This is kingslav's Profile page. Use it to view kingslav's comments, other users' replies
to these comments, and comments kingslav has endorsed.
Do NOT in any way regulate the service of peanuts on airlines. This is a ridiculous intrusion on free enterprise and personal freedom. Not to mention, it will simply encourage freedom loving travelers to bring large amounts of peanuts on the aircraft themselves. Someone should stuff a bag of peanuts up the backside of Ray LaHood for proposing this stupid proposal.
Amen, this proposal goes too far. Freedom loving travelers don’t want to be told what they can and can’t bring on board the aircraft to eat. I know I would ignore any such ban as I currently regularly bring peanuts aboard any aircraft I am flying. What’s next? Ban crying kids? Ban passengers with Tourette’s? Ban caffeinated or alcoholic beverages? Who dreams up this ridiculous stuff?
This seems like another bureaucratic paperwork mess that will be outdated as soon as it is published, of little use and another cost of doing business that will raise ticket prices. I do NOT support this.
I’ve long believed that airlines purposely don’t announce delays because of the consequences of doing so. If a flight is delayed due to weather the airline has no obligation to provide any remedy to the affected passengers. Whereas a delay due to a mechanical problem may require compensation or accommodation be made. Why would an airline want to make an announcement that is a signal to passengers to request compensation?
@kas Well reasoned. Law must be respected.
The Draft Summary does not address a Possible Regulatory Response of maintaining the status quo.
The DOT is wrong. If this would save airlines $45.9 million in labor costs they would have already eagerly done this on their own.
This is just another burdensome cost to airlines that will be passed along to travelers. We don’t need it. What regulation does the DOT propose eliminating to offset the cost of this proposal? Nothing, I’m sure.
I’m a freedom-loving, peanut-friendly traveler, and I have no problem with the government protecting other people from dangerous activity. That’s the government’s job.
None of your examples can result in the death of another passenger.
Thank you for your comment. What do you think of DOT’s proposal that airlines be required to promptly notify passengers of delays of 30 minutes or more? Do you think it would be effective?
Do you see a more effective way of getting this information to passengers? Or do you think that it is not really information that passengers need in the first place?
Does anyone see a way that DOT could address the peanut issue without running afoul of the problem kas and KingSlav see?
You disregard the well-being of others less fortunate than you and try to make a virtue of your selfishness.
King Slav- Your ignorance and selfishness is amazing.
Kingslav, DOT has worked through the costs and benefits of this proposal and estimates that ultimately the benefits will outweigh the costs (you can see the breakdown in Table 25 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis). DOT has decided to act now because it considers marketing air transportation on web sites that are inaccessible to individuals with disabilities to be discriminatory and a violation of the Air Carrier Access Act. Do you think that DOT has considered everything it could?
This regulation is another example of government trying to implement an inefficient and costly requirement on taxpaying travelers. Look what requirements on tarmac delays have done – increased flight cancellations. Look at what the airlines did to find other revenues – they added exorbitant fees onto travelers if they couldn’t fit all their travel gear into a small bag. The airlines won’t pay for this requirement if it get enacted – everyone who travels will. I find it very difficult to believe that there is not a more reasonable cost way to achieve the same end goal.