
Airlines propose long list of rules to kill or revise - lisper
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-trump-airline-regulations-20180318-story.html
======
Someone1234
> Now, the Trump administration may roll back a rule that requires airlines to
> give passengers such as Hill the option of getting off a flight that is
> delayed too long on an airport tarmac. And that's not the only regulation
> that might be weakened or scrapped.

With or without this rule, I could never quite grasp how it wasn't tantamount
to kidnapping? At least within a "reasonableness test."

Obviously if you're at 10K feet, and ask to get out, reasonably the airline
cannot comply. But if you're sitting on the tarmac of an airport, there's no
reasonable argument for why they cannot de-board people after a two or three
hour delay. It fails the reasonableness test.

Before this rule was introduced airlines did this a lot. Several people
literally set off the escape slides trying to get out, called 911, or got
arrested for asserting their rights. Is that really something we want to
return to?

I get that this administration is anti-regulation, but this was a hugely
dehumanising situation before that isn't legal in other countries for just
that reason. I'd hope if they do remove it individual states step in to re-
instate it immediately.

~~~
ams6110
Return to the gate (is one available? probably not) burning thousands of
dollars of extra fuel, disrupting the gate schedule and inconveniencing
perhaps thousands of other passengers to allow one person to disembark? Sounds
unreasonable to me.

Also there is an upper bound on this sort of thing because crews have duty
hour limits. They are not allowed to take off if they will be over the limit
before they land, so there's only so much time they can spend waiting on the
ground before they know they aren't leaving today, at least not with that
crew.

~~~
bogomipz
>"disrupting the gate schedule and inconveniencing perhaps thousands of other
passengers to allow one person to disembark? Sounds unreasonable to me."

I'm sorry where did you get the idea that this has anything to do with
allowing "one person to disembark."

The Tarmac Delay Rule referenced in the article and referenced in the OPs
comment prevents airline's from keeping passengers on the tarmac for greater
than 3 hours[1].

It seems pretty reasonable to let people back into the airport after 3 hours
of sitting in a cramped seat on the tarmac.

[1] [https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/new-dot-
consume...](https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/new-dot-consumer-
rule-limits-airline-tarmac-delays-provides-other-passenger)

~~~
jessriedel
> I'm sorry where did you get the idea that this has anything to do with
> allowing "one person to disembark."

Presumably from the "kidnapping" talk in someone1234's comment. I also
interpreted at one or a small number of people wanting to return to the
terminal at the price of additional delays for everyone else.

~~~
joering2
Everyone wants to come back to the gate.

Source: myself being stuck on tarmack for 2 hours 45 minutes with 180 people,
no AC, and “seatbelt on” sign (no way to get up to stretch your bones)

~~~
jessriedel
This doesn't contradict my comment.

------
em3rgent0rdr
Will US airlines also propose to get rid of rules preventing foreign airlines
from competing with domestic flights?

[http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/transportat...](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/transportation/2013/08/cabotage_will_revive_airline_competition_foreign_airlines_should_be_able.html)

~~~
Someone1234
Which may actually reduce costs and increase consumer choice, their stated
goal of this whole imitative. Somehow I don't expect that to be one of the cut
regulations.

~~~
nradov
An "open skies" rule allowing foreign carriers to operate flights would reduce
prices and increase consumer choice, however the restriction exists primarily
for national security reasons. The federal government needs a large domestic
airline industry as a strategic transportation reserve that they can
commandeer to move troops during a war or other large emergency.

~~~
smnrchrds
I imagine in those cases the government can and will force any airplane in
American soil or airspace to act like this, whether they are owned by an
American or foreign corporation.

~~~
nradov
Your imagination is not realistic. There's no legal way to require foreign
pilots who are citizens of another country to follow US government orders. And
it's not possible in the short term to put US pilots on those airplanes
because each airline has a unique combination of airframes, engines, and
avionics. Plus if the maintenance and logistics infrastructure aren't located
in the USA then those airplanes would quickly become inoperable.

~~~
an_account
A foreign airline operating domestic routes in the US would likely use many US
pilots/employees.

------
blauditore
Why go back and forth with those rules, but never talk about the ridiculous
"security" rules introduced after 9/11? Most of it is just security theater
and cannot prevent a well-planned terrorist attack.

But no one dares touching that topic, apparently.

~~~
Spivak
Is this not the same argument people use when talking about bad software
security practices? Seems odd to flip when the discussion isn't about tech.
Physical security is still a spectrum and depends on what kinds of threats
you're trying to prevent. There are certainly a number of arguments against
the TSA but "a sufficiently well planed and executed attack could get around
the checks" isn't one of them.

Just because you can't defend against state-level adversaries doesn't mean you
shouldn't have a password on your phone. Just because your door could be
broken down with a battering ram doesn't mean it's pointless to have a lock.

~~~
blauditore
Well, I totally agree where this applies, like that knifes and guns are not
permitted.

But there are also other, quite ridiculous measures that target to prevent
high-profile attacks. One of the most infamous ones is prohibiting liquids.
That's like putting your phone into a Faraday cage to defend against fraud
calls.

------
amluto
I find the proposed elimination of the rule requiring advertisement of the
full price to be odd. Wouldn’t an honest Republican administration be in favor
of price transparency as a measure that increases the efficiency of the free
market?

~~~
maxerickson
At this point it is a request coming from an airline group.

Lots of people think that the fees and taxes should be made clear so that
people are aware that they are paying them, but there's no reason that can't
be done in addition to showing the actual cost of purchasing a given ticket.

~~~
maxxxxx
That's one thing to bugs me in the US with a lot of products. The price you
actually pay is often vastly different from the advertised price. I don't
really care if there is some additional fee they have to pay. It's their cost
of doing business. Maybe I should start a business that advertises everything
for free. Then add management fees, sales tax, cost on loans, employee payment
fee and so on.

------
paws
_Airlines for America, in its filing, said the [24-hour cancellation] rule
allows passengers to hold "an unlimited number of reservations at once, free
of any cancellation penalty during the 24-hour hold period," thus eliminating
a carrier's ability to sell those seats to another buyer._

"eliminating a carrier's ability to sell"?

What a bunch of horse puckey.

1) Airlines routinely oversell flights. It seems unlikely random individual
passengers are buying out a bunch of seats just to cancel at hour 23.

2) Even if that were considered a risk, a passenger would still need to pay
for the seats upfront.

------
Bizarro
You're no longer a "free person" once you hop on that plane. So since the
government has instituted more and more rules to take away your civil rights
in an airport/airliner they should give us a break, and give us some options
to get us back to the free world.

------
pimlottc
Warning: embedded autoplay video ad

------
ghufran_syed
Why not make a rule where each passenger delayed on a plane more than x% of
the total journey time, gets $y per hour of delay?

~~~
Symbiote
The EU rules [1] give compensation of €250, €400 or €600 for flights of
<1500km, <3500km, >3500km, with a delay of over 3 hours.

For example, a 9 hour late departure due to a "technical problem" led to me
missing a once-daily connection, and an eventual 24 hour delay in arrival. The
distance was 3000km, so I got €400 compensation. Also, a meal voucher at the
departure airport, and a hotel overnight + breakfast at the connection
airport.

The rules apply on all flights within the EU, all flights originating in the
EU, and flights into the EU operated by EU airlines.

[1] [https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/travel/passenger-
right...](https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/travel/passenger-
rights/air/index_en.htm)

