Delta Kicks Family Off Plane-they wouldn't give up seat

What the hell is going on with these airlines? They need a complete overhaul

This story should be getting more coverage. The airlines will keep overbooking and kicking people off as long as they keep getting away with it.

I need more info on this one.  

We we always fly with our child in a booked seat in a car seat.  On a few occasions when the flight looked empty and seat fare was high we gambled, and got an empty seat at no cost that we happily were given for the airplane approved car seat.

When they moved their teen child to a different flight, did they pay a fee ($200?) to change the older child's seat/flight?  Or did they book a completely different full fare for the other child?

That is a big difference.  If they paid a change fee this no longer was their seat.  This was a seat they changed to another flight that the airlines could now use/sell to another passenger.  

If if you could pay a minimal change fee, esp for an expensive flight to Hawaii, then retain the seat that's a trick every family would do and that's not okay.

If they were refused the use of a car seat, was it an airline approved car seat which the FAA requires?  They are clearly marked and we have seen many families notified on flights over the years that their child couldn't ride in the car seat they had as it wasn't an airline approved seat.

I am waiting on more information on this one.  If they still paid the full cost of the seat, and it was resold that's definitely the airlines in the wrong.  If their car seat was approved and again refused again the airline is in the wrong.

i tend to wonder if the airline had no way of knowing when the teen didn't check in that he was with the family and that point the seat was resold.  I do know the seats are non-transferable but if the story looks as it is on appear that is wrong and they should be able to use what was paid in full for (if they did pay in full for it).

Don't need ID for the baby? I don't know, I've never showed any sort of ID for them when flying with my kids.

If they tried to just use the ticket without transferring, that is on them. If they transferred the ticket to the baby, then they had a right to the seat.

This story is not as cold, cut, and dry as the last one---to me. Now, to start off, I'm going to say that Delta acted badly in threatening jail to these people. And in not offering them any compensation as well. WTH? Wasn't it just Delta who was in the article for being the airline that supposedly had the very best way of handling overbooked flights? What happened here, then??


Now, in this case, I didn't think plane tickets were transferable. And so I'm not sure that the family was even within their rights as the purchasers of that ticket to decide to plop a younger kid in the seat. And if they were in the wrong about that then I think Delta did have the right to say :Hey, we're sorry, but this seat was for John Doe and John Doe didn't turn up, so we can now fill this seat as we wish."

And I can't even be as angry on behalf of the parents for being forced to lap seat the kids as I would have been, because they intended to do that all along. The flew out there with the kids on their laps and were going to fly back that way. But then decided, ooh, look, an empty seat---now we can share lap duty with one kid instead of holding two.

If they had purchased seats for both kids from the beginning and someone tried to make them hold the kids, I would have been pissed off on their behalf. But in this case, I can't help but think that they should have at least made a phone call or asked someone upon arrival if they could use their older son's unused ticket in that way.


But, back to Delta not handling this well......how do you let this family get on the plane with two toddlers and a car seat, get settled, and THEN realize "Oh, oops, they can't have that seat after all."?
Come on folks, get with the program. If that ticket was set up for an adult and it's not transferable, then someone should have noticed, right?

So, yeah, this situation is murkier to me, but ultimately I feel that both sides should have done things differently.

I do feel bad that the family was stuck in the end with no ride home and no where to stay. I'm just not sure that they didn't have something to do with this situation falling apart, though.

I remember reading an article once of a celebrity who always bought herself two tickets so no one would sit next to her on the flight. I think the father is saying he paid for the seat so he can use it how he chooses. Whether that be for extra space, a purse, or a baby. 

Without more details it's difficult to know if the family still had "rights" to that seat.

BUT, I find it ridiculous that an airline can sell more tickets than seats for any flight. I understand that there are often no-shows that leave a flight less than full, but those seats have been paid for, whether or not the people actually use them or not.

And no one should have been threatened with going to jail.

But he can only use it if the son bought another ticket to cover the earlier flight even if they're transferable or not.

Eh, if they paid a transfer fee for the the 18 year old's ticket then the seat is no longer theirs. If the 18 year old is a "no show" on their flight then the seat is no longer theirs. I'm pretty sure you can't transfer tickets to other people these days. They probably showed their 2 boarding passes and buckled their 2 year old into what they assumed was still their 18 year old's seat. Meanwhile Delta has a seat "available" according to the computer and gives it to a passenger that didn't have a seat assignment yet.

If they only used 2 tickets to board the plane, then I agree with you.

An article I read since posting mentioned using the (non transferable) boarding pass of the teen for the toddler in the car seat.

If that's accurate the seat was checked in for ect. However, it's against deltas policy as its non transferable.

At best this was them trying to pull a quick one and very murky.

I find this story kind of confusing. Why didn't they just give up the one seat and keep both toddlers on their laps, per the original plan? (Maybe because they planned to have the older kid as a helper and didn't want to deal with a stranger in the row with two kids? I can't tell.)

Why would the airlines boot them in favor of other passengers if they were paying passengers, too?

There is a lot more to this story than is being reported, I think.

If the toddler's seat was the one in question, and the toddler was going to sit in a lap prior to the 18 year old changing flights, why did the parents not just have the toddler sit in a lap as originally planned. Also, the question of the 18 year old's flight change still needs to be answered.

The fact that they bought 3 new tickets and don't want compensation, just an apology is also very strange.

Who's to say that's what happened?  The 18 year old didn't check in for the flight (or had changed his ticket, whatever).  The family ASSUMED they could use that seat, but all Delta sees is an empty seat or a non-checked in guest past the deadline.  It's free for them to give away at that time.

As far as not being provided compensation - I don't buy it at all.  Maybe they didn't give them a voucher for their hotel of choice or something, but that is policy.