Read us | Listen to us | Watch us | Join Live Events | Turn Off Ads | Live |

Click on your language to translate this article:

Afrikaans Afrikaans Albanian Albanian Amharic Amharic Arabic Arabic Armenian Armenian Azerbaijani Azerbaijani Basque Basque Belarusian Belarusian Bengali Bengali Bosnian Bosnian Bulgarian Bulgarian Cebuano Cebuano Chichewa Chichewa Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Simplified) Corsican Corsican Croatian Croatian Czech Czech Dutch Dutch English English Esperanto Esperanto Estonian Estonian Filipino Filipino Finnish Finnish French French Frisian Frisian Galician Galician Georgian Georgian German German Greek Greek Gujarati Gujarati Haitian Creole Haitian Creole Hausa Hausa Hawaiian Hawaiian Hebrew Hebrew Hindi Hindi Hmong Hmong Hungarian Hungarian Icelandic Icelandic Igbo Igbo Indonesian Indonesian Italian Italian Japanese Japanese Javanese Javanese Kannada Kannada Kazakh Kazakh Khmer Khmer Korean Korean Kurdish (Kurmanji) Kurdish (Kurmanji) Kyrgyz Kyrgyz Lao Lao Latin Latin Latvian Latvian Lithuanian Lithuanian Luxembourgish Luxembourgish Macedonian Macedonian Malagasy Malagasy Malay Malay Malayalam Malayalam Maltese Maltese Maori Maori Marathi Marathi Mongolian Mongolian Myanmar (Burmese) Myanmar (Burmese) Nepali Nepali Norwegian Norwegian Pashto Pashto Persian Persian Polish Polish Portuguese Portuguese Punjabi Punjabi Romanian Romanian Russian Russian Samoan Samoan Scottish Gaelic Scottish Gaelic Serbian Serbian Sesotho Sesotho Shona Shona Sindhi Sindhi Sinhala Sinhala Slovak Slovak Slovenian Slovenian Somali Somali Spanish Spanish Sudanese Sudanese Swahili Swahili Swedish Swedish Tajik Tajik Tamil Tamil Thai Thai Turkish Turkish Ukrainian Ukrainian Urdu Urdu Uzbek Uzbek Vietnamese Vietnamese Xhosa Xhosa Yiddish Yiddish Zulu Zulu

FlyersRights asking DOT to regulate airline change fees

When Congress deregulated airline prices, routes, and schedules in 1978, Congress preserved the DOT’s responsibility to ensure that international prices and fees remained “reasonable.” This little-known provision of U.S. law means that the FAA should strike down any change fees that are unreasonable and have no relation to cost. See 49 U.S.C. § 41501, DOT-OST-2015-0031 at has filed a notice of appeal against the US Department of Transportation (DOT) in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals over its refusal to regulate international change fees – Flyers Rights Education Fund v. U.S. Department of Transportation (CADC).

Passengers are helpless when it comes these exorbitant change fees that can range up to $500 or more. Domestic consolidation and international alliances in the airline industry have combined to give passengers fewer options when travelling. As airline profits soar, the airlines continue to increase change fees by hundreds of dollars while publicly declaring that these fees are a major profit generator.

In 2015, filed a rulemaking petition demanding that the DOT enforce the Reasonableness Law for change fees on international flights. On February 1, 2019, the DOT denied this petition. In refusing to regulate despite the Reasonableness Law, the DOT said it relied on “market forces” to handle all air travel pricing and policy. See DOT-OST-2015-0031-0035. is represented in the court appeal by Joseph Sandler, Esq. of Sandler Reiff Lamb Rosenstein & Birkenstock P.C. of Washington, D.C.

Paul Hudson, President of, reflected on the past few years, “The DOT has demonstrated a tremendous ability to allow the airlines and airplane manufacturers to dictate enforcement policies. The DOT has ignored the law by failing to guarantee that international change fees are reasonable and related to cost. At a time when flights are routinely filled to capacity, airlines extort passengers into paying hundreds of dollars to change flights so that the airline can go back and sell the same ticket, usually at a higher price. The airlines reach into passengers’ checkbooks because the DOT refuses to follow the law.” most recently took the FAA to federal court over the denial of its 2015 seat size rulemaking petition. The seat litigation has increased scrutiny on the FAA’s relationship with Boeing and other airplane manufacturers, has led to Congressional mandates to establish seat size standards and to review certification procedures, and has prompted a DOT Inspector General Investigation into the FAA’s oversight of emergency evacuation testing and certification.

Paul Hudson, member of the FAA Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee since 1993, noted “The DOT and FAA keep proving, time and time again, that they will allow Boeing and the airlines to dictate policy both in the safety and consumer protection realms. From ignoring concerns over the Boeing 737 MAX 8 and 787 Dreamliner, to rubber stamping manufacturers’ emergency evacuation testing, to decreasing enforcement of consumer protections to historical lows, the DOT has surrendered its duty to ensure safe air travel and reasonable protections for passengers.”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email