PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Aviation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 6, 1999
Airline Competition and Lower Fares Act - Directs the Secretary of Transportation to determine whether the demand among air carriers for slots at a high density airport can be met with the slots available to the Secretary. Requires the Secretary, if the demand among dominant air carriers for slots at such an airport cannot be met with the slots available, to withdraw from such carriers up to ten percent of such slots at such airport for redistribution to new entrants and limited incumbents through auction on a competitive bidding basis, as long as the redistribution of the additional slots significantly increases competition between air carriers. Prohibits withdrawal of any slots used for international flights or for direct flights between a high density airport and a low-competition airport. (Sec. 4) Prohibits slots obtained under this Act from being considered an asset (including for collateral) for any agreement which would require its forfeiture, or in any bankruptcy proceeding. (Sec. 5) Directs the Secretary to complete action on all complaints alleging predatory practices by air carriers that were filed with the Secretary on or before December 31, 1998, and after such date, but before the enactment of this Act. Directs the Secretary, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, to enjoin any action that is found to be a predatory practice. Directs the Secretary to report biannually to the Congress about such complaints. (Sec. 7) Directs the Secretary to initiate a rulemaking to determine whether the application of the 80-percent rule with respect to the allocation of airport slots promotes, hinders, or has no effect on airline competition. (Sec. 8) Directs the Secretary to report annually to the Congress on barriers to entry, predatory pricing, and other limits on competition in the aviation industry. (Sec. 9) Amends Federal aviation law prohibiting State regulation of air prices, routes, and services to declare that such law shall not bar a cause of action brought against an air carrier by one or more private parties seeking to enforce any right under the common law of any State or State statute, other than a statute purporting to directly prescribe fares, routes, or levels of air transportation service.
People & committees
Rep. Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [D-NY-28] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Aviation.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 20, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.272 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.272 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.272 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.272 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.