Originally Posted by
fastair
Yes, tarmac delays were reduced but altogether cncls went up as a direct result and fines were collected for the government coffers but not given to impacted consumers.
What would a regulation do? Hopefully it wouldn't impact the choice to divert in an emergency situation. Hopefully it wouldn't impact the choice to divert to the safest place they could land. It wouldn't likely force airlines to staff every possible landing site with enough hotel rooms to accommodate every possible emergency landing, nor staff them in advance with representatives 24/7 on the rare chance that at any particular landing strip would have a rep there in case of an emergency.
A service failure hurts the company in a way that regulation can't, terrible PR. That is already accomplished. The airline refunded/is refunding all money for the flight in addition to a voluntary "bonus".
Poor communication in a remote place isn't going to be changed with regulation. A service failure of this type is being "regulated" by the press and the free market system via consumer choices.
You keep bringing up regulation. As I said, GOOD companies treat customers well without the government telling them to do so. BAD companies do not, and eventually (if the company is large enough or the industry important enough) the government steps in, which is not a good thing for any of us. I want UA to be a good company, therefore no additional regulation. UA keeps wanting to be a BAD company to customers. We know where this is going.....
But, I fully agree with you that the unintended consequences of government interference are always bad, for everyone.