Flying Blind: Obama’s Anti-Airline Demagoguery
Image by Getty Images via Daylife
This news came in via the The Real Paper of Record today:
WASHINGTON — The U.S. on Monday issued tough financial penalties for airlines that “strand” passengers on the ground in a move likely to provoke an outcry from the industry.
The new rules released by the U.S. Transportation Department would prohibit airlines from leaving passengers stuck on a runway for more than three hours and require that passengers be provided snacks and water during such delays.
It’s an easy stunt for the Obama Administration to pull; after all, the airline industry is about as popular as Goldman Sachs or Haliburton these days. But the new regulations won’t do anything to combat the real reason for delays, and, what’s more, will only make (the currently improving) punctuality problem worse.
Despite what grousing travelers like to think, airlines don’t actually enjoy delaying passengers. In fact, they downright despise it: delayed flights increase costs by forcing the rerouting and rescheduling of passengers, and interfere with airlines’ finely tuned schedules. (You may not know it, but airlines are actually in it to make a profit.) The vast majority of delays are either the result of inclement weather or heavy traffic – not fits of pique on the part of pilots or airline administrators. The livery on an airplane makes an attractively large target, however; hence all of the ire over delays being directed at airlines – who, like passengers, are victims of delays themselves. (If I may, allow me to share one particularly hilarious example: a flight I was taking to Tokyo earlier this year was cancelled because of a volcanic eruption. To the irritated passenger sitting next to me, this geological event was clearly the fault of Delta Airlines.) The Obama Administration may think that man makes the weather; but does it really think airlines can prevent thunder storms from descending on Dallas-Forth Worth, or fog from blanketing Heathrow?
The Obama Administration’s new regulations will only delay the nascent improvements in the delay problem. Passengers tend to be confined to planes during delays in order to shorten said delays. In a ground delay, the call giving pilots the go-ahead could come in at any moment. Having to round up passengers who have deplaned would take far too long – and probably lose the plane its takeoff slot in the process. Also, the airline industry, which is already facing a horrific liquidity crisis, will now be faced with needless, damaging fines.
Of course, it’s been open season on airlines for quite some time now. Luddite, anti-cosmopolitan climate hysterics bemoan the “greenhouse gasses” that planes emit. (And the environmentalists want to ground the poor because of it.) Meanwhile, everyday travelers carp endlessly about the phantom delay epidemic, and the fact that most airlines no longer serve four-star cuisine.
Thus, we find ourselves in an incredible position: airplane travel has never been safer, faster, more affordable, or more liberating. Yet it has never been more despised.
Are pigs now flying as well?
via U.S. to Fine Airlines for Tarmac Delays, Impose 3-Hour Wait Limit – WSJ.com.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
What in the world are you talking about? All the Transportation ruling said was that the airlines can no longer keep passengers trapped on the airplane for more than three hours- and even then they still can under certain cicumstances. How could you possibly have a problem iwith that? Obviously, you’ve never been trapped on a runway for 8 hours with a screaming baby.
I thought this would be the most uncontroversial of Obama’s moves, but can’t say I’ve never been wrong before.
Well, some people are idiots.
In response to another comment. See in context »This is crazytalk. I think 3 hours sitting on the tarmac is pretty generous, especially on some of the smaller commuter aircraft whose seats and creature comforts are designed to be comfortable to a small person for an hour.
It’s about time that the FAA did something about this. If there is a problem, letting people get off the plane allows them to make alternate plans to deal with the delays (keep in mind that if you’re away from the gate, you can’t use your cellphones legally). Air travel doesn’t exist for the airline’s benefit: it exists for the passengers benefit.
The airlines have had plenty of opportunity to set reasonable guidelines by themselves. About time an adult stepped in and forced them to do the right thing. Now excuse me, I need to demagogue my kids who are having a snowball fight in the house.
Mr. Epstein,
You wrote:”Despite what grousing travelers like to think, airlines don’t actually enjoy delaying passengers.”
This is obviously quite correct. However what airlines do is have too many flights keeping too many planes in the air and in terminals getting ready to get in the air. What this means is that if that air traffic is constantly close to saturation. Given the overall limited supply of gates and corridors, if even one aircraft gets out of sequence there is a huge domino effect, with cascading delays across the US.
In 1998 the Logistics Management Institute predicted an increase of 78 million minutes of delay between 1996 and 2006 with another 33 million minutes of delay by 2010. This of course did not take into account changes in practice and policy after 9/11. This is turned out to be a very accurate prediction.
Part of the problem is the lack of alternatives. For people to get from one major center to another there are but two alternatives, driving or flying. The slow death of rail and bus as viable alternatives has lead to increased demand for air travel. Ironically this is especially true for short trips rather than long ones as Short haul fights are inefficient. Despite the constantly increasing demand for more air travel, air lines are suffering less and less profitability. Since 2000, seven major domestic airlines have either filed
for bankruptcy protection or merged with competitors due to financial constraints.
So the real problem is too much air travel and the lack of viable alternatives, which the Federal Government can do something about. Mr. Obama’s action is but the smallest band aid on a very serious and growing problem.
No, Epstein, no. It does not matter what the cause of the delay is and it does not matter if this leads to even more delays.
Your straw man about passengers believing airlines enjoy delays or blame them for delays caused by volcanic eruptions is also irrelevant.
All this does is say, quite correctly, that the system can’t solve its traffic problems by warehousing passengers on airplanes. Airlines traffic control systems and airports are going to have to find other solutions.
Good, those big evil meany airlines will be sorry now! I mean, flight crews LIKE being delayed and keeping people for hours and hours and hours, they do it on purpose as often as they can get away with it because they are bored and have nothing better to do with their lives. Plus airlines are all really rolling in the money right now, this will teach them a lesson. This will show them. HA!!!!
Nothing like political populism, is there. So – no whining about flight delays now anymore, boys and girls.
Your sarcasm is misplaced. No one is suggesting that airlines and crews like to have loaded planes sitting on the tarmac.
What the new rule means is that congestion problems can’t be solved by warehousing passengers on aircraft for hours on end. They will have to be solved some other way.
In response to another comment. See in context »I don’t recall anyone saying that airlines, their employees or anyone else enjoy doing this so your argument is just silly. THree hours is long enough to keep people on a tarmac. Period. This regulation should not have even been necessary. It does screw up airport operations when a flight is stuck like this – but, flights only really get stuck like this on days when things are already screwed up. There are ways to get people off airplanes without further disruption. Nobody is hating on the airlines – just a situation that requires addressing.
In response to another comment. See in context »I once boarded a TWA flight to Milan and 54 hours later arrived. First the plane had some mechanical problem with a door which resulted in six hours on the tarmac seated next to some military expert who kept telling me that if we don’t use the bomb no one will respect our true power.
We did take off but another problem forced the plane down in Washington not New York where it was to land after a few hours in the boarding area we were put on a bus to re board the plane. We spent two hours on the bus while one passenger screamed, “We’re customers, not hostages!” I happened to be sitting next to the bus driver who began to fear for his life and kept his radio on a bit too loud and heard that officials were debating whether or not they should try for New York on one engine. I told the driver to radio back that we heard that. We spent the night in Washington and flew the next morning to New York late and missed the connection. Hours later we were on a plane on the tarmac not taking off. The plane was full of Italians who were not allowed to smoke and after a few hours we came close to something resembling the death of Mussolini. I went for a drink in the galley with the terrified stewardesses when the door plane door opened and a frantic mechanic asked me were the problem was. I gave him some gestures learned from the Italians and suggested he speak to the Captain. Luckily I was in first class with plenty of food and champaign and TV and movies because once again we couldn’t get off the plane. When we did finally take off I prayed there were no gremlins on the wing and for five minutes with the President of TWA.
Three hours in an aluminum tube with recycled air should be banned not only by American law but the Geneva Convention as well.
[...] is, just like before, the President has opted to level a demagogic attack attack on the airline industry. [...]