It would be nice to know how much the Lobiest's gave as gifts or donations to the campaigns of the Senators and Congressmen and also all the names involved to defeat this bill??

J.E. Doyle

Posted By J.E.Doyle on March 26, 2008, 1:14 PM

A positive vote for legality; a negative vote for humanity.

Posted By Cynthia on March 27, 2008, 12:23 PM

I worry for the disabled, elderly and children put on these flights and then made to withstand the torture of being pinned in a seat for an undetermined length of time. Will someone have to "lose it" or become very ill or indeed, die to have this decision reversed? I think all the travel agents in the US and abroad need to come together and issue a warning to the airlines and the courts.

Posted By Barbara G on March 27, 2008, 12:28 PM

I agree with J.E. Doyle... if the Federal Government feels that NYS stepped on their toes, then the Feds should put something in place for passengers that are stuck on planes for more than 3 hours. If the passengers can't get off then it is the obligation of the airlines to make sure that the passengers are comfortable. Not saying a dinner needs to be provided, but something other than peanuts. Also, it is a health issue to have people exposed to toilets that are full and are overflowing.
I'm sure if one of the members of the Air Transportation Assoc. was stuck for 7 hours on a plane they would complain also... As for the members of the Supreme Court, if the feel that NYS will spur other states to do the same or more, then the Supreme Court should ask the Congressmen and Representatives to come up with a bill that is acceptable by all.

Posted By Nickie S. on March 27, 2008, 12:40 PM

I think this is terrible, that the courts, declined. That they can keep you on a plane for 3 hours without, food, water or clean toliets. I think, that is the least they should be required to compensate the passengers.
Yes, I agree with the passengers rights. I am a travelagent.

Posted By BEVERLY Overdevest on March 27, 2008, 12:57 PM

Precedents in the law are the bread and butter of attorneys. Maybe the "federal framework for air travel" NEEDS "unraveling"! That would be a precedent in and of itself.
For one mans opinion, the people in New York were absolutely right on this one. The airlines shouldn't treat passengers the way they do. Nuff said!

Posted By JAMES MARSHALL on March 27, 2008, 1:07 PM

Just another example of how service, consideration and value given are becoming a thing of the past. The bottom line seems to be the acceptable standard and criteria. Shame on the courts, the airlines and everyone who is involved with allowing these unpleasant, inconvenient and unhealthy practices to continue. ,

Posted By Carolyn Fitz-Gibbon on March 27, 2008, 1:20 PM

I have been a passenger waiting for hours for takeoff. Overturning this bill/law will only cause the already "hurting" airline industry to lose more passengers.

Posted By Arlene W. on March 27, 2008, 1:36 PM

I agree with Barbara G. Why aren't our Senator's and Representatives doing something about this. I know they use the airlines on a regular basis because I've been on planes with them. One can only hope a few of them will be stuck on the tarmack for three or more hours and then, hopefully, we'll see what happens.

Posted By Nancy G on March 27, 2008, 1:51 PM

At what point do we consider ourselves kidnaped, even the prisoners at gitmo get bread and water.

Posted By william olds on March 27, 2008, 2:10 PM

No problem! Don't pass the law, my husband and I won't fly!

Posted By Gail G. on March 27, 2008, 2:11 PM

I have been following this proposal for months, and I am totally shocked that it was not approved! Do we live in Amercia or some third -world country???
How we we allow Americans to sit on a plane for hours without water,food or facilities??
Can't they just load the passengers to a holding room,they have already passed security,so they are secured.
Remember Nazi Germany????

Posted By Maureen (Mo) on March 27, 2008, 2:21 PM

I do agree that the Federal Government needs to inact a decent law - both to ensure that passengers cannot be abused or imprisoned on airplanes, and to count a departure as on-time if and only if the plane actually flies within a reasonable time.

However, the states can and should pass laws that no commercial entity of any form is allowed to keep clients in any enclosed space without adequate ventilation, without adequate sanitation, without adequate food for more than some reasonable time, like 2 hours. If these laws do not address interstate travel directly, but only address how clients of any business can be treated within state boundaries, then the law should be constitutional, without touching on the interstate commerce clause in the US Constitution.

Posted By John S on March 27, 2008, 2:27 PM

Five years ago, we were literally held captive by American Airlines at Heathrow. For the first 4 hours we were on the plane; no one was allowed to leave, no information was forthcoming about what was happening or why. Questions to flight attendants were ignored. Finally we were taken off the plane and herded into a LOCKED room for another 4 hours....no food, no water, no phones, and still no information about what was going on. We had brought along some snacks and water, but after 8 hours, real food was needed. Eventually we were told that we would board another plane and resume our trip. Those of us who travel a good bit were now aware that the crew would probably have to be replaced because of the time constraints on how long they could work. Sure enough, after we'd been sitting on the "new" plane for more than an hour, an announcement was made, saying that we had to wait for a new crew to arrive. This prolonged an already intolerable delay, and was something that should have been dealt with very early on. AA obviously KNEW that the crew's shift would end before we could depart, but instead waited until everyone was on board. We waited another hour....finally took off more than 2 hours AFTER we were to have arrived at O'Hare. AA's response was to offer food vouchers when we got there...after midnight, Chicago time. Letters of protest achieved very little... AA insisted that passengers were owed nothing but never explained what the problem was. Situations like this are simply intolerable, but they will continue until strict laws are passed.

Posted By Jay Kaye on March 27, 2008, 2:46 PM

I know that if I am held hostage on the tarmac without adequate facilities, I will first tell the attendants that I am a diabetic (which is true) and that I require something to eat. If there is no response, I will simply take out my cell phone and call 911. I will tell the person that I want the local police to come because I am being held against my will and it is dangerous to my health. I will demand that they put a loading ramp up to the plane to let me off. I will also call a local radio and/or TV station to cover the story. Exposure is the surest way to get action for outrageous actions.

Posted By Writer Paul on March 27, 2008, 4:05 PM

Crisis capitalism rears its ugly head again!

Posted By Tara Finnigan on March 27, 2008, 4:48 PM

I have to agree with the need for passengers and with John S. above. Perhaps if the states wrote the laws to "protect the health and well-being" of passengers or any other person detained, they might be upheld.

Posted By Don on March 27, 2008, 5:13 PM

Not until the FAA CEO, President of the USA, (wait a minute - they don't fly coach - like most of middle America) NOT UNTIL AN INFLUENTIAL PERSON is inconvenienced will anything be done. This is pathetic!!!!

Posted By pam on March 27, 2008, 5:35 PM

WHAT ?!?!?! The courts are in the Airlines' pocket! We need to get in the Airlines' pocket too. We can do this by publicising VERY WIDELY whenever passenger rights are violated (whether the courts say passengers have rights or not), giving the name of the offending airline. Then, as part of the publicising, ask any and all readers to abstain from flying on the offending airline. If this is carried to fruition, we too will be in the airlines' pockets and they will have to grant passenger rights, court or no court, or go out of business.

Posted By John Williams on March 27, 2008, 7:16 PM

For those who fly regularly it should be apparent there are more incentives to prevent the airline for being responsible for your comfort. Here in the UK it's all one standard motion - scan carry on, scan shoes, enter nearest post-security shop that sells water and buy 1-2 liters. Frequent travelers will prepare themselves for the worst, and the airport businesses profit from it. This is while there are passenger bills of rights in most areas. Making people responsible for their own comfort at their own cost means that businesses won't want the airline to make you happy.

Posted By jakfrost on March 27, 2008, 7:41 PM

This is outrageous that an airline can keep these passengers hostege for 3+ hours w/no bathroom,water or food available! Someone must do something about this situation! And by the previous comments these conditions are minor compared to other complaints! I find it difficult to believe airline execs or people of importance would be subjected to this treatment! Don't the average people have rights too? Where are our protectors/defenders?

Posted By Pat Sammons on March 27, 2008, 8:46 PM

Just pull the latch on the emergency door. That will get the crews attention and get the rest of the passengers off the plane for a while.

Posted By Rick on March 27, 2008, 9:50 PM

It is righat on
It has to be a federal law

Posted By ozkar on March 27, 2008, 11:05 PM

Nobody cares what happens to the paying customer. When there is aproblem out on the tarmack, a captain actually blamed on the FAA tower, that they were instructed to leave the gate well knowing that the plane was to sit aside on the tarmack for hours. Who can you believe? Nobody, and I mean nobdy is looking into this nor does anybody care! DO yo think the Judge cared? What if a Judge had to remain in a court room instead of asking for a break so that he or she could take a trip to the toilet? You bet, that would never happen. It is damn lousy and a shame that the airline industry can do this!

Posted By peter gach on March 28, 2008, 1:18 AM

I agree that the basic necessities for passengers need to be met. However, there are times when the airlines are not in control of nor responsible for the situation - weather, bomb threats, etc. An airplane may not be able to return to the gate because there is no available gate, no more available stairs, or in the case of an international flight, no holding area in the terminal for the passengers who have been cleared. In over 40 years of travel, all of these have happened to me. In the past I always flew TWA as they seemed the best at taking care of passengers whatever the situation. I am concerned too at the additional cost to the airlines which would inevitably be passed on to us the passengers. What of the flights which now have no food service? Would the airlines now be required to carry food just in case? Personally I prefer to bring my own snack/food (I am diabetic so I always go prepared for the unexpected), to purchase my water - or fill my empty water bottle from the fountain on the airplane side of security, and bring a book to read/paperwork to do than to pay for the inevitable increase in air fares that a passenger's bill of rights could create. The airlines are all struggling financially - that is why we have lost some of the best ones. Airfares are more within reason now than they were in the 1970s - 80s. Yes, we could get more service during delays but at what cost?
I also think that we as individuals are taking less responsibility for ourselves. Instead of being prepared for the inconveniences that are an inevitable part of life, we are too quick to demand that someone else take care of us.

Posted By Beverly on March 28, 2008, 2:44 AM

I think the bastards should be left on a plane in Dallas, Tx. in July for 6-12 hours. They would not only want to give the money back that was put in their bank accounts by the airlines but also place the law back to where it should be.

Posted By Henry Meador on March 28, 2008, 6:26 AM

Isn't this unlawful restraint? Which is a felony. Anyone ever sue for that. They're being held against thier will.
I know if I was on board with a child who had food allergies and asthma I would try to get off.
Are there any cases where people just got off? What if you start smoking or yell bomb. Wouldn't they throw you off?

Posted By Cherry on March 28, 2008, 9:15 AM

One Solution: Improved rail system (Europe can but we can't?). Walked into the Amtrak station in Battle Creek, MI 5 minutes before train arrived (it was 5 minutes late.). Stepped aboard wide spacious seats/isles. It departed in 5 minutes with 1 stop to Chicago. The experience was everyting that travel used to be.- WOW - what a difference from air travel! Would go everywhere that way if it was possible.

Posted By debb on March 28, 2008, 9:24 AM

My husband travels frequently for business, and usually must use the airlines for that. We have already, however, stopped flying on pleasure trips whenever possible, because we got sick and tired of all the flight delays, cancellations, dirty airplanes, and other foolishness the airlines were getting away with last year and before. We have not had to wait for extended periods on runways as of yet, but since we are avoiding flying anyway, will continue to do so until conditions are improved in many ways (and the airlines stop being so chintzy with the services they provide for their mostly overpriced fares).

Posted By Nancy Dallas on March 28, 2008, 11:03 AM

All ---please read the recent series of books by John W. Dean- Most recently" Broken Government" and "Conservatives without conscience"; I am not connected with John Dean or any of his organizations; but he explains clearly how the federal courts have been "Hijacked" by the neocons and judgements such as this are just a small but potent part of the movement to give business the upper-hand and leaving everyday people with no say. With the price of fuel (also something helping major business)- the airlines will all eventually go out of business, due to these practices-- they are all just stubbornly cutting their own throats.

Posted By Tracy Thomas on March 28, 2008, 11:22 AM

I agree that States have no business creating 50 sets of laws for airlines to follow. I DO however think that our Federal legislators deserve to be called all sorts of dirty names for failing to come up with the necessary laws to see to it that this type of no-sense activity on the part of the airline industry is STOPPED!

Posted By Morris Stock on March 28, 2008, 5:22 PM

Overturned by a Federal court??? Really? Elect more Republicans and you'll get more of this.

Posted By Edward on March 29, 2008, 11:39 AM

I was stuck on a tarmac for just under two hours with USAirways. They could not have been more gracious. They gave us water constantly and the pilot kept us apprised of the situation every 15-20 minutes. It wasn't fun, but they did make every effort to make it bearable.

Posted By Teresa on April 3, 2008, 5:11 PM

If the federal government acted on this issue, the states wouldn't need to pass their own laws. While I too travel prepared with personal food and drink, after a while that passes through and it becomes necessary to use the toilet. I fly out of Washington DC, where you are not allowed out of your seats to use a toilet. Also the air quality rapidly deteriorates on planes and the temperature rises inside. I think if prisoners were treated this poorly there would be an uprising. I find the lack of passenger rights apalling and it speaks volumes about those in Washington representing us- scratch that - representing the lobbiests/big business.

Posted By Nancy on April 7, 2008, 11:09 AM

it would be nice if the media would NAME THE JUDGE THAT RENDERED THE VERDICT! without this name we the people cannot call for their being dismissed from the bench.

Posted By mike on April 24, 2008, 1:16 AM

wouldn't it be nice if the judge was stuck on the runway at La Guardia for 5 hours in a full plane?

Posted By mike on April 24, 2008, 1:19 AM

Hi Mike,
Good point, broadly speaking. Reporters should name judges when appropriate, for accountability to the electorate.
However, in this case, it was a set of federal level appellate judges who made the decision. They are not elected. They’re appointed.
Regards,
Sean
Blog editor

Posted By Sean on April 24, 2008, 9:33 AM