[HN Gopher] Airlines required to refund passengers for canceled,...
___________________________________________________________________
Airlines required to refund passengers for canceled, delayed
flights
Author : vyrotek
Score : 664 points
Date : 2024-04-24 22:29 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (abcnews.go.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (abcnews.go.com)
| koito17 wrote:
| As someone who knows somebody that recently had a flight
| cancelled (then booked another flight at the same airport, only
| for _that_ flight to get cancelled as well), it was very
| frustrating to hear that all the airlines in question would do is
| issue a voucher that expires in 3 months and requires the exact
| same people to travel alongside you (i.e. if you purchased a
| ticket for yourself and a relative, then the voucher only applies
| to flights where you and this exact same relative are boarding).
| It seems like a pretty blatant way for airlines to keep customer
| 's money. Too bad this rule didn't come sooner.
| jessriedel wrote:
| Pretty sure US airlines have had to give you refund for
| canceled flights for years.
|
| https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/travel/money-flight-cance...
|
| > To be clear, passengers flying in the U.S. are already
| entitled to refunds when a flight is canceled or significantly
| delayed. No matter the cause -- weather-related or not --
| airlines must pay passengers back for the unused portion of
| their ticket if the passenger ultimately chooses not to fly.
| It's worth noting that the DOT does not define what constitutes
| a "significant delay."
|
| https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/travel/do-airlines-owe-yo...
| MBCook wrote:
| They do, but they'll never tell you that. You have to know.
|
| The only thing I saw in this article that I don't like is
| that they can still issue vouchers. And I didn't see anything
| that said the vouchers had to be for more than the cash
| payment.
|
| So I'm guessing if you miss your flight and are entitled to
| $300 (to pick an amount) they'll be very happy to instantly
| give everyone a voucher for $100 off. Thus saving $200/head
| unless people know their rights.
|
| How about: you must issue cash refunds PERIOD. No voucher
| nonsense.
|
| Still, this is great.
| codazoda wrote:
| Requiring cash is there in the article, at least now it is.
|
| > The refunds must be issued within seven days, according
| to the new DOT rules, and must be in cash unless the
| passenger chooses another form of compensation. Airlines
| can no longer issue refunds in forms of vouchers or credits
| when consumers are entitled to receive cash.
| MBCook wrote:
| > unless the passenger chooses another form of
| compensation
|
| This is the bit. How much you wanna bet they'll find ways
| to use this to screw people?
| mrandish wrote:
| Since they now have to automatically offer a cash refund,
| any alternative voucher offered will have to be
| substantially higher value to the customer to get any
| takers.
|
| Sure, it's possible some grandma who almost never flies
| anywhere may still get confused but this new rule is
| still going to put even that kind of person in a far
| better position.
| onion2k wrote:
| "We can issue you a refund for the cash value, but the
| system takes 3 years to pay out. You can have a voucher
| right now though."
| eszed wrote:
| "The refunds must be issued within seven days", so (while
| I wouldn't put it past them to try) telling passengers
| something so manifestly untrue would be grounds for a
| lawsuit, which should make them stop.
| marcinzm wrote:
| I don't see vouchers mentioned in the article and the
| official post is pretty clear that refunds must be in the
| original form of payment. And automatic.
|
| https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/biden-harris-
| ad...
| thfuran wrote:
| They do the same sort of thing soliciting volunteers to be
| bumped from a flight for less in vouchers than they'd be
| entitled to had they been involuntarily removed.
| PNewling wrote:
| But for that scenario you normally still get booked on a
| later flight _plus_ the vouchers, as measly as the value
| of those might be.
| noirbot wrote:
| I dunno, most of the time, the offered vouchers have been
| more than the cost of the flight by a good amount. I
| haven't had an offer in a while, but the last few times
| were often starting at around 2x the price I'd paid for
| the flight for a 2-3 hour delay. I've never seen it be
| less than $200.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Which seems fair enough to me. If someone is flexible and
| wants to accept the airline's offer, it's fine for the
| airline and them to reach a voluntary agreement.
| schrodinger wrote:
| I don't see a problem with that (unless the voucher has
| ridiculous terms) because it allows someone who doesn't
| mind being bumped to voluntarily accept it rather than
| going straight to the "you've been chosen, here's the
| legally mandated payment."
|
| I've made out quite well on United. I had 2 flights back
| from London to NY where I accepted a 3 hour delay (with
| lounge access) and made a total over of $2500 in
| vouchers. The terms were generous too--a year to use them
| (extended by a year because it was around the pandemic),
| and you could partially use them, it just added to a
| "voucher balance" you could draw from.
| thfuran wrote:
| >I've made out quite well on United
|
| No, you made out poorly. Wouldn't you prefer to have been
| paid more?
|
| >The terms were generous too--a year to use them
|
| Are you for real? That's not generous.
| skupig wrote:
| >No, you made out poorly. Wouldn't you prefer to have
| been paid more?
|
| If you don't volunteer, you're much more likely to stay
| on the flight and not be paid anything.
| schrodinger wrote:
| Exactly!
| barnabyjones wrote:
| He probably wouldn't have been paid anything, someone
| else would have been chosen at random to be bumped off.
| This way the burden shifts to whoever it's least
| inconvenient for.
| schrodinger wrote:
| Hmm? The flights originally cost around $700 since it was
| winter season. So I got paid around $1200 per flight to
| sit in a lounge with free unlimited food and drinks for 3
| hours. Of course would prefer more, but $400/hr to relax
| in a lounge is a job I'd take! Besides, I could have said
| no...
|
| And it ended up being around 3 or 4 years, but because of
| the pandemic. I honestly don't remember the original
| amount, 1 or 2 years. Either way I had no issue using
| them. I was even able to use them to pay for another
| traveler as long as I was also on the booking (bought my
| mother a ticket).
|
| Side note: No need for this dismissive tone, my
| statements were obviously subjective--one person's
| generous can easily be another person's disappointing. So
| you're in violation of two HN guidelines:
|
| > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't
| cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
|
| > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of
| other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us
| something.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| disillusioned wrote:
| 14 CFR 250.5 calls for an airline to compensate you for
| involuntarily denied boarding for overbooking (your
| circumstance) to the tune of 400% of the fare (though
| this is capped at $1,550) per person, so that's a helpful
| index to understand what benefit there might be holding
| out.
|
| Airlines _will_ frequently offer voluntary benefits in
| excess of this amount to maintain good relationships, and
| gate agents for, say, Delta, can even offer as high as
| nearly $10k [1], which is kind of crazy: you'd think
| they'd just fall back on the involuntary limits.
|
| [1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/delta-10000-offer-to-
| switch-fli....
| graton wrote:
| But only to those who are involuntary bumped. So they
| look for volunteers who will take less than that first.
| So far when I have traveled the offer hasn't been enough
| that I have wanted to give up my spot. But the person
| above's offer sounds like one I would have considered.
| schrodinger wrote:
| I was not involuntarily denied boarding, I was
| voluntarily denied and in fact lucky to get the offer as
| multiple people wanted it once it hit that level, since
| it was an early afternoon flight for which a 3 hour delay
| again with lounge was quite pleasant.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| My wife and I were flying from San Juan with a layover in
| Atlanta going to Nashville. We gladly volunteered to take
| a flight that next morning for $1000 a piece + food
| voucher + hotel.
| interestica wrote:
| What about if people "refuse to leave voluntarily"?
|
| https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/united-airlines-flight-
| over...
|
| > Searches for 'Volunteer' Definition Spiked 1900% After
| United Airlines Incident
|
| https://time.com/4733425/united-airlines-volunteer-
| definitio...
| bagels wrote:
| You get voluntold, and then if you continue to refuse,
| you get arrested for trespassing/not following
| instructions of the flight crew.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| Stuff like this makes my blood boil. It should be illegal
| for airlines to overbook flights - full stop. I don't
| care how much this reduces profits. I don't care how
| "razor thin" the margins are.
|
| I want to see some damn collective organizing. Can you
| imagine if passengers had started revolting against the
| idiot agents who abused the person arrested there?
|
| The more pain airlines feel from the ensuing bad PR as a
| result of the chaos, the better that flying gets for
| everyone. I want airlines to _fear_ the power of the
| customer.
| mafuy wrote:
| I disagree. I'm fine with overbooking because it makes
| travel more efficient, both environmentally and
| financially. However, the airlines should offer whatever
| it takes to fix overbooked flights. Some of the
| passengers will be glad to be 4 hours late when they are
| compensated with, say, 5000$. This will naturally lead to
| a proper balance of overbooking.
| sokoloff wrote:
| You're going to end up with some level of IDB'd
| (involuntarily denied boarding) passengers in any world
| where seats/safety equipment break, equipment changes,
| crew members get sick and/or time out and airline
| personnel need to be shuttled to crew another flight that
| would otherwise be entirely cancelled, or unexpected
| weather [higher than typical temperatures, unfavorable
| winds] or airport conditions [runway closures/temporary
| shortening] preclude a full gross weight takeoff.
|
| As a passenger, I appreciate that my airfares are lower
| and some airfares have increased flexibility because the
| airlines have a deep understanding of the turn-up ratio
| and sell tickets in light of that fact. I appreciate the
| cases where [probably without my awareness] a flight or
| cabin crew/member [or maintenance tech and part] has been
| last-minute flown in to crew/fix a flight that I ended up
| taking rather than having it be cancelled.
|
| Does it suck to be IDB'd? Sure. Does it happen often?
| Almost never (around 23 in a million or 1 in 44K
| embarkations). People in the US are about 5.5 times more
| likely to be killed in a car crash _in a given year_ than
| be IDB 'd on a given flight.
|
| https://archive.is/YfLWG
| tacocataco wrote:
| Money moves mountains. There should be an auction for a
| cash refund to disembark.
|
| The airlines just don't want to pay fair market value to
| get someone off the plane and they get to use violence to
| get their way.
| sokoloff wrote:
| From that link, passengers voluntarily taking the airline
| offers _vastly exceeds_ those involuntarily denied (by a
| factor of almost 14:1 overall and many of the majors
| having exactly zero IDBs in that year).
|
| That means the airline most frequently reaches an
| acceptable agreement to someone. You might wish that they
| used some other process, but the process they are using
| usually gets to an agreement as it is.
| jessriedel wrote:
| > They do, but they'll never tell you that. You have to
| know.
|
| I think this is not true
| mulmen wrote:
| It used to be but this new rule changed that.
| pishpash wrote:
| They do tell you. What's missing is compensation for
| waiting or making new arrangements last minute (which is
| not cheap) unless it's 3 hours delayed. So airlines will
| drag it out putting fake new flight time up by incrementing
| 10 minutes at a time, hoping you'll rebook because you
| don't want to wait out their 3 hours just to find out it's
| cancelled anyway.
| soneil wrote:
| They can offer vouchers but you're entitled to the refund.
| The problem in that past has been that they weren't
| obligated to inform you of that right.
|
| Hopefully now that the refund entitlement is automatic,
| vouchers will only make sense if they can beat the cash
| offer.
| mhdhn wrote:
| So they left you believing take the voucher or get
| nothing?
| rqtwteye wrote:
| Correct.
| jibe wrote:
| _Still, this is great._
|
| Everyone is going now pay the full, refundable fare rate,
| so not great if you want cheap tickets.
| mulmen wrote:
| > How about: you must issue cash refunds PERIOD. No voucher
| nonsense.
|
| From https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/biden-
| harris-ad... (linked in TFA):
|
| The final rule improves the passenger experience by
| requiring refunds to be:
|
| Automatic: Airlines must automatically issue refunds
| without passengers having to explicitly request them or
| jump through hoops.
|
| Prompt: Airlines and ticket agents must issue refunds
| within seven business days of refunds becoming due for
| credit card purchases and 20 calendar days for other
| payment methods.
|
| Cash or original form of payment: Airlines and ticket
| agents must provide refunds in cash or whatever original
| payment method the individual used to make the purchase,
| such as credit card or airline miles. Airlines may not
| substitute vouchers, travel credits, or other forms of
| compensation unless the passenger affirmatively chooses to
| accept alternative compensation.
|
| Full amount: Airlines and ticket agents must provide full
| refunds of the ticket purchase price, minus the value of
| any portion of transportation already used. The refunds
| must include all government-imposed taxes and fees and
| airline-imposed fees, regardless of whether the taxes or
| fees are refundable to airlines.
| judge2020 wrote:
| I wonder how the taxes and fees refund works. Fees I can
| see airlines trying to say "we already paid these", but
| taxes are only charged on services rendered, no? Is there
| a situation where the airlines have already paid sales
| tax to the local authority and don't get a refund for
| canceled service?
| praseodym wrote:
| There are also government-imposed taxes such as the U.S.
| Transportation Security Administration instituted
| Passenger Fee, which is charged as soon as the ticket is
| bought:
|
| > "The fee is collected by air carriers from passengers
| at the time air transportation is purchased," according
| to TSA. "Air carriers then remit the fees to TSA."
|
| (From https://thepointsguy.com/guide/taxes-and-fees-
| airline-award-...)
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| Of course it's charged as soon as the ticket is bought,
| no airline is selling a ticket then coming back later to
| collect taxes. The quote you provided only says "Air
| carriers _then_ remit the fees to TSA. ", it doesn't say
| _when_ that happens.
| figassis wrote:
| Well, refund everything. A delay is them not doing their
| job right, as promised. There should be a cost to that,
| and if they are forced to refund 100%, maybe
| delays/cancellations will be fewer.
|
| The cost to the customer is usually more than the price
| of the flight. Maybe they are late to another flight and
| since that will be their "fault" they will not be
| refunded. Maybe they miss a job interview, etc. Life
| isn't fair and what is owed is owed.
|
| In fact, they have such great legal and accounting armies
| that I'm sure they can claw back those taxes from the
| IRS.
| HelloMcFly wrote:
| > A delay is them not doing their job right, as promised.
|
| I am anti-airline here, I am loving where we are going
| with these things. But I don't agree with this: many
| delays happen precisely because they are doing their jobs
| right. This could be weather-related delays, observed
| mechanical issues, unexpected crew illnesses (note the
| plural), etc. And over the course of a day, these issues
| compound.
|
| I think the government should refund the airlines the
| government taxes/fees for canceled/delayed flights due to
| weather or mechanical issues at least.
| Vaslo wrote:
| I'm with you. Telling airlines they need to refund due to
| weather or bad mechanics just invites them to take more
| risks.
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| I don't think they're paying taxes at the time the ticket
| is purchased. I'm very sure they're not paying taxes on
| cancelled flights, as long as they're refunding the
| principle.
|
| How often do you think airlines are filing taxes?
| HelloMcFly wrote:
| I am responding to this:
|
| > The refunds must include all government-imposed taxes
| and fees and airline-imposed fees, regardless of whether
| the taxes or fees are refundable to airlines.
|
| This is the provision I am responding to. If the airlines
| must refund the full value to the consumer, I do not see
| why the government should not also be refunding the
| airlines.
|
| And I strongly contest the idea that any delay is a
| problem the airline themselves created. In fact, I
| believe the assertion is absolutely dead wrong. There are
| many externalities to on-time arrivals and departures
| that airlines cannot control. How could it possibly be an
| airline's fault if an airport hasn't cleared its runways
| of ice, or if a tornado is within 5 miles of the landing
| strip?
|
| Of course I also believe airlines will disingenously
| attribute delayed departures to these externalities if
| able to, even if they are actually at fault, so I'm not
| sure what the "right" solution is here.
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| I don't think saying "They collected payment for a
| service they then did not provide" is necessarily blaming
| them, it's just saying that if you collect money for
| something they customer does not receive you have no
| grounds to hold on to the money.
| HelloMcFly wrote:
| > A delay is them not doing their job right, as promised.
|
| This is the comment from the OP that motivated me to
| comment. I think that is a definitively incorrect
| conclusion.
| Sakos wrote:
| https://www.marketplace.org/2021/07/08/didnt-use-your-
| airlin...
|
| Sounds complicated.
| bux93 wrote:
| This is somehow not an issue for any other business, so
| they'll figure it out.
| tzs wrote:
| Nearly every government handles things like sales taxes
| quarterly. Each quarter the merchant submits a report to
| the government showing the sales and the tax collected in
| the previous quarter and sends that collected tax to the
| government.
|
| The due date for submitting the previous quarter's taxes
| will generally be late enough that the merchant can wait
| until most items or services sold at the end of the
| previous quarter have been delivered or performed.
|
| If you have to refund a customer after you have submitted
| your taxes you can take the amount of tax that was
| included in the refund as a credit the next time you file
| with with the government.
| phone8675309 wrote:
| > Airlines and ticket agents must issue refunds within
| seven business days of refunds becoming due for credit
| card purchases
|
| Always blows my mind that companies can take money
| _instantly_ from my credit card yet require 3-7 business
| days to refund it.
|
| I know what you're doing you greedy fucks.
| devmor wrote:
| This doesn't change the premise of your argument but to
| clear up your understanding - no one is able to instantly
| take payments from your credit card. Your credit card
| company records the transaction as having taken place
| long before any money actually moves.
|
| They are far more cautious about giving leeway on the
| conduct of the consumer than that of the merchant.
|
| 3-7 business days gives the merchant's bank long enough
| to debit the funds, ensure they exist, then send them
| back, with a buffer for errors.
| adonovan wrote:
| I once arrived in Paris on the overnight train from Milan,
| which had been delayed for a couple of hours en route
| (allowing us to sleep more!). On the platform in Paris,
| staff were busily and proactively handing out claim forms
| to disembarking passengers, explaining that they had the
| right to a refund for the delay.
|
| If only that were the law in the US.
| tossandthrow wrote:
| > They do, but they'll never tell you that. You have to
| know.
|
| This is where I love the EU legislation. A part of having a
| flight delayed or cancelled is that the airline needs to
| _inform_ you about your rights.
| wheels wrote:
| The European legislation is also something of a joke.
| Most of the time the airlines just ignore them unless you
| sue. I recently won a case against American Airlines for
| a canceled flight, but it took two years, and lawyers ate
| half of the money. Just a couple weeks ago KLM canceled
| my flight and bumped me to Delta, who also canceled my
| flight, but then washed themselves of liability because
| Delta isn't an EU carrier (and the flight originated
| outside of the EU).
| terinjokes wrote:
| Why would you file against Delta if you booked with KLM?
| tossandthrow wrote:
| yes, so you are pointing out some very fundamental
| properties of a justice state. no law will ever fix this.
| obviously you need to have things tried.
|
| However, you can pay with a credit card and document the
| blatant rule breaking to them. They will refund you and
| bear legal risks. and unless you are in the wrong, the
| airline won't do. more about it.
|
| I had a case with SAS some years ago, where mastercard
| simply refunded me. that was it.
| wil421 wrote:
| In the US many merchants will refuse to do business with
| you again if you do a charge back. Not sure what would
| happened if you were blackballed and used a different
| credit card.
| tossandthrow wrote:
| They can also refuse to do business with you if you sue
| them? What is the point?
|
| By all means, suppress yourself to a regime of ultra
| large companies, if that makes you feel more safe - in
| this case you are merely paying protection money and the
| system you support is just like the mafia.
|
| In the EU they do take another route: They try to make
| grounds for a more competitive environment such that
| anti-consumer behaviour does not make sense.
|
| That is also why you don't see ultra large tech companies
| in the EU. And for consumer, that is a good thing,
| because it keeps companies in check.
|
| I can furthermore say that I indeed has flown with this
| airline since.
| MVissers wrote:
| In Europe they have to refund your ticket plus compensate
| you in cash depending on delay and distance.
|
| Not sure if this will change much in the USA, refunding is
| not that high of a cost either for airlines.
| jermaustin1 wrote:
| Really only works if you live there though. As an
| American in Europe traveling, they offered me lots of
| localized forms that only accepted local addresses and
| banking information for the reimbursements.
|
| Same thing with the trains in the UK. We were delayed 3
| hours, and our train was overbooked. I went into the LNER
| (or Virgin - can't remember when it happened) ticketing
| office in Kings Cross, and the guy at the counter
| basically told me that I could fill out the form, but if
| I didn't have a UK bank account they have no method of
| dispersing funds.
|
| So then I went to a UK bank and was told I couldn't open
| a bank account without a UK address. So I opened an
| account with TransferWise (now Wise), and was given a UK
| bank account through them, but after filling out the
| form, I never got any reimbursement. So I'm guessing I
| didn't qualify for some other reason.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Same in Europe. There's standard amounts.
| caseyy wrote:
| Same in the EU - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Passenge
| rs_Rights_Regula...
|
| Although air carriers can offer passengers alternative
| compensation if the passenger chooses to accept it. For
| example, vouchers or a lower sum of money and no
| accommodation. Sometimes they present it as the only option
| to mislead the passenger.
|
| If challenged in court on refusing to pay out, air carriers
| sometimes claim extraordinary circumstances which could not
| have been avoided. This is an exception in the law. But it is
| for really force majeure events, like real disasters.
| Meanwhile, airlines often claim that something like the
| airplane breaking down or an employee calling in sick is
| extraordinary circumstances. This falls squarely within
| ordinary day-to-day operations of an airline. So it doesn't
| fly in court, but it's used more as an intimidating tactic to
| show to the plaintiff that their lawsuit would supposedly
| fail and to force awful settlement terms.
|
| Lots to be said about airlines trying to weasel out but it
| generally doesn't work. Unless the passenger signs that they
| accept alternative compensation. I know the law doesn't seem
| to allow that, but the phrasing is specific enough that it
| falls within the law.
| eastbound wrote:
| In Europe, I've always had my parking, taxi, restaurant and
| hotel reimbursed by the airline in case of delays (such as:
| bad weather or strike -> we'll board tomorrow morning -> full
| reimbursement of all implied expenses).
|
| I thought this was IATA regulations. US travelers are really
| getting the hard stick herr.
| adrian_b wrote:
| Also in Europe (Frankfurt), when I had missed my flight
| because the (German) express train had been delayed by more
| than one hour, the airline sent me to a hotel with all
| expenses paid by them, including breakfast, until the next
| morning when I could take another of their flights towards
| the same destination, though via another route (obviously
| all being covered by my original payment).
| rft wrote:
| Just a word of caution for anyone booking their own train
| connection, this is usually only done if you book train
| and flight on the same ticket. The DB calls this Rail&Fly
| and essentially the train becomes a leg of the flight. So
| if/when the DB screws up, your "flight" is delayed and
| treated just like a delayed plane.
|
| https://www.bahn.de/service/informationen-buchung/bahn-
| flug/...
| adrian_b wrote:
| I suppose that it may depend on the airline how they
| handle such cases. I do not remember which I had used
| then, but it might have been Lufthansa.
|
| In my case I had bought the train tickets separately from
| DB (online) and the flight tickets directly from the
| airline (also online). At the airport I have just shown
| the train tickets and it would have been easy to verify
| that indeed it had arrived with a huge delay, so it was
| not my fault.
| ranger_danger wrote:
| According to some random internet stories that may or may not
| be true, canceled flights due to a delay that resulted in the
| destination airport CLOSING before they would have landed, is
| one such situation that is/was not considerable as a refund.
| sunnybeetroot wrote:
| You are correct, it's mentioned in the article:
|
| > Buttigieg reiterated that refund requirements are already
| the standard for airlines, but the new DOT rules hold the
| airlines to account and makes sure passengers get the
| "refunds that are owed to them."
| rco8786 wrote:
| You have to know that, and you have to fight through their
| customer "service" desk/phone portal to get it. Most people
| just give up or take the first thing offered to them.
| wildzzz wrote:
| When WOW Air closed down, they refunded European tickets but
| not Americans. We ended up doing a charge back with our
| credit card. I was a little pissed at first but ended up
| getting a cheaper flight to a better starting point for our
| trip to Europe through Air Italy (which coincidentally closed
| down a year later).
| al_borland wrote:
| I had a flight cancelled due to COVID in 2020. I was given a
| voucher, which sat unused. They extended the expiration on it a
| couple times, due to the pandemic dragging on. Eventually, out
| of nowhere, after 2+ years of sitting on the voucher, I was
| issued a refund.
|
| I was glad to get the refund, but when talking about a
| multiyear timeframe, I feel like I should get my money back
| with interest.
| mcny wrote:
| How did you get your money back? I didn't get a refund from
| delta at all...
| al_borland wrote:
| If I remember correctly, they refunded it to the card I
| purchased the flight on.
|
| This was through British Airways.
| lupire wrote:
| In the context of the pandemic, being a little forgiving is
| reasonable.
| Yeul wrote:
| COVID was such a cluster fuck that it could have bankrupted
| airliners. Under normal circumstances they can afford to
| refund their passengers.
|
| Companies need to have an incentive to provide a good
| service.
| rqtwteye wrote:
| Alaska gave me a 12 month voucher that expired because I had
| no need to fly with them. I asked about extending it or a
| cash refund but they refused.
| alsetmusic wrote:
| I missed a flight and rebooked for later on the same day. My
| return flight was still cancelled because how could they know I
| maintained the trip. There's no way for them to be unaware that
| I bought a new one-way ticket. They were just predatory about
| it.
| zerovox wrote:
| This will be used as a pretense to raise airline fares, and won't
| impact cancellation rates or average delay times.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| All of those things are motivated by the corporate greed of
| fat, lazy oligopolies.
|
| At least now you can get your money back after your ticket
| being rendered useless.
| maccard wrote:
| Rules like these exist in Europe, and flying in Europe is
| incredibly cheap. For a random weekend in May, I can fly to 26
| different countries for under $50 one way.
|
| Airlines here are also significantly less likely to cancel your
| flights, and in my experience (I've taken somewhere in the
| region of 200 flights in the last 10 years) there is a bit of
| wiggle in terms of your actual arrival time, but being more
| than an hour out is less likely than int eh US.
| kristopolous wrote:
| So if a company is going to be insincere and act in bad faith,
| we shouldn't ever try to curb bad behavior?
|
| Such a policy implies the most corrupt and criminal companies
| should get the least oversight possible.
|
| I might be crazy, but I think that's backwards.
| bobmcnamara wrote:
| The doors of course, will continue to fall off.
| bbarnett wrote:
| That's Boeing, not the airline's fault. Don't let Boeing get
| off, lay the blame at their feet.
| paxys wrote:
| If they could have raised fares they would have already. Why do
| you think this rule will make a difference?
| tyingq wrote:
| Because each airlines knows their competitors will lose
| margin if fares don't go up. The new rules are more
| expensive. So someone will raise the fares, and the
| competition won't significantly undercut the pricing change.
| rainsford wrote:
| That's not necessarily true. Yes, the change to requiring
| refunds rather than compensation that airlines can weasel out
| of raises an airline's cost of cancellation, but passing that
| cost along to their customers makes them less competitive
| compared to airlines that have better on-time performance. A
| refund requirement means they can't have their cake (low fares)
| and eat it too (shitty on-time performance), and there is real
| financial disincentive to having terrible reliability...or
| financial incentive to be more reliable.
| yuliyp wrote:
| Airlines don't need a pretense to raise fares. They can, and
| do, adjust rates all the time to charge people as much as they
| can get away with. Unlike regulated industries such as
| insurance or utilities, there's nobody they have to convince to
| let them raise their fares.
| elevatedastalt wrote:
| That's not as strong an argument as you think it is.
|
| It is common for industries to have settle on points /
| equilibria based on what other players are doing, and
| companies typically don't unilaterally rock the boat too
| much.
|
| However external factors act as forcing functions (I call
| them nucleation sites as a crystallization analogy) around
| which new equilibria can develop. Regulatory changes are one
| such example.
|
| For example, during COVID many hotels shifted to not doing
| daily housekeeping. At that point they cited social
| distancing or workforce shortage reasons.
|
| But it's been 2 years since the pandemic was completely over
| and many hotels now still don't do daily housekeeping. The
| prices of course haven't reduced.
|
| Back in 2014 when California had a drought, my car dealership
| stopped offering free washes as part of the maintenance
| package citing bullshit "let's do our part in saving water"
| reasons.
|
| The drought is long over but the free car washes have not
| come back.
| WrongAssumption wrote:
| They will do daily housekeeping, they just won't do it
| automatically. Only if you ask, which I actually prefer.
| elevatedastalt wrote:
| I don't know why you are nitpicking about this while
| ignoring the base point I am making.
|
| They used to do daily housekeeping automatically.
|
| Now they don't.
|
| We went from a default of "Opt-out" to "Opt-in"
|
| This change happened across many hotels only during the
| pandemic despite the fact that, according to the parent
| poster, they could have done it any time, there was no
| regulation forcing them to do daily housekeeping.
| astura wrote:
| You can get your room cleaned as much as you want, you just
| need to ask for it sometimes.
| elevatedastalt wrote:
| Please see my reply to the sibling commen.
| alkonaut wrote:
| Yes it can raise fares - and that's not some unexpected
| downside it's just pricing being more transparent.
|
| If airlines have a cost to being late/cancelling, then that
| will balance against the cost of having e.g. N% slack in
| staff/aircraft/schedules. It most definitely helps reduce
| cancellation and delays.
|
| If you are curious whether this is bullshit, the best
| experiment would be to time travel back a N years, take two
| similarly sized continents with lots of flying, and use this
| type of regulation on one continent and not the other.
| stavros wrote:
| Wait wait wait. Requires airlines to _refund_? Not to compensate,
| but to give you your money back? What did they do before?!
| iamtheworstdev wrote:
| shitty voucher system
| stavros wrote:
| Wow
| alkonaut wrote:
| Vouchers are fine but Airlines should be forced to pay 200%
| in vouchers or 100% cash and the choice should be very clear
| to the customer.
| bagels wrote:
| Vouchers or tell you that they are not required by law to
| compensate you, like United told me. (United would have owed me
| at least five refunds under the new rules)
| stavros wrote:
| How is it possible that you pay me to provide a service, I
| don't provide the service, and just keep your money? This
| sounds outrageous.
| metabagel wrote:
| They would book you on another flight. They wouldn't
| necessarily compensate you for the delayed/canceled flight.
| stavros wrote:
| What if I don't want/can't make the other flight? If I
| book a hotel for the 20th, and they overbooked and can
| only give me a room on the 25th, they don't get to keep
| my money even if I don't want the 25th.
| metabagel wrote:
| Right, that's where they should refund you, and now they
| would be required to.
|
| Before, I think it was a matter where once the airlines
| had your cash, they were loathe to give it back.
| cqqxo4zV46cp wrote:
| The analogy isn't really fair. Honestly, getting the date
| right on a hotel stay is often more important than
| getting it right on a flight. Both are an inconvenience,
| and a good chance that both are major, but really...it's
| different. If I get back from my holiday or business trip
| a day late, it sucks, but it's workable. If I get to my
| hotel, they tell me they oversold, but not to worry
| they'll fit me in tomorrow...well, I still need somewhere
| to stay.
|
| This really needs to be considered on its own merits.
| And, in my view, it still happens to warrant a refund,
| when asked, when the delay is significant.
| swells34 wrote:
| I don't see it that way. Most of my travel (and what I
| assume is true for the majority) is that they are
| traveling to a location because of an event, be it work
| or personal. If I am delayed a day, then there is no
| longer any reason to travel, because I've missed the
| meeting or event. Every time this has occurred it is
| quite problematic.
|
| Conversely, with a hotel, if they overbooked and I cannot
| stay there, there are usually quite a few locations
| nearby where I can get a room for a night. I've had this
| happen a few times and it's never been more than a minor
| inconvenience.
| hughesjj wrote:
| Cancelled/delayed flights can mess with visa/immigration,
| mess with events (imagine being the speaker to a
| conference/doing a tour and then not being able to show
| up because your flight was delayed or cancelled), and
| even hotel rooms (some places will void your reservation
| if you don't show up). Also if you get stuck in an area
| for an extra day it's effectively the same as having
| gotten the date wrong on a hotel. I've gotten screwed due
| to a soccer playoff in the EU once happening the same
| weekend I was supposed to crash at a friend's place
|
| IDK, they both suck.
| jfoster wrote:
| Rebooking onto another flight is often going to be the
| most economical option, since flights tend to be a lot
| more expensive on/near the date of travel.
| 0xB31B1B wrote:
| its part of the carraige agreement you "sign" when you buy
| a ticket
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| Yes, when regulations don't protect consumers, the outcome
| is generally considered ridiculous.
| ranger_danger wrote:
| the problem is republicans don't like consumer rights,
| they like business rights. it's like the age old US vs EU
| difference of "freedom TO" vs "freedom FROM", or positive
| vs negative freedoms.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| If you're a big company that's effectively business as
| usual.
| jessriedel wrote:
| You have long been entitled to a refund for canceled flights.
| The new rules regard "substantial delays".
|
| https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/travel/money-flight-cance...
| readyman wrote:
| > _Requires airlines to refund?_
|
| No. The headline is a lie. See the article:
|
| > _The DOT rules lay out that passengers will be "entitled to a
| refund if their flight is canceled or significantly changed,
| and they do not accept alternative transportation or travel
| credits offered."_
|
| In other words, evermore useless travel credits will be
| accepted and nothing will have fundamentally changed.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I'm reading the sentence you quote and I don't understand how
| you're arriving at that understanding.
|
| If my flight is cancelled I'm entitled to a refund if I
| refuse any other compensatory measures?
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| Are you not interpreting the "and they do not accept
| alternative transportation or travel credits offered" clause
| to mean that the customers have a choice to take the refund?
|
| The wording definitely implies that customers may be offered
| alternative transportation or travel credits, but that they
| have the right to not accept those, and take a refund
| instead.
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| Often they would provide you vouchers or something that were
| attached to some confirmation number that was never listed
| anywhere.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| This is shocking for not currently being the case.
|
| Compare the EU where they're not only required to refund you in
| full, but also compensate you up to 600 euros.
|
| Note that compensation doesn't apply to weather related events
| and other 'not in our control' things, but the scope is pretty
| narrow.
| imustbeevil wrote:
| Weather accounts for 75% of all airline delays (in the US).
| That disclaimer is kind of surprising to gloss over.
|
| https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/22/weather/why-flights-
| get-c....
| pas wrote:
| It worked for us a few years ago. Eurowings was late and the
| plane had to land somewhere else, they got us to the
| destination airport with buses. Then we got 250 EUR comp.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| Forcing airlines to compensate passengers for weather delays
| isn't going to work, and isn't equitable. You'd probably have
| people purposefully trying to book flights that are liable to
| be cancelled in order to profit.
|
| Don't know what disclaimer you're referring to but in the EU
| you still get a full refund for cancellations no matter what
| the reason.
| ranger_danger wrote:
| Did you just contradict yourself? I'm confused.
| bramblerose wrote:
| You can be refunded without receiving additional
| compensation.
| chgs wrote:
| If you know the flight will be cancelled why would the
| airline sell you the ticket?
| gravescale wrote:
| Yes, but it's a bit unfair to ding an airline 600 euros per
| passenger on top of the fare refund because the weather
| wasn't safe. Fining an airline north of 100k because they
| didn't take off in unsafe weather would result in an even
| greater incentive to fly anyway.
|
| The fines are there to disincentivise the airlines from
| skimping on staffing or maintenance, causing delays, and
| lumping passengers with the expenses incurred by having to
| rearrange travel at short notice.
|
| I assume there is some kind of system in place to prevent
| airlines falsely claiming bad weather to escape the
| compensation rules.
| preinheimer wrote:
| I think there's another side to this. There's weather, and
| there's "It's winter".
|
| I don't think it's reasonable for airlines to expect to
| maintain the same number of departures that worked in the
| nice summer months through the winter. Runways will need to
| be cleared, planes will need to be de-iced.
|
| They could keep extra planes and staff around ready to
| replace an incoming flight if it's delayed (clearly easier
| for carriers with fewer types of aircraft). Heck just staff
| seem like they would be handy as the flight crew hit their
| service limits.
|
| But there's no financial incentive to do that if "weather"
| (despite happening every winter) is a get-out-of-jail-free
| card.
| qazxcvbnmlp wrote:
| There's already an incentive with the weather. If have
| the plane has to be rebooked or refunded that's lost
| revenue that stills ends up affecting the bottom line.
|
| The airline is still very incentivized to get you were
| you are going on time. Planes and crews still need to get
| where they were going so it's much better for everyone
| involved if it's a full plane with an on time arrival for
| passengers.
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| > They could keep extra planes and staff around ready to
| replace an incoming flight if it's delayed
|
| This seems unrealistic. The cost would be prohibitive.
| dotancohen wrote:
| This was the norm a few decades ago. Spare pilots and
| other aircrew at all airports, even spare aircraft at
| large hubs.
| sofixa wrote:
| Compare ticket costs a few decades ago to now.
| alkonaut wrote:
| > I don't think it's reasonable for airlines to expect to
| maintain the same number of departures that worked in the
| nice summer months through the winter. Runways will need
| to be cleared, planes will need to be de-iced.
|
| Exceptional/unexpected weather is one thing. But the
| concept of _winter_ isn 't exceptional. Deicing and snow
| clearing is a known factor. In Tampa that's an
| exceptional thing, in Helsinki it's not.
|
| The thing with this regulation (and the EU one) is that
| airlines can't just compete on running with minimal
| margins and skeleton crews every days, where a single
| unscheduled repair or sick crewmember sends ripples of
| delays through the system. For travellers to have any
| security there needs to be some sort of slack in the
| system. A spare crew, or a spare plane. So how do you
| make that _not_ a catastrophic market disadvantage? Like
| this. By making airlines economically responsible for
| delays.
| chgs wrote:
| > I don't think it's reasonable for airlines to expect to
| maintain the same number of departures that worked in the
| nice summer months through the winter.
|
| Agree. So they don't sell tickets for those flights that
| don't run, then there's nothing to compensate.
|
| Operate fewer flights if they are going to struggle to
| operate the ones they sell tickets for.
| ranger_danger wrote:
| Being forced to refund money may make the airlines force
| even more planes to fly that are knowingly unsafe.
| chgs wrote:
| Yet evidence from the EU says this doesn't apply.
| ranger_danger wrote:
| No offense but airlines in the US do work differently
| than the EU. I think it's possible for both of us to be
| right though.
| tschwimmer wrote:
| The compliance with this law is anecdotally very poor. Swiss
| Airlines owes me thousands of Euros for missed connections but
| they contend that the situations were outside their control
| (some mechanical issue) and thus they refuse to compensate. I
| have a 200 long thread email chain spanning years with no
| progress. You can use services like Airhelp to get a refund but
| they take a huge commission and I am too stubborn to give in
| that way. Luckily the statute of limitations on these claims is
| 6 years so I have enough time to figure out how to make a
| complaint to the Swiss aviation authority.
|
| Scanning a forum like flyertalk shows that most airlines
| basically refuse to voluntarily honor this law without being
| forced to in court (not even the threat of a lawsuit will get
| them to pay, you actually have to file it).
| rahimnathwani wrote:
| Swiss Airlines also owed me a bunch of money years ago, but I
| gave up chasing them. I should have used one of the services
| that takes 25%. 75% is better than zero!
| tschwimmer wrote:
| Financially? mathematically? Yes, certainly. From a
| principles perspective? it's a lot closer ;)
| rahimnathwani wrote:
| Yeah I'm trying to be more rational about the opportunity
| cost of my time.
| thfuran wrote:
| From a principles perspective, I'd rather the airline be
| forced to burn the money than get to keep it. Getting to
| keep a place chunk of it myself seems great.
| vkou wrote:
| From a principles perspective, if someone wronged me,
| I'll burn them down, even if I end up getting zero.
|
| Getting 75% would be a windfall.
| account42 wrote:
| Yup, you don't even need to vindicative for this to make
| sense - it's simple game theory: always make sure that
| wronging you is more expensive than treating your fairly.
| osculum wrote:
| Counterpoint, it has happened to me twice, once with
| Lufthansa and another time with a low cost airline (Vueling).
| Both times I was paid without fuss. Both times I filed for it
| myself.
| seer wrote:
| Any flight originating from EU territory is subject to this
| law, regardless where its other legs are.
|
| I once had a flight Bulgaria -> Moscow -> South Korea, and
| the second leg got delayed for 6 hours, resulting in a very
| miserable experience.
|
| Because I was sleep deprived and had no idea what my rights
| were, I accepted the $20 "compensatory voucher" that they
| offered and thought the matter was closed.
|
| Sometime after I got back, a company contacted me saying they
| will issue a court case on my behalf getting the EUR800 from
| the airline (2 passengers). Such companies thrive under the
| "loser pays" system in europe as they just take on those slam
| dunk cases and have their expenses compensated.
|
| Long story short after about 2 years of going through courts
| I got the money (minus the 30% fee from the company), and all
| I did was answer 2 emails and wait it out.
| dotancohen wrote:
| Do you have the name of the company who helped you? I'm
| going through something similar right now with Wizz Air.
| seer wrote:
| It was https://www.skycop.com/ but there are quite a lot
| of those companies if you google them out.
| dotancohen wrote:
| Thank you. The fact that these companies exist is
| evidence enough of the problem.
| doix wrote:
| I have claimed thousands of euros since 2018(ish) and never
| had a single issue. I definitely believe that airlines can
| try to avoid paying it, but I don't think it's as common as
| you make it out to be.
|
| The only people on flyertalk will be the people that do have
| issues. People that don't have issues won't go there to post
| that everything is fine (e.g. me).
|
| I have never dealt with any emails, the airlines I've dealt
| with always have a form on their website to claim
| compensation. I fill it in and in a week or two I get the
| money. Swiss has one too[0].
|
| I pretty much always try and book the shortest layovers
| possible if I'm not in a rush and the airline will sell me
| the ticket. 55 minute layover in Heathrow? Let's go! There's
| probably a 50% chance that I miss that connection and get
| compensated.
|
| [0] https://www.swiss.com/de/en/customer-support/contact-
| us/appl...
| sakjur wrote:
| I used to fly quite a bit from Schiphol, and booked evening
| flights as a rule with EUR80 youth tickets. Now, Schiphol
| is one of those airports where there are so many flights
| that delays almost certainly trigger a domino effect and
| there's a similar 50/50 delay probability as your Heathrow
| example in my experience.
|
| I never calculated the net value of my EUR200 compensations
| for EUR80 flight tickets, but I have a feeling I managed to
| gain money from my accumulated flights during the six
| months when I travelled back and forth between Stockholm
| and Amsterdam quite a bit.
| big_man_ting wrote:
| Indeed, if you try to get them to refund you by yourself,
| they will keep saying that it was out of their control. But
| I've gotten several refunds over the past years by going
| through one of several companies who specialize in getting
| airlines to give refunds. Granted they take a % cut, but you
| still get most of it without lifting a finger.
| camillomiller wrote:
| Not as easy. Unless they can claim weather related issues
| or force majeur (bomb threat, security issues etc..) they
| can't do that. The reason for the plane delay has to be
| stated on IATA reports and systems. Technical issue is not
| an exception, for example, even if out of the airline's
| control. They used to do this more, but they probably
| realized that the legal cost to sustain systemic lying is
| not financially viable in the long term. Better to pay out
| and record a loss.
| Goz3rr wrote:
| Every time it has happened to me the airline paid out quickly
| without any fuss. Once with KLM the plane broke over Siberia,
| they flew back and put me on a flight the next day. I got my
| 600 eur compensation and also the cost of two train tickets
| for the extra trip between home/airport and they didn't even
| ask for receipts.
|
| For the longest time Ryanair actually gave me more money than
| I spent with them on tickets.
| camillomiller wrote:
| Untrue. It's mandatory to have processes in place. I was
| refunded once by Swiss within 4 days after applying to their
| online form. I will be refunded by Easyjet within the next
| week for a flight I took last Tuesday. This law, like the one
| on carriers roaming, are clear and strong EU successes.
| jakub_g wrote:
| Anecdata but I went with the process once with Lufthansa (EU
| internal flight) and once with Delta (flight from EU to US)
| and in both cases got my 300/600e compensation in a few days
| via a bank transfer, no questions asked, no 3p company
| needed. I just sent an email with flight data and my personal
| data.
| account42 wrote:
| > I have a 200 long thread email chain spanning years with no
| progress. You can use services like Airhelp to get a refund
| but they take a huge commission and I am too stubborn to give
| in that way. Luckily the statute of limitations on these
| claims is 6 years so I have enough time to figure out how to
| make a complaint to the Swiss aviation authority.
|
| The legal route might have a long satute of limitations but
| you should still not let a company stall for this long and
| instead file a dispute with the payment provider as soon as
| the company is being uncooperative.
| TheAlchemist wrote:
| The law is very good, but unfortunately in practice it can be
| much harder to get the compensation.
|
| My mum had a significantly delayed flight - she should get 400
| euros. 18 months after, she still has nothing - on the phone,
| they just say that the relevant departement will look into it
| but they don't answer to customers directly, and emails are
| just ignored.
|
| We did contact the relevant governement agency - they say the
| current wait time for them to do something is >12 months.
|
| It seems there is a business of law agencies specializing in
| extracting those compensations - but they take a big cut.
| switch007 wrote:
| It's basically internal policy for many airlines to only pay
| out when an official dispute resolution or small claims court
| process is started/won.
| account42 wrote:
| Did you file a dispute with your payment provider and/or
| small claims court?
| TheAlchemist wrote:
| Payment provider ? It was paid with a credit card, I don't
| think a bank could do anything here.
|
| We did not file a dispute - there is an government agency
| which specifically manages the cases of those refunds, and
| they are 'fully booked' for more than a year.
| cycomanic wrote:
| Just to clarify, any flight which originated in the EU for any
| airline, or any flight coming into the EU operated by a EU
| airline (important for codesharing the operating airline counts
| not the issuing). Also the amount of compensation depends on
| delay and overall length of travel.
|
| I have purposefully been only booking on EU airline operated
| flights only after having been bitten twice before where I
| missed a connection and had to wait 7h (my home airport has
| only very few flights to the major intercontinental hubs,
| meaning any connection delay ends hub being quite significant).
| I have collected several thousand euros in delay compensation
| since then (multiple airlines) , never had to fight the airline
| to get it, simply filling in a form.
| tauntz wrote:
| Yeah, that doesn't work in practice rather frequently.
|
| I was traveling 2 years ago with 4 people - flight was delayed
| enough that we were entitled to a 600EUR per person
| compensation (2400EUR in total, which is already something..).
|
| The captain of the delayed flight said that the delay was due
| to a previous delay in some other airport of the same aircraft
| due to some "traffic jam" (= not due to weather). However, when
| requesting the compensation, I was immediately shut down by the
| airline that this delay was due to "unforeseen circumstances"
| and what that exactly was, is a business secret that they can't
| disclose (wth?). They essentially told me to get lost and I'm
| free to file a complaint/dispute with the consumer protection
| agency.
|
| I reached out to the Italian consumer protection agency (idk
| what the exact name was) who according to EU rules is
| responsible for solving these disputes but they never answer to
| emails or to the online form that they have for these disputes.
| The EU wide organization that deals with these topics says that
| they can't do anything and only the Italian consumer protection
| agency as the authority to deal with this.. but they are
| ghosting me.
| aqme28 wrote:
| KLM made it really really hard to get compensated for a few
| flights that they canceled. Ended up going to a company that
| exists only to litigate these
| joemazerino wrote:
| Step in the right direction.
| test6554 wrote:
| Refund?? What someone paid for their ticket is not relevant. To
| be made whole someone needs to be given the current market value
| of their flight.
|
| If I purchased a ticket for $399 but a comparable ticket now
| costs $799, I can't buy a new ticket with that refund.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| A lot better than what was happening before, which is issuing
| airline specific expiring vouchers
| paxys wrote:
| They already offer to rebook you. Refund is for the cases where
| you don't want the flight at all.
| elhudy wrote:
| They only offer to rebook you on a flight in their own fleet
| though. E.g. i have been canceled on united due to "bad
| weather" halfway through a segment and was made to wait 4
| days until the next united flight (there was a huge backlog).
| Instead, since i was stranded and absolutely needed to get to
| my destination, i had to buy a delta flight leaving that same
| night for $700 more than market value. United refused to
| compensate me for this. It's bullshit.
|
| Edit: oh by the way, i didn't get refunded for the segment
| that flew me across the nation just to stand me in denver.
| The refund was prorated And only counted for the second
| segment.
|
| Anyone who doesn't think airlines need more regulations on
| cancellations and refunds clearly hasn't flown regularly.
| schrodinger wrote:
| If you complain hard enough and get lucky you can get
| rebooked on a different airline, but it's certainly
| consistent or mandated. I think I've only had it once as
| someone who flies quite a bit.
| alkonaut wrote:
| If you choose a refund that would be because you opted not to
| take the flight at all. Assuming it was your outbound flight,
| that can be reasonable. If it's a return or connecting flight
| you might have to re-route, in which case a refund might not
| cover your alternative. This sort of thing really needs a _lot_
| of interpretive guidelines. E.g. the EC 261 guidelines are
| excellent in clarifying this.
|
| _re-routing should be offered at no additional cost to the
| passenger, even where passengers are re-routed with another air
| carrier or on a different transport mode or in a higher class
| or at a higher fare(...)_
|
| https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52...
|
| In practice I believe this is usually applied like "If there is
| availability on the same day on the original airline then book
| that, else the first available flight on a different airline".
| Of course in the first case the airline is also on the line for
| the hotel costs etc.
|
| I don't think the US regulation has the same sort of teeth
| (yet) but it should at least be made clear. For flights,
| booking an alternative flight is invariably going to be a lot
| more expensive than the original one. And regulation that only
| reimburses the original fare, allows rerouting on the same
| airline, or doesn't offer cash compensation in addition to
| sorting out the journey, is pretty bad even if it's a step in
| the right direction.
| metabagel wrote:
| They should set a minimum seat pitch of 32" for shorthaul flights
| and 34" for medium and longhaul flights.
| switch007 wrote:
| Economy has to be uncomfortable to upsell to premium economy
| and business. Huge demand for those cabins and massive money
| makers. There will never be a minimum seat pitch regulation
| unless directly and obviously related to safety
| ProfessorLayton wrote:
| I suppose it should be noted that refundable tickets have been a
| thing in the US, however, they were/are a lot more expensive than
| 'regular' tickets.
|
| Still, this is a step in the right direction.
| wtallis wrote:
| I think refundable tickets that are more expensive mean you can
| get a refund when _you_ cancel, rather than being about when
| the airline cancels on you.
| thfuran wrote:
| Yes, that's what they are.
| readyman wrote:
| > _The DOT rules lay out that passengers will be "entitled to a
| refund if their flight is canceled or significantly changed, and
| they do not accept alternative transportation or travel credits
| offered."_
|
| "Alternative transportation or travel credits" it will be, they
| will be useless. Nothing has fundamentally changed.
| whyenot wrote:
| If they are "useless," then people won't "accept" them, and per
| what you quoted they are entitled to a refund.
| jpalawaga wrote:
| huh? all this is saying is that if you accept a rebooked
| flight, you don't also get a refund.
|
| or if they offer you 10k miles or travel credit, and you
| accept, you don't also get a refund.
|
| the point is, a refund to original form of payment is the
| default.
|
| please stop posting your misinformed reading of the text
| through the thread.
| LukeShu wrote:
| I think you're reading that backward.
|
| I'm reading it as:
|
| - (think the alt-transport or credits are good) -> accept ->
| don't get refunded
|
| - (think the alt-transport or credits are worthless) -> do not
| accept -> get refunded
| alkonaut wrote:
| You already posted this complete misreading of the text you
| quoted in a different reply. At least read it once if you are
| going to quote it twice.
| atum47 wrote:
| United cancelled a very important flight after delaying it
| several times during the day. They did not provide me any
| accomodations or new flights, the lady who was talking to us
| regarding the situation just left saying "access the app to book
| a new flight" - I kind of understand her position, it was not her
| fault but she would be the one getting screamed at by rude
| passengers. Long story short, I paid for my own accomodation, my
| own dinner and on the other day I was able to go back to the
| airport and find someone who helped me get another flight.
|
| When I got back to Brazil I took united to the small claims court
| and got my money back plus some.
| gooseyman wrote:
| Small claims court is the future of airline customer service.
|
| My dad recently filed in small claims for lost luggage after
| the realization there was no phone number for a human to speak
| with as everything is "live" chat where each chat takes ten
| minutes for a response. The check came in the mail days after
| notification of filing.
|
| Granted it was a budget airline, but it's not that different
| from waiting on hold to get transferred.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| I had no idea small claims court could be so productive. Did
| you write your own petition or did you use a service to help
| compile it? Do you have to handle giving the receiving party
| their documents or does the court do that?
| ipnon wrote:
| Small claims court is slow and laborious for all parties.
| Airlines have realized it's better for their bottom line to
| just settle immediately out of court once they receive a
| small claims summons.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| Eventually they'll learn how to counter sue and use the
| full power of their legal team to make an example out of
| what they regard as "peons with delusions of grandeur".
|
| You laugh, but similar stuff has happened in the context
| of IP/Patent law. de facto retaliation is real in the
| legal system
| 15155 wrote:
| Civil court filing fees to remove the case will cost
| hundreds. Airlines do not have the margins to sustain
| that type of campaign.
| account42 wrote:
| This is why some places require an actual company
| representative and not just a contracted lawyer to appear
| for small claims court. Helps even the scales a bit.
| amelius wrote:
| Would it be legal for an airline to refuse doing business
| with you after you have claimed your money back once?
| aembleton wrote:
| In the UK, I went through the small claims court because my
| wifes phone stopped working as a phone after just two years
| and one moth. I just filled it out online here:
| https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money/make-claim
|
| Didn't get as far as court as I went to mediation and got a
| settlement. Worked out well; would definitely do it again.
| alexwasserman wrote:
| Having used small claims a couple of times I've found it
| easy enough to write the petition. Small claims is designed
| to be lawyer free. There are gotchas but the judges seem to
| be more lenient. I'm not a lawyer and don't have much court
| experience, but it was really not that hard to research and
| write. If you're that interested I'd share the doc with
| you.
|
| Using experience in NJ and CT the processes were similar.
|
| You find the docs on the court system website and write out
| your petition then file it. You also need to deliver it to
| the other party and provide evidence of delivery to the
| court but that's just USPS signature-required mail.
|
| You can request cost of the filing in your claim too, and
| it was ~$70 to file.
|
| I had to use it with landlords to get back security
| deposits. Well worth the $70 and a couple of hours of time.
| sakjur wrote:
| I have a similar experience, where I was originally denied a
| refund I was entitled to per EU's passenger's rights
| regulation (261/2004) and reported it to the national
| ombudsman for consumer rights and having them agree to pay up
| immediately.
|
| This was also a budget airline (Norwegian). I'm pretty sure
| they're trying to deny claims as a rule. They were making an
| excuse that isn't a valid force majeure (the airplane needed
| emergency servicing).
|
| My experience with Scandinavian has been the exact opposite,
| I pretty much just inform them of which flight I was on and
| that I'm interested in compensation and that's it. Though
| this was pre-COVID and reconstruction.
| bluedemon wrote:
| Nice. I like the refund more than the vouchers. Good job Biden
| team: https://apnews.com/article/airlines-junk-fees-baggage-
| delays...
| srid wrote:
| Neither the title nor the post body makes it clear. Is this
| limited to USA?
|
| What about airlines in other countries? Like Air Canada from
| Canada, and Lufthansa from Germany?
| poizan42 wrote:
| > ..., and Lufthansa from Germany
|
| EU has much more strict rules. The airline must not only refund
| you, but compensate you too if the flight was cancelled less
| than 14 days before departure and the cancellation wasn't due
| to extraordinary circumstances. I.e. heavy rain and storm or a
| volcano eruption the airline could not have done anything to
| complete the flight in spite of. Stuff like technical problems
| or a strike [1] is generally 100% on the airline.
|
| See https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/travel/passenger-
| right... for the details.
|
| [1] Strikes internal to the airline, i.e. by airline staff.
| Strikes external to the airline may in some cases count as
| extraordinary circumstances.
| sccxy wrote:
| I had to fight with Lufthansa for a year to get reimbursed
| for hotels & new tickets.
|
| They closed all service desks after flight cancellation (no
| strike, just their crew planning issues) and sign told us to
| find own flights and hotels.
|
| Few months later I went to this service desk again in
| Frankfurt, their response was "Go get a lawyer, we wont help
| with old cases"
|
| Thankfully soep-online.de helped to get all money reimbursed
| but it took 13 months.
| poizan42 wrote:
| The big problem with the EU regulations is the lack of
| consequences when airlines don't follow them. They can just
| refuse or drag their feet and the worst thing that can
| happen is a court ordering them to follow the rules they
| should have followed in the first place. Some rules about
| treble compensation (or a big compensation if one wasn't
| due in the first place) if they haven't refunded/paid
| compensation within, say, 60 days from first contacted
| would probably help a lot with cutting through the
| bullshit.
| srid wrote:
| What about delayed flights? My international Lufthansa flight
| arrived late enough to make me miss my next flight (Air
| Canada - who then compensated me with a $300 voucher and meal
| coupon).
| cute_boi wrote:
| Good news.
| rgovostes wrote:
| Tangential gripe: I recently flew to SFO for a weekend. In both
| directions I was significantly delayed due to construction on one
| of the runways limiting the number of planes that could land per
| hour.
|
| It doesn't seem like it ought to have been legal to sell me a
| ticket claiming departure and arrival times that were extremely
| unrealistic. United knew the construction was happening, I did
| not.
|
| I was given the option to refund my ticket but it would have
| canceled the return flight as well, and last minute flights to
| SJC instead were prohibitively expensive.
|
| The EU's policy of forcing airlines to compensate travelers for
| delays seems like it better incentivizes the airlines to improve
| service.
| fuzzybear3965 wrote:
| Wait. Am I missing something? Isn't that ~90m of car time
| assuming mild traffic?
| Macha wrote:
| I don't think they were flying SFO to SJC, rather they
| considered rebooking to SJC to avoid the delays at SFO
| hughesjj wrote:
| SJC is so much better. Honestly it's almost worth going to
| SJC and taking Caltrain despite the extra time and cost
| just due to how much nicer it is
| cbhl wrote:
| When SFO is operating on only one of its two runways (common
| due to low clouds, now due to runway construction) then 3h+
| delays are par for the course for flights in the evening.
| toast0 wrote:
| How long in advance was the construction scheduled?
| eiiot wrote:
| A while - they've had the construction on 28L for a few
| months; now it's actually construction on Taxiway B, which
| requires the use of 28L as a taxiway.
|
| Edit: just checked the NOTAMs and it's been this way since
| January 18th, and expires on May 28th. Plenty of time for
| airlines to get their act together.
| mullingitover wrote:
| Side note: Wow, ABC News is _still_ on go.com. I worked at Disney
| from 2006-2015 and most people were baffled about what the heck
| go.com even was, and why things like ESPN, ABC, and a bunch of
| other big Disney properties were subdomains of it. It has a
| history going back to 22 years ago[1] when Disney tried running a
| portal with a search engine and email hosting. ESPN got off it in
| 2016, but I 'm honestly shocked that ABC news isn't able to.
| Apparently it boils down to SEO?
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go.com
| nunez wrote:
| I used go.com all of the time as a kid in the 90s, mostly to
| test that Internet was up, but they had some games there that
| were cool
| sokoloff wrote:
| JetBlue accepted the reservation for my 14 year old (the minimum
| age for JetBlue to take a minor as an adult). They were code
| sharing that flight with American, who requires a minor to be 15.
|
| So, JetBlue took the money for a service they knew they could not
| provide (but I didn't, having read the various airline rules and
| settled on JetBlue as a result). When it came time to fly,
| American wouldn't carry them (now 700 miles away from the family)
| and JetBlue wanted to keep the money, offering a JB credit
| expiring in 1 year.
|
| All I did was get a JetBlue customer care agent to confirm they
| would not issue a refund and took that screenshot to my credit
| card company who approved the chargeback.
|
| We ended up having to pay the unaccompanied minor fees and
| aggravation on both ends to get them home on Delta, who is at
| least in the linked business of selling tickets _and actually
| transporting passengers_ on those tickets, while JetBlue is
| better at the former than the latter.
| mrandish wrote:
| Yes, as the parent of a 14 year-old currently attending
| boarding school in Europe, the way that many airlines have in
| recent years increased their minimum age rules to fly
| unaccompanied creates huge problems and costs. We've had to
| become experts in code share logistics because, for example,
| Swiss Air will happily accept 13 and above but they code share
| flights with Lufthansa who requires 15. Whether your kid can
| board the flight depends on which airline's code is used for
| the flight number, and it's not always clear on the airline's
| own websites (much less other sites), despite being the same
| seat on the same plane.
|
| The real mess happens when a flight is cancelled and the
| airline rebooks passengers already in-route. Last year our kid
| was on an Iceland Air route in a connecting city when they
| cancelled the next leg. Someone at their flight operations
| center "helpfully" rebooked the ticket to a British Air flight
| leaving that city an hour later, except BA has a 14 limit and
| denied boarding (kid was a few weeks shy of 14 at the time). In
| fact, the BA gate agents couldn't even understand how it was
| possible for a 13 year-old to be issued a ticket (because it
| was done in the back-end inter-airline system). So our kid ends
| up stranded in a distant connecting city. We ultimately had to
| buy a last-minute one-way ticket on a third airline to a
| different city for a connection on an airline that would board
| her. It took months of calls to eventually get a refund from
| Iceland Air for a multi-thousand dollar business class ticket,
| on a flight they cancelled. (note: For anyone concerned, our
| kid is a hyper-savvy frequent flyer who grew up flying
| international routes. Also, for international routes we always
| book her business class in an isolated seat that's in its own
| row right next to the crew galley.)
|
| We have a friend who's kid goes to a boarding school in the
| U.S. (but on the opposite coast). All the major U.S airlines
| now have 15 or 16 age limits. For spring break a few weeks ago,
| they had no choice but for one parent to fly across the country
| and back, both ways, just to "accompany" their kid past the
| gate boarding agents. Because almost all U.S airlines are now
| unaccompanied kid hostile, our kid can't even connect
| internationally from our local airport. Instead we have to
| drive her three hours to an airport that international airlines
| fly direct from.
| CaliforniaKarl wrote:
| Please clarify something for me, about major US airlines
| having 15 or 16 age limits.
|
| Per https://www.united.com/en/us/fly/travel/accessibility-
| and-as..., it seems like they'll accept unaccompanied minors
| potentially as young as 5.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| When an airline says "unaccompanied minor" they mean "we'll
| charge you hundreds of dollars to escort your child"; the
| OP is referring to the age above which that escort is not
| required.
| sokoloff wrote:
| The age for a minor to fly alone and without going through
| the unaccompanied minor process [considerable hassle and
| expense]. (In other words, to fly as "any other
| passenger".)
| forbiddenvoid wrote:
| "Unaccompanied minors" require an escort to and from the
| gate, so they are only unaccompanied on the flight itself.
| For truly unaccompanied minors (who do not require an
| escort), the age limits are as stated above.
| mrandish wrote:
| The condition is that it requires non-stop flights.
|
| For those coming from or going to "feeder cities", there
| are often no direct flights. That's what the issue is for
| our friends as they are both coming from, and, going to
| feeder cities in the U.S.
|
| For us, no U.S. airline offers direct flights from the U.S.
| West coast to Geneva. There are many routes but they are
| all connections through NY, Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas, etc.
| Swiss Air also has no direct flights from the U.S. West to
| Geneva, but they do have direct flights from an airport
| over three hours drive from our home to Zurich. Six hours
| driving round-trip is a hassle but at least possible
| (sometimes requiring an airport hotel stay for very early
| or late flights). From Zurich it's an easy one hour flight
| to Geneva and from there a couple hour train ride to the
| school. Fortunately, Swiss Air (and a lot of international
| airlines) have no problem with 13+ year-olds connecting.
| It's been 13+ for a long time because I did it
| internationally when I was a kid - and that was the era of
| carbon triplicate paper tickets and no cell phones :-).
|
| I think Lufthansa changed their policy a few years ago only
| because they code share so much with United. It's really
| the U.S. airlines that started changing from 13 to 16 being
| the minimum for unaccompanied connections. I suspect a U.S.
| airline had some unaccompanied connecting teen go AWOL and
| got sued over it, then their lawyers decided the legal
| exposure just wasn't worth it. Unintended consequence:
| free-range and outward bound Summer camp and school
| experiences got a lot more expensive and challenging for
| U.S. 13 to 15 year-olds. The international boarding school
| our daughter attends is terrific (and going was her idea).
| It has students from over 80 countries but they told us
| there are a lot fewer from the U.S. in the last five years.
| petesergeant wrote:
| I did a lot of ~12 hour unaccompanied flights when I was 10,
| to and from school, although I was lucky that the school was
| close enough to Heathrow that it was only single legs (albeit
| ~14 hrs).
|
| > for international routes we always book her business class
|
| jeez, my parents would stick me in coach even if they were in
| F on the same flight, however long the flight was.
| kapildev wrote:
| >Buttigieg said the DOT is also protecting airline passengers
| from being surprised by hidden fees -- a move he estimates will
| _have_ Americans billions of dollars every year.
|
| I think I am seeing more mis-spellings in news nowadays.
| ultimoo wrote:
| Wouldn't the airlines simply hike up fares to price this in? Is
| there regulation that caps how much flights cost?
| failbuffer wrote:
| What you have right now is a situation where airlines compete
| stiffly on sticker prices and then find ways to screw you on
| the backend. You save money if you're lucky, but it's because
| you're getting a hidden subsidy from people whose flights were
| cancelled.
| sdeframond wrote:
| For reference, here is what Europe has been doing for a few
| years: mandatory refund plus distance-based compensation.
|
| https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/travel/passenger-right...
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Official Transportation release:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40146124
| hi-v-rocknroll wrote:
| They'll just do what they already do: change gates 12 times in 5
| hours making customers move pointlessly because they don't have a
| plane or crew.
| paxys wrote:
| I wish we could have election year Biden every year.
| cush wrote:
| Wait, they weren't required to refund before...?
| onthecanposting wrote:
| Would it be fair to say that civilian aviation is in a doom loop
| at this point? Margins get tight, quality falls, government
| increases cost of compliance, margins get tighter, quality falls,
| government saves the consumer again...?
| WhatIsAModel wrote:
| Peter Thiel discusses this same doom loop and some of your
| points in this lecture that I highly recommend:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Fx5Q8xGU8k
| nunez wrote:
| My takes:
|
| 1. This is going to shutter a few more regional airlines, as they
| will deem it unprofitable to issue refunds over flying emptier
| planes.
|
| 2. This will encourage rolling delays even more.
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| Not sure I follow your reasoning on 2
| alkonaut wrote:
| 2: In the past you might sacrifice 1 flight completely (24h
| delay) to get 9 flights on time. Now you'd rather make all 10
| flights have shorter delays and all stay below some refund
| threshold.
| Krasnol wrote:
| If your margins are so low that you depend on this, you should
| quit.
|
| Also, good for the environment.
| ken47 wrote:
| This seems too good to be true?
| felipellrocha wrote:
| ...were they not required to do that before...?
| davisonio wrote:
| USA didn't have this rule beforehand? _confused in EU_
| Ekaros wrote:
| Always remember that USA simply does not care about consumers.
| It is all about shareholder and stock market values. From
| slavery to any type of safety.
| pb7 wrote:
| And yet I get better customer service from US companies than
| European companies. Funny how that works.
| sofixa wrote:
| That's as vague as it is useless.
|
| I get better customer service from Air France (French),
| Devialet (French) and Free Telecom (French) than I get from
| United (American), Google (American) and Facebook
| (American).
|
| What does this tell us? Absolutely nothing.
| pb7 wrote:
| It's funny you bring up Air France because that's one of
| the ones I had in mind that is beyond redemption. Truly
| awful customer service both on the plane and off.[1] Same
| with Iberia.[2] Allergic to treating customers like human
| beings. I fly United for the vast majority of my flights
| and have had nothing but great experiences even when
| things go wrong. In fact, gun to my head, I couldn't come
| up with a similar story with a US airline despite flying
| US airlines 20:1 compared with European ones.
|
| [1] I flew business class on Air France and the "lie
| flat" seat would only go down to a 30 degree angle and
| they acted like I was inconveniencing them by asking for
| help and then told me that's how it's supposed to be
| despite everyone else's seat being clearly flat. Never
| got solved. Contacted support after and never heard back.
| Typical experience with European companies. Don't want to
| work, don't want to admit fault, no resolution unless
| forced by regulation.
|
| [2] Took 2 months to get a refund of a cancelled flight.
| Customer service was completely incompetent and
| powerless, telling me that "it's coming in 48 hours". Had
| to call like 6 times over the span of months.
|
| Don't get me started on how Festicket refused to give me
| my money back after an event got canceled, forcing me to
| charge back with credit card (thank you, American banks),
| or how there's a 50% chance European car rental places
| will try to scam with fake damage or extra fees. I had to
| teach an AVIS manager in Palma that prepaying for gas
| (unwillingly, mind you) means that I don't pay for an
| empty tank at the end of the trip.
| EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote:
| What about connections? Will they also refund the missed flight +
| hotel stay? My $100 flight was once delayed and I missed the $700
| connecting flight. Airline gave me next day $700 ticket and put
| me in a hotel. Shall I just receive $100 under that new rule?
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| Well, assuming you booked this as one ticket (the two were with
| the same airline) then usually they will refund everything. I
| assume that isn't changing
|
| However, if you have two airlines and one failed to get you to
| the airport for the second flight, the second airline doesn't
| owe you any compensation, but the first will.
| thedevguy210 wrote:
| Two years ago ( after covid ) when the airline booked me on a
| another flight from London to Barcelona, the rebooked flight got
| cancelled... they lost my luggage for over a month ( because it
| was as loaded on the first flight ) the only thing I received was
| an apology... + 600 euros mandatory refund
| jlubawy wrote:
| I think we all know that airlines overbook, or cancel flights if
| not enough people are on a flight to make it economically viable.
|
| At a minimum they should be required to provide the odds of a
| flight to be delayed or canceled before the day-of to allow
| customers to reschedule ahead of time to get to their destination
| on time.
|
| Refund of money doesn't matter when you have a place to be at a
| certain time, especially if you plan months in advance, only to
| find out 3 hours ahead of time (and at 3:30am in the morning)
| that your planned flight for months is suddenly canceled for
| "non-operation".
|
| Literally on a cross-country vacation right now where this is the
| second time that a flight has been delayed/canceled on me in the
| past two years (American Airlines). I want to be a loyal
| customer, but this feels very one sided, and any monetary
| recourse certainly isn't enough when you hsve a place to be at a
| certain time (and aren't informed that it's possible you won't
| make it there, or else worst case you can drive)
| ornornor wrote:
| There are very few consumer experiences as miserable as air
| travel these days. It's just a joke.
|
| Plane not full enough to make a big enough profit? Cancel the
| flight. Reroute the flight. Delay the luggage. Force passenger to
| check hand luggage in. Charge for every single possible thing.
|
| I abhor flying. It makes me hate myself.
|
| Turkish Airlines delayed us 2 days which we had to spend in the
| shittiest hotel they could find for the first night and then in
| the airport itself for the second night (not even giving us
| lounge access). They're arguing the delay was only 7 minutes
| (seriously) and won't do anything at all. It's been 9 months of
| battle involving lawyers and they still won't pay anything.
|
| This is a step in the right direction but airlines still have a
| long way to go.
|
| It feels like they used the pandemic to "push the envelope" and
| see how much more abuse customers will take, and set this as
| their new standard service level. AFAIK they also never rehired
| all the people they laid off which partly explains the sharp drop
| in quality.
|
| Or maybe this is exactly what the world needs given how polluting
| and damaging flying is, I just didn't expect it would be the
| airlines themselves doing all they can to discourage people from
| flying.
|
| Luckily, in Europe, you can still visit a lot of beautiful places
| by train without the aggravation of flying. And when accounting
| for door to door times, flying isn't that much faster anyway.
| switch007 wrote:
| > It feels like they used the pandemic to "push the envelope"
| and see how much more abuse customers will take, and set this
| as their new standard service level.
|
| 100 percent this. Like prior recessions, but even worse. With
| each recession we bounce back economically on the surface but
| the cuts they make rarely get reversed.
| valval wrote:
| I've flown some 20 commercial flights in the last year and
| never faced any of the issues you've described. I find flying
| quite fun to this day. Perhaps this is highly regional.
| maccard wrote:
| Some carriers are definitely worse than others. I've flown
| about the same as you but over 10 years, and I've had OP's
| experience once. We were stuck on the runway for 6 hours,
| given food vouchers that nowhere in the airport would accept,
| and then 10 hours after we were supposed to take off they
| told us our flight was cancelled and they'd organise
| accommodation. Except there was a huge concert on in the the
| city that day, so there was nowhere nearby. They left us in
| the airport with a "sorry" and no food.
|
| Thankfully, I lived in said city so we went home and came
| back the following day. One email to the airline gave us
| PS800 in compensation, plus the cost of our food and Ubers
| back and forth. Our travel insurance paid out for most of the
| things we missed out on like the hotel night, events we had
| planned, prebooked meal, and even our airport parking (which
| we did technically use). We were done and dusted with it
| within 7 days.
| baby wrote:
| From my point of view you are really lucky, or you're always
| flying the same stable routes.
| michaelt wrote:
| A lot of the things I hate about flying are things that other
| people might well be fine with.
|
| When someone tells me to arrive 3 hours before my scheduled
| departure time, to me it's disrespectful that they would
| waste so much of my time so unapologetically.
|
| Other people might see it as no big thing, an enjoyable
| chance to sit and read, or do some people-watching, or a
| comforting safety margin.
|
| When someone tells me to take off my shoes and belt and
| shuffle through a metal detector while they take my wallet
| and keys out of sight, under the constant threat of even more
| intrusive searches - to me that's extremely undignified.
| There's no other situation in my life where people can
| control what I wear, or presume to separate me from my keys
| and wallet.
|
| Other people might feel reassured by the process, or see it
| as no different to going to a swimming pool.
|
| When someone demands I walk a needlessly winding path through
| a maze of tawdry shops selling overpriced perfume, to arrive
| at an uncomfortable seat surrounded by garish billboards....
| you get the picture.
| 76SlashDolphin wrote:
| Most of these is why I prefer travelling from B-tier
| smaller airports. Security queues are usually shorter,
| there's few to no shops on the other end and you can go
| from airport entrance to gate in less than 15 minutes if
| only bringing carry-on, which is not difficult to do with a
| bit of discipline. It also means you can arrive at the
| airport an hour - hour and a half before departure. Of
| course that isn't always an option but I'm lucky that my
| most common travel route is between a B-tier medium-sized
| European airport and a tiny airport that sees less than 2
| commercial planes a day on average.
| gruez wrote:
| >When someone tells me to arrive 3 hours before my
| scheduled departure time, to me it's disrespectful that
| they would waste so much of my time so unapologetically.
|
| Technically most airlines only require you to arrive 60-75
| minutes before departure for check-in. The 3 hour advice is
| just advice that you're free to ignore, but is probably a
| bad idea to do so given how much money/time is on the line.
| The 60-75 minutes might still sound like a lot, but gates
| typically close 20 minutes prior to departure, and boarding
| starts 40-60 minutes prior to departure, so they're only
| really asking you "waste" 20-30 minutes.
|
| >There's no other situation in my life where people can
| control what I wear, or presume to separate me from my keys
| and wallet.
|
| courts/some government buildings do similar security
| checks, and in some countries they do such checks in even
| more public places (eg. subways/malls/cultural sites).
| DamnYuppie wrote:
| 3 hours is insane. Where I am they ask for 1 hour before
| boarding for international flights or if you have checked
| bags. I have TSA pre-pass, I check in online, and only
| travel with one carry on bag. As such I generally go
| through security only a few minutes before boarding starts
| as, like you, I hate waiting.
| TheChaplain wrote:
| > Plane not full enough to make a big enough profit?
|
| I don't think margins are as large as you think they are... I
| checked Lufthansas 2023 income report and they made 6m EUR. For
| a company that size it's.. not impressive.
|
| And flying a plane from point A to point B involves a huge
| amount of staff both onground and and in air, so cancelling a
| flight because it makes a loss or not enough is no surprise.
|
| > And when accounting for door to door times, flying isn't that
| much faster anyway.
|
| I got a few days off work (finally) to go to Italy with the
| girlfriend. Total flight time is 4 hours with one stop.
|
| Shortest train time is 26 hours, with 3 train changes.
| ornornor wrote:
| The margins are not that big, yes. But it's also part of the
| deal: I buy a ticket to fly somewhere, not for a gamble that
| on the day of the flight the airline will choose to disrupt
| my plans and cancel the flight because they're not making
| money after all. You can't have your cake and eat it, it used
| to be that sometimes they make money sometimes they don't.
| Nowadays they cancel flights routinely because they prefer to
| screw you than sometimes make little or no money on certain
| flights. They want to win every time now at the traveler's
| expense.
|
| > Shortest train time is 26 hours, with 3 train changes.
|
| Not saying this works every time from anywhere to anywhere.
| I'll personally reconsider my destination if I can't get
| there with a train but that because of how much I hate
| flying.
|
| I've also done 8-9h on the train, booked a first class
| ticket, and worked most of that time so that my travel time
| counted as paid work hours. Then I didn't have to worry about
| how much toothpaste I have in my luggage, what the size of my
| carry on is, whether my bags will make it to the destination
| at the same time as I do, whether the seat will be too narrow
| with no legroom or just merely uncomfortable, figure out how
| to get out of the airport and to my actual destination
| without getting ripped off... it's no contest for me. Not
| saying it's the same for everyone obviously, just laying out
| my thought process for others to think about theirs.
|
| Not mentioning pollution of course. The train emits much much
| less CO2 per distance traveled, makes less noise, less waste
| (all these single use utensils and boxes the food comes in).
| namdnay wrote:
| > I buy a ticket to fly somewhere, not for a gamble that on
| the day of the flight the airline will choose to disrupt my
| plans and cancel the flight because they're not making
| money after all
|
| The thing is, the majority of people will choose the ticket
| that is cheaper, even if there is a small chance of getting
| shafted. just look at how quickly ryanair grew, despite
| everyone knowing that each flight is a gamble.
|
| So a carrier can either play by the legacy rules, and get
| eaten, or they have to play by the new rules
| ornornor wrote:
| Which is why regulation is necessary in my opinion.
|
| I also buy the cheapest plane ticket I can find when
| going somewhere because I know it will suck, I'll get
| shafted, and I'll regret my decision no matter what. I
| can't tell if paying for the more expensive tickets
| (within the same fare bucket) will result in any
| improvement or just throwing the extra money out of the
| window because I'll get the same experience as the
| cheapest one so I go for the cheapest.
|
| In these cases, the market cannot regulate itself IMHO.
| It's a race to the bottom and if there is no legislation
| to compel actors to a minimal set of rules/conditions
| then we end up where we are with air travel now: it sucks
| more and more.
| jajko wrote:
| The regulation is there, not perfect, but you are just a
| vengeful customer based on your own description, like it
| or not.
|
| Rest of us understand flying isn't perfect and bad stuff
| can and does happen, especially when its the last thing
| you need (ie well rested after long holidays and then
| some nightmare happens when flying home) but that's life.
| I've experienced the same also with Turkish airlines,
| stellar customer experience, 400 euro compensation on top
| of luxury hotel and direct ticket next morning. If you
| are so desperately risk-averse, yeah travel by train,
| those 2 days to Seville are wonderful (I've done it, but
| compared to 90 minute flight its pretty bad way to spend
| weekend and if you have small kids there is no
| discussion). Destinations further are simply not
| reachable in any other reasonable way.
|
| Volcano blows up on Iceland or Sicily? Bam, half of the
| world is affected for days. Iran sends hundreds of
| rockets on Israel? Colleague of my wife got stuck in
| Jordan for few days. There is stuff constantly happening
| and events have cascade effects. Ever saw plane you just
| boarded suddenly be swarmed by technicians, and have it
| declared unable to fly afterwards? Imagine real world
| effects of such event. Plus airlines have razor thin
| margins, expecting perfection is... not logical to keep
| things polite.
| ornornor wrote:
| It feels to me like there is a little wiggle room between
| "perfection" and being treated like cargo. Anyway you do
| you, to keep things polite.
| Yeul wrote:
| There are rules though: safety is supposed to be equal.
| The Ryanair pilots have the same training as those flying
| for Emirates.
|
| But in terms of quality I'm okay with "you get what you
| pay for". You don't have to fly low budget.
| account42 wrote:
| I think you misunderstood the gp. The problem is you
| don't know what you pay for. It's pretty much impossible
| to tell for a normal person in what different ways a
| flight A and flight B will shaft you to edge out more
| profit. This doesn't just apply to planes - we are long
| past where price has anything to do with quality.
|
| There really need to be bettwer laws for making sure
| customers are fully informed of what they are buying.
| This goes extras for things like cheap flights where you
| are essentially gambling.
| fransje26 wrote:
| > I checked Lufthansa's 2023 income report and they made 6m
| EUR.
|
| That's not what I found? [1] The article states:
| The company more than doubled its net profit to 1.7 billion
| euros (previous year: 790 million euros).
|
| [1] https://newsroom.lufthansagroup.com/en/lufthansa-group-
| gener...
| dindobre wrote:
| Had a similar experience with Turkish Airlines, and I
| definitively agree on avoiding planes as much as possible,
| long-distance trains all the way.
| ornornor wrote:
| From asking around (I had a loooot of time to waste in IST),
| TK routinely strands hundreds of people everyday at IST.
| That's just how they operate and the treatment we received
| isn't unusual.
|
| It was seriously the worst experience I've ever had. Rude
| staff, no explanations, outright lies, condescending tone,
| hours long queues for meal vouchers that arent accepted
| annywhere or to get a crappy hotel for a few hours only, and
| just plain incompetence. I will _never_ fly TK again, that's
| how bad it was.
| account42 wrote:
| Too bad that here the trains are even less reliable and often
| even more expensive than flying.
| ornornor wrote:
| Train is always more expensive partly because they don't
| get the tax exemption and cheap fuel airlines get. If
| airfares were priced the way train is, they'd be a lot more
| expensive and much less competitive.
| csomar wrote:
| It's really sad. They used to be a good airline. They went
| downhill faster than the Turkish Economy.
| fen4o wrote:
| We were 5 people (3 different reservations) traveling from EU
| to Japan for a ski vacation. Our first flight got canceled due
| to technical issues with the airplane and we could not get
| another flight to reach the transfer from Istanbul to Tokyo. We
| had to get a new flight that delayed our arrival date by 1 day.
| The worst thing is that they didn't rescheduled our domestic
| flight from Tokyo to Sapporo.
|
| We went to the check-in for our flight to Sapporo and the staff
| told us that our flight was actually yesterday... Not wanting
| to waste another minute with Turkish Airlines support I opened
| my laptop and got us a new flight and luckily there was a
| flight in 2 hours.
|
| As our flight was flying off from EU we were covered by the EU
| rights and all of us got full compensation for the delay - 600
| Euro (420 at the end as we used 3rd party to handle it).
|
| Now I'm trying to get full reimbursement for the flight from
| Tokyo to Sapporo as I payed for it out of pocket. They are
| arguing that each of us should have an individual invoice and
| we should have not bought group tickets. For this reason I
| would highly recommend to use 3rd party (they take between
| 25-30% commission) just not to deal with airline BS.
| sparsely wrote:
| Customers for economy class seats are very price sensitive - if
| you were enjoying the experience then the airline wouldn't be
| cutting the services offered close enough to the bone to offer
| a competitive price.
|
| You can pay for a slightly better experience, but it's very
| expensive!
| alephnerd wrote:
| Tbf, Turkish Airlines is notoriously bad.
|
| I also detest the Istanbul Airport with the bottom of my heart.
| Everything is overpriced and subpar in quality - unsurprising
| given that the entire airport project turned into a large graft
| by AKP affiliated industrialists.
| ornornor wrote:
| I for one had no idea they were so bad until I had the
| pleasure to experience flying with them. I now try and warn
| everyone who will listen to pick any airline but TK.
| bootlooped wrote:
| > Force passenger to check hand luggage in.
|
| For the most part, this is on the passengers. Everybody wants
| to bring the largest hard sided rolling luggage that could
| possibly be a carry-on these days. Those things take up space
| in the overhead bins very inefficiently, and the planes weren't
| made with that amount of carry-on capacity per passenger.
|
| But something I thought of the other day is that when they
| start gate checking bags, it means they sold too many tickets
| that include a full size carry-on, right? Counterpoint would be
| that the later boarding groups implicitly may have to gate
| check their bags, and that's why they're cheaper.
|
| I'm pretty adamant that most people should use soft travel
| backpacks or duffel bags. The proliferation of hard sided
| rolling luggage as a carry-on is a scourge.
| malfist wrote:
| Those carry on wouldn't have to be so large if.
|
| * Airlines didn't charge so much for checked luggage
|
| * Airlines didn't routinely lose checked luggage
|
| * Airlines didn't routinely mishandle checked luggage,
| ripping bags, damaging contents and scuffing or tearing off
| wheels.
|
| * Airlines didn't deny luggage repairs/replacements for
| damaged ones.
|
| I've had Delta punch a hole through a hardshell suitcase with
| an aluminum frame and deny that it was damaged "beyond normal
| wear and tear"
| ornornor wrote:
| I don't think this is on the passengers. If checking luggage
| in wasn't an extra fee (often), didn't carry a material risk
| to have your luggage lost, damaged, late, stolen, and didn't
| mean spending an extra 30-60 minutes waiting to collect it
| then I'd bet a lot more people would check luggage in.
| acdha wrote:
| > Everybody wants to bring the largest hard sided rolling
| luggage that could possibly be a carry-on these days.
|
| This was far, far less common before they started charging
| for checked bags. Once they made that an upsell opportunity,
| people started behaving in exactly the way airline policies
| encouraged.
|
| The other big reason is the airlines choosing to ignore
| baggage theft. I had a bag stolen out of SFO and they tried
| to first disclaim responsibility and then offered to
| reimburse it at like $2/pound, which again means that they're
| giving customers a financial incentive to carry everything
| into the cabin.
| cainxinth wrote:
| What's interesting about air travel is that it's both a bad
| customer experience _and_ expensive. I'm routinely paying
| several hundred dollars for a two hour flight that is cramped,
| delayed, and where passengers are shunted around like chattel.
|
| Usually, when you pay through the nose for something, you at
| least get treated well.
| frantathefranta wrote:
| Yeah it's much easier to deal with terrible service when your
| return ticket with Ryanair doesn't cost more than 20 EUR. In
| the meantime the cheapest flight I was on in the US still
| cost $200.
| throwawaymobule wrote:
| Ryanair don't sell return tickets, they sell you two 'one
| way' tickets, last I checked.
|
| Don't know if that legally exempts them from refunding both
| if they had to refund one.
| gruez wrote:
| Is it expensive on an absolute basis or on a relative basis?
| If getting a metal tube to fly through the air at 500 mph is
| expensive, then we shouldn't expect that you get a luxury
| experience just because the ticket price is $200 or whatever.
|
| Also, I checked on google flights and a 2 hour flight is
| roughly equal to an 11 hour drive. Even if you factor in
| arriving 3 hours early for departure and 1 hour to get to
| your final destination, the time savings alone is worth most
| of the cost of the trip. If you factor in gas/wear on your
| car it's a no-brainer, even if it's "expensive".
|
| [1] Chicago to washington DC
|
| [2] $200 round trip, $100 for one way, 5 hours * $15/hour =
| $75
| smusamashah wrote:
| I am living in UK atm where some regulation allows claiming
| certain amount based on distance and delayed hours. I was
| entitled to more than flights cost for a delayed Turkish Airlines
| flight.
|
| I used an online service (airhelp) to claim it. They initially
| took 35% as their fee. After around 4-5 months the airline
| rejected the claim and lawyers from airhelp stepped in which made
| their fee 50%. It took 7-8 more months, total 1 year, to get 50%
| of my claim back (~800PS) using a third party service.
|
| Given how complicated it is to fille a claim, even if I did it
| myself I would have given up on first rejection. I hope this law
| expands beyond US.
| aiiotnoodle wrote:
| Did airhelp talk to aviation ADR do you know? We've Just
| essentially lost based on what we provided but still think
| we're owed compensation really. Just absolutely exhausted doing
| all the admin. Originally went with resolver but they did
| nothing. I think aviation ADR is our last course of action
| unless we actually sued them, do you know if you did that?
| smusamashah wrote:
| I dont know whats ADR. All I did was put all relevant
| details/docs on airhelp. They sent another email when lawyer
| stepped in and I got email from lawyer too but that's about
| it.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| > I hope this law expands beyond US
|
| Pretty sure there is already a law. It's an EU law but I
| believe it was backported to the UK after Brexit.
|
| The problem is that unless there is good enforcement and
| proactive auditing of compliance it is no good. In this case
| there is near-zero enforcement so a law merely being on the
| books doesn't help.
| gnegggh wrote:
| If you depart from anywhere in the EU you always have this.
| jorisboris wrote:
| Europe has had this for years and imo it keeps the airlines
| pretty good in check
|
| As often with eu regulations there are a couple of loopholes so
| you have to watch out nevertheless (eg force majeur like bird
| strikes doesn't count, or when the flight is delayed to next day
| they have to pay your food and hotel but I decided to book
| another flight and then they don't have to pay anything back
| except the fixed fee which I didn't know...)
| qngcdvy wrote:
| Fun Fact: Air traffic controller strikes also count as force
| majeur
|
| Actually, once my flight (to Europe) was delayed by like 4h
| because they had an air traffic controller strike in another
| country THE NEXT DAY and kind of shuffled their plane fleet
| across the continent to make it work. Airline denied me my (i
| think it was 600 Euros) compensation using the force majeur
| strike argument. That was the only time I went to one of those
| services that went to court for me for like 30% of my claim.
| They really did go almost all the way until the airline took
| the very last exit before a trial.
|
| Sometimes I like consumer rights.
| aqme28 wrote:
| I believe security staff strikes also qualify. I got burned
| by that one via KLM
| user_7832 wrote:
| So what happens to the concept of "getting what you paid
| for"? Does KLM just shrug and say sorry? I could imagine if
| they said "we can't pay for accommodation but we'll send
| you on the next flight", but did they even do that?
| aqme28 wrote:
| I wasn't anywhere that needed accomodation so I cant
| speak to that. They canceled the flight and booked for
| the next day, which meant that I had to miss half the
| conference and the reason that I was making the trip in
| the first place.
| user_7832 wrote:
| Ah, that's disappointing that you missed half the event.
| Glad they at least sent you on another flight.
| MaxikCZ wrote:
| I feel like airline setting up "one of those services" would
| still allow to save them money hah
| switch007 wrote:
| The French controllers strike so often it's hardly unexpected
| (yesterday/today I believe!). But I agree it's largely out of
| the airlines' control. But it's a well known issue of many
| years and should be a part of doing business
|
| I would want compensation from the controllers' bosses
| (French government?)
| MaxikCZ wrote:
| Family member and I were flying from America to Germany, having
| connecting flight to Czech. Our first flight departed few hours
| later, and during the flight Condor cancelled our connecting
| flight because we wouldnt have enough time to transfer. We
| actually sprinted across the airport and made it to an open
| gate, but our tickets wouldnt work, all while watching people
| from other flights board normally.
|
| We were directed to their kiosk, where after 2 hours of waiting
| and 2 hours of explaining/negotiating we were rebooked on a
| flight next day, with "all our airport and contract
| accomodations are full, find your own one, condor will refund".
| Spent the night in EUR700/night hotel (fourth I called, first
| to actually had rooms).
|
| Afterwards we sent all info/invoices throug mail. First reply:
| we refund your expenses, but not flight compensation ($600 per
| person), because the delay was not our fault, the delay was
| less than 4(6?) hours, and (despite the flight landing in EU,
| which is all it takes for EU legislation to apply) the flight
| is not covered by EU legislation, because it originated from
| outside EU.
|
| Sent extempt from law saying they have to pay us, or we will
| involve layers. Next email said they will issue full requested
| refund (which they did).
|
| So, apart from having to threaten with legal action and having
| to know our rights trough Condor lies, pretty good outcome.
| codethief wrote:
| > (despite the flight landing in EU, which is all it takes
| for EU legislation to apply)
|
| There is a second condition, which in your case (Condor)
| seemed to fulfilled, though:
|
| > EU air passenger rights apply:
|
| > If your flight arrives in the EU from outside the EU _and
| is operated by an EU airline_
|
| (Emphasis mine; source:
| https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/travel/passenger-
| right...)
|
| I recently ran into this when I was flying from the US to
| Europe with United and they canceled my flight and put me on
| a different one that arrived half a day later. -> Nothing I
| could do because I incurred no tangible costs (no additional
| hotel stay etc.) other than losing time and starting work the
| next morning completely jet-lagged.
|
| It really is beyond me why the EU holds European airlines to
| a much higher standard than foreign ones which, effectively,
| works as a subsidy for foreign airlines flying to/from
| Europe.
| jorisboris wrote:
| Interesting, didn't know this. It's only for arrivals
| though. For departures it's both eu and non-eu
|
| Nevertheless a weird discrepancy.
| switch007 wrote:
| The exemptions are the first hurdle. Airlines are getting sick
| of compensation and often won't pay until the day before the
| court date. And in some countries you must follow a procedure
| and depend on government officials, but they may ghost you for
| a year (maybe in cahoots or legitimately backlogged)
|
| I always get downvoted for saying anything negative about EU
| consumer protection...but the protections are so well known and
| claimed, that it's hurting airlines financially so they devise
| strategies. The politicians know this. Absolutely they do. The
| protections are only as good as how easy they are to claim
|
| And anyway we are basically paying for this insurance anyway
| through increased fares and fees and baggage costs etc.
| odiroot wrote:
| If anything this causes the airlines to be extra cynical and
| try their hardest to keep the delay within the 3h window.
| Whatever it takes not to be liable.
| sksksk wrote:
| They also employ what I call the "slow drip"...
|
| An aircraft is out of position, so the flight is definitely
| going to be cancelled, but instead of cancelling the flight,
| every 10 minutes, they'll announce a further 10 minute delay to
| the flight.
|
| If you get frustrated and leave before its officially
| cancelled, there's no compensation to pay.
|
| The moment it hits 3 hours, and compensation will have to be
| paid, the flight is suddenly cancelled.
| snowpid wrote:
| flight regulation or its cases against canceled fligths is so
| common in Europe it is the example of automatic law or law tech.
| https://www.flightright.de/#
| Halan wrote:
| Anyone from EU/UK will laugh at this news
| aembleton wrote:
| Why? I'm from the UK and I think this is a good thing. The more
| that it is normalised that you should get refunds for delays
| the better. AirTransat cancelled my flight leaving the UK a few
| years ago and refused to refund it. I pointed out the
| regulations and they just said they won't refund so I had to do
| a chargeback. That worked; but it would be good to see airlines
| build refunds in to their processes.
| Halan wrote:
| Of course it is a good thing but nevertheless funny because
| it is something we take for granted. We are also used to get
| a compensation on top of the refund.
|
| Btw escalate it to CAA and they will handle this. Not only
| you will get a refund but the compensation as well
| camillomiller wrote:
| LOL, we have this in Europe for ages. Where are the EU-haters
| today?
|
| Just yesterday I got confirmation of an EasyJet refund for a
| flight that arrived 4 hours late due to an engine problem during
| the previous flight.
|
| 250EUR in my bank account within 7 days from the flight. The
| flight had costed me 130EUR. I flew for a profit.
|
| EU works.
| pb7 wrote:
| That flight was 1/8 of your paycheck.
| sofixa wrote:
| Even if that were true, comparing raw pay numbers without
| accounting for cost of living is a fool's errand.
| camillomiller wrote:
| Do you have access to my income report? Let's talk after you
| get foreclosed because of an ingrown toenail operation.
| pb7 wrote:
| We're never going to talk because I have access to
| excellent healthcare. I would bet a pretty penny it's far
| better than whatever waiting list you have access to. You
| can convince naive Americans that don't know better but
| I've experienced British, Hungarian, and Italian healthcare
| and it's a joke.
| figassis wrote:
| Ah, the family seating fee. I once paid close to $3k to reserve
| ajacent seats for my family on a 3 leg round trip. Prices varied
| from $80 to $200 per seat, in addition to the ticket. Was
| traveling with kids, wanted to make sure we were all together.
|
| Then I started testing, and guess what? you end up together
| regardless. So fear based sales.
| JR1427 wrote:
| I guess that in the UK this has been the case for a while?
|
| We just got 1600GBP back from British Airways for a flight
| delayed by 24hrs.
| etiennebausson wrote:
| Probably the EU regulations haven't been removed (yet?).
| dusted wrote:
| Well, that seems obvious ? Of course they are? If you've booked a
| flight at a certain date, it's obviously because you need
| transportation at that date. If you cannot be transported at the
| right time, the transportation is in many cases no longer needed.
| For instance, if I miss a conference, my need for the
| transportation goes to zero, and so, I should be reimbursed
| _AT_LEAST_ for the transportation, but I'd argue, also for the
| conference if that payment has already been made.
| kome wrote:
| Sometimes I am so surprised that such a mundane regulation, a
| basic facility really, is seen as revolutionary in the US and
| implemented extremely late. I am so happy and lucky to have been
| born in this corner of the world
| ZeljkoS wrote:
| Legal protection is nice, but it can be circumvented, like the
| Lufthansa fiasco showed: https://svedic.org/travel/screwed-by-
| lufthansa-german-govern...
|
| Since then, I always try to book plane tickets with PayPal. It is
| a bit ironic that as an EU citizen, I was screwed by EU company
| (Lufthansa), EU politicians (German government), but saved by a
| private US company (PayPal) :D
| account42 wrote:
| Selling vouchers where you know some of them will go unused
| should be straight up illegal. It's fraud imo - taking money
| without actually providing a service. At the very least they
| should be automatically refunded after a reasonable time
| period.
| jcutrell wrote:
| Wouldn't this likely just result in increased airfare across the
| board?
| styfle wrote:
| > The rules come after the agency handed Southwest Airlines a
| record $140 million fine for its operational meltdown during the
| 2022 holiday travel season.
|
| I was one of the travelers impacted by that meltdown. I waited
| hours and hours in the airport because of "delays". One by one,
| every flight was cancelled. Southwest made everyone wait in a
| single file line to rebook their flight a week or two out (of
| course after Christmas). A couple days later they cancelled that
| flight too. So they issued vouchers. No way I would use a voucher
| for an airline that can't get it together. I'm glad there will be
| cash refunds now so folks don't get trapped with a bad airline.
| edpichler wrote:
| We need more competition in this industry.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| I don't see how that would help, given the margins are already
| so low.
|
| An airline which has decent customer service and who pays out
| for refunds would have higher ticket prices and noone would use
| them.
| imgabe wrote:
| Is there something just intrinsically unprofitable about air
| travel? Why do airlines continue to get shittier and shittier and
| strive for the bottom of the barrel?
|
| It's clearly a high demand service. Couldn't they just provide a
| good service and make money?
| brikym wrote:
| https://www.axios.com/2023/12/08/airline-mergers-us-airline-...
|
| It's probably due to the power balance. Corporate consolidation
| is at an all time high so what choice do you have when they all
| have the same shitty policies.
| Frost1x wrote:
| As much as I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, I
| find it abused by corporate America and no longer do so. Any
| variation of Hanlon's razor is assumed and abused strategically
| anymore. Perhaps there could be fundamental issues that explain
| away airline issues we see but I just assume it's an industry
| that has successfully eroded consumer expectations and rights
| more than many. It's not like it's unique to the airline
| industry as a trend, it seems to be happening in _every_
| industry I interact with. You're getting less for more and the
| experience is getting worse overall. Aside from some gains
| technology wise, people are clawing everywhere and consumers
| foot the bill with little option outside of simply not
| participating and using certain products or services.
|
| If it we're so fundamentally shitty, we should overall reduce
| air travel and expectations around it that exist in business
| and culture, not continually prop it up by making the entire
| experience dreadful.
| balderdash wrote:
| People need to be paid multiples of their ticket value on a
| sliding scale based on length of delay and whether it was
| overnight. There should still be compensation even if you
| ultimately fly on that airline.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| It's absurd that we're so hesitant to weaponize regulation
| against abusive business practices (because money). This should
| have been fixed decades ago, as it has been in some other
| countries.
| DamnYuppie wrote:
| I used to travel weekly for years and if there was a glitch in
| the system, weather delays, plane maintenance, crew availability,
| etc it could be very exasperating to get things sorted out.
|
| However for the first time in a few years I had to take a trip
| this past week on United. Our flight was boarded, the pilots
| found an issue and called maintenance. It was determined that the
| flight had to be cancelled, so all passengers had to deplane. The
| crew kept telling us all of us would be rebooked and would get
| notification via text or on the United app with next steps, we
| could also talk to a gate agent. It did take about 30 minutes but
| they did in fact give me a notification of options for other
| flights, I took all of one button press to select my new
| itinerary. Also I had paid for upgraded seats, specifically
| emergency aisles. As they were not available on all of my new
| flights they issued me a reimbursement for those costs. For those
| who had to stay over they paid for hotel and food.
|
| It is never fun to have a flight cancelled on you but in my
| experience this was definitely one of the better "customer
| service" experiences I have had. Really can't complain about how
| they handled it which gives me hope that technology will allow
| them to offer better and more timely customer service going
| forward.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-04-25 23:02 UTC)