“Airlines handle sensitive data for millions of individuals on a regular basis, and the vast majority of travelers do not know that their information is bought, sold and used over and over again,” said Erin Witte, Director of Consumer Protection at Consumer Federation of America. “We are encouraged to see Secretary Buttigieg taking a major step toward protecting the privacy of air travel consumers.”  

The post Secretary Buttigieg Announces Enhanced Scrutiny of Airline Data Privacy Practices appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

The post CFA Tells the FAA to Increase Seat Sizes on Airplanes appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

The post Advocates Urge Senate to Prioritize Consumers in the FAA Reauthorization appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

As a federal agency, the FAA is accountable both to the American public and its aviation stakeholders, and its mission is “to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.” Its structure and funding require routine reauthorization, though “reauthorization” is partially a misnomer. This process is actually a routine funding approval packaged in a legislative act with additional legislative changes. Though the airline industry was deregulated in 1978, the practice of FAA reauthorization originated with the Airport and Airway Revenue Act of 1970 which created the Airport and Airway Trust Fund (Trust Fund)—used to finance FAA investments. The authority to collect taxes and to spend from the Trust Fund must be routinely reauthorized to meet agency and consumer needs.

This unique reauthorization process presents both opportunities and challenges. It creates a regular opportunity to revisit funding decisions, projects, and research initiatives. It also presents a regularly re-occurring opportunity to hold the FAA accountable for mandates it has not fulfilled, to respond to recent problems in air travel, and to advocate for stronger consumer protections. However, any changes enacted in reauthorization acts are only set for a specific period.

The last FAA reauthorization occurred in 2018 and expires this year. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 was the first multi-year reauthorization since 2012 and the first five-year reauthorization since 1982.  Legislators may include proposals in reauthorization acts about a wide range of issues not limited to the topic of aviation regulation. For instance, the 2018 Act included legislative changes concerning sports medicine licensure and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. This is why it is critically important to pay attention to this legislative process.

 Consumer Protections in the 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act:

• Directed the Department of Transportation (DOT) to examine and analyze the causes of flight delays and cancellations;
• Mandated regulations requiring carriers to promptly refund to passengers any ancillary fees paid for services that the passenger does not receive;
• Directed the DOT to appoint an Aviation Consumer Advocate;
• Promoted use of the consumer complaints hotline and evaluation of future mobile phone applications for consumer feedback; and
• Required the DOT to develop Airlines Passengers with Disabilities Bill of Rights.

What may happen in the 2023 Reauthorization? The failure to sign a reauthorization would be catastrophic for air travel. The FAA would be encumbered with the uncertainty of short-term extensions and cast doubt on its ability to obtain the funding it needs to invest in its critical priorities. Short-term extensions do not allow the opportunity to provide needed legislative changes in the form of an act passed by Congress.

The recent disasters in air travel have exposed the myriad areas where consumers need better protection. CFA has pushed for stronger protections for years, and 2023 is a critical time to continue this work. Congress should use the 2023 Reauthorization Act to respond to the air travel disasters and enormous criticism about the lack of available redress for harmed consumers. CFA and a group of national advocates for air travel safety and consumer protections have authored a letter to Congress asking to prioritize several key topics in the 2023 Reauthorization, including:

• Requiring compensation when consumers’ flights are delayed and canceled, and holding airlines accountable for publishing unrealistic flight schedules;
• End junk fee practices in air travel, including prohibiting fees for family seating and for other such services, and requiring all-in pricing;
• Ending federal preemption of airline regulation and allowing state attorneys general and individuals to hold airlines accountable;
• Encouraging stronger DOT enforcement of passenger protections; and
• Prioritizing consumer voices and experiences.

For a copy of the full letter and complete list of priorities, click here.

The post The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2023: What it is and Why it Matters appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

The post Groups Urge call on the Congress to Prioritize and Expand Consumer Protection Regulations in the Upcoming 2023 Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Process appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

The post Groups Urge DOT to Promote Transparency of Ancillary Airline Fees, Including Baggage Fees, Change Fees, Cancellation Fees, and Family Seating Fees appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

Ironically, air travel is one of the few industries that is required to provide up-front information to consumers about mandatory fees through the Full Fare Advertising Rule, adopted in 2011. This rule, however, does not require airlines to provide this same kind of up-front information about “ancillary” or optional fees. Over the years, airlines have created a system that requires payment of a fee for things that many consumers use whenever they travel but because they are considered “ancillary,” airlines are not required to disclose them in the same way. Hiding fees through a drip pricing model makes it almost impossible to comparison shop for airline tickets.

The Department of Transportation (DOT), airlines’ sole regulator, has recognized the reality that many consumers purchase these ancillary services and pay additional fees. It has proposed a rule to expand these fee disclosure requirements for airlines and bring much needed transparency to the sale of airline tickets. If adopted, airlines would be required to disclose more fees earlier in the purchase process. Importantly, the DOT’s proposal would not prohibit airlines from charging any particular type of fee, but instead focuses on ensuring that airlines are more up-front with consumers about how much their air travel will cost. Here are some basic facts about the rule proposal:

Who would have to disclose the fees? Any entity that advertises or sells tickets to consumers in the U.S. (including domestic foreign airlines, ticket agents, and corporate and online travel agencies).

What new fees would have to be disclosed?

• • Baggage fees, including fees for first, second and checked bags;
  • Change and cancellation fees;
  • A statement about whether the consumer can receive a refund if they cancel the purchase within 24 hours; and
  • Family seating fees, including whether the airline charges extra for a passenger to sit next to their child(ren) under the age of 13.

How would fees have to be disclosed? Fees would have to be available “on the first page when a consumer conducts a search,” instead of hidden through links to other pages.  They would also need to be provided to consumers who purchase on the phone or in person.

What happens if they are not disclosed? The DOT has stated that the failure to comply with these provisions would be an unfair and deceptive practice, and the seller would be required to refund the fee and possibly be subject to enforcement action by the DOT.

This would be a welcome change for air travel consumers but may not do enough to effect meaningful change. Here are additional steps we would like to see the DOT undertake relating to air travel fees:

• Enforce existing rules. Adopting expanded rules is good progress, but unless the rules are enforced, they become meaningless and ineffective. The DOT has brought very few enforcement actions against airlines in the past decade.
• Prohibit family seating fees. Families should be able to sit together without paying a fee. This is a quintessential junk fee.
• Require disclosure of all seat reservation fees, not just family seating.
• Subject large revenue-generating fees to transparency requirements. Airlines are already required to submit fee data to the DOT, and these statistics should likewise be routinely reviewed.

Here is a link to the DOT’s Enhancing Transparency of Ancillary Airline Fees notice of proposed rulemaking. The comment deadline has passed, but the DOT has indicated that it will accept late comments and may reopen the comment period.

Read part 1, part 2 and part 3 of our Junk Fees blog series.

The post Junk Fee Blog Series<br>Part 4: Airline Fees appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

Consumer advocates have created a list of urgently needed reforms that Congress can undertake to expand DOT’s authority, disincentivize unfair and deceptive conduct, and hold airlines accountable, including:

• Minimizing flights cancellations and delays by requiring industry-wide reciprocity for passengers, requiring carriers to maintain a percentage of on-time flights per month, and requiring public airports to post notices about compensation rights.
• Reforming airline fees, seating and rewards by prohibiting unreasonable and disproportionate fees, prioritizing family seating requirements, establishing basic standards for air travel (including maintaining a customer service phone number with minimal wait time), requiring up front and transparent fare pricing, ending the excise tax exemption for ancillary service fees, establishing a minimum passenger seat size, and requiring reasonable notice before devaluing frequent flyer miles.
• Enabling stronger enforcement of passenger protections by permitting state attorneys general to enforce DOT consumer protection laws, establishing a private right of action for passengers, and directing the Government Accountability Office to examine the DOT’s failure to complete prior mandates from Congress in past FAA reauthorization bills.
• Prioritizing consumer voices by renewing the charter for the Aviation Consumer Protection Advisory Committee, requiring airport authority government boards to have at least two consumer representatives, and establishing the creation of new airports.

“Congress has an opportunity and an obligation to respond to the air travel crisis by enacting meaningful reforms to strengthen consumer protections,” said Erin Witte, CFA’s Director of Consumer Protection. “CFA is committed to ensuring that urgently needed reforms are included and that consumer voices are prioritized throughout the FAA reauthorization process.”

Contact: Erin Witte, 202-569-9807

The post Congressional Action Needed to Strengthen Airline Consumer Protection Regulations appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

The first item on the list of priorities we presented to the Secretary was making consumer protection a priority at the DOT. For too long, the airlines, not consumers, have been treated as the DOT’s “customers.” But, as we pointed out, the DOT is “the only sheriff in town” when it comes to protecting passengers, since states are preempted under federal law and consumers can only sue the airlines individually, in small claims court. We urged Secretary Buttigieg to publicly acknowledge that consumer protection is a priority of the DOT.

Next we brought up the issue of ticket refunds and expiring credits for flights that were canceled due to the pandemic. When airlines cancel flights, passengers are entitled to refunds, but not all everyone knows that, and last year many people were steered into accepting vouchers for future travel instead of getting their money back. That almost happened to me, but fortunately I knew better, so after wading through multiple screens on American Airlines’ website offering me a credit and not even mentioning the possibility of a refund, I finally reached a page where I could choose to get the more than $1,000 I paid for my ticket returned. Furthermore, some airlines didn’t made the refunds promptly, as required. The DOT recently took action against Air Canada for that, and hopefully more enforcement is coming.

Consumers who decided not to fly last year because of guidance from the Centers for Disease Control, state stay-at-home orders, or simply out of concern about the safety of getting on a plane while an infectious disease was raging, were not entitled to refunds unless they bought refundable tickets. The airlines voluntarily offered vouchers to some of these consumers, but they may expire before they can be used because most people don’t fly very often. Considering that the airlines received billions from taxpayers to help keep them aloft during the pandemic, we urged Secretary Buttigieg to ensure that these vouchers will never expire and consumers can get refunds if they cannot or do not want to use them. The DOT has teed up a rulemaking on refunds, which will address situations in which consumers are unable to fly due to government restrictions, but that won’t provide retroactive relief to people whose money,  approximately $10 billion, the airlines are sitting on now.

Family seating was the next item on our agenda. When consumers buy plane tickets these days they are often charged extra to be able choose their seats, and if they don’t pay to do so there’s no guarantee that they’ll be seated with other family members. This has resulted in young children sitting many rows away from their parents, which is unsafe for the kids and can be aggravating for their seatmates. The DOT has dithered on this issue, citing a low number of complaints, but consumers may not think to complain about this to the agency. We told Secretary Buttigieg that families with young children must be able to sit together at no additional charge.

Finally, we spoke about the problem of seat sizes on airplanes., which the DOT has failed to address for years. People are getter larger but the seats are getter smaller. There are standards for how much space cats and dogs must be provided with on planes, but not for humans! The cramped quarters makes flying uncomfortable, can result in health problems, leads to friction among passengers, and makes safe evacuation of planes harder. We asked Secretary Buttigieg to appoint an advisory committee composed of outside experts and all relevant stakeholders to study and advise the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on minimum seat and passenger space standards and said that the FAA commence should begin a rulemaking process on these standards as soon as possible.

There were many other issues on our priorities list, but this was an excellent start. We look forward to working with Secretary Buttigieg and the DOT to improve protections for airline passengers.

The post Giving Airline Consumer Protection Advocates a Fair Hearing (Finally!) appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

The post Consumer Groups Present DOT Secretary Buttigieg with Airline Consumer Protection Priorities appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

In a Feb. 5 op-ed, David Heffernan, a former outside counsel for Airlines for America, the airlines’ lobbying organization in Washington, and Robert Kneisley, a former associate general counsel for Southwest Airlines, took pains to defend an anti-consumer policy that was stealthily released the day after Thanksgiving in the waning days of former U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao’s tenure.

At issue is a Transportation Department (DOT) rule issued on Nov. 27, 2020, that limits, by definition, what is considered an unfair or deceptive practice and creates new obstacles for DOT enforcement action.

As important context, the airline industry is the only consumer-facing business where consumers are denied access to justice via state courts or to remedies through state attorneys general for unfair or deceptive practices. This exception eliminates the marketplace discipline present in other industries to discourage trampling on consumers’ rights. In deregulating the industry, Congress never intended—or even discussed—this airline-backed, court-interpreted elimination of a basic consumer right to sue in court. This situation leaves the DOT as the sole arbiter of consumer harm and enforcement for millions of airline passengers.

Despite repeated airline assertions, the DOT has not acted arbitrarily or in excess of its authority when it comes to consumer protection. If airlines believe this to be the case, they can seek to have DOT actions overturned on judicial review. Rules DOT has promulgated under its authority have been well-founded and provided important consumer protections. The airlines have and will continue to fight many of these common-sense rules.

For example, airlines opposed the creation of, and continue to work to dilute:

• Requiring full-fare advertising that avoids misleading consumers as to the ultimate price they will pay—including add-on fees—and facilitates efficient comparison shopping;
• Putting time-limits and other conditions on tarmac delays protecting passengers from being subjected to extreme discomfort.

Heffernan and Kneisley argue that by DOT applying Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforcement standards for unfair and deceptive practices, as outlined in this new rule, airlines will be treated like all other industries. However, they conveniently sidestep two important differences between the FTC and DOT.

First, the FTC has a broad mandate to police a large swath of the US economy. However, only DOT has authority to regulate unfairness and deception in the airline industry. Contrary to airline industry claims, the DOT has exercised this authority extremely judiciously. In 2019, DOT issued the fewest aviation enforcement orders in a decade, totaling just $2.2 million in civil penalties on US airline revenue of $196 billion and profits of $14.8 billion. Indeed, the frequency with which DOT issues enforcement orders has steadily declined since 2010.

Second, the FTC has authority to take enforcement action against the first instance of an egregious act that it determines to be unfair or deceptive. DOT enforcement is only considered for conduct considered an intended practice, requiring proof that multiple consumers have been harmed at different times by the same repetitive conduct, or that the conduct reflects company policy. This hurdle largely eliminates even a theoretical potential for any unannounced enforcement action to be taken.

The authors also claim that, under the rule, hearings would offer “enhanced opportunities” for parties to present evidence. In their world of bottomless budgets for legal fees, researchers and consultants that may be true. But the authors know full well that consumers and other public interest groups simply cannot possibly muster such resources, and by drawing out the process, the airlines’ odds of winning dramatically increase.

The Biden Administration DOT and Congress should consider the overwhelming number of comments submitted in opposition to the rule change and reverse course.

This blog was first published in Air Transport World as an op-ed on February 22, 2021. You can view the original reporting at this link here.

The post New DOT Rule Undermines Airline Consumer Protections appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

The consumer and business travel groups, which include the Business Travel Coalition, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America, National Consumers League and Travel Fairness Now sent a joint letter to the CEOs of Alaska, American, Southwest and United Airlines asking them to agree to a five-point “737 MAX 8/9 Passenger Protection Plan.” The five protections include:

1. Allowing passengers concerned about flying on a 737 MAX 8 and 9 to change to flights operated with other aircraft without any financial penalties such as differences in fare with the ticket they already purchased, all the way up to departure time. This includes flights operated by the airline itself and those operated by that airline’s “code-share” partners.
2. If no other aircraft is operated on a passenger’s itinerary, offering consumers the option of either a full refund or the ability to apply the full value of the ticket to a ticket to a different destination, without incurring a change fee, administrative fee or other financial penalty.
3. If a consumer is concerned about flying on a 737 MAX 8 or 9 to a degree that they’d rather not travel at all, provide them with a full refund on a timely basis.
4. Updating the airlines’ “Contract of Carriage” to reflect these changes and make them binding.
5. Providing consumers and travel agents with easily viewable information on the type of aircraft that will be used to operate a flight in advance so that consumers have full knowledge of whether a flight being considered is being operated with a 737 MAX 8 or 9, well before making a decision to purchase an airline ticket on a specific flight.

“The circumstances surrounding the Boeing 737 MAX 8 and 9 are unprecedented in the history of commercial travel and call for extraordinary protections for understandably concerned consumers,” said Kurt Ebenhoch, executive director of Travel Fairness Now. “While we appreciate the initial accommodations that some airline officials have shared through public comments, we look forward to them formalizing those plans into binding commitments consumers can depend on before committing to purchase a plane ticket.”

In the U.S., there are four airlines that either operate or have ordered the Boeing 737 MAX – Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, Southwest Airlines and United Airlines.

“The Business Travel Coalition applauds airlines that have said they will allow passengers, fearful of flying a Boeing 737 MAX 8 and 9, to rebook for free once they take to the air again,” stated founder Kevin Mitchell. “It represents a smart cost-neutral business decision for travel and procurement managers around the world as they grapple with a MAX 8 and 9 related ‘duty-of-care’ requirement of not knowingly placing employees in harm’s way. These accommodations, if followed by all MAX 8 and 9 operators, should facilitate travel policies that make booking a 737 MAX 8 and 9 a voluntary decision for travelers,” added Mitchell.

“Consumers shouldn’t be forced to fly on the 737 MAX or have to pay more if they don’t feel comfortable doing so,” said Susan Grant, director of Consumer Protection and Privacy at Consumer Federation of America. “If this plane is put back in service, it’s crucial for the airlines to adopt formal policies to accommodate consumers’ concerns.”

Last-Minute Aircraft Substitutions

Travelers may also be faced with airlines making close-to-departure aircraft substitutions, where a published schedule shows a flight operated with a plane other than a 737 MAX 8 or 9, and that aircraft becomes delayed or requires lengthy maintenance work. To prevent a cancellation or lengthier delay, the airline may decide to substitute the aircraft originally planned for the flight with a 737 MAX 8 or 9 instead.

“Many travelers now dread the thought of getting on a 737 MAX and understandably will go out of their way to book travel on another kind of aircraft,” said Linda Sherry, director of National Priorities for Consumer Action. “Having gone to the trouble of making their preferences known, these travelers should never face last-minute aircraft substitutions that would land them in a 737 MAX. We fully support strong, formal and transparent airline policies that give these travelers the right to switch to another aircraft when possible, paying no more than they did for the same type of ticket and class, or be given a full refund or credit if no alternative is available.”

“Both Boeing and the FAA have shaken the public trust, and the burden should not be on consumers who are rightfully concerned about the safety of this aircraft,” said John Breyault, vice president, Public Policy, Telecommunications and Fraud for National Consumers League. “Passengers should have the right to opt out of flying on the 737 MAX, and there should be no financial penalty for doing so.”

Code-Sharing

Many airlines engage in the practice of “code-sharing,” where they market flights operated by another airline as if it were their own, using the two-letter airline code on flights operated by different airlines.

 The consumer and business groups recommend that travelers concerned about flying on a 737 MAX also check if flights operated by code-sharing partners airlines are using a 737 MAX. For example, while a U.S. airline on a passenger’s itinerary may not fly the 737 MAX, an international carrier that a passenger is connecting to might.

Airline Contracts of Carriage

An airline’s “Contract of Carriage” details all of the contractual details and obligations between a consumer and an airline when a plane ticket is purchased, including what the consumer is entitled to and may expect. Airlines sometimes use Contract of Carriage language to enforce rules, collect additional revenues and deny services. Unfortunately, these “contracts of adhesion” can be one-sided, confusing and do more to protect the interests of the airlines, not consumers.

Contact: Susan Grant, sgrant@consumerfed.org

The post Consumer and Business Groups Urge Airlines to Adopt Traveler-Friendly Policies When 737 Max Returns to Skies appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

Yesterday, U.S. Representatives Steve Cohen and Chuy Garcia and Senator Ed Markey wrote to Frontier Airlines expressing “significant concern” about its new “More Room” seat pricing policy.  CFA thanks these members of Congress for demanding that consumers be protected from this shameful behavior. Senator Markey and Senators Elizabeth Warren, Richard Blumenthal, and Kamala Harris recently criticized the airlines for failing to issue cash refunds to passengers for unused tickets, even those who are legally entitled to their money back because their flights were cancelled, even as those businesses have received large cash infusions from taxpayers. “Airlines are supposed to serve the public, and they should be obliged to put passenger welfare first,” said Grant. “Congress should stand up to the airlines and require cash refunds for consumers who don’t want to or can’t use their tickets during this health emergency, and to prohibit extra charges for safety measures such as social distancing.” Cancelation charges, change fees, and fare differences should be required to be waived, not just left to the discretion of the airlines, she noted. “The airlines’ recent behavior richly demonstrates what we have been saying for years – the industry must be reformed to ensure that passengers are treated fairly and to give them meaningful recourse if they are not,” said Grant.

The post Frontier Air Profiting on Pandemic Fears appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

The post CFA Supports Airline Passenger Protections In House Bill to Address COVID-19 Pandemic appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

After years of record profits, the airline industry is now facing steep and painful financial headwinds due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In response, the industry has asked the Trump Administration and leaders in Congress for a bailout package of grants, loans, and tax relief reportedly totaling more than $50 billion. This includes $29 billion in grants, up to $25 billion in loans, three months of tax rebates and a repeal of aviation excise taxes through at least the end of 2021.

To address the immediate danger of the coronavirus and related passenger protection concerns during the national emergency, the groups urged Congress to require airlines to take steps to mitigate the spread of coronavirus on airplanes, require cash refunds for consumers who cancel flights or whose flights are canceled by the airline, require reasonable rebooking fares and increase call center staffing levels.

As advocates for consumers, the groups further urged Congress to heed the lessons of the 2008 financial crisis by including a slate of needed consumer protections such as making ancillary fees reasonable, restoring a private right of action, empowering state attorneys general to protect passengers, prohibiting further reductions in seat sizes, and ensuring equal access to fare, fee and schedule data.

“A commercially viable air transportation system is vital to the U.S. economy, but in the past decade the airlines have raked in $96 billion in profits on the backs of consumers with the implicit assurance that taxpayers would bail them out in the event of a major market disruption,” said Sally Greenberg, Executive Director of the National Consumers League. “If the airlines are going to run to Congress for a bailout when they could have invested in pandemic insurance or increased their cash reserves, then policymakers should require binding commitments to address long-standing consumer protection concerns.”

“After the terrorist attacks on 9/11, Consumer Reports supported taxpayer relief  for the airline industry, but urged Congress to require protections to address longstanding consumer complaints,” said William J. McGee, Aviation Adviser for Consumer Reports.   “Unfortunately, no such protections were included, and since then, the airlines have consolidated, become less consumer-friendly, and laid off hundreds of thousands of workers as their profits soared.  Meanwhile, consumers have had to put up with tighter seats, indifferent customer service, and an increasing number of costly fees. Consumers should not be left out now.”

“Restoring a private right of action is the one necessary structural solution to provide sufficient industry discipline to prevent airlines from trampling on all the rights and interests of their customers,” stated Business Travel Coalition Chairman Kevin Mitchell. “The right to sue when harmed is fundamental and is one that the U.S. Congress never intended to have stripped from airline consumers when it deregulated the industry in 1978. Moreover, it is a right that consumers exercise in every other consumer-facing industry to discourage market participants from abusing their rights.”

“As air travel is the main way the coronavirus has quickly spread to become a global pandemic, airlines have a special obligation to strictly obey government guidelines to mitigate the pandemic even though this means less revenue and increased expenses in the short term,” said Paul Hudson, President, FlyersRights.org, Public Member, FAA Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee and Evacuation Advisory Rulemaking Committee. “DOT Secretary Chao must also strictly enforce the guidelines and abandon the agency’s weak enforcement of passenger rights. Congress at a minimum should repeal the exemption of airlines from consumer protection laws applying to all other businesses.”

“The last investment taxpayers made in the airline industry during a time of crisis was followed by record profits on the backs of consumers through less competition, transparency, passenger comfort and a proliferation of fees for services previously included in the price of a ticket,” said Kurt Ebenhoch, Executive Director of Travel Fairness Now. “This time, massive public assistance to the airline industry must be coupled with a meaningful commitment from the airline industry to passenger safety and consumer protection.”

“For years, the airlines have failed to place either passenger health and safety or passenger rights first, so Congress needs to require that they do,” said Ed Mierzwinski, U.S. PIRG Senior Director for Federal Consumer Programs.

“It’s time to put the public interest front and center as we take steps to address the immediate problems related to the COVID-19 pandemic and the airline industry in the long-term,” said Susan Grant, Consumer Federation of America’s Director of Consumer Protection and Privacy.

The letter was signed by the National Consumers League, Business Travel Coalition, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Reports, EdOnTravel.com, FlyersRights.org, Travelers United, Travel Fairness Now and U.S. PIRG.

The post Consumer Groups Urge Congress to Insist On Consumer Protections in Airline Taxpayer Bailout appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

“It’s time to put the public interest front and center as we take steps to address the immediate problems related to the COVID-19 pandemic and the airline industry in the long-term,” said Susan Grant, CFA Director of Consumer Protection and Privacy.

View Press Release Below:

Consumer Groups Airline Bailout Press Release

The post Groups Say Airline Passengers Need Relief, Too appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

Competitive market forces cannot work effectively in the airline industry without disclosing full pricing data, the rules and restrictions that apply, and other factors so that consumers can make informed buying decisions. It is also essential for consumers to be informed of their rights and how to complain to the DOT if they believe an airline has not treated then correctly, and for the DOT to take swift, appropriate action to stop unfair, deceptive, and abusive airline practices.

Download PDF

The post Consumer Groups Submit Reply Comments to the Department of Transportation Regarding Airlines’ Push for Deregulation appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

CFA believes that consumers shouldn’t be gouged at the register or in the skies. That’s why CFA has endorsed legislation introduced by Senators Ed Markey and Richard Blumenthal, the Forbidding Airlines from Imposing Ridiculous (FAIR) Fees Act. If enacted, the U.S. Department of Transportation would establish standards to determine if airline fees are reasonable and proportional to the costs incurred by the air carriers and prohibit fees that are not. CFA is working with Travelers United and other consumer groups to ensure that the cost of flying is transparent and fair.

The post Are Airline Fees Unfair? appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.