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

41–50 of 159 posts

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

#41

Post by cbanek »

American Airlines (which flies to Europe and is covered under the EU regulations for flights to/from the EU) doesn't even mention the EU regulations or how to make a claim at all on their website. None. Not a word. You have to make a customer service request as if you were asking a question, and then know all the right things to say.

Businesses just aren't optimizing for the things they hate. They'd rather do all they can to hide it and forget to mention it to you, if it weren't illegal (and sometimes, still then). They will only do the letter of the law, and only to go through the motions, and only if the penalties for not are high and the risk of getting caught is equally high.

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

#42

Post by chrisseaton »

dpedu wrote: post #36

> Given the original arrival time was delayed by more than three hours we were covered by EU Regulation 261/2004 I had similar situation a couple years ago and ended up using Airhelp.com to obtain my compensation. They took a cut of course but I had to do pretty much nothing beyond sending them my itinerary and I got a bank transfer in a couple of weeks. I am of course unaffiliated.

Right - give them a pretty small cut and they will go after them with techniques they know work and relentlessly because it’s now their money. Why do anything else?

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

#43

Post by Nextgrid »

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…

> there hasn't been a profitable entrant into the airline business that's focused on customer service

> Customers are notoriously price sensitive

Is the current system actually cheaper, or is the current system just-as if not more expensive than doing business honestly, except that money is currently being spent on various inefficiencies caused by the current system (PR, customer service having to talk to angry customers, litigation, etc) but "fixing" it is not possible/politically viable as it would put a lot of people (maybe some of the decision-makers themselves) out of a job?

If the law says you have to pay, it seems to me like it would be cheaper to just pay rather than spend money on all kinds of different people trying to work their way out of paying, but since they have those people already it's easier and less politically damaging to keep the current system as-is instead of letting those people go even though they don't actually provide any value (overall they provide negative value, as these people are paid to annoy/lie/waste the customer's time).

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

#45

Post by pydry »

I tried to make a claim through the courts when EasyJet didn't pay out the amount they were required to under EU law. I didn't get a refund. I didn't get a replacement booking (well, I was offered one leaving after my return flight). I got exactly nothing.

The court simply threw out my case because it was "overloaded".

I think Easyjet might be exploiting this loophole to avoid paying customers whom they've fucked over.

I had another case against a different business which I launched and got thrown out because the courts were overloaded too.

The UK courts system appears to be horrendously underautomated. It was a mess of scanned written forms and calling up people to read credit card numbers over the phone. They really should deduct a ton of points on those "ease of doing business" metrics for this mess.

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

#46

Post by that_guy_iain »

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…

No you automate things that cost you money in either losing customers or spending resources on managaging it. The fact they won't automate it is because automating it would lose them money. More people would make claims. Most people give up on claims after time. Literally, we stop caring after a while, so the longer the process takes and the more effort it takes the more people drop off. Airlines make it as hard as possible to make a claim because otherwise they would lose more money. I thought it was very well known this is why Airlines have such painful claims processes.

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

#47

Post by chrisseaton »

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.

> Does class action have a bad reputation?

In the US at least they’re associated with companies preying on people and they never seem to actually achieve much in practice except for lawyers.

I would say they are a consumer rights problem, not a solution to consumer rights problems.

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

#48

Post by maxerickson »

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.

Living in the US, I don't feel like class action suits do me much good. Businesses are happy to send me $7 vouchers for shit I don't want.

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

#49

Post by wrs »

otterley wrote: post #35
Hnrobert42 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Indeed! But they rarely have the lowest prices anymore. Certainly not the kinds of bargains you find on RyanAir or easyJet. SWA also doesn't give refunds unless you fly unrestricted, which is usually 3x the price of a restricted fare. To their credit, they don't charge change fees. The way I think of RyanAir or easyJet or the like is a bit like gambling. Maybe 90% of the time you'll get a super cheap flight and every…

The point is, Southwest doesn’t have the lowest prices, does focus on customer service, and is profitable, so it’s the counterexample to the “race to the bottom” argument. (Or it was—who knows what post-2020 airlines will look like...)

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

#50

Post by underseacables »

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…

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 customer service.
Post reply on HN