A RUNWAY TIME LIMIT
In the end, fliers will get stuck with the bill
Why does it surprise me that the Editorial Board of the Star Tribune would support a heavy-handed rule of the state to address a problem that could and should be resolved by consumerism and choice?
Enacting a three-hour limit for planes loaded with passengers waiting to take off doesn't seem to be all that overreaching on its face ("Air travel without tarmac torture," Dec. 23), but, like every government rule, it's the unintended consequences that will make travelers who purchase tickets from the airlines worse off.
First, the threat of the fine will certainly increase traffic on the taxiways. Any plane nearing the three-hour deadline will have to make its way back to an open gate to offload, creating traffic for other planes. Now we will assume that the airline will do the right thing and accommodate their offloaded passengers with new flights or room and board until they can be taken to their destination. This fills up future flights and drives up costs for the airlines and the ticket-buying consumers.
The net result from this rule will not be that consumers will be better off. Instead of facing the risk of sitting on a tarmac, consumers will faced increased fares, decreased travel options and more headaches because of more canceled flights.
If you really want to deal with this problem, have the airlines advertise their performance records. Help consumers reward the companies that perform well and avoid those companies that don't. Let consumers vote with their dollars!
JACOB WYFFELS, CHANHASSEN
HEALTH CARE REFORM
All it took was higher taxes and some payoffs
So glad to see that President Obama is happy that he got 95 percent of his goals in this health care plan. But I would ask what cost to the American people?
I doubt people will be too happy when their taxes increase and health care costs go up. Also, the backroom dealings and payoffs involved in getting this through are completely unethical.