• Airlines to offer passengers the option of safely deplaning once they have sat on the ground for three hours after the plane door has closed. 
• Airlines to provide passengers with food, potable water, comfortable cabin temperature and ventilation and adequate restrooms while a plane is delayed on the ground.
• A consumer complaint hotline so that passengers can alert the agency about delays.
• Airports and airlines to develop contingency plans to be reviewed and approved by DOT, and fines for air carriers and airports that do not submit or fail to comply with contingency plans.

Critics miss the point of new tarmac statistics - December 15, 2008

• On December 29, 2006, over 120 diverted flights were stuck on tarmacs at airports in the southwest; some for over nine hours.
• On February 14, 2007, dozens of flights that were eventually cancelled were stuck on tarmacs at airports in the northeast for up to 11 hours. 
• On April 24, 2007, a large number of diverted flights were stuck on tarmacs at airports in the southwest for up to 8 hours.

Honorable Mary Peters
Secretary of Transportation
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20590

Re:  Docket No.: DOT-OST-2007-0180 - National Task Force to Develop Model Contingency        Plans to Deal with Lengthy Airline On-Board Delays

            -- CAPBOR Concerns With Draft Final Task Force Report

“Although the Task Force Report includes information that could be useful to local airport committees developing contingency plans to respond to long on-board tarmac delays, CAPBOR is opposed to your release of the Report as drafted, for three reasons.  First, the Report does not recognize the right of passengers to be deplaned after a tarmac delay of any number of hours, assuming the option of being deplaned can be achieved safely.  In our view, tarmac strandings after a certain amount of time constitute involuntary passenger imprisonment, and we ask you specifically to override the Task Force majority view in this regard.  

“Second, the FAA will not agree to consider tasking its Air Traffic Control staff with minimizing the queuing on tarmacs for excessive periods of time of departing airline aircraft by imposing  “gate holds” when a substantial delay is certain or highly probable.  FAA regulations defer all such decisions to the airline, no matter how long the pre-departure delay will be.  FAA’s mindset continues to be centered on the movement of “aluminum tubes,” without any apparent regulatory interest in the passengers trapped on board.  We ask that you ask the FAA Acting Administrator to reconsider various FAA positions in Chapter 5.

“Third, airline passengers are concerned that you will not require the industry to implement contingency plans when the final Task Force Report is issued.   As one commenter noted, “By allowing airlines to provide lip service to guidelines [in the Task Force Report] that they ‘should’ but are not ‘required’ to adhere to makes this entire document useless to the traveling public….” (DOT-OST-2007-0108-0114)”

Contaminated Airline Water

SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- Would you drink coffee or tea made with contaminated water? How about brushing your teeth or washing your hands with it? There is evidence that unsuspecting airline passengers are using contaminated water, and progress has been slow in reducing the risk.

Through Information we gathered through the Freedom of Information Act, we found fewer than half the airlines ordered as early as 2005 to begin testing their water have done so. Meantime, it's clear that some water on planes is contaminated.

It's something that happens on a routine basis at airports every day. Planes land and crews get that plane ready for the next flight. That includes filling the plane's holding tanks with fresh water.

Just how safe that fresh water is for you to drink may be reason for concern.

In 2004, tests conducted on 327 planes by the Environmental Protection Agency found 15-percent of the aircraft evaluated had water contaminated with coliform.

"Coliform bacteria can indicate that the water has been contaminated and it could be contaminated by something that can make people sick," explains June Weintraub, an epidemiologist with the San Francisco Department of Public Health.

The presence of coliform could mean other more harmful bacteria could be in the water, and that could lead to diarrhea, nausea and other symptoms.

Canada conducted its own tests on Canadian aircraft in 2006 and found similar results to the EPA.

This is the same water many airlines use to make your coffee and tea.

"For coffee and tea on an airplane, they don't boil it long enough to destroy any germs," says Weintraub.

It's also the same water you use to wash your hands or even brush your teeth on the plane. Weintraub says the bacteria can get on your hands and then be transmitted to your food.

We set out to examine just how much has improved since the EPA originally expressed concern in 2004.

"Airlines are doing a significant amount of monitoring, more monitoring and treating, flushing of their water systems," says Benjamin Grumbles with the EPA.

In fact, since 2005, 45 airlines have signed orders agreeing to test the water on those planes. But through the Freedom of Information Act, we discovered only 16 of those airlines have actually released results of those tests. Those tests results show water samples taken from 2,200 aircraft found coliform 10-percent of the time. Meantime, 29 airlines either haven't completed or begun their first round of testing or haven't released their test results.

We showed our findings to the senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council in San Francisco and a member of the EPA's scientific advisory board on drinking water.

"We don't have data from some of the most major airlines out there. The data that we do have still shows contamination in quite a number of aircaft," says Gina Solomon with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Delta, Continental, Northwest and United have released test results. However, American and US Airways are refusing to allow their data to be made public, claiming the results are "confidential business information."

That concerns Yeggie Dearborn, the laboratory director at Cel Analytical in San Francisco.

"I would probably not drink coffee anymore on the airline. I would probably just stick with canned sodas and stuff like that," says Dearborn.

Among the major airlines that have released data, 12-percent of the 323 planes tested by Delta over two years came back positive with coliform contaminated water. Delta says the overwhelming majority of its water samples came back negative.

Sampling on Continental revealed 16-percent of the 883 aircrafts tested found water contaminated with coliform. The airline believes that data is seriously inflated due to faulty testing procedures it is now working to improve.

Other averages include Northwest at 4-percent and United at 5.6-percent. United says it provides bottled water for brushing teeth and antiseptic napkins with every meal. Northwest says keeping its water supply free from contamination is a top priority.

According to the EPA, the tolerance for coliform in water is zero.

"We don't like to see any bacteria, especially coliform bacteria, in potable water, and especially not water that's being served to passengers," says Solomon.

A regional East Coast airline that served 12 million passengers in 2006 had the highest rate of positive tests for coliform -- 49-percent of the 84 aircraft tested by Atlantic Southeast contained water samples testing positive for coliform. The airline says if it detects coliform; it deactivates the water system until the problem is cleared.

Most passengers aren't aware there may be contaminated water on airplanes. However, Colin Finn of Foster City is the exception. He's concerned Air Canada is one of the few to serve tap water to customers requesting water on flights in the U.S. and Canada.

"On a trip we had just recently at Christmas time, traveled with my family, my kids all wanted to have water and I wouldn't let them have water," says Finn.

Air Canada says it serves tap water because it believes it is very clean and safe.

Information obtained through the Freedom of Information Act found several of the positive test results by United were conducted at San Francisco International Airport.

The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission conducts tests five days a week at the airport to make sure the water supply is not contaminated. The airport says the water it supplies the airlines is clean. In 2007, the airport found only one coliform reading out of 786 samples collected. They think the problem could be in the water tanks on the planes themselves.

"I have no idea if the tank was clean before they filled it up. Was it empty? Was it contaminated before they filled the water?" says San Francisco International Airport spokesperson, Mike McCarron.

San Jose Mineta International Airport reports it only had one test come back positive for coliform in 2007. Oakland International says all its water met federal and state drinking water standards.

However, water at the airport is just one source of potential contamination. Other possible sources include the water hose, the holding tanks and the plane's water system. All are maintained by each individual airline.

"If they're not cleaned properly, they could develop films of bacteria in them," says Dearborn.

The EPA hopes to release its proposal for safe drinking water on airlines within a few months.

"It will embrace treatment and monitoring and regular flushing. The EPA is pleased the airlines are working with us," says Grumbles.

Those airlines that don't comply could have their planes grounded. The Air Transport Association says the industry is working hard to insure water quality on board planes.

Ron Wilson is ABC7's aviation consultant. He thinks passengers need to be better informed about when airlines test their water and what those results might be.

"What you need on board an airplane in every restroom is a little placard on the wall that when they do the testing, they sign off on it and they tell you that the water is clean," says Wilson.

We've compiled all the data we've obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, including test results from each airline and a list of the airlines that have not yet completed or even begun testing. View the data below.

AIRLINES THAT HAVE NOT MADE THEIR WATER TEST RESULTS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC
These airlines have submitted test results to the Environmental Protection Agency, but they are challenging ABC7's Freedom of Information Act request for that information. The EPA has yet to rule on that challenge. If the data is released to us, we will update the test results.

• American Airlines
• US Airways

• American Eagle
• ExpressJet
• Freedom Airlines
• GoJet
• Horizon Air
• Jet Blue
• Mesa Airlines
• Skyway Airlines
• Southwest Airlines
• Spirit Airlines

• Comair
• Frontier
• Mesama
• Miami Air
• North American Airlines
• Pace Airlines
• Pinnacle Airlines
• Primaris Airlines
• Republic Airways
• Ryan International
• Sierra Pacific Airlines
• Sky King Airlines
• Sky West Airlines
• Sun Country Airlines
• Tem Enterprises
• USA3000 Airlines
• PSA Airlines

Passenger Compensation Rights for International Flights

Copyright 2008

Paul S. Hudson, Esq.
Aviation Consumer Action Project
PO Box 19029, Washington, DC 20036
acapaviation@yahoo.com  email

International airline passengers, under the Montreal Convention of 1999 ratified by the U.S. in 2003 (and which replaced the Warsaw Convention), now have legal rights that are in some ways superior to the rights of passengers on U.S. domestic flights.  International air travel covered by this treaty includes any ticketed trip with stopping, departure or destination points in two or more countries.  These rights include:

1) Strict liability for bodily injury or death incurred on board the aircraft or in the course of embarking or disembarking, up to approximately $160,000 in compensation.  A passenger does not have to prove negligence or fault by the airline.  However, damages may be reduced for contributory negligence or wrongful acts by the passenger.

For damages over $160,000, an airline may use the defense that it was not negligent or did not engage in wrongful conduct, or the damages were solely due to negligence or wrongful acts of a third party.

2)   For lost or damaged or delayed baggage, the airline liability  is generally limited to $1,640 per passenger, unless the passenger has handed the airline a special interest declaration and paid any supplementary fee.         .

3)  Airlines are liable for damages caused by delay in the transporting of passengers or cargo up to $6,640, unless the airline proves that it took all reasonable measures to prevent the damage caused by delay or that it was impossible for them to take such measures.

No airline is permitted by contract to assert lower liability limits for international air travel than those provided for in the Montreal Convention and any such contract terms are void.  In general, state common law tort or statutory actions are now preempted, as most courts now view the Montreal Convention as the exclusive remedy for claims arising out of international air transportation. 

Time Limits

Legal actions on all claims must be brought within two (2) years of the incident.  However, in addition, complaints to the airline for baggage damage claims must be made within 7 days, for cargo damage within 14 days of the date of receipt by the passenger.  For baggage or cargo delay claims, the passenger must file a complaint with the airline within 21 days of receipt.  Complaint to the airline must be made in writing and delivered or sent within the time limits or the claim is barred except in case of fraud by the airline. 

Jurisdiction

Courts that have jurisdiction for passenger actions against airlines under the Montreal Convention include US federal district courts and other courts where the passenger has his/her primary and permanent residence, where the airline is domiciled (incorporated) or has its principal office, the final destination location of the flight, or where the airline has a place of business through which the ticket was purchased.