← Back to context

Comment by tjohns

10 hours ago

That could still get prohibitively expensive. Take the example from this article, where there's only one person still using the paper ticket option...

I could see someone arguing you need a specially trained staff member or supervisor to verify your ID for anti-scalping, which they don't need to do for other e-tickets. Say only one person uses this option all season, they could be asked to pay for an entire employee's salary/benefits.

It's a bit hyperbolic, but supporting non-standard workflows is organizationally expensive with many non-quantifable costs.

If the law had existed all along, it would not be a non-standard workflow.

And there is precedent on the pricing. For example, FAA is not allowed to charge any more for any service than it costs to deliver said service, which is why if i lose my pilot's license, a replacement is $3.

  • There's no way that costs the FAA $3. It is a wealthy service for wealthy people, so they can afford to absorb some costs. Your knowledge and wording indicates you are likely part of the demographic that knows how to threaten with lawyers.

    One cause for the cost-recovery rule was the case Asiana Airlines v. FAA: The court ruled that the FAA’s enabling statute required fees to be "directly related" to the agency's actual costs. They held that the FAA couldn't look at the value of the service to the airline; they could only look at the receipts for what it cost the FAA to "flip the switches and manage the radar".