Originally Posted by
Dr. HFH
OP paid AA for a product, part of which wasn't delivered as promised (outlets). In the employment example, the employer paid for a product/service (report by a certain time) which either wasn't delivered at all or wasn't usable. An employment situation is a business relationship. The employer is paying the employee for something, be it a product (piece work), his/her time (plumber, electrician, lawyer), etc. In the example I gave, the employee was paid to do something which s/he did not.
This is NOT a business-consumer relationship. That is very different from something that is internal to a business.
Originally Posted by
Dr. HFH
Hang on a sec. A "somewhat big deal" is far from "a critical element" or "the main reason I chose AA."
Your suggestion was, "Tell them that you flew with them because of the outlet availability advertised on their website and if a lack of maintenance is the reason for it not being available for you, they should pay up." But the OP never suggested that that was why s/he chose AA, only that it was "somewhat important." So why would you suggest that the OP tell AA something which doesn't appear to be true? Is it OK to lie/embellish/exaggerate (pick one) to enhance one's chances of getting compensation? I suggest that it is not.
I am interpreting what the OP said as it being a big reason they chose the flight. Yes, it is an interpretation and only the OP can clarify on this. However, I am continuing with the assumption based on how I read the original statement that the power outlet was a key reason for their choice in airline. Going with that assumption, there is no lie or exaggeration in my statements
Originally Posted by
Dr. HFH
Agreed. So how does this differ from running out of red wine, also advertised as a feature on the plane?
The difference here, in my opinion, is a reasonable person can assume that something that is a food or drink product can run out on an airplane. If they told me at the beginning of the flight they were out, I would have a problem with it. If it ran out towards the end of the flight, then no, I'd understand that this is something that is more reasonable. It is a personal interpretation. The difference with an outlet's functionality is that I would expect features of the plane to be working during the journey and if they are not it is due to a failure on the airline's part because of maintenance.
Originally Posted by
Dr. HFH
Which brings us back to my earlier question: Do words equivalent to "That's OK, I wasn't going to use it anyway..." never pass your lips?
Again, I think this is a bit unfair to assume I ask for compensation for everything. However, If I want to use a featured, marketed portion of a product when I purchase it, I expect to be able to do so.
Let me use another example that actually happened to me. On a US Airways flight from VCE to PHL, the headphone jack was broken in a seat, so I couldn't watch the movie that was shown. I planned on watching the movie, as it was advertised to me. I spoke to the FA about this, they tried to see if they could use different headphones, but the jack was just plain broken. The plane was full, so there was no option to switch seats. She said she'd put in a maintenance request, but there was nothing she could do in the air. I didn't blame the FA for this as it wasn't her fault. However, after getting home, I let US Airways know about this. They acknowledged they were in the wrong and gave me a voucher for a future flight for $150. Again, this is because they advertised a product and didn't fully deliver.
And again, to make it perfectly clear, I don't ask for compensation for everything. However, if I plan on using a product I purchased and the product isn't as advertised, I am going to let the business know about it.