Okay, I can see some benefits to the airline that are not too egregious for point 1, maybe automatic can be updated to manual intervention. Not the worst.

But price transparency ?

> A4A opposes the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) rules requiring airlines to disclose ancillary fees upfront, arguing that these rules exceed the DOT’s authority and don’t provide any clear benefits to consumers.

> don’t provide any clear benefits to consumers

As a customer I like to know where my money is going and how much.

I don't follow the point. Suppose we live in a perfect world where exactly similar alternative flights are always available the moment yours gets cancelled. You still have to pay for it. And you do that by using the refund money.

Cancelling a flight without refunding it, just means profiting at the expense of the customer.

Businesses are able to insure their limited cost of cancellations, and price their tickets to absord these insurance costs (which are ultimately born by the ticket-payer).

Deregulating this point just puts all the risk and burden with millions of individual customers, some of whom cannot easily carry the cost of unexpected events, and aren't professional parties that can and routinely do enter into properly-negotiated insurance products to mitigate their risk.

> 've done this myself in the past, as far as I remember; changes of a few minutes in either direction often make an entire booking refundable.)

My understanding is that refunds eligibility starts at a >3 hour change, meaning an alternative timetable of 2 hours doesn't trigger an automatic refund right now. Further, even in the case of a significant change (>3h), the refund isn't automatic, it is only paid once the customer refuses an alternative booking or compensation. For international flights it's even 6 hours instead of 3.

> Arriving a few hours later can be entirely fine or completely ruin a trip, depending on the circumstances.

I do agree on this point, context really matters. And I think in theory it makes sense to offer price-differentation based on the context. i.e. if I am slow-travelling for 4 months, I'd be happy taking a 10% cheaper ticket (no-insurance), and have no recourse if there is an 8 hour delay.

Whereas earlier this month when travelling overseas for a wedding the day prior, I'd have paid a 10% extra fee to insure my travel time, to ensure I have recourse to travel with a limited (<2h) delay no matter what or be significantly compensated.

But that's still all theory, at some point differentiation on everything leads to complex and difficult decision making for customers. Fun in a Sim computer game, not so fun when booking a flight is a 20-step process with 200 pages of T&C that I have to assess against my personal situation.

Give me that choice (refund or rebook me) and let me choose. Problem is if the airlines don't have to give a refund I now no longer have a choice.

Airlines caused automatic refunds by systematically screwing customers for a decade, doing every single thing in their power to avoid giving any refunds. This policy exists because they proved to everyone they can't be trusted.

> First, realize that there is no such thing as the 'public interest'. The public is composed of different subdivisions of people, from everyone everywhere down to the individual.

I don't buy that at all, that's what regulations are for. There is no public interest in still having lead in our fuel [0], or arsenic in green wall paint [1]. To say regulations are not for public interest is to say why have any oversight of anything.

Should we say "well fuel companies can make fuel cheaper with lead so lets just remove those regulations.

[0] https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/inside-20-year-c...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_green#:~:text=Because%20...