|
Here is our second reply:
Thank you for your recent correspondence. I have reviewed your client's case and the information that you have provided. I realize that you are not happy with our response; however, it's our final decision as check in times have been established to help facilitate customer comfort as well as timely arrival and departures. Despite the circumstances, our agents do not have the ability to override the check-in systems. Therefore, since Mr. M didn't arrive at the gate prior to the cut-off time, we must respectfully decline your request for compensation and adjustments. When considering matters regarding EU regulations, we conduct a fair and unbiased assessment. Generally, we are successful in resolving controversial situations to everyone's satisfaction. Although we have given all aspects of your claim every possible consideration, we are unwilling to resolve it as you have suggested. Lastly, we know and understand that there are many components to air travel; still, our basic product is transportation. While some elements of a particular flight may be unsatisfactory, we do not routinely provide compensation when transportation is provided. It would be an exceptional situation in any business to give a refund when the product is used. |
I used to get that flight regularly. At one time it was US735.
|
Originally Posted by fotographer
(Post 30941857)
OP, dont understand why your friend would leave it so late to get the gate, especially for an international flight.
I fly in and out of LHR quite a bit.. Even when the boards in the airport say boarding, groups 4 -9 are being called. Would rather be at the gate earlier then posted, other then miss the flight Yes, but so what? If the OP's written documentation says ten minutes, then that's the rule that applies in this case. |
From aacargo
Depart Manchester MAN March 25, 2019 Scheduled Time: 10:05 AM Estimated Time: 09:43 AM Gate Departure Time: 09:43 AM Take Off Time: 10:04 AM In my opinion there is nothing else to prove, they left the gate more than 10 minutes early so if anybody was left behind AA is at fault. Landed more than half hour early, simply very bad decision imho to leave a passenger behind unless their was some strange curfew that demanded early departure. |
INAL, but a BP is not a contract and not a guarantee. The contract is the COC you agree to when you purchase the ticket, so arguing about what the BP says may not hold as strongly as one may think.
|
Originally Posted by ijgordon
(Post 30942741)
Surely that would also then trigger EC 261 compensation then too, right..
|
Originally Posted by dflanagin
(Post 30940880)
So normally EC261/2004 protects passengers from being bumped, delayed or cancelled on. I am actually pretty familiar with the law and its workings. Now here’s a strange scenario that has been brought to my attention and I’m curious of other folks thoughts: Friend of mine is on a flight MAN-PHL, it’s an American Airlines flight. This is the return flight on the itinerary, friend lives in SLC. Friend checks in 7:30, prints boarding pass that says: boarding starts at 9:15 departure at 10:05 and at the very top of his boarding pass it says “doors close 10 minutes prior to departure.” Friend rolls up to the gate at 9:31 and they tell him they closed the gate because they made the last call for him and he wasn’t in the boarding area at 9:15. Plane departs 9:43 without him, 22 minutes early. Airline says he was there at 9:35 and they close the door 30 mins prior to departure. Boarding pass says they close the door 10 minutes before departure. Friend says doesn’t matter he was there at 9:31. I found some folks with similar situations here but still not sure what the outcomes were. Seems to me like they violated the agreement printed on the ticket, regardless of their “30 minute policy” I re-read this after seeing the above post with data showing that the flight left the gate 22 minutes early. If AA says he arrived at the gate at 9:35, that is exactly T-30, so he arrived "by T-30" although not "before T-30" and obviously would not have been "on board by T-30." Nevertheless, it sounds like when he arrived at T-30, he had already been offloaded, Since that takes a minute or two to do, the GA would therefore have begun the process of offloading him before T-30, so he should not even have already lost his seat at that time. Common sense suggests that to leave the gate 22 minutes early would mean that the door was closed at least 23-35 minutes early as the aircraft cannot move as the door is being closed, plus some things need to be checked after the door is closed before the flight can move. I'm starting to believe that even if (in contradiction to various printed statements on the boarding pass, in the CoC, and on the AA website) AA wants not claim that the real rule AA wants to follow is T-30, the OP's friend just barely satisfied the T-30 cutoff. I hope the OP's friend fights this, escalating if necessary, and that the OP reports back (or convinces the friend to join FT and tell us himself what happened/happens). |
Pushed from gate at 9:43, flight was "closed" 8 minutes later, so, overall, I'd *hope* the OP's friend won't encounter all that much resistance getting their money back.
I'm hoping to be able to share some more details with the OP via PM shortly that may be of some help. |
It would be interesting to know if the passenger had checked luggage. I would assume that it would have been loaded and would then have had to be unloaded if the passenger was denied boarding. This would given AA some reason not to unload a passenger who was known to be at the airport. Not that it doesn't happen, it seems to be quite common at LHR T5.
|
Why does OP have so many FT accounts?
|
It is against FlyerTalk rules to have more than a single account. This thread was closed until the accounts started by the OP were sorted.
Thank you for your patience. Moderator |
Originally Posted by MADPhil
(Post 30943014)
It would be interesting to know if the passenger had checked luggage. I would assume that it would have been loaded and would then have had to be unloaded if the passenger was denied boarding. This would given AA some reason not to unload a passenger who was known to be at the airport. Not that it doesn't happen, it seems to be quite common at LHR T5.
|
Originally Posted by Betterthanyou
(Post 30942945)
INAL, but a BP is not a contract and not a guarantee. The contract is the COC you agree to when you purchase the ticket, so arguing about what the BP says may not hold as strongly as one may think.
|
Originally Posted by Often1
(Post 30942412)
The BP does not say T-10 for presentation. It states that doors close at T-10.
Whether the passenger was late is a factual question. Because OP was not the passenger, that won't be resolveable here. OP says his friend says T-34, which would have been timely. According to OP, AA says T-29. Whether AA said that to the friend or to OP is unclear. AA's own rules state "Rule 0087 - Denied Boarding - Article C(2)(D): ALL OTHER PASSENGERS ON A FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED BASIS. HOWEVER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 60(F) (RESERVATIONS), ALL PASSENGERS MUST PRESENT THEMSELVES AT THE LOADING GATE, FOR BOARDING AT LEAST TEN MINUTES BEFORE SCHEDULED DEPARTURE" |
Even with the proof stacked against them, we are at 3 denials from AA for compensation.
The emails are a confusing blend of "check-in", "boarding check", "ticket gate", "ticket counter" (yes they have used all of these phrases). This statement is a good example: Despite the circumstances, our agents do not have the ability to override the check-in systems. Therefore, since Mr. M* didn't arrive at the gate prior to the cut-off time, we must respectfully decline your request for compensation and adjustments. |
I would simply get them to put a clear email stating the time they got to the gate and simply put a claim in clearly stating that the compensation is required under EC261
Also state time that they arrived at the gate; highlight the 10 minutes as per CoC and include a copy of boarding pass to show that they were checked in If it still invents garbage, then time to simply take to a small claims court I cant remember if AA has a specific email address for EC261 claims |
Originally Posted by Often1
(Post 30940980)
The gate deadline for international is T-30. Doors close at T-10. But, that has nothing to do with whether your friend was at the gate at the required time. If he blew that deadline, he is SOL and properly offloaded. No EC 261/2004 (EUR 600) or DOT (400% of segment fare to a maximum of $1,350) compensationThat leaves the question of whether your friend was at the gate by T-30. He apparently has told you 09:31 and AA says it was after 9:35. That is a factual dispute.
AA's system will have logged, to the second, when your friend was off-loaded. So, that is going to be hard to beat. Once the gate deadline has passed, any standbys processed, the flight will be closed and depart because there is no particular reason to wait around. Thus, unimportant that the push was early. |
Originally Posted by Gadot
(Post 30944289)
by my math, 9:35 is T-30 ??
|
Originally Posted by Dave Noble
(Post 30944480)
Indeed - whether 9:31 or 9:35 they were there 30 minutes before departure which is well over the 10 minutes required as per CoC . It seems that AA is just trying to make stuff up in hope that person will go away and avoid reimbursing the extra costs plus the compensation due
serious adjustments to their CoC. I kind of hope we go all the way to court, maybe it will end this kind of nonsense. Im still trying to get my friend in here, but for now here a text he sent me: they didn't say anything about it being full. they just said it's too late you need to go past border patrol and that i should've been there earlier. the main lady was a angry about it like she was mad at me. and then the calm dude came over and walked me out. there was no real convo. i was walking downstairs [to passport control] with the dude sometime around 9:40 |
Originally Posted by dflanagin
(Post 30944566)
We definitely will not stop, I strongly believe we are right, and that AA has to make some serious adjustments to their CoC. I kind of hope we go all the way to court, maybe it will end this kind of nonsense. Im still trying to get my friend in here, but for now here a text he sent me: I am a bit confused by the text message content. It says that the agent stated "you need to go past border patrol " - was this interaction at the gate or at check in? If at the gate, they must have passed through border control - or were they saying that the passengers needed to return to passport control to leave? Going to court won't end the nonsense - it may get your issue resolved, but wouldn't rely on it having any impact on what AA does in the future |
Originally Posted by Dave Noble
(Post 30944681)
I am a bit confused by the text message content. It says that the agent stated "you need to go past border patrol " - was this interaction at the gate or at check in? If at the gate, they must have passed through border control - or were they saying that the passengers needed to return to passport control to leave?
Going to court won't end the nonsense - it may get your issue resolved, but wouldn't rely on it having any impact on what AA does in the future |
Originally Posted by Dave Noble
(Post 30944681)
I am a bit confused by the text message content. It says that the agent stated "you need to go past border patrol " - was this interaction at the gate or at check in? If at the gate, they must have passed through border control - or were they saying that the passengers needed to return to passport control to leave?
|
Originally Posted by dflanagin
(Post 30944566)
We definitely will not stop, I strongly believe we are right, and that AA has to make some serious adjustments to their CoC. I kind of hope we go all the way to court, maybe it will end this kind of nonsense. Im still trying to get my friend in here, but for now here a text he sent me: |
Originally Posted by MADPhil
(Post 30944702)
That is rather odd because there is no passport control to leave the UK and since they were still in the UK there should have been none to return from the gate.
|
Originally Posted by dflanagin
(Post 30944715)
right, but they were essentially removing him from the airport because his ticket was no longer valid, and so the only way out of the airport would be how arriving passengers come in. MAN airport is a strange series of windowed hallways, this does make sense in context to the airport, he just doesn’t know airport jargon so well
|
Originally Posted by MADPhil
(Post 30944734)
That's true, they don't mix arriving and departing passengers but in some cases they do mix in transit passengers so it would be like LHR where you have to be escorted out. I don't think you would have to talk to Border Force though.
|
Originally Posted by Betterthanyou
(Post 30942945)
INAL, but a BP is not a contract and not a guarantee. The contract is the COC you agree to when you purchase the ticket, so arguing about what the BP says may not hold as strongly as one may think.
https://www.aa.com/i18n/footer/condi...p?locale=en_HK CHECK-IN TIMES The times shown on this ticket or itinerary/receipt if applicable are the departure times of the aircraft. |
10 vs 15 vs 30 minutes, whats printed on BPs, whats in the CoCs etc aside, the question that someone in leadership at AA should be asking themselves is: why did this happened? I cannot understand what would make the AA GAs think this was a good idea as it makes no sense whatsoever. To be clear, I'm not doubting the OP or his friend as aacargo/flighaware clearly show they left the gate at 9:43AM which would IME mean they finished boarding and buttoned up before that since you cannot close the door/push until everyone is seated etc.
Putting aside the legal stuff, which again I'm of the view that AA needs to get out their checkbook, this is a completely unforced error on AAs part and one that has no upside for them. Pushing 23 minutes early on a MAN-PHL flight doesn't free up the gate for another AA flight or allow the GAs/ground crew to go work another AA flight at MAN...there's exactly nothing from the series of events that occured which result in a net positive to AA. On the other hand they created bad will with the OP/Friend/others who hear about the situation, financial liability under EU regulations and all they ended up with was a few minutes early to the gate in PHL. |
Maybe the GA wanted to leave work early or at least have alonger break? |
Originally Posted by MSPeconomist
(Post 30945013)
Maybe the GA wanted to leave work early or at least have alonger break? |
@dflanagin AA Customer Service contacts from Elliott (hint: send a detailed but brief snailmail): https://www.elliott.org/company-cont...ican-airlines/
|
This is not from AA but would like to share a story on PR in MNL airport to Doha. I arrive in the gate area about T-25 with most of passengers already boarded. As the agent scanned my boarding pass another agent suggested to her companion to offload the remaining passengers so they can close the door early. Not sure what was I thinking but I intervened and told them they can't do that to the remaining passengers unless it is already T-10. The agent fires back that the new cutoff rules is T-20 instead of T-10. I politely pointed to them that T-10 is printed in the boarding pass and that they should correct what is printed if the company is enforcing new cutoff rules for boarding. I know it's none of my business if they offload the remaining passengers but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
|
Originally Posted by SpeedAdvantage
(Post 30945155)
This is not from AA but would like to share a story on PR in MNL airport to Doha. I arrive in the gate area about T-25 with most of passengers already boarded. As the agent scanned my boarding pass another agent suggested to her companion to offload the remaining passengers so they can close the door early. Not sure what was I thinking but I intervened and told them they can't do that to the remaining passengers unless it is already T-10. The agent fires back that the new cutoff rules is T-20 instead of T-10. I politely pointed to them that T-10 is printed in the boarding pass and that they should correct what is printed if the company is enforcing new cutoff rules for boarding. I know it's none of my business if they offload the remaining passengers but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
|
I have had similar experience but squeaked by. They told me the pilot wanted to get off early because of a storm he wanted to avoid. Whether it was true? But there was a lot of turbulence.
But that answer tops all else printed or not. If capt wants to go, he can and you have no recourse |
Originally Posted by ryan182
(Post 30944991)
10 vs 15 vs 30 minutes, whats printed on BPs, whats in the CoCs etc aside, the question that someone in leadership at AA should be asking themselves is: why did this happened? I cannot understand what would make the AA GAs think this was a good idea as it makes no sense whatsoever. To be clear, I'm not doubting the OP or his friend as aacargo/flighaware clearly show they left the gate at 9:43AM which would IME mean they finished boarding and buttoned up before that since you cannot close the door/push until everyone is seated etc.
Putting aside the legal stuff, which again I'm of the view that AA needs to get out their checkbook, this is a completely unforced error on AAs part and one that has no upside for them. Pushing 23 minutes early on a MAN-PHL flight doesn't free up the gate for another AA flight or allow the GAs/ground crew to go work another AA flight at MAN...there's exactly nothing from the series of events that occured which result in a net positive to AA. On the other hand they created bad will with the OP/Friend/others who hear about the situation, financial liability under EU regulations and all they ended up with was a few minutes early to the gate in PHL. What is also infuriating is that my friend, and honestly most passengers, don't know EU regulations; they don't read the CoC, they don't understand airport/airline jargon. I wonder how often this happens and just results in net profit for AA all around. Offering the inevitable $200 eVoucher is insulting, and incurs no loss for the company. I think their denials are only making it worse for them as well, because the responses have been using check-in time word salad like - Our check-in times are in place to ensure an on-time departure, and ticket agents can no longer make adjustments to the computers 30 minutes before departure. Unfortunately, Mr. M* was not at the gate before this cut off. |
Originally Posted by Gadot
(Post 30945746)
I have had similar experience but squeaked by. They told me the pilot wanted to get off early because of a storm he wanted to avoid. Whether it was true? But there was a lot of turbulence.
But that answer tops all else printed or not. If capt wants to go, he can and you have no recourse It's also a customer service nightmare, why didn't they just rebook him for free. Their answer, "You were on an economy ticket, sir." |
Here we go:
March 30, 2019 Hello Mr. Flanagin: I received your recent correspondence regarding the complaint you originally sent us on March 26, 2019. Mr. Flanagin, reviewing our records, it appears as though we followed up with you on March 27, March 28 and March 29. Based on our records, Mr. M did not present himself for boarding prior to the 30 minute cut-off as outlined in the Conditions of Carriage. Mr. Flanagin, I'm not seeing any additional information in your most recent correspondence that would change our handling of this matter. If you have any new information that we should consider, let us know. We'll gladly review it and respond. Sincerely, Anita J. |
Originally Posted by dflanagin
(Post 30945818)
Here we go:
|
In terms of legal angles, the TX AG would likely compel AA to refund your friend the change fee in a heartbeat, but I'm thinking he might be eligible for EU 261 IDB compensation. As such, please check out this thread:
https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/brit...61-2004-a.html |
Originally Posted by dflanagin
(Post 30945766)
You can claim EC261 for weather, its been successfully done in UK courts before. They would still be breaking contract, nothing in the CoC or AA International Rules says "A pilots decision to depart early voids liability for all previous agreements."
It's also a customer service nightmare, why didn't they just rebook him for free. Their answer, "You were on an economy ticket, sir." And yes airlines can try and depart earlier if all pax are on board. If a pilot wanted to try and get away early because of expected bad weather the airline should be paging passengers to try and get them to the gate. And these days with apps and text messages etc it's even easier to contact a passenger and encourage them to get to the gate in such circumstances - there are threads raising this on Flyer talk usually often complaining they were called. But if it does leave a passenger behind then the IDB provisions would apply and I wouldn't expect an airline to fight a compensation claim in such circumstances. I don't know what the US legal system would say but in a UK district court (Money Claim On Line) they would more likely find in favour of your friend due to the confusion over the various cut off times and whether a reasonable person would understand what they meant and where they needed to be by specific times. a BA BP from a flight I took this week says 'Board at 1815' but not what time the gate closes - which I know to be 1835 for a 1855 departure but someone else might not Time for airlines to have a look at what they print on BPs.. They can't rely on passengers knowing the CoC or remembering what a check in agent told them. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 2:29 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.