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

81–90 of 159 posts

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

#81

Post by mehrdadn »

tomcam wrote: post #80
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.

Can't you just go to the nearest gate agent for another flight of the same carrier? I feel like they could point you to the right direction.

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

#82

Post by egypturnash »

underseacables wrote: post #56
dragonwriter wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Wal-Mart vs local shops? Amazon vs every "brick and mortar" store in the world?

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

#83

Post by matthewmacleod »

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?

The UK has a near-universal policy for refunds on cancelled or delayed train services ("delay repay"). Several train operating companies issue these refunds automatically for tickets booked directly with them, and others will automatically notify the customer that they are entitled to claim.

I think some companies have taken the view that reducing the amount of administrative overhead for both themselves and passengers is a better long-term investment than trying to weasel out of otherwise reasonable claims. An airline with that kind of policy in place is certainly one which I would be more likely to make subsequent bookings with!

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

#84

Post by egypturnash »

maxsilver wrote: post #77
Hnrobert42 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"...and multiple millions of dollars to the lawyers who got you this victory"

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

#85

Post by morsch »

notahacker wrote: post #39
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…

The law gave the author a statutory right to ask easyJet to purchase an equivalent a flight for him at their cost at the time or claim compensation if their journey was delayed beyond a certain point. Neither would have required a lawyer, and easyJet gate agents would probably have sorted the alternative flight on the day as the best option for all parties Instead they chose to pursue a third option the law didn't co…

Its not the law's fault that if people choose alternatives they don't have a statutory right to be

It pretty clearly is exactly "the law's fault" when you are of the opinion that those alternatives that aren't statutory rights should be.

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

#86

Post by dataflow »

I think I disagree on the flight having been canceled. I'd have assumed the distinguishing factor between a flight cancellation vs. rescheduling isn't the flight number (a flight number seems like an immaterial bookkeeping abstraction?), but rather, whether a replacement flight offers seats to all of the passengers of the first flight. It seems they did this, as they say in their text message. As far as semantics is concerned, this is where it ends for me.

Looking at it from a practical standpoint, the company still incurred the same costs of the original flight just at a later time, and they had reserved seats for all the passengers, so it doesn't make sense for them to compensate as if the replacement flight had never taken place at all. [1] Had the author contacted them to let them know he wouldn't be showing up, they could've had a chance to agree and even to give his seat to someone else... but he just decided not to just not show up. At that point it doesn't make sense to get compensated as if the company had just let the seat disappear into thin air (no pun intended). [1]

[1] It seems people are misreading my comment to mean I think he shouldn't be compensated at all. I'm not saying he shouldn't be compensated. ("As if" is the key phrase here.) I'm saying any compensation he receives should be for the flight being delayed, not canceled—whatever amount might be appropriate for each.

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

#87

Post by these_are_not_t »

unethical_ban wrote: post #76
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.

Not if the automation can be somehow gamed. If someone manage to find a flaw in the system, the company is at risk of losing big before it figure out the issue. Will this money be lost for good is probably not a question that company wants to find an answer for the hard way.

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

#88

Post by lmarcos »

dataflow wrote: post #86

I think I disagree on the flight having been canceled. I'd have assumed the distinguishing factor between a flight cancellation vs. rescheduling isn't the flight number (a flight number seems like an immaterial bookkeeping abstraction?), but rather, whether a replacement flight offers seats to all of the passengers of the first flight . It seems they did this, as they say in their text message. As far as semantics is…

But the replacement flight was scheduled for the next morning... That means that the passenger loses time and money (hotel/food?). Why wouldn't the airline company compensate this?

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

#89

Post by mehrdadn »

lmarcos wrote: post #88
dataflow wrote: post #86

I think I disagree on the flight having been canceled. I'd have assumed the distinguishing factor between a flight cancellation vs. rescheduling isn't the flight number (a flight number seems like an immaterial bookkeeping abstraction?), but rather, whether a replacement flight offers seats to all of the passengers of the first flight . It seems they did this, as they say in their text message. As far as semantics is…

But the replacement flight was scheduled for the next morning... That means that the passenger loses time and money (hotel/food?). Why wouldn't the airline company compensate this?

I edited to clarify. I'm not saying the airline shouldn't compensate this. Rather, that the compensation shouldn't be as if the replacement flight never happened—it should be as if the replacement flight did happen. i.e. I'm saying the complaint falls under "I disagree on the amount, I think it's too low" rather than "I disagree on the nature of the event entirely".

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

#90

Post by cactus2093 »

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?

Another interesting takeaway is that the EU regulations meant to protect customers in exactly this scenario seemed to be pretty worthless in practice.

The airlines seem to have realized that the cost of just ignoring them is easily less than the cost of following them. After all there are a finite number of people able to individually sue you, especially if you’re at the scale where you consistently screw over more customers than there are available court times in a given district.

But why doesn’t that backlog of 100,000 customers waiting to file their claims orchestrate a big class action lawsuit?

Post reply on HN