Kidnapped by JetBlue: Another look at the "Passenger Bill of Rights"
Filed under: Technology, Health, Travel
The next time you go to the airport, you might want to set aside a little extra money for food, water, accommodations, and legal fees. A recent federal court ruling placed limits on the services that states can require airlines to provide to their grounded passengers.
Basically, it went down like this: late last summer, following months of record airplane delays and grounded planes, the New York State Legislature passed a "Passenger Bill of Rights," outlining requirements that airlines had to honor during extended delays.
Needless to say, the airline industry got up in arms, called out its army of lobbyists and lawyers, and began challenging the law in court. This week, the airlines finally got their wish as the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the bill of rights, stating that it overstepped the bounds of state law. Apparently, due to the interstate nature of airline travel, it can only be regulated by the federal government. The court's ruling was pretty absurd, and hinged on the argument that, if airlines were subject to state law, they might be forced to modify the food and drink that they serve on flights.
When I first heard about this little battle, I thought it sounded like a big fuss over a minor problem. After all, I've had a few times when I had to sit on an airplane for a couple of hours or had a "layover" that transformed into a "sleepover." It's a pain in the neck (often literally), but it's not really that bad, as long as you pack some snacks and a couple of books.
Then I heard about the infamous JetBlue debacle: apparently, on Valentine's day last year, several planeloads full of JetBlue passengers were stuck on the tarmac at Kennedy Airport for periods of up to ten hours. They were denied food, water, and sanitary toilets. Moreover, airline officials and flight attendants refused to let them leave the plane.
Even under the best of circumstances, ten hours on a plane can be miserable; without fresh air, water, food and clean facilities, I can imagine that it started to get downright horrendous. Moreover, given the fact that the passengers weren't allowed to return to the terminal, the situation starts to sound a little bit like imprisonment. New York's now-defunct bill of rights, which the courts ruled as excessive, would have guaranteed the JetBlue passengers access to fresh air, food and water, and clean toilets.
Just for fun, I decided to check out what the Third Geneva Convention had to say about proper treatment of Prisoners of War. Article 26 of this document stipulates that "The basic daily food rations shall be sufficient in quantity, quality and variety to keep prisoners of war in good health [...] Account shall be taken of the habitual diet of the prisoners [...] Sufficient drinking water shall be supplied to prisoners of war." The wording of this one is pretty clear and doesn't allow much wiggle room. Unless the planes were full of Muslims and the JetBlue incident took place during Ramadan, I'm pretty sure that the airline violated the Geneva Convention. Moreover, by denying its passengers access to food and water, JetBlue may well have threatened a few lives.
According to Article 25, "Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favourable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area [...] the foregoing provisions shall apply in particular to the dormitories of prisoners of war as regards both total surface and minimum cubic space." In other words, prisoners (in this case, passengers) should be given the same amount of space as the "forces of the Detaining Power" (in this case, flight attendants). Personally, I've found that space on planes is at a premium and I usually end my flights with aches and cricks in pretty much every bone and joint. I sure would love to be able to move around like those freewheeling stewardesses...
Finally, Article 29 of the Geneva Convention states that "The Detaining Power shall be bound to take all sanitary measures necessary to ensure the cleanliness and healthfulness of camps and to prevent epidemics [...] Prisoners of war shall have for their use, day and night, conveniences which conform to the rules of hygiene and are maintained in a constant state of cleanliness." Apart from the fact that JetBlue didn't provide its passengers with hygienic "conveniences," its refusal to offer fresh air was a clear contravention of the "cleanliness and healthfulness" clause. I'm sure that this didn't result in an epidemic, but a buildup of carbon dioxide and the concentration of airborne pathogens probably resulted in the spread of quite a few diseases.
At first, I thought about how funny it was that the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals didn't feel obliged to ensure its citizens even the basic rights granted to prisoners of war. Later on, though, I started to realize that this was deadly serious; as I mentioned earlier, JetBlue's passengers were, essentially, prisoners. Moreover, given the current state of America's Homeland Security awareness, the passengers could easily be arrested if they complained too loudly or strenuously. Given these two realities, I realized that the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals was right: New York's Passenger Bill of Rights not only oversteps Federal law, but international law. In fact, there's only one court that is equipped to try JetBlue's crimes. Paging the Hague!
Bruce Watson is a freelance writer, blogger, and all-around cheapskate. From now on, he will be travelling under an assumed name.










Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
3-28-2008 @ 10:51PM
Joe Blow said...
You are an idiot. Nuff said.
Reply
3-29-2008 @ 6:12PM
Bruce Watson said...
Joe-
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Could you clarify? Your comment just seems a little too complex, a bit too obscure...
3-29-2008 @ 8:28PM
D said...
You idiot, the airline, the airport authority and the FAA will not let passengers off an airplane stuck on a taxi way during inclement weather. There is no way to SAFELY get them off the plane in icy conditions. Wake up and smell the coffee, safety is the number one concern, not passenger convenience and oh by the way as a low cost carrier jetBlue doesn't provide meals anyway on any flight. Flying is a privelage, not a right get it.
Reply
3-29-2008 @ 8:41PM
Bruce Watson said...
D-
Overreact much? Were you yelling at the screen as you typed out this little screed? Sit back, take a deep breath, and try to deal with this rationally.
First off, I'm not sure how you can refer to sitting in an airplane for ten hours without sufficient toilet facilities as safe. Apart from the fact that ten hours without food isn't good for anyone, I imagine that the planes probably had a few diabetics and/or people with high blood pressure on board. Even for those for whom ten hours without food isn't life-threatening, I suspect that the sound of screaming kids and the increasingly stale air made the plane a claustrophobic madhouse.
Second, if the planes couldn't fly, why didn't they return to the terminal? I can't imagine that sitting out on the tarmac was improving conditions, either for the plane or for the landing strips. You cite safety as a concern. Well, frankly, sitting in an airport is a lot safer than sitting on a tank full of jet fuel in the middle of what is, essentially, an icy parking lot.
Third, flying is neither a right nor a privilege. It's a service, and it's one that people pay a lot of money for. When you climb on a plane, you don't forfeit all your rights to decent, safe, and humane treatment. Jet Blue seems to have forgotten that. If they need a law to remind them, then that law should be passed.
Reply
3-29-2008 @ 8:59PM
D said...
I work in the airline industry, this is a terrible event. BUT, 90% of Americans DO NOT understand Federal Aviation Regulations and airline rules. There are literally thousands of procedures and regulations airlines must comply with in order to operate. A great deal of these regulations CAUSE these events. Passengers are not aware of everything going on around them, It bothers me when average citizens tell me how to perform my job, and what an airline should do. Do I walk into your office and tell you what you should do when I have no idea how your business operates? or the federal, state and local authority regulations you must adhere to? I think not.
Reply
3-29-2008 @ 9:06PM
Bruce Watson said...
D-
Fair enough. However, if the procedures and regulations enforced by the FAA are responsible for these events, then the airlines are not merely the perpetrators of this mess, but also the victims. If the rules need to be changed, then the airlines should get behind those changes, not fight them.
Let me put it this way: if somebody had died on one of those airplanes, then JetBlue (not the FAA, not the airport, not the State of New York) would be the ones going to court and paying out a huge settlement. On the other hand, if the passenger bill of rights passed, then the JetBlue pilots could cite it as an excuse for returning to the terminal. If the airport then refused to let them return, then the airport would then be culpable. It seems to me that responsibility would be greatly clarified.
Under those circumstances, can you tell me why JetBlue would not want a law that would have the potential to give them legal protection?
Reply
3-29-2008 @ 9:54PM
Bill said...
Besides the fact you're reporting on something that happened more than 13 months ago, I think you're painting JetBlue in an unfairly harsh light. The "event" has been rehashed a million times, but it was basically the result of good intentions and a weather situation that got worse in contrast to the official forecast which called for it to get better. We're also only talking about 10 planes that were stuck in the ice storm. Passengers were not "denied" food, but JetBlue (like most domestic airlines) doesn't serve meals. They gave out snacks, though, and water and soda's were distributed until supplies, toward the end, were exhausted. Most of those flights were headed to the West Coast which involves about one hour of taxi time and 6 hours of flying anyway, so being on the airplane for 9-10 hours is not significantly different. The toilets did not overflow, and I'm not sure what to tell you about the fact that some people called them "stinky".
Regardless, JetBlue immediately apologized, refunded the "stuck" customers' money. Provided them with free tickets for a future flight and instituted the industry's only passenger bill of rights.
http://www.jetblue.com/about/ourcompany/promise/index.html
It further made significant changes to it's management structure and procedures to insure the event would never occur again.
Using the word "kidnapped" suggests a willing desire to detain a person. This was never the intention of JetBlue or any of the flight crews operating the aircraft. The ice storm of Feb 14th 2007 was a major weather event. It absolutely should of been handled better, but true intent is evident in the response to a mistake. JetBlue has gone above and beyond any other airline in addressing passenger expectations and establishing compensation for mistakes.
The New York State Passenger Bill of Rights was blatantly a violation of federal law and it didn't take a "army of lobbyists and lawyers" to have it thrown out. Having each state enact differing requirements would just create confusion.
Reply
3-30-2008 @ 12:51PM
Danny said...
Well said
/Standing ovation
4-04-2008 @ 9:04AM
Bruce Watson said...
Bill-
I'm guessing that you don't read much satire.
Okay, just to be clear, I'm not actually advocating that JetBlue be taken to the Hague. (Apart from the basic absurdity of the notion, they aren't even cosigners to the Geneva Convention, so they can't be held to its standards.)
That having been said, it's interesting that my modest proposal has generated such a vehement response. Did I hit a nerve?
I stand behind my critique of the airlines and of the larger transportation infrastructure. While I am impressed by JetBlue's actions after this incident, their bill of rights is designed to redress grievances after the fact, while New York's bill of rights is designed to keep such grievances from occurring. As such, it would give a legal basis for airlines to demand certain actions from airports, protecting carriers from legal liability for problems that they can't currently control.
Although the argument against state-based regulations still seems somewhat spurious to me, I will concede the point. That having been said, we clearly need federal regulations for the protection of both passengers and airlines. Unfortunately, I don't think the airlines see it this way, and anticipate that they will continue to fight such proposals. This, in turn, will lead to further incidents and the legal actions that will inevitably follow.