Airline Ethics From a Straightforward

Airline Ethics

From a straightforward profit & loss viewpoint, the extra seats that can be filled by paying customers would mean more to the airline than requiring infants and toddlers under two years of age to be strapped into individual seats, rather than being allowed to be held on their parent's laps. The airlines would be forced to charge the parents for those seats which would price some families out of the marketplace. Therefore one of the stakeholders in this decision are parents with children under two years of age that are currently allowed to fly for free, if they sit on their parent's laps.

There are a number of variables that must be considered in implementing a rule like this and then ensuring that the rule is enforced. The FAA would need to consider those variables in order to make an informed decision that would weigh all viewpoints. If the FAA were to follow common legal practice a finding regarding the viability of infants would be made that would place them in a category of not having as high a worth as a working adult. It would be devastating for the family (of course) to lose a child that young, but in reality if the infant were to die, the parent(s) traveling with that child would more than likely all expire. The FAA could look at the situation as if the parents were accepting the responsibility for that child when they were traveling, and may even require the airlines to disclose any and all circumstances to those parents, so that they could make their own decision in the most informed manner possible. This scenario would mean that the airlines would also be a stakeholder in the decision.

Lastly the FAA would be a stakeholder as well, since it is the organization that is going to be held responsible for any children that die because of the decision. In cases such as these the FAA (or any other government organization) needs to be informed as well as to be informing. Communication lines between the public, both to and from, need to be open and presented with sincerity from both directions. Free flowing communications coupled with frank, open discussions on the why's and wherefores of the decision would be the best possible scenario, but since the discussion is centered around a government entity, that type of event would probably never happen (says the cynic). Making a decision by communicating between all parties is probably the best way to do so but I would not hold my breath on having a described scene such as this actually happen, especially since the FAA is known as a very conservative and secretive organization.