The United debarcle

[3WE]

...there is no "revenue" from standby pax. they already paid for and have seats on a later flight. it's just a convenience allowing them to fly earlier...

Actually, there is now a significant fee for most standby changes on most airlines. (Exceptions being special, high-priced, flexible fares- and your AA status, of course.) (Other exceptions include that some airlines will wave the fee if they know the weather is going to hell and it might actually be worth it to THEM to do you a no-cost favor)

[ATLcrew]

Why not? Seriously, aside from corporate lawyering hijinx, why the hell can't you have another person fly in that seat?

For one thing, it may cause a security issue. Suppose that "other person" is on a no-fly list. Yes, TSA is supposed to catch that, but do you trust them to do so?

[Evan]

For one thing, it may cause a security issue. Suppose that "other person" is on a no-fly list. Yes, TSA is supposed to catch that, but do you trust them to do so?

How does that apply to THIS situation? A large part of the problem is that these personnel are NOT being trained to deal with things on a situational basis. They just give them stone cold policy, like it's some kind of card game. Another large part of the problem is that, on the management level, it IS some kind of card game.

[TeeVee]

what it comes down is simply capitalism run amok, aided in large part by a completely irrational protection of airlines by the govt and courts, as if somehow the biz part of an airline is somehow more special than any other. i've previously posted very well written articles on why the entire industry must fail without regulation. and while we "de-regulated" it, the undeniable fact is the protectionist policies are merely a form of soft regulation, this time dumping on the consumer.

[TeeVee]

Actually, there is now a significant fee for most standby changes on most airlines. (Exceptions being special, high-priced, flexible fares- and your AA status, of course.) (Other exceptions include that some airlines will wave the fee if they know the weather is going to hell and it might actually be worth it to THEM to do you a no-cost favor)

which i of course have no knowledge of....

[3WE]

How does that apply to THIS situation? A large part of the problem is that these personnel are NOT being trained to deal with things on a situational basis. They just give them stone cold policy, like it's some kind of card game. Another large part of the problem is that, on the management level, it IS some kind of card game.

What are you saying here? That the procedures are emphasized so much that important fundamentals are forgotten?

[3WE]

For one thing, it may cause a security issue. Suppose that "other person" is on a no-fly list. Yes, TSA is supposed to catch that, but do you trust them to do so?

Indeed, we don't need wanton, unchecked seat swapping with unknown persons...(and we don't have that. TSA checks IDs on 'adults'.)

But is there a problem with dad calling 1-800-FLY-DELTA and saying, I really want junior who's 2 to have seat so can I buy big John a new ticket, and switch his old reservation to Junior?

The person on the phone will NOT say, "Yeah, sure, but we have to have the names right... gimme full name, age and sex and don't go switching Big John with your wife or anything- that violates security procedures."

Instead the person will say, "Forfeit Big John's original fare, pay big for a new ticket for John, AND pay big for Junior to have Johnny's former seat via a brand new reservation."

There is ZERO security difference in those two scenarios... but three total pay outs instead of one...that part sucks.

[Gabriel]

Yes, perhaps they didn't play by the airline's one-sided rules.

They did something more than that. We have Mom, Dad, Teen, Tod (2 Y/O) and Baby (1 Y/O).
So they buy tickets for Mom, Dad, and Teen. Baby doesn't need one as they can fly on the lap. Teen leaves earlier and they attempt to make Tod fly on Teen's ticket.
What was the original plan for Tod?

[Evan]

What are you saying here? That the procedures are emphasized so much that important fundamentals are forgotten?

Oh, you got me...

Actually, what I'm saying is that the procedures are wrong. The procedure should be to assess the best course of action for the best outcome, weighing customer satisfaction and brand value against company revenue. And a would throw in a QRH table of compassion vs policy at various weights and altitudes.

[Evan]

They did something more than that. We have Mom, Dad, Teen, Tod (2 Y/O) and Baby (1 Y/O).
So they buy tickets for Mom, Dad, and Teen. Baby doesn't need one as they can fly on the lap. Teen leaves earlier and they attempt to make Tod fly on Teen's ticket.
What was the original plan for Tod?

It shouldn't matter. They paid for the seat.

[TeeVee]

What was the original plan for Tod?

to sit on dad's lap.

[Gabriel]

to sit on dad's lap.

Tod can't! Tod is 2 Y/O already!!! It's illegal!!! That's the point! That's also what the agent was requesting (or requiring) them to do was illegal too.

[ATLcrew]

How does that apply to THIS situation? A large part of the problem is that these personnel are NOT being trained to deal with things on a situational basis. They just give them stone cold policy, like it's some kind of card game. Another large part of the problem is that, on the management level, it IS some kind of card game.

All of that may be. Doesn't change the fact that Daddy obviously tried to pull a fast one, and it basically worked. Sure, they got kicked off the flight originally, but then they got "compensated", so all is well. I'm hopeful Daddy didn't deliberately risk traumatizing his little ones, but from what I've seen of the traveling public, I'm not certain.

My concern is that this sort of thing will lead to even more draconian "stone-cold" policies. Since kicking people off flights nowadays (regardless of fault) is turning into a national news story every time, there will likely be greater scrutiny at the gate (or even the counter). If all the is and ts aren't exactly as they should be, people in question won't even be allowed to board in the first place. That way at least nobody will be dragged off, kicked off, removed or otherwise tortured.

[3WE]

Tod can't! Tod is 2 Y/O already!!! It's illegal!!! That's the point! That's also what the agent was requesting (or requiring) them to do was illegal too.

Dude- safety and regulation do not matter. It's profit that matters.

Properly trained agents, FA's and security cost too much $.

It's very plausible that the 'agent' was willing to bend the lap rules to facilitate getting a high-paying passenger into the seat.

Add in (again), that plausible speculation that Big John never checked in. There may have been a point where the agent saw that the family was SOL and done cowboy improvisation on 1.8 vs 2.2 years old.

Also, our law officials are generally allowed to lie to facilitate 'reasonable compliance and investigation'.

[Evan]

My concern is that this sort of thing will lead to even more draconian "stone-cold" policies. Since kicking people off flights nowadays (regardless of fault) is turning into a national news story every time, there will likely be greater scrutiny at the gate (or even the counter). If all the is and ts aren't exactly as they should be, people in question won't even be allowed to board in the first place. That way at least nobody will be dragged off, kicked off, removed or otherwise tortured.

You have a guy who probably didn't think he had to check in a two-year old and probably thought that, since he paid for three seats and the airline gladly accepted his money, he had three seats to work with. Meanwhile, the airline probably thought that the seat was vacant and gave it to a standby passenger. But when the FA saw that the seat was, in fact, being used by its rightful owner, that should have been the end of it. Oh, sorry Mr. Standby passenger, we thought we had a seat for you but it is being used by the original booking after all (but hey, you're flying on luck here so that's how the chips fall).

But no. Pathological adherance to policy and power-tripping authority had to prevail. I would rather see draconian pre-boarding policies than this next-level madness.