[PASSED] - Aircraft Safety and Comfort Disclosures

[Bisofeyr]

"We have cast a vote against, on the basis that we struggle to see how the benefit of this legislation would overcome the burden."

[Barfleur]

"We are likewise concerned with the breadth of the regulation at issue and the seemingly limitless paperwork to be dumped on uninterested passengers."

Against.

Whilst I agree with a unified regulation framework for international air transportation, I have concerns regarding sections 4c (passengers served as food) & 6b (foodstuffs derived from cannibalism).

Seriously, if you are trying to legalise the introduction of "Air Dolcett*", or "Soylent Skylines", at least be honest about it.

Once folks figure out what your inclusion of these two sections would legalise if this passes, this will either get torpedoed completely at vote, or so rapidly repealed it will set a new record...

*If your mind has not previously been despoiled by accidentally coming across this subject, then please for the love of all that's holy do not Google it; no amount of eye-bleach will fix your mental trauma afterwards.

OOC: My man, where were you for the past 18 months? Cannibalism discourse was and is all the rage in this chamber...

[Althawrat Aldaayima]

Against.

Whilst I agree with a unified regulation framework for international air transportation, I have concerns regarding sections 4c (passengers served as food) & 6b (foodstuffs derived from cannibalism).

Seriously, if you are trying to legalise the introduction of "Air Dolcett*", or "Soylent Skylines", at least be honest about it.

Once folks figure out what your inclusion of these two sections would legalise if this passes, this will either get torpedoed completely at vote, or so rapidly repealed it will set a new record...

The Peoples Republic of Althawrat Aldaayima agrees with this assessment of the resolution and will be voting AGAINST its enactment.

[Retired WerePenguins]

Once again, we lean towards approval and our regional delegate is opposed. In one sense we should abstain since the katabatic winds of the Antarctic tend to make our aircraft use practically nonexistent. But since this seems relatively reasonable (again the perfect is the enemy of the good and there is no way you idiots can come up with the perfect, for that matter, neither can I) We have approved this resolution.

[BEEstreetz]

Well-written and coherent but Against because of the sub-topic within air travel chosen. I don't think a body such as the WA should regulate air travel in the technical manner and flag/jurisdictional manner. At most, a sub-topic which suits it would be mandating coordination of air traffic, as to avoid humanitarian disasters of a potentially multi-state level. While this sub-topic could also cause such a tragedy; States, private entities and aerial organisation seem more adequate for regulating topics such as these. I'm aware that they do not exist in NS mechanics, that still does not change my stance.

So, against, but well-written -- thus I don't promote obstruction (others voting against as well) of it, unless they have the same niche reasons I've provided.

[Appalachian Republic]

After reading the resolution Appalachian Republic votes in favor of the air safety resolution.
There must be some base level of safety across the lands of NationStates and the resolution fulfills that.

[Barfleur]

After reading the resolution Appalachian Republic votes in favor of the air safety resolution.
There must be some base level of safety across the lands of NationStates and the resolution fulfills that.

"There are existing international laws on the subject of aircraft safety, but this would not really count as one of them. It would not impose duties on airlines or on nations to conduct themselves in any particular manner, only to inform customers of the measures they already take. Perhaps some degree of disclosure ought to be mandated internationally, but it is the opinion of the Barfleurian mission that this proposal takes it too far by requiring unnecessary amount of paperwork."

[B1G JIM SLADE]

Once again, we lean towards approval and our regional delegate is opposed. In one sense we should abstain since the katabatic winds of the Antarctic tend to make our aircraft use practically nonexistent. But since this seems relatively reasonable (again the perfect is the enemy of the good and there is no way you idiots can come up with the perfect, for that matter, neither can I) We have approved this resolution.

Big Jim, now dressed as Fidel Castro's illegitimate son Justin Trudeau, rises to address the assembly.

"Well ai am vairy disappointéd wiv you fair suppairteng zis 'airribuhl resulushe-on. Ai can on-lee conclude zat you 'ave been éateng yur rotten sushi fish again ét le parasites 'ave infected yur brain. Myyyy bowels rumbuhl and groan like a Citroën wiv a fouled spark plug just thinkng of zis situashé-on."

[Simone Republic]

"We are likewise concerned with the breadth of the regulation at issue and the seemingly limitless paperwork to be dumped on uninterested passengers."

Against.

Whilst I agree with a unified regulation framework for international air transportation, I have concerns regarding sections 4c (passengers served as food) & 6b (foodstuffs derived from cannibalism).

Seriously, if you are trying to legalise the introduction of "Air Dolcett*", or "Soylent Skylines", at least be honest about it.

Once folks figure out what your inclusion of these two sections would legalise if this passes, this will either get torpedoed completely at vote, or so rapidly repealed it will set a new record...

*If your mind has not previously been despoiled by accidentally coming across this subject, then please for the love of all that's holy do not Google it; no amount of eye-bleach will fix your mental trauma afterwards.

OOC: My man, where were you for the past 18 months? Cannibalism discourse was and is all the rage in this chamber...

OK both lines on cannibalism were jokes.

By the way re the comment from Shamian - I already hold the record as author of the fastest repealed of a resolution that's not a single line - five days. That was 616/617 two years ago.

[Fachumonn]

Literally 4 votes apart...

[Ceni]

FROM THE DESK OF XINA IESAN

To the esteemed ambassadors to the General Assembly:

I write on behalf of Air Terranea to oppose General Assembly Resolution No. 1708669796, "Airline Safety And Comfort Disclosures," and to urge you to vote no on this resolution when it comes to vote. Ultimately, we believe that self-disclosures are not the solution to the problem that this resolution seeks to address, and indeed, we see significant harm to this regulation in its effects on the smoothness of our international operations as well as safety.

By way of background, Air Terranea is a large international airline with 514 international destinations, a significant number of which are in World Assembly member nations. While the majority of our destinations are, of course, in non-WA member states, the two principal states where we have our major hubs and corporate headquarters — Ceni and Electrum — are both WA member states and, as such, this resolution would apply to the thousands of flights that we operate each day on our 750 state-of-the-art aircraft (assuming, arguendo, that the resolution also applies to purely cargo flights).

We have several concerns with the language used in the regulation as written. In terms of safety, our broad-brush opposition to this regulation is that it would lead to passenger hysteria and unwarranted concern for mechanical issues that, in fact, do not present a safety risk. For instance, we have noticed incidents where passengers have observed speed tape on the wings and incorrectly thought that it signified that a plane was airworthy — when, in fact, the plane did not present any safety risk whatsoever. We worry that an inordinate amount of disclosures would lead to an unwarranted reduction in confidence in flying even the most safest of commercial airplanes, leading to more people choosing to drive instead of fly — and, simply put, driving is more than 200,000 times more unsafe than flying.

In terms of regulatory burden, however, the resolution massively micromanages the disclosures that must be made to passengers. While we do not necessarily object to having databases on maintenance incidents open to the public, or broad-brush reports about the safety culture of particular airlines, or accident reports where the blame is placed on a particular carrier — which are already widely available — we do object to the raft of disclosures that would massively curtail our already-complex international operations, and a number of key ambiguities make this problem worse.

For instance, section 5(a) requires airlines to disclose "[t]he type, specifications, and maintenance records of that particular aircraft, including the engines and other key parts used in that aircraft." The resolution does not define a "key" part, but it could be plausibly read very widely - for instance, some plane crashes have been caused by one or two particular bolts failing in inopportune moments. Are those bolts "key" parts? With over six million parts in the most complex airlines, maintenance records on even a small fraction of these parts would quickly overwhelm any airline striving to disclose "full records" that are "up-to-date at all times."

Section 5(c) further presents another raft of issues for diligent compliance. The world of airline regulations is quite complex. Taking Ceni as an example, the baseline regulations are 250 pages in length, full of dense jargon and legalese. There have also been more than 30,000 airworthiness directives issued in the last 30 years and thousands of NOTAMs. Taking one random pairing of two airports, we found 83 NOTAMs for those two airports - not even counting the airspace in between the two airports. Unfortunately, the resolution offers no lenience: the airline must "disclose full records regarding . . . [c]ompliance with all applicable regulations and directives" (emphasis added). Having such a volume of disclosures would quickly bog down our operation, but, more importantly, confuse passengers as to hundreds and hundreds of applicable regulations and directives.

We most strenuously object to the provisions within Section 3 of the resolution. Individually, many of these regulations are onerous in and of themselves. For example, Section 3(a) requires disclosures "specific to each regulated flight and to the particular aircraft used." Fundamentally, this practically outlaws last-minute aircraft swaps, or at least hinders their operation substantially: a whole new set of disclosures would have to be provided for any change of aircraft, even if it was for one Celestar Ce519 for another. Section 3(b) exposes the carrier to liability - of an uncertain flavor - if the disclosures are not "up-to-date at all times." Even if the disclosures would be entirely electronic, this burden would expose us to liability if, for one second, a disclosure was not up-to-date. Again, this radically hinders our operation, giving no room for error for unanticipated schedule changes or operational challenges that would produce a change in the required disclosures. Third, Section 3(d) leaves plenty of room for interpretation - what constitutes a language "customarily used in WA states served by that regulated flight"? If there is a minority language spoken by 400 people in a country, would that count as a "customarily used" language?

Section 3(c), however, dooms the whole operation. It requires that disclosures be made "available through convenient physical and electronic means" (emphasis added). This would be a challenge to produce the required disclosures at our hubs — after all, we have to physically print literally thousands upon thousands of pages to provide full details of our compliance with every imaginable set of regulations, directives, notices, and full maintenance records of millions of parts. Even if this requirement were to be interpreted to require us to provide ONE physical copy for each flight, ANY change would lead to massive delays - we would have to print the whole thing over again! Any nation's interpretation that each passenger be provided with a physical set of disclosures — a possibility not foreclosed by the resolution — would mean a massive increase in the weight of our planes, possibly outweighing the weight of the passengers and cargo themselves.

Section 4 is too ambiguous to be saved. While the header of "non-WA flag states" implies that this section should be read as only applying to carriers from a non-WA flag state, Section 2's definitions imply that Section 4 does apply to all "regulated flights." So we are confused by this wording right off the bat. The section then goes on to mandate three disclosures if the regulated flight "plans to travel through international or non-WA airspace" vis-a-vis "any major differences, versus the WA state to/from the airport the flight serves." While we might ascertain that this section would be intended to protect, say, dissidents traveling from Country A to Country B on a flight that passes over an ally of their repressive regime, Country C, the resolution fails to define "major differences," and even so, it fails to specify that these differences be relevant in Section 4(b). For instance, would Air Terranea break this resolution by failing to inform its passengers that one sect of a religion views a major sacramental rite as literally drinking the blood and eating the flesh of its revered figure, while another sect views of this rite as merely metaphorical? Section 4(b) offers no clues: This is, after all, a difference in a "customary ... religious ... practice" that could conceivably fall under the ambit of this resolution.

Within Section 6, we do not necessarily object to requirements for transparency in pricing policy, etc. — those policies are, after all, available on our website, and not hidden in the fine print. Our airline does not have "exorbitant charges for toilets" that the resolution's preface contemplates. However, we do have questions about Section 6(d) - how much detail would satisfy the regulation's demand for disclosure on "[r]egular and planned alternative travel routes of the flight, and punctuality records"?

Unfortunately, Section 8(b) (which provides for implementing regulations according to each member state) does not save the resolution in our eyes. While we understand the intent to have a multiverse-wide set of disclosures, the resolution does give each member state wide latitude to interpret the resolution. With 20,386 member nations, there could be 20,386 different interpretations: some broader, some narrower. In addition to the already onerous requirements imposed by the resolution as written, this resolution leaves room for different interpretations in different states. This would either produce a large burden to comply with even more ambiguities - or reduce us to the most restrictive country in our worldwide operations. This gives far too much power to any individual one nation.

Overall, this resolution is far too vague to accomplish the purposes it seeks to serve - avoiding unsuspecting passengers flying on "Burning Tin Can Airlines" and allowing travelers to decide for themselves "whether offers of cheap fares should be weighed against exorbitant charges for toilets." Instead, this resolution dumps thousands of pages of information on passengers while creating an incredibly large regulatory burden on airlines subject to the resolution. At the extreme, it would discourage people from flying, actually decreasing public safety.

Instead, we would propose a much more simpler solution: the IASA itself should maintain a compendium of regulatory information it finds relevant. Not only would the IASA be an independent, technocratic body - as opposed to self-serving airlines - it would also alleviate the regulatory burden on airlines while allowing passengers to still do their own research from the comfort of their own homes, as opposed to being literally weighed down with thousands of pages of required disclosures.

We hope the World Assembly votes against this resolution - nay, we hope it comes crashing down.

Sincerely,
Xina Iesan

[/quote]

[Simone Republic]

Well-written and coherent but Against because of the sub-topic within air travel chosen. I don't think a body such as the WA should regulate air travel in the technical manner and flag/jurisdictional manner. At most, a sub-topic which suits it would be mandating coordination of air traffic, as to avoid humanitarian disasters of a potentially multi-state level. While this sub-topic could also cause such a tragedy; States, private entities and aerial organisation seem more adequate for regulating topics such as these. I'm aware that they do not exist in NS mechanics, that still does not change my stance.

So, against, but well-written -- thus I don't promote obstruction (others voting against as well) of it, unless they have the same niche reasons I've provided.

After reading the resolution Appalachian Republic votes in favor of the air safety resolution.
There must be some base level of safety across the lands of NationStates and the resolution fulfills that.

"There are existing international laws on the subject of aircraft safety, but this would not really count as one of them. It would not impose duties on airlines or on nations to conduct themselves in any particular manner, only to inform customers of the measures they already take. Perhaps some degree of disclosure ought to be mandated internationally, but it is the opinion of the Barfleurian mission that this proposal takes it too far by requiring unnecessary amount of paperwork."

No. All of the paperwork is already required IRL pursuant to ICAO regulations on maintenance and safety including the tracking of parts. For example, Boeing is supposed to have a record of which of the 25 employees touched the rivets when installing that door plug on Alaska 1282.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_Vima65ZrU

I think most comments ignore a basic IRL fact: all of this information is already tracked by any commercial airline subject to ICAO regulations. For example, any changes to seat pitch (and how much a seat reclines) affects evacuation in the event of a fire (within 90 seconds usually). Every important spare part out of four million is tracked. Every member of the crew is already briefed in the conditions of the aircraft prior to departure. There isn't anything in here that isn't already available somewhere within the operations of any self-respecting airline in compliance with ICAO.

The disclosure can be a single document printed out of a laser printer and stuck in a ring binder next to the departure gate. Most airlines actually already have this at hand for crew and ground staff (although usually on an iPad these days, but the ring binders were around up to the mid-2000s before smartphones came along). Printing a page out and sticking it in a ring binder is no more complex than printing a new boarding pass.

(4)(b) "the customary cultural, religious, and other practices of the flag state" is actually a euphemism for the videos commonly shown in certain international flights that "two ounces of cocaine on you when you land means automatic death sentence with a bullet to your head".

[The Erdelan Caliphate]

The Erdelan Caliphate wholeheartedly agrees with the resolution to enact uniform standards that protect workers, consumers, and the general public, and will immediately vote in favour.

---

إِنَّا ِلِلَّٰهِ وَإِنَّا إِلَيْهِ رَاجِعُونَ

[Simone Republic]

"We are opposed. Whatever reasonable idea might have been present in a sort of general way, is completely lost in the plethora of useless information that airlines must now produce. Law of diminishing returns surely applies.

"And it must done in physical means. The totality of the information required is such that airlines will have to continuously print off books the size of telephone directories in multiple languages. We shudder to think of the environmental damage."

As mentioned on Discord, up to the early 2000s, all crew members received binders. (They are now on iPad). The safety briefings before each flight used to be thick binders. The entire resolution is simply asking for air safety briefings already routinely provided to air crew and tracked by each aircraft manufacturer and maintenance officer before each flight be available to the public as well. Installing an extra laser printer at gate is no more difficult than printing a boarding pass.

[Barfleur]

"Now air travel is no fun anymore. It used to be that you would show up for your flight, take your seat, and be left wondering until the very last moment whether or not you would be served up as an in-flight meal. But the do-goody-gooders couldn't have that, now, could they? The generations to come won't understand just how good we had it. We had cannibalism! We had blood sports! We had endless back-and-forths about paid leave and euthanasia and international law enforcement. We had it all!"

OOC: Congratulations on getting this passed!

[Kenmoria]

Airline Safety And Comfort Disclosures was passed 7,933 votes to 5,261.

(OOC: Congratulations, Simone.)

[Niladri11]

Aircraft Safety and Comfort Disclosures," individuals may feel relieved, knowing that measures have been taken to enhance transparency and ensure passenger well-being during air travel. This initiative could instill confidence and trust in aviation standards and regulations. gb whatsapp Pro