By Rob Lovitt, msnbc.com contributor
Thanks to new rules regarding airfare advertising, what you see is now what you pay. But it may not be for long.
At least that?s the hope of Rep. Tom Graves (R-Ga.), who plans to introduce legislation on Wednesday seeking to overturn the recently implemented Department of Transportation (DOT) rule requiring airlines to include all taxes and government fees in posted fares.
It is, as baseball great Yogi Berra once said, d?j? vu all over again.
Live Poll
Do you think the government should be involved in passenger protection measures?
174806
Yes -- if the feds don't step in, no one will.
92%
174807
No -- the government has more important things to do.
8%
VoteTotal Votes: 672
Consider recent history:
On Thursday, a DOT rule mandating that the first price consumers see in airfare advertising include all taxes and mandatory fees went into effect.
In response, Spirit Airlines launched a campaign and website saying the rule was an effort, not to disclose those fees, but to hide them.
Shortly thereafter, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) sent Spirit CEO Ben Baldanza a letter, expressing her ?concern with Spirit Airlines? deliberate attempt to deceive the flying public.?
And on Monday, Rep. Graves announced his intention to introduce the Travel Transparency Act in an effort to overturn the DOT rule.
?The federal government should not be inserting itself in the private sector to limit consumers? ability to see how much they?re getting taxed,? said the Congressman in a statement. ?If the American people can?t see these costs clearly, I fear it will be easier [for] these fees and taxes to be raised without their knowledge.?
Semantic battles aside, it seems the new rule is not just about travel ? it?s also something of a litmus test for where one stands on the whole big government vs. small government future of America front.
?It always comes back to what?s F-A-I-R,? said Joe Brancatelli, publisher of the business-travel website JoeSentMe.com. ?Both sides have merit but the airlines brought this on themselves because they kept burying stuff that you must pay and kept it out of the fares they were advertising. DOT acted because they had to.?
Whether Congress will do the same regarding Graves? proposed bill is less clear, especially given the gridlock currently gripping the nation?s capital. Even if it were to make it out of the Republican-controlled House, there?s little chance the bill would pass muster with the Democratic-controlled Senate or the White House.
Which is not necessarily a bad thing, says Charlie Leocha, director of the Consumer Travel Alliance: ?This sort of thing shouldn?t be legislated,? he told msnbc.com. ?It should be handled through the regulatory process because it needs to be worked on by people who understand what?s going on in the industry.?
Instead, says Leocha, Congress should focus on the FAA Reauthorization Bill, which has relied on stopgap funding since its last reauthorization expired in 2007. Unable to come to agreement since, Congress approved its latest stopgap measure ? its 23rd ? on Thursday, extending the agency?s temporary funding until Feb. 17.
As if on cue, House and Senate negotiators on Tuesday reached an agreement that will provide operating authority for the FAA for the next four years. The bill is expected to pass through both arms of Congress in the next two weeks.
Consumer advocates may be disappointed that the bill does not include language protecting the tarmac-delay rules enacted last year by DOT. Those rules levy fines on carriers when domestic and international flights sit on the runway for three and four hours, respectively. Whether that regulation, which remains in effect, should be codified into law is yet another point of contention, but it?s a safe bet that the fight over passenger protections, the free market and the government?s role in the airline industry isn?t going away any time soon.
In fact, a little more fuel was added to the fire on Tuesday when Spirit responded to another DOT rule mandating the airlines allow passengers to ?hold? a reservation for 24 hours without penalty, a move the carrier believes will have unintended consequences and cost consumers millions.
Their response? A $2 DOTUC fee ? as in Department of Transportation Unintended Consequences ? on every flight starting Jan. 31. Per DOT rules, the fee is included in the first price consumers see but it also promises to rekindle yet another debate.
Which, once again, reminds us of the wisdom of that other late, great master of unconventional logic. In air travel, as in baseball, It ain?t over ?til it?s over.
Do you think the government should be involved in passenger protection measures? Tell us what you think on Facebook.
Related stories
Rob Lovitt is a longtime travel writer who still believes the journey is as important as the destination. Follow him at Twitter.
its a wonderful life rajon rondo ham recipes rex ryan yule log adrian peterson darlene love
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.