On Arbitrary Regulation

 

Israel will ban Boeing 747 and similar aircraft with four engines as of March 31, 2023 to reduce noise and air pollution, its airports authority said on Sunday. link

This kind of thing really makes one question the “wisdom” of whomever makes these rules up. After all, on a per-seat basis, a full four-engined aircraft has lower pollution than many smaller aircraft. An A340 is probably quieter than an A330 (same airframe, but more engine spreads out the noise profile somewhat).

Did whoever made up these rules actually balance the costs and benefits? I think the question answers itself.

I was reminded of the objections raised to Elon Musk’s SpaceX program, and the requirements arbitrarily levied on that program;

• “Preparing a historical context report (i.e., historical narrative) of the historic events and activities of the Mexican War (1846-1848) and the Civil War (1861-1865) that took place in the geographic area.”
• “Funding the development and production of five interpretive signs (in English and Spanish) that describe the history and significance of the historic properties.”
• “Make an annual contribution of $5,000 to the Friends of Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge Adopt-an-Ocelot Program.”
• “Provide $5,000 annually to enhance the existing TPWD Tackle Loaner Program. This funding may be used to purchase fishing equipment (rods, reels, and tackle boxes with hooks, sinkers, and bobbers) for use at existing, heavily visited sites and/or allow the program to expand.”
• “Provide enhanced satellite monitoring via solar powered Starlink for remote wildlife viewing opportunities.”

Is there any practical way to rein in this kind of arbitrary nonsense from regulators?  What kind of rule or law could force them to stay in their lane?

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 21 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. David Foster Member
    David Foster
    @DavidFoster

    This seems crazy.  Why not define noise and pollution rules in terms of…noise and pollution, as measured in decibels and quantities of various harmful substances?

    • #1
  2. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    iWe: This kind of thing really makes one question the “wisdom” of whomever makes these rules up. After all, on a per-seat basis, a full four-engined aircraft has lower pollution than many smaller aircraft.

    747’s are almost exclusively cargo aircraft now.  There are only a few airlines left with passenger versions.

     

    https://simpleflying.com/rare-jumbos-747s/

     

    • #2
  3. Kevin Schulte Member
    Kevin Schulte
    @KevinSchulte

    The left has overrun everything of consequence . They rule in completely arbitrary ways. 

    Those things space X has to comply with ? My guess that money gets funneled into more leftist causes and further rule. 

    They are the Borg incarnate. Their spiritual father is the Devil. They do his bidding thinking they are making Utopia. Their father laughs at them while he uses them.  

    • #3
  4. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    And because Mr. Musk is being punished for his crime of wanting to build something, no one even says thank you.

    • #4
  5. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    iWe: Did whoever make these rules up actually balance the costs and benefits? I think the question answers itself.

    This is what turned my view very negative on the federal bureaucracy when I was part of it. I signed up to work to eliminate the paper-based financial transaction system and cost-benefit analysis was a vital technique in making these decisions fifty years ago, but I could see the direction things were taking.  Often the science was a big factor in getting to the correct conclusion. Today, even in the most  major areas like climate change, it’s not even in the calculus.

    • #5
  6. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    iWe: This kind of thing really makes one question the “wisdom” of whomever makes these rules up. After all, on a per-seat basis, a full four-engined aircraft has lower pollution than many smaller aircraft.

    747’s are almost exclusively cargo aircraft now. There are only a few airlines left with passenger versions.

     

    https://simpleflying.com/rare-jumbos-747s/

     

    True. Yet A380s and A340s…  this regulation also dissuades new aircraft design that might work better with four engines. Bureaucrats are not good at predicting future tech.

    • #6
  7. Phil Turmel Coolidge
    Phil Turmel
    @PhilTurmel

    iWe: Is there any practical way to rein in this kind of arbitrary nonsense from regulators?

    A strong executive that is against arbitrary nonsense.

    What kind of rule or law could force them to stay in their lane?

    Not so long as the Administrative Procedures Act remains on the books.

    • #7
  8. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Phil Turmel (View Comment):

    iWe: Is there any practical way to rein in this kind of arbitrary nonsense from regulators?

    A strong executive that is against arbitrary nonsense.

    What kind of rule or law could force them to stay in their lane?

    Not so long as the Administrative Procedures Act remains on the books.

    All readers here should pay attention to these comments. Congress not doing their job enables the executive to engage in arbitrary nonsense. A big portion is the bureaucracy and they are not very smart. Put a really dumb chief executive with them and you get what we have now.

    • #8
  9. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    Phil Turmel (View Comment):

    iWe: Is there any practical way to rein in this kind of arbitrary nonsense from regulators?

    A strong executive that is against arbitrary nonsense.

    What kind of rule or law could force them to stay in their lane?

    Not so long as the Administrative Procedures Act remains on the books.

    Could there not be a new law that simply updates/alters the stuff that enables nonsense?

    • #9
  10. Jim McConnell Member
    Jim McConnell
    @JimMcConnell

    iWe (View Comment):
    Bureaucrats are not good at predicting future tech.

    To put it very mildly.

    • #10
  11. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    iWe: Is there any practical way to rein in this kind of arbitrary nonsense from regulators?  What kind of rule or law could force them to stay in their lane?

    Yes, there is. Put President Trump in charge and make regulators get legislative approval for any rule having a greater economic effect than $1 million dollars or whatever number is proportionally sensible.

    • #11
  12. RushBabe49 Thatcher
    RushBabe49
    @RushBabe49

    How much cargo destined for Israel next year will now end up somewhere else and trucked into Israel?  Emitting whatever the truck does, and costing 2-3X more, and taking twice as long to get to its final destination.

    • #12
  13. Mad Gerald Coolidge
    Mad Gerald
    @Jose

    Along similar lines, I have been wondering why NASA’s Artemis launch keeps failing and getting postponed.

    It turns out the congress, undoubtedly influenced by lobbyists, mandated that NASA keep using old Space Shuttle technology and equipment.  No wonder Elon Musk is running rings around them.

    At least the requirements placed on him by regulators have not interfered with the technology he is developing.

    • #13
  14. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    iWe:

    Is there any practical way to rein in this kind of arbitrary nonsense from regulators?  What kind of rule or law could force them to stay in their lane?

    The Constitution would help, if we took it seriously.

    • #14
  15. Phil Turmel Coolidge
    Phil Turmel
    @PhilTurmel

    iWe (View Comment):

    Phil Turmel (View Comment):

    iWe: Is there any practical way to rein in this kind of arbitrary nonsense from regulators?

    A strong executive that is against arbitrary nonsense.

    What kind of rule or law could force them to stay in their lane?

    Not so long as the Administrative Procedures Act remains on the books.

    Could there not be a new law that simply updates/alters the stuff that enables nonsense?

    Of course.  The simplest would be repeal of the APA.  The key to the nonsense is Congress delegating its authority to the executive, and delegating certain judicial functions to the executive.  Regulations created by bureaucracies have the force of law under the current scheme.  And “judges” in the executive branch have judicial powers under the current scheme.  Any effective law to rein in the nonsense would have to deal with these two, and will generate as much lefty resistance as a simple repeal would.

    { There are indications that the Supreme Court is now conservative enough to chip away at them–I consider those two facts to be utterly unconstitutional. }

    • #15
  16. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    iWe: After all, on a per-seat basis, a full four-engined aircraft has lower pollution than many smaller aircraft. An A340 is probably quieter than an A330 (same airframe, but more engine spreads out the noise profile somewhat).

    Do you have a source for this, or are you an expert in this area?  I have no idea whether or not you are correct about this.

    The first sentence, even if correct, doesn’t prove your point.  It’s a comparison of some hypothetical four-engine jet with “many” smaller aircraft.  Which ones?  Wouldn’t this matter?  If they are banning 747s, then I would think that the relevant comparison is to 747s.

    I do realize that the article mentions “similar aircraft” but is not specific.  What if they are just phasing out very old planes, many of which have four engines?

    I’d appreciate further details.  Based on what I’ve seen so far, I don’t think that you’ve demonstrated that the regulation at issue is “arbitrary.”

    • #16
  17. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Phil Turmel (View Comment):
    Of course.  The simplest would be repeal of the APA. 

    Down with APA! Long live Turabian!

    • #17
  18. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    iWe: After all, on a per-seat basis, a full four-engined aircraft has lower pollution than many smaller aircraft. An A340 is probably quieter than an A330 (same airframe, but more engine spreads out the noise profile somewhat).

    Do you have a source for this, or are you an expert in this area? I have no idea whether or not you are correct about this.

    Yes, and yes.  

    I do realize that the article mentions “similar aircraft” but is not specific. What if they are just phasing out very old planes, many of which have four engines?

    Then they can phase out old airplanes. The 747-8, a four-engined airplane, was in production until this year.  

    Blanket regulations are ALWAYS blunt instruments that lead to a range of unintended consequences; this was just an example that bothered me today.

    • #18
  19. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Will four-engined planes not allowed into Israel include those in the USAF Air Mobility Command? Because if I recall correctly, those planes were called on to deliver some stuff in a big hurry back in 1974.

    • #19
  20. RushBabe49 Thatcher
    RushBabe49
    @RushBabe49

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    iWe: After all, on a per-seat basis, a full four-engined aircraft has lower pollution than many smaller aircraft. An A340 is probably quieter than an A330 (same airframe, but more engine spreads out the noise profile somewhat).

    Do you have a source for this, or are you an expert in this area? I have no idea whether or not you are correct about this.

    The first sentence, even if correct, doesn’t prove your point. It’s a comparison of some hypothetical four-engine jet with “many” smaller aircraft. Which ones? Wouldn’t this matter? If they are banning 747s, then I would think that the relevant comparison is to 747s.

    I do realize that the article mentions “similar aircraft” but is not specific. What if they are just phasing out very old planes, many of which have four engines?

    I’d appreciate further details. Based on what I’ve seen so far, I don’t think that you’ve demonstrated that the regulation at issue is “arbitrary.”deleted by commenter.

    • #20
  21. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Percival (View Comment):

    Will four-engined planes not allowed into Israel include those in the USAF Air Mobility Command? Because if I recall correctly, those planes were called on to deliver some stuff in a big hurry back in 1974.

    ‘73, darn it.

    • #21
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.