The free market fails again!

[brian0918]

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee approved the "Halting Airplane Noise to Give Us Peace" (HANG UP) Act on July 31st. The bill would make the cell-phone ban on planes permanent. Here are some choice quotes by co-sponsors in defense of the bill:

The free market wasn’t adequate to regulate smoking on planes and it won’t be sufficient to regulate cell phones either... I am pleased that we are taking steps to stop this disruption before it becomes an issue for American consumers.

Now is not the time to consider making the airline passenger-experience any worse, and using cell phones in-flight would do just that. Polls show that the American public is strongly opposed to allowing cell phone use in-flight. They don’t just oppose the idea, they hate it, and the HANG UP Act will make sure it does not happen.

This bill will ensure a relative amount of peace for the American public as they take to an increasingly crowded sky.

Edited August 1, 2008 by brian0918

[adrock3215]

An irritating bill, although there are much worse ones out there right now. How about the trash they passed last week to give Freddie and Fannie an unlimited line of credit with the Treasury, plus authorize the FHA to buy a whole bunch of garbage loans with taxpayer money?

[themadkat]

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee approved the "Halting Airplane Noise to Give Us Peace" (HANG UP) Act on July 31st. The bill would make the cell-phone ban on planes permanent. Here are some choice quotes by co-sponsors in defense of the bill:

How can they say the free market has failed in this regard? Airplanes were ALREADY limiting cell-phone use on their own, mostly for safety reasons. The damn thing can't even be ON during takeoff or landing. I don't get what supposed outrage this bill is responding to.

[D'kian]

Regarding smoking, the airlines faced a difficult choice for technical reasons.

Aircraft were smoking is allowed require more ventilation than those were smoking is banned. In jets ventilation is accomplished by circualting "bleed" air from the jet engines. This lowers the thrust, thus increasing fuel usage. More ventilation, less thrust, more fuel. So it would seem a no-brainer for airlines to bans smoking on all flights, right? It saves them money.

Well, no. If, say, Continental bans smoking, then it might loose many smoking passengers (and some of their non-smoking companions) to Delta.

Of course, all airlines could get together and ban smoking on all flights, or even on certain routes, or only on short flights, etc. But wouldn't that come under antri-trust laws? Even if it doesn't, any airline could opt out, and make up for the extra fuel with extra passengers.

And that's why airlines never banned smoking in their fligths. They did regulate it, if that's the word, by having separate smoking and non-smoking sections, by not allowing smoking during take-off and landing, by allowing smoking only while seated, by not allowing smoking in the lavatories, and by allowing only cigarettes to be smoked (no pipes or cigars were allowed).

[tps_fan]

Kat,

There you go expecting legislators to be rational!

D'kian,

As a minor point, I prefer a word such as "stipulate" for that purpose since businesses don't have the authorization to use force as gov't does. (Of course, there's active contractual agreements between transportation providers and their customers, so gov't force isn't needed at the time frame of trade.)

Edited August 1, 2008 by tps_fan

[softwareNerd]

Well, no. If, say, Continental bans smoking, then it might loose many smoking passengers (and some of their non-smoking companions) to Delta.

However, won't Delta lose many more customers: the non-smokers who are now flocking to Continental?

[D'kian]

However, won't Delta lose many more customers: the non-smokers who are now flocking to Continental?

Now, yes. Back in the mid 80s to early 90s, not necessarily.

Back then smokers were a minority, as now, but there wasn't hysteria regarding cigarette smoke. There were smoking sections not only on airplanes, but also in airports, restaurants, bus stations, etc. You could smoke inside shopping malls, too, and inside most amusement parks. Disney allowed smoking everywhere, but in restaurant non-smoking areas and inside the rides. Outside the rides there were ashtrays.

Today it's reached ridiculous proportions. While there is some sense in banning smoking in small, closed areas, doing so in large, closed areas is ridiculous. So for example all airports could have a smoking area, but most don't.

[avgleandt]

Of course, all airlines could get together and ban smoking on all flights, or even on certain routes, or only on short flights, etc. But wouldn't that come under antri-trust laws? Even if it doesn't, any airline could opt out, and make up for the extra fuel with extra passengers.

You got it, free market did not fail, because no free market actually exsisted.

Edited August 1, 2008 by avgleandt

[themadkat]

Kat,

There you go expecting legislators to be rational!

I know, bad habit of mine. Trying to do better