Sorry,
lougord99, I still disagree. I was hoping, though, that an actual lawyer would post something so we wouldn't have to rely on lay analysis.
Originally Posted by
lougord99
If your interpretation of that part of the CoC is correct then we have conflicting sections.
Interpreting laws and contracts with conflicting sections is one of the things attorneys and judges have to do all the time. My expectation is that a legal analysis in this case would see a few problems with your argument.
- The CSC was last revised April 23, 2010. The Seventh Revised CoC we are trying to interpret was, I believe, issued in June, and last revised July 14, 2010. More recent documents carry more weight, ETA: and a clause in an older document would not be interpreted to overrule a provision that did not exist at the time the older document was written.
- Article 10, Section b, which is what "incorporates" the CSC into the CoC, states:
Carrier’s CSC further explains, augments, and expands upon Carrier’s policies, procedures, methods of operation, obligations, and dedication to Customer safety, service, and satisfaction.
I believe that clause would be interpreted to give the CSC secondary importance relative to the CoC.
And consider the practical realities. Your flight went mechanical and the agent tells you "Sorry, we can't reaccommodate you." You pull out the document and try to say "But you have to..." What are the odds you win the argument? Remember
this weather-related incident? The scene at the airport would be a mad house; customers and agents all would be at wits' end. If WN ever invokes this new clause, they will, at the least, prevail on the scene.
So you are sent away and you follow up with a lawsuit. Suppose the judge agrees with you. He then looks at the CoC's clause that says your sole remedy is a refund, and awards you...your money back.
Not only am I NAL, I have no familiarity with Federal aviation laws and regulations. Perhaps the Feds could separately pursue the matter and there would be fines imposed on WN, but that wouldn't benefit you. Perhaps there is also a damages clause that would benefit you, but that seems less likely.
With the old WN you could at least expect to receive extra LUV vouchers if you keep the followup friendly. With the more recent customer-hostile attitiude at HQ, the odds of that small comfort may have diminished.