> Automatic Refunds for Cancellations
> Transparency of Fees
How does a lawmaker justify this being in the publics interest ? I'm not even joking, I know "well lobbyist going to lobby", but this is a legitimate question. How does a regulatory body say "Yup, that's okay with us to remove" ?
The problem here of course would be the definition of "reasonably similar". Arriving a few hours later can be entirely fine or completely ruin a trip, depending on the circumstances.
I don't buy that at all, that's what regulations are for. There is no public interest in still having lead in our fuel [0], or arsenic in green wall paint [1]. To say regulations are not for public interest is to say why have any oversight of anything.
Should we say "well fuel companies can make fuel cheaper with lead so lets just remove those regulations.
[0] https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/inside-20-year-c...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_green#:~:text=Because%20...
But price transparency ?
> A4A opposes the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) rules requiring airlines to disclose ancillary fees upfront, arguing that these rules exceed the DOT’s authority and don’t provide any clear benefits to consumers.
> don’t provide any clear benefits to consumers
As a customer I like to know where my money is going and how much.
Reality: Tickets all cost exactly the same (because no company is going to willingly take less money) except now you get to pay more for less benefits.
The admin is no longer counting how many people cannot afford food for crying out loud.
The public voted against their interest.
Cancelling a flight without refunding it, just means profiting at the expense of the customer.
Businesses are able to insure their limited cost of cancellations, and price their tickets to absord these insurance costs (which are ultimately born by the ticket-payer).
Deregulating this point just puts all the risk and burden with millions of individual customers, some of whom cannot easily carry the cost of unexpected events, and aren't professional parties that can and routinely do enter into properly-negotiated insurance products to mitigate their risk.
> 've done this myself in the past, as far as I remember; changes of a few minutes in either direction often make an entire booking refundable.)
My understanding is that refunds eligibility starts at a >3 hour change, meaning an alternative timetable of 2 hours doesn't trigger an automatic refund right now. Further, even in the case of a significant change (>3h), the refund isn't automatic, it is only paid once the customer refuses an alternative booking or compensation. For international flights it's even 6 hours instead of 3.
> Arriving a few hours later can be entirely fine or completely ruin a trip, depending on the circumstances.
I do agree on this point, context really matters. And I think in theory it makes sense to offer price-differentation based on the context. i.e. if I am slow-travelling for 4 months, I'd be happy taking a 10% cheaper ticket (no-insurance), and have no recourse if there is an 8 hour delay.
Whereas earlier this month when travelling overseas for a wedding the day prior, I'd have paid a 10% extra fee to insure my travel time, to ensure I have recourse to travel with a limited (<2h) delay no matter what or be significantly compensated.
But that's still all theory, at some point differentiation on everything leads to complex and difficult decision making for customers. Fun in a Sim computer game, not so fun when booking a flight is a 20-step process with 200 pages of T&C that I have to assess against my personal situation.
> Businesses are able to insure their limited cost of cancellations, and price their tickets to absord these insurance costs (which are ultimately born by the ticket-payer).
Those insurance companies have requirements for paying out, in Europe for example a low fare airline Ryanair will offer you a refund if your flight is delayed 2/3 hours. You can choose to still take the flight though which, for some is acceptable. But that refund is by way of a request, it's not automatically processed. It works, for me personally, but I've been delayed for important things where it was only an hour, I would have loved to have been able to get s refund to book on another airline but I have to say, I wouldn't "expect" that.. which is why I can soften on their first point.
Conveniently leaving out the thought that NONE of the other airlines will do this if it goes away.
I understood that to actually be the case, even though that wasn't actually included in the platform. Which is one of reasons I didn't vote for the current administration.
That said, I imagine that among those who did so, some folks are fine with it, some folks didn't care one way or another and some folks were unaware that this would happen.
As such, I think you're painting folks with far too broad a brush. Which is, I imagine, quite satisfying. I hope you got what you wanted out of that.
> I understood that to actually be the case, even though that wasn't actually included in the platform.
It honestly takes less effort to listen to his speeches and look at his record than to read the official platform document or the one we knew was the actual plan (P2025). I'm happy to hear out anyone that pleads ignorance but they're probably still busy celebrating deportations.
> As such, I think you're painting folks with far too broad a brush. Which is, I imagine, quite satisfying. I hope you got what you wanted out of that.
What a weird thing to be offended by. Voters voted for this. There's no ambiguity here. Even the ones who don't consider deregulation a pet issue decided that it was worthwhile to get what they wanted.
Reread my comment. I expect that at least one of the three (and maybe more, I pointed out three) groups you lumped together don't consider "consumer protections" to be burdensome or costly.
Did I not make that clear? Or are you deliberately missing my point?
>What a weird thing to be offended by.
Who said I was offended? I said I thought you were painting folks with too broad a brush. And the "folks:" to whom I referred didn't include me.
As such, I'm not offended by you. Or at least not WRT the broad brush you used. I can't say for sure, but your patronizing tone appears as to assume I'm not so bright. Which might offend me, except the source is some rando on the inter tubes (that'd be you in case you were confused).
So no. You haven't offended me. In fact, you gave me a chuckle. Thanks!
I mean if they're unaware that a politician will dress up their policy with pejoratives then I'd be happy to have a conversation with them.
To be more explicit regarding your other groups, they affirmatively voted for a president and one or more legislators. They can claim ignorance about a particular policy but it is willful ignorance. As in the kind where they get to own the implications of deciding to not to do any research beyond their one issue.
demonrats. that's what they are all about. If you voted for them, you voted for baby molesting and baby eating. Those far-left lunatics hate America and want to destroy it!
Why do you eat babies? Why do you hate America? Why do you want to destroy it?
What's that? You don't do/feel/want those things? But, but, you voted for demonrats! You must be the most extreme version of whatever someone who disagrees says you are!
Does being painted with that brush make you want to reexamine your choices and/or political ideas? No? Why not?
And what for? It's stupid to try to have a dialogue with your fellow citizens about what's important and what we stand for as a nation, right? Because anyone that doesn't agree, in full, with everything you believe is irredeemably evil and must be stopped, right?