[Butch Cassidy Slept Here]

Saying passenger rights reform will not significantly reduce unreasonable, dishonest, or just plain stupid, airline customers is not a reason to block it. Indeed this sounds like something direct from the PR department of the Air Transport Assn. (“ATA”)

That "Contract of Carriage" reads like an insurance policy. Unfortunately the amount of regulation a private health insurer, for example, is subject to (even with Federal pre-emption) is, in no way, comparable to the amount of regulation applicable to the relationship between a domestic fare customer and an airline. When one considers the amount of EFFECTIVE regulation in existence--that is regulations which are actually enforced, with some degree of regularity, with penalties that are not later reduced--one does, indeed, have a near "free-for-all."

Going “back to the future,” and relegating those who wish to, or must, travel on the cheap to Greyhound would benefit everyone. The status quo of air travel for “everyone” DIS-serves as many as it SERVES. The air traffic control system will not be re-built anytime soon. Offering the idea of refurbishing an out-dated air traffic control system as an alternative to serious passenger rights, as the ATA has done, is about as rational as offering someone a canoe, as an alternative to the Queen Mary II, for a trans-Atlantic crossing!

Meaningful passenger rights must provide for a serious enforcement capacity, within the DOT, with regard to violations of consumer protections. Until then the only "redress" the domestic airline customer can expect are more meaningless form letters, sometimes defending hostile staff actions, and worthless vouchers.