[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 75 (Thursday, June 15, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5177-S5181]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2001--Continued
Amendment No. 3430
(Purpose: To provide for an additional payment from the surplus to
reduce the public debt)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. ALLARD. I have an amendment at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Colorado [Mr. ALLARD], for himself and Mr.
Voinovich, Mr. Grams, and Mr. Enzi, proposes an amendment
numbered 3430.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page ________, after line ________, insert the
following:
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
bureau of the public debt
supplemental appropriation for fiscal year 2000
gifts to the united states for reduction of the public debt
For deposit of an additional amount for fiscal year 2000
into the account established under section 3113(d) of title
31, United States Code, to reduce the public debt,
$12,200,000,000.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not a sufficient second at this time.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I renew my request for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the amendment that was just reported at
the desk is an amendment that is cosponsored by myself, Senator
Voinovich, Senator Grams, and Senator Enzi. I do want to take the time
to thank them for their willingness to be a part of this very important
effort to try to pay down our Nation's debt. We have two debts that are
referred to frequently in debate, and I want to talk about each one of
them individually. One is the burden of the national debt on America,
and, as of June 14, 2000, the total national debt to the penny was
$5,651,368,584,663.04.
If we look at the debt that was owed to the public, there is an
equally astounding figure of $3,499,251,116,128.15.
How does this break down to each citizen's share of the national
debt? If you were born today, what kind of debt would you have to face
as you grew and paid for your education and started your own business
and raised your family? Each citizen born today in America would owe
$20,550 on the national debt; or another way of putting it, $12,724 on
the debt owed to the public.
In 1961, Congress established within the Department of the Treasury
the Bureau of the Public Debt, an account for citizens to repay the
public debt. Our amendment is an attempt to accomplish just that. What
it does, it makes a one-time payment out of the fiscal year 2000
surplus--that is the budget we are operating under right now--to the
account. We have a total of about 26.5 billion surplus dollars that
have come in this year. We have already obligated about $14.3 billion
in an effort for emergency spending.
This includes some adjustments between spending provisions we did
last year where we forwarded some of our spending. We are going to move
it back so it is within each fiscal year. It included some emergency
spending for Kosovo and some emergency spending for farm programs and a
number of other items. That leaves $12.2 billion on the table. So this
amendment says we want to take those $12.2 billion and move them into
the debt repayment account that Americans can pay into now, that we
established in 1961.
This holds the Senate accountable for limited emergency supplemental
spending consistent with the budget, I might add. I think each of us
individually in the Senate, and Members of the House, ought to make a
personal commitment to try to enforce provisions of that budget. That
was voted on by this body, voted out of the body. If it is going to
mean anything, I think Members of the Senate have to make a concerted
effort to help enforce the provisions of the budget.
The amendment I have introduced, with the help of some of my
colleagues, was scored by CBO as a no-cost intergovernmental transfer.
It is well within the budget rules, the rules of the Senate, and it is
an important amendment. It is something we need to address. We simply
have to get the debt under control. I have introduced legislation in
the past that has put forth a plan whereby we try to pay down the debt
over 30 years, then, later on, introduced more legislation so we go
ahead and pay down the debt over 20 years.
The fact is, we are having unprecedented surpluses coming in to the
Government coffers. A lot of it is because of the amount of work and
labor that is happening out there. It is due to American initiative
that has been propelled by the free enterprise society in which we
live. It is unprecedented in the history of this country.
If we do not do something to pay down the debt now, we are going to
miss a great opportunity to have a secure, a more prosperous future for
the young Americans of today, our future leaders.
I hope we can adopt this amendment as a minor first step in paying
down our total debt. We simply should not, as a matter of conscience,
continue to increase spending year after year with a total disregard of
the total debt that we have accumulated. We simply need to be doing
something to pay down our national debt.
This is a small step. It is something that hopefully will begin to
get this Senate to understand and this Congress to realize we ought to
have a plan of 20 years to pay down the debt. It is accountability on
further emergency spending. Emergency spending is not counted in the
budget caps and the 302(b) allocations, and too often this spending
privilege is abused. Members of the House and Senate try to put
programs which they cannot put in the regular budget resolution when
this Congress sets its priorities under the emergency spending
programs. We need to do what we can to maintain the integrity of that
budget resolution because it is the one that puts restraint on spending
and puts accountability in the budgeting process.
As I mentioned before, CBO has scored this as a no-cost transfer. It
is important, and it is money that is left laying on the table. At this
point in time, I really believe there are few choices of what will
happen with the $12.2 billion. It will either go toward debt repayment,
or it will be spent. I am concerned it will be spent.
I have introduced this legislation to obligate it towards debt
repayment. It is important. I ask my colleagues in the Senate to
support us in the effort to pay down the debt, and I ask them to vote
aye to support this amendment to pay down the debt. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, my colleague from the State of Colorado
did a very good job outlining for us how important it is that we
address our national debt. There is a euphoria in America today over
the fact that we have a tremendous surplus. Unfortunately, the fact
that we have a surplus reminds me of a Dean Martin song that went
something like ``Money burns a hole in my pocket.'' Everyone is trying
[[Page S5178]]
to figure out how to spend this money. No one seems to be making an
issue of the fact that today we have a $5.7 trillion national debt
which is costing Americans approximately $600 million a day in
interest.
Most Americans do not understand that 13 cents out of every Federal
dollar we spend goes to pay interest. National defense gets 16 cents
per dollar. Nondefense discretionary spending is 18 cents per dollar.
They do not understand that we are spending more money on interest each
year than we spend on Medicare, five times as much on interest as we do
for education, and 15 times more than we spend on medical research.
This debt was racked up over a number of years. At a time when our
economy is better than it has ever been before, when unemployment is at
the lowest we have seen in anyone's memory, we should do like you, Mr.
President, would do in your family and I would do in my family, or what
a business person would do, and that is, in times of plenty, get rid of
debt, get out from under debt.
We have an excellent opportunity to do that. Because of the expanding
economy, we have a $26 billion on-budget surplus in fiscal year 2000.
Think of that, $26 billion. We already allocated $14 billion of that
on-budget surplus when we passed the budget resolution to deal with
what I consider to be, for the most part, emergency situations.
In order to guarantee we do not spend the rest of that money, we need
to stand up and be counted and pay more than lipservice to reducing our
national debt. We need to pass legislation that says the remaining on-
budget surplus, this $12.2 billion, is to be used to pay down the
national debt. It is something that all of us should think about as
being a moral responsibility.
One of the reasons I came to the Senate, was the fact that I believed
we had spent money over the years on many things that, while important,
we were unwilling to pay for, or, in the alternative, do without. We
had a policy of ``let the next guy worry about it''; ``let the next
generation worry about it.''
When I came to the Senate, I had one grandchild. Today, I have two
more. Like all other Americans, I think about my grandchildren and
about the legacy I want to leave to them. I remember a long time ago,
almost 38 years ago, when my wife Janet and I got married. At that
time, only 6 cents out of every dollar was going to pay interest on our
debt. Think of it. Today it has gone up over 100 percent.
I think about the legacy we are leaving our children, and Congress,
during this wonderful time of a great economy, with a low unemployment
rate, should take advantage of this opportunity to take our on-budget
surplus and pay down our national debt and get this burden off the
backs of the young people in our country; off the backs of our children
and off the backs of our grandchildren.
The other thing we need to point out to the American people is
something we have kept kind of a secret. It is a secret about which
nobody is talking; it has been kept quiet, and that secret is we have
been spending money like drunken sailors.
In fiscal year 1998, we spent $555 billion on discretionary spending.
That is before I came to the Senate. In fiscal year 1999 we increased
spending to $575 billion.
In this year's budget, if we spend the entire on-budget surplus,
discretionary spending will be $624 billion. Think about it, $624
billion, compared to last year's $575 billion. If my figures are
correct, that is an 8.5-percent increase in discretionary spending.
I want to know how many people in this country had an 8.5-percent
increase in their paycheck last year. Why is it that the Federal
Government is different than most of the families in this Nation?
Families should understand, the citizens of this country should
understand, if we spend all of this money--and it looks like we could--
and if we do not adopt this amendment that we are suggesting be adopted
today, we will have increased spending by 8.5 percent.
It is time for this Congress to be willing to make tough decisions.
The cynicism that I hear so often is: We need the money to get out of
town.
We need to talk about our kids. We need to talk about this national
debt. We need to talk about the moral responsibility that we have to
America's families.
We are not asking for a lot here today. We are asking that this body
stand up and be counted. I hear people every day talking about: Let's
do something about the national debt. It is a problem. We should do it.
Reducing the national debt has been a principle of my party. It has
been a principle of mine throughout my political career. First of all,
don't go into debt. If you are in debt, get rid of it.
Here is a chance to stand up and put our actions where our mouths
are, and say, yes, we do believe in reducing the national debt. We are
going to take this money, put it aside, and pay down the national debt,
and we are going to do it now. We are going to do it now because we
know if we do not do it now, the temptation will be to spend every dime
of it.
One other thing we ought to remember; and that is, in July CBO will
be coming back with some new numbers and the on-budget surplus will be
even higher, perhaps maybe $20 billion, $25 billion more. The question
is, What are we going to do with that on-budget surplus? Are we going
to keep that around so we can get out of town?
It is time to make the tough decisions. It is time to stand up and be
counted.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. ALLARD. I, again, thank my colleague from Ohio, Senator
Voinovich, for his undying effort and diligent fight to pay down the
debt. It is good to have somebody with that kind of persistence and
bulldog attitude to be a team player on a very important issue such as
this. I just want to commend him in a public way for his efforts.
I do not see any other Senators on the floor wanting to debate this
issue. I yield the floor so the Senator from Oregon can be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the
pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. ALLARD. Objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Oregon has the floor.
Mr. ALLARD. Objection.
Mr. President, was there a unanimous consent request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair noted the objection of the Senator
from Colorado.
The Senator from Oregon still has the floor.
Mr. ALLARD. I withdraw my objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the foregoing request is
granted.
Amendment No. 3433
(Purpose: To require the Inspector General of the Department of
Transportation to review certain airline customer service practices and
to make recommendations for reform)
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk involving
the rights of airline passengers in this country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] proposes an amendment
numbered 3433.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 45, line 23, before the period at the end insert
the following: ``: Provided, That the funds made available
under this heading shall be used by the Inspector General (1)
to continue to review airline customer service practices with
respect to providing consumers access to the lowest available
airfare, information regarding overbooking, and all other
matters with respect to which airlines have entered into
voluntary customer service commitments; (2) to undertake an
inquiry into whether mergers in the airline industry have
caused or may cause customer service to deteriorate and
whether legislation should be enacted to require that
customer service be a factor in the merger review process for
airlines; (3) to review the reasons for increases in flight
delays, with specific reference to whether infrastructure
issues or procedures utilized by the airline industry and the
Federal Aviation Administration are contributing to the
delays; (4) to review the airline ticket distribution system,
and changes in the system, including
[[Page S5179]]
the proposed Internet joint venture known as `Orbitz' and the
impact such changes may have on airline competition and
consumers; (5) to review whether `Orbitz' would be, or should
be, subject to Department of Transportation regulations on
airline ticket computer reservation systems; and (6) to
report findings and recommendations for reform resulting from
these reviews and inquiries to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, the Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation of the Senate, and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives by December 31, 2000, and again thereafter
when the Inspector General determines it appropriate to
reflect the emergence of significant additional findings and
recommendations''.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, almost a year ago, this country's airlines
made a grand announcement about a new, although albeit voluntary,
commitment to the rights of airline passengers.
I tend to look with a very skeptical eye at any promise to consumers
that contains the notion of both ``voluntary'' and ``rights'' together
in the same sentence.
Now, 1 year later, my conversations with Federal investigators about
the work they have done, at the Senate's request, leaves me to be even
more skeptical of what the airlines have promised.
What I have learned from Federal investigators is that there are more
questions than answers about the quality of airline customer service,
flight delays, and the airline ticket distribution system.
Frankly, as I said a year ago, the evidence indicates that the
airlines' so-called customer first package has proven to be worth
little more than the paper it was written on.
In fact, just recently, in the last few months, the Washington Post
Business Section had a headline that said: ``Airline Service Dips n 3
of 4 Categories.'' They went on to describe what can only be
categorized as a pretty bumpy operation with respect to guaranteeing
the rights of passengers in this country.
I will take just a few minutes to outline what I think the central
problems are, and what I have learned from Federal investigators about
their work. Then I hope the Senate will support my amendment on a
bipartisan basis.
First, after a year of trying to get the airlines to be straight with
the American consumer with respect to finding the lowest fare available
on a particular flight, I can report that finding the lowest airfare
remains one of the great mysteries of our time.
On any given flight, there may be as many different fares paid as
there are passengers on the plane. Finding out if the flight you want
to take is overbooked is sort of like playing hide and seek. First, you
have to know what to ask for. Then you need to know the difference
between a flight that is oversold and a flight that is overbooked.
Suffice it to say, there seem to be a fair number of people in the
industry who can hardly explain that difference.
When I first called for the passage of a real, enforceable passenger
bill of rights for airline consumers, I made it very clear to the
Senate that I was not talking about establishing a constitutional right
to a fluffy pillow on your airplane flight. I was not talking about
folks being entitled to a jumbo bag of peanuts. What I was talking
about has the public's right to know, the public's right to know
information about basic services, just as they do in every other area
of our economy.
In every other area of the economy, such as when you have a
reservation for a particular item or you want to find out about how it
is priced, you can get that information. You can get it whether it is
on the telephone, at the counter, online, or through a variety of
intermediaries. And you are told, in straightforward kinds of terms,
the real reasons behind these scheduling arrangements, and prices, and
the kind of information that is so relevant to the consumer.
That is not what is happening today in the airline industry, despite
the grandiose pledges from folks in the industry.
For example, the annual survey by leading scholars at Wichita State
who have been doing these surveys for many years came out in April and
found that consumer complaints on air travel in 1999 were up 130
percent over the previous year. That study showed that 7 out of 10
airlines posted lower quality ratings than they did in the previous
year.
Earlier this year, the Department of Transportation consumer division
reported that the number of complaints they had received was about
double that of the previous year. The complaints were up and the
ratings were down after the airlines had pledged to the Congress to do
better.
Suffice it to say, these professors at Wichita State are not airline
industry bashers. These are individuals who, by their own description,
take a very conservative orientation to these issues. Yet they found
that in virtually every important area of consumer service, there had
actually been a deterioration in the quality of service to airline
passengers during this period since the airlines' so-called customer
first pledge went into effect.
When the industry's Air Transport Association reported recently that
customer satisfaction was at an all-time high, many of us struggled to
find out to whom exactly they were talking. They weren't talking to the
folks I sit next to on an airplane or the people I meet in ticket lines
at home in Oregon or around the Pacific Northwest.
I can understand the inclination of the Senate to give the airlines
some time to try to make their voluntary program work. I got my head
handed to me when we had the vote in the Commerce Committee and it was
19-1 with respect to airline passenger rights. I respected that. Given
the results in the Commerce Committee, I decided we ought to try to do
some followup and offered several amendments that were accepted as part
of this appropriations bill in the last year. I believed it was
important to continue to monitor the situation to see if we would get
any improvements since the industry's pledges went into effect.
What we adopted in the last appropriations bill was part of the final
law. It was binding, and it gave the Transportation Department
inspector general a statutory mandate to look at whether airlines are
giving customers access to the lowest fares no matter what technology
they used to contact the airline. It is outrageous to know that even
today airline passengers can be quoted one price over the telephone and
yet a much lower fare is available to them on the Internet and they
aren't given that kind of information. The Department of Transportation
inspector general was directed in the last appropriations bill to
investigate that issue and, in addition, to make sure we monitor this
question of the lowest fare.
We directed the inspector general to tell us about overbookings of
flights--again, a right-to-know context. I have no problem with an
airline selling a ticket to a passenger on a flight that is overbooked,
if the consumer is told that the flight is overbooked at the time they
are going to make the purchase. It is fairly straightforward; it is
informed consent. We have found that has not been done.
The Department of Transportation inspector general is also looking at
a new scheme the airlines have cooked up known as T-2. It is our
understanding this is a new online pool of airfares where nearly all of
the major air carriers will offer their lowest fares but which will not
be accessible to those who offer travel services.
In a few weeks, the inspector general of the Department of
Transportation is going to issue an interim report on the airlines'
customer service commitment plans. What I have heard about this report
is that the airlines are coming up short, and seriously so, with
respect to following up on the commitments they made to the Congress.
For example, recent weather delays at Chicago's O'Hare Airport
resulted in numerous planes being stranded on the runways for periods
of 3 hours or more and as long as 8 hours. The Presiding Officer must
have heard from some of his constituents on that matter. I happen to
have been on the flight that was going from Chicago to Portland where
some of those folks had been on the flight that had been stranded in
Chicago. They told me all they had received during this extended wait
was granola bars and almost no information at all about the options
they had.
A recent power failure at National Airport in the Nation's Capital
stranded scores of passengers without any accommodations or emergency
provisions. Again, we have the consumer complaints pouring into the
Department of Transportation at record levels
[[Page S5180]]
each month of this year, after the airline industry's voluntary pledge
went into effect. This notion from the airline industry that they just
need more time, give them a little bit more opportunity to make this
so-called voluntary program work, is contradicted by what we have seen
each month since the so-called voluntary pledges went into effect.
The customer service commitments don't even address one of the most
frustrating areas of air travel; that is, the fundamental underlying
issue of delays and what the airlines and the FDA will do to combat
them.
It is important that we get the Department of Transportation interim
report. It is going to offer the American people an unbiased view of
exactly how well airlines are treating passengers. It is going to give
us an independent assessment of these so-called voluntary passenger
commitments.
I believe what this report is going to show is that the pledges the
airline industry made are in effect a kind of cosmetic program to try
to keep the Senate from enacting real passenger rights that are
enforceable and truly protect the American public. I suspect what we
will hear from the inspector general will be a blueprint for
enforceable concrete legislation that protects the rights of
passengers.
What the Senate ought to be doing is keeping the airlines' feet to
the fire. That is why I am offering an amendment to this year's
Department of Transportation appropriations bill that would instruct
the Department of Transportation IG to continue his fact finding and
information gathering in key areas that are so important to the public.
I am talking about whether these customer service practices amount to
anything, getting the public straight information on the lowest
available fare, information about overbooking.
Importantly, for the first time the Senate would direct the
Department of Transportation IG to look at the question of whether
mergers in the airline industry are causing customer service to
deteriorate. We ought to be looking at that issue. We ought to be
looking at whether legislation should be enacted to require that
customer service be a factor in granting an airline merger in this
country. We have all heard so much about these airline mergers. We are
having a lot of problems with customer service today. We ought to be
looking at the ramifications these mergers are having on the quality of
airline service in this country.
I am particularly interested in knowing whether the Senate, on a
bipartisan basis, should write a law that would stipulate whether or
not customer service ought to be a factor in the merger review process.
In addition, this amendment would review the reasons for increases in
flight delay. We have had some folks say it is the FAA's fault. We have
had other folks say that it is the airline industry's fault. I think
the Department of Transportation IG ought to dig into that issue. My
amendment also requires a review of the airline ticket distribution
system that I mentioned earlier involving T-2. Suffice it to say that
there are a number of questions there about whether that is
contributing to problems that consumers are having.
The bottom line is, will the Senate keep the airlines' feet to the
fire? Are we going to have the Department of Transportation continue in
this investigative effort to try to at least put some kind of
collective focus by the Senate on how important it is to improve
passenger service? We have all heard from constituents, at a time when
the airlines are, in many instances, making great profits, about why it
is that some of that money can't be devoted to improving passenger
service.
I am not going to go through all of the recent news stories but just
a few of the headlines. The Washington Post headline is ``Airline
Service Dips In 3 of 4 Categories.'' The Los Angeles Times headline is
``Air Passengers `Fed Up' With Poor Service, Survey Finds.'' They go on
to cite the fact that ``Consumer complaints against airlines have more
than doubled from last year.''
In conjunction with the recommendations we are getting from the
Department of Transportation's IG and their leading official, who I
think does a superlative job in this area, I would like to see the
Senate working with the Transportation inspector general to keep the
focus on trying to force these airlines to improve the quality of
passenger service to the people of this country.
I have just been informed by the staff that Chairman McCain and
Senator Hollings and Senator Rockefeller would be willing to join me
today in committing to send a letter asking the Department of
Transportation inspector general to investigate and report to the
committee on the issues that are the subject of my amendment. So that
the record is clear, Chairman McCain, Senator Hollings, and Senator
Rockefeller--and they are all the leaders of the Senate Commerce
Committee and spend many hours looking into these issues--have all
asked that they join me in a letter to the Department of Transportation
inspector general inquiring into the issues that are the subject of my
amendment.
The fact that we are getting the bipartisan leadership of our
committee behind this effort is very important. It is certainly
important to me because all of them have great expertise regarding this
issue. My inclination, frankly, is to have a vote on this amendment on
the floor of the Senate to send the strongest possible message. But I
note that Senator Rockefeller cannot be present today. He has done
extremely good and important work on a whole host of aviation issues,
including the air traffic control system. As a member of the Commerce
Committee and the Aviation Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over
these issues, I am going to agree this afternoon, on the basis of the
fact that we will now have a bipartisan letter sent to the inspector
general by the bipartisan leadership of the Commerce Committee
directing that the IG look into all of the issues outlined in my
amendment, to withdraw my amendment.
But I want to make it clear to people in the airline industry and the
passengers that are so frustrated by these delays that this fight is
going to continue. It is not being dropped. In fact, we are expanding
it. As I mentioned, we are going to look, for the first time in recent
years, at the ramifications of mergers on customer service. I happen to
believe very strongly that mergers and customer service are
inextricably linked. I think we ought to change the law and stipulate
that one of the criteria on whether or not an airline merger ought to
go forward is customer service.
Amendment No. 3433, Withdrawn
I note the absence of Senator Rockefeller, who believes strongly in
this. Chairman McCain and the ranking Democrat, Senator Hollings, have
both done very important work on aviation issues. They have pledged to
join with me in directing the Department of Transportation inspector
general to investigate these issues. In view of that announcement that
is being made today, and in view of the bipartisan support for the
Department of Transportation looking into these issues, I ask unanimous
consent to withdraw my amendment this afternoon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have two
articles printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Los Angeles Times, Apr. 11, 2000]
Air Passengers ``Fed Up'' With Poor Service, Survey Finds
(By Randolph E. Schmid)
Washington.--U.S. airlines spent a lot of time last year
promising things would get better for their customers, but a
new study suggests just the opposite occurred: Consumer
complaints more than doubled.
``You can see that consumers are just fed up, fed up with
poor service,'' Brent Bowen of the University of Nebraska at
Omaha said in announcing the survey results Monday.
Consumer complaints were up 130% from 1998 to 1999, said
Dean Headley of Wichita State University. They rose from 1.08
complaints per 100,000 passengers in 1998 to 2.48 per 100,000
last year.
Headley noted that improved Internet access made it easier
to file complaints, but said that could not account for such
a large increase.
The annual report, based on data collected by the
Transportation Department, scores the air carriers on on-time
performance, baggage handling, consumer complaints and denied
boardings.
It found an overall decline in airline quality last year,
with only baggage handling showing a slight improvement.
[[Page S5181]]
The airlines instituted a consumer bill of rights in
December, after a year of pressure from Congress to improve
service. A report to Congress by the Transportation
Department's inspector general on how they are doing is
scheduled for June.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who pressed for legislation last
year, said that if the upcoming report ``shows anything
resembling what this study shows, I think we can get a real
passenger bill of rights through Congress.''
``The report demonstrates that the airlines are not
following through on the voluntary program,'' he said.
``They, of course, claim that it's early and they have just
begun it . . . but this is an industry that again and again
finds reasons to give passenger service short shrift.''
Diana Cronan of the Air Transport Assn., which represents
the major airlines, noted that the airlines' voluntary
``customer first'' plan was not put into effect until the end
of the year.
``We really would like to see the results next year when
the plan has been in place for a full year. We really do
believe that things will be better,'' she said.
Southwest Airlines ranked best overall, as it did in 1997.
In 1998, the top spot went to USAirways, which fell to No. 6
in the new report.
This year, Continental finished second, followed by Delta,
Northwest and Alaska Airlines. American was No. 7, followed
by America West, TWA and United.
The report's only good news involved baggage handling. The
study found that the industry mishandled 5.08 bags per 1,000
passengers in 1999, down from 5.16 per 1,000 a year earlier.
On the other hand, there was a drop in the portion of
flights that arrived within 15 minutes of schedule. On-time
performance slipped from 77.2% to 76.1% and denied
boardings was virtually stable, edging from 0.87 per
10,000 passengers to 0.88.
The study was particularly critical of airlines for
instituting what they called a series of anti-consumer rules
designed to increase productivity.
These include tighter limits on carry-on bags, bans on
carry-on food, not allowing a consumer to take an earlier
connection when a seat is available and raising fees to
change tickets.
``Soon, consumers will become driven by price and schedule
only and regard airline loyalty as having no tangible
value,'' the author concluded.
The Transportation Department, which independently reports
on airline performance, found similar problems through
February.
Consumers registered 1,999 complaints about the 10 largest
carriers in February, slightly down from January but nearly
double a year earlier.
It found that 74.8% of flights arrived on time in
February--also slightly better than in January but not as
good as 78.9% in February 1999.
The airlines had a mishandled baggage rate of 4.81 reports
per 1,000 passengers in February, an improvement from a year
earlier.
Headley acknowledged the new passenger bill of rights
instituted by airlines late last year and allowed that change
does take time. But, he argued, the steps promised by the
airlines were things they should have been doing already.
The carriers pledged to be more forthright with passengers
all the way through their travel experience. They promised to
volunteer the lowest air fares or cheaper travel options when
people call for reservations and to give passengers at least
24 hours to cancel ticket purchases.
They also said they would update passengers at 15- to 20-
minute intervals when there are delays.
Airline Complaints Soar
Airline quality declined in 1999 despite efforts by the
carriers to improve service. The 10 major U.S. airlines
carried nearly 500 million domestic airline passengers in
1999. The volume of consumer complaints rose 130% over 1998.
Although improved reporting may account for some of the
increase, it does not account for all of it. How the major
airlines fared in four categories; best performers \1\ are:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mishandled Complaints
Percentage Bumped per baggage per
Airline of on-time 10,000 per 1,000 100,000
arrivals passengers passengers passengers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall......................................................... 76.1 0.88 5.08 2.48
Alaska.......................................................... 71.0 0.91 5.75 1.64
America West.................................................... 69.5 1.39 4.52 3.73
American........................................................ 73.5 0.43 5.21 3.50
Continental..................................................... 76.6 0.34 4.42 2.62
Delta........................................................... 78.0 1.53 4.39 1.82
Northwest....................................................... 79.9 \1\ 0.18 4.81 2.93
Southwest....................................................... 80.0 1.38 \1\ 4.22 \1\ 0.40
TWA............................................................. \1\ 80.9 0.73 5.38 3.45
United.......................................................... 74.4 0.90 7.01 2.66
US Airways...................................................... 71.4 0.52 5.08 3.15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Best performers.
Sources: Airline Quality Rating 2000; Associated Press.
Researched by NONA YATES/Los Angeles Times.
____
[From the Washington Post, Apr. 11, 2000]
Airline Service Dips In 3 of 4 Categories
(By Frank Swoboda)
Just when you thought air travel was bound to get better,
it got worse.
A year after the nation's 10 major airlines promised to
begin improving service in the face of mounting congressional
threats to enact a series of passenger protections, a survey
released yesterday shows that service in 1999 deteriorated in
almost every category.
Arlington-based US Airways plunged from first in 1998 to
sixth last year, showing poor performance in all service
categories surveyed.
``We've acknowledged the issues. The numbers speak for
themselves,'' said US Airways spokesman Richard Weintraub. He
said government statistics since the start of the year
indicate that the airline is now headed back into the ``top
tier'' of airline service.
The survey--the Airline Quality Rating--is the 10th annual
report by two university professors who track the level of
service through government statistics gathered by the
Department of Transportation.
The findings were based on an airline's on-time
performance, baggage handling, consumer complaints and
involuntarily denied boardings, such as when an airline
overbooks a flight and forces some passengers to be denied
seats for which they had already paid. The only improvement
shown by the survey was a slight drop in complaints about
baggage handling.
The survey tracked the statistics for 10 major airlines
using the Department of Transportation's definition of
``major.'' The airlines, rated from best to worst, were:
Southwest, Continental, Delta, Northwest, Alaska, US Airways,
American, American West, TWA and United.
``We try to base this on pure performance, something the
airline has some control over,'' said Dean Headley of Wichita
State University and a coauthor of the survey with Brent
Bowen, director of the Aviation Institute at the University
of Nebraska in Omaha.
Headley said he was not surprised by the survey results,
but that he was frustrated by the rise in complaints against
the airlines, especially after they had all promised to
improve service. He said the Internet has made it easier for
people to complain but could not account for such a large
increase in the number of complaints--up 130 percent between
1998 and 1999.
In December, after nearly a year of promising to improve
service in the face of rising consumer complaints and
congressional threats, the airlines adopted what they called
a consumer bill of rights in an effort to head off threatened
government intervention on behalf of passengers. That threat
began in January 1999, when Northwest stranded a planeload of
passengers on a snowy Detroit runway for nearly eight hours.
Nebraska's Bowen said the report's conclusion that overall
industry quality continues to decline indicates that ``the
entire airline-sponsored plan to increase customer services
is failing.''
A spokeswoman for the Air Transport Association, the trade
group that represents the airlines, said the voluntary bill
of rights initiated by the airlines has only been in effect a
few months. She said the airlines' new policy should be in
place a full year before people judge whether service has
improved.
The transportation department's inspector general is
scheduled to issue a report to Congress in June on just how
well the airlines are doing. A negative report from DOT in an
election year is almost certain to rekindle calls for
congressional action.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), an advocate of legislation to
force better service from the airlines, said that if the
inspector general's report mirrors the conclusions of
yesterday's study, ``it really strengthens my hand.'' Wyden
said yesterday's survey ``was a credible report because these
fellows have been doing it a long time and they are not
normally industry bashers.''
Last year, Wyden proposed a bill that would force the
airlines to tell customers when a flight was overbooked and
to give them information on all available fares on a specific
flight. The bill would also allow passengers to get a refund
if they canceled a ticket at least 48 hours before a flight.
Headley and Bowen concluded that unless airlines improve
service, consumers will lose loyalty to individual carriers
and ``become driven by price and schedule only.''
But Headley said that despite his concerns about
deteriorating air service, he did not think setting industry
service standards was the answer. ``I'm a big fan of not
regulating if we can avoid it,'' he said.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote in
relation to the Allard amendment be stacked to occur first in any
sequence of votes that are scheduled relative to the Transportation
appropriations bill. Further, I ask that no amendments be in order to
the amendment prior to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________