America’s economy and progress have been due to the freedoms and capitalist-oriented policies afforded to the industries in the bid to ensure that they maximize the opportunities the markets have to offer while maintaining the rights of the Americans. These features are evident in the air transport sector following the U.S. Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 that was intended to enhance the markets of airlines by limiting the states' laws that tend to diminish the ability of these companies to expand their markets by installing policies that create liabilities for the airlines operating in their states (Dempsey, 2015). Congress enacted the act out of economic good faith and understanding that by allowing the companies to decide their routes, rates, and the number of times, they offer their services without being prohibited by the states. These companies would choose when to enter or exit a route if they noted that it was not profitable for them. Before the regulations, airlines were allowed to operate by applying for clearances which were afforded by the states with less than 10% approved (Dempsey, 2015). The U.S. Airline Deregulation Act under the Federal Aviation Act provided regulations preempt state standards.
Since then, there have been significant economic gains, however, the challenges such as bankruptcy and need to dominate the market have led to merging of the companies thus creating oligopolies or monopolies in different states thus leading to the decline of consumer service deliveries. The services’ quality has been pathetic for most of the airlines with the preempt regulations making it difficult for passengers to air their grievances and the prices are increasing drastically with congestion being the order of the day. By using different legal issues of United Airlines, one of the largest and most dominant airlines in America and internationally, it will be evident that deregulation is the cause of social problems evident in the United Airlines and other airlines in America. Therefore, the purpose of the study is to demonstrate that the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 have increased incompetence and social degradation, hence, tightening the rules towards regulation will improve the airline industry and solve the current social problems.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
GILSTRAP V. UNITED AIRLINES
In 2008 and 2009, Michelle Gilstrap made two airplane trips using United Airlines (United). Gilstrap had difficulty walking due to osteoarthritis among other health problems. However, even after making her conditions known to United, she was not provided with any assistance thus suffering both physically and emotionally due to the rudeness of the United’s agents. Gilstrap sued the company arguing that several causes of action under the California state tort law and violation of Title III of the American Disability Act of 1990 (Goren, 2013). United, on the other hand, filed a motion to dismiss the allegations or charges under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) which led to the district court to dismiss Gilstrap’s complaint with prejudice. The court decided that Gilstrap’s California tort arguments were both conflict-and field-preempted by the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) (Goren, 2013). United won the case without breaking a sweat due to the pathway created protect the aviation companies from states laws (Dempsey, 2015). It is evident that the FAA protects the company from being sued under the California tort law would be direct conflict.
However, the ACAA provided a case where such acts can be punishable by law. The court concluded the Congress intent on creating the FAA administrative enforcement scheme that would exclusively remedy violations of the ACAA with the court barred from prosecuting such cases since they would conflict with that of the Congressional intent. The ACAA provides details that the FAA under the Secretariat and the Department of Justice can ensure that such negligence is investigated and the perpetrator fine. The ACAA offered the guidelines that must be followed to ensure that the passengers are not subjected to unjust discrimination or undue prejudice and disadvantage in any way (Goren, 2013). However, the Airline Deregulation Act repealed the ACAA leaving passengers with disability, race differences and other issues to fly without any protection against discrimination.
The American Disabilities Act of 1990 on the other hand, is a federal law that could have been used by the plaintiff. ADA provides detailed guidelines for dealing with disability and eliminating the discriminative conditions or service deliveries as was the case raised by the plaintiff. However, issues would also have been raised based on conflict of the federal laws. Therefore, using the most recent ACAA amendment of 2003, it is evident it calls for air carriers to refrain from discriminating any individual that is disabled (Goren, 2013). The bill also states that each act constitutes a separate offense under each discriminative action towards a particular individual who qualifies as disabled. Lastly, it offers the mandate to the Secretary to investigate complains raised. These changes are confident, however, the Secretary following investigation can only make recommendations to the FAA’s Air Commerce and Safety provisions which would be conducting investigations, standards, procedures and issuing orders (Dempsey, 2015). These regulations fail to demonstrate ways that the airlines can be punished directly with few cases won by the plaintiffs concerning passengers’ safety and rudeness.
The U.S. Airline Deregulation Act is a shield that defends the accountability of the airlines with the intended reasons for its formation losing their value to the public. Congress and former President Jimmy Carter intended to create a competitive environment in the airline market. The laws were based on the economic theories that call for competitive markets with limited government interference which would boost the growth of the industry. It was evident that regulation limited growth and development of the companies in the domestic market making them victims of international airlines that were gaining entry in the U.S. market.
Therefore, it was important for Congress to limit the policies to enhance the growth of these companies domestically which would also make them dominant internationally. However, these individuals did not understand that regulation enabled the airlines to help the states improve their revenue and investments that would improve the per capita income thus increase the number of customers from these states. Congress believed that with the decline of domestic travelers before deregulation, it was impossible for companies in such states to improve their financial positions without imposing high ticket prices which would further decrease the demand (Petersen & Kragh, 2017). Deregulation would broaden the market and offer competition that would enhance price remain low whereas the quality of services would improve to entice customers. The Ninth Circuit overturned the decision claiming that the ACAA preempts state laws making it possible for the passengers to sue airlines for not providing the necessary assistance for disabled individuals.
Following the deregulation law, many airlines were operating in the U.S. but with some companies enjoying economies of scale due to their size both nationally and internationally led to the bankruptcy of smaller companies. The more significant companies entering in the markets that had been accessible to them led to the acquisition of the existing companies, and by 2000, the country boasted of about ten airlines that had merged and acquired other companies. In 2006, United Airlines was one of the many airlines to become bankrupt due to the high operation costs and unmonitored management. The company would merge with the Consolidated Airline thus making it the third biggest airline company in the U.S. based on income and the largest company based on the destinations and routes (Petersen & Kragh, 2017). United Airlines as of 2016 reports had revenues of approximately $36.5 billion, $2.2 billion in profits. The Gilstrap’s case is just one of the many instances of passenger mistreatment but with the company opting to settle rather than engage in courts makes it impossible to determine the figures of compensations made by the company. The company benefited from the restrictions provided by the FAA and Airline Deregulation Act to ensure that they would walk away from punishment after treating people inappropriately. Since the Gilstrap’s case cases that tend to discriminate passengers based on their faith and poor passenger handling have become the norm of the company.
Recent Issues
The Council on American-Islamic Relations in 2017 filed a case against United Airlines for an incident that had occurred to a couple in 2016. On March 20, 2016, Mohamad and Eaman Shebley aboard the SkyWest flight operating as United Express from Chicago to Washington only for the couple to be kicked out of United Flight 5811 (Lee, 2017). The Shebleys were asked to leave by the crew after Eaman requested assistance with a child booster seat. The suit filed the claim that they believe that they were kicked out and left stranded because of their faith. The council filing the case claimed that with the anxiety among Muslims that feel are targeted and removed from the planes with the crews citing that they make other passengers uncomfortable (Hartung, 2017). In an article covered by the Chicago Tribune, it was evident that the couple had done nothing to be removed from the plane and the crew did not provide any explanation for their actions. The shame, discomfort and the inconveniences the couple underwent can result in both financial and emotional losses (Lee, 2017). Therefore it is clear that the case will make United accountable for their bias and discriminative culture, but just as the earlier case, it will be difficult for the couple to prove their case due to the protections that are in place for airlines.
The couple claimed that the incident involving a strap for their child was the first interaction with the flight attendant who claimed that the company does not provide over-the-shoulder harnesses for passengers although it was written in the company’s website (Petersen & Kragh, 2017). The essence that the flight attendant alleged that the company did not offer the straps for the passengers and the information in the site differed demonstrate that the company was using deceptive advertisements to convince the customers into choosing them over other companies (Lee, 2017). The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) prohibits false ads to ensure that consumers make decisions because they understand all the benefits and disadvantages of purchasing a particular product over the other. In the case of the Shelbeys, the couple would have booked the plane knowing that their child would be insecure if they opted to use United. However, the claims by the crew and the info from the website demonstrate that the company’s website only stated that they offered the over-the-shoulder harnesses for passengers to wade off investigations from the FAA for their inadequate safety measures in protecting children (Lee, 2017). The case has not been solved at the moment, but it is clear that company is abusing the deregulation protection by using false advertisements and discriminating customers inherent to their faith. These actions violate the FTC regulations and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, but it will be difficult for the couple to acquire justice in an era where deregulation has provided the airlines with shields from prosecution.
The 2017 incident that involved the violent removal of Dr. David Dao from his seat on a United Airlines flight is one of the most known passenger’s rights violation that is prevalent in the sector. United discovered that after all the passengers were seated the plane was full but four flight attendants who were being transported to Louisville, Kentucky to another United flight (Stack, 2017). The company tried to compensate people who would volunteer to vacate their seat and delay their trip by 21 hours. The company first offered $400 then $800, but there were no volunteers. The crew stated that since there were no volunteers, the computer would randomly select four people to vacate their seats. The first three chosen exited without a fuse, but Dao claimed that exiting the plane would inconvenience his plans as he had patients to treat in his clinic the next morning.
United crew could not listen as they called for the security who roughly ejected Dao from the plane. The excessive force used by the security resulted in Dao’s concussion, but the video filmed by the other passengers who were begging the crews and securities to leave Dao alone made the company offer a statement about the incident. The company understood that in this era of social media, they could not hide behind the deregulation policies that had protected them from paying for their inhumane actions towards passengers (Stack, 2017). Studies on social media demonstrate that negative ratings can jeopardize the business due to the peer influence that social media brings (Petersen & Kragh, 2017). However, following the filing of a suit by Dao, the company was quick to settle hence the claim by the U.S. Department of Transportation claiming that there was no reason to fine United Airlines over Dao’s incident as they had settled confidentially. The statement by the U.S. DOT demonstrates that companies can get away with such practices as long as they pay with victims. It illustrates the extent the Airline Deregulation Act has reduced the safety and social wellbeing for the sake of economic gains (Stack, 2017). Social media played an essential role on the issue, but one is left to wonder the reaction of the company in case the incident was not recorded. How would have the company handled Dao’s case? Would it have used a similar style as they did to win the early stages of Mistrap’s case although it was later overturned by the Supreme Court or ignored the victim as they did to the Shebleys? The answer points to hiding behind their shield, deregulation laws.
The economic benefits used by proponents’ does decline as it only enhances the revenues of the companies at the expense of lower tickets. The ticketing strategies and the new seat arrangements have resulted in extorting the travelers and overcrowding in planes. The quality has declined with prices rising due to the oligopolistic and monopolistic strategies employed by the companies. United Airlines is just one of these four companies that have shaped the commercial planes’ sector. A single company can enjoy 70% to 84% market share in a single region thus making it the price maker and limit competition (Hartung, 2017). The unregulated mergers and acquisitions have crippled the market competitiveness. Economists call for the government to enforce laws that protect the public from the monopolistic cons because their lack of intervention for the over 40 years has resulted in the social problems and unaccountability that is evident from the cases analyzed.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is evident that the deregulation policies have led to incompetence and poor social responsibilities among the airlines' companies. The protection from state laws has caused safety issues with the ease of courts to throw out cases filed against the airlines due to conflict and field preempt, therefore, the companies have worsened and lost the aura they once possessed. It is time for Congress to rethink about the changing some of the deregulation policies to ensure that civil laws are investigated by the states and violation of other federal laws such human rights, the companies must be held accountable for them to refrain from these vices.
References
Dempsey, P. (2015). Federal Preemption of State Regulation of Airline Pricing, Routes, and Services: The Airline Deregulation Act. SSRN Electronic Journal . http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2734212
Goren, W. (2013). Gilstrap v. United Airlines | Understanding the ADA. Williamgoren.com . Retrieved April 30, 2018, from https://www.williamgoren.com/blog/tag/gilstrap-v-united-airlines/
Hartung, A. (2017). Why United Airlines Abuses Customers: The Risks Of Operational Excellence. Forbes.com . Retrieved April 30, 2018, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2017/04/10/why-united-airlines-abuses-customers-the-risks-of-operational-excellence/#58aacd46bb10
Lee, W. (2017). Suburban Muslim couple ejected from O'Hare flight sue United Airlines. chicagotribune.com . Retrieved April 30, 2018, from http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-united-civi-rights-lawsuit-met-20170310-story.html
Petersen, M., & Kragh, H. (2017). Lessons From United Airlines' Crisis. Nonprofit Communications Report , 15 (12), 7-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/npcr.30826
Stack, L. (2017). United Airlines Offers Refunds as Outrage at a Violent Removal Continues. Nytimes.com . Retrieved April 30, 2018, from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/business/united-dragged-passenger-video-chicago.html
