They would still be viable to continue to fly. It�s not like they would crash out of the sky and become scrap metal just because of a c. 10-17% reduction in the number of seats on a plane.

Consumer welfare is maximized when consumers can make more informed purchase decisions and do so most easily. One way for that is to have a common standard, one that could be higher than the present. .

And while a higher common minimum standard mandated by government may result in upward pressure on prices, it may also enable greater competition that actually lowers prices over time.

They may still be financially viable enough, and I�d more than welcome to see what happens in the aftermath of instituting a more consumer-friendly mandate on higher minimum seating comfort standards and other inclusions for all US flight passengers.

When major airline industry cartel kingpins say or act as if passenger demand is highly inelastic, then let�s just see how inelastic it is in the aftermath of mandating things like minimum seat width, seat bottom size, leg space and so on.

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.

Mostly the same people who don�t get to go already.

And when demand is high, there may even be new entrants and other expansion, in terms of airlines and airports, to get in on the business for the same and others.

Even with up to 17% fewer seats on a plane of some sort, most of the people flying today would still fly and most of the people not flying today still wouldn�t fly. A lot of it comes down to the elasticity of demand and how open and competitive the supply side of the market is.

A reduction or increase in seats available for sale may affect people who aren�t flying today and it may affect people who are flying today.