Originally Posted by
skybluesea
If we can all agree on a definition of “reasonable” this would be a recipe for air service nirvana.
I won’t be holding my breath anytime soon, and as plainly evident, forcing airlines to undertake a so-called reasonable IDB policy that other airlines choose NOT to use overbooking is actually putting the thumb of govt on the playing field, tilting the game.
this does not protect consumers in any way, it’s simply drives up costs for the rest of us, when the marketplace does offer alternatives for those who consider IDB un- acceptable- and if your E75k or SE then you directly have access to IDB, whether you use it or not
but how about I make a proposal for everyone’s consideration, how about government intervene in communications between airlines that have IDB as a tool, and make it absolutely evident with a big red notice either a ticket or at the time of purchase that this could happen,
market intervention should be about transparency not tilting the game as we are not children and we can make adult decisions if were properly informed
Tilting the game? I don't follow.
The issue here isn't IDB. It's IDB compensation. If an airline chooses to inconvenience pax by pursuing IDB, it should compensate those pax accordingly. The government intervention here is levelling the playing field by establishing what reasonable pax compensation is for any airline that chooses to go down the IDB route. Same policy for all = level playing field, no?
If IDB is raising the cost of your ticket in an age of record profits, then I'm afraid the higher cost you're paying has precious little to do with IDB compensation policies.
Either way, how come you're in favour of the Government intervening in communications to explain IDB can happen? Why should it have to? AC can, after all, advertise that voluntarily, can it not? On the one hand, you appear to be against policy interventions, but on the other hand, you seem to accept that policy interventions are required to change airline behaviour. Which is it?