U.S. court rejects airline passengers rights law

By Martha Graybow

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A New York state law seeking better treatment of passengers stuck on grounded airplanes was thrown out on Tuesday by an appeals court, which said air travel is already regulated by the federal government.

While the state's so-called Passenger Bill of Rights was laudable, "only the federal government has the authority to enact such a law," the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals said in a written ruling.

New York passed the country's first state law on air passenger rights last year, amid rising passenger anger at shoddy treatment by airlines. The law was adopted after JetBlue Airways Corp mishandled an ice storm in New York in February 2007 that left passengers stranded on the runway at John F. Kennedy International Airport for up to 10 hours.

The new law required airlines to provide passengers who are confined to a grounded airliner for more than three hours with basic necessities, including food, drinking water and clean bathrooms. It went into effect January 1.

The Air Transport Association of America, which represents major U.S. airlines, had challenged the law, saying it is preempted by federal regulations. A U.S. District court in Albany had rejected the group's lawsuit, but the 2nd Circuit overturned that ruling.

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

The decision "vindicates the position of ATA and the airlines -- that airline services are regulated by the federal government and that a patchwork of laws by states and localities would be impractical and harmful to consumer interests," the Air Transport Association said in a statement.

The law's lead sponsor, Democratic Assemblyman Michael Gianaris of Queens, said he was disappointed with the decision. He said his office, along with the state attorney general, would review the ruling and decide how to proceed.