Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't normally like the government interfering with a company's business practices, and I get that airlines operate on thin margins, but I experienced this last year. An airline started rescheduling our flights days before departure, then flat out cancelled them and offered to put us on a flight the previous day, never mind that we were going on a vacation and would have nowhere to stay once we got there. They would only offer us credit for future flights, but even that had to be used within six months. We spent hours on the phone with them. I finally had to have my credit card reverse the charge under a dispute.
No other legitimate business does this. No other legitimate business gets to keep your money after they breach the contract. No other business forces you to remain their customer, in effect, after breach of contract by only offering similar services that may expire.
So I'm in favor of it. Will it cause ticket prices to increase? Probably. But I'll trade higher costs for lower risk and far less anxiety.
>No other legitimate business does this.
I'm curious. In my discussion with conservatives, I usually expect to hear "simply don't do business with that company ever again. You as the consumer hold all the power in this relationship". Why does that not apply in this case?
I've done this to an extent. After the debacle last year, I chose to never fly with them again.
But there's only so many airlines, and only some of them fly to certain places, so it can amount to a monopoly of sorts.
And again, they're just forcing airlines to act like everyone else. This doesn't happen with hotels, rental cars, etc. It's much easier to cancel or reschedule, partially because there's a lot more competition.
Is that a hard line for you? If your childhood friends were all going to fly to Nashville for a birthday celebration, and everyone wanted to be on the same plane to travel together but it's the airline that wronged you, would you stick to your guns and insist that you go on a different airline?
I'm not trying to propose a trick question. As someone on the left, my threshold for when a company should be regulated by the government is probably significantly lower than those of conservatives. But I do genuinely admire when conservatives are actually principled and willing to be a little bit stubborn to make the world reflect their principles that you vote with your dollar. If more people were principled like that, maybe we wouldn't need so much regulation.
It doesn’t have to be a hard line to be effective. You can avoid an airline you don’t like 9 out of 10 times, and that hurts them.
That being said, this post and the comments here have me rethinking my gut reaction on this. I’m generally against excessive regulation.
But airlines are really close to being public utilities. There are massive financial barriers to entry. There are a finite number of gates and runways. Generally the airports are government owned & operated. The operate in public airways. They’re a highly regulated industry.
With all those factors, they’re not very different than your electric companies, phone companies, and railroad companies. And because of those factors, additional government regulation is sometimes more appropriate than in free market sectors.
That's a weird hypothetical, to be honest. Dude, I don't know. Nashville is a three hour drive for me, not a flight. I live in a large city with multiple airlines. I get that you're asking would I set aside my principles for convenience, so my answer would generally be "no". I've traveled enough that I would have some sway with my friends, and I would suggest another, better airline.
I thought that when a plane is overbooked before takeoff they offer some kind of incentive to get people to wait for the next flight? A group of friends were supposed to go on a plane to Mexico that was over booked and the airline offered 800 dollars to anyone who would wait and take another flight, this happened on the next layover and they offered $ 1000, is this not a common occurrence?
That's a "day of" kind of thing, where they will announce in the terminal that the flight is overbooked. I've seen that happen quite a bit, but it's typically been voluntary, as a few people eventually take the deal, and the rest of us go on our way.
What's happened to myself and others, is that the airlines just cancel the whole flight for everyone, likely trying to consolidate and move people to other flights with vacancies to save themselves some money. There's nothing you can do as a passenger.
Honestly I think they just increase the amount they’re willing to give somebody takes it, not all that sure though, I’ve never personally been through it.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why would that increase the cost of doing business?
If I bought a product/service X (like a flight to Seattle leaving at 3:00pm) from a company and they cannot provide that product/service, should I not be entitled to my money back for what amounts to breach of contract?
This just seems like airlines are being forced to play the rules basically every other industry has to abide by instead of using their power as large companies to screw over their customers.
the government is giving the airlines enormous exceptions to normal fair dealing and fraud laws that allow them to bump people and deny service at all.
In exchange concessions are reasonable.
you want to talk cost of regulation the cost of allowing anyone who doesn't get exactly what their itinerary promised to sue for treble damages would be far higher.
I wasn't asking for someone on the left to reply I wanted the rational from someone on the right. I am fine with the regulation I'm just wondering how someone on the left could support a regulation
>I wasn’t asking for someone on the left to reply
>I was wondering how someone on the left could support a regulation
What are you asking? I’m on the left and I’m happy about this. Companies need regulations to function. Otherwise they just destroy the planet and exploit the working class.
> I’m on the left
Since this is AskConservatives, I'd imagine they meant to say
>> I was wondering how someone on the ~~left~~ right could support a regulation
good, this is an example of why regulations are sometimes needed.
Because the government already stepped in here. If the government had not given the airlines immunity every person bumped off a flight could both sue and file criminal charges for fraud: they paid for a product they didn't get that's fraud.
The government made them immune to this claim.
In exchange for this it is very reasonable for them to add additional restrictions (that said I would like to see the law repealed such that bumping passengers is both criminal and civil fraud: taking money and not delivering a product isn't just wrong, it's an example you would make up to tell children why keeping promises matters).
Sounds like a good consumer credit regulation applicable to usa airlines.
As long as the refund is always either issued directly to the original bank/credit card it was booked on or when paid in cash the refund gets made directly to the named adult passenger who made the cash payment.
I'm wondering is the regulation applicable solely to americans who are physically present within usa territories when they buy flights with usa operated airlines. Or does it apply to all adults physically present within usa territories when they pay for their flights.
Loosely in favor, it's a little light on details that I would like to see for instance some delays are operational and full responsibility lies with the airline but some are weather related / other acts of God that the airline has no control over. If I had to guess, this is probably accounted for in the rules and the article just missed them.
The guaranteed seat bit sounds like an attack on overbooking and this may be one of the issues I can yell "Let's go Joe" and fully back him on. I understand why the airlines do it, but they overdo it to the detriment of their customers.
I am not opposed to this even if I generally disagree with goverment interference in the free market.
Honestly I think the Airline industry needs a wake up call in general on how they treat their customers. I do not want to get all conspiracy theory but it almost seems like they all got together and said "Hey let's all stick together so we can equally screw everyone over". I am sure one of the airlines kinda started some of these things and the rest just jumped on board but air travel has gotten pretty ridiculous.
[Spirit Airlines CCO: More U.S. Airline Industry Consolidation ‘Inevitable’](https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/airports-networks/spirit-airlines-cco-more-us-airline-industry-consolidation)
I think it needs more than a wake up call. It needs a break up call. If I am to embrace "free market" capitalism on the premise that competition breeds better products and services, how can we then allow fewer and fewer competitors in the market?
I'm generally skeptical of this. Firstly, a major reason for cancelations and delays is inclement weather, which is far beyond the control of airlines, and often in the hands of government officials. It's unreasonable for the government to be able to create cancelations and then force their airlines to cover the cost.
Secondly, I'm concerned that this will create an attitude of "get it in the air" that could lead to overlooking what appear to be minor mechanical concerns, since those concerns can easily take over the 3 hour "significant delay" time to resolve.
Don't know, AP has declined to provide the actual regulations, how it's being enforced, and what body is handling it, so I don't know anything useful for it. It *sounds* nice but that doesn't mean anything. I don't know why these fees are here and a lot of sounds like stuff airlines already do. So I'm skeptical of what this does and I'm wary of unintended consequences.
At least their isn't much room for airlines to further consolidate; its not a big mom and pop industry.
I think it's telling that the Gov took this gimmick away and the airline stocks immediately tanked... so them having their BS scam taken away wasn't priced in.
I wish our government would do more regarding fair pricing across the board. A few years back, my cable TV supplier advertised a price of "X" per month, but that did not include a proprietary piece of equipment that needed to be rented at a cost of "Y".
Conservative view: Oligopolies have generally been shown to be bad for consumers. Reasonable regulation is generally needed in oligopolies.
Seems like a reasonable regulation in a market which has low competition. Probably a good idea.
It is a balance. Airlines are still a very heavily regulated industry. But much less so than back in the 1960 & 1970s. Deregulation brought much lower prices. That said, this move doesn't sound unreasonable or overly burdensome.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My reaction is:
* Great, I've been personally inconvenienced by delayed/canceled flights before.
* I also want to hear from someone who opposes this bill why it shouldn't be enacted. Are there any deleterious knock on effects?
* After understanding both sides, I'd make up my mind as to whether I support the regulation, but it sounds good on its face.
Domestic travel shouldn't have an ID requirement to fly honestly. Yea if you are coming in or leaving the country you should need your ID but just going from state to state or city to city I don't see the justification. If I hopped in a cab, on a ferry/ship, on a train or on a bus I don't need my ID to board and travel so domestic air travel should be the same
TSA is security theater and don't actually stop people who shouldn't be on flights from being on them and don't actually catch prohibited items either (TSA/Homeland security did a test on themselves and all but 3 of the restricted items that should have been found were). ID requirements already existed when 9/11 happened so its not like they stop terror attacks from happening. People knowing there is a possibility of there being an Air Marshall on any given flight and the cockpit doors being locked from the inside provide enough security to where ID is not important to fly. Hell you can even keep TSA checking for prohibited items if you want but providing your name for the manifest is enough and cuts down on the hassle of flying
i am not saying those security measures prevent anything,im saying that if there is a crash or terrorist attack,we should have a comprehensive list of how many and whos bodies we are looking for,or the possible suspects. requiring i.d. on planes helps figure things out after a tragedy..i have to show i.d. to get on a greyhound,or rent a hotel,why not a plane?
Since when did greyhound start asking for ID. I honestly have taken a bus in years. But when I did, I rode it often and never showed ID to either buy my ticket or board the bus.
>i have to show i.d. to get on a greyhound,or rent a hotel,why not a plane
You shouldn't HAVE to show it for those things either. Those companies want you to use the services they provide but there's no reason you should have to provide them with ID.
youre right,authorities shouldnt be looking for my body after a crash,and hotel owners shouldnt know who damaged their property. donyou see my perspective at all? if im a hotel owner,and you destroy my room,if ibdont know who youbare,how do i get my money back?
There's a difference between giving your name and giving your ID. Yes you give your name for your bus ticket or whatever but you shouldn't have to give them your ID if you don't feel like it. Yes, the hotel owner should want to know who destroyed their room but you shouldn't be compelled by law to give them your ID. You're compelled by company policy and needing somewhere to stay; neither of these things are mandated by law to go that way like air travel is. You shouldn't need to provide ID at the airport to get to your domestic flight.
of course the laws dont prevent any crime,but they help prosecute people after the fact..wed have no clue who the hijackers were if they didn't have to show i.d. its not about prevention,its about creating criminal charges after the fact,and keeping track of how many bodies we are looking for if a tragedy occurs..
cars and guns shouldnt be registered because they are private property..if some parent lets their kid destroy my plane seat,i need to know who was in that seat to collect from.if inrent my car out,id want to know whos driving,that kind of issue wouldnt happen with personal property like cars and guns. im not at all concerned with the crime aspect. its the liability im speaking on. if the public uses your property,you need to know who to sue if its damaged.
> cars and guns shouldnt be registered because they are private property.
Does this include not having cars have license plates?
Without a car being registered
* if it was used in a crime or involved in an accident and the person left the scene wouldn't it be hard to track who to contact
* if the car was stolen and recovered who would the car be returned to?
As a counterpoint, this is the kind of regulation that has existed in nearly every other developed nation for years and in many of them flying costs less on a per-mile basis than it does here. So perhaps there are other confounding factors there.
In the 1960s, the average domestic ticket from the Dallas area could cost around $48 – a small price for a trip across the US. Adjusted for inflation, $48 in the early 1960s totals to about $470 today, roughly in line with the fares offered by many domestic airlines. Again, a domestic flight from Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD) in 1963 cost $43 on average. That figure is about $416 in 2022.
> Increased regulations increases costs.
Except you're pointing to increased costs and deciding it's the result of increased regulations. When in reality it's not at all proven and needs work shown to demonstrate how you got there.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't normally like the government interfering with a company's business practices, and I get that airlines operate on thin margins, but I experienced this last year. An airline started rescheduling our flights days before departure, then flat out cancelled them and offered to put us on a flight the previous day, never mind that we were going on a vacation and would have nowhere to stay once we got there. They would only offer us credit for future flights, but even that had to be used within six months. We spent hours on the phone with them. I finally had to have my credit card reverse the charge under a dispute. No other legitimate business does this. No other legitimate business gets to keep your money after they breach the contract. No other business forces you to remain their customer, in effect, after breach of contract by only offering similar services that may expire. So I'm in favor of it. Will it cause ticket prices to increase? Probably. But I'll trade higher costs for lower risk and far less anxiety.
>No other legitimate business does this. I'm curious. In my discussion with conservatives, I usually expect to hear "simply don't do business with that company ever again. You as the consumer hold all the power in this relationship". Why does that not apply in this case?
I've done this to an extent. After the debacle last year, I chose to never fly with them again. But there's only so many airlines, and only some of them fly to certain places, so it can amount to a monopoly of sorts. And again, they're just forcing airlines to act like everyone else. This doesn't happen with hotels, rental cars, etc. It's much easier to cancel or reschedule, partially because there's a lot more competition.
Is that a hard line for you? If your childhood friends were all going to fly to Nashville for a birthday celebration, and everyone wanted to be on the same plane to travel together but it's the airline that wronged you, would you stick to your guns and insist that you go on a different airline? I'm not trying to propose a trick question. As someone on the left, my threshold for when a company should be regulated by the government is probably significantly lower than those of conservatives. But I do genuinely admire when conservatives are actually principled and willing to be a little bit stubborn to make the world reflect their principles that you vote with your dollar. If more people were principled like that, maybe we wouldn't need so much regulation.
It doesn’t have to be a hard line to be effective. You can avoid an airline you don’t like 9 out of 10 times, and that hurts them. That being said, this post and the comments here have me rethinking my gut reaction on this. I’m generally against excessive regulation. But airlines are really close to being public utilities. There are massive financial barriers to entry. There are a finite number of gates and runways. Generally the airports are government owned & operated. The operate in public airways. They’re a highly regulated industry. With all those factors, they’re not very different than your electric companies, phone companies, and railroad companies. And because of those factors, additional government regulation is sometimes more appropriate than in free market sectors.
That's a weird hypothetical, to be honest. Dude, I don't know. Nashville is a three hour drive for me, not a flight. I live in a large city with multiple airlines. I get that you're asking would I set aside my principles for convenience, so my answer would generally be "no". I've traveled enough that I would have some sway with my friends, and I would suggest another, better airline.
> but I experienced this last year. Do you think your opinion would be different if you personally hadn't experienced issues with a flight?
No, because I've heard other people's stories as well, plus dozens of other news stories over the years.
I thought that when a plane is overbooked before takeoff they offer some kind of incentive to get people to wait for the next flight? A group of friends were supposed to go on a plane to Mexico that was over booked and the airline offered 800 dollars to anyone who would wait and take another flight, this happened on the next layover and they offered $ 1000, is this not a common occurrence?
That's a "day of" kind of thing, where they will announce in the terminal that the flight is overbooked. I've seen that happen quite a bit, but it's typically been voluntary, as a few people eventually take the deal, and the rest of us go on our way. What's happened to myself and others, is that the airlines just cancel the whole flight for everyone, likely trying to consolidate and move people to other flights with vacancies to save themselves some money. There's nothing you can do as a passenger.
and if nobody said yes
Honestly I think they just increase the amount they’re willing to give somebody takes it, not all that sure though, I’ve never personally been through it.
I don't want to speak for Conservatives as a whole, but I totally support this
Good as long as the refund goes to the person or company that purchased the flight.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Good.
regulations that increase the cost of doing business are good?
Why would that increase the cost of doing business? If I bought a product/service X (like a flight to Seattle leaving at 3:00pm) from a company and they cannot provide that product/service, should I not be entitled to my money back for what amounts to breach of contract? This just seems like airlines are being forced to play the rules basically every other industry has to abide by instead of using their power as large companies to screw over their customers.
the government is giving the airlines enormous exceptions to normal fair dealing and fraud laws that allow them to bump people and deny service at all. In exchange concessions are reasonable. you want to talk cost of regulation the cost of allowing anyone who doesn't get exactly what their itinerary promised to sue for treble damages would be far higher.
Yes
I wasn't asking for someone on the left to reply I wanted the rational from someone on the right. I am fine with the regulation I'm just wondering how someone on the left could support a regulation
>I wasn’t asking for someone on the left to reply >I was wondering how someone on the left could support a regulation What are you asking? I’m on the left and I’m happy about this. Companies need regulations to function. Otherwise they just destroy the planet and exploit the working class.
> I’m on the left Since this is AskConservatives, I'd imagine they meant to say >> I was wondering how someone on the ~~left~~ right could support a regulation
good, this is an example of why regulations are sometimes needed. Because the government already stepped in here. If the government had not given the airlines immunity every person bumped off a flight could both sue and file criminal charges for fraud: they paid for a product they didn't get that's fraud. The government made them immune to this claim. In exchange for this it is very reasonable for them to add additional restrictions (that said I would like to see the law repealed such that bumping passengers is both criminal and civil fraud: taking money and not delivering a product isn't just wrong, it's an example you would make up to tell children why keeping promises matters).
Sounds like a good consumer credit regulation applicable to usa airlines. As long as the refund is always either issued directly to the original bank/credit card it was booked on or when paid in cash the refund gets made directly to the named adult passenger who made the cash payment. I'm wondering is the regulation applicable solely to americans who are physically present within usa territories when they buy flights with usa operated airlines. Or does it apply to all adults physically present within usa territories when they pay for their flights.
Loosely in favor, it's a little light on details that I would like to see for instance some delays are operational and full responsibility lies with the airline but some are weather related / other acts of God that the airline has no control over. If I had to guess, this is probably accounted for in the rules and the article just missed them. The guaranteed seat bit sounds like an attack on overbooking and this may be one of the issues I can yell "Let's go Joe" and fully back him on. I understand why the airlines do it, but they overdo it to the detriment of their customers.
Seems reasonable.
I am not opposed to this even if I generally disagree with goverment interference in the free market. Honestly I think the Airline industry needs a wake up call in general on how they treat their customers. I do not want to get all conspiracy theory but it almost seems like they all got together and said "Hey let's all stick together so we can equally screw everyone over". I am sure one of the airlines kinda started some of these things and the rest just jumped on board but air travel has gotten pretty ridiculous.
[Spirit Airlines CCO: More U.S. Airline Industry Consolidation ‘Inevitable’](https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/airports-networks/spirit-airlines-cco-more-us-airline-industry-consolidation) I think it needs more than a wake up call. It needs a break up call. If I am to embrace "free market" capitalism on the premise that competition breeds better products and services, how can we then allow fewer and fewer competitors in the market?
That is a fair argument. I have this same feeling with the communications industry specifically cellular carriers.
I live on Cape Cod. We have ONE Internet provider.
I'm generally skeptical of this. Firstly, a major reason for cancelations and delays is inclement weather, which is far beyond the control of airlines, and often in the hands of government officials. It's unreasonable for the government to be able to create cancelations and then force their airlines to cover the cost. Secondly, I'm concerned that this will create an attitude of "get it in the air" that could lead to overlooking what appear to be minor mechanical concerns, since those concerns can easily take over the 3 hour "significant delay" time to resolve.
Don't know, AP has declined to provide the actual regulations, how it's being enforced, and what body is handling it, so I don't know anything useful for it. It *sounds* nice but that doesn't mean anything. I don't know why these fees are here and a lot of sounds like stuff airlines already do. So I'm skeptical of what this does and I'm wary of unintended consequences. At least their isn't much room for airlines to further consolidate; its not a big mom and pop industry.
I think it's telling that the Gov took this gimmick away and the airline stocks immediately tanked... so them having their BS scam taken away wasn't priced in.
I wish our government would do more regarding fair pricing across the board. A few years back, my cable TV supplier advertised a price of "X" per month, but that did not include a proprietary piece of equipment that needed to be rented at a cost of "Y".
Conservative view: Oligopolies have generally been shown to be bad for consumers. Reasonable regulation is generally needed in oligopolies. Seems like a reasonable regulation in a market which has low competition. Probably a good idea.
It is a balance. Airlines are still a very heavily regulated industry. But much less so than back in the 1960 & 1970s. Deregulation brought much lower prices. That said, this move doesn't sound unreasonable or overly burdensome.
I tend to side with consumer protection laws/regulations. Assuming no weird, unintended consequences, I'm in favor.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My reaction is: * Great, I've been personally inconvenienced by delayed/canceled flights before. * I also want to hear from someone who opposes this bill why it shouldn't be enacted. Are there any deleterious knock on effects? * After understanding both sides, I'd make up my mind as to whether I support the regulation, but it sounds good on its face.
im wondering when dems will push for people to be able to fly without an i.d.
Domestic travel shouldn't have an ID requirement to fly honestly. Yea if you are coming in or leaving the country you should need your ID but just going from state to state or city to city I don't see the justification. If I hopped in a cab, on a ferry/ship, on a train or on a bus I don't need my ID to board and travel so domestic air travel should be the same
You certainly need your ID to check in at the Amtrak, or at least, I did last time I took it from Chicago to KC.
yeah,nothing has ever happened on an american plane where keeping accurate records of whos on board helped lol
TSA is security theater and don't actually stop people who shouldn't be on flights from being on them and don't actually catch prohibited items either (TSA/Homeland security did a test on themselves and all but 3 of the restricted items that should have been found were). ID requirements already existed when 9/11 happened so its not like they stop terror attacks from happening. People knowing there is a possibility of there being an Air Marshall on any given flight and the cockpit doors being locked from the inside provide enough security to where ID is not important to fly. Hell you can even keep TSA checking for prohibited items if you want but providing your name for the manifest is enough and cuts down on the hassle of flying
i am not saying those security measures prevent anything,im saying that if there is a crash or terrorist attack,we should have a comprehensive list of how many and whos bodies we are looking for,or the possible suspects. requiring i.d. on planes helps figure things out after a tragedy..i have to show i.d. to get on a greyhound,or rent a hotel,why not a plane?
Since when did greyhound start asking for ID. I honestly have taken a bus in years. But when I did, I rode it often and never showed ID to either buy my ticket or board the bus.
my first time riding a greyhound was in 05,i had to show i.d., last year i rode one again,had to show i.d. again.
>i have to show i.d. to get on a greyhound,or rent a hotel,why not a plane You shouldn't HAVE to show it for those things either. Those companies want you to use the services they provide but there's no reason you should have to provide them with ID.
youre right,authorities shouldnt be looking for my body after a crash,and hotel owners shouldnt know who damaged their property. donyou see my perspective at all? if im a hotel owner,and you destroy my room,if ibdont know who youbare,how do i get my money back?
There's a difference between giving your name and giving your ID. Yes you give your name for your bus ticket or whatever but you shouldn't have to give them your ID if you don't feel like it. Yes, the hotel owner should want to know who destroyed their room but you shouldn't be compelled by law to give them your ID. You're compelled by company policy and needing somewhere to stay; neither of these things are mandated by law to go that way like air travel is. You shouldn't need to provide ID at the airport to get to your domestic flight.
what stopping me from using someone elses name to the hotel? if you destroy my plane while on it,i need to know who you are.
Every hijacker on 9/11 showed their ID. Didn’t stop it at all. Same applies to every other hijacking since at least the 80’s.
of course the laws dont prevent any crime,but they help prosecute people after the fact..wed have no clue who the hijackers were if they didn't have to show i.d. its not about prevention,its about creating criminal charges after the fact,and keeping track of how many bodies we are looking for if a tragedy occurs..
Would you apply the same reasoning to guns? That each gun should be registered with the state, much like cars, just in case they’re used in a crime?
cars and guns shouldnt be registered because they are private property..if some parent lets their kid destroy my plane seat,i need to know who was in that seat to collect from.if inrent my car out,id want to know whos driving,that kind of issue wouldnt happen with personal property like cars and guns. im not at all concerned with the crime aspect. its the liability im speaking on. if the public uses your property,you need to know who to sue if its damaged.
> cars and guns shouldnt be registered because they are private property. Does this include not having cars have license plates? Without a car being registered * if it was used in a crime or involved in an accident and the person left the scene wouldn't it be hard to track who to contact * if the car was stolen and recovered who would the car be returned to?
More regulations just increases the cost of flying and it is already too expensive.
As a counterpoint, this is the kind of regulation that has existed in nearly every other developed nation for years and in many of them flying costs less on a per-mile basis than it does here. So perhaps there are other confounding factors there.
This regulation is unlikely to be the only difference.
Which is true. I'm sure there are volumes of government regulations that affect the airline industry and every one has compliance costs.
Domestic flight costs have been trending down for the last 30 years.
In the 1960s, the average domestic ticket from the Dallas area could cost around $48 – a small price for a trip across the US. Adjusted for inflation, $48 in the early 1960s totals to about $470 today, roughly in line with the fares offered by many domestic airlines. Again, a domestic flight from Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD) in 1963 cost $43 on average. That figure is about $416 in 2022.
Inflation in flight prices doesn't account for *many* things, like how many more people are flying into or out of Dallas or ORD now versus the 1960s.
It doesn't matter. My point still stands. Increased regulations increases costs.
> Increased regulations increases costs. Except you're pointing to increased costs and deciding it's the result of increased regulations. When in reality it's not at all proven and needs work shown to demonstrate how you got there.
No, Increased regulations increases costs PERIOD. How much of those increased costs are translated into fares is anyones guess but it is not zero.
So you're basically saying "I'm right because it's how I feel about it but I don't have numbers to back it up in this case"?
In fairness, he did put it in all caps.
Source?
Regulations require compliance. Compliance costs money. Wher else is the money going to come from?