A sticky wicket in March

The Overseas Security Advisory Council issued a report (registration required) last week assessing safety & security for the upcoming Cricket World Cup that is being held at several venues around the Caribbean throughout the month of March. OSAC is concerned about the potentially problematic mix of cricket fans and American spring breakers next month in one of the primary venues, Jamaica:

A factor further influencing the criminal threat in Jamaica will be the presence of American college students visiting on their spring breaks. Jamaica typically attracts approximately 20,000 spring break tourists every year. Although many of the prime resorts are near Montego Bay rather than Kingston, there is still a possibility the overlap could create a dangerous mix of partying college students and cricket fans.

Drunken American students versus international cricket fans - a "dangerous mix" indeed. While cricket isn't as infamous for violent fan behavior as soccer is, they still have their moments. In addition, the State Department is concerned that the tourism infrastructure in the host nations (Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Trinidad and Tobago) may not be able to handle the influx of both fans and seasonal tourists: "the Cricket World Cup may strain the availability of taxis, emergency medical response, and other public services".

If you're thinking about a Caribbean vacation during March, think again.

Airline rights versus safety

JetBlue Airways has rolled out a "Customer Bill of Rights" after the airline suffered a full week of weather related cancellations, including widely reported incidents of passengers being stranded on the tarmac at New York's JFK airport for six to ten hours straight. However, some are looking to the federal government to legislate a bill of rights for airline customers, apparently not trusting the carriers to regulate themselves. Kevin Mitchell of the Business Travel Coalition says that "government involvement with airline customer service" is a bad idea, and warns that "It is imprudent to mix financial incentives and penalties with airline operations, go, no-go decisions and safety judgments":

On February 19, 2005, the No. 2 engine of a Boeing 747 failed after take off from LAX on a flight to Heathrow with 351 passengers on board. The captain decided to continue anyway with 3 engines. Because it was unable to attain normal cruising speeds and altitudes, the aircraft was forced to divert to Manchester, England. Under European Union passenger rights legislation, had the plane returned to LAX, BA would have had to compensate passengers some $250,000. BA denies that the penalty influenced its go, no go decision.

Sure, a quarter of a million bucks was on the line, but that never entered into the pilot's consideration at all. Imagine this scenario being played out in thousands of marginal situations around the US each year, with flight crews and airline management having to worry about government-imposed penalties when making operational decisions.

With most carriers already drowning in red ink, it is a certainty that situations will arise where financial considerations will trump safety concerns. As Mitchell says, "It would be tragic if in an effort to re-regulate passenger service, we inadvertently undermined our airline industry’s laudable safety record."