Article and YouTube video posted in the following link speaks clearly of what's at issue. Poor family, especially with traveling with two small children both in car seats late at night.

http://abc7.com/travel/socal-family-thr ... g/1951238/

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p7pM8IyxpTc

Just a little problem: They didn't have a ticket in the name of the lap child.

'Schear says he originally bought the seat for his 18-year-old son Mason, but then decided to send him home on an earlier flight so that he could use the seat for his younger child, Grayson, who was placed in a car seat.'

It doesn't work that way. Nice attempt at martyrdom, though.

Regardless, in that situation- either way someone would have been inconvenienced. Either the family being booted off- or the passengers without seat assignments as a result of the overbooking. The right thing- logically, would have been to allow the family to remain on board as they were already boarded and the seat paid for. Regardless of Delta's policy on the matter. It's simple customer service. Not everyone in this situation could have been pleased or safisfied. Instead, the Delta agents made an already stressful situation worse with threats of "jail and foster care." Sometimes airlines can and should bend the rules for the smoothest possible outcome. Compassion goes a long way. And I'm not attempting to be recognized as a martyr. Did you watch the entire 8 minute video posted on YouTube, MI? Also, did you hear when the father stated that the whole reason for buying another ticket for the 18 year old son to fly on an earlier flight- was to allow for the 1 year old son to occupy a car seat because it was safer for the baby (versus being a lap child)- and also would allow for him to sleep comfortably considering they were on a red eye?

airplaneboy wrote:

Regardless, in that situation- either way someone would have been inconvenienced.

The passenger without a ticket always, even if that passenger is a 2-year old child. There is a reason passenger names are printed on a ticket. Not your name, not your ticket.

Didn't grasp this from the original post, but it now appears the scenario is:

Father decides to send 18 year old on separate flight to free up seat
Does not get booking changed from 18 year old, to 2 year old
Airline re sells seat due to no show of 18 year old
Family boards early when invited due to having small children
Airline lets them through gate on assumption that child is a lap passenger
Family attach child seat to seat that was theirs once, but isn't now
Airline insist it is vacated to allow passenger checked into it to sit down.

The only error I can see here on the part of the airline is where the cabin crew member claims that seating children in car seats is not allowed. This however happened to us on more than one occasion. So few parents book seats for their infants with the result that cabin crew rarely experience it, and resultingly think its not possible

The right thing- logically, would have been to allow the family to remain on board as they were already boarded and the seat paid for. Regardless of Delta's policy on the matter. It's simple customer service.

Can they even do that? My understanding has always been that the person flying has to match the name on the ticket. I'm certainly not a lawyer but I seem to recall that that's the federal law or the regs on this.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, just curious about how much leeway and latitude the gate agents and/or flight crew would actually possess in situations like these. I know from personal experience that no ticket = not being allowed through the TSA checkpoint (I've seen that happen to others), let alone getting on the plane. Of course, things may be different for infants.

Thank you for any informed discussion on this point.

Bob

Pretty bad scene on DL's part, all because of overbooking and overzealous -but totally inapt-gate agents and FAs.
And just how crass and preposterous of that FA to tell the man 'he and his wife would be arrested and his children taken away from them'. What an a$$hole. How does she dare.. who is she?
What is wrong with US airlines these days??? No understanding, no compassion, but worst of all not a grain of common sense, no logic or any attempt at smoothing ruffled feathers.... No, never. They invariably threaten people with arrest and the usual federal offence blah blah blah spiel.... Sad and pathetic.

Did he not think to mention he was using a different passenger's seat for his two year old? These aren't concert tickets; you can't just swap a ticket between passengers.

Did he check-in his son's ticket? If he didn't then it's fair game & he deserves no sympathy for trying to game the system.

It's as simple as that. Let's not make this another David Dao issue because it clearly isn't.

I don't have time to watch the whole video right now, but at the end of the day I think it comes down to this:

blueflyer wrote:

airplaneboy wrote:
Regardless, in that situation- either way someone would have been inconvenienced.

The passenger without a ticket always, even if that passenger is a 2-year old child.

I am sorry for the family members' sake that they were threatened with jail and ultimately kicked off the plane, but since the infant's name was not attached to the ticket, the infant couldn't use that seat.

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.

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.

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

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.

They were given an option to fly with the baby on the parent's lap. THEY chose to leave.

Again I want to stress this - did the family checked-in the 18 year old son's ticket? If they haven't then Delta is not wrong to ask them to vacate the seat.

In any case Delta's contract clearly states that tickets are NON-TRANSFERABLE. That in itself has weakend the family's case.

I think that given the circumstances, the ultimate blame lies at the feet of the customer who thought they could open up a free seat by sending their child on an earlier flight. Delta has every right to sell that seat or oversell the flight, if they wish, and as explained elsewhere in this thread, the seats are assigned to passengers by name...this is not the movie theater. The customer showed a bit of ignorance here and was apparently hoping YouTube and social media would bail him out.

However, I do think that this serves as an example of why overselling can cause problems. It certainly puts cabin crew and airport crew in some difficult situations, and although DL handled it without resorting to a physical confrontation, it does not put them in the best light either. The crew in this video comes across as lacking compassion or caring, and certainly threatening the customer with law enforcement (perhaps unnecessarily) doesn't exactly win Delta any accolades. At the very least, this flight was probably delayed by this event; this type of event must be an almost daily occurrence across an airline as big as DL.

If you purchase a ticket and don't show up for the flight, would you call the airline and demand they not sell the seat? The airline saw "mason" as a no show and sold the seat. If the father had checked in as mason and used the ticket along with his own to board there would not have been a problem.

richierich wrote:

I think that given the circumstances, the ultimate blame lies at the feet of the customer who thought they could open up a free seat by sending their child on an earlier flight. Delta has every right to sell that seat or oversell the flight, if they wish, and as explained elsewhere in this thread, the seats are assigned to passengers by name...this is not the movie theater. The customer showed a bit of ignorance here and was apparently hoping YouTube and social media would bail him out.

However, I do think that this serves as an example of why overselling can cause problems. It certainly puts cabin crew and airport crew in some difficult situations, and although DL handled it without resorting to a physical confrontation, it does not put them in the best light either. The crew in this video comes across as lacking compassion or caring, and certainly threatening the customer with law enforcement (perhaps unnecessarily) doesn't exactly win Delta any accolades. At the very least, this flight was probably delayed by this event; this type of event must be an almost daily occurrence across an airline as big as DL.

Overselling has always been practiced for years without major issues. It is only with the arrival of the ignorant SJWs that it has become a "problem".

It's not overselling that's the problem. It's ignorance.

Do infants not get their own boarding passes on US flights? Most airlines I've flown the boarding pass is seperately issued for the baby with INF on it - so the gate agents should of checked if their was a boarding pass for the baby?

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.

Damn dude, If I was homosexual I would probably love you. Outside of a few grammatical errors you nailed this somewhere between 100 to 100%.

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. I have family who buy 3 seats when traveling internationally when there are 2 of them so they can have more room to stretch out. Who do these airlines think they are I'm sure if the flight was under booked they would have been more than happy to take his money without incident. I'm glad all these customer service blunders are coming to light as I have been victimized on more than one occasion by airline CSAs that are more like army generals than customer friendly people. The guy bought those seats empty or not he paid for that space.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

They were given an option to fly with the baby on the parent's lap. THEY chose to leave.

No they didn't. They were kicked off, even when they had agreed to fly with the baby on the parent's lap.

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. I have family who buy 3 seats when traveling internationally when there are 2 of them so they can have more room to stretch out.

Your family members probably check each of their tickets in. This family did not, at which point "Mason" became a no-show and lost his seat.

Jetxdammit wrote:

Oh please - twist it anyway you like, but that's certainly not true. They purchased another ticket to send their son home on an earlier flight. That left them with an empty seat that they paid for. Regardless whether the gate agent said they could use the seat or not, the seat was paid for. Dance around semantics about the name on the ticket all you like, but in the end, the seat was bought and paid for (is that sinking in?). No one flew for free.

And when they didn't check in for that seat, the airline considered it a no-show, and assigned it to another passenger who also bought and paid for that seat.

They could have sorted this all out beforehand if they were proactive. They didn't, and tried to sort it out on the airplane instead. That's not fair to the other passenger (who also, as mentioned, paid for their ticket).

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.

Aren't airlines always breaking the rules when it works in their favor. You have been indoctrinated well that the customer doesn't matter if it's good for business

anstar wrote:

Do infants not get their own boarding passes on US flights? Most airlines I've flown the boarding pass is seperately issued for the baby with INF on it - so the gate agents should of checked if their was a boarding pass for the baby?

Infants that are being held by parents (under the age of 2) do not. Over the age of 2 they must have their own seat. Even if under two, if the parents buy a seat, then they will have their own ticket.

Sightseer wrote:

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. I have family who buy 3 seats when traveling internationally when there are 2 of them so they can have more room to stretch out.

Your family members probably check each of their tickets in. This family did not, at which point "Mason" became a no-show and lost his seat.

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.

assuming the son really did buy two tickets in his name, he must of attached his frequent flier account to both tickets. DL system realizes that you can't be doing two things at once and when he checked into the earlier flight,and got on the plane. the system would of cancelled his late reservation since you can't be doing two things at once. .

If he hadn't used his frequent flier number, the system wouldn't of caught this. since they do not id lap children.
however, the family should of figured this out, when they tried to check the lap child in on his older brothers ticket it would of told him he no longer had a seat assignment. .

so i have to assume they forgot to check the lap child in on his brother's ticket. either way, it looks like the system was smarter than this family.

no name changes on tickets. and on a sold out flight the seat once cancelled goes to the next person on the wait-list not to other family members.

also it turns out that one of the so called lap children had their second birthday, so they couldn't sit on a adult lap anyway. they were scamming the system and got caught. cry me a river.

klm617 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.

How about the basic customer service for the other passenger who bought a ticket only to be told "sorry, we told you we had a seat for you, but someone wants to put their infant there instead so you're going to have to wait for the next flight"?

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. I have family who buy 3 seats when traveling internationally when there are 2 of them so they can have more room to stretch out. Who do these airlines think they are I'm sure if the flight was under booked they would have been more than happy to take his money without incident. I'm glad all these customer service blunders are coming to light as I have been victimized on more than one occasion by airline CSAs that are more like army generals than customer friendly people. The guy bought those seats empty or not he paid for that space.

Nope. The family had clearly breached the contract of carriage & thus have no rights to the seats whatsoever.

How did they breach it?
1) Delta clearly states that the ticket is NON-TRANSFERABLE. Since they intended to use it for another person, Delta has the right to deny the seat to the passenger.
2) The ticketed passenger did not check-in/no-show. Delta has the right to release that seat to a standby passenger.

You can't rant to kingdom come for all I care - the customer in this case is WRONG. Any attempt to defend the indefensible is futile and I do hope that Delta be more strict in this case & not kowtow to public pressure.

klm617 wrote:

So to rectify this they should have booked the seat in one of their two names rather than their son

Or they could've checked in their spare ticket, which would've prevented their seat from being resold once the check-in window closed.

klm617 wrote:

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.

Neither you nor I know anything about how long it took for "heavy handed tactics" to come into play. All we know is that when the family was notified of their "misunderstanding," they tried to argue that they should keep their seat (in violation of the Contract of Carriage), and that they were threatened with jail at some point after that. Ultimately, whether or not the threat of jail was justified depends on how long it took the situation to escalate to that point (which, again, we don't know).

I don't have a problem with DL putting the ticket as a no show if they didn't check in the ticket. I DO have a problem with the flight attendant threatening Jail, etc.

The logical thing that should have happened is:

1. Parents let the gate agent know the situation.
2. The gate agent then is aware of it and changes the ticket name.

Is this normal policy, no. But I think sometimes everyone just needs to use some common sense. The ticket was paid for and 2 of the 3 people in the party were there with a third, that just was a different child. Sometimes, I think the airlines need to use a little leeway in situtations where it isn't really going to make a difference either way. They got paid for the ticket so they aren't out any money.

All that said, IF the parents didn't let them know what was going on and just got on the flight without checking in the 3rd ticket and then they sold the ticket to someone else, it puts them in a tough spot. I think saying they coudn't use the seat in that situation is fine assuming someone else has already boarded. I also think DL could have just offered a refund on the ticket once the situation got to the level it did. Do they have to, no, but if it would defuse the situation then just do it. Let the family know this isn't something that is allowed but in this situation they will make an exception. A honest mix up shouldn't lead to this. Both sides can take some blame on this.

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.[/quote]



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...

Bongodog1964 wrote:

Didn't grasp this from the original post, but it now appears the scenario is:

Father decides to send 18 year old on separate flight to free up seat
Does not get booking changed from 18 year old, to 2 year old
Airline re sells seat due to no show of 18 year old
Family boards early when invited due to having small children
Airline lets them through gate on assumption that child is a lap passenger
Family attach child seat to seat that was theirs once, but isn't now
Airline insist it is vacated to allow passenger checked into it to sit down.

The only error I can see here on the part of the airline is where the cabin crew member claims that seating children in car seats is not allowed. This however happened to us on more than one occasion. So few parents book seats for their infants with the result that cabin crew rarely experience it, and resultingly think its not possible

I think the prism too often looked through on here is whether the airline followed its own rules. People on airliners look to verify that and then check the situation off as nothing if the airline followed its policies.

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. From the simplest perspective, the person paid for two tickets for his/her family and they feel they are entitled to two seats. I think at the crux of it that is a reasonable argument in the public sphere. This is another one of these rules that the airline has put in place to frankly, screw passengers out of money and all these things are now coming home to roost. The airlines have taken all these things too far and now is the reckoning. There have to be limits and it appears we have reached them. The airlines can realize that or they can fight it, to their peril. If they keep smiling at Congress while jamming more seats on their planes I think they risk, not reregulation, but cabotage as the solution.

I recently had a situation where I paid for my child to fly with me. Our flight was delayed 9 hours. We were each compensated with an airline voucher, but even though I paid for both tickets in a single PNR the voucher can only be redeemed for use by the young child and within a year. What a joke... It's these types of deceptive and potentially illegal policies that have put the airlines in this position.

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]

There is no evidence the family even tried to change the name on the ticket. They just assumed the seat was still theirs, even though they didn't check in with that ticket, then tried to argue their case when they were told (correctly) that it wasn't.

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. There are actually significant legal issue with that process (a contract that is imposed and cannot be negotiated in any way and there are no other options available-all other airlines have near identical CoC) and at some point it will be challenged but the airlines will always settle out of court if they think they will lose.

In this case the family thought they had bought a seat for a member of their family. They apparently never sought to refund it because they thought they had paid for it and therefore it is essentially theirs as the airline had been compensated. They failed in that they did not inform the airline, or the gate agent at check in of what was occurring. They were not unreasonable per se but they were wrong in fact.

The other issue is how the airlines automatically take a ticket that has been paid for but no one checked in. It hearkens to the overbooking policy and no-shows etc. but adds in change fees, non-nontransferable rules, airline policies, and customer service elements. Not an easy situation. But the airlines have a lot of power so they can force almost any issue (and declare most anyone to be a "threat" and non-cooperative) and their training appears to not have kept up with how easily it is for something to enter the popular media nowadays. This is dangerous as it is getting more attention from authorities and the public.

I am not saying Delta was wrong on the rules (the FA was wrong in the handling, using threats etc.) but the handling of the situation was poor to say the least. And the family was not acting unreasonable, as in the minds of most of the flying public (not the experts here that are VERY familiar with the rules and regulations and CoC requirements) they will know what is is to think you actually bought your ticket and should be able to use it. And especially when in the end the family accepted that they lost the seat (and probably their money for it) and were willing to travel with their infant on their lap but then were forced off the plane. I would think that there must be a better way devised to handle such situations.

Tugg

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

We only got to see a portion of what happened. From the looks of it the parents tried to argue for the seat & had disobeyed a lawful order to vacate the seat. It is only when law enforcement was called did they try to compromise. Honestly by then it's too late & is unfair to the other passengers who had been unduly delayed due to their stubborness.

Why didn't they offer such compromise the first time that they were asked?

When exactly they offered this is quite irrelevant IMO. I think we can all agree that the couple acted in good faith when they bought their oldest son that seat on the other flight, and didn't know they were doing something wrong. In such a case, you use common sense as an airline, and try to work something out. From the way the husband asked if they could just keep the infant in their laps, it's pretty clear that option was never offered to them up until that point, even though that should've been the first thing Delta did.

There was no reason to kick that family off the flight, given that there was a solution on the table, offered by the family, that would completely resolve the issue. You don't kick off a family with a one and two year-old telling them to fend for themselves unless there is really no other choice (and there WAS another choice here). You just don't.

TerminalD wrote:

Bongodog1964 wrote:

Didn't grasp this from the original post, but it now appears the scenario is:

Father decides to send 18 year old on separate flight to free up seat
Does not get booking changed from 18 year old, to 2 year old
Airline re sells seat due to no show of 18 year old
Family boards early when invited due to having small children
Airline lets them through gate on assumption that child is a lap passenger
Family attach child seat to seat that was theirs once, but isn't now
Airline insist it is vacated to allow passenger checked into it to sit down.

The only error I can see here on the part of the airline is where the cabin crew member claims that seating children in car seats is not allowed. This however happened to us on more than one occasion. So few parents book seats for their infants with the result that cabin crew rarely experience it, and resultingly think its not possible

I think the prism too often looked through on here is whether the airline followed its own rules. People on airliners look to verify that and then check the situation off as nothing if the airline followed its policies.

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. From the simplest perspective, the person paid for two tickets for his/her family and they feel they are entitled to two seats. I think at the crux of it that is a reasonable argument in the public sphere. This is another one of these rules that the airline has put in place to frankly, screw passengers out of money and all these things are now coming home to roost. The airlines have taken all these things too far and now is the reckoning. There have to be limits and it appears we have reached them. The airlines can realize that or they can fight it, to their peril. If they keep smiling at Congress while jamming more seats on their planes I think they risk, not reregulation, but cabotage as the solution.

I recently had a situation where I paid for my child to fly with me. Our flight was delayed 9 hours. We were each compensated with an airline voucher, but even though I paid for both tickets in a single PNR the voucher can only be redeemed for use by the young child and within a year. What a joke... It's these types of deceptive and potentially illegal policies that have put the airlines in this position.

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.

DLFREEBIRD wrote:

you can't compromise on some rules, it's not fair to the person who bought that seat the lap child was sitting in.
the rules are on a sold out flight that you cannot do name changes, if you don't show up for the flight,your family members don't get to put another family member in your seat. the seat belongs to the next person on the wait list. fair is fair. that has been the rules for 40 plus years.

That isn't my point. I agree with you on that. But there was NO reason to kick the family off the flight as a result, because a completely acceptable solution to the problem was on the table.

DLFREEBIRD wrote:

you can't compromise on some rules, it's not fair to the person who bought that seat the lap child was sitting in.
the rules are on a sold out flight that you cannot do name changes, if you don't show up for the flight,your family members don't get to put another family member in your seat. the seat belongs to the next person on the wait list. fair is fair. that has been the rules for 40 plus years.

Since you are also including the concept of "fairness", was it fair that the FA forced the family off the plane once they acquiesced to having their infant sit on their lap?

Tugg

klm617 wrote:

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.

The problem is that customer behavior has also gone out the window. People feel that they are entitled to do whatever the heck they want, and if someone tries to stop them they'll film it and cry to the public.
o Customer not following the proper procedure to switch the ticket holder (or at least check in their seat) and then trying to claim it anyway = bad customer behavior
o Employee threatening jail unnecessarily = bad customer service

It sounds like both are at play here.

Unfortunate, but they don't have that seat under the infant's name. So, Delta was kinda right. Although they could have let them stay when they offered to hold the child.

These stories frustrate me on so many levels. The sensationalism of social media inspires people to offer their expert opinions on topics they really don't understand.

Based on the facts of this case, yes, there were things that the passengers could have done differently. And, yes, there are things that Delta could have done differently.

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.

The real difficultly for Delta in this case, as would have been the case for any airline, is that we weren't going to arrive at this point until moments before departure. Assuming even if the other son's ticket had been checked in, his seat would have been dropped at the last minute. Maybe the passengers should have alerted the gate agents of what they had done. They didn't, so the gate agents processed the flight as they would have in any other situation. Clear your HK, Standby and non-rev list with the open seats of unboarded passengers.

Is Delta supposed to solicit volunteers to pay off revenue passengers when there are available seats to assign? Is Delta supposed to involuntarily deny boarding to a passenger with an open seat on the map? Is Delta supposed to have unrestricted tickets so that passengers can do whatever they please or is the airline responsible for generating a profit for its shareholders by maximizing revenue?

I am certainly fascinated by the public's outcry to these recent airline events. Airlines are for-profit enterprises, and they are free to enforce their rules and regulations consistent with applicable laws. If you don't like overbooking, your choices are to fly with an airline that doesn't overbook or to lobby your congressperson to further regulate airlines. We can obviously see why the later is not really an option. People are all up in arms about airlines and all the terrible things that they do. But to what end?

With this all said, we know that Delta was technically in the right here. However, is there something more that they could have done? Yes, that agent shouldn't have made her comment about foster care (strange!). Yes, the supervisor's explanations of FAA rules to justify what was happening weren't entirely relevant or convincing. Yes, Delta could have deviated from the rules "to make it right" for these passengers, but that would have had a negative effect for someone else down the line (a potential IDB, a missed seat for a non-rev, diminished profits for shareholders...).

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

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.


And that needs to change if I buy a ticket on a certain flight why should the carrier be able to change the itinerary at will without penalty while I have to pay a change fee. If I buy a ticket on a nonstop flight from point A to point B I bought it for convenience not to be changed to some out of they way routing that adds time to my flight that is bate and switch.


But I do agree they should of let Delta know of their intentions but once the situation was clear then Delta was in the wrong .

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.

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]
The later part of the post. Where does a corporate employee get off threatening. It end with 'you might never fly with us again.'

Both parties were in the wrong. To transfer the ticket required a transfer.

But over-selling has been a problem from the customer standpoint for too long. I get the revenue side, but this is a function of how a policy was employed.

BTW, to reduce bullying in society, always be recording. Because of some recent personal experiences, I'll record for someone else.

As a parent, people will often threaten a parent. People have strong beliefs and about 10% of the people out there will Express in a rage. Usually people with a poor childhood where the incident triggers a bad memory that wasn't addressed.


Lightsaber

HA HA.....and who did they end up flying home

U N I T E D




Interestingly, all the people on youtube are on dad's side.

My only question....when he put the 18 year old on an earlier flight, did they have to buy another ticket for him....or was he a stand-by on the earlier flight?

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...

klm617 wrote:

And that needs to change if I buy a ticket on a certain flight why should the carrier be able to change the itinerary at will without penalty while I have to pay a change fee. If I buy a ticket on a nonstop flight from point A to point B I bought it for convenience not to be changed to some out of they way routing that adds time to my flight that is bate and switch.

When you are purchasing an airline ticket, you are saying to an airline, "I would like transportation from AAA to BBB." You enter into a contract with that airline for that service. It's the rules of that contract, together with any applicable laws and regulations, that govern. So, when you purchase a fare with the airline, you're *voluntarily* accepting their terms and conditions. If you take the time to read those rules, you'll see what you are getting yourself into.

Airlines are for profit enterprises with an incredibly complex business with one goal: making money. The airlines have to figure out how best to make that work. They overbook flights because they are attempting to maximize profit by benefiting from the historical no-show factor of a flight. They impose restrictions on the types of tickets that they offer to maximize profit. When you are confirmed on a flight, you are holding inventory that other passengers cannot access. If you decide to change your flight and the airline weren't able to refill the space, that's lost potential revenue. Knowing that, airlines offer you a cheaper fare with restrictions and change fees, or if you so chose, you can pay the premium to have a fully changeable ticket. This is done to maximize profit. Airlines squeeze every inch out of an airplane now with reduced leg room and slimmer, more uncomfortable seats. Why? Because they are trying to maximize profit. You see where I'm going here?

As to your point about the airline making a change, it would be impossible and asinine to expect that an airline would be unable to change its schedules. The dynamics of crew scheduling, network planning, airport restrictions, weather, changing market conditions, new competitors, etc. all with the goal of maximizing profit are far too complex to be able to set far in the future. But again, when you enter the contract with the airline, you're not a powerless victim. You have rights and remedies set forth by that contract and applicable laws. You'll find that if the change made by the airline exceeds certain parameters, you can modify your booking or even repudiate the contract. You'll find that if you're denied boarding on a flight due to an oversale, you have a defined remedy at law. These are your legal rights. Anything above and beyond this would fall into the category of a for-profit airline making exceptions or exceeding these contractually or legally defined obligations in order to create brand loyalty, good will, or strong public branding.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

Overselling has always been practiced for years without major issues. It is only with the arrival of the ignorant SJWs that it has become a "problem".

It's not overselling that's the problem. It's ignorance.

As discussed, the customer did not appear to me to be pulling a fast one but did seem to be a bit ignorant of the rules. I agree with that much. A vacated seat can be filled by the airline, and if overselling is the airline's policy, then so be it. I'm not debating that issue.

But the other side of this video is that this is another example of where customer service is lagging. Sure, there was no blood or broken bones or handcuffs, but I didn't realize that was standard now for all US airlines to measure themselves against. While we do not get to hear or witness the entire exchange, no where on this video did I hear any compassion or caring from the crew to this family. Not once. It literally became a situation where the customer was told to leave regardless of whether they were right or wrong.

Overselling may have been practiced for years "without major issues" that we are aware of. My guess is that these issues are happening more because planes are generally more crowded now with higher load factors, meaning more involuntary denied boarding, and we are hearing about them now because of forums like YouTube and social media. Ten years ago, this event wouldn't have made the news and it may not have even been recorded.

US Airlines - not just Delta - do need to figure out a better way to handle customers in situations like this. It requires training and skill; I didn't see a lot of hospitality on display in this video. Obviously the UA situation a month ago was even more outrageous, although that was the police that removed the customer, not the airline. Either way, the negative image of these high-profile incidents reflects badly on all airlines that claim to have high customer service standards and are vying for loyal customers in a competitive landscape.