Delter debacle

The reality is very, very few people are denied boarding during normal operations. The issue arises when there are mass cancelations. That isn't really the same thing.
 
B767 said:
Then what are you saying? Even if the parents bought the seat on the separate flight, they should get to do what they want with the seat on their flight that is still in the son's name?
Click to expand...

They should get to do what they want with the seat they paid for.

You ever go to a concert venue? Ever bought a ticket for a friend who cancelled? The venue doesn't sell that seat a second time. It's been paid for. The venue doesn't care if someone is sitting in it, so long as it get paid for. Their certainly not allowed to sell that seat twice and then tell someone at the gate they can't go in.
 
B767 said:
Then what are you saying? Even if the parents bought the seat on the separate flight, they should get to do what they want with the seat on their flight that is still in the son's name?
Click to expand...
I think the premise should be, you bought and paid for a seat on the plane. It's yours.

If you carry a large musical instrument you can in fact buy a ticket for that item. It's your seat to use.

If you charter a plane, regardless if it has one seat or sixteen, it's your plane. You can bring as many or as few people along as you want.

That being said, normally airlines have "transfer fees" that they charge to transfer a ticket from one to another. I doubt these people paid for that. It's a BS fee, everyone knows it, but these folks weren't asked to stay behind because they didn't have seats. We're combining issues.
 
Hacker15e said:
The contract says what the contract says. If you buy the ticket, you agree to abide by the contract of carriage, period, not what you think or wish the contract of carriage should say.

Don't like the terms of the contract? Don't enter into the contract.

Personal responsibility and due diligence.
Click to expand...
You're looking to get plumbing fixed in your house.
Fine print in my contract says that
- if I'm busy that day an electrician might show up
- if parts not available you might be stuck without a crapper for up to a month but you'll get a voucher for cleaning supplies discount
And so forth.
Don't like it? Go elsewhere. Problem is elsewhere is the same. Tough luck, dig up an outhouse in your backyard. Just don't forget to get a permit.

Faulty logic, don't you think?
 
NovemberEcho said:
I would if I paid for 3 seats and only got to use 2.
Click to expand...
If YOU bought 3 in YOUR name, you get an entire row to yourself and the airline can't tell you what to do with those empty seats. They will ask numerous times and insist that you let others sit there I'm sure. You buy 3 on 3 separate names, and person #1 doesn't make the flight, then you're only using two. But it's ok, because you DIDN'T pay for the seat on a later flight, but the airline will be kind enough to rebook person #1, free of charge.
 
NovemberEcho said:
And I'm saying a contract like this shouldn't be allowed.
Click to expand...

Again, you're welcome to vote with your dollars elsewhere if you don't like the contract being offered.

If you feel so strongly about it, and you think it is such a slimeball way of doing business, you're welcome to start your own airline and offer a different contract of carriage.

Otherwise, it isn't any of your business or the government's business what is contained in a contract between two parties who enter it of their own freewill. Funny, because you didn't strike me as someone who is opposed to gay marriage...another contract entered between two people of their own freewill and of which it is no business of either the government or any other party.
 
B767 said:
If YOU bought 3 in YOUR name, you get an entire row to yourself and the airline can't tell you what to do with those empty seats. They will ask numerous times and insist that you let others sit there I'm sure. You buy 3 on 3 separate names, and person #1 doesn't make the flight, then you're only using two. But it's ok, because you DIDN'T pay for the seat on a later flight, but the airline will be kind enough to rebook person #1, free of charge.
Click to expand...

And that's why I've asked several times now if the son was just moved to a different flight, or if a separate seat was purchased for him on the other flight. And again, no one has said one way or the other. If the son was merely switched to a different flight by the airline at his request, then the airline has done nothing wrong at all in this situation.

I'm not sitting here saying the airline did anything wrong in a legal sense. I'm saying the fact they're allowed to do have contracts of carriage like this at all is wrong.
 
Hacker15e said:
No, it is entirely logical and rational. It is how the free market works.

If you can't find a plumber that suits your needs, then go learn how to do plumbing work yourself.
Click to expand...
I was just thinking that this feels like preaching free market at a union meeting
Hence if that's your understanding of free market I can't add much
 
NovemberEcho said:
And that's why I've asked several times now if the son was just moved to a different flight, or if a separate seat was purchased for him on the other flight. And again, no one has said one way or the other. If the son was merely switched to a different flight by the airline at his request, then the airline has done nothing wrong at all in this situation.

I'm not sitting here saying the airline did anything wrong in a legal sense. I'm saying the fact they're allowed to do have contracts of carriage like this at all is wrong.
Click to expand...
I get what you're saying now. I was combining different issues. However, a seat is purchased in a persons name. HAS to be that way per the FAA for a manifest. Airlines have to know who's on board and where and keep track. Even if they bought the seat on the other flight, they have to transfer the seat on their flight out of their son's name.
 
B767 said:
I get what you're saying now. I was combining different issues. However, the seat is purchased in a persons name. HAS to be that way per the FAA for a manifest. Airlines have to know who's on board and where and keep track. Even if they bought the seat on the other flight, they have to transfer the seat on their flight out of their son's name.
Click to expand...

And they can do that quite easily. The can name the passenger in the empty seat, "vacant, paid".
 
NovemberEcho said:
And they can do that quite easily. The can name the passenger in the empty seat, "vacant, paid".
Click to expand...
But it's not. You bought a seat for Joe Blow. You then buy another seat on a different flight for Joe Blow. Joe Blow gets on different flight. Joe Blow has two seats. You didn't buy the seat next to you, you bought Joe Blow the seat. He can do with it whatever he pleases. He got on an earlier flight, guessing he doesn't care about the seat back at the point of departure.
 
NovemberEcho said:
Yes, allowed. Because believe it or not sometimes government has to protect people from business.
Click to expand...

Hah, okay. Unfortunately, you're going to have to do better than, "believe it or not", because I fall squarely on the side of "not" and I can show you a logical path as to why that is. There are numerous threads where I've explained my philosophy and the derived purposes of government and valid economic systems, and thus what are and are not valid governmental policies and regulations.

So, you're gonna have the peel the onion back and explain from a philosophical perspective under what moral or ethical authority "the government" has a role to "protect people from business".

Again, these are contracts entered by independent parties of their own freewill. What business is it of government in a free society to intervene in behavior of independent parties that doesn't violate the rights of either (or any 3rd parties)?

As I said, if you believe this is under the authority of the government, then you also agree that the government has the moral and ethical authority to ban gay marriage, segregate communities, or a whole host of other protectionist actions done "for the good of the people".
 
NovemberEcho said:
That contract of carriage IS the problem. The airline is selling the use of the seat. I pay to use the seat. The airline doesn't care what's in the seat. The contract of carriage exists as is so that the airline can sell the seat twice.
Click to expand...

The TSA sure does though.
 
ppragman said:
I mean...until you're old right, then Social Security! Or until your business isn't doing well, then "bailout city."

While I haven't read much into this particular case, I don't think (regardless of the terms and conditions) that the expectation to be able to use seats you purchased tickets for is "entitlement."
Click to expand...
General sense. Not necessarily saying specifically here.
 
Hacker15e said:
As I said, if you believe this is under the authority of the government, then you also agree that the government has the moral and ethical authority to ban gay marriage, segregate communities, or a whole host of other protectionist actions done "for the good of the people".
Click to expand...

no, I don't agree. An airline seat is not a marriage, or segregation. It's a bit more nuanced than all or nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top