The skies are already friendly
But what about the ground?
Just in time for the likely spate of holiday travel delays, the Obama administration has anno
unced that passengers cannot be kept on a delayed airplane for more than three hours before the airline must get them off the plane (or “deplane them” in awkward airline parlance). My first though when I read this was, “What a useless rule–no one sits on the tarmac for three hours.”
Apparently I was wrong. According to the Associated Press, the first six months of 2009 saw 613 flights sitting on the tarmac for over three hours with passengers on board.
No more. Now an airline must provide food and drink after two hours, and will be fined $27,500 per passenger for each flight that exceeds the new limit. The rules apply to domestic flights, although American carriers that fly international flights must voluntarily decide limits. Foreign carriers are exempt. There’s also an exception for security or safety concerns voiced by air traffic control.
What are we to make of this new regulation?
It’s good politics, likely to be welcomed by anyone who has ever been forced to sit on the tarmac. But it’s a harsh penalty to impose on an industry for no reason other than comfort. I don’t know for sure, but I would guess that airlines already lose money through flight delays. Keeping passengers on the tarmac is probably the best they can do to try and stick to flight schedules. I would also assume that any real safety concern to keeping passengers on a plane already falls within internal airline codes. If a person collapses from illness during the delay, it would seem outlandish for a plane to do anything but return to the gate.
As regulations go, however, these are not onerous. Three hours is a large window — God forbid I’m ever stuck on a plane that long — and the latitude permitted for safety and international flights seems appropriate.
The real question is probably whether the government has any role intervening in the name of personal comfort. Some would say that flight delays spent on the tarmac represent an extreme example of discomfort, one over which consumers have very little control. But so do a lot of things: long bus or train rides (with no sleeper cars), sleeping on a bad bed, many office chairs.
Generally, the government has a role to play in employee safety. Safety from harm (see: Occupational Safety and Health Administration) and safety from discrimination (see: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). The government has less to say about comfort.
The new regulation will probably only have good effects. It seems to leave adequate flexibility for airlines while safeguarding customer comfort during what can be an especially trying situation. But good outcomes and moral necessity are two very different things.
-Sam
Image used under a Creative Commons attribution license from Wikimedia Commons.
Related posts:
- Should Congress pass an airline passengers’ bill of rights?
- How much is too much for a presidential night on the town?
ShareComments
Leave a Reply
