alfa164 wrote:

iflyalexair wrote:

Passengers should be responsible for understanding the rules of the tickets they buy. I'm sure that this family hasn't read Delta's Contract of Carriage, nor did they explore the fare rules of their son's ticket. They decided to play Delta's game by buying a Delta ticket. If they had done this, or even made a call to Delta to ask if what they intended on doing was allowed, we wouldn't have gotten to this point. They would have learned that the unused ticket could not be transferred and if that passenger failed to show up, the seat could be filled. Clearly, the passengers made the mistake of assuming that their plan would work. Well, guess what? It didn't. So, now we're in yet another situation where the airline is legally "in the right," and the passengers don't understand why. How many times in this video did the man say, "I paid for that seat!" The reality is that he didn't. He paid for transportation from point A to point B, constrained by the rules and regulations of the airline, the ticket, and the FAA.

Actually, if the parents had simply been smart enough to "check-in" their 18-year-old (online, or at a kiosk... no ID required), the seat would have been held for them and the small-fry could have taken it. Nobody would have been any wiser.

Not that I condone deception... I just explain it...

It would have been held until the boarding pass wasn't scanned at the gate. The gate agent is fully aware of who is checked in and who isn't on board. The unboarded seats will be dropped and reassigned at the last minute to standbys, no-revs, etc.

I guess your next suggestion is that the passengers could have attempted to scan the boarding pass of the unboarded child as if that were a ticket purchased for the infant in arms. Apart from the obvious concerns of incorrect flight rosters, this *might* have been a possible work around.

alfa164 wrote:

Actually, if the parents had simply been smart enough to "check-in" their 18-year-old (online, or at a kiosk... no ID required), the seat would have been held for them and the small-fry could have taken it. Nobody would have been any wiser.

Not that I condone deception... I just explain it...

The 18 year old was on an earlier flight...would they still have been able to check him in ?

Everyone was in the wrong and everyone was taking the role as I am right, I have my rights etc.. making unnecessary drama.

Delta employees were too threatening thinking that would work. While the family was in the wrong as well. The seat was for an 18 year old who took another flight, the seat was now free, the child was brought onboard as a lap child and is too young to sit in a seat anyway.

The father kept insisting that the seat was his, that he has the right etc.. he was wrong there, Delta was also wrong in the manner they went with this, but they have all the right to use that seat for another passenger.

Yes, in the end the father said he would just have the kid sit on the lap, but it seems like he refused that at first.

It was a mess, it was handled poorly, but the passengers were not some innocent people, they were trying to cheat the system too.

Best Response..
Gate Agent: Oh, sorry, what was the other passengers name? Ok...hold on..
[Agent departs the aircraft for a few minutes]
Gate Agent: Ok, no problem, that'll be $657 for the new ticket. I did apply Mr. Mason's fare minus the change fee. Credit Card or Cash?

flymia wrote:

Delta employees were too threatening thinking that would work. While the family was in the wrong as well. The seat was for an 18 year old who took another flight, the seat was now free, the child was brought onboard as a lap child and is too young to sit in a seat anyway.

Small point but that is incorrect, children under the age of 2 can sit in seats with approved restraints.

The DL ground staff could have definitely handled the situation better, but the family is beyond stupid for thinking they could essentially change their 18-year old son's reservation without even informing the airline.

DLFREEBIRD wrote:

Tugger wrote:

DLFREEBIRD wrote:

i'm not following your logic, if the child was delayed for 9 hours. of course the voucher would be in their name. It's like a company paying for your ticket and you were delayed 9 hours. you would get the voucher not the company who paid for your ticket.

Why? Why not provide the voucher to be used by the person who purchased the ticket, to be used as they wish for who they wish?

I have been annoyed by this often enough when I need to make a change for my family and each member is credited back even though I do most of the flying (and all the paying). Just credit it back in bulk to my account. But of course that does not benefit the company so no reason to do it.

Tugg

really? the world according to Tugg. in the real world there is this thing called personhood.

In the real world, who pays for things usually matters.

Also, aren't the vouchers usually usable by anyone? I know I have used vouchers before from UA and WN that were received by others for delayed flights.

Meanwhile, no such problems for the rest of the world's airlines...

More example of greed from the other side of the Atlantic...

iflyalexair wrote:

I guess your next suggestion is that the passengers could have attempted to scan the boarding pass of the unboarded child as if that were a ticket purchased for the infant in arms. Apart from the obvious concerns of incorrect flight rosters, this *might* have been a possible work around.

That was not my "suggestion", but it was what I said could have been done; that would have resulted in the seat being claimed by the family.

JohnsonRod wrote:

Look, at the end of the day, it is getting ridiculous how the video vigilanti mob is out to get airlines and other businesses. I'm the last to defend DL because of their lunatic fanboys on here, but it's getting out of control. People are constantly trying to break the rules, and then taking to social media when they don't get their way. Or have people video only part of the story so the angry Twitter, spoiled millennial types can whine and cry. Facts and truth have gone out the window these days in favor of sensationalism and bleeding hearts.

I couldn't have said it better myself!!! If people aren't careful, they will get exactly what they DON'T want in the form of government regulation of fares and seating policies.

fly4ever78 wrote:

JohnsonRod wrote:

Look, at the end of the day, it is getting ridiculous how the video vigilanti mob is out to get airlines and other businesses. I'm the last to defend DL because of their lunatic fanboys on here, but it's getting out of control. People are constantly trying to break the rules, and then taking to social media when they don't get their way. Or have people video only part of the story so the angry Twitter, spoiled millennial types can whine and cry. Facts and truth have gone out the window these days in favor of sensationalism and bleeding hearts.

I couldn't have said it better myself!!! If people aren't careful, they will get exactly what they DON'T want in the form of government regulation of fares and seating policies.

There are many, many people who would welcome regulation on airline seating policies.

A good case is made here for using an agent. We get 'name change' requests all the time. We often can get a waiver but worst case, they just pay a fee, usually 100-200.00.

Increasingly the airlines have treated their customers like cattle and tried to squeeze every last cent out of them and this has been going on for years. The reality is that the general public is not very sympathetic to their rules and policies when we get nickle and dimed and crammed into ever tighter cabins with crappier service. This is less about this particular event than it about the flying public's perception. In general they are fed up with the airlines. The backlash is being served up as a cold plate of social media and these PR nightmares are only going to increase. Have fun airlines, you created this situation so figure out how to fix or accept the fact that your reputation and profits will continue to take a hit.

We can talk about how unreasonably entitled people think they are but in the end they are the airlines' customers. Deal with it.

DLFREEBIRD wrote:

Tugger wrote:

DLFREEBIRD wrote:

i'm not following your logic, if the child was delayed for 9 hours. of course the voucher would be in their name. It's like a company paying for your ticket and you were delayed 9 hours. you would get the voucher not the company who paid for your ticket.

Why? Why not provide the voucher to be used by the person who purchased the ticket, to be used as they wish for who they wish?

I have been annoyed by this often enough when I need to make a change for my family and each member is credited back even though I do most of the flying (and all the paying). Just credit it back in bulk to my account. But of course that does not benefit the company so no reason to do it.

Tugg

really? the world according to Tugg. in the real world there is this thing called personhood.

Gee, really? I never knew? Wow.... Seriously you can drop the condescending attitude, I know the current reality of things (and all about "personhood") but the truth is that absolutely does not have to be how things are done. Or are your trying to assert that this is the only thing airlines can do?

Tugg

alfa164 wrote:

iflyalexair wrote:

Passengers should be responsible for understanding the rules of the tickets they buy. I'm sure that this family hasn't read Delta's Contract of Carriage, nor did they explore the fare rules of their son's ticket. They decided to play Delta's game by buying a Delta ticket. If they had done this, or even made a call to Delta to ask if what they intended on doing was allowed, we wouldn't have gotten to this point. They would have learned that the unused ticket could not be transferred and if that passenger failed to show up, the seat could be filled. Clearly, the passengers made the mistake of assuming that their plan would work. Well, guess what? It didn't. So, now we're in yet another situation where the airline is legally "in the right," and the passengers don't understand why. How many times in this video did the man say, "I paid for that seat!" The reality is that he didn't. He paid for transportation from point A to point B, constrained by the rules and regulations of the airline, the ticket, and the FAA.

Actually, if the parents had simply been smart enough to "check-in" their 18-year-old (online, or at a kiosk... no ID required), the seat would have been held for them and the small-fry could have taken it. Nobody would have been any wiser.

Not that I condone deception... I just explain it...

Not so. Checking in is one act, but the agent would then need to "on" the customer, showing them onboard by scanning or pulling a valid boarding pass for that customer. When that didn't happen, they'd be a no-show, even if they'd checked in.

#RESPECTTHEINVENTORY .... ANOTHER Reason !! NUF Said

EA CO AS wrote:

Not so. Checking in is one act, but the agent would then need to "on" the customer, showing them onboard by scanning or pulling a valid boarding pass for that customer. When that didn't happen, they'd be a no-show, even if they'd checked in.

Well... yes, so. The passenger carrying a youngster hands the gate agent the two boarding passes... one adult, one child boards the aircraft. Parents with kids do this on probably every flight I have ever flown.

I think there is some improvement to be made on both sides.

Passengers need to understand that they are not going to a concert or a ball game. Unlike those analogies, there are very real cotcumstances that any non-compliance by passengers could put everyone on board in danger.

That being said, the airlines need to stop playing the safety card everytime there is some issue that is really a customer service issue. There is no requiremnet that passengers be in their assigned seats as far as the FAA is concerned.

Over-selling of flights is a relic of the past that should be stopped. I see an opening for a SWA or Jetblue type airline to step up to the plate. They might as well benefit from the publicity because they are about to lose the ability to do it anyway.

EA CO AS wrote:

Not so. Checking in is one act, but the agent would then need to "on" the customer, showing them onboard by scanning or pulling a valid boarding pass for that customer. When that didn't happen, they'd be a no-show, even if they'd checked in.

Not if they handed the boarding pass to them for their "child". Is a seat booked for a child safety seat clearly identified as such? If not I can see the agent not doing anything further (but they of course might have but the problem would have been taken care of there at the gate immediately, likely with a favorable resolution, possibly a few hundred dollar change fee).

My question that I think airlines will have to move towards is "How can this be resolved in a manner that is most beneficial to the customer in front of me" (Alternatively it could be: "How can I resolve this, pretending as if I am being filmed and it will be released to the general public to be viewed with little context, in a manner that is most favorable to my company" but I think my first idea is better. simpler. ).

Tugg

precure787 wrote:

Dragging a Vietnamese-American doctor from an overbooked flight is one thing, but kicking the ENTIRE family out of the overbooked flight is another thing. I find that incident more deplorable than that UA3411 incident.

Uh-huh......

WaywardMemphian wrote:

I would have just held the child. If it cried the whole flight, so be it.

I wonder how that part didn't come together? In the video apparently, the dad offered to do so and they didn't allow it. Either the DL employee was being unreasonable or there are parts we didn't see. If, for example, the dad kept insisting that the seat was his even after multiple explanations of why it wasn't, then perhaps they'd had enough. Who knows. As someone who's always been in management, it makes me nauseous a bit seeing how these things get so out of control.

notdownnlocked wrote:

Look, at the end of the day, it is getting ridiculous how the video vigilanti mob is out to get airlines and other businesses. I'm the last to defend DL because of their lunatic fanboys on here, but it's getting out of control. People are constantly trying to break the rules, and then taking to social media when they don't get their way. Or have people video only part of the story so the angry Twitter, spoiled millennial types can whine and cry. Facts and truth have gone out the window these days in favor of sensationalism and bleeding hearts.

I certainly think I'd appreciate a video exonerating me in an unfortunate situation. However, instead of plastering it all over the internet, I'd probably use it to negotiate with the airline. In a lot of these videos, the "victim" doesn't always come out looking all that hot.

I agree, though, that having cameras thrust into peoples faces in the middle of an already tense situation can cause more tension and perhaps affect the outcome in ways that neither party would have anticipated.

klm617 wrote:

He bought the seat so if he wants to put his kid in it or sleep in it himself he should be able to do what ever he wants with the seat.

Wrong. He bought transportation for his 18 year old son. The son no-showed.

klm617 wrote:

So to rectify this they should have booked the seat in one of their two names rather than their son but again they shouldn't have the seat taken away from them the employee's should have been more understanding. Situation could have been much better handled by Delta but they chose to use more heavy handed tactics to help their agenda not good customer service at all a simple miss understanding on the passengers part.

They should have called the airline at a minimum before doing anything. Short of that, they could have said something at the airport. Short of that, they could have checked their 18 year old in like they did for every other seat they purchased. This isn't really all that complicated, though if the family was clueless about the process I certainly feel for them.

TerminalD wrote:

THE REAL QUESTION is whether the public views the airline policy as reasonable and I think in the eyes of many they will not view this as reasonable.

While I understand your sentiment, the reality is that when you combine people making their own judgment calls based on what THEY think is reasonable (even when they were not even there) combined with the use of cellphone video being instantly shared worldwide without a clear understanding of the all the facts, you have now opened the door imho to even more of these situations. Instead of people taking accountability, it becomes a social media trial.

Two things are going to happen. One is that in many cases the rules are going to change to reflect this new reality. The second is that this approach to justice is going to come back to haunt a lot of people when it goes to the extreme. Imagine having someone back into you in a parking lot, you get out of your car and three people from their car are videoing you. Perhaps they even were taunting you, but of course that'll be edited out. Good luck with that.

Tugger wrote:

This is a situation where people think they are being reasonable but fail based on the voluminous CoC test which almost no one reads (fully) and everyone automatically must accept in total or they are not going to be sold a ticket.

I'd imagine in most cases that the CoC never comes into play. However, if you as the ticket holder change things up, such as swapping a person, no-showing, etc., then it probably behooves you to contact the airline at a minimum. Had they thought to have done that, this wouldn't have happened.

727LOVER wrote:

The 18 year old was on an earlier flight...would they still have been able to check him in ?

I wonder if they actually tried to check him in but his itinerary had been cancelled and they either didn't think anything of it or just kept that to themselves? I admit to not having watched the video yet so I don't know if the 18 year old flew on Delta or another airline.

kimimm19 wrote:

Meanwhile, no such problems for the rest of the world's airlines...

More example of greed from the other side of the Atlantic...

1. Passenger no-showed, forfeiting seat. The airline didn't know someone else was planning to use it because the family never told them.
2. Airline sells seat to someone else. Hey, it might even have been a doctor who had a patient to see the next morning.
3. Passenger pre-boards and uses the seat that now has been sold to the good doctor.
4. The doctor boards and his seat is taken by someone else, so logically he gets assistance.
5. The family is told they cannot use that seat but the repeatedly insist that they paid for it.
6. Because the family never told the airline what they were doing, they have now placed the airline and the good doctor in a bad position.

Now, where is the greed in that? Selling the seat to someone else? The passenger no-showed. They aren't using it. It's empty. It's not yours, mine, or anyone else's - it's the airlines. They sell the seat to accommodate the good doctor who has a patient he urgently needs to see the next day.

I get that it's all the rage right now to bash the United States, but can we sort of think it through first and perhaps be a bit more respectful without just having a knee-jerk response each time?

Polot wrote:

There are many, many people who would welcome regulation on airline seating policies.

Probably where we're headed at some point, but I imagine people will still try to game the system.

Clear cut case here. 2 year old didn't have a ticket, daddy should have paid a change fee to swap the name on the ticket OR check in Mason's ticket, when he failed to do either the ticket was cancelled and the seat was allotted to someone else. They were given the option to stay but chose not to. As a dad with my 2 two year old and a 6 year old + wife, I know what to do. If there's a question, I call the airline *ahead of time* or check with them at the airport. Callous behavior to expose your whole family to all this drama, the delays, the inevitable crying...

I find this case closer related to those wedding people trying to crash the exit row. Oh, there's an "open" seat a mere three rows up. I was in 24 and this is 21. Never mind it's an E+ row. Never mind that it's an exit row subject to extra scrutiny due to FAA regulations. Never mind that swimming upstream like that on a full plane during boarding is bound to get noticed. Never mind that since these are among the most desirable seats on the plane, right after domestic first, and thus bound to get filled up even though the may look unoccupied at the moment you pass them.

This is a plane, not a bus, Coachella or Burning Man. Leave the drama and the rudeness at home, and be willing to shell out a couple extra bucks to follow any applicable rule around buying tickets, transferring them, getting better seats, etc. Airlines are very receptive to credit cards these days, extremely willing to sell anything that hasn't already been sold to someone else. Not rocket science, no "hidden rules" that can only be found after "30,000+" words in the T&Cs, these scenarios are page 1 / page 2 stuff and not worthy of news articles.

One question I have is: Does it actually cost $200 (or whatever) to change a name on a ticket? How hard is to actually do that, for the airline or for the customer?

And additionally, why don't (or won't) airlines refund cost (or provide a voucher) to the purchaser, why only the "name on the the ticket"? Why not require the "name on the ticket" to actually buy the ticket if you are going to do that? (I ask this seriously but with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek).

Tugg

This is my very first post on airliners.net. I have read this site for more than 2 decades.

It is my assumption that the 18 year old did not infact buy an earlier flight (walk up fares are generally prohibitively expensive) and instead paid for a 'same day flight change' product or 'same day standby' product. It was probably and incorrect assumption that his original seat would remain vacant and could be used by the baby seat.

That being said, I agree with the setiment that the situation was handled poorly from all parties. Finally, as was mentioned earlier even in the case where a walkup fare was purchased (keeping the old ticket valid). Still boarding / checking-in with the 18 year old's boarding pass would both violate the contract of carriage, and create a mismatch in the passengers scanned and the passengers boarded.

Dang. Even Delta is in the fire. I wonder if this happens at other airlines around the world?

Airlines need to hire this customer service specialist

https://www.facebook.com/BetterCallSaul ... f=NEWSFEED

If the person who was originally ticketed does not check in by the required cut off time (45 minutes), then the seat is released, the ticketed passenger is no-showed and the seat is given to someone else. An infant in arms, which they checked both infants in as infants in arms, is not given a seat. If the 2 year old was purchased a seat, then this is a very different story, which it is not. I'm tired of people saying it's okay to break the law, rules and regulations. Airline employees are starting to crack under the pressure that entitled assholes put on them. I see people being jerks everyday, taking their responsibilities out on people who have no control over their poor planning or bad choices.
This is another situation that escalated to a point that it didn't have to go because you have, once again, adults not acting like adults in an adult situation.

Current Score: DL 2 AA and UA 1. Looks like DL is in the lead.

What am I missing? This is a security issue in that airlines, TSA and Homeland as well as others, need to know who is getting on a plane. The fact that this individual didn't want to adhere to the rules then complains to the world about it because he has no legal standing looking to get something out of it speaks volume's. A very simple solution, you don't like the rules as written and expected for everyone to follow, don't fly on DL or anyone else. Take a freighter next time; but even they will require to know who is on their ship.

Oh...remember the good old days. Men wore suit jackets and ties, women wore dresses. We were served real hot meals with at least stainless steel utensils (even in coach). Friends and family could see you off, and meet your flight at the gate.

Flying was relaxing and enjoyable. Even when flying in the U.S.

ua900 wrote:

They were given the option to stay but chose not to..

No they weren't. They were kicked off, and that's a big mistake by DL.

Scorpio wrote:

ua900 wrote:

They were given the option to stay but chose not to..

No they weren't. They were kicked off, and that's a big mistake by DL.

Honestly that was the ONLY mistake made by Delta.

Tugg

Scorpio wrote:

ua900 wrote:

They were given the option to stay but chose not to..

No they weren't. They were kicked off, and that's a big mistake by DL.

It's hard to know all that was said. However, it might have been that initially the man simply refused to accept that he'd forfeited the seat by not checking in. When push came to shove and he said "I'll hold the child", it might have already passed the point of no return for DL.

Two things I saw in an article on it were that he made a similar comment to Dr. Dao - "Fine, get security then" or something like that. The second was that he allegedly told the res agent who sold him the second ticket of his plans to use the first ticket for his infant. I'm guessing if true that the res agent didn't connect the dots (or chose not to for convenience) and he perhaps thought he was fine then.

The ticket/seat was PAID for!!! End of discussion.

What? If he had a 13yo daughter who sat in her older brother's seat and her name was Missy, not Mason and allowed to board.

Game over.

Dad paid for that seat! It's his, even if he put his pooch in it!
Nowhere is it stated that DL refunded him for the seat or stated the change caused a forfeiture of funds paid.

It's appalling all the mindless comments from knuckleheads lashing out at this family!

BN747

Tugger wrote:

Scorpio wrote:

ua900 wrote:

They were given the option to stay but chose not to..

No they weren't. They were kicked off, and that's a big mistake by DL.

Honestly that was the ONLY mistake made by Delta.

Tugg

Oh no, not paying attention to the optics of the situation especially in regards to recent events, and especially after the phone was pulled out and the situation was being filmed, was definitely a mistake by the Delta employees.

Meanwhile in the past ~6 weeks since this hysteria on social media has broken, out I've been on 12 flights:
11 of the 12 flights were on-time arrivals.
No flights involved anyone getting disruptive, getting dragged off airplanes, or getting in verbal disputes with crew members
Nobody has filmed anyone doing anything
The FA and crews on all flights have been professional and performed their duties
Passengers have been respectful

These outlier events have always been happening for decades. They just get a lot more mainstream media coverage and now social media coverage than before.

I still enjoy flying and find it still to be a pleasant experience.

Polot wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Scorpio wrote:

No they weren't. They were kicked off, and that's a big mistake by DL.

Honestly that was the ONLY mistake made by Delta.

Tugg

Oh no, not paying attention to the optics of the situation especially in regards to recent events, and especially after the phone was pulled out and the situation was being filmed, was definitely a mistake by the Delta employees.

For that I'll restate my earlier comment:
I think airlines will have to move towards a new mindset: "How can this be resolved in a manner that is most beneficial to the customer in front of me" (Alternatively it could be: "Pretending as if I am being filmed and it will be released to the general public to be viewed with little context, how can I resolve this in a manner that is most favorable to my company?").

Tugg

oldannyboy wrote:

Who said the ticket wasn't transferable ? This is about basic customer service which has gone out the window and I don't understand why people applaud this kind of behavior towards people by corporations.

You are totally right, so right. But hey, this is Corporational, Institutional, punishing America at its best. Threateningly powerful... "...you and your wife can be arrested and you might have your kids taken away from you".... The single human being must bend backwards and jump through impossible loops to accommodate the greedy needs of large corporations, yet the individual must learn to keep quiet and blindly obey orders, lest he gets arrested for some security breach or federal offence...[/quote]

I don't understand how there is a segment of people who feel the customer is right in every instance. There have been several stories that have come to light since UA3411 wherein the customer was clearly in wrong but hoping to ride the wave of negative public sentiment against the airlines to their advantage. This family was ignorant to how airline ticketing works and instead of being proactive and explaining themselves to an airline rep before hand decided to gamble and ultimately lost. There is a saying that ignorance of the law is no excuse. You can't get out of a fine or an arrest simply because you state you didn't know the law.

It seems like you're arguing that because the airlines are in customer service they should just let things slide for the good of the customer. Where do you draw the line? My roommate once showed up at the airport a day early for her flight. She bought a ticket for the same flight, just a different day. Since she was there, should the gate agent have let her on in the name of customer service?

77H

BN747 wrote:

Dad paid for that seat! It's his, even if he put his pooch in it!
Nowhere is it stated that DL refunded him for the seat or stated the change caused a forfeiture of funds paid.

It's appalling all the mindless comments from knuckleheads lashing out at this family!

After paying for the seat, he then no-showed. The airline will offer the seat to another customer who also paid, as they should. Delta will certainly not refund him for the seat (unless it's a refundable fare, which I doubt), though they will offer him the credit he paid toward a future flight, as is the policy with no-shows.

If I were the gate agent, I would have simply asked for the boarding pass for that seat. If he can't produce it, he has no right to the seat.

Anyone saying that they should have just checked in the old son, keep in mind that they'd still no show at the gate. The flight was oversold so that seat would still have been reassigned to a standby after boarding was completed.

This is disgisting. The airlines are completely out of control and self entitled to treat customers like cattle and it needs to stop. Im all for re-regulation. If i buy out a whole row because i want to stretch out then so be it. they made the money they expected to for the flight. The airline should not be able to make additional revenue on a seat that has already been paid for that is empty. they bought another ticket for the son for an earlier flight and they should be able to use that empty seat that they had paid for however they feel free to. Not only were they misinformed by the crew regarding the car seat but they were threatened with being thrown in jail and seperated from their babies for a space that was paid for.

77H wrote:

I don't understand how there is a segment of people who feel the customer is right in every instance. There have been several stories that have come to light since UA3411 wherein the customer was clearly in wrong but hoping to ride the wave of negative public sentiment against the airlines to their advantage. This family was ignorant to how airline ticketing works and instead of being proactive and explaining themselves to an airline rep before hand decided to gamble and ultimately lost. There is a saying that ignorance of the law is no excuse. You can't get out of a fine or an arrest simply because you state you didn't know the law.

It seems like you're arguing that because the airlines are in customer service they should just let things slide for the good of the customer. Where do you draw the line? My roommate once showed up at the airport a day early for her flight. She bought a ticket for the same flight, just a different day. Since she was there, should the gate agent have let her on in the name of customer service?

77H

I don't think I am seeing anyone saying the customer is right in every instance. For me, and what I see most everyone "on the customers side" saying, my issue is that the company and the employees seem to keep making poor decisions in these situations. I think it comes from the years of being able to label everything and anyone a security risk simply for not immediately following directions on what are truly customer service issues.

Tugg

Mir wrote:

If I were the gate agent, I would have simply asked for the boarding pass for that seat. If he can't produce it, he has no right to the seat.

The interesting thing is, what would have been the thing you would recommend the customer do: A.) pull the ticket he had for his (other) son out and hand it to the GA and proceed from there. Or B.) tell the agent the truth about what had happened and present the other ticket.

Which would you advise? And is the airline harmed (directly) with the situation?

Tugg

People do not understand that they are not buying a seat on the airplane. They are buying some vague promise of transportation from an air carrier that may or may not materialize. So, basically, you may have a "reservation", but really you, yourself, just have a way of getting on said flight IF it operates and they have a seat for you. Seat assignments are a mere courtesy and could change at any time. This vagueness leads to situations like these. Interestingly, Amtrak does sell specific sleeping compartments, so you cannot change the assigned compartment without exchanging the ticket. That has its own disappointing disadvantages.

Passedv1 wrote:

There is no requiremnet that passengers be in their assigned seats as far as the FAA is concerned.

Many airlines compute weight and balance info based on seat assignments, so yes, I can guarantee the FAA would like you to sit in your assigned seat.

Good grief. Airline tickets have been non-transferable for decades and decades. Do people really not know this? Even after all the post 9/11 hype?
The bottom line is that the agent could have handled the situation better. You've got to show some compassion to the situation no matter what rules the customer may be breaking, or how bad a day you might be having. It can be hard, but you must.
Also, the most important thing for everyone to remember about air travel in our brave new social media controlled world is this:
Millions of people get where they're going every day without any screaming matches or threats of violence between airlines and their customers. Always have. Always will.

N353SK wrote:

Passedv1 wrote:

There is no requiremnet that passengers be in their assigned seats as far as the FAA is concerned.

Many airlines compute weight and balance info based on seat assignments, so yes, I can guarantee the FAA would like you to sit in your assigned seat.

If that is the case, how does Southwest do W&B? Don't they have open seating (i.e., if there is an open seat, you can sit there?)?

(Serious question, no attitude intended)

from Delta,
Delta issued the following statement today regarding Flight 2222 on April 23, 2017:

"We are sorry for the unfortunate experience our customers had with Delta, and we've reached out to them to refund their travel and provide additional compensation. Delta's goal is to always work with customers in an attempt to find solutions to their travel issues. That did not happen in this case and we apologize."

Moral of the story go ahead and create a scene and Delta (any name) will pick up your tab.

nine4nine wrote:

If i buy out a whole row because i want to stretch out then so be it.

You are free to do that, assuming all tickets are purchased in your name. The airline may prefer that, actually, since they will need a bit less fuel and food than if three seats were occupied by three different people. But that is not what happened here.

nine4nine wrote:

they bought another ticket for the son for an earlier flight and they should be able to use that empty seat that they had paid for however they feel free to.

They could have, as long as they had notified the airline of their plans, which apparently they did not do. And once the check-in window closes, airlines will, for better or worse, assume any outstanding tickets are no-shows and act accordingly.

alfa164 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

Not so. Checking in is one act, but the agent would then need to "on" the customer, showing them onboard by scanning or pulling a valid boarding pass for that customer. When that didn't happen, they'd be a no-show, even if they'd checked in.

Well... yes, so. The passenger carrying a youngster hands the gate agent the two boarding passes... one adult, one child boards the aircraft. Parents with kids do this on probably every flight I have ever flown.

What he's saying is, they could have checked in but not scanned the boarding pass at the gate. Those are two separate things. Pax are shown as "checked in" and "seated" based on this. If they checked in but did not scan at the gate, the passenger would show as unseated, or basically, a no-show.

In all honesty, were I in their situation, I would have checked in and scanned the boarding pass to pass it off as the 2-year old. Sure that might not be technically kosher given the name on the ticket, but I doubt anyone would have even noticed the difference since the 18-year old was presumably on a different ticket and different flight entirely.

what if I told you 100% I knew the customer and he knows that tickets cant be transferred. And That this is just a case of poor GA public relashions issue. Would you guys still be up in arms.

Would you guys all be up in arms if the united incident hadn't happened?

I really wonder why all the out rage all the sudden.

BravoOne wrote:

from Delta,
Delta issued the following statement today regarding Flight 2222 on April 23, 2017:

"We are sorry for the unfortunate experience our customers had with Delta, and we've reached out to them to refund their travel and provide additional compensation. Delta's goal is to always work with customers in an attempt to find solutions to their travel issues. That did not happen in this case and we apologize."

Moral of the story go ahead and create a scene and Delta (any name) will pick up your tab.

As I have said before, some of this did fall on the customer - of this I have no doubt - but DL bungled the customer service aspect of this situation. All of this additional compensation could have been avoided with an empowered employee using some common sense and perhaps an ounce or two of caring and compassion as well.