Ryan McCord

I am writing in support of the adoption of uniform standard time intervals that would invoke the carriers' obligations under their contingency plans. I support both standards: the maximum time that would trigger the plan, and the maximum time after which carriers would be required to allow passengers to deplane. These uniform standards are necessary to ensure that the carriers create effective contingency plans - not merely plans that minimize their costs. Currently, the DOT proposes to exclude any uniform standards from the final rule because "the Department should not substitute its judgment in this area for that of the air carriers." The DOT currently regulates nearly every aspect of the business and operations of commercial carriers. The argument that the DOT should not step in "in this area" - protecting passengers - is misplaced. A simple provision that sets a maximum time interval is not interfering in the technical decisions of the carriers. While, as the ATA asserts, contingency plans "must be tailored to fit" each carrier's "facilities, equipment, operating procedures and network," setting a time interval does not substantially invoke any of these concerns. Whether an airline has a three hour deplaning requirement set by the DOT, or a three and a half hour interval set by its own internal contingency requirement will not impair the airline's operations or ability to be flexible under different weather and airport capacity limits. But setting a uniform DOT limit will significantly benefit the traveling public. Passengers will know that no matter the specific airline they have selected, they are entitled to certain rights within a known time while sitting on the tarmac. Perhaps a few passengers out of a thousand read the specific carrier's contract of carriage, but a uniform industry standard set by the DOT would quickly become common knowledge among travelers. This knowledge in turn would force the airlines to live up to contingency plans in the contracts. As a specific recommendation for the time intervals, I believe that after one and a half hours, the carriers should be required to discharge their obligations under their contingency plans. And after three hours, passengers should be permitted to deplane. Of course, this second requirement can still have some built in flexibility. Some discretion should be left in the hands of pilots to decide whether to return to the gate. But this does not mean that the discretion cannot be standardized across the industry. If a plane is, in the ATA's hyperbolic scenario, "the next in line to take off," the pilot would not be required to return to the gate. And of course, if a plane were quarantined for health reasons, passengers would not be permitted to deplane. But these kind of rare cases can easily be dealt with in the final rule, while still adopting a uniform standard that benefits travelers.