Originally Posted by
ftnoob
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.
Absolutely, let us consider the practical realities. To the best of my recollection, we have never heard of WN stranding a passenger and refusing to get them to the paid for destination at the earliest opportunity. The thread you point to is not a clear example of WN refusing to get the passenger to their paid for destination.
I cannot conceive of WN doing that in the future regardless of whether you are correct or I am correct in the interpretation of the CoC.
The question to me is, why did they write in this idiotic clause that is not at all clear.