Delter debacle

NovemberEcho said:
no, I don't agree. An airline seat is not a marriage, or segregation. It's a bit more nuanced than all or nothing.
Click to expand...

No, actually it isn't.

Either the government has some sort of moral authority to control or moderate a contract freely entered between two parties that does not violate anyone's rights, or it does not.

Which is it?
 
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...

This assumes that both people are "equals" in choosing if they want to participate in the contract. Not saying you're wrong, I'm just suggesting that the fact that the contract presented by the airline is essentially non-negotiable means out of the gate that the consumer is bargaining from a place of weakness.

Legally you're definitely not wrong - it's just that morally I think a strong case could be made that these sorts of documents may be unethical.
 
B767 said:
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.
Click to expand...

But that first seat is still bought and paid for by me. The airline should not have the right to sell that seat twice hoping that joe blow will buy another seat on a different flight.
 
Hacker15e said:
No, actually it isn't.

Either the government has some sort of moral authority to control or moderate a contract freely entered between two parties that does not violate anyone's rights, or it does not.

Which is it?
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll bite. Yes, the government has some sort of moral authority to control or moderate a contract, including gay marriage. They have the moral authority to make sure get marriage is treated exactly the same as hetero marriage, and that all rights granted to a hetero marriage are afforded to the gay marriage. This includes restrictions, such as polygamy or minors or blood relatives etc and divorce.
 
wheelsup said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is mostly why I was confused. Willing to bet that these people would rather pay a transfer fee than buy another ticket altogether. In which case his ticket was transferred to another flight. If they didn't and he was rebooked by the airline, than the airline did nothing wrong in NovemberEcho's mind. So either his ticket was transferred (cheaper) or he was rebooked. If they bought another ticket for some reason, the parents can't scan his boarding pass for someone that's not on the plane and keep the seat for themselves.

So it seems to be the contract. That's fine that people hate it. The northeast gets hammered all the time. Next time someone misses their connecting flight due to weather or mechanical delay and the next flight has one open seat for you (collective, not personal), and the person sitting next to the vacant seat says "sorry, I paid for that seat for Joe Blow. He's going to miss the flight because of delays and I bought him one for a later time, but this ticket now says 'vacant: paid' so you can't have it," I bet you (again collective) would be screaming that Airlines should relinquish empty seats for missed connections/rebookings.
 
B767 said:
This is mostly why I was confused. Willing to bet that these people would rather pay a transfer fee than buy another ticket altogether. In which case his ticket was transferred to another flight. If they didn't and he was rebooked by the airline, than the airline did nothing wrong in NovemberEcho's mind. So either his ticket was transferred (cheaper) or he was rebooked. If they bought another ticket for some reason, the parents can't scan his boarding pass for someone that's not on the plane and keep the seat for themselves.

So it seems to be the contract. That's fine that people hate it. The northeast gets hammered all the time. Next time someone misses their connecting flight due to weather or mechanical delay and the next flight has one open seat for you (collective, not personal), and the person sitting next to the vacant seat says "sorry, I paid for that seat for Joe Blow. He's going to miss the flight because of delays, but this ticket now says 'vacant: paid' so you can't have it," I bet you (again collective) would be screaming that Airlines should relinquish empty seats for missed connections/rebookings.
Click to expand...

The (or at least a) solution to that is the airline offering to refund the ticket price (in cash, not voucher) and "buy" back that seat. Perhaps there wouldn't be so many people needing empty seats if they hadn't been sold an occupied seat to begin with.
 
NovemberEcho said:
Ok, I'll bite. Yes, the government has some sort of moral authority to control or moderate a contract, including gay marriage. They have the moral authority to make sure get marriage is treated exactly the same as hetero marriage, and that all rights granted to a hetero marriage are afforded to the gay marriage.
Click to expand...

So, in other words, you are saying the government has such an authority (although you give no logical basis upon which it should have such authority), but only to do with that authority what you think they should be able to do with it (and with no other logical, rational, or philosophical boundaries to that authority).

That doesn't mean what you think it means.

In fact, if the "moral authority" you cite to intervene in independent contracts only compels marriages of different types to be treated equally by the government, then that also means the authority granted of the government is only allowed by that authority to treat all other contracts equally as well -- no other authority to implement changes to those contracts -- which is not the answer you're looking for with respect to airline contracts of carriage (or any other contract, for that matter). It would not give the government such authority to do whatever it is you want with them being...unfair...or whatever you seem to think.

Despite the mockery I get for these discussions, this stuff matters. How we live in society isn't handed down from some magic mountain: we are past the Enlightenment era. If you want to be a thoughtful member of society, it only benefits you to educate yourself and understand how and why we operate as a society.
 
NovemberEcho said:
so many people needing empty seats
Click to expand...

There aren't. Most I've seen is oversold by 5 in NORMAL situations. 99% of the time anything more than that is due to mass cancelations and weather events like @wheelsup said. The only times I've seen a need for massive (8-9+) volunteers during routine operations are on the Critically weight-Restricted Jet 200 if there's an alternate, strong head winds needing more gas, or anti-ice on for takeoff at high elevations.
 
Hacker15e said:
So, in other words, you are saying the government has such an authority (although you give no logical basis upon which it should have such authority), but only to do with that authority what you think they should be able to do with it (and with no other logical, rational, or philosophical boundaries to that authority).

That doesn't mean what you think it means.

In fact, if the "moral authority" you cite to intervene in independent contracts only compels marriages of different types to be treated equally by the government, then that also means the authority granted of the government is only allowed by that authority to treat all other contracts equally as well -- no other authority to implement changes to those contracts -- which is not the answer you're looking for with respect to airline contracts of carriage (or any other contract, for that matter). It would not give the government such authority to do whatever it is you want with them being...unfair...or whatever you seem to think.

Despite the mockery I get for these discussions, this stuff matters. How we live in society isn't handed down from some magic mountain: we are past the Enlightenment era. If you want to be a thoughtful member of society, it only benefits you to educate yourself and understand how and why we operate as a society.
Click to expand...

I'm really curious to hear your opinion on predatory loans. Also on the SCRA.
 
NovemberEcho said:
It's no different than buying a ticket for a cello. I paid for the seat. My cello goes in the seat. If I change my mind about the cello my water bottle goes in the seat. But I paid for the seat. It's my seat. Anyone left stranded, that's the airlines problem. What do so many say on here? Your emergency is not my emergency? Well an airlines poor business practice is not my problem either.
Click to expand...
It's more like you paid for the cello and then put it on a seat the flight before and now expect a comped seat for your water bottle.

This is the world's smallest cello playing my heart bleeds for you....

Sorry I had to.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
 
trafficinsight said:
It's more like you paid for the cello and then put it on a seat the flight before and now expect a comped seat for your water bottle.
Click to expand...

Do you have a source saying the sons ticket was transferred to the other flight and not that they bought another ticket for him? If you keep reading through the posts you'll see why your analogy is not what I'm saying st all.
 
Derg said:
No one is going to boycott United or any other airline.

It's like boycotting Subway because you're angry. But it's right there by your office, $5 footlong "classics" on Tuesdays, you're still reeling that "Customer Appreciation Day" at Jimmy Johns had the balls to charge you $1 for extra cheese on your $1 "Big Juan" and you're hungry...
Click to expand...

It's $6 now.
 
NovemberEcho said:
I'm really curious to hear your opinion on predatory loans. Also on the SCRA.
Click to expand...

There's no such thing as a "predatory loan". There are people who are offering a service, and there are other people who are willing to pay for that service, and they enter into a contract of their own freewill. Not sure what else there is to say about it. If an individual doesn't like the terms of the contract, don't enter into the contract. If they do enter into the contract, it is up to their personal responsibility to hold up their end of it. It is their moral, ethical, and legal responsibility as an individual to do so.

It isn't the government's purpose to protect citizens from making bad decisions. Nor is it the government's purpose to incentivize bad decisionmaking by subsidizing it when one party realizes they've made a bad choice.

Given that the SCRA is a law that is associated with the government's quite legitimate power to have and keep a military, it does have a legitimate purpose. It is different than incentivizing bad behavior, because it assumes that the government will put members of the military into circumstances they had not foreseen or known about, which were not the fault of the servicemember. In other words, since the government caused the problem, not the servicemember failing to exercise due diligence in entering into a financial contract.
 
Hacker15e said:
Given that the SCRA is a law that is associated with the government's quite legitimate power to have and keep a military, it does have a legitimate purpose. It is different than incentivizing bad behavior, because it assumes that the government will put members of the military into circumstances they had not foreseen or known about, which were not the fault of the servicemember. In other words, since the government caused the problem, not the servicemember failing to exercise due diligence in entering into a financial contract.
Click to expand...

The SCRA caps interests rates on credit etc from BEFORE a persons enlistment. The person enlisted knowing what circumstances the government might put them in. It bails out bad behavior and modifies the contract entered by the person with the creditor. (Or can be used that way, obv not everyone's financial difficulties are caused by bad behavior)
 
NovemberEcho said:
Do you have a source saying the sons ticket was transferred to the other flight and not that they bought another ticket for him? If you keep reading through the posts you'll see why your analogy is not what I'm saying st all.
Click to expand...

The source I have said that they paid a fee to have the teenager standby for an earlier flight (not sure how Delta does move up) which he got on. That means his ticket was transferred to an earlier flight and the seat he had on the flight in question was released back into inventory and the family no longer had a claim to the seat.

Now if they HAD purchased another seat on an earlier flight, they could have still had rights to the "extra" seat on the later flight however, as soon as check in closes, if that seat wasn't shown as checked in, it is released back into inventory and can be assigned to another revenue passenger or standby. If they had wanted to keep the extra seat for their use they could have checked it in but they would have had to change the name on the ticket to match one of the family members that was actually getting on the flight per the FAA rules contained in Secure Flight. Delta (and most other carriers) charge for that. It's totally legal to have two tickets in one person's name, but they have to be a person that actually is getting on the plane.
 
BobDDuck said:
The source I have said that they paid a fee to have the teenager standby for an earlier flight (not sure how Delta does move up) which he got on. That means his ticket was transferred to an earlier flight and the seat he had on the flight in question was released back into inventory and the family no longer had a claim to the seat.
Click to expand...

With this I completely agree they had no claim to the seat.
 
BobDDuck said:
The source I have said that they paid a fee to have the teenager standby for an earlier flight (not sure how Delta does move up) which he got on. That means his ticket was transferred to an earlier flight and the seat he had on the flight in question was released back into inventory and the family no longer had a claim to the seat.

Now if they HAD purchased another seat on an earlier flight, they could have still had rights to the "extra" seat on the later flight however, as soon as check in closes, if that seat wasn't shown as checked in, it is released back into inventory and can be assigned to another revenue passenger or standby. If they had wanted to keep the extra seat for their use they could have checked it in but they would have had to change the name on the ticket to match one of the family members that was actually getting on the flight per the FAA rules contained in Secure Flight. Delta (and most other carriers) charge for that. It's totally legal to have two tickets in one person's name, but they have to be a person that actually is getting on the plane.
Click to expand...
But this doesn't follow the narrative that would fuel my outrage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top