
Trump Just Signed a Law That Changes Life Aboard Airlines - wglb
https://www.inc.com/bill-murphy-jr/president-trump-just-signed-a-law-that-radically-changes-life-for-airline-passengers-flight-attendants-airlines-almost-nobody-even-noticed.html
======
macspoofing
Looks like a regular, boring law full of regular, boring regulations. I don't
see any issues.

>The story of this law has been dominated largely by what isn't in it: no
restrictions on what airlines can charge for baggage or change fees.

I'm glad. I don't like paying baggage fees (in fact, I've started to travel
much more with only a carry-on partly to avoid the fees) but this is one of
those things that the market should decide. It's an extra revenue stream for
airlines (or an extra perk when waived for those with status). In general
gives airlines more options and more flexibility in adjusting ticket prices.

~~~
knorker
Flying did get much worse as "1 free checked bag" became more rare. Now
everyone wants to fly with a mountain climbing backpack, and planes regularly
run out of overhead space.

No, I'm not checking my $10k in camera equipment because people aren't
checking their dirty tshirts.

~~~
wenc
I have the opposite experience. I never want to check my bags because waiting
around at the carousel for a checked bag isn't my idea of a good time. I want
to be able to just walk off the plane and get to ground transportation with
minimal delays.

Yet airlines keep offering me _free baggage check_ at the gate on full
flights. I actively try to avoid checking my bags, but I'm usually in boarding
Group 3 or 4, so I'm forced to have my bag gate-checked. I hate it. Most
people do. Some even try to untag their force-checked bags on the jetway when
they see overhead luggage space, and then get told off because that is
prohibited. I've resorted to buying an AmazonBasics underseat bag[1] so I
never have to check my bag.

For domestic flights, in my experience few people want to check their bags.
(exceptions exist of course, like in your case)

For international flights, checking bags is included in the cost of the
ticket.

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/AmazonBasics-
Amazon161214-Underseat-L...](https://www.amazon.com/AmazonBasics-
Amazon161214-Underseat-Luggage-Black/dp/B071G2D5MM/)

~~~
hamandcheese
On the routes I usually fly, waiting at the carousel usually doesn’t add more
than maybe 15 minutes. And I usually go to the bathroom and grab some food
anyway.

It’s certainly preferred over the hell of trying to get my bags overhead, and
also allows you to wait and be the last person on the plane, minimizing time
crammed in a tiny seat.

The amount of cumulative time wasted because of stowing bags is immense.

~~~
tomp
The mean is low, but he variance is very high - if they lose your bag, you
could be waiting for days!

~~~
hamandcheese
I mostly fly direct domestic, so it’s basically impossible to lose my luggage.

------
noetic_techy
>>The story of this law has been dominated largely by what isn't in it: no
restrictions on what airlines can charge for baggage or change fees.

That's a market decision. It really irks me when people demand price controls
for innocuous things. All the airlines will do is find another way to make you
eat the cost. This should become area where one airline can one up other
competition wise.

~~~
jsemrau
If the market is fair there is no problem. The moment you get quasi-monopolies
the "market" is heavily tilted in favor of the airline.

For example if your flight out of Newark is only operated by United Airlines,
what choice do you as a market participant do you truly have?

[source][https://futuretravel.today/united-airlines-should-go-out-
of-...](https://futuretravel.today/united-airlines-should-go-out-of-
business-325e9983e51f)

~~~
massysett
Don’t fly: use a video conference, or just forego contact altogether. Travel
by other means: drive, or take a train—-certainly viable in the Northeast. Use
another airport: you said Newark, there are (at least) two other major
airports in the New York area alone.

People usually have multiple choices available. Certainly they have
alternatives to flying United Airlines out of Newark. That someone does not
_like_ these other choices does not mean they do not exist.

~~~
tlrobinson
Cool, I'll just video conference in to my next vacation in Hawaii.

~~~
massysett
Or, don’t vacation in Hawaii. You have choices whether you like them or not.

~~~
DoreenMichele
And those choices include choosing to protest the crappy state of things and
suggesting it needs to change rather than happily working around all the
crappiness and accepting it as inevitable.

------
giggles_giggles
I see one of the new regs is this: >bans e-cigarettes from planes;

You already can't bring vapes in checked luggage, so what are the nicotine
addicted supposed to do? Switch to cigarettes at their destination, since they
can't take their vapes along with them? This might be trivial to some folks,
but I know people for whom this will be an absolute nightmare.

Anyway, this is easy for the non-addicted to see as a non-issue or a minor
change, but for those who have nicotine habits, this makes airplanes that much
more of a hellish experience than they already are. Worse, it actively
punishes the folks trying to get away from smoking analog cigarettes, because
it makes it nigh impossible for them to take their substitute when they
travel..

~~~
TeMPOraL
I don't understand all those bans on e-cigarettes that pop up. They're
essentially harmless, as opposed to "analog ones". I get that some people
don't like to see any kind of smoke in general, but actual smoking is a public
health problem, and IMO society should be supportive of e-cigarettes as a
quite decent solution to this problem.

~~~
Nasrudith
Part of it is the perpetual wishful thinking of nicotine addicts who think
that since it is technically not smoking so they can do it anywhere. I recall
radio ads billing this "benefit" even and speaking of the satisfaction of a
"quitting smoking" device.

~~~
TeMPOraL
That was kind of a selling point, and what I'm essentially suggesting is it
should be the case to _some_ extent, out of concern for public health
benefits. You shouldn't be able to vape everywhere, but e-cigs shouldn't also
be _more_ banned than regular cigs.

(No conflict of interest here; I'm not, and never was a smoker.)

------
markovbot
>allows the Justice Department, Homeland Security, and other federal law
enforcement agencies to hack or shoot down privately owned drones if they deem
them a threat

they just kinda slipped that one in there... the rest seem pretty benign.
Maybe this one:

>increases the penalties for interfering with cabin crew or flight crew

is there any reason to believe that the current penalties aren't working and
that increasing them will fix it?

~~~
mi100hael
Maybe benign, but also amusing that this got slipped in too:

 _> requires the FAA to set up an "Office of Spaceports"_

~~~
azernik
You joke, but there is actual serious regulatory uncertainty with space
launches - the Air Force is trying to hand over more and more regulatory
authority to civilians, and there's a serious question of which
responsibilities belong to the DoC (through the FCC, for historical reasons)
and which to the DoT (through the FAA).

------
JanSolo
I like nearly all the things on that list. As someone else mentioned, most
airlines already do most of these things; I'm not completely sure that a
change in the law was necessary. However, US airlines have a pretty terrible
reputation, deservedly in my opinion. Maybe this change will trigger some
improvement in the industry? Lets hope.

------
craftyguy
> authorizes $1.68 billion for relief for Hurricane Florence, which hit the
> Carolinas last month;

The fuck does this have to do with any of the other regulations in this law?

~~~
gwright
It is basically a parliamentary procedure hack. An urgent issue can be tacked
on to an existing bill that is already farther along in the process.
Streamlines the passage.

There is also a bit of game theory going on here, by attaching a _must pass_
item to the bill you can get other less favorable items passed at the same
time.

~~~
craftyguy
> by attaching a must pass item to the bill you can get other less favorable
> items passed at the same time.

This should not be allowed. Items in a bill should be passed by their own
merit, not by the merits of other 'must pass' things they hang off of.

~~~
xxpor
Ok sure. Now go write a rule that would implement that.

~~~
craftyguy
"It is illegal to add on unrelated regulations to bills"

Done. It's easy to write it, the hard part is changing a corrupted system to
actually pass it and follow it.

------
Animats
Nah. It's just a requirement to study the issue from a safety perspective.[1]

"SEC. 577. Minimum dimensions for passenger seats.

(a) In general.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act,
and after providing notice and an opportunity for comment, the Administrator
of the Federal Aviation Administration shall issue regulations that establish
minimum dimensions for passenger seats on aircraft operated by air carriers in
interstate air transportation or intrastate air transportation, including
minimums for seat pitch, width, and length, and that are necessary for the
safety of passengers."

That just means an aircraft with a tight seat pitch has to pass the aircraft
evacuation time test.[1] Some of those tests may need to be rerun. Which is
risky; people are injured in evacuation tests.

The standards need to be re-evaluated, though, because people are fatter.

[1] [https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-
bill/302/...](https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-
bill/302/text#toc-H42766A6E73C64E76B8FA188D403BBFCF) [2]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIaovi1JWyY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIaovi1JWyY)

~~~
anticensor
You can use a mix of un-uniformed soldiers and police force, led by emergency
rescuers, to test the evacuation. No civilians need to be harmed to test
efficiency.

~~~
Animats
The FAA requires that the demographics of the testers in terms of age and
gender be comparable to that of the general population.

------
elheffe80
Umm.. no one is commenting on the Office of Spaceports?? This is really
freaking awesome! I _hope_ that they get it right. The spaceport in New Mexico
is a great idea, I just hope things like this get more growth as we
commercialize and exploit the vast resources in space.

~~~
shrimp_emoji
Yes! The delivery drone bit is cool too.

Still waiting on the Space Force though.

~~~
elheffe80
Space force!
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AUXpnB065o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AUXpnB065o)

------
dominotw
> authorizes $1.68 billion for relief for Hurricane Florence, which hit the
> Carolinas last month;

One of these is not like the other.

------
socalnate1
These all seem to be fairly benign, small scale changes that codify things
most airlines do already.

~~~
slowmovintarget
Most airlines have been shrinking their seat widths to dimensions that are
less than the average shoulder span of American men. I'm wondering if the
requirement to set seat sizes might help there.

Also, the recent incidences of airlines bumping seated passengers in favor of
their own staff makes me think the new rules are needed.

But 1200 pages! What else is in there? Did we just create a new bureaucracy-
in-a-bureaucracy again?

~~~
ghaff
It's the entire FAA Reauthorization Act. So it basically specifies everything
that the FAA (which is a large federal department) is authorized to do or
required to do over the next few years.

------
quotemstr
This law is a bunch of generally-good regulations that address various sorts
of minor dysfunctions affecting air travel lately. What really annoys me is
how it's pitched on inc.com.

Let's look at the inc.com headline, which I quote in full: "President Trump
Just Signed a Law That Radically Changes Life for Airline Passengers, Flight
Attendants, and Airlines (Almost Nobody Even Noticed) In the middle of the
Supreme Court fight, the White House held a Friday afternoon signing ceremony
for this new, 1,200-page law"

For God's sake, this spin is ridiculous. This wasn't some radical part of
Trump's agenda. There's no evidence that the law's signing was intended to
deceive the public. The regulations themselves are decent tweaks to existing
practice that are consistent with common sense. You'd get a very different
impression reading the headline.

Granted, I never paid much attention to inc.com before, but I think I'll find
a way to pay even less attention to it now.

~~~
empath75
Yeah I went into it expecting to work up a righteous rage and mostly just
nodded along agreeing with everything instead.

------
jaggederest
I hope the eventual seat pitch/width standards are reasonable. I don't think a
seat pitch below 33" or width below 19" are tenable for an average 6' 200
pound male.

~~~
thrower123
It would be nice to be able to sit in aisle seats again without having my arm
ripped off by the drink cart...

~~~
Jach
Arm or leg, choose one...

With so many planes having touch screens on the seat in front of you I wish
they'd get rid of the service cart altogether, let people select what they
want and then deliver it as convenient.

------
gmjoe
> _prohibits passengers from using mobile phones to make voice calls during
> flight;_

Interesting... on 9/11 the voice calls from passengers to their loved ones are
part of the history. Not like a law is going to stop you... but this feels
like an odd thing to make illegal. And what about VoIP?

------
moorhosj
Not a lot of comments about the tyranny of regulations in this thread.
Surprised there isn't more push-back against a law that is almost entirely
regulations imposed on businesses and travelers.

~~~
crisnoble
I'm wondering which two regulations that will presumably be revoked so that
this one could get signed.

> ...it is important that for every one new regulation issued, at least two
> prior regulations be identified for elimination...

[https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-
actions/presidential...](https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-
actions/presidential-executive-order-reducing-regulation-controlling-
regulatory-costs/)

~~~
moorhosj
The bill has at least 18 regulations according to this article. I’ll be
waiting to hear about the 36 we are eliminating. Surely the libertarians and
small-government conservatives will demand it.

------
taysic
> prohibits airlines from "bumping" passengers who've already boarded a plane;

It's interesting the article says no one noticed these regulations but this
one seems like a big deal since there was so much press about those passengers
removed off of planes not too long ago.

------
BurningFrog
> _requires the FAA to consider whether to allow supersonic airplanes over the
> continental U.S.;_

Intriguing!

------
Youden
> mandates that airlines allow passengers to check strollers if they are
> traveling with small children

This one is a little odd to me, especially since the law [0] doesn't mention a
limit to the age of the child. I can see where a stroller is considered
necessary for the mobility of the child, just as a wheelchair or walking frame
might be considered necessary for an adult but every time I visit America, I
see parents pushing around children that are far too old for a stroller. It
seems really odd to encourage this.

There should really be an age limit. I understand that American politics would
never accept a reasonable limit like 4 years old but everyone should be able
to accept that a 10-year-old doesn't need a stroller.

[0]: [https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-
bill/302/...](https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-
bill/302/text#toc-HBCBC380574E449358E920817DCF2B3DD)

~~~
oh_sigh
This doesn't seem like a big issue. Do you imagine a bunch of parents of 10
year olds abusing this law and taking strollers with them on flights?

------
choot
If they are going to charge fees, i wonder if this can be used for deliverying
packets (keep it the unused space you bought).

Imagine if we can hand over the packet to a passenger for ultra faster
delivery at the other end

------
jlarocco
I don't like Trump at all, but this kind of "outrage for the sake or outrage"
article really makes the media look bad.

The worst part of this bill, IMO, is that it includes hurricane relief funds
in a bill otherwise targeting minor airline regulations.

But otherwise, as far as I'm concerned somebody who'd stuff a dog in an
overhead bin and smoke e-cigarettes and talk on the phone all flight deserves
to be thrown off the plane.

~~~
perennate
To me the article's tone sounded more surprised at how little coverage there
was on the bill, than outraged at the bill's contents.

In fact, I thought the article gave a quite positive view of the bill.

~~~
jlarocco
Honestly, I really don't see why it would get much coverage. Contrary to the
article's hyperbole, it doesn't "radically change" anything, and I think most
reasonable people would be in favor of the new rules.

Mundane laws like this get passed all the time.

------
Codestare
Why is 1.6 billion in relief for a hurricane placed in an aviation bill?

~~~
jpttsn
Law is a bit like programming. Imagine reviewing commits to a vast codebase on
a tight deadline.

This feature seems to belong in a different package. It _should_ be factored
out. But the code builds, and rejecting the whole pull request would delay
shipment.

------
russellbeattie
"prohibits passengers from using mobile phones to make voice calls during
flight"

Say what? Is it OK if I use a tablet? Or my laptop? Or my SmartWatch? What if
I'm doing video as well?

------
mastazi
The link is down for me, any alternative link?

------
fibbery
no ban on emotional support peacocks?

------
sp527
This passed overwhelmingly in Congress right? Does the airline industry not
lobby properly? I suppose contributions might start rising now.

~~~
derekp7
The airlines don't care, and may even support these measures, if it means that
their competitors have to follow them also.

------
fluxem
One of those things is not like the others...

> authorizes $1.68 billion for relief for Hurricane Florence, which hit the
> Carolinas last month;

~~~
djsumdog
Probably one of those things that's slipped in last minute rather than
creating an entire separate bill for it. The same people would probably vote
yes on it anyway.

------
KaiserPro
It appears that it bring the US into line with EU law, only ten year too late.

------
bassman9000
Leaning libertarian, I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with any of the
listed provisions, except maybe the cell phones one.

Looks like ranting for the sake of it.

~~~
aeternus
What's wrong with banning voice calls? It would be incredibly annoying to have
to sit next to someone yelling into a phone on a 4+ hour voip call during a
flight.

~~~
dnautics
It would be more sensible for the airlines to be permitted to ban them (which
they all would,unless they are insane) than to have the FAA ban them.

~~~
aeternus
Fair point.

------
evo_9
Pl000p !!!!!

~~~
khawkins
It would be more "fair" to let people make their own decisions and not assume
adding a comment is adding an endorsement.

