Programs: AA EXP/3MM, QF SG/LTPS, DL PM/MM, US Conscientious Objector, SPG PLT, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 50,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by swanscn
I see that this post has all the traits now so prevalent on FT. Blame the OP (very light here) and then have a large number of posts on a subject not directly related to the post (Hijacking comes to mind, lot of that here).
If I were that passenger, I would have asked the FA to request the offending passenger to take their assigned seats. If the answer from the FA was no, I would look to see if there were any business class or 1st class seats available and if so make a offer to the FA to take one of those. Of course that request will be turned down, but you could point out to the FA that you thought it would be OK since seat assignments do not seem to matter. If the FA continues to tell you to take a inferior seat tell them no thank you and start heading back to the door, informing them you are going to request assistance from the Gate airline, including seeking re-accommodation. And as you are heading towards the door apologize for the delays that are surely going to happen due to this course of action.
Give the FA one last chance to avoid this alternative, politely request the FA have the offending passenger take their assigned seat.
That strategy is fine as long as you can handle not taking the original flight and possibly having to pay more to fly later if the FA decides to call your bluff.
I'd have definitely not backed down so quickly. And I'd have embarrassed the hell out of the BP-flicking offender.
__________________
You cannot uphold American ideology with un-American actions. It's time for Change.
Nope, not in this case. Assault is the threat of battery. From what I read, there was no prior assault, just the battery. If the person had said "Go away or I will throw my boarding pass in your face" and then did so that would be A&B in most places.
BTW, I'm talking about a general definition in the US. In Australia it would have been assault.
[Personalized remark deleted by Moderator.]. In certain states, if it was anything, it was assault, not battery. New York comes to mind. And it would be a real stretch to prove assault in this case under New York law.
Last edited by Ocn Vw 1K; Aug 7, 12 at 4:13 pm..
Reason: Please see above note.
That strategy is fine as long as you can handle not taking the original flight and possibly having to pay more to fly later if the FA decides to call your bluff.
I'd have definitely not backed down so quickly. And I'd have embarrassed the hell out of the BP-flicking offender.
I agree with the first part. Should the OP really get off the plane and fly hours or days later simply so he can have his assigned seat? I'm not sure how the airline could expect to charge him more, but that's a whole different discussion.
I agree with the first part. Should the OP really get off the plane and fly hours or days later simply so he can have his assigned seat? I'm not sure how the airline could expect to charge him more, but that's a whole different discussion.
They won't call your bluff.
They have more at stake than you may. You may only be late in getting to where you are going.
The FA on the other hand, risks a "late" in her name which is a professional disciplinary matter and will have to answer for it to her immediate sups, the flight crew, and the local managers. Your leaving and saying you have checked a bag will require a large effort to find and offload the bag to stay within security regulations, and may incur an investigation. Most off all, a criminal act committed by a pax againt another pax and unaddressed by the FA who was fully aware of the act is a major liability for the airline, to the extent that she may lose her job, or at least be suspended, is a matter of her livelyhood...she has more at stake than the pax. It is a bluff worth making.
This story ties in nicely with the other thread we have going. It is likely that this FA had, in the past, encountered a selfish jerk who refused to switch to a comparable seat because it wasn't his problem that a family couldn't sit together. When people refuse to make reasonable switches for their fellow passengers, it makes FAs tend to side with the poachers. If people would be more cooperative, then it would be more rare for these disputes to happen, and FAs would take them more seriously.
This story ties in nicely with the other thread we have going. It is likely that this FA had, in the past, encountered a selfish jerk who refused to switch to a comparable seat because it wasn't his problem that a family couldn't sit together. When people refuse to make reasonable switches for their fellow passengers, it makes FAs tend to side with the poachers. If people would be more cooperative, then it would be more rare for these disputes to happen, and FAs would take them more seriously.
OP was originally in an aisle seat, but the FA sent him to a back rowwindow seat--what "hell", window, aisle they're all the same.
OP was originally in an aisle seat, but the FA sent him to a back rowwindow seat--what "hell", window, aisle they're all the same.
Yes, I realize that. In this case OP was justified in not wanting to trade. My point was that because so many people refuse to make a reasonable switch out of stubbornness or selfishness (see Why the need to sit together for examples), flight attendants are starting to assume that anyone refusing to switch is just being stubborn and forcing them to switch without looking into the matter.
This story ties in nicely with the other thread we have going. It is likely that this FA had, in the past, encountered a selfish jerk who refused to switch to a comparable seat because it wasn't his problem that a family couldn't sit together. When people refuse to make reasonable switches for their fellow passengers, it makes FAs tend to side with the poachers. If people would be more cooperative, then it would be more rare for these disputes to happen, and FAs would take them more seriously.
Why are the needs of a family more important than that of a solo traveller? Why IS it his problem?
Reasonable or not, the person assigned the seat has the right to refuse. And needn't offer explanations.
Programs: AA 1MM, BA, Hertz Gold, CC Gold, SPG Plat
Posts: 441
However, is the quote below accurate? Does a person have the right to refuse the FA if the person didn't actually pay extra to be in that particular seat & the FA has instructed otherwise?
Quote:
Originally Posted by B747-437B
A passenger who is re-seated and refuses to take that seat has absolutely no legal recourse. Seat assignments are requested and are not guaranteed.
However, is the quote below accurate? Does a person have the right to refuse the FA if the person didn't actually pay extra to be in that particular seat & the FA has instructed otherwise?
For the answer to that question, you need to consult your airline's contract of carriage. However, they all say basically the same thing. Here is Delta's:
"...published schedules, flight times, aircraft type, seat assignments, and similar details
reflected in the ticket or Delta’s published schedules are not guaranteed and form no part of
this contract. Delta may substitute alternate carriers or aircraft, delay or cancel flights,
change seat assignments, and alter or omit stopping places shown on the ticket at any time.
Schedules are subject to change without notice. Except as stated in this rule, Delta will
have no liability for making connections, failing to operate any flight according to schedule,
changing the schedule for any flight, changing seat assignments or aircraft types" http://images.delta.com.edgesuite.ne...rriage_dom.pdf
Programs: AA EXP, UA MM, IC RA, Hyatt Diamond, Hilton Gold
Posts: 2,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbn42
Yes, I realize that. In this case OP was justified in not wanting to trade. My point was that because so many people refuse to make a reasonable switch out of stubbornness or selfishness (see Why the need to sit together for examples), flight attendants are starting to assume that anyone refusing to switch is just being stubborn and forcing them to switch without looking into the matter.
Nice try, but "reasonableness" is in the eye of the beholder. A passenger might have his own reasons for not wanting to switch that you might or might not be aware of. Someone might be claustrophobic and want to sit next to the window. Another might suffer from urinary incontinence and want to stay in the aisle seat he reserved. No passenger should need to discuss/explain/justify his reasons just for you to evaluate how "reasonable" they are.
Programs: UA 1K, DL/US Platinum, AA Exec Platinum, SPG Platinum
Posts: 2,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by pinworm
If they insist and pull the "failure to obey" crap, you can simply inform them that you are leaving the aircraft and reporting the assault. Odds are they won't. This was LH, not some post-911 paranoia US airline. That, and the reason the FA ignored the poach was that they were in a hurry to depart.
...and you may well get your aisle seat, and have your food spit in later
Further Proves My Point
