Bantamzen
Established Member
Moderator note: split from Refusal of compensation
This thread is rapidly descending into la-la land, from controlling the movement of large birds which often roam over many acres of land, to making indestructible trains that.can not be damaged by large objects whilst travelling at speeds (remembering that similar sized birds can bring down aircraft).
I'm sorry to say it but this is the culture of compensation gone mad. I am in favour of compensation when the industry gets it wrong and causes serious delays. But to demand the industry becomes effectively bullet proof is simply daft, and completely ignores how the real world works. And before anyone accuses me of being anti-customer let's all not forget that all compensation schemes all ultimately funded by us all, either directly through ticket price increases or through taxation to fund subsidies or Network Rail. Expecting compensation every time something goes wrong is a sure-fire way to eventually kill the scheme.
This thread is rapidly descending into la-la land, from controlling the movement of large birds which often roam over many acres of land, to making indestructible trains that.can not be damaged by large objects whilst travelling at speeds (remembering that similar sized birds can bring down aircraft).
I'm sorry to say it but this is the culture of compensation gone mad. I am in favour of compensation when the industry gets it wrong and causes serious delays. But to demand the industry becomes effectively bullet proof is simply daft, and completely ignores how the real world works. And before anyone accuses me of being anti-customer let's all not forget that all compensation schemes all ultimately funded by us all, either directly through ticket price increases or through taxation to fund subsidies or Network Rail. Expecting compensation every time something goes wrong is a sure-fire way to eventually kill the scheme.
Last edited by a moderator: