The new rule mandates that refunds are automatically processed by an airline if a passenger's flight is "canceled or significantly changed, and they do not accept the significantly changed flight, rebooking on an alternative flight, or alternative compensation."

Airlines in the United States are now required to give passengers cash refunds if their flight is significantly delayed or canceled, even if that person does not explicitly ask for a refund.

The Department of Transportation says the final federal rule requiring that airlines dole out refunds - not vouchers - went into effect Monday. The major change is being implemented only a month before the start of what is likely to be a huge holiday travel season.

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg made the announcement on X after he first presented the proposed rule back in April. “Today, our automatic refund rule goes into full effect,” Buttigieg posted. “Passengers deserve to get their money back when an airline owes them-without headaches or haggling.”

  • @credo@lemmy.world
    70•2 days ago

    A flight today is more than the flight I paid for 3 months ago. But a step in the right direction I guess.

    • @Subtracty@lemmy.world
      36•2 days ago

      I’m not sure how the law will pan out because of this. While it is beneficial, and airlines are financially held accountable, being reimbursed the price you paid for your ticket will not be enough to get you on the next available flight to wherever you were going. Depending on when the flight is canceled.

      • @guacupado@lemmy.world
        5•10 hours ago

        You’re not guaranteed to get the next flight anyway. At least this way you’re at least getting your money, which airlines try to make you pay extra for just to get the right to ask for it.

      • partial_accumen
        20•2 days ago

        You’re correct, but I don’t think that is what the law was trying to fix. I think it was trying to fix paying for a flight in cash, and when a flight is canceled being given a voucher (often for less) locking you into purchasing from that airline again to get any value out of your original cash.

        At least with this step if you pay $200 for your flight initially, and your flight is canceled, you’re given your $200 back to by a replacement which may, that day, cost you $600, so its only costing you $400 cash instead of $600 cash which would have been the situation before. This is a step in the right direction.

        • @SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
          1•10 hours ago

          I was under the impression that the law was already that airlines had to give 3x the ticket price if you were involuntarily canceled or bumped from a flight, which is why they offered to compensate people to volunteer to take other flights or a voucher instead.

        • partial_accumen
          5•2 days ago

          I think @bitjunkie@lemmy.world is essentially referring to the cost of a replacement flight purchase the same day. The obvious answer is that action isn’t required by law and would be massively more expensive for airlines. Rates for regular fares would have to skyrocket to cover the costs, which would create a vicious circle.

          • @CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee
            3•2 days ago

            Rates for regular fares would have to skyrocket to cover the costs

            Why is that exactly? Does the airline face additional expenses when you book a flight the same day versus a month in advance?

            • partial_accumen
              2•1 day ago

              The opposite. They can lose money when you book far in advance. They need the expensive close bookings (usually business travelers) to make the most of their money. So if the airlines are force to give away expensive profitable seats (expensive because they are in high demand), they’ll have to raise the rates on other earlier bookings to make up the difference.

              • @bitjunkie@lemmy.world
                3•11 hours ago

                I’m not saying I think they should make the fares the same for people who book last-minute, just that they should exempt people who have to rebook through no fault of their own from that. Like “lock in” the rate at the initial booking.

                • partial_accumen
                  1•11 hours ago

                  just that they should exempt people who have to rebook through no fault of their own from that.

                  I’m not sure I’m understanding you. I’m reading your post that a “flight booked for today” should be booked at the same rate that the person had if they book, lets say, 3 weeks prior. Is that what you’re saying?

                  Like “lock in” the rate at the initial booking.

                  If I’m understanding you, that means the person pays a much smaller rate for a “today” booking. That would mean the airline has to lose money on that seat if they could have sold it to a last minute business traveler at full “today” rate.

                  • skulblaka
                    2•10 hours ago

                    Well if they don’t cancel my flight with no warning then they won’t have to deal with that.

    • @Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de
      12•2 days ago

      Had an international flight canceled, for two people it was $3200 originally. To replace the same flight last minute to costed $3700 per ticket. The airline canceled one leg used by a “secondary” company that they owned. American Airlines and American Eagle