←back to thread

663 points duxup | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.212s | source
Show context
bilekas ◴[] No.45360845[source]
These two in particular :

> 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" ?

replies(7): >>45361025 #>>45361065 #>>45361878 #>>45362745 #>>45362913 #>>45363164 #>>45366785 #
lxgr ◴[] No.45361025[source]
Playing devil's advocate for a moment: I could imagine airlines wanting to not allow for a full refund if passengers can be booked on a "reasonably similar" connection. (I'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.)

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.

replies(4): >>45361198 #>>45362088 #>>45364728 #>>45365133 #
NoLinkToMe ◴[] No.45364728[source]
I don't follow the point. Suppose we live in a perfect world where exactly similar alternative flights are always available the moment yours gets cancelled. You still have to pay for it. And you do that by using the refund money.

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.

replies(2): >>45364895 #>>45365185 #
0xffff2 ◴[] No.45364895[source]
> You still have to pay for it. And you do that by using the refund money.

You generally don't though? The airline will rebook you directly, even if the flight is on a different airline in my experience.

replies(1): >>45371165 #
1. NoLinkToMe ◴[] No.45371165[source]
I was referring to the case that your ticket gets cancelled, not rebooked. If you are rebooked under the current rules within 3 hours (or 6 for int. flights) no refund is triggered, so that's not a proposed change that this deregulation covers.