Originally Posted by
synergistic
In my mind, definitely a situation where representatives should be empowered to make exceptions. Whether a passenger or a shareholder, the end result was negative. At the very least, there should have been a way to protect the second leg of her itinerary after a "no show" to ATL. Instead, she occupied an otherwise saleable seat in both directions.
Out of curiosity, would she have been comfortable paying the same amount she ended up paying for the ATL round trip as a sort of "change fee" to save herself the two unnecessary legs, if they'd been able to work that out?
Yes, and she would have been comfortable paying the cost of a one way ticket in place of the initial leg.
The most outrageous part was they wanted more to change the ticket than the cost of buying a whole new ticket plus the entire cost of the original ticket.
Just a note non-refundable does not generally mean unchangeable.