WillBarrett_68

whoa, who has actually been charged money to change flights because of an allergy?

flyerCO

Agree with poster above me. Can you cite a case were this happened?

CDTraveler

AA gate staff tried it, pushed it hard, but as I was carrying not only documentation of the allergy, printout of emails to/from the airline about the allergy and copies of the ACAA relevant pages, they didn't succeed. Can't tell you how many times they have succeeded in charging pax who weren't prepared, didn't know their rights, but they definitely tried it with us.

ijgordon

He already alluded to it...

CDTraveler

June 18, 2016, Seattle airport, AA gate staff tried to charge me to change flights when I requested that person traveling with a pet dog not be seated near us, claiming it was our "preference" not to be on the same flight with a dog. Happy now?

flyerCO

You told them "preference"? I'd expect a fee to be charged then. If you had said you have an allergy and cant be seated I bet they wouldn't have. Your post above says you told them you had an allergy, but here it's a preference. Let's assume both are correct you first say preference, they say sure for $X you say but it's for an allergy. Now makes it seem like you just dont want to pay.

Regardless, I'm willing to believe it played out how you say. However this doesn't equate to an airline having a policy of charging. At best you have proven a oneoff experience, not that company policy dictates something. In this instant news era, I believe we'd hear about it, if regular occurence as you suggest.

dcadwell

The way I read it is that CDTraveler said that they had an allergy, and that's when the AA gate staff pushed back saying it was merely their "preference" not to sit by a dog. Don't believe CD ever used that phrase, but of course could be wrong.

gooselee

That's how I read it. More bluntly...

CDTraveler: I have an allergy and thus require accommodations in relation to my allergy.
Airline: We think your allergy is actually just a "preference" to give us $$$.

No idea about any broader data (nor am I inclined to go look for it), but in that specific case, the airline was very much in the wrong.

CDTraveler

Please read more carefully. I told them my companion had a severe allergy to dogs, that we had notified the airline in advance and please make sure the pet dog was not seated near us. The AA gate staff decided that it was a "preference" - their word, not mine. We've had minor problems with this issue over the years, so I travel prepared with all the necessary documents, but never, ever have we had to show them all the medications and doctor's letter just so we didn't have to sit near somebody's pet.

As for hearing about it, really? Not everybody lives on social media, and not everybody has done the research to know their rights. It happened to us in 2016, before every single airline problem made headlines. I did file a complaint with both AA & FAA, maybe that had an effect. If the GA had demanded we pay in cash, I could see it as one rouge agent, but when she calls the next level manager and the two of them try to coerce us into switching flights at considerable expense, it's not one crooked agent, it's a policy.

CDTraveler

It was my companion, not me, but otherwise you've got it right.

Old Hickory

Are those real crimes?

flyerCO

I'm not sure on the crew member part, as technically they're only requesting by DL policy. If they order you they're violating DL policy.

As for injury to passenger, yes that could be prosecuted, especially if resulted in severe or deadly reaction. You were warned, thus know that peanuts can harm or kill the passenger. You thus made a informed decision and knowing the consequences acted anyway.

ryandc99

I believe this thread has ran it's course and nothing new will be determined here.

Ryandc99, Moderator Delta Air Lines