Delter debacle

ClarkGriswold said:
How does it feel to realize you argued for 3 pages to finally figure out the simple problem that most people solved after reading the first 3 sentences of the article... bravo.
Click to expand...

NovemberEcho said:
They paid for the seat. They should be able to do with it as they wish. The airlines are the only business in the world that can sell one item to two different people. If the teenage son volunteered to take the other flight after being asked by Delta, than yes, I'll agree with you. If they bought the ticket for the other flight, than I stand by my original comment.
Click to expand...

My third post. My opinion on this specific incident depended on finding out in which way the son was on the other flight. The majority of my arguments were a tangent and not related to this specific case but the contract of carriage in general.
 
ian said:
bye Felicia
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
NovemberEcho said:
This is the stupidest argument ever. If you see something that isn't right just ignore it. God forbid you try to change it to improve it. It's no different then the "well this is the way we've always done it" argument.
Click to expand...

I don't think that is what people are saying. If you see something wrong with a contract, by all means, please don't sign it. Then, encourage others not to sign it. Then, fight to get the contract changed and encourage others to fight with you. That will force a company to offer a better contract. That's how the free market works.

However, once you've signed the contract, or in this case bought the ticket, you've agreed to the contract. You may not like the contract, but you've agreed to it. Your chance to fight it is over.
 
Ok I watched the video of this incident (all over Facebook which is real news btw, bleh) and it appears that an officer was standing in the area and a Delta employee was addressing the family about the empty seat and the FAA regs.

From what I could tell by listening (the mother recording moved the phone so you could not see who was talking) that is was the officer who made the statement about arrest not the employee. Officers do not sit around at every gate in case something happens. I am guessing that by the time the officer arrived from elsewhere in the airport, this confrontation had gone on for quite some time (more than 15 minutes) and the officer may have been referring to the law that concerns interfering with a crew member (which I do not believe this qualifies for).

From what I have witnessed in my past professions people will try and get away with anything if they can. Something tells me that this family tried to avoid paying the transfer fee of the ticket to the infant in order to use the seat after they were advised they would have to do so. There are people today that seem to think if they complain loud enough they will get their way.
 
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...

There were three travelers and two tickets. The unticketed child was put in the seat which there was a paying passenger which was not with the party.

I luv you like my brother from another mother, but I think we have a basic disconnect here.
 
NovemberEcho said:
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)
Click to expand...

If you want to claim that SCRA is bad policy, then fine. Even if you want to argue it incentivizes bad behavior, fine.

That is a different discussion, though, than if it is a valid purpose of government (which it philosophically is, because it involves the govt's ability to raise an army and make war). Either way, it is a red herring for the discussion at hand.

Let's turn this around and see if we can make it clear:

If you believe that it is within government's purpose and authority to dictate specifics regarding a contract between two parties entered of their own freewill (like dictating that an airline contract of carriage cannot allow the airline re-sell a seat if a pax no-shows for their scheduled flight), then....

...you also believe that it is allowable for that same government, using that exact same power, to dictate specific terms of a contract between two parties of their own freewill called a marriage (and for example dictate that the terms of the contract say it can only be between one man and one woman).

Or, alternately, it isn't any of the government's business what two independent parties decide to do with one another so long as it does not violate the law.

Pick your poison.
 
It is cut and dry.

The FA (or whoever it was) is an idiot for telling them they would be taken to jail and their kids would go to a foster home. Such a moron! Prob a large part of the reason they likely got compensated when they shouldn't have.

The Dad is a moron, and he is completely wrong and is disagreeing with a COC he agreed to in the first place. The airline is well within their rights to put anyone in that seat, another confirmed pax, rev standby, non-rev, it really does not matter. He should have clarified that before he sent his other son home early. Sounded to me like he was trying to pull a fast one.

The customer service lady was trying to help, but she was also wrong. You can sit an infant in a car seat, IF they have a seat, as in a ticket for that seat. OR, if they flt does not need to accommodate anyone else, and there are seats unused. She needs re-training.

Sadly far too many people per usual, have no clue what they are talking about, some on here, a lot in the general public, and the three ppl I cited above.
 
NovemberEcho said:
If I bought a ticket for both flights, then I do. I buy a car, someone else doesn't get to drive it when I'm not using it.
Click to expand...
Bought a ticket for both flights with your name on BOTH, then yes that's fine.

Why are you forgetting the name on the ticket is the reason this whole thing happened? A simple call to Delta for a name change would have been the right move and probably wouldn't have even charged him the fee if he explained the situation....

...but nah. Let's just bend Federal Law.

The SHARE button STRIKES AGAIN! Glad to see airline lawyers back on the Internet.
 
I already miss going to the aircraft. doing my preflight prep, maybe a little PR work if I have time and simply flying to the destination.

Now it's "Am I camera ready?" and "Do I sound like an idiot for the YouTube?"
 
Derg said:
I already miss going to the aircraft. doing my preflight prep, maybe a little PR work if I have time and simply flying to the destination.

Now it's "Am I camera ready?" and "Do I sound like an idiot for the YouTube?"
Click to expand...

Time to ask for hazardous duty pay from the employer, Mr. Ambassador......

:cool:
 
Derg said:
There were three travelers and two tickets. The unticketed child was put in the seat which there was a paying passenger which was not with the party.

I luv you like my brother from another mother, but I think we have a basic disconnect here.
Click to expand...

There's no disconnect. My "argument" had two basis from the start, and that was how the son wound up on the other flight. The majority of my posts really weren't even talking about this situation in particular but a theoretical situation.
 
Hacker15e said:
If you want to claim that SCRA is bad policy, then fine. Even if you want to argue it incentivizes bad behavior, fine.

That is a different discussion, though, than if it is a valid purpose of government (which it philosophically is, because it involves the govt's ability to raise an army and make war). Either way, it is a red herring for the discussion at hand.

Let's turn this around and see if we can make it clear:

If you believe that it is within government's purpose and authority to dictate specifics regarding a contract between two parties entered of their own freewill (like dictating that an airline contract of carriage cannot allow the airline re-sell a seat if a pax no-shows for their scheduled flight), then....

...you also believe that it is allowable for that same government, using that exact same power, to dictate specific terms of a contract between two parties of their own freewill called a marriage (and for example dictate that the terms of the contract say it can only be between one man and one woman).

Or, alternately, it isn't any of the government's business what two independent parties decide to do with one another so long as it does not violate the law.

Pick your poison.
Click to expand...

I never said it was bad policy. I said it allows the government to modify a contract legally entered between a creditor and customer.
 
Derg said:
I already miss going to the aircraft. doing my preflight prep, maybe a little PR work if I have time and simply flying to the destination.

Now it's "Am I camera ready?" and "Do I sound like an idiot for the YouTube?"
Click to expand...

I got tweeted about the other day. Like 15 tweets to the airline with its logo on the side of the plane about me supposedly lying about runway construction in LAX being the reason for the delay. The help desk continued to apologized without giving any rebuttal, and even gave some responses that made it sound like I was indeed lying about the reasons for the delay. FA's told me he was waiting for me after the flight, pissed that I was lying to the airplane. I was so sidetracked thinking about my youtube debut.
 
Few days ago, after a cancelled flight, a passenger charged up to me: "I WANNA KNOW YER NAME!!!"

All I could think was, "At the least, I sure hope I make "Morah" proud of me".

I smiled and said "Sure" and held up my Id so he could write it down.

Not sure if it was my friendly demeanor or the 3 Sherrif's Deputies standing behind me, but the situation quickly deescalated. Easy-Peasy...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top