Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Father had three boarding passes. One in the name of the older son. And Delta had agreed both by phone and at check in that he could use it. Delta just screwed up.
You keep saying Delta agreed but there is no evidence of that and I don't think they did else the dad would have mentioned this during the confrontation on the plane. Did he get a name? No airline is going to agree over the phone to waive a rule like that without fixing the ticket in the system.
This is like getting a speeding ticket and claiming you called the precinct earlier and some cop told you that technically you can't exceed the posted limit but if it's just 10mph over you should be ok.
And the only way he could have a boarding pass in the older son's name is if he committed fraud (and probably a felony) and posed off the toddler as the older son, since tickets don't show your age and toddlers don't carry ids.
They don't require IDs for infants, so there was no reason to switch the name. Therefore the airline employees had no way of knowing that the name didn't match. They had a family of three, with three boarding passes. They needed another seat, so they wanted to bump the baby and resell the seat. You are just making excuses for the airline, that the airline is not even claiming.
I think you're missing the point. First, not switching the name would have been incredibly irresponsible. if that flight had gone down over the Pacific, it would have been critical to know exactly who was on board, so they can notify next of kin. That is one of the primary reasons for a manifest.
Second, the fact that the seat WAS resold is evidence that no one ever checked in against the 18 year old's ticket, and that there wasn't even a notation in the system that his seat would be occupied.
Look. No one had it in for this family. There is no evidence to suggest that airline employees were searching the manifest to see who they can "squeeze." They're much too busy for that. Instead, they look through the final manifest to see if there are any open seats that they can assign stand-by passengers against. They saw that in row 11 (for example), seats A & B were occupied. 11 C was a "no show." They go to fill it with a standby passenger, and find out that the family has occupied that seat too. That's when the problems began.
It sounds like the airline is just trying to make a couple extra dollars, but there is anther side. I've been that standby passenger before, who is desperately hoping to get on this flight (sometimes due to a family emergency). I appreciate their systematic process.
Since there's no agreement on here as to what happened and so much confusion as to the actual rules, it's obvious that the airlines need to get their act together re the rules. They need to educate the passengers and their own staff.
Spell out in bold print and in detail what their rules are. Passengers read it. Staff carries a copy of the rules on their person so that if a question comes up, it's not just their word, they can whip out a copy of the rules to prove it. No more arguments one way or the other.
Also, training is lacking. Their personnel need training in dealing with the public and need to learn what the rules are. Then they'll know whether or not a baby can sit in a seat or on a lap or if some stranger can take an already paid for seat. And back it up with a printed version of the rules.
Right now, both sides seem to be making it up as they go along.
They don't require IDs for infants, so there was no reason to switch the name. Therefore the airline employees had no way of knowing that the name didn't match. They had a family of three, with three boarding passes. They needed another seat, so they wanted to bump the baby and resell the seat. You are just making excuses for the airline, that the airline is not even claiming.
That doesn't mean any child can fly on anyone else's ticket, it means the parent's word is taken that the child is who they say it is. If the dad ever presented that older son's pass (to TSA or gate) as belonging to the toddler then he likely committed a felony. But I don't think he did because if that pass had been scanned then the seat would have shown as full and their seat count would have matched.
You keep saying Delta agreed but there is no evidence of that and I don't think they did else the dad would have mentioned this during the confrontation on the plane. Did he get a name? No airline is going to agree over the phone to waive a rule like that without fixing the ticket in the system.
This is like getting a speeding ticket and claiming you called the precinct earlier and some cop told you that technically you can't exceed the posted limit but if it's just 10mph over you should be ok.
They don't require IDs for infants, so there was no reason to switch the name. Therefore the airline employees had no way of knowing that the name didn't match. They had a family of three, with three boarding passes. They needed another seat, so they wanted to bump the baby and resell the seat. You are just making excuses for the airline, that the airline is not even claiming.
It was a family of five-
Dad- ticketed passenger
Mom- ticketed passenger
18 year old- ticketed passenger who took an earlier flight on another airline, reportedly United (If it had been another Delta flight, the ticket and seat would have moved with him)
2 year old- ticketed passenger since the rule is tickets for age 2 and older
1 year old- unticketed babe in arms
So at time of boarding, there were four souls and three tickets because the 18 year old was a no show for the flight, and the ticket is attached to a specific person. The one year old either gets a non-ticket boarding pass or is noted on the parent's boarding pass depending on how the airline does such paperwork.
Since there's no agreement on here as to what happened and so much confusion as to the actual rules, it's obvious that the airlines need to get their act together re the rules. They need to educate the passengers and their own staff.
Spell out in bold print and in detail what their rules are. Passengers read it. Staff carries a copy of the rules on their person so that if a question comes up, it's not just their word, they can whip out a copy of the rules to prove it. No more arguments one way or the other.
Also, training is lacking. Their personnel need training in dealing with the public and need to learn what the rules are. Then they'll know whether or not a baby can sit in a seat or on a lap or if some stranger can take an already paid for seat. And back it up with a printed version of the rules.
Right now, both sides seem to be making it up as they go along.
The rules are posted, it's called the contract of carriage. Personally, I think the FA who made the wrong statement about FAA and toddlers knew the rules very well but was just BS ing to try and end the argument quicker. That came right after the dad said he would hold the toddler now and then move him to the seat once in the air and the FA probably thought "uh oh, this family is going to be a problem the entire trip" and dealing with arguments in the air over the Pacific are a lot harder than dealing with them on the ground.
You keep saying Delta agreed but there is no evidence of that and I don't think they did else the dad would have mentioned this during the confrontation on the plane. Did he get a name? No airline is going to agree over the phone to waive a rule like that without fixing the ticket in the system.
This is like getting a speeding ticket and claiming you called the precinct earlier and some cop told you that technically you can't exceed the posted limit but if it's just 10mph over you should be ok.
And the only way he could have a boarding pass in the older son's name is if he committed fraud (and probably a felony) and posed off the toddler as the older son, since tickets don't show your age and toddlers don't carry ids.
Of course there is. The Father's testimony which has not been rejected by Delta. Delta will have records of the phone conversation and maybe even a gate note and knows precisely what happened. And they know where and how many boarding passes were issued.
And for one reason or another Delta wished to free up the seat. Could well have been a passenger with pull. At one point I had enough status on AA to get them to do things like that for me. And if they did not need the seat why would they have gone to the mat over it?
Of course there is. The Father's testimony which has not been rejected by Delta. Delta will have records of the phone conversation and maybe even a gate note and knows precisely what happened. And they know where and how many boarding passes were issued.
And for one reason or another Delta wished to free up the seat. Could well have been a passenger with pull. At one point I had enough status on AA to get them to do things like that for me. And if they did not need the seat why would they have gone to the mat over it?
Delta was asked about the accuracy of the dad's statement. They declined comment, and instead deflected the conversation to the fact their actions. That was a very classy (savvy) move, by the way.
We don't know if there is a record of the conversation or not. The question remains, if the Delta agent told the father that it was no big deal, why did they not indicate in the system that that seat would be occupied. The whole situation would have been averted. Answer, either the conversation never happened or the agent missed a crucial step. Not saying the latter is impossible, but I am leaning more to the fact that it didn't happen.
Delta was asked about the accuracy of the dad's statement. They declined comment, and instead deflected the conversation to the fact their actions. That was a very classy (savvy) move, by the way.
We don't know if there is a record of the conversation or not. The question remains, if the Delta agent told the father that it was no big deal, why did they not indicate in the system that that seat would be occupied. The whole situation would have been averted. Answer, either the conversation never happened or the agent missed a crucial step. Not saying the latter is impossible, but I am leaning more to the fact that it didn't happen.
Because as often goes on they were handling it informally. Less work and they did not have to dig up a supervisor to approve it or stuff like that.
Goes on all the time in all airlines. For instance any numbers of things that are impossible at a ticket counter can easily be accomplished at an airline club. Been that way for at least the last 50 years to my knowledge.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
