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.
And they didn't even offer the family any compensation? What happened to Delta's recent announcement they were going to offer up to ten thousand dollars if they had to kick someone off the plane due to overbooking? Or did they lie about that too?
This time they kicked off a whole family so it should be ten grand per person. It just keeps getting worse and worse.
And they didn't even offer the family any compensation? What happened to Delta's recent announcement they were going to offer up to ten thousand dollars if they had to kick someone off the plane due to overbooking? Or did they lie about that too?
This time they kicked off a whole family so it should be ten grand per person. It just keeps getting worse and worse.
No. Both Delta and United made the same announcement about compensating passengers who are booted due to overbooking. Delta's offer was a little less at $9,950 but 50 bucks isn't a significant difference. I hope the family sues their lying asses for a lot more.
This is a non-issue. If I'm understanding this correctly, nobody was getting bumped from anything. The family misunderstood how airline itineraries work. They paid for THREE seats not FOUR seats, but they tried to use four seats, one of which did not belong to them. This is the family's misunderstanding.
The infant was originally a lap child with no seat assignment. The older son, mom, and dad had seat assignments. Let's say 11A, 11B, and 11C.
When the older son got a standby seat on an earlier flight, his ONE seat 11C was vacated as he transferred to the earlier flight, leaving 11A and 11B for mom and dad on the later flight (plus the lap infant that had 0 seats).
This is where mom and dad tried to add a FOURTH seat for the lap child that did not have any seat assignment, by thinking the other son's seat 11C magically still belonged to them even though the passenger from that seat already flew out earlier. But Mason's seat 11C had been re-assigned to another passenger. It wasn't the family's seat to use, regardless of whether they previously had a family member sitting in it. The seat assignment flew away with the passenger earlier in the day.
Whether the airline handled it properly is hard to tell, though. The person talking to the family seemed pretty reasonable, but I didn't watch the whole thing and I wouldn't be surprised if a Delta employee mis-handled it at some point.
No. Both Delta and United made the same announcement about compensating passengers who are booted due to overbooking. Delta's offer was a little less at $9,950 but 50 bucks isn't a significant difference. I hope the family sues their lying asses for a lot more.
And they didn't even offer the family any compensation? What happened to Delta's recent announcement they were going to offer up to ten thousand dollars if they had to kick someone off the plane due to overbooking? Or did they lie about that too?
This time they kicked off a whole family so it should be ten grand per person. It just keeps getting worse and worse.
I don't see where Delta said the issue was about overbooking. That's what the father who was kicked off claimed. No mention of that seat being needed for someone else, even by the statements and videos the issue was about the infant being put in a seat that was ticketed to another family member. The family was kicked off for interfering with crew and not complying with crew instructions not because the seats were sold to someone else.
As for the older son who was assigned that seat but caught an earlier flight, I want to know if he bought a separate ticket for that flight or changed his reservation or flew standby. Unless it was the first one, the seat the child was in no longer belonged to anyone in the family.
I also wonder, if the infant cannot sleep in a lap and must have a seat then why were the tickets originally bought with him as a lap infant and not as having his own seat?
This is a non-issue. If I'm understanding this correctly, nobody was getting bumped from anything. The family misunderstood how airline itineraries work. They paid for THREE seats not FOUR seats, but they tried to use four seats, one of which did not belong to them. This is the family's misunderstanding.
The infant was originally a lap child with no seat assignment. The older son, mom, and dad had seat assignments. Let's say 11A, 11B, and 11C.
When the older son got a standby seat on an earlier flight, his ONE seat 11C was vacated as he transferred to the earlier flight, leaving 11A and 11B for mom and dad on the later flight (plus the lap infant that had 0 seats).
This is where mom and dad tried to add a FOURTH seat for the lap child that did not have any seat assignment, by thinking the other son's seat 11C magically still belonged to them even though the passenger from that seat already flew out earlier. But Mason's seat 11C had been re-assigned to another passenger. It wasn't the family's seat to use, regardless of whether they previously had a family member sitting in it. The seat assignment flew away with the passenger earlier in the day.
Whether the airline handled it properly is hard to tell, though. The person talking to the family seemed pretty reasonable, but I didn't watch the whole thing and I wouldn't be surprised if a Delta employee mis-handled it at some point.
I don't think that's correct. The older son flew out earlier, but his seat wasn't vacated. The father purchased the seat on the earlier flight, while still having paid for three seats on the later flight. The mother was going to keep the one-year-old on her lap, and the two-year-old was going to use the older brother's seat.
I also wonder, if the infant cannot sleep in a lap and must have a seat then why were the tickets originally bought with him as a lap infant and not as having his own seat?
Excellent question. Sounds like they got away with taking the extra seat on another flight which was convenient and felt emboldened and entitled.
This is a non-issue. If I'm understanding this correctly, nobody was getting bumped from anything. The family misunderstood how airline itineraries work. They paid for THREE seats not FOUR seats, but they tried to use four seats, one of which did not belong to them. This is the family's misunderstanding.
I'm thinking the family understood perfectly well and planned it this way all along but got busted. I'll bet the precise reason the older soon flew out earlier standby was to give them an open seat to put the infant.
I don't think that's correct. The older son flew out earlier, but his seat wasn't vacated. The father purchased the seat on the earlier flight, while still having paid for three seats on the later flight. The mother was going to keep the one-year-old on her lap, and the two-year-old was going to use the older brother's seat.
Where are you getting this information?
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.
