3 ms·

> Airlines want to remove the requirement to provide automatic refunds when flights are cancelled or significantly altered. This is wild. Are they really askin

by Lio 1y ago

> Airlines want to remove the requirement to provide automatic refunds when flights are cancelled or significantly altered. This is wild. Are they really asking to be able to take money for a flight, then cacel it and keep the money? That's crazy.

toomuchtodo 1y ago
The purpose is economic extraction of the customer base. They really are asking, because they can, and that aligns with this administration's low regulation and anti consumer stance. Edit: Comment of comment value removed. Updated to increase value. Thanks indoordin0saur, I am occasionally in the wrong gear until the psychotropics kick in.
- indoordin0saur 1y ago
  If you know it's a low value post then don't post it.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
wahnfrieden 1y ago
Why not celebrate the acceleration achieved by deregulation instead?
realusername 1y ago
I mean, why even bother to run flights at all in this scenario? They could cancel 80% of flights and keep the rest to pretend they are still an airline. Cancelations would be more profitable than the flights themselves.
- delfinom 1y ago
  I imagine the class action lawsuits at that point would bankrupt them
  - falcor84 1y ago
    Class actions lawsuits only work if the courts and legislators have an interest in consumer protection.
  - onlypassingthru 1y ago
    Presumably pre-emptively nullified by that arbitration agreement when you accepted the T&C to purchase the ticket.
    - bluGill 1y ago
      Arbitration is not automatically in their favor. It is cheaper by far than a trial (in most cases), but they need to be at least somewhat fair or the whole thing collapses next time the government changes.
- tavavex 1y ago
  80% would be way too much, the consumers would catch on and probably not buy tickets anymore. But don't worry, the airlines' best MBAs will be hard at work calculating the exact percentage of flights they have to fly before it starts hurting the bottom line. And once all airlines start doing it, they could bring that percentage down - what are the consumers gonna do if that's the only way to get to the destination?
  - grafmax 1y ago
    Exactly. These supposed benefits of deregulated markets dissolve when the sellers have pricing power.
- bluGill 1y ago
  They still have to offer replacement flights, and if the replacement flight isn't reasonable they have to refund. They can't just keep your money. Don't forget that a lot of flights are business flights. Fortune 500 companies will negotiate deals with the airlines, and they will ensure that getting there matters. Sure the CEO flys the company jet, but the next level down rarely does, but they talk to the CEO and will ensure that the chosen airline will get their people there by contract (wherever there is), if the airlines start failing to get people there on time these contracts will change since the large companies have enough money to matter. Those who fly a lot (again likely for business, even small businesses sometimes have someone flying several times a week) again are people the airlines need to make happy as they will go to different airline if there are problems. Which is to say they can screw the "common man" who rarely flies, but most of the business is people who have enough power to to to airlines that treat them well and at that point it normally isn't worth screwing anyone.
rpcope1 1y ago
Airlines are basically as stupid and greedy as telcos. If it were up to them, GA aircraft, UAVs, model aircraft and basically anything that wasn't military or an airliner would be banned. It has strong analogs in telcos swallowing up large amounts of spectrum "cause muh 5 gee" and just squatting on it. I'm sure safety would be in the shitter too if the FAA was less watchful (not to say it's sufficiently aggressive on the big players today).
- sokoloff 1y ago
  Every one of their pilots learned to fly in a GA or military aircraft, with the vast majority being GA.
cosmicgadget 1y ago
I don't think that is going to happen. Before this new-ish regulation, the airline had discretion over how to rebook you or compensate you. Now if the delay is over 3h (iirc) they have to refund you. I think even an arbitration court would have them reimburse you if they simply canceled a flight and kept your money.
- dghlsakjg 1y ago
  Yes, But no one wants to have to go to court or arbitration to get a refund on a service that the service provider cancelled. If AA cancels my flight, I want my money back without having to ask for it. I don't want to have to submit an application to receive AA credits that expire in 6 months, and then have to initiate legal action to get my actual cash back. Or having them say that they rebooked me on a flight three days later so they are off the hook. The current rules make it so that the customer has the power. I can still give AA the option of rebooking me or refunding me, but it is MY choice.
  - cosmicgadget 1y ago
    I agree with you on everything except ever flying American Airlines. I think most people would agree with you.
- itopaloglu83 1y ago
  And what percentage of people will take them to court just to get them to refund their ticket? Airlines have full time lawyers with nothing to do but push paper around. Why are we making it harder for the consumer to resolve an issue when the flight is clearly cancelled? They just want to force you into weird store-credit style refunds so that you cannot go to a competitor or choose not to travel.
  - cosmicgadget 1y ago
    > And what percentage of people will take them to court just to get them to refund their ticket? If there is any upside to mandatory binding final arbitration, it's that proceedings are cheaper and quicker. It might be that the arbitrators decide to universally rule in favor of the airlines amidst unambiguous evidence that the airlines took money and canceled the service, but seems unlikely. It's also a huge risk on the part of the airlines to decide that their official policy is to stiff customers and hope it works out in arbitration. > Why are we making it harder for the consumer to resolve an issue when the flight is clearly cancelled? Because we elected the guy who said he would, going so far as to ensure he had a majority in both houses of Congress. > They just want to force you into weird store-credit style refunds so that you cannot go to a competitor or choose not to travel. Lol yes that is exactly it. I wouldn't have written that stuff above if I knew you were going to correct yourself.
charcircuit 1y ago
>This is wild. Keep in mind this rule has only been in affect for a little over a year. Airlines weren't being "wild" last year before the change.
- jacobgkau 1y ago
  They were being pretty annoying, which is why the regulation went into place. The "wildness" is that they're openly trying to make it annoying again.
advisedwang 1y ago
In practice, they're not likely to just refuse any kind of recompense. More likely: * Giving a credit instead of a refund. * Offer a take-it-or-leave-it alternative flight. * Only giving out credit/refund on request (so people that don't realize or do it in time loose their money).
- heathrow83829 1y ago
  a credit instead of a refund is almost the same thing as not offering a refund. you're going to have a hard time using that refund in a manner that benefits you (not taking a flight for no reason)
  - 0xffff2 1y ago
    Yep. I don't fly a ton, but I had a flight canceled by Alaska a couple of years ago. They refunded me so I wasn't actually out anything, but they also gave me a $100 credit in addition to the refund. I really tried, but since I don't live in Seattle and don't fly much, there was no way I could use that $100 credit without paying a whole lot of my own money too. It annoyed me to "throw away money", but the credit expired unused.
root_axis 1y ago
My worry is that this incentivizes airlines to overlook safety concerns because grounding a risky flight or taking extra time to deal with unscheduled maintenance downtime will cost them money. It's a guaranteed certainty that some people will die because of it. I'd rather risk 300 bucks than my life.
- 0xffff2 1y ago
  Airline travel is safer than it has ever been in its entire history. What is your evidence for this hypothesis?
  - root_axis 1y ago
    My evidence is the extensive history of corporations prioritizing profits over safety. The relative safety of air travel is not in dispute nor is it relevant to my point. If you give companies the option to choose they will always optimize for profits over safety.

by Lio 1y ago

toomuchtodo 1y ago

The purpose is economic extraction of the customer base. They really are asking, because they can, and that aligns with this administration's low regulation and anti consumer stance. Edit: Comment of comment value removed. Updated to increase value. Thanks indoordin0saur, I am occasionally in the wrong gear until the psychotropics kick in.

indoordin0saur 1y ago
If you know it's a low value post then don't post it.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

wahnfrieden 1y ago

Why not celebrate the acceleration achieved by deregulation instead?

realusername 1y ago

I mean, why even bother to run flights at all in this scenario? They could cancel 80% of flights and keep the rest to pretend they are still an airline. Cancelations would be more profitable than the flights themselves.

delfinom 1y ago
I imagine the class action lawsuits at that point would bankrupt them
- falcor84 1y ago
  Class actions lawsuits only work if the courts and legislators have an interest in consumer protection.
- onlypassingthru 1y ago
  Presumably pre-emptively nullified by that arbitration agreement when you accepted the T&C to purchase the ticket.
  - bluGill 1y ago
    Arbitration is not automatically in their favor. It is cheaper by far than a trial (in most cases), but they need to be at least somewhat fair or the whole thing collapses next time the government changes.
tavavex 1y ago
80% would be way too much, the consumers would catch on and probably not buy tickets anymore. But don't worry, the airlines' best MBAs will be hard at work calculating the exact percentage of flights they have to fly before it starts hurting the bottom line. And once all airlines start doing it, they could bring that percentage down - what are the consumers gonna do if that's the only way to get to the destination?
- grafmax 1y ago
  Exactly. These supposed benefits of deregulated markets dissolve when the sellers have pricing power.
bluGill 1y ago
They still have to offer replacement flights, and if the replacement flight isn't reasonable they have to refund. They can't just keep your money. Don't forget that a lot of flights are business flights. Fortune 500 companies will negotiate deals with the airlines, and they will ensure that getting there matters. Sure the CEO flys the company jet, but the next level down rarely does, but they talk to the CEO and will ensure that the chosen airline will get their people there by contract (wherever there is), if the airlines start failing to get people there on time these contracts will change since the large companies have enough money to matter. Those who fly a lot (again likely for business, even small businesses sometimes have someone flying several times a week) again are people the airlines need to make happy as they will go to different airline if there are problems. Which is to say they can screw the "common man" who rarely flies, but most of the business is people who have enough power to to to airlines that treat them well and at that point it normally isn't worth screwing anyone.

rpcope1 1y ago

Airlines are basically as stupid and greedy as telcos. If it were up to them, GA aircraft, UAVs, model aircraft and basically anything that wasn't military or an airliner would be banned. It has strong analogs in telcos swallowing up large amounts of spectrum "cause muh 5 gee" and just squatting on it. I'm sure safety would be in the shitter too if the FAA was less watchful (not to say it's sufficiently aggressive on the big players today).

sokoloff 1y ago
Every one of their pilots learned to fly in a GA or military aircraft, with the vast majority being GA.

cosmicgadget 1y ago

I don't think that is going to happen. Before this new-ish regulation, the airline had discretion over how to rebook you or compensate you. Now if the delay is over 3h (iirc) they have to refund you. I think even an arbitration court would have them reimburse you if they simply canceled a flight and kept your money.

dghlsakjg 1y ago
Yes, But no one wants to have to go to court or arbitration to get a refund on a service that the service provider cancelled. If AA cancels my flight, I want my money back without having to ask for it. I don't want to have to submit an application to receive AA credits that expire in 6 months, and then have to initiate legal action to get my actual cash back. Or having them say that they rebooked me on a flight three days later so they are off the hook. The current rules make it so that the customer has the power. I can still give AA the option of rebooking me or refunding me, but it is MY choice.
- cosmicgadget 1y ago
  I agree with you on everything except ever flying American Airlines. I think most people would agree with you.
itopaloglu83 1y ago
And what percentage of people will take them to court just to get them to refund their ticket? Airlines have full time lawyers with nothing to do but push paper around. Why are we making it harder for the consumer to resolve an issue when the flight is clearly cancelled? They just want to force you into weird store-credit style refunds so that you cannot go to a competitor or choose not to travel.
- cosmicgadget 1y ago
  > And what percentage of people will take them to court just to get them to refund their ticket? If there is any upside to mandatory binding final arbitration, it's that proceedings are cheaper and quicker. It might be that the arbitrators decide to universally rule in favor of the airlines amidst unambiguous evidence that the airlines took money and canceled the service, but seems unlikely. It's also a huge risk on the part of the airlines to decide that their official policy is to stiff customers and hope it works out in arbitration. > Why are we making it harder for the consumer to resolve an issue when the flight is clearly cancelled? Because we elected the guy who said he would, going so far as to ensure he had a majority in both houses of Congress. > They just want to force you into weird store-credit style refunds so that you cannot go to a competitor or choose not to travel. Lol yes that is exactly it. I wouldn't have written that stuff above if I knew you were going to correct yourself.

charcircuit 1y ago

>This is wild. Keep in mind this rule has only been in affect for a little over a year. Airlines weren't being "wild" last year before the change.

jacobgkau 1y ago
They were being pretty annoying, which is why the regulation went into place. The "wildness" is that they're openly trying to make it annoying again.

advisedwang 1y ago

In practice, they're not likely to just refuse any kind of recompense. More likely: * Giving a credit instead of a refund. * Offer a take-it-or-leave-it alternative flight. * Only giving out credit/refund on request (so people that don't realize or do it in time loose their money).

heathrow83829 1y ago
a credit instead of a refund is almost the same thing as not offering a refund. you're going to have a hard time using that refund in a manner that benefits you (not taking a flight for no reason)
- 0xffff2 1y ago
  Yep. I don't fly a ton, but I had a flight canceled by Alaska a couple of years ago. They refunded me so I wasn't actually out anything, but they also gave me a $100 credit in addition to the refund. I really tried, but since I don't live in Seattle and don't fly much, there was no way I could use that $100 credit without paying a whole lot of my own money too. It annoyed me to "throw away money", but the credit expired unused.

root_axis 1y ago

My worry is that this incentivizes airlines to overlook safety concerns because grounding a risky flight or taking extra time to deal with unscheduled maintenance downtime will cost them money. It's a guaranteed certainty that some people will die because of it. I'd rather risk 300 bucks than my life.

0xffff2 1y ago
Airline travel is safer than it has ever been in its entire history. What is your evidence for this hypothesis?
- root_axis 1y ago
  My evidence is the extensive history of corporations prioritizing profits over safety. The relative safety of air travel is not in dispute nor is it relevant to my point. If you give companies the option to choose they will always optimize for profits over safety.