Two Sides To Every Story

...."and added that balance and weight safety regulations prevent onboard seat changes."  UA,,,,,What a crock.....!  
 
Spock said:
...."and added that balance and weight safety regulations prevent onboard seat changes."  UA,,,,,What a crock.....!  
So the FA wanted her CC for what reason then?
 
the passenger decided to move to an exit row seat after the doors were closed. the FAs wanted her credit card because the exit row is a premium charge seat.

Every side does have two stories but even by the news account which was related by the passenger, she was very aggressive and confrontational.

Airlines absolutely do have the right to have differential charges for different types of seats on aircraft and passengers do not have the right to switch to those seats even if they are empty.


The manner the situation was handled - if the article is accurate is true - could have been improved but confrontation rarely results in the pain free outcome to the benefit of one side that some people think.

All she had to do was move back to the seat she was assigned. She paid for the seat she was assigned. If she wanted something she didn't pay for, she should have used just a tad more tact in trying to obtain it.



There is a very high likelihood that the woman will be told by a judge that she has no case, be told to reimburse UA, and be put on UA's no fly list.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
WorldTraveler said:
the passenger decided to move to an exit row seat after the doors were closed. the FAs wanted her credit card because the exit row is a premium charge seat.

Every side does have two stories but even by the news account which was related by the passenger, she was very aggressive and confrontational.

Airlines absolutely do have the right to have differential charges for different types of seats on aircraft and passengers do not have the right to switch to those seats even if they are empty.


The manner the situation was handled - if the article is accurate is true - could have been improved but confrontation rarely results in the pain free outcome to the benefit of one side that some people think.

All she had to do was move back to the seat she was assigned. She paid for the seat she was assigned. If she wanted something she didn't pay for, she should have used just a tad more tact in trying to obtain it.



There is a very high likelihood that the woman will be told by a judge that she has no case, be told to reimburse UA, and be put on UA's no fly list.
Thats my point. You can't say well I tried to charge her for moving then when she wanted to go back drum up all the BS about how it effect W&B. 
 
 
having said that nothing is more annoying than PAXs thinking they can do whatever they want. "OH the seats are to close to together so I will just move to F class." Nope. Use google before buying a ticket. Its like all the people who fly NK then b**ch about how terrible they are. WTF do you expect for a 29 buck ticket? 
 
This is why I can't even think about working the line much less as a GA or FA. I like the hangar, no PAXs to deal with. (and dry) 
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Remember a few months back when we were talking about some airline who wanted to have a "no seat changes allowed" rule on their lowest fares?

Here's a great example to remember next time that topic comes up. The FA's get left to enforce the rule.
 
eolesen said:
Remember a few months back when we were talking about some airline who wanted to have a "no seat changes allowed" rule on their lowest fares?

Here's a great example to remember next time that topic comes up. The FA's get left to enforce the rule.
And, at AA, I can tell you that any complaint would be assumed to be the f/a's error.  Just like with the FARs...if a passenger gets po'd about having to put away their computer/put their purse under the seat/give up their beer because the captain has said prepare for landing/etc, the f/a will get a write up from management and be told, "You are there to inform not enforce."  But, not enforcing--especially if there were money involved--would also gain a negative write-up.
 
eolesen said:
Remember a few months back when we were talking about some airline who wanted to have a "no seat changes allowed" rule on their lowest fares?

Here's a great example to remember next time that topic comes up. The FA's get left to enforce the rule.
 
except that every passenger has a seat by the time they board.

and while I have not seen a DL FA confront a passenger who attempts to sit in a premium seat, the principle is the same on any airline that has differential pricing for different seat types.

and DOT stats continue to show that DL has considerably less complaints than either AA or UA and in line with the relationship that existed with WN.

as much as some want to believe otherwise, DL's fare attributes are accurately disclosed to customers who can choose to opt out of the restrictions by purchasing a higher price fare that has more options.

it is no different than the different types of fares on the legacy carriers, many of which have different allowances for baggage and ticket changes
 
jimntx said:
And, at AA, I can tell you that any complaint would be assumed to be the f/a's error.  Just like with the FARs...if a passenger gets po'd about having to put away their computer/put their purse under the seat/give up their beer because the captain has said prepare for landing/etc, the f/a will get a write up from management and be told, "You are there to inform not enforce."  But, not enforcing--especially if there were money involved--would also gain a negative write-up.
and that is a shame.

but obviously the FA also has access to the cockpit who can decide that the offense is worthy of a return to the gate and can also ask the FAs to relay that the flight will have to return to the gate.


the issue is not that the customer was told that they couldn't sit there or that an FA couldn't have processed an onboard seat change and payment - and informed the crew of such so that they could make whatever adjustments were necessary but that the woman was confrontational and it was answered by even more confrontation by the FA.

If any carrier wants its rules enforced, there has to be a system put in place to ensure that crew members concerns can be addressed.

In this case, a call to the cockpit could have been enough to inform the crew that the cabin was not ready or that there was a combative passenger.. and then it would have been up to the cockpit crew to make the decision without having to confront the passenger.
 
I normally side with the workers but would like to hear more;
 
Ok so from the story she complied with everything the flight attendant said except "get off". She moved to the seat where she didn't belong, then when told how much she was to be charged she went back to her assigned seat. That should have been the end of it.
 
Both of the carriers claims are BS, if the FA said it was OK to stay for the extra $100 isn't the notification for responsibility when seated at an exit row still required and the weight an balance issue is a no go, again if she had paid the $100 then there should have been no problem?  
 
They would have been better off leaving it as she refused to obey the directives of the flight crew or was being belligerent towards the crew and disruptive , but according to her side the only directive she disobeyed was getting off their reasoning was poor. Better yet is they should pass legislation requiring more room throughout the cabin. The backs of these planes are set up like slave ships. 
 

Latest posts