New rules for airlines kick in this week to protect fliers

[SpartanDem]

Source: USA today

New federal rules designed to prevent long tarmac delays for international passengers, provide greater compensation if fliers are bumped off flights and make airlines better disclose extra fees take effect on Tuesday.
The consumer protection rules, from the Transportation Department, will:

•Let the department impose fines on U.S. and foreign airlines of up to $27,500 per passenger if they leave an international flight on a tarmac for more than four hours without taking off.

•Raise compensation if passengers are bumped from an oversold flight. They'd get double the price of their tickets up to $650 if their arrival at their destination is delayed just a few hours. Currently, compensation is equal to the ticket value, up to $400. Longer delays would trigger payments of four times the value of their tickets, up to $1,300. Currently, that compensation is capped at $800.

•Require airlines to prominently disclose all ancillary fees on their websites, including fees for checking bags, providing meals and canceling reservations.

Consumer advocates praise the new rules. The airlines, however, say more government regulations can hinder operations.




Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/travel/story/2011/08/New-rules-for-airlines-kick-in-this-week-to-protect-fliers/50077924/1

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Of course the airlines will say that!

They are entirely predictable...

[KoKo]

26. Where are the rules agains little kids and older folks in wheel chairs having private parts felt up?

or being subjected to needless X-rays for Children and elderly who've already had incidents where they were recently radiated and one more "rad" is too much. And that goes for our Middle Aged and 20-30 Somethings who have sports injuries and stuff where they have also had much radiation recently.

Until the TSA learns to abide by PRIVACY ISSUES...whatever comes out of there is just rhetorical stuff designed to serve political and their Bushbot Finaciers AGENDA.

PUKE on their "new guidelines" for pacification that address nothing that real American Flyers have to deal with.

BAH...on them!

[TheWraith]

2. But, I'm told Democrats are completely corrupt soulless minions of evil corporations...

How is this possible?

:rofl:

[pasto76]

5. I know, this is that "third way" bullshit they are trying to force feed us

My family has not flown in 5 years. Will not again unless MORE DEMOCRATIC RULES LIKE THIS ARE IMPOSED.

OBAMA 2012!

[TheWraith]

6. People complain about the security screenings...

They forget that the airlines are the ones who wanted the security screenings, in order to absolve them of any liability for anything bad happening.

If more people stopped flying because they objected to the security, enough to put a hit on the airlines' already tight profit margins, you'd see the rules get changed REAL fast.

[Alameda]

10. I would have flown more and I know others who would have flown

My sister, who is Miss Straight, will not come to visit me because she does not want to have to go through all the crap. I don't either. Sorry, being scanned and seen naked, gotten dosed with the subsequent radiation (and for what?)Being exposed to radiation that has not actually been tested for safety is not making me or anyone safe.

[TheWraith]

11. Okay, not a fan of the security theater, but that's not really true.

"Being exposed to radiation that has not actually been tested for safety"

Yeah, it has. It's less radiation actually than you get on the airline flight. There's lots of reasons to dislike it, but radiation isn't really a well grounded one.

[Alameda]

17. until they are proven safe, it's not acceptable to expose the public

"Full body scanners at airports could increase your risk of skin cancer, experts warn.
The X-ray machines have been brought in at Manchester, Gatwick and Heathrow.
But scientists say radiation from the scanners has been underestimated and could be particularly risky for children.
They say that the low level beam does deliver a small dose of radiation to the body but because the beam concentrates on the skin - one of the most radiation-sensitive organs of the human body - that dose may be up to 20 times higher than first estimated."


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1290527/Airport-body-scanners-deliver-radiation-dose-20-times-higher-thought.html#ixzz1VrIXGAlG

There is much controversy regarding the safety of the devices. You would have to do a little research to find that info though, rather than just accept what you have been told.

[pitohui]

21. you can request a patdown instead of the device, that's what i do

you do not have to go thru the device and be exposed to unknown radiation, if you are selected, ask to be patted down instead

i can't really help the person who refuses all types of screening, but if you're concerned about your health (and i agree w. your concerns, frequent flyers inc. crew already have slightly elevated cancer rates because of exposure to higher levels of radiation in flight) then you should not go thru the scanner, opt for the patdown

[Divernan]

23. Back scatter machines have never been independently tested

I just took a university level overview class on nuclear radiation. There are different types of radiation, for one thing, so to compare the exposure one receives from a TSA machine scan with the type of background radiation from other sources is ill-informed, gullible and disingenuous at best, and knowingly deceitful at worst.

The manufacturers of said machines claim "trade secrets" and the science involved cannot therefore be replicated for independent testing or peer review. I repeat, the science has never been peer reviewed. The single reported safety "test"/demonstration was from a machine NOT identical to the ones in the airport.

You noted the fact of the high concentration of radiation on the skin - anyone who has had skin cancer should not go through the backscatter scanner.

There is no known requirement for specific regulations re regular, scheduled monitoring and callibration of each machine to make sure it is functioning properly and not putting out more radiation.

The TSA operators can "adjust" the scanner to higher doses to increase definition. You know those permits posted on every elevator on this country telling you when it was last inspected? Nothing like that on backscatter scanners.

There are a few of these scanners being tried out in other countries, but the operators there wear radiation dosimeters to monitor their exposure. TSA workers are not permitted to wear dosimeters.

I could go on and on with the deceptive spin put out by TSA & the manufacturers, but I can't condense a college course into a post.

I could care less about somebody looking at my old body via imaging. What I do care about is not getting a recurrence of skin cancer. So I'll opt out of the scanning and give some TSA worker the thrill (sarcasm!) of patting me down.

[Divernan]

25. The radiation from these machines has never been independently tested.

There was one dog and pony show by the manufacturer with a "similar" machine. No peer review. No independent testing.
Of course, perhaps the full professor/nuclear physicist who taught my class, and the research material and articles I read on the topic were all wrong. I would be delighted to see proof otherwise. Got any links?

[leftynyc]

18. You'd get more radiation on the actual flight

I just flew to Greece last month and got scanned and you know what I thought? What the fuck do I care if some schmuck at the airport sees and outline of me naked? How does this effect me? Answer: it doesn't and I went on to have a wonderful vacation. Don't let that sort of shit keep you from exploring the world.

[Divernan]

24. That's incorrect. You're comparing different types of radiation. See post 23.

I'll explore the world - but avoid the back scatter machines.

[Historic NY]

7. Bastards..........

:spray:

[ixion]

14. I note they didn't bother to disband the TSA

so....

[SpartanDem]

19. They are as long as you ignore thing like this

[quakerboy]

27. Do the airlines contribute money?

I mean, real political player money? Investment bank/MIC/Health Care Insurance Corp level money?

If they do, then I agree with your snark. Otherwise its a red herring.

[Firebrand Gary]

3. And where is the Media on this? That's right, of its positive for Dems.

It's not worth reporting.

[struggle4progress]

4. That would be nice. The last time I flew cross-country, I had bought a ticket

with one plane change, with a tolerable lay-over, and home-to-hotel should have taken maybe ten hours. But the original flight was delayed by hours, I ended up with a bizarre multiple lay-over hop-skip-jump, and home-to-hotel took nearly twenty-four hours

[nyy1998]

8. As a frequent traveler, good job DOT!!!! Keep it up Secretary LaHood!

nt

[MADem]

9. They are already down to FAA minimum flight crews....

What else can they toss aside to reduce weight/decrease service? They'll make up the diff somehow.

Nowadays, airlines are Greyhound buses with wings, with the added perk of emergency-medically-trained flight crew who will help to direct you off the plane if you crash land and survive.

People shouldn't expect much, and they won't be disappointed.

[DarthDem]

12. Ahhhhh. What Can Be Accomplished Via Government

Soothing, isn't it? Businesses forced to help consumers.

Psssst, Obama Administration - - find more ways to do an end-run around that pathetic excuse for a Congress. The last administration can give you plenty of tips.

[bluestateguy]

13. Thank you Secretary LaHood and Obama Administration

nt

[lindysalsagal]

15. That's my only airplane fear: Hours on the tarmac. This is good, but

it's still 4 hours. Why not make it 2?

[pitohui]

22. two hours is impractical and not as unsafe as four hours

i've been on the tarmac two hours or more many a time, never four hours tho

i think it's reasonable to have food, drinks, etc. to cover people for an unexpected two hour delay but catering is already short loading some flights and after four hours you truly get people being dehydrated (no safe drinking water left) etc.

i was on a tarmac at the end of a flight for 3 hours (no customs official on the ground) and they did run out of liquids before it was all over

[Javaman]

16. yet the TSA can still grope my junk. nt

[pitohui]

20. it sounds great in theory

in practice the new computer booking programs are apparently working really well, i used to make extra $ getting bumped off flights but i can't catch a bump any more, even though the flights go out full

i think they are bumping their own staff now, the deadheaders, which means none of that $$$ is actually going into my pocket anymore :-(