Even some of the biggest free-market advocates aren't going to complain too wildly about a passenger bill of rights. Making such moves at the state rather than federal level may not be terribly wise. But if such proposed legislation prompts airlines to act first to sooth the flying public then that wouldn't be a bad thing either.
Posted by Eric Earling at January 22, 2008 07:42 AM | Email ThisWhat a unique, novel idea! :)
1) It is unecessary, as mentioned in the article. People buy plane tickets knowing there is a risk of getting stuck on the tarmac. Airlines know that if they don't keep customers happy, they will use another airline next time.
2) The problem is often caused by weather delays at destination airports, and these weather delays are exaccerbated by bad regulation of airports that artificially increase crowding. The solution is not more regulation, but deregulation of the airports and the air-traffic control system.
3) The idea that such complex problems can be solved through rigid laws and regulations is just absurd. It is Hayek's "fatal conceit" that complex problems in the decentralized marketplace can be solved by centralized command-and-control rules, that can never know the real condidtions on the ground, and take too long to change. They force one-size-fits-all laws that work very inefficiently, if at all.
4) The number of airplanes that are stuck for longer than 3 hours on the tarmac in WA is miniscule. Yet the legislation sets the precedent that the state government can regulate air travel. It may seem innocuous now, but it the the nose of the camel under the tent flap that will soon include requirements on non-delayed flights. It is a terrible precedent to set, and not worth the tiny "protections." Remember what happened in the health insurance industry? Too many reguired benefits. Now it is harder for the poor to afford in WA and many companies have pulled out giving us less choice and less competition. Watch for this to happen in the local air travel market as this trend progresses over the next ten years.
5) It is Orwellian. The goal is not to help passengers. Since the benefits, if any, will be miniscule, the main beneficiaries are the politicians. They hope to make themselves look good and get re-elected.
6) It erodes the concept of "rights," by confusing them with "privileges." Our rights are to life, liberty and property. There is no right to food, clothing and shelter. The government is granting us "benefits" through force, by taking them from private airlines. This is another attack on our rights. It erodes our rights to property.
The free market can take care of this. What we need is not more regulation. We need deregulation. It reminds me of the salesman who sells you a product that makes you sick. When you complain, he says "don't worry, I also happen to sell the antidote!" The government sells us bad legislation, and then sells us more legislation to try to patch it up. But it is worse than that, since legislation is not chosen by the people, it is forced by the government. We can't choose not to buy from the salesman next time.
The crazy thing is that people still buy that crap. And the even crazier thing is that Republicans, in the party of Reagan (remember Reagan, the guy who fired all the air traffic controllers?) have bought in to the concept of big government. The liberals have taken over the GOP, in the form of the Neocons.
As Reagan said, government is not the solution. It is the problem.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 22, 2008 08:39 AMAnd, I heard that Reagan quote last night, too; it may have been on the David Boze show. It sent goosebumps up my arms.
Posted by: swatter on January 22, 2008 08:50 AMJacobsen is starting off with the "on the tarmac" scenario because it seems like a specific and limited area of particular outrage and limited sympathy. But, proceeding along the usual lines of Fabian socialism, watch them help the camel get all the way into the tent.
Posted by: TB on January 22, 2008 09:32 AMI got a seat that night. I truly believe I never would have had the President not spoken earlier that day. Anything the Government can do to restore good customer service in airlines and airports is welcome by me!
Posted by: Deborah on January 22, 2008 09:35 AMA spokesman for Seattle-Tacoma International Airport said there may not be the same need for legislation in Washington state as on the East Coast, where airplanes routinely wait 45 minutes or longer before departing because airports are so overcrowded there.
At East Coast airports, "you're waiting in line on the taxiways," said Perry Cooper, a spokesman for the airport. "At Sea-Tac we don't run into a problem -- it may take you 15 minutes to go from the gate to get out to your takeoff spot. We just are not comparable."
And with the third runway at Seatac, delays should be even fewer. So why pass legislation that is going to cost the cash-strapped airlines more money, which they inevitably will pass on to consumers?
Posted by: Palouse on January 22, 2008 09:52 AMTake 20 years to build a third runaway at SeaTac.
Did you know SeaTac is completely out of capacity by 2020? They will hit the 48 million annual passenger capacity that year. That is 12 years away. So What GOVERNMENT agency is going to rip the airlines for over using the airport here rather than figuring out how to build he next airport around here.
Traffic Bad - build a Bus Tunnel and pay $30k per rider to Everett. Look we 'Fixed' it!
Increased regulationa and unfettered threat of lawsuits and blammo costs go way up and guess what we are being told that the direct creator of all the mess is going to solve it not by reducing the risk of lawsuits and all the paperwork but give us all Universal Healthcare! YAAAAA all the same for everyone. The Best Care Cannot be bought at any price!. The worst care guaranteed for all!! Weeeeeeee
BTW Are WE going to have Universal Legal Services so I can sue the government to get rid of Universal Health Care?
Think about it. The creators carefully and slyly are never identified and then use their misfeasance to completely create a non solution that has no possible outcome of fixing what they are causing.
There's absolutely no reason for the government to get involved here. If airline passengers experience a particularly grievous wait, they can always use regular customer service channels, or the legal system to address their complaints. If you respectfully demand your customer service issue to be addressed, it usually will be. Try the power of the pen to the CEO, and not the power of the pen from the Legislator.
And this is more knee-jerk reaction and hype stemming from a few wildly overblown media reports last year of long waits on the tarmac. Granted, some were extreme, but certainly not to the point of passing legislation to regulate the industry. It's no wonder that ambulance chaser lawyers like John Edwards go on to politics. The two go hand in hand. Reps like Democrat Ken Jacobsen probably cruise the AP headlines looking for sensational but rare events on which to propose new legislation, so they can feel good about wasting time in government.
Smart airlines will take care of their customers, the rest will go out of business, and that's just fine. Such is life in a free market.
When you complain the site "FAA rules" as to why. As far as I'm concerned it is unlawful imprisonment but that complaint does not get you very far.
Posted by: Vince on January 22, 2008 12:30 PMExplain this comment, specifically, what is the gov't protecting?
We wait to takeoff, in line, for the air traffic control system to accept the positive control of our flight. Nothing the airlines control can change that.
(Now lost bags, that's different.)
Posted by: sasquatch on January 22, 2008 02:36 PMNo, I wasn't referring to you. I rarely have commenters in mind when crafting posts. When I do, I invariably name that commenter. I was simply alluding to the fact that increasing problems in the airline industry mean even a number of people generally opposed to government intervention on such matters aren't going to be inclined to raise as much of a stink on this issue, even if they agree it's not an ideal solution.
Jeff B @ 10 -
What I've read on this topic, including a related article in the Wall St Journal this morning, indicated this issue is far more than the few isolated examples as you claim. It's a real issue, complicated even further by the fact the industry and its infrastructure are already heavily regulated and/or government controlled (which Bruce G makes some great points about).
You'll note, however, that I alluded to the fact proposed government action prompting the industry to improve its performance is preferable (much like what ended up happening in many respects with the Patients Bill of Rights proposals that never actually became law but which prompted some reasonable changes in the health insurance industry).
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 22, 2008 07:10 PMWe are like gods. Crossing continents in hours, not months, not weeks, not days, but hours and we complain about a frivolous delay that is forgotten in a week. Please get a grip. We don't have to circle the wagons or endure freezing temperatures crossing mountain passes. Sit back and read a book or watch a movie on your laptop. Life is good. Enjoy it.
Posted by: Snuffy on January 23, 2008 06:32 AMBut the solution to problems created by regulation is not more regulation. Ultimately, the airlines behavior is the reaction to the helplessness of being highly regulated. Not that I think there should not be lots of regulation regarding safety. But, the airlines are protected by the regulation that allows them to claim that the problem is the FAA and that it is out of their hands. With respect to waiting in line, the FAA should make it clear that safety is what it is, but that the airlines should respect their customers right to choose, and keeping them happy while waiting in line is their responsibility.
But that can be done in a suggestive manner that does not require regulation. All the FAA would have to do is issue an ad campaign that reminds passengers that we all wait in lines for the purpose of safety.
Your slight nod to allowing airlines to settle this on their own is not reflected in your headline.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 23, 2008 08:25 AMAlso... Rights do not require other people to do things for you. Example... I have a right to life but that does not mean other people are forced to feed and cloth me to keep me alive. The rights listed in this piece of crap legislation however requires airlines to do things so I can 'enjoy' their 'right'.
Perpetuating such misconceptions about rights vs privledges does harm far beyond what this specific legislation will do.
Posted by: Lysander on January 23, 2008 11:59 AM