When should government reform of business end and internal review begin? Surprisingly, the spring break travels of many UW students call this question to the social forefront.

Airline travel over spring break has become the norm for college students, and those at Wisconsin are no exception. Wild tales abound from trips to Acapulco, Cancun and various other destinations of questionable repute. Students find themselves flying to remote destinations in an effort to escape the Wisconsin cold as often as not. Few students, however, reflect on their travels in the political and economic senses — a move that deserves reconsideration.

The European Union has taken an unprecedented and ambitious step in issuing an air traveler’s “Bill of Rights,” which essentially protects consumers from airline unaccountability, largely with financial compensation. Congress took similar steps in 1999 to relieve growing consumer angst with the airlines, but failed to pass the measures largely because of a powerful industry lobbying presence.

So, one may ask, what would be wrong with passing such laws in 2005? The consumer viewpoint of the airline industry is often a negative one. Flights are cancelled, rescheduled and redirected in a manner that is hardly conducive to customer satisfaction. Plummeting airline revenues resulted in a de facto wakeup call in 2001. Instead of revamping their policies, the airlines were given a $15 billion bailout. What we see here is an industry apparently run amok, largely devoid of government regulation and accountability.

Thus, the logical step would be to emulate such reforms and pass laws similar to those of the EU’s. Unfortunately, in this case, the logical move is the incorrect one, as it would place both corporations and consumers in a dangerous position.

The airline industry may often be irresponsible in regards to consumer demands. However, reforms placing United, Delta, USAir and others in a precarious financial guillotine would be far too dangerous for any government to presume to make.

As The Wall Street Journal reported, pilots may be placed in the position of choosing their job or their life simply in order to make a deadline. According to the Journal, a flight in early March bound for London lost an engine shortly after takeoff. Rather than set the plane down in the interest of safety, the pilot chose to make the journey on three engines rather than the standard four so that corporate headquarters might be saved a great deal of money. Luckily, the plane made it across the Atlantic safely. Such episodes may become the rule rather than exception in Europe.

The EU’s regulations focus largely on financial penalties on the industry as a means of enforcing accountability. Arriving hours late, as the pilot of the aforementioned flight had the option of doing, could conceivably cost an airline hundreds of thousands of dollars. The policies of the EU, while sure to have an impact on airline reliability, are dangerous. More constructive policies need to be devised. Greater emphasis on consumer relations and, perhaps, government enforcement of free-ticket policies could serve as a more useful solution than strictly monetary remuneration.

Congress is not bound to follow the European Union’s example. Our lawmakers need to weigh heavily both the concerns of the airline industry as well as those of disgruntled consumers. Unfortunately, the EU has chosen to put airline pilots in a veritable catch-22 — we need not do the same.

Though this issue seems removed from day-to-day life, UW spring breakers owe it to themselves to give this issue due consideration. The next time a flight is delayed, consider whether or not it is worth risking lives to get to the destination on time — the European Union would have you answer affirmatively.

Gabe Cohen ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in journalism.