Bait and Switch
 

Can airlines bait and switch when it comes to a bump? We volunteered for a bump at AMS. At first when offered to volunteer, she said sorry, "we don't accept volunteers if they have checked bags." We told her we had no checked bags. SO she took our names. We were told to go ahead through the security and have our BPs scanned and that we would be called if needed. Just as the boarding started, we were called out and told they needed 3 seats. There were 4 of us. We agreed to take three bumps. I checked with the GA if my understanding about the compensation was correct. She confirmed the normal process is 600 Euros, plus hotel (if necessary), transportation to and fro the hotel and meal vouchers as needed. I asked about a WBC and she said "That's not possible, as your ticket is economy ticket". I said, "Yes, but sometimes the airlines give a little extra to the volunteer as a gesture of appreciation, but I understand that airline is not required to do it." I asked about alternative flights. She said she was busy, which I understood. Long after pre-boading and when the boarding was almost over, I asked again about the flights available after the bump so that we could decide who was going to go on. She asked us to wait and then sprung a surprise, that since she found a flight that gets us to our destination only 45 minutes or so after the original scheduled time, compensation would be half the normal amount. We gave up our First class seats on MSP-DCA, the connection she gave us was AMS-YYZ (KLM) and YYZ-DCA on united, which I did not like. BAsically she said this is it, take it or leave it. By now the boarding was almost done. I knew we would not find any overhead space as the flight was 100% full. We talked to the supervisor, but the gate agent denied that she ever promised 600 Euros. She polayed the Semantics game. When I pointed out that she had first said 600 euros, she continued to claim in a loud voice that she nevere promised anything. The supervisor said he is not going to override the GA but said we could complain to KLM and gave us appropriate forms and his business card.
HAs any one else ben screwed by KLM in this manner? The gate agent claimed that we could have declined to give up the seats. Ture, but the moment when we could make that decision without giving up what we were reasonably assured of getting, overhead space for our 4 carry- ons was before the boarding.

I dont see any "Bait And Switch" evidence anywhere. You are the one who rolled the dice and not KLM. International flights out of the EU follow the (far better than the stingy-n-fuzzy US international rules) EU flight compensation rules and KLM really loves to follow rules.

MisterNice

Thanks for the reply. For some reason I knew you were going to say that. Is your mouth still sore? :D

I calls them the way I sees them. You are the one who rolled the dice. Get over it. Be certain to include any compensation on the appropriate tax forms.

MisterNice

Sounds like you wanted the best of all worlds. Now I was not there to hear the GA say that the VDB would be 600 Euros. But as the supervisor stated I would write a letter to KLM and state your case.

In addition before I ever give up my seats I make sure i know what alternate flights are being offered and in what class. Negotiating after they have your seat does not leave you much room to barter.

Hahahahahahahaha! Remind me not to hire you as my CPA.

is it income or is it a reduction in the price of the ticket?

This was a NW flight, not a KLM flight. In my opinion, there are two sets of ruels, the rules of the airline and EU rules. Sometimes it's stated clearely tjat the most restrictive rules apply. Otherwise one set of rules cannot be or is not used to reduce benefits of another set of rules. IN other words, one set of rules can be used to enhance the benefit. A case in point would be EU baggage rules for travel between EU and the world, which allow 20 Kg in economy and baggage rules when travel involves to or from North America which permits two checked pieces, each one not exceeding specified total linear dimensions (L+W+H) or specified weight, say 50 pounds. So, using more restrictive rule is not a universal practice. Moreover the wording said, the compensation may be reduced, not it must be reduced. In my experience NW has been very liberal in interpreting rules, accomodating a bumped passenger in WBC or F, especially if the passenger is an elite. There is also an issue of comparable alternative flights.

We had already been pulled out of the secure area when the GA said they offer 600 Euros. She did not look for alternative flights when we first asked her to. Instead she waited until most of the boarding was complete and was reluctant to give us details of the alternative flights.
IMHO, tHis is not a simple black and white issue as some posters have suggested.

Is it NW's policy to reduce compensation if compensation when the alternative flights gets the passenger to the destination within a certain time block of the originally scheduled flight? I do know of cases where trhe pax actually arrived before the flight from which they took a bump and yet received full compensation.

I don't think it's a black and white call, nor would I necessarily agree that the rules (NW or EU) would apply here. It seems to me that the key question is exactly what the GA said.

If she promised that you would get a certain level of compensation, you should get it even if it's more than the rules typically allow. As a passenger, you should be entitled to rely on a promise made by an airline representative, and it shouldn't be your problem if she promises more than she's supposed to.

On the other hand, if she said something like "this is what passengers usually get" for being bumped, or something like that, I might better understand why the compensation would change if she unexpectedly found an earlier flight for you.

The OP seems to indicate that the conversation might have been closer to the latter, but only the OP and GA would know for sure. I guess the lesson (for me at least) is that I will specifically ask how much compensation "I will get" if I accept a bump, and not be satisfied if the GA says something like "x is what we "usually" give."

The GA did not use the phrase "I promise" nor did she raise her hand and swore the statement regarding the compensation. But she stated simply, the compensation is 600 Euros. I had seen this amount mentioned on FT for a bump compensation, When she confirmed it by saying "600 Euros", there was reason for me to not believe that.
At the first mention of compensation amount, 600 Euros was mentioned without any ifs ands or buts. It was only after we were pulled out of the secure area after near completion of boarding, she found the flights whose details she was reluctant to share with us, did she mention any rules. That's why I say she mentioned any reduction at the very end. Even when we discussed rebooking in WBC, she clarified that WBC is not likely to happen unless there was no space in coach on alternative flights. Any ifs ands and buts were not appplied to the compensation amount until the end. The rules make no mention of rebooking in WBC. But people do get booked in WBC. The GA clearly failed to mention the possibility of reduction until the very end.

All 4 of us are plats and boarding at the very end on a flight when we had already been pulled out of the secure area does put us at a significant disadvantage.

Wait, so did you get 300 euros or 600 euros per bump? I am having trouble following what the ultimate "package" you received was...

Ofcourse I wanted best of both worlds. Doesn't everyone? That is the motivation for most, if not all FTers when they volunteer. It's unfortunate some posters, who shall remain nameless can't seem to discuss the issue on its merits. Also it can be claimed, though a little more weakly than the issue of compensation that the spirit of comparable alternative transport was not maintained as the second leg was a United flight that required us to check-in again at the check-in counters. Details were revealed to us only after the orignal flight had left despite my requests earlier. The GA kept telling us she was busy. When we got to the office where they hand out the compensation and your ticket for the alternative flight is when we found out details of the alternative flights. The person who was assigned (different from the GA) to do the paperwork was apologetic at the GA's behaviour. She also told us because of the time, she could not check us in for the YYZ-DCA United flight. I told her if we were checked in, we could clear the US immigration and customs without having to exit the airside. She said we could talk to the GA for our AMS-YYZ flight. The GA for this flight insisted that all we had to do was go to the transfer desk without exiting to the landside. Pax getting off the flight in YYZ were greeted by ICE officials who were checking passports. They, and every one else whom we asked directed us to the exit. When we appeared before the US immigration officer to clear the immigration, he was puzzled why we were in the line for people who had "been into Canada" when we were only transiting. He guessed, as I had that because we were not checked in, we had to exit. I am still not sure whether this interpretation of mine is correct or we were just unfortunate that we were misdirected by more than one person. That's why have not blamed KLM yet for this. We were in FC with EUA for the MSP-DCA flight. It is also not clear if we deserved on the YYZ-DCA leg. I do know that NW normally tries to rebook you in FC if you were in FC, if space is available and is often generous enough to to book you in WBC. Once two of us, out of four of us travelling together (one Plat and three Golds), took a bump on SEA-AMS flight. Not only were the bumped passengers were rebooked in a combination of F and WBC but my wife and younger son, who did not get a bump were also rebooked in WBC. When I had asked aboiut WBC, the GA had said, I will do my best, but I cannot promise. I and my other son, who took a bump arrived in AMS only aboout and hour so later than my wife and the other son. Compensation amount was not reduced.

So NW seems to do more than the minimum and KLM was hungup on doing as little as they could get away with. while being less than candid in timely manner. As I have already indicated the rules stated that the Compensation may be reduced, (Not it will be or must be reduced) if the alternative flights arrive at the destination less than four hours after the originally scheduled time.

I am sorry I thought I had indicated that they reduced the compensation by 300 Eros per person. The The normal amount is 600 Euros cash or 800 Euros TCV. If you point me to the part of my post that is causing the confusion, I will reword that part so that the confusion can be avoided.

I don't believe there are any "Northwest rules" as you stated.

There are government mandated rules for some of these situations. In the US they cover Involuntary Denied Boarding only. Anything else, such as VDB, is between you and the GA, and as pointed out should be clearly agreed upon before you decide to give up your seat. In the EU, the rules are much more wide-ranging and the mandated compensation levels are much higher than in the US, but I am not sure that I can recite all of the details. I'm sure someone here can offer us a link to the exact wording of the EU Rules.

In the meantime, based only on the info you have provided, I am inclined to agree with some of the others here: when you volunteer to be bumped, you are really rolling the dice and there is no guarantee of what the final outcome might be. When you give up what you have, you must expect the worst in return (middle seats scattered throughout the plane, no leg room because you had to store your carryon under the seat in front of you, etc.) and if what you end up with happens to be marginally better than that, you did alright AND you have some $$$ or Euros to show for your pain.

I do not disagree with the general trend of your post. But when the GA says "the compensation is 600 Euros" first and changes the story after at a later time, it is not proper. According to the EU rules, of which I have a copy (probably and abridged version) a comparable alternative is clearly a requirement of the rules. This is a case of misinformation, stating an that indicated an amount mandated by the the rules and then switching to an amount, which is not mandated, but allowed at a later stage.

I have run into problems on bumps in the US before for a domestic flight, where a particular flight was promised and then once the aircraft was loaded, no seats on the flight I had been promised.

Personally, I would do a TTU to NWA about the problem, since you're a Plat. I've done this when I had problems with a KLM flight ex YVR, and NW compensated me. So it should certainly work for a NW flight ex-AMS. :)

While the agent may be correct within the rules for compensation, the offer was given, and you accepted it. While I wouldn't count on the cash, perhaps some miles or a voucher might be coming your way.

Until I read the actual rules myself, I am not in a position to say what is mandated and what is allowed, so for now I will leave that part alone.

It does remain a fact that an alternative arrangement was found for you, and it really was not so bad. You did not have to spend the night in AMS, but instead arrived only 45 minutes later than planned. Giving up your EUA on the MSP-DCA flight should have entered into your mental calculations of how this would all play out. As you are probably aware, getting a last minute upgrade on the day of the flight does not happen very often on that route, so once you give it up you would have a very slim chance of getting it back, should they happen to route you via MSP and connect to another MSP-DCA flight later in the day or the next day.

I have to say a little in defense of the GA. What you were quoted at first is the "worst case scenario" about paying for hotel rooms and meals and 600 Euros. It does not address all of the ifs, ands, and buts. But the GA's main responsibility is to get that flight out, with as many as possible of the people who have confirmed reservations sitting in seats when the door is closed, and not to quote you all of the rules. The responsibility for getting that flight out is shared with the folks in operations, who make decisions about how long to hold a flight when there are late connecting passengers. The whole process is a very fluid one, changing from minute to minute, until the door of the plane is finally closed and it departs. The GA probably assumed, and it was most logical to assume, that there was no possible way that you were going to be reaccomodated on the same day to get to DCA. But only when he/she had some time to actually start working on that problem did it become apparent that there was an option via YYZ that would work. It may not have been available 5 minutes before that, but there may have been some last minute cancellations. Who knows? Hard to say exactly what happened there, but it all did work out so you did not have to spend 24 hours stuck in AMS.

As for the issue of United BP's for the YYZ-DCA portion, someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that KLM can issue United BP's for connecting passengers. Other SkyTeam airlines, yes. For any others, you have to check in again with the second airline, don't you???

First, when you volunteer you have no right to request (or expect) accommodation on the same carrier or a specific carrier. Although most airlines will try to rebook you on their own metal, you will usually receive the earliest and most direct option to reduce hotel and meal expenses. Even if you were rebooked on another carrier, I imagine NW would consider your request for original mileage credit.

Secondly, NW/KL and AC/UA have an interline agreement and you would not have to check-in with AC (I'm assuming this was a UA codeshare, since UA doesn't fly YYZ-DCA) unless you had checked luggage (irrelevant, since you had none). If the agent said you'd have to check in with UA, they were ignorant and/or lying.

Jamito - I'm guessing you do what most of us seasoned travelers in a bump situation do - you request that the agent protect you on the later flight (or whatever flight is being offered at the time). 9 times out of 10 this works for me. In some cases, the agent will even print me a boarding pass for the later flight - only to not be used because I get seated on my original flight.

As for Yaatri's situation in AMS...I don't think NWA is going to give him/his family anything for this. Maybe it should just be chaulked up to a learning experience.

Question though...did Yaatri have the option to decline the bump after the 600 euro offer was rescinded? If so, were the four original seats for the flight already given up or were they still your's for the taking?

-RM

It sounds like they were still available, and that his seats were not given away until after the final options were presented.

actually, it was a damn good roll! :D

unless I'm missing something you got :

300 euros x 4 people
confirmed space and arrival 45 minutes later than your original itinerary

Sounds pretty good to me :D

As we all know, we lose preboarding (and usually EUA upgrades for domestic portions of re-booked flights) when we decide to wait it out for a bump.

If you didn't know this, chalk it up to a good education where you got paid. :D

IMO, volunteering means supreme flexibility --- once you enter into it, all hopes of upgrades, pre-boarding and other "niceties" are traded for compensation. If you are uncomfortable with the unknown (be it routing, new time of arrival, which airlines metal you'll be on) --- it is best to stick with your original itinerary, and just pre-board with the other Platinums.

Check out article 8 of EU 261/04 that govern passenger rights:

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air_po...s/index_en.htm

In the case of VDB, compensation is to be negotiated between the pax (who volontarily gives up his/her seat) and the airline:

If you get IDBed following rules apply (EU 261/04 article 7,8 & 9):

Usually airlines give/negotiate the same benefits to the VDB pax as the IDB pax get. So in my view of the rule you were supposed to get:

- 50% of 600EUR (delay <4h over a trip longer than 3500KM) = 300 EUR cash (our higher value in voucher at the discretion of the airline)
- re-routing to the final destination under comparable conditions of travel at the earliest convenience

If you didn't get the above and a protest with KL/NW has no satisfactory outcome, then you have a valid case to file a protest with enforcement agency of EU261/04 in NL the IVW.

http://ivw.nl/onderwerpen/luchtvaart...stapwijgering/

The form (Formulier Melding klachten luchtvaartpassagier) can be emailed to loket(at)ivw.nl They will however only act if you have already discussed this with KL/NW.

That has been my experience in domestic bumps - never had the compensation renegotiated after the offer.

Just because an interline agreement exists, that has nothing to do with whether a carrier has the ability to thru check you in on another carrier. I would guess that NW/KL do not have the ability to check you in on UA/AC. They can transfer your bags, and sell legs on each other as part of a ticket, that it what an interline agreement means.

If its an e-ticket, the agent should also have the ability to issue a boarding pass.

It was a paper ticket. And it was Air Canada code-share.

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.

Are you sure you weren't printed a paper receipt or voucher, but the reservation was actually electronic.

I am sure it was a paper ticket.
1. The person who handed me the documents told me it was a paper ticket.
2. I know what a paper ticket looks like.
3. It was on the KLM stock. The kind with red type. :)
I was surprised too and thought exactly what you did, "Why the hell are they giving me a paper ticket in this age?" But I was more interested in having the compensation restored to the full amount than arguing about a paper ticket vs e-ticket.

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?

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?

NO Overhead Storage On Your Original Flight
 

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

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.

It was not deliberate misinformation. You entered into a situation without knowing the clearly stated rules. If your reroute gets you home within 4 hours of your original flight you are only entitled to half the amount. The GA was busy, she answered your question in regards to what usually happens and then she was able to work your specific situation, she found you a pretty sweet arrangement.

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.

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.)

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.

An ETKT just eliminates the paper voucher issued to account for the charges for each flight. Checkin systems are by no means syncronised the moment an ETKT is issued. Even the airline alliances are struggling to harmonise this procedure :)

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.

^ yep, gaming the system is fun. :D

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....

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.

I think sometimes it's just easier. For instance, a few weeks ago I got caught in LAX because of a late Delta flight, and I would have missed my SFO-DTW flight on NW. I went over to NW and they were able to put me on LAX-DTW, but for some reason they had to change it from an electronic to a paper ticket. I didn't argue.