Over the weekend, the Trump administration added the United Kingdom and Ireland to the list of countries subject to the European travel ban (sometimes the “Ban”) it originally announced on Wednesday, March 11, 2020. In addition to prohibiting the entry of aliens who were physically present within the Schengen Area, the Ban now prohibits the
Airports, airlines, and travelers face a number of dynamic questions and challenges in the wake of the Trump administration’s abrupt televised announcement that the federal government “will be suspending all travel from Europe to the United States for the next 30 days.” The announced European travel ban (sometimes the “Ban”) is set forth in a Presidential Proclamation on Suspension of Entry as Immigrants and Nonimmigrants of Certain Additional Persons Who Pose a Risk of Transmitting 2019 Novel Coronavirus (the “Proclamation”). As discussed below, the Proclamation provides further detail that was not immediately clear after the President’s brief televised announcement on Wednesday night.
In a somewhat unsubtle attempt to implement the current Administration’s 2017 Executive Order “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” allowing federal agencies to simplify their regulatory mandates, the Department of Transportation (“DOT”), on behalf of its subsidiary agency the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”), has instead thrown complex and expensive regulatory/legal hurdles in the path of consumers who attempt to enforce the provisions of current protective regulations. Specifically, the DOT published, on February 28, 2020, in the Federal Register, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”), that purports to simplify “definitions of the terms ‘unfair’ and ‘deceptive’ in the Department’s regulations implementing its aviation consumer protection statute.” See 85 Fed.Reg. 11881. The devil, however, is, as usual, in the details.
Passengers seeking to travel with their service animals in the main cabin may soon face new restrictions from airlines, as the Department of Transportation (“DOT”) recently published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) to alter existing DOT regulations. 85 Fed. Reg. 6448 (Feb. 5, 2020). The NPRM represents DOT’s latest effort to carry out the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986, 49 U.S.C. § 1705 (“ACAA”), which prohibits air carriers from discriminating against a qualified individual on the basis of physical or mental impairment. The NPRM arises, in part, from DOT’s stated desire to harmonize its regulations with rules promulgated by the Department of Justice to implement Titles II and III of the American’s with Disabilities Act.
On October 1, 2015, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) adopted stricter regulation on ozone emissions that will fall heavily on California, and most particularly on the transportation sector, including airlines. The new standard strengthens limits on ground level ozone to 70 parts per billion (“PPB”), down from 75 PPB adopted in 2008. The EPA’s action arises from the mandate of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), from which the EPA derives its regulatory powers, 42 U.S.C. § 7409(a)(1), and which requires that pollution levels be set so as to protect public health with an “adequate margin of safety. 42 U.S.C. § 7409(b).
The decision of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Idaho in SilverWing at Sandpoint, LLC v. Bonner County, a case that has been “hanging fire” for almost two years, was worth the wait. On Friday, November 21, 2014, the Court granted Defendant Bonner County (“Bonner County”) summary judgment on all Plaintiff SilverWing at Sandpoint, LLC’s (“SilverWing”) federal claims for inverse condemnation, or “taking,” of private property by a public entity without just compensation, in violation of the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, or violation of a plaintiff’s constitutional or other federal rights by a person acting under color of state law. See, e.g., Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). In addition, the Court granted summary judgment on SilverWing’s state law contract claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
A recent analysis of the relationship of airline mergers to airline service and pricing reports the unsurprising result that, since the mergers of Southwest Airlines and AirTran, United Airlines and Continental Airlines, and Delta Airlines and Northwest Airlines, airline capacity measured by the number of available seats, has gone down across the board at the top 100 airports in the 48 contiguous states since 2005 while prices have increased equally broadly. For example, at the largest airport in the United States, Atlanta-Hartsfield, the number of seats has fallen by 12.3%, while the average fare price has increased by 3.7%. Similarly, at Boston Logan, the number of seats has dropped by 10%, while the fares have increased at an average of 2.2%. Those changes, moreover, are not limited to the top 100 airports. At secondary airports in metropolitan areas with multiple airports, the same trend persists. At Oakland Airport in the San Francisco Bay area, fares have increased 6%. And those ominous trends appear to continue.
In response to the proposal of a merger between American Airlines and U.S. Airways, the Justice Department promptly brought suit on the grounds of, among other things, restraint of trade and violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Last week, the Justice Department settled with the airlines on the promise by the airlines to surrender gates and slots at major airports.
During the past week, the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) has taken two actions likely to elicit “equal and opposite reactions” from the aviation community specifically, and the American public in general. On the positive end of the spectrum lies FAA’s approval of a presumed cure for the dramatic malfunctions of the lithium ion batteries installed by the Boeing Company in place of the hydraulic system in the company’s 787 Dreamliner passenger jet. This “fix” will allow Boeing to begin deliveries of the aircraft again after an FAA mandated hiatus since January 16, 2013. At the extreme opposite end of the spectrum lies FAA’s decision to begin the furloughing of air traffic controllers, a move that has already precipitated the filing of petitions with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by, among others, the aviation trade group for the nation’s airlines, Airlines for America, the Airline Pilots Association, and the Regional Airline Association.
It has come to our attention that a legal colleague has authored a blog analogizing the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision upholding the Obama Administration’s health care legislation (“Obamacare”), National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v. Sebelius, et al., 567 U.S. ___ (2012), to the Federal statutes preempting state and local control of the regulation of aircraft operations and their free and open access to airports. The blog attempts to make the case that, because the Court ruled that the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution does not justify requiring all uninsured Americans to purchase health insurance, so the Commerce Clause somehow cannot justify exclusive Federal regulation of the “safety of navigable airspace,” 49 U.S.C. § 40103(a), and airlines “rates, routes and charges,” 49 U.S.C. § 41713(b)(1). This analysis not only manifestly misapprehends the clear distinction between the two cases, but can also send a damaging message to those who justifiably seek legally supportable means of controlling airport impacts.
This morning, November 29, 2011, American Airlines, one of the biggest airlines in the world, announced that it had declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy. It is not unexpected news, as American has been declaring losses in excess of $1 billion per year for some time. What remains to be seen is, among other things: (1) whether…