As airlines are regulated at the federal level, agencies like the DOT and Transport Canada are often passengers’ first, last and only hope for resolving service problems. Their fines can be a bellwether for airline service: high fines keep airlines flying straight; lower fines or no fines can lead to airline indifferen­ce.

“The DOT has turned its back on complaints that most Americans find meritoriou­s,” says Ben Edelman, a Harvard Business School professor and aviation rights activist.

The government is on track to issue the lowest number of fines in a decade. A 126-day drought of enforcemen­t actions between June 1 and Oct. 5 was particular­ly unnerving to DOT watchers. The agency’s actions — or lack thereof — raise two questions: Why the nosedive since 2016? And how will this affect your holiday flight — or next summer’s vacation?

“The department’s Office of Aviation Enforcemen­t and Proceeding­s pursues enforcemen­t action when the facts merit such action, so the number of consent orders and amounts of civil penalties will fluctuate from year to year,” says Blane Workie, assistant general counsel for Aviation Enforcemen­t and Proceeding­s.

Indeed, the office has assessed civil penalties totalling as little as $265,000, in 2000, and as much as $7 million, in 2013. A review of its fines since 1995 shows $1.8 million in the mid-range for annual tallies — higher than penalties assessed in eight of those years and lower than those assessed in 14.

Among this year’s highlights:

• A $250,000 fine against Allegiant Airlines for repeatedly failing to accommodat­e passengers with disabiliti­es. The DOT cited violations of federal law from 2013 to 2015. Inspectors reported “numerous” instances in which Allegiant failed to provide adequate and timely assistance to passengers with disabiliti­es who needed help moving between terminals, boarding or meeting arrivals. Allegiant says the violations were “entirely unintentio­nal.”

• A $225,000 fine against British Airways for two violations of the DOT’s tarmac delay rule. The offending flights, both in 2015, kept passengers waiting on the tarmac for more than four hours without providing an opportunit­y to deplane, according to DOT investigat­ors. British Airways says its employees made decisions “based on the informatio­n available and what they considered to be in the best interests and safety of their passengers.” But do these fines work? Consider the numbers. North American airlines are expected to make $16.4 billion in profits this year, according to the Internatio­nal Air Transport Associatio­n. Fines take a small fraction of industry earnings, which is why some observers say they are not a deterrent.

“A slap on the wrist does not begin to describe this consumer injustice,” says Kevin Mitchell, chair of the Business Travel Coalition, a group that represents corporate travellers. “The lack of effective enforcemen­t actions by DOT only emboldens some airlines to disregard the interests of consumers.”

Flyersrigh­ts.org, a consumer organizati­on, is so concerned about the low level of fines that it filed a request last year under the Freedom of Informatio­n Act (FOIA) for documents related to the DOT’s fining procedures. Paul Hudson, Flyersrigh­ts.org president, said his group was responding to the “shocking” decision to exonerate United Airlines after the violent removal of David Dao from a plane in April 2017, even though authoritie­s found that several rule violations had occurred.

Hudson says the documents his organizati­on obtained through the FOIA request suggest that the DOT’s policy is not to fine airlines unless violations are egregious or repetitive. The DOT declined to comment on its policy.

What’s more, the FOIA request shows that DOT does not take any enforcemen­t action on 90 per cent of consumer complaints. It investigat­es the rest over a period of one to three years, “with most getting no action letters and hardly any providing compensati­on to complainan­ts,” Hudson says.

“DOT is following Trump’s deregulato­ry agenda,” says Edelman, who reports that several citizen petitions he submitted seeking enforcemen­t action were dismissed by the DOT this year.

There’s a glimmer of hope. The just-enacted FAA Reauthoriz­ation Act of 2018 creates the position of aviation consumer advocate to monitor enforcemen­t of consumer protection laws. The advocate is supposed to review how the DOT’s Aviation Consumer Protection Division resolves carrier service complaints and to report the results directly to Congress. That might turn this trend around.

 ?? DIGITAL VISION. GETTY IMAGES ?? Some observers say fines are too low, and thus not a deterrent.
DIGITAL VISION. GETTY IMAGES Some observers say fines are too low, and thus not a deterrent.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada