If you believe the ads, you’d think U.S. airlines were in the hospitality business. Watch a TV spot or browse their websites and you’ll see smiling flight attendants, promises of more legroom, and perks designed to make us feel like honored guests. They shower us with frequent flyer programs, elite status benefits, companion tickets, and even a warm chocolate chip cookie here and there.
But pull back the curtain, and it’s just show. Away from the ads and promotions, the very same airlines are lobbying Washington to strip away many of the most basic consumer protections we’ve come to expect when we buy an airline ticket.
This duplicity, which as frequent flyers know only too well, came to light when it was revealed that Airlines for America (A4A), the trade group representing Alaska, American, Delta, JetBlue, Southwest, United, Hawaiian, and cargo carriers like FedEx and UPS—filed a 93-page request with the Department of Transportation (DOT).
The filing itself was obscure, buried in the bureaucracy of a Trump-era deregulation initiative, and might never have surfaced if not for the work of William McGee, a senior fellow at the American Economic Liberties Project.
The airlines’ argument, put simply, is that too many rules burden them. They’d prefer to decide how much flexibility—or rigidity—to offer passengers, without federal mandates getting in the way. But what they’re really asking for is the right to keep our money when they fail to deliver the service we purchased.
Saying goodbye to refunds
One of the most striking requests is the push to eliminate mandatory refunds for canceled or significantly delayed flights. Today, if your airline cancels a flight or makes a significant schedule change, you’re entitled to your money back, even if they’d rather offer a voucher. That rule has saved travelers billions, especially during the pandemic when thousands of flights evaporated overnight.
And let’s not forget how ugly that period was: United, Delta, and American were all caught dragging their feet on refunds, sometimes holding billions in customer money for months. United even changed its refund policy online to make reimbursements harder to claim until the DOT stepped in. Without legal mandates, many of those refunds would never have happened.
No more transparency
A4A’s filing also seeks to weaken rules requiring airlines to provide clear information about fees, delays, and tarmac waits. Currently, DOT mandates that airlines disclose baggage fees and other charges upfront, so we know the real cost before booking. They also must report on-time performance and avoid holding passengers hostage on planes for hours without food, water, or working toilets.
These rules came after passengers suffered real, miserable experiences. In 2007, JetBlue left customers stranded on the tarmac for 11 hours during an ice storm. Similar incidents across multiple airlines spurred the DOT to set strict tarmac limits. If airlines had their way, those guardrails would vanish.
Europe follows a different path
What’s striking is how out of step our protections are compared to Europe. Under EU Regulation 261, passengers have rights that we can only dream of. If your flight is canceled or significantly delayed, you’re not just entitled to a refund—you may also qualify for cash compensation of €250 to €600, depending on the distance and length of the delay. Also airlines are required to provide meals and hotel accommodations if you’re stranded.
Contrast these with the U.S., where the best we can get is a rebooking or a voucher—and now the airlines are working to erase even the refund requirement.
| Current Protection (U.S.) | What Airlines Are Lobbying For | Impact on Passengers |
|---|---|---|
| Refunds for canceled or significantly delayed flights | Eliminate or weaken refund rules | Passengers could be forced to accept vouchers or credits instead of cash |
| Upfront disclosure of baggage and seat fees | Reduce transparency requirements | Hidden fees and surprise costs at checkout |
| On-time performance reporting | Relax reporting rules | Harder for travelers to compare airline reliability |
| Tarmac delay limits (3 hours domestic, 4 hours international) | Loosen or repeal requirements | Longer delays stuck on planes without food, water, or working toilets |
The DOT has begun purging these regulations byremoving one of the most reasonable requirements filed during the Biden administration, a rule that requires the airlines to offer essential services and compensation in the event the airline is the cause for a cancelation or delay.
The Department issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) that examined requiring U.S. and foreign air carriers to adopt and adhere to customer service plans identifying essential services (meals, rebooking, hotel, transportation to or from hotel, timely customer service) and compensation which airlines would be required to provide to mitigate passenger inconveniences when the cause of a cancellation or delay for flights to, within and from the United States was due to circumstances within the airline’s control. Consistent with Department and administration priorities, the Department plans to withdraw the ANPRM.
Only in the airline industry does canceling your flight become a profitable business model.