Their policy was that if the new arrival time is within 3 hours of the old one, it is not their problem.
I can see them now: "So, if we change OP's flight to the one we intend to put them on, according to company policy, we're liable. But if we do it incrementally, in multiple installments but changing it by less than three hours each time, we're fine!"
TheRaven@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
Policy doesn’t matter. The recent law overrides their policy.
_Refunds — If the alternate travel arrangements offered don’t meet your travel needs
If an airline (large or small) offers you alternate travel arrangements that do not meet your travel needs, you are entitled to a refund._
rppa-appr.ca/…/flight-delays-and-cancellations
Puzzle_Sluts_4Ever@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Doesn’t really work. Ignoring the grey area of “within the airline’s control” being the kind of mess that is not worth fighting: The solution is “We’ll book you on the next available flight”. Which is already potentially the next day but also quite likely to break any connections you have.
As for a monetary refund? They are only required to do that if
The former is already handled. And the latter is the three hour window that was mentioned.
TheRaven@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
“Within the airline’s control” is pretty clearly outlined in the law. It’s not a grey area.
The law also states that the new booking must be reasonable. And before you say that “reasonable” is grey, it gives examples of that. Missing the connecting flight would be unreasonable. A refund would be pretty easy to ask for in this circumstance.