Regarding the Nov. 24 Style article “The government wants ‘civility’ back on flights”:
Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy’s recommendation about dressing “with respect” on flights, singling out for criticism those who sport sweatpants, misses an important point, setting aside for the moment the rising incidents of passenger rage during flights.
I contend that there is a demonstrable and direct correlation between loosening standards of dress on planes and the increasingly predatory and frankly crude treatment that airlines consistently accord to their customers.
Why should folks bother to get dressed in their Sunday best (as we used to be happy to do) when the quality and respect that airlines give their passengers have severely declined. Today, passengers are forced to pay exorbitant ticket prices, but only those with means to pay extra are guaranteed a comfortable or spacious seat. Passengers also have to pay an additional fee to check a bag, and are given only a few crackers, pretzels or other measly snack to eat on many domestic flights.
Duffy should instead consider using his bully pulpit to urge airlines to improve their in-flight service. He might want to start by examining and comparing U.S. airlines with European and other premier airlines’ higher standards, and the forms of respect they extend to economy class passengers, in particular. It really boils down to showing mutual respect.
T. Michael Peay, Silver Spring
The 1955 picture that accompanied the Nov. 24 Style article about the government wanting “civility back on flights” perfectly explained why that civility has waned in the past 70 years. There were wide seats with a nice headrest, only two seats in a row, curtains on the windows, large pillows available right over the seat and little need for carry-on luggage because checked baggage was generally included with a ticket.
Peter Bucky, Ashburn
I’m sure the suggestions offered by Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy would apply only to commercial air travel. Otherwise, Duffy might want to start his civility campaign with President Donald Trump on Air Force One. If the Transportation Department is urging travelers to be civil with one another, calling someone “piggy” is definitely a no-no.
Diane B. Norton, Fairfax
Vaccination could help slow bird flu
The Nov. 16 news article “Officials confirm first U.S. case of human bird flu in 9 months” highlighted a growing public health threat that demands more urgency from federal decision-makers. Yet the Agriculture Department continues to reject the most effective tool available to slow this virus: vaccination.
As a result of last winter’s outbreaks, more than 18 million chickens were killed under mandatory USDA culling protocols, often by ventilation shutdown, causing birds to die slowly from extreme heat.
Biosecurity alone cannot stop a virus from moving across one of the most poultry-dense regions in the country. But the science is clear: HPAI poultry vaccines used in other countries offer protection against illness, minimize viral shed and spread, and therefore reduce the rate of mass extermination of entire flocks. France vaccinated its birds, and the number of cases dropped dramatically. The U.S. already has a proven vaccine for this strain, validated by federal scientists, yet the USDA refuses to authorize its use.
The reason is political. U.S. broiler chicken exports would be restricted under existing regulations if poultry were vaccinated against avian influenza, unless trade rules are revised. Broiler producers have lost relatively few birds to this virus, and they’ve successfully pressured the USDA to avoid trade risk, leaving egg and turkey farmers, taxpayers and public health to absorb the devastation.
Since 2022, taxpayers have spent more than $1 billion reimbursing companies for these killings. Meanwhile, each outbreak gives the virus new opportunities to mutate.
The USDA shouldn’t let export restrictions in one segment of the industry dictate national disease policy. Vaccination must be authorized before the next wave becomes even more costly, for animals and for people.
Michael Windsor, Fort Collins, Colorado
The writer is senior director of corporate engagement at the Humane League.
Understanding the game
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent wrote about the filibuster in his Nov. 25 op-ed, “It’s time to end the filibuster,” in the context of the classic prisoner’s dilemma, where in a repeated game, the player who always cooperates wins and the opponent who always betrays is doomed to lose. What he neglected to point out was the prisoner’s dilemma’s most basic tenet: that cooperation in the form of both prisoners acting in unison leads to the best outcome.
The Senate, and Congress as a whole, was envisioned to function as debate leading to agreement on a path. Even if one side has to settle for a less-than-optimal outcome, the relationship built leads to further cooperation on a later matter. Our current politics comprises persistent acts of betrayal netting increasingly poor outcomes.
Where the metaphor truly falters is that the game is continuous, at least when we are describing Congress. Cashing in the benefit of stalling one measure only to align with another is a losing strategy. Trust is a momentum that builds over time and is destroyed in a moment.
Possibly it would be better if Congress, or secretaries of various agencies, were made to live under the conditions they create. That might offer true understanding of how the “game” rarely ends in an optimal outcome.
Lawrence Whittier Doe Jr., Annapolis
Following John Ficarra’s Nov. 11 op-ed, “My colleague at Mad magazine was a war hero. Who knew?” — and with Pearl Harbor Day coming up on Dec. 7 — Post Opinions wants to know: Did any friends, family members or colleagues turn out to be secret war heroes? How did you find out they were downplaying their personal history? Share your response, and it might be published in the letters to the editor section.
The post Civility and respect on airplanes must go both ways appeared first on Washington Post.
