RobertS975

I see that you live in SLC so we are probably talking about nonstop flights here. Some issues to consider: Flights are usually booked quite solid ahead of Thanksgiving as well as late Saturday and all day Sunday following the holiday. I sure would not give up your presumed nonstops for some connecting service. (You did not mention which route you are concerned with.) Also, I presume that you have done seat selection and the kids are all together. Your alternative flights would negate that... chances are, the kids would be scattered here and there with actual seat selection needing to be done at the boarding gate for the new flight. Your kids, in other words, would get what's left for seats on the new flight and probably not together, although the FAs may possibly rearrange things once on board.

Just some things to consider.

bnrdad

Typically, if there are non-UM's volunteering as well, airlines will select those for DBC - it lessen's their risk and potential for hassles should problems arise later. And it is up to the airline to select whomever they want - not just who gets to the counter first. Very unlikely they'd pick a UM given an alternative choice.

Generally speaking, UM's and bumps aren't a good idea. Especially around the holidays.

RamAir

Where is your final destination? I don't think DL really wants to accept a bump from a UM but, they would rather accept a voluntary bump than issue an Invol bump! If the flight is grossly oversold, there will be a supervisor at the gate . . . they will take your kids then. If the next avail flight is a connection utilizing the last connecting flight of the day, they may not let the kids fly the new routing.
SR

amanuensis

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_6374346

After reading the article, I do not think it was Delta's fault -- or at least they have only a small amount of blame. I put most blame on the travel agent. But a lot of other people here in SLC blame Delta.

icydog

I think there is more than enough blame to go around.First the travel agent was very cavelier with someone else's kids. She should have told the father all the details of the minors regs rather than just telling him the $75 wasn't necessary since his son was 15.

I also cannot help but think DL screwed up big time as well. NO matter what the manifest said the age of the boy was, they should have used their eyes and realized he was not old enough to be put in charge of his sister for an overnight stay. Also, to call the hotels with instructions to keep the kids in a room for 24 hours was irresponsible at best. They knew by this time that they had made a mistake--- why didn't they dispatch someone to collect the kids and put them in the DL Lounge until their flight time or other supervised care. Also, why didn't anyone question the decision to allow a 15 year old to determine overnight plans when he was traveling with a small child. The DL employees as parents, and
in-charge adults, should have used their common sense in this matter. I am always amazed at how little common sense folks have in these kind of situations. Sure they went by the book but did their minds deceive them into thinking these two sibs were adults. I put most of the blame on Delta on this one for being blind to the plight of two kids traveling alone.

RobertS975

I do not agree... once DL became aware of the situation, they handled it appropriately, although not optimally. Essentially, the parents and the TA tried to put one over on DL to save a fee, and they succeeded. The parents and the TA should have realized the risks of a connection to FAI when there is no next flight if the connection is missed.

It is really difficult for me to fault DL here... perhaps the agents doing the rebooks and the hotel vouchers in SLC could have been more curious about their ages... but then again, they were flying without UM status and protection on the poor judgement of their parents and the TA.

icydog

I agree with you on all counts except the one hi-lighted. Common sense should have sent a gigantic Red Flag to these people. They would have stopped a suspect passenger from flying by using their eyes and common sense, why wouldn't the same thought process go into making a decision, no matter what the tickets said, to keep these children with a supervisor until a parent could be notified. DL is at fault because of this. They didn't apply everyday common sense to the situation in front of them, namely two kids traveling alone.

RSSrsvp

We should not let the Radisson manager off the hook either. From the sound of it, the Radisson staff did absolutely nothing to protect the kids after DL notified them that they had mistakenly sent over a couple of "sibling minors,".

BearX220

My view: The fault lies with the DL agent who looked these two children in the eye, handed over a hotel voucher, and went back to work without a second thought. That was the key human contact point. If he/she didn't ask herself what was going on here, it's inexcusable.

My wife's view: The fault lies with the dad who dodged the $75 UM fee and paid for his parsimony with this incident. And she has a point: you don't send UMs on three-plane trifectas with 30-minute connection windows, you don't count on UMs making the last flight of the day to a destination (I believe NW forbids booking UM itins this way), and -- generally speaking -- you don't count on airline employees for any kind of help; as a rule you protect yourself from airline employees.

There are plenty of known cases where people who paid UM surcharges ended up with stories like this one, or worse, though -- they got nothing for their money.

iCorpRoadie

Didn't the hotel requier a CC for incidentals???

amanuensis

The article mentions that the 15 year old had a credit card, which the hotel desk clerk put into the record. This indicates to me that the father loaned the kid one of his cards for "in case of emergency" use, which perhaps further indicates that he had foreseen the possibility of a misconnect.

SwissCircle

Incredible story. Just shows what still can happen despite all the rules and regulations to protect minors.
Did he got liquored at the hotel as well (mini bar)???

Maybe this trip has shown his son what cc can do for him.

Flying_Duck

The culprits here IMHO are the parents and basically only the parents.

Once the parents by cellphone were informed by the 15 year old what was going on, he should have been told to march up to a Delta agent and to tell that agent that they were minors and handed him/her the cell phone to talk with the parent. That is what I would have done if it was my kids, who by the way I would never have send off like this!!.

One time a 12 y.o. niece came from Denmark to visit us as an unaccompanied minor, came in late and missed her connection to SLC from JFK. I found a possible route through DEN-SLC without an overnight and arranged to have her on that, but the flight to DEN left too late to connect to the last SLC flight. Delta said they would have her go home with one of the flight attendants in DEN and I said that was unacceptable. Through some "pointed" discussion with Delta, I arranged for my wife within the hour to take the last flight SLC- DEN to meet her and take her to a local hotel and then take a first flight the next morning. With some grumbling, DL accepted to pay for her ticket and it all worked out. I by and large have found, that if you put in an effort there is always a solution to an unexpected problem within the "normal" realm.

When I send my own kids off as unaccompanied minors when they were small, on connecting flights, I always made sure it was through connections in cities where we had acquaintances /friends who we could call on if an overnight situations arose (never did).

Delta (and other airlines) are not in the business to babysit kids - they offer a basic service for a fee - but in the end it is up to us parents to make sure our kids are safe and to make sure there are contingencies when we send them out in the world commensurate witht our level of comfort. IMHO that cannot be Delta's or anyone else’s responsibility.

DiverDave

Jeez, what some folks will do to save $75.

Plus they put two kids on a 28 minute connection in SLC to make the only flight of the day SLC-FAI. Yes, 28 minutes is legal in SLC, but the downside of missing that was spending the night in SLC.

Flying_Duck has it 100% right. I can only hope the kids are brighter than the parents (shouldn't be too difficult given the track record so far).

David

oldtirednbusy

First the Father and TA
The father and the travel agent lied about the 12 yr old's age to save $150. Even if my son had been 15 and traveling w/out the 10 yr old sis, I still would have paid fees him to be accompanied on such a long trip (especially traveling on the last flight out of SLC) much less with a 10 yr old. Also I would NEVER have put them on the last plane out. If they had been truthful about the ages it is possible the SLC flight would have been held. It was the last flt out and was ending in FAI. However that in itself would have caused a ruckus with other fliers. Since they were not listed on the manifest as unaccompanied minors no one on the ground could have possibly been aware two children were alone on that flight. The boy's picture looks like he is older than 12, I would guess him at 16.
There were other options for flights. They could have left Dothan at 6 am and gone through Seattle and been in FAI in the late afternoon (tickets app $200 more each). The flight they booked only had a 28 min connection. I wouldn't have booked that for myself, much less my children. The other choice would have left a 48 min connect in ATL, (possible with escort) and a 2 1/2 hr. connect in SLC.
The bottom line is the father and the travel agent lied to save $150. My choice would have been not only to pay the fee, but put them on the earlier flt. Yes it would have cost a total of around $500 more, but my children would have been in a better situation.
Also the boy told his mother in ATL they were VERY late. Why didn't she get on the phone and stay on it until she got someone to listen?

Now for the others

The FA the boy told he was worried should probably have taken a look at the kids and questioned their ages. Even if the boy had told her he was 15, she should have told the pilot who would have sent word to the ground of the problem. The GA should also have questioned the ages and should not have given hotel vouchers to children. I am SURE the minimum age to check in alone is AT LEAST 18 (prob 21) and the boy certainly does not look that. They should have been held and the parents contacted to make arrangements.
Another point is with a weather delay, hotel vouchers were really not owed.
The hotel also should not have allowed the check in.

To me this is a case of parental neglect to save money, unethical conduct on behalf of the TA and then inattention on the part of Delta and the hotel.