US Airways is at it again

[LD3]

If the title of this thread was "Overweight guy forced to pay for extra seat" everyone would be saying US was wrong for doing that. This is obviously was no win situaton for the airlines...

 

[SparrowHawk]

If the title of this thread was "Overweight guy forced to pay for extra seat" everyone would be saying US was wrong for doing that. This is obviously was no win situaton for the airlines...

I respectfully disagree. I can support almost ANY airline policy so long it is communicated clearly and concisely. A 13 year old with a 5th grade reading level should be able to read and understand airline policies and procedures.

Te above is not currently the case. I expect airlines or any vendor I contract with to deliver what they promise. Far to often, airlines break every promise made to their customer except one! They promise to take our money. That they can handle.

This is why I like Spirit, they promise nothing except a fare that is markedly cheaper, they communicate their fees clearly and concisely. They make no bones as to where they fit in the market. I DON'T care for the actual nuts and bolts of the business model but I admire their candor regarding the business model,

Put another way, Write the rules so even an idiot can comprehend, then enforce the rules.

 

[cynic]

Well since there has been ample time for US Airways through it's spokesperson to deny the events as reported then one can assume that US Airways agrees with the events as reported.

There has been no rebuttal or refuting of the customer's claim, therefore it is assumed to be correct.

Or the company figures this will go away in a few days and there's no need to add to his 15 minutes of "fame." Responding to the report will just keep it in the news longer and create a larger issue than ignoring it. If, for some reason, this does continue to generate headlines on major news outlets next week, you may then see the company respond. Sometimes it's better to take a small PR hit for a couple days than fight it out and look bad for a longer period of time. The public has a short memory and will be on to the next issue in no time, especially with the holiday and shopping seasons starting.

 

[necigrad]

Well since there has been ample time for US Airways through it's spokesperson to deny the events as reported then one can assume that US Airways agrees with the events as reported.

There has been no rebuttal or refuting of the customer's claim, therefore it is assumed to be correct.

Of course, because the company ALWAYS responds. Oh wait, they don't. If the story was correct I'd expect the company to come out and say "We scrwed up, we apoligise, and here's how we're goign to fix our policy. I'm pretty confident that they have in the past.

I was merely trying to give the benefit of the doubt in this case after stating the conclusion I came to after no one offered a rebuttal AND the company offered compensation which was considered by the customer to be inadequate....

When I had the authority at another employer, I sometimes gave a customer with a complaint a discount. Nothing much, usually 5-10%. Why? Sometimes you're just better off giving a token to the customer because they think they were wronged. That doesn't mean you give them their service or product for free.

Or the company figures this will go away in a few days and there's no need to add to his 15 minutes of "fame." Responding to the report will just keep it in the news longer and create a larger issue than ignoring it.

Did US (then AW) put out a press release for the guy who got drunk in NM who drank on our plane and then had a fatal DUI accident? No, in fact they said NOTHING. Until, that is, it came to legal actions, for exactly these reasons. I admit that this example isn't quite apples to apples, more like apples to pears, but if you look at the root it's very similar. As cynic said, just because the company doesn't dispute something doesn't make it true, any more then the original accusation being true because it was said.

EDIT: Something else I just thought of. If the allegations are true, US violated FARs by allowing the aircraft to take off without a passenger wearing his seatbelt. The airline would be better off self disclosing this then letting the FAA just say "Hey, you did this, so we're fining you". The FAA tends to take self disclosure favorably.

 

[SparrowHawk]

EDIT: Something else I just thought of. If the allegations are true, US violated FARs by allowing the aircraft to take off without a passenger wearing his seatbelt. The airline would be better off self disclosing this then letting the FAA just say "Hey, you did this, so we're fining you". The FAA tends to take self disclosure favorably.

People undo their seat belts all the time after the F/A does her final walk through. Mr Berkowitz likely attempted to shoe horn himself into his seat next to Man Mountain Jones long enough for take off.

Another thing no one brought up is our headline grabbing media and their long running tendency to cast airlines in general in the worst possible light. Chris Elliott is pretty good that way but not always.

Based upon all of the information I have in my possession, US Airways owes the customer a full refund as the seat was not used and useful, If Man Mountain Jones occupied fully 1.5 seats as claimed then there was in effect no seat available for Mr Berkowitz. If no seat was available then ar minimum US Airways is obligated to compensate at the same rate as if Mr Berkowitz were Involuntarily Denied Boarding.

If it were me I'd pursue it aggressively, not because something heinous transpired but because I think I could win. The sad truth is that until it becomes less expensive to give excellent customer service then it is to provide sloppy service these events will continue to happen. This is true of all domestic carriers, no way is US unique, that needs to be made clear.

 

[Art at ISP]

The sad thing is that this incident made NATIONAL news! With this kind of exposure, I do think the company should have had SOME kind of response.

The other poster is correct, this is a no win situation for all airlines.....that said, I think the only complaint here is that the company could have handled it better.

 

[jimntx]

The sad thing is that this incident made NATIONAL news! With this kind of exposure, I do think the company should have had SOME kind of response.

The other poster is correct, this is a no win situation for all airlines.....that said, I think the only complaint here is that the company could have handled it better.

It is a no win situation for all airlines except WN. They make no apologies that they charge "persons of size" for two seats if they occupy more than one seat. Then if the plane is not full and the seat was not needed, they refund the charge for the second seat. As another poster has already pointed out, obesity is not a physical/medical condition that must be accomodated under the ADA. And, even if it were, let's remember that the ADA requires reasonable accomodation--giving someone half of someone else's seat is not reasonable to my way of thinking.

I may have posted this before but, I'm an old person. We tend to repeat ourselves. When I am not looking you may roll your eyes. :unsure: My primary care physician when I lived in Houston had done some research in obesity and weight control. Once we were discussing the subject, and I didn't feel that he was making enough allowance for medical reasons for obesity. I said, "What about the people who have a glandular problem?" His response was "Jim, in 99% (or more) of those cases, the defective gland is an overactive elbow."

You have a right to eat yourself into an early grave. The airlines have a right to charge you for another seat if you occupy more than one.

 

[rvolkcpa]

It is a no win situation for all airlines except WN. They make no apologies that they charge "persons of size" for two seats if they occupy more than one seat. Then if the plane is not full and the seat was not needed, they refund the charge for the second seat. As another poster has already pointed out, obesity is not a physical/medical condition that must be accomodated under the ADA. And, even if it were, let's remember that the ADA requires reasonable accomodation--giving someone half of someone else's seat is not reasonable to my way of thinking.

I think the other airlines should follow WN's lead on this issue. I once sat next to an oversized guy on an Alaska Airlines flight from HNL to SEA. While the armrest was down, his right leg encroached significantly into my leg space. I did not enjoy the flight.

If I were in charge of the US customer relations department, I would offer Mr Berkowitz an upgrade voucher for his next flight.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Here's a thought: If a customer cannot sit in the seat with armrests down and the ability, once seated, to easily move the armrests up and down, then that person has to buy the second seat.

It's not a perfect solution, but it would have precluded this mess and many others that likely occur daily at all airlines.

 

[necigrad]

People undo their seat belts all the time after the F/A does her final walk through. Mr Berkowitz likely attempted to shoe horn himself into his seat next to Man Mountain Jones long enough for take off.

No doubt, and that actually lends support to my point. This guy said “It did not allow me to use my seatbelt during takeoff and landing". He KNEW he needed to wear his seatbelt (we do brief it), it's procedure for the flight attendant to check that it's on (nothing suggests the FA didn't) one would logically conclude he DID wear it, thus it COULD be worn, thus he's LIED. If he CHOSE to not wear it he was not prevented from using it in any way, shape, or form.

And let's even consider that I'm getting a bit carried away. He was INSTRUCTED to wear it, and if he didn't he broke the law. That's a what, $11,000 fine or one year in jail? He should have spoken up, he didn't. That's HIS fault. If he had gethomeitis that's only his problem, no one elses.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Just When You Thought It Couldn't Get Worse! Guess What? IT DID!

Woman With Terminal Cancer Can't Get Airline Ticket Refund

WASHINGTON (WUSA) -- A woman claims a dream family trip is being cancelled because of her terminal cancer, and the airline is refusing to refund the money for her ticket.

The McKain family would have been taking off from BWI Airport leaving to Belize in January. But now they aren't going anywhere and they're out of $4200.

These days the closest Lynn McKain will get to her dream destination of Belize is through pictures. Her doctor has ordered she doesn't travel and undergo immediate cancer treatment after being diagnosed with stage 4 breast cancer.

Why oh why does the airline go out of its way to make itself look bad? On PR issues they manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory EVERY TIME! If they were as consistent in on time performance as they at committing Public Relations Suicide, US Airways would be the best run airline in the world.

UPDATE:The day after our story aired, we have confirmed that U.S. Airways changed its decision and will grant Lynn McKain and her family a full refund for her tickets totaling $4,200 dollars.

Her story has received national attention, and sparked debate over airline policy and consumer responsibility.

McKain called 9News to inform of the update and said she is very thankful that the company will grant the refund.

She said, "It feels like a lot of stress has been taken of my shoulders."

While I'm glad that in the end US Airways stepped up to the plate and did the right thing, it befuddles me to no end why they incur the massive PR hit BEFORE they do the right thing. Now they have the horrible PR and they're out $4.200.00 to boot. I really wish someone would explain that logic because apparently i'm missing something.

 

[necigrad]

I'm getting very disturbed. More and more we're hearing stories of people buying (presumably in this case) NON REFUNDABLE tickets and shaming US into giving them a refund. I don't at all have a problem with a rare instance, but this is getting out of control. In this particular case this woman has bad cancer. I've lost family to cancer so I know what it's like. That's no excuse, however, to publicly chastise a company into giving something that wasn't paid for! Want a refund if you can't make a trip? Fine, but a REFUNDABLE ticket! I'll pile even more shame on the news agencies for sensationalizing this. What is with Americans nowadays?

 

[tadjr]

I thought thats what trip insurance was for?

 

[john john]

I really wish someone would explain that logic because apparently i'm missing something.

What would happen if a front line worker waived the fee?

Perhaps disciplinary action up to and including termination I suspect. You're welcome to give it a try and then come back and tell us what happens.

She's not "worthy" because she didn't prove that she was eligible for any kind of waiver provision in the policy. Status outside of her relationship with the airline at that moment has nothing to do with it. She could be in the top 1% of all wealthy Americans and she still wouldn't have been waived unless she met the criteria to which you just referred.

My point about her current situation was that she is very unlikely to be a return customer. So why should a special waiver be granted to someone who will not return the favor by purchasing more tickets on US in the coming years because of how well she was treated this time? The airline could have put her in first class, given her access to the club, rented a limo to take her to her final destination and given her automatic CP status and still never saw a dime in return for taking care of the customer in this special treatment kind of way.

You still want to be generous with someone else's money which is way easier than being generous with your own money. If you are a stockholder or in senior management, you have the right to decide which give-away policies make sense for the company and which ones do not. If you aren't in one of those decision-making positions you can only follow the rules or face the consequences for being a fee waiving maverick.

Fraud and abuse of of these kinds of policies is not fear, it's a reality. Happens all the time. Soon websites and blogs will appear showing how to convince ticket agents to waive your bag fees because of their generous fee waive policy. Then, when you add cash transactions and a generous fee waiving policy you can be certain that there will be some percentage of revenue leakage whereby cash collected from the customer somehow turns into a waived fee. It's like magic.

I didn't suggest "employees" pay hardship baggage fees. I suggested that you personally put your money where your keyboard is, so to speak, and demonstrate by example the kind of compassion that you are asking the company to authorize. Give till it hurts and then give some more. Heck its only money and just think of how good you will feel knowing that everyone who comes to the airport and faces an unexpected bag fee will be able to board the plane with their bags thanks to john john's limitless benevolence for all of those hard luck stories.

Great question, but who can know the mind of the Lord? My best guess is that JC wouldn't stick his hands into other people's pockets without their consent as a way of being generous to those in need. When people came to him in need He used His own resources from on high to provide healing of sicknesses and even death, to provide food to those who were hungry, and ultimately to offer up Himself so that the world could be saved by faith. When a tax collector came looking for money, which He didn't have, He didn't steal it from someone else but rather told Peter to go an catch a fish which just "happened" to have a money piece in its mouth which presumably had been lost or forfeited to the sea quite a while earlier. I just can't recall a single event where JC engaged in or commanded stealing from someone as a way of appearing generous.

Money in a corporation has to come from somewhere and in most all cases it comes from paying customers. So giving away special treatment to some customers must come at the higher expense of other customers. So a fee waiving policy means that those customers who do not have their fees waived are paying more so that others can pay less or nothing at all. There really is no other way to make a policy like that work. So a fee waive policy hurts paying customers and possibly employees as the cumulative burdens of compassion policies (and the abuse and fraud that goes with them) takes it toll on the financial health of the organization. The most likely result of this is higher prices for paying customers and lower wages or fewer jobs for employees. One look at the last three years of financial statements makes it pretty clear that US wouldn't be here today if it didn't collect ancillary fees or if it waived those fees for everyone who raised an eyebrow at paying them.

I don't fear compassion; I just don't believe compassion is defined by using other people's money. That's why policies of compassion and benevolence don't belong in a business or government setting. The only way for those entities to provide money or services under the guise of compassion is to use other people's money to do it. Corporations collect money from paying customers in order to be "compassionate" and governments collect taxes from productive citizens in order to be compassionate. This puts several layers of insulation between someone with the resources and will to be compassionate and the person in need. It needs to be said again that taking money from one person or group to give it to another person or group is not compassionate.

People and private organizations with a charter can show true compassion and offer direct assistance to those in need. People reach into their own pockets and give so that others can receive aid as may be appropriate. Personally my wife and I have given to charity between 10 and 40 percent of our household income over the past decade or more. If our taxes were lower we would give even more. So while I can be personally generous and compassionate I do not expect the businesses or governments I interface with to do it for me. I actually expect them to get out of the way so I can support issues and causes of my choosing rather than being forced to give to causes that I do not support.

Feel free to start a non-profit organization that provides assistance to those in need of having their airline baggage fees paid for them. You can accept donations and provide vouchers and help out anyone you like. If it takes off you might make a real difference in people's lives. If no one gives to your organization, then perhaps you will conclude that there really isn't a need for travelers to have their baggage fees paid by other generous people.

Callaway believes employees and customers will exploit any reasonable attempt to provide a compassionate response to situations so that they have ruined it for those who are truly in need. Callaway also believes that taking personal responsibility has been eroded in America and replaced with an entitlement mentality that demands something for nothing as a new way of life.

I have a novel idea, why don't we ask everyone to pay their own way in life and stop demanding to be treated special because we think we can get away with it if we put enough guilt on someone else to pay for our failures?

 

[Dont call me Shirley]

Back in 90s, the carriers granted medical waivers for non refundable fares. "Doctors' notes" were a time a dozen, thanks in no small part to the advent of PC printers that enabled anyone to print an official looking note. As with so many other things in life, unscrupulous folks messed it up for all. So, the carriers went with nonrefundable meaning nonrefundable.

No one foresees cancer. No one foresees a car wreck or a root canal for that matter. At the risk of seeming callous, that is what travel insurance is for. Was this poor woman's terrible situation heart breaking? Of course. And US did the right thing after it hit the press.

What would have happened without "Only on 9"?