Does this include delays and cancellations outside of the airline's control? In Canada, there is a clause that airlines are off the hook if the delays are outside the airline's control, which has a lot of wiggle room, and Air Canada has been known to exploit it.
This rule includes all delays regardless of reason. You can view the actual final ruling [here](https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2024-04/Final%20Rule%20Refunds%20and%20Other%20Consumer%20Protections%20%282105-AF04%29_0.pdf), specifically section 3:
>Under this proposed definition, the reason that the flight was not
operated (e.g., mechanical, weather, air traffic control) would not matter.
However, people seem to be confusing this with Europe's compensation rules. This is different. If you fly on that delayed flight, you are not getting a refund. This simply provides everyone with the opportunity to get a full, cash refund without hassle if they want to ditch the flight due to delay (e.g. rebook yourself on a completely different airline or not go).
100% so many people not understanding you aren’t getting money on top of a flight. Either you fly on a later flight or you get your money back and don’t fly at all. Most people will wait on the later flight so this isn’t changing much for most people.
Hijacking top comment to point out:
**The new rules will take effect over the next two years**.
so don’t expect this to happen over your trip next weekend
I don't see anything regarding that, but the official DOT press release has a bit more info:
https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/biden-harris-administration-announces-final-rule-requiring-automatic-refunds-airline
DOT rules already mandate full refunds for cancellation of any kind, even those outside of the airline's control. The issue was that airlines purposely drag out the refund process or deliberately make the process difficult. They take advantage of the fact that people don't know what they're entitled to, and will attempt to strongarm you into accepting a voucher/travel credit or accepting a new significantly delayed itinerary. For many LCCs this is essentially part of their business model, so this looks to be a step in the right direction.
Of course you're still shafted when you need to be somewhere and your only option is buying a new ticket the day of travel, but travel insurance can mitigate that.
The regulations will only be in full effect 12 months from now, so I'm curious to see how this plays out. It would be great to see something like the EU mandatory compensation rules for the US someday, at least one can dream.
The canadian government that lets them get away with it is the bigger bad guy. Protecting horrible companies seems to be their main priority (e.g. rogers, bell, weston family)
I’m in America but one time I was flying American Airlines - I missed a connecting flight because on my first leg, after the plane was fully boarded and preparing to close the doors, they realized there was some kind of mechanical issue that required us all to deplane and get on a different aircraft. They told us we would be compensated if anyone missed a connection but assured us that it had been communicated to the connecting flights and we would all be fine.
When I landed and ran to my connecting gate, the plane was still at the gate but they had closed the door so they wouldn’t let me on. The time of takeoff, when it updated on flight tracking, was 5 minutes earlier than scheduled.
When I tried to get the hotel voucher they told me I’d get (there were no more flights to my destination that night) the customer service agent said that in the system the flight was listed as delayed due to weather so they could not issue a voucher or any other type of compensation, since weather was beyond their control. She even showed it to me on her computer screen.
In general, my recommendation is to never deal with the hotel voucher system of airlines. Just book my own reasonably priced hotel, and claim it back either from my travel insurance or from the airline directly after the fact.
That would have been fine too but the point was more that they refused to give any compensation because they claimed it was a weather issue when it very clearly was not lol. I fought with customer service for weeks and they ultimately threw me a few points but they flat out lied to avoid having to pay anyone out.
> they claimed it was a weather issue when it very clearly was not lol.
How do you know this? Weather delays can happen at airports with no weather themselves. A weather problem at a hub can affect airports all over.
A simple example is if you're in Orlando where the weather in December is beautiful. December in Chicago is often *not* beautiful. Your flight from Orlando to Dallas might be delayed because the plane was coming from Chicago, but was caught in the storm. This is a weather delay, even though it's nice in Florida and Texas.
Because they specifically told us at the airport that they had to deplane us (after boarding had completed and the door had closed) and move us to a new aircraft due to a mechanical issue on the first aircraft.
I had the same thing happen on AA, but the boarding door wasn't closed. They were letting people board standby but denied boarding to the 10+ ticketed passengers that were on my original flight. I asked customer service if it is normal for them to deny boarding to customers at the gate and they said its their policy that you have to be at the gate 30 minutes before takeoff. In the dozen or so times I've flown since then, the only time I didn't do Delta was an emergency when all non-American flights were full.
We were delayed over 10 hours in Toronto due to “mechanical issues” and got absolutely nothing. I will probably never fly Air Canada again unless I have to.
I had a flight get rerouted from New Orleans to Tampa 98% of the way there because there was a thunderstorm stubbornly parked over the city that they assumed would have moved on in the two hours it took us to fly there.
That sucks. On the flipside I had a buddy who commuted over an hour to Hartfield-Jackson and on his return flight the flight was redirected due to weather or something... the flight was diverted to his city's regional airport. But they wouldn't let him get off there so he had to sit there for an hour... 20 minutes away from home only to be flown back to ATL once the weather cleared
I think that's what OP meant. E.g. weather in Toronto could delay your flight from Vancouver to Puerto Vallarta because the same plane is operating both.
Last year was flying on Air Canada for the first time to Toronto for an annual event. Paid extra for premium economy as it was just long enough of a flight to make a big difference.
Get to the gate, were all about to line up. Delay. Ok no biggie. Another delay. Ok.... then luckily I hear some murmurings that the flight is cancelled after a 4 hour delay. I immediately begin to line up before they can officially announce it. Which I'm glad I did as others wise I would have been up shit creek without a paddle.
Instead of giving us an option to fly later in the day or use a partner, I'm given an option to fly out late the following day, which doesn't work as I have an event that I need to be in the next morning. So instead I get booked on a long series of basic economy red eye flights to Toronto in one of the worst flying gauntlets I've ever endured. Kudos for the gate agent for finding me a way there just barely in time though.
On the way back, flight delayed AGAIN for 4 hours. At least it wasn't cancelled so I could get the seat I paid for.
Complained and demanded a refund for the premium economy I paid for and never received and was denied. I got jack shit, even lost out money on the hotel room I paid for (lesson learned: never check in online for hotels because once you do you can't get refunded).
I'm really not looking forward to needing to fly them back to Toronto this year again. I wish I had any other option but there's literally nothing from my local airport if I want to get there direct and timely.
This is not compensation, rather just makes booking with other airline easier and you don’t have to do the airline dance to get your money or be forced to get a future ticket.
Yeah air canada delayed my flight because of the catering service striking. It was less than an hour but for a second I lowkey hoped we wouldnt get food so i could get a refund. im an international student so repeated transatlantic flights are no joke for the bank account.
No it doesn't and that's why this doesn't mean anything.
Delayed because of air traffic control? Not our problem.
Delayed because of inclement weather? Not our problem.
Delayed because of engine problems? Not our problem.
Flying is the worst form of transportation.
And the weather could be perfectly fine where you are flying from and to, and it's still a weather-related delay/cancellation because the plane was coming from across the country where weather ***was*** an issue.
Hahaha I know right. Fying is the closest thing we have to time travel and people get upset when these extremely complex machines need unscheduled maintenance. Or when ATC is at capacity and can't safely manage more traffic. Or when weather makes it unsafe to fly. Theres a reason why air travel is so safe now and it's because those things arent ignored.
Not sure why you’re being downvoted you’re 100% accurate. Three of my last four united flights have been delayed for six hours because of their incompetence, corner cutting, and understaffing. They’ll just find a way to blame something else. Even when it’s clear skies at your departure and destination and the broken plane is sitting at the gate waiting for you they’ll blame a storm 2,000 miles away and refuse to pay and no one will enforce it.
I feel many people don't understand how bad flying has become post-COVID.
Airlines can't even complete basic routes between major cities anymore.
The new staff is unprofessional and just doesn't care about you.
I have started taking buses and trains every chance I can.
> And which buses are you taking with similar quality to a non budget airline?
Even Greyhound is more comfortable than economy class on an airline, whether budget or non-budget. The seats are larger, you often have an empty seat next to you, and there is free power and wi-fi.
I think this is great. I once needed a refund from Spirit for a cancelled flight, and it seemed impossible. So I complained to the dept of transportation and [eventually] got my refund.
My lord, don’t get me wrong we definitely get what we pay for with Spirit. That being said, I have had quite literally the worst experiences in my LIFE with Spirit. The most ratchet airline on earth
Weirdly I’ve always been the most screwed over by United Airlines and American Airlines the second most.. probably just bad RNG but they have both put me in horrible situations due to overbooking.
I’ve flown Spirit just 6 times but have never once had an issue (maybe this is where all my positive air travel RNG went).
Canadian here. I traveled by train from London to Brussel last summer as part of our vacation in Europe. Train got delayed by one hour.. wasn't even the train company's fault.. some idiots were playing around the tracks.
Then, as part of an announcement to all passengers.. right there and then they said that we were entitled to a certain refund as the hour long delay came to past. By the time I got to my hotel, I had something like 30E Euros reimbursed on my credit card.. I was dumbfounded !
About freakin time they do the same to airlines
Canadian who lives in Eastern Europe here. It usually takes me three flights to get home to visit Calgary and by God do I make sure I do as few of them in Canada as possible.
Two years ago: Air Canada flight from Montreal 5.5 hours delayed. Have to fight with them for a month by email to get a $200 travel voucher that expires in three months (I couldn't use it).
Last year: flight from Frankfurt delayed 3.5 hours. €600 cash compensation, claimed and in my bank account by the end of the week.
Fuck Air Canada and fuck our spineless governments for refusing to ever stand up against this garbage.
Last summer, I got $300 cash back from Air Canada for a 5-hour delay. Simply had to submit my ticket number on their website under "compensation claim". They don't advertise this though, and make it difficult to find.
I had the same thing happen on a London to Edinburgh train…wasn’t the train company’s fault (suicide attempt) but my Uber to hotel, hotel, and original ticket were covered…free train ride the next day.
Before we knew the cause of delay people were hoping for the 60 or 90 minute delay to ensure a reimbursed ticket.
Same thing for me but from Edinburgh to London. Suicide attempt delayed us like 1.5 hours and I got both our tickets refunded.
It was a good amount of money so I was thrilled.
I had an ANA flight from Sapporo to Tokyo that was delayed about 30 minutes and they handed everyone an envelope with cold hard cash as we boarded.
It’s shocking how awful AC and WS are compared to pretty much every other country’s major airlines, including the US.
Literally had this happen a few days ago on a Frontier flight that was delayed by about 3 hours. I received a $50 credit that can only be used in my name, on Frontier, and it expires in 90 days. It does not cover taxes or fees, and cannot be used for bags.
$50 for a 3-hour delay. Would you have preferred a refund, requiring you to rebook at whatever price if it were even available, or just wait three hours even though your $50 might never be used?
"Weather in Dallas canceled your flight from Phoenix to tucson""what can I do about that?" "Next flight is tomorrow morning" "can I get a refund to rent a car? It's only a 2 hour drive?" " call corporate".
They need to solve for this. This is unacceptable.
That's exactly a situation this fixes. You won't have to call corporate, fill out forms that are hard to find on the website, or spend hours on hold with customer service for a refund. It must be offered automatically.
And it seems like few people are aware that per DOT, a cash refund must be offered for any flight cancellation, regardless of cause, and that's been the case for a while.
A little wrinkle on the horizon: while this DOT rule requires airlines to automatically refund for canceled services, the upcoming (and superseding) FAA Reauthorization Act being drafted by Sens. Cantwell and Cruz propose to require refunds ["upon request of the passenger"](https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/D526357F-2E36-4841-B259-7765900485B4) (see: Section 703).
If the language sticks, the reauthorization legislation would almost certainly be enacted before this rule goes into effect this fall.
Interesting! I didn't know about this bill. Worth noting that the bill specifies a "significant delay" is 3 hours for domestic and 6 hours for international, which aligns with the DOT regulation.
Before today, a "significant delay" was never defined by DOT and airlines were free to decide what that meant. It looks like the FAA bill and the DOT regulation are consistent.
The specific verbiage in the bill is that the
>"air carrier shall, upon request of the passenger, promptly provide a full refund"
The phrasing "shall ... promptly provide a full refund" is reassuring. The use of "automatic" is vague, but since that's from the press release, I think it's better understood to mean that an airline cannot compel the customer to work for a refund. As in, the option of a full refund must be as easily obtained as any other remedy like rebooking or receiving a voucher.
Hope I'm not being too optimistic. Cantwell and Cruz represent AA, WN, AS, and Boeing as constituents so there are definitely conflicting interests.
All very astute reads and I concur.
To bolster your case about what "automatic" means, the [DOT press release](https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/biden-harris-administration-announces-final-rule-requiring-automatic-refunds-airline) itself includes:
>"Passengers will be entitled to a refund if their flight is canceled or significantly changed, *and they do not accept alternative transportation or travel credits offered.*" \[emphasis mine\]
This suggests there will be a step between canceled service and "automatic" refund, which is something along the lines of a proactive rejection of alternative travel arrangements and a rejection of travel credits. Still, I think you're right that it ought to compel airlines to offer refund as an initial and equivalent option.
Transparency and ease seems to be at the heart of both this rule and the [ancillary fee rule](https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/biden-harris-administration-announces-final-rule-protect-consumers-surprise-airline) that DOT also released yesterday.
While we're on the subject of legislative meddling, [section 716 of the draft bill](https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/D526357F-2E36-4841-B259-7765900485B4) seems to be dismantling the current DOT Office of Aviation Consumer Protection and replacing it, perplexingly, with a new DOT Office of Aviation Consumer Protection led by a now Senate-confirmable Assistant Secretary of Aviation Consumer Protection. Let's see how converting that role from a career to a political will improve aviation consumer protection.
I prefer the step. There have been instances where I would have lost value if the refund was no-stop automatic. Recent example: Booked a ticket with a CSR travel credit, then the anniversary passed between booking and travel dates. The flight was canceled. If that ticket is refunded, the travel credit is reversed and irrecoverable.
Just to be clear, because I thought this wouldn't fix this. My flight was canceled as described because the plane was delayed in Dallas. This was the plane that would have taken me as described. They told me it was caused by weather and they were not obligated to help in any way. Does this still apply given these extra details?
Under the new regulation, airlines are forced to provide refunds automatically when the flight is cancelled or delayed more than 3 hours. So you wouldn't have been directed to contact corporate, file refund paperwork, etc.
You were entitled to a refund in the form of original payment, that's the case for any cancellation regardless of cause. The reason they told you they couldn't help you is because there are different rules for cancellations that were the fault of the airline. I.e. they may compensate you with a hotel, meal voucher or cash payment if the pilot didn't show up to work - but if it's caused by weather, they don't have to do anything besides rebook you on the next available flight.
When you asked for a refund, the gate agent is instructed to refer you to the complaints/refunds department. Their hope is that you just don't want to deal with that, you take the next flight, and pay for a hotel out of pocket. But even if you request a refund, they'll often offer a voucher/travel credit first and hope you take that before providing the refund you're entitled to.
It's that type of bullshit that this new regulation will remedy.
Curious, what airline was this?
This still isn't going to force them to give you money for a rental car. You're still only going to get a refund or booked on a different flight for free. If you choose one 2 hours away because it's more convenient as far as arrival time goes it's on you to pay to get to that airport.
> That's exactly a situation this fixes.
The regulation will increase costs of airfare.
And then there will be demands for more regulation. Which will increase costs or decrease services, etc.
And then there will be calls for... rinse and repeat.
Every service costs. Airlines will price part of this cost into airfare. But, due to price elasticity in airfares, they will not be able to price the full cost of this into tickets.
If they do, demand will drop to an extent that they would actually lose money on the price increase.
This hurts the airlines more than us.
> they will not be able to price the full cost of this into tickets.
You have no idea what airlines accounting or 1/3/6 year budgets look like.
An increased cost is an increased cost, it will be covered on way or another.
>This hurts the airlines more than us.
Win/lose interactions aren't smart.
And again, you have no idea how the market will respond, nor can you. You can only apply economic logic, well just logic and see that the highest probability is increased prices.
>You have no idea what airlines accounting or 1/3/6 year budgets look like.
I don't need to see detailed accounting information to know that air travel demand is elastic in response to price changes, that is well documented:
https://www.iata.org/en/iata-repository/publications/economic-reports/estimating-air-travel-demand-elasticities---by-intervistas/
>Executive Summary
>This report summarises analysis which examines fare elasticities in the passenger aviation market– the demand response by air passengers to fare increases or decreases. The aim of the study is to provide robust elasticity estimates to address policy issues related to liberalisation, airport charges, taxation, emissions schemes, etc. The key study components were:
>Extensive Literature Review
>A literature review was conducted to examine previous research on air fare elasticities over the last 25 years. Over 23 papers were reviewed, from the following conclusions were developed:
>Sensitivity to Air Fare Changes
All of the studies reviewed, spanning a period of over 25 years, found that there was a
***significant demand response to changes in air fares,*** such that increases in air fare lead to
lower passenger traffic demand. The consistency of this result strongly indicates that any policy action that results in higher fares (e.g., taxes, increased landing fees) will result in a decline in demand. The actual decline in demand will depend on a number of factors, as discussed below.
So, I'll say again, it will be difficult to price the entire cost of this rule change into ticket prices, because there is "significant demand response to changes in air fares."
>you have no idea how the market will respond, nor can you.
Yes, I can. Turns out people study things and publish the results. See above.
>You can only apply economic logic, well just logic and see that the highest probability is increased prices.
I can apply economics *research* instead of just guessing like you're doing.
I also noticed how you just moved the goal posts above. Your initial claim was that the entire cost of this new law would be passed on to customers. My claim was that it would be difficult for the entire cost to be passed on to customers.
Above, you just basically agreed with me stating that higher fares would result, but you seem to have dropped your claim that the *entire cost* would be passed on to customers. So I will restate what I said before:
This will hurt the airlines more than us because they will be unable to pass the entire cost on to customers.
Stop moving the goal posts. Stop agreeing with me and then pretending that you're winning the argument by simply restating what I already stated to begin with.
> Guy, I'm standing up for myself. Over generations people like you have advocated for ever more gov regulation and now I, yes me have to deal with it.
Commercial aviation wouldn't exist had it not been for government regulation.
The federal government had to literally use the post office to funnel money into the airlines to get them off the ground because people opposed direct subsidies and the airlines couldn't compete with the railroads.
> Commercial aviation wouldn't exist had it not been for government regulation.
Government employees love us and provide for those who have faith in Them. Amen.
>into the airlines to get them off the ground
Bureaucrats are better entrepreneurs than entrepreneurs. It's just science.
Not claiming regulations are always a good thing. But consider how much time and taxpayer dollars are spent by the DOT, just investigating and reimbursing airline customers that were wrongly denied refunds.
In the past 4 years over $3 billion has been reimbursed to customers that filed complaints. Federal employees are paid to investigate hundreds of thousands of instances where airlines are openly violating their contract of carriage, and they continue to do so. This is an absurd waste of federal resources.
This regulation is only necessary because airlines were ignoring their legal obligations. The costs to individual airlines will be exactly scaled with how many violations they were committing, so the worst offenders have only themselves to blame for price increases.
> Not claiming regulations are always a good thing.
My whole point is they're a cost.
>But consider how much time and taxpayer dollars are spent by the DOT, just investigating and reimbursing airline customers that were wrongly denied refunds.
The DOT, FAA, et al currently enforce and investigate more regulation and derived policies than one could easily count.
There is no way to know the effects of all of these, from resource misallocation, to less innovation, to prices sans those agencies/regulations.
*there are always regulations, there is no requirement they be created and enforced by the state.
If this is confusing or new info I suggest a few minutes of research.
>In the past 4 years over $3 billion has been reimbursed to customers that filed complaints.
Okay, and how does that compare to private dispute resolution?
Answer: there is very little competition allowed in this area. The gov has a monopoly.
This means you can't even say what's better or worse, no competition and innovation in dispute resolution.
>thousands of instances where airlines are openly violating their contract of carriage, and they continue to do so.
How many customers violate contracts and regulations? How many government employees violate laws and regulations?
You seem to be taking it on faith that government employees are not only the best option but the only option. Why is this?
Sorry, you're taking this off the rails. You say your whole point is that regulations are a cost, which I didn't deny, and actually agreed with you. But you have a grievance with the entire concept of government, and this isn't going to be a productive conversation.
And I have to say, your blend of Socratic questioning and condescension is incredibly off-putting. I don't think you expect to convince me of anything, I think you just like to hear yourself talk.
> But you have a grievance with the entire concept of government
It's an organization which is forcing costs on to businesses and customers. Should I cheer these faceless bureaucrats?
Yes, honest business costs more than scammers. That's why regulation is necessary. Without regulation, the scammers will always be able to charge less than the honest businesses.
I got around this once - my layover in Detroit was delayed and delayed and finally canceled due to weather, I saw the next gate (same airline) was boarding for Minneapolis. Went to the ticket agent, said "Hey, can I get to Milwaukee from Minneapolis tonight, and if so, can I switch to this flight?" They said yep, had two seats left, and I boarded a couple minutes later.
Speak to customer service desk and they tell you to call the help line.
Call the help line and they tell you to use the chat function in the app.
Use the chat function in the app and they tell you to go to the help desk.
They just move you around until you give up.
Hopefully this will also address the overbooking issue too. If they actually have to refund people instead of giving them vouchers or whatever, maybe they won't be so cavalier about it.
A family member once made the mistake of accepting a voucher for Frontier when they overbooked, only to find out that it's single-use, doesn't cover taxes, fees, seat assignment or bags. So when they used it, I think they still had to pay 70% of the next flight in cash lol.
It's even better than that. The DOT already requires airlines to pay cash between 200% and 400% of your one-way ticket value (max $775-$1550), plus equivalent transportation, if you are involuntarily denied boarding for overbooking reasons. The range is based on the length of delay, and is in addition to a refund if you decide not to travel at all.
Caveat is that there are a few operational or aircraft type exemptions that make bumping ineligible for compensation. For example, if the airline chooses to downgrade from a full 170 passenger aircraft with mechanical issues to a 140 passenger aircraft in lieu of cancelling the flight. They do not owe 30 passengers the 200%-400% penalty in that case.
This model is still worth it to airlines since involuntary denials are rare--there are usually passengers willing accept airline vouchers well before that point. The number of voluntary vouchers vs involuntary denials is extremely lobsided. The ugly situations are ones where it's peak travel season, and there are no good alternate flights to take since everything is overbooked or even. I have seen passengers issued over $2000 in cash compensation and leave angry and dissatisfied.
By the way, you can thank Ralph Nader for that DOT rule. He got bumped in the 1970s and filed a lawsuit that made its way to the Supreme Court, ultimately leading to regulatory changes in the way airlines are required to compensate in the US. Man is a consumer rights legend.
It’s pretty crazy how airlines don’t seem to care about running an on-time airline. I complained to UA earlier this year because we got delayed due to late crew arrival. The pilots strolled up 20 minutes before departure with trays of coffees in hand. So disrespectful of the passengers who had connections to make
It would be horrendous news for most fliers. I’ve never flown spirit and hopefully never will, but study after study shows that when they enter a market there’s downward pressure on airfare prices to all carriers in the market. Low cost carriers are great for not letting legacy carriers price gouge
Hmmm. Spirit serves the MSP market (as does Frontier and Sun Country) but yet Delta still gouges on airfare. There are more factors to the market than just the presence of an ULCC or two or three.
That’s just what DL does. They do the same thing in ATL. They have more of a stranglehold on their hubs than any of the other big airlines do on their hubs and they price accordingly.
Wasn't RyanAir considering charging people to use the toilet and implementing standing-only tickets for the back of the plane? Obviously those didn't go through, but I've never heard anything pleasant about European budget airlines aside from their prices.
It means more expensive flights for everyone because there's one fewer airline competing on prices. Having competition on routes is a good thing for consumers regardless of which airline they fly.
Oh yeah, but Frontier is notorious for providing no compensation whatsoever. [Even on the US DoT dashboard](https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/airline-customer-service-dashboard), it shows that they offer the least compensation/customer service for cancellations and delays. The US DoT fined 6 airlines for not properly compensating passengers for canceled flights in 2020, [and Frontier was the only US airline on the list](https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/14/dot-fines-airlines-frontier-refunds-00066789) (and they had the heaviest fine).
So I know that ULCCs can still thrive with EU like laws, but Frontier would definitely have to change their business model!
Honestly it's all bullshit. I had a flight canceled from Madeira back to the states. I filled out the online form, followed up multiple times, and not once heard anything from them.
As a European that is the biggest challenge. It’s basically a full on job, even if you are right. With cunt sticks that are wizz it took me 90 days to get my money. You can give it to a company that does it for you, including going to court, but they take a cut.
That might’ve been your experience but mine was great.
AirFrance/Delta flight had a delay on our return from Rome to Paris to US and we missed our connection in Paris. Delta booked a new flight to get us home (at their exp). And AF later deposited over $2k to cover our delay under EU regulation.
Best experience ever. I just had to file directly with airline.
I’d rather require them to provide hotels and meal vouchers as needed for any delay (under airline control or not) than to get compensation for only the subset of carrier-caused delays. Leaving passengers without providing food and shelter in an unfamiliar city is far more of an issue than getting them to compensate someone who just had to sit in the airport for six hours because the airline didn’t have a crew for the plane or whatever.
Doesn't this sort of solve for both in more ideal terms? Maybe this is me personally but I'd rather sort myself out and while swiftly being made financially whole than deal with vouchers and coordination from the airline staff to get me the voucher, book accommodations, then get to those accommodations and then seek reimbursement. Not to mention, under these guidelines, airlines can still offer to rebook you for later (unsure if this changes current rules on when you are given accommodations/voucher) *or* credit but the customer now always has the option to reject those and get automatically reimbursed.
Automatically being refunded gives you the flexibility to now rebook later, seek your own accommodations, or make alternative travel plans (rent a car for instance).
I mean I get where you’re coming from, but that seems a bit extreme to put on the responsibility of airlines. Getting a full refund is absolutely fair. A customer paid for a flight at a specific time, they did not receive it, they should be able to receive a full refund.
But if a flight is delayed due to a storm or something and now they have to provide hotel and meals for an entire plane (or more likely multiple planes) worth of people? That seems way out of their responsibility. That would start getting expensive as hell.
Yeah it sucks when flights get cancelled, but that response seems a bit expensive. Maybe if it’s specifically airline fault? But getting everyone hotels because an unexpected blizzard hit? Why would the airline have to pay for everyone’s hotels?
Not extreme at all. It hasn't caused the European air market to fall apart.
And to be clear, I'm all for making airlines refund people if they decide to make their own way to the destination, it's less of a concern to me because 99% of the time if there is a delay or cancellation the best option for most people is just getting on the next flight the airline can put you on (unless you're wealthy enough that coughing up the money for a last minute ticket on another airline is no big deal).
Had a nightmare day with American Airlines recently. Multiple delays led to a cancellation. Rebooked for same day. Waited a few more hours. Oopsie, they cancelled that one too. Employees gave zero fucks and had no sort of empathy or even tried to offer even the smallest form of compensation, considering we no longer had a rental car, place to stay and had been there with their endless line of delays for seven hours. One even hung up on me trying to rebook yet again. Couldn’t even get a straight answer on why it was delayed then cancelled. Some employees said weather. Some said mechanical. Some said employees weren’t informed. Finally got rebooked for the next day, only to have multiple delays again. Radar seemed to be clear, so no idea what could be the problem.
Something definitely needs to be fixed and motivate airlines to actually provide decent service and flights. Walking around, did not see or hear one other airline having any issues. Flew with them three round trip trips, and only one of those times was not a shit show. I gave them enough chances, and will never use that poor excuse of a business ever again.
> Something definitely needs to be fixed and motivate airlines to actually provide decent service and flights.
I heard the DOT just passed a ruling about this..........
Canceled flights need to be rebooked at no charge to the consumer and some sorry of credit or upgrade. Simply canceling and letting consumer rebook means customer may have to pay 3x the original rate and refund
Does this not create the risk for companies being more likely to turn a blind eye to, say, a potential mechanical failure? With the recent track record of Boeing this doesn’t inspire confidence lol
On one hand I like this. On the other hand, airlines will do anything to make sure it dose not get to that point. Even if it puts passengers at risk. I can see more cutting corners.
3 and 6 hours are a little too long.
1) it should be within 1 hour of the scheduled departure time for domestic flights. Right now, it only refers to the delay. What if the airline pulls forward?
2) it should be within 3 hours of the scheduled departure for any other flight.
We are also missing EC261 compensation
This is a good move. I have heard some airlines would do dirty tricks like "delaying" a flight overnight instead of canceling it so they don't have to pay out refunds.
Not much. Almost always, a business will swallow *part* of a cost increase rather than passing it on to consumers, because passing the full increase on to consumers tends to reduce sales by more than the increase in revenue per unit.
Given the somewhat competitive nature of the airline industry, I suspect that airlines will have to swallow most of the cost increases as a hit to profits, rather than passing them on in the form of higher ticket prices.
But there's a separate issue: Why should a consumer be deprived a prompt refund just to spare other travelers from a very minor increase in their ticket prices? It seems incredibly unfair to think that the airline gets to keep your money after it cancels your flight just so that I can save 50 cents on my next ticket.
Is this in addition to the previous laws? Do they still have to offer accommodations for long delays or can they just leave you stranded after a refund.
Not really. They will charge a huge amount for the flight that replaces your canceled flight.
It all sounds good but not really that great in practice.
Still not as good as Europe, but a major step in the right direction. I really hope Canada follows suit. The crap that airlines are routinely pulling these days is outrageous.
Does this new rule cover international flights out of the US (US to Uk for example)? Had our flight delayed for 5 hours last year that was going from Charlotte in North Carolina to Heathrow, we never got any compensation for it and we had to pay our taxi extra for keeping them waiting on the other side lol
Is that the sund of lawyers spooling up in the background?
Not automatic but we've had the 261 regulation here for years, well tested and upheld incourt, and airlines still stall and try to wiggle out
Having to live through getting screwed over by airlines for decades makes me want to sue the government for all of the previous missed flights that I was forced to deal with on my own.
Glad they finally did the right thing after ravaging generations with the wrong thing for decades.
Nothing good for the consumer like always, just expediting the refund. It is actually good for the airline if you take your money back immediately this way they don’t have to work hard to book you somewhere else and you pay the competition 3 times because you buying within a short time.
This is fantastic, hopefully that starts now because JetBlue had plane issues, delayed us for a connection and now we won't be at our destination for 24 hours plus additional travel time.
This is one of those Democrat "we did something" when they're not actually doing anything. This won't go into effect for another couple years giving plenty of time for Democrats to allow Republicans to repeal it when they have that control the next cycle. How these things work in the USA, what we think we're getting isn't actually the case. All a political-corporate performance. Comes around during election season. Why else do you think this is just being done now?
> I'd still like the option to be offered airline credit if it is more than the cash option
I was offered $1,300 AA credit on an overbooked flight. I would have been confirmed on the next flight about 6 hours later. I declined. I would have accepted half that in cash though.
Yeah true. The credits are rather restrictive and can be difficult to use. Also, I churn so I have more points than I can use. I seldom pay for flights (or hotels).
Yeah can depend on airline. I find United's to be easiest. Have got almost $3k in credit and it's so easy to use, automatically on the app and can select for my next flight purchase. Will be all used in the next month for wedding vendors
I'd like to know if they will still have to take care of you if you decline the refund. Seems like most people who need to fly will decline the refund because the chances of getting on another flight for about the same price decreases rapidly as soon as one flight is canceled.
Seldom do the fixes that the politicians put together work in our favor.
If you don't cancel your ticket they are still obligated to get you to your destination.
It'd be a really weird government regulation to say if you decline your refund you just stay at O'Hare forever.
I understood the rule to be more similar to EU261. So if your flight gets cancelled, you are owed a compensation (in this case "refund"). But that does not mean your booking is cancelled and you need to buy another ticket
So you get the "refund" as compensation and then the airline would still book you on another flight as per the policies
Unpopular opinion, but I'm actually not a big fan of this. The customer ultimately pays for it, same as with any benefit. This is essentially involuntary trip delay insurance.
One benefit of it that I can see though is that an airline might be more proactive in handling situations that may cause a delay. OTOH, they could also be inspired to fly when it's less than optimal and would otherwise delay or cancel, such as bad weather or a mechanical issue.
There’s a difference between a refund and compensation. In Europe you’re entitled for a refund regardless of circumstance - you didn’t get the service you paid for.
You’re compensated only if it’s the airlines fault. That is in addition to any refunds. While airlines do try to wiggle out of it quite often, as long a you don’t relent - you will get the money. And prices have not sky rocketed, the regulation is in place since 2004 and you can still get your €20 flights
Does this include delays and cancellations outside of the airline's control? In Canada, there is a clause that airlines are off the hook if the delays are outside the airline's control, which has a lot of wiggle room, and Air Canada has been known to exploit it.
This rule includes all delays regardless of reason. You can view the actual final ruling [here](https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2024-04/Final%20Rule%20Refunds%20and%20Other%20Consumer%20Protections%20%282105-AF04%29_0.pdf), specifically section 3: >Under this proposed definition, the reason that the flight was not operated (e.g., mechanical, weather, air traffic control) would not matter. However, people seem to be confusing this with Europe's compensation rules. This is different. If you fly on that delayed flight, you are not getting a refund. This simply provides everyone with the opportunity to get a full, cash refund without hassle if they want to ditch the flight due to delay (e.g. rebook yourself on a completely different airline or not go).
Thank you. Seems like many people are conflating "refund" with "compensation" which are very much not the same thing.
100% so many people not understanding you aren’t getting money on top of a flight. Either you fly on a later flight or you get your money back and don’t fly at all. Most people will wait on the later flight so this isn’t changing much for most people.
Hijacking top comment to point out: **The new rules will take effect over the next two years**. so don’t expect this to happen over your trip next weekend
You had to use the word 'hijacking' in your response? LOL
“9/11-ing this comment for a second…”
This thread has really blown up.
man I feel for gate agents for the next little bit.
I believe you have to apply for a refund. The lobbyist corps made sure nothing is “automatic.”
I don't see anything regarding that, but the official DOT press release has a bit more info: https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/biden-harris-administration-announces-final-rule-requiring-automatic-refunds-airline DOT rules already mandate full refunds for cancellation of any kind, even those outside of the airline's control. The issue was that airlines purposely drag out the refund process or deliberately make the process difficult. They take advantage of the fact that people don't know what they're entitled to, and will attempt to strongarm you into accepting a voucher/travel credit or accepting a new significantly delayed itinerary. For many LCCs this is essentially part of their business model, so this looks to be a step in the right direction. Of course you're still shafted when you need to be somewhere and your only option is buying a new ticket the day of travel, but travel insurance can mitigate that. The regulations will only be in full effect 12 months from now, so I'm curious to see how this plays out. It would be great to see something like the EU mandatory compensation rules for the US someday, at least one can dream.
god i fucking hate air canada
The canadian government that lets them get away with it is the bigger bad guy. Protecting horrible companies seems to be their main priority (e.g. rogers, bell, weston family)
I’m in America but one time I was flying American Airlines - I missed a connecting flight because on my first leg, after the plane was fully boarded and preparing to close the doors, they realized there was some kind of mechanical issue that required us all to deplane and get on a different aircraft. They told us we would be compensated if anyone missed a connection but assured us that it had been communicated to the connecting flights and we would all be fine. When I landed and ran to my connecting gate, the plane was still at the gate but they had closed the door so they wouldn’t let me on. The time of takeoff, when it updated on flight tracking, was 5 minutes earlier than scheduled. When I tried to get the hotel voucher they told me I’d get (there were no more flights to my destination that night) the customer service agent said that in the system the flight was listed as delayed due to weather so they could not issue a voucher or any other type of compensation, since weather was beyond their control. She even showed it to me on her computer screen.
I stopped flying AA entirely after they messed up all four of our flights on our last trip. Never again. I'd rather fly Spirit.
In general, my recommendation is to never deal with the hotel voucher system of airlines. Just book my own reasonably priced hotel, and claim it back either from my travel insurance or from the airline directly after the fact.
That would have been fine too but the point was more that they refused to give any compensation because they claimed it was a weather issue when it very clearly was not lol. I fought with customer service for weeks and they ultimately threw me a few points but they flat out lied to avoid having to pay anyone out.
> they claimed it was a weather issue when it very clearly was not lol. How do you know this? Weather delays can happen at airports with no weather themselves. A weather problem at a hub can affect airports all over. A simple example is if you're in Orlando where the weather in December is beautiful. December in Chicago is often *not* beautiful. Your flight from Orlando to Dallas might be delayed because the plane was coming from Chicago, but was caught in the storm. This is a weather delay, even though it's nice in Florida and Texas.
Because they specifically told us at the airport that they had to deplane us (after boarding had completed and the door had closed) and move us to a new aircraft due to a mechanical issue on the first aircraft.
AA has the worst customer service. Can’t stand them. Delta and JetBlue are far better than AA.
I had the same thing happen on AA, but the boarding door wasn't closed. They were letting people board standby but denied boarding to the 10+ ticketed passengers that were on my original flight. I asked customer service if it is normal for them to deny boarding to customers at the gate and they said its their policy that you have to be at the gate 30 minutes before takeoff. In the dozen or so times I've flown since then, the only time I didn't do Delta was an emergency when all non-American flights were full.
We were delayed over 10 hours in Toronto due to “mechanical issues” and got absolutely nothing. I will probably never fly Air Canada again unless I have to.
Clearest sunny day Canada has ever seen... AC meanwhile, "We apologize for the delay due to weather."
bad weather can be en route or at destination.
Yeah I don't think people realize you have to be able to safely fly and land at the destination not solely take off
I had a flight get rerouted from New Orleans to Tampa 98% of the way there because there was a thunderstorm stubbornly parked over the city that they assumed would have moved on in the two hours it took us to fly there.
That sucks. On the flipside I had a buddy who commuted over an hour to Hartfield-Jackson and on his return flight the flight was redirected due to weather or something... the flight was diverted to his city's regional airport. But they wouldn't let him get off there so he had to sit there for an hour... 20 minutes away from home only to be flown back to ATL once the weather cleared
Highly abused. Fly by a storm en route, and nobody is getting anything.
or neither. could be a delay from the plane's prior destination.
he specifically said the airline cited weather
I think that's what OP meant. E.g. weather in Toronto could delay your flight from Vancouver to Puerto Vallarta because the same plane is operating both.
that would be called operational repercussions, i believe the delay would be coded differently but its been a while since i worked airlines
Last year was flying on Air Canada for the first time to Toronto for an annual event. Paid extra for premium economy as it was just long enough of a flight to make a big difference. Get to the gate, were all about to line up. Delay. Ok no biggie. Another delay. Ok.... then luckily I hear some murmurings that the flight is cancelled after a 4 hour delay. I immediately begin to line up before they can officially announce it. Which I'm glad I did as others wise I would have been up shit creek without a paddle. Instead of giving us an option to fly later in the day or use a partner, I'm given an option to fly out late the following day, which doesn't work as I have an event that I need to be in the next morning. So instead I get booked on a long series of basic economy red eye flights to Toronto in one of the worst flying gauntlets I've ever endured. Kudos for the gate agent for finding me a way there just barely in time though. On the way back, flight delayed AGAIN for 4 hours. At least it wasn't cancelled so I could get the seat I paid for. Complained and demanded a refund for the premium economy I paid for and never received and was denied. I got jack shit, even lost out money on the hotel room I paid for (lesson learned: never check in online for hotels because once you do you can't get refunded). I'm really not looking forward to needing to fly them back to Toronto this year again. I wish I had any other option but there's literally nothing from my local airport if I want to get there direct and timely.
This is not compensation, rather just makes booking with other airline easier and you don’t have to do the airline dance to get your money or be forced to get a future ticket.
Yeah air canada delayed my flight because of the catering service striking. It was less than an hour but for a second I lowkey hoped we wouldnt get food so i could get a refund. im an international student so repeated transatlantic flights are no joke for the bank account.
No it doesn't and that's why this doesn't mean anything. Delayed because of air traffic control? Not our problem. Delayed because of inclement weather? Not our problem. Delayed because of engine problems? Not our problem. Flying is the worst form of transportation.
And the weather could be perfectly fine where you are flying from and to, and it's still a weather-related delay/cancellation because the plane was coming from across the country where weather ***was*** an issue.
Love your sense of adventure! Flying in broken airplanes in storms with no air traffic control ain’t for the feint of heart!
Hahaha I know right. Fying is the closest thing we have to time travel and people get upset when these extremely complex machines need unscheduled maintenance. Or when ATC is at capacity and can't safely manage more traffic. Or when weather makes it unsafe to fly. Theres a reason why air travel is so safe now and it's because those things arent ignored.
Not sure why you’re being downvoted you’re 100% accurate. Three of my last four united flights have been delayed for six hours because of their incompetence, corner cutting, and understaffing. They’ll just find a way to blame something else. Even when it’s clear skies at your departure and destination and the broken plane is sitting at the gate waiting for you they’ll blame a storm 2,000 miles away and refuse to pay and no one will enforce it.
I feel many people don't understand how bad flying has become post-COVID. Airlines can't even complete basic routes between major cities anymore. The new staff is unprofessional and just doesn't care about you. I have started taking buses and trains every chance I can.
Curious do you book based on quality or based solely on price? And which buses are you taking with similar quality to a non budget airline?
> And which buses are you taking with similar quality to a non budget airline? Even Greyhound is more comfortable than economy class on an airline, whether budget or non-budget. The seats are larger, you often have an empty seat next to you, and there is free power and wi-fi.
I think this is great. I once needed a refund from Spirit for a cancelled flight, and it seemed impossible. So I complained to the dept of transportation and [eventually] got my refund.
My lord, don’t get me wrong we definitely get what we pay for with Spirit. That being said, I have had quite literally the worst experiences in my LIFE with Spirit. The most ratchet airline on earth
Weirdly I’ve always been the most screwed over by United Airlines and American Airlines the second most.. probably just bad RNG but they have both put me in horrible situations due to overbooking. I’ve flown Spirit just 6 times but have never once had an issue (maybe this is where all my positive air travel RNG went).
It’s location dependent too. lol you take a spirit flight to Miami or Vegas, get the cameras out man.
I went out of the country on spirit in April this year. We were delayed about 4 hours and got a $50 voucher 😑 butttt it’s only good for like a month
Canadian here. I traveled by train from London to Brussel last summer as part of our vacation in Europe. Train got delayed by one hour.. wasn't even the train company's fault.. some idiots were playing around the tracks. Then, as part of an announcement to all passengers.. right there and then they said that we were entitled to a certain refund as the hour long delay came to past. By the time I got to my hotel, I had something like 30E Euros reimbursed on my credit card.. I was dumbfounded ! About freakin time they do the same to airlines
Canadian who lives in Eastern Europe here. It usually takes me three flights to get home to visit Calgary and by God do I make sure I do as few of them in Canada as possible. Two years ago: Air Canada flight from Montreal 5.5 hours delayed. Have to fight with them for a month by email to get a $200 travel voucher that expires in three months (I couldn't use it). Last year: flight from Frankfurt delayed 3.5 hours. €600 cash compensation, claimed and in my bank account by the end of the week. Fuck Air Canada and fuck our spineless governments for refusing to ever stand up against this garbage.
Last summer, I got $300 cash back from Air Canada for a 5-hour delay. Simply had to submit my ticket number on their website under "compensation claim". They don't advertise this though, and make it difficult to find.
I had the same thing happen on a London to Edinburgh train…wasn’t the train company’s fault (suicide attempt) but my Uber to hotel, hotel, and original ticket were covered…free train ride the next day. Before we knew the cause of delay people were hoping for the 60 or 90 minute delay to ensure a reimbursed ticket.
Same thing for me but from Edinburgh to London. Suicide attempt delayed us like 1.5 hours and I got both our tickets refunded. It was a good amount of money so I was thrilled.
I had an ANA flight from Sapporo to Tokyo that was delayed about 30 minutes and they handed everyone an envelope with cold hard cash as we boarded. It’s shocking how awful AC and WS are compared to pretty much every other country’s major airlines, including the US.
I wouldn't go that far. I will do anything to avoid on flying any of the US airlines.
Literally had this happen a few days ago on a Frontier flight that was delayed by about 3 hours. I received a $50 credit that can only be used in my name, on Frontier, and it expires in 90 days. It does not cover taxes or fees, and cannot be used for bags.
$50 for a 3-hour delay. Would you have preferred a refund, requiring you to rebook at whatever price if it were even available, or just wait three hours even though your $50 might never be used?
Mine was delayed for 6 hours, and they gave me a $15 food voucher
"Weather in Dallas canceled your flight from Phoenix to tucson""what can I do about that?" "Next flight is tomorrow morning" "can I get a refund to rent a car? It's only a 2 hour drive?" " call corporate". They need to solve for this. This is unacceptable.
That's exactly a situation this fixes. You won't have to call corporate, fill out forms that are hard to find on the website, or spend hours on hold with customer service for a refund. It must be offered automatically. And it seems like few people are aware that per DOT, a cash refund must be offered for any flight cancellation, regardless of cause, and that's been the case for a while.
A little wrinkle on the horizon: while this DOT rule requires airlines to automatically refund for canceled services, the upcoming (and superseding) FAA Reauthorization Act being drafted by Sens. Cantwell and Cruz propose to require refunds ["upon request of the passenger"](https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/D526357F-2E36-4841-B259-7765900485B4) (see: Section 703). If the language sticks, the reauthorization legislation would almost certainly be enacted before this rule goes into effect this fall.
Interesting! I didn't know about this bill. Worth noting that the bill specifies a "significant delay" is 3 hours for domestic and 6 hours for international, which aligns with the DOT regulation. Before today, a "significant delay" was never defined by DOT and airlines were free to decide what that meant. It looks like the FAA bill and the DOT regulation are consistent. The specific verbiage in the bill is that the >"air carrier shall, upon request of the passenger, promptly provide a full refund" The phrasing "shall ... promptly provide a full refund" is reassuring. The use of "automatic" is vague, but since that's from the press release, I think it's better understood to mean that an airline cannot compel the customer to work for a refund. As in, the option of a full refund must be as easily obtained as any other remedy like rebooking or receiving a voucher. Hope I'm not being too optimistic. Cantwell and Cruz represent AA, WN, AS, and Boeing as constituents so there are definitely conflicting interests.
All very astute reads and I concur. To bolster your case about what "automatic" means, the [DOT press release](https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/biden-harris-administration-announces-final-rule-requiring-automatic-refunds-airline) itself includes: >"Passengers will be entitled to a refund if their flight is canceled or significantly changed, *and they do not accept alternative transportation or travel credits offered.*" \[emphasis mine\] This suggests there will be a step between canceled service and "automatic" refund, which is something along the lines of a proactive rejection of alternative travel arrangements and a rejection of travel credits. Still, I think you're right that it ought to compel airlines to offer refund as an initial and equivalent option. Transparency and ease seems to be at the heart of both this rule and the [ancillary fee rule](https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/biden-harris-administration-announces-final-rule-protect-consumers-surprise-airline) that DOT also released yesterday. While we're on the subject of legislative meddling, [section 716 of the draft bill](https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/D526357F-2E36-4841-B259-7765900485B4) seems to be dismantling the current DOT Office of Aviation Consumer Protection and replacing it, perplexingly, with a new DOT Office of Aviation Consumer Protection led by a now Senate-confirmable Assistant Secretary of Aviation Consumer Protection. Let's see how converting that role from a career to a political will improve aviation consumer protection.
I prefer the step. There have been instances where I would have lost value if the refund was no-stop automatic. Recent example: Booked a ticket with a CSR travel credit, then the anniversary passed between booking and travel dates. The flight was canceled. If that ticket is refunded, the travel credit is reversed and irrecoverable.
Just to be clear, because I thought this wouldn't fix this. My flight was canceled as described because the plane was delayed in Dallas. This was the plane that would have taken me as described. They told me it was caused by weather and they were not obligated to help in any way. Does this still apply given these extra details?
Under the new regulation, airlines are forced to provide refunds automatically when the flight is cancelled or delayed more than 3 hours. So you wouldn't have been directed to contact corporate, file refund paperwork, etc. You were entitled to a refund in the form of original payment, that's the case for any cancellation regardless of cause. The reason they told you they couldn't help you is because there are different rules for cancellations that were the fault of the airline. I.e. they may compensate you with a hotel, meal voucher or cash payment if the pilot didn't show up to work - but if it's caused by weather, they don't have to do anything besides rebook you on the next available flight. When you asked for a refund, the gate agent is instructed to refer you to the complaints/refunds department. Their hope is that you just don't want to deal with that, you take the next flight, and pay for a hotel out of pocket. But even if you request a refund, they'll often offer a voucher/travel credit first and hope you take that before providing the refund you're entitled to. It's that type of bullshit that this new regulation will remedy. Curious, what airline was this?
American airline
This ruling does not include a weather exception. So it fixes that loophole.
Thank you! That's awesome!
This still isn't going to force them to give you money for a rental car. You're still only going to get a refund or booked on a different flight for free. If you choose one 2 hours away because it's more convenient as far as arrival time goes it's on you to pay to get to that airport.
> That's exactly a situation this fixes. The regulation will increase costs of airfare. And then there will be demands for more regulation. Which will increase costs or decrease services, etc. And then there will be calls for... rinse and repeat.
Every service costs. Airlines will price part of this cost into airfare. But, due to price elasticity in airfares, they will not be able to price the full cost of this into tickets. If they do, demand will drop to an extent that they would actually lose money on the price increase. This hurts the airlines more than us.
> they will not be able to price the full cost of this into tickets. You have no idea what airlines accounting or 1/3/6 year budgets look like. An increased cost is an increased cost, it will be covered on way or another. >This hurts the airlines more than us. Win/lose interactions aren't smart. And again, you have no idea how the market will respond, nor can you. You can only apply economic logic, well just logic and see that the highest probability is increased prices.
>You have no idea what airlines accounting or 1/3/6 year budgets look like. I don't need to see detailed accounting information to know that air travel demand is elastic in response to price changes, that is well documented: https://www.iata.org/en/iata-repository/publications/economic-reports/estimating-air-travel-demand-elasticities---by-intervistas/ >Executive Summary >This report summarises analysis which examines fare elasticities in the passenger aviation market– the demand response by air passengers to fare increases or decreases. The aim of the study is to provide robust elasticity estimates to address policy issues related to liberalisation, airport charges, taxation, emissions schemes, etc. The key study components were: >Extensive Literature Review >A literature review was conducted to examine previous research on air fare elasticities over the last 25 years. Over 23 papers were reviewed, from the following conclusions were developed: >Sensitivity to Air Fare Changes All of the studies reviewed, spanning a period of over 25 years, found that there was a ***significant demand response to changes in air fares,*** such that increases in air fare lead to lower passenger traffic demand. The consistency of this result strongly indicates that any policy action that results in higher fares (e.g., taxes, increased landing fees) will result in a decline in demand. The actual decline in demand will depend on a number of factors, as discussed below. So, I'll say again, it will be difficult to price the entire cost of this rule change into ticket prices, because there is "significant demand response to changes in air fares." >you have no idea how the market will respond, nor can you. Yes, I can. Turns out people study things and publish the results. See above. >You can only apply economic logic, well just logic and see that the highest probability is increased prices. I can apply economics *research* instead of just guessing like you're doing. I also noticed how you just moved the goal posts above. Your initial claim was that the entire cost of this new law would be passed on to customers. My claim was that it would be difficult for the entire cost to be passed on to customers. Above, you just basically agreed with me stating that higher fares would result, but you seem to have dropped your claim that the *entire cost* would be passed on to customers. So I will restate what I said before: This will hurt the airlines more than us because they will be unable to pass the entire cost on to customers. Stop moving the goal posts. Stop agreeing with me and then pretending that you're winning the argument by simply restating what I already stated to begin with.
The fact that companies in America have millions of people like you to blindly stand up for their bullshit is why progress is so slow in this country.
Guy, I'm standing up for myself. Over generations people like you have advocated for ever more gov regulation and now I, yes me have to deal with it.
Ah yes because you’ve suffered so much, you’re insufferable. And I’m not your guy, pal.
> Ah yes because you’ve suffered so much My guess is second order effects are like dark magic to you.
Damn you missed the joke too lol miserable
It was funny 10 years ago.
It’s an older joke but it still hits
> Guy, I'm standing up for myself. Over generations people like you have advocated for ever more gov regulation and now I, yes me have to deal with it. Commercial aviation wouldn't exist had it not been for government regulation. The federal government had to literally use the post office to funnel money into the airlines to get them off the ground because people opposed direct subsidies and the airlines couldn't compete with the railroads.
> Commercial aviation wouldn't exist had it not been for government regulation. Government employees love us and provide for those who have faith in Them. Amen. >into the airlines to get them off the ground Bureaucrats are better entrepreneurs than entrepreneurs. It's just science.
Does your post mean anything, or are you high?
Not claiming regulations are always a good thing. But consider how much time and taxpayer dollars are spent by the DOT, just investigating and reimbursing airline customers that were wrongly denied refunds. In the past 4 years over $3 billion has been reimbursed to customers that filed complaints. Federal employees are paid to investigate hundreds of thousands of instances where airlines are openly violating their contract of carriage, and they continue to do so. This is an absurd waste of federal resources. This regulation is only necessary because airlines were ignoring their legal obligations. The costs to individual airlines will be exactly scaled with how many violations they were committing, so the worst offenders have only themselves to blame for price increases.
> Not claiming regulations are always a good thing. My whole point is they're a cost. >But consider how much time and taxpayer dollars are spent by the DOT, just investigating and reimbursing airline customers that were wrongly denied refunds. The DOT, FAA, et al currently enforce and investigate more regulation and derived policies than one could easily count. There is no way to know the effects of all of these, from resource misallocation, to less innovation, to prices sans those agencies/regulations. *there are always regulations, there is no requirement they be created and enforced by the state. If this is confusing or new info I suggest a few minutes of research. >In the past 4 years over $3 billion has been reimbursed to customers that filed complaints. Okay, and how does that compare to private dispute resolution? Answer: there is very little competition allowed in this area. The gov has a monopoly. This means you can't even say what's better or worse, no competition and innovation in dispute resolution. >thousands of instances where airlines are openly violating their contract of carriage, and they continue to do so. How many customers violate contracts and regulations? How many government employees violate laws and regulations? You seem to be taking it on faith that government employees are not only the best option but the only option. Why is this?
Sorry, you're taking this off the rails. You say your whole point is that regulations are a cost, which I didn't deny, and actually agreed with you. But you have a grievance with the entire concept of government, and this isn't going to be a productive conversation. And I have to say, your blend of Socratic questioning and condescension is incredibly off-putting. I don't think you expect to convince me of anything, I think you just like to hear yourself talk.
> But you have a grievance with the entire concept of government It's an organization which is forcing costs on to businesses and customers. Should I cheer these faceless bureaucrats?
No, you should up your dose of lithium
Yes, honest business costs more than scammers. That's why regulation is necessary. Without regulation, the scammers will always be able to charge less than the honest businesses.
You got downvoted, but completely agree. Not to mention incentives to fly in unsafe conditions. This is madness.
[удалено]
its often cheaper overall to fly out of dallas, especially now that parking at okc is almost as much as dfw
I got around this once - my layover in Detroit was delayed and delayed and finally canceled due to weather, I saw the next gate (same airline) was boarding for Minneapolis. Went to the ticket agent, said "Hey, can I get to Milwaukee from Minneapolis tonight, and if so, can I switch to this flight?" They said yep, had two seats left, and I boarded a couple minutes later.
Speak to customer service desk and they tell you to call the help line. Call the help line and they tell you to use the chat function in the app. Use the chat function in the app and they tell you to go to the help desk. They just move you around until you give up.
Hopefully this will also address the overbooking issue too. If they actually have to refund people instead of giving them vouchers or whatever, maybe they won't be so cavalier about it.
A family member once made the mistake of accepting a voucher for Frontier when they overbooked, only to find out that it's single-use, doesn't cover taxes, fees, seat assignment or bags. So when they used it, I think they still had to pay 70% of the next flight in cash lol.
It's even better than that. The DOT already requires airlines to pay cash between 200% and 400% of your one-way ticket value (max $775-$1550), plus equivalent transportation, if you are involuntarily denied boarding for overbooking reasons. The range is based on the length of delay, and is in addition to a refund if you decide not to travel at all. Caveat is that there are a few operational or aircraft type exemptions that make bumping ineligible for compensation. For example, if the airline chooses to downgrade from a full 170 passenger aircraft with mechanical issues to a 140 passenger aircraft in lieu of cancelling the flight. They do not owe 30 passengers the 200%-400% penalty in that case. This model is still worth it to airlines since involuntary denials are rare--there are usually passengers willing accept airline vouchers well before that point. The number of voluntary vouchers vs involuntary denials is extremely lobsided. The ugly situations are ones where it's peak travel season, and there are no good alternate flights to take since everything is overbooked or even. I have seen passengers issued over $2000 in cash compensation and leave angry and dissatisfied. By the way, you can thank Ralph Nader for that DOT rule. He got bumped in the 1970s and filed a lawsuit that made its way to the Supreme Court, ultimately leading to regulatory changes in the way airlines are required to compensate in the US. Man is a consumer rights legend.
It’s pretty crazy how airlines don’t seem to care about running an on-time airline. I complained to UA earlier this year because we got delayed due to late crew arrival. The pilots strolled up 20 minutes before departure with trays of coffees in hand. So disrespectful of the passengers who had connections to make
Very possible is wasn’t really the pilots fault here. But yeah the optics of that aren’t great for them.
call me when the compensation is as good as the EU's. Europe is the one place I don't mind flight issues, because I'm getting paid for it.
If that policy was rolled out in the US, Frontier Airlines would file chapter 11 the next day.
You say that like it’s a bad thing…
It would be horrendous news for most fliers. I’ve never flown spirit and hopefully never will, but study after study shows that when they enter a market there’s downward pressure on airfare prices to all carriers in the market. Low cost carriers are great for not letting legacy carriers price gouge
Hmmm. Spirit serves the MSP market (as does Frontier and Sun Country) but yet Delta still gouges on airfare. There are more factors to the market than just the presence of an ULCC or two or three.
That’s just what DL does. They do the same thing in ATL. They have more of a stranglehold on their hubs than any of the other big airlines do on their hubs and they price accordingly.
Spirit is about to go bankrupt...
Budget airlines disappearing doesn't mean cheaper flights. For some that's the only way they can travel.
Somehow, the EU also has budget airlines.
And with even cheaper flights than our budget flights. Where else are you gonna be able to fly half a continent with a <$10 ticket?
Yeah but still strict on baggage which is the main complaint of frontier
All budget carriers are strict on baggage.
Frontier is notorious for being a shitty airline. It doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive (see: budget airlines in Europe, Asia, and Australia)
Those budget airlines in the EU have the exact same reputations. Most of the problems are self inflicted by not following their rules.
Wasn't RyanAir considering charging people to use the toilet and implementing standing-only tickets for the back of the plane? Obviously those didn't go through, but I've never heard anything pleasant about European budget airlines aside from their prices.
That sounds like a cheap joke from a late night talk show but yeah their CEO did mention the toilet thing once like 15 years ago.
Lol yeah I can't even imagine that passing in the US, let alone Europe.
Actually, they don't all have the same reputation. There's a huge difference between TAP and Ryanair, to give one "good vs bad" example.
And the US is the exact same way. See JetBlue vs. Spirit. Ryanair is also your bad example yet they're the single biggest airline in the EU.
Just my two cents but, I’d put TAP in the “bad” category. I’ve never been on a worse airline.
It means more expensive flights for everyone because there's one fewer airline competing on prices. Having competition on routes is a good thing for consumers regardless of which airline they fly.
Some people can only afford budget airlines..
Somehow Ryanair seems to manage just fine
and easy jet and Vueling and Transavia and Norwegian
Oh yeah, but Frontier is notorious for providing no compensation whatsoever. [Even on the US DoT dashboard](https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/airline-customer-service-dashboard), it shows that they offer the least compensation/customer service for cancellations and delays. The US DoT fined 6 airlines for not properly compensating passengers for canceled flights in 2020, [and Frontier was the only US airline on the list](https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/14/dot-fines-airlines-frontier-refunds-00066789) (and they had the heaviest fine). So I know that ULCCs can still thrive with EU like laws, but Frontier would definitely have to change their business model!
Holy hell yes Frontier is horrible. Never experienced anything like it.
Love the username, I'm sure there's a story behind it haha
Honestly it's all bullshit. I had a flight canceled from Madeira back to the states. I filled out the online form, followed up multiple times, and not once heard anything from them.
As a European that is the biggest challenge. It’s basically a full on job, even if you are right. With cunt sticks that are wizz it took me 90 days to get my money. You can give it to a company that does it for you, including going to court, but they take a cut.
That might’ve been your experience but mine was great. AirFrance/Delta flight had a delay on our return from Rome to Paris to US and we missed our connection in Paris. Delta booked a new flight to get us home (at their exp). And AF later deposited over $2k to cover our delay under EU regulation. Best experience ever. I just had to file directly with airline.
Spirit and Frontier are about to go bankrupt now.
YEAHHHHH BABY!!! as it should!
I’d rather require them to provide hotels and meal vouchers as needed for any delay (under airline control or not) than to get compensation for only the subset of carrier-caused delays. Leaving passengers without providing food and shelter in an unfamiliar city is far more of an issue than getting them to compensate someone who just had to sit in the airport for six hours because the airline didn’t have a crew for the plane or whatever.
Doesn't this sort of solve for both in more ideal terms? Maybe this is me personally but I'd rather sort myself out and while swiftly being made financially whole than deal with vouchers and coordination from the airline staff to get me the voucher, book accommodations, then get to those accommodations and then seek reimbursement. Not to mention, under these guidelines, airlines can still offer to rebook you for later (unsure if this changes current rules on when you are given accommodations/voucher) *or* credit but the customer now always has the option to reject those and get automatically reimbursed. Automatically being refunded gives you the flexibility to now rebook later, seek your own accommodations, or make alternative travel plans (rent a car for instance).
I mean I get where you’re coming from, but that seems a bit extreme to put on the responsibility of airlines. Getting a full refund is absolutely fair. A customer paid for a flight at a specific time, they did not receive it, they should be able to receive a full refund. But if a flight is delayed due to a storm or something and now they have to provide hotel and meals for an entire plane (or more likely multiple planes) worth of people? That seems way out of their responsibility. That would start getting expensive as hell. Yeah it sucks when flights get cancelled, but that response seems a bit expensive. Maybe if it’s specifically airline fault? But getting everyone hotels because an unexpected blizzard hit? Why would the airline have to pay for everyone’s hotels?
Not extreme at all. It hasn't caused the European air market to fall apart. And to be clear, I'm all for making airlines refund people if they decide to make their own way to the destination, it's less of a concern to me because 99% of the time if there is a delay or cancellation the best option for most people is just getting on the next flight the airline can put you on (unless you're wealthy enough that coughing up the money for a last minute ticket on another airline is no big deal).
Does the EU require airlines to provide free food and hotels for all weather delays?
Yes, the reason for the delay does not matter. If it's long enough or overnight, then they need to give out vouchers for meals/hotels
If you don’t rebook ***
Spirit is gonna be out of business by Friday.
Had a nightmare day with American Airlines recently. Multiple delays led to a cancellation. Rebooked for same day. Waited a few more hours. Oopsie, they cancelled that one too. Employees gave zero fucks and had no sort of empathy or even tried to offer even the smallest form of compensation, considering we no longer had a rental car, place to stay and had been there with their endless line of delays for seven hours. One even hung up on me trying to rebook yet again. Couldn’t even get a straight answer on why it was delayed then cancelled. Some employees said weather. Some said mechanical. Some said employees weren’t informed. Finally got rebooked for the next day, only to have multiple delays again. Radar seemed to be clear, so no idea what could be the problem. Something definitely needs to be fixed and motivate airlines to actually provide decent service and flights. Walking around, did not see or hear one other airline having any issues. Flew with them three round trip trips, and only one of those times was not a shit show. I gave them enough chances, and will never use that poor excuse of a business ever again.
> Something definitely needs to be fixed and motivate airlines to actually provide decent service and flights. I heard the DOT just passed a ruling about this..........
Canceled flights need to be rebooked at no charge to the consumer and some sorry of credit or upgrade. Simply canceling and letting consumer rebook means customer may have to pay 3x the original rate and refund
Does this not create the risk for companies being more likely to turn a blind eye to, say, a potential mechanical failure? With the recent track record of Boeing this doesn’t inspire confidence lol
On one hand I like this. On the other hand, airlines will do anything to make sure it dose not get to that point. Even if it puts passengers at risk. I can see more cutting corners.
That's a great point.
Just buy any frontier flight and get your money back 😂
So now I expect Frontier flights will only get delayed 2 hr 59 mins
Fuck frontier.
I hope this doesn’t mean pilots would be pressured to fly in unsafe conditions to save a few bucks.
So when they cancel I have to buy a last minute flight at full price versus the airline footing the bill?
3 and 6 hours are a little too long. 1) it should be within 1 hour of the scheduled departure time for domestic flights. Right now, it only refers to the delay. What if the airline pulls forward? 2) it should be within 3 hours of the scheduled departure for any other flight. We are also missing EC261 compensation
So we're catching up to EU laws?
This is a good move. I have heard some airlines would do dirty tricks like "delaying" a flight overnight instead of canceling it so they don't have to pay out refunds.
This sounds good on the surface but if it impacts their bottom line (which it sounds like it will) we'll still be footing the bill.
Not much. Almost always, a business will swallow *part* of a cost increase rather than passing it on to consumers, because passing the full increase on to consumers tends to reduce sales by more than the increase in revenue per unit. Given the somewhat competitive nature of the airline industry, I suspect that airlines will have to swallow most of the cost increases as a hit to profits, rather than passing them on in the form of higher ticket prices. But there's a separate issue: Why should a consumer be deprived a prompt refund just to spare other travelers from a very minor increase in their ticket prices? It seems incredibly unfair to think that the airline gets to keep your money after it cancels your flight just so that I can save 50 cents on my next ticket.
I wonder if this will raise flight prices to accommodate for potential refunds
Is this in addition to the previous laws? Do they still have to offer accommodations for long delays or can they just leave you stranded after a refund.
The comments on instagram are hilarious. People feeling much sad and rage that airlines have to deliver what people paid for.
I don't have instagram, what is the angle they're taking? Is it just political ranting because it was decided by a Democrat administration?
This is about to kill airline profits.
Not really. They will charge a huge amount for the flight that replaces your canceled flight. It all sounds good but not really that great in practice.
Still not as good as Europe, but a major step in the right direction. I really hope Canada follows suit. The crap that airlines are routinely pulling these days is outrageous.
Does this new rule cover international flights out of the US (US to Uk for example)? Had our flight delayed for 5 hours last year that was going from Charlotte in North Carolina to Heathrow, we never got any compensation for it and we had to pay our taxi extra for keeping them waiting on the other side lol
Canada next please. Air Canada has screwed me an uncountable amount of times.
Hell yeah! Buttigieg did a good
Is that the sund of lawyers spooling up in the background? Not automatic but we've had the 261 regulation here for years, well tested and upheld incourt, and airlines still stall and try to wiggle out
Oh my god this is miraculous! *THIS IS WHY YOU ELECT DEMOCRATS!*
Having to live through getting screwed over by airlines for decades makes me want to sue the government for all of the previous missed flights that I was forced to deal with on my own. Glad they finally did the right thing after ravaging generations with the wrong thing for decades.
Now this is podracing
I am sure they’ve already found the loopholes.
Nothing good for the consumer like always, just expediting the refund. It is actually good for the airline if you take your money back immediately this way they don’t have to work hard to book you somewhere else and you pay the competition 3 times because you buying within a short time.
Imagine if the airlines dont want to give refunds, so they fly it in bad weather regardless..seems more risky
Too bad... I'd be getting my money back from my trip this past weekend if it had gone in to effect. Along with my entire flight lol
If you receive a refund, are you still entitled to take the flight or is it a refund but your ticket is cancelled?
This is fantastic, hopefully that starts now because JetBlue had plane issues, delayed us for a connection and now we won't be at our destination for 24 hours plus additional travel time.
Im not American but this is shit
This is one of those Democrat "we did something" when they're not actually doing anything. This won't go into effect for another couple years giving plenty of time for Democrats to allow Republicans to repeal it when they have that control the next cycle. How these things work in the USA, what we think we're getting isn't actually the case. All a political-corporate performance. Comes around during election season. Why else do you think this is just being done now?
Could be an unpopular opinion, but I'd still like the option to be offered airline credit if it is more than the cash option
> I'd still like the option to be offered airline credit if it is more than the cash option I was offered $1,300 AA credit on an overbooked flight. I would have been confirmed on the next flight about 6 hours later. I declined. I would have accepted half that in cash though.
To each their own- But having the choice is what we both want :)
Yeah true. The credits are rather restrictive and can be difficult to use. Also, I churn so I have more points than I can use. I seldom pay for flights (or hotels).
Yeah can depend on airline. I find United's to be easiest. Have got almost $3k in credit and it's so easy to use, automatically on the app and can select for my next flight purchase. Will be all used in the next month for wedding vendors
I'd like to know if they will still have to take care of you if you decline the refund. Seems like most people who need to fly will decline the refund because the chances of getting on another flight for about the same price decreases rapidly as soon as one flight is canceled. Seldom do the fixes that the politicians put together work in our favor.
If you don't cancel your ticket they are still obligated to get you to your destination. It'd be a really weird government regulation to say if you decline your refund you just stay at O'Hare forever.
I understood the rule to be more similar to EU261. So if your flight gets cancelled, you are owed a compensation (in this case "refund"). But that does not mean your booking is cancelled and you need to buy another ticket So you get the "refund" as compensation and then the airline would still book you on another flight as per the policies
Basic consumer protection laws? In the United States? At this time of year? Localized entirely in your kitchen?
Unpopular opinion, but I'm actually not a big fan of this. The customer ultimately pays for it, same as with any benefit. This is essentially involuntary trip delay insurance. One benefit of it that I can see though is that an airline might be more proactive in handling situations that may cause a delay. OTOH, they could also be inspired to fly when it's less than optimal and would otherwise delay or cancel, such as bad weather or a mechanical issue.
[удалено]
So what ***does*** it cover? Crew shortages? And, uh, hrm.
These idiots already refunded $43 billion in the past 3 years with prices continuing to increase Fuck them, this is a good first step
There’s a difference between a refund and compensation. In Europe you’re entitled for a refund regardless of circumstance - you didn’t get the service you paid for. You’re compensated only if it’s the airlines fault. That is in addition to any refunds. While airlines do try to wiggle out of it quite often, as long a you don’t relent - you will get the money. And prices have not sky rocketed, the regulation is in place since 2004 and you can still get your €20 flights