Auston

I just wanted to follow-up on my original post for those who offered insights or were following.

I sent a note to Delta explaining the situation.

I received a call last week apologizing for the inconvenience and Delta’s inability to follow through on getting me to my destination.

My airfare was refunded and they are reimbursing me for my travel penalty (hotel room night). I asked about additional compensation (e.g., miles) and the representative indicated that my voucher, refund and reimbursement were fair. I pushed a bit, but was not in the mood to quarrel, so I thanked her for her resolution.

I definitely learned a lesson about volunteering.

Thanks again for all your feedback.

kb9522

And this is precisely the problem with travel today... It's good to hear OP did not push, but this notion that one is entitled to more compensation than what they are actually owed is without a doubt the root cause of an overwhelming majority of complaints and many of the high profile incidents.

Hawes7701

i agree in principle but in this case I think there was an argument for addition compensation given that only half of what was offered was actually delivered (the $1000)

what if it had been the other way around? The OP had got on the flight but they then said that it was actually only $100 compensation?

kb9522

In both cases OP is free to try his luck in court for breach of contract. I would be interested in seeing the outcome (or getting the opinion from someone here who is actually a lawyer).

From my perspective, in both cases:
A) Delta offered compensation ($1000 and a seat on a flight departing in 30min)
B) OP accepted the offer in exchange for his seat on the original flight

In the first case, Delta failed to provide the non-monetary compensation they agreed to... specifically a seat on the flight 30 min later.
In the second case, they would have failed to provide the monetary compensation they agreed to - the $1000.

In both cases, I suspect OP accepting the new compensation (either the refund/voucher/reimbursement or the $100) would mean he no longer has legal standing to sue on the basis of the original contract and that he has agreed to this new compensation. In either case, he probably could have rejected the new offer and requested to be put back on the flight and had a valid argument that a failure to do so would be a breach of contract. But again, I'm not a lawyer, so this is all just pure speculation on my part.

Regardless, OP still would (should?) not be entitled to any compensation beyond what was agreed upon. People insisting on additional compensation beyond what they are actually owed always struck me as a combination of childish and arrogant (or at least ignorant).

btonkid12345

No - the problem with travel today is the airline apologists and airlines, that constantly devalue benefits that customers have earned. Airlines cancel tickets weeks after without impunity. Why don't they pay us a $200 change fee each time, given they insist on it when the tables are turned? Or DL charging 300K+ as the new normal/average on ATL-JNB, which used to be more readily available at 70K.

The OP is a frequent customer. They lost out on a lot of compensation and were inconvenienced for it. The refund of the fare is probably less than the voucher amount the OP would have gotten. But to have to be inconvenienced and spend time chasing DL for it, DL who made $1.8B last quarter could absolutely offer the OP a $200 voucher or some miles (which will be worthless in 6 months thanks to devaluations) to keep him - he is a PAYING F customer, and DL can't get enough of those.

btonkid12345

If I have to request what I am actually owed more than once, or it takes an incredibly large amount of valuable time and contact to resolve, then yes, they owe additional compensation as both an apology/service recovery, and just to make up for the fact that there were errors made lower down the food chain. If I make an error with booking, Delta charges me $200 at least for that error. Aren't I owed something every time one of their agents touches something and makes an error - especially if its multiple agents and its compounded on one reservation?

garykung

Seriously?

The issue here was DL changed the deal.

As you have said - the deal included a rebooking to the next flight departing in 30 minutes. When DL can't rebook as promised, the original should be adjusted accordingly.

kb9522

No, because the terms you agreed to at the time of purchase state you have to pay $200 for your error and nothing about DL having to do the same.

You can't just make things up to justify your sense of entitlement.

kb9522

Mad cause you don't like the terms you agreed to... Got it.

Sure, they could. But they don't have to. And for the customer to insist on it shows an excessive sense of entitlement... And an excessive sense of entitlement is precisely what leads to things like the Dao incident.

By the way, I interpreted OPs post to mean that he received a refund of the fare AND the voucher AND reimbursement for the hotel... Are you saying he didn't?

SamOF

You're missing an important point about contract law, which is that it governs every material part of the transaction, not just the Delta Dollars. In this case, you're right about what OP offered (his seat on Flight A), but too narrow in what you consider Delta to have offered: the agent convinced the OP to give his seat in exchange for $1000 and a seat on Flight B. If flight B wasn't available, the OP wouldn't have agreed to the transaction. Apparently OP did try to back out when he heard about the changed term, but the agent said no.

A court claim is more complicated because of DOT's jurisdiction over some of these issues, but as a pure matter of the contract, Delta messed up here. I don't know what exactly the OP is entitled to for that, but I would say s/he's entitled to something.

kb9522

Yes? Isn't that what people do when they have legal dispute? Would you rather OP and Bastion had a duel at high noon, fifteen paces?

Agreed. And had OP not agreed to the changed deal, he might have had recourse for additional compensation if it were important to him. By his own admission it was not, so presumably he was happy with the new deal.

The original what? Offer? That's what they did ($1000 voucher, no flight)... OP accepted. He also received a refund and DL covered the cancellation penalty for the hotel after the fact. While the former may have been a legal obligation (or perhaps to deter litigation), the latter certainly was not.

kb9522

Agree completely. Maybe my post was poorly worded, I did mean to include the next flight as part of the transaction. This is why I think OP might have had legal recourse had he not accepted any subsequent offers.

I'm not saying he shouldn't be entitled to anything. I'm saying he shouldn't feel entitled to more than what both parties eventually agreed to... And he certainly doesn't come across that way based on his post save for the fact he inquired about additional compensation beyond what was finally agreed upon and what was provided as a gesture of good will.

In fact, his post was only tangentially related to my point at the outset of this particular discussion.

SamOF

I may be misreading the post, but what subsequent offer did the OP accept? I read it as OP accepts original offer, then DL gives him a different flight than he agreed to without any additional agreed-upon compensation.

kb9522

The de facto offer of $1000 and some other flight. He took the $1000, so technically he accepted *a* offer, no? He could just as well have refused and then sued DL for breach of contract?

spamkiller

First, I am not a lawyer. However, Delta offered $1000 plus a flight in 30 minutes in exchange for the OP giving up his flight. There was an offer, acceptance, and consideration for both parties. To me that appears to be a valid contract. Now, Delta only provided half of the consideration to the OP. The OP provided full consideration to Delta. To me, this sounds like a simple breach of contract. Not an entitled person asking for compensation for nothing, but compensation for Delta's breach of contract.