Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lawyers automate this, so why don't airlines?

leejo.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 159 posts

Re: Lawyers automate this, so why don't airlines?

#51

Post by dragonwriter »

Nextgrid wrote: post #27
otterley wrote: post #12

"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…

> 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 custome…

> I'd rewrite this and say that the author is thinking ethically, not like scum.

The Darwinian beauty of capitalism is that a firm that sacrifices maximum business efficiency for ethics will be destroyed and replaced by ones that do not have this defect.

Re: Lawyers automate this, so why don't airlines?

#52

Post by bamboleo »

I had quite a few flights and trains booked in March and early April. They were all canceled of course.

Out of all of them, EasyJet was the only company that let me have an instant refund on their website. Most of the others made me call them (I was on the Alitalia line for 90 minutes, after hours of being flatout rejected from the call queue), some I had to issue a chargeback, and some refunded me in November. One I’m still waiting.

I also booked the Bernina Express and the only refund option is to show up at one of their stations in Switzerland I guess.

This is to say that most travel companies operate in a similar non-automated fashion because that’s what makes them the most money. EasyJet is far from the exception.

Re: Lawyers automate this, so why don't airlines?

#53

Post by pbhjpbhj »

marcosdumay wrote: post #25
sp332 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No that you said it, court systems should have overuse tariffs, so the people that overwhelm them subside the extra capacity they need.

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?

Re: Lawyers automate this, so why don't airlines?

#54

Post by underseacables »

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #34
otterley wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Of course, YMMV, but Southwest Airlines is very focused on customer service, and it is very successful.

I disagree. Southwest engages in a lot of white washing and PR to project this image of an airline that “cares” but in actuality they’re no better than any others. On airlines it’s not YMMV it’s “dignity comes with a price.”

Re: Lawyers automate this, so why don't airlines?

#55

Post by shortandsweet »

dragonwriter wrote: post #51
Nextgrid wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 custome…

> I'd rewrite this and say that the author is thinking ethically, not like scum. The Darwinian beauty of capitalism is that a firm that sacrifices maximum business efficiency for ethics will be destroyed and replaced by ones that do not have this defect.

Why is that beautiful? I see ugly.

Re: Lawyers automate this, so why don't airlines?

#56

Post by underseacables »

dragonwriter wrote: post #51
Nextgrid wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 custome…

> I'd rewrite this and say that the author is thinking ethically, not like scum. The Darwinian beauty of capitalism is that a firm that sacrifices maximum business efficiency for ethics will be destroyed and replaced by ones that do not have this defect.

Has this ever actually happened?

Re: Lawyers automate this, so why don't airlines?

#57

Post by pbhjpbhj »

otterley wrote: post #28
marcosdumay wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No that you said it, court systems should have overuse tariffs, so the people that overwhelm them subside the extra capacity they need.

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.

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....

Re: Lawyers automate this, so why don't airlines?

#58

Post by Nextgrid »

underseacables wrote: post #50
otterley wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Would that not depend on what your definition of customer service is? I think the problem with airlines is that they have fallen into this myth that good customer service will lead to customers demanding more good customer service, and that’s something they can’t always guarantee. So like Starbucks and burned coffee beans, in order to standardize across the airline, many have opted for the most basic level of custome…

I think it's misguided to be considering this issue as "customer service". This is about following the law/regulation.

Customer service can indeed be variable, and it's up to the company to pick their approach (terrible/no CS and low prices or very good CS and higher prices).

When it comes to complying with the law/regulation, if your company is bound by those laws then it should comply just like every other company does. "Following the law" shouldn't depend on how much you pay; the companies expect the customer to follow the law, so the reverse should apply too.

The problem seems to be that the current law/regulation isn't up to scratch and allows companies to act in bad faith and get away with it (the author is indeed correct that all of this can be made easier through automation and the airline not doing so should be considered obvious evidence of bad faith).

Re: Lawyers automate this, so why don't airlines?

#59

Post by otterley »

Nextgrid wrote: post #58
underseacables wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would that not depend on what your definition of customer service is? I think the problem with airlines is that they have fallen into this myth that good customer service will lead to customers demanding more good customer service, and that’s something they can’t always guarantee. So like Starbucks and burned coffee beans, in order to standardize across the airline, many have opted for the most basic level of custome…

I think it's misguided to be considering this issue as "customer service". This is about following the law/regulation. Customer service can indeed be variable, and it's up to the company to pick their approach (terrible/no CS and low prices or very good CS and higher prices). When it comes to complying with the law/regulation, if your company is bound by those laws then it should comply just like every other company…

I think of customer service as going over and above what the law strictly requires. The law sets a floor, not a ceiling.

Re: Lawyers automate this, so why don't airlines?

#60

Post by Closi »

otterley wrote: post #12

"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…

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!

Post reply on HN