IATA...boo hoo
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IATA...boo hoo
IATA blasted US Dept. of Transportation's proposed passenger rights regulations, calling them "an unprecedented intervention in the business practices of airlines serving the US" and a violation of the Chicago Convention (ATW Daily News, June 3). In comments filed with DOT on Wednesday, IATA also said that the NPRM, "Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections," appears to show that DOT "is moving away from the letter and spirit of the Airline Deregulation Act…that affirmatively recognized passengers are better served by private sector competition than by public sector regulation."
According to IATA, the NPRM also "proposes to apply US laws on foreign airlines' operations on such matters as fares, reservations, contingency planning, advertising and customer service….an extraterritorial application of US law on foreign carriers that cannot be justified." Extraterritorial provisions include the requirement that airlines flying to and from the US "adopt a customer service plan complying with DOT minimum requirements," that they "incorporate their tarmac delay and customer service plan in their contract of carriage," that they "include notice of baggage fees on their website and tickets" and that they disclose flight information to passengers in a certain manner."
IATA said that based on these provisions, "it appears that foreign carriers would be required to modify operations and procedures that do not take place in the US in order to meet US regulatory requirements. For example, foreign carriers would be required to respond to customer complaints about service provided in Paris within 30 days of receiving that complaint."
IATA also criticized extending the tarmac delay provisions to non-US carriers. Noting that the majority of delays are attributable to issues such as weather and insufficient airport and airspace capacity, IATA likened the plan to "fining a bus drive for not arriving on time during summer road construction."
----
Foreign air carriers already operating to the USA do so only because the DOT/FAA have granted them specific permission to do so, under the provisions of 14CFR129.
Foreign air carriers...either shape up, or ship out.
I presume you will not object when the EU, South America, Middle East & Asian countries bring in similar, but possibly even more stringent, regulations including passenger compensation & accommodation and apply them to US airlines flying to and from their countries?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For example, foreign carriers would be required to respond to customer complaints about service provided in Paris within 30 days of receiving that complaint.
Seems like a classic case of double standards here.
Foreign airlines have to act like US airlines because the US says so - but US airlines feel that they should not have to participate in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme because they are not EU based airlines!
Foreign airlines have to act like US airlines because the US says so - but US airlines feel that they should not have to participate in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme because they are not EU based airlines!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
e.g. EU delay compensation rules apply to non-EU carriers operating out of EU airports (but apply to EU-based carriers worldwide).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ship out of where?
14CFR129 authority canceled, no longer fly to the USA.
Ha! America holds all the face cards...either comply, or else....go elsewhere.
The paying passenger has had the short end of the stick for far too long, now...the DoT/FAA is in the drivers seat for pax 'rights'.
Loooong overdue, in my opinion.
And why?
Because, without actual paying passengers, airlines need no pilots.
411, I am not sure what is going on here.
I had pretty good service on the foreign carriers I flew back when I flew more. That is more than I can say for my current experiences in domestic flights, but those have been soiled by the post 9-11 disaster that is the US airline industry.
Caveat: my foreign hull experience is over ten years old, Lufthansa, British Airways, Alitalia, Olympic. Things may have changed for them as well.
I had pretty good service on the foreign carriers I flew back when I flew more. That is more than I can say for my current experiences in domestic flights, but those have been soiled by the post 9-11 disaster that is the US airline industry.
Caveat: my foreign hull experience is over ten years old, Lufthansa, British Airways, Alitalia, Olympic. Things may have changed for them as well.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Middle England
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we are going to even things up properly, perhaps every single US crewmember should have to visit the Washington Embassy of an EU state to gain an entry visa before they can operate to the EU.
Just like the $hit we have to put up with!
Just like the $hit we have to put up with!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Foreign air carriers already operating to the USA do so only because the DOT/FAA have granted them specific permission to do so, under the provisions of 14CFR129
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....and 14cfr129 is only a tech thing of low importance.
Without 14CFR129 authority, foreign air carriers are prohibited from operating to America, no matter what bi-lateral agreements the specific country has signed with the USA.
And, as for this...
If we are going to even things up properly, perhaps every single US crewmember should have to visit the Washington Embassy of an EU state to gain an entry visa before they can operate to the EU.
Just like the $hit we have to put up with!
Just like the $hit we have to put up with!
Last edited by 411A; 25th Sep 2010 at 02:59.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Middle England
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A, you are quite correct. Sadly, visiting the USA either as crew or pax has become expensive and hard work. US citizens would not visit Europe in the same numbers if they were faced with the nonsense that we have to if heading west. Canada, totally different attitude.
Still, that's progress for you.....
Still, that's progress for you.....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US citizens would not visit Europe in the same numbers if they were faced with the nonsense that we have to if heading west.
I, for one, would like to see aircrew visas done away with, for crew arriving in the USA, except possibly from certain malcontent countries.
Same for TSA pre-clearance, for aircrew training....should be eliminated, as above.
