Because in most countries, the railroad is government-run?

Because it is [or, at least, supposed to be] a totally different 'class' of service. To use an analogy, when sending something by a courier company such as UPS or FedEx, one's expectations are quite different than what they would be if they were sending the same item via Canada Post...

Well, my first response is, and "so what"? It doesn't mean they are not in the customer service business.

I woud respond secondly by saying that many national railroad systems are being privatised (even though the government may continue to be a majority shareholder, such as Die Bahn), or operate at real arm's length from government (such as VIA).

No, but what politician would essentially regulate charging their own government $600/pax everytime a train is late by a few hours? Even if it's operated at arm's length, that just means more subsidy is required for the railroad.

Which brings up a great way to address the jimmac's post about Jazz being a monopoly in some of the communities that they serve. VIA is a rail monopoly in virtually all the markets that they serve, and if the train is over one hour (corridor trains) or 6? hours (other trains) late, you automatically get a credit worth 50% of the price that you paid. So obviously, there are examples of the market adequately addressing the issue.

No, but this is kind of the point -- no politician would do that to a business operating under the crown. So why should they do it to a private business when the market would ultimately decide?

(I'm just arguing because this is fun. )

So that they can get re-elected? Obviously, if the government is paying for it, some other service needs to be cut back or taxes increased. If you get private companies to give money to your citizens, of course you will be popular!

You going to make it on Friday? We can continue the argument there

AC has a complicated equation here. At the minimum, it must work within the IATA guidelines. Customers need to complain when those guidelines aren't being met. Secondly, it must keep its customers happy so that they jump to another airline. I am sure AC has a standard, but the employees are going to interpret it in their own way, either by being too stringent or even being too nice (we like that...)

Like any business, if you don't get the compensation you think you deserve for whatever issue it is, they have to know that you're not happy. I'll give a couple of specific examples.

On an AS flight last year from OAK to SEA, the flight was cancelled. We were delayed four hours. AS issued us the standard "delay kit" which was $5 in meal vouchers and $25 dollars off or 1,000 miles. This was not adequate to me, so I fired off a letter to AS. We got $125 x 2 travel vouchers. On an UA flight from YYZ to ORD, the flight was delayed 3 hours (mechanical) and we had to overnight in ORD to catch our connection. Again, letter sent, $100 x 2 travel vouchers. For my old Neon whose head gasket busted one month after the warranty ended costing me $700 in repairs, a letter to Chrysler; they covered the repair... the list goes on...

For every case, you need to complain sometimes to get what you think you deserve. Ask for what you really think is reasonable usually works. And stressing your loyalty to the company (AC) and how you are usually happy with their services works wonders when asking for something. I find that AC is usually pretty compensating (automatically) to me when I am delayed.

As for overselling, yep, the airlines are gambling, but they usually maximize their revenue that way. I was on a flight last week from YYZ-CLT that was 5 seats (on a CRJ) oversold. No one gave up their seat. I am sure the airline paid generously on that one. But in most cases, there are people who are willing to get the $300 voucher to delay their travel. I actually know people who are flexible with their travel plans who like to take advantage of these situations by booking flights in heavy travel times. Airlines win here. They sell the seat and give the customer reduced compensation.

So, if you're feeling undercompensated, write a letter. Don't call CSR as they will simply give you the line that they were trained to feed you.

WS would not likely "welcome" such a thing, but they've been ahead of the game for some time. First of all, they do not overbook, so no one ever gets bumped.

Secondly, and more importantly for this thread, WS refunds the full fare (in the form of travel credits) if a flight is delayed over 3 hours, for any reason, including weather. If other airlines had been doing this, I suspect there would be no EU regulation.

WS probably looked at its policies and made it simple. They probably don't overbook because the great majority of its travellers are leisure travellers and don't get cancellations where as AC gets a pretty set % of overbookers. WS also doesn't prioritize its fliers as AC does. The SE theoretically gets on the flight no matter who is on the flight.

As for the refund, that's WS's choice to be generous. I can't believe that WS's refund policy for weather is that generous. I don't think it is fair for an airline to have to reimburse for weather related delays as it is not the airline's fault that you can't travel. But I could see the voucher for WS still not being enough. If your ticket value is $100 and you are stranded the night, is that fair compensation?

My opinion is that there should be a standard industry-wide minimum compensation policy for operational and weather delays; perhaps $40 + $40/hour for operational delays over 2 hours and 1/2 the amount for weather delays. You would get compensated more for operational delays.

Therefore, if you were going to be voluntarily bumped from a flight at 8pm to a flight that leaves the next morning at 8am, they would have to reimburse you $40 + $40 x 10 = $440 for the trouble (less the cost of meals and hotel accomodations).

Some airlines don't have the infrastructure or agreements with hotels to book an entire plane into a hotel as UA does at ORD; their compensation policy will be different. AC has the option of giving away AP points; WS does not.

Airlines undoubtably have the need to minimize the cost of delays; The value of WS giving out a flight credit is lesser than WS giving out cash. The value of AP giving out AP points is lesser than AC giving out cash or a credit voucher. But in cases of monopolies (such as in small towns), there needs to be stronger regulations (by IATA or government) to enforce that delayed travellers are compensated appropriately, no matter what carrier you are on.

Again, IMO only.

Now here is a sample for all. My friend flew on airmiles award travel from YYZ-MIA-GIG and back. On the way back the 1.30 pm AA flight from MIA was delayed till 9:30pm. he is just a regular AA member, no status. They gave all passengers US$10 for a bite. Yesterday he received an email from AA with 11000.00 miles into his advantage account. Now that is incredible for someone travelling on an award not an AA award but an airmiles award on AA metal. Incredible. i am surprised at AA, they must be really loosing passengers.