←back to thread

Accountability sinks

(aworkinglibrary.com)
493 points l0b0 | 5 comments | 19 Oct 24 23:39 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
rougka ◴[20 Oct 24 05:35 UTC] No.41893123[source]▶
I remember experiencing this in one of the German airports/airlines and having that exact thought.

It was this fully automated airport, where the checkin is self serviced and you only interact with computers.

Eventually, when I inserted my boarding pass I had a printed piece of paper back that said that they had to change my seat from aisle to midseat

I then tried to find someone to talk to the entire way, but computers can only interact in the way the UI was designed, and no programmer accounted or cared for my scenario

The ground attendant couldn't have done anything of course because it wasn't part of the scope of her job, and this was the part of germany where nice was not one of their stereotypes.

Eventually I got a survey a week later about a different leg of the flight, so could I really complain there? that one was fine? I had a paranoid wonder if that was intentional

replies(9): >>41893267 #>>41893293 #>>41893412 #>>41893779 #>>41893889 #>>41893974 #>>41894383 #>>41898357 #>>41904416 #
lmm ◴[20 Oct 24 08:09 UTC] No.41893779[source]▶
At this point everyone needs to get in the habit of using small claims court. You can often do it online in a few minutes these days.

Make a good faith effort to get your problem addressed, and record the fact that you've done so to use in your hearing if it gets that far. Then just file the claim. Generally they fold immediately, and this way you incentivize actual customer service in the only language they understand.

replies(4): >>41893874 #>>41893969 #>>41895091 #>>41898218 #
switch007 ◴[20 Oct 24 08:27 UTC] No.41893874[source]▶
I do agree but also feel if people did this en masse, that system would get a rate limiter. After 2 claims per year you would be barred for being "vexatious"
replies(2): >>41893937 #>>41894210 #
1. maccard ◴[20 Oct 24 09:36 UTC] No.41894210[source]▶
Being realistic, if you have these sorts of issues more than twice a year there's probably something wrong and you should fix that. Everyone has a few of those stories, but the only people who consistently have them are likely looking for trouble and picking fights.
replies(1): >>41901447 #
2. switch007 ◴[21 Oct 24 07:04 UTC] No.41901447[source]▶
And that's exactly the line and slander they would use when they bring in new legislation to stop "abuse" of the system. You've proven my point
replies(1): >>41904201 #
3. maccard ◴[21 Oct 24 13:56 UTC] No.41904201[source]▶
And ditto - you came to my comment to pick a fight with something a decent number of people will agree with me on. You didn’t have to, but you decided this was a hill to fight on. My experience in dealing with the public has been that there are a very small number of people who will frequently push the boundaries of what the system is designed for, will scream bloody murder when things don’t go as they want, and will employ a scorched earth policy on handling the fallout. As a private business, you have the option to tell those people to pound sand (which I got much pleasure in doing ), but as a public body or organisation you can’t, but you need to ensure that one malicious user doesn’t topple the system for the rest of the users.
replies(2): >>41908511 #>>41908560 #
4. ◴[21 Oct 24 21:04 UTC] No.41908511{3}[source]▶
5. switch007 ◴[21 Oct 24 21:10 UTC] No.41908560{3}[source]▶
It was you originally who came to pick a fight, not me.