(Source: CNN)

We have all heard numerous stories about the bad treatment meted out to passengers by the airline staff and airline managements around the country. Among many such stories, one recent incident got a lot of scrutiny and prompted Government action.   On August 8, Continent ExpressJet 21816 enroute to Minneapolis from Houston,  with 47 passengers onboard was left waiting for clearance overnight on a tarmac in Rochester, Minnesota.

As the hours — going on six of them — passed, he said the air in the ExpressJet for Continental Airlines cabin grew rank. The two babies on board cried. The toilet filled and stopped flushing. No food was served and the puddle-jumper seats made sleep, for him, impossible. All the while, the airport was visible from the plane.

The much-publicized story of Flight 2816, diverted to Rochester because of bad weather while en route to Minneapolis from Houston, Texas, has brought to the forefront a growing demand to institute passenger rights.

Advocacy groups are fielding calls, gathering momentum and preparing for a September 22 hearing in Washington. One organization recently bought cable television ad time hoping to reach President Obama on his vacation and earn his support, just as a bill to protect fliers from such incidents heads to the Senate floor.

Since the Rochester incident, there have been other tarmac strandings. Passengers on a Sun Country Airlines flight were trapped for about six hours on August 21 while at JFK International Airport in New York. That prompted the airline’s CEO to announce last week a four-hour maximum deadline for tarmac sittings, Minnesota’s Star Tribune reported. The first “massive tarmac stranding” to spark outcries and stir up calls for legislation came in January 1999, said Kevin Mitchell, chairman of the Business Travel Coalition. That was when about 3,500 passengers were trapped during a snowstorm for up to 13 hours on Michigan’s Detroit Metro Airport tarmacs, he said.

The 2007 Valentine’s Day crisis involving JetBlue flights, which included strandings of up to 10 hours at JFK International, in Mitchell’s opinion eventually cost the then-CEO his job.  A couple of months before that mess, Kate Hanni was one of the passengers caught up in a December 2006 storm fallout in Texas that left her and her family on an Austin, Texas, tarmac for more than nine hours.

“People miss funerals, weddings, cruise ships, business meetings — it has an impact on their lives,” said Hanni, whose outrage about that air travel experience pushed her create FlyersRights.org.

“And it’s not just a customer service issue,” she continued, mentioning overflowing toilets and people with diabetes or other medical conditions. “It’s about safety, dignity and well-being.”

In late July, the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee passed the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act, which includes the Airline Passengers Bill of Rights, first written in 2007 by Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-California, and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine. The FAA reauthorization bill will next move to the Senate for consideration.

Calling attention to the frustrations of flying is what Hanni, 49, is all about. If someone phones while trapped on a tarmac, she’ll start ringing the airline and airport managers, demanding help. If the response she gets is insufficient, she threatens and is poised to call media. Since the Rochester incident earlier this month, she said she’s been interviewed more than 50 times.

In June, 278 airplanes sat on tarmacs for more than three hours, according to a consumer report released by the DOT. The department’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics shows that 42 of the June flights sat on tarmacs for four hours or more.

Click here to read the entire article.

TransportGooru Musings: If you are one of the poor souls who was stuck for hours inside a metal tube, sign the petition and join teh crusaders in the fight for an Airline Passengers’ Bill of Rights (via flyersrights.org) .
http://www.petitiononline.com/airline/petition.html

(Source:  Autoblog & Detroit Free Press)

The U.S. House approved the “cash for clunkers” legislation earlier today, paving the way for consumers to snag up to $4,500 for trading in their older vehicles for new, more fuel efficient transport.

The bill, which passed 298-119, drew overwhelming support from automakers, local business groups and dealers who claimed the passage could boost sales – further aiding GM and Chrysler’s “reinvention” – during the economic downturn.

The House bill sets aside $4 billion to pay for electronic vouchers given to owners of older vehicles toward new models. With auto sales running at their lowest rate in four decades, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the bill could spur sales of about 625,000 vehicles; backers are hoping for 1 million.

The act “will shore up millions of jobs and stimulate local economies,” said Rep. Betty Sutton, D-Ohio. “It will improve our environment and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.”

The government’s interest in goosing the vehicle market extends to its ownership inGeneral Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC, both of which are counting on a healthier U.S. market in the coming years for survival.

“The auto industry is going through a tremendous restructuring,” said Rep. Sander Levin, D-Royal Oak. “If there is not increased demand, that restructuring cannot succeed.”

Under the plan, owners of cars and trucks that get less than 18 m.p.g. could get a voucher of $3,500 to $4,500 for a new vehicle, depending on the mileage of the new model.

(Source: Streetsblog & Rotor.com)

The House is poised this week to take up the so-called “cash for clunkers” bill, which aims to boost the slumping U.S. auto market by giving out tax credits of $3,500 and up to anyone who trades in a gas-guzzling car for a more efficient model.

With the Senate Majority Leader threatening to make Senators work five days a week to speed up work on legislative priorities, lawmakers expect to finish a war supplemental bill this week that would include a provision for cash for clunkers and then Congress will turn its attention to healthcare and climate change legislation.

House Democrats must settle the issue of whether to include in the war supplemental a provision that would give car buyers a voucher worth up to $4,500 for trading gas-guzzlers for more fuel-efficient vehicles.  There is tremendous bipartisan support for this proposal, especially with the recent bankruptcy of General Motors.

The likely passage of Sutton’s bill this week could be bad news for a stronger “cash for clunkers” plan that’s being promoted by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who displayed welcome candor last month in calling the Sutton plan “the auto industry’s version” of “cash for clunkers” and “unacceptable” to American drivers.

Feinstein’s proposal would require drivers to achieve a 25 percent fuel-efficiency increase before receiving a tax credit for ditching their clunkers. But Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D) is pushing for a trade-in tax credit that’s very similar to Sutton’s — truck owners would only have to increase their fuel efficiency by 2 miles per gallon to be eligible.

Feinstein’s proposal would require drivers to achieve a 25 percent fuel-efficiency increase before receiving a tax credit for ditching their clunkers. But Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D) is pushing for a trade-in tax credit that’s very similar to Sutton’s — truck owners would only have to increase their fuel efficiency by 2 miles per gallon to be eligible.

(Source: Autobloggreen & Detroit Free Press)

It seems that calls from House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to fast track the Cash-For-Clunkers bill through the legislative process may have fallen on deaf ears. According to the Detroit Free Press, the somewhat controversial bill will be tacked on the much broader Climate Change bill that’s currently being drafted by the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

 Ohio Rep. Betty Sutton’s amendment made it onto the American Clean Energy and Security Act, the legislation being marked up this week by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Approved by a vote of 50-4, the amendment provides a voucher of up to $4,500 for trading in an old, lower mile-per-gallon vehicle to purchase a new one.

The measure wouldn’t favor domestic vehicles over those made by companies based overseas but it has incentives for trucks and sport-utility vehicles which could be of particular help to American automakers. President Barack Obama and key House Democrats agreed on the provisions contained in the amendment at a recent White House meeting.

U.S. Rep. John Dingell, a Dearborn Democrat and staunch advocate of domestic automakers, said the cash-for-clunkers amendment, if passed, “will result in meaningful reductions in vehicle fleet carbon emissions and fuel consumption, all while providing much-needed stimulus for our ailing automakers.”

(Source: Timesonline, UK & Autocar, UK)

A £2,000-a-car scrappage scheme aimed at kick-starting Britain’s depressed motor industry has hit trouble after a dispute between car companies and the Government over costs.

Manufacturers, including Ford and Honda, have told dealers not to register any new vehicles under the scheme, which is starting today.

Consumers are being offered £2,000 towards a new car if they trade in a motor that is at least ten years old.

The car companies said that they were seeking “clarification” from the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) over “administrative” details.

The Government insisted that it had been clear on details of the scheme, under which manufacturers would pay £1,000 and the Government £1,000 towards the cost of the incentive.

However, the car manufacturers want dealers to share the cost.

The eleventh-hour hitch will come as a huge embarrassment to the Prime Minister, who had heavily promoted the “bangers for cash” scheme as the route to revitalising Britain’s depressed motor industry.

Gordon Brown and Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary, visited a Nissan dealership today to talk to consumers signing up to the scheme.

Mr Brown said the £300 million project would prove “very popular” and “a great help to the British car industry.” It would help the economy to “move forward,” he said.

A BERR spokesman said: “Thirty-eight manufacturers have signed contracts with the Department which set out clearly that manufacturers provide £1,000 and the Government matches it.

“We understand several dealers are unhappy about the idea they should share the costs. The Government also needs to ensure VAT is paid in accordance with the scheme.”

Though the scheme was revealed in the Budget the final details emerged only at a meeting on Thursday, manufacturers said.

However, President of the AA Edmund King has pointed out that the £2000 incentive can be used as a deposit to help car buyers get finance. He added that the scheme would “transform the chances of survival in a crash for thousands of car owners” whose current old cars offer substantially less protection than newer models.

But Friends of the Earth executive director Andy Atkins said the scrappage scheme was “a lost opportunity”.

“A well-designed scheme could have played a limited role in cutting emissions from our roads,” he said. “But, unlike some other countries, the UK scheme doesn’t prevent motorists part-exchanging an old, small model for a brand-new gas guzzler.”

Business secretary Peter Mandelson visited a car dealership today to launch the scheme and said there has been a positive response from the industry.

“I am delighted by the response of the motor industry. Thirty-eight companies have signed up – all the major UK car manufacturers and a number of other companies. This means more choice for consumers and a boost for British brands. 



“The scheme has been met with a flood of enquiries from customers. It will provide a boost to the industry and kick-start sales.” 



The confirmed list of manufacturers who have signed up to take part are: Allied Vehicles, Bentley, BMW, Chevrolet, Citroen, Daihatsu, FIAT, Ford, Honda, Hyundai, Isuzu, Jaguar, Kia, Land Rover, London Taxis International, Mazda, Mercedes Benz, MG Motor, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Perodua, Peugeot, Porsche, Proton, Renault, Rolls Royce, SAAB, SECMA UK, Subaru, Suzuki, Toyota, Vauxhall, Volkswagen, Volvo, Koelliker UK Ltd, Iveco Ltd, Chrysler and Renault Trucks UK Ltd.

(Source: USA Today & Image: Jalopnik)

As the American lawmakers are getting ready to pass the landmark “cash for clunkers” legislation, many of you are still left wondering what this legislation entails and how it will affect you.  The media chatter in the past has offered very little except that the legislation would provide federal vouchers of up to $4,500 for people to trade in their older vehicles for new ones that get better mileage.

Talk of the vouchers has kept some would-be new car and truck buyers on the sidelines, waiting to see whether they’d qualify for government help. So, for the moment, the idea is hurting sales. Based on interviews with lobbyists and congressional offices, the USA Today captured the details of this legislation in a nice Q & A format:

Image: Newsday

Q: What’s the idea behind “cash-for-clunkers”?

A: Supporters say it would replace older vehicles with new ones that use less fuel, are safer and pollute less. And it would give the struggling auto industry a sales boost.

Q: What’s the bill’s status?

A: It’s in a House committee and backed by the president. Senators from both parties are prepared to co-sponsor similar legislation as soon as this week.

Q: Sounds like a sure thing.

A: Not so. Environmental lobbyists, who don’t think it boosts fuel economy enough, might derail it or get it changed enough in the Senate that a compromise would take awhile.

Q: Any groups trying to keep it from being derailed?

A: You bet. Car companies, autoworkers, component suppliers and car dealers, among them. The House bill “will help jump-start auto sales and the U.S. economy, while also providing environmental benefits and increasing energy security,” says Ziad Ojakli, Ford Motor spokesman.

Q: What’s the price tag?

A: About $4 billion. The money is currently proposed to come from Energy Department funding included in the already enacted $787 billion economic stimulus package.

Q: If the House bill becomes law, how would it work?

A: The government would send up to $4,500 to the selling dealer on your behalf, if you:

1. Trade in a car that — this is a key point — has been registered and in use for at least a year, and has a federal combined city/highway fuel-economy rating of 18 or fewer miles per gallon.

2. Buy a new car, priced at $45,000 or less and rated at least 4 mpg better than the old one (gets a $3,500 voucher). If the new one gets at least 10 mpg better, you get the full $4,500.

Example: Trade that well-worn 1985 Chevrolet Impala V-8, rated 14 mpg, for a 2009 Impala V-8 rated 19 mpg and the government will kick in $3,500. Downsize to Chevy Cobalt (27 mpg) or even a larger Honda Accord (24 mpg) and get $4,500.

Mileage ratings back to 1985 are at www.fueleconomy.gov.

Q: What about trucks?

A: It’s more complicated.

For standard-duty models — most SUVs, vans and pickups:

1. The old one must be rated 18 mpg or less.

2. The new one must be at least 2 mpg better for $3,500 or at least 5 mpg better for $4,500.

For heavy-duties (6,000 to 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight rating):

1. The old one must be rated 15 mpg or less.

2. The new one must be rated at least 1 mpg better for $3,500, or 2 mpg or more for $4,500.

Work trucks (8,500 to 10,000 lbs.) don’t have mpg ratings, so age is the criteria. The old one has to be a 2001 model or older. And only $3,500 is available.

Q: Is it worth it for $4,500?

A: The assumption is that the people most likely to use the program would trade in cars worth less than $4,500. Thus, while not necessarily clunkers, most would be at least 8 years old.

Q: Can I combine these incentives with other offers?

A: Yes. For instance, you could trade for a hybrid and get the voucher, claim the hybrid tax credit and get dealer or manufacturer discounts. You also could deduct the sales tax, if any, on your next federal tax return.

Q: Would I ever see the $3,500 or $4,500?

A: No. It’s an electronic transfer from the government to the dealer. Dealers want to be sure the amount can be counted as cash from the buyer, which would help buyers get credit because they’re financing less.

Q: What does the dealer do with my trade-in?

A: Gives it to a salvage operator. The engine, transmission and some other parts must be destroyed so they can’t be reused. The idea is to cull fuel-thirsty, polluting drivetrains. Operators can resell other parts, however.

Q: What’s to keep me from buying a junkyard car for a few hundred bucks, getting it barely running and trading it?

A: The one-year-in-service requirement noted earlier. Lawmakers wanted to exclude the revival of so-called junkyard dogs, because they’ve already been taken off the road.

Q: What do I get if I recently bought a car that would have qualified?

A: The bill contemplates making the incentives retroactive to March 30, but it’s unclear how to find and junk cars that were traded in that long ago. Some might already be back on the road, driven by new owners.

Q: What’s wrong with environmentalists’ idea that the new car or truck should get much better fuel economy than the House bill currently requires?

A: Opponents say the environmentalists’ fuel-economy improvement thresholds are so high that foreign brands benefit disproportionately, because their lineups tend now to have more small, fuel-efficient vehicles.

But the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy complained in a statement criticizing the House bill that the proposal as it stands now is way too lenient.

The council charged that the bill “aims primarily to clear Detroit’s unsold inventory from the storage lots,” rather than to seriously cut fuel use.

Q: How soon could this become law?

A: Depends on how much critics can sway the Senate, and to what piece of legislation this “fleet modernization” bill is attached.

If it becomes part of a larger bill that’s likely to get lots of debate, it could take awhile. If it’s attached to urgent, must-pass legislation, such as an appropriation bill, it could move quickly to the president’s desk.

A current plan is to add the program as an amendment to climate change legislation now being considered.

As proposed, it would be in effect for just one year.

(Source: Detroit Free Press & Image: Jalopnik)

WASHINGTON — Congress appeared ready Wednesday to move forward on a bill to pay people to surrender their old gas-guzzlers for new, fuel-efficient models — but the auto industry hasn’t decided what it wants out of the program.

While backers of a cash-for-clunkers plan announced a deal earlier this month, the final bill has yet to be crafted because of a last-minute dispute between foreign and domestic automakers over incentives for leasing. Environmental groups aren’t thrilled with the compromise, saying it is weighted too heavily toward truck buyers.

But with House and Senate leaders, along with President Barack Obama, voicing support, industry officials say they are hopeful a bill that will boost a lethargic market for new vehicles will get through Congress in weeks. Backers say the compromise would cost about $4 billion — paid for by money from the economic stimulus plan passed earlier this year — and could boost sales by 1.3 million vehicles over a year, according to industry officials.

Owners of cars and trucks that get less than 18 m.p.g. could get a voucher of $3,500 to $4,500 for a new vehicle, depending on the mileage of the new model, but no trade-in value because the vehicles would be scrapped.

“This is a jobs bill that helps the environment,” said Ziad Ojakli, Ford’s group vice president for governmental affairs.

The plan does have several hurdles that will keep some potential buyers on the sidelines. The clunker being traded in has to be kept off the road — meaning it will have no trade-in value beyond the voucher. Far more trucks on the road will qualify for the vouchers than cars: even 15 years ago, only five models of midsize sedans managed just 18 m.p.g.

And while the compromise among U.S. House members was unveiled earlier this month, the actual bill will be kept under wraps until it is introduced with the House Democrats’ plan to control carbon emissions through a cap-and-trade system, expected no later than Monday.

Although cash-for-clunkers programs in other nations have been motivated by environmental goals to improve the mileage of vehicles on the road, environmental groups are lukewarm about the U.S. compromise.

(Source: The Infrastructurist)

Many of you heard through the grapevine (from Congress), particularly, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar — that the new transportation bill would be passed this year. Oberstar even offered September 30 as a target date. Sen Mark Warner (D, Va.) is now saying he’s “not sure” that the estimated $500 billion authorization will happen until next year. According to a story by Terry Kivlan in CongressDaily, Warner thinks that “Congress might have too many big-ticket items on its agenda this year to take on a transportation package.” Speaking at an infrastructure-focused conference hosted by the Departments of Transportation and the Department of Commerce, the senator remarked: “I’m not sure you are going to see a full transportation bill put out this year.”

He’s specifically worried about funding availability in light the fact that revenue from the gas tax, which pays for highway and transit programs, is no longer sufficient to cover outlays.  He called this the “elephant in the room” with respect to infrastructure funding.

As reported in yesterday’s post, the House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman, Subcommittee Chairman Edward J. Markey, Chairman Emeritus John D. Dingell, Congresswoman Betty Sutton, Congressman Jay Inslee, and Congressman Bart Stupak reached an agreement on a “Cash for Clunkers” program that will help the auto industry while cleaning our air. This agreement is based on H.R. 1550, introduced by Congresswoman Sutton, and H.R. 520, introduced by Congressman Inslee.  The fact sheet published on the Committee’s website offers the following detail:

Consumers may trade in their old, gas-guzzling vehicles and receive vouchers worth up to $4,500 to help pay for new, more fuel efficient cars and trucks. The program will be authorized for up to one year and provide for approximately one million new car or truck purchases. The agreement divides these new cars and trucks into four categories. Miles per gallon figures below refer to EPA “window sticker” values

• Passenger Cars: The old vehicle must get less than 18 mpg. New passenger cars with mileage of at least 22 mpg are eligible for vouchers. If the mileage of the new car is at least 4 mpg higher than the old vehicle, the voucher will be worth $3,500. If the mileage of the new car is at least 10 mpg higher than the old vehicle, the voucher will be worth $4,500.

• Light-Duty Trucks: The old vehicle must get less than 18 mpg. New light trucks or SUVs with mileage of at least 18 mpg are eligible for vouchers. If the mileage of the new truck or SUV is at least 2 mpg higher than the old truck, the voucher will be worth $3,500. If the mileage of the new truck or SUV is at least 5 mpg higher than the old truck, the voucher will be worth $4,500.

• Large Light-Duty Trucks: New large trucks (pick-up trucks and vans weighing between 6,000 and 8,500 pounds) with mileage of at least 15 mpg are eligible for vouchers. If the mileage of the new truck is at least 1 mpg higher than the old truck, the voucher will be worth $3,500. If the mileage of the new truck is at least 2 mpg higher than the old truck, the voucher will be worth $4,500.

• Work Trucks: Under the agreement, consumers can trade in a pre-2002 work truck (defined as a pick-up truck or cargo van weighing from 8,500-10,000 pounds) and receive a voucher worth $3,500 for a new work truck in the same or smaller weight class. There will be a finite number of these vouchers, based on this vehicle class’s market share. There are no EPA mileage measures for these trucks; however, because newer models are cleaner than older models, the age requirement ensures that the trade will improve environmental quality. Consumers can also “trade down,” receiving a $3,500 voucher for trading in an older work truck and purchasing a smaller light-duty truck weighing from 6,000 – 8,500 pounds.

Here is a PDF copy of the Fact Sheet: