Alaska Airlines Mileage Plan - Weather Diversion Policy

I was on AS562 SEA-SAN last Friday and at the gate, it was announced by the gate agents that there was fog in SAN and the plane may not be able to land there. They would still take off and if they could not land in SAN, they would land in PSP but AS would not be responsible for hotels or money for onward transportation. Passengers were offered an option to rebook on the next day.

I was flying SEA-AS-SAN-AA-ORD (on a single ticket, single fare basis, etc) and talked to an agent at the AS Customer Service Center. I asked who I would talk to (AA or AS) with regards to rebooking in PSP if I ended up there. I was told that I would be responsible to get myself to SAN for my AA connection. I mentioned the agent that I would not make the SAN connection if I ended up in PSP and she only reiterated that I would be on my own to get from PSP to SAN.

Upon boarding, I heard a FA ask the GA on behalf of passengers on whether or not AS would fly the passengers PSP-SAN the next day if they ended up there. The GA told the FA no and that passengers would be on their own.

Is this really true? Does AS not provide transportation if they divert due to weather? I can understand not providing hotels, but if I bought a ticket for SEA-SAN, I expect AS to take me to SAN, and not to PSP and then tell me to find my way to SAN on my own.

Is this a case of bad policy or three misinformed agents?

We ended up landing in SAN so I never found out whether what the SEA agents said really applied.

My gut feeling is that AS would have provided onward transportation had you landed in PSP. Hotels and incidental expenses, no, but they are contractually obligated to get you to SAN.

So long as the flight departed with a posted destination of SAN, I think they're on the hook. The AS agents can say whatever they want, but it's not necessarily true.

I think this is one of those situations like on a valet parking claim ticket: "Not valid for loss or damage." You can write anything you want on the back of that ticket, but it doesn't make it true. It may reduce claims, but it's certainly not true.

I've seen this same situation several times on SEA-MSO-FCA flights where one of the cities had snow and/or fog. Each time, the agent informed passengres of the likely diversion and gave two options; 1) You do not board and the airline will accomodate you on the next available flight or 2) You board and get off the plane where ever the flight may terminate. No accomodations will be provided.

As long as the airline offers a flight to your final destination, they're within the contract of carriage. It's the passengers choice to take a flight that may go 'somewhere else.'

My experience with diversions is that they have always provided onward transportation if they couldn't land in your ticketed city, but due to forces of nature, they may not necessarily be obligated to do that - I don't really know. That must have been why they were offering the option of not going down to SAN if you didn't want to take your chances.

I can't help but wonder why nobody every offered to reticket you from SEA-ORD directly, without going through SAN. Was it fare related?

As long as the airline offers a flight to your final destination, they're within the contract of carriage. It's the passengers choice to take a flight that may go 'somewhere else.'

Nice try, but the customer may not always know where they're diverting to in advance.

So long as your boarding pass indicates the city you're ticketed to, and you board that plane, the airline is on the hook to get you there. Maybe not on time, maybe not that day, but they do have to get you there. Simply informing a customer of a chance of diversion does not absolve them of their contractual responsibility to get you to your final destination.

My experience with diversions is that they have always provided onward transportation if they couldn't land in your ticketed city, but due to forces of nature, they may not necessarily be obligated to do that - I don't really know. That must have been why they were offering the option of not going down to SAN if you didn't want to take your chances.

I can't help but wonder why nobody every offered to reticket you from SEA-ORD directly, without going through SAN. Was it fare related?

I'm assuming Keithguy was on a mileage run.

I can't help but wonder why nobody every offered to reticket you from SEA-ORD directly, without going through SAN. Was it fare related?

AA offered me SEA-ORD directly, but AS did not. They only offered me to go the next day, but on the exact same flight numbers (same flight times), which was very, very strange. And yes, it was a mileage run (hence the routing).

In the end, I got on the SEA-SAN flight because I didn't believe that AS would follow through on these agents' words. I was willing to risk an overnight in PSP - but that didn't happen.

I can understand the need to divert to PSP - no problems with that, but I'd expect onward transportation to PSP whether it be by plane, taxi, bus, etc, etc, and not at my expense.

I have also heard of QX flights diverting, but they usually divert back to the point of origin and they try again the next day...

I was on AS562 SEA-SAN last Friday and at the gate, it was announced by the gate agents that there was fog in SAN and the plane may not be able to land there. They would still take off and if they could not land in SAN, they would land in PSP but AS would not be responsible for hotels or money for onward transportation. Passengers were offered an option to rebook on the next day.

I was flying SEA-AS-SAN-AA-ORD (on a single ticket, single fare basis, etc) and talked to an agent at the AS Customer Service Center. I asked who I would talk to (AA or AS) with regards to rebooking in PSP if I ended up there. I was told that I would be responsible to get myself to SAN for my AA connection. I mentioned the agent that I would not make the SAN connection if I ended up in PSP and she only reiterated that I would be on my own to get from PSP to SAN.

Upon boarding, I heard a FA ask the GA on behalf of passengers on whether or not AS would fly the passengers PSP-SAN the next day if they ended up there. The GA told the FA no and that passengers would be on their own.

Is this really true? Does AS not provide transportation if they divert due to weather? I can understand not providing hotels, but if I bought a ticket for SEA-SAN, I expect AS to take me to SAN, and not to PSP and then tell me to find my way to SAN on my own.

Is this a case of bad policy or three misinformed agents?

We ended up landing in SAN so I never found out whether what the SEA agents said really applied.

I was in SEA a while back and the next gate over had a very similar situation. It seemed that FAT was experiencing fog but the SEA-FAT flight was going to go anyway. The gate agent announced that if the fog continued the flight would divert to SJC. However, unlike your situation, AS said there would be bus transportation provided between SJC and FAT. I'm not sure why AS wouldn't offer a bus between PSP and SAN in your situation.

I can understand the need to divert to PSP - no problems with that, but I'd expect onward transportation to PSP whether it be by plane, taxi, bus, etc, etc, and not at my expense.

I don't see how they could just "dump" you in PSP, regardless of the weather. That isn't the transportation you paid for. I tried to find this in the 'contract of carriage' but couldn't find anything that seemed to exactly fit this situation. They cover things like OAK-SFO-SJC being considered the same destination, but PSP is not considered the same as SAN.

This is not to say that you wouldn't have faced an ordeal in PSP, but it seems to me that AS would be on the hook to get you to SAN somehow, most likely by bus.

Mike

Why would they take you to PSP as a diversion? Certainly SNA or (if the same fog is messing up SNA) LGB would be more useful for getting people onward to SAN. Heck, even LAX, you could at least take the train. Are the SoCal airspace and airports so constrained that they cannot accept diversions?

Why would they take you to PSP as a diversion? Certainly SNA or (if the same fog is messing up SNA) LGB would be more useful for getting people onward to SAN. Heck, even LAX, you could at least take the train. Are the SoCal airspace and airports so constrained that they cannot accept diversions?

LAX is definitely worse and I consider SNA and PSP to be pretty much equal as far as ease of travel goes. The 405 and the 5 North of San Diego have some pretty legendary traffic jams. ONT would be the better choice - a straight shot down the 15 although that freeway is not without its problems.

Nice try, but the customer may not always know where they're diverting to in advance.

So long as your boarding pass indicates the city you're ticketed to, and you board that plane, the airline is on the hook to get you there. Maybe not on time, maybe not that day, but they do have to get you there. Simply informing a customer of a chance of diversion does not absolve them of their contractual responsibility to get you to your final destination.

I stated that when advance notice of a possible diversion is given (i.e. gate announcements) and re-booking is offered prior to boarding, the airline is not responsible for transportation to the final destination - just to where ever the plane lands.

My experience has been that if they decided to divert while in the air, the airline will attempt to get you to your final destination (via bus, etc).

I don't see how they could just "dump" you in PSP, regardless of the weather. That isn't the transportation you paid for. I tried to find this in the 'contract of carriage' but couldn't find anything that seemed to exactly fit this situation.

AS may, in the event of a force majeure event, without notice, cancel, terminate, divert, postpone, or delay any flight or the right of carriage or reservation of traffic accommodations and determine if any departure or landing should be made, without any liability except to refund in the original form of payment in accordance with involuntary refund rules any unused portion of the ticket. As used in this rule "force majeure event" means:
Any conditions beyond AS's control (including, but without limitation, meteorological conditions, acts of god, riots, civil commotion, embargoes, wars, hostilities, disturbances, or unsettled international conditions), actual, threatened or reported or because of any delay, demand, circumstances or requirement due, directly or indirectly, to such condition; or
Any strike, work stoppage, slowdown, lockout or any other labor-related dispute involving or affecting AS's service; or
Any government regulation, demand, or requirement; or
Any shortage of labor, fuel, or facilities of AS or others' or
Any fact not reasonably foreseen anticipated or predicted by AS.

I have flown into San Diego numerous times over my life and been diverted because of fog issue. I've been diverted by United into LAX and they've arranged bus transportation. I've been diverted by Southwest into LAX and they've arranged bus transportation. I'be been diverted by Southwest into Ontario and they've arranged bus transportation.

Personally, I do find it hard to believe Alaska is going to dump passengers in Palm Springs and then leave them on their own. If true, this is ridiculous. If you are going to leave the passengers on their own why on earth would you divert to Palm Springs - and then leave you on your own? Palm Springs does not even have direct interstate freeway access to San Diego. The best option is either LAX because of the transportation alternatives (train, car, bus) - or Ontario because it is decently easy for those traveling to north San Diego to get to or those picking up to get to. Palm Springs? Thats a strange location to go to.

I find it hard to believe passengers accepting this at the gate. I would have raised incredible hell with this. If true, it probably would have severed my relationship with Alaska permanently.

This would have never happened with the old Alaska Airlines. Every day I still wonder why I fly on Alaska anymore. I've already shifted 40% of my business to Southwest instead of Alaska - even though fares are reasonably close most of the time.

LAX is definitely worse and I consider SNA and PSP to be pretty much equal as far as ease of travel goes. The 405 and the 5 North of San Diego have some pretty legendary traffic jams. ONT would be the better choice - a straight shot down the 15 although that freeway is not without its problems.

Yes, there is traffic, but its a straight shot down 405 and then 5 to San Diego. Palm Springs requires a trip to San Diego through the mountains and it gets hairy in fog as well.

I stated that when advance notice of a possible diversion is given (i.e. gate announcements) and re-booking is offered prior to boarding, the airline is not responsible for transportation to the final destination - just to where ever the plane lands.

My experience has been that if they decided to divert while in the air, the airline will attempt to get you to your final destination (via bus, etc).

I still don't agree. There's always the possibility of a diversion, and if this were true, the airline could mention any minor weather condition as a possibility for diversion to absolve themselves from their contractual requirements to deliver you to your final destination. This can't be right.

I really think AS would have provided onward transportation, but was allowing people to rebook, so that in the event they had to provide onward transportation, there would be fewer people to pay for.

Nice try, but the customer may not always know where they're diverting to in advance.

So long as your boarding pass indicates the city you're ticketed to, and you board that plane, the airline is on the hook to get you there. Maybe not on time, maybe not that day, but they do have to get you there. Simply informing a customer of a chance of diversion does not absolve them of their contractual responsibility to get you to your final destination.

If the passenger was informed before the flight departed of the possibility DOES release the responsibiity of the final destination - you have agreed to a possible different routing. Some passengers find an alternative airport to be acceptable. IF you are diverted while enroute or not informed prior to departure, the carrier is responsible to get you to the final ticketed destination.

Flying MIA-BLI in early winter, arriving in SEA to discover that 11 p.m. flight to BLI is cancelled due to fog (happens frequently). They were on their own, had to join up with another passenger renting a car to drive the 90 miles up to Bellingham. No transportation, compensation or reimbursement ever offered by AS.

Recently, same friends went down to Seattle night before an early a.m. flight to Hawaii because they didn't want to be stranded again in Bellingham (snow and fog predicted for the next morning - good recipe for a Horizon cancellation) and miss their 8:40 flight to Honolulu, since the BLI agents typically won't confirm that the flight is cancelled until it's way too late to get yourselves to Seattle to make connections.

We pay usually up to $200 RT to go 90 miles on the Bellingham-Seattle flights as we deal with the Horizon monopoly. We are deciding on a pretty regular basis any more to get ourselves to Seattle and take another carrier out of there. Alaska's customer service is sinking, in our minds.

AS may, in the event of a force majeure event, without notice, cancel, terminate, divert, postpone, or delay any flight or the right of carriage or reservation of traffic accommodations and determine if any departure or landing should be made, without any liability except to refund in the original form of payment in accordance with involuntary refund rules any unused portion of the ticket. As used in this rule "force majeure event" means:
Any conditions beyond AS's control (including, but without limitation, meteorological conditions, acts of god, riots, civil commotion, embargoes, wars, hostilities, disturbances, or unsettled international conditions), actual, threatened or reported or because of any delay, demand, circumstances or requirement due, directly or indirectly, to such condition; or
Any strike, work stoppage, slowdown, lockout or any other labor-related dispute involving or affecting AS's service; or
Any government regulation, demand, or requirement; or
Any shortage of labor, fuel, or facilities of AS or others' or
Any fact not reasonably foreseen anticipated or predicted by AS.

The key word there is LIABILITY. It means that, from their perspective, you can't sue for damages because of the extended delay in reaching your destination due to the diversion. AS will refund your ticket and that's the best you will get (pretty good deal, a free flight from SEA to PSP! :) ).

Of course, that doesn't instantly dissolve lawsuits nor does it prevent them from succeeding, but this type of language ("we're not liable") appears everywhere.

It does not mean that AS can just drop you off in PSP and say "bu-bye". Even if the Contract of Carriage did allow for that, there is no way that the passengers are going to say "OK, sure, we would be happy to pay for a taxi out of pocket all the way to SAN". They will demand ground transportation or a flight to SAN once the fog lifts.

If the passenger was informed before the flight departed of the possibility DOES release the responsibiity of the final destination - you have agreed to a possible different routing. Some passengers find an alternative airport to be acceptable. IF you are diverted while enroute or not informed prior to departure, the carrier is responsible to get you to the final ticketed destination.

A different routing is fine and you don't have any choice in the case of a diversion. The routing would be SEA-AS-PSP-GT-SAN (GT is my made-up code for ground transportation). Change fees do not apply as the addition of PSP to the routing is not a voluntary one.

Flying MIA-BLI in early winter, arriving in SEA to discover that 11 p.m. flight to BLI is cancelled due to fog (happens frequently). They were on their own, had to join up with another passenger renting a car to drive the 90 miles up to Bellingham. No transportation, compensation or reimbursement ever offered by AS.

This is a typical weather cancellation scenario. AS would have put them on a flight the next day, but their hotel and such would be on their own expense. That's pretty standard across the board, since the flight was cancelled.


The key word there is LIABILITY. It means that, from their perspective, you can't sue for damages because of the extended delay in reaching your destination due to the diversion. AS will refund your ticket and that's the best you will get (pretty good deal, a free flight from SEA to PSP! :) ).

Exactly. But not only that, since they never delivered you to your final destination, they're not only on the hook for a refund, but also return transportation to your point of origin should you prefer to abandon your journey and return to Seattle instead. That's why it would make sense for them to just give you ground transportation to your final destination and keep your money, rather than providing up to 2 flights and no money.


Of course, that doesn't instantly dissolve lawsuits nor does it prevent them from succeeding, but this type of language ("we're not liable") appears everywhere.

This type of language is just that: language. Saying there's a risk or you're not responsible for something doesn't make it true. Forewarning someone of a potential diversion doesn't shift the risk to the customer. You can forewarn all you want, but if that flight operates with a final destination of San Diego, they're responsible for getting you to San Diego sooner or later.

However, if they were to completely cancel the flight due to weather, you may be on your own for incidental expenses until the next flight. But there are operational and other reasons they wouldn't want to simply cancel the flight, especially if there is a chance they'll be able to get in.

I've seen many airline employees say things that aren't true to influence what a passeneger does (often in bump situations). Unfortunately it's the passenger's responsibility to know their rights.

IF you are diverted while enroute or not informed prior to departure, the carrier is responsible to get you to the final ticketed destination.No.

Read the CoC. According to Alaska's CoC, if Alaska diverts a fight because of weather (i.e. "meteorological conditions") they are NOT responsible for anything other than refunding any unused portion of the ticket. That's it -- that's the contract.

What, if anything, Alaska chooses to do additionally for pax in that situation, is up to Alaska's discretion. They are NOT responsible "to get you to the final ticketed destination" in a force majeure event case.

That said, any reasonable airline would probably try to help out its pax, especially if it were an airline that was interested in any future business from those pax, etc.

The question is whether Alaska would be reasonable business in this case and go beyond the bare minimum of what's required by the CoC. That's really a question about Alaska's policies, still unanswered. Alaska's policy as to what extra they do in such a case might (or might not) vary depending on the particular circumstances or even the particular customer (e.g. help MVP Golds, don't help anyone else).

Sometimes we hear about Alaska going to amazing extremes to help out pax, like the time Alaska diverted a jet to make an unplanned stop in Alaska to pick up pax stranded with another airline. Though more often it seems Alaska personnel say the kinds of thing Keithguy reported, or the events in PDX occur, etc, leaving one to wonder which part of Alaska's split personality you might experience if things go awry.

Read the CoC. According to Alaska's CoC, if Alaska diverts a fight because of weather (i.e. "meteorological conditions") they are NOT responsible for anything other than refunding any unused portion of the ticket. That's it -- that's the contract.

Understood, but presumably chartering a bus or two for a few hundred bucks is cheaper than issuing refunds to a planeload of passengers. The amount of fare at stake may be significant, so doing a bunch of refunds, after flying the aircraft mind you, would be extremely costly for AS, so not very desirable especially since pax are within range of their destination anyway.

Further, if they were to do this, they would have to fly pax back to their origin city, which would be costly (not to mention the PR damage such an incident would receive).

So while they technically could do this, I don't see this being practically applicable.

Further, if they were to do this, they would have to fly pax back to their origin city, Wrong.

Once again, read the CoC. Pay attention to AS may, in the event of a force majeure event, without notice [...] divert [...] without any liability except to refund ...

We can all split hairs on our interpretation of the contract of carriage...but the bottom line is that if Alaska does this and leaves us cold and blind, then the PR and goodwill situation is going to be worse on them than just accomodating a plane load of passengers.

I have never been diverted on Alaska, but I have on other airlines and they've ALWAYS come through for me. I find it hard to believe Alaska is so different.

But I do know Alaska is not the airline it used to be. Alaska's senior management team has destroyed the edge it had with its nickel and diming policies. Alaska is a high cost carrier - that is driving these decisions.

Good grief, even US Airways will give you ground transportation for a weather diversion. I have personal experience in this regard on one flight.

US is in extreme financial distress, cutting expenses that are a nickel, yet they did give out taxi vouchers. They made people share 3 to a taxi, but that was OK since the taxis were actually minivans.

There was one non-rev on the flight, and she was told in no uncertain terms that she would not get ground transportation. The agents even wrote the number of passengers on each voucher so that the non-rev could not tag along with a revenue passenger.

If there was any way for US to avoid paying the several hundred dollars on taxi vouchers, they most certainly would have done it. They didn't skimp, and I would expect AS to pay as well.