Originally Posted by
surely not
Interesting to read your reaction .Scott if you, holding a valid ticket, are offloaded to allow a family who haven't a valid additional ticket insisting on using an extra seat for a car seat for an infant. I'm sure you would be very understanding of the situation and walk away with a smile on your face.
You did not read my post as intended. I was not objecting to the removal of the family - only on the dialog leading up to it. The staff crossed a line.
Given the decision to play the non-transferability issue, the staff should have:
1) Since they were not offering compensation for the seat, they should have lead with the non-transferability issue - and kept that as the base of the conversation.
2) Informed the parents that carrying the child on their lap was permitted, but not demand that they do so. Their other options are for all of them or some of them to leave with the infant.
3) Once they were given the choice, it would have been very appropriate to let them be for a couple of minutes so they could make up their minds and create a plan.
Of course, there is also the question about whether you want to play that non-transferability card in this situation.
I didn't have time to look at the video before. Having looked at it, it really isn't "outrageous", just not well-handled.
It seems the Delta staff was caught off guard by the status of the seat. I'm guessing that when the teenage son failed to show for the first leg of the flight, they presumed the seat to be unoccupied - but never communicated that to the father until the video we see here.
The press report is also deceptive. The audio isn't great on that video, but the "jail" conversation seems to be introduced by the father, not the staff.