Originally Posted by
flyingmonkie
..if they got it wrong they would sort it out for them.
I actually do think that this what would have happened eventually.
I don't think as customers people should have to consider the "risk" that the company you hand your cash over to won't deliver...
A fair point. I wouldn't expect it but I'd consider it a remote possibility when we are talking about airlines.
But then I had my fair share of disappointing experiences.
When I buy a pint in the pub (a "non-essential item") I don't take into account the risk that the barman might take my money and then pour the pint down the drain...
If the non-delivery of a barman could ruin my life, I'd never go to a pub. I would indeed consider the possibility of nondelivery.
It's not a demand, but nonetheless the logical conclusion of your argument is that only people who are able to absorb any additional costs incurred due to issues outwith their control and potentially write these costs off for an indefinite period are in a position to travel.
No, they ere merely are in a position not to have their happiness / life / marriage /wedding etc ruined when a minor hiccup happens.
This is spectacularly unhelpful and ultimately doesn't work in the long term interests of the airlines either.
True. I have ambition to help either - the subject caused a lot of the chaos herself by being too activist and short on funds at the same time. And I will certainly not support the airline.