It looks like the United States could be heading in the direction of the European Union when it comes to passengers being compensated for flight delays. The details are limited as of now, though the intent is clear…
In this post:
Biden Administration proposes flight delay compensation
The United States Department of Transportation (DOT) has today proposed a new rule that would require airlines to provide compensation to passenger whose flights are delayed or canceled. This new rule would mandate that airlines provide cash compensation and also cover expenses incurred from delays or cancelations, including meals, hotels, and flight rebookings, when airlines are responsible for delays.
Here’s how Transportation Secretary Buttigieg describes this initiative:
“When an airline causes a flight cancellation or delay, passengers should not foot the bill. This rule would, for the first time in US history, propose to require airlines to compensate passengers and cover expenses such as meals, hotels, and rebooking in cases where the airline has caused a cancellation or significant delay.”
President Biden and Transportation Secretary Buttigieg delivered remarks about the proposal this afternoon. We’re told to expect more details later this year about the proposed legislation, as exact details weren’t yet provided.
For some context, the European Union has the EU261 compensation scheme. Not only is this a very clear “bill of rights” for consumers about the duty airlines have to take care of passengers, but it also provides cash compensation for any delays or cancelations within the carrier’s control. This can range anywhere from €250-600, depending on how long the delay is, and what kind of a flight it is.
I’d note that we’re only seeing a policy proposal here, so whether or not this is eventually implemented is anyone’s guess. I imagine if this is implemented, it will take quite some time, and will come with some modifications. Expect that it’ll take at least a year before anything becomes official.
We’ve seen airlines have all kinds of operational issues since the start of the pandemic, and I appreciate that the DOT has put effort into increasing transparency regarding what passengers are entitled to in the event of irregular operations. For example, I think the DOT airline customer service dashboard is a useful feature. This dashboard now even shows which airlines will offer compensation in the event of delays within their control (which is currently voluntary).
This would be a positive development, but…
Personally I’m strongly in favor of the United States following in the European Union’s footsteps when it comes to compensation for flight delays and cancelations. Currently passengers are at best entitled to a refund, but that doesn’t exactly make you whole in many situations.
Some argue that the cost of such a scheme would just be passed on to consumers in the form of higher ticket costs. Yes and no. Europe has a lot of ultra low cost carriers that manage to have incredibly low fares, in spite of having to comply with these kinds of regulations. Furthermore, as we’ve seen over the years, airline pricing is loosely dictated by demand, and not by the cost to provide said air transportation.
Part of the hope is that airlines would put more effort into minimizing disruptions, which could come in the form of not having an overly aggressive flight schedule, leading to situations where there aren’t enough staff and aircraft to operate flights.
Furthermore, this would encourage airlines to negotiate proper contracts with employees. For example, remember several years back when American Airlines mechanics were (unofficially) delaying flights while contract negotiations were ongoing? Stuff like that would suddenly become much more costly for airlines.
Like any of these schemes, the one challenge will be holding airlines accountable as to what’s a controllable delay and what isn’t. Airlines love to blame weather for just about everything, and they’re not usually held accountable. Obviously a key part of any legislation would be how consumers would be able to determine what the cause of a delay is.
Bottom line
The DOT is proposing new rules that would hold airlines accountable more for controllable delays. While the intent has been revealed, the exact details are expected to be shared in the coming months. Expect it to be somewhere along the lines of what we’ve seen in the European Union, which clearly lays out what passengers are entitled to during flight disruptions.
I’m very much in favor of this, though this is an area where details matter…
What do you make of the US introducing flight delay compensation?
Hmm, something else the government should stay out of. This feels like the typical entitlement where everyone has their hands out.
So maybe to help the dilemma, raise ticket prices where they should be (there are few things cheaper than they were 20 years ago; problem), then you can reduce the number of flights because many won't want to pay (good, then I can hit a plane without 10 little dogs crapping in their...
Hmm, something else the government should stay out of. This feels like the typical entitlement where everyone has their hands out.
So maybe to help the dilemma, raise ticket prices where they should be (there are few things cheaper than they were 20 years ago; problem), then you can reduce the number of flights because many won't want to pay (good, then I can hit a plane without 10 little dogs crapping in their crates and 8 more babies crying). Less flights mean less crew, less gate times, etc.
Let's hope they actually implement laws that have teeth. We have a little man named Omar Algabra in Canada he is supposedly the transport minister. He has no balls and he is in bed with airline lobbyists in Canada. He pretends he's actually going to do something useful for the Canadian traveling public but he does nothing. He says he's creating laws that protect the consumer but they are useless. Such a failure that he...
Let's hope they actually implement laws that have teeth. We have a little man named Omar Algabra in Canada he is supposedly the transport minister. He has no balls and he is in bed with airline lobbyists in Canada. He pretends he's actually going to do something useful for the Canadian traveling public but he does nothing. He says he's creating laws that protect the consumer but they are useless. Such a failure that he has managed to create a quasi government body that is now dealing with over 45,000 complaints and takes 2 years to litigate at the cost of about $800 million to the Canadian taxpayer. That's how pathetic our current government is. All fluff with no teeth
Does anyone think this cost won’t be passed along thru increased price/fees? It’s easy to predict the average impact by every airline for every airport. We’ll all be paying for this within a few months.
This won't happen. The airline lobby is too powerful, too much influence, and a heck of a lot of money to throw around to keep it from happening.
Hopefully a clearly defined outline of airline vs airspace vs FAA delay. And I wouldn't blame the airlines to hold themselves harmless if it isn't truly a delay of theirs.
That said, this then could lead to fewer scheduled flights. If an on-time percentage is low due to the airline staffing, turn around time, etc. then less choice for the consumer, which isn't a bad thing either I suppose. Who needs half-hourly flights on a...
Hopefully a clearly defined outline of airline vs airspace vs FAA delay. And I wouldn't blame the airlines to hold themselves harmless if it isn't truly a delay of theirs.
That said, this then could lead to fewer scheduled flights. If an on-time percentage is low due to the airline staffing, turn around time, etc. then less choice for the consumer, which isn't a bad thing either I suppose. Who needs half-hourly flights on a half-dozen airlines between two major hubs if half of them are delayed anyway.
I only fly if there's a body of water in the way. Domestically and into Canada is all driving. Domestic US airlines are just a hair above Greyhound now anyway.
This will incentivize airlines to sacrifice in other areas and creates more risks. Also will increase ticket prices. Happens every time.
Very good initiative. Qatar airways delayed my flight by 8 hours and no compensation given to me. It is unacceptable. They even changed my flight.
It depends what the airlines are accountable for and if the incident is really in the airline's control or not.
Will UBER compensate when the drivers cancel? Will bus company compensate? Will a ferry company compensate?
Why the hell airlines have to compensate?
It’s already bad that airlines have to collect the airport taxes on behalf of the airports. It’s easier for them as the passengers don’t notice the abusive taxes with lousy airport services. Passengers think it’s taxes for the airline.
At the end of the day airlines are treated as...
Will UBER compensate when the drivers cancel? Will bus company compensate? Will a ferry company compensate?
Why the hell airlines have to compensate?
It’s already bad that airlines have to collect the airport taxes on behalf of the airports. It’s easier for them as the passengers don’t notice the abusive taxes with lousy airport services. Passengers think it’s taxes for the airline.
At the end of the day airlines are treated as cash cows by gouvernements and bullied all the time.
I’d love that airlines would have the balls to simply ground all flights for a month. All at same time. Probably they would be better respected.
No the covid was not an exemple as people could not move and cargo was still operating.
You missed my point. You said airlines are already compensating passengers voluntarily. Isn’t that a cost? How would mandating what they are already paying (according to you) increase costs?
Because it would be more flights they would be paying out for. It's just math
About time, If they implement it! too many Republicans have a lot of self interest in airlines.
Because you're dumb enough to check luggage. But that already shows in your political view so nevermind.
Leave it to the Biden Administration to royally screw it up.
Just the beginning salvo of deflection away from this current DOT for the absolute mess this summer will be due to lack of ATC staffing. More to come!
DOT paying compensation for ATC delays? I doubt that.
From what I've heard the airlines will lobby furiously against this, and it could take years for it to actually be in place. So I wouldn't get too excited just yet.
Current system works. Get a better CC. Buy travel insurance. We’ve all been screwed before. It happens. This also gives more leverage to unions which have already shown they are willing to illegally interrupt operations and screw the traveler. Not sure why anyone has their backs.
The current system works?? I suppose you've been living under a rock for the last 1-2 years. IT outages, staffing issues, overscheduling of aircraft and crews, you name it.. Companies OBVIOUSLY have the best interests of their employees in mind *eyes rolling out of skull* Exactly who has the employees' backs if not the union? And who exactly did what illegally to screw travelers? Cite your sources.
*Emerges from rock*
Just this guy who could have killed hundreds of people: https://onemileatatime.com/american-airlines-mechanic-sabotaging-plane/
*returns to underneath rock*
"It happens" is a pretty weak argument my dude
“It happens” isn’t an argument. It’s a statement of fact. Everyone agrees cancellations happen. My arguments is this:
If you’re someone who feels like you’re owed something for irrops, go get a CC with solid travel protection and/or travel insurance.
Flying is a privilege and not a right. The administrative costs alone to adhere to these supposedly “consumer friendly” regulations will be very high, all for the airlines to never pay out anyways. Do you...
“It happens” isn’t an argument. It’s a statement of fact. Everyone agrees cancellations happen. My arguments is this:
If you’re someone who feels like you’re owed something for irrops, go get a CC with solid travel protection and/or travel insurance.
Flying is a privilege and not a right. The administrative costs alone to adhere to these supposedly “consumer friendly” regulations will be very high, all for the airlines to never pay out anyways. Do you really trust legislators to get this right? I trust the free market in this case.
The free market can't deal with it if the market isn't really free. US airlines are protected from competition from non-US airlines for domestic flights. That limits competition. If the airlines want that protection they have to tolerate regulations that the public demands, profitable or not. I'm not suggesting a completely free market is best, just that it you benefit from a protected market, stop whining about regulations. Conversely, if you want minimal regulations, tolerate...
The free market can't deal with it if the market isn't really free. US airlines are protected from competition from non-US airlines for domestic flights. That limits competition. If the airlines want that protection they have to tolerate regulations that the public demands, profitable or not. I'm not suggesting a completely free market is best, just that it you benefit from a protected market, stop whining about regulations. Conversely, if you want minimal regulations, tolerate a true free market. You can't have it both ways. And that's not factoring in the public's interest regarding the impact of the locations of airports, noise issues, the limited number of flights that an airspace can safely handle, etc., all of which require regulation. And while flying isn't a right per se, it's not a privilege either. If anything, operating an airline is a privilege and not a right, given airlines are given exclusive access to limited resources.
Is there an unbiased, fact-based study of EC261's (or the Canadian version's) impact to airlines earnings and operations? That information would provide a better indication than speculation of the impact of a similar rule in the US.
It is time for US261.
$1000 comp for international flights
$600 for coast to coast flights or flights to AK and HI.
$400 for flights starts of ends in the Midwest
$200 for flights within a state
If airlines cannot pay, then government takeover the airline and make it friendly to the people!
If airlines cannot pay, then nationalize the airline, great idea.
At least from all the bailout at least the government gets to own something.
But we can also kick free market to the curb too.
Not that having a national airline in the deregulation era is a good idea. Look at Pan Am.
What has the US government ever done that was on time and on budget? In this current climate they will stop most flights because of climate concerns.
@Mark Wonderful mindset! The government has always shown to be so efficient that we should be happy if they takeover anything. I'm Venezuelan and it worked wonderfully down there, just go to El Paso and Brownsville to see for yourself.
Friendly to the people. Let’s just check how government services work over with the DMV.
Canada has this as well. Why mention the EU when Canada is right next door?
Just wanted to say that you should give your congressional representatives a call about this, Ben. You, along with other bloggers like Gary, are likely to carry a higher weight when it comes to setting opinions on this, and a very specific suggestion like what you mention here (ensuring the airlines wouldn't just classify everything as a weather delay) could be very helpful.
That being said, since you live in Florida I imagine your representatives...
Just wanted to say that you should give your congressional representatives a call about this, Ben. You, along with other bloggers like Gary, are likely to carry a higher weight when it comes to setting opinions on this, and a very specific suggestion like what you mention here (ensuring the airlines wouldn't just classify everything as a weather delay) could be very helpful.
That being said, since you live in Florida I imagine your representatives might be rabidly against this idea no matter what, but who knows!
bloggers holding more weight lol
It will absolutely would increase ticket prices. It's a real cost increase that has to be accounted for. The existence of LCCs in the EU doesn't negate that. EU regs are so easily sidestepped by making the process excruciatingly painful, and EU enforcement is so weak, that most don't even bother. That is unlikely to work here. You make a major change to regulations, there will be a response. It's rather naive of you to...
It will absolutely would increase ticket prices. It's a real cost increase that has to be accounted for. The existence of LCCs in the EU doesn't negate that. EU regs are so easily sidestepped by making the process excruciatingly painful, and EU enforcement is so weak, that most don't even bother. That is unlikely to work here. You make a major change to regulations, there will be a response. It's rather naive of you to claim otherwise. Please revisit this post in a few years if this goes through and analyze the change in ticket price...I'd guess maybe a 20% increase y/y after implementation.
This is an expensive solution to a non problem. You fly a mainline carrier, are significantly delayed and complain, you'll get compensation. You fly an LCC, you get what you get. Getting government involved will just make everything more expensive, and will most certainly have some other unintended consequences.
You say that airlines are already paying compensation so there’s no need for legislation to force compensation.
You also say this is a cost that will be passed on to customers in the form of higher fares.
If the airlines are already voluntarily paying compensation, how will making compensation mandatory increase costs for airlines?
Nonsense. Airlines will always charge the highest price they're able to sell the ticket for. They don't go like "people would pay 200 dollars for a ticket but our costs are low so we'll only charge 180 dollars".
You're insane. We're talking about if prices will increase due to a shift in the supply curve brought on by an increase in costs imposed by regulation, not optimal pricing in a free market. Airlines aren't a charity, all airlines will experience cost increases, and its a low margin business. They aren't going to operate at a loss because sleepy Joe says so.
Well, in theory the regs should behave like self-insurance and actually provide a benefit in a free market to the best operator.
If the airline runs a good operation, it will pay out less. Therefore its tickets will be cheaper. Thus operational quality will be transparently priced in, and the consumer will choose the best run airline.
It’s a net positive for good airlines and a net negative for bad ones.
This is going to hurt and hence raise prices at the budget carriers the most, ie Allegiant, Avelo and Spirit etc. Will add to inflation.
The airlines own Congress. (See: $50 billion in free money during covid) Nothing of substance will ever come of this proposal.
Recently, and I flew with my family from Milan to Dallas and the Air France A220 plane had technical difficulties and didn’t take off for six hours. I missed my connection to the United States. I emailed Air France and within three weeks I had approximately $650 per passenger in my bank account. Plus, Air France gave us hotels and clothes and toiletries. This website should relate this back to miles or at least mileage...
Recently, and I flew with my family from Milan to Dallas and the Air France A220 plane had technical difficulties and didn’t take off for six hours. I missed my connection to the United States. I emailed Air France and within three weeks I had approximately $650 per passenger in my bank account. Plus, Air France gave us hotels and clothes and toiletries. This website should relate this back to miles or at least mileage credit cards. I used our American Express Delta Reserve Card to book these tickets ..but when I filed a claim for items other than toiletries with American Express, AIG said that technical difficulties are within the policy. WTH?! I would urge everyone to avoid American Express when booking ALL travel related items, and use Capital One Venture or even Chase.
Budget airlines in the EU like Ryanair have an extremely punctual operation. This means that they rarely have to pay this type of compensation and are still regularly able to offer fares that would be unheard of here in the USA.
Currently US domestic airlines cover hotels in the case of cancellations that result in forced overnight. Now airlines like to find ways to attribute to weather (like an original maintenance delay that then gets delayed by weather) and sometimes the hotels aren't the best. Some airlines will give food vouchers but they're for nominal amounts (like $12) and sometimes have to be proactively asked for. I would imagine the ULCCs would tell passengers to go...
Currently US domestic airlines cover hotels in the case of cancellations that result in forced overnight. Now airlines like to find ways to attribute to weather (like an original maintenance delay that then gets delayed by weather) and sometimes the hotels aren't the best. Some airlines will give food vouchers but they're for nominal amounts (like $12) and sometimes have to be proactively asked for. I would imagine the ULCCs would tell passengers to go take a hike if they asked for a food voucher for a 5 hour delay.
Unfortunately, this will probably be implemented half a$$ causing nothing but confusion and giving airlines endless wiggle room. I don't see airlines being forced to provide cash compensation.
They also find loopholes around this policy which happened to me a couple years ago. I was flying UA out of EWR. Original flight was scheduled to depart around 8pm or so. They kept delaying it by an hour or two up until after midnight. Then, rather than “cancel” it, they continued to delay the same flight until 5am, then 7am and finally departed around 8am. So while the flight was never officially canceled, we still had to wait overnight in the terminal.
Please, it is not "EU261"; it is EC261.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1476179175834&uri=CELEX:32004R0261
I realize it is fruitless to try to correct this across the internet, but your blog is one of the few good ones, so I'd hope you'd use the correct name.
EU261 is the Common name for EC261. Like Tylenol is the common name for acetaminophen,
I call someone Mike even though every legal document they have says Michael.
@staradmiral — No. EC261 is the shorthand of "Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights."
Calling EC261 EU261 is like when people call an international driver's permit (IDP) an international driver's license. One of those things actually exists. The other does not.
Flights would be cheaper if the FAA didn’t mandate minimum fuel reserves.
I gotta (mis)quote @Anthony Parr from the other reply.
I’d rather pay an extra dollar or two and know that I’m not on the hook for my life when the airlines doesn’t have a enough fuel to land the plane.
Both EU261 and EC261 are equally incorrect, that's just not how you abbreviate the law numbers. For starters, you'd have to include the year (i.e. 261/2004) since there's also 261/2013, 261/2015, etc., which are completely unrelated to this regulation.
Your post therefore doesn't make any sense. EU261 is simply a shortcut that people came up with to refer to the regulation.
I know you addressed this, but you have to think that the airlines just pass on % of flights delayed past the time window * average fee they pay out as a premium "tax" on each ticket.
I’d rather pay an extra dollar or two and know that I’m not on the hook for hundreds or thousands of dollars when a member of crew doesn’t show up or when the airlines doesn’t have a spare part available because they’ve made a calculation that it’s cheaper to cancel a flight that keep an adequate parts inventory.
If people are willing to pay X more dollars for a ticket, airlines will charge it whether or not there's a passengers rights scheme.