Originally Posted by
yulred
- What's your point? That companies should be able to take money to provide a service AND have the right to delay provision of that service with minimal compensation because they permit themselves to do so in a contract that, when challenged, did/does not pass regulatory muster?
- If the terms are communicated clearly, why are you advocating state intervention to make airlines communicate more clearly. You proposed that. Not me. I've simply asked why it's necessary.
- The "COMPUTER/CONTRACT SAYS NO" philosophy you're advocating rarely goes down well with the public. They understand that rules can and should change if necessary. It may well be the case that airlines have ticked off one political staffer too many, but the kicker here is that passenger rights will be viewed positively by the public. It certainly raises questions about whether the public perceive airlines as acting in good faith. Which is what this airline hack should have focused on.
- I don't have enough faith in the CTA to participate in this process, so I really don't know what they're up to.But then again, even a 0.0001 improvement is greater than 0. They might unintentionally make things better for consumers.
- I'm under the impression that there are different groups within government departments that work on separate issues simultaneously. Does your experience in three levels of governments indicate otherwise? It's a minor point anyway - all we have to do is ask the Dutch. KL doesn't seem to be particularly unsafe - no AC style hard landings or SFO incidents anyway. What policies have they or their government adopted. If you're going to resort to deflecting, consider finding a better example.
With the level of confidence and bravado in your post, I must ask, are you willing to take Air Canada to court? If not, then, well, time to sit and play in the sand box like the rest of us.