A flight today is more than the flight I paid for 3 months ago. But a step in the right direction I guess.
this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2024
598 points (99.5% liked)
News
23409 readers
3045 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I'm not sure how the law will pan out because of this. While it is beneficial, and airlines are financially held accountable, being reimbursed the price you paid for your ticket will not be enough to get you on the next available flight to wherever you were going. Depending on when the flight is canceled.
You're correct, but I don't think that is what the law was trying to fix. I think it was trying to fix paying for a flight in cash, and when a flight is canceled being given a voucher (often for less) locking you into purchasing from that airline again to get any value out of your original cash.
At least with this step if you pay $200 for your flight initially, and your flight is canceled, you're given your $200 back to by a replacement which may, that day, cost you $600, so its only costing you $400 cash instead of $600 cash which would have been the situation before. This is a step in the right direction.
I was under the impression that the law was already that airlines had to give 3x the ticket price if you were involuntarily canceled or bumped from a flight, which is why they offered to compensate people to volunteer to take other flights or a voucher instead.
You're not guaranteed to get the next flight anyway. At least this way you're at least getting your money, which airlines try to make you pay extra for just to get the right to ask for it.
They charge at current rate, why don't they refund at it?
I guess the "current rate" for a canceled flight ticket would be $0...
I think @[email protected] is essentially referring to the cost of a replacement flight purchase the same day. The obvious answer is that action isn't required by law and would be massively more expensive for airlines. Rates for regular fares would have to skyrocket to cover the costs, which would create a vicious circle.
Rates for regular fares would have to skyrocket to cover the costs
Why is that exactly? Does the airline face additional expenses when you book a flight the same day versus a month in advance?
The opposite. They can lose money when you book far in advance. They need the expensive close bookings (usually business travelers) to make the most of their money. So if the airlines are force to give away expensive profitable seats (expensive because they are in high demand), they'll have to raise the rates on other earlier bookings to make up the difference.
I'm not saying I think they should make the fares the same for people who book last-minute, just that they should exempt people who have to rebook through no fault of their own from that. Like "lock in" the rate at the initial booking.
just that they should exempt people who have to rebook through no fault of their own from that.
I'm not sure I'm understanding you. I'm reading your post that a "flight booked for today" should be booked at the same rate that the person had if they book, lets say, 3 weeks prior. Is that what you're saying?
Like “lock in” the rate at the initial booking.
If I'm understanding you, that means the person pays a much smaller rate for a "today" booking. That would mean the airline has to lose money on that seat if they could have sold it to a last minute business traveler at full "today" rate.
Well if they don't cancel my flight with no warning then they won't have to deal with that.
Had an international flight canceled, for two people it was $3200 originally. To replace the same flight last minute to costed $3700 per ticket. The airline canceled one leg used by a "secondary" company that they owned. American Airlines and American Eagle
This needs to be considered a temporary rule until we know who wins the election
For sure. Giving refunds because services have not been provided is really detrimental for profits! It's unfair.
Until it goes to the supreme court as well.
Where "this" is applicable to literally everything.
Thanks, Biden!
I can't wait to see what loopholes they come up with to wriggle out of this.
A ticket onto the plane is 10 dollars, but your seat is 200. We're refunding the whole 10 dollars!
No need to apply a loophole if they just raise the fare rates to cover the losses.
If they could raise the fare rates higher, they'd have done that already.
Based on current rates, I feel like they are :(
Wow, there have only been commercial flights for like… barely a 100 years now
Does this include cancellations due to weather?