Since Congress passed the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, travelers have benefitted from airline deregulation through discounted prices and greater access to air travel, but these benefits have largely been offset by the reality that many airline passengers are unsatisfied with the airline industry’s customer service, or lack thereof. This Comment argues that the United States should follow the European Union’s lead and, in accordance with Regulation EC 261, require airlines to compensate passengers when their flights are delayed or canceled. The concentrated aviation industry has created a market that does not adequately protect airline passengers, and the courts have not provided passengers with an adequate venue for relief. Enacting legislation similar to Regulation EC 261 would make airlines accountable, improve service at a marginally low cost, and generate a more uniform standard of airline passenger rights, creating more transparency and certainty for both airlines and passengers.

If you are injured in an aviation disaster or lose a loved one in a plane crash, may you seek recovery under state law? Do federal regulations provide adequate opportunities to compensate aviation crash victims? These are questions few people think to ask themselves. A more common query is what entity regulates the more than 16 million flights that occur yearly in the U.S., and how do you know whether the aircraft you fly on are safe?

The tragic Boeing 737 MAX crashes initiated a federal oversight investigation into the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Industry whistleblowers revealed severe lapses in the FAA’s aircraft certification regime and a culture that promoted unsafe practices in aircraft design and manufacturing. Despite crucial reforms, the ability of uniform federal standards to protect aviation consumers is under fire.

In a majority of U.S. jurisdictions, the Federal Aviation Act and associated federal regulations preempt all state law claims in aviation safety cases. The effect of this approach—few plaintiffs recover in aviation product liability suits, and the families of aviation crash victims go uncompensated. However, in Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp., the Third Circuit offered a new approach that advocates for field preemption for in-air operations claims but allows recovery under state law for aviation product liability cases. This approach adequately compensates aviation crash victims without undermining the FAA’s extensive and effective in-air regulatory scheme.

This Comment addresses recent reforms to the FAA’s aircraft certification program and the ongoing circuit split regarding federal preemption of aviation safety claims. Further, this Comment seeks to analyze the fundamental differences between in-air operations regulations and rules governing aircraft design and manufacture to explain why different treatment of these claims is warranted. Ultimately, this Comment advocates for the Sikkelee methodology to provide ample opportunity for plaintiff recovery without unnecessarily undermining FAA regulatory authority.

The Montreal Convention is a multilateral treaty that comprehensively regulates international air carriers. Specifically, Article 17 of the treaty allows passengers to recover against air carriers for injuries or deaths on international flights, so long as certain requirements are met. In Air France v. Saks, the Supreme Court held that “accident”—a controlling term in Article 17—describes an event that is external to the passenger and “unexpected or unusual.” Last year, in Moore v. British Airways PLC, the First Circuit purported to identify a split over what this language means. According to Moore, there are courts who (correctly) gauge whether an event is unexpected or unusual from the perspective of an airline passenger with ordinary experience in commercial air travel (an objective standard that I will call the Reasonable Passenger Approach). On the other hand, there are courts who (incorrectly) determine whether an event is unexpected or unusual from the perspective of the airline industry, using industry norms and customs as guides (a standard I will call the Industry Approach).

In this Comment, I will explain why the standard endorsed by the First Circuit in Moore muddies the waters and how a more holistic, totality-of-the-circumstances approach (the Holistic Approach) offers a better rubric for Article 17 “accident” analyses. Given the recency of the Moore case, my goal in this Comment is to provide timely insight on its blind spots while offering an approach that might rescue Moore from a legacy of confusion.

This paper focuses on the acquisition of aircraft by United States-based airlines. At present in the U.S., airlines are faced with a fierce competition, and to commercially survive, they keep advertising that they operate modern and safe aircraft. Since the beginning of aviation, there does not exist a fully state-owned “flag carrier” in the U.S. On the contrary, the commercial airlines market has always been in the hands of private undertakings. Traditionally, the airlines themselves have arranged the acquisition of their fleets of aircraft. For this purpose, they have to obtain loans from private banks and other non-governmental financial institutions. A substantial amount of credit is annually extended to realize the acquisition of the costly aircraft. The credit is generally supplied through a “purchase-money loan” that is secured on the aircraft. This practice is called asset-based financing. In the U.S., the aircraft which are operated by the local airlines have generally been acquired by means of international finance and lease transactions.

As the acquisition of aircraft is extremely capital-intensive, the financier or lessor must be able to successfully enforce its proprietary interests in the specific aircraft. This requirement is of particular significance in the event that an airline defaults or becomes insolvent.

While the aforementioned need to safeguard the financiers and lessors is undisputed, this article firmly puts forward that also the lessees of aircraft must be adequately protected. The arguments contained in this contribution are substantiated by the local laws and international aviation finance and lease conventions which apply in the United States.

With respect to the local situation currently existing in the U.S., this contribution focuses on the relevant articles of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Moreover, it refers to the manner in which these provisions have been implemented in the substantive property law of the State of New York. It is noted that in several other countries, the local airlines may obtain similar proprietary rights from the lessors. These foreign legal regimes aim, inter alia, to facilitate the creation, validity, and enforcement of the secured rights of the lessees of aircraft. Nevertheless, not all of these instruments are successful in providing the aircraft lessees with adequate security.

In March 2023, NASA released the most rigorous and wide-reaching orbital debris analysis in the space law literature that provides a cost-benefit analysis of removing orbital debris from low Earth orbit (LEO), a region of the Earth’s environment with no environmental regulation. NASA contextualized the motivation in releasing this report as rooted in the exponential growth of the commercial satellite industry, noting that “the number of tracked and untracked debris in LEO is projected to grow . . . even if no new satellites are launched into space, yet launch traffic is likely to increase in the coming decade compared to recent history.” Similarly, in a May 2023 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report, the CBO argued that the “number of satellites operating in LEO has increased significantly in recent years, driven in large part by commercial [satellite] constellations,” which are networks of identical satellites whose orbits and positions are coordinated to accomplish a given mission, such as providing global broadband internet.

Underscoring the dangers of launching thousands of satellites into a finite orbital space with no environmental regulation, SpaceX, who operates the world’s largest constellation, Starlink, reported that from December 2022 to May 2023, Starlink had to perform 25,299 collision avoidance maneuvers in LEO. This number of collision avoidance maneuvers is double the number of maneuvers reported by SpaceX during the previous six-month period, which is alarming to industry experts. Concerning the risks that satellite constellations pose to the sustainability of LEO, experts note that the global space market grew by 8% to $424 billion in 2022 and is expected to be valued at more than $737 billion by 2030, which is a market that will certainly be impacted if LEO is enshrouded in an impenetrable maelstrom of orbital debris moving at speeds seven times faster than a bullet.

Cross-referencing the most current orbital debris numbers from the European Space Agency with NASA’s estimated costs of $300 per debris removed with ground-based lasers, and $6,000 per debris removed with space-based lasers, the total estimated cost to remove the 1,036,500 trackable pieces of orbital debris from LEO is from $310 million to $6.2 billion. On the other hand, the cost to remove the estimated 130 million pieces of currently untraceable orbital debris from LEO is from $39 to $780 billion, all of which is a sizeable liability for the United States (U.S.) government to allocate to the U.S. taxpayer. Indeed, under both the Outer Space Treaty and the Proposed ORBITS Act of 2023, which is a bipartisan bill recently unanimously passed by the U.S. Senate, the U.S. taxpayer will be left with footing the bill for remediating the debris left behind by U.S.-authorized commercial satellite operators.

Describing the LEO environment as a classical “tragedy of the commons” and drawing from studies conducted by NASA, the Government Accountability Office, the CBO, United Nations, and others, the purpose of this article is to tackle the question of who should pay when orbital debris “trickles down” in a manner that compromises Earth’s satellite-reliant infrastructure and otherwise causes damage to Earth’s environment, persons, and property. This article then recommends specific language to amend Title III of the Communications Act of 1934, which created and charged the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with regulating commercial satellite systems, to establish a satellite constellation “orbital use fee” (OUF), which the FCC will levy as a requirement for receiving a license to operate in LEO. This OUF will then fund orbital debris remediation projects, related research, and remediation of the environmental impacts of satellite constellations.

Given that the U.S. leads the world in the total number of satellites in space per country, and SpaceX will own more satellites than each country in the world combined once it fully deploys Starlink, this article concludes by arguing that the U.S. is uniquely positioned to engage its allies in forging the foundation of customary international space law. First, through passing into law the types of model legislation provided in this article, which will then form the basis of bilateral and multilateral treaty negotiations with both current and potential space-faring nations. This legislative and diplomatic strategy will help to operationalize the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST) proclamation establishing space as the “province of all mankind,” and promote its peaceful use and exploration for the “benefit and in the interests of all countries.”

Launching into space was once the pursuit of super-power nations, who, during a period of international tensions, competed to be the first—the first into space and the first to the Moon. While the United Kingdom (U.K.) had a similar appetite it never achieved a space launch from its national soils, often thwarted by political and economic constraints. This said, the U.K. has played a key role, working alongside other nations in technological advancements related to space. This paper revisits the historical legacy of the U.K.’s space ventures and its space policies before comment is made to the current strategy and future vision. The approach is interdisciplinary and factors in semi-quasi case studies, particularly factoring in the European Space Agency. The findings are that the U.K. is returning to its original goal, with a renewed appetite to be a global leader in space launches, while also aiming to protect national interests which have necessitated closer alignment of the civil and defense space strategies.

The rollout of 5G technology promised transformative benefits for consumers and the economy. But a protracted dispute between the FCC and FAA relating to 5G interference with airplane safety equipment prevented a smooth 5G rollout. While the FCC was giving wireless companies the green light to roll out 5G service, the FAA was warning of apocalypse if they did. What resulted was a turf war between the FAA and FCC, revealing a dysfunctional process (or lack thereof) for handling spectrum interference concerns. This Comment argues that the United States’ spectrum management system needs an overhaul to prevent similar agency turf wars over spectrum policy. This overhaul can be achieved partly by consolidating some spectrum management authority, currently dispersed between multiple agencies, in a single agency. And it can be achieved by enhancing coordination and cooperation between agencies where authority over spectrum policy remains dispersed.

In the past decade, the number of emotional support animals being used to treat a wide array of mental and emotional disorders has multiplied exponentially. This increase has been met with mixed reactions in the context of air travel. While some passengers are thrilled to sit next to a dog on their flight, others are frustrated due to the belief passengers with emotional support animals are exploiting a loophole to travel with their pet for free. Regardless of the differing perceptions, emotional support animals are a valid, affordable way to treat mental health illnesses without incurring negative side effects associated with medication.

The Department of Transportation (DOT) recently amended the regulations on emotional support animals to reflect grievances related to potential abuses of the system. These amendments unfairly discriminate against individuals with mental health illnesses while doing little to prevent exploitation and misrepresentation of service and emotional support animals. DOT should revert to the previous system of recognizing emotional support animals in a category distinct from service animals. Furthermore, implementing stricter regulations for the registration of emotional support animals, reducing pet fees, and keeping records of such in a robust database would allow those with mental disorders to rightfully obtain emotional support animals while curbing abuse of the system.

Since ancient times, humanity has placed high value on natural and cultural phenomena, with Philo of Byzantium recording the first list of the “Seven Wonders of the Ancient World” as early as 225 B.C.E. Similarly, modern world leaders continue to recognize the value of these and more sites through preserving them as United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage sites. With the advancement of drone technology, researchers now employ drones to aid preservation efforts since drones can enter dangerous and humanly-inaccessible spaces, provide detailed images of sites the human eye cannot see, and assist governments in identifying illegal looting. However, while many countries have developed drone use regulations, the challenging ethical questions drones pose regarding privacy rights have resulted in a lack of drone-specific privacy regulations. As countries create new legislation to fill the policy gaps, the tension between protecting privacy rights and preserving cultural heritage results in an unclear future for the use of drones for site preservation.

Section II of this Comment analyzes the history of World Heritage sites, drone development, and their intersection to understand the vital role drones play in site preservation. Subsequently, Section III conducts a comparative analysis of drone-use and privacy regulations in four countries with the greatest amount of UNESCO sites to identify the current status of global drone laws. Finally, Section IV addresses the lack of drone-specific privacy regulation and asserts potential implications new drone legislation could have on preservation efforts while postulating methods to protect preservation drone use.