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

91–100 of 159 posts

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

#91

Post by rkachowski »

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…

I feel it makes perfect sense to compensate, as the company now has a clear financial disincentive to allow faulty aircraft to be in service.

Regardless of dancing around the semantics of cancellation, a severe problem was discovered in an aircraft forcing it to reland and delaying all passengers involved. If such an event is sufficiently costly for the airline then safety and maintenance measures will have to be increased.

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

#92

Post by dragonwriter »

shortandsweet wrote: post #55
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.

Why is that beautiful? I see ugly.

You did not miss the point.

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

#93

Post by dragonwriter »

ckastner wrote: post #65
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.

If that were true, concepts such as fair trade, or impact investing, or sustainability should have never had a chance, yet they are experiencing phenomenal growth.

> If that were true, concepts such as fair trade, or impact investing, or sustainability should have never had a chance, yet they are experiencing phenomenal growth.

No, attaching yourself to popular interests as a marketing strategy isn't sacrificing gains for ethics. Nor is it “ethics” even if some instances of it use “ethical” or a synonym in the branding.

Ethics is doing right because it's right. Making an outward show of ethics where it is advantageous to make a sale (Eve if what you are selling is advice to others on where to put their money) is not ethics, it is commercial exploitation of others ethics.

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

#94

Post by Closi »

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?

Airlines do compensate this - Usually in Europe the airline will actually directly arrange the hotel / accommodation and will offer the food in terms of vouchers to spend within the airport, rather than allow passengers to spend and then claim it back.

I suspect all this happened in OPs case. If you make your own arrangements then this isn’t usually covered.

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

#95

Post by notahacker »

morsch wrote: post #85
notahacker wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The consumer had statutory rights to compensation for being delayed or an airline-arranged alternative flight but chose to make his own arrangement. He may well have a sound argument that his alternative arrangement was in this instance equally reasonable, but it is not a bug in the legal system that arguing for different entitlements is longer and more complicated than using ones already written into law

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

#96

Post by HenryBemis »

Similar experience with Wizz. They said that the flight was delayed (5-6h) due to 'unforeseen circumstances'. When I reached out to them for the €200 they claimed that they will not, as it is was not their fault and for security reasons they cannot disclose to me the 'why'.

I got a very close friend working for Wizz. He told me that this is the boilerplate BS email they send to all such requests, to scare them off. Reading it one may thing "oh there may have been a terror-related thing, better not bother the CIA-FBI-NSA-PoPo-MI5-MI6-MI99... and that I should reach out to the responsible regulator and I'd get my money back. Which I did. I included the BS email. I assume the regulator didn't buy the BS email from Wizz and I got paid. 3 months later, but Wizz lying bastards didn't get away with it.

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

#97

Post by mehrdadn »

rkachowski wrote: post #91
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…

I feel it makes perfect sense to compensate, as the company now has a clear financial disincentive to allow faulty aircraft to be in service. Regardless of dancing around the semantics of cancellation, a severe problem was discovered in an aircraft forcing it to reland and delaying all passengers involved. If such an event is sufficiently costly for the airline then safety and maintenance measures will have to be inc…

I wasn't saying he shouldn't be compensated. I'm saying the compensation should account for the replacement flight he was provided. (See my edit.) And I'm not "dancing around the semantics of cancellation"—he's the one doing that. The entire point of my second paragraph is to look at it from a more practical standpoint instead of at semantics.

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

#98

Post by AceyMan »

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…

>a flight number seems like an immaterial bookkeeping abstraction

Not when it comes to airline operations. Crews are assigned to flight numbers; changing their assigned flight number, even to the same route/city-pair, constitutes a schedule change, which requires a recalculation of all their duty hours. When operations are all fubar and your crews are out of position you cannot afford to limit your options. Ergo, changing the flight numbers often has knock-on effects related to the crew regulations that are best avoided.

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

#99

Post by Closi »

rkachowski wrote: post #91
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…

I feel it makes perfect sense to compensate, as the company now has a clear financial disincentive to allow faulty aircraft to be in service. Regardless of dancing around the semantics of cancellation, a severe problem was discovered in an aircraft forcing it to reland and delaying all passengers involved. If such an event is sufficiently costly for the airline then safety and maintenance measures will have to be inc…

The difference in the semantics is that one legally requires 250 euros to be given to the customer, and the other requires them to arrange a hotel, provide food and potentially issue a refund.

It’s also worth noting that delays currently result in large costs for airlines, and there is already an incredibly strong motive to stop delays and issues happening.

Post reply on HN