Navigating Towards an Airworthy Protection Regime for New Zealand's Airline Passengers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Delays and cancellations are a frequent occurrence in air travel, but passenger protections in New Zealand lag behind those in other jurisdictions such as the European Union and Canada. Concerns around airlines' treatment of passengers were brought to the fore during the COVID-19 pandemic, but protections were not strengthened in the replacement of the Civil Aviation Act 1990 with the Civil Aviation Act 2023. The new Act provides insufficient protection to passengers, and New Zealand's other consumer law is also inadequate and difficult to apply to an airline context. Neither set of law has a dispute resolution scheme that is fit for purpose. Public enforcement of relevant laws by regulators is limited to breaches of the Fair Trading Act 1986, largely for misleading or deceptive trading practices, and not for breaches of specific obligations to passengers.This article examines the deficiencies in New Zealand's airline passenger protection law and compares that law with the corresponding law in Australia, the European Union and Canada. It advocates for the making of regulations that provide for fixed amounts of compensation when a flight is delayed for controllable reasons, rather than laws which require a passenger to prove damages. That is consistent with the European and Canadian approaches. It also advocates for refunds to be made available to passengers where flights are cancelled or significantly delayed. To ensure that new regulations would be effective, this article also advocates for an adjudicative dispute resolution scheme, funded by airlines according to their market share and the number of complaints received, with capacity for public enforcement (monetary fines) by the Commerce Commission.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".