Department of Transportation consumer issues— what’s next

All of the consumer advocates I knowpredict that the incoming Biden Department ofTransportation (DoT) will bemore pro-consumer than the current one. That’s a pretty lowbar, but I’m optimistic. Still, the current administration has another two months, and I believe it will tackle at least one important and relatively noncontroversial issue before it closes up shop. Beyond that, the tougher issues will remain for anewDoT.

Theone issue that the currentDoTis likely to settle is to develop uniform rules for passenger protections during the pandemic:

Even someairlines are asking for rules requiring wearing of masks during all phases of air travel except whentravelers are eating and drinking. Although most airlines have adopted mask policies on their own, the force of government regulationwould make those rulesmore easily enforced than just company policies. Given the virtually unanimous support for such a rule, I’m really surprisedDoThasn’t already acted.

In a parallelmove, many people on all sides of the political spectrumwould like to see official government regulations about COVIDtests— designating which are acceptable as a basis for allowing people on a flight and entry to a destination area and such. Ideally, these regulations should be developed in cooperation with key European and Asian authorities to assure their acceptanceworldwide. I don’t seemuchin the way of objection to such rules, but so farDoThas hesitated.

Asecond issue that the outgoingDoTmay tackle is another with broad political and public support: a requirement that airlines seat traveling families together without requiring them to pay seat-assignment fees. This is important to families and to hapless solo travelers whowould prefer not to be seated next to someone else’s bratty kid. DoTneed not specify precise procedures; only that each airline must develop its own plan to ensure that families sit together no matter what fares they pay.

This lame-duckDoT might be inclined to undo two existing protections that are popular with consumers but not with airlines: full-fare price advertising and the tarmac-delay rule.

Currently, airlines are required to include all applicable taxes and fees in any quoted airfare. Absent this rule, airlineswould be free to post lowball prices that are a lot less than travelers actually have to pay. Tomeandmany other consumer advocates, the gold standard of price advertising is “what you see is what you pay,” or WYSIWYP. We’dhate to lose this valuable protection, butwe might.

Airlineswould also like to get rid of the rule that requires them to allow travelers to deplane in the event of extra-long tarmac delays. If they don’t comply, airlines suffer stiff fines. DoTissued this rule in 2000 in response to horror stories about delays up to 10 hours during which passengers had no access towater and toilets became overloaded. Airlines strongly opposed it, claiming— with some justification— that itwould have unintended consequences.

Iwouldn’t be surprised to see the outgoingDoT rescind both rules. If it does, I’m sure that the consumer communitywould ask the incomingDoTto put them right back.

ThenewDoTwill have to contend withsome knottier problems that it can presumably tackle by itself. Tome, themost important is the need for force majeure exemptions for cancellation and other fees evenwhenconsumers cancel first. Another important consumer protectionwould require modification to the Airline DeregulationAct to remove the current provision that limits consumers’ legal action to federal courts.

Although not directly related to air travel, the newDoT— and Congress — will have to deal with the blivet that is Amtrak. Just about anyone involved can issue a laundry list of what’s wrong, but hardly anyone has any sensible suggestions about just what sort of passenger rail system the U.S. should have outside theNortheast Corridor and howtomanage and pay for it. I’d like to see some real action, but I’m not at all sure a solution will be found withinmy lifetime. Feh.