3 ms·

The actual problem is not easyJet, though. They are complaint to the letter of the law. The problem is the law which is written in a way that allows easyJet to

• emteycz 6y ago
  > On its face the law seems consumer friendly, but only when you try to use it, do you realize that you need to spend months/years wrestling with the company to get your measly few hundred euros back, and you might even need to engage a lawyer. I don't understand how anyone can fall for this after all this time. It's the case with all law. The politicians are not there for the people.
  • Retric 6y ago
    In many case the law as written might actually be consumer friendly, but case law tends to favor corporations which had more money to spend representing themselves. Over time it’s a surprisingly subtle corruption of our legal system.
    • emteycz 6y ago
      I don't think there are many cases of that. Maybe a few, and the law is probably updated already. There is just a handful of honest politicians, what else should we expect?
      • Retric 6y ago
        Food labeling laws and regulations are a solid counter example. Plenty of improvements are possible, but the industry would be in favor of ~zero laws so in effect their all consumer friendly by design. The difference between calling something peanut butter and peanut spread might not seem that important, but it’s those exact invisible laws and regulations that end up being critical.
  • orange_tee 6y ago
    You have to experience it personally to figure it out. I have now come to realize that the supremacy of the law is subjective, especially when it comes to civil disputes.
• LorenPechtel 6y ago
  What we need is a law that when a business unreasonably delays or denies a rightful claim that there are substantial additional costs for them. As it stands garbage like this makes economic sense, the only way it will stop is if throwing up roadblocks costs more than simply paying what they owe.
• notahacker 6y ago
  The law gave the author a statutory right to ask easyJet to purchase an equivalent a flight for him at their cost at the time or claim compensation if their journey was delayed beyond a certain point. Neither would have required a lawyer, and easyJet gate agents would probably have sorted the alternative flight on the day as the best option for all parties Instead they chose to pursue a third option the law didn't cover and purchased their own choice of alternative flight. Its not the law's fault that if people choose alternatives they don't have a statutory right to be compensated for when dealing with the sort of company that isn't inclined to be generous, they don't get resolution until the company decides it doesn't want the risk and cost of fighting any further.
  • morsch 6y ago
    Its not the law's fault that if people choose alternatives they don't have a statutory right to be It pretty clearly is exactly "the law's fault" when you are of the opinion that those alternatives that aren't statutory rights should be.
    • notahacker 6y ago
      The consumer had statutory rights to compensation for being delayed or an airline-arranged alternative flight but chose to make his own arrangement. He may well have a sound argument that his alternative arrangement was in this instance equally reasonable, but it is not a bug in the legal system that arguing for different entitlements is longer and more complicated than using ones already written into law
• JamesBarney 6y ago
  Having been someone who has been screwed over by both landlords and tenants the legal system is very unfriendly to non-professionals. And most people who are terrible tend to be involved in the legal system far more often and thus have a better idea about how to navigate the proceedings.
• amelius 6y ago
  They are using the legal system in a way in which it was not intended to be used. Also known as hacking.