Family booted off Delta flight

[OnlinePoker]

What the hell is wrong with these airlines? They have no clue how image works in the day and age of mobile video.

[Goodheart]

1. Looks like Delta handled this pretty well

Sometimes the customer is wrong.

[frazzled]

3. How is this customer wrong?

He bought a seat for his child. He paid for it. How is he wrong?

[Goodheart]

7. The person in the seat has to match the name on the ticket

Just as the attendant said. He bought that seat for his OTHER child. The customer broke the rules.

[frazzled]

10. Oh, give me a break.

My husband and I just flew to an from Europe, reserving the window seat for him and the aisle seat for me (it was a 767 with two-seat rows on each side of the larger middle row). On the way back I asked if he wanted the aisle seat instead, and he said yes, so we switched. Did anyone come to bother us? No.

This was not the issue here. They wanted the parent to hold the baby for the entire red-eye flight so that another passenger could be seated there.

[Goodheart]

14. Here's what really happened

The family bought 3 seats... one for each parent and one for their oldest son. The infant was going to be in their arms. But they sent their older son on an earlier flight... taking up space on a different plane... apparently in an attempt to give their infant a seat of his own in a car safety seat. But it doesn't work that way.... the seat is lost when the ticketed passenger fails to check in.

[obamanut2012]

58. If this is indeed what happened, the parents were 100% wrong

And trying to game the system.

I am loathe to agree with an airline, but Delta was right.

[LisaM]

87. Agree. I had an issue recently where two parents booked the window and aisle.

They had a child they insisted was not quite two (I took their word for it, though I think they were lying). Their plan was that the person in the middle (me), if she showed up, would be shunted to the window, which is why they took the other two seats. I think they were hoping the middle seat would be empty. I like kids, but I didn't want to be trapped in the inside seat for a five-hour flight, especially if the (supposed) 1.9 year old fell asleep, so I told them that I'd be willing to take the aisle, and they both gave me the stinkeye most of the flight.

Having a kid on a flight does not entitle anyone to special treatment. I was more than happy to stand up on the aisle seat I eventually got when they needed to get up, but I wasn't going to play their little seat game.

[Goodheart]

15. Because that's what the parents signed up for.

Sorry, but this was a parent fail. Delta sold that ticket to somebody else when the ticketed passenger failed to check in and the family was no longer entitled to it. Your own example doesn't apply because no other passenger was adversely affected.

[Goodheart]

18. And let's not forget something that's getting lost here...

The family could have STILL made the flight if only they agreed to hold the baby in their arms as THEY, THEMSELVES had contracted for.

Instead they chose to get off the plane?

[Volstagg]

30. This isn't about switching seats

The contract (ticket) they got was for holding that baby in their arms. Delta isn't wrong for wanting them to do that. The person who was supposed to be in that seat didn't check in. Delta then, correctly, sold that seat to someone else. This isn't a Delta problem.

[Sanity Claws]

101. Something is wrong with your take

They got boarding passes. If they were issued 3 boarding passes, then Delta is clearly wrong.
Sounds to me like someone at Delta used some common sense and accommodated the family and that someone later decided to change the arrangement.

[kristopher]

110. I agree. Delta website even recommends a car seat for infants.

Delta is nitpicking to make a couple of extra bucks.

[kcr]

13. How did they even know? You don't need ID for young children.

They just wanted that seat.

[jberryhill]

28. The ticketed passenger for that seat was 18 years old, and not checked in

http://airport.blog.ajc.com/2017/05/04/delta-passenger-posts-video-of-family-booted-off-flight/

The passenger, Brian Schear, had also bought a seat for his 18-year-old son Mason, who ended up taking an earlier flight, according to ABC 7 News in Los Angeles.
----

They didn't change the remaining reservation for their older son. Older son was not checked in on the flight, so Delta re-sold the seat.

[kcr]

37. Also bought a seat. Yes, exactly as I say. They didn't just buy three tickets.

It may be that they didn't check in the baby, not realizing the reservation would disappear, but given all the BS being flung at them by the crew, I believe them. The claim that children under 2 aren't allowed their own seat is false. If it is as you say, it seems to me it would have been pretty straightfoward.

[grantcart]

56. They had a discrepancy when in the pre flight check they did a head check against ticketed

passengers and found the numbers don't match.

The pilot is not authorized to take off until the numbers matched to prevent a stowaway.

In this case the family purchased 3 seats and tried to use 4.

Family is wrong.

[kcr]

64. If that's true, it would have been easy for them to state that.

No ticket. Get off flight. But, that's not what happened.

[DrDan]

71. they had agreed to fly with an infant in their lap - and they could have done that

they wanted to use their other child's seat for the infant - who was supposed to be in the lap.

It would have been simple had they flown as originally planned.

[kcr]

88. Or the airline could have simply switched names, because it's dangerous.

They shouldn't allow parents to carry their infant in a lap to begin with. If all these parents wanted to do was save a buck, they would have just flown with their baby in the lap and not bothered with another ticket. This isn't about parents trying to scam anyone.

[DrDan]

90. unlesss it was a nontransferrable ticket - then the airlines should stick by the rules

[LisaM]

94. Yes, it is. How do you fail to see that?

Whether or not babies should have to fly in a purchased seat is another issue (I think they should have to), but here, they'd already used the seat they purchased on an earlier flight! They already got what they paid for! The 18-year old that they'd paid for had used his seat.

My head is exploding that you don't see this. They paid for three seats. They GOT three seats. Yes, I agree babies should have to be in paid seats, but the airlines currently don't require this (unfortunately). They get to ride free, they don't get free seats.

[kcr]

100. No. They hadn't used the ticket. They bought an additional one.

They paid for another ticket when they sent their other child on a completely different flight. They actually bought four tickets.

[LisaM]

103. Where are you seeing that they paid for four tickets?

I am only seeing that they paid for three.

[kcr]

115. No you aren't. If they'd only paid for three, then it would have been a video

of a family being kicked off because they didn't have a ticket. But it wasn't. It was a video of an airline trying to take advantage of the fact they were using one ticket for another child. It's ludicrous because they don't check ID for minors in the first place. There was no reason they couldn't change the names. That's the reason for the false claims of babies not being allowed to have their own seat.

[LisaM]

126. Ah. Well, then they should have changed the name on the ticket.

I do agree that it's difficult to do things like buy a single ticket now, but I also see Delta's point. They didn't change the seat out of Mason's name. Mason went on another flight. The family should have changed the name; don't understand why they didn't do that.

[kcr]

127. Probably because ID isn't required for infants.

Why kick the hornet's nest if it isn't necessary? They probably didn't think of a scenario where there's a full flight and the airlines will use that as justification to kick them off. Why would it? They're not trying to pull one over by using a cheaper ticket, or claim a seat they didn't pay for. They're just switching one kid out for another.

[LisaM]

131. No, but if a person on a named ticket takes another flight, I can see why Delta re-assigned the seat

Do I agree with all the rules? Not really, but we have them. Of course, if they required babies to be in paid seats, this would not have happened at all, but coincidentally, I was listening to a news piece just the other day on how this is unlikely to happen (apparently a baby on a flight with extreme turbulence was ripped out of the parents' arms and became a projectile, not to mention being hurt itself).

[grantcart]

130. The issue wasn't that they didn't have a ticket but that they refused to hold the infant

and attempted to use the other sons ticket in a ruse.

[kristopher]

114. The pax had received boarding passes and were on the plane

How can you be any more checked in than that?

[jberryhill]

118. That part is not clear

The ticketed passenger was an adult. How did they check in that ticket for a boarding pass?

[kristopher]

123. They show the ticket and get a boarding pass.

There may have been a mistake made in issuing the boarding passes, but I'd speculate that it occurred when the agent saw the children (they were still traveling with more than one according to press reports) and just assumed they were the ticketed passengers. If they didn't have the right to use that seat then it is yet another case of corporations stacking the deck with legal rights that are clearly ethically wrong.

[jberryhill]

133. It's not clear that they did get a boarding pass

I'm not saying they didn't, but the ticketed passenger was an adult, so I'm not sure how that would have worked.

[kristopher]

134. I don't recall age nor child/adult being on the tickets or boarding passes at all

There used to be different adult/child fares a long time ago, but now if you take up a seat you pay full freight, no?

[califootman]

138. I believe lap children get a boarding pass that does not assign them a seat

It's been years since we flew with our kids as lap children, but I seem to remember the boarding pass they got identified them as a lap child and did not assign them a seat.

If the family used the infant's ticket and boarding pass, that lap child boarding pass would only entitle the infant to a seat in mom or dad's lap, not a separate seat on the plane.

If they had checked the infant in using the other ticket originally purchased for their older child, that would have gotten them a third seat.

[HoneyBadger]

132. That is exactly how it is supposed to work

You can however buy multiple seats for yourself, fat people do that.

[itcfish]

25. I don't think they handled well

at all. The passenger said, the mother would hold the baby. He gave in. Then they said too bad, off the plane. They overbooked again.

[obamanut2012]

60. Except they didn't overbook -- standbys are not always overbooking issues

They are people hoping to get on the plane at the last minute, because of family deaths, cancelled flights, missing a flight, etc.

I hate agreeing with Delta, but the parents were 100% wrong, and inconvenienced both the passengers and the crew.

[malaise]

2. He paid for the fugging seat

Fugg 'em! I'm so sick of these airlines

[brooklynite]

16. Simple math...he paid for THREE SEATS

ONE: His

TWO: His wife's

THREE: His child ON ANOTHER FLIGHT

FOUR: his infant, NOT PAID FOR.

See how the numbers work.

[kcr]

20. Where did you get that he only paid for THREE SEATS

Because nothing in the video states that. In fact, he says he bought another ticket for the other child.

[itcfish]

26. Infants under 2

don't pay

[crazycatlady]

34. They don't pay if they're lap babies

If they have a seat, it is full price.

[kcr]

38. Only if they're in a lap.

They sent their other child home on another flight. I can easily understand why they decided to use the ticket for their baby as babies do not need ID to check in. And if they hadn't overbooked there wouldn't have been a problem.

[itcfish]

83. Agree with you

n/t I don't think the father was being unreasonable. He paid for the seat. That's how I see it.

[obamanut2012]

62. Except he didn't -- he gave an adult's seat to the child, you cannot do that

Sometimes, the passengers are being dicks or scammers. This is the one of those times.

[Historic NY]

4. Another lawsuit....

Do I have to use a car seat on a plane?

You're not required to, but both the Federal Aviation Administration and the American Academy of Pediatrics strongly recommend that you use an FAA-approved child restraint device. That means either an approved car seat or the CARES harness

https://www.babycenter.com/0_car-seat-safety-using-a-car-seat-on-a-plane_3656331.bc

[crappyjazz]

5. Depends where they were sitting

http://www.delta.com/content/www/en_US/traveling-with-us/special-travel-needs/children.html

Where to Sit with a Child Restraint

The window seat is the preferred location for an approved child restraint system (car seat). Other locations may be acceptable provided the child restraint system (car seat) is not installed between other passengers and the aisle. An accompanying adult must sit next to the child. More than one child restraint system (car seat) may be in use in the same row and section of seats. When using a child safety seat, don’t select seats in the following areas:

Aisle seats
Emergency exit rows
Any seat one row forward or one row back from an emergency exit row
Bulkhead seats when the safety seat is a combination car seat and stroller
Flat bed seats in the Delta One™ area of the following aircraft: Airbus A330-200 or A330-300; Boeing 777, 767 or 747 aircraft*

*Child Safety Seats are not permitted in this area since the airbag seat belt cannot be deactivated.

[frazzled]

8. If that's all it was, they could have just asked other passengers to switch

It happens all the time, and people are usually happy to comply (I've offered my seat to families who have somehow gotten broken up so that they can sit together). Doesn't sound like that was even the case here: they wanted to seat an extra passenger in the baby's purchased seat.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

6. Is she saying you can't buy a seat for an infant, because that is total bs.

The last time I flew on a plane I purchased a seat for my infant son and put his car seat in it. This was so he could be comfortable and also it is safer for him to be restrained by the car seat. It was a car seat that was also designed for use on planes. Anyhow, I don't understand what the argument is here. Are they trying to kick a baby out of a seat to give it to someone else and make the parents hold on to the baby the whole flight even though they paid for the seat?

[kcr]

12. I bought a seat for mine when they were babies, too. It is total BS n/t

[Volstagg]

31. You can. They didn't

That's the point. They bought a seat for their 18-year-old son who did not check in. That doesn't mean that seat goes to their infant. That means Delta can resell that seat.

[obamanut2012]

65. Exactly, that seat was no longer in play, it was void

[kristopher]

107. LATimes Says that they still were assigned that seat.

Unless you have a better source it appears their 18 year old son bought another ticket.

Another employee can be heard saying the child could not fly because the seat had been assigned to the family’s teenage son, rather than the 2-year-old. (The family was also traveling with a 1-year-old child, according to CBS2.)

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-delta-flight-orange-county-20170504-story.html

HuffPo

Schear, speaking to KABC News, said that he, his wife and two of their three children were traveling on a red-eye flight from Hawaii to Los Angeles. They’d bought the seat in question for their oldest child, 18-year-old Mason Schear, who ended up flying home a day earlier than the rest of the family. Schear put his 2-year-old son in Mason’s seat instead. Upon learning that Mason wasn’t present, the airline ordered Schear to surrender the seat or be carted off to jail.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brian-schear-delta-child-seat_us_590b1e49e4b05c397686c339

[beveeheart]

9. Was anyone else distracted by the passenger playing

with her hair?

[madaboutharry]

53. That was a nervous tick and anxiety

caused by the flight attendent who was unable to explain things properly to the passenger.

The part about the car seat was bullshit.

The problem was the name on the ticket.

But they had no right to kick them off the plane, especially after they agreed to hold the baby..

[lunasun]

11. Buying an extra seat and overbooking with standbys waiting question . I have heard of

overweight people buying 2 coach tickets due to thier size. If the flight is overbooked can they force that person to get off even if they paid because of the extra seat? I wonder if that has already happened or they are told someone is going to sit there even if they bought more space
I also don't get how once they said they would hold the baby the seat was not thiers to keep, but looks like buying , as in securing a seat is merely an illusion more like a lottery chance to participate in gaining a seat and keeping it.

[kcr]

17. It's not an extra seat. It was a seat for his child.

Their claim that they could take it away because it was against FAA rules was incorrect.

[lunasun]

19. Also thier Delta website suggests it's best

[Volstagg]

32. They didn't purchase the seat for their infant child

It was for another adult that wasn't there.

[DrDan]

21. apparently it was a seat for their other child - not the infant with them at the time

Delta was correct

[kcr]

22. No, they aren't.

Children do not require ID to fly. He bought another ticket so his child could have a seat instead of being a lap baby. And the FAs reasoning that it's against FAA rules for children under 2 to have their own seat shows they were just strong-arming that seat away from them because they overbooked.

[DrDan]

23. their other child was 18 years old - he was a no-show for that flight hence Delta can give the seat

to a stand-by passenger.

[crappyjazz]

27. If that is the case Delta did right.

And the passenger is wrong. I understand his frustration of course because in his mind, he paid for that seat. But him not knowing the rules doesn't make Delta wrong.

We're going to see more and more of this I believe since someone got a big payday (and deservedly so) and people will be whipping their cameras out at any hint of a dispute.

[DrDan]

29. bingo

[kcr]

33. I have to wonder why the crew was trying to claim it was against FAA rules

for children under 2 to fly in their own seat. Which is completely incorrect. If this were simply a matter of a no-show, then that's pretty straightforward. I think they did check the baby in though, because as has been stated, children do not need id. I think that's why they claimed the BS about children under 2 not allowed seats. The airline is technically correct about the names not matching, but nothing would have happened had they not oversold the flight.

[DrDan]

36. yeah - it seems to be very straightforward - apparently Delta even encourages the

purchase of seats by infants. Not sure why this FAA-rule claim was made.

[kcr]

39. Yeah, it sure is puzzling they made that claim, isn't it?

If they're that insistent about the names of children matching, then they should require some type of ID for everyone, regardless of age. But they don't. I don't think it's as straightforward as some are claiming. If they hadn't checked in that seat, then it would have been easy. There's no reservation, therefore no seat. That's why they tried to claim babies can't have their own seat.

[obamanut2012]

72. Except that ticket hadn't been purchased for the child

[DrDan]

75. I understand that - and I would bet they purchased a non-transferrable ticket so they could

not change it

[kcr]

92. What? That doesn't make sense.

Why would they buy a non-transferable ticket on purpose for this amazing, diabolical name switcheroo scheme they're trying to pull off?

[DrDan]

95. I never said they were trying to scam the airlines - but when purchasing the original 3 tickets,

they could have purchased non-transferrable tickets to save $$$. Why is that hard to understand?

[kcr]

102. You don't even know what type of tickets they were. You're operating under assumptions.

If they just wanted to save bucks and that was their primary concern, they'd have just stuck to flying with a baby in their lap.

[DrDan]

106. then why did the Father not simply transfer the ticket - he seems knowledgeable about airline

procedures.

[kcr]

119. Probably because they don't check ID for infants

And none of this would have been an issue if the flight hadn't been full.

[DrDan]

141. ah but it was . . . wasn't it

[Goodheart]

42. That's not what they were trying to claim.

They didn't make that argument. The flight attendant told the father that technically THIS PARTICULAR infant has to be in HIS PARTICULAR arms because that's what they had contracted for. That third seat no longer belonged to them.

[kcr]

43. Go back and listen. She's clearly saying it isn't allowed.

The other guy also gave some bull about how passengers aren't allowed to change seats until the plane is in the air.

[aikoaiko]

47. Or did they submit the ticket at the gate with the wrong name?

Older child received a new ticket for a different fight, but its not clear what happened to the original ticket. It doesn't sound like it was refunded or canceled.

The parent should have tried to switch it to the other child, but they might have just submitted it at the gate. And sure Delta had the option of saying the wrong person was using the seat, but they could have also switched the name at that point.

While the father was wrong to not switch the name, Delta appears to be motivated by greed to get second payment for the seat.

Plus there is a lot of BS about children under two and car seats spouted by the airline employee.

[DrDan]

63. bet it was non-transferrable - the guy seems to be informed about airline ticketing

but how would changing it be fair to other customers? They should have flown with the infant in their lap as that was the original contract. All would have been well.

[Goodheart]

24. Sorry, but your argument is incorrect.

They bought a ticket for their older son, not the infant. It is not correct, as you state, that they bought the ticket so the infant wouldn't be a lap baby. Their contracted arrangement was to hold the infant while the older son used the third seat. When the son didn't check in Delta rightly sold it to another customer.

Delta's contract of carriage, rule 100, paragraph F:

"The purchaser of a Delta ticket and the passenger intending to use such ticket are responsible for ensuring that the ticket accurately states the passenger's name. Presentation of a ticket for transportation on Delta by someone other than the passenger named thereon renders the ticket void. Such ticket will be subject to confiscation and will be ineligible for any refund."

Once they sent their older son on another flight it was well within the parents' power to pay a transfer fee to have the seat reserved for the infant. But for some reason they didn't do that. They could have also STILL made the flight if in the end they only held the baby in their arms, just as they had originally contracted. But for some reason they didn't do that, either.

[kcr]

35. Then why didn't they claim that as the reason?

Instead of the malarky about children under 2 not being allowed to fly in a seat? I believe the guy when he says they bought another ticket and the only reason this happened was the flight was oversold.

[Goodheart]

40. Delta DID claim that as the reason.

Go back to mark 1:59 in the video.

[kcr]

41. No they didn't. There's nothing about a reservation canceled.

They were trying to use the fact the names don't match. Which makes Delta pretty shitty in this. They're using a technicality and one that isn't really enforced generally because babies do not require ID. They just wanted that seat. When they realized the seat was for their other child that they'd sent on another flight, they pounced.

[Goodheart]

44. That's a FEDERAL rule. Delta was correct.

It's done for security reasons, and it IS generally enforced. That seat was no longer theirs, so simple seat switching is not the real issue here.

[kcr]

45. Then they should require ID for everyone. It is not generally enforced for children n/t

[MGKrebs]

49. But there was another passenger who was assigned to that seat.

Doesn't matter whether it was an infant or not, it was not their seat. Someone else paid for that seat and had the ticket.

[kcr]

50. It does matter whether it was an infant because they don't require ID for them.

They should either honor the implicit approval they give by not requiring it - because parents don't do this because they're trying to sneak their little terrorist on board - or they should make everyone present ID. Otherwise, you get instances where the only time it's an issue is when they've overbooked the plane, like this one. There's no reason Delta couldn't have acknowledged this and switched the names for them. But then of course, they couldn't get double payment. That's the only reason they did this. They overbook their flights and pull this shit through pure greed.

[MGKrebs]

51. But someone else bought that seat. You can't take an infant

and place it in any old seat and claim squatters rights. If someone with a ticket for that seat comes along they get that seat.

[kcr]

52. But that's not what happened.

They bought that ticket. Delta claiming that they technically had the right to take it away from them doesn't make it right, especially since they don't even check ID for babies. There was no reason they couldn't have just switched the names and let them fly. They weren't trying to fly for free.

[MGKrebs]

55. How do you know that?

When the older son took a different flight did they change his ticket, or just buy an additional one? (I haven't watched the video. Is there a written version of this story anywhere?) Even so, I don't think it matters. If you don't show up/check in they get to re-sell that seat. The previous ticket holder didn't show up, they re-sold the seat, new person with ticket for that seat shows up. I just don't see how being a baby has anything to do with all that.

I don't think it's any different without all the distraction of the older son. If they had gotten on the plane early and plopped their baby down into an empty seat, when the ticket holder for that seat showed up they would have to move the baby. No ID issue there at all except that the ticket holder had one proving s/he bought that seat.

[kcr]

61. Based on what was said in the video.

If they hadn't bought a ticket, that would have been easy and I'm sure we would have heard that. But they only mentioned the names not matching. That shows the ticket did exist, they're just making the name an issue. Also the fact that they were throwing around all kinds of BS, like babies not being allowed their own seat.

[obamanut2012]

78. This -- it doesn't matter whose ticket that was, the seat wasn't theirs

It is not a "family ticket."

This is not an overbooking issue. Delta was right.

[obamanut2012]

76. No, they did not buy that ticket for that pAssenger (infant)

The person it was bought for was their adult child who departed earlier, thus they were a no-show on that flight and the seat was no longer theirs. It is not a family ticket, it doesn't work that way. IT WAS NOT THEIR SEAT!

This is also not an overbooking issue at all.

The Airlines suck, but this time, the passengers sucked more.

[kcr]

79. If it doesn't work that way, then airlines should require ID for everyone regardless of age.

There is no reason they couldn't have changed the name on the ticket.

[DrDan]

84. they are supposed to - everyone is supposed to have an id

even infants

****************************

hmmmmmm - TSA site says no id required for those under 18 - other sources say all passengers need an id

[kcr]

86. They don't and I've flown many times with my kids with multiple airlines. No ID was needed.

[DrDan]

89. read my edit - TSA requires no id for those under 18

Here is a USAToday site, however, that states otherwise - http://traveltips.usatoday.com/identification-baby-need-board-plane-59809.html

My experience is the same as yours with our children - both domestically and internationally.

We did have a notarized permission doc to take our Granddaughter internationally - showing our relationship and that we had permission to take her. We were asked for that . . . and our Granddaughter was quizzed about who she was traveling with.

[kcr]

97. I didn't know that about international flights. I would have assumed passports were needed.

A similar thing happened when I was a kid crossing the Canadian border with friends of the family. We had to wait while they contacted my parents to make sure it was ok. Passports or id weren't required back then, but I guess they must have asked how we were related.

[obamanut2012]

74. Exactly, I don't get why people are not getting this

The Airlines generally suck, but Delta was 100% right in this case.

[kcr]

81. Not everyone has a rules are rules mentality, that's why.

Not everyone thinks it's ok for corporations to just shit on everyone and let them excuse themselves based on their own arbitrary rules. They bought the ticket. The airline could have just switched the name because this involves their children, and they don't even bother to check ID for children because it isn't necessary. This was motivated by pure greed.

[MGKrebs]

99. I didn't watch the video, but I suppose

that when they bought a new ticket for their son had they said "now we have an extra seat we would like to use for our infant" the airline have done that for them. But apparently they didn't say that, so the airline sold that seat to someone else. There may be some fault of a ticket agent not explaining to them that the now vacant seat would be re-sold, we don't know.

[kcr]

104. There wasn't any need for them to say that. They don't check ID for infants.

When the airline found out the ticket for their infant was in the name of their other child, they should have just switched the name. Their intent is obvious. If they wanted to save money or scam the airline, they wouldn't have bought another ticket.

[DrDan]

116. when you go to discount fare sites like cheapoair - you are purchasing non-transferrable

tickets

[kcr]

120. I must have missed the part where someone stated they booked on cheapo air.

Again. You're making assumptions. And it still wouldn't make Delta in the right ethically. They don't check ID for cheapo tickets, either.
It's their children, one of whom is an infant. They bought four tickets, one for each of them. There was no reason for Delta to take this tact other than it gave them an excuse to fleece this family.

[DrDan]

142. I guess I missed the part where he purchased transferrable tickets

You have posted multiple times Delta should just have changed the names on the tickets. How did you determine they were transferrable? Guess you were simply assuming that . . . right?

And I said "like Cheapoair", now didn't I. But you knew that.

And yes - Delta is in the right ethically and legally. Yes, he purchased 4 tickets. But NOT one for each of them. Two were in the name of his older son. And that being the case, his younger son was not entitled to that seat. If he does not show up to fill the seat, it is Delta's right to give it to another. That is the way airline tickets work.

And why was it that he did not transfer the second ticket to his younger son. I think we both probably know why.

[kcr]

146. Well how about that? Delta has apologized and issued them refunds. n/t

[DrDan]

147. ok . . . and it was warranted for their threats

their seat assignments were still appropriate

[MGKrebs]

121. By the time the airline found out that the family still wanted that seat

they had already re-sold it to someone else.
A customer goes to the ticket counter and says "I am going to fly out on a different flight". The airline then has an open seat, which they then try to sell.
Unless the family told them they wanted to switch the airline wouldn't know and would follow their normal procedure of trying to fill that seat. They thought it was going to be empty.

[kcr]

124. That is wrong. They didn't just want the seat. They paid for it and had a boarding pass.

If they hadn't, then the reasons given on that video would have been entirely different. That FA lied about the rule for babies not having seats. Why even bother with a lie like that, if she can just assert that they didn't have a pass?

[obamanut2012]

73. Goodheart is 100% correct, and this has nothing to do with overbooking

The seat was unclaimed, so it legally and correctly could be used for standby. Not every standby is because of overbooking anyway.

[kcr]

77. It has everything to do with overbooking. Without it, nothing would have happened.

Because they don't check id for children. Airline needed the seat due to overbooking, figured out the parents used the name of another child, and used that as an excuse. They shouldn't do that if they don't require ID. They should have just agreed to change the name and let the family go.

[obamanut2012]

70. No, that tix was for HIS ADULT CHILD WHO FLEW EARLIER

That ticket had been used earlier. That ticket was gone, the seat was gone, that seat was back in the pool. This had nothing to do with what you stated, nor overbooking.

You do not get two bites of the apple, to quote Judge Sheindlin.

[kcr]

85. IT DOES'NT MATTER! Their baby didn't magically turn 18, did it?

Nope. Still a baby. No reason the airline couldn't have changed the names so they matched, because THEY DON'T CHECK ID FOR BABIES (If we're going to shout). They weren't trying to pull a fast one and fly for free. The reason airlines don't check ID for babies is pretty damn obvious. But if they're going to selectively make it an issue, they should start checking them for everyone.

[B2G]

93. They do. When you check in. nt

[kcr]

108. No. They don't. No ID required for minors. n/t

[jberryhill]

96. Did they get a boarding pass for that seat?

I don't think the airline would have re-sold that seat if the passenger was already checked in.

"Having a ticket" and "having a boarding pass" are two different things.

The ticketed passenger was an adult. It seems that they did not check in anyone for that seat, since the issue of a boarding pass seems absent from this story.

[kcr]

111. If they didn't have a boarding pass, then that video would be entirely different.

But they don't check ID, see? That's the crux of the whole point! They checked in their infant under that name, because they aren't scammers trying to pull one over. They're trying to use a ticket they bought. It only came to light because of the full flight and the airline's need for another seat.

[jberryhill]

112. I'm not clear on whether they actually checked in that seat

"They're trying to use a ticket they bought."

I get that point, but did they actually use that ticket to get a boarding pass?

[kcr]

122. Why would they buy an extra ticket if they didn't do that?

That, combined with the fact that no one mentioned there was no boarding pass as the reason leads me to believe that it's the far more likely conclusion. The explanations for kicking them off were the names not matching, and babies not being allowed to have their own seat. That last point is false.

[obamanut2012]

69. No, it wasn't his child;s seat at all, they could take it away

BECAUSE THE SEAT WASN'T THEIRS. It was their adult child's, who flew out early. The seat was back in play. They paid for ONE ticket for that seat, which had already been used.

[obamanut2012]

67. No, because that person is using their tix, not the case here

The adult child departed on an earlier flight, so that seat was no longer Adult Child's, it was, basically, back in play. Tix are not transferable like that.

[kcr]

125. You are just flat out wrong about this. They checked their baby on the flight.

If that ticket suddenly becomes "no longer in play" then that is unethical scamming on the part of the airline. Corporations set their own rules in order to stack the deck in their favor. There was no reason upon finding out the name was for another child they'd bought an additional ticket for on another flight, that they couldn't simply change the name.

[califootman]

129. But was the baby checked in as a lap-child?

Or was it checked in using the other child's ticket? That would affect whether it was given a seat assignment or not.

[DrDan]

143. of course there is a reason they could not change the name - a very simple reason

the ticket was non-transferrable

[aikoaiko]

46. Delta should have offered to change the name on the ticket for the family.

[frazzled]

48. Bingo

It's a family ffs. They bought four tickets with the airline, apparently. 3 on this flight, one to send the older child back on another flight. So what if the passenger's name was John Jones or Billy Jones. Why did they get seated, and then at the last minute get told to leave? I don't understand this.

Except that it's about money. If they can make two fares out of one seat, purchased twice, they'll do it, with whatever fine-print in the rules they can find. Even if it means this family was forced to sleep in the airport overnight with an infant. Have we no compassion, no humanity?

I'm sorry: no one has convinced me so far that the airline did the right thing.

[DrDan]

68. what if they puchased a non-transferrable ticket - at a discount

[obamanut2012]

80. It doesn't work that way, it wasn't the family's ticket

It had been sold to someone else. They could have asked for that to be done, but they didn't. It was too late to do so after the seat was released.

[Sanity Claws]

98. Exactly

Delta showed no common sense. This will be a PRnightmare for them.
Delta did it in order to make more money by reselling the seat. We have to get past the point that everything done to make more money is fine.

[titaniumsalute]

54. The airline got this one right

A paid ticket holder (the 18 year old) didn't show which gives the airline the right to use that seat to deadhead a pilot/flight attendant or to use as a standby seat. That has been policy for years.

[obamanut2012]

82. Yup, and FEDERAL LAW states the passenger has to match the ticket

I accidentyally sat in A and not B once, and A was empty, and they asked my name and looked at my tix, and said to sit in B until after takeoff, and then I could change. But, everyone has to be correct to take off. I was lucky enough to have the ticket holder not show up, nor to have a standby or deadheat show up. Not the case in thsi case.

[mercuryblues]

57. My question is

Did the 18 year old fly on an earlier flight with a rebooked ticket or was a purchase made for a new ticket?

If it was a rebooked ticket, they automatically gave up the rights to that seat.

[B2G]

66. It doesn't matter

If you purchase a seat and don't show up, they can resell the seat. Rebooking is not a factor.

[B2G]

59. So everyone is automatically right and a victim

because they have a cellphone?

Lol.

[HAB911]

91. It's a cattle call, If you're a cow, fly

[Sanity Claws]

105. How many boarding passes did they have?

In order to get on the plane, they had to have boarding passes. If they were issued three, and then showed them to the Delta attendant in order to get on the plane, then that should have been the end of the matter.
Sounds to me like someone on the ground had accommodated the family and let them go in as a unit. Then someone changed the decision.

Delta should face outrage for pulling shit like that, threatening to have the couple's children taken away from them, all so Delta can make money for its corporate executives and shareholders.

[jberryhill]

113. That detail is nowhere to be found

[MineralMan]

109. Well, I have another thought about this:

The entire nonsense delayed the takeoff of that plane. If I were a passenger with a tight connection schedule at that flight's destination, I'd be royally pissed off if this nonsense caused me to miss my connection.

Were I the dad in this case, I'd have simply shrugged and held the kid in my lap from the get-go. As soon as that standby passenger showed up to take his seat, I'd have transferred the baby to my lap and shut the heck up about it. Elder son took another flight and didn't check in, so the airline boarded a standby passenger. Game over.

I've watched a few of these arguments take place during boarding on flights. They delay everyone. They're useless. Hold the baby on your lap, Dad, and let's take the heck off on time. Thanks!

The end result, in this case, was that all three of the people involved were kicked off the flight. The takeoff was delayed. Almost certainly, someone missed a connection due to that.

I have little patience for this kind of useless arguments on planes. You're going to end up doing what the airline wants, so why dick around with arguing with the crew? It won't work and you're pissing off everyone else on the plane.

[jberryhill]

117. Minors in the exit row are a common misunderstanding, too

I've been on several flights where a family group has switched around, seated their minor child in an exit row, and then decided to argue about it.

[nini]

128. I agree

I'd be sympathetic if the older son issue wasn't in the middle of that whole thing.

Hold the kid and deal with the other stuff with the airline later.

[kristopher]

135. Yep, be a good little corporate resource and take your screwing with a grin.

That's the ticket!

[nini]

136. Message deleted by DU the Administrators

[kristopher]

137. That's the advice you *seem* to be giving.

As I understand your position, right and wrong has no ethical basis; it's simply a product of what a megacorp's economic and political power can get written into law.

[nini]

139. Message deleted by DU the Administrators

[kristopher]

140. No, I didn't miss it.

I'm not assuming - I'm just holding up a mirror to the 'you' in your writing.

If those are not the values on display don't run off - educate me.

[JoeStuckInOH]

145. I'm going to take a different direction on this one altogether... it's a small child, right?

I'm sure those overhead bins are more than quite spacious for a young child.