Balancing fairness and justice: airlines' cancellation policy creates turbulence

I had booked my air plane ticket with American Airlines (AA) a few months ago to fly back to Colorado in October, but in the interim accepted a job and needed to fly earlier. I called AA today to see if I could cancel, rebook, acquire credit, etc.

AA informed me they wouldn't refund, nor rebook my ticket without me paying the minimum $200 service fee. They further said either the named passenger could fly or the seat would be empty. The AA agent said, any change - refund, name change, rebooking - would carry a $200 service fee. The AA agent, upon seeing that my ticket was $141 said that I was ahead to cancel, take the loss and purchase a brand new ticket when I was ready to fly. I opted to rescind the reservation. I presume the $141 I had paid in-advance would be regarded as pure economic loss.

I understand the contract analysis that the bargain for exchange was $141 in exchange for non-refundable reservation/ticket. If I had contracted for a refundable ticket, that would have been $1,056.

Playing out the fact pattern a bit more, let's say that AA sells the seat I cancelled to another. That means AA not only gets my $141, but also gets to profit from making another sale. Even if AA doesn't resell my cancelled seat, they still have a greater bargain than they contracted for, as without me riding the plane, they would have better fuel efficiency because the plane would be lighter, from less body and cargo weight.

Perhaps it is that I am poor and $141 is a lot of money to me, but it seems unfair. I thought about unjustified enrichment as a possible legal basis for action, but such an action is only to prevent a breaching party from receiving the benefit. Since I am breaching party, I wouldn't have a right to claim AA is unjustly enriched.

On the regulatory side, the Department of Transportation has determined that notice of terms concerning refunds and monetary penalties is sufficiently important to be given directly to passengers. The regulations say, "A passenger shall not be bound by any terms restricting refunds of the ticket price, imposing monetary penalties on passengers, or permitting the carrier to raise the price, unless the passenger receives conspicuous written notice of the salient features of those terms on or with the ticket." 14 C.F.R. § 253.7.

Not that a non-refundable ticket bounds AA to not granting refunds, it is just that to award a refund of the ticket price carries a $200 service fee. Perhaps the software licence or call center's staff are expensive, but $200 seems a bit hefty for a service fee. Makes me wonder at what point does a fee become a monetary penalty? Conversely, it seems keeping the ticket price is a constructive monetary penalty. Also, the service fee is a constructive form of restricting refunds, as who would pay $200 to get a $141 ticket refund?

Beauprez’s anti-gun past may come to haunt him

When asked about the Second Amendment, Bob Beauprez has a tendency of only talking about Governor John Hickenlooper’s policies.

So what about Bob?

A mere 14 years ago, Beauprez and and former Governor Bill Ritter were on the Amendment 22 band

Bob Beauprez flip-flops on 2nd Amendment.

wagon, which was a state-wide referendum calling for special restrictions for gun shows. These included an instant background check for certain sales that take place at a gun show, even if not required had the same sale occurred not at the gun show.

Amendment 22 passed with 70 percent of the vote.

During the 2006 contest between Beauprez and Ritter; Beauprez claimed Ritter loved gun control, whereas he supported the Second Amendment. This claim was the basis of one of the Both-ways-Bob ads which mocked Beauprez for flip-flopping on the Second Amendment.

The Independence Institute defended Beauprez’s mistake, by claiming the error was due to poor journalism by the Denver Post.

However, going back a bit further, when Beauprez was Colorado Republican State Chairman, he sent out a letter to GOP legislators calling for the party uniting on new gun control laws in the aftermath of the Columbine Shooting.

At the time, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners responded to the message by saying, “Gun rights supporters are told, in essence, to sit down, shut up, and take their medicine.”

Beauprez constantly called for closing the “loopholes in our gun laws.” The Owens Administration, working with Chairman Beauprez, crafted legislation to reign-in gun shows, proposed mandatory gun locks, and moved to disarm Coloradoans between the ages of 18 and 21.

Even Congressman Tom Tancredo voted for an assault weapons ban and a ban on magazines, along with making a few incriminating statements after the school shooting.  

The strategy, in the wake of Columbine, was to compromise a little on gun control, in order to maintain control of all three branches of state government. The results of the 2000 General Election saw the Republicans lose the State Senate to the Democrats.

The question now turns, has Beauprez become a hard-line Second Amendment kind of guy?

Recently, the question of gun control arose during an Aspen gathering. Aspen is not necessarily the friendliest of towns for gun advocates. Beauprez, playing to the audience said, if elected, and if a (gun control) repeal comes to me, I’d sign it.

Beauprez further stated that people with mental illnesses shouldn’t have easy access to guns.

Sounds a bit like the old Beauprez?

Perhaps compromising on some aspects makes political sense in some areas of strategy, but once you go down the road of giving an inch, before you know it, you’ve given a mile.

To be fair to Beauprez, he has claimed that a propensity to commit crime must be an element of limiting the Constitutional rights of someone who is mentally ill.

If society knew who had a propensity to commit a crime before a crime occurred, then why wouldn’t we create a pre-crimes police force, as illustrated in the film Minority Report to stop all evils before they occur?

Beauprez has also failed to define who would be legally classified as mentally ill? Does one visit to a psychologist mean a citizen could be pre-empted from their Second Amendment rights?

Prior to endorsing Beauprez this week, State Senator Greg Brophy, had declared both Beauprez and Tancredo weak on the Second Amendment. Yet in his endorsement, Brophy steered clear of gun talk, saying Beauprez had the best odds of winning.

Perhaps being soft on the Second Amendment is the key to winning the even-split urban-7th Congressional District twice, but for voters in rural Colorado the difference between the incumbent and Beauprez regarding gun control is a shady haze of grey.

All hope is not lost.

Republicans Mike Kopp and Scott Gessler, both have served America in the Army and both believe the Second Amendment is a right not to be compromised.

The Rocky Mountain Gun Owners feels the same way and has given Kopp and Gessler the two-thumbs-up.

Defeating Hickenlooper will be tough, but victory only comes if there is a candidate who can draw distinctions, not blur the differences over key policy issues, such as the Second Amendment. 

___________________

Matthew Soper, Letter to the Editor, Beauprez’s past may come back to haunt him, Delta County Independent, May 21, 2014, at A2.

Matthew Soper, Letter to the Editor, Beauprez evaluated on the Second Amendment, Gunnison Country Times, May 21, 2014, at A14.

Trustee Soper's resignation letter

Dear Mayor and Board of Trustees:

This letter is to intimate my resignation from the Board of Trustees, effective upon the swearing-in of a lawful replacement. This past July complications with the New York Court of Appeals arose regarding my qualifications to be called to the bar under newly enacted regulations. These regulations were in response to the financial crisis and were designed to protected American legal jobs for American lawyers. Unfortunately for my situation, I studied outside the United States, which means I fall under these new regulations. Prior to this summer, the regulations allowed anyone who had studied at least three years of law within a common law jurisdiction to pay the fee and sit for the New York Bar Exam. Providing a candidate passed the bar and an ethics check, and then they would be admitted to practice law.

After being informed of the situation, I launched an appeal, based on legitimate expectations and the grandfathering clause. My appeal ultimately failed and I am required to complete an LL.M. (master of laws) degree at an American Bar Association (ABA) law school. The program must be taught in-person and certain course work completed before admittance to sit the bar will be granted. I applied to the University ofNew Hampshire, School of Law and was accepted. They have a continual admission process right up until classes commence. Once I have completed this degree, I will then sit for the bar exam in July 2013.

The entire affair has come as a surprise and it is with great sadness that I must step down from my seat on the Orchard City Board of Trustees. Since I will no longer physically be in the jurisdiction of the town, I will not be able to be an effective representative for my constituents. I have been honoured to represent my fellow citizens for the past six months and it has been a privilege to hold this position of esteem trust. I believe the good people of Orchard City will understand that since I already have a substantial educational investment in becoming an attorney, I cannot afford to do anything but comply with the new regulations.

In these past six months I have learned much about municipal government - especially in relation to water. As the author of the mosquito resolution, concerning the EPA's and Agenda 21 's attack on aerial spraying, I was pleased to see our board send a strong message to our congressional leaders. Helping repeal the water conveyance rule, which took water away from farmers in good years only to sell it back to them in drought years, was an accomplishment

which helped loosen the regulatory barriers imposed by local government. Voting for our hydropower- unit and voicing concern over our engineering firm was about due diligence and looking out for town's future. Most importantly, I proud to have played a role in the Centennial celebration of my town- in the town play I portrayed the Cory postmaster (ironically, a position my cousin held for many years).

I have one request to make of the board. I'd recommend the Board of Trustees fill my vacancy with an individual with similar characteristics as me. The electorate voted for certain values and characteristics, which I brought to the Board of Trustees and it is only fair to the people to maintain these elements. In other words, I am recommending against making my vacancy the subject of spoils and patronage.

Orchard City is a great town and a place where I plan on raising my family, practicing law, and retiring someday. Being an advocate for my neighbours and representing them has truly been rewarding. Orchard City's Board could teach representatives in Washington, DC a lot about governing, namely how to do more with less and balancing a budget. I am pleased to say that in this half-year together we have upheld the public trust and managed the best interests of the town to such a degree that our founders would be proud.

Thank you and God bless,
            /s/
Matthew Soper,
BA, LLM, LLB
Trustee, Town of Orchard City,
State of Colorado