We are far beyond the need to demonstrate why airline passengers should be given rights. The question is, what should those rights include? Several bills exist, but none of them offer passenger rights beyond a vague set of comfort requirements, and airlines would be given the legal right to keep passengers on the tarmac for at least three hours.

Nearly ¾ of all flights have an average block time of two hours or less. Should Airlines Be Given Right to Keep Business and Leisure Travelers on Tarmac for Three Hours? That’s what the Passenger Bill of Rights will allow. Can we change this? Shouldn’t it include provisions to compensate passengers for their time?

While significant steps have been made in the U.S. through the advocacy efforts of Kate Hanni, executive director of FlyersRights.org, it’s apparent that airlines have lobbied legislators to delay any actions to provide passengers with rights over the years. Of course, those same legislators who allowed bills to never pass through committees also have a responsibility for the continuation of these delays. It was only recently when text of the Senate bill version was added to the FAA Reauthorization Extension, due September 30, 2009.

As Hanni continues to emphasize, airlines currently have the right to keep passengers on the tarmac indefinitely. Hanni explains that the airlines approach the situation of passengers being held on the tarmac as “warehousing” passengers until it’s time to depart or arrive at the gate. This attitudes provides little more consideration for passengers than the cargo held below the passenger cabin, such as the recent situation in August when a passenger plane was kept on the tarmac overnight until the day shift began:

It’s shocking that airlines haven’t given consideration to the passengers who cover the expense of the services they provide. Business travelers through corporate travel should be flexing their muscle to try to end this business practice by the airlines. And I'm not sure why industry organizations that have signed onto supporting such legislation haven't spoken out against the expectation of the three hour policy; it's not appropriate to support the bill just because it's better than the examples of situations that have taken four, five, six, nine and more hours. To be sure, these delays are disruptive (and disrespectful) to business travel schedules and have a significant indirect cost whenever travelers arrive late for scheduled business priorities, etc.

Next week I’ll briefly take a look at how the European market treats airline passenger rights and how tarmac delays are viewed elsewhere. I’ll also provide a more in-depth look at the pros and cons of the issue, and why airline passenger rights may be taking so long to approve in the U.S.

Read my column, Should Airlines Be Given Right to Keep Business and Leisure Travelers on Tarmac for Three Hours?