I think this response is dis-ingenuous. First of all, AA could legitimately take the view that the FA in their honest opinion felt you were potentially disruptive. This does not explain the actions of the ground staff denying you boarding for the second flight. The actions of Junius Lyons appears to have been vindicative and punative, even though another AA employee had issued a new ticket.
Secondly, whilst rules exist which do allow bags to be transported separately from the passenger, such as when there are delays or bags have had to be removed for weight reasons... when a passenger has been removed their bags should also be removed. In Europe, it is definitely a no-no for a passenger to be removed from a flight and their bags be allowed to proceed. The fact of a passenger having to be removed could be indicative of a passenger who is agitated or nervous because they are "up to something". The circumstances under which they have indicated that bags may travel separately from the passenger do not equate to the circumstances in this case, I think it was foolhardy for AA to proceed in this manner.
I would ask for further specific questions to be answered and copy them to the DOT.
1. Is it AA policy that when a passenger is removed from a flight, that there is no requirement to remove the luggage of that passenger from the flight?
2. Does AA feel that if a passenger is "potentially disruptive" to such an extent that they have to be removed, that this does not raise any security concerns relating to the passengers behaviour and/or luggage?
3. Was the ticket issued by Ms Sandburg a valid one? If not, why not? If it was valid, why was Junious Lyons permitted to deny you boarding a second time.
4. If your behaviour was such that you had been denied boarding on two flights, what changed in your behaviour to subsequently make it acceptabe for you to fly on the later flight.
5. Lastly, during the investigation conducted into the complaint were Ms. Sandburg and Junious Lyons interviewed?
AA are sweeping this under the carpet. Their employees acted in an unprofessional manner and I would consider a small claims court claim, which at the minimum would force disclosure of the extent of their investigation.
|