DoT’s new airline rules: Should you be worried?

Last week, the Department of Transportation issued two new rules for airlines. All the consumer advocates I know opposed one of them and accepted theother. My take is that although the new rules don’ t change anything really important, in themselves, one opens the door to significant harm later. Exactly how much future harm is yet to be determined.

The worrisome rule

The new rule that most consumer advocates opposed is, nominally, nothing more than an attempt to define the key terms DoT uses to prohibit unfair or deceptive practices by airlines or ticket agents. Per a DoT announcement:

“As defined by the final rule, a practice is ‘unfair’ to consumers 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 final rule also states that a practice is ‘deceptive’ to consumers if it is likely to mislead a consumer, acting reasonably under the circumstances, with respect to a material matter. Amatter is material if it is likely to have affected the consumer’s conduct or decision with respect to a product or service. Proof of intent is not necessary to establish unfairness or deception.”

DoT says these definitions are in general agreement with those used by the Federal Trade Commission. In addition, thenew rule requires additional procedures and time to implement any future new regulations. And thenew rule exempts problems that the market can or will solve.

Sounds innocuous, doesn’t it? Consumer advocates warn that the devil is in the details, and they note that following FTC guidance is a pretty low bar, given the FTC’s lackluster record of timely consumer protection.

Specifically, consumer advocates list three current Do Tregulations rules that might be vulnerable to being overturned under the new definitions:

■ Full-price fare advertising, with all mandatory fees and taxes included.

■ Airline fines for confining passengers on extended tarmac delays without allowing them to deplane or providing them with necessities.

■ Mandatory cash compensation for bumping due to overbooking.

It’s hard for me to see how any of these three regulations would not pass muster as addressing an airline practice that is either deceptive, unfair or both, even under the new definitions. But I’m not a lawyer, andthe lawyers among us are fearful. Andif they’re fearful, I’m fearful. I also know through long observation that the market has failed to correct many obvious abuses, such asmost airlines’ demands that families pay seat-reservation fees if they wish to be seated together.

The ‘meh’ rule

I haven’t seen any opposition to the other new rule that (1) limits service animals carried in cabins to trained dogs and (2) no longer allows “emotional support” animals of any sort to accompany travelers in cabins. Although I’ve never encountered any oddball support animals, I’ve seen reports of pigs, miniature horses and peacocks taken into cabins as support animals. And I’ve certainly never seen a seeing-eye cat.

The upshot is that anyone who feels he or she can’t travel without any animal other than a trained and certified service dog must treat that animal and pay for its transport as a pet. And being shipped as cargo amounts to cruel and unusual punishment for a pet animal.

The other shoe

As consumer advocates, we’re all waiting for the DoT to drop its other shoe. The departing administration is carrying out a “scorched earth” policy in several departments, and we’re nervously waiting to see if the outgoing DoT will immediately start to unravel one or more hardwon consumer protections during the lame-duck period. Unfortunately, for now, neither consumer advocates nor the traveling public can do much to derail a lame-+duck agency from doing damage. We’ll all just have towait and see, and decide howto counter any abuses. eperkins@mind.net

DREAMSTIME