If you’re a person of even average height who has flown in the past year, you’ve probably noticed that you’re starting to get less space. And you know that if you do want a little extra room to make sure that the person in front of you doesn’t crush your legs into oblivion, it will cost you a significant fee.

This is the phenomenon that a federal judge recently referred to as the “incredible shrinking airline seat.” And on Friday, a three judge Federal Appeals court in Washington, DC ruled that the FAA standards for allowing diminished seat spacing were potentially harmful to passenger health and safety.

The panel ruled in favor of Flyers Rights, the passenger advocacy group, which argued against the recent average seat width reduction from 18″ in the early 2010s to 16.5″ now. The group pointed out that airlines also reduced seat pitch (which is the combination of seat thickness and legroom) from an average of 35″ to 31″ for an economy level seat. Low budget airlines such as Spirit go as low as offering only 28” seat pitches for its economy seats.

Flyers Rights contended that the significant decrease in legroom, combined with the increase in size of the average American passenger, can make it significantly more difficult for passengers to exit a plane in case of an emergency evacuation. Furthermore, the group argued that a decrease in seat pitch can lead to an increased risk of heightened vein thrombosis–a condition involving blood clots in the legs that has been connected to longer flights.

In a statement, the FAA said it: “does consider seat pitch in testing and assessing the safe evacuation of commercial, passenger aircraft. We are studying the ruling carefully and any potential actions we may take to address the court’s findings.”

But the judges found that the FAA was relying on outdated studies. The FAA even admitted last year that it lacked the data that would be able to prove whether airlines could evacuate an airplane in the minimum required time if each seat had 31 inches of pitch. The ruling will not guarantee or force the FAA to change its seat space regulation policy, rather it merely requires that it conduct a formal review.

But for the first time, it feels as though there’s finally some progress. Flyers Rights had lobbied Congress for legislation to bring a change to the seating requirement earlier this year, but it failed to gain the necessary support.

Legal aviation experts such as Arthur Alan Wolk have characterized the ruling as being groundbreaking in terms of an organization having any success lobbying against the FAA. He told the New York Times on Sunday: “This is the first case I have seen where an organization has successfully challenged the F.A.A.’s basically being asleep at the switch and not fulfilling its safety responsibilities adequately.”

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The Curious Case of the “Incredible Shrinking Airline Seat” appeared first on Law Street.

I think we all can agree that flight cancellations are the worst. But for some stranded Sprit Airlines passengers in Florida, it proved to be more than they–and the airline staff, for that matter–could handle.

Travelers began screaming at airline employees and throwing punches inside of Fort Lauderdale’s airport Monday evening after the budget airline announced the cancellation of several flights, leaving hundreds stranded.

The situation went viral after cellphone footage captured Broward Sheriff’s Office deputies struggling to break up a fight between two women near Spirit Airline’s ticket check-in counter.

Chaos at a Florida airport after @SpiritAirlines flights are canceled: https://t.co/5fkrx1xerS pic.twitter.com/7vlufN3TD6

— NBC DFW (@NBCDFW) May 9, 2017

A massive brawl broke out at a Florida airport when Spirit Airlines cancelled 81 flights in one day https://t.co/xn4oiwg0L7 pic.twitter.com/Nvog2Xyymh

— BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) May 9, 2017

In another video, police wrestled a man to the ground near the ticket counter and placed him in handcuffs.

Just witnessed police brutality at Fort Lauderdale airport @SpiritAirlines trying to get back to NYC…i’m tired its 2017 pic.twitter.com/3UHGUqCuwm

— Brionka Halbert (@brionkahalbert) May 9, 2017

Altogether, the deputies arrested three people for inciting the crowd of about 500 customers. They face charges of inciting or encouraging a riot, disorderly conduct, resisting an officer, and trespassing after receiving a warning.

According to Buzzfeed News, Spirit alleged in a lawsuit filed Monday that its pilots and their labor union, the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), conspired to purposefully reduce pilot availability, resulting in approximately 300 canceled flights over the past week. On Sunday alone, the airline said it was forced to cancel 81 flights–17 percent of its scheduled flights for that day–because pilots refused to work amid contentious contract negotiations.

Spirit estimates that about 20,000 customers have been affected since the cancellations began last week.

“We are disappointed that ALPA has decided to engage in this unlawful slowdown,” said Paul Berry, Spirit spokesman, in a statement. “This has led to canceled flights and prevented our customers from taking their planned travel, all for the sole purpose of influencing current labor negotiations. So we reluctantly filed this suit to protect our customers’ and our operations.”

“This is clearly unlawful activity under the Railway Labor Act, which governs labor relations in the airline industry,” Berry added. “ALPA and those individuals responsible should be held accountable.”

Spirit has been in contract negotiations with its pilots for the past two years, after they expressed dissatisfaction with current pay rates, retirement benefits, and the airline’s lack of profit-sharing.

As a result, pilots have refused to accept junior assignments or pick up “open time flying,” which has dramatically impacted Spirit’s ability to operate smoothly. The union, on the other hand, denies urging members not to accept assignments.

In June of last year, Spirit pilots went on a five-day strike that left thousands of passengers stranded. Then, in October, nearly 100 pilots picketed at the Dallas Fort Worth airport and outside Spirit’s headquarters in Miramar, Florida.

This all comes as the airline industry is under fire after a series of intense customer service scandals made headlines across the nation. With summer quickly approaching, the industry as a whole could really benefit from some good PR as travelers begin to prep for vacation travel.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Spirit Flight Cancellations Lead to Passenger Brawl at Ft. Lauderdale Airport appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Hillary Clinton is a Nasty Woman?

The last presidential debate of the 2016 cycle was last night, and for all intents and purposes it was a lot more substantive than the first two. But, in true Trumpian fashion, the Republican nominee had a few inappropriate quips throughout the evening–including when he said that Hillary Clinton was a “nasty woman.” How did the internet respond? By pointing out that a lot of other “nasty women” are voting for Clinton.

I’m a nasty woman and I vote. #nastywoman #nastywomenunite

— Kate Binder (@katebinder) October 20, 2016

Nasty Woman seeks Bad Hombre to share long walks on the beach, leisurely afternoons reading, and trading off who is the real puppet.

— Jill Filipovic (@JillFilipovic) October 20, 2016

The “nasty woman” comment, in the end, will sum up this presidential run and be the mark of the final undoing tonight. #debatenight

— Uzo Aduba (@UzoAduba) October 20, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: October 20, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

After a month of reports of exploding, smoking, or burning cellphones, the Samsung galaxy Note 7 will now be banned on all U.S. flights, starting Saturday. The Federal Aviation Administration and Department of Transportation released a statement on Friday afternoon saying the new rules will take effect on Saturday. This is sure to be inconvenient for passengers with already scheduled flights who rely on Samsung. But after almost 100 cases of overheating and fires, it’s better to be on the safe side.

“We recognize that banning these phones from airlines will inconvenience some passengers, but the safety of all those aboard an aircraft must take priority,” said Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx.

Starting Saturday, passengers won’t be allowed to bring their Note 7s aboard an airplane even if they are shut off. Trying to do so may lead to confiscation of the phone and fines for the passenger. If anyone would be foolish enough to try and pack the phone in the checked luggage to get around it, they would risk creating an accident and could face criminal charges. The Samsung Galaxy Note 7 is now considered a forbidden hazardous material under federal law.

FAA banning #Samsung #GalaxyNote7 from all flights https://t.co/WqLA1vl0W3 pic.twitter.com/RRFV0XwXQ4

— #Q13FOX (@Q13FOX) October 14, 2016

This news comes after two separate recalls of the Note 7 phones, the first one on September 15 and the second one on Thursday, which included the replacement phones that people could exchange their original ones for. The problem with the first edition was that the lithium ion battery cells were packed so tightly into a pouch that they barely fit inside the phone, leading to pinching of the batteries. This could easily break the thin plastic that separates the positive and negative sides of the battery, which could lead to a short circuit. This in its turn would heat up the flammable liquid inside enough to make the battery explode, and the replacements had similar issues.

The whole affair is estimated to cost the company $5.3 billion in lost profits. At least 13 people have reported being burned by their phones, there have been 96 reports of overheated batteries, and there are 47 registered cases of property damage. On October 5, a smoking phone led to the evacuation of a Southwest Airlines flight. Luckily that plane was still by the gate and no one was hurt. And with the new FAA rules, there will hopefully be no issues with fires caused by phones on airplanes.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FAA: Samsung Note 7s are Now Banned on U.S. Flights appeared first on Law Street.

Sometimes it seems like airlines would do absolutely anything to squeeze an extra few bucks out of customers. From checked bags, to snacks, to Wi-Fi, it seems like there’s a fee for almost everything. But one lawmaker–Congressman Dan Lipinski (D-Illinois)–appears to be concerned about what kind of charges will be next, and has proposed a bill to prevent airlines from charging bathroom fees in the future.

Lipinski introduced the Comfortable and Fair Flights Act of 2015, in an attempt to combat what he sees as some unreasonable present or potentially future policies from airlines. In a press release from his office he highlighted two key provisions of the proposed legislation–prohibiting airlines from charging for bathroom use, and the fact that many airlines still charge customers baggage fees even if the bags are lost or delayed.

Lipinski stated, via press release:

More and more, when airline passengers get on a flight they expect to suffer from uncomfortable conditions; as a frequent flyer I understand this. One thing they should never have to worry about is access to a bathroom.  Unfortunately, commercial flights are not required to depart with a functioning bathroom, sometimes forcing passengers to endure a trip without this basic necessity.  Moreover, as ancillary fees continue to grow, the specter of an in-flight bathroom fee continues to loom in the background since first being broached in 2010.

Additionally, many of us are all too familiar with paying baggage fees and have come to accept them as part of the flying experience.  While lost and delayed baggage rates are declining, passengers who suffer from this inconvenience do so without the right to a refund, even after hours or days of delay.  Simply put, if you pay for a service, you should get that service promptly or get your money back.

While it may seem totally crazy that airlines would begin charging for bathroom use, it’s not totally out of the realm of possibilities. Ryanair, a European low-budget airline, proposed the idea in 2010, although no American company appears to be suggesting such a notion.

It’s not just about the fees, either, it’s about bathrooms for all. The bill would allow fliers to change their flights if the bathroom on their plane was out of service. According to Popular Mechanics, “FAA regulations do not specify whether airlines must have working restroom facilities aboard; it’s something that remains at the discretion of the airline itself.”

So, it doesn’t look like we’ll be having to shell out cash for bathroom access on flights anytime soon–and that’s a very good thing. But while we’re on the topic, can we get someone to do something about this equally horrifying patent from Airbus?

I’m not sure I would #enjoy the new @Airbus#Patent for #airplane#seat arrangement… pic.twitter.com/ldwLrl8m52

— Giovanni Banzola (@gbanzola) October 15, 2015

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Congressman Introduces Bill to Prevent Airlines from Charging Bathroom Fees appeared first on Law Street.

It’s no secret that flying is expensive, and many customers will do almost anything they can to save a few bucks on airfare. Under that assumption, 22-year-old entrepreneur Aktarer Zaman created a website called Skiplagged.com. Skiplagged advertises itself as “better at finding cheap flights than any other website!” However, because Skiplagged operates based on a loophole in airline pricing, airline companies aren’t as ecstatic about this new site as many consumers. In fact, United Airlines filed a suit against Skiplagged. There’s good and bad news for purveyors of cheap flights–the good news is that the lawsuit was just thrown out by a judge.The bad news is that the legal fights aren’t over yet.

Skiplagged is able to find cheaper fares by taking advantage of what is dubbed “hidden city pricing.” These “hidden cities” are the layover locations of flights. Suppose you’re trying to get from Atlanta to Philadelphia. It might be cheaper to book a flight from Atlanta to Boston, with a layover in Philadelphia, then just walk off the plane in Philadelphia and never continue on to Boston. You obviously wouldn’t be able to check a bag, but if you’re looking to save a few bucks, it’s a pretty brilliant idea. It’s always been possible for individuals to do so, but it takes a decent amount of research and work. Zaman built a website that does the same thing.

So financially, it’s definitely a win. But what about the ethics of this approach? That is significantly fuzzier. Technically speaking, by purposely not getting on a connecting flight, you are breaching the contract you signed with the airline when you purchased the ticket. You also may cause delays–if the flight crew is trying to make sure that they have all the customers on board it may take them a while to mark someone a no-show. Most importantly to the airlines, you’re costing them money.

As a result, United decided to sue Zaman, saying that he promoted “unfair competition” and “deceptive behavior.” Travel site Orbitz sued Zaman because you can’t book flights directly on Skiplagged, so the site directs you to purchase them from other retailers, such as Orbitz. Orbitz didn’t want to lose its bookings as a result of Skiplagged’s recommendations. Orbitz, however, settled its lawsuit in February, although the exact details of that settlement have not been disclosed.

As for the United lawsuit, that was just thrown out out by Chicago Judge John Robert Blakey of the Northern District Court of Illinois, but not on the merits of the case. It was thrown out because the court in which it was filed lacked the jurisdiction to decide the suit, given that Zaman did not live or do business in Chicago. This leaves United with the opportunity to try again in a more appropriate jurisdiction.

Trying again is something that the airline probably will do. United released a statement after the decision saying:

We remain troubled that Mr. Zaman continues to openly encourage customers to violate our contract of carriage by purchasing hidden-city tickets, putting the validity of their ticket and MileagePlus status at risk.

So, United will probably continue its quest to put Skiplagged out of business, and given the revenue that airlines have the potential to lose from this trick, others may join the lawsuit. For now, Skiplagged appears operational, but there’s no guarantee it will stay that way for long.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post This Site Will Save You Money on Airfare, But is it Legal? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s happened to everyone. You arrive at the airport, ready to jet off to a choice destination. You go up to the counter and suddenly you get hit with some BS fee. Your luggage weighs too much or maybe you have too many bags. You want to change your seat to sit with your family, but you have to pay for that too. It’s all quite infuriating, inconvenient, and most of all, expensive.

These fees have, quite frankly, gotten ridiculous. A recent USA Today study found that there are fees as high as $400 to check an overweight bag (71-100) pounds on international flights for some airlines. American Airlines charges up to $450 for such a bag on some of their international flights. There are  ridiculous charges for changing international flights, up to $400 in some cases. And there are some weird fees that are pretty cheap, but still incredibly annoying. For example, most airlines now charge around $10-$25 to book a round trip ticket from a mobile device. Frequent flier mile users can get charged just to use those miles. For example, Jet Blue and Delta both charge $25 to book a free ticket online or on a mobile device. Keep in mind that these are all just fees that apply to coach customers; first class customers have the potential for even more fees to be levied against them.

According to a few recent polls, baggage fees are hated the most by travelers, but flight change and cancellation fees were a notable second.

Why do airlines charge such exorbitant fees? Well, quite frankly, because they can. They know that people will pay to fly because they have no choice. It’s completely legal for them to institute these fees. It’s not a monopoly, but there are a finite number of places that customers can turn to to get flights. And these fees have been incredibly lucrative  for the companies — as the USA Today piece put it, “according to the Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 15 U.S. airlines reported revenues of $2.6 billion from baggage fees and $2.1 billion from reservation-change fees during the first three quarters last year.”

A separate survey by Fly.com didn’t focus on the fees that travelers have to pay, but rather the fees they would want to pay. That’s right, airline passengers said they would pay more fees for certain perks, such as a fast pass to get through airline security, a guaranteed overhead bin in their area, or for their checked luggage to come out first.

After all, it would kind of make sense for airlines to offer more extensive kinds of service. In most aspects of life, we are able to choose different features based on affordability and convenience. Currently most airlines only distinguish between coach and first class, leaving travelers with only two options. (Although some airlines do offer things like extra space seats for a little more.)

It’s probably wishful thinking, but charging people only for the things they want — like overhead bin space — may lower the prices for the rest of us?

I know this is an overused gif, but it was too applicable to pass up.

Nah, these prices are never going down, we should all just get used to paying an arm and a leg for some of our flights.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Jason via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Airline Fees Are Getting Even More Annoying appeared first on Law Street.