Full story: http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/...p-to-fliers-after-in-flight-trauma/43043896/1
Why? Because it is far easier to get publicity from a sensationalistic media, and get support from a consumerist-blinded public, by trying to cast business in a negative light. Tell people that they would have to pay for it through their taxes, or that donations to a victims-rights group would go toward retainers for professionals who will do nothing for the money, most of the time, and the idea loses its luster.
Anything worthwhile is worth paying for: Consumers are going to pay for this no matter what, either through redirection of donations that they perhaps would want to go toward other things, or through taxes which they perhaps would also want to go toward other things, or through higher prices to make up for this unfunded mandate that the NADA/F is trying to bring about through their cynically heart-tugging chest-beating - higher prices that perhaps passengers would rather not pay.
Personally, I think it is a noble intention, and I would not be averse to seeing it brought about, but not as an unfunded mandate on business. If it is something folks would like to do, generally (and again, I'm not averse to that... it would be fine by me), then it should be brought about as yet-another government surtax on airline tickets, so people pay for the protection in proportion to how likely it is that they would be to end up needing that protection.
This is what should be expected. Just reviewing recent threads here on the DIS, I suspect some folks would raise holy heck if airline gate agents started putting rebooking passengers, rerouting luggage, and issuing voucher in the back-seat, behind offering inexpert trauma counseling. They're gate agents, not psychologists.
Why not require organizations like the NADA/F to respond to such incidents, providing qualified experts to offer emotional and psychological support to those affected? Alternatively, why are they not insisting that the FAA have such experts on-call, rather than directing their greedy eyes at the deep pockets of the airlines, just recently returning to solvency after years on the brink of bankruptcy?
Why? Because it is far easier to get publicity from a sensationalistic media, and get support from a consumerist-blinded public, by trying to cast business in a negative light. Tell people that they would have to pay for it through their taxes, or that donations to a victims-rights group would go toward retainers for professionals who will do nothing for the money, most of the time, and the idea loses its luster.
Anything worthwhile is worth paying for: Consumers are going to pay for this no matter what, either through redirection of donations that they perhaps would want to go toward other things, or through taxes which they perhaps would also want to go toward other things, or through higher prices to make up for this unfunded mandate that the NADA/F is trying to bring about through their cynically heart-tugging chest-beating - higher prices that perhaps passengers would rather not pay.
Personally, I think it is a noble intention, and I would not be averse to seeing it brought about, but not as an unfunded mandate on business. If it is something folks would like to do, generally (and again, I'm not averse to that... it would be fine by me), then it should be brought about as yet-another government surtax on airline tickets, so people pay for the protection in proportion to how likely it is that they would be to end up needing that protection.
