: 1206628136

The U.S. federal district court of appeals struck down a bill sponsored by State Assemblyman Michael Gianaris (D-Astoria) that sought to force airline companies to provide water, fresh air, electricity and a working bathroom to passengers stranded during flight delays lasting more than three hours.

Following passenger accounts of horrific eight and 10 hour waits on the tarmac at New York area Airport’s, Assemblyman Gianaris wrote the bill that would penalize airlines that failed to provide these basic necessities, only to see the legislation struck down this week by the U.S. federal appellate court.

He blasted the court’s decision as “one more decision by federal courts tilted in favor of corporate interests instead of the people’s.”

The court struck down the bill based on federal primacy in the law, claiming that if every state were allowed to write their own law, the country could end up with 50 different ones, thus creating a confused situation for carriers. The three-judge panel cited the doctrine of federal preemption to reject the state law.

Federal preemption also says that states do not have the authority to regulate interstate commerce, set prices or establish rules for companies that do business nationwide.
The preemption doctrine is derived from the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution which states the “Constitution and the laws of the United States...shall be the supreme law of the land...anything in the constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” This means that federal law - even a regulation of a federal agency - overrides any and all conflicting state laws.

However, no federal airline law currently exists. A bill protecting airline passengers was voted on and approved by the House, but a corresponding bill in the Senate has not made it out of committee to be debated by the full body, or voted upon.

According to the court’s reasoning, if New York’s bill was upheld, it could create legal mayhem for the airlines and the states they operate within.

“If New York’s view regarding the scope of its regulatory
authority carried the day, another state could be free to enact a law prohibiting the service of soda on flights departing from its airports, while another could require allergen-free food options on its outbound flights, unraveling the centralized federal framework for air travel,” the court said in its decision.

Gianaris criticized the decision from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

In a released statement he said, “The court’s decision is a disappointment to anyone who has suffered at the hands of airlines that care more about profits than their customers. This is far from over. While this decision is a setback to passengers’ rights, I will continue fighting until someone in a position of authority does the right thing and stands up to protect the flying public.”

In comments during a phone interview, Gianaris said his office has yet to decide whether to appeal the decision, or write a new bill.

“The court said was not within the power of the states…because of preemption, but we are not dealing with services,” Gianaris said by phone.