US S.1814, “airline passenger bill of rights”, would require the airline to give cash
Sep 20, 2018, 7:27 am
#3
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Here and there
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 1,551
(a) Short Title.—This Act may be cited as the “Airline Passengers' Bill of Rights”.
Sep 20, 2018, 7:28 am
#4
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Economy, mostly :(
Programs: Skywards Gold
Posts: 7,801
S.1418 — 115th Congress (2017-2018)
It's not law, so the OP may be referring informally to other DOT regs.
It's not law, so the OP may be referring informally to other DOT regs.
Sep 20, 2018, 7:35 am
#5
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2001
Programs: DL 1 million, AA 1 mil, HH lapsed Diamond, Marriott Plat
Posts: 28,190
We could encourage the OP to come back and be more descriptive.
S.1418 was referred to committee. It is not law - and is along way from becoming law.
S.1418 was referred to committee. It is not law - and is along way from becoming law.
Sep 20, 2018, 7:42 am
#6
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: LAX/BUR, RDU
Programs: DL SM, AAdvantage, SPG
Posts: 1,360
Sep 20, 2018, 8:00 am
#7
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: LAX
Posts: 3,267
Why not? Most states have a "Crime Victim's Bill of Rights," others have a "Prisoner's Bill of Rights," there's a federal "GI Bill of Rights," and I could probably come up with a lot more if I felt like putting some thought into it.
Sep 20, 2018, 9:34 am
#9
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
Just to be clear, this proposed legislation was introduced by one Senator in June 2017. There is one entry in the calendar for the legislation. It is the same entry made for every piece of proposed legislation offered by any Senator (and a similar type of entry exists in the House). It will die when the Senate recesses for the Term sometime in December.
"June 2017 - Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Action By: Senate"
There are thousands of pieces of legislation proposed every year. The vast, vast, vast majority die with the same kind of entry. No co-sponsors, no hearings. But, the sponsor does get to issue a press release.
I'm not sure why OP is posting something today which happened in June 2017.
BTW - The sponsor may call the proposed legislation anything he wants to call it, so long as it is not obscene or disrespectful of another Member. It's not remotely worth worrying about what proposed legislation is called. The debate here about it isn't either.
"June 2017 - Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Action By: Senate"
There are thousands of pieces of legislation proposed every year. The vast, vast, vast majority die with the same kind of entry. No co-sponsors, no hearings. But, the sponsor does get to issue a press release.
I'm not sure why OP is posting something today which happened in June 2017.
BTW - The sponsor may call the proposed legislation anything he wants to call it, so long as it is not obscene or disrespectful of another Member. It's not remotely worth worrying about what proposed legislation is called. The debate here about it isn't either.
Last edited by Often1; Sep 20, 2018 at 1:57 pm
Sep 20, 2018, 1:27 pm
#10
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: USA
Programs: Chase Sapphire Reserve, WFBF
Posts: 1,573
I can't tell if you're being serious or snarky, but most domestic air travel literally meets the definition of "interstate commerce", which the Constitution very much intended Congress to regulate. I guess flights that operate wholly within one state could be exempted......
Sep 20, 2018, 3:41 pm
#11
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Economy, mostly :(
Programs: Skywards Gold
Posts: 7,801
I can't tell if you're being serious or snarky, but most domestic air travel literally meets the definition of "interstate commerce", which the Constitution very much intended Congress to regulate. I guess flights that operate wholly within one state could be exempted......
Sep 20, 2018, 3:49 pm
#12
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Massachusetts, USA; AA Plat, DL GM and Flying Colonel; Bonvoy Platinum
Posts: 24,233
That's how the Constitution works: it is a framework within which government operates. It does not, in most cases, flesh out all the details. As long as what a governmental agency does fits within that framework, as a law to regulate a specific aspect of interstate commerce clearly does, the fact that a particular detail is not in the Constitution is not a problem. One would not expect to find details there, though in some cases (such as the requirement that the President be at least 35 years old) they are present.
If this discussion continues, I see this thread being sent to OMNI/PR rather quickly - so I will not bother to correct any more misunderstandings of how constitutional government is supposed to work, no matter how absurd they are.
Sep 20, 2018, 4:37 pm
#14
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: CHS
Programs: UA GS, Bonvoy Amabassador, Hertz PC
Posts: 2,589
I can't tell if you're being serious or snarky, but most domestic air travel literally meets the definition of "interstate commerce", which the Constitution very much intended Congress to regulate. I guess flights that operate wholly within one state could be exempted......
No, the state thing got squashed hard by guns. SC has several gun manufacturers and the state legislature tried to say if it is made in SC and sold in SC it isn't part of interstate commerce and full auto is legal and NFA doesn't apply.
That didn't get very far as they said it applies to the company not the item, so if the company sells interstate, then all items it sells fall under interstate commerce.
Sep 20, 2018, 5:24 pm
#15
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Economy, mostly :(
Programs: Skywards Gold
Posts: 7,801
Since the Constitution gives Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce, it can pass any laws it wants for that purpose.
That's how the Constitution works: it is a framework within which government operates. It does not, in most cases, flesh out all the details. As long as what a governmental agency does fits within that framework, as a law to regulate a specific aspect of interstate commerce clearly does, the fact that a particular detail is not in the Constitution is not a problem. One would not expect to find details there, though in some cases (such as the requirement that the President be at least 35 years old) they are present.
If this discussion continues, I see this thread being sent to OMNI/PR rather quickly - so I will not bother to correct any more misunderstandings of how constitutional government is supposed to work, no matter how absurd they are.
That's how the Constitution works: it is a framework within which government operates. It does not, in most cases, flesh out all the details. As long as what a governmental agency does fits within that framework, as a law to regulate a specific aspect of interstate commerce clearly does, the fact that a particular detail is not in the Constitution is not a problem. One would not expect to find details there, though in some cases (such as the requirement that the President be at least 35 years old) they are present.
If this discussion continues, I see this thread being sent to OMNI/PR rather quickly - so I will not bother to correct any more misunderstandings of how constitutional government is supposed to work, no matter how absurd they are.
The Bill or Rights allows the customer to receive cash for vouchers, if requested