View Single Post
  #8  
Old Mar 19, 2014, 12:33 AM
Der Richter Der Richter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 62

Originally Posted by azstar View Post
Most airline employees don't have a clue what's in their contract of carriage. The benefit of flying a traditional carrier with multiple ticketing agreements is that many (if not most) agents will put you on another carrier right away if your flight is significantly delayed or cancelled just to get you away from them. I've had many airport agents transfer me to another carrier even when the delay is due to weather.
Sure, so have I ... so what? The point is not what an agent may do that they aren't required to do. It is, rather, the apparent belief in a rule 240 that does not, in fact, exist. Its one thing to ask an airline to do something, its quite another to expect an airline to follow a fictitious government policy.

Rule 240 was never a uniform, government-imposed rule that applied to all US airlines. During the era of regulation the U.S. government required all airlines to submit tariffs containing fares, fare conditions, etc. In the old standardized tariff system, paragraph 240 of every airline's tariff dealt with airline responsibilities in the event of delay or cancellation. The rule stated in paragraph 240 was always self-imposed. Airlines were free to set their own conditions, but once set they had to abide by them. Post deregulation, airlines were no longer required to file domestic tariffs. The continued reference to rule 240 is simply false information propagated by ill-informed individuals. It serves no purpose to expect airlines to follow a long obsolete system. An airline's failure to do so is certainly no basis for complaint. Flying under an expectation that any airline will be governed by rule 240 is simply culpable ignorance.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook