WASHINGTON, DC -- A U.S. Senator is threatening to file a federal law
that would restrict airline passengers to just two alcoholic drinks per
flight -- a proposal that doesn't just reek of plane political
paternalism, but could also cause more of the "air rage" it's supposed
to prevent, say Libertarians.
"Who else but a drunk-with-power politician could decide that she knows
better than the airlines, the flight attendants' union, and you, the
airline passenger, about how many drinks are appropriate on a
commercial flight?" asked Steve Dasbach, the party's national director.
"The fact is, this is not a decision that should be made by
politicians. Do we really want to live in a country where flight
attendants have to ask us: Coffee, tea -- or would you like to violate
a federal law?"
This past week, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) revealed that she
had sent letters to the chief executives of the major airlines, asking
them to voluntarily limit every passenger to two alcoholic drinks per
flight.
If the airlines do not agree, Feinstein said "Congress may well step
in." She also announced that she is writing legislation to make the
two-drink limit a federal law.
Feinstein claims that the two-drink limit would help reduce the number
of air rage incidents -- currently estimated at about 4,000 cases of
"verbal or physical" abuse a year -- and "help ensure our skies are
safe for both passengers and crew."
But there is no proof that such a law would actually prevent air rage,
said Dasbach -- and the nation's flight attendants' union has even
suggested that it might create more problems.
"The Association of Flight Attendants is opposed to this law, arguing
that it would be difficult for overworked flight attendants to keep
track of how many drinks each passenger has had, and that it would
irritate First Class customers who expect certain perks for their high-
priced tickets," he said. "In other words, such a law might actually
cause more disturbances, making passengers and crew less safe.
"And you have to assume that flight attendants -- the people who
actually serve the drinks and have to deal with customers -- have a
better understanding of this issue than a pampered Senator who wants to
fly the federalized skies."
The airlines also oppose such a law, noted Dasbach.
"America's commercial airlines have a vested interest in keeping their
crews, flight attendants, and passengers safe," he said. "That's why
the airlines themselves should be allowed to make such a decision --
especially because there is no hard evidence that directly links the
availability of a third drink with increased air rage incidents."
In response to Feinstein's beltway bossiness, Dasbach said there is one
thing that airlines should do: Create a new drink to serve to airline
passengers -- named after the overzealous senator.
"We propose a new drink called the Feinstein," he said. "Here's the
recipe: Mix one part jet fuel, one part Absolut arrogance, and one part
California whine. Shake vigorously until some common sense emerges.
Garnish with a wedge of media limelight. Then pour the drink on a
politician's head -- since you're already past your Dianne Feinstein-
knows-best limit."
that would restrict airline passengers to just two alcoholic drinks per
flight -- a proposal that doesn't just reek of plane political
paternalism, but could also cause more of the "air rage" it's supposed
to prevent, say Libertarians.
"Who else but a drunk-with-power politician could decide that she knows
better than the airlines, the flight attendants' union, and you, the
airline passenger, about how many drinks are appropriate on a
commercial flight?" asked Steve Dasbach, the party's national director.
"The fact is, this is not a decision that should be made by
politicians. Do we really want to live in a country where flight
attendants have to ask us: Coffee, tea -- or would you like to violate
a federal law?"
This past week, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) revealed that she
had sent letters to the chief executives of the major airlines, asking
them to voluntarily limit every passenger to two alcoholic drinks per
flight.
If the airlines do not agree, Feinstein said "Congress may well step
in." She also announced that she is writing legislation to make the
two-drink limit a federal law.
Feinstein claims that the two-drink limit would help reduce the number
of air rage incidents -- currently estimated at about 4,000 cases of
"verbal or physical" abuse a year -- and "help ensure our skies are
safe for both passengers and crew."
But there is no proof that such a law would actually prevent air rage,
said Dasbach -- and the nation's flight attendants' union has even
suggested that it might create more problems.
"The Association of Flight Attendants is opposed to this law, arguing
that it would be difficult for overworked flight attendants to keep
track of how many drinks each passenger has had, and that it would
irritate First Class customers who expect certain perks for their high-
priced tickets," he said. "In other words, such a law might actually
cause more disturbances, making passengers and crew less safe.
"And you have to assume that flight attendants -- the people who
actually serve the drinks and have to deal with customers -- have a
better understanding of this issue than a pampered Senator who wants to
fly the federalized skies."
The airlines also oppose such a law, noted Dasbach.
"America's commercial airlines have a vested interest in keeping their
crews, flight attendants, and passengers safe," he said. "That's why
the airlines themselves should be allowed to make such a decision --
especially because there is no hard evidence that directly links the
availability of a third drink with increased air rage incidents."
In response to Feinstein's beltway bossiness, Dasbach said there is one
thing that airlines should do: Create a new drink to serve to airline
passengers -- named after the overzealous senator.
"We propose a new drink called the Feinstein," he said. "Here's the
recipe: Mix one part jet fuel, one part Absolut arrogance, and one part
California whine. Shake vigorously until some common sense emerges.
Garnish with a wedge of media limelight. Then pour the drink on a
politician's head -- since you're already past your Dianne Feinstein-
knows-best limit."
