Originally Posted by
jpezaris
I've seen that too. It sounds like a contractual statement, in my non-lawyer opinion. As in, they openly stated that they were committed to ensuring these passengers (like the OP, in this case) would be on their connecting flight. It was a voluntary utterance. It was specific to a particular situation. Companies should not be able to get away with making promises like that and not fulfilling them.
Who's to say that they didn't fulfill that promise? They apparently held the flight for some connecting passengers. That doesn't mean that they were obligated to hold the flight for
every connecting passenger.