Court overturns air passenger rights law

[brooklynite]

Source: AP

NEW YORK - 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.

The appeals court said the new law was laudable but only the federal government has the authority to enact such a regulation.

The law was challenged before the appeals court by the Air Transport Association of America, the industry trade group representing leading U.S. airlines.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080325/ap_on_re_us/passenger_rights

---

Much as Republicans like to be "pro-business", I don't think there's going to be any way they can spin this one to the general public.

[Harry Monroe]

1. No clean toilets if I'm stuck on the tarmac??

I guess I'll just shit in my seat. I paid enough for it.

[BlueCollar]

71. No way you're gonna be able to use it as a flotation device

LOL

[islandmkl]

2. i'm sure the FAA will get right on this and fix everything right up...

another 'good going, brownie'-type opportunity for the bush league....

f***ing amazing...

[mac2]

25. Not so friendly skies since Bush.

Tourism suffers. Hope this judge doesn't have to fly and go to the bathroom, eat, or move after 6 HOURS!

Are our airlines taking passengers hostage for profits and don't give a damn about them? Seems so.

Congress act and dismiss this incompetent judge. Protect the common welfare...or corporate profits?

[wolfgangmo]

33. Tourism, innovation and income suffer. Thank to Bush Jr.

Under our Thief in Chief the TSA and HSA have eviscerated money coming into the US. I have many friend overseas who move billions of dollars a day in money and not one of them will take a flight into the US or a flight that even connects through the US for business. They don't trust that the TSA/HSA hegemony won't fuck up their travel arrangements.

Canadians have stopped coming here by air and yes that is costing us plenty.

And let's not forget the inconvenience that window dressing of a security system has done for domestic travel. The US is crazy and going crazier quickly.

If you love your children then it is time to start thinking about relocating to another country where the inmates are not in charge of the asylum.

[loser_user]

3. They don't need to provide amenities

Just get me off the damn plane if it's not going anywhere for three hours!

[Tempest]

11. If I were on the plane

I would have no problem in opening the emergency exit and deploying the evacuation slide to get everyone off.

At least in jail I'd have a working toilet.

[dysfunctional press]

16. if i were on the plane, they WOULD get me off.

shitting my pants and inducing vomitting would be my OPENERS.

[Tempest]

29. So in other words

You'd do what Ted Nugent did to get out of going to Vietnam.

:evilgrin:

[dysfunctional press]

34. after hearing my brother-in-law's horror story of 10 hours on the tarmac in dallas...

yes.

[alfredo]

47. As I see it, they are holding me against my will. That's unlawful

imprisonment.

[dysfunctional press]

51. the federal courts apparently see it otherwise.

apparently the airline is simply trying to fulfill it's contractual obligations to each of their passengers to get them safely to their destination.

but if i were there, they'd be doing so with a plane smelling heavily of puke and doody.

[alfredo]

53. After eight hours on the tarmac it might become apparent that they

are not holding up to their end of the contract.

[BlueCollar]

58. what contract? n/t

[dysfunctional press]

59. an airline ticket is a contract between the passenger and the airline...

for transportation from point a to point b.

[BlueCollar]

65. with numerous disclaimers...

[alfredo]

61. The airlines say they are contracted to safely deliver us to our destination.

If they want to say it is a contract, then we should be able to expect them to uphold their part of the contract.

[BlueCollar]

66. not flying in bad weather is a safety consideration

[alfredo]

73. Sure. Still, there is no good reason to make people sit there for

six to eight hours. Let them out of the plane and into a comfortable quarantined area so they don't have to go through security and other horrors. When it appears they will be cleared to take off, let them back on the plane.

[BlueCollar]

74. That's not an issue for the airline

Unfortunately, Ground operations at the airport belong to the FAA.

Trust me when I tell you that the airline has absoloutely no control over the aircraft after it has been pushed off the gate.

ALL ground movement of the aircraft is controlled by the FAA.

I guarantee you, as an airline employee, we have no vested interest in pissing off our passengers and if we could do something about it, we would.

We're doing the best we can within the restrictions placed on us.

[alfredo]

75. I understand. Then we should be pushing the FAA as soon as a Dem

gets in office.

[saigon68]

60. Don't forget the Chimp and Cheney they got (deferments)

[dysfunctional press]

76. they didn't do what ted nugent did to get them, though.

that was the issue.

[saigon68]

77. Yes that's true

You are right

[selador]

4. i haven;t read the decision

but on its face, it seems reasonable

air (interstate) is one of those things that even a staunch states rights person can admit is the provenance of the feds NOT the states (for obvious reasons).

personally, i am generally preferring local (state, county) laws over federal laws (grassroots, local control, local autonomy) etc except when it comes to constitiutional rights (obviously) but when are talking interstate air transport - the law should rightly defer to the feds. they regulate it, they investigate the collisions, etc.

[brooklynite]

5. Yes but...

the reason NY State stepped in is because the FAA/Congress didn't.

[rfranklin]

7. And they will not as long as Republicans are in charge...

Their reasoning is that if you don't like it you can fly via private jet.

[selador]

8. i understand that

but in matters of law and jurisdiction, good intent does not supersede jurisdiction, venue, etc.

im not saying it's not a good law POLICY-WISE

i am saying that regardless of whether it is, if it is the baliwick of the feds, then the proper recourse is to petition them to pass a law , or incentivize individual airlines to do this voluntarily

that's just how rule of law works. lots of good (potential laws) are either unconstitutional or invalid due to jurisdictional issues etc.

this seems (on its face) to be such a law.

i am the first person to say the FAA etc. are frigging WEAK (i remember how ridiculously lax the security procedures were pre 9/11 when i used to do armed extraditions on planes. it was to laff), but if its in their court, it's in their (or whatever federal alphabet soup agency covers this stuff) court, it's their court.

[treestar]

64. One wonders why capitalistic competition

Does not get the airlines motivated to include that in the contract.

We could just refuse to buy the tickets until this is included in the contract. But we never do. We consumers always let them kick us around and then want a law from the government. It's our only bargaining power.

[NashVegas]

18. I Guess We Can Say Goodbye to That

Everyone knows Spitzer was tossed, in part, for standing up to big business. What will his replacement do?

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. But look at it this way: they're not being transported anywhere

That's a significant part of the problem. Instead, they're locked inside the plane, sitting somewhere at the airport - in the state concerned. The passengers don't have the choice at that point to just walk away, so saying there must be some minimum provision for them seems reasonable. You could argue that food wouldn't be needed for a number of hours, but access to the toilets, and water, seems a reasonable thing to say they must have.

[selador]

13. i agree

" so saying there must be some minimum provision for them seems reasonable"

like i said, it is apparently not an issue of IS THE LAW GOOD/REASONABLE/GR00VY policy.

it's an issue of JURISDICTION

fwiw, the feds still have all sorts of jurisdiction over planes on the tarmac (and the tarmacs themselves). friend of mine is an airport cop and there are ALL sorts of jurisdictional and training issues they deal with the feds all the time.

like i said. it's called rule of law. rule of law means

1) really bad laws can be facially valid and constitutional
2) really good laws can be facially invalid, unconstitutional, or invalid by jurisdiction, etc.

that's just the way it works.

the law can be "wicked pissah neato keen" but it's irrelevant.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. But because federal law has some jurisdiction, does that mean it's the only jurisdiction?

Given that the health of the passengers is involved, I'd have thought a state has a good case for intervening.

[selador]

23. i am NOT

an expert (by any stretch of the imagination) in the area of federal aviation law.

fwiw, there apparently WAS at least a debatable question in that the issue had to be answered by a court. iow, the state passed law (whether or not they suspected the law might not be valid -- jurisdictionally) and they were challenged, and they lost. TECHNICALLY speaking, a legislator is not supposed to pass a law he reasonably believes is invalid, but practially speaking it happens all the time (or some of the time)

and fwiw, ime the feds are very persnickety about jurisdictional issues.

i am more enamored of state and local jurisdiction vs. feds than most people. i already think the feds have WAY too much power for a democratic republic. but in terms of regulation of air carriers, that's about as clean cut a fed issue as i can think of off hand.

fwiw, there's been a LOT of controversy (similar jurisdictional issues) about local cops enforcing immigration laws. another similar issue.

in MANY areas of law, locals have jurisdiction where feds don't (most areas of law, actually). for example, if somebody commits a murder on my street, the feds have ZERO jurisdiction (unless certain factors are present like the murder of an on-duty letter carrier, etc.). MOST laws and the vast amount of crimes are (as it should be) NOT a federal issue

but there are certain areas where the feds take sole jurisdiction.

in many others, there is concurrent jurisdiction (think drug laws for instance)

and again, with stuff like this there are two seperate questions

1) is it good policy
2) is it valid (constitutionally, jurisdictionally, etc.)

no amount of (1) will supersede (2)

that's what rule of law is all about . good intentions, good results, etc. are not how we measure law. first and foremost, if it can't pass (2) it's not valid law EVEN if there are GREAT reasons for passing it.

[elleng]

55. Right; jurisdiction

ALWAYS WINS.

Its easier to understand when the matter clearly concerns interstate commerce. The underlying rationale is, 'what could be done if every state, or even every large state, decided to pass laws concerning the same matter, resulting 50 different requirements for airlines?'

[Vincardog]

17. How is sitting on the tarmac going nowhere interstate anything? Can we sue the Airline for

False Imprisonment?

[selador]

30. here's the answer - case cite

basically see the supremacy clause


and

"except as provided in this subsection, a State, political subdividison of a state... may not enact or enforce a law, regulation... having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or SERVICE (emphasis mine) of an air carrier that may provide air transportion under this subpart"

it's a pretty basic case, actually, now that i've skimmed it. not at all surprising.


http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA3LTU3NzEtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/07-5771-cv_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysquery/irl9ea6/1/hilite

[Vincardog]

40. Mkay so the only ones who can help us are the ones who refuse to help us.

[selador]

48. yes

the ones who have refused up to this point ABSENT legislation

the complainants in this case represented the airlines who (rightly imo) did not want to be subject ot a patchwork quilt of laws on a state by state basis.

so, they fought the jurisdiction of the state of new york. reading the case, it appears pretty clear to me that the law (there's that pesky rule of law again) is on their side and that the state of ny usurped authority.

the ends does not justify the means. while NY state might have had honorable intentions in passing the law, i agree with the decision

again: good policy does not mean VALID law.

contrarily really bad policy can be valid, if stupid law.

the redress is this. one, proper rules can be set NATIONWIDE under the federal jurisdiction, and/or airline can agree voluntarily to meet a set of standards regarding this incident.

but if you respect rule of law, and rights of parties under the law, parties with no jurisdiction cannot pass legislation merely because (to quote elvis costello) "their aim is true".

again, read the case. it's not even arguable, under the law. it's very clear cut.

frankly, it kind of pisses me off,as somebody who respects rule of law that NYC would try to establish jurisdiction like this. just as i dislike encroaching federal powers, i also dislike when states/fiefdoms like NYC try to overassert "authoritah"

reminds me a lot of what NY (iirc it was NYC) authorities tried to do in regards to straw purchases that occurred IN OTHER STATES and got rightly slapped down for.

rule of law matters. whether it's chimpy or state of NY. it matters

[BlueCollar]

69. No

You got on the aircraft voluntarily

[gasperc]

6. thank god, now I can start bitching about airline's lousy service

to my heart's content, woo-hoo!!!

[BlueCollar]

67. and what business are you in?

Just so I can bitch about your trade in general...

[bluestateguy]

9. Activist judges legislating from the bench

If they want to be social activists they should run for office!

[mac2]

42. They are appointed (selected) at what level?

They do run locally but who knows who they are? They never tell their poltical agneda. We find out after they rule or make a mess of things.

[elleng]

56. NOT.

This is basic 'black letter' law.

[dave123williams]

10. Well, if they don't provide toilets....it's gonna get messy. Hope the cost savings is worth it.

[michreject]

14. I stopped flying years ago

Let em go broke.

[LiberalFighter]

15. How about putting the rest room in that court out of commission.

Turn the water off.

[mac2]

27. emmm judge go to the gas station down the block.

[DumpDavisHogg]

19. More judges for the impeachment block

These activist judges have nothing but evil in their hearts.

Congress needs to open impeachment proceedings at once.

[peacetalksforall]

24. Some judge whichever way $$$ go to Republicans (or stay with them).

'Some" being the ones the Republicans groomed and placed in office.

[selador]

31. you need to read the case

i just did. it appears the judges acted in according with precedent, law, and the supremacy clause. you may not like the result, but legal analysis is not done from a results metric, but from a process metric


http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA3LTU3NzEtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/07-5771-cv_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysquery/irl9ea6/1/hilite

[gristy]

46. Yes

Good for you to go look at the details.

[Freddie Stubbs]

20. So, this means that Congress has to act

What are they waiting for?

[Kingofalldems]

37. Decision just came down today-I see you are trying to deflect

the blame to Democrats again.

[Freddie Stubbs]

38. Are you suggesting that these problems were not a nation-wide issue before today?

Was the regulation of the airline industry handled by the states prior to today?

[mac2]

43. It's shameful.

[Kingofalldems]

44. No, I'm suggesting you never miss the opportunity to blame Dems

[Freddie Stubbs]

52. Both parties need to step up to the plate

Republican controlled Congress for 12 years and did nothing. The Democrats have had control for a little over a year and have yet to do anything. There is enough blame to go around for all.

[annabanana]

45. Bingo! You'd think this would SAIL through both houses.

People with money don't all have private jets, you know.

[zehnkatzen]

22. Well, actually it IS pro-business

Anti-customer, maybe, but pro-business.

Hey what are you going to do ... walk to Tulsa? Drive (at these prices).

It's the American consumer's job to consume, shut up, and like it. That's pretty much what it's come down to.

[peacetalksforall]

26. Submit, acquiese, obide, bow the head and maybe even kneel..

[Acadia Blue]

36. Wish one of then would get sick on a flight....that might change the

greed vampire agenda.

[Trillo]

28. Inhumane treatment upheld by courts.

Just going by the news snippet it sounds like the Federal court has upheld inhumane treatment of humans. Food, water, air, and toilets can be withheld?

Something is very wrong with either a Federal set of laws, or a lack of Federal laws, that allows such inhumane treatment. What happens to any of us when we withhold similar from our pets.

Congress is the ultimate arbiter of all Federal laws, or the lack of federal laws. Ain't the Republic Wars grand?

[diane in sf]

32. Time to get the Repugs out of our court system.

[Freddie Stubbs]

39. A majority of the judges on this court were appointed by Democrats:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Second_Circuit#Current_composition_of_the_court

[selador]

49. and again

people want to kneejerk and place blame without READING THE FRIGGING CASE

so typical. it drives me nuts

the case was rightly decided. read the statutes. read the case.

hey, it sucks but rule of law MATTERs doesnt it?

[Preston120]

62. Which Judges hear the case? I didn't see that.

[selador]

72. here's the answer and rant about, prejudice and lack of critical thinking

i keep telling people to READ the frigging case.

the case was (wrongly) decided on the district court level and remanded and reversed by the 2nd.

judges Wesley and Livingston

as it says on the FIRST PAGE OF THE CASE CITE I PROVIDED

<rant>


i am disgusted (but it's oh so typical. and i am not referring to you particularly, but to people here GENERALLY) when people make assumptions w/o facts. as long as the metanarrative (evil corporations vs. poor victims) fits one's prejudices, there is exactly ZERO critical thinking, zero seeking of facts/evidence/source documents etc.

it is NEVER right to make legal conclusions about the rightness or wrongness of a case based on result (whether seen as good or bad result). law analysis is about PROCESS because the rule of law means law must be followed. this often leads to unsavory RESULT, but there is such thing as rights, precedent, jurisdiction, etc. that MATTER if one respects' rule of law.

i do. this happens all the time. it was especially egregious in the duke case, but it happens over and over again. yup, evil white privileged jocks . they must be guilty

i want judges that follow the LAW. and the judges here DID. but people don't like the RESULT, so the judges MUST be wrong.

</rant>

[Acadia Blue]

35. well I could have an asthma attack because of the stale air and fall

over in the aisle and sue the ((((((((((((((out of these greedy corporatist capitalistic vampire pigs.
Why not? I need fresh air and they should provide it to all. Imagine the germs we are getting from the people with TB or Aids reisitant pneumonia. F-------airlines are pigs.

[mac2]

41. Those airlines failed us on 911 too.

Some even made a profit in the stock market so they had to know it was going to happen. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/illegaltades.html

Many of the federalized security is not public but owned by foreign corporations. Only the security employees are federal controlled.

I screamed about them (Congress) lying to us about that. They mislead us so the corporations would make money on us...as usual.

So if they would lie about the planes and passengers (no terrorists on their passenger lists) why would you think they'd care about being humane to us? What John Ashcroft lie? The FBI says they weren't sure. http://www.welfarestate.com/911/ http://geocities.com/mknemesis/passengers.html?200627

200 Americans jumped from the WTC because of them and our incompetent (or criminal) security and all to slow defence department. Citizens losing family on 911 weren't allowed to sue the airlines. But we paid a historic amount to keep them silent.

[Hannah Bell]

50. they got 15 billion in bailout money after 911. not enough for toilets, i guess. n/t

[BlueCollar]

70. Do you actually have any idea of the purification process involved

in cleaning the air inside an airplane?

I thought not.

BTW...What business are you in?

Insurance?

Banking?

Automobile Sales?

Computer Programming?

Just want to know so I can make blanket statements also....

[Vidar]

54. Yet another victory for the corporate robber barons.

[BlueCollar]

57. Good

It's about time they got something right in their decision-making process.

[JPZenger]

63. No Where Does the Constitution Promise Clean Air or Water

It is simply a matter of a strict constructionist view of the US Constitution - it does not say that the people have a right to any water or clean air. That is the Federalist Society view. All of the clean air and water should be reserved for people flying first class.

Actually, I read the Constitution to say that the States have all the power that is not given to the Federal government. Silly me.

[BlueCollar]

68. Trust me

The water in first class comes out of the same tank as the water in steerage...LOL