PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Aviation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 26, 2000
Airline Competition Preservation Act of 2000 - Amends Federal transportation law to authorize the Secretary of Transportation, on his or her own initiative or on a complaint, to: (1) investigate to determine whether an air carrier is charging a fare or an average fare for interstate air transportation on a route that is unreasonably high; and (2) upon an affirmative finding, order the carrier to reduce the fare, offer the reduced fare for a specific number of seats on the route, and offer rebates to individuals who have been charged the fare.Provides for a situation where, with respect to an interstate route to or from a hub airport, a dominant air carrier (which accounts for more than 50 percent of total annual boardings) at the airport: (1) institutes or changes its fares in a manner that results in fares lower than or comparable to those offered by a new entrant air carrier; and (2) increases the passenger capacity at which such fares are offered to a level which is two or more times the capacity previously offered by the carrier at such fares on the route, and two or more times the total capacity offered by the new entrant air carrier on the route. Requires the dominant air carrier in such a situation, in the two-year period beginning when such fares and additional capacity are instituted, to continue to offer such fares with respect to at least 80 percent of the highest number of seats per week for which the dominant air carrier has offered them.Authorizes the Secretary, on his or her own initiative or on a complaint, to: (1) investigate to determine whether a dominant air carrier at a hub airport is charging higher than average fares at the airport; and (2) upon an affirmative finding, order the carrier to take specified actions to increase opportunities for competition at the hub airport.Makes this Act effective immediately upon the Secretary's determination that three or fewer air carriers account for 70 percent or more of the scheduled revenue passenger miles in interstate air transportation as a result of specified consolidations, mergers, or acquisitions.
People & committees
Rep. Oberstar, James L. [D-MN-8] · D–MN
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
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.4978 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.4978 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.4978 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.4978 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.