Posted on 03/25/2008 10:02:33 AM PDT by Santa Fe_Conservative
NEW YORK - A federal appeals court has rejected a law requiring airlines to provide food, water, clean toilets and fresh air to passengers trapped in a plane delayed on the ground.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that New York's new state law interferes with federal law governing the price, route or service of an air carrier. It was the first law in the nation of its kind.
The appeals court said the new law was laudable but only the federal government has the authority to enact such a regulation.
The law was challenged before the appeals court by the Air Transport Association of America, the industry trade group representing leading U.S. airlines.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
What part of “delayed on the ground” does the court not understand? Bad ruling.
I can’t figure out why my flight from JFK to Boston didn’t make the news when we waited for hours on the tarmac... We were on the way home from Russia with our newly-adopted son, and thankfully he was well-reseted and fairly sanguine about the whole thing.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
they don’t have to provide amenitys, but they do need to let us off the damn plane.
At some point is becomes imprisonment.
Wow that’s awful. Hope the incident did give some additional bonding time though :)
This is a bad ruling, and the ultimate loser will be the airline industry. What did this law do other than provide passengers access to water and a bathroom?
The backlash to this kind of passenger abuse is that more people will simply avoid flying.
The court is not making a ruling on the merits of the law, just the precedence of state law versus federal law involving interstate transportation. Your comments do not involve the issue that the court is considering. This ruling will probably be appealed to the Supreme Court if appeals court sides with the lower court.
This is not air travel. It is on the ground.
If I find I’nm being held against my will onboard an airplane I’m first calling local law enforcement to ask to be rescued and then I’m calling the TV stations to report a hostage crisis on the ramp.
Good ruling that passes federalist criteria. Only Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce, my guess the Supremes will agree.
An airplane sitting on the tarmac is engaged in “interstate commerce”, just like a farmer growing grain to feed his livestock.
No, once you are in an airplane you subject to federal laws and regulations.
So all airports have to charge the same landing fees and use taxes? Oh, that's right, they don't, do they? This is a matter of states rights as it is a matter of individual rights. We do not surrender our rights just because we board an aircraft.
If you’re trapped in a motionless plane on the tarmac, you are clearly not traveling.
this is a GOOD ruling.
This is to prevent idotic local state laws which screw up the rest of the country.
NY has FEDERAL representatives in Congress, THIS is where this should have been made law. Not in the brothel of the NY state legislature.
Appeal all they want, it will be upheld. The Supremes love the Interstate commerce clause.
If you blow up, or attack, an airplane sitting on the tarmac and kill someone, you are subject to federal death penalty laws.
Airports are air harbors.
How is sitting still, by anyone’s definition, “traveling”?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.