[whpress]

I was recently ticketed on Delta to fly the open jaw route ABQ - DCA - AUS, for the purpose of attending a dinner meeting in Washington. Before takeoff, a mechanical failure in a safety critical component was discovered (battery charger to the inertial navigation system) and the flight was delayed for an announced 5 hours to wait for a part to be flown in.

I was promised a full refund, and I thus cancelled my ticket, since I would have missed the meeting I was flying to. Now here's the interesting part: Because of a technicality in Delta's rules, not disclosed anywhere on their web site that I can find, Delta refunds only half my ticket and just keeps the money for my return flight. What's the technicality? "Your itinerary is not on a single record locator. It's on two locators, so the second one is non-refundable." (This was repeated by multiple Delta supervisory personnel.)

What is the safety issue here: Every time Delta cancels a flight for a safety-related mechanical, they make money from people in my, or a similar, situation. The incentives are all wrong here. The more flights Delta cancels, the more non-refundable dollars they keep. The sloppier Delta's preventive maintenance, the more maintenance Delta "defers", and therefore the less safe their flights, the more non-refundable dollars they keep. (They also make angry customers who feel that they have been cheated, but that is not the safety issue.) This may be only a small effect on Delta's bottom line, but it is outrageous. Delta has a critical safety failure (luckily recognized on the ground), and I am out many hundred dollars. How many millions of dollars has Delta taken in, in toto, from customers in similar situations by denying them refunds?

This is a situation that needs to be brought to public attention and remedied, before it becomes a contributing factor to an accident. Delta should be asked to change its policy and are make refunds on full itineraries in case of mechanical delays and cancellations, notwithstanding the "technicality" of how many different locator records they are ticketed on.

[Silent Bob]

I get what you're saying and it is an ugly "technicality" but in a way it makes sense and I'm sure Delta is not the only one who does it. But because you booked two seperate reservations, "technically" your return wasn't effected, because it was on a different locator and had nothing to do with the first one... "technically". I know a lot of people do this and make no mistake, no one should ever, EVER book two seperate reservation because you lose on the protection. Take your trip for example: ABQ-DCA-AUS. Let's break it down to two parts ABQ-DCA, DCA-AUS and the second portion is on another airline. What happens if you misconnect and can't make the second? The second airline will charge you a change fee (possibly) because they didn't get you in late and the first airline will wash their hands of you because you bought two different tickets. And no matter how late they got you in, their argument is "We got you here and we can't rebook you because its not our ticket, take it up with the other airline". I think before we start calling out the airlines to set things straight, we must first learn to never book different itineraries. I've never been in that position myself, but I know friends who have and stuff like this happens where they end up paying. On the one hand I agree they should refund both tickets, however I can see why they did it... "technically" speaking...

[jimworcs]

This is an example of an airline exploiting rules to make unfair gain. The terms of this contract are patently unfair, and I think you would have a better than even chance of recovering this money in a Small Claims court. I would file a claim, if only to wipe out any gain for Delta in defending the action. OUTRAGEOUS

[PHXFlyer]

He bought two tickets. Lesson learned. Move on. He can apply the value of the second ticket to another trip by paying a fee. It's not like the money is totally lost unless he never plans to travel again.

[Eagleguy]

Jimworcs, you understand that hundreds of thousands of people depend on their jobs to work for the airlines right? Your neighbour, the guy down the street, your third cousin? If we had your way we would all be out of jobs. We are people too. It's just that a lot of the complaints on here are from people who do not fly a lot. Imagine if it were your first time driving? Traffic? Detour? Grid lock? Pot hole? S*** happens. Would you rather crash and die or be late?

I just flew back from Rome and then flew Delta back home and had problems. Did I sweat it? No... Am I home? Yes? Was the FA rude? A little yes. Was the counter agent condescending? Yes. I was late. Was the gate agent rude? Yes. I was late. Who is to blame? Me. F****** take responsibility for your OWN actions.
I thought about sending this only in a private message but instead I want everyone to read. Hiding behind some pseudonym online is easy to cause a big fuss and tout the downfall of the big bad airlines. If you had any courage you'd do it in court and stop flying. Wait! You depend on us to get to destinations! Take the f****** train or boat to get to wherever.

WH: you bought two different tickets. End of story. As big as the airlines are, we don't have tons of money to give to every passenger for spilt milk.

As Phxflyer said, lesson learnt.

[ChrisH]

This is how you have to look at it. If you buy two seperate tickets, for two seperate trips, on different dates, and on your first trip, your flight is cancelled, they aren't going to refund your ticket for the second trip.

Say one week you are going to fly LAX-JFK, and a week later, you have a seperate trip planned, LAX-MIA. If your LAX-JFK flight was cancelled, they aren't going to refund the LAX-MIA trip, because it is seperate, and has nothing to do with the first trip.

In whpress' complaint, he has booked two seperate tickets, under different reservations. Although the second ticket is for him to return home, from the first trip, it stills falls into the same category as my above example. It is a seperate ticket, and thus, they will not refund it. They are calling it a technicality, because, although it is his return trip, it is still booked seperately, and thus is a completely different trip, as far as Delta is concerned.

If I were a manager/supervisor, I would probably do what I could to refund the second trip, being as though common sense would tell me it is this guys return, from his first trip, even though it was booked seperately. However, technically speaking, Delta doesn't have to refund that trip. Lessons learned are that you should never book tickets, in which you will fly on multiple airline, unless you absolutely have to, and you should never book originating, and return trips seperately - they should be within the same reservation.

Another reason the airlines will often not refund a seperate reservation, is that some people do that to take advantage of a one way ticket being cheaper than a roundtrip. It may cost $800, rountrip, to fly AUS-DCA and back to AUS, wheras, booking it seperate, AUS-DCA may cost $150, and DCA-AUS $200 (some may even book on a different airline for each segment), and thus your total goes from $800, to $350. Sure, people can do this, but they risk if something goes wrong on the first segment, they cannot be refunded for the second.

It is a bit of a technicality. In the end, I think each individuals situation is different, however. In this person's situation, I would probably refund his second ticket, with it clearly being a return from his first one.

[jimworcs]

Jimworcs, you understand that hundreds of thousands of people depend on their jobs to work for the airlines right? Your neighbour, the guy down the street, your third cousin? If we had your way we would all be out of jobs. We are people too.

Yes, I think that the monopolistic and abusive behaviour of the airlines has gone too far and that they should no longer be protected. In the short term, people will lose their jobs. Just as they did in other industries. The only way to deal with the abuse of monopolies, just like the robber barons of the steel industry, railroads, communications industry etc was to break them up, encourage new entrants and regulate them. This is the only solution now. In the long run, more jobs will be created by having a more competitive industry with a larger number of smaller, more competitive airlines. This is how capitalism works best.

Delta should have been allowed to go bankrupt. No airline should be allowed to file Chapter 11 more than once per 25 years, (if ever) and if they do, the Board and Senior Managers should be replaced without payoffs. The airlines should be subject to normal rules of competition, allowing foreign carriers to compete and foreign ownership. No airline should be allowed to have more than 25% of the routes from any hub. The argument against the break up of steel, railroads, ATT etc are exactly the same as you put forward. Sadly, millions are losing their jobs, some in industries which are genuinely competitive. Why should airline employees be any different.

Chris H: It is refreshing that you acknowledge the common sense response required to address the problem faced by whpress, but the examples you give are not analogous to his situation. The only reason that he was unable to take the second flight was because Delta failed to get him to his destination in the first place. They have perfectly understandable reasons for this failure, there was an equipment failure and no one would wish an airline to fly unless the aircraft is fully airworthy. All that was required was that they made the passenger whole. They have two ways to do this.. 1) Get the passenger there by an alternative means, or 2) Refund the money paid by the passenger. It is sad that Eagleguy cannot see the injustice of failing to do either of these things in this case, but I am pretty sure that a court would not take the same view. I hope whpress takes this further and lets us know the outcome.

[Jetliner]

Everyone is missing something important here - he flew on an open jaw ticekt. In other words, ABQ-DCA was one ticket, DCA-AUS was another. These types of bookings just don't happen very often. Yes in this case, they did make a little money off of you. But "people in my, or a similar, situation" are very rare. In the end they more than likly lost more money than what they gained off of you. Going from ABQ to DCa, you would have had to make a connection, so there are people who missed connections, probably ended up in hotels, or got meal vouvhers.

Besides, the reservations systems are just not quite that complex that some alarm goes off for the gate agents saying "must cancel flight - open jaw ticket on this flight."

[jimworcs]

Everyone is missing something important here - he flew on an open jaw ticekt.

I think you are missing the fundamental point. It is obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense that these tickets were linked. The fact that they were not linked on Delta's computer means that more junior employees probably don't have the discretion to help him out. He however spoke to a number of supervisors who failed to exercise any discretion and realise that his losses were consequential losses as a result of problems which were in the control of Delta. I really hope he took this to Small Claims Court, because I do not believe that any judge would find in Delta's favour in this matter.

In this case, Delta is seeking to rely on rules which are patently unfair in this particular circumstance. The fact that a number of supervisors reviewed this and refused to take any action speaks volumes about the cynical attitude towards customers that is pervasive in this airline. Hopefully it will go to the wall.

[PHXFlyer]

Originally Posted by jimworcs

I think you are missing the fundamental point. It is obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense that these tickets were linked. The fact that they were not linked on Delta's computer means that more junior employees probably don't have the discretion to help him out. He however spoke to a number of supervisors who failed to exercise any discretion and realise that his losses were consequential losses as a result of problems which were in the control of Delta. I really hope he took this to Small Claims Court, because I do not believe that any judge would find in Delta's favour in this matter.

In this case, Delta is seeking to rely on rules which are patently unfair in this particular circumstance. The fact that a number of supervisors reviewed this and refused to take any action speaks volumes about the cynical attitude towards customers that is pervasive in this airline. Hopefully it will go to the wall.

Delta.com allows one to book an "open jaw" itinerary on it's website and therefore the whole itinerary would be "protected" by any cancellations anywhere along the route. I have done so myself a couple of times. Phoenix to Boston and then New York back to Phoenix where I've taken Amtrak between Boston and New York. If my Phoenix to Boston were cancelled I would be assured that the New York to Phoenix part of the ticket would be treated under the same re-accomodation. Booking two separate tickets isn't practical in this situation. If I merely had a one-way from New York to Phoenix they are expecting me to originate from New York regardless of what happened on prior itineraries.

[Jetliner]

Originally Posted by jimworcs

I think you are missing the fundamental point. It is obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense that these tickets were linked.

No they were not. He is saying they were on separate locators. What that means is that he had two completely separate reservations. When you book a flight your reservation is called a PNR (passenger name record) This has your name, phone, flights, etc. When you book a round trip all of your flights round trip are in that PNR. In this case, normally the PNR would have all of his flights in that one record. But if he is being told that they were on separate locators, then that means he had two completely separate PNR's. PNR's for the same passenger are not linked. If you go right now and book a flight, then immediately book another, there is absolutely no connection between the two. And before anyone says "well there should be" then explain how? It's not unusual for frequent travelers to be booked one airline one way, and another going back. Now every reservation they have would be linked to 50 or 100 others.

What probably happened in this case is when he booked the flights, he booked the first segments, complete the reservation by paying, then booked the others separately.

[jimworcs]

Some people are so locked in they will never get it!

[Jetliner]

I'm not locked in. He is saying he had two separate locators. That means two separate reservations. The two have no linking or connection with each other. Yes, Delta should have looked at the other once he called, and gone from there. I'm not saying they should be off the hook.

You had said that obviously some Delta agent screwed up the booking and that the flights should have been linked. That's the only part I'm addressing here, hence the reason I quoted that part only. This is why when he called they did not know about his first flight.

[jimworcs]

I absolutely did not say that some Delta agent screwed up the booking. (Quote me if you can!) My point was that although they are separate bookings, the reason the passenger could not utilise the second ticket was directly because of reasons which were in the control of Delta and not of the passenger. Therefore, when he pushed the issue up to supervisors at Delta's Anti-Customer Department, they should have exercised common sense and made the passenger whole. If he pursues this via Small Claims I do not think any court would find that the passenger did anything wrong. He could not fulfil his part of the contract on the second ticket (ie turn up) soley because Delta did not fulfil their part of an earlier contract (ie transport him). Is that any clearer for you?

[PHXFlyer]

Originally Posted by jimworcs

I absolutely did not say that some Delta agent screwed up the booking. (Quote me if you can!) My point was that although they are separate bookings, the reason the passenger could not utilise the second ticket was directly because of reasons which were in the control of Delta and not of the passenger. Therefore, when he pushed the issue up to supervisors at Delta's Anti-Customer Department, they should have exercised common sense and made the passenger whole. If he pursues this via Small Claims I do not think any court would find that the passenger did anything wrong. He could not fulfil his part of the contract on the second ticket (ie turn up) soley because Delta did not fulfil their part of an earlier contract (ie transport him). Is that any clearer for you?

Actually, I have to disagree here. What if this were the case of a Southwest connection to another airline. I remember an episode of "Airline" which followed the day to day stories of Southwest and some of it's passengers. There was a couple who flew into LAX on Southwest who had a "connection" to a trans-Pacific flight to Asia, I think on Cathay Pacific. Their Southwest flight was delayed leaving them about 15 minutes to claim their bags from Southwest, as they have no interline baggage agreements, and check-in with the international airline as Southwest has no interline ticketing agreements either so there were two separate tickets purchased. Although the Southwest manager went above and beyond escorting them from the plane to baggage claim and on to the counter for their international flight, the story ended there.

Now as far as the international airline is concerned this couple was to embark on their journey from LAX. It mattered not how they got there since the ticket wasn't purchased as a complete itinerary and the delay on Southwest wasn't Cathay Pacific's concern. They were late, for whatever reason, to check-in for the flight to Asia. Being an international flight I doubt, unless the Cathay Pacific flight was delayed, they were allowed to check-in with only fifteen minutes until the departure. They probably had to get a hotel room near LAX, at their own expense, and fly to Asia the next day perhaps even on stand-by.

There's no distinction or difference in the OP's case even though the two tickets were on the same airline. For the return trip it matters not to the airline how the person arrives at the departure city on the ticket. If they are late or a no-show it is treated as such. Of course it can be argued that a reasonable person would be able to connect the dots and say "well if the canceled flight from A to B caused them to not be at B for the trip back to A that some accomodation could be made", but then they would be giving preferential treatment over someone who just didn't bother to show up on time for the same B to A flight. Rules are set to establish a level playing field and although the rules might not always work in our favor they are there for a reason. For the lack of many rules about ticketing, fares, etc. too many unscrupulous people would be given the leeway to "game the system" and then things would really not be fair.

[jimworcs]

Thanks for this non-analogous analogy, but the situations are not the same. Take off the "defend the airlines at all costs goggles" for a moment and look at this from a moral point of view.

In your example, Southwest fulfilled the only contract they had with the passenger, but were tardy in doing so. Cathay Pacific failed to fulfill their part of a separate contract because the customer failed to show up, so this is not their fault. This falls into the category of "stuff happens" and the only hope is via insurance. You could argue (and in your case PHX, you frequently do), the passenger should have allowed sufficient time to take account of the fact that the Southwest flight might be delayed. Of course, in days of old, CP would have accommodated the passenger on a later flight in the name of goodwill, but that is another story.

In the second example, Delta rendered it impossible for the passenger to fulfill the second contract, by failing to deliver the first contract. Although the contracts are separate, they are inextricably linked, neither party can fulfill the second contract, unless the first contract is fulfilled. In this case, Delta is entirely responsible. There is no failure by the passenger. Therefore, Delta is morally, and I think, legally responsible.