Aircraft Accidents and the FAA Re-Authorization Act Part 3

Reading the AIRR Act of 2016, I’m reminded of the old Peanuts cartoons where the teacher would speak in a wa-wa-wa voice; the only person(s) who understand what was said was Charlie Brown, Linus, or one of the gang, who respond to the unintelligible nonsense with pained faces.
I am not a small government advocate because of any particular party’s beliefs, but reading the AIRR Act supports my distaste for laws that come out of the Legislative Branch; the laws are a collection of individual words that are meant to clarify a point or change. For example, under SUBTITLE B – PASSENGER FACILITY CHARGES, Section 111 (1) (B) by striking “specified in paragraphs (1) and (4) and inserting “specified in paragraph (1)”, the whole intent of the rule is changed. What was originally in paragraph (1) and (4)? Do you think politicians care? Though it is necessary to be specific, the travelling public will never know what was changed. They may as well have been less inconspicuous and wrote, “We’re going to charge you a heck of a lot more now.”
The whole Act is chock full of this stuff. It’s often in response to demands by advocacy groups who want change in their favor. The only consequence of pushing for what you want is, as Mr. Spock once said, “After a time, you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing after all as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true.”
I prefer my own interpretation, oft repeated by me, “Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *