[INITIAL PROPOSAL] Air Travel Consumer Protection Act

[Oceanialia]

Air Travel Consumer Protection Act
A resolution to enact uniform standards to protect workers, consumers, and the general public.

Category: Regulation
Area of Effect: Consumer Protection
Proposed by: Oceanialia

The General Assembly;

DISAPPOINTED with airlines that insufficiently compensate customers for flight delays and cancellations;

APPALLED at airlines that voluntarily overbook flights to offset unoccupied seats, leaving behind genuine passengers in the process;

SHOCKED that airlines strand passengers on tarmac upon departures and arrivals;

HORRIFIED that airlines deliberately mislead consumers into paying more for their flight by showing said consumers anything other than the full price;

CONVINCED that such practices and procedures must be curtailed to the benefit of the consumer;

HEREBY DECLARES:
1. The terms "passenger" and "consumer" are synonymous with one another in the context of this Act.
2. In the event of a flight delay that lasts more than thirty minutes or a flight cancellation, consumers shall have the right to reroute for no extra cost or receive a refund for their flight ticket unless the flight is cancelled and the airline notifies the consumer two weeks before their planned flight.
3. Also in the event of a flight delay that lasts more than thirty minutes or a flight cancellation, airlines must provide consumers with the option to transfer to another flight, provided said flight is able to transport the consumer to their destination earlier than their original flight.
4. Airlines must ensure that overbooking shall result in sufficient compensation to the passengers that are left behind as a result (ensuring that said passengers are unable to reschedule their flights to a later time), which must be no lower than one-hundred currency units.
5. Airlines shall not keep passengers onboard aircraft for longer than three hours during tarmac delays without giving the passenger the right to leave if they so wish, subject to security and safety standards.
6. During a tarmac delay, airlines shall be required to provide food and water to passengers if the delay lasts longer than one hour and must provide updates to passengers on said tarmac delay every thirty minutes.
7. Airlines must advertise to consumers the full price of the flight when said consumers are planning a reservation, including airline fees, government taxes, and user fees.
8. The provisions of this Act apply to all airlines that do business with or within WA member nations.

[Tinhampton]

The terms "passenger" and "consumer" are synonymous with one another in the context of this Act.

Consider choosing one of these terms to use throughout.

The provisions of this Act apply to all airlines that do business with or within WA member nations.

All of them? Even the ones headquartered or incorporated in non-member states?

[Imperium Anglorum]

The provisions of this Act apply to all airlines that do business with or within WA member nations.

All of them? Even the ones headquartered or incorporated in non-member states?

Not doing this would basically make it impossible to regulate commerce. Every firm would just do regulatory arbitrage. Nor is it something out of line in the real world. Google has to follow European Union law even though it is headquartered and chartered in the United States.

[Araraukar]

Nor is it something out of line in the real world. Google has to follow European Union law even though it is headquartered and chartered in the United States.

OOC: Didn't know Google had expanded to air travel business...

But even in aviation the EU nations as a whole can ban the right to fly over the airspace of EU nations to carriers who do not follow stringent enough safety regulations. Some cheap arse flight companies from Far East and Africa have been banned in the not too distant past, for example (some cleaned up their act and the ban was lifted, others didn't and if they still exist, are likely still banned). I'm fairly sure the domestic (meaning EU nations as a whole) carriers are subject to the same regulations.

[Imperium Anglorum]

You know that I'm speaking about regulation in general. That aside, your example also invalidates Tinhampton's point: the European Union can regulate activities that occur within its jurisdiction, whether or not the companies performing those activities are registered or domiciled outside the Union.

[Araraukar]

You know that I'm speaking about regulation in general. That aside, your example also invalidates Tinhampton's point: the European Union can regulate activities that occur within its jurisdiction, whether or not the companies performing those activities are registered or domiciled outside the Union.

OOC: As shocking as it may be, I was actually trying to help you make that point with actual aviation example. And gently tease you, because I was amused by the thought of Google taking over some corona-struggling airliner since it has the money to do it... Can't you just imagine airplanes with the multicoloured "Google" written on them?

[Tinhampton]

4/12/2020, 4:30:55 AM GMT+1: Oceanialia submitted a proposal to the General Assembly Regulation Board entitled "Air Travel Consumer Protection Act".

This proposal was submitted without any drafting and has already been deemed legal by two of GenSec.

[Oceanialia]

4/12/2020, 4:30:55 AM GMT+1: Oceanialia submitted a proposal to the General Assembly Regulation Board entitled "Air Travel Consumer Protection Act".

This proposal was submitted without any drafting and has already been deemed legal by two of GenSec.

So what? There's nothing I read in the rules that says you're required to draft a proposal before submitting it.

[Barfleur]

4/12/2020, 4:30:55 AM GMT+1: Oceanialia submitted a proposal to the General Assembly Regulation Board entitled "Air Travel Consumer Protection Act".

This proposal was submitted without any drafting and has already been deemed legal by two of GenSec.

So what? There's nothing I read in the rules that says you're required to draft a proposal before submitting it.

You aren't. However, by posting it on the forums before submitting it, you can get good feedback, which will help your proposal (a) do what you actually want it to do, and (b) have a higher chance of being passed.

[Imperium Anglorum]

4. Airlines must ensure that overbooking shall result in sufficient compensation to the passengers that are left behind as a result (ensuring that said passengers are unable to reschedule their flights to a later time), which must be no lower than one-hundred currency units.

100 South Korean won should be enough to buy one tenth of a bottle of Coke.



'Please, sir, I want some more', responded the little child, Master Twist.

That aside, there's no reason to institute a minimum if it could be provided in kind by rebooking in the first place.

[Araraukar]

OOC post. Tone of feedback is grumpier than it would be if you hadn't already submitted this.

DISAPPOINTED with airlines that insufficiently compensate customers for flight delays and cancellations;

APPALLED at airlines that voluntarily overbook flights to offset unoccupied seats, leaving behind genuine passengers in the process;

SHOCKED that airlines strand passengers on tarmac upon departures and arrivals;

HORRIFIED that airlines deliberately mislead consumers into paying more for their flight by showing said consumers anything other than the full price;

Just because airliners are crap where you live in RL does not mean they were that everywhere in NS. So before making claims like this, which make it appear as if all airliners behaved in this way, I would suggest having a much closer look at airliner practices around the world, not just the cheap-ass ones. Since your claims don't hold true even in RL in all cases, they're not going to hold true in NS either.

CONVINCED that such practices and procedures must be curtailed to the benefit of the consumer;

Using something else but "consumer" in this would've made it a better clause, like "the flying public" or "airtravelers" or "passengers" or something like that.

HEREBY DECLARES:

...so if you're using the WA to dictate actions to the airliners, exactly what are you giving the member nations to do?

1. The terms "passenger" and "consumer" are synonymous with one another in the context of this Act.

As was already pointed out, this is unprofessional. You should've picked one and stuck with it.

2. In the event of a flight delay that lasts more than thirty minutes or a flight cancellation, consumers shall have the right to reroute for no extra cost or receive a refund for their flight ticket unless the flight is cancelled and the airline notifies the consumer two weeks before their planned flight.

What the fuck have you been smoking? If the fight delay is in no way the ailiner's fault - like, say, a serious thunderstorm moved over the place and it's not safe to try and take off during it (meaning all planes are grounded), or an even more extreme case, if there was an accident and the runway cannot be used until the wreckage and bits of people have been collected and moved out of the way - then having "right to reroute" kinda makes no sense, as no other flights are going to get off the ground either. Also, what do you even mean by "reroute"? If there's only one flight that can take you to where you're going (don't think big international airports but smaller local ones that might only see one flight a week or so), you're not going to get there until that flight can take off.

Since you're making this a weird mandate, you should stop and think about cases other than "because the bastards want my money without actually taking me there".

3. Also in the event of a flight delay that lasts more than thirty minutes or a flight cancellation

You really should have separate clauses for mere delays (what's up with the 30 minute rule anyway?) and flight cancellations throughout. Because delays that are in no way the fault of anyone, happen all the time. Often because, you know, this thing called weather exists.

3. Also in the event of a flight delay that lasts more than thirty minutes or a flight cancellation, airlines must provide consumers with the option to transfer to another flight, provided said flight is able to transport the consumer to their destination earlier than their original flight.

How's this going to work if you're in air on the flight that is late (delayed) because it has to go around a big storm rather than risk the lives of you and everyone else onboard?

4. Airlines must ensure that overbooking shall result in sufficient compensation to the passengers that are left behind as a result (ensuring that said passengers are unable to reschedule their flights to a later time), which must be no lower than one-hundred currency units.

...so now you want to make the airliners kidnap the passengers to make them unable to reschedule their flights?

5. Airlines shall not keep passengers onboard aircraft for longer than three hours during tarmac delays without giving the passenger the right to leave if they so wish, subject to security and safety standards.

Which means that this clause might as well not exist.

6. During a tarmac delay, airlines shall be required to provide food and water to passengers if the delay lasts longer than one hour and must provide updates to passengers on said tarmac delay every thirty minutes.

You really need definitions. You're suddenly using a different kind of delay ("tarmac delay") in this and the previous clause - what does that make all the other previous uses of "delay"? Does a tarmac delay not count for those cases? Do the previous clauses not count for these two?

7. Airlines must advertise to consumers the full price of the flight when said consumers are planning a reservation, including airline fees, government taxes, and user fees.

Advertise? Not "provide"? Because advertizement is usually happening... not when you¨re planning a reservation, but elsewhere. TV, radio, flyers, online, etc. Since resolutions only do what the resolutions say they do, all the arilines would need to do, to be compliant with this, was to not have advertizements about their own flights on their own reservation sites/callcenters/booths.

8. The provisions of this Act apply to all airlines that do business with or within WA member nations.

What does that mean? "Within" is understandable, but "do business with a nation" is vague to the extreme.

[Oceanialia]

OOC:

OOC post. Tone of feedback is grumpier than it would be if you hadn't already submitted this.

While I don't agree at all with your mopey, stuck-up, smartass tone, you raise valid points that I will include in a separate revision.

Just because airliners are crap where you live in RL does not mean they were that everywhere in NS. So before making claims like this, which make it appear as if all airliners behaved in this way, I would suggest having a much closer look at airliner practices around the world, not just the cheap-ass ones. Since your claims don't hold true even in RL in all cases, they're not going to hold true in NS either.

Except for this one. Who gives a flying fuck about what's going on in real life? The events of NS and real life have zero correlation with each other and to think otherwise is utterly moronic.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC:

OOC post. Tone of feedback is grumpier than it would be if you hadn't already submitted this.

While I don't agree at all with your mopey, stuck-up, smartass tone, you raise valid points that I will include in a separate revision.

Just because airliners are crap where you live in RL does not mean they were that everywhere in NS. So before making claims like this, which make it appear as if all airliners behaved in this way, I would suggest having a much closer look at airliner practices around the world, not just the cheap-ass ones. Since your claims don't hold true even in RL in all cases, they're not going to hold true in NS either.

Except for this one. Who gives a flying fuck about what's going on in real life? The events of NS and real life have zero correlation with each other and to think otherwise is utterly moronic.

You should do some revisions on the subject of cooperating with other people. Ara provided meaningful feedback—and though I disagree with him all over the place—treating the provision of feedback well within the lines of decorum on this forum as indicative of some kind of "mopey, stuck-up, smartass tone" will not get you much feedback or win you much support. This portion of NationStates is both a policy game and a political one. Success requires both making good policies and making good political choices. Insulting your interlocutors is neither.

[Tinhampton]

Who gives a flying fuck about what's going on in real life?

I do!

[Oceanialia]

You should do some revisions on the subject of cooperating with other people. Ara provided meaningful feedback—and though I disagree with him all over the place—treating the provision of feedback well within the lines of decorum on this forum as indicative of some kind of "mopey, stuck-up, smartass tone" will not get you much feedback or win you much support. This portion of NationStates is both a policy game and a political one. Success requires both making good policies and making good political choices. Insulting your interlocutors is neither.

You are correct and I do agree that I was rude in my response, so I will do better in that regard, but the way Ara provided their feedback personally rubbed me the wrong way. I expect that I'll get a response along the lines of "boo-hoo, go cry about it," but that was honestly how I interpreted it.

[Oceanialia]

Who gives a flying fuck about what's going on in real life?

I do!

I suppose I should have phrased that better; I had been speaking about in the context of air travel.

[Aclion]

OOC post. Tone of feedback is grumpier than it would be if you hadn't already submitted this.

DISAPPOINTED with airlines that insufficiently compensate customers for flight delays and cancellations;

APPALLED at airlines that voluntarily overbook flights to offset unoccupied seats, leaving behind genuine passengers in the process;

SHOCKED that airlines strand passengers on tarmac upon departures and arrivals;

HORRIFIED that airlines deliberately mislead consumers into paying more for their flight by showing said consumers anything other than the full price;

Just because airliners are crap where you live in RL does not mean they were that everywhere in NS. So before making claims like this, which make it appear as if all airliners behaved in this way, I would suggest having a much closer look at airliner practices around the world, not just the cheap-ass ones. Since your claims don't hold true even in RL in all cases, they're not going to hold true in NS either.

None of that claims that all airlines do this, or even that most do. I am shocked that real world armies still use child soldiers, but i do not believe it practiced by more then a few nations, and I would be very shocked IC if there are no airline in NS pulling these stunts.

[The New Sicilian State]

While I don't agree at all with your mopey, stuck-up, smartass tone, you raise valid points that I will include in a separate revision.

OOC: Boooooooo

Except for this one. Who gives a flying fuck about what's going on in real life? The events of NS and real life have zero correlation with each other and to think otherwise is utterly moronic.

OOC: Booooooooo

I wouldn't say zero correlation, if there was zero correlation, there would hardly be any use for... any of the resolutions at all.

[Oceanialia]

Air Travel Passenger Protection Act
A resolution to enact uniform standards that protect workers, passengers, and the general public.

Category: Regulation
Area of Effect: Consumer Protection
Proposed by: Oceanialia

The General Assembly;

DISAPPOINTED with airlines that insufficiently compensate passengers for flight delays and cancellations;
SHOCKED that airlines unjustifiably strand passengers on tarmac upon arrivals for extended periods of time;
HORRIFIED that airlines deliberately mislead passengers into paying more for their flight by showing said passengers anything other than the full price;
CONVINCED that such practices and procedures must be curtailed to the benefit of the passenger;

HEREBY DECLARES:
1. In the event of a flight delay that lasts more than one hour or a flight cancellation, WA member states are required to direct their airlines to provide passengers with the option to transfer to another flight, provided said flight is able to transport said passenger to their destination earlier than their original flight, said original flight has not yet taken off, AND that the conditions around said delay or cancellation were within the airline’s control.
2. WA member states must ensure that airline overbooking shall result in sufficient compensation to the passengers that are left behind as a result (ensuring that said passengers are unable to reschedule their flights to a later time), which said member states shall define as not lower than five-hundred currency units in financial reimbursement to the passenger.
3. WA member states shall mandate that airlines must not keep passengers onboard an aircraft for longer than two hours after arrival without giving said passengers the right to leave if they so wish, subject to security and safety standards.
4. During a tarmac delay, WA member states shall require their airlines to provide food and water to passengers if the delay lasts longer than one hour and provide updates to said passengers every thirty minutes.
5. WA member states shall mandate that their airlines provide to passengers the full price of the flight when said passengers are planning a reservation, including airline fees, government taxes, and user fees.
6. The provisions of this Act apply to all airlines that operate within WA member states.

[Frisbeeteria]

[REVISED PROPOSAL] Air Travel Passenger Protection Act

One thread per proposal, please. Topics merged.

The policy here is to edit the first post and put prior versions under spoilers. The top of the post should always be your current edit.

[Aprenencia]

"WA member states shall mandate that their airlines provide to passengers the full price of the flight when said passengers are planning a reservation, including airline fees, government taxes, and user fees."

I think this could eventually become a resolution, however, the clause I quoted may violate the General Assembly Resolution #2 principle of national sovereignty though.

[Imperium Anglorum]

You need to read the GA 2 national sovereignty clause more, because everyone seems to ignore the 'subject to the immunities of international law' portion at the end.

[The New Sicilian State]

You need to read the GA 2 national sovereignty clause more, because everyone seems to ignore the 'subject to the immunities of international law' portion at the end.

OOC: That's like... five times I've seen someone misinterpret that clause in the last two or three weeks.

[Aprenencia]

You need to read the GA 2 national sovereignty clause more, because everyone seems to ignore the 'subject to the immunities of international law' portion at the end.

Thanks for clarifying, I bet it gets annoying to explain this to people a 100 times.

[Brutica]

I'm generally in favour of the principle of this, but the following are major sticking points:

1. In the event of a flight delay that lasts more than one hour or a flight cancellation, WA member states are required to direct their airlines to provide passengers with the option to transfer to another flight, provided said flight is able to transport said passenger to their destination earlier than their original flight, said original flight has not yet taken off, AND that the conditions around said delay or cancellation were within the airline’s control..

How's that supposed to work if the original flight has already been delayed by an hour? You're not gonna get off a delayed flight, booked on, seated, and taken off on a replacement flight, and still land earlier than your original flight would've (except perhaps under extreme conditions on long-haul flights).
I'm not entirely convinced I know what you're trying to achieve with this clause. As written, it could perhaps apply to cancellations (though the requirement to land earlier is still not remotely practical), however, in the case of a delayed-but-not-cancelled flight, transferring to another flight is only going to make your delay even longer.

2. WA member states must ensure that airline overbooking shall result in sufficient compensation to the passengers that are left behind as a result (ensuring that said passengers are unable to reschedule their flights to a later time), which said member states shall define as not lower than five-hundred currency units in financial reimbursement to the passenger.

How can a WA proposal have a fixed numerical-value floor on financial remuneration? Exchange rates are gonna make that completely worthless. Perhaps a percentage value of the retail price of the flight?