|
NO Overhead Storage On Your Original Flight
Originally Posted by Yaatri
(Post 8789344)
By now the boarding was almost done. I knew we would not find any overhead space as the flight was 100% full.
-Alan |
Originally Posted by Poopdeck90210
(Post 8794909)
It seems to me you were fixated on getting the 600 Euros for each of the three seats you gave up and that was that. Are we wrong? :rolleyes:
-Alan |
Originally Posted by Yaatri
(Post 8794655)
One correction we were compensated for three people only as they needed only three volunteers. I would gladly except all the inconvenience if the GA had not switched the amount. The first mention of compensation was 600 Euros without any mention that it could be lower under some circumstances. It was definitely a case of deliberate misinformation. How many times must I state that?
The airlines are required to give you the DB rules if you ask. If you were so concerned about getting what was due, you should have asked for a copy of the rules before you volunteered your seat. Where is your responsibility? |
I went back to the origional post and re-read it. Based on the OP's words it sounded like they still had a choice: Take your origional flight or take 3 VDB's that would get you into DCA 45 minutes later & 300 Euro's. The OP elected the bump and 300 Euro's so there should nothing else given. This was clearly his choice to accept or not.
What if they had not needed the seats? Would the overhead bins been less full towards the end of the boarding process? When ever you volunteer YOU need to understand all of the remifications of that decision including the fact you usually remain in the gate area until the end of the boarding process. |
Originally Posted by sxf24
(Post 8792632)
If its an e-ticket, the agent should also have the ability to issue a boarding pass.
Interline Etkts exist between many carriers, yet very few carriers have the ability to issue boarding passes on other carriers (many alliances can on other same-alliance carriers, or for instance, UA used to <and may still> be able to issue BA passes as part of a UA connection as they both developed the same software for checkin together decades ago.) |
Originally Posted by SchmutzigMSP
(Post 8794458)
Why on Earth did they give you a paper ticket? 96% of all tickets are e-tickets, and that last 4% that aren't usually belong to Third World or dilapidated airlines, neither of which NW/KL or AC/UA are.
Originally Posted by sxf24
(Post 8792632)
If its an e-ticket, the agent should also have the ability to issue a boarding pass.
|
Originally Posted by fastair
(Post 8795262)
100% untrue.
Interline Etkts exist between many carriers, yet very few carriers have the ability to issue boarding passes on other carriers (many alliances can on other same-alliance carriers, or for instance, UA used to <and may still> be able to issue BA passes as part of a UA connection as they both developed the same software for checkin together decades ago.) |
Originally Posted by Klm is Dead - Long Live KLM
(Post 8794945)
Bingo. If it is so obvious to us, imagine how much more obvious it was to the KL personnel who were focusing as they should on servicing the flight for on-time departure and accommodating passengers optimally, including volunteers, rather than making it a priority to collaborate with someone simply blatantly maximizing his gaming of the system while dragging his poor "I'd rather stay in school, than suffer the stress of mileage runs" kids around the world in the process.
Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose In this scenario, I still consider it a win. Not a killing, but definitely a win considering the minimal inconvenience for a total compensation of 900 euro. Also, we have no way of knowing [all sides] about the misunderstanding or promise of 600 euro. Quite frankly, my time would be worth more than having to potentially spend an extra day in AMS. While I don't think the GA handled this situation perfectly, I also don't think the GA intended to misinform you -- it was a misunderstanding; part his/her fault and part yours.... |
Originally Posted by oliver2002
(Post 8795291)
Which source of information gave you that idea? There are far more paper tix out there and IATA's universal etix in 2008 is a complete failure.
In 2005, only 10 percent of Chinese travelers used e-tickets, right; but in 2006, e-ticket usage jumped to 90 percent. China is now at 97.6 percent and is being closely trailed by Peru (97.4 percent), Ecuador (97.3 percent), Belize (97.1 percent) and the United States (97 percent). Nepal and Papua New Guinea are already at 100 percent. So, it's not exactly 96% of the world that uses e-tickets. But the countries/airlines involved all use e-tickets, so there's no reason OP should have been issued paper tickets, which was the original point I was trying to make. |
Originally Posted by SchmutzigMSP
(Post 8795885)
New York Times? I just checked my source again and I was slightly mistaken. Here is the actual quote/article I was thinking about:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/tr...gewanted=print So, it's not exactly 96% of the world that uses e-tickets. But the countries/airlines involved all use e-tickets, so there's no reason OP should have been issued paper tickets, which was the original point I was trying to make. |
Originally Posted by sxf24
(Post 8795515)
I know, but I am 100% confident tha NW, AC and UA have an interline e-ticket agreement and that fairly sure that NW agents continue to have the ability to offer UA boarding passes as part of a NW originating itinerary. Of course, it is irrelevant in this situation as KL appears to have stepped back in time and issued a paper ticket.
|
Originally Posted by sxf24
(Post 8795515)
I know, but I am 100% confident tha NW, AC and UA have an interline e-ticket agreement and that fairly sure that NW agents continue to have the ability to offer UA boarding passes as part of a NW originating itinerary. Of course, it is irrelevant in this situation as KL appears to have stepped back in time and issued a paper ticket.
|
Originally Posted by mrcimino1
(Post 8794868)
As I pointed out earlier, the GA told you the compensation in the worst case scenario....that is if you had to spend the night in AMS and not get home until the next day. In that case, you would have received the 600 Euros, hotel and meal vouchers, etc.
However, you were VERY LUCKY!!!! You did not have to spend the night and they were able to get you home the same day. In fact, only 45 minutes later than you had planned, so all 4 of you could actually ride home together from DCA. What a heck of a deal....you got 900 Euros, and missed out on a few extra miles since you did not have to travel via MSP. You got exactly the same meal, but maybe you did not get to sit together on the plane to enjoy it. You got a KLM movie instead of the NW AVOD. BUT....you have 900 Euros in your pocket. That probably was enough to cover the cost of two of the four tickets that you purchased for this trip, if not three of them. Thanks go to the LH Mod who posted the EU Rules above, which are quite clear. You got exactly what you were due, no more and no less. What is the problem here? ..... but that is not what the OP said was offered. If it was 300 Euro they may not have taken the offer. The issue is what was offered and then changed when it was too late for the OP to change thier mind. |
Originally Posted by Poopdeck90210
(Post 8794909)
Did you even try to have the GA contact one of the FA's on your original flight to verify your broad assumption that there would be no overhead space for your carry on luggage in FC? I'll bet not. It seems to me you were fixated on getting the 600 Euros for each of the three seats you gave up and that was that. Are we wrong? :rolleyes:
-Alan |
Originally Posted by mdb
(Post 8798314)
Question is.... what is wrong with that? They said 600, OP said OK - then they went back on the deal when it was too late - sounds like a negotiation to me and the 600 was why the OP volunteered - to me it seems like he got the run around.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 9:51 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.