# Court Overturns Air Passenger Rights Law



## MrFSS

Full story is *HERE*


----------



## GG-1

Aloha,

When I saw that heading I thought badly, but after reading the article it makes sense. So the Big question what are our Federal Representatives and Senators doing about it?


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Yet another good reason not to fly...


----------



## PRR 60

I wonder how fast Amtrak would be in court to overturn a state law mandating clean, working bathrooms on trains?


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Not very. Amtrak doesn't have the position to argue with the government on issues of this sort.


----------



## PRR 60

Green Maned Lion said:


> Not very. Amtrak doesn't have the position to argue with the government on issues of this sort.


They would indeed have the position to argue against any state law that regulated their operation.

The central point of the airlines challenge to the New York law is that the regulation of interstate commerce is constitutionally delegated to the Federal government. It was not a question of whether toilets should be working and clean. It was whether an individual state had the authority to regulate that issue. They do not. Regardless of how worthy the purpose, individual states do not have the right to regulate interstate air carriers or interstate rail carriers unless the Federal government grants them the right. In some cases, like regulation of grade crossings, the Federal government has delegated that to state oversight. But most areas of operation remain exclusively Federal matters for the simple reason that 50 different requirements would make compliance a nightmare.

That same tenant of constitutional law applies to Amtrak, only more so. Amtrak is considered, by law, a Federal corporation. Amtrak does not pay local taxes. Amtrak does not pay state vehicle registration fees for their motor vehicles. They are not subject to state oversight in any way, shape, or form. Amtrak even has Federal jurisdiction for the land they own making it immune from eminent domain takes. Amtrak can condemn land for their own use using Federal authority. They are in a powerful position in the legal pecking order. Any attempt by a state to assert any controlling authority over Amtrak would be met by an immediate challenge by both Amtrak and the US DOT. And, that challenge would be successful.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

However, it is the states that allow Amtrak to expand, and one is not wise to bite the hand that feeds one.


----------



## amtrakwolverine

Green Maned Lion said:


> Yet another good reason not to fly...


amen to that flying sucks unless you got $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ for first class


----------



## AmtrakWPK

First Class, Business Class, Coach, Steerage, Baggage Compartment, whatever, you still have to go through H E double toothpicks to get through all the traffic to the airport, get through the ticket lines, in line to get through security, in line to get to airside, into the gate check-in line, in line again to finally get into the sardine can, sit on the tarmac at either end for an hour or so, stand in lines to get to baggage carousels, perhaps find your luggage, then find a way to leave the airport.


----------



## saxman

Good, I'm glad this law was overturned. Its very rare to have to sit for more than 3 hours anyway. I would hope we would be able to get back to a gate and deplane. But then the question always came up, what if you've been sitting in the departure line at JFK for 2 hours 45 mins and now number 15 in line for takeoff. Meaning either you lose your place in line if you go back or risk being violated for being on the ground for 3 hours and 5 minutes.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Take Amtrak like a sane person?


----------



## PRR 60

Green Maned Lion said:


> Take Amtrak like a sane person?


Like a sane person with no time commitments? I have a meeting this week in Colorado, next week in Anaheim CA, live outside Philadelphia, and need to be home for the weekend. Amtrak is not an option. 9 times out of 10, my flights are just fine. I use Amtrak when it works and air when that works. It is possible to like Amtrak and enjoy air travel too.

And I'll repeat: Amtrak would not like the Air Passenger Rights Law applied to them.


----------



## GG-1

And without Air travel I would use all my time and money before I could get to Amtrak. Some how Paddeling an canoe 2500 miles just doesn't appeal.


----------



## amtrakwolverine

saxman66 said:


> Good, I'm glad this law was overturned. Its very rare to have to sit for more than 3 hours anyway. I would hope we would be able to get back to a gate and deplane. But then the question always came up, what if you've been sitting in the departure line at JFK for 2 hours 45 mins and now number 15 in line for takeoff. Meaning either you lose your place in line if you go back or risk being violated for being on the ground for 3 hours and 5 minutes.


so you like over flowing bathrooms with the stuff floats down the aisles and the smell is over whelming that you get sick. you like that. i remember on the news one guy video taped the plane he was on. toilet paper in the aisles 1 inch of toilet water with poo floating in it all the way down the plain. so thats what you like and you don't want them to prevent that. theres been cases where people have been stuck on a plane for 10 hours due to weather and could not get off were denied food and water. so thats your dream flight.sounds nice


----------



## GG-1

KISS_ALIVE said:


> saxman66 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good, I'm glad this law was overturned.
> 
> 
> 
> so you like over flowing bathrooms with the stuff floats down the aisles and the smell is over whelming that you get sick. you like that.
Click to expand...

Aloha

No one is in support of such an unsanitary condition, Nor does anyone support a company that would allow such a condition. What is at issue for those of us against that law is that state vs Interstate travel is involved, the proper regulating authority is Federal. Can you imagine if a interstate train or plane needed to comply with the rules in 50 states. Or if the plane/train complied with just 2 states how would you deal with flying over one not in compliance or not be able to travel between two states because it was not in compliance in a state between the 2 it did comply with

Proper Jurisdiction is/was the issue.

Mahalo


----------



## Green Maned Lion

I disagree. I believe that the Federal governs interstate commerce- that is, the travel of the plane, whilst enroute to destinations. Trucks, for instance, are required to abide by the laws of the state they are located in. So is Greyhound. A plane flying over a state is in-transit and thus not under the authority of the state it is located in. The moment its wheels touch ground, the matter changes. The plane can leave the airport and have fecal matter as a wall paper, have water possession a sin, and whatever else allowed by the Feds. On the ground, a plane is located on property owned by a specific entity- in the case of New Yorks major airports, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

In my own home, I have to follow certain rules as required by the various municipal, county, state, and federal entities. After that, I am free to set my own rules. I can require anybody in my home to wear sombreros- they can follow my absurd rule, or leave. Because it is my home, my property, my rules. An airport can require a plane to do as it pleases. You want to land in my state, you follow my rules. You can fly over my state as you please, but once you land, you follow my rules. New York can't set a law requiring whatever to be done by carriers who fly over their state, or what carriers flying to their state do at other locations on the globe. But the state can require planes to have hydraulics on their landing gear and dance a tango when it lands if they so please.

They can't require them to do diddly when they are in the air. But they sure can require them to do things once they sit on the ground.


----------



## PRR 60

Green Maned Lion said:


> ...They can't require them to do diddly when they are in the air. But they sure can require them to do things once they sit on the ground.


Legal precedent does not support your position, and the decision in this case is just one more example. Just as a state cannot impose speed limits on a railroad (which is on the ground), a state cannot impose laws that govern operational conduct on an air carrier whether in the air or on the ground.
By the way, have you ever wondered why Amtrak is not subject to state and local liquor laws? How Amtrak can serve liquor on days and at times prohibited by local law? It is the same deal. At one time Amtrak did try to adhere to local liquor regulations and restrictions, but no more.


----------

