Originally Posted by
SAT Lawyer
After reading through umteen posts, can somebody show me some evidence -- other than an unsubstantiated claim by an interested party -- than any of these forty passengers was:
(1) properly and actually checked in at least 60 minutes before the scheduled departure time; and
(2) was on board or at least ready, willing, and able to board, and in the right place to board, and attempted to board the aircraft at least 30 minutes before the scheduled departure; and
(3) was nevertheless denied boarding?
Because pursuant to the
published cut-off times, that's all that matters. If any passenger met #1 and #2 above and was still denied boarding, then NW (or, perhaps more accurately, its FRA ground operation) was in the wrong. Otherwise, NW did nothing wrong, the public relations effort and mea culpa notwithstanding.
NW is an interested party to this situation too .... and their blanket claims and actions have not been wholly consistent, internally or externally.
NW hasn't provided any substantiated timelines involving each of the 40 individuals; thankfully there's SIS which NW can't meddle with and is a "neutral party" ..... as if that's the only account that counts.
Originally Posted by SAT Lawyer
No. But I'm not levying a charge of misconduct at NW.
Are you levying a charge that individually each and everyone of the 40 passengers failed to show up at the gate on time? NW has levyied a charge of the 40 passengers failing to meet the cut-off times and operated upon a combination of conjecture, speculation and innuendo spun together to explain what happened to these passengers while making the mistake of lumping them all together in the same category.
Originally Posted by SAT Lawyer
All I'm saying is that this thread is chock full of tons of naked conjecture, speculation, and innuendo. I suppose it would be difficult, if not impossible, to objectively verify the whereabouts of these passengers at the time boarding was closed (unless there was a security camera at the specific gate at issue), which cuts both ways. But corroborating the check-in times is something that should be susceptible to objective verification. From what I've read and seen, CAIR hasn't made a claim about which specific passengers, if any, met the cutoff times and which did not, instead making a more sweeping suggestion that all of them were aggrieved. Is there any objective evidence to support this claim?
There is camera footage at FRA. Will NW request that? Who knows, but NW has certainly not requested that day's footage of the appropriate parties at FRA yet. And even were they to be supplied with the footage, NW isn't capable of readily matching faces and names with timelines -- certainly not today.
There's also NW's computer records related to this flight. Will NW give an independent auditor the right to check those records? NW hasn't even been willing to go on the record and say NW 51 was far from oversold on January 7th and that it had close to 40 empty seats upon departure. Fortunately, the FAA and DHS has access to the passenger manifest still. So asking the FAA to investigate sounded like the right kind of thing too.
Originally Posted by
plat
After reading this thread, I see nothing else beyond a he said/she said diatribe between NW and the passengers. There is no substantiated evidence on either side that affirms their version of the events. Substantiated evidene would be something like: FRA airport officials showing security footage demonstrating whether said passengers were at the appropriate check in, security, and gate areas at the required times.
Given the lack of real evidence, it seems NW has decided that the proper business decision is to issue an apology, offer some compensation, and protect itself in the media.
NW's apology is not a corroboration of the claims made by the passengers. It happens all the time, and despite what a few have claimed, there is no evidence that NW did anything inconsistent with its rules.
Oh but there is evidence that NW did somethings inconsistent with laws in Germany; NW failed to provide paid for accomodation for some of these individuals who were due it on January 7th.
Originally Posted by
PTravel
In what way were they not treated well (or, perhaps, more accurately, in what way were they treated less well than other similarly-situated passengers)?
Of the 40 passengers who were denied travel on NW 51 that day, not all of those ticketed passengers failed to be at the gate on time yet some were still denied boarding and not handled in compliance with EU requirements at the time. That's being treated poorly.