Originally Posted by
star_world
Any time I dispute a charge I have to represent the reason for this dispute. I don't see what you could legitimately state in this case that would be a valid reason for disputing the charge.
He bought a ticket for Flight X. He was not allowed to travel on Flight X. Why is that so difficult to understand?
Originally Posted by
star_world
I completely agree that there should be compensation - as the passenger was told in the first place. I don't think there's any debate about that at all.
Right, but this is CO we're dealing with. Perhaps a dispute is a bit heavy-handed, but when dealing with companies that don't do the right thing, heavy-handed tactics are sometimes required.
Originally Posted by
star_world
But the argument you're making implies that if your flight is delayed, or you don't get your choice of meal, or any other deviation from a perfect flight, you should resort to a credit card dispute. That's bad advice IMHO.
That's not what I said.
I said he bought a ticket for Flight X and was not allowed to fly on Flight X.
In fact, if you want to dig into this further, the CoC has a pre-defined denied boarding priority, which was not followed. So the same CoC that the airline can try to use to weasel out of compensation can be used against them because they did not follow the DB priority.
Originally Posted by
star_world
You have impressive stamina when it comes to crowing about that topic. Keep it up - it's one of the things that keeps us all going here
Stamina? Smisek uses that phrase on 3,000 flights a day. I say it a couple times a week. Once I start saying it more than Smisek does, then I'll accept that.