Low Graphics Site
White bar
.: Latest News :. .: News in Pictures :.
Dawn e-paper
Daily SectionMarker

Misc SectionMarker

Horoscope Recipes Weekly SectionMarker

Weekly SectionMarker



Pakistan's Internet Magazine
Herald
Dawn GroupMarker

Archive, Search, Feedback & HelpMarker

Weather

FrontPage National International Local Business KSE Forex Sports Editorial Opinion Letters Features Today's Cartoon TV Guide Cowasjee Irfan Hussain Jawed Naqvi Mahir Ali Kamran Shafi The Review Dawn Magazine Young World Images Dawn Group Subscription To Advertise

DINA
Previous Story DAWN - the Internet Edition Next Story

March 26, 2008 Wednesday Rabi-ul-Awwal 17, 1429



US court rejects airline passengers rights law


NEW YORK: A New York state law seeking better treatment of passengers stuck on grounded airplanes was thrown out on Tuesday by an appeals court, which said air travel is already regulated by the federal government.

While the state’s so-called Passenger Bill of Rights was laudable, “only the federal government has the authority to enact such a law,” the US 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals said in a written ruling.

New York passed the country’s first state law on air passenger rights last year, amid rising passenger anger at shoddy treatment by airlines. The law was adopted after JetBlue Airways Corp mishandled an ice storm in New York in February 2007 that left passengers stranded on the runway at John F. Kennedy International Airport for up to 10 hours. The new law required airlines to provide passengers who are confined to a grounded airliner for more than three hours with basic necessities, including food, drinking water and clean bathrooms. It went into effect Jan 1.

The Air Transport Association of America, which represents major US. airlines, had challenged the law, saying it is preempted by federal regulations. A US District court in Albany had rejected the group’s lawsuit, but the 2nd Circuit overturned that ruling.

“If New York’s view regarding the scope of its regulatory authority carried the day, another state could be free to enact a law prohibiting the service of soda on flights departing from its airports, while another could require allergen-free food options on its outbound flights, unravelling the centralised federal framework for air travel,” the appeals court ruled.—Reuters






Previous Story Top of Page Next Story

Seprater
Contributions
Privacy Policy
© DAWN Media Group , 2008