6 ms·

These two in particular : > Automatic Refunds for Cancellations > Transparency of Fees How does a lawmaker justify this being in the publics interest ? I'm

These two in particular : > Automatic Refunds for Cancellations > Transparency of Fees How does a lawmaker justify this being in the publics interest ? I'm not even joking, I know "well lobbyist going to lobby", but this is a legitimate question. How does a regulatory body say "Yup, that's okay with us to remove" ?

mushroomba 1y ago
[flagged]
- bilekas 1y ago
  > First, realize that there is no such thing as the 'public interest'. The public is composed of different subdivisions of people, from everyone everywhere down to the individual. I don't buy that at all, that's what regulations are for. There is no public interest in still having lead in our fuel [0], or arsenic in green wall paint [1]. To say regulations are not for public interest is to say why have any oversight of anything. Should we say "well fuel companies can make fuel cheaper with lead so lets just remove those regulations. [0] https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/inside-20-year-campaign-rid-world-leaded-fuel https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/inside-20-year-c... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_green#:~:text=Because%20of%20its%20arsenic%20content,react%20with%20other%20manufactured%20paints. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_green#:~:text=Because%20...
  - mushroomba 1y ago
    [flagged]
lxgr 1y ago
Playing devil's advocate for a moment: I could imagine airlines wanting to not allow for a full refund if passengers can be booked on a "reasonably similar" connection. (I've done this myself in the past, as far as I remember; changes of a few minutes in either direction often make an entire booking refundable.) The problem here of course would be the definition of "reasonably similar". Arriving a few hours later can be entirely fine or completely ruin a trip, depending on the circumstances.
- bilekas 1y ago
  Okay, I can see some benefits to the airline that are not too egregious for point 1, maybe automatic can be updated to manual intervention. Not the worst. But price transparency ? > A4A opposes the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) rules requiring airlines to disclose ancillary fees upfront, arguing that these rules exceed the DOT’s authority and don’t provide any clear benefits to consumers. > don’t provide any clear benefits to consumers As a customer I like to know where my money is going and how much.
- Tadpole9181 1y ago
  Airlines caused automatic refunds by systematically screwing customers for a decade, doing every single thing in their power to avoid giving any refunds. This policy exists because they proved to everyone they can't be trusted.
- NoLinkToMe 1y ago
  I don't follow the point. Suppose we live in a perfect world where exactly similar alternative flights are always available the moment yours gets cancelled. You still have to pay for it. And you do that by using the refund money. Cancelling a flight without refunding it, just means profiting at the expense of the customer. Businesses are able to insure their limited cost of cancellations, and price their tickets to absord these insurance costs (which are ultimately born by the ticket-payer). Deregulating this point just puts all the risk and burden with millions of individual customers, some of whom cannot easily carry the cost of unexpected events, and aren't professional parties that can and routinely do enter into properly-negotiated insurance products to mitigate their risk. > 've done this myself in the past, as far as I remember; changes of a few minutes in either direction often make an entire booking refundable.) My understanding is that refunds eligibility starts at a >3 hour change, meaning an alternative timetable of 2 hours doesn't trigger an automatic refund right now. Further, even in the case of a significant change (>3h), the refund isn't automatic, it is only paid once the customer refuses an alternative booking or compensation. For international flights it's even 6 hours instead of 3. > Arriving a few hours later can be entirely fine or completely ruin a trip, depending on the circumstances. I do agree on this point, context really matters. And I think in theory it makes sense to offer price-differentation based on the context. i.e. if I am slow-travelling for 4 months, I'd be happy taking a 10% cheaper ticket (no-insurance), and have no recourse if there is an 8 hour delay. Whereas earlier this month when travelling overseas for a wedding the day prior, I'd have paid a 10% extra fee to insure my travel time, to ensure I have recourse to travel with a limited (<2h) delay no matter what or be significantly compensated. But that's still all theory, at some point differentiation on everything leads to complex and difficult decision making for customers. Fun in a Sim computer game, not so fun when booking a flight is a 20-step process with 200 pages of T&C that I have to assess against my personal situation.
fzeroracer 1y ago
Dream: 'This will lower prices for consumers by reducing administrative overhead and allowing for people to select what protections and plans they want for their trip.' Reality: Tickets all cost exactly the same (because no company is going to willingly take less money) except now you get to pay more for less benefits.
tavavex 1y ago
It will be some variation of the well-treaded argument of "us making more money just so happens to be in the public interest". Companies have become experts at arguing this in many different ways. You can see some examples in the article. More competition, purely hypothetically lower prices, etc.
cosmicgadget 1y ago
Easy. "The public voted up and down the ballot for the platform that promised to gut regulations and consumer protection." Who is a single representative to deny the will of the people?
- nobody9999 1y ago
  You mean this platform[0]? Not sure where it says they're going to "gut regulations and consumer protection." Perhaps you could point that part out to me? I understood that to actually be the case, even though that wasn't actually included in the platform. Which is one of reasons I didn't vote for the current administration. That said, I imagine that among those who did so, some folks are fine with it, some folks didn't care one way or another and some folks were unaware that this would happen. As such, I think you're painting folks with far too broad a brush. Which is, I imagine, quite satisfying. I hope you got what you wanted out of that. [0] https://rncplatform.donaldjtrump.com/ https://rncplatform.donaldjtrump.com/
  - cosmicgadget 1y ago
    Cutting "burdensome" and "costly" regulations is listed a half dozen times in your link. Do you need exact quotes or can you look for yourself? > I understood that to actually be the case, even though that wasn't actually included in the platform. It honestly takes less effort to listen to his speeches and look at his record than to read the official platform document or the one we knew was the actual plan (P2025). I'm happy to hear out anyone that pleads ignorance but they're probably still busy celebrating deportations. > As such, I think you're painting folks with far too broad a brush. Which is, I imagine, quite satisfying. I hope you got what you wanted out of that. What a weird thing to be offended by. Voters voted for this. There's no ambiguity here. Even the ones who don't consider deregulation a pet issue decided that it was worthwhile to get what they wanted.
    - nobody9999 1y ago
      >Cutting "burdensome" and "costly" regulations Reread my comment. I expect that at least one of the three (and maybe more, I pointed out three) groups you lumped together don't consider "consumer protections" to be burdensome or costly. Did I not make that clear? Or are you deliberately missing my point? >What a weird thing to be offended by. Who said I was offended? I said I thought you were painting folks with too broad a brush. And the "folks:" to whom I referred didn't include me. As such, I'm not offended by you. Or at least not WRT the broad brush you used. I can't say for sure, but your patronizing tone appears as to assume I'm not so bright. Which might offend me, except the source is some rando on the inter tubes (that'd be you in case you were confused). So no. You haven't offended me. In fact, you gave me a chuckle. Thanks!
mrguyorama 1y ago
Are you not able to observe the current administration? There's no need to "justify" anything being in the public's interest. The admin is no longer counting how many people cannot afford food for crying out loud. The public voted against their interest.
HumblyTossed 1y ago
Probably the thinking is: “The market will sort itself out. If a person doesn’t like this, they can pick an airline that has these features.” Conveniently leaving out the thought that NONE of the other airlines will do this if it goes away.

mushroomba 1y ago

[flagged]

bilekas 1y ago
> First, realize that there is no such thing as the 'public interest'. The public is composed of different subdivisions of people, from everyone everywhere down to the individual. I don't buy that at all, that's what regulations are for. There is no public interest in still having lead in our fuel [0], or arsenic in green wall paint [1]. To say regulations are not for public interest is to say why have any oversight of anything. Should we say "well fuel companies can make fuel cheaper with lead so lets just remove those regulations. [0] https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/inside-20-year-campaign-rid-world-leaded-fuel https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/inside-20-year-c... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_green#:~:text=Because%20of%20its%20arsenic%20content,react%20with%20other%20manufactured%20paints. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_green#:~:text=Because%20...
- mushroomba 1y ago
  [flagged]

lxgr 1y ago

Playing devil's advocate for a moment: I could imagine airlines wanting to not allow for a full refund if passengers can be booked on a "reasonably similar" connection. (I've done this myself in the past, as far as I remember; changes of a few minutes in either direction often make an entire booking refundable.) The problem here of course would be the definition of "reasonably similar". Arriving a few hours later can be entirely fine or completely ruin a trip, depending on the circumstances.

bilekas 1y ago
Okay, I can see some benefits to the airline that are not too egregious for point 1, maybe automatic can be updated to manual intervention. Not the worst. But price transparency ? > A4A opposes the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) rules requiring airlines to disclose ancillary fees upfront, arguing that these rules exceed the DOT’s authority and don’t provide any clear benefits to consumers. > don’t provide any clear benefits to consumers As a customer I like to know where my money is going and how much.
Tadpole9181 1y ago
Airlines caused automatic refunds by systematically screwing customers for a decade, doing every single thing in their power to avoid giving any refunds. This policy exists because they proved to everyone they can't be trusted.
NoLinkToMe 1y ago
I don't follow the point. Suppose we live in a perfect world where exactly similar alternative flights are always available the moment yours gets cancelled. You still have to pay for it. And you do that by using the refund money. Cancelling a flight without refunding it, just means profiting at the expense of the customer. Businesses are able to insure their limited cost of cancellations, and price their tickets to absord these insurance costs (which are ultimately born by the ticket-payer). Deregulating this point just puts all the risk and burden with millions of individual customers, some of whom cannot easily carry the cost of unexpected events, and aren't professional parties that can and routinely do enter into properly-negotiated insurance products to mitigate their risk. > 've done this myself in the past, as far as I remember; changes of a few minutes in either direction often make an entire booking refundable.) My understanding is that refunds eligibility starts at a >3 hour change, meaning an alternative timetable of 2 hours doesn't trigger an automatic refund right now. Further, even in the case of a significant change (>3h), the refund isn't automatic, it is only paid once the customer refuses an alternative booking or compensation. For international flights it's even 6 hours instead of 3. > Arriving a few hours later can be entirely fine or completely ruin a trip, depending on the circumstances. I do agree on this point, context really matters. And I think in theory it makes sense to offer price-differentation based on the context. i.e. if I am slow-travelling for 4 months, I'd be happy taking a 10% cheaper ticket (no-insurance), and have no recourse if there is an 8 hour delay. Whereas earlier this month when travelling overseas for a wedding the day prior, I'd have paid a 10% extra fee to insure my travel time, to ensure I have recourse to travel with a limited (<2h) delay no matter what or be significantly compensated. But that's still all theory, at some point differentiation on everything leads to complex and difficult decision making for customers. Fun in a Sim computer game, not so fun when booking a flight is a 20-step process with 200 pages of T&C that I have to assess against my personal situation.

fzeroracer 1y ago

Dream: 'This will lower prices for consumers by reducing administrative overhead and allowing for people to select what protections and plans they want for their trip.' Reality: Tickets all cost exactly the same (because no company is going to willingly take less money) except now you get to pay more for less benefits.

tavavex 1y ago

It will be some variation of the well-treaded argument of "us making more money just so happens to be in the public interest". Companies have become experts at arguing this in many different ways. You can see some examples in the article. More competition, purely hypothetically lower prices, etc.

cosmicgadget 1y ago

Easy. "The public voted up and down the ballot for the platform that promised to gut regulations and consumer protection." Who is a single representative to deny the will of the people?

nobody9999 1y ago
You mean this platform[0]? Not sure where it says they're going to "gut regulations and consumer protection." Perhaps you could point that part out to me? I understood that to actually be the case, even though that wasn't actually included in the platform. Which is one of reasons I didn't vote for the current administration. That said, I imagine that among those who did so, some folks are fine with it, some folks didn't care one way or another and some folks were unaware that this would happen. As such, I think you're painting folks with far too broad a brush. Which is, I imagine, quite satisfying. I hope you got what you wanted out of that. [0] https://rncplatform.donaldjtrump.com/ https://rncplatform.donaldjtrump.com/
- cosmicgadget 1y ago
  Cutting "burdensome" and "costly" regulations is listed a half dozen times in your link. Do you need exact quotes or can you look for yourself? > I understood that to actually be the case, even though that wasn't actually included in the platform. It honestly takes less effort to listen to his speeches and look at his record than to read the official platform document or the one we knew was the actual plan (P2025). I'm happy to hear out anyone that pleads ignorance but they're probably still busy celebrating deportations. > As such, I think you're painting folks with far too broad a brush. Which is, I imagine, quite satisfying. I hope you got what you wanted out of that. What a weird thing to be offended by. Voters voted for this. There's no ambiguity here. Even the ones who don't consider deregulation a pet issue decided that it was worthwhile to get what they wanted.
  - nobody9999 1y ago
    >Cutting "burdensome" and "costly" regulations Reread my comment. I expect that at least one of the three (and maybe more, I pointed out three) groups you lumped together don't consider "consumer protections" to be burdensome or costly. Did I not make that clear? Or are you deliberately missing my point? >What a weird thing to be offended by. Who said I was offended? I said I thought you were painting folks with too broad a brush. And the "folks:" to whom I referred didn't include me. As such, I'm not offended by you. Or at least not WRT the broad brush you used. I can't say for sure, but your patronizing tone appears as to assume I'm not so bright. Which might offend me, except the source is some rando on the inter tubes (that'd be you in case you were confused). So no. You haven't offended me. In fact, you gave me a chuckle. Thanks!

mrguyorama 1y ago

Are you not able to observe the current administration? There's no need to "justify" anything being in the public's interest. The admin is no longer counting how many people cannot afford food for crying out loud. The public voted against their interest.

HumblyTossed 1y ago

Probably the thinking is: “The market will sort itself out. If a person doesn’t like this, they can pick an airline that has these features.” Conveniently leaving out the thought that NONE of the other airlines will do this if it goes away.