AnnotatedOpinions.com

On Monday, just a few days before Christmas, the Obama administration delivered what one advocate called “a miracle” for passengers stuck on planes. . . U.S. airlines soon will be required to allow passengers to exit domestic flights that have been lingering on the tarmac for three hours. One important provision (loophole?): The carriers can’t let passengers fly the coop if doing so would jeopardize safety and security or disrupt airport operations.  

. . . But at the risk of getting pelted by some of those stale airline peanuts, we’d like to remind airline customers: The incidents that make scary headlines are rare. . .  

Every airline exec knows: Airlines don’t make money — or friends — when airplanes are stranded on the ground. They’re not winning loyal customers by confining passengers in an aluminum tube for hours without food or water. . .   

The new three-hour rule is unnecessary. It’s likely to backfire, leading airlines to pre-emptively cancel flights rather than risk the exorbitant penalties. Result: more inconvenience for more passengers. . .  

[AO: Getting stuck on the tarmac waiting for your flight to takeoff can be, as the Chicago Tribune describes it, “outrageous.” Despite that, the Tribune concludes that a new federal rule that requires airlines to allow passengers to exit domestic flights that linger on the tarmac for more than three hours is unnecessary. They arrive at this conclusion by (1) observing that these cases are rare, (2) observing that those incidents don’t benefit airlines, and (3) suggesting that the new rule could backfire, leading airlines to preemptively cancel flights.  

But, the fact that those incidents are rare suggests that airlines will not have an incentive to address them because it only marginally affects their business. In other words, while the effect on individual passengers is “outrageous,” the effect on the airline is negligible because it is rare. Think of a passenger who flies several times a year versus an airline that has tens or hundreds of flights each day.  

So, what the new rule does is increase the penalty on airlines for each incident. Increasing the penalty makes each incident more than negligible to an airline. Therefore, even though the incidents are rare, airlines will be more likely to seek a permanent solution. This is enough reason to favor the new rule.  

But here’s the other issue to consider: airlines will not unnecessarily preemptively cancel flights. Why? Because of the reason the Tribune offers: “Every airline exec knows: Airlines don't make money -- or friends -- when airlines cancel flights.]