Walk a mile in a customer's shoes they said

 And so I did... because I AM the customer. 

Background:

I flew SEA-BA- LHR-AY-HEL-AY-RIX in J class (except the final leg which was on an all Y ATR-72.

The flights were all listed as British Airways https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways (a subsidiary of IAG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Airlines_Group  but flown by BA, AY (Finnair - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnair)  and NORRA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Regional_Airlines respectively.  I kept my bag with me at all times. (BA in Seattle wanted to take the bag from me). BA's local ground handling agent was WFS. https://www.wfs.aero/ - itself a subsidiary of Singapore SATS. https://www.sats.com.sg/ (Are you following so far?) were acting like bag Nazis.

On the last leg In Helsinki - I chose to check the bag

as it was an ATR72 aircraft and it would not have fitted in the overhead bin.

Yes I received a bag tag and it would have made it. I watched with anxiety as they did not load the aircraft which was in full display before I boarded. 

To my surprise. I received a message as I landed in RIX.

But on the off chance they were wrong. Sure enough my bag appeared correctly. Happily I ignored the message. But sure enough Finnair is relentless.(Actually this is good but let's continue with the saga).

I received another message from Finnair. But this time labelled as an airline called "XS". 

So I thought I would check to see who is airline "XS".

 

Those of us who have been around for a long time know who SITA is. https://www.sita.aero/ 

So dutifully i want to respond back to Finnair and tell them I did indeed receive the bag. But Finnair doesn't want to hear what I have to say... they want to follow procedure.

As you can expect it would not let me continue. But here is the sequence of screens that I went through.

 

 

 

At this point - one realizes, the whole exercise is down the wrong path.

So what are the learnings on this? BETTER TESTING. WALK that mile. And next time when you send a useless mail to a customer make sure that it does what you intend it to do. 

Thanks! 

Postscript... here is the follow up mail.

 

 

 

My very first Veo3 Abstraction

 Yes folks we are going to be in for a wild ride.

Boeing Purchase Authorization Contract Review.

Disclaimer. This analysis is based on a review of publicly available information ONLY. 

Executive Summary

This report provides a comprehensive legal and commercial analysis of publicly available aircraft purchase agreements between Boeing and a selection of its airline and leasing customers. The agreements span legacy contracts (TWA/McDonnell Douglas) to modern lessor and low-cost carrier deals (e.g., Air Lease Corporation, Allegiant Air). Key clauses such as termination rights, refund provisions, delivery terms, and performance guarantees are compared to identify contractual flexibility and risk allocations.

Contracts Reviewed

1. TWA (via McDonnell Douglas)

2. Delta Air Lines

3. United Airlines:

   • Purchase Agreement No. 03776 (2012)

   • Purchase Agreement No. 04761 (2018)

   • Purchase Agreement No. 03860 (2012)

   • Purchase Agreement No. 04815 (Date unspecified)

4. LAN Airlines (LATAM)

5. Air Lease Corporation

6. Allegiant Air:

   • Purchase Agreement No. PA-05130 (2021)

Clause Comparison Overview

The table below summarizes key contract provisions across all reviewed agreements. Categories include termination rights due to delays or certification loss, refund mechanisms, force majeure treatment, delivery protections, and governing law. For ease of comparison, a companion spreadsheet provides a detailed clause-by-clause breakdown.

Assessment

I have re-read 3 of them (TWA (717), Delta (737-800) and United (737 Max-9). In all cases a 6 month delay was grounds for termination and refund which is pretty standard. In the case of United there was also a clause for liquidated damages. Disclaimer these are public copies so there is no record of any comfort letter and significant portions of the contract of these agreements are redacted. However, they conform largely to the structure of versions I have seen. I note that there were several other airlines who also were in the same situation. Specifically LOT, AirEuropa and SmartWings. It should be noted that ultimately these airlines have indeed operated their 737 Maxs. 

Key Takeaways and Observations

- United Airlines' later agreements offer stronger protections and refund mechanisms, especially related to FAA certification.
- Air Lease Corporation agreements are structured with lessor flexibility, including deferrals and remarketing rights.
- Delta’s agreements strike a middle ground, balancing airline leverage with Boeing delivery flexibility.
- Allegiant’s contract reflects modern low-cost carrier concerns, focusing on performance guarantees and refund rights.
- TWA (MDC-era) agreement is outdated and provides limited buyer protection compared to modern Boeing contracts.

 

---

Airline / Buyer	Agreement Description	Filing Date	Link
TWA (via McDonnell Douglas)	Aircraft Purchase Agreement (likely MD-80 series)	1999	https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/278327/000027832799000013/0000278327-99-000013-d3.html
Delta Air Lines	General Purchase and Sale Agreement	N/A	https://corporate.findlaw.com/contracts/planning/purchase-and-sale-agreement-delta-air-lines-inc-and-the-boeing.html
United Airlines	PA-03776 – Boeing 737 (Original)	Dec-12	https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/100517/000119312512435658/d408868dex103.htm
United Airlines	PA-03860 – Follow-on 737 agreement	Dec-12	https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/100517/000119312513028139/d474719dex101.htm
United Airlines	PA-04761 – Purchase of 737 MAX aircraft	Dec-18	https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/100517/000119312518343814/d663045dex101.htm
United Airlines	PA-04815 – Subsequent modifications	Not stated	https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/100517/000119312519217308/d769943dex101.htm
LAN Airlines S.A. (LATAM)	Boeing 787-8 and 787-9	Jun-08	https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1047716/000119312508140337/dex45.htm
Air Lease Corporation	Boeing 737-8 and 737-9	Jul-22	https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1487712/000162828022012628/ex-109xq122.htm
Delta Air Lines (737-10)	Specific 737-10 Acquisition	Mar-24	https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/27904/000002790424000012/dal9302024ex102a.htm
Allegiant Air	PA-05130 – 737 MAX Agreement	Jan-22	https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1362468/000136246822000007/ex101.htm

Human Not Present (HNP): The Next Risk Frontier in Payments and Commerce

 

The transition from traditional 'Card Not Present' (CNP) transactions to a world of autonomous, AI-powered purchasing has opened the door to a new, largely unregulated threat: Human Not Present (HNP) commerce. Unlike CNP, HNP transactions are executed without real-time human input, often driven by digital agents operating on ambient signals or inferred intent. This evolution is redefining risk, liability, and fraud in global commerce. Significant? You bet. Losses from eCommerce CNP fraud is estimated to reach a staggering $28 Billion by next year (2026).

From Card Not Present to Human Not Present

CNP transactions, while risky, still presume a human initiated the purchase. In contrast, HNP transactions delegate purchasing authority to autonomous agents. These systems are trained to act on inferred signals—calendar events, browsing behavior, even prior purchases. Players like Nekuda.ai are pushing this model forward by developing agents capable of purchasing without direct confirmation, based on perceived human intent.

The Role of Payment Infrastructure

Stripe and similar processors are adapting quickly. Stripe’s new modular payment capabilities—multi-party payment flows, programmable checkout, and dynamic refund logic—are designed to support agent-driven commerce. This infrastructure will serve as the backbone of the HNP ecosystem, facilitating real-time, cross-platform, cross-border purchases without direct human intervention.

A Hypothetical Use Case in Travel

Imagine an AI agent notices your favorite band is playing in Barcelona. It checks your calendar, finds a window, and in seconds, books a complete trip: flights from New York, a boutique hotel near the venue, and premium concert tickets. Each purchase is made from a different merchant using different policies and payment processors.

Then the concert is cancelled. Now the problems begin:
- The airfare is non-refundable.
- The hotel charges a no-show fee.
- The ticket is non-transferable.

Who is accountable? What are the consumer’s rights? And how do systems coordinate across merchants to unwind such a transaction?

Risks and Manipulations

With HNP, fraud risk evolves beyond identity theft. New threats include:
- Agent spoofing: Malicious entities pretending to be trusted agents.
- Intent injection: Content manipulation that tricks agents into purchasing unwanted goods.
- Heuristic biasing: Sellers designing offers to exploit decision heuristics in autonomous systems.

These are not hypothetical concerns—they are emerging design patterns.

Recommendations and Regulatory Needs

To manage the risks of HNP commerce, we recommend:
- Establishing agent certification frameworks (analogous to PCI compliance).
- Creating HNP-specific fraud detection models.
- Introducing consumer protection mechanisms like delayed settlement windows.
- Mandating explainability and audit trails for agent-based decisions.
- Facilitating multi-party refund coordination and liability models.

Without regulatory oversight, the promise of agentic commerce may be overshadowed by systemic exploitation and loss of consumer trust.

Conclusion

Agentic AI is revolutionizing commerce. But as we delegate purchasing power to autonomous systems, we must build guardrails to protect consumers, detect abuse, and assign liability clearly. Without proactive intervention, the Human Not Present economy risks becoming a trustless—and dangerous—environment.

References and Citations

- Nekuda.ai: https://nekuda.ai/

https://www.madrona.com/agents-need-a-payment-stack-nekuda-is-building-it/

- Stripe Payment Infrastructure: https://stripe.com/

- PCI Security Standards Council: https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/

- FICO blog https://www.fico.com/blogs/card-not-present-fraud-remains-leading-concern-payment-systems-evolve

- Feedzai fraud prevention https://www.feedzai.com/blog/a-card-not-present-fraud-prevention-guide/