|
I'm not generally partisan — I like or dislike the same things no matter who does them. And I like this a lot:
And this:
Reasonable. But this seems a bit excessive:
That seems a bit high. It seems like that could generate some absurd situations on the other end. Why not just triple the airfare? And it seems there are some weasel-conditions which could basically void the whole thing: "The regulation provides exceptions only for safety or security or if air traffic control advises the pilot in command that returning to the terminal would disrupt airport operations." Well, of course moving a plane back to the terminal, after it's supposed to be gone, is going to "disrupt" operations. But generally, these seem like reasonable rules: if you advertise something for sale, you'd better have it, or have a reasonable chance of having it. Why shouldn't that include a promised departure time? And since when do people sign up to be permanent hostages of an airline, when freedom, technically, is only a feet away? Good job Obama. But I'd trade it in a heartbeat to get rid of their desire for cap'n'trade, ObamaCare, the skyrocketing national debt, and a host of other nightmares they still seem intent on imposing on the American people. I have no problem with such a high fine. Frankly the idea of being in that situation disgusts me. I hope I never am because they'd probably have to physically restrain me to prevent me from opening the door if they tried to keep me on an airplane stuck on the tarmac for nine or twelve hours. We have laws against holding someone against their will, yet its perfectly legal if an airline does it to passengers who are literally a short walk from the airport itself. I'd be happy to see the possibility of jail time written in somewhere to be perfectly frank. Posted by: Troy on December 21, 2009 09:59 PM I'm ambivalent - I think the Feds have their hands in enough pots as it is. I'm also bothered by reading that Continental Airlines was fined for not allowing the passengers off the plane, when it was the AIRPORT personnel who wouldn't open the door to the terminal. Those were not Continental personnel, and Continental had no control over that, as far as I can see. Posted by: fiwit on December 22, 2009 08:27 PM Add your two cents...
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once. |
Technically the idea of "disrupting" operations is a little more precise than that – if all the terminal gates were full or ground controllers would be controlling too many planes, for example. I could see that being used at O'Hare as a legitimate excuse, much more than say, Wichita Falls.
Posted by: Michael Zappe on December 21, 2009 01:25 PM