RegisteredTraveler: July 2010

Aviation Safety Bill expected to be signed by President

Requires Enhanced Monitoring of Pilot Experience.

Links to text of bill, also Congressional Research Service Summary.

Border Security Fencing

Mexico & Aviation

FAA Finds Mexico Does Not Meet ICAO Safety Standards

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today announced that Mexico is not in compliance with international safety standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), following an assessment of the country’s civil aviation authority. As a result, the United States is downgrading Mexico from a Category 1 to Category 2 rating.

As part of the FAA’s International Aviation Safety Assessment (IASA) program, the agency assesses the civil aviation authorities of all countries with air carriers that operate or have applied to fly to the United States and makes that information available to the public. The assessments determine whether or not foreign civil aviation authorities are meeting ICAO safety standards, not FAA regulations. With the IASA Category 2 rating, Mexican air carriers cannot establish new service to the United States, although they are allowed to maintain existing service.

While Mexico has been responsive to the FAA’s findings and has made significant improvements in recent months, it was unable to fully comply with all of the international safety standards. However, under the leadership of Director General Hector Gonzalez Weeks, Mexico continues to make progress. The FAA is committed to working closely with the Mexican government and providing technical assistance to help Mexico regain its Category 1 rating.

A Category 1 rating means the country’s civil aviation authority complies with ICAO standards. A Category 2 rating means a country either lacks laws or regulations necessary to oversee air carriers in accordance with international standards, or that its civil aviation authority – equivalent to the FAA for aviation safety matters – is deficient in one or more areas, such as technical expertise, trained personnel, record-keeping or inspection procedures.

Countries with air carriers that fly to the United States must adhere to the safety standards of ICAO, the United Nations’ technical agency for aviation that establishes international standards and recommended practices for aircraft operations and maintenance.

IASA information is available here.

De-Icing (it's later than you think)

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is proposing a significant expansion of its icing certification standards, including a new requirement that manufacturers show airplanes can operate safely in freezing drizzle or freezing rain, conditions that constitute an icing environment known as “supercooled large drops” (SLDs).

The proposed regulations would improve safety by mandating that new transport category aircraft most affected by SLD icing conditions meet expanded safety standards, including additional airplane performance and handling qualities. The rule also would require all new transport category designs be able to fly in conditions where supercooled liquid and ice crystals exist.

The FAA is also proposing changes that would expand the icing certification requirements for engines, engine installations and some airplane components (for example, angle of attack and airspeed indicating systems). These systems would need to be able to perform in freezing rain, freezing drizzle, ice crystals and combinations of these icing phenomena.

“These new icing standards are part of our continuing effort to make the world’s safest aviation system even safer,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

Winter Ops.

Profiling by ethnicity

Hat tip to Bruce Schneier's blog for the turn on.

Schneier's Blog.

Jet Blue On Board Video

Take a look at the lawsuit filed by a passenger for being arrested at the direction of Jet Blue flight crew for shooting an onboard video.

You can click on the paper icon to see the filing.

Tarmac Limits/Flight Cancellations

Tarmac Limits.

DOT press release on flight cancellations.

Canadian Border Protection

What Protection.

Border Security: CBP Lacks the Data Needed to Assess the FAST Program at U.S. Northern Border Ports. GAO-10-694, July 19

Summer of the Body Scanner

From Joe Sharkey's column for the NYTIMES, in case you missed it.

Is that a Pistol in your pocket

or are you just glad to see me.

European Community Flight Delay Law (EC 261)

Of course, it is much more generous to stranded travelers than US Law.

BTS Goldmine

Well, that was more information than I needed.

Tarmac Delay Data.

Passengers Denied Confirmed Space Report

BTS.

Unbundling Fees

From the LAX Times Travel Blog.

GAO Report on extra fees.

Summary
To supplement fare revenues, airlines are increasingly charging fees for optional passenger services, notably for checked baggage, for which separate charges did not previously exist. While air fares are subject to a 7.5 percent excise tax that funds the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, which helps fund the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), many new optional fees are not. As requested, this report addresses (1) the nature, relationship to cost, and disclosure of airline fees, (2) the potential impact of such fees on the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, (3) checked and mishandled baggage issues; and (4) the process, if any, for refunding government-imposed taxes and fees when passengers do not use nonrefundable tickets. To perform this work, GAO analyzed financial data; reviewed applicable laws and regulations; and interviewed airline and government officials.
Airlines have imposed a variety of fees on a range of optional services, such as checked and carry-on bags; meals; blankets; early boarding; and seat selection. According to airline officials, the fees are based on a combination of factors, including the cost of providing the service, competition, and consumer demand. The fees have supplemented airline revenues, providing at least $3 billion in 2009--a small but growing amount of total revenues. However, information about the fees is not fully disclosed through all ticket distribution channels used by consumers, making it difficult for them to compare the total cost of flights offered by different carriers. The Department of Transportation (DOT) does not currently require disclosure of airline-imposed optional fees, apart from those for checked bags, but recently issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) considering different forms of disclosure of such fees. Meanwhile, a system is being tested to fully disclose all of the fees to consumers searching for fares, but airlines are not likely to disclose them unless compelled to do so. Airlines' increasing reliance on fees reduces the proportion of their total revenue that is taxed to fund FAA. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has determined that many of these fees, including checked baggage fees, are not related to the "transportation of a person"--the basis for imposing the 7.5 percent excise tax. According to GAO's calculations, the checked baggage fee (the largest and only measurable untaxed fee) if taxed in fiscal year 2009 would have accounted for about 2 percent of total Trust Fund revenues but is likely to grow in future years given recent trends. Since DOT guidance requires airlines to report separately only revenues from baggage fees and reservation change and cancellation fees, GAO was unable to estimate potential collections from other untaxed fees. Since airlines first imposed checked baggage fees, the number of checked bags per passenger has declined, contributing to a decline in the rate of mishandled bags. Despite the introduction of fees, airlines have not substantially changed their baggage service or compensation methods. Checked baggage fees have also led to greater amounts of carry-on baggage, resulting in greater competition for limited overhead storage space. According to IRS, aviation excise taxes on unused nonrefundable tickets are not refundable, but if an airline refunds the ticket, a proportionate amount of tax may be refunded. In contrast, consumers with unused nonrefundable tickets with expired or lost value are entitled to a full refund of the September 11th Security Fee, but few consumers request a refund because airlines are not required to inform consumers of this. According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), applicable statutes and regulations authorize the refund of its customs and immigration inspection fees if services aren't rendered, but DHS has not issued any policy or guidance that makes this clear. The Department of Agriculture's (USDA) statutes and regulations are unclear as to whether its fee is refundableon unused nonrefundable tickets. If Congress wants to tax currently untaxed airline fees, it would need to amend the Internal Revenue Code. GAO recommends that DOT require airlines to consistently disclose optional fees and notify passengers of any refundable government fees; USDA determine whether its fee is refundable on unused nonrefundable tickets; and DHS issue guidance on the refundability of its fees. USDA and DHS agreed with the recommendations and DOT did not comment on them.

Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Gerald L. Dillingham
Team: Government Accountability Office: Physical Infrastructure
Phone: (202) 512-4803

Airports can charge premium for peak time landing fees

Coverage from the WSJ.

See the DC Circuit's Blog. Air Transp. Ass'n of Am. v. US Dept. of Transp., No. 08-1293, involved a petition for review of amendments to the Department of Transportation's (DOT) 1996 Policy Regarding Airport Rates and Charges allowing an airport to charge aircraft higher landing fees at peak times, a practice known as congestion pricing. The court of appeals denied the petition on the grounds that 1) the court deferred to the DOT's reasonable interpretation of the statutory prohibition of unjust discrimination; 2) setting landing fees that complied with all applicable statutes and regulations was within the scope of an airport authority's power as proprietor; and 3) because the amendments left only two variables to the discretion of the airport proprietor, and thus set out a nearly complete pricing algorithm, the DOT provided sufficient guidance.

Opinion.