AA’s MRTC wasn’t a mandated minimum standard to facilitate easier ability for consumers to compare across airlines when seeking to buy a baseline service in the market, so bringing it up is bringing up an airline marketing gimmick.

What most US passenger seem to want is the best value that money can provide, for I am sure that they mostly value their life and limbs even if the airlines were allowed even more to cut back on all health and safety standards and claimed to be doing so to give the cheapest possible price. Purchase decisions are about utility-maximization, not “cheapest possible price”.

Airlines already assume some regulatory risk for participation in the market like they do, so adjusting their regulatory risk to a higher standard for consumers’ health, safety and comfort is fine by me. And the risk of business is that businesses can lose money in the face of many things, so I say “no big deal” if the airlines face a risk of higher costs in this regard too. Government shouldn’t exist to secure the profits of airlines; nor should government insulate airlines from market and regulatory risk; and so I say “bring it on”. The airline cartel industry kingpins and their free-riding “competitors” have been coddled too much and for too long by government already, and the arrival of a more level playing field for consumers is long over due.

I do have to wonder if you understand what is meant by saying “the demand is indeed inelastic”. It would actually undercut your airline company-defending argument seeking to maximize airline profits, if I were wrong.