雙語達人:航空旅客到底有哪些權利

Your flight gets canceled and the airline says it doesn't have a seat for you for a full day. But you find another airline has a flight leaving in one hour. What to do?

你的航班取消了，航空公司說全天都無法給你安排座位，但是你發現另一家航空公司一小時後有一趟離港的航班，你該怎麼辦？

Beg the airline to send your ticket to its competitor. Do it nicely, because there's no rule that says the airline has to help you.

你只能請求航空公司把你的機票轉給它的競爭對手。要好好求人家，因爲沒有一條規定說航空公司必須幫你的忙。

How to regulate good service and fair dealings, if at all, has been a quandary for years. But stakes are higher now. The average airline load factor -- the percentage of seats filled -- rose to 82.8% last year, the highest for scheduled air service since 1945. With planes so full, airlines have limited reserve capacity to rebook customers after flights get canceled. Some passengers wait for days to get to destinations.

如果航空業規範優質服務和公平交易多年來一直是一個讓人爲難的問題，而現在的風險則更高了。航空公司的平均載客率──座位使用的百分比──去年上升到了82.8%，是1945年以來定期航班載客率的最高水平。由於飛機載客太滿，當航班取消之後，航空公司爲乘客重新訂票的備用票源非常有限。有些乘客等了好幾天纔到達目的地。

The Department of Transportation says over the last four years it has taken a more aggressive stance on passenger rights, pushing through regulations to curb long tarmac delays, increase compensation for ticketed passengers involuntarily bumped from flights and require airlines to always display the full price of airfares, including taxes and fees. Airlines let passengers either cancel or hold a reservation without penalty for 24 hours and reimburse baggage fees if bags are lost, because DOT requires them to.

美國交通部(The Department of Transportation)表示，它在過去的四年裏爲保障乘客的權利採取了更加激進的姿態，通過制定規章來限制長時間的停機坪延誤，增加對那些非出於本意而未能上飛機的持票乘客的補償，並要求航空公司始終明示含稅費的全價機票價格。航空公司在24小時內可以允許乘客選擇取消或保持預訂而不用支付違約金，如果行李遺失，航空公司還要賠償行李費用，因爲交通部責令它們這麼做。

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who is stepping down after four years, said in an interview he became frustrated with airline service flying between Washington, D.C., and his home state of Illinois, and set out to force improvement. 'When people are paying a pretty good amount of money to fly, they ought to be given the service they paid for and they ought to be treated with respect and treated like adults,' he said.

履職四年後即將卸任的交通部長雷•拉胡德(Ray LaHood)在一次採訪中說，他本人在華盛頓特區和家鄉伊利諾伊州之間往返時的乘機體驗，讓他對航空服務深感不滿，於是着手強制整改。他說：“當人們花了可觀的一筆錢來坐飛機時，他們應該得到物有所值的服務，應該受到尊重，得到一名成年人理應得到的待遇。”

The Republican supported passenger-rights legislation every year when he was a U.S. representative, but every attempt in Congress has failed. As DOT secretary, Mr. LaHood grew outraged at passengers stuck on planes for nine-plus hours in deplorable conditions, and pushed through hefty penalties for airlines that keep people on planes longer than three hours without a chance to deplane. The tarmac delay rule has dramatically curbed lengthy strandings.

當拉胡德還是一名衆議員的時候，共和黨每年都支持有關乘客權利的立法，但是每次嘗試都未能在國會獲得通過。身爲交通部長的拉胡德對乘客被迫在飛機上悲慘地滯留九個多小時這種事大爲憤慨，於是他對那些讓乘客在飛機上呆了三個小時以上時間還無法下飛機的航空公司開出了高額的罰單。限制停機坪延誤的規定則大大抑制了飛機長時間滯留停機坪這類事情的發生。

Passengers have some other protections:

乘客還能享受到其它一些保護：

Airlines typically provide meals and hotels when travelers are stranded overnight because of an airline problem, though not because of weather or other exceptions.

由於航空公司的原因旅客被迫整夜滯留機場的時候，航空公司通常要爲旅客提供餐飲和住宿，不過天氣及其它一些意外原因不在此規定之列。

When airlines lose bags, they're on the hook to pay out as much as $3,300 per passenger for domestic trips. (Carriers set the value of possessions lost, however.)

當航空公司遺失了行李時，它們將面臨爲每位國內乘客支付可能高達3,300美元的賠償。（不過，丟失財產的價值由承運商確定。）

Fliers bumped from overbooked flights and stuck for hours are entitled to four times their ticket price, up to $1,300, on the spot in cash.

因航班超額預訂而未能登機的乘客以及被困機場數小時的乘客有權當場獲得四倍於購票價格、最高達1,300美元的賠償。

But beyond overbooking, baggage and tarmac delays, government and Congress have largely struggled to figure out rules and requirements. Last year Congress created a four-member committee to advise the DOT on what passenger protections were needed.

在超額預訂、行李和停機坪延誤等方面的問題之外，聯邦政府和國會做出了很大的努力來制訂其他方面的相關規章和要求。去年，國會組建了一個四人委員會，向交通部提交有關必要的乘客保護措施的建議。

The panel, which included airline and airport officials, advocated some basic principles like knowing the cost of the entire trip before purchasing a ticket.

成員包括航空公司和機場高管的這個委員會提出了一些基本的原則，比如，讓乘客在購買機票前瞭解整個旅程的費用。

The only firm recommendation? That DOT require airports and airlines to provide 'animal relief areas.'

唯一具體的建議是什麼呢？建議交通部要求機場和航空公司設立“動物排便區域”。

Passenger advocates say plenty more should be done. 'Passengers have very few rights and many of the ones on paper are not really enforced,' says Paul Hudson, executive director of the nonprofit Aviation Consumer Action Project, which advocates for airline passengers.

乘客權益倡導者表示，應該規定的事項還有很多。爲飛機乘客代言的非盈利組織“航空消費者行動計劃”(Aviation Consumer Action Project)的常務董事保羅•哈德森(Paul Hudson)說：“乘客本來就沒有多少權利，而已成文的規定中有很多實際上並沒有得到真正的貫徹。”

One of the biggest problems, Mr. Hudson says, is that Congress exempted airlines from state laws so consumers can only take disputes to federal court, not state court. That raises the cost and the legal threshold to sue an airline. 'In every other industry you have consumer protection laws that are state and local,' Mr. Hudson said. 'Airlines argue they can't be regulated by patchwork state laws, but Wal-Mart is.'

哈德森說，最大的問題之一是，國會讓航空公司免於州法律的約束，因此消費者只能將糾紛起訴到聯邦法院而不是州法院。這就提高了起訴航空公司的費用和法律門檻。他說：“對於其它的所有行業，你都可以找到保護消費者的州及地方法律。航空公司聲稱他們不能受各州不同的法律管理，可是沃爾瑪(Wal-Mart)卻可以。”

Airlines for America, the industry's lobbying group, says air travel is almost always crossing state lines and airlines can't be subjected to a particular state's rules. Carriers have improved service on their own and are responding to passenger issues without legislation or regulation that could raise ticket prices, the group says.

航空業的遊說組織美國航空運輸協會(Airlines for America)表示，航空旅行差不多都是跨越州界的，航空公司不能受某個特定州的規定約束。該組織表示，承運商已經自行改善了服務，並且對法律、法規沒有規定、卻又可能引起機票漲價的客運問題做出了迴應。

'Other industries are not subjected to such irrational rules,' A4A Chief Executive Nick Calio said in recent Senate testimony.

美國航空運輸協會的首席執行長尼克•卡利奧(Nick Calio)在最近的參議院聽證會上說：“其它行業面臨的情況沒有這麼特殊。”

When the industry was regulated before 1978, a federal rule known as Rule 240 required airlines to send customers to competitors if they canceled flights. Without Rule 240, passengers often can't use their ticket on another airline that might have available seats.

1978年以前，當航空業受到監管的時候，一項名爲Rule 240的聯邦法規要求航空公司在取消航班的時候把乘客轉給競爭對手。如今沒有了Rule 240的約束，乘客經常無法憑原有的機票改乘到另一家有空餘座位的航空公司的航班。

Eight years ago, the European Union established what seemed like far-reaching consumer protections, requiring that airlines compensate passengers for long delays and cancellations. The intent was to force carriers to reduce delays and cancellations due to light bookings.

八年前，歐盟(European Union)制定了似乎可以切實保護消費者的措施，要求航空公司對長時間的航班延誤和航班取消給予乘客賠償，這樣做的目的是強制承運商減少航班延誤以及由於訂票數量少而取消航班的行爲。

But the groundbreaking effort didn't go particularly well. Passenger protections proved confusing and, to a large extent, hollow. Airlines were given a broad exemption for 'extraordinary circumstances' and often refused to pay passenger claims. Little has changed.

但是這一開拓性的努力並沒有達到特別好的效果。這些乘客保護措施最終證明是令人費解的，而且在很大程度上是空洞無用的。航空公司被賦予了一大堆“非常情況”的豁免權，多數情況下都拒絕了乘客的索賠。情況沒有怎麼改變。

The European Commission's latest stabs at regulation take a more pragmatic approach. If enacted, it would give European travelers firmer protections than what U.S. passengers receive.

歐盟委員會(European Commission)最近起草了更爲務實的監管政策。如果獲得通過，它給予歐洲旅客的保護比美國旅客得到的保護會更實在。

Earlier this month, the commission proposed revisions that would strengthen some areas for consumers and give airlines more latitude in others. If an airline can't re-route a passenger within 12 hours, it would have to book a customer on another airline or train. But airlines would have five hours before they'd have to pay compensation for delays, instead of three hours.

上個月，歐盟委員會提出了修訂案，強化了維護乘客利益方面的一些內容，而在另一些方面給予了航空公司更多的迴旋餘地。如果航空公司在12小時內不能爲乘客安排另一個航班，它就必須爲乘客預訂另一家航空公司的機票或者火車票，不過航空公司因爲航班延誤而賠償乘客的時限從三小時改成了五小時。

'Cancellations are always worse for the passenger than delay,' says Frank Laurent, a policy officer for the European Commission in Brussels who helped draft the rules. 'This proposal is much more realistic.'

布魯塞爾歐盟委員會裏參與起草這些法規的政策官員弗蘭克•勞倫特(Frank Laurent)說：“航班取消對乘客的影響一般比航班延誤更大。這項提案要務實得多。”

The EC plan has been criticized by consumer groups as a watering down of passenger protections and by airlines as an unnecessary burden in compensation and rerouting. Mr. Laurent says the criticism from both sides probably means the proposal found middle ground.

歐盟委員會的計劃被消費者組織指責爲削弱了對乘客的保護，而航空公司則批評該計劃增加了不必要的賠償及重新安排航班的負擔。勞倫特說來自雙方的批評也許意味着這項提案找到了中間立場。

'What we tried to do with this proposal,' he said, 'is to find a balance.'

他說：“對於這項提案我們盡力要做到的，就是找到平衡。”