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?

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.