A Stitch in Haste

Which is worse: having an occasionally delayed flight or a permanently canceled flight?

Which is worse: having more flight options or fewer flight options?

Which is worse: having cheaper airline tickets or costlier airline tickets?

According to New York Senator Chuck Schumer, the answers are: the former, the former and the former--

At a news conference Sunday, Schumer (D-N.Y.) unveiled a bill that would require airlines to alert passengers immediately about delays and allow travelers to rebook.

"Nothing is more galling than having the airlines know their plane will be late but not tell you," Schumer said. "Passengers should have the option of looking for an earlier flight or cancelling if it will ruin their plans."
...
Alerting passengers of delays could decrease car and foot traffic at busy airports and reduce the stress of travel, Schumer said.

Well, yes, a new regulatory burden "could" decrease car and foot traffic, especially if the airlines cut back on service -- which is likely if not inevitable. Any flight that was only marginally profitable, or break-even, might now be more expensive, or even a money loser, under Schumer's "How Dare They!" proposal.

Is it really less preferable to have an occasionally-delayed flight than no flight at all, ever? Or if the airlines have pricing power (which, generally, they don't), then they will simply raise ticket prices to pay for the added flexibility they would be forced to offer customers. Higher ticket prices are somehow "consumer empowerment"?

No apologist for the airlines am I. But the laws of economics do not yield to the laws passed by hack politicians like Senator Chuck E. Cheese. Force the airlines, or any other business for that matter, to offer something for which the market has not indicated a demand, and customers will simply pay an unwanted premium for it somewhere down the line -- perhaps through higher prices, perhaps through fewer offerings, perhaps through poorer service. Stated differently, all Schumer's bill would do is force all customers to buy a service that not all of them want -- all in the name of "protecting them" from the airlines.

What's the expression I'm looking for? Oh yes: Nothing is more galling.

Just as there is no such thing as a free (in-flight) lunch, so too is there no such thing as a free government regulation.

For Discussion: What would be the economic impact on air travel of a law requiring airlines to offer "free" in-flight meals? (Most no longer do.) Would such a law be any different in principle than Schumer's proposal?