8 ms·

"Automated claims systems, why don’t airlines have these? They would save money on support staff/legal fees/etc. The could charge a couple of pounds/dollars/eur

"Automated claims systems, why don’t airlines have these? They would save money on support staff/legal fees/etc. The could charge a couple of pounds/dollars/euros more per ticket and probably cover all compensation costs. We know that “no win no fee” claims services exist. They know they exist. They know that we know that they exist, so what the fuck are we all doing wasting our time here?" The answer is simple: You automate the things that earn you money. You don't automate the things that make you pay money to others - perhaps with the exception of your supply chain or other resources you need to maintain business continuity. The author is thinking like an engineer, not like a businessperson. Not that there's anything wrong with thinking like an engineer where it's called for, but airlines are profit-seeking businesses.

sp332 6y ago
I thought exactly the same. Avoiding automaton let them bring a whole court system to its knees which meant they could get away with breaking the law.
- marcosdumay 6y ago
  No that you said it, court systems should have overuse tariffs, so the people that overwhelm them subside the extra capacity they need.
  - otterley 6y ago
    At least in the U.S., courts already charge filing and other fees, which in these small cases might be more than the potential damages. (Unless you can seek punitive or multiple damages depending on what the law allows.) That's why class actions are often used here, since it would be impractical to file a case on behalf of every injured claimant.
    - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
      USA, like UK, has a small claims system too. In theory that makes legal redress less costly (for the complainant and the court system). https://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/small_claims/basic_info.shtml https://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/small_claims/basic_info....
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      It is fairly common for the prevailing party to be awarded their filing fees.
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    A naive implementation wouldn't work though - some companies need to sue lots of people, but will win almost all the time. It seems wrong to penalise the defendant because they committed a tort against someone who regularly successfully sues others. Mind you, there's a "build footpaths where people walk" aspect here too. If someone is suing lots of people it might be that the law is 'wrong' (contrary to modal picnic views of morality, say) and that the demos don't find the action to be something the law should prohibit?
    - MichaelZuo 6y ago
      The implementation that mostly works well in Canada and Alaska is a partial loser-pays system. The areas of the judiciary where it’s not strictly applied are the areas that have the most problems, namely Family Courts.
    - marcosdumay 6y ago
      If the idea is any good (of course, I'm not certain), it can not be automatic, and can not be based on what part brings the issue to the court.
Nextgrid 6y ago
> The author is thinking like an engineer, not like a businessperson. I'd rewrite this and say that the author is thinking ethically, not like scum. If the law or regulations say that you must compensate a customer for your failings, you should implement the most efficient system for you to do so (thus both you and the customer win) and focus the remaining resources on making sure you don't have to compensate customers in the first place by avoiding failures (and failures that aren't avoidable should just be accounted for in the price you sell your services).
- otterley 6y ago
  As someone who works for a company focused on relentless customer service, I agree that that would be ideal. So far there hasn't been a profitable entrant into the airline business that's focused on customer service (EDIT: with the noteworthy exception of Southwest Airlines in the U.S.). Customers are notoriously price sensitive when it comes to non-business travel and unfortunately it's a race to the bottom. And you can't offer the lowest prices if you make the refund process easy.
  - Hnrobert42 6y ago
    Of course, YMMV, but Southwest Airlines is very focused on customer service, and it is very successful.
    - otterley 6y ago
      Indeed! But they rarely have the lowest prices anymore. Certainly not the kinds of bargains you find on RyanAir or easyJet. SWA also doesn't give refunds unless you fly unrestricted, which is usually 3x the price of a restricted fare. To their credit, they don't charge change fees. The way I think of RyanAir or easyJet or the like is a bit like gambling. Maybe 90% of the time you'll get a super cheap flight and everything will go fine, but the other 10% you'll lose your money. In the long term, though, it's a good deal for the passenger.
      - wrs 6y ago
ulfw 6y ago
>> airlines are profit-seeking businesses Which business except Silicon Valley 'valuation unicorns' isn't?
that_guy_iain 6y ago
No you automate things that cost you money in either losing customers or spending resources on managaging it. The fact they won't automate it is because automating it would lose them money. More people would make claims. Most people give up on claims after time. Literally, we stop caring after a while, so the longer the process takes and the more effort it takes the more people drop off. Airlines make it as hard as possible to make a claim because otherwise they would lose more money. I thought it was very well known this is why Airlines have such painful claims processes.
Closi 6y ago
The author is also thinking like an engineer rather than a lawyer. His entire claim is based on a paragraph of the directive for 'cancellations'. Authors claim is that the flight was 'cancelled' and a 'new' flight was put on the next day, and that this is a cancellation because the flight number changed. This definition is tenuous - Airlines can (and do) swap flight numbers and even physical aircraft and this would not class as a cancellation (and this is what the appeals found in this case). A cancellation realistically means that the airline could not transport the customer to the destination at all, and the 'flight' was cancelled rather than being rescheduled to another time. Airlines claim is that his flight was rescheduled, and he declined to even go on the rescheduled flight and then expected compensation in-line with a cancellation. This is probably fairly accurate. So if it's not a cancellation, what does the legislation actually say his compensation should be? * (a) meals and refreshments in a reasonable relation to the waiting time * (b) hotel accommodation * (c) transport between the airport and place of accommodation (hotel or other). * 2. Two telephone calls, telex or fax messages, or e-mails. * 3. (If longer than 5 hours) Reimbursement within seven days, by the means provided for in Article 7(3), of the full cost of the ticket at the price at which it was bought, for the part or parts of the journey not made. Noting that there is no cash alternative to a, b & c (which isn't explicitly stated, but is implied in the article) the request of c€125 implied in his article is not covered under the relevant parts of this European directive. Note: This is only my view on reading it but it seems pretty clear, but IANAL!

sp332 6y ago

I thought exactly the same. Avoiding automaton let them bring a whole court system to its knees which meant they could get away with breaking the law.

marcosdumay 6y ago
No that you said it, court systems should have overuse tariffs, so the people that overwhelm them subside the extra capacity they need.
- otterley 6y ago
  At least in the U.S., courts already charge filing and other fees, which in these small cases might be more than the potential damages. (Unless you can seek punitive or multiple damages depending on what the law allows.) That's why class actions are often used here, since it would be impractical to file a case on behalf of every injured claimant.
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    USA, like UK, has a small claims system too. In theory that makes legal redress less costly (for the complainant and the court system). https://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/small_claims/basic_info.shtml https://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/small_claims/basic_info....
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    It is fairly common for the prevailing party to be awarded their filing fees.
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  A naive implementation wouldn't work though - some companies need to sue lots of people, but will win almost all the time. It seems wrong to penalise the defendant because they committed a tort against someone who regularly successfully sues others. Mind you, there's a "build footpaths where people walk" aspect here too. If someone is suing lots of people it might be that the law is 'wrong' (contrary to modal picnic views of morality, say) and that the demos don't find the action to be something the law should prohibit?
  - MichaelZuo 6y ago
    The implementation that mostly works well in Canada and Alaska is a partial loser-pays system. The areas of the judiciary where it’s not strictly applied are the areas that have the most problems, namely Family Courts.
  - marcosdumay 6y ago
    If the idea is any good (of course, I'm not certain), it can not be automatic, and can not be based on what part brings the issue to the court.

Nextgrid 6y ago

> The author is thinking like an engineer, not like a businessperson. I'd rewrite this and say that the author is thinking ethically, not like scum. If the law or regulations say that you must compensate a customer for your failings, you should implement the most efficient system for you to do so (thus both you and the customer win) and focus the remaining resources on making sure you don't have to compensate customers in the first place by avoiding failures (and failures that aren't avoidable should just be accounted for in the price you sell your services).

otterley 6y ago
As someone who works for a company focused on relentless customer service, I agree that that would be ideal. So far there hasn't been a profitable entrant into the airline business that's focused on customer service (EDIT: with the noteworthy exception of Southwest Airlines in the U.S.). Customers are notoriously price sensitive when it comes to non-business travel and unfortunately it's a race to the bottom. And you can't offer the lowest prices if you make the refund process easy.
- Hnrobert42 6y ago
  Of course, YMMV, but Southwest Airlines is very focused on customer service, and it is very successful.
  - otterley 6y ago
    Indeed! But they rarely have the lowest prices anymore. Certainly not the kinds of bargains you find on RyanAir or easyJet. SWA also doesn't give refunds unless you fly unrestricted, which is usually 3x the price of a restricted fare. To their credit, they don't charge change fees. The way I think of RyanAir or easyJet or the like is a bit like gambling. Maybe 90% of the time you'll get a super cheap flight and everything will go fine, but the other 10% you'll lose your money. In the long term, though, it's a good deal for the passenger.
    - wrs 6y ago

ulfw 6y ago

>> airlines are profit-seeking businesses Which business except Silicon Valley 'valuation unicorns' isn't?

that_guy_iain 6y ago

No you automate things that cost you money in either losing customers or spending resources on managaging it. The fact they won't automate it is because automating it would lose them money. More people would make claims. Most people give up on claims after time. Literally, we stop caring after a while, so the longer the process takes and the more effort it takes the more people drop off. Airlines make it as hard as possible to make a claim because otherwise they would lose more money. I thought it was very well known this is why Airlines have such painful claims processes.

Closi 6y ago

The author is also thinking like an engineer rather than a lawyer. His entire claim is based on a paragraph of the directive for 'cancellations'. Authors claim is that the flight was 'cancelled' and a 'new' flight was put on the next day, and that this is a cancellation because the flight number changed. This definition is tenuous - Airlines can (and do) swap flight numbers and even physical aircraft and this would not class as a cancellation (and this is what the appeals found in this case). A cancellation realistically means that the airline could not transport the customer to the destination at all, and the 'flight' was cancelled rather than being rescheduled to another time. Airlines claim is that his flight was rescheduled, and he declined to even go on the rescheduled flight and then expected compensation in-line with a cancellation. This is probably fairly accurate. So if it's not a cancellation, what does the legislation actually say his compensation should be? * (a) meals and refreshments in a reasonable relation to the waiting time * (b) hotel accommodation * (c) transport between the airport and place of accommodation (hotel or other). * 2. Two telephone calls, telex or fax messages, or e-mails. * 3. (If longer than 5 hours) Reimbursement within seven days, by the means provided for in Article 7(3), of the full cost of the ticket at the price at which it was bought, for the part or parts of the journey not made. Noting that there is no cash alternative to a, b & c (which isn't explicitly stated, but is implied in the article) the request of c€125 implied in his article is not covered under the relevant parts of this European directive. Note: This is only my view on reading it but it seems pretty clear, but IANAL!