Trust in GenAI Isn’t the Problem. Trust in the Travel Supply Chain Is.

This is the longer version from Linked in.  Are we condemened to burn in Amadeus's hell? Read on. 

Let’s be honest:  We know that many AI projects are failing and failing badly in Travel.  Everyone is whispering about “trust in AI" and GenAI in particular as if the model (and data) hallucinating is the biggest existential threat in travel

It isn’t.

The real trust problem is far more inconvenient: we no longer have reliable, transparent data from the supply chain itself. And GenAI is simply exposing what was already broken.

When You Can’t Trust the Input, You Can’t Trust the Output

Consumers (and frankly, many industry insiders) understand that the supplier’s direct price is the only safe benchmark. Everything else — OTA, meta-search, AI agent — comes with a qualitative risk profile.

And that risk profile just went nuclear.

Because with AI-powered search layered onto NDC fragmentation, we’re no longer talking about “40,000 L2Bs per day.”

We’re talking 400,000+ L2Bs hitting systems — per airline, per market, per channel.

That crush is already distorting results, poisoning transparency, and pushing every player into defensive mode.

The Industry Is Quietly Drowning

Let’s break down where the pain lands:

• OTAs & Metas

  They’ve quietly reduced transparency. Not intentionally malicious — just overwhelmed. The signal-to-noise ratio has collapsed.

• Airlines

  They’re facing a tidal wave of search volume they are contractually obligated to service. Ask any network planning head about the bill they’re expecting from their PSS/GDS partners this year. Watch their eyes twitch.

• Revenue Management & Offer/Order Providers

  Costs are about to spike. Not incrementally — structurally. Complexity is a bill that always comes due.

• We cannot forget ths impact of NDC and its removal of the GDS price guarantee. 

• AI Search & Agents

  They’re generating even more queries, faster, with higher variance. And the systems on the receiving end are nowhere near ready.

This is not a technology problem.

It’s a contractual, economic, and data-governance problem.

The Outcome?

Simple:

Go read your commercial agreements. Then panic.

(not because the sky is falling, but because the invoices soon will)

If you are anywhere in the travel supply chain — airline, OTA, meta, RM provider, NDC aggregator, PSS, GDS, corporate TMC, consolidator — you will feel this.

Hint: you already are.

So What Do We Do?

Four actions, none optional:

1. Put everything under the microscope.

   Every data source, every contract term, every search-servicing clause.

   If you don’t understand the risk exposure, you’re already behind.

2. Collaborate like adults.

   The “everyone optimizes their own slice” era is over.

   If we don’t align, we burn. In Amadeus's hell. 

3. Fix the data. Seriously.

   No GenAI system is better than the mess we’re feeding it.

   Transparency is a team sport — start playing.

4. You also need some help. Give me a call - I can help no matter if you are perp or victim.

Final Word

Trust in GenAI doesn’t begin with the AI. It also doesn't end with Agentic AI

It begins with the humans, systems, and contracts upstream.

If you want to make intelligent decisions in 2025 and beyond, you need someone who actually understands how all these pieces fit together — commercially, technically, and operationally.

Because this wave is coming.

And it’s going to hit hard.

Who’s Failing the Pacific? A Cross-Airline Reality Check on Long-Haul Wi-Fi (2024–2025)

So you start your journey across the pacific. Great you think I can sleep have a bevi, watch some movies, work a bit... 

...that is what I thought. 

Except not. Flight attendants said shhhh this is a cursed ship or... nope "I fly this route regularly and it hasn't worked westbound in ages." 

Well that is not nice. 

How about then are anyone else getting it? The answer is yes and most people will just say - not bothered really. Clearly the Flight Attendants aren't going to complain but it is high time someone focused on it. 

Who is responsible? Many different answers. I hear there is a satellite that is in the wrong position or not working "yet". There are the configurations of aircraft. I have flown a DL A350 where they advised ahead of time... No wifi on this flight. But on this flight on this day? NADA zip.

Airline	No service / excluded	Outage	Very slow / unstable	Login friction	Notable A350-specific
Delta	Yes (TPAC excluded)	—	—	Frequently	Yes: A350 config variability; “prepare for no Wi-Fi”
Qantas	Delay → effectively “no service yet” on many long-hauls	—	—	—	A350 not yet common ops, but long-haul fleet targeted
United	—	Yes (Starlink disabled subset)	—	—	Mixed (Starlink rollout coming to mainline)
JAL	—	—	Yes (slow / unusable reports)	Sometimes	Some 767/787 ops; not A350-centric
ANA	—	—	Signals of lag vs peers (upgrade pending)	—	Fleet mix; not A350-centric
Cathay	—	—	Yes (A350 load-related slowdowns)	—	A350 Panasonic vs 777 Gogo split
Singapore	—	—	Rare	Yes (PNR/KF linkage)	A350 present; complaint is policy/log-in, not hardware
Asiana	—	—	Yes (A350 “not usable” reports)	—	A350 focus
Air New Zealand	—	—	Acknowledged slowdowns (official guidance)	—	787/777 focus

What travelers report right now

• Delta (US): Frequent flyers continue to warn: “don’t expect Wi-Fi” on TPAC. Delta’s own rollout keeps transpacific excluded for now, with mid–late 2025 flagged as the earliest window as Viasat’s third ViaSat-3 asset comes online. On A350s, the advice is down to tail numbers—some configurations work, most don’t, and the “prepare for no Wi-Fi” refrain is common. 

• Qantas (AU): Domestic Wi-Fi is a success story; international is the laggard. The carrier pushed the long-haul rollout into 2025 citing Viasat technical issues, and some watchers now caution that consistently reliable long-haul coverage may not be widespread until 2027–2028. Expectation vs. delivery remains the pain point. 

• United (US): The headline in mid-2025 wasn’t TPAC per se—it was a temporary Starlink shutdown on ~two dozen regional jets after static interference was discovered. It underscored the reality that new systems can stumble at scale—even when the long-term trajectory (Starlink to mainline) looks promising. 

• Japan carriers (JAL/ANA):

  • JAL: Long-running threads continue to document slow or flaky sessions and app connectivity failures on international sectors. 

  • ANA: Coverage is improving, but the free Viasat era is still “eventual.” That fuels “behind peers” narratives even as hardware improves. 

• Cathay Pacific (HK): A350 Panasonic performance still draws comparisons to the older 777 Gogo fit—good early, then degrades as cabin load rises. Recent posts keep this alive even as fleet Wi-Fi coverage has matured. 

• Singapore Airlines (SG): Connectivity is broadly strong and generous, yet a practical gripe persists: no KrisFlyer number on your PNR, no easy free Wi-Fi. That login/eligibility friction triggers its own class of “complaint.” 

• Air New Zealand (NZ): Fewer public complaints in this period, but the airline’s own site acknowledges slowdowns and offers troubleshooting, which tells you the experience is still variable. 

A350 vs. “everything else”

A350 complaints tend to be about Panasonic load-related slowdowns (CX, OZ) and Delta’s config variability on TPAC. In contrast, U.S. carriers’ domestic/mainline narratives are now defined by provider choice (Viasat vs. Starlink) and policy (what’s free, where).

What matters for passengers

1. Coverage map > marketing map. If TPAC isn’t covered (yet), no pricing promise will help.

2. Provider + beam + aircraft config determine your real-world experience.

3. Eligibility & login rules (SQ) can be the difference between “great” and “can’t connect.”

Bottom line

On today’s evidence, Delta and Qantas generate the most TPAC-specific complaint energy—for different reasons (outright TPAC exclusions vs. delays). United had a visible outage event, but it’s not TPAC-systemic. Among Asian flag carriers, JAL/ANA lag perceptions persist; Cathay’s A350 still has load-related gripes; SQ mostly wins, apart from login friction; Air New Zealand is steady with caveats.

Delta Air Lines

1. FlyerTalk: “Consolidated Wi-Fi 2025” – https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/delta-air-lines-skymiles/2190874-consolidated-wifi-2025-a-8.html

2. Runway Girl Network: “Delta now eyeing mid- to late-2025 for free Wi-Fi on transpacific routes.” https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2024/08/delta-now-eyeing-mid-late-2025-for-free-wi-fi-on-transpacific-routes/

3. The Points Guy: “Delta’s free Wi-Fi rollout update 2025.” https://thepointsguy.com/news/delta-free-wifi-rollout-update-2025/

United Airlines

4. UPI: “United Airlines temporarily disables Starlink internet due to interference.” https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2025/06/07/united-airines-starlink-interference/2531749331227/

5. Broadband Breakfast: “United Airlines restores Starlink Internet after radio-interference fix.” https://broadbandbreakfast.com/united-airlines-restores-starlink-internet-after-radio-interference/

American Airlines

6. FlyerTalk: International Panasonic Satellite Wi-Fi Experiences (thread). https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/american-airlines-aadvantage/1436931-international-panasonic-satellite-wifi-availability-experiences-21-printerfriendly.html

Qantas

7. 2PaxFly: “Qantas Wi-Fi on international flights delayed.” https://www.2paxfly.com/2024/12/20/qantas-wifi-on-international-flights-delayed/

8. One Mile at a Time: “Qantas free Wi-Fi rollout update 2025.” https://onemileatatime.com/news/qantas-free-wi-fi/

Japan Airlines

9. FlyerTalk: Bad JAL Wi-Fi Experiences (thread). https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/japan-airlines-jal-mileage-bank/2130210-anyone-else-had-bad-experiences-inflight-wifi.html

10. BoltFlight: “Japan Airlines (JAL) Flights & Reviews – An In-Depth Look at Service, Comfort and Controversy.” https://boltflight.com/japan-airlines-jal-flights-and-reviews-an-in-depth-look-at-service-comfort-and-controversy/

All Nippon Airways (ANA)

11. One Mile at a Time: “ANA to offer free Wi-Fi eventually.” https://onemileatatime.com/news/all-nippon-airways-free-wi-fi/

Cathay Pacific

12. FlyerTalk: CX A350 vs 777 Wi-Fi Experience (thread). https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/cathay-pacific-cathay/1999321-inflight-wifi-experience-a350-panasonic-vs-777-gogo.html

13. One Mile at a Time: “Cathay Pacific now has Wi-Fi on all aircraft.” https://onemileatatime.com/news/cathay-pacific-wi-fi/

Singapore Airlines

14. FlyerTalk: “Unable to Use Free On-board Wi-Fi Without KrisFlyer Account” (thread). https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/singapore-airlines-krisflyer/2128258-unable-use-free-board-wifi-w-o-krisflyer-account-3-printerfriendly.html

Asiana Airlines

15. FlyerTalk: “Wi-Fi on A350 Reliable?” (thread). https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/asiana-asiana-club/2129104-wifi-a350-reliable.html

16. TripAdvisor: Passenger review – “Wi-Fi not usable.” https://www.tripadvisor.com.sg/ShowUserReviews-g1-d8729024-r922968229-Asiana_Airlines-World.html

Air New Zealand

17. Official: https://www.airnewzealand.com/wifi

A Critique of My ChatGPT Experience: Three Weeks of Frustrating Coding Attempts

 

Discipline is hard. Using ChatGPT can be harder.

Over three weeks, I used ChatGPT as a partner for technical work. I am not a coder - but I do understand coding protocols and processes. Also (a VERY long time ago - I had previously learned Xenix (another form of Unix like Linux that Raspberry Pi uses).  I wanted to see if this particular Chatbot could help reduce time and be a true assistant. Those readers who follow me on a regular basis know that I do not subscribe to AI = Artificial Intelligence but rather it reads as Assisted Intelligence or perhaps Assistant Information. 

The scenario was this - how to build a robust ADS-B receiving station using a number of different systems that ranged from simple to quite complex. This post will detail things that will make a coder get angry. If you are not a coder you can still skim through this post and see examples.

• Raspberry Pi setups (Pi2W, Pi3, Pi4, Pi5)
• ADS-B receiver configs, 
• Remote networking. 
• Troubleshooting

I expected acceleration. 

What I found instead was friction — a system that made confident claims, ignored constraints, cut corners when detail was needed, and stubbornly repeated errors even after correction. 

Here are some of the results. (Your results may vary). 

1. Overconfidence Without Verification

I asked ChatGPT to point me to the latest Raspberry Pi Imager.

What it gave me:

sudo apt install rpi-imager

But that command didn’t install the newest version — it pulled an older package from the repository. Even after I explained this and specifically asked for the current official release, ChatGPT continued to reference outdated installs as if nothing had happened.

What I expected: a simple check like:

snap info rpi-imager

…with explicit confirmation of the version. That never came.

2. Context Blindness

        Keyboard contradiction: 

I told ChatGPT, “I have no keyboard connected to my Pi3.”Despite that, it repeatedly said things like:

• “Just connect a keyboard and go into raspi-config.” Which was impossible in my setup. That’s not adapting to context — that’s ignoring it.

   Device blindness: 

• I moved between a MacBook Pro, Pi2W, Pi4, and Pi5. ChatGPT didn’t track which device we were working on. At one point, it even suggested: “Plug in the Ethernet cable to test connectivity.” …on a Pi that had no Ethernet port.

3. Moving Ahead Too Fast

Instead of validating basics, ChatGPT skipped ahead. For instance, before verifying Wi-Fi connectivity, it said:

sudo apt update && sudo apt upgrade

…assuming the Pi was already online. When the update failed, I had to backtrack manually. A careful assistant would have said:

ping -c 3 1.1.1.1

“If this fails, stop here — you’re not connected yet.”

But ChatGPT rarely built in those checkpoints.

4. Shortcutting When Verbose Was Required

I asked for a full verbose walkthrough of setting up ADS-B software with readsb. What I got was a condensed “one-liner” like:

sudo apt install readsb

That’s the opposite of what I needed. What I wanted was:

# Add repository
sudo apt-add-repository ppa:xyz

# Update package list
sudo apt update

# Install readsb
sudo apt install readsb

# Check service status
systemctl status readsb

# View logs
journalctl -u readsb -n 50

Plus: what output to expect, and what to do if it didn’t appear. Instead, ChatGPT tried to “simplify,” which wasted literally so many hours. When confronted with a failure - the Chatbot just tries the next possible answer rather than going for full diagnosis. This is like a junior on highschool attempting coding for the first time. 

5. Inability to Course-Correct

When I hit networking errors like:

sudo piaware-config allow-mlat yes
sudo piaware-config allow-mlat-results yes
sudo systemctl restart piaware
warning: /etc/piaware.conf:4: unrecognized option mlat

ChatGPT’s response was to reword the same failing commands:

sudo piaware-config allow-mlat yes

…as if persistence would make it work. What I needed was:

• A check of the installed version.

• A pointer to official release notes.

• An alternative approach if the command was deprecated.

Instead, I got stubborn repetition.

The Net Result: Stubborn Non-Learning

Patterns emerged:

• Old versions kept resurfacing.

• Constraints (like “no keyboard”) were ignored.

• Validation steps were skipped.

• Verbose detail was stripped down when explicitly requested.

• Errors led to repeated dead ends, not adaptive solutions.

ChatGPT didn’t behave like a collaborator. It behaved like a stubborn manual that forgets what page you’re on. Believe me when I tell you that I have encountered many actual humans like this. Seems like ChatGPT has already got some pretty bad human characteristics.

How to Ameliorate These Failings

1. Explicitly Declare Assumptions Up Front – Restate every time (“no keyboard,” “headless only,” “macOS host”). I know repetition can be a bore but do it. Even if you prepare a standard profile (aka a manual) from the design criteria - it will forget. 

2. Build Instructions Around Assumptions – Force it into a checklist (device, OS, peripherals, constraints). Again pretty juvenile but this will save you many hours.

3. Insert Verification Steps – Demand: “Run this, expect X. If not, stop.” 

4. Reject Shortcuts – Verbose detail over simplification. 

5. Expect Forgetfulness – Don’t assume ChatGPT “learns.” Assume it resets and plan around that. It does suffer from short term memory loss. 

The Real Critique

The gap isn’t just technical — it’s structural. ChatGPT is marketed as a “conversational partner.” In reality, it’s a forgetful manual that assumes too much, adapts too little, and trims exactly when detail matters most. One of its most annoying features... offering you NEW things which are unnecessary and distract from the mission. 

Over three weeks, the result wasn’t acceleration. It was active drag. 

HOWEVER, I did manage to get most of the systems to work. There is a lot to do. I am attempting now to encapsulate this into a replicable manual that I can publish. Stay tuned!

I will say that the exercise re-awakened my long (decades) dormant coding skill (which basically were and are not very good). For a non-coder the loops and fails will be incredibly frustrating and will also lead to non-success. I wonder what the latin is for let the user beware?

The GTF Engine Crisis: From Early Optimism to a 2028 Resolution

How a powder-metal defect in Pratt & Whitney’s GTF engines triggered cascading costs across OEMs, airlines, and the global narrow-body market.

Introduction

When Pratt & Whitney’s Geared Turbofan (GTF) - especially the PW1100G variant powering the Airbus A320neo family - entered service, it was touted as a leap forward: better fuel burn, lower noise, and lower maintenance cost. Many airlines, especially low-cost and growth carriers, bet heavily on it.

But starting in 2023, a serious powder-metal contamination defect surfaced. Since then, aircraft have been grounded, inspections accelerated, repair shops overwhelmed, and airline cash flows stressed. While some industry commentary once whispered that the disruption would wrap by Q1 2024, operators now expect the accelerated inspection backlog to persist until early 2028.

Below is a carefully sourced, quotation-rich narrative tracing what was promised, what transpired, the ripple effects, and why this crisis remains far from closed.

Timeline: Promises, Realities & Revisions

2023  -  Discovery, Scoping & Early Forecasts

• In September 2023, RTX announced a manufacturing defect in certain powder-metal components - high-pressure turbine (HPT) disks, compressor disks, hubs, and seals - leading to accelerated inspections of affected engines. At the time, RTX indicated that 600–700 engines would be removed and inspected over 2023–2026.

• Also in that announcement, RTX warned the repair scope would be significantly more demanding than first expected, with tear-downs and overhauls stretching to 300 days per engine in some cases. These revised turn times contrasted sharply with original expectations of ~60 days.

• RTX further projected that up to 650 aircraft could be grounded in H1 2024, with 350 jets per year remaining grounded in 2024–2026 as the inspection wave rolled through.

These early disclosures already implied a multi-year drag - far from a quick fix.

Late 2023 – Q1 2024: Messaging, But Not a “Fix Date”

• As the recall and inspection program intensified, RTX’s public messaging tempered expectations of a swift resolution. The company emphasized fleet-management plans, capacity expansions, and operational ramping rather than a firm “all done by Q1 2024” claim.

• For example, in its Q1 2024 press release, RTX stated:

“We are making progress on our key priorities to deliver for customers and shareowners, including executing on our GTF fleet management plans, which remain on track.”  

• The full transcript of the Q1 2024 earnings call likewise focuses on growth, backlog, and execution, with no categorical guarantee of closure by a specific near-term date.  

• In that same period, RTX’s commercial engine business saw strong aftermarket and OE activity, indicating the GTF remediation work was becoming an inherent part of its business trajectory.  

Thus, engineers and analysts reading between the lines might have hoped for a Q1 2024 “finish line,” but RTX itself never fully committed to that.

2024–2025: Reality Sets In, Innovation Emerges, Horizon Extends

• In 2025, RTX / P&W began publicizing additive manufacturing (AM) repair techniques aimed at slashing repair turnaround by over 60%. But by then, the repair backlog and shop constraints were entrenched, meaning innovations help, but don’t instantly erase the queue.

• Also, the GTF Advantage / HS+ upgrade path - designed to improve durability of new builds and retrofit existing engines - emerged as a longer-term remedy, but certification and rollout would take years.

• Independent industry reporting in 2025 shows that many forecast the inspection wave through end-2026, with residual fleet recovery stretching into 2027–2028.

• Critically, major GTF operators like Aegean Airlines now publicly expect the accelerated inspection process to conclude only by early 2028, confirming that the industry’s realistic timeline has shifted years beyond earlier expectations.

Why the Disruption Lingers

1. Risk Sharing & Cost Burden

A key structural detail: RTX is not alone in bearing the cost. The GTF program is a risk- and revenue-sharing partnership involving entities such as MTU, GKN Aerospace, and Japanese Aero Engines. Because of that structure, the ~$3 billion pre-tax charge that RTX recorded is only its share - meaning the gross OEM / program cost is likely $6–7 billion or more.

For instance, MTU’s 2023 annual report disclosed:

“We faced the enormous financial consequences of the Geared Turbofan fleet management plan … This affects us through our risk- and revenue-sharing agreement … the Geared Turbofan fleet management plan was triggered by a manufacturing problem with a component produced by our program partner Pratt & Whitney.”  

So while RTX’s financials make headlines, the full cost burden is distributed across the partnership - dampening the apparent sting but not eliminating it.

2. Uninsured / Non-Covered Disruption Costs

Beyond the OEM balance sheets lies a broader set of costs that insurance and contractual coverage may not absorb:

• Airline revenue losses from grounded days, cancelled flights, and reduced utilization.

• Insurance payouts or claim shortfalls where coverage is insufficient or exclusions apply.

• Passenger inconvenience, rebooking costs, and lost goodwill.

• Wasted crew time, repositioning, fuel burn for empty legs, etc.

These externalities amplify what might look like an “engineering defect issue” into a full-blown industry financial burden.

3. Knock-on Market & Capacity Effects

The GTF crisis triggered cascading market distortions:

• IndiGo (India) responded by leasing roughly 100 aircraft to plug capacity gaps caused by GTF-related withdrawal of fleet time. That injection strained the global short-term narrowbody lease market.

• Lease rates for narrowbody aircraft spiked globally - particularly in the second¬hand and ACMI/wet-lease markets - as airlines scrambled for spare lift.

• This arms-race effect pushed up yields, squeezed low-cost margins, and forced aggressive fleet juggling across airlines and lessors.

In short: a “defect in metal” turned into macro distortions across capacity, rate, and network planning.

Victim Impact Table: Who Took the Hit

Below is a high-level snapshot of airlines hardest hit by GTF disruption, with grounded fleet estimates, mitigation strategy, knock-on effects, and estimated cost scale. It is by no means complete. Delta Airlines who has been a big buyer of A321s has managed to mitigate due to its superior MRO capability. 

That table underscores that this is not about one airline or two. It’s a multi-continent ripple, touching growth carriers, legacy groups, and ultra-low-cost operators alike.

Go First Case Study: “Failures on an Epidemic Scale”

Go First (formerly GoAir) remains perhaps the starkest cautionary tale.

• In legal filings, the airline claimed it had “been required to undertake 289 engine changes and 221 engine swaps: a total of 510 engine removals.”  

• It also disclosed that 27 of its 54 A320neo fleet were grounded, and that 64 PW1100G engines were “unserviceable” (44 held by the airline, 20 with Pratt & Whitney).  

• Go First described the defect problem as:

“The defective engines supplied to Go First have failed on an epidemic scale.”  

• Attempting recourse, Go First sought enforcement of a Singapore arbitration order requiring P&W to deliver 90 spare leased engines (10 now, plus 10/month through Dec 2023). But P&W responded:

“Unfortunately… no spare leased engines are presently available from Pratt & Whitney or its affiliates.”  

• Pratt & Whitney later claimed jurisdictions and rights issues, asserting Go First “has no rights over engines” in a Delaware court filing.  

Ultimately, Go First filed for bankruptcy protection in May 2023, citing the GTF failures as a key catalyst in its cash flow crisis.  

That collapse crystallizes one catastrophic path for an airline overly exposed to a troubled powerplant program.

Systemic Industry Effects & Broader Engine Stress

To fully grasp the significance of the GTF crisis, one must also note that it is occurring in parallel with quality and durability issues elsewhere in the engine industry:

• GE’s LEAP engine (LEAP-1A/1B/1C) has faced its own durability fixes, supply constraints, and extended inspection windows.

• Rolls-Royce Trent (especially the Trent 1000 and Trent XWB families) has long battled blade cracking, corrosion issues, and life-extension challenges.

The confluence of stress across multiple engine platforms means that airlines and lessors cannot easily pivot away from GTF - they face constrained options across the board.

 

Strategic & Regulatory Reflection

Given the scale, complexity, and ripple damage of this disruption, several strategic and policy reflections emerge:

1. Stronger regulatory oversight and penalties

The fact that a contamination defect of this magnitude passed through prior QA stages suggests systemic weakness in component validation.

Given the enormous downstream impact (airline collapse, passenger cost, market distortion), regulators might consider penalties, recall mandates, or enhanced oversight on RTX / P&W for lapses in quality assurance and public disclosure.

2. Transparency and early risk pricing

The earlier public narrative often underplayed the severity or timeline. Airlines, lessors, and investors may demand more conservative estimates and scenario planning from OEMs.

Embedding “worst-case” stress scenarios in firmware, supply-chain, and investment models is now nonnegotiable.

3. Portfolio resilience for airlines / lessors

Diversify engine platforms across fleets (don’t be all-in on one OEM).

Secure contractual spare engine rights, compensation guarantees, and fleet slack.

Stress-test for multi-year grounding scenarios.

4. Market correction in lease / capacity surge models

The temporary lease-rate inflation and scrambling during the GTF wave suggest that narrowbody lease markets are fragile and subject to shock.

Long-term lessors and airlines may need to rethink margin buffers and order timing to absorb similar shocks.

Outlook & Probable Resolution Path

The industry’s evolving view is that:

• The bulk of inspection and remediation work will likely be completed by end-2026, assuming average of 300–400 engines processed per year.

• Fleet normalization and full recovery across operators will stretch into 2027–2028, largely due to ramping constraints, airline scheduling, certification lags, and residual risk.

• The timeline articulated by Aegean Airlines (early 2028) is reflective of current operator expectations, not theoretical OEM “finish lines.”

Meanwhile, technological innovations (AM repairs, redesigns, HS+ retrofits) may shorten future turnaround - but they must operate within the bottlenecks of certification, supply, and installed base scale.

Source List: GTF Engine Crisis Article

(All sources accessed September 2025)

1. RTX September 2023 Powder Metal Defect Announcement

Reuters. RTX expects $3B hit in Q3 from Pratt & Whitney GTF engine issues

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/rtx-expects-3-bln-hit-q3-pratt-whitney-gtf-engine-issues-2023-09-11/

Published: September 11, 2023

2. RTX Q1 2024 Results & GTF Fleet Management Plans

RTX Press Release. RTX Reports Q1 2024 Results

https://www.rtx.com/news/news-center/2024/04/23/rtx-reports-q1-2024-results

Published: April 23, 2024

3. RTX Q1 2024 Earnings Call Transcript

Motley Fool. RTX Q1 2024 Earnings Call Transcript

https://www.fool.com/earnings/call-transcripts/2024/04/23/rtx-rtx-q1-2024-earnings-call-transcript/

Published: April 23, 2024

4. RTX Investor Presentation

RTX Investor Relations. Q4 2023 / FY 2023 Investor Deck

https://investors.rtx.com/static-files/2f11f99a-8aad-4276-9c7d-90ace69496bc

Published: January 2024

5. MTU Annual Report 2023

MTU Aero Engines. Annual Report 2023 (Risk & Revenue Sharing Partnership note)

https://www.mtu.de/fileadmin/EN/5_Investors/7_Financial_Reports/PDFs/MTU_GB2023_en_locked.pdf

Published: March 2024

6. Additive Manufacturing Repair Breakthrough

Reuters. RTX’s Pratt & Whitney develops additive manufacturing to reduce engine repair time

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/rtxs-pratt-whitney-develops-additive-manufacturing-reduce-engine-repair-time-2025-04-08/

Published: April 8, 2025

7. GTF Advantage and HS+ Retrofit Announcement

Forecast International. Pratt & Whitney’s GTF Engine Gets Major Upgrade

https://flightplan.forecastinternational.com/2025/08/26/pratt-whitneys-gtf-engine-is-getting-a-major-upgrade/

Published: August 26, 2025

8. Aegean Airlines Statement on 2028 Resolution

Aviation Week. Aegean Sees GTF Accelerated Inspections Resolving Early 2028

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/airlines-lessors/aegean-sees-gtf-accelerated-inspections-resolving-early-2028

Published: September 2025

9. Go First Court and Arbitration Filings

FlightGlobal. India’s Go First replaced 510 GTFs, takes case against P&W to US court

https://www.flightglobal.com/engines/indias-go-first-replaced-510-gtfs-takes-case-against-pandw-to-us-court/153125.article

Published: May 2023

10. Go First Engine Rights Dispute

Fortune India. Go First has no rights over engines, Pratt & Whitney tells Delaware court

https://www.fortuneindia.com/enterprise/go-first-has-no-rights-over-engines-pratt-whitney-tells-delaware-court/112816

Published: August 2023

11. Market-Wide Analysis of GTF Impact

AeroXplorer. The Challenges with Pratt & Whitney’s PW1100G Engines

https://aeroxplorer.com/articles/the-challenges-with-pratt-%26-whitneys-pw1100g-engines.php

Published: July 2024

⸻

Vienna’s Low-Cost Exodus: Ryanair, Wizz Air, and the (maybe) High Price of Taxes

This must make Scott Kirby very happy!

When two of Europe’s largest low-cost carriers announce they’re cutting back in the same city, it’s not just a scheduling tweak — it’s a shot across the bow.

Ryanair is pulling three based aircraft out of Vienna this winter and cutting three routes (Billund, Santander, Tallinn). They blame “sky-high airport fees” and Austria’s €12 per-passenger Air Transport Levy (Ryanair Corporate Newsroom).

Wizz Air is going even further: closing its entire Vienna base by March 2026, after a gradual withdrawal that starts this October. The airline calls the rising airport charges and ground-handling fees “incompatible with its ultra-low-cost model” (Reuters).

Sound familiar? It should. EasyJet scaled back its Vienna footprint years ago despite basing a substantial part of its fleet in Austria. IAG’s LEVEL never grew beyond a token presence. The pattern is hard to ignore.

Is This Really About Taxes?

Sure, Austria’s aviation tax is a blunt instrument — €12 per passenger is no small amount in a world where Ryanair’s average fare hovers around €50. But is this just about costs, or are we watching a strategic game of chicken?

Ryanair isn’t just leaving. They’re bargaining in public, dangling a carrot (and carrying a very large bully club) :

“Reduce taxes, fees and access costs and we will expand in Austria – adding up to 10 more aircraft and 12m passengers by 2030.”

(Ryanair Press Statement)

Translation: cut our costs or watch us redeploy capacity elsewhere.

Vienna: A Victim of Its Own Success?

Vienna is a strong O&D market with a hub carrier (Austrian Airlines), plenty of business demand, and a growing tourist base. But ULCCs thrive on razor-thin margins. Add higher airport charges, inflation-pumped ground-handling costs, and environmental levies designed to nudge passengers onto trains — and the economics break down.

Wizz Air has already been shifting its growth focus to Central/Eastern Europe, where airports offer incentives and cost per passenger is lower (EX-YU Aviation).

Winners & Losers

Losers:

• Consumers who enjoyed cheap flights and multiple options.

• Vienna’s tourism sector, which risks losing point-to-point connectivity.

• Vienna Airport’s growth story.

Winners:

• Austrian Airlines (and Lufthansa Group) which may gain back market share.

• Neighbouring airports like Bratislava or Budapest, which could absorb displaced capacity.

• Other European states — if Ryanair & Wizz choose to redeploy capacity there.

What Comes Next

We’ve seen this movie before: capacity cuts, tough talk, and then either policy concessions or a permanent reset of the market. The Austrian government must now choose:

• Stay the course on environmental levies and high fees, and accept reduced connectivity.

• Or renegotiate fees/taxes to lure ULCC capacity back, risking criticism from green groups.

Either way, Vienna is at an inflection point. If it misplays this moment, it could lose not just Ryanair and Wizz Air, but the competitive tension that keeps fares low.

My Take

This isn’t just about Vienna — it’s a test case for Europe. As governments layer on aviation taxes and green policies, ULCCs will keep walking when margins go red. The question is whether Vienna is the canary in the coal mine — or just the first domino. We have seen Ryanair wield its stick in Berlin, Spain and Bordeaux. 

If Austria blinks and cuts fees, Vienna may roar back. If not, expect Bratislava to have its moment in the sun.

Over to You

What do you think? Is this smart airline strategy, or regulatory overreach pushing airlines out? Will we see new players step in — or will Vienna quietly slide back to being a legacy-carrier stronghold?

Sources

• Ryanair Corporate: Vienna Cuts Announcement

• Reuters: Wizz Air to Cease Vienna Base

• EX-YU Aviation: Vienna Exit Details

New Head of USPTO promises a path different and less conservative.

 

Yesterday the U.S. Senate confirmed John A. Squires as the new Director / Under Secretary for IP at the USPTO.  His confirmation brings with it statements and commitments that should give startups, inventors and IP stakeholders cause for comfort — but also make clear that a potential overreaction could create unintended problems down the road. https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/09/18/squires-confirmed-uspto-recapping-statements-plans-office/id=192298/  AND for once someone competent in the role!

What gives reason for optimism

1. Backlog & Pendency Addressed

   Squires has pledged to reduce the massive backlog of patent applications and speed up examination without sacrificing quality.  For those of us who have seen novel ideas languish or risk being scooped or rendered obsolete by slow processes, that is good news.

2. “Born Strong” Patents & Quality Improvements

   He talks about making sure grants are of “provable quality,” and about refining front-end examination (e.g. prior art search, enablement, written description, definiteness) as well as improving post-grant review accuracy. 

3. Use of AI as a Tool, Not a Panacea

   Squires supports integrating AI tools into the examination process, particularly for repetitive tasks, searching prior art, etc., to help examiners.  That could be a force multiplier if done with good guardrails.

4. Balance & Transparency in PTAB / Post-Grant Proceedings

   He seems to be aware of concerns about how PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) proceedings have been used (and perhaps abused), and has committed to stakeholder engagement, improving transparency (including funding of litigation), and preserving access to review. 

---

But: Why startups / patent actors should also stay alert

Given these good signals, there is potential risk — especially if we in the startup / inventor community misinterpret leniency or pro-patent leanings as carte blanche to accelerate filings indiscriminately. Here are some warning flags:

1. Quality vs Quantity Trade-off

   If the USPTO pushes too hard to clear backlog or approve faster, there’s always risk that “speed” comes at cost to examination rigor. Weak patents issued too fast can become liabilities: easy to challenge, worthless when enforced, or worse, open avenues for litigation risk. As someone with 7 patents (and more underway), I’ve seen what strong claims look like — and what weak ones regretfully become.

2. Encouraging a Rush Could Create a Patent “Bubble”

   If many inventors start racing to file simply because they expect easier or faster examination / looser thresholds, we could see an inflation of low-value patents. That could burden the system (more prior art to search against, more invalidity proceedings), increase uncertainty, litigation risk, and dilute the value of strong patents.

3. Legislative & Regulatory Uncertainty Remains

   Even with Squires’ commitments, many of the critical elements (e.g. patent eligibility rules under Section 101, PTAB reform, third-party litigation funding, standing requirements, etc.) are still in flux.  Startups must plan with uncertainty in mind: what seems “good now” could be modified.

4. Overreliance on AI Without Adequate Oversight

   While AI tools can help examiners, they’re only as good as the training data, the controls, and oversight. Mistakes (missed prior art, bias, misuse) could propagate. Guardrails, validation, continuous evaluation are essential.

5. Potential for Abuse or Gaming

   Even with improved transparency, patent trolls or “predatory arbitrage” players may try to exploit weaker patents, or use disputes over eligibility / invalidity just to force settlements. Ensuring there are clear mechanisms for challenging weak patents efficiently, and defending legitimate ones, will be essential.

My take — what I’ll be watching closely (as someone with 7 patents, and more in the works)

• Will “born strong” really mean stronger upfront examination, or just more verbal kudos with same old thresholds?

• Will AI applications actually reduce examiner pendency and maintain high disclosure / prior art standards?

• How will fees / enforcement / litigation risk shift? Will stronger patents mean more enforcement opportunities, but also more risk?

• How will startups with constrained budgets handle changing demands (e.g. stronger disclosures, more expensive search requirements, etc.)?

• How will global IP competition (e.g., from China) shape how the USPTO positions itself? Will this push toward hyper-protection even at cost of overbroad grants?

Conclusion

John Squires’ confirmation is broadly good news for innovators, startups, and the IP ecosystem. It signals a willingness to rebuild trust in the system: faster, more predictable, and more meaningfully protective of inventions. But we must not let optimism lead to a free fall toward quantity over quality. As in any system, incentives matter — what the USPTO rewards through examination policy, what Congress legislates, what courts interpret — that will determine whether this turns into a sustainable boon for innovation, or a source of future drag and conflict.

#Patents #Innovation #IPPolicy #Startups #USPTO #PatentQuality #PatentRisk #AIinIP

When Algorithms Become the Landlord: RealPage, Airbnb, and the Coming Death of Pricing Control

 

Let’s drop the pretense. RealPage didn’t invent “innovation in pricing.” It industrialized collusion. The DOJ’s antitrust lawsuit lays it out: landlords pooled private rent data into RealPage’s algorithm, which spit out “optimized” prices suspiciously higher than what any free market would tolerate. The landlords get cover—the software made me do it—while tenants bleed out. That’s not technology. That’s a cartel in Python.

And anyone in hospitality who thinks this is “just a rental housing problem” should pour themselves a stiff drink. Because your sector is next.

Airbnb: The Algorithm Already Owns You

Airbnb hosts love to think they’re entrepreneurs, but the truth is the platform already controls them. Ignore “smart pricing” nudges and your listing drops like a stone in search. Follow the algorithm, and visibility is your reward. This isn’t market competition; it’s algorithmic extortion with a smiley UX.

Hotels pretend they’re still in charge, clinging to revenue management systems where managers can “accept or reject” recommendations. But that’s theater. Anyone who’s played the OTA game knows the veto is hollow.

Doomsday: When Google and Booking Pull a RealPage

Here’s the nightmare: search platforms—Google, Booking, Expedia—decide to go full RealPage. They already control discovery, ranking, and conversion. Now imagine if they set the price, too. Hotels and hosts don’t “choose” their rates; they simply become data inputs for the machine. Refuse, and you disappear.

We’re closer than most admit. Airbnb already runs this play. OTAs already decide who lives or dies on page one. Google already eats the travel funnel alive. Stitch those powers together, and pricing autonomy is gone—forever.

And don’t delude yourself that consumers benefit. Prices won’t magically drop. They’ll float up, harmonized and justified by a black-box algorithm you’ll never see.

Regulators: Decades Behind the Curve

The DOJ is finally taking its swing at RealPage. New York is circling. California blinked and backed off. A few cities—San Francisco, Jersey City, Philadelphia, Seattle—have already banned algorithmic rent-setting. But this is trench warfare against an army that’s already inside the castle.

If RealPage is collusion in housing, why isn’t Airbnb’s “smart pricing” under the same microscope? Why aren’t hotel RMS tools being questioned? Regulators pretend these markets are different. They aren’t.

The Slumlord-in-Chief Problem

And here’s the real kicker: consumer protection now sits under Donald Trump—a man who made his fortune as a slumlord, who stiffed tenants, contractors, and regulators with equal enthusiasm. The president isn’t just indifferent to this fight—he embodies the behavior the DOJ is trying to prosecute.

What do you think his administration’s appetite is to crack down on algorithmic rent-gouging or collusive hotel pricing? Answer: none. Less than none. The fox isn’t just guarding the henhouse—he’s tripling the rent on the coop and selling eviction notices as NFTs.

The Takeaway

RealPage is just the test case. Housing is the warm-up act. Hospitality is waiting in the wings. And with a slumlord in the White House, don’t expect the curtain to fall in the consumer’s favor.

So enjoy the illusion while you can. Because once search owns the price, whether you’re a landlord, a hotelier, or a traveler, your only role is simple: shut up, pay up, and thank the algorithm for its “efficiency.”

Sources

• DOJ lawsuit against RealPage: justice.gov

• DOJ adds six large landlords: justice.gov

• White House Council of Economic Advisers: renters paid $70 extra/month, $3.8B nationwide in 2023 (whitehouse.gov)

• Wired: The Apartment Rental Market Is Rigged by Algorithms (wired.com)

• Reuters: US sues Cushman & Wakefield, other landlords over alleged rental price coordination (reuters.com)

• Wikipedia overview of legislative bans: RealPage entry

• Slumlord: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Parc

Heathrow Slots: ***Correction***, New Math, Same Awkward Question

 

Apology: I messed up the conversion from weekly slots to daily slot pairs. Heathrow data is usually quoted as weekly runway slots (arrivals or departures). But market prices (e.g., the Oman Air deal) refer to a daily slot pair (one arrival + one departure, each day). So you must (1) divide weekly slots by 7 to get daily operations, then (2) divide by 2 to get daily pairs.

The corrected IAG numbers

• Weekly slots at LHR (latest public tallies):

  British Airways 4,779, Aer Lingus 288, Iberia 112 → IAG total 5,179 weekly slots. That’s arrivals+departures counted individually. 

• Daily operations: 5,179 ÷ 7 ≈ 740 movements/day. (Some sources put that number lower at 712).

• Daily slot pairs: 740 ÷ 2 ≈ 370 daily slot pairs (not 2,590—that’s weekly pairs).

Valuation (what the market actually pays for)

Deals are quoted per daily slot pair. 

• Conservative: $5m per daily slot pair → 370 × $5m ≈ $1.85 billion.

• High case (record deals): $75m per daily slot pair → 370 × $75m ≈ $27.75 billion.  

• Best case: $10 million average per slot pair.  → $3.7 Billion. 

Benchmarks for context

• IAG market cap (Aug 2025): about $24–25 billion. In other words, the high slot-value case is in the same ballpark as the whole group; the conservative case is materially smaller. 

• Heathrow Airport Holdings valuation (recent stake sales): implies roughly $10–12 billion for the airport company. 

Who captures the upside?

Heathrow’s parent is majority foreign-owned—notably Saudi Arabia’s PIF and Qatar’s QIA, alongside other overseas investors. Meanwhile Qatar Airways holds 25.1% of IAG. So the scarcity rent embedded in Heathrow access is, in practice, largely monetised offshore. 

The BMI reminder

When BA took over BMI, the real prize was Heathrow access, not the airline. In UK long-haul, access beats aircraft—and policy-created scarcity keeps access dear.  When BA absorbed BMI, the prize wasn’t the airline — it was the slots. In March 2012, the European Commission (EC) granted regulatory clearance to the acquisition by International Consolidated Airlines Group (IAG) of British Midland Limited (bmi), subject to the Commitments entered into by IAG to release London Heathrow (LHR) slot pairs on selected short-haul and long-haul city pairs.

Policy choice, not fate

If Britain wants a bigger share of the slot windfall, it has options: tax or auction secondary trades, time-limit and re-price usage rights, or channel slot-trade royalties into national infrastructure. The current setup lets scarcity rents pool with incumbents and foreign sovereign owners; that’s a political choice, not an inevitability.

Sources

1. IBA – What is an airport slot and how much are they worth? (Aug 2025)

   https://www.iba.aero/resources/articles/what-is-an-airport-slot-and-how-much-are-they-worth/

2. Simple Flying – These Airlines Hold The Most Slots At London Heathrow Airport (July 2024)

   https://simpleflying.com/london-heathrow-airlines-most-slots-guide/

3. FT Markets – International Consolidated Airlines Group S.A. (IAG:LSE)

   https://markets.ft.com/data/equities/tearsheet/summary?s=IAG:LSE

4. Aviation A2Z – London Heathrow Airport: $75m slots deal (29 Aug 2025)

   https://aviationa2z.com/index.php/2025/08/29/london-heathrow-airport-75m-slots-deal/

5. Reuters – Ardian, Saudis’ PIF buy 37.6% stake in Heathrow (14 June 2024)

   https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/ardian-saudis-pif-buy-376-stake-heathrow-ferrovial-keeps-5-2024-06-14/

6. Fortune – Saudi Arabia, Western asset managers become majority owner of Heathrow (11 Dec 2023)

   https://fortune.com/europe/2023/12/11/saudi-arabia-western-assets-majority-owner-uk-heathrow-busiest-airport-12-billion/

7. Wikipedia – Heathrow Airport Holdings (ownership & valuation references)

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathrow_Airport_Holdings

8. BBC – British Airways wins BMI takeover battle (2011)

   https://www.bbc.com/news/business-16096708

Travel Sites Beware, New Requirements Will Ensnare You

As someone who hops across countries via VPN to mirror consumer behavior and test websites from every digital lens, yeah, that’s me, I’m used to the little annoyances. But lately, Europe has cranked up a whole new level of friction online: mandatory age verification models that are already crashing workflows, even for benign use cases. Here’s the scoop, and a big warning sign flashing toward the U.S.

Travel crosses borders. Thus Travel sites content based and e-commerce based are ubiquitous. How many of us go to international sites for access to the "real" content"?

Countries Already Rolling Out Age-Verification Rules

Europe isn’t waiting around:

• France: Since Oct 11, 2024, ARCOM requires adult-content sites to support “double anonymity” age-check systems. You must get at least two methods available (selfie/ID scan or age estimation), and verification providers can’t link you to the platform. Deadline: 3 months after the standard’s publication. 

• EU‑wide (DSA): The Digital Services Act (effective now) requires platforms to take “appropriate and proportionate” steps to keep minors out, and self‑declaration won’t cut it. 

• Pilot age‑verification app: As of July 2025, five EU nations—France, Spain, Italy, Greece, and Denmark, are testing this privacy‑preserving prototype linked to the future Digital Identity Wallet. 

• United Kingdom: Under the Online Safety Act 2023, effective July 25, 2025, all porn sites, and even broader platforms (Reddit, Spotify, messaging apps), must do age checks via credit‑card, ID, facial scan, or third‑party services like Yoti. 

So France, Spain, Italy, Greece, Denmark, and the UK are already on board with these age‑verification regimes.

The Full Story: A VPN User’s Grind Meets Regulators

Let me tell you in ( my own tone, if you read the Professor on a regular basis you know):

I routinely spin up VPN sessions—pretend I’m in Paris, Madrid, Rome, Copenhagen—just to mimic how local users shop, click, experience. (and yes - I travel a lot so I get to tune how I can behave when doing real world testing). But now? Every online slipstream hits a brick wall: “Verify your age.” And it’s not a quick “click yes, I’m over 18” like the good old days.

Instead, there’s:

• ID uploads, or selfie + liveness checks (privacy dumpster).

• Reusable tokens from providers like Yoti or Veriff, which do offer some comfort with anonymity - but hey, it’s still extra steps.   

• In France, the compulsory “double anonymity” means the verification app can’t know the site, and the site can’t see your personal data. Sounds neat, except it’s new, broken on many platforms, and slows us to a crawl. 

• The EU’s blueprint and pilot app are promising, but frankly still half‑baked and variable across regions. 

And get this: adult sites are literally shutting themselves off in France, not ready for the avalanche of compliance. many porn sites (remember they drive a lot of web traffic),  pulled out, at least temporarily. 

Let me put it plainly: I hate this friction. I hate having to pause my online testing, launch another browser, drag out my passport, or wait for that reusable token just to see a site. I really hate spedning time in Europe when I am working because of this. Every extra click is a micro‑interruption in my workflow. And open‑web searches? Forget it - I’m spending more time testing age gates than testing actual UX.

Heads-Up: It’s Coming to the U.S.

Don’t relax just because you’re stateside. The noise there is ramping up:

• Multiple U.S. states are passing age‑verification laws for adult‑content sites. The Supreme Court just upheld provisions in Mississippi and Texas requiring check points. 

• The Kids Online Safety Act is pending, and if passed, could demand age verification across social platforms. 

• Global pressures and EU influence mean U.S. platforms may soon default to these checks, even if local laws don’t explicitly mandate them.   

So brace yourself: The same digital friction I’m cursing in Europe is being drafted for UA consumers. VPNs may become less of a seamless testing tool, and more of a mask we cant keep on.

Final Word from Your Friendly Fellow Tester

This isn’t just a regulatory snag, it’s a performance tax on curiosity. If you’re someone who tests sites globally via VPN, you’re in for extra steps, new plugins, passport scans, or half-working applets.

For now, your best bet:

1. Expect the pop-up: Get ready for “Verify your age” everywhere.

2. Look for double-anonymity providers like Yoti or Veriff—less painful, but still a drag.

3. Track the pilots: France, Spain, Italy, Greece, Denmark, they’re your testing ground for future USA standards.

Just know this: I hate the friction. I hate the time drain. But hey, sharing the pain means we can all prepare for the wave.

#AgeVerification #DigitalIdentity #OnlineSafety #EURegulation #TrustAndSafety #FrictionOnTheWeb #TechPolicy #FutureOfTheWeb

Source List

1. France – ARCOM’s new age verification standard

   International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP)

   https://iapp.org/news/a/france-s-new-age-verification-standard-tightening-controls-on-access-to-explicit-image-sites

2. EU-wide framework & Digital Services Act

   Trilligent: “The Age Verification Challenge”

   https://trilligent.com/the-age-verification-challenge-how-europe-is-building-the-technical-infrastructure-for-digital-age-checks

3. EU pilot project – 5 countries (France, Spain, Italy, Greece, Denmark)

   Eunews.it

   https://www.eunews.it/en/2025/07/14/the-eu-launches-an-online-age-verification-app-pilot-project-in-five-member-states-including-italy

4. UK – Online Safety Act 2023

   Wired: “The Age-Checked Internet Has Arrived”

   https://www.wired.com/story/the-age-checked-internet-has-arrived

5. Porn sites withdraw from France due to ARCOM enforcement

   The Sun

   https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/35269234/pornhub-ban-europe-major-sites

6. Digital Services Act – minors’ protection

   Inside Privacy

   https://www.insideprivacy.com/digital-services-act/european-commission-makes-new-announcements-on-the-protection-of-minors-under-the-digital-services-act

7. U.S. – Supreme Court on state-level age verification laws (Mississippi, Texas)

   Associated Press (AP News)

   https://apnews.com/article/1cf99c96ab6b461cf7612d312e111e79

8. U.S. – Kids Online Safety Act (pending)

   Wall Street Journal

   https://www.wsj.com/tech/personal-tech/age-verification-social-media-app-store-54dfb268

9. Global impact of EU law

   Netsweeper

   https://www.netsweeper.com/government/global-impact-of-eu-age-verification-law-july-25-2025

10. Broader implications for porn and internet regulation

    Wired

    https://www.wired.com/story/the-internet-revolutionized-porn-age-verification-could-upend-everything

Booked the Wrong Thing? That’s On You : The Cruel Logic of Travel Retail

In travel, if you screw up, it’s your fault. Period.

It doesn’t matter if the system was confusing, the fare rules buried under 14 tabs, or the seat map lied to you. The industry’s operating principle—often unspoken but deeply embedded—is caveat emptor: let the buyer beware. And the result? An environment where making mistakes isn’t a bug—it’s a feature. A profitable one.

This post isn’t just about corporate travel or the occasional mispriced fare. It’s about the entire ecosystem of airline and agency retailing, where errors are engineered into the system, and trust is the missing ingredient.

The Customer is Always Wrong

Let’s start with a few cautionary tales.

• A traveler booked a flight from Birmingham UK to Birmingham, Alabama, thinking it was a round trip from England. Cue the panic and the $2,000 in change fees.

• A tourist used Kiwi.com to book a multi-leg journey with separate tickets. The first flight was delayed. The second flight—booked separately—took off without him. Neither airline took responsibility.

• A traveler booked a “basic economy” ticket on a legacy airline, only to find out that not only was baggage not included, seat assignment wasn’t either. She was separated from her toddler on the flight.

• A user trying to redeem frequent flyer miles through an OTA found the fare, clicked purchase, but the confirmation email said “pending.” Twelve hours later, the price had doubled. The points were never deducted, but the flight was gone.

In each of these cases—and thousands more like them—the response from the airline or agency is the same: “You agreed to the terms.” Even if those terms were designed to confuse.

Obfuscation by Design

Let’s not kid ourselves: complexity is profitable. Airline pricing, seating, bag policies, and loyalty schemes are deliberately convoluted. It’s not about giving customers choice. It’s about putting up just enough friction to extract more revenue while retaining plausible deniability.

If you make a mistake, the system is set up to punish you. You will pay change fees, no-show penalties, rebooking surcharges. Refunds? Only if you read 16 pages of fare rules and filed a claim in triplicate.

This isn’t a glitch. It’s a business model.

Self-Service, Same Old Screws

When self-service tools first entered the market—remember kiosk ticketing?—error rates skyrocketed. Consumers booked the wrong dates, confused AM/PM, misread airport codes. The industry response wasn’t to improve clarity. It was to harden policies.

Machines didn’t fix this. AI-powered interfaces haven’t fixed this. In fact, in many cases they worsened it by giving a false sense of intelligence to a system still running on 1980s rules logic.

Trust is the Rarest Currency

The travel industry has cultivated a toxic relationship with its end users. The customer has been trained to distrust prices, to expect hidden fees, and to assume that spending more time hunting means getting a better deal. It’s like a knife fight in a dark alley—and the airlines brought machetes.

Why is this tolerated?

Because for too long, the customer has had no meaningful power. Airlines with 90% load factors don’t need to be nice. GDS companies with 50%+ market share don’t need to innovate. OTAs squeeze margins and call it choice. And regulators? Asleep at the wheel, if not complicit.

We’re All to Blame—And That’s the Problem

Suppliers blame agencies. Agencies blame suppliers. Both blame customers. Customers blame everyone. It’s adversarial by default.

What we don’t have is cooperation. We don’t have common goals. And we definitely don’t have a framework built around trust.

There are glimmers of hope—perhaps the recent Amex/Accelya/Sabre announcement around NDC indicates that some gatekeepers are willing to loosen their grip. But don’t hold your breath.

Let’s Do Better (Or At Least Pretend We Tried)

What the industry needs isn’t another acronym. It needs a better social contract.

A contract where:

• Fare rules are intelligible to humans.

• Mistakes are forgiven (once).

• Customers aren’t treated as adversaries.

• Agencies and suppliers admit their data is often wrong—and fix it.

• Regulators remember they exist to protect the public, not guard the incumbents.

Until then? Bring a helmet, a lawyer, and maybe a priest the next time you try to book a flight.

Hashtags:

#Travel #ConsumerProtection #CaveatEmptor #AirlinePricing #GDS #CustomerExperience #ObfuscationEconomy #TrustDeficit