http://www.koin.com/c6k/news/stories...15-000538.html

You won't believe this one about Northworst!

Seriously unbelievable. It's going to take a heck of a lot of PR damage control to contain this one if it gets onto the national news.

NW did nothing wrong!
Thats what the rules are they can not give a free seat or ticket to anybody that can not afford it.
If the child is over 2 FAA demands a seat for it so pay or stay! No bending the rules here if anything happens because the child did not have its seat I can see the claims against NW! They would be in trouble! I bet the parents knew about it and took their chance too!


------------------
Viele Gr��e

Oliver

I have to side with NW on this one. The article mentioned that NW claimed to have offered a RT to the parents who never called back. Sometimes, the pax has to show some responsibility.

NW is not that bad... I can think of many incidents which will make NW Northworst

NW did exactly the right thing here. In no way was it their fault that the parents planned poorly.

For safety reasons, even infants under 2 should have their own seat.

While Northwest may have technically done nothing wrong, I think they were being inflexible and petty. They also "technically" did nothing wrong when they trapped all those people in planes a couple of winters ago.

While the parents in this case bear some of the culpability (we don't know whether they were intentionally trying to get away with it), Northwest should have known the child was not going to be under 2 for the return trip either when the reservation was made, or when the family checked in for the outbound trip. Even if they didn't, from a PR and customer relations standpoint, it should never have escalated to the point where a child had to be separated from the parents. The appropriate thing to do would have been a.) tell the family that they could have an extra seat for the child if an empty one is available, or b.) if the plane is full, offer to accomodate the family standby on the next NW flight where 3 seats are available. This would be much better than a greedy: you have to pay full fare for a one-way ticket or sorry, lady, your kid ain't flyin. Even if they did offer a ticket after the fact, it may make them seem less rapacious, but not any less nasty for having been so inflexible in the first place.

[edited for the same typo, twice]

[This message has been edited by robinhood (edited 05-15-2001).]

[This message has been edited by robinhood (edited 05-15-2001).]

I would like to have more info. First of all, though, this was no simple vacation.

The news article said that she was 18 months when they left on their "visit" but was at least 2 when they tried to return home the the US. Therefore, they were there for at least 6 months!!!!

Second, I am with those who say that the parents probably knew that they had to buy her a ticket. What I would like to know is what they were doing there for so long. I suspect that they were visiting family, but for 6 months? And, then not to have enough to buy a tix for the child? I suspect that this was some well known scheme that certain people take advantage of, although I have no proof.

I would like the news to follow up on this one. Until then, I will reserve judgment.

I usually wouldn't hesitate to criticise Northworst, but here I suspect that there is more to the story.

Maybe the reason this escalated is the habit of many airlines to offer to sell replacement tickets (for lost paper tickets, for example) as last-minute, one-way, full-fare tickets. (Even when the ticket being replaced was a deep-discount ticket, which I would bet was what this family was traveling on).

If that is what happened in this case, the parents probably balked - full-fare on this route is certainly a number that would make many people balk.

Depending on the other questions raised above, NW - while technically correct - may have handled this at the airport in a way that caused escalation and this eventual outcome.

One should remember one thing about this. This occurred not here, in the US, but in the Philippines. Although I think NW is guilty of many things here in the US, witness the holding of the passengers on the plane for no good reason, I have got to go with my gut that the NW personnel over there, who no doubt are Filipinos, have seen such "tricks" before, and I have got to give them the benefit of my doubt until I know more.

Something is truly fishy with a family that stays "on vacation" for at least 6 mos, and then supposedly does not have enough to pay for a tix home for the kid.

All I know is that if I could afford to be "on vacation" for at least 6 mos visiting relatives, then I would certainly have enough to pay for the ticket!

On the other hand, if the person was working in the Philippines, then why leave the US at all, as the wage here is much higher than there. Therefore, if someone was really at the poverty level, they would not stay in the Philippines and work there when they could earn far more money here, even as a janitor!

Thus, something is truly "fishy" about this family and their claim of poverty, as well as the change in the rules for the kid!

I think that these guys may be as bad as the Canadian family that was on ABC claiming that their entire vacation was ruined by the "medical evacuation" that CO was doing.

All in all, these types do a disservice to us all, as they only serve to call into question by a sort of guilt by association, for those who truly make valid claims of airline incompetence and fault publicly known.

[This message has been edited by DOC 2 BE (edited 05-15-2001).]

Please stop trying to pass moral judgment on these people just becuase they do not fit your mold. The fact that they were gone for at least 6 months has no bearing on what happend here. Just becuase you don't leave the country for 6 months does not mean others cant.

To come to the defense of the family, all passengers (lap children included) need tickets on international flights. Lap children are charged 10% of the adult fare.

Is it not reasonable to assume that since they held a ticket for their child that nothing further was needed?

JWH and robinhood,

I read the article. Both your posts are way off base. I can see no reason to fault NW based on this article.

-RKG

As I do not have any children yet, I was unaware that a child under 2 needed a ticket. Nevertheless, unless I am shown otherwise, I still think that the family probably knew of the change for the bith date.

With regard to your claim of passing moral judgment, I disagree with you but will not make it an issue. As for taking a vacation for 6 months, god bless you or anyone else who can do that, but then don't cry poverty to me, while the rest of us have got to work for a living and have some responsibility for our families, instead of depending on the kindness of strangers.

Unless I have further info, like perhaps the people in question are disabled, I think that such a claim would appear to be suspicious.

what if the grandparent has been somewhat incapacitated and not been able to care for the child? send her to an orphanage??? you all know you'd pitch a fit if someone told you to leave your child in a foreign country...PERIOD!!!

we on this board all complain about the rules that the airlines set, and especially how inflexible they are. and now in this case, because you couldn't imagine doing something so illprepared, the airline is 100% correct. remember this discussion next time you're looking for an upgrade on the sly, or a waving of a ticket change fee and you get NO as the answer!!!