Why would I want to know that? We'd have a resolution and this thread die off. ;)

Seriously, there are so many juicy airline threads these days that it's 3:17pm and I haven't even made it to the hotel forums yet.

Mike

While I believe that the AA employees dropped the ball on Monday at LAX, I would argue that there's a huge difference between the "severe hardship" that would result from splitting a solo parent from their child(ren) and the inconvenience that might result from splitting a group of eighth graders. I doubt that AA's use of the words "severe hardship" in its IDB priority criteria was meant as a guarantee that no member of any group booking would ever be involuntarily denied boarding. If that were the case, then the IDB priority criteria could be rewritten to simply exclude anyone in a group. Perhaps that's the way it should be.

Stinging self-indictment. Just because one has the right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do. Bells?

Golden Rule. Milk of human kindness. Charity. Enlightened self-interest. Any of this sound familiar?

This on top of the disputed question of what exactly is "earned" by one's status. Citation to the governing rule in prior posts suggests that being an AA big shot is no guarantee against an IDB under extraordinary circumstances.

--mcz

I think that any passengers travelling together should either all be denied boarding or non should be. Even 2 people travelling on the same itinerary should , imo, either both board or both not be boarded

I don't know whether AA's policies do cover this or not. Regardless, surelyAA should recognise the PR fiasco splitting up a school group in this manner would cause

Off the mark again, but you're getting closer. :)

It is possible to be very charitable and still received earned perks. In the present case, higher VDB would have solved the problem. The interesting terms you've thrown about (all of which I agree with) are not relevant here.

Self indictment? Maybe only to one who still isn't getting it. Since that's not me, no self-indictment at all. Just a perception of such.

As to the rule, no, there are not reasonably-crafted disputes here, quite clearly. Unless you can cite this as "severe hardship," and that would be laughable on the face of it, there isn't wiggle room in the published benefits.

But it was a nice try :)

Cheers.

I'm not sure that a hard and fast rule that would protect every non-solo travleler from IDB would be ideal.

For instance, what if the first person to check in was a full-fare First Class EXP traveling alone and everyone else was a couple or part of a larger group? By definition, they all checked in later than the one solo passenger. And the flight was oversold by one and no takers for Voluntary DB compensation. Would you really IDB the most valuable customer on the plane? The one who (under the current scheme) is virtually immune from IDB? What if a flight is comprised of several large groups?

Thank you! ^ It was disappointing for the group to lose out on a day of their trip, no question, but kids have a remarkable ability to manage. Much better than adults do.

I was on a high school trip a few years ago where our first flight was overbooked. Four kids and one teacher were IDBd, took a different routing, and arrived less than an hour after the rest of us. While we were of course annoyed everyone took the issue in stride and we decided among ourselves which four would take the other flights. It was just a non-issue, probably because this is a school where most students fly frequently with their families. Obviously we don't know all the facts, but it seems like poor judgement calls were made all around.

To those suggesting the group couldn't be split up, I ask why? I certainly would not have made the same decision if I were in the principal's shoes. If he didn't think to call his TA (maybe he did?) then he really is completely incompetent to run a group trip.

It wouldn't protect any non-solo traveller , except if a flight only needed to deny 1 passenger

If needing to deny 4 passengers boarding, then any 4 that doesn't split up a single booking would seem perfectly reasonable whether it be a group of 4 or 4 solo travellers ( or other splits that do not disrupt a single travelling group )

When I travel in groups, we go with the understanding that crap happens when you travel (doesn't even have to be IDB - weather and mechanical delays cause major problems when trying to get a large group somewhere). We have a plan for what we will do if we need to split up to get where we are going (i.e. who goes with what group, who absolutely has to make it there first, who is okay traveling separately and who must be with someone else, etc). Of course this is for a group of adults, but even more so when kids are involved, you need to have a plan in place in advance. It sounds like this group didn't have a plan for what would happen if there were issues with the flight, no matter the cause, and that goes down to the organizer/booking agent, whether it be someone at the school, a travel agent, or if they booked directly, someone in AA groups.

And no this does not mean I think that AA was in the right. Taking the article at face value (and yes I know that's a big assumption), a little discretion on the gate agent's part might've avoided a PR issue. Yes it might've involved IDBing someone else if they couldn't get enough volunteers, but that would probably be better than the mess they've got now. And yes I know there are rules for IDB, but as quoted many times above, part of the rules includes discretion. Why it wasn't used here, who knows.

If the principal was the only school official or teacher along, there is really no way he could split up the group. Lots of liability issues; the school official is likely the only person authorized to act in loco parentis and any further misconnection/mishap could have led to lawsuits, firing, etc.

The likely cause of the whole mess is that the GA on the spot did not have the delegated authority to deliver whatever VDB compensation it took to free up spots on the plane, and couldn't get ahold of anyone who did. If the GA offered more than authorized, they may have put their job on the line.

A more proactive travel agent would have helped a lot. My parents are both teachers, and took groups on long trips. The TA was usually there at the airport making sure everything went smoothly, and that doesn't sound like it happened here.

But, is splitting a group of 27 really a hardship, as long as there is a responsible person with the 2 subgroups? That is, if I am by myself and there 2 people that would be separated by a lack of seats, should I be the one IDB just for that?

Yup. It's called "charitable donations" on my tax form.

And it's about someone that has earned a perk exercising compassion for someone less fortunate than them and not exercising the perk.

Justice (or THE PROCESS THAT SHALL BE FOLLOWED) should be tempered with mercy. Or at least with some good PR sense to know what'll happen. A few AA EXPs grousing on FT is a world of difference from "8th graders flying for first time kicked off American Airlines." As an example of course, as we do not know who would have been IDBed in place of the students.

{snort} :p

Coming soon to an airport gate near you:

AA: Sorry Mr. [burp], but we are IDB'ing you for this group of 29 nuns and orphans heading to visit the Pope.

brp: That's laughable on its face. DYKWIA? I'm an EXP. This is outrageous. I have Tom Horton on speed dial. Who cares about a bunch of nuns and orphans anyway? They're unclean and don't know a bulkhead seat from an emergency exit row.

AA: Need to keep the group together. Orders from on high. Big headache otherwise. Couldn't get enough VDBs. Here's your check. Sorry.

brp: ...I'll sue. The rules are clear. There's no wiggle room.

AA: Sorry sir. They're our rules and they give us leeway to deal with exceptional situations like this. Sue all you want but you're not flying on this aircraft...now you want your check or not? Or do I have to call security?

brp: Well, I never...[sputter, sputter, blah blah blah]

Only a matter of time. Cheers;)

--mcz

Very amusing ^^ :D

Obviously not reflective of me by any stretch of the imagination (although you would have no way of knowing that). Perhaps slightly (well, a little more than slighty) delusional, and missing the point...again... but definitely a good laugh.

I like you; you're fun :)

Cheers.