Hacker News Reader

Comment by janalsncm | Hacker News Reader

Good. Company outsources customer “service” to a completely unreliable piece of software, which goes to show how much they care about their customers. And then they argue in court that customers shouldn’t even trust their own software! So essentially they have increased profits by cutting customer service jobs, replaced humans with a stochastic parrot, and now don’t want to be responsible for the drawbacks of this decision. They want all of the upside and none of the downside.

View on HN

Most likely they will just add to the chat bot answers a "Please make sure to double check our policy at $URL - Only our policy applies".

I really hope that wouldn’t get them out of it. In that case, Air Canada would still be misrepresenting their policies. Misrepresenting Air Canada policies to induce a purchase of a ticket may not legally be fraud, but it certainly feels like it should be. It’s also hard for me to see how that argument would square with this reasoning from the article:

> "While Air Canada argues Mr. Moffatt could find the correct information on another part of its website, it does not explain why the webpage titled 'Bereavement travel' was inherently more trustworthy than its chatbot. It also does not explain why customers should have to double-check information found in one part of its website on another part of its website," he wrote.

Fortunately, the tribunal rejected that tactic in this instance.

The chatbot included a link to the detailed rules, which contradicted what the chatbot told the customer.

> "While a chatbot has an interactive component, it is still just a part of Air Canada’s website ... It should be obvious to Air Canada that it is responsible for all the information on its website ... There is no reason why Mr. Moffatt should know that one section of Air Canada’s webpage is accurate, and another is not."

In their defense, I never seen an airline company caring about their customers... Otherwise they wouldn't be late 25% of the time.

Not necessarily so.

A couple weeks ago Oman Air cancelled the return leg of a long distance flight due to a change in schedule.

They offered to reroute me with the Qataris via Doha.

I preferred to cancel the (in principle non-refundable) flight and make different arrangements.

The money,~2'500$, was credited to my card 4 days later. Including fees paid for preferred seats.

It's a shame that they stopped service to my city. Beause it's a great airline, which always provided stellar service.

Those are your basic rights: You entered into a contract with the airline, and the airline failed to deliver. Of course you get your money back if the alternative solution is not satisfactory - whether or not the ticket was refundable doesn't even enter into it, as it was the airline that failed to deliver in the first place. That's not stellar service, that's just fulfilling their legal obligations.

I think the point being made: It was refunded very quickly and without hassle. Other, less scrupulous / ethnical airlines were try more tactics to redirect to worse flight or delay refund (if at all -- "oh, it was a lost in our system").

I am not sure which airline represent your average experience; but in my experience, almost all airlines will fight to "your death" not to give you anything back. In the times they do (especially European), it's because there is a law that requires them to.

What happened to the OP is, therefore, unusual.

My experience with United emirates was similar. Extremely generous refund policies and fast action.

Oman Air is trying to offer good service in a tight, extremely cut-throat market (the Middle-East) where its competitors are giants (Qatar and Emirates) or cash drunk (Saudi Airlines).

I flew through them last year. Check-in was a bit of a hassle but the plane/service and the layover were great. The price was very competitive (cheapest) and yet the plane was empty. I expected them to either fold or downsize.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com