Aero Blog

Archive for February, 2010

How can I avoid flight delays? – Research the Airlines’ on-time ratings and use the Airline with the best rating. – Keep up with the news and see if your Airline is facing any upcoming labor negotiations. If they are in negotiation near the time you are planning your trip, you might want to use another Airline in case yours has a work stoppage or slowdown. – Avoid peak travel time. – Check the weather conditions that are common along your route to see if you can plan your trip to avoid periods when foul weather causes delays. – Fly nonstop or with the least amount of connections possible. Each time you land and take off you increase your chances to encounter delays. – Take early morning flights. Early flights are less likely to be delayed and if they are delayed you’ll have more options remaining through out the day to complete your trip. – Avoid the last flight of the day since a delay might force an overnight stay. – If you fear you’ll suffer from a flight delay, consider using a paper ticket over an electronic ticket. If you need to transfer to another Airline to continue your trip, a paper ticket can save you time. Most Airlines are not yet able to transfer passengers flying on e-tickets without first taking the time to switch them to a paper ticket.What should I do if my flight is delayed or canceled? – If your flight is delayed or canceled, work with the Airline’s counter personnel to book you on another flight. Being nice and working with the agent will often bring much better results than losing your temper. – If there is a line at the counter, call the Airline’s reservation center directly to book another flight instead of waiting in line for the few people available to help. See if they can guarantee you a seat on another flight. – If you have another person traveling with you, spread out with one in line and the other on the phone. Try to stay within eyesight of each other in case one of you needs to wave the other one over. If you have a cell phone, call the Airline while you’re standing in line and see who can help you first. – See if others in your party belong to any premium clubs that will help to get you special consideration. – Ask to be protected under the Airline’s own written rules in the ticket’s conditions or contract of carriage for dealing with missed connections, delayed and canceled flights so you are given all the consideration you are legally due. This section of the contract is often called “Rule 240″, but no matter what it is called, they will have a section that specifically spells out what action they must take to help you continue your trip and what compensation you are due, if any. The U.S. Department of Transportation mandates that a copy of this contract be available to passengers at the Airline’s ticket counter. Many Airlines also provide this information on their web sites so you might print it off and take it with you in case you need it. Some Airline employees will try to tell you to that they no longer use “Rule 240″, but no matter what they call this section of their contract they still have to honor their written guidelines in the contract of carriage. These guidelines are part of the legal contract that deals with you. Both you and the Airline agreed upon these terms when they sold and you purchased their ticket. The Airline cannot choose to disregard part of a legal contract and enforce a different policy. – If other Airlines are still operating, see if your Airline is willing to find you a seat on another Airline. Although, their contract may allow them some time to first find you a flight on their own Airline, most state that when they fail to do so, they will try to find you a seat with another Airline. Know that many Airlines limit your potential choices of other Airlines only with certain Airlines that have existing agreements with your Airline. Your option probably won’t be to find any other flight at the airport that works. It will be to find another flight from a list of specific Airlines. – The Airline’s “Rule 240″ may state that, if you so choose, you are entitled to an involuntary refund for any unused portion of your ticket, even if you purchased a nonrefundable ticket. – “Rule 240″ also specifies what, if any, other compensation you are due because of the flight’s delay or cancellation. The compensation due will usually vary depending on the reason for the flight’s delay or cancellation. – If it looks like lots of people are going to be stuck for a long time, consider booking a hotel room and/or a rental car before everyone else grabs them all. – Look into other practical forms of transportation such as trains, buses, or rental cars. The airport may close, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the highways and railroads are impassible. – Move quickly, a closed airport will mean that other forms of transportation and hotel rooms will sell out quickly. – Update any future reservations with Airlines, hotels or rental cars that will be effected by your delay.What type of compensation will I receive if my flight is delayed or canceled?You may think a delayed or canceled flight will get you complimentary meals and a free hotel stay, but that’s not always true. However, you can take some actions to make sure you are given all the assistance and compensation you are due. – Being nice and working with the agent will often bring much better results than losing your temper. You can let them know you are upset without turning your anger toward them. – You might have to rely on your negotiation skills to cover some expenses caused by the flight’s delay or cancellation. This is where being professional can help. – Ask to be protected under the Airline’s “Rule 240″, so you are given all the consideration you are legally due. “Rule 240″ refers to the Airline’s own written rules in the ticket’s conditions or contract of carriage for dealing with missed connections, delayed and canceled flights. “Rule 240″ specifically spells out what action they must take to help you continue your trip and what compensation you are due, if any. – The U.S. Department of Transportation mandates that a copy of this contract must be made available to passengers at the Airline’s ticket counter. Many Airlines also provide this information on their web sites so print it off and take it with you. – Some Airline employees will try to tell you to that they no longer use “Rule 240″, but no matter what they call this section of their contract, they still have to honor their written guidelines in their contract of carriage. These guidelines are part of the legal contract that deals with you. Both you and the Airline agreed upon these terms when they sold and you purchased their ticket. The Airline cannot choose to disregard part of a legal contract and enforce a different policy. – Most Airlines will first try to reschedule your flight or offer you coupons good toward future flights. However, many, although not all, Airline’s “Rule 240″ state that, if you so choose, you are entitled to an involuntary refund for any unused portion of your ticket if you decide not to travel on the rescheduled flight, even if you purchased a nonrefundable ticket. – It’s always a good idea to pay for your plane ticket with a credit card. It usually makes it easier and quicker for you to get your refund and, if the Airline gives you hard time about refunding your unused ticket, you can ask your credit card company about the possibility of a charge back. – If the Airline requires you to mail in your unused ticket before they will issue a refund, be sure to make a copy of your ticket before you put it in the mail. – “Rule 240″ also specifies what, if any other compensation you are due because of the flight’s delay or cancellation. – The compensation due will usually vary depending on the reason for the flight’s delay or cancellation. Compensation for delay will also vary depending on the amount of time that you were delayed. – If the delay or cancellation is caused by issues beyond the control of the Airline, often referred to in a “Force Majeure” clause, any compensation you are due may be limited or eliminated. – “Force Majeure” is a big catchall phrase that identifies many possible situations whether actual or threatened that cannot be foreseen by the Airlines and/or are beyond the control of the Airline. Many situations can qualify under “Force Majeure”, but some that are often listed include, the weather, acts of God, government regulation, terrorism, wars, hostilities, security and safety concerns, strikes, work slowdowns, labor-related disputes, shortage of labor or fuel. – Depending on your particular circumstances, you may be entitled to compensation for an overnight stay in a hotel, meals, phone calls or other transportation costs. However, there are limits and restrictions on all these forms of compensations. Many Airlines will not pay for an overnight hotel stay at the origin point or destination of your flight and many even deny paying for a stay if your flight is stopped at an airport near your home’s main airport. – If you are late checking in, you may have waived your right to any compensation you are due, including your right to an involuntary refund. – Keep all receipts for expenses caused by your delay or flight cancellation. No matter what their rules say, you can always make an appeal to the Airline’s customer service department and you’ll want the receipts to back you up. Send your Airline copies of the receipts and keep the original receipts. – Even though, your Airline may not be required to give compensation, they still may provide you with something to keep you a happy customer.

After years of tight government control over the airline industry, Congress chose to pursue a policy of economic deregulation, enacting the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (ADA). Areas formerly controlled by the federal government, such as the awarding of routes, the entry of new air carriers, and the setting of fares, were left to the airlines and the free market to determine. Congress, concerned that States might attempt to circumvent federal airline deregulation through their own state enforcement actions, included an express preemption clause in the ADA, which bars States from enforcing laws “related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier.” This apparently innocuous provision continues to cause confusion and divide courts over exactly what causes of action are preempted by the ADA.

 

Top-ranked Chicago personal injury attorney, Matthew A. Passen, examines one class of state-law based actions, intentional tort claims, and considers whether such actions are sufficiently “related to” an airline “service” for preemption under the ADA. For example, can a passenger who was refused boarding on a commercial airline and strapped to an immobile chair in the waiting area sue the airline for false imprisonment? Can a passenger detained by airline employees upon landing of an aircraft, wrongfully accused of stealing another passenger’s ring, and arrested by police, seek recourse against the airline for false arrest, intentional infliction of emotional distress or slander? Can an airline racially discriminate against a passenger or airline employee with impunity?

 

As the following discussion reveals, the answer to these questions often depends entirely on how broad or narrow courts interpret the ADA’s statutory phrase, “related to a . . . service of an air carrier.” If a narrow reading is adopted, plaintiffs will have their day in court. If, on the other hand, a court interprets the preemption provision broadly, airlines will essentially receive immunity from state-law intentional tort actions.

 

Often, the best answer to such questions of statutory interpretation is found by reconsidering the purpose of the underlying statute containing the preemption provision. Here, the purpose of the ADA is straightforward: economic deregulation of the airline industry.

 

BRIEF HISTORY OF THE ADA’s PREEMPTION CLAUSE

 

Prior to 1978, the federal government heavily regulated the airline industry.1 Beginning with the Federal Aviation Act (FAA) of 1958,2 Congress created a regulatory organization, known as the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB), to serve three main functions: award routes to airlines, control the entry of air carriers into new markets, and regulate fares for consumers.3 Still, Congress preserved state common law actions against airlines by including a “saving clause,” which provided: “Nothing contained in this chapter shall in any way abridge or alter the remedies now existing at common law or by statute, but the provisions of this chapter are in addition to such remedies.”4

 

In 1978, however, Congress changed courses with respect to airline regulation, determining that “maximum reliance on competitive market forces would best further ‘efficiency, innovation, and low prices’ as well as ‘variety [and] quality . . . of air transportation services.”5 Accordingly, Congress enacted the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (ADA),6 which gradually ended economic regulation of the airline industry in a series of steps over the years, including the elimination of the CAB.7

 

The ADA, unlike its predecessor, contained express federal preemption clause to ensure that “States would not undo federal deregulation with regulation of their own.”8 The ADA’s preemption clause states:

 

Except as provided in this subsection, a State, political subdivision of a State, or political authority of at least 2 States may not enact or enforce any law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of any air carrier that may provide air transportation under this subpart.9

 

This preemption standard, while simply stated, has proven far more difficult to apply than Congress could have anticipated.

 

One source of confusion is Congress’ retention of the “saving clause,” which provides that “[a] remedy under this part is in addition to any other remedies provided by law.” 10 Some courts have found Congress preserved this clause in order to protect the states’ ability to control non-economic matters involving airlines within their respective borders.11 Still, the Supreme Court has referred to the saving clause as “a relic of the pre-ADA/no pre-emption regime,” without power to supersede the specific substantive preemption provision of the ADA. 12

 

The greatest source of confusion surrounding the ADA’s preemption clause concerns the ambiguous language of the statute itself. In particular, courts have struggled to advance a coherent framework for what types of causes of action are “related to a price, route, or service” for preemption under the ADA. Congress neither defined the terms nor specified what types of state action are preempted, and the Supreme Court has not drawn any distinct preemption lines.13 Consequently, lower courts have been left to apply their own, often conflicting, interpretations of the ADA’s preemption clause. Regardless of statutory interpretation, courts remain guided by fundamental principles of preemption doctrine.

 

BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO PREEMPTION DOCTRINE

 

The foundation for federal preemption of state law is based on the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution, which provides: “This Constitution and the laws of the United States . . . shall be the supreme law of the land . . . anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”14 As a general rule, federal law preempts state law in three situations:15 (1) Express preemption: where Congress has explicitly preempted state law;16 (2) Field preemption: where Congressional intent to preempt may be inferred generally from the pervasiveness of a federal regulatory scheme in a particular area;17 and (3) Conflict preemption: where state law conflicts with federal law or interferes with the achievement of congressional objectives.18

 

Where Congress has included an express preemption clause in a statute, courts “typically do not consider the issue of implied pre-emption,” and instead simply “determine whether the state law in question falls within the scope of the statute expressly promulgated by Congress.”19 In other words, according to the Supreme Court:

 

When Congress has considered the issue of pre-emption and has included in the enacted legislation a provision explicitly addressing that issue . . . ‘there is no need to infer congressional intent to pre-empt state laws from the substantive provisions’ of the legislation. Such reasoning is a variant of the familiar principle of expression unius est exclusio alterius: Congress’ enactment of a provision defining the pre-emptive reach of a statute implies that matters beyond that reach are not pre-empted.20

 

Because Congress included an express preemption clause in the ADA, courts look to the specific statutory language in order to determine whether a particular state action is preempted. Unfortunately, the literal text of the ADA’s preemption clause is ambiguous; and the Supreme Court has not resolved the uncertainty.

 

SUPREME COURT INTERPRETATION OF

 

THE ADA’s PREEMPTION CLAUSE

 

The United States Supreme Court has interpreted the ADA’s preemption provision only twice since 1978. In Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.,21 the Court decided whether the ADA preempts States from regulating deceptive airline fare advertisements through enforcement of state consumer protection statutes.22 The Court held such actions were indeed preempted by the ADA.23

 

In reaching its decision, the Court focused on the statutory phrase “related to” in the ADA’s preemption provision. First, the Court looked to Black’s Law Dictionary for guidance, concluding that “the words thus express a broad pre-emptive purpose.”24

 

Second, the Court examined the similarly worded preemption provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA),25 which the Court had previously interpreted as having a “broad scope.”26 Therefore, the Court held: “Since the relevant language of the ADA is identical [to the ERISA preemption clause], we think it appropriate to adopt the same standard here: State enforcement actions having a connection with or reference to airline ‘rates, routes, or services’ are pre-empted” by the ADA.27 Although the Court in Morales declined to define with particularity the circumstances under which a state law “relates to” airline services, it held the state consumer protection guidelines at issue were sufficiently “related to” airline “price[s]” because enforcement of such guidelines would compel or restrict airline price advertising.28

 

Notably, however, the Court recognized there are limits to the scope of the ADA’s preemption clause.29 Specifically, the Court explained that state action affecting the airlines in “too tenuous, remote, or peripheral a manner” will not be preempted by the ADA.30 The Court declined to expand on this notion, instead stating, “[t]he present litigation plainly does not present a borderline question, and we express no views about where it would be appropriate to draw the line.”31

 

In 1995, the Supreme Court revisited the ADA’s preemption clause in American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens.32 Here, the plaintiffs brought claims against American Airlines for breach of contract and for violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act following the airline’s unilateral devaluation of frequent flyer mileage credits earned by the plaintiffs.33 Rather than focusing on the “related to” language of the ADA’s preemption clause, the Court examined the phrase “enact or enforce any law” in the provision.34

 

First, in accord with Morales, the Court held that the plaintiffs’ claims based on the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act were preempted by the ADA.35 The purpose of the Illinois statute, according to the Court, was “to guide and police the marketing practices of the airlines; the Act does not simply give effect to bargains offered by the airlines and accepted by airline customers.”36 Therefore, because the plaintiffs sought to “enforce [a] law” regulating “the selection and design of marketing mechanisms appropriate to the furnishing of air transportation services,” the plaintiffs’ claims under the Consumer Fraud Act were preempted.37

 

Second, the Court carved out an exception to ADA preemption for the plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim. The Court explained: “We do not read the ADA’s preemption clause, however, to shelter airlines from suits alleging no violation of state-imposed obligations, but seeking recovery solely for the airline’s alleged breach of its own, self-imposed undertakings.”38 Because the plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim (based on American’s modification of its frequent flyer program) sought to enforce the terms of a voluntary undertaking by the airlines, and did not seek to “enforce any law,” the claim was not preempted by the ADA.39

 

COURTS OF APPEALS’ CONFLICTING DEFINITION OF “SERVICE”

 

Although the Supreme Court interpreted the “related to” phrase in Morales, and the “enact or enforce any law” language in Wolens, the Court has not defined the term “service” of an airline, as it is used in the ADA’s preemption clause. Instead, the United States Courts of Appeals have been left to define the term, resulting in conflicting approaches.

 

In Charas v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., the Ninth Circuit adopted a relatively narrow definition of “service.”40 Because the term “service” is inherently ambiguous, the court looked to the purpose behind the ADA, which Congress enacted to protect “the economic deregulation of the airlines and the forces of competition within the airline industry.”41 As such, only state laws that interfere with economic deregulation and the forces of competition within the airline industry should be preempted.42 Conversely, ADA preemption should not “displace state tort law in actions that do not affect deregulation in more than a ‘peripheral manner.’”43

 

With these principles in mind, the Ninth Circuit defined “service,” as referring to “the prices, schedules, origins and destinations of the point-to-point transportation of passengers, cargo, or mail.”44 This definition includes “such things as the frequency and scheduling of transportation, and to the selection of markets to or from which transportation is provided.”45 This definition of “service” does not, however, encompass things such as “the pushing of beverage carts, keeping the aisles clear of stumbling blocks, the safe handling and storage of luggage, assistance to passengers in need, or like functions,” which the court found only peripherally affect airline deregulation or competition.46 Any broader a definition, according to the court, “effectively would result in the pre-emption of virtually everything an airline does. It seems clear to us that that is not what Congress intended.”47 This approach to ADA preemption has been followed by the Third Circuit.48

 

In contrast, the Fifth Circuit adopted a much broader definition of “service.”49 In Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., a female passenger was injured when another passenger opened an overhead compartment and dislodged a case of rum. She brought a state law personal injury claim against Delta Airlines based on alleged negligent operation of the aircraft.50 In order to determine whether the plaintiff’s claim was preempted by the ADA, the Fifth Circuit adopted the following definition of “service”:

 

“Services” generally represent a bargained-for or anticipated provision of labor from one party to another . . . Elements of the air carrier service bargain include items such as ticketing, boarding procedures, provisions of food and drink, and baggage handling, in addition to the transportation itself. These matters are all appurtenant and necessarily included with the contract of carriage between the passenger or shipper and the airline. It is these [contractual] features of air transportation that we believe Congress intended to de-regulate as “services” and broadly to protect from state regulation.51

 

This definition of “service” is clearly far broader than the Ninth Circuit’s definition in Charas.

 

Still, the Fifth Circuit held the plaintiff’s claims were not preempted by the ADA. The court distinguished between claims related to the “operation and maintenance of the aircraft,” and claims related to airline “services,” holding that claims falling in the former category are not preempted by the ADA.52 With respect to the plaintiff’s claims, the court explained: “One uses the overhead luggage racks or the food and beverages provided in aircraft operation just as one uses the cigarette lighter or built-in cooler compartment in an automobile, and all these devices are available to support the general purpose of navigation.”53 The court rejected Delta’s arguments that the plaintiff’s injuries arose out of the “service” of baggage handling and boarding.54 Instead, the court found: “Whether certain luggage may be placed in overhead bins and whether the flight attendants properly monitor compliance with overhead rack regulations are matters that pertain to the safe operation of a flight.”55

 

Thus, while the Fifth Circuit adopted a broad definition of “service,” it added another layer of confusion with an almost untenable distinction between “service” and “operation and maintenance.” 56 Nevertheless, at least three other Circuit Courts of Appeals have adopted the Hodges court’s definition of “service.”57

 

SUPREME COURT DECLINES TO DEFINE “SERVICE”

 

In late 2000, the Supreme Court declined the opportunity to resolve the conflict concerning the appropriate definition of “service” within the meaning of the ADA’s preemption clause.58 Earlier that year, in Duncan v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., the Ninth Circuit held that a class-action lawsuit challenging Northwest’s smoking policy was not preempted by the ADA.59 Relying on its earlier narrow definition of “service” in Charas, the Ninth Circuit held that allowing smoking on Northwest flights does not constitute a “service” because such decision does not deal with “the frequency and scheduling of transportation, [or] the selection of markets to or from which transportation is provided.”60 Northwest appealed the Ninth Circuit’s decision, and the Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari.61

 

Justice O’Connor, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas, dissented to the Court’s denial of certiorari. In her dissent, she notes how the Courts of Appeals have “taken directly conflicting positions on this question of statutory interpretation.”62 Given these contradictory interpretations, the dissenting Justices would have granted certiorari in order to “provide needed certainty to airline companies.”63

 

APPLICATION OF THE ADA PREEMPTION CLAUSE

 

TO STATE-LAW INTENTIONAL TORT CLAIMS

 

Also in her dissent to the Court’s denial of certiorari in Duncan, Justice O’Connor suggests that while the underlying case involved a state law personal injury claim based on an airline’s smoking policy, “the legal principle at stake,” namely, the correct definition of “service” within the meaning of the ADA’s preemption clause, “has ramifications for a host of other tort actions against airline,” including “false imprisonment,” “intentional infliction of emotional distress,” and “defamation.”64 This section examines how courts have analyzed and should analyze these types of actions. Such cases often include state law discrimination claims.

 

DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS

 

The United States Supreme Court has not decided whether actions against airlines alleging state discrimination violations are preempted by the ADA.65 For lower courts examining this issue, the preemption outcome largely depends on the court’s definition of “service.”

 

A. Employment Discrimination Actions

 

Generally, discrimination suits brought by former airline employees bear “too tenuous, remote or peripheral” a relation to airline rates or services for preemption under the ADA, regardless of the court’s definition of “service.”66 Courts refusing to preempt such actions stress the purpose of the ADA, which “was concerned with the states’ attempt to regulate airline fares, routes and services, not employment practices.” 67

 

For example, in the racial discrimination context, courts generally agree that neither air safety nor market efficiency is appreciably diminished by the operation of state laws forbidding racial discrimination.68 As the Second Circuit explained in Abdu-Brisson: “Unlike the regulation of marketing practices at issue in Morales or the regulation of frequent flyer programs at issue in [Wolens], whether an airline discriminates on the bases of age (or race or sex) has little or nothing to do with competition or efficiency.”69

 

In other contexts, however, enforcement of state discrimination laws may appreciably “relate to” airline “services,” warranting preemption by the ADA. For instance, in 1996, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that state law weight discrimination claims brought by a baggage handler who was terminated for failure to comply with the airline’s height and weight standards were preempted by the ADA.70 Applying the Supreme Court’s broad interpretation of the phrase “related to” in Morales, the Michigan Court of Appeals held the plaintiff’s discrimination claims “related to” the “services of an air carrier,” and were preempted accordingly.71 In this case, as well as in other disability discrimination actions where the state law arguably “relates to” airline “service,” the scope attached to these statutory terms ultimately determines the preemption outcome.

 

B. Passenger Discrimination Actions

 

Cases addressing the scope of ADA preemption in discrimination actions brought by airline passengers provide a less coherent body of case law.72 Ultimately, whether or not a discrimination claim is preempted depends on the court’s definition of “service.”

 

Generally, courts have found such claims entirely unrelated to the performance of airline services, and therefore outside the scope of ADA preemption.73 For example, in Doricent v. American Airlines, Inc., a male passenger alleged that prior to his flight’s departure from Haiti, American Airlines employees referred to him using racial epithets, threatened to remove him from the plane, and physically assaulted him.74 The court held the plaintiff’s state law race discrimination claims did not “relate to” airline “services” under the Supreme Court’s precedent in Morales.75 While the airline employees’ behavior might “arguably constitute ‘services’—poor services, to be sure,” the court found this behavior had “nothing whatsoever to do with any legitimate or quasi-legitimate industry-wide practice of affording airline service.”76

 

Still, in other contexts, discrimination claims may have some legitimate bearing on an airline’s ability to render safe and efficient “service.”77 In such cases, even those involving alleged race discrimination, the plaintiff’s discrimination claims might be preempted by the ADA.

 

For instance, in Huggar v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held that an airline passenger’s race discrimination claims against Northwest were preempted by the ADA.78 The plaintiff, a 21-year-old black male was removed from a Northwest flight after removing another passenger’s luggage from an overhead bin and throwing it on the floor, threatening to physically assault the passenger, and claiming he could “buy” the passenger.79 The plaintiff’s ten-count claim against Northwest alleged that his ejection from the flight was racially motivated, and included a claim for a violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act.80

 

In determining whether the plaintiff’s state law race discrimination claims related to Northwest’s “service” of providing airline transportation, the court employed the following analysis: “the critical inquiry is [sic] the underlying nature of the actions taken, not the manner in which they were accomplished. Therefore, a court should not look to the subjective motivations of the employees because they are irrelevant to determining what constitutes ‘services’ within the meaning of the [ADA].”81 According to the majority, because the plaintiff’s actions clearly posed a safety threat to the other passengers, the airline’s decision to eject him from the flight “related to” the “service” of boarding and seating passengers, notwithstanding the airline employee’s subjective, allegedly discriminatory motivations.

 

As the above case highlights, the preemption outcome in passenger discrimination cases often depends entirely on whether a particular jurisdiction employs a broad or narrow definition of “service.” In order to find the plaintiff’s claims preempted by the ADA, the Huggar court first had to include “boarding and seating decisions” as cognizable “services” under the ADA’s preemption clause. In a similar case, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts held that a passenger’s lawsuit alleging he was discriminated against on account of his handicap in connection with boarding on a particular flight was preempted by the ADA.82 Necessary to the court’s decision was its reliance on the Fifth Circuit’s broad definition of “service,” which explicitly refers to “boarding.”

 

Conversely, jurisdictions employing the Ninth Circuit’s narrow definition of “service” will reach the opposite result under identical scenarios. For instance, the Ninth Circuit held a plaintiff’s disability discrimination claim against American Airlines based on the airline’s refusal to allow the plaintiff to board without a doctor’s certificate (she was in a wheelchair and had a heart problem) was not preempted by the ADA.83 The court’s analysis was probably over-simplistic; it simply held, “the term ‘service’ does not refer to alleged discrimination to passengers due to their disabilities.”84 Consequently, whether a passenger discrimination lawsuit is preempted by the ADA may ultimately depend on the court’s definition of “service.”

 

FALSE ARREST/ IMPRISONMENT

 

Several courts have addressed the issue of whether the ADA preempts false imprisonment and false arrest claims, reaching divergent conclusions.85 These cases can, however, be reconciled.

 

Where the courts have held a plaintiff’s claim for false arrest or false imprisonment is preempted by the ADA, such cases involve incidents where the airline refused or failed to provide a service relating to the transportation of a passenger.86 In these cases, “where the crux of the claim was the airline’s refusal to transport the passenger,” the courts have concluded that the claims related to the services of the airlines, and were therefore preempted by the ADA.87 This makes sense because all Circuit Courts of Appeals agree that “transportation” of passengers is a cognizable “service” under the ADA.

 

Conversely, where the basis of a false arrest or false imprisonment claim “is that the airline caused the passenger to be arrested by authorities without a proper factual basis,” courts have held that such claims are not “related to” an airline “service.”88 For example, if “an airline held a passenger without a safety or security justification, a claim based on such actions would not relate to any legitimate service and would not be preempted.”89

 

OTHER INTENTIONAL TORT CLAIMS

 

The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Travel All Over The World, Inc., examined whether a travel agency’s intentional tort claims against Saudi Arabian Airlines, arising out of the travel agency’s unsuccessful attempts to arrange flights to Saudi Arabia for its clients, were preempted by the ADA’s express provision.90 The court organized the plaintiff’s claims into two categories: (1) defamation and slander; and (2) “other” intentional tort claims.91

 

With respect to the first category, the Seventh Circuit acknowledged that courts have reached “divergent results” concerning whether claims for slander and defamation are preempted by the ADA.92 Here, the plaintiff based its defamation and slander claims on the airline employees’ making knowingly false verbal and written statements about the travel agency to the agency’s clients; specifically, that the agency “was not a reputable company, that [the agency] had not booked seats on Saudi for many of them, that [the agency] often lied to its clients about reserving seats for them, and that” the agency’s president would not be there to help them.93

 

Even after adopting the Fifth Circuit’s broad definition of “service,” the Seventh Circuit held the statements themselves were not airline “services” within the meaning of the ADA.94 Citing the Supreme Court’s opinion in Morales, the court explained: “It is difficult for us to envision how tort claims based on an airline’s knowingly false statements about a travel agency would have even a ‘tenuous, remote or peripheral’ economic effect on the rates, routes, or services that the airline offers.”95 Furthermore, although the statements refer to the travel agency’s services, the court held they certainly do not refer to the airline’s rates, routes, or services.96 Therefore, the plaintiff’s defamation and libel claims were not preempted by the ADA.

 

With respect to the second category of “other” intentional tort claims, including intentional infliction of emotional distress, tortious interference and fraud, the Seventh Circuit reached a different opinion. Only where these claims are based upon the same slanderous and defamatory comments that the court already found not preempted, could such claims withstand preemption scrutiny.97

 

Yet, the Seventh Circuit doubted this would hold true for the plaintiff in Travel All, as with most plaintiffs. Instead, the “other” intentional tort claims were most likely “based, at least in part, on [the airline’s] canceling the confirmed tickets of [the agency’s] clients and requiring these clients to purchase their tickets directly through [the airline].”98 To the extent that the plaintiff’s intentional tort claims rely on this “conduct” of the airline, rather than the airline employee’s allegedly slanderous and defamatory “comments,” the court held such claims “expressly refer to airline ‘services,’ which include ticketing as well as the transportation itself,” and are therefore preempted by the ADA.99 Again, this holding depends entirely on the court’s adoption of the Fifth Circuit’s broad “service” definition in Hodges, as opposed to the Ninth Circuit’s narrow definition of “service” in Charas.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The ADA’s preemption clause continues to cause confusion and divergent opinions throughout our nation’s courtrooms. The fundamental problem concerns the seemingly benign phrase “related to a price, route, or service” of an air carrier. The Supreme Court has done little to clear the fog surrounding this issue. Aside from expressly declining the opportunity to define “service,” the Court’s interpretation of the phrase “related to” has recently come into question.

 

In Morales, the Supreme Court interpreted the “related to” language of the ADA broadly, based largely on the “broad scope” previously applied to the similarly worded ERISA preemption clause.100 Yet, in recent years the Supreme Court has been narrowing the reach of ERISA’s preemption provisions.101 Indeed, the phrase “related to” in ERISA’s preemption clause “appears to be developing, to some degree, to mean whether state law actually ‘interferes’ with the purposes of the ERISA legislation.”102 Although the literal text of ERISA’s preemption clause is “clearly expansive,” like the ADA, the Supreme Court has held that for practical purposes the statute must be interpreted more narrowly, “lest its reach stop nowhere.”103 Analogously, it is unclear whether the ADA’s “related to” phrase should likewise receive a narrower interpretation to mean: whether state law actually interferes with the purpose of the ADA.

 

The larger question involving the ADA preemption clause concerns the proper definition of “service.” The Supreme Court has expressly declined to answer the question, despite the objections of three Justices.104 If the Court is not going to answer this question, Congress should. A clear definition of “service,” from either the Supreme Court or the Legislature, “would provide needed certainty to airline companies.”105

 

The question becomes: What definition of “service” should the Supreme Court or Congress adopt for the ADA’s preemption clause? This question must be answered in light of the fundamental purpose behind the underlying statute—courts should look to the objectives of the ADA as a guide to the scope of state law that should survive. The ADA is an economic deregulation statute designed to promote competitive rates, routes and services among the nation’s airlines.106 As such, only those actions directly impacting the airlines’ ability to provide competitive rates, enter new markets, and provide effective transportation to consumers should be preempted by the ADA.

 

The Ninth Circuit’s narrow definition of “service,” which encompasses the “prices, schedules, origins and destinations of the point-to-point transportation of passengers, cargo or mail,” best aligns with the purpose of the underlying ADA statute. Furthermore, this definition comports with the Supreme Court’s approach to express preemption clause analysis: “the familiar principle of expression unius est exclusio alterius.”107

 

Neither the language nor the history of the ADA suggests that Congress was attempting to displace all state law tort causes of action against the airlines; nor should the preemption clause act as a safe harbor against claims having only a tenuous impact on airline services.108 The vast majority of state law intentional tort claims cannot be said to frustrate the goal of economic deregulation in the airline industry. Furthermore, such claims do not affect a particular airline’s competitive posture any more so than a lawsuit affects any corporation in America. Accordingly, such actions should fall outside the scope of federal preemption under the ADA.

 

1 For a good discussion of the ADA’s legislative history, see Daniel H. Rosenthal, Legal Turbulence: The Court’s Misconstrual of the Airline Deregulation Act’s Preemption Clause and the Effect on Passengers’ Rights, 51 Duke L.J. 1857, 1869-1872 (2002).

 

2 Pub. L. No. 85-726, 72 Stat. 731 (later codified as amended at 49 U.S.C. §§ 40010-44310 (1994)).

 

3 Matt Andersson, The New Airline Code 62-64 (iUniverse, Inc. 2005).

 

4 49 U.S.C. § 1506 (current version at 49 U.S.C. § 40120 (c)).

 

5 Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 378 (1992) (citing 49 U.S.C.App. §§ 1302 (a)(4), 1302 (a)(9)).

 

6 49 U.S.C. app. §§ 1301-1557 (1988).

 

7 Matt Andersson, The New Airline Code 67 (iUniverse, Inc. 2005).

 

8 Morales, 504 U.S. at 378; See also Trinidad v. American Airlines, Inc., 932 F. Supp. 521 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (stating that the purpose of ADA’s preemption clause was to prevent states from interfering with the development of an air transportation system driven to higher levels of innovation and efficiency by economic competition).

 

9 49 U.S.C. § 41713 (1997) (emphasis added).

 

10 49 U.S.C. § 40120 (c); Chrissafis, 940 F. Supp at 1296.

 

11 Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 44 F.3d 334, 337 (5th Cir. 1995); Morales, 504 U.S. at 425 (Stevens J., dissenting).

 

12 Morales, 504 U.S at 385.

 

13 See Matthew J. Jelly, Federal Preemption by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978: How do State Tort Claims Fare?, 49 Cath. U. L. Rev. 873 (2000).

 

14 U.S. const. art. VI § 1, cl. 2.

 

15 See Susan D. Hall, Preemption Analysis After Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 90 Ky. L.J. 251 (2002).

 

16 Shaw v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 95 (1983).

 

17 Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp, 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947).

 

18 Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142-43 (1963).

 

19 Branche v. Airtran Airways, Inc., 342 F.3d 1248, 1253 (11th Cir. 2003).

 

20 Id.; Cipollone v. Liggert Group, Inc. 505 U.S. 504, 517 (1992) (quoting Malone v. White Motor Corp., 435 U.S. 497, 505 (1978)); compare Grier v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 529 U.S. 861 (2000) (existence of express preemption provision does not mean that implied preemption cannot exist where the express preemption does not apply).

 

21 Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (1992).

 

22 Id. at 378.

 

23 Id. at 391.

 

24 Id. at 383.

 

25 29 U.S.C. § 1144 (a).

 

26 Morales, 504 U.S. at 384 (citing Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724, 739 (1985).

 

27 Id. (emphasis added).

 

28 Id. at 390.

 

29 See John T. Houchin, Harris v. American Airlines: Flying Through the Turbulence of Federal Preemption and the Airline Deregulation Act, 51 U. Miami L. Rev. 955, 966 (1997).

 

30 504 U.S. at 390 (quoting Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 100 (1983) (emphasis added)).

 

31 Id.

 

32 American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219 (1995).

 

33 Id. at 224.

 

34 Id. at 226.

 

35 Id at 228.

 

36 Id.

 

37 Id. (emphasis added).

 

38 Id. at 228 (emphasis added); see also Williams v. Midwest Airlines, Inc., 321 F. Supp. 2d 993, 996 (E.D.Wisc. 2004) (holding the plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim was not preempted because the airline’s agreement to transport plaintiffs to New York City “was a self-imposed undertaking, and plaintiffs’ attempt to enforce it does not involve the enforcement of any state law”).

 

39 Wolens, 513 U.S. at 232-33. The Court stated that this distinction makes sense in light of the ADA’s saving clause, which does not prevent states from “affording relief to a party who claims and proves that an airline dishonored a term that the airline itself stipulated.” Id.

 

40 Charas v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 160 F.3d 1259 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc).

 

41 Id. at 1261.

 

42 Id. at 1263 (citing Gee v. Southwest Airlines, Inc., 110 F.3d 1400, 1410 (9th Cir. 1997) (O’Scannlain, J., concurring).

 

43 Id. at 1265.

 

44 Id. at 1261.

 

45 Id. at 1265-66.

 

46 Charas, 160 F.3d at 1266.

 

47 Id.

 

48 See Taj Mahal Travel, Inc. v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 164 F.3d 186, 195 (3d Cir. 1998); Duncan, 531 U.S. 1058; compare Abdulla v. American Airlines, Inc., 181 F.3d 363, 367 (3d Cir. 1999) (holding that the entire aviation industry is field preempted).

 

49 Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 44 F.3d 334, 336 (5th Cir. 1995) (en banc).

 

50 Id. at 335.

 

51 Id. at 336 (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

 

52 Hodges, 44 F.3d at 336-37. The court found that claims relating to the “operation and maintenance of the aircraft” concern matters of “air navigation.” Id. at 338 (citing 49 U.S.C.App. § 1301(31) (1998)).

 

53 Id. (emphasis added)

 

54 Id. at 338-39.

 

55 Id. at 339.

 

56 The Firth Circuit admits that “the provinces of ‘services’ and ‘operation and maintenance of aircraft’ overlap somewhat conceptually; no strict dichotomy exists.” Id. at 339.

 

57 See Duncan, 531 U.S. 1058; Smith v. Comair, Inc., 134 F.3d 254, 259 (4th Cir. 1998); Travel All Over The World, Inc. v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 73 F.3d 1423, 1433 (7th Cir. 1996); Branche v. Airtran Airways, Inc., 342 F.3d 1248, 1257 (11th Cir. 2003).

 

58 Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Duncan, 531 U.S. 1058 (2000) (cert denied)

 

59 Duncan v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 208 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2000).

 

60 Id. at 1115 (quoting Charas, 160 f.3d at 1265-66).

 

61 Duncan, 531 U.S. 1058 (2000) (cert denied).

 

62 Id.

 

63 Id.

 

64 Id.

 

65 Lynette M. Bledsaw, The Express Preemption Provision of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act Does Not Reach State Civil Rights Claims of Race Discrimination, American Bar Association (2000).

 

66 See Branche v. Airtran Airways, Inc., 342 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2003) (former airline employee’s state court claim for retaliatory discharge was not preempted by the ADA); Wellons v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 165 F.3d 493, 495 (6th Cir. 1999) (former airline employee’s race discrimination claim was not preempted); Parise v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 141 F.3d 1463, 1467-68 (11th Cir. 1998) (plaintiff’s age discrimination claim was not preempted by the ADA); Aloha Islandair Inc. v. Tseu, 128 F.3d 1301, 1303 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding Hawaii law barring physical disability discrimination was not preempted by the ADA); Abdu-Brisson v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 128 F.3d 77, 84 (2d Cir. 1997) (holding New York age discrimination action was not preempted by the ADA).

 

67 Id.; (citing Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 652 N.Y.S2d 253, 257 (1996);

 

68 Ryan L. Bangert, When Airlines Profile Based On Race: Are Claims Brought Against Airlines Under State Anti-Discrimination Laws Preempted By the Airline Deregulation Act?, 68 J. Air L. & Com. 791, 801 (2003); see Thomas v. United Parcel Service, 241 Mich. App. 171 (2000) (holding that former African-American employee’s race discrimination claim was not preempted by the ADA).

 

69 Abdu-Brisson, 128 F.3d at 84; Wellons, 165 F.3d at 496; Thomas, 241 Mich.App. at 181; see also Wellons v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 165 F.3d 493, 495 (6th Cir. 1999) (“State law claims of racial discrimination—as opposed to claims of discrimination on the basis of physical characteristics that might have some bearing on the individual’s ability to render service safely and efficiently—are not preempted, in our view; they bear ‘too tenuous, remote, or peripheral’ a relation to airline rates or services.”); Thomas, 241 Mich.App. 171, 181 (2000) (“Plaintiffs’ race and gender are wholly unrelated to defendants’ services”).

 

70 Bledsaw, supra note 65; Fitzpatrick v. Simmons Airlines, Inc., 218 Mich. App. 689 (1996).

 

71 Fitzpatrick, 218 Mich. App. At 692. See also Belgard v. United Airlines, 857 P.2d 467, 471 (Colo.App.1992) (“any law or regulation that restricts an airline’s selection of employees, based upon their physical characteristics, must necessarily have a connection with and reference to, and therefore must be one ‘relating to,’ the services to be rendered by the airline”)

 

72 Bangert, supra note 22 at 803.

 

73 Bledsaw, supra note 65 at 5.

 

74 Doricent v. American Airlines, Inc., 1993 WL 437670 (D.Mass 1993).

 

75 Id.

 

76 Id. at *5.

 

77 Bledsaw, supra note 65 at 5.

 

78 Huggar v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 1999 WL 59841 (N.D. Ill. 1999).

 

79 Id. at *1; see also Bangert, supra note 22 at 805-06.

 

80 Id.

 

81 Id. (citations omitted).

 

82 DeTerra v. America West Airlines, Inc., 226 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D.Mass. 2002).

 

83 Newman v. American Airlines, Inc., 176 F.3d 1128, 1131 (9th Cir. 1999).

 

84 Id. at 1131;

 

85 Chrissafis v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 940 F. Supp. 1292, 1298 (N.D. Ill. 1996).

 

86 Id.; see Williams v. Express Airlines I Inc.,, 825 F. Supp. 831, 832-33 (W.D. Tenn. 1993) (holding that plaintiff’s claim for false imprisonment after he was denied admittance to a flight and then strapped to an immobile chair in the airline waiting area was preempted by the ADA); Lawal v. British Airways, PLC, 812 F. Supp. 713, 715 (S.D. Tex. 1992) (holding that plaintiff’s false arrest and false imprisonment claims where airline personnel detained the plaintiff and forced him to purchase a new ticket were preempted); Galbut v. American Airlines, Inc., 27 F. Supp. 2d 146 (E.D. N.Y. 1997) (holding that plaintiff’s false arrest and false imprisonment claims arising out of airline’s refusal to permit plaintiff to upgrade using stickers the airline had falsely alleged were stolen and the demand for payment for the upgrade were preempted by the ADA); Smith v. Comair, Inc., 134 F.3d 254 (4th Cir. 1998) (passenger’s claim for false imprisonment based on the airline’s refusal to permit him to board due to the airline’s failure to ask for photo identification at the point of original departure was preempted).

 

87 Chrissafis, 940 F. Supp. at 1298.

 

88 Id.; see Diaz Aguasviva v. Iberia Lineas Aereas 902 F. Supp. 314, 316 (D. Puerto Rico 1995) (permitting a passenger to pursue a claim that airline personnel falsely identified the passenger as an illegal alien, causing police and customs agents to arrest and detain her); Curley v. American Airlines, Inc., 846 F. Supp. 280, 281-82 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (holding that plaintiffs claim that the flight crew had falsely arrested the passenger for smoking marijuana, causing him to be strip-searched, was not preempted); Bayne v. Adventure Tours USA, Inc., 841 F. Supp. 206, 207 (N.D.Tex 1994) (refusing to preempt a passenger’s claim that an airline pilot made misrepresentations to police, causing the plaintiff to be taken into custody, detained, and subjected to a luggage search); Rombom v. United Airlines, Inc., 867 F. Supp. 214, 224 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (finding that false imprisonment claims stemming from the airline’s decision to have plaintiff arrested, allegedly motivated by spite, were not preempted).

 

89 Smith v. Comair, Inc., 134 F.3d 254, 259 (4th Cir. 1998); Chrissafis v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 940 F. Supp. 1292, 1289-99 (N.D. Ill. 1996)

 

90 Travel All Over The World, Inc., v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 73 F.3d 1423 (7th Cir. 1996).

 

91 Id.; see also Chrissafis , 940 F. Supp. 1292 (recognizing this distinction). In addition to defamation and slander, the “other” intentional tort claims included tortious interference with a business relationship, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortuous interference with a business relationship.

 

92 Travel All Over The World, Inc., 73 F.3d. at 1433; compare Fenn v. American Airlines, Inc., 839 F. Supp. 1218, 1223 (S.D. Miss. 1993) (finding claims for slander unrelated to airline “services”) with Chukwu v. Board of Directors of British Airways, 889 F. Supp. 12, 14 (D.Mass. 1995) (finding specific claims for slander related to airline “services”) and Pearson v. Lake Forest Country Day Sch., 262 Ill.App.3d 228 (1994) (same).

 

93 Id.

 

94 Id. at 1433.

 

95 Id. citing Morales, 504 U.S. at 383-85.

 

96 Id. at 1433.

 

97 Travel All Over The World, Inc., 73 F.3d at 1434..

 

98 Id.

 

99 Id. (citing Hodges, 44 F.3d at 336); see also DeTerra, 226 F. Supp. 2d at 277 (finding handicapped passenger’s claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress in connection with his denial of boarding on a particular flight was preempted); Chukwu v. Board of Directors British Airways, 889 F. Supp. 12, 13 (D.Mass. 1995) (concluding that plaintiff’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the allegation that he had been improperly denied boarding on a flight was preempted by the ADA).

 

100 Morales, 504 U.S. at 384.

 

101 See Abdu-Brisson, 128 F.3d 77, 82 (2d Cir. 1997); DeBuono v. NYSA-ILA Medical and Clinical Serv., 520 U.S. 806, 816 (1997).

 

102 Abdu-Brisson, 128 F.3d at 82 (emphasis added); citing New York State Conf. of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U.S. 645, 655 (1995); Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833 (1997) (“We can begin, and in this case end, the analysis by simply asking if state law conflicts with the provisions of ERISA or operates to frustrate its objects).

 

103 Travelers Ins. Co., at 655 (Too expansive an interpretation of “relate to,” according to the Court, “would be to read Congress’s words of limitation as mere sham, and to read the presumption against pre-emption out of the law whenever Congress speaks to the matter with generality. That said, we have to recognize that our prior attempt to construe the phrase ‘relate to’ does not give us much help drawing the line here”).

 

104 See Duncan, 531 U.S. 1058 (cert denied).

 

105 Id.

 

106 See Morales, 504 U.S. at 378.

 

107 See Cipollone, 505 U.S. at 517 (quoting Malone, 435 U.S. at 505).

 

108 Smith v. America West Airlines, Inc., 44 F.3d 344, 346-47 (5th Cir. 1995).

 

Cheap air fares are easy if you keep these 8 tips in mind. Airlines aim to make as much money as possible. They are not going to put the cheap air fares out front, so you need to know how to find those gold mines yourself.

There are basically 8 rules I use on a regular basis when booking flights to be sure I get to my destination the cheapest way. These are tips that every person can easily use, frequently cutting the price in half you pay.

1. Make your reservation as early as possible. At least 14 days in advance. After this time, the air tickets can easily more than double in price and cheap air fares may not be available.

2. Be flexible with your travel time. Changing the day or the time of day can drastically reduce the price of your air flight. The best day to fly on is Wednesday, which is also the best day to book the flight on. The cheapest time to fly is early morning or late evening.

3. Fly during the off-season. Prices are a direct result of supply and demand. As demand goes down, prices go down as well, benefiting flyers.

4. Shop all the airlines. This is the most possible using a couple of key air travel websites that I recommend on my site at the bottom. Being able to check all the airlines side-by-side can make it really easy to get those cheap air fares you’re after.

5. A stopover instead of a direct flight can result in huge savings.

6. Membership in some clubs like AAA can get you discounts.

7. Look into air travel packages. Purchasing your air travel, hotel, and rental car through the same place usually gives a massive discount. Using a bigger air fare website will allow you to get both cheap air fares and cheap hotels in the same place in moments. I have recommendations for this on my site as well as to which are the easiest to use and take the least time to book the flights and anything additional.

The prices on air fares are a direct result of competition, inventory, and demand. Competition is the airlines competing with each other. Inventory is how many seats are left open on a given flight. Demand is how many people are looking for air travel tickets.

8. By choosing the least-crowded flights that are the least in demand, you get the cheap air fares you want. It’s really that simple.

As you can see, there are many ways to get better prices. If you use a good air fares website and choose the best days and times to fly, you can often get cheap air fares and save a hefty amount of money in the process. Most of this is easier in practice for the well setup sites to compare all the airlines side-by-side. The cheaper prices stick out like a sore thumb. There are also many hidden deals also that don’t get as known, so I have done the leg work to find you the best site to book everything from cruise ship vacations to cheap hotels to cheap air fares, all in one place. Also I have tracked down running specials on the cheap air fares, some as nice as 50% off the prices of the cheap air fares giving you deals that simply can’t be beat.

Before you go on holiday or away for a business trip, compare flight prices to make sure you are getting the best deal for your money. By comparing airline prices over time and for a variety of carriers, you are far more likely to get a deal on flight reservations. The wide differences in airline ticket prices can be attributed to a number of factors.
Some of these differences have to do with flight density, but others have to do with departure and arrival locations, time of flight, and even which airline carrier you choose. Before you book a flight, compare flight prices. You will be glad that you were a savvy consumer and did your research before you made such a major purchase.
Below is a short list of some of the most common causes for differentiation between airline ticket prices. If you compare flight prices, these factors are likely to have an impact on the prices you will find. Consider what you are looking for in a flight, and then use these tactics to select the airline tickets that most meet your needs.
Location: The location of your departure and final destination can impact the prices of your flight tickets. You will find that more common locations may be more affordable than destinations to which fewer flights are headed. This may be because addition legs must be added after reaching a major city, thus lengthening your flight and adding more transfers in order that your flight is completed.
However, you may also find location working in your favor if you choose a less direct flight to reach one major metropolitan area from another. When you compare flight prices, you will likely find that flying from one city to another is more affordable if you do not do so directly. Direct flights are in high demand, and so can be charged more for. But if instead you are willing to have one or two layovers at more medium sized cities, you will likely be able to reach your destination at a lower price. To compare flight prices, look around to assess your options and find a flight that will be acceptable to you.
Time of day: Often, flights cost more if they depart in the middle of the day. Peak hour flights, you will find when you compare flight prices, can cost a moderate amount more than off-hour flights. Flying very early in the morning or late at night can be more affordable, and earlier flights sometimes stand a smaller chance of being delayed since the day’s flight schedule is just beginning.
When it comes down to it, there is no right or wrong answer as to how to compare flight prices. Consider the factors you are looking for, and weigh them in relation to one another. Do you want the flight with the lowest price? Would you prefer a flight that is the most direct, or takes the shortest amount of time?
Or would you prefer a flight that is on a smaller or larger plane, or with a certain airline? Take all these factors together when you compare flight prices, and this will help you make the airline reservation that best meets your needs.

A visit to the “Old World” is something many people dream about. Not everyone gets to live that dream but for many a European vacation can become a reality. There is a lot of plans that have to be made but being patient and thorough will pay off in the long run. After all the accommodations and sight seeing tours have been planned the next step is finding a cheap air fare to get you there.If you have a travel agent you use often this can be a good place to start the search for savings on your airline tickets. Travel agents have the inside information on all sorts of travel discounts and when the best time to travel is if you want to save money. What you are really looking for is a discount package that airlines offer from time to time. Travel agents are your best bet for finding these packages and if you can get one that coincides with your travel dates it is a good idea to go ahead and make the reservation because chances are you will not find a better deal.Another way to hunt down cheap air fare to Europe if you are not using a travel agent is to contact the airlines themselves. By checking with several airlines you can compare prices for the dates you wish to travel. One thing that can help save money is being flexible with your travel dates because most airlines offer discounts for traveling during certain times of the month and even at certain times. When you do find a good price make that reservation because airlines are notorious for changing their prices the next day.If you’re lucky enough to have frequent flier miles either through the airline or with a rewards credit card then you can use these to get large discounts or even free plane tickets. You may also be able to accumulate additional miles during your trip depending on the terms of service of the airlines. If nothing else you can cash in what miles you do have and save several hundred dollars on your European trip.Cheap air fare to Europe can be found but it may take some time and patience on your part. But if saving money on your plane ticket is an important part of your travel plans then a little time and patience is well worth the effort.

Flying an aircraft is a complicated task in and of itself.  Navigating from one point to another over unknown terrain can be even more complex, but trying to do both at once quickly becomes overwhelming.  This is why proper flight planning is such a necessity to any good pilot or airman.  Luckily in today’s world, flight planning software exists to help speed the process along while maintaining accuracy.  By entering such variables as wind speed and direction, aircraft weight, course and temperature, flight planning software programs can calculate a host of important information such as wind correction angle, true airspeed, runway crosswinds, and magnetic variation.  Great aviation websites like Student Flying Club even offer pilots a free online E6B flight computer!For many new pilots, mastering the E6B flight calculator is one of the most complicated tasks to learn.  And although becoming a pilot requires learning how to use such a great tool, online flight planning software including an E6B can help speed up the learning process.   Any calculation that can be made on a manual E6B can usually be made on an online version of such flight planning software.  Temperature conversions from Fahrenheit to Celsius and wind chill calculations are possible, as well as density altitude, pressure conversion, heat index, dew point, and relative humidity percentages that help determine whether or not a flight is viable that day.  Magnetic variation calculations for flight planning also help determine course corrections by entering the latitude and longitude needed for different parts of the Continental US, Europe, and even Alaska.  In the past these figures needed to be calculated either manually or through a hand-held E6B calculator, but with new flight planning software this information is available with just a few short keystrokes.Aside from the online E6B computer, pilots can take advantage of other pieces of flight planning software available to them as well.  Airport Distance calculators are a great tool for determining the distance and heading between two distinct airports.  Some of these distance calculators go through great lengths to maintain a large database of airports – not only those larger ones in class C and D airspace but also the smaller, non-tower controlled airports.  This helps student pilots in flight planning by allowing them to plot several different courses from their own home airport, regardless of how small it may be.  Learning to fly while based at a larger airport can be daunting, and most pilots get their private license flying out of smaller home airfields.Online flight planning also includes takeoff and landing distance calculators, as well as complicated weight and balance charts.  These online flight planning tools take most of the manual mathematics out of the picture, allowing for less margin of error.  Aviation flight planning of course may also include the filing of an actual flight plan with local airport towers or FSS (flight service stations), and such a flight plan is required for IFR routes.  While there’s currently no direct online way to file a flight plan, some flight planning software offers helpful printable forms that can be filled out from your keyboard and then printed on paper.  Required fields and form checking help maintain that such  forms are properly filled out before being submitted to the proper authorities and filed as flight plans.Finally, one of the most important aspects of planning a flight is the observance of up-to-date current weather conditions.  Flight planning software comes in extremely handy here, where most every website or application can now be easily linked to the NOAA’s National Weather Service.  Forecasting is still never an exact science, flight planning tools and applications can usually come pretty close to determining near-future weather conditions.  Immediate airport condition reports from across the US and even the world can be instantly collated into a central location and displayed for pilots right before a flight so they can make a go or no-go decision right before scheduled takeoff.  And as satellite-driven GPS technology becomes sharper and smaller, such GPS units become more readily available to today’s pilot.  He or she can fly their aircraft and get up-to-the-second weather information simply by looking at their externally mounted GPS units or even their glass cockpit displays.Flight planning software has come a long way in a very short period of time, and there seems to be no limit to the amount of good it can do.  Technology has made today’s pilot a safer, more educated airman.  Planning a flight has been made easier and more error-free, and keeping track of flight plans has become a lot more manageable.  In the end, as long as technology continues to advance, piloting an aircraft will continue to be made safer.

There has long been a debate on the advantages of Part 141 versus Part 61 training. Student pilots are confused by the differences and are therefore unable to determine how to make the most of the benefits offered by each.

The following remains the same, regardless of whether your train under Part 141 or Part 61: 1)Written tests. 2)Oral exam in check ride. 3)Flight portion of the check ride. 4)License issued.

Measurement of success is the same at both types of schools: 1)Instructors make or break the school. Knowledgeable, experienced instructors are key. 2)Some flight schools have a high dropout ratio. Successful schools should have at least 90% of the students they train attain the certificates and ratings they signed up for. 3)Aircraft maintenance is important. Students should very seldom have flight lessons cancelled due to aircraft being grounded. 4)The school accident record should be zero or close to zero, indicating that the school places a high value on your safety.

On the surface, it looks like all helicopter flight schools are very similar. This is why it is so useful to understand the differences between Part 141 and Part 61. The two biggest differences are: 1)Part 141 training requires following an FAA approved Training Course Outline (TCO). Part 61 does not require a TCO be used at all. 2)The flight school itself and the Chief Flight Instructor have to meet stringent FAA requirements. Part 61 is not subject to these FAA requirements.

Let’s start with Part 61 helicopter training and flight schools. The majority of helicopter flight schools in the USA today are Part 61 flight schools. Many Part 61 helicopter flight schools start off with one certified flight instructor and one helicopter. The flight instructor offers one-on-one training to prospective students and teaches the student as he or she sees fit. If the instructor is good, more students join the school and the owner purchases additional helicopters and hires more instructors to meet the demand.

There are no FAA inspections required for a Part 61 helicopter flight school. The flight school is free to train their students using their own chosen methods. They are expected to follow the rules and regulations in the FAR/AIM for Part 61 flight schools and training, but are not subject to FAA inspections to confirm that they are doing this.

Part 141 training and flight schools have to meet very specific requirements and standards. The helicopter flight school itself is issued an Air Agency Certificate when it passes the FAA inspections. Facilities and aircraft that will be used for Part 141 training are inspected. The Chief Flight Instructor is required to take an annual check ride with the FAA.

On the training side, the flight school submits a separate and distinct Training Course Outline (TCO) to the FAA for each certificate and/or rating that they want to teach under Part 141. For example, a Private Pilot TCO would be submitted. This contains lesson plans for both Flight and Ground training. The flight school would have to submit another TCO for Instruments if they wanted to teach Instrument ratings under Part 141.

Don’t assume that a Part 141 helicopter flight school offers all their certificates and ratings under Part 141. Many only obtain FAA certification for Private, Instrument and Commercial certificates. It takes a lot of work for the flight school to create TCO’s and to teach under Part 141. The FAA requires that the flight school keep extensive student documentation for Part 141, including very detailed information on student progress. This is great for the student. It is time consuming for the flight school.

There are a few very large flight schools that only offer Part 141 training. They have set schedules for their classes and teach many students at the same time. They also have regimented flight schedules. These few very large flight schools often have a very high ratio of foreign versus domestic students. This is because SEVIS (Student Exchange Visitor Information System) requires that flight schools be FAA certified as a Part 141 flight school in order to apply for permission to train international students. The Veterans Association (VA) has the same Part 141 requirement for veterans to use their VA benefits.

Most Part 141 schools also offer Part 61 training for the same programs. For example, you may choose to do your Private Pilot under Part 141 or Part 61. Schools that offer both training methods provide the most flexibility to the student.

The student attending a Part 141 helicopter flight school gets all the benefits of attending a Part 141 school even if they choose to do some or all of their training under Part 61. This is due to the school being subject to random FAA inspections. They have to maintain their high standards at all times to retain their certification.

The disadvantage of Part 141 training is that the TCO has to be followed in the sequence written. Every student learns differently and some people prefer the flexibility of Part 61 training, which enables the student to cover materials in the sequence appropriate for him or herself.

This brings to light another advantage to a flight school that offers both Part 141 and Part 61 training. They will often use the TCO for your Part 61 training. This is great for the student pilot as you get the benefit of a structured Training Course Outline that is FAA certified, while at the same time being able to cover materials in the order that suits you best.

Another advantage to training at a school that offers both is that you can mix and match your training. For example, I did my Private Pilot under Part 61 as I wanted the flexibility to jump around in the curriculum. Flying instruments is very structured and is about learning procedures, so I choose to do my instrument training under Part 141. I found the structured approach and learning sequence worked really well for my Instrument training. I went back to Part 61 for my Commercial training.

Learning to fly a helicopter is fun, exciting and expensive. Learn all you can about your helicopter flight school and the programs they offer before making your final decision. Fly safe!

Traveling is something anyone looks forward to. So how can we make our dream a reality? This article will show you how to get the lowest air fares and still enjoy your holiday.

When Is The Best Time To Travel?

Consider how many tourists visit a particular destination at a particular time of year. A place is usually packed with tourists when the weather is fine and festivities arise. Air fares at this time are always expensive. But there’s always hope!

Low season can be the best time to find the lowest air fares. But if you want to balance quantity and quality in your traveling experience, go for the time between the high and low seasons, when prices tend to plummet. At the same time, you’re still going to get an enjoyable holiday. For example, The Caribbean is still fantastic during late spring, when most tourists from the U.S. decide to travel another time since the weather is still tolerable where they are.

Don’t just aim for the low season. During the low season, clouds shadow the Caribbean, Egypt is too hot to go sightseeing, and there’s not another human being in those night markets. Getting lowest air fares shouldn’t mean sacrificing the quality of your trip.

Where Do I Go?

All four seasons of the year is a good season to get the lowest air fares. During winter everyone wants to go shopping, so take advantage of this fact and travel to Asia where the weather’s nice and warm for almost the whole year. Visit tulip farms in Holland in spring just before it gets warmer and therefore busier in Europe.

Summer is when tourists flock everywhere. But you can still go for quieter places, which may not be as frequented but perhaps the most relaxing for anyone who wants peace of mind. Autumn time in Costa Rica is going to be very affordable, since the period between the wet and dry season in the destination is when tourists are still planning their trip there. Travel to New Zealand when it’s autumn there. The prices are still low but the view of the golden flora is absolutely stunning. Fall is also when school starts so destinations won’t be too busy.

A very tight budget doesn’t mean you have to postpone your long-awaited trip. You can actually go on vacation now if you simply know what to wear! Whether it’s going to be extremely hot or cold, if you have appropriate clothing you can still make the most out of your holiday during the low seasons.

How Do I Research On The Lowest Air Fares?

Search online not just for major travel companies. Use a travel search engine like FareChaser, travel planning services like TripAdvisor and auction sites. Be more open to other options, but be quick and don’t spend hours on the Internet. If you bump into a great deal, book it before someone else does. Or better yet, start searching early for the lowest air fares.

You may also speak with travel agents. They can inform you of less popular airlines, which are great for discounts. They can also tell you about package deals, which can cut accommodation and car rental costs in half. Furthermore, they can even give you a closer look at your preferred destination with recommendations on reservations and restaurants.

There’s help everywhere in finding the lowest air fares. Great deals do exist, if you just know when, where and how to look for them. Use this guide to get started!

There’s no one who travels who doesn’t like to find deals on cheap air fare. Saving money on air travel one of the first things everyone tries to do when planning their next business trip or vacation. Unfortunately finding the lowest price feels much like playing the lottery, you might win but most of the time you don’t. And the one time you get that cheap ticket you find out the guy in the seat next to you paid even less for his.With this in mind just remember that getting a cheap air fare is not a competition with some unknown fellow traveler, but a way of stretching your traveling budget farther. If it works for you then all is good when you step onto that plane. The question then becomes how does one find the cheapest prices for air travel.Probably the easiest way to get good deals on plane tickets is through a budget airline. These are the no frills carriers that specialize in simply moving people from point A to point B in the shortest amount of time for the lowest price. Nearly all of the ticket reservations and purchases are done online which is cheaper and more efficient then having ticketing agents deal with customers. The flights are also no frills and may only offer a beverage service and little else.  The whole idea of a budget airline is to keep operating costs to a minimum and pass the saving to their customers.If a budget airline is not your idea of air travel then there are other ways of finding cheap air fares from the major airlines. Here are some tips to help you get those cheap tickets.1. If you plan far enough ahead get your tickets far in advance of your trip. The farther out you make your reservations the cheaper the tickets generally are. This isn’t always possible because sometimes trips seem to pop up out of no where but if you make your reservation at least 10 days in advance you will save some money.2. Choose your travel dates and times carefully. By traveling at off peak times during the week or early in the morning you can find some good deals simply because the airlines want bodies in those seats.3. If you have a group or family traveling at the same time book the same flight as a group. Many times you can save on processing fees in this situation.4. Be sure to check online often. The internet is one of the best places to find all sorts of travel discounts, not just on airline tickets.5. Be sure to check all your options. In other words shop around and compare prices along with any restrictions that may be attached to these discounts. If you take the first deal that you find you may not be entirely happy with the service provided the day you travel. Be sure to know what you are getting for the price you are paying.Getting cheap air fare deals is easy once you know where to look and what to look for. If you follow all or some of the steps above before long you’ll never pay full price for an airline ticket again.

There are a lot parts and pieces that build an aircraft and when you have or fly a plane, you are definitely aware that some of these parts need to be replaced from time to time. Like any sort of moving entity, parts wear down or simply don’t operate as good as they once did. When these parts wear down and the need for replacement arises, the whole aircraft is not outdated yet, as an alternative, aircraft parts must be bought and then installed on the aircraft.

As you might have understood, there are diverse aircraft parts that may or may not need to be replaced throughout the life span of an aircraft. When the majority of us imagine of an aircraft part, we only think of the seats, the seatbelts, the carpet, overhead bins, and the little fold out tables. While these are just additions to an aircraft, these are the pieces of an aircraft that wear out fairly quickly and need to be replaced. Most commercial airlines have thousands of replacement parts for each of these and they can simply replace them out as needed.

Then there are the external parts of an aircraft that most of us think of such as the propellers, engines, wings, windshield, and tires. These are the parts of the aircraft that deal with the elements, and for this reason they are often repaired and replaced as needed. All aircraft, especially commercial types are being checked and inspected to make sure that they meet minimum safety requirements.

During the inspections, a lot of things may be discovered to be in bad condition and they then are stranded until the faulty or worn out aircraft parts can be replaced or repaired.

There are a lot of parts of an aircraft that will eventually be in bad condition or simply become obsolete that will need to be replaced during the life span of the aircraft. Some of these aircraft parts include audio panels, autopilots, HF radios, radar altimeters, storm scopes, transponders, weather radars, and more.

Many parts of the actual aircraft frame will require to be replaced, as well. Just like cars or any other vehicle, there are a lot of little parts and pieces that wear down and need maintenance.

When an aircraft part requires to be replaced, an aircraft owner or the commercial airline requires a parts supplier or dealer. Most commercial airlines keep supply of the typical parts that require replacing or repairing but they get these parts from the parts supplier. These parts suppliers have parts varying from very small to very huge and depending on the supplier that you go to, you may find that they specialize have a lot of parts part for any aircraft. You will find that aircraft parts suppliers that cater to a different kinds of aircraft.

Visit us for Aircraft Parts, Airplane Engine Spares and Avionics