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.
Well that's one of murky areas in this case. I don't think we can call it a "fact". Did Dad just say that? Did he misunderstand? If the ticketing agent officially transferred the seat to the 2 year old, I'd agree with you. The only way I can imagine the ticketing agent saying "yeah, no big deal, just sit there" would be if the flight was half empty and there were plenty of seats. Even then they'd take "Mason Schear" off the ticket. As far as I can tell though, we don't know enough about what really happened.
God forbid that plane went down over the Pacific, with no survivors. Mason Schear would have been identified as one of the victims. The story we'd be discussing is how insensitive Delta was for not ensuring an accurate manifest. Might even be a lawsuit in the works.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's highly unlikely an agent just said, "it's no big deal. Just put the baby in the son's seat."
Just my $0.02 but people on airplanes now are looking for ways to cash in on something. They take any opportunity where the airline does something questionable and turn on their cell phones and record. They are thinking of never working again at the airlines expense.
I get that sense in this case. I'm open to changing my mind as more facts come out, and I do think somebody screwed up somewhere along the way BEFORE the family boarded and encountered the FA who was WAY out of line (and should be fired) BUT, it seems like they were trying to get away with not paying the transfer fees, and didn't like that they were caught. So they wanted to do what they could to get the airline and the FA in trouble (the FA who certainly rose to the occasion to display stupidity and callousness.) IDK, my first instinct in real life situation isn't to whip out my phone and press record; it's to work to resolve the problem.
God forbid that plane went down over the Pacific, with no survivors. Mason Schear would have been identified as one of the victims. The story we'd be discussing is how insensitive Delta was for not ensuring an accurate manifest. Might even be a lawsuit in the works.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's highly unlikely an agent just said, "it's no big deal. Just put the baby in the son's seat."
EXACTLY!!!
As unpleasant as flying can sometimes be, the rules are there for a reason!
ETA: Seriously, can't Rep you enough for pointing this out! Sometimes people are looking for insult instead of using common sense, and trying to understand why things are done a certain way.
I just watched the report on the news. They are totally focusing on the poor handling of the situation by the worker, and totally glossed over the fact that the infant son was not on the ticket. More sensationalistic "journalism," and I use that term loosely.
The Schears said they received thousands of dollars in compensation, which they said was not enough Narcissistic much?
They asked Delta if the Schear's description of the events was accurate. They declined comment (very telling), and said they failed to get a family to their destination, and for that they are sorry. Very classy on Delta's part.
Both parties were wrong here. Only one seems to be accepting any responsibility.
Perhaps it's mentioned already but how did the infant/child board without a boarding pass? I know when I traveled with my 1-2 year old I didn't purchase a ticket (since he goes on lap) but he was issued a boarding pass after we showed his birth certificate. It sounds like in this case they just walked the kid on the plane.
I wondered that too. I read that they had 3 boarding passes for that flight, so it's a reasonable assumption that all 3 of those boarding passes were scanned as the family boarded. How then, did the flight attendant figure out that the (almost) 2-year old in the car seat was not Mason (the name on the boarding pass) considering they had already gotten past the ticket-scanner-person with that boarding pass?
There are some holes still that aren't being reported, but my guess is that they never "checked in" for that ticket since everyone has to show a picture ID and the 18 year old son wasn't there to show his.
Airlines do not allow you to change the name on the ticket so if the ticket was in the name of the 18 year old son and he went on a different flight (with a different/new ticket) than he would be counted as a "no-show" and the gate agent releases all of those seats at a certain time to give to stand-by (if needed).
There is still value left on the ticket that that passenger can use towards another flight down the road (usually with a change fee) but the family doesn't get the extra seat if the ticketed passenger did not show up.
Yeah I'm not saying the airlines are right in these cases or the people are wrong. I'm just saying people are looking for a situation to escalate sometimes now that people have gotten big publicity and payouts recently. Escalating something on the passenger end leads to employees doing stuff like we see here.
I do agree with this. Sometimes the airline is just flat out wrong, but the passenger absolutely escalates it, recording and looking for a pay out or their 15 minutes.
This is not to say airlines have their hands clean...but I feel like it could become a trend that just makes the airlines have to be more quick to remove people from planes.
Perhaps it's mentioned already but how did the infant/child board without a boarding pass? I know when I traveled with my 1-2 year old I didn't purchase a ticket (since he goes on lap) but he was issued a boarding pass after we showed his birth certificate. It sounds like in this case they just walked the kid on the plane.
Mine always had "infant in arms" written or printed on MY boarding pass.
i am STILL having a hard time following this story.
It's a family of 5, correct? Father, mother, 18-year old, 2-year old, 1-year old.
they had 5 tickets/5 boarding passes originally. THEN, the 18 year old decided to take a different flight, so shouldnt they then have 4 tickets/4 boarding passes? then the father gets a seat, the mother gets a seat, the 2-year old gets a set, and the 1 year old can sit on the lap.
i'm not understanding how the 18-year old changing flights caused any of this. even if the airline then sold off the 18 year old's tickets, they should have still had enough seats for them considering they needed those seats whether the 18year old was there or not. the 18 year old NOT being there should not have affected the plan for the 4 of them, does that make sense? not sure if i'm explaining it well.... in other words, where was the kid going to sit had the 18 year old NOT changed flights?? why couldnt they remain wherever that was.
example - let's say me and two friends are flying home form somewhere, 1 friend decides to take a diff flight, we still have 2 seats because we originally needed 2 seats for me and the 1 friend who stayed. so the fried deciding to leave early didn't change anything!
i am STILL having a hard time following this story.
It's a family of 5, correct? Father, mother, 18-year old, 2-year old, 1-year old.
they had 5 tickets/5 boarding passes originally. THEN, the 18 year old decided to take a different flight, so shouldnt they then have 4 tickets/4 boarding passes? then the father gets a seat, the mother gets a seat, the 2-year old gets a set, and the 1 year old can sit on the lap.
i'm not understanding how the 18-year old changing flights caused any of this. even if the airline then sold off the 18 year old's tickets, they should have still had enough seats for them considering they needed those seats whether the 18year old was there or not. the 18 year old NOT being there should not have affected the plan for the 4 of them, does that make sense? not sure if i'm explaining it well....
example - let's say me and two friends are flying home form somewhere, 1 friend decides to take a diff flight, we still have 2 seats because we originally needed 2 seats for me and the 1 friend who stayed. so the fried deciding to leave early didn't change anything!
I'm probably wrong but I think the 1 year old isn't given a seat because he's an infant and goes on a lap and not given a seat. They wanted to use the 18 yr old's seat who didn't make it to put their 1 year old on after take off.
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.
