We have more regulations each year than last and I think the amount of dumb shit done every year is pretty constant. That isn't to say it wouldn't increase if the regulations disappeared, but I do think that regulations try to plug the hole the last clever scam artist figured out and there is no shortage of yet to be uncovered holes that are or will be exploited.
... only to find out that the mercenaries were really scammers who took his money and skipped town.
Guess what happens when you tell people they are gullible or fools? They get defensive and mad at you. Part of me wants the scammers in jail, the other part realizes that we don't have enough jail cells and it wouldn't matter because a fool and his money are soon parted. I Person X doesn't scam them out of their money then Person Y or Z will. It's just a matter of when and for how much, not if.
They don't pay the FedEx fee, they use stolen FedEx account numbers.
Banks facilitate the payment of checks drawn on other banks. They are not in the business or compensated for taking the risk that the check you give them is bad.
Check21 created the legal framework to allow for check truncation. Your bank never "clears" a check, checks are only paid at the bank they are drawn on. My bank gives me instant access to all my check deposits but I don't labor under the delusion that means the checks have cleared. The bank a check is drawn on generally doesn't do much more than see if the account has enough funds and relies on its customers to inform them if a particular check that was presented was fraudulent, this can take some time. You always remain responsible for bad checks that you give to someone else, within the statute of limitations. The same is true of many things. Let's say you had a rare coin and sold it to me for $500 and 6 months later I sold it to someone else for $600. That someone else took the coin into a dealer 3 months after that to have it appraised and is informed that it was a fake. That person has legal recourse to recover the $600 from me and I in turn have legal recourse to recover the $500 I paid to you for the fake coin. That 9 months have passed doesn't matter, that you thought the coin was real doesn't matter, that I thought the coin was real also doesn't matter. Just because you got a bank to give you money for a bad check doesn't shift responsibility for the loss from you to the bank. So as to make it clear, when you accept a check from someone you are taking on a risk that the check is bad. Don't take checks from strangers or people you know who might stiff you.
Banks don't have time to make a phone call for every check you deposit, it is your responsibility to only accept checks from people you know so you can recover the funds if the check bounces. Your bank's job is to submit the check on your behalf to the bank it was drawn on and request that it be paid. You clearly are gullible and were fleeced, that isn't the bank's fault it is your fault. But because I'm a really nice guy I'd like to let you know that I have many contacts in the scammer community and believe I know the person who fleeced you. I can help you recover all your money but will need a $100 retainer sent via MoneyGram and will only keep 10% of the amount I recover. Reply for details.
Basic fraud statutes apply
Either one of two statements is true: 1) Access to air travel is essential to people of all economic means. 2) Air travel is a luxury. neither of those statements need be true, stating that one is true isn't true Access to air travel is not essential to people of all economic means AND air travel is not a luxury
Do you see any limits to those accommodations? The 7' 10" guy has to be accommodated, the 850lb man has to be accommodated? How do you propose they manage that? They measure you at the gate? Will sales of elevator shoes take off when people realize they can get a premium seat by being a bit taller? Does the 6' 0.5" person feel slighted because he gets a regular seat while his buddy who is 1/2" taller gets 5" of extra legroom for free? There is already a very simple solution already in place. If you desire, for whatever reason, extra legroom you purchase a premium legroom seat. There, problem solved. At least for everyone but that 850lb man who is simply too large to safely accommodate.
Are you aware that in at least one of the cases of airborne anger over reclining seats they WERE in the premium Economy Plus seats? If I want a seat that reclines I purchase a seat that reclines, there are at least 12 seats on every modern jet that don't recline. I avoid those. If you want a seat with out someone sitting in front of you reclining then kindly purchase such a seat. There are at least 18 seats in every modern jet that don't have a reclining seat in front of them. There, problem solved.
All seats are limited in their reclining. Now you want a "programmable" seat? One more thing to go wrong that requires power. Bad idea. If you want a seat that doesn't have someone reclining in front of you then select that seat. There are at least 18 on every 737+ size jet. If you have extra long legs you can also purchase a premium seat that gives you more room.
When have the rich, or to be more accurate the more affluent, NOT been able to purchase a premium product whether it be on an airplane, a boat or a train? Why does that dismay you so much?
When the FAA regulates seat pitch then airline prices go up. What is really needed is for you to recognize that the free market already provides you with the choice of a seat with greater seat pitch. If you want more leg room, pay for it. If you are satisfied with the legroom of a standard seat, you don't have to pay the higher price.
So every seat needs to accommodate a 7' 10" man or someone who is 800lbs as well or do you admit that there are limits and having limits on seat size doesn't imply discrimination? How is it that the airlines discriminate against people who are 6' 1" when they never see you when you purchase a ticket? Do they pull out a tape measure at the gate, measure you and discriminate against you there? Or is it not a case of discrimination at all but merely you don't LIKE the product they are selling and what a DIFFERENT product they are selling (Economy Plus) but believe you should be able to have that premium product for the same price? I think what the 1960's taught us is that not everything is discrimination just because some things are. For example, if you have a king size appetite to go with your king size frame you still get the same size hamburger at McDonalds for your $2.49 as a petite woman does. That isn't due to discrimination but in fact is due to McDonald's NOT discriminating on the basis of size.