> Surely there's a disinterested party that can read weather reports and make determinations of whether or not particular routes are safe? Probably. Even then,

> Surely there's a disinterested party that can read weather reports and make determinations of whether or not particular routes are safe? Probably. Even then, though, what's the significance of the airline paying? On a practical level, this means they raise prices to account for that risk (and likely a higher estimate to be on the safe side) and consumers are paying anyway. So the real choice is whether you want to charge the consumers that booked the flight that got cancelled for the cost of the hotel rooms when this happens or all consumers a smaller amount to account for it. Like an insurance policy, basically. I guess at the end of the day, I understand not wanting people to be stuck in an airport for a while because they have no money in an unfamiliar place, but I also feel like occasional bad weather is a fact of life and legislating more complexity onto the airlines is moving the wrong direction. > And as a backstop, still give the airline the power to decide on a no-go... even if the "weather service" says it's ok to fly, if the captain doesn't feel comfortable, they can make that call. This has always existed, as far as I'm aware. You just don't want to put airlines in that position, and it's pushing it to expect captains to overrule that decision when the airline is paying their salary.