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

101–110 of 159 posts

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

#101

Post by amelius »

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…

They are using the legal system in a way in which it was not intended to be used. Also known as hacking.

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

#102

Post by Closi »

jpcooper wrote: post #23
telesilla wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU has strict rules around exactly this. If the flight is outside the rules, you submit the paperwork and wait for a response. I've done this 5 times the last year and won more than the flight cost, even those times I received a hotel and replacement flight. It makes EU flight planners very careful, I imagine, due to the expense of losing an entire flight income and more.

The author seems not to have been able to claim what he should under these rules.

The author is misinterpreting the rules by considering his delay a cancellation, which has a different compensation structure.

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

#103

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

> potentially catastrophic consequences of the cabin pressure system failing at cruising altitude, I considered that everyone on the plane had been very lucky.

The cabin pressurization system failing at cruising altitude is one of the more common types of aircraft incidents. That's why planes are equipped with systems to handle it. While a catastrophic outcome is not impossible, it is exceedingly unlikely.

As to the compensation issue, airlines should be required to pay out the compensation automatically, with 3x the compensation automatically due as a penalty if the customer has to make them pay through the courts. This would remove the incentive to make it hard for customers to claim the compensation.

Given that I by now unfortunately have a decent understanding of the compensation rules, if I have a claim that I'm confident about and the airline doesn't pay immediately, I'll take it straight to court. If in a jurisdiction where they have to pay the lawyer fees, I'll have a regular lawyer handle it - no need to let an agency take 30% if you know you'll win and a lawyer can make some money (driving up the costs of misbehavior for the airline).

For consumer lawsuits you can often sue the airline at your local court, which isn't overloaded.

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

#104

Post by mehrdadn »

AceyMan wrote: post #98
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, cha…

I meant immaterial to the passenger, not immaterial in absoluteness. If the airline changed the flight number but still flew the same passengers to the same destination at the same time, you wouldn't say the flight has gotten canceled, right? I'm saying caring about the flight number is breaking the abstraction relevant to the passenger. The passenger isn't purchasing a flight number; he's purchasing a flight. What matters to the passenger is that the flight happens, not that a flight with a particular number happens.

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

#105

Post by chrisseaton »

jgalt212 wrote: post #100

cultural quibble. > my partner What per cent of the time is this "romantic, or maybe even life" or "business" partner? When married, the term "spouse" is always preferable. - jgalt's style guide

I think people only say 'partner' when they specifically mean 'romantic not spouse'. I'd say it rarely means 'business partner' these days. People would generally say 'co-founder' or something instead. Are people even technically partners in business anymore? Makes me think of Marley and Scrooge.

It generally means 'boyfriend or girlfriend' but over the age of something like 25 when boyfriend or girlfriend starts to sound a little awkward to some people's ears. People get married a lot later these days, or not at all if they don't wish to.

Of course people may use it to mean anything they want. But it's simple - if someone refers to their guest as 'partner' do them the courtesy of also using that term.

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

#106

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

cactus2093 wrote: post #90
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 c…

Not all European countries have class action lawsuits.

This is something to be fixed through regulations. If the rule was "customer has to be provided the compensation to their means of payment automatically, if this is not done, the compensation triples", airlines would quickly find a way to make it happen.

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

#107

Post by AlphaSite »

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…

You should try airlines outside of the US, they’re near universally higher quality and often cheaper than any comparable service inside the US.

And there are plenty of high quality long/medium haul airlines in general. Singapore airlines is a good example, but in general most Asian flag airlines are rather high quality.

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

#110

Post by vkou »

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.

> The courts can't handle 100,000 individual claims

Why not? Bill the loser for court fees.

If the cases have merit, the target company will be financially ruined.

This seems to be a better deterrent to bad corporate behaviour than a class action suit where the settlement for 100,000 claims is 15 million, where the lawyers keep 99% of it.

Post reply on HN