Did they purchase a seat for the kids? If not, they only rented enough space to put their kids on their laps.
When you buy a seat on an airplane, you are effectively renting that space. Just because you brought little Tommy or little Emily along, doesn't mean you get more space, for free.
In listening carefully, it sounds like they bought the seat for "A" kid, not "the" kid that wound up strapped there.Yes, they purchased the seat for the kid.
In listening carefully, it sounds like they bought the seat for "A" kid, not "the" kid that wound up strapped there.
This wouldn't be a big deal, except, oops.
Why am I reading the SJI ticketing terms and conditions this morning, anyway?
Entitlement is still a disease.Everyone is a victim, and the companies are playing right into by apologizing profusely instead of standing by their employees. It's getting really old quick. I'd like to see someone set precedence by banning these attention seekers who delay everyone else over their quest for free tickets and short-term fame.
It's "up to"Let's do the math using Delta's new formula:
Four people involuntarily bumped for overbooking x $10,000 = $40,000.
In listening carefully, it sounds like they bought the seat for "A" kid, not "the" kid that wound up strapped there.
This wouldn't be a big deal, except, oops.
And yet the public will still sharpen their pitchforks and light their torches, regardless.This entire article leads you to believe that the family is the victim here. And then the second to last paragraph:
"Initially the two youngest children were going to sit on their parents' laps, but when their teenage son opted to travel on another flight - having had a seat booked - they seated Grayson in his seat instead."
That certainly sounds to me like the teenage son was rebooked on another flight. If that's the case, that seat didn't belong to (wasn't rented by?, whatever) the family anymore.
This is just getting stupid now.