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.
The guy was wrong to start with. He didn't have that seat anymore. It was ticketed in his older son's name and his older son was a no-show, so they resold the seat. Keeping that seat wasn't an option anymore without rebuying it. That's the way it works.
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 would disagree that the person was "reasonable". For one thing she was lying to the passenger about FAA regulations, in an attempt to get them to give up their seat. Coercing a passenger to give up their seat, by deceit, is hardly reasonably in my opinion. It's pretty obvious to me, that she was prepared to say or do anything necessary to get them off that flight. The next step would have been to call the cops to remove them.
The guy was wrong to start with. He didn't have that seat anymore. It was ticketed in his older son's name and his older son was a no-show, so they resold the seat. Keeping that seat wasn't an option anymore without rebuying it. That's the way it works.
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?
The airline employee never denied the man's contention that the flight was overbooked, and he was not interfering with the crew. The flight could have safely taken off at any time with the man and his family in their ticketed seats. The airline employees were the ones delaying the flight.
The guy was wrong to start with. He didn't have that seat anymore. It was ticketed in his older son's name and his older son was a no-show, so they resold the seat. Keeping that seat wasn't an option anymore without rebuying it. That's the way it works.
The airline was wrong.
There was a disagreement at first but both parties eventually agreed to a solution, to give up the seat and have the child to sit on the parents lap. At that point what justification did the airline have to kick them off the flight??
It wasn't his seat in the first place. It was his son's seat who was on an earlier flight. By not checking in and boarding the flight, you're a no-show and that seat can/will be resold to a standby passenger.
It wasn't his seat in the first place. It was his son's seat who was on an earlier flight. By not checking in and boarding the flight, you're a no-show and that seat can/will be resold to a standby passenger.
Every airline does the same thing.
He paid for the seat. You are saying that he should pay twice for the same seat.
He paid for the seat. You are saying that he should pay twice for the same seat.
You're not buying a seat when you buy a ticket. You are buying a contract between an individual and the airline to get that individual to their destination.
The contract he purchased was between the airline and his older son. His older son was not on the flight, thus that contract was nullified.
Try reading the contract of carriage (terms of service) next time before "purchasing a seat"
Don't blame stupid if you don't know what you're buying.
Maybe not handled in the best way, but infants IMO should be in laps of parents if there is no approved child seat available (just like being in a car). The parents should of just "lapped" the infants. But then again, I'm not them.
What are you talking about? They DID HAVE a carseat. And everyone in the airline industry has always pushed bringing an approved car seat and paying for a seat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wheelsup
Putting kids in car seats on planes always cracked me up. The chances are so slim that something were to happen.
Yeah. Why bother to have seat belts? Or really, seats at all, for that matter?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 43north87west
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.
Why are you commenting if you so obviously did not bother to read the article and instead fantasized some scenario in your head? The family purchased (i.e. paid for and reserved) three seats. They wanted to use three seats. They purchased another seat on another airline for the son who was originally going to sit in this seat and Delta said they could change the seat to use for the other child. There is no "fourth" seat except for in your imagination. If we're going to have a discussion, we need to stick to the facts at hand.
I'm surprised passengers don't understand the rules, even if they fly a lot.
The man should have complied at first, he was wrong. He kept trying to dictate to the crew what they should do. He was uncooperative that is why his family was kicked off. He knew he was breaking the rules but decided the rules were wrong and the crew was wrong for following them. LOL. I would not want to be the passenger taking the seat if that family was allowed to stay. It was the right move to kick them off, the man was unreasonable. He was TOLD the ticketing rules he agreed to and still argued.
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.
