Terrorism Change Procedures?
 

Smart travellers help please!

I was in Istanbul during the bombings last week. I have a Munich-SFO restricted T class ticket. I was unable to fly the day of the bombings from Istanbul until now. I am waiting at the Munich airport for T space to become available.

CO says it will not waive the change fee ($200)despite the fact that I could not physically get back to Munich on that day for my transatlantic trip.

First, Is it normal that they make me wait for a T class seat to become available and not just let me fly standy due to the terrorism?

Also isnt it normal they waive the $200 fee because of these bombings? They say that because CO only ticketed me to Munich that they are not responsible but back during 9/11 they let all US cities rebook without penalty not just D.C. or NYC.

I am 12+ years an elite on CO (have dropped from 10 year Plat on them to just silver now because of their lame service) and I am also a NW Plat.

I dont know what point to pursue this but I repect the FF's wise experience and will do as you say.

Thank you Ladies/Gentlemen!

CO is 100% in the right on this one. Since CO did not issue the ticket to IST (and, I'm assuming that this was not a conjunction ticket of some kind), the airline is not liable for the failure of another carrier to deliver you to MUC in time to complete your trip.

Unfortunately, this is one of the risks you have to accept when booking multiple tickets for a single trip. To be completely honest, CO is doing you a favor by still allowing you to use the ticket to continue on, albeit with a change fee -- some airlines would have deemed the ticket worthless and forced you to buy a new ticket altogether.

------------------
Has YOUR airline won an award lately?

The specific language from the CoC reads:

"In the event a Passenger misses an onward connecting flight on which space is reserved
because the Delivering Carrier did not operate its flight due to a Schedule Irregularity or Change in Schedule, the Delivering Carrier is responsible to arrange for carriage of Passenger or to make a refund."

Of course, if your ex-Turkey carrier was shut down by the gov't for a few days, I'm sure that carrier would claim Force Majeure.

As far as 9/11, or the start of Iraq fighting (or the blackout, for that matter), you've gotta view these things independently. If it affects 100,000 CO customers, they're much more likely to make a policy change than if it affects 100. Also, since the US airlines are all pretty much sheep, you probably won't see any extend special accomodation by themselves - they move with the crowd.

I'm surprised they won't just dump you on the next flight with a coach seat, though.

I don't think any of her flights departing Munich on these facts qualify as "onward connection flight" within the meaning of the CoC due to the fact that the tickets were not purchased as one interline ticket (she didn't specifically say this, but it seems to be the case).

So I think CO is technically correct here, although certainly from a mere customer-service standpoint, they could be more caring and less cruel here one would think.

I have to respectfully disagree. There has to be a point where the airline is simply not responsible (and therefore, has no business or "moral" obligation) for the actions of others, and a case where someone missed a flight due to the actions of another airline (on a DIFFERENT ticket to boot) seems to be at (or very near) that "point".

------------------
Has YOUR airline won an award lately?

[This message has been edited by avek00 (edited Dec 01, 2003).]

I actually agree with you inasmuch as I would say that Continental has no moral obligation to waive the change fee in the event of a wholly unilateral action by another carrier, for example if the Istanbul-Munich carrier had a mechanical problem which caused the cancellation (in such a case, I think it is clear that the purchaser assumed the risk by not purchasing a single interline ticket).

However, my take on the facts here was that the flight was cancelled for security concerns due to the bombings (I could be wrong, but this is how I read it).

Assuming this is true, I would think that Continental ought to have a slightly more emphathetic view toward waiving the change fee.

Thanks all for the prompt response...

"Her" is actually me, a guy though.

I am taking the community's wisdom and not srguing too loud with CO then as it sounds like all mostly agree with them.

IST-Munich was closed due to bombings so I would not have been able to get to Munich for the flight if I wanted to. I guess after all the money I spent on CO I thought they would at least let me standy for the next available economy class seat and not make me stay for 4 nights plus in $150 a night airport hotel waiting for a T class to appear when I know the load has not been 100%. But I appreciate the FF groups advise

Thanks All!

Avek00 is absolutely right IHMO. Yet if it was me I would feel that it wasn't all my fault either and if CO had a seat, but not in the right fare catagory, and didn't let me take it I would be none to happy with CO. This means that I would avoid CO in the future as I wouldn't be happy with their perfectly legal solution to my problem.


------------------
dallasflyer, Let's put the fun back in FlyerTalk!

I would be raising a bit more hell if I were you. At this point, you've spent (or are planning to spend) $600 in hotel + incidentals + $200 change fee. Try to make a case with a supervisor and see if they can bend. Suggest that they explore other routings. MUC-AMS-IAH-SFO is showing T availability (T3) tomorrow, 12/2 (translation, wide open). Going AMS-EWR is oversold (Y6). Perhaps the agent you're dealing with is not being creative and exploring different routing options.

Incidentally, as a last resort, you can leave tomorrow MUC-SFO RT (returning as a throwaway in a couple weeks) for $1,100 on the routing I mentioned thru IAH.

Channa:

The airline is ALREADY bending the rules by honoring the ticket of a no-show passenger for just the admin. service fee. Honestly, it is highly unlikely that ANY other airline would go beyond the generosity than CO has demonstrated to date with this situation. AA, UA, DL, or BA for that matter wouldn't think for a second to honor the ticket at face value with no additional penalties.

[This message has been edited by avek00 (edited Dec 01, 2003).]

I didn't say he should shoot for no penalties. I think he's still out the $200, but I don't think he's gotta sit there for four days to get out of there when there are wide open flights via IAH tomorrow.

You are absolutely correct that the airline is within its legal rights here and is extending a courtesy. Given the circumstances, though, it's not clear what the other carriers would do. This is not a simple case of someone simply missing a flight by four days and showing up. Unless you have some sort of precedent as to what AA, UA, DL, or BA would do in this exact same circumstance, your statement is unfounded. In fact, since you mentioned BA, BA is very used to interline connections. Combine that with the extenuating circumstances, and BA's service ethic, I'd be willing to bet our original poster would have little or no trouble being accommodated on the next available BA flight with an open seat had he bought his ticket from them.

Avek00 --

I respectfully disagree with your assessment of other airlines' actions. While CO may be a good domestic carrier, it obviously isn't up to international standards. I am sure that AA would have re-accomodated the passenger free of charge -- on a standby basis assuming that he could show proof of his original booking on the day of the bombings.

It's simply part of being a FULL SERVICE airline. These sorts of extenuating circumstances happen and quality airlines don't try to gouge their customers (who by the way pay their salaries)! This is absolutely the most ridiculous airline story that I have recently heard.

Everyone has there opinion of how much stretching an airline should do. Avek's is obviously much closer to the airline's than most's but that's cool... Anyways, here's my 2 cents:

I don't think it was COs moral responsibility, I think it was the GAs moral responsibility. Sometimes mercy is the right way to go. I am a Delta flyer, and when I first started traveling heavily about a year ago, I didn't know all of the CoC rules. I was on a multiple leg trip TUL-MEM-MCO-TUL. I made it to MEM, and went to bed in my hotel, ready to go to MCO in the morning. I used the automated system in the hotel to get a wake-up call, and that was the only alarm I set. The power went out overnight and the system went down, leaving me to wake-up 5 hours after my flight. I rushed to the airport and got on standy. I got to ATL at noon, and after waiting for 4 MCO flights, I was going insane!!! I had to get out of ATL, so being a "youth," I went over to Terminal C and hopped on the next Airtran flight taking advantage of their X-fares. So, after a LONG day, I got home... I went to work Sunday morning and started working, but I decided that I would call DL to verify the rest of my itinerary. I was of course told it was cancelled etc... So I got on the phone... They said they wanted 600 dollars. I told them where to stick it, and got on WN. lol, to try to make an already too long story a little shorter, I wrote a 6 page letter to them asking for mercy and was given a refund for the portion of my trip that I had not used ($260).

This was totally my fault. I should have set another alarm. The point is... there are rules to prevent misuse of the system, and the Establishment cannot present themselves as bending the rules all the time, but a person within the group should be able to bend and flex.

The moral of my story: People are people, and people screw up. If there was a seat on the flight... they should have put him on, IMHO.

Avek I dont think they are binding the rules too much on this ticket as it always stated that changes were permissible with a $200 change fee which is what I will end up paying. Do you work for CO BTW?

Channa I saw those 3T class seats open but for some reason when I call the elite desk they do not seem able to book them. They "dissapear" when through faring them via IAH for some reason.

JJglaze your story is providing some humor here in a boring airport hotel. At least you were young and inventive. I do think there is some difference between sleeping past the alarm clock that went dead and missing the flight because Al Quaida is bombing the hell out of your city http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif
Your idea of saving the receipts and evidence plus Turkish airline tickets to prove this even is interesting. Who could I write to once I get home? As a 12+ Plat member I have had no luck with that We Care desk. ANy addresses guys?

Thanks for at least making this a learning experience all!

I don't work for CO per se, but my title on the left-hand side will indicate which way my CO politics lean. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

Honestly, I think your best bet is to eat the change fee and make every effort in the future to book all of your flights on ONE ticket. If you had booked IST-MUC-SFO as a single ticket (even with the different carriers), you would not have had this problem. You were placed in this situation because your flying is on two non-related tickets, so neither airline has any obligation to the other to make sure that you are in a position to travel on both tickets.

------------------
Has YOUR airline won an award lately?

Booking on one ticket is not too easy with some low-cost carriers. Also, if one is to gain 100% EQM on CO (paying other than extortion fees) next year it is impossible.

As far as the change is concerned, I agree that according to the ticket CO should charge $200 -- but any decent human being would waive the fee. Making pax wait for the next "T" availability instead of letting them fly standby on the next empty seat is unconscionable.

In reality, based on actual experience, I can tell you that it would have worked a bit differently on UA or AA. He would have at least made the flight at the earliest with possibly a change fee.

The reason is that most tickets on AA/UA including the riff-raff fares allow one to change the return segments for a change fee. When in such a position (for whatever reason), I would have called AA/UA rather than be a no-show as soon as my flights from IST were canceled and changed the ticket with a change fee to a future enough date (even if I was not sure which date that would be). When I knew for sure which date I would be able to leave, I would have called again and changed to the most convenient date available. The change fee is not applied again in most cases.

The second thing that would have worked in my favor is that both UA and AA don't zero out all low-fare buckets even if the advance purchase requirements cannot be met for a new ticket. As long as there are a reasonable number of empty seats, they would keep those fare buckets non-zero which would have allowed me to change my ticket to a much earlier flight than what this poster has been able to do.

This has nothing to do with moral/ethical obligations. It simply has to do with providing a service that works for people. There is a reason why so many people who actually travel a lot prefer to fly UA/AA over CO.

This is another example of CO's BUSINESS philosophy intended to inconvenience the low fare customer to such an extent that CO hopes they would never fly low fares again. What do you expect on a riff-raff T fare on CO?

I sorry, but I just don't see it. Some other airline can't get you to your CO flight and CO needs to waive advance purchase fare rules?

Doesn't make any sense to me...

That's exactly the sentiment I believe would have been avoided with a more customer-oriented airline such BA. CO clearly doesn't understand that people interline and the potential delays associated with it. If it weren't for the interline, the original poster would not have made this trip on CO. In fact, one could argue that CO should be more lenient than most in this regard because its European network is much weaker than others, creating a greater need to interline to another carrier.

If CO is going to so strictly adhere to their rules and policies in this type of circumstance, the buyer should beware of buying interline tickets involving CO. After this thread, I would never again consider flying CO to Hawaii and AQ interisland as I've done in the past. Last thing I want is for CO to throw the book at me if AQ is delayed.

I see this situation similar to a banking error. Say your utility charges $40 for a bad check, and your bank screws up a transaction, resulting in your check not clearing. While the utility would be perfectly within its rights to assess the fee, and the bank would be within its rights to say it's not responsible for the $40, as a courtesy to the customer and the bank, I couldn't imagine the utility not waiving the fee in this type of circumstance if it's a bona fide bank error.

Very well put.

To not let him on the next flight is just bad customer relations “plane” and simple.

The problem is that this was not an interline ticket. The poster would have avoided his problems had it been an interline ticket. Instead, the poster bought two separate tickets. In such a case, neither airline has any responsibility for you making the flight of another airline.

Here's an example. Last year, I bought an interline ticket (ie all one ticket) that was EWR-BRU (on CO) then BRU-MUC (on LH). The flight leaving EWR was delayed due to a snow storm and we arrived in BRU just in time to see the LH flight pulling back from the gate. As we disembarked, a CO concierge had already rebooked us on the next departing LH flight to MUC. Now, assume instead that I had bought two tickets--one ticket for EWR-BRU on CO and another for BRU-MUC on LH. In that case, when I arrived in BRU, I would have been out of luck. CO would not have "owed" me anything and LH would have been free to charge me a change fee since I missed my flight. I realize that the distinction is quite technical but it sounds like CO was correct in assessing you the change fee. As a matter of human sympathy, though, it would be nice for them to put you on the next available flight that has open coach seats rather than making you wait for a flight that has open seats in the same class that you are ticketed on.

I understand the difference, and I agree that in this hypothetical circumstance that LH could have charged you. I don't believe they would have charged you.

I can't think of even ONE major global airline that wouldn't charge in a situation like this, especially since the passenger could have avoided this problem altogether through the simple and easy step of booking the entire trip on ONE ticket.

If you think AA, UA, or anyone else would circumvent their firm and long-established rules and procedures on intl. no-shows given these particular circumstances, then I am afraid that you are mistaken. If the flights were on a single ticket, then the treatment received would be inexcusable. But since the passenger opted for two tickets instead, the price to be paid for that action is personally assuming the liability of missing the flights on the second ticket.


------------------
Has YOUR airline won an award lately?

Perhaps this is a stupid question -- what happens under these circumstances if I buy two nested but separate ticket like this:

A->B->A and B->C->B

on the same carrier? Assume that no ticketing rules are being violated. What happens to a person at C who is stuck there trying to connect back to A?

Why couldn't you travel until today?

p.s. I was there too and flew home that Sunday morning on Turkish Airlines via Frankfurt connecting to AA to Dallas.

It seems to be the general consensus that he should pay the $200.00, but what is this cr@p about having to wait until T seats are available? I thought any revenue ticket could fly revenue standby on any flight - he would have to go to the airport and wait, and maybe have to come back the following day if the flight went out full, but to have to wait for four days?????

I would be screaming!


K

Perhaps it was 4 days before a confirmed seat was available and the person did not wish to (or was not offered the opportunity to) standby at the airport?

Again, unless you have some data points about how another airline would handle such a situation, this is nothing but speculation.

My comments come from an exepectation of reasonableness in an extraordinary situation, not a rigid adherence to the law. This scenario has shown that CO does not excel in this regard.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif But his comment is factual. He can't think of another airline that would do that.

Anyway, I think it's worth noting that we would not have been having this discussion in 1997. Back then, as noted in an oft-referenced book around here, customer agents were empowered to act according to the circumstances at hand, rather than being forced into a one-rule-fits-all mentality. Clearly, in those days, the agent would have had the power to recognize that this situation was different from "I overslept," or "I couldn't buy the T fare for the Thursday flight, so I bought a ticket for Monday and decided to show up on Thursday to take the flight I wanted." The customer made a good-faith effort to uphold the spirit of the contract.

Today, of course, agents aren't permitted to let the facts get in the way of the rules. I'm sure someone, somewhere (perhaps even in this forum) believes that this "new" way is in the airline's best interest. I don't.

Then again, CO has already told me in several ways that they no longer wish to have me as a customer...

------------------
Has YOUR airline screwed you over lately?

I think the real point is NOT with CO but with KL!

CO does NOT have ANY flights out of MUC but depends on KL for a codeshare. That agreement seems to be that KL can "reject" lowfare CO bookings on KL because the $ KL would get for their part of the trip is not worth it to them....
I had a BRU-AMS-EWR CO ticket where KL "pulled" the BRU-AMS portion on CO because the where not going to fly me for what CO wanted to give them......CO URGED me to argree to take the BRU-EWR nonstop (which I liked better but priced out more $$$) http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif
I was told KL is able to pull the CO codeshare seat within 24 hours after ticketing if they do not agree with the price (for their portion) CO sold them for...

------------------
Viele Grüße

Oliver

I believe Germanfflyer is correct. There is no CO at MUC nor in IST. If you deal with CO from there, it must be through the phone and it was discussed more than once that the phone agents are much less "empowered" than the airport agents.

I'm sure that if you go to the airport and ask to stand-by, they will let you on the plane even if it's not a T fare opening. Not sure if KLM would do that, but it might be a good idea to take the train to FRA or ZRH (about same distance) and deal with CO agents directly.

As far as CO and IST - they don't fly there, therefore they don't need any policy for the events that happened there.

(edited for syntax)

[This message has been edited by apirchik (edited Dec 03, 2003).]

I know - rules are always meant to be waived and broken in the name of "customer service", no matter if CO has ZERO RESPONSIBILITY in the situation. I've seen firsthand what that can do to an airline (e.g., United), and I'd MUCH rather see consistent customer service policies than take my chances with haphazard customer service.


------------------
Has YOUR airline won an award lately?

I can swallow the fee. Just file it under "stuff happens". But to wait for a T fare is ridiculous; they should fly standby and if a seat opens up, take it. None of this "no T fare available" garbage.

- HF

You are missing that CO DOES NOT HAVE ANY SEAT from MUC not in T not in Y not in C !
ONLY KL has seats from MUC!

------------------
Viele Grüße

Oliver

I think that point has only come to light since the previously-quoted posts. The fact that CO relies on KL for seats here makes the rest of the story make a heck of a lot more sense.


[This message has been edited by xyzzy (edited Dec 03, 2003).]

Thanks all

Yes, Munich has no CO office. Not even a KLM office but a handling rep that also services EasyJet and Carpathian Airways. Such is my luck. They were clueless

CO told me that KLM would not let me standby for a KLM ticket. Since I had to wait so long I said I would fly to AMS on my own dime and standby for the CO flight there (would have been much cheaper than the many nights airport hotels)and CO still said NO I must start in Munich. I was always told we must abide by the original fare class rules.

Why didnt I leave earlier? The day of the bombing at 11:00 am I was supposed to leave 45 minutes later. After two Jewish synagogues being bombed 2 days before, then two major British institutions just then being bombed I had no desire to go to an International airport and travel. Color me frightned but these were not the "normal" bombs we have in Turkey that I have seen for ob=ver 20 years. They were MASSIVE. I knew this didnt come from inside Turkey and I didn't want to travel. Period.

I stayed in Turkey some days to save on the hotel expense in Munich as they said they would not let me fly standby. Finally I just said enough is enough and went to make my case at the Munich airport. No luck....

Anyway I am home now and much poorer.

Thanks all for your advice.

Sad to read about your experience and the poor service from CO and to some degree KLM, where I had bad experience with rebookings after Sep. 11 as well...

No question, that CO should have waived all fees and put you on the next available flight, based on the massive bombings in Istanbul.
Let someone wait until a T fare is available is simply ridiculous, pretty sure CO will loose more money because of this, I guess you will even fall from CO Silver to CO nada.

Some airlines know how to treat a customer ( without loosing money, Avek !! ), some are clueless.

Anyway to play games with a customer, who was in a city with 4 massive terrorist attacks is just ridiculous with or without a connecting ticket.

I would still try to go (by rental car or train) to either GVA, ZRH or FRA and present the case to a CO airport agent. On the phone, they will not change your ticket to another destination, but at the airport they can do whatever they want and if you present a solid case (which you certainly have) I would say you have better chances to get on a plane.

Ditto. The phone agents are taught to apply the rules mechanically no matter how cruel in the particular circumstances. I think you might have had luck showing up at an airport served by CO and pleading your case to the CO agent since they typically have quite a bit more discretion than the phone agents. I know that I have been able to get what I want at the airport whereas the phone agents will never budge. On the other hand, I understand your reluctence to try this strategy since it is possible that you would have ended up being told the same thing you were told on the phone and you would have been out of even more cash.

[This message has been edited by brooklynflyer (edited Dec 04, 2003).]