[Lucinda Ingraham]

I purchased a round trip ticket from Delta Airlines to fly from Charlottesville, VA to Sacramento, CA in Oct. 2011. I also paid for that ticket in Oct. 2011. The ticket was for Jan. 6th to Jan. 20th and it was for the birth of my 1st grandchild. He arrived early, on Dec. 13th, when I tried to change that ticket to fly earlier, I was told that cost would be another $550.00 on top of the $450.00 I had paid to change it. I decided not to change it because of the extra cost and wait until Jan. to go. My son-in-law got me a buddy pass to fly out to CA on Dec. 19th. When I called Delta from CA to confirm my ticket back to VA on the Jan. 20th, I was told that if I wasn't on my flight out of VA on 1/6/12 the whole ticket would be canceled, even though a seat was reserved for me and paid for. I was told that I would need to purchase another one way seat which was going to be $820.00 even though I had already purchased my ticket previously. I was transferred to 3 people going through the same thing each time. The 3rd person was April Howard, a manager with Delta Airlines from Tampa, FL. She was very rude to me and also to my son-in-law who took over the call when he saw I wasn't getting anywhere with her. She spoke very degrading and even started yelling at him at one point. She eventually transferred him to another manager when he asked to speak with someone else. The airline would not budge on my whole round ticket being canceled if I did not show up at the airport on the 6th of Jan. They would not budge on charging me $820.00 for one way return ticket to VA, because we were told "that is what a one way ticket cost". My son in law pulled up Travelocity the next day and found one way tickets from Sacramento, CA to Charlottesville, VA for $205.00. Therefore, I am going to have to pay to fly back home when I already paid with my round trip ticket back in October.

[jimworcs]

This will generate a response that you bought a non refundable ticket, but the truth is you are not asking to change your flight. You are simply askng to not ise one of the services. Why should this cost anymore in these circumstances?

If McDonalds offer a £4 burger and drink, and i decide not to take the drink, should the price go up to £6?

[azstar]

This is the same situation at every single airline, without exception. If you fail to show up for your outbound trip, the return flights are all cancelled. The major airlines use the argument that your "contract" was for a discounted roundtrip and you violated the contract. Often, one way fares are more expensive than roundtrip. There are two exceptions here. Southwest and Frontier's fares are all one way. So, if you fail to show up for your outbound your return will be cancelled, but Frontier will reinstate your flights without charging you anything, provided your original flights still have seats available.

[Lucinda Ingraham]

Yep! One more way the airlines can screw you! They don't care that they had already made their money on me - now they can make more money by selling my seat for $800+ to someone else - not a bad profit for them - my $458.00 ticket and then another $800.00 for one seat! Yep - go ahead Delta - keep screwing your loyal skymile customers - others will learn like I did to never to use your airline again!

[dc2las]

Originally Posted by jimworcs

If McDonalds offer a £4 burger and drink, and i decide not to take the drink, should the price go up to £6?

Well of course it should...if the burger alone is priced at £6.

Many industries bundle things to cost less than the individual parts together. This customer wanted to split two things in to one half and one half. But when the bundle was split, it didn't cost one half and one half.

My local auto shop bundles an oil change and tire realignment for less than the two added together. If I only want the oil change, I pay the oil change cost.

Read the rules and maybe next time you won't be complaining on a website.

[jimworcs]

Except that there are extenuating circumstances. It is the lack of any discretion which rankles. In this case, the passenger had travelled early as the baby was premature. Having done so, I fail to see why Delta, or any other airline, can't exercise some common sense discretion for extenuating circumstances.

After 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, may airlines waived their normal rules to assist people. Why is that ok, but not ok to do it for individual circumstances. They can be limited to genuine medical cases and could even stipulate that there must be no monetary loss to the airline. In this case, there would be no loss whatsoever to Delta. They were simply trying to extort higher sums of money out of their passengers misfortune.

[chriscolombo]

Unfortunately Delta is correct in this situation. When purchasing an excursion fare, you are engaged in a contract in which you agree to fly two segments, an outbound and return. When you failed to show up for your outbound flight, you broke the contract. Had you cancelled the ticket in advance, the ticket may have retained its value for one year. It could have been applied toward the purchase of another non-refundable ticket plus a change fee. However, as a no-show, Delta has no idea why you did not present yourself. Moreover, the extenuating circumstances are irrelevant, because a non-refundable ticket means just that... non-refundable. I agree Delta is probably the worst airline out there, but this rule applies to all non-refundable fares. As a side note, no-shows like yourself are exactly why most airlines overbook. Regardless, you may want to look at Southwest in the future, which offers one-way fares that are changeable, but not always refundable. Sorry, but Delta got you on this one.

[stonecold_1981]

Originally Posted by dc2las

Well of course it should...if the burger alone is priced at £6.

Many industries bundle things to cost less than the individual parts together. This customer wanted to split two things in to one half and one half. But when the bundle was split, it didn't cost one half and one half.

My local auto shop bundles an oil change and tire realignment for less than the two added together. If I only want the oil change, I pay the oil change cost.

Read the rules and maybe next time you won't be complaining on a website.

This is the most ridiculous argument I've heard. For sake of clarity lets play out your example.
Assume oil change + tire realignment costs $40.
Oil change individually may cost 30 and tire realignment 20. So if you buy individually the cost will be higher than the bundled product. But under NO circumstances will the auto shop charge MORE than 40 bucks for a portion of the bundle when the bundle itself costs 40.

I get the whole point of bundling products/services. What I dont get is - why is the cost of just ONE product (Not all products purchased individually) greater than the whole bundle. This is against traditional economics/pricing.

However, I also get the point of "contract of carriage". I know that they have explained in their rules these things. That said, it is still unfair and can only exist when airlines are colluding!

[chriscolombo]

"Except that there are extenuating circumstances. It is the lack of any discretion which rankles. In this case, the passenger had travelled early as the baby was premature. Having done so, I fail to see why Delta, or any other airline, can't exercise some common sense discretion for extenuating circumstances."

This is unfortunately the chance you take when purchasing a non-refundable fare. The price is greatly reduced in exchange for the condition of a ticket that can only be used on the date and flight specified. The airline is counting on the fact that a certain percentage of people will not be able to travel due to extenuating circumstances. This is precisely why airlines overbook. They can literally sell two tickets for the same seat when someone does not show. The profits enable competitive pricing. The extenuating circumstances may not be your fault, but they are likewise not the fault of Delta. That's simply common sense. They are not going to compensate anyone a passenger because a baby was born prematurely, someone died, or you are to sick to travel. A line must be drawn somewhere, and if every airline accommodated every passenger due to their individual circumstances, ticket prices would be higher. Accordingly, when you purchase a greatly reduced excursion fare, you do so under the condition that it is non-refundable. If you fail to travel, the airline keeps the money. If you show up, the airline must provide transportation, or compensate you if you are denied boarding. Of course, severe weather precludes the airline, and most passengers, from traveling at all. In such cases, the airline must refund your ticket to its original form of payment, or re-schedule you on the next available flight without penalty. This may be days in the case of a snow storm. Such "acts of God" effect not an individual, but the masses.


"After 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, may airlines waived their normal rules to assist people. Why is that ok, but not ok to do it for individual circumstances."


Natural disasters and terrorist attacks effect the masses, and therefore are not individual personal circumstances. During 9/11, the entire air system was shut down for days. Tens of thousands of people were effected. Passengers who did not travel did receive full refunds, and those who still wanted to travel were re-accommodated on the next available flight. During Katrina, the entire city was flooded, and MSY was closed. Again, common sense indicates the disaster displaced the masses, and was not an isolated circumstance of an individual.

"They can be limited to genuine medical cases and could even stipulate that there must be no monetary loss to the airline. In this case, there would be no loss whatsoever to Delta. They were simply trying to extort higher sums of money out of their passengers misfortune."

What exactly is a "genuine medical case?" How do you authenticate a medical case? Are psychiatric cases medical? Why stop at medical cases? What about if your house catches fire, you are the victim of theft, or you were in an accident on the way to the airport? The manifestation of such incidents all result in the inability to travel, but the essences vary. Where do you draw the line? Moreover, have you considered how opportunistic people are, and how they would scam the system. In effect, anyone and everyone could weasel their way out of a non-refundable ticket, and receive the same service as someone who is paying considerably more for a fully refundable/changeable ticket. In such cases, the passenger is extorting the airline, not the other way around. In short, you get what you pay for. If you want a low fare, please realize there is a chance you may loose your ticket entirely if you get sick, have a fire, are in an accident, or any other unfortunate personal circumstance which prevents you from flying. If you can not assume that kind of risk, then purchase a fully refundable ticket. It will cost you more, but if something goes wrong, you can receive a full refund. Enough said!

[chriscolombo]

"Except that there are extenuating circumstances. It is the lack of any discretion which rankles. In this case, the passenger had travelled early as the baby was premature. Having done so, I fail to see why Delta, or any other airline, can't exercise some common sense discretion for extenuating circumstances."

This is unfortunately the chance you take when purchasing a non-refundable fare. The ticket price is greatly discounted in exchange for the condition that the ticket must be used for the date and flight specified. This is the agreement passengers make when purchasing such fares. The airline is counting on the fact that a certain percentage of customers will not be able to travel due to extenuating circumstances. Accordingly, airlines overbook. They can literally sell two tickets for the same seat. This is one way airlines make money, and are able to keep their ticket prices competitive for everyone. An extenuating circumstance preventing an individual from traveling is not the fault of the passenger, but it is likewise not the fault of Delta.
The ticket does not say, non-refundable "except if someone has a baby." Common sense dictates that the line must be drawn somewhere. If airlines accommodate every non-refundable passenger's extenuating circumstance, then the flying public should expect significantly higher airfares. The fact is, the public demands low fares, and non-refundable tickets are one way to ensure prices to not increase exponentially. Accordingly, when you purchase a greatly reduced excursion fare, you do so under the condition that it is non-refundable. If you fail to travel, the airline keeps the money, because you agreed to a non-refundable condition. Extenuating circumstances are not part of the rules. Conversely, If you show up, the airline must provide transportation. If you are denied boarding due to overbooking, you are entitled to compensation. If a mechanical problem arises, they must get you to your destination within four hours of scheduled arrival time, or else provide compensation. Weather and Air Traffic Control (ATC) delays/cancellations are outside factors not controlled by the airline. If such events effect the masses (which they inevitably do), airlines are required to refund your ticket to its original form of payment, or schedule on the next available flight to your destination. They are not required to provide hotel or meal vouchers. As a courtesy, however, many airlines do block a hundreds of hotel rooms in the event of a snow storm, and provide their passengers with a distressed rate, which significantly reduces the cost. Regardless, the point is individual extenuating circumstances effect the individual. Airlines only consider extenuating circumstances when they effect the masses, such as weather disruptions. If their planes are not flying, they will refund your ticket. If your car breaks down, you are out of luck.

"After 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, may airlines waived their normal rules to assist people. Why is that ok, but not ok to do it for individual circumstances."


Natural disasters and terrorist attacks effect the masses, and therefore are not individual personal circumstances. During 9/11, the entire air system was shut down for days, effecting tens of thousands of flyers. Passengers who did not travel received full refunds on their non-refundable tickets. Those who still wanted to travel were re-accommodated on other fights without penalty. Again, the difference is that such disasters effect everyone, versus incidents that effect an individual. During Katrina, the entire city of New Orleans was flooded, and the airport was closed. Because everyone was effected, the airlines accommodated the masses. Had one passenger's house been flooded, and not the entire city, the airline would not refund his non-refundable ticket.

"They can be limited to genuine medical cases and could even stipulate that there must be no monetary loss to the airline. In this case, there would be no loss whatsoever to Delta. They were simply trying to extort higher sums of money out of their passengers misfortune."

What exactly is a "genuine medical case?" How do you authenticate a medical case? Are psychiatric cases medical? Why stop at medical cases? What about if your house catches fire, you are the victim of theft, or you were in an accident on the way to the airport? The manifestation of such incidents all result in the inability to travel, but the essences vary. Where do you draw the line? Moreover, consider how opportunistic people are, and how such a system would be scammed. In effect, anyone and everyone could weasel their way out of a non-refundable ticket, and receive the same service as someone who is paying considerably more for a fully refundable/changeable ticket. In such cases, the passenger is extorting the airline, not the other way around. Furthermore, consider the paperwork involved to implement such a system, not to mention the additional employees that an airline would need to hire to accommodate all those requests. The verification process alone could take weeks just for one passenger. Such a system would increase the costs of the airline, which would be reflected in higher ticket prices for the masses. In short, you get what you pay for. If you want a low fare, please realize there is a chance you may loose your money entirely if you get sick, have a fire, are in a car accident, or any other unfortunate personal circumstance preventing you from flying. If you can not assume that kind of risk, then purchase a fully refundable ticket. It will cost you more, but if something goes wrong, you can receive a full refund. If you can not afford a fully refundable ticket, consider a train or bus. This is all common sense. Enough said!

[stonecold_1981]

Hmmm. I think different airlines act differently. Some airlines waive these fees under extenuating circumstances. I had a very good experience with United last year. I had purchased a roundtrip non-refundable economy ticket (US to Asia) for about $2000. I was there to visit my father, who was unwell. I planned on being there for just 1 week. However, his health quickly deteriorated and he died at the end of that week. I called United to cancel my return ticket. A few weeks later I flew back to US. Once in US, I filed for a refund explaining the circumstances. In just days (after providing proof, documents, etc.) they refunded about $995!

In this case, I think that you are missing the point. I understand non-refundable fares. I understand that to change these tickets you have to pay a fee plus the fare difference. While some airlines may waiver off these fees, it is just an additional consideration.

There are 2 parts to the issue -
1. Refunding fares in extenuating circumstances AND
2. Canceling the entire ticket if one leg of the ticket is not used.
My issue is with #2. I think it is unfair and should be illegal!

[dc2las]

Originally Posted by stonecold_1981

This is the most ridiculous argument I've heard. For sake of clarity lets play out your example.
Assume oil change + tire realignment costs $40.
Oil change individually may cost 30 and tire realignment 20. So if you buy individually the cost will be higher than the bundled product. But under NO circumstances will the auto shop charge MORE than 40 bucks for a portion of the bundle when the bundle itself costs 40.

Completely irrelevant to the argument. If both the auto shop and the airline were clear with their pricing (and the government fines airlines for not being clear with their pricing), it doesn't matter what the bundled and unbundled prices are. All that matters is you agreed to one price and the other of the service you decide you want is different. You're getting upset because the price of the "lesser" good (or the one way flight) is higher than the price of the "bundled" good, but no one ever misrepresented that fact.

Also, for the sake of clarity, let's play out my example:

Oil change = $30
Tire realignment = $20
Air Filter Replacement = $10

Bundle for all three = $40

If I don't get all three and no two product bundle exists, then oil change + tire realignment = $50 and $50 > $40. It happens all the time.

[stonecold_1981]

Originally Posted by dc2las

Completely irrelevant to the argument. If both the auto shop and the airline were clear with their pricing (and the government fines airlines for not being clear with their pricing), it doesn't matter what the bundled and unbundled prices are. All that matters is you agreed to one price and the other of the service you decide you want is different. You're getting upset because the price of the "lesser" good (or the one way flight) is higher than the price of the "bundled" good, but no one ever misrepresented that fact.

Yes. No one ever misrepresented the fact. I was just pointing out that it doesnt make sense to do this and further should be made illegal.

Originally Posted by dc2las

Also, for the sake of clarity, let's play out my example:

Oil change = $30
Tire realignment = $20
Air Filter Replacement = $10

Bundle for all three = $40

If I don't get all three and no two product bundle exists, then oil change + tire realignment = $50 and $50 > $40. It happens all the time.

You have conveniently added a 3rd element to the bundle. The reason why the comparison was relevant was because there were 2 elements (oil change representing origin to destination fare, and tire realignment representing return leg). Now that you add a 3rd element you adjust the logic and talk about "bundle of bundles". This does NOT happen all the time.