This is ken430tx's Profile page. Use it to view ken430tx's comments, other users' replies to these comments, and comments ken430tx has endorsed.

What's Happening Now

July 11, 2010 2:45 pm

Unbundled fares doesn’t give airlines the right to deceptively advertise costs. ALL costs should be disclosed in an a la carte menu upfront!

July 11, 2010 2:47 pm

Banning peanuts is lunacy! Allergy sufferers know they have an issue. What next? Ban peanuts from being outside or in a kids lunchbox to prevent any exposure anywhere? Lets get real! A simple warning peanuts may be present on a flight should suffice!

July 11, 2010 2:51 pm

Bumping should require double compensation to the bumped passenger. The inconvenience and effort needed to rebook in today’s world are huge! One should be compensated accordingly. However, airlines should first be allowed to seek voluntary bumps and negotiate compensation with them. Only forced bumps should be compensated at higher rates.

September 19, 2011 3:29 pm

This is plain and simple government overreach and interference! The benefit will never exceed costs and will drive many good companies from the web! NO new stupid rules! The economy is weak enough as is! Kill this project!

July 12, 2010 3:15 pm

Thanks for your thoughts, Ken and Joel, and welcome to Regulation Rooom. We will keep your posts in mind as we prepare our summary of the discussion on this site–come back periodically to see if we are done, and to read other users comments–you keep us honest!

In the mean time, check out the rest of the website and rule proposals. We’d love to hear your thoughts!

September 19, 2011 10:19 pm

Thank you for your comment ken430tx and welcome back to Regulation Room. DOT has calculated that the benefits of this rule will outweigh the costs. You can see their calculations in the Websites: Benefits & costs of accessibility post. Do you think DOT has taken everything into account?

December 2, 2011 7:26 am

my response is to ken, this is not as you say a stupid requirement. it is and has been a law on the books for nearly 20 years. the only issue is that is has not been effectively extended to include commercial sites. like i expressed we are talking about 20 million poeope who would be impacted in the states alone. we went through this same discussion decades ago when society introduced ramps and such for equal access to those in wheel chairs and other mobility devices. we discussed the costs outweighing the need, and the need prevailed. we found out that all to many people opted to use ramps such as parents with strollers and others. we are facing the same dilemma.we are discussing virtual access to a virtual world. if you consider this discussion along the same lines as the one previously mentioned… more »

…you may take a different view on the subject. i was personally refused service by a bank to invest a large sum of money because they argued that they were not requireed to provide my equal access to banking and investing because of some SEC regulation from 1933. in another instance i took another bank to court and won a nice settlement out of court and a sweet mortgage deal because they and the mediator saw that my civil liberties were being violated. this does not add to much cost for any commercial entity and if built into the IT teams mission and focus would add a minimal amount to their bottom lines. however, law suits and such could impose millions in fines for not adhereing to these simple access issues. all one needs do is investigate the law suit leveled against target for these same issues to see how effective, both from a cost perspective and a marketing perspective to appreciate the critical need to address this post haste. « less

No comments