Delta Doesn't Care About Small Businessmen

[eolesen]

it's obvious that you honestly don't understand how the industry works... obviously your career never touched on the regulatory or pricing aspects of the industry -or if they did, please don't tell us or we'd know why you don't work there anymore.

I know pretty well how the industry works after 25+ years of doing it. You might have regulatory & pricing experience, but that's not the issue here.

The issue is doing right by the customer. Not following the letter of the T&C's or tariffs.

While you're busy posting missives on the internet bout how great Delta is, I'm working with four airlines on three different continents right now.

And I'm sure each of those other airlines would have dealt with this much differently.

I'm fairly certain that WN would have handled it in line with the customer's expectation, and FWAAA already mentioned the "trip in vain" process.

Your 20+ years working for the widget regularly clouds your objectivity, but trying to defend this?

Boggling.

I haven't heard anyone - including you - think through the implications of what an air transportation system would look like if passengers can ask to turn around at any point prior to their destination and demand a full refund.

I don't know how you can type that with a straight face when the discussion is about a mechanical diversion, something entirely within the airline's responsibility and control, to an airport 400 miles in the wrong direction of travel:

 

[WorldTraveler]

E,
is your expertise and consulting in customer service or fares or tariffs? NO!


Your experience and your present position in the industry has nothing to do with what you propose.

The issue I have repeatedly addressed is not whether DL did the right thing by the customer from a customer service standpoint but whether they legally had the right to do so. .

You have no idea what any other airline would do, honestly. You are simply conjecturing. And even if another customer had a SIMILAR enough experience, there are enough extenuating circumstances that occurred - as cited before - that DL felt they could make a decision.

Once again, you continue to try to make this into an anti-DL thing when it is perfectly obvious the industry has the very same rules and practices. Unless you can show me that other carriers - many of which have much higher diversion rates than DL - give away free tickets after their first failed attempt at landing, then you are being noisy and unobjective.

May I suggest you be emotionally intelligent enough to realize that you are wrong in what you posted and move on. You don't win all of them. I've given you the room to admit you are wrong and you refuse to take it.
Demonstrate a little maturity and recognize if it comes down to customer service decisions, every airline will act differently. When Delta decides their actions are too costly, they'll change. Last I checked, DL was leading the network carriers in the US in profitability. They don't have to give their product away and they can follow the rules at times, esp. if the implications can be far reaching... which once again you seem incapable of being able to comprehend that.

You act like they made the decision without thinking about it.
Newsflash - there are tens of thousands of passengers each year who are involved in diversions... on every airline. They have thought this through before.


My view of you has dropped a whole bunch of notches, mister. You are no different than a number of other brainless wonders that speak about things they have no knowledge.

Go ahead, though. You're adding to the track record you bulid for your clients to look at when they google you're name.

 

[eolesen]

I was starting to wonder why you've spent so much time on the AA Forum lately, WT.

It appears you pretty much shut every thread down here, and had nobody left to argue with...

 

[WorldTraveler]

I'd love to have people to discuss business issues w/ rationally.... I don't have much interest in discussing anything w/ people who can't admit they are wrong or have an axe to grind.

When you are ready to be objective - if you can do that again - I welcome you over here.

 

[eolesen]

You have no idea what any other airline would do, honestly. You are simply conjecturing. And even if another customer had a SIMILAR enough experience, there are enough extenuating circumstances that occurred - as cited before - that DL felt they could make a decision.

I do have an idea of what other airlines do, WT. And without violating NDA's, here's proof that "trip in vain" is a fairly standard practice, including with your beloved DL:

AA(#47,53): http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/american-aadvantage/773214-flight-cancelled-aas-trip-vain-policy-consolidated.html

AS (#13-15): http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/southwest-rapid-rewards/1034914-compensation-diverted-flight.html

DL(#2,7,14,19,25,29,40),: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/delta-skymiles/1130536-mileage-run-nowhere.html

UA (#2,14): http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/united-mileage-plus/980658-ua-trip-vain-policy.html

US (#7,8,14): http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/us-airways-dividend-miles/660443-so-what-real-deal-trips-vain.html

WN (#14) : http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/southwest-rapid-rewards/1034914-compensation-diverted-flight.html


The one area you are correct is that it's not a breach of contract. I overstated the technicality. DL can legally screw the customer as the OP was. Tariffs sections 240 and 260 obligate DL to only refund the unflown portion of the itinerary.

Yet in practice, as shown in the customer testimonies in the threads above, doing right by the customer and issuing the full refund is exactly what's taking place at every major airline in the US.

And it should have taken place for the original poster. If they're still reading, write into customer relations, and use the phrase "trip in vain". Chances are you will probably get a full refund of the ticket. Offer to send back any vouchers already received.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

I do have an idea of what other airlines do, WT. And without violating NDA's, here's proof that "trip in vain" is a fairly standard practice, including with your beloved DL:

... ... ...

Proving WT wrong is getting worse than clubbing baby seals.

 

[eolesen]

Proving WT wrong is getting worse than clubbing baby seals.

Contrary to whatever WT might think, I could really care less about proving him wrong, or even bashing DL... but I have no tolerance anymore for misleading/false information...

 

[WorldTraveler]

​

Contrary to whatever WT might think, I could really care less about proving him wrong, or even bashing DL... but I have no tolerance anymore for misleading/false information...

You finally agreed with what I said at the very first which is that DL has no obligation to do anything beyond what they did for the customer.. .and they exceeded by a wide margin.

Your claims of what you really want ring as shallow as your inability to hear and understand the truth.... you would indeed rather pick a fight.

I'll play the role of the gentleman and allow you to get the last word in since you obviously are incapable of spelling the word let alone understand the concept...

BTW,
the thread you posted about DL on Flyertalk specifically said that DL does not do trip in vain and the dialogue the elite passenger had with the MSP Skyclub and the subsequent elevation of his request for reconsideration of the deduction of DL's requirement that they deduct in that case $189 from the refund for an ORD-MSP RT was exactly what happened in the case used by the OP here.
So, despite your industry knowledge, E, I stiill will say that DL does not use the trip in vain argument much if at all and it certainly doesn't exist in their tariffs.

It doesn't exist in the tariffs of other airlines either and whether they use them or not doesn't really matter to DL; if DL finds that they are losing passengers because they actually expect people to pay for their flights if they want to bail out or stick w/ the delays, then DL will change its policies.

but here are a few other quotes from your "proof" of trip in vain (did you even read the threads)
this is from the AA thread:
First: They are fully within their rights as stipulated by the Conditions of Carriage:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Conditions of Carriage
Involuntary Refunds
In the event the refund is required because of American's failure to operate on schedule or refusal to transport, the following refund will be made directly to you -

1. If the ticket is totally unused, the full amount paid (with no service charge or refund penalty), or
2. If the ticket is partially used, the applicable fare for the unused segment(s).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Conditions of Carriage
In addition, if the ticket to be refunded is no longer valid for transportation, an administrative service charge will be assessed upon refund of the ticket.

Second: If you hadn't noticed, the airlines of today would shudder at just the thought of what you suggest - a full refund. These are the same people that brought us non-refundable $250 co-pays to upgrade a one-way international flight when we use miles we already earned by spending money and time flying on their airline. These are the folks that brought us $75 expedite fees, $5 and $10 ticketing fees, $100-$250 changes fees, $100 mileage redeposit fees, and not to mention the administrative service charge that is assessed upon refund of the ticket. So, you think they are going to give you a full refund for a ticket on which you actually flew the two longest legs? Hint: the answer is NO.

Third: Why did you not consider the option of renting a car, which AA probably would have provided you a voucher for payment, and driving to Green Bay? It is only about a 3 hours drive.

AND
In the event the refund is required because of American's failure to operate on schedule or refusal to transport, the following refund will be made directly to you -

Involuntary Refunds

1. If the ticket is totally unused, the full amount paid (with no service charge or refund penalty), or
2. If the ticket is partially used, the applicable fare for the unused segment(s).

AND
I don't believe there is an official "trip in vain" policy, although all the airlines are familiar with the terminology. This thread may prove useful, if not especially encouraging. Mileage credit is unlikely, especially if you get a partial or full refund.

AND
I've been in this situation and the only option I had was to keep traveling in a forward direction even though it meant I had to continue traveling when I meeting I had been planning to attend had gone on without me due to weather delays.

I asked 'can't I just abort and go home?' and was told that would require reticketing; so I kept on flying until I reached the city where my meeting had been and then started flying home again.


So, even if the evidence you provided to convince me and everyone else that other airlines do infact use trip in vain doesn't say that at all - at least for DL and AA which are the only two airlines that the passenger could use on EVV to NYC, right?




last few quarters I have seen DL at or near the top of the US network industry in financial performance- so I don't think there is alot of fear on their part that they don't know what decision they made with this guy or others.

so to summarize,
I said all along that DL didn't have an obligation to offer the guy a full refund... thanks to you, you confirmed that not only DL but also AA have the same poicies.

I said that airlines don't allow passengers to bail out and return to their origin - your "evidence"confirms what I've said - and they certainly don't give the pax the option to return to their origin and start the trip again at some point in the future at their choosing.

Airlines can make exceptions - but that wasn't the issue.... since you chose to argue that there was evidence that airlines actually do allow it... haven't seen the evidence YET. All the evidence that airlines HAVE made exceptions doesn't mean they will - or are required to. For every example in your evidence of some type of exception being made, there were examples of people not being given it too.

you have been trying to argue to me and everybody else about how you aren't arguing - but you clearly are wrong - and in your zeal to continue the discussion and prove me wrong, you can't even find the evidence to support it.

So, E, how about you give it up and admit from the very beginning you stuck your nose into a conversation solely for spite... there's nothing wrong w/ admitting it.... but pretending you are right when you are clearly wrong REALLY goes a long ways to shredding what little credibility you might have had.

 

[eolesen]

I'll play the role of the gentleman and allow you to get the last word in since you obviously are incapable of spelling the word let alone understand the concept...

No, you're more than welcome to have the last word on the original topic.


Let's be clear, WT.... You've decided to make this personal for whatever reason. In your own words, private and public, here's how you've responded and characterized me for contradicting you on this topic:

* an axe to grind
* spite
* vindictive
* a personal vendetta
* revenge
* trying to extract blood
* a slap in the face
* anti-DL
* anti-WT crusade
* noisy
* conjecturing
* if you don't back off, I'll take you down

And now you claim you want to play the role of gentleman?

Sorry, I'll pass. It's just not worth any more of my time.

 

[FA Mikey]

I believe that also applies to anyone who doesn't go along with belief, ooh rah Delta rules. For someone who claims to have no ties or vested interest in Delta, WT sure spends a great deal of time and energy posting on it and belittling any customer, employee or OA employee who does not subscribe to the same belief.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Hi Mikey,
glad you dropped in on this conversation.

For the record, I have been a supporter and follower of DL for more than 35 years, long before I worked for anyone. While DL has had its ups and downs in that period, I believe DL is returning to the place it had in the pre-deregulation era where it was respected as one of the best run and most profitable US airlines.

I have documented here and elsewhere that DL struggled to find its way during much of the first 30 years of deregulation even though DL was an avid supporter of the concept. DL's lack of consistency and purpose came to a head post 9/11. But DL used the post 9/11 period to carefully rethink its entire purpose and operation and restructured in the most dramatic and fastest turnarounds in the US airline industry, which included the merger with NW which made DL the largest US airline in the period that followed. While DL does not hold that title anymore it still has posted some of the best financial results in the industry - better than other US network carriers - and has succeeded at key strategic initiatives including building NYC, its transpacific presence, and upgrading its product. It is notable that we are now seeing cuts in product levels at UA/CO and no apparent desire to provide the level of service that made CO one of the most respected airlines in the US for a decade.

The fact that DL was rated as the most respected US airline in a survey of global airline executives higlights that I am not the only one that thinks DL is doing a good job - and I didn't have any voice in that survey.

Let me highlight slide 3 of the attached as well as other slides in the presentation. If you don't believe they are accurate, I am all for a discussion.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/27904/000101968711000926/delta_8k-ex9901.htm

As for the specifics of this thread, it is quite simple to see that some of the early responders to the thread believed that DL should simply refund the money and be done with it. valid opinion but I noted that there is no basis in the tariff or customer commitment of any US airline for customers to commence travel then return to their city of origin and expect a full refund. Everyone except for one poster accepted that and I think FWAAA's response should be highlighted as one of the most rational responses of this thread; he also did not see any value in arguing over a point which clearly is not supported in realitiy. However, one person continued to press the argument that there were indeed provisions for a full refund under some vague principle called "trip in vain" but yet he produced "evidence" which showed that the airlines themselves told multiple customers that no should policy exists - and while there are exceptions noted in the evidence that agrees with FWAAA that airlines do indeed make such exceptions, often for their best customers, but that should not be expected.

I stand firm on points on which I know to be true. The antagonist on this thread distinguished himself by coming out and saying that I was defending DL to which I quickly noted - and the evidence that the person posted supported my notion that DL's policies and practice are no different from other airlines in the industry, including the single (not double) alternative carriers that are available for the traveler from his home city.

I can accept that anyone may or may not like DL and may or may not like what I write... but I don't accept and will strongly debate the notion on which people attempt to build their arguments. The whole shouting match on this thread would have never occurred if the antagonist would not have tried to assert that DL was acting poorly in this case based on their lack of application of a policy which in reality does not exist.

I am happy to discuss whatever opinions you may have of DL or any other airline; just build your arguments around fact and dno't be surprised if I challenge you on the basis on non-factual opinions.

 

[eolesen]

While WT was outdoing himself to prove that there is no trip in vain policy, I simply sent off an email outlining the customer's situation to my contacts at DL and also a couple other airlines just to be sure.

I've been holding off on replying until I finally got a response last night from DL (they were a little pre-occupied with Japan and 1Q earnings...), confirming that indeed they do have a trip in vain policy, and it should have been applied, but apparently wasn't by the airports.

I've also got emails from each of the other carriers confirming that they, too, do have a trip in vain policy which would have handled the situation exactly as I suggested it should have been handled, which was to

1) return the customer to their point of origin at the airline's expense, and
2) provide an involuntary refund on the entire journey, and not just the unused portions

Some of them apply the refund at the airport, while some require it to be submitted thru Consumer Relations.

Regardless, the assertion that the policy doesn't exist is false. It may not be printed in the tariffs, and likely isn't widely publicized, but there are dozens of processes and policies you'll never find in writing, yet are tribal knowledge passed on by and to those who actually work in a contact role with customers.


As WT is the forum's expert splitter of hairs, this only applies to whether or not the customer should have been returned to their point of origin and an invol refund of the whole ticket applied.

It has nothing to do with whether or not the rebooked itinerary should have been at the originally booked fare.


The point of this wasn't to prove WT wrong. It was to satisfy my curiousity on whether or not DL had actually become so unfocused on the customer that they'd abandoned a long standing practice -- one that dated back to when I was working in the airports in the 1980's, and likely even longer than that.


I'm happy to share those emails with anyone who really doubts their authenticity. Just send me a PM.

 

[WorldTraveler]

While WT was outdoing himself to prove that there is no trip in vain policy, I simply sent off an email outlining the customer's situation to my contacts at DL and also a couple other airlines just to be sure.

I've been holding off on replying until I finally got a response last night from DL (they were a little pre-occupied with Japan and 1Q earnings...), confirming that indeed they do have a trip in vain policy, and it should have been applied, but apparently wasn't by the airports.

I've also got emails from each of the other carriers confirming that they, too, do have a trip in vain policy which would have handled the situation exactly as I suggested it should have been handled, which was to

1) return the customer to their point of origin at the airline's expense, and
2) provide an involuntary refund on the entire journey, and not just the unused portions

Some of them apply the refund at the airport, while some require it to be submitted thru Consumer Relations.

Regardless, the assertion that the policy doesn't exist is false. It may not be printed in the tariffs, and likely isn't widely publicized, but there are dozens of processes and policies you'll never find in writing, yet are tribal knowledge passed on by and to those who actually work in a contact role with customers.


As WT is the forum's expert splitter of hairs, this only applies to whether or not the customer should have been returned to their point of origin and an invol refund of the whole ticket applied.

It has nothing to do with whether or not the rebooked itinerary should have been at the originally booked fare.


The point of this wasn't to prove WT wrong. It was to satisfy my curiousity on whether or not DL had actually become so unfocused on the customer that they'd abandoned a long standing practice -- one that dated back to when I was working in the airports in the 1980's, and likely even longer than that.


I'm happy to share those emails with anyone who really doubts their authenticity. Just send me a PM.

Since our PMs have a history of becoming public anyway, how about you just post it here or appropriate excerpts? - or you can PM it to me - and I can assure you that I will keep it private.
.
I am happy to admit that they actually do have a trip in vain policy... you just provided links that showed both AA and DL employees both telling customers that the policy didn't exist while also quoting passengers as saying they had received compensation but without evidence from employees that it existed.
If you had provided some sort of company evidence that showed the policy existed, I'd have bought it a long time ago.
.
Trip in vain if it existed and the way all of the documentation on other forums stated is about "writing off" a bad trip... not returning home at no cost and then starting over at a time of the customer's choice at the original fare. If the trip is wasted, then you settle it based on that basis. Trip in vain is essentially an invol refund of the whole ticket on the basis of a legitimate delay that invalidates the purpose of the trip.
.
Hair-splitting is indeed necessary. An airline ticket is a legal contract.
.
Handshake? Cease-fire... perhaps not in that order.
.
And yes I genuinely believe that you aren't doing this to make me look bad but to rather get to the bottom of the truth... which is exactly what I am interested in knowing as well.
.
and to the original OP, I hope he does or did ask for reconsideration of his refund within those guidelines.

 

[eolesen]

I am happy to admit that they actually do have a trip in vain policy... you just provided links that showed both AA and DL employees both telling customers that the policy didn't exist while also quoting passengers as saying they had received compensation but without evidence from employees that it existed.

If you had provided some sort of company evidence that showed the policy existed, I'd have bought it a long time ago.

Really? That's not what you said a few weeks ago, Tim.

Here's what you said:

They'll fix the problem enroute but they won't let you return to your origin and get your full money back.

Followed by

You have no idea what any other airline would do, honestly. You are simply conjecturing. And even if another customer had a SIMILAR enough experience, there are enough extenuating circumstances that occurred - as cited before - that DL felt they could make a decision.

Once again, you continue to try to make this into an anti-DL thing when it is perfectly obvious the industry has the very same rules and practices. Unless you can show me that other carriers - many of which have much higher diversion rates than DL - give away free tickets after their first failed attempt at landing, then you are being noisy and unobjective.

I told you I couldn't give you "proof" two weeks ago without violating NDA's.

Handshake? Cease-fire... perhaps not in that order.

No thanks, I'm still tending to the bruises from the KO'ing you supposedly gave me.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Apparently I really did deliver a healthy punch if you are still on the mend.
.
And thanks for confirming who actually holds the grudge here. You have repeatedly spurned all offers to try to make amends which makes it abundantly clear that this discussion is far less about the facts than it is about your ability to give up a grudge and move on... there are plenty of people with whom I don't disagree on alot of things in terms of facts - but I have never, I mean never met anyone as deadset as you are to nurse a grudge.
.
ON the basis of the discussion itself, you were provided the opportunity numerous times in the discussion to provide the evidence to support your notion that such a secret policy actually exists - and you are just now presenting that evidence - or you say you are... but as long as you fail to either post the e-mail or forward it to me, you continue to fail in your attempts to convince me that such a policy exists.
.
But you know what? I'll give you all the benefit of the doubt that it really does exist and trust that you really do have the e-mail.
.
The issue between us then becomes one of character, Eric Olesen. And it is precisely the issue of character that separates you from everyone else on this forum - because they are at least willing to recognize their own limitations and demonstrate some modicum of civility. The issue for YOU is whether you are the leader you claim to be or whether you are still the little boy who never learned the moral fortitude that is required to become a mature member of society.
.
It's not rocket science, Eric. It's about you recognizing that you have been throwing your weight around these forums for years thinking you had all the answers, finally being challenged to produce some evidence for your findings, and then being chagrined when you couldn't. Ever since that point you have been nursing a grudge and continue to do so and apparently are unwilling to let it go.
.
If you can't demonstrate that you understand what human emotional maturity is, then don't come on this board telling us how great your contributions are to the industry - or the world. We're not interested. Leaders in life are not people who can tout their accomplishments and all of the projects they have worked on.
.
Leaders are people who demonstrate character that others want to follow.
There is not a rational person on this planet that would find your childish behavior a model to be followed.
.
I'd like to believe you would choose to take the honorable route but sadly every time I have believed that you would rise to the occassion, you have come back to dash my faith in you.
.
This is the one time I would be delighted for you to prove me wrong.