Erin Wit, director of consumer protection for the US Consumer Federation, explains why a federal court stopped the unintended cost of transparency.
The law to which it requires The country's largest airline To disclose any service fees – such as additional luggage costs or reservation costs – it was blocked by a federal appeals court and threatened to impact it.
The Ministry of Transport (Dot), which argues that travelers pay too much for their so -called “unwanted costs”, claimed that the law consumes more than $ 500 million annually . In contrast, the trade group for the country's largest airlines claims that there is nothing in the findings of the department that proves that the law helps consumers, even says that this is in the efforts of airlines to meet the needs of the airlines. The customer interferes.
The Court of Appeal in the United States was not accompanied by both arguments for the Fifth Circuit. Instead, he issued the ruling that DOT “under the law of administrative procedure has failed to fully comply with the requirements”, which rule the process that federal agencies formulate and issue regulations. The court still approved the ministry's right to impose such laws and instead sent the matter to the point so that airlines and others could say that the cost savings that the department is estimated at, as specific expenses become more transparent, declare that specific costs are made. Comment.
According to the Biden Government Act, the airline is required to list any ticket -related fees, otherwise the industry is known as “side costs” in the industry. Dot – then led by Pete Buttigieg – spent many years for the war for the law and claimed that airlines were billions of dollars on unexpected costs, chairs, change and cancellation. During the Buttigieg tenure, Dot issued more than $ 164 million in airlines for consumer protection violations.
Travelers gather with their luggage at the International Terminal at the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) before the July 4 holiday trip on June 25, 2024 in Los Angeles, California. (Mario Tama / Giti Pictures / Viral Press)
Airlines for the US, the business group, representing the US -based companies such as US Airlines, Jatbloo and Alaska Airlines, was happy to say that the court “to” to “inform the public and the airlines. Not, or about
The group argued that a legal comment process shows that the law “interferes with long -standing efforts to meet customer needs.” It is also said that carriers invest in user -friendly websites and programs that provide transparent pricing, and this is the “overwhelming visual visualization of consumers with information that only sophisticated for complex information. Are getting worse the purchase process, they are wrong. ”
Consumer support for the US Consumer Federation, Erin Wow, said this is not a “complete victory” for the aviation industry.
“What they were actually seeking was to thoroughly thwart Dot to issue laws based on unfair and deceptive behavior,” Wit said. “And the fifth circuit actually drawn the line and said,” No, we don't want to be too far away. “
While the act of the court could be as a catalyst to kill the law, he said to note that The court also did not block the law permanently.
This means that the current government can enforce a similar law, as long as part of the appropriate procedure follows. However, Vit is not sure that it will happen.
Ryan Bourne, an economist at the Kato Institute, told Fox Business that he doubts that the issue would be a priority for President Donald Trump, who has launched Enormous regulatory initiative After tenure. Bourne is not a fan of the move and says, “The law was always unnecessary red tape.” He also agreed with airlines that the law only confuses passengers.
Budget Airlines Flying after the collapse of the pilot stops emergency: “rough and scary”
Passengers are waiting for the Boeing 737 Max 8, run by United at New Ark International Airport in New Jersey, New Jersey on March 13, 2024. (Bing Gwen / Bloomberg through Getty Images / Getty Images)
“Most travelers are familiar with the flight reservation and they know that you can pay extra costs for services such as checking a bag or flight that you can cancel at any time,” he said. “The need for airlines to express the total price for all these leading services is confusing to customers and inappropriately offering low -cost travel opportunities in budgetary airlines.”
Bill McG Gay, a senior Airlines colleague in the US Economic Liberation Project, criticized the argument that it overwhelms consumers and made it one of the “weakest” arguments ever seen. . McG Gay said that if airlines could quickly run costs – sometimes nightly – then they should be able to inform customers about them.
“There is a shock in the airline,” McG Gay said. And airlines fight with teeth and nails. ”
Passengers and participants in flying from Lagurardia Airport, which were confined to Kansas City International Airport on May 4, in Queens, New York. (Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times through Getty Images / Getty Images)
Whito also asked the airline's attack on the airline's offensive, given that the law does not talk about a comprehensive ban on unwanted costs.
“This does not even ban the airline from charging,” he said. “I think voters probably supported this kind of rule.” “All the rules he said, tell people, tell them to tell them the basic basis, make it easier for them to find out how much they will fly from A to B and bring a bag. “
Get Fox Business on a move by clicking here
McGay still sees the ruling as a “great victory” because some people were worried that “the court says the point has never been competent to do so in the first place.”