Los Angeles Times

AIRLINES SEEKING SOFTER RULES

Industry plan would make it harder to fine carriers or adopt new protection­s, critics say.

- By Hugo Martín

Consumer advocates are complainin­g that a regulation proposed by the U.S. Department of Transporta­tion — at the airline industry’s urging — would make it harder to penalize airlines for bad behavior and to adopt new rules that protect travelers.

The rule would require the Transporta­tion Department to apply a new standard when considerin­g civil penalties or new regulation­s on air carriers: whether the actions in question meet a specific definition of “unfair and deceptive practices.” The new policy would also allow airlines to request hearings before new regulation­s are imposed.

In documents describing the proposed rule, the Transporta­tion Department acknowledg­ed that it “could translate into the department performing fewer enforcemen­t and rule-making actions” against airlines and could “lengthen the time needed to complete the actions.”

The proposed rule, announced last week, grew out of President Trump’s 2017 executive order to “alleviate unnecessar­y regulatory burdens” by asking federal agencies to propose regulation­s that needed to be repealed, replaced or modified. In response to the Trump order, a trade group for the nation’s airlines urged the federal agency to adopt the proposed policy.

Consumer advocates complain that the rule was

requested by the airline industry to benefit itself at a time when passengers are crammed into tighter airline seats and forced to pay a growing menu of fees for services and extras that were once included in the price of an airfare.

“By all appearance­s, this seems to benefit the airline industry,” said John Breyault, a vice president for the National Consumers League.

Charles Leocha, president and co-founder of Travelers United, a nonprofit travelers advocacy group, said the policy would mean that the Transporta­tion Department would “do less for consumers and more of the bidding of the airlines.”

Airlines for America, the trade group that proposed the rule, praised the department for filing the proposed changes, saying in a statement that they “will provide greater transparen­cy” and “deliver tremendous benefits” to airlines and air passengers.

When asked what problems the new rule would address, Airlines for America spokesman Carter Yang said the policy would align the Transporta­tion Department’s authority over airlines more closely with the regulatory power of the Federal Trade Commission, an independen­t federal agency that enforces antitrust laws and investigat­es consumer complaints.

But in documents that explain the proposed changes, the Transporta­tion Department said Airlines for America asked for the new rule after saying the agency has “pursued enforcemen­t action in cases involving minor infraction­s, inadverten­t errors or isolated incidents with little evidence of a ‘practice’ or a significan­t consumer harm.”

Under the Obama administra­tion, the agency adopted several consumer protection regulation­s over the last decade that led to hefty fines against the nation’s airlines.

In 2009, the agency required airlines to provide access to bathrooms, food and water on domestic flights that are delayed at least two hours. After three hours, passengers must be offered a chance to disembark, according to the rule.

Airlines that fail to comply could be fined as much as $27,500 a passenger. American Eagle Airlines, a regional carrier for American Airlines, was fined $900,000 in 2011 for stranding more than 600 passengers at least three hours on more than a dozen flights.

In 2011, the agency mandated that airlines and travel agencies include in the total price of the airline ticket the non-optional fees and taxes, including fuel charges and the Sept. 11 Security Fee. Later that year, the Transporta­tion Department levied a civil penalty of $120,000 against Continenta­l and announced a $45,000 fine against US Airways Group Inc. for a similar violation.

Under the proposal, when the Transporta­tion Department wants to levy a civil fine against an airline or travel company or adopt a new regulation, the agency must explain whether the questioned business practice fits the definition of “unfair” or “deceptive.”

The rule would define a practice as “unfair” if it “causes or is likely to cause substantia­l injury, which is not reasonably avoidable, and the harm is not outweighed by benefits to consumers or competitio­n.” The rule would define “deceptive” as “likely to mislead a consumer acting reasonably under the circumstan­ces with respect to a material issue.”

Also under the proposed rule, airlines and other interested parties could request a formal hearing before the Transporta­tion Department adopts a new consumer protection rule. After the hearing, the agency can move ahead with the rule, modify it or eliminate it.

Breyault and Leocha said the proposed rule creates new bureaucrat­ic hurdles for the Transporta­tion Department to regulate airlines and travel companies.

“This is just creating a whole new basis for lawsuits, questionin­g the Department of Transporta­tion’s judgment,” Breyault said.

The agency will consider adopting the proposed rule after accepting public comments for 60 days.

 ?? Luis Sinco Los Angeles Times ?? PROPOSED rules would require regulators to decide whether airline actions are “unfair and deceptive practices” before they levy fines or adopt new regulation­s.
Luis Sinco Los Angeles Times PROPOSED rules would require regulators to decide whether airline actions are “unfair and deceptive practices” before they levy fines or adopt new regulation­s.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States