The decision has raised concern among Democratic lawmakers, who, through a joint letter signed by up to eighteen senators, warned that scrapping this type of compensation directly harms consumers. In their letter, they pointed out that when an airline’s failure causes unforeseen expenses for families—such as hotel stays, missed reservations, or impossible connections—“the airline should strive to remedy the situation by offering accommodation or helping to cover those costs.” Nevertheless, the administration has rejected that argument and has opted to allow airlines to freely determine their customer service policies in the event of delays.
It is worth noting that in other markets, such as the European Union, Canada, Brazil and the United Kingdom, there are regulations in place that require compensation for delayed or cancelled flights. In contrast, in the United States not only is this instrument being removed, but traditionally airlines have not been obliged to guarantee financial compensation for “significant” disruptions. They are only required to reimburse the ticket cost in the event of cancellation.
In addition, USDOT has announced that it is also considering repealing other regulations introduced under the previous administration, such as the obligation to display service fees alongside the airfare. It is likewise planning to redefine what is considered a “flight cancellation” that entitles passengers to a refund, as well as to review the rules governing ticket advertising and fare transparency.
From a technical standpoint, this change opens the North American aviation market to greater operational flexibility for airlines, which will be able to adjust their commercial policies without being constrained by a minimum compensation standard. However, for travellers it represents a direct loss of rights compared to other international frameworks. Passengers suffering lengthy delays will no longer be able to automatically claim financial compensation for waiting time or for expenses linked to the disruption, unless the airline voluntarily chooses to offer it.
The removal of this rule by the United States marks a clear shift in approach: from a regulatory framework focused on consumer protection to one that prioritises competitiveness and the reduction of burdens for airlines. For international travellers or those connecting with domestic flights in the U.S., it becomes essential to understand that their rights regarding delays may differ significantly from those provided under European Union rules or other national regulations with similar consumer protections.
