This is would be a rather poor rebuttal. Airlines know they can't possibly sell out their entire flights with expensive full-fare tickets, so they need to sell discount tickets some way or another. If they don't sell far-in-advance discount tickets, they'll need to sell discount tickets on some other basis.

Um, you're contradicting your prior post. In your prior post, you recognize that there are various ways for lawyers and clients can mutually choose to structure their fee arrangement (i.e., hourly vs contingency). Now you seem to be throwing out some odd straw man argument.

If the lawyer and client agree for the lawyer to take the case on contingency, of course the lawyer bears the risk of losing. And this is fair and reasonable. If the lawyer and client agree for the lawyer to get paid by the hour, of course the client bears the risk of losing. And this is also fair and reasonable.

As stated above, in contrast, it's not at all logical for the airline pax to solely bear the consequences of the airline unilaterally shifting the flight time by two hours. Plus, the airline pax doesn't even have any bargaining power in this contract of adhesion situation in an oligopolistic industry.

In this thread, you've repeatedly mis-misstated OP's points -- and the points of people taking similar positions. Literally nobody in this thread is arguing that the pax should be entitled to a refund for "any delay." Everyone agrees that the pax shouldn't be entitled to a refund for a small and immaterial schedule change. Opinions fall into three categories: (1) two hours is a bad enough schedule change such that it's fair for the pax to be entitled to refund; (2) two hours isn't a bad enough schedule change, but at some point the schedule change is bad enough that the pax should be entitled to a refund; or (3) a pax who buys a non-refundable ticket should be out of luck for any schedule change and is out of luck, perior. But, once again, nobody is saying "any delay" merits a refund. Keep up!

Well, it's a shame you can't sell that NFL ticket on StubHub if you can't make the new time ;) Oh wait, you'd probably be able to sell the ticket for more than face value if your game was transformed into the prime-time game of the week! But your airline flight? Sorry, non-transferrable!

Actualy, up thread he said "In case of any schedule change, the passenger should be able to choose" So I dont think I have mis-mistated (sic) anything.

You *may* be able to resell them for more money. You may also incur a steep loss or be out altogether if you’re unable to sell the tickets, especially if your game is the one moved out of prime time because the team stinks that season. Have you seen what Bengals and Browns tickets often go for late in the season? A few years ago there was an article that you could get a ticket to a Browns game for less than the price of a beer in the stadium at one point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LAX_Esq (Post 32579866)

This is would be a rather poor rebuttal. Airlines know they can't possibly sell out their entire flights with expensive full-fare tickets, so they need to sell discount tickets some way or another. If they don't sell far-in-advance discount tickets, they'll need to sell discount tickets on some other basis.

---

There’s little value selling advance purchase tickets if the penalties the airline incurs for schedule changes begin to eat up all revenue they previously made on the discount tickets. Seems pointless for an airline to sell a $200-$250 ticket for a flight that may not finalized and then have to shell out $200 in a penalty to the customer. So the response may well be just not sell advance tickets then because such a model is suggesting a revenue approach that’s possibly worse than not selling tickets at all.

Some wild mental gymnastics with a lot of assumptions.

If what you believe is true, why do airlines even publish specific times? Why not just offer a city-pair price for a specific day if it's more than 3 months out while schedules are most "flexible" and buyers only purchase for price - on an airline that is known not to be the cheapest airline? You're basically saying that it's the customers own fault for buying a specific flight that the airlines themselves published in advance. Presumably to "take advantage of cheap fares" despite the fact that typically domestic flights are actually more expensive 3 months out than in the 60-90 day out range.

I feel like people have really been brainwashed with airlines to accept this kind of crap. I guess it's just a matter of low expectations and willingness to take abuse. Imagine if you ordered a non-refundable cake for valentine's day a couple of months in advance and wanted it red with hearts. It wasn't on special (in fact you paid extra for the hearts), but you had the surety of having a cake ready for a day you know that cakes are hard to come by last minute at a reasonable price. But, oops, the baker decided that it was cheaper or easier for them to use yellow frosting and make flowers instead of hearts. The baker was nice of course and called you and said "hey, just as a heads up, the cake I'm going to send you isn't the cake you ordered... no, of course you can't cancel the order - it's non-refundable.. oh, well, it's okay because I called and told you so you can plan around it." I mean, it's still a cake, and the color and shape of the frosting is completely immaterial right? You still got a cake on the day you wanted it. So it's all good, right?

Airlines can't have it both ways. Either stop pricing different times at different prices 3+ months out when schedules are likely to change, allow people to get a refund if the schedule changes, or stop changing schedules. Anything not in that option set is exploitative. At an absolute minimum, whenever the price is different for a flight within a 2 hour window, there should be a big alert that says "Hey customer! You should be aware that you are paying $X extra for something not guaranteed. Are you sure you want to book this flight? We may unilaterally decide to screw you in the future."

Because Americans do not know any better. Sadly, they think this is all they deserve. Americans are not aware that things can be done a bit differently for three reasons: 1) they don't have a point of comparison, 2) there's NO FREE market and healthy competition in the airline industry in the US, and 3) airlines pay a lot of money via lobbying groups to the politicians, so everyone is happy with the status quo.

The corporate America has shaped a very specific type of consumer that fits what they want. They love consumers who get excited about being ripped-off, and who defend their consumer-unfriendly corporate decisions.

When passengers buy airline tickets, they "allegedly" enter into a relationship with the airline. However, these oligopolistic corporations, which are happy to take PUBLIC money, deprive passengers of what pax pay for: transportation at specific departure times and specific arrival times.

In the same breath, these oligopolistic corporations ineptly try to convince the public: "We are taking away your checked in baggage so you can pay less! We are taking away your ability to choose seat so you can pay less! We are NOT guaranteeing any schedule that YOU PAY for (a lot of times at premium prices) so you can pay less."

If you do not think that this is ridiculous, then I do not know what is.

I have not seen prices drop. Quite the contrary, the prices are either stable or going up.

Because most people buying tickets that far in advance aren't buying with the same rigid requirements for time that you are and the airlines offer flexible enough rebooking/schedule change policies to still meet their needs. That's the reality of it. I personally love how flexible DL is and don't view them as needing to change. Many others (as noted in this thread) agree and plenty of other passengers are indifferent. The airlines are going to cater to what's best for them and/or the majority of passengers, not what's not in their own interest or applicable to only a small minority of passengers (unless that minority represents a large enough revenue percentage to otherwise justify it).

I don't see it as "abuse". I've always been able to work DL's schedule change to my advantage and when I'm booking that far out, I'm rarely if ever booking with the same kind of rigidity you are. I've used schedule changes to work for far better/more convenient times after booking cheaper but less desirable times early on. I've used schedule changes to go from an aircraft with standard F to one with lie-flats that was way more expensive at booking. I'm aware enough to know that if the airlines are forced to adapt to what you are requesting, it's likely going to mean taking away the flexibility I and many others currently enjoy and leverage to our advantage.

Excellent post. Another classic example: "Finally, American Airlines Admits Basic Economy Means Higher Fares" https://thepointsguy.com/2017/09/aa-...-higher-fares/ ("First presented as providing customers a “lower cost option,” it was marketed by AA as a customer-friendly move....Thursday, at American Airlines’ Investor and Media Day, AA’s President Robert Isom admitted what we have all noticed to be true: “Basic Economy is not a price cut,” he said during a presentation."

Wait what? Nobody's saying the airline should have to pay YOU $200 if they change the fight time by 2+ hours. They just should have to give you a refund if you choose.

Which European airline should US carriers model themselves after?

I thought someone upthread suggested it. Maybe I misread. Either way, I stand by what I said about airlines tailoring their policies to fit both what's in their best interest and in the interest for the majority of passengers and I stand by what I said of "be careful what you ask for - you may just get it" and the new policy may be less friendly than what we currently have and enjoy now. I also standby what I said in how this could negatively impact the sales of discount advance purchase tickets.

I also have had minimal issues with DL when it comes to schedule changes and getting better options than what I had booked. Not every time but in the cases where DL wouldn't budge, I wouldn't have qualified for a refund even under the old policy (for example, I may have been requesting a schedule change due to a layover being cut from 75 min to 40 min in DTW in winter - one agent said "no change - it's a legal connection". But even then a HUCA would usually still get me what I wanted with a longer layover or a reroute. I've also had similar success with AA where at the time I had no status.

For most passengers, this switch/new policy change from 90 min to 120 min as the new threshold is of minimal impact and DL will still likely have options that get them to their destination close enough to when they wanted to get there that DL will switch them to for no cost; DL would even switch them to a way later or way earlier option if they desire, which is why despite the flack on here, DL's schedule change policy is pretty customer friendly. Most leisure travelers who are booking that far out have more flexibility than what a handful of posters on here booking months in advance say they have and if now go from arriving at 5:45 PM instead of 4:10 PM, they'll make do and DL may well likely have other options via other hubs that still get them in closer to the original 4"10 PM arrival. Maybe DL's policy doesn't fit you and your very unique booking habits and preferences, but it works for many of us and many of DL's other customers.

And, how do you know that the airline's ability to screw passengers' schedule by up to 2 hours in either direction is in the interest of the majority of passengers?

Why do you think relying on the corporate good will is a good idea?


Well, 90-120 minutes is a HUGE impact. How do you know it is minimal impact?

Do you work for the PR agency? :-) I fail to see how this is "customer friendly." This reeks of "stay away" for me, and further deprives passengers of what they pay for, namely transportation at a specific departure time and specific arrival time.

Again, I do not understand where you are getting this information from. How do you know they have more flexibility? When people buy tickets, they buy knowing the flight would occur at a specific departure time and specific arrival time. Airlines simply try to absolve themselves from the responsibility. If they change schedule, they MUST offer a refund.

Because DL still provides incredible flexibility even if you have just a 1 hour schedule change (and is flexible with changes even less than 1 hour in many cases). I've used ~1 hour schedule changes to move off redeyes to daytime flight. I've used approximately ~1 hour schedule changes to change my routing to aircraft with lie-flat seats. I've used ~1 hour schedule changes to turn a 3 hour layover that was extended to a 4 hour layover down to a 1.5 hour layover. I've used ~1 hour schedule changes to get booked off a connecting flight to a nonstop. I've used an ~1 hour schedule change to get booked off a nonstop to a crazy routing for routing for the additional MQMs. The flights I'm changing to were usually more expensive than the original flights I booked.

Because I understand the concept of unintended consequences. Maybe DL will take actions that change my mind but right now, DL's actions are good enough that I don't see a need to drive some required change in DOT policy or law or even DL's policies that may make them less flexible in other ways. Maybe in response to what you suggest, DL turns around and says "okay if we have a schedule change, you can still only switch to a flight that was within 4 hours of your original schedule time" and takes away other flexibilties with its current schedule change policy many of us enjoy. This is why I say what you are expressing may well not be in the interest of a large number of passengers. Because of the other consequences that may come with, either in DL's schedule change policy or how airlines price discount purchase tickets.

Your point here relies on the assumption that one has to adjust to a 90-120 min change receiving the notice day of (such as IROPS) in the same manner as receiving the notice months in advance. This is not true for the majority of people. If I or many others experience a 90-120 minute delay day of, yes, that has a far more noticeable impact, and there are day-of policies in how that's handled and in many ways there's less I can do about it. If I experience a schedule change of 90-120 minutes 3-6 months before I travel, it's much easier for myself and a vast majority of others to work around and flex as required and most people have not planned their schedules down to the minute this far in advance; this is putting aside the other current pros of the schedule change policy and moving to more desirable times. While it can become cliche to be used around here on FT, if you're planning your travel schedule down to the minute like 3-6 months in advance with such little flexibility when there are so many unknowns and so many variables, commercial airline travel probably isn't for you and you should probably consider chartering a private aircraft or air taxi to better suit your scheduling needs.

On the same note, DL still offers free rebooking for schedule changes of more than 1 hour or changes that result in connections that violate MCT. This will support most passengers' needs as most DL destinations have enough options that even if your flight is booked to a two hour difference you'll likely find a routing via another hub or something that gets you to your destination within an hour or two of your original time under normal ops. DL is also flexible with accommodating reasonable requests even when the initial schedule change is less than 1 hour, such as MSPeconomist noting that DL will accommodate around less than 1 hour changes for early or late arriving flights due to public transit concerns and such. I've had DL rebook me multiple times to longer connections or via other hubs when the new schedule change was less than 1 hour total but the new connection time, while meeting MCT, was not in my "Sensible Connection Time"

Is it slightly less customer-friendly than offering a refund after a 90 minute schedule change? Yes. Do I think if airlines abuse this too far that the DOT may step in and define limits for refunds when it currently doesn't? Yes. Do I think in the case of a change from 90 min to 120 min as the threshold for the refund policy when DL has otherwise maintained the other aspects of its schedule change policy is a case of "the sky is falling!!!!!!"? No.

Part of where I'm getting this from is having recently completed my MBA in Aviation and having studied a good bit of this stuff as part of the course work for multiple classes in the program in studying and analyzing passenger buying habits, airline pricing models, etc. But it should be obvious even without an MBA in observing how airlines price the tickets. If this wasn't the case, you wouldn't see airlines with the revenue optimization models that they currently use. You wouldn't see airlines with "flexible dates" options in searches, which many travelers use to find the lowest fare for a combined set of dates. Websites like Kayak and other OTAs to find the lowest fares wouldn't exist. instead all flights no matter the time of day or day of the week or time of the year would be priced based the same on some cost + profit margin operating model. But that's not how airline pricing works. Because airlines know a huge segment of passengers value money more than their time and are willing to take less desirable schedules for a savings in airfare. These passengers buy lower fares, often at less desirable times or on lower-demand days of the week. Other segments of the population value their time over savings in airfare and the airlines capitalize off of this too.

Now's when I get to ask "where are you getting your information from"? You're stating an opinion, not a fact. As noted above, even the DOT has not stated what exactly constitutes thie threshold for "significant schedule change". (https://www.transportation.gov/indiv...%20to%20travel.
Again, as noted, the airlines abusing it (like United attempting its "well we only have to get you there within 24 or 26 hours of your originally booked time before we'll give you a refund" which was far more absurd and customer unfriendly may result in the DOT stepping in and defining a policy that curbs airline behavior. But while I could be wrong and while I don't speak nor work for the DOT, I don't think this change by DL will be where the DOT steps in to draw the line.

As has been mentioned up thread, if the increment of time between what is felt to be OK and two unacceptable hours is important, then why not book closer to when these tightly-wound travel dates are actually going to happen?

I have been on well over a thousand Delta and NW flights over the years and am actually not able to remember any flight being proactively rescheduled due to a timetable change by more than a few minutes. But 95% of my flights have been booked under 30 days prior.

The tendency of airlines to announce new routes way ahead of time is more recent and of interest. I don’t know if Delta has a poorer record of “phantom” new routes than others. It seems to me that Delta often follows through, even to its detriment. I enjoyed stretching out in five center seats once going ATL-EDI on the 767. But it didn’t last long. Now, will American ever fly Seattle-Hyderabad, as they announced last year?