Weighing in on airline passenger-prisoners
A Times editorial last week appears to have gone against the punditry grain on the federal order requiring airlines to unload passengers after waiting on the tarmac for three hours. The Times wrote that the well-intentioned policy from the Obama administration could actually worsen delays and creates the illusion that the government is addressing a complex problem. Most other newspaper editorial boards that weighed in on this issue sided with the White House. The Washington Post editorialized last Tuesday:
The process that led to Monday's regulations started in the aftermath of the great ice storm of Valentine's Day 2007. 'Twas a nasty affair that left nine fully loaded JetBlue aircraft on the tarmac at John F. Kennedy airport in New York, some frozen to the ground, for six to 10 hours. Heeding the anger of irate passengers fed up with being treated no better than cattle, members of Congress introduced a passenger bill of rights. The House has passed legislation. The Senate has not. Until there is a law, Mr. LaHood's description of the new regulations as the Obama administration's "passenger bill of rights" will have to do.
Says the Boston Herald:
Of course the most notorious stranding stories are familiar by now. Three years ago bad weather forced the closure of the Dallas-Fort Worth airport, leaving some diverted American Airlines passengers stranded for up to nine hours. And JetBlue underwent a round of corporate soul-searching after stranding passengers for nearly 11 hours in New York the same year. ...
Of course the news comes as little comfort to holiday travelers scrambling this week after snowstorms ravaged the East Coast; the regs don't take effect for another 120 days.
Meanwhile the airlines say the new mandates will lead to more cancelled flights -- passengers may no longer be stranded on the airplane, but they'll be stranded in the airport.
Click here and here to read more reaction from editorial boards.
All the editorials, including The Times', correctly point out that forcing passengers to stew for several hours, sometimes overnight, while the plane waits in vain for a takeoff slot is unacceptable. But how much of a problem is this? Are travelers truly as abused by airlines, as these editorials let on, to the point that Washington must take action?
The short answer is no. As our editorial points out, about three passenger-loaded flights per day, on average, sit delayed on the ground for more than three hours. This comes across as a major problem until you consider that more than 28,000 commercial flights operate in the United States every day, the vast majority of which take off, land and disembark their passengers on time and with little cause for concern (as it should be). When extreme delays do happen, the causes are numerous and, in many cases, unpredictable. (Patrick Smith, an airline pilot and author of Salon's "Ask the Pilot" column, wrote about such delays -- and Washington's attempts at stopping them -- on Nov. 21.)
It's one thing for airline industry commentary to be based more on the general public malaise over air travel than on reality; government policy is a different story.
-- Paul Thornton
Talking about spreading infections, one thing that bugs me in the plane is the people who cough and sneeze without restraint. Most times they do that without consideration for the people sitting next to them and pass on their germs to us. I’ve wished for some form of protection from the microbes they are spewing out. I could wear a face mask but it is so uncomfortable and moreover it scares away everyone. So I came up with a product idea and patented it. I want to know how many others like me will find this product useful and so created a survey. Just fill it up and give me your valuable feedback. Thanks!
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/air-travel
Posted by: Michelle Raand | December 28, 2009 at 05:39 PM
I am disturbed by one sentence in the Times commentary: "three passenger-loaded flights per day, on average, sit delayed on the ground for more than three hours. This comes across as a major problem until you consider that more than 28,000 commercial flights operate in the United States every day". Statistically, that equates to .01% - however, what happens when that is your flight? Frankly, this is still three flights too many when you factor in no food, no water, overflowing toilets, and possibly sick people in close proximity. And exactly where would it become statistically significant? Four? Forty? Four hundred? Four thousand? I'm sorry, but barring weather and/or other safety issues, ONE is too many.
Posted by: Scott Grant | December 30, 2009 at 07:50 AM