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

71–80 of 159 posts

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

#71

Post by massysett »

tacostakohashi wrote: post #29
kirykl wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon does a pretty good job automating returns. It’s also good enough to be a differentiator when choosing where to buy.

I had an Amazon item that didn't show up / got lost by UPS. The process presented by Amazon for this was pretty silly / tedious: 1) Initially, the tracking page said the item is late, maybe lost, if it doesn't arrive by X date (2-3 days after it was due), check back here to initiate a replacement / refund. 2) I went back on X date to arrange a refund. You click the button, initially it takes you to an automated chat…

In my experience I simply search for "contact us" in the Amazon search box (it's not easy to find otherwise) and it brings up a chat bot. I tell it my item never came, and it shows me orders and asks "do you mean this one" until we zero down on what item. Then the bot issues an immediate refund. I use this where tracking says the order has already been delivered (sometimes delivery personnel lie and say they delivered something they didn't; sometimes they deliver it to the wrong place.) If tracking shows that the item has not even been delivered, this is doable from the "My Orders" webpage directly.

Pretty easy in my experience--I expect this process with any other vendor would be much more time-consuming--but as you say it may vary depending on whatever arbitrary factors.

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

#72

Post by lifeisstillgood »

otterley wrote: post #30
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…

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…

The problem with that is that regulation is there to keep the airlines operating at a "decent floor level" (ie safety)

If they show they can happily ignore certain regulations (ie compensation) they we must assume they will ignore / avoid all other regulations. And that has safety implications

in short, like the navy, enforce all the regulations vigorously - or remove regulations you won't enforce.

Maybe it is not possible to operate a well regulated airline that can fly you to Geneva for less than a coach ride to the airport.

And this is why we like science and nature. There is no VC capital approach to disruption of Gravity.

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

#74

Post by marcosdumay »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #53
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.

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…

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.

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

#75

Post by Retric »

emteycz wrote: post #13
Retric wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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?

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.

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

#76

Post by unethical_ban »

uberman wrote: post #7

Long story short: Guy had flight canceled and wants airlines to have automated refund system. The issue is though that no company I know of really wants an automated easy path to disperse money back to the public. Ever try to collect on an insurance policy?

There is a massive difference in fraud potential between a cancelled flight/refund for a service not delivered, and an insurance payout.

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

#77

Post by maxsilver »

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #38
asperous wrote: post #31

I know class action has a bad reputation, but this is the type of situation it was designed for. The courts can't handle 100,000 individual claims but it can handle one very large claim with 100,000 members.

Does class action have a bad reputation? I know businesses hate it and in the US are doing everything they can to eliminate it. But as a consumer, I see it as the only way to level the playing field. If it has a bad reputation, I speculate that is the result of businesses lobbying against it in the press and with politicians.

It's not that class action has a "bad" reputation, just that in the US, it has a 'meaningless' reputation. The punishment is generally so absurdly minor, and the time frame so long, that it feels like it's not even a slap on the wrist for the offender.

The popular perception of class action in the US, is something like, "yes, Kitchenpal knowingly sold thousands of Blenders that sparked out and caught fire, and burned like 50 people's houses down. But luckily your class-action lawsuit came through 10 years later with a check worth $3.22 as compensation"

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

#78

Post by sokoloff »

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.

It is fairly common for the prevailing party to be awarded their filing fees.

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

#79

Post by JamesBarney »

orange_tee wrote: post #3

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 make the claims process as painful as possible. I have gone through this with a lot of stuff, most notoriously when dealing with landlords. On its face the law seems consumer friendly, but only when you try to use it, do you realize that you need to spend mont…

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.

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

#80

Post by tomcam »

joneholland wrote: post #21

Rather than booking the replacement flight directly the author should have had easyjet rebook him. The author did no-show on the replacement flight provided by easyJet, and all of the griping will get them nowhere. You can’t take things into your own hands and then expect the company to refund you, the company would have provided the free alternative flight (earlier than the one the next day) and the EU fine had they…

What happens if they tell you to make the change on the website, and the website tells you to make the change with the gate agent, and there isn’t a gate agent? I fly maybe half a dozen times a year and I’ve had this happen more than once.
Post reply on HN