Originally Posted by
zman
This should be moved to the AF forum.
and " If there are certain seats that AF doesn't allocate to "paying" (vs. award ticket) customers, then, when they allow other codeshare airlines to give out seats, it is incumbent upon AF to keep those seats from being used per their reasoning. How the heck is DL supposed to know this if AF hasn't done their work? As far as DL is concerned, a J seat is a J seat unless otherwise notifed. Your real beef is with AF"
I disagree. DL is in revenue sharing contract with AF on CDG-JFK service. There is no alternative if you wish to be on DL metal for this line. DL gets the revenue, thus it also carries the responsibility.
In addition, DL never disputed its responsibility for the case. It is documented, and in great detailed. DL should be in access to the same data and knowledge regarding seat assignments that is available to AF. If they do not, that is still a DL problem. If DL claims that AF hurts their reputation on this matter, they can act against AF (And they should.) In this very specific case, the circumstances were so unusual and documented that DL requested (and that's a very rare step, in my very basic knowledge of the practice) a disciplinary action against FA on board the very specific flight. If DL found the concerns raised so serious that it elected to initiate disciplinary actions against its own partner, it should also backup their own clients.
I hold DL responsible because it came to my attention that the concerns were raised and presented to DL/AF in the past. Not once, not twice, and not three times. This problem was one that DL was aware of.
I hold it as a DL problem, because DL agreed for a solution (to be more correct, exhausted the client to agree to a compromise,) in writing, and then failed to deliver on its own obligations.
And, I hold it as a DL responsibility because the ticket was naturally bought from DL under the contract of carriage of DL, and under the relevant rules, that were not met (for BE service.)
For one and all of the reasons above, it is pure DL responsibility case.