It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

delta airlines : involuntary passenger removal

page: 5
14
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2017 @ 08:49 AM
link   
LogicalGraphitti

They did have the boarding pass..thus the argument that he got through security, gates, and on board before the issue was addressed. The 18 year olds name was on the boarding pass though. Which should've been changed before they got on board. That is what I think maybe is the issue? The parents didn't change the name to the 2 year olds name before they boarded.

But the seat was not vacant..they just never changed the name. If they had done that before the boarding process..then this would not have been an issue. I've never been in a situation where my name didn't match the ticket so, I am not sure if I have that correct.

Someone else maybe will be able to explain that bit further or possibly you already know the correct procedure... I was just saying that he paid for both tickets.

thanks,
blend57




posted on May, 6 2017 @ 08:55 AM
link   
The dude said he informed the ticket agent at the gate and the ticket agent said it was fine and handled it. Then got on the jet and the FA got all out of whack.

These airlines all the time overbook, then just before the flight they ask for "volunteers" for a later flight, and it only repeats itself again. If nobody volunteers they then threaten to delay the flight until some one does. I travel a ton for work and see this all the time. It's a BS scam they get away with including paying to check baggage even if it's a small single item.



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: blend57

so dude would have been cool if he had just lied.

honesty is the best policy folks unless it forces you and your family to sleep in an airport



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 09:08 AM
link   
TinySickTears

I don't know as the argument went through many different things. From the name mismatch, to the FAA regulations, threatening him with jail time..etc.

And in the end..he relented and said he would hold the kid..yet still wasn't allowed to remain in the plane. ( I quoted that part in another post)...just seems suspect. As I would think maybe the proper thing to do would be to switch the manifest to reflect the child's name and be done with it as many others pointed out.

I think they were gonna be kicked off that plane no matter what at that point..so lying wouldn't have helped with anything. But I haven't been following the story as close as some I think.

Thanks,
blend57



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: blend57
LogicalGraphitti

They did have the boarding pass..thus the argument that he got through security, gates, and on board before the issue was addressed. The 18 year olds name was on the boarding pass though. Which should've been changed before they got on board. That is what I think maybe is the issue? The parents didn't change the name to the 2 year olds name before they boarded.

But the seat was not vacant..they just never changed the name. If they had done that before the boarding process..then this would not have been an issue. I've never been in a situation where my name didn't match the ticket so, I am not sure if I have that correct.

Someone else maybe will be able to explain that bit further or possibly you already know the correct procedure... I was just saying that he paid for both tickets.

thanks,
blend57

Something just doesn't make sense. If the gate agent said it was cleared up and the seat was marked as occupied (regardless of what name it's under), the FA wouldn't even know that level of detail. The FA's don't do the boarding process and check the manifest. Someone would have had to tell them the seat was unoccupied.



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 09:26 AM
link   
LogicalGraphitti

Here is where one person speculates what happened:


How Delta found out that Grayson was not Mason: I speculate that the problems started when the family listed Grayson as a lap-infant, just as they would have if Mason was still traveling with them. I presume that they then had Grayson board with his lap-infant boarding pass. That means that Mason’s boarding pass was never scanned. So although the family had still technically purchased that seat, when Mason never boarded the plane, Delta classified him as a no-show and moved to give his seat to another passenger. This happens all the time. It could have been a standby passenger, a confirmed passenger on an overbooked flight, or even a non-rev, it doesn’t really matter. The problem, of course, was that Grayson was now occupying Mason’s old seat so that when this new passenger boarded with a boarding pass for that seat, he had no where to sit. ...


And...I guess if the ticket was scanned, then they would've never known that the child was not Mason..so, TinySickTears was right.


Kids are not required to show ID when they check-in or board domestic flights. In fact, most kids don’t even have ID, unless their parents take them on international adventures. So all the family really needed to do was have Grayson board using Mason’s boarding pass. Had Mason’s boarding pass been presented to the gate agent and gone beeeep in the scanner, the computer would have thought Mason had boarded the plane and we wouldn’t be discussing this right now. Trust me, the Delta agents didn’t really care whether Grayson or Mason was in that seat. They just want to do their job and get the flight out on time with all seats occupied. But once they found out, protocols had to be followed. Lies had to be told. And threats had to be made. Or at least that’s the way these things usually go


I don't know if that is what happened..but it does solve the "how did they find out the kid wasn't Mason" question..

Thanks,
blend57



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: blend57

its all bull#.
the name wasnt on the manifest. safety. SOP... blah blah blah

this is why each situation needs to be evaluated before the black and white reaction comes down.
they spent some time talking to or arguing with this guy. the plane was going nowhere. a little bit of a disturbance and inconvenience to the other passengers as well as putting this guy and his family out. then of course the threats of jail and having the kids taken away.

im thinking a nice solution would have been to try and be understanding. why was the seat vacant? oh you paid for all the tickets? oh the infant with the mysterious non matching name is your child and not a terrorist safety threat?
all info verified...manifest updated.
have a nice day sir. sorry for the inconvenience but we have to make sure our manifest matches. thank you for understanding. goodbye

what the hell is wrong with that?

instead its threats of jail and stranding a family in an airport and lying to them about faa rules.




top topics



 
14
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join