Silly Little Country

The New US DoT Rules - Three Hours on the Tarmac

The government got all the publicity I suspect it wanted yesterday for this apparent defence of 'passengers' rights'.
Distrusting knee-jerk regulations, I admit I was skeptical, but have not through all the implications, any of them in fact.
Libertarian Jeff Miron has started, and I rather agree with his first stab at it.

Without the rule, some planes that have been sitting for three hours leave soon after the three-hour point, while some sit on the tarmac for an extended, additional period.
The planes in the first category arrive at their destinations even later, becuase it takes time to get passengers off and back on the plance, and because the plane ends up at the back of the line for takeoffs. Worse, some of these flights get cancelled.
So, sometimes the rule benefits passengers, sometimes it makes them worse off.
Does the Department of Transportation have any evidence that the welfare of passengers is higher, on average, under the rule?
No. It has just pandered to customer annoyance and the press coverage of a few extreme incidents. It has responded to what is seen (the long delays that occur without the rule) and ignored what is unseen (the canceled flights and delays that will result from the rule).

I once sat for six hours on the tarmac in Toronto for a flight to Chicago, under a two-hour flight away. I am glad we stayed out there - I got to my ultimate destination late, but likely would have been much later if we had been discharged twice and re-loaded. It helps to come prepared - carry some books or other entertainment.
UPDATE: Written after the above. King Banaian notes that there IS a cost-benefit analysis but is clearly not very impressed by it, and considers some unintended consequences.

Labels: regulation

posted by Alan Adamson @ 2:06 PM