AnnotatedOpinions.com

[AO: We have previously addressed this new airline rule that requires airlines to allow passengers to deplane if a flight sits on the tarmac for three hours, assuming it’s safe to deplane. However, I will address it again because this opinion raises a number of new issues.]  

. . . Since 1988, the number of people boarding domestic and international flights in the United States has climbed by 63 percent. . .  

The increase has not happened because flying is so much more fun than it used to be. It’s occurred because flying is so much cheaper. . .  

The average fare today is $301. If ticket prices had merely kept up with inflation over the last decade, it would be $427. . .  

The decline in prices, adjusted for inflation, has come at the expense of the airlines, which have gotten used to providing their services at well below cost. They have lost money in six of the last eight years, piling up net losses of nearly $60 billion and making bankruptcy a more common occurrence than snowfall at O’Hare. . .

[AO: Here, the writer, Steve Chapman, supports his argument against the new rule that requires airlines to allow passengers to deplane if a flight sits on the tarmac for three hours, assuming it’s safe to deplane, by arguing that, essentially, passengers should not expect this much because airlines have been loosing money over the last decade due to passengers paying less than inflation adjusted prices from a decade ago.  

What? There are a number of assumptions here. The first assumption is that passengers (the airlines’ customers) can compel airlines to charge less than the cost of tickets. That the equivalent of customers compelling gas stations to charge less than the cost of gas or shoppers compelling grocery stores to charge less than their cost. It’s just not possible or at least not that simple. If a private business is selling a product below cost, there must be more going on than customers demanding lower prices. In short, there must be a benefit to the private corporation.   

In the airline industry, this benefit is probably their very survival. In other words, there is such great competition for customers that airlines are willing to lower prices to survive. It is not that customers are demanding below cost flights, after all customers will prefer to fly for free, it is that airlines are competing against each other and deciding that it is in their interest to lower prices below costs in order to survive. But having made this decision, who should be responsible for the consequences?  

Also, consider that not airlines have been unprofitable over the last decade. What is it that the profitable airlines, airlines that generally charge less for tickets than the unprofitable ones, do that make them profitable? Perhaps the unprofitable airlines should do the same?  

Another assumption Chapman makes is that when airlines increase volume by 63 percent, price must remain the same. This is not a necessary fact of nature. Indeed, anyone who has listened to their share of car commercials has probably heard an automobile dealer say something to the effect that they can sell for less because they sell more quantity then competitors.]  

The DOT rule flows from two presumptions common in Washington: 1) that private businesses have insufficient motivation to satisfy their patrons, and 2) that government regulators are capable of making better operational decisions than the people whose livelihoods are at stake. . .

[AO: Chapman’s argument flows from two common and often incorrect presumptions: 1) that private businesses always have sufficient motivation to satisfy their patrons, and 2) that all government regulations involve taking operational decisions away from private industry.  

First, Chapman assumes that airlines have sufficient motivation because . . . well, I don’t know. Yet, his statistics suggest that, from the perspective of airlines, they should have little incentive to address this problem especially if the solution is likely to be more than the costs, which, again, are small from their perspective.   

See, Chapman explains that the problem is “extremely rare.” Only 1,500 of the 9.3 million flights each year are affected. That’s an infinitesimally small number of flights (less than 0.02%). So, how much should an airline be willing to spend to fix a problem that affects less than 0.02% of its customers? Probably nothing. Why? That’s because any “harm” an airline experiences from this problem is likely to be negligible. On the other hand, the harm to each passenger who only flies a few times a year is significant. So, we have a problem that is significant to the passenger (worth more than 0.02% of whatever) but insignificant to the airline (worth
less than 0.02% of sales). Chances are that in this case private business will have little to no motivation to fix this problem even though customers want the problem fixed.  

Second, the new rule does not take operational decisions away from “people whose livelihoods are at stake.” What the rule does is dramatically increase the cost of these delays. This increase makes this issue a non-negligible cost to airlines, meaning airlines now have an incentive to do something about it. But just because airlines now have a motivation to address the issue doesn’t mean that the government is telling airlines with to do. That is, just because government regulators think they can influence airline executives’ motivations doesn’t mean that they also think they “are capable of making better operational decisions than the people whose livelihoods are at stake.”  

The airlines will make the operational decisions. All the government is doing is motivating an unmotivated airline industry.]

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.]

A referendum on Obama? Not likely [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

Getting a handle on elections [Chicago Tribune]

The Off-Off-Year Elections: If there were broad messages in the grab bag of contests, they were for both parties. [New York Times]

Voters send cautionary messages to both parties [USA Today]

Time for equal rights for gays is now: Progress is occurring, but Tuesday’s rejection of a same-sex marriage law in Maine shows there’s still a lot of work to be done. [LA Times]

Who ended the Cold War? The fall of the Berlin Wall is as much Gorbachev’s unheralded achievement as it is Reagan’s. [Boston Globe]

1989 was a very good year: The end of the Cold War brought change that sent ripples around the world. [LA Times]

Berlin Wall’s lessons for today: The oxygen of a free society is accurate and trustworthy information. Yet even today, regimes around the world are intent on cutting off the supply. [USA Today]

Deteriorating relationships? The United States only seems to be more polarized [Chicago Tribune]

Welcome sign: U.S. ends a misguided HIV policy [Houston Chronicle]

Women and health care [Washington Post]

Fixing healthcare: Primary care is job No. 1 – Effective reform requires spending for front-line doctors, those who screen for preventable diseases and are a patient’s advocate. [LA Times]

A Powerful Idea on Youth Violence: A Chicago plan that will put high-risk youth on the road to productive lives deserves full support. [New York Times]

Airline safety: I say Obama, you say O’Bama – New requirements by the Transportation Security Administration that names on plane boarding classes exactly match those on personal identifications could present major headaches. [Boston Globe]

Cyclists and motorists on collision course: A physician’s conviction in a bicycle crash case reveals a noxious form of road rage. [LA Times]

For university presidents, a pay cut is in order: Presidents at the top research universities should be embarrassed by 2008 average salary increases of more than 15 percent. [Boston Globe]

The Facebook grave site [Chicago Tribune]

Take the Shot: The most vulnerable people and those in critical jobs should take the swine flu vaccine. [New York Times]

One mom’s rapid conversion to swine flu vaccine believer [USA Today]

Obama must stand firm on Honduras crisis: A U.S.-brokered deal to return ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya to office is unraveling, and the Obama administration seems to be wavering. [LA Times]

Iran’s abuse goes on: The problem is not limited to Tehran’s illicit nuclear activities. [Washington Post]

Death penalty in dollars: Capital punishment is capital-intensive, but we often overlook its literal cost. [Philadelphia Inquirer]  

Taxing the Chevys: The Senate’s way to fund health-care reform would hit more than “Cadillac” benefits. [Washington Post]  

Prop. 8 cuts both ways: The fight over same-sex marriage has spawned unsavory political tactics on both sides of the issue. [LA Times]  

When Kerry met Karzai: The senator showed that a polite, private push can work with the Afghan president. [Philadelphia Inquirer]  

Troop level in Afghanistan is the easy part [LA Times]  

Yellow flag on brain trauma: There is mounting evidence that the violent hits in football cause brain injuries, both dementia and concussive trauma. [Boston Globe]  

Microchips and Monopolies: If Intel is abusing its outsize clout to marginalize rivals and hinder the development of competitive products, it should be made to stop. [New York Times]  

Latest battle in book price wars: The American Booksellers Association is asking the US Department of Justice last week for an investigation into the “predatory” behavior of online retailers. [Boston Globe]  

Distracted flying: There’s simply no acceptable explanation for why two seasoned Northwest Airlines pilots cruised obliviously past Minneapolis at 37,000 feet on a flight from San Diego last week. [USA Today]   

Flight 188: Asleep at the stick? One aviator has no trouble imagining that two Northwest Airlines pilots could have been sleeping when they overshot Minneapolis. [LA Times]  

Distraction: Nightmare at 37,000 feet – The Northwest pilots who were practicing their new owner’s scheduling system on laptops while the plane overflew its destination should be fired. [Boston Globe]  

Food, Humanity, Habitat and How We Get to 2050: We need to find a way to make food and energy production sustainable in the broadest possible sense — looking out for ourselves as well as other species. [New York Times] 

When are you too old to beg for candy? [Chicago Tribune]  

On court, candor is in the air: What a difference one justice, and a TV camera, can make in opening up the Supreme Court to the people it serves [USA Today]  

The sick status quo: Images of ill Americans relying on the kindness of medical professionals says more about the need for reform than all that shouting. [LA Times]

Health Reform and Small Business: A vast majority of small businesses and their workers are likely to benefit greatly from pending health care bills. They should be supporting, not opposing, reform. [New York Times]

Toll of the Town Halls: Republicans reveling in the rage at the town halls may have a price to pay. [Washington Post]

GOP senator doesn’t like Palin’s lies [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

Mixed messages in Burma: As befits a carefully staged show, Tuesday’s scene in a Burmese courtroom had plenty of scripted drama. [USA Today]

The Art of the Possible: I learned from bitter experience that progress is better than perfection on health reform. [Washington Post]

Drug deals: Big pharma, White House unlikely partners Big pharma and the White House make for unlikely health care partners. [Houston Chronicle]

More Evidence of a Scandal: Congress must continue its investigation into the firing of top prosecutors and call Karl Rove and others to testify so the American people can hear how the justice system was hijacked. [New York Times]

Held hostage by airlines: Airlines keep saying passengers don’t need a bill of rights, yet carriers keep providing horror stories that show the need for legislation. [Philadelphia Inquirer]

Global healthcare takes more than a pill: As the United States works on a comprehensive global health strategy as part of its commitment to fighting world poverty, it should move beyond tracking the number of HIV/AIDS patients treated or bed nets distributed to reduce the spread of malaria. It should take a broader, more aggressive approach. [Boston Globe]

Gunning for Health Care: At the town hall meetings on health care, we are reminded of the gun gap in this country. [New York Times]

Bringing Swiss banks to account: The U.S. should put a stop to the secrecy laws that allow tax cheats and terrorists to prosper. [LA Times]

Bringing Syria in from the cold: The Obama administration’s smart strategy to reconfigure the Middle East chessboard. [Boston Globe]

The New Energy Politics: Though young and vulnerable, two freshman House members push cap-and-trade. [Washington Post]

The U.S. in Iraq: An economics lesson: Going forward, the debacle hopefully has taught us to set aside money for our veterans, crack down on fraud and be honest about the costs of war. [LA Times]

Dishonoring our troops: Backlog of vets’ claims shameful Houston leads nation in shameful backlog of veterans’ benefit claims. [Houston Chronicle]

A Win for Bank Customers: Congress should support the Obama administration’s proposal to create a new agency to regulate consumer finance. [New York Times]

Going slowly on gay rights: President Obama extended an olive branch to gay-rights activists this week who are upset that he hasn’t moved fast enough on issues important to them. [Philadelphia
Inquirer]

The Race Issue: Are we in the ‘post racial age’ or is the Supreme Court jumping the gun? [Washington Post]

A bare minimum of student privacy [Chicago Tribune]

China is the key to North Korea: If Beijing threatened to cut off trade, it could persuade Pyongyang to give up on nuclear weapons. There are ways President Obama can help make that happen. [LA Times]

The Overhead Rack: A new bill that limits the size of luggage on airplanes is a simple but smart idea to enforce carry-on rules at the security checkpoint, not on the plane. [New York Times]

The recession is making us sick: “Recession obesity” is the term du
jour for the unhealthy side effects. [Boston Globe]

Forget subprime; loan given to a loved one can haunt longest [Atlanta
Journal-Constitution]

North Korea’s Threats: The new sanctions adopted by the United Nations Security Council must be enforced if there is any chance of deterring more dangerous actions by North Korea. [New York Times]

Follow the money in Rx debate [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

Netanyahu’s juggling act: His sudden acceptance of a Palestinian state is less than it appears. [Boston Globe]

Should U.S. deny citizenship to children of illegal immigrants? Two views [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

The devil and the FDA: As Congress and President Obama move closer toward bringing tobacco products under federal oversight for the first time, they have to wonder if they’re also making a pact with the devil. [Philadelphia Inquirer]

Malpractice and Health Care Reform: President Obama’s promise to
help doctors limit their vulnerability to malpractice lawsuits is a
reasonable offer, but only if malpractice reform is done carefully. [New York Times]

Obama’s restraint on Iran: The Obama White House seems to be taking a page from the first President Bush’s 1989 playbook. [Boston Globe]

Decline of the American male: The recession has been particularly unkind to men and has larger implications for their health, safety and well-being. The Obama administration should address this disparity. [USA Today]

Obama’s gay rights gap: The president has done precious little to advance gay rights, despite campaign promises. [LA Times]

The hurdles to expanded healthcare: One came Monday in the form of a Congressional Budget Office analysis. [Boston Globe]

Iran’s election opens generational fissure: The split between younger Iranians and their revolutionary or religious elders presents risks to the nation and the reason. [LA Times]

Governor’s decision to reject stimulus puts Texas on hook [Houston Chronicle]

Pilots and Fatigue: Federal officials need to rewrite the decades-old rules that govern how long pilots can fly before they rest. [New York Times]

Half-Baked Alaska: Sarah Palin still isn’t ready for the Big Game Hunt of national politics. [Washington Post]

A legal shootout over the right to own a gun: Conflicting court opinions gun may result in linking the 2nd Amendment with the 14th. [LA Times]

The Ban on Gays in the Military: Washington needs to move forward on eliminating the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that is unfair to gay men and women, as well as damaging to the military. [New York Times]

Humane Capitalism: Is Obama going against a global tide by pushing social democratic capitalism? [Washington Post]

Bill puts tobacco under FDA supervision: Although not perfect, the legislation would subject the industry to the regulatory control of the Food and Drug Administration. [LA Times]

Air crash connections: At first glance, three recent airline accidents appear to have little in common. [USA Today]

Truth in Teaching: Education reform will go nowhere until the states are forced to revamp corrupt teacher evaluation systems. [New York Times]

No Quota Queen: Sotomayor didn’t just choose sides based on race in the firefighters’ case. [Washington Post]

Pawns of Pyongyang: North Korea’s imprisonment of two American journalists poses a diplomatic challenge for the U.S. [LA Times]

Pay Pals: Senator Christopher Dodd should go after, not cozy up to, the payday-loan industry for its egregious exploitation of people’s desperation. [New York Times]

In Kenya, A marvelous story of perseverance [Chicago Tribune]

The US must face down the Pakistani army by getting the Pakistan’s army to stop supporting the Taliban with weapons and logistical support [USA Today]

The new EPA: Policy Shifts under Obama [Houston Chronicle]

The marijuana prohibition has to end. [Chicago Tribune]

Passengers have the right to FAA data regarding how often birds fly into planes. [NY Daily News]

Why the massive explosion of news could mean the end of good ideas. [Washington Post]

California needs to refigure its taxes [LA Times]

The United States and its partners have to stay focused on what’s most important: ending North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. [New York Times]

We must enhance financial regulation and help emerging economies. [Washington Post]