- Report: #2033
Complaint Review: DFP Financial - Santa Monica California
-
Author Not Confirmed
Why?
DFP Financial
233 Wilshire Blvd., Ste 400 Santa Monica, 90401 California, U.S.A.
Phone:
310-449-0076
Web:
N/A
Categories:
Business Rating:
(0)
Tell us has your experience with this business or person been good?
DFP Financial ......ATA Airlines Fraud to customers
*Consumer Comment: Interference with a Flight Crew
*Consumer Suggestion: mark you are only slightly right
*Consumer Comment: Rebuttal to Kristi
*Consumer Comment: Mark you are wrong
*Consumer Comment: Mark you are wrong
*Consumer Comment: Mark you are wrong
*Consumer Comment: Mark you are wrong
*Consumer Comment: ATA still is at fault for two reasons. #1 the way they treated him
*Consumer Comment: ATA still is at fault for two reasons. #1 the way they treated him
*Consumer Comment: ATA still is at fault for two reasons. #1 the way they treated him
*Consumer Comment: ATA still is at fault for two reasons. #1 the way they treated him
*Consumer Suggestion: Next time, book a REAL AIRLINE
*Consumer Comment: no one can really do a d**n thing because no agency regulates how airlines treat their passengers , they are not a real airline!
*Consumer Suggestion: let's talk about the shady safety record at Alaska
*Consumer Comment: ATA was wrong but within rights
*Consumer Suggestion: ATA Vs Alaska Airlines
*Consumer Suggestion: Here you go again, making personal attacks without addressing the real issue
Mr. Bradley Holmes a passenger on ATA Airlines Flight #307 on Wednesday, March 8, 2000. was asked to forfeit his place, having already been a passenger in the flight, which had made a stop in Chicago on its way to Los Angeles from New York. With no reasons given, Mr. Holmes was embarrassed and harassed in the presence of fellow business associates. Mr. Holmes offered no resistance except imploring airline personnel for a simple explanation. Mr. Holmes was ushered out of the airplane by six (6) police officers, and treated no better than a common street-thug.
My client Mr. Holmes purchased a ticket on ATA airline to fly from New York JFK to Los Angeles on flight 307. The flight was scheduled to make one stop at Chicago Midway but no change of planes was scheduled. Mr. Holmes boarded that flight and traveled to Chicago. Mr. Holmes was waiting to continue onto Los Angeles when another passenger flying only from Chicago to Los Angeles boarded the plane and was assigned the same seat as Mr. Holmes. The flight attendant then informed them that there was a "duplicate seating" error and would try to fix it. He later returned and told Mr. Holmes someone had made a mistake and that he would have to give up his seat to the new passenger and work something out with the gate attendant.
Mr. Holmes explained he was not willing to accept a flight voucher in exchange for giving up his seat; he had a pivotal business meeting with relation to the same trip that took him to New York in the first place. The flight attendant then explained that Mr. Holmes had no choice but to give up the seat to the new passenger. Mr. Holmes refused and again explained to the attendant that he was booked through to Los Angeles and needed to continue. He also showed the flight attendant his ticket and it's receipt that proved this. At this time, six other passengers in the immediate area, faced with similar situations but who were allowed to continue, began to pay attention and support Mr. Holmes' position.
Mr. Holmes again explained to the flight attendant that he needed to be at work for an important event at 9am the next day and couldn't afford to stay in Chicago for the night. The flight attendant then volunteered information to Mr. Holmes and the six passengers seated around Mr. Holmes that an earlier flight from Chicago Midway was canceled because it wasn't full enough and they were combining it with Mr. Holmes' flight in ATA's effort to be more efficient and profitable. He explained that there were not enough seats to accommodate everyone from both flights. He explained that the new passenger had been given Mr. Holmes seat and Mr. Holmes did not have a choice in the matter.
Mr. Holmes then called me from his seat (29D) on his mobile phone. I advised Mr. Holmes to inform the flight attendant of the legal ramifications and also advised Mr. Holmes to tape record this conversation and any further conversations. Mr. Holmes then turned on his Dictaphone tape recorder, informing the flight attendant and the six passengers around them that he was recording this in case he needed to use it for any reason.
No equipment failure occurred to prevent ATA's ability to fulfil its' duty. Mr. Holmes had not done anything to warrant ATA to require non-fulfillment of their obligation; the only problem being an error on ATA's behalf. ATA had no right to give his seat to someone else. It was ATA's responsibility to provide the new passenger with the alternative compensation and not Mr. Holmes. At this point Mr. Holmes and several other passengers suggested they offer the deplaning incentives to other passengers on the flight. The supervisor, a Ms. Lolita Barber refused, and then in a rude manner, boarded the plane and threatened to have Mr. Holmes "dragged" off the plane.
Mr. Holmes then explained to Ms. Barber that he would be embarrassed if she did so and he would consider that action harassment and that, he would consider the act harmful to his reputation and extremely embarrassing. Mr. Holmes also provided this information, which was recorded, to the ATA flight attendants, Ms. Barber, and the other ATA passenger/ witnesses. Ms. Barber then proceeded to call the Chicago Airport police in order to remove Mr. Holmes from the plane in an incident that was disturbing and degrading to my client. It may be important for you to know that Mr. Holmes was not abusive, rude, nor did he in any way raise his voice or use profanity at any time during this entire ordeal (all of this is of course documented in the tape recording).
Mr. Holmes calmly stated his rights and that he refused ATA's offer of incentive to give up his seat. Yet, Ms. Barber had the six police officers board the plane to remove Mr. Holmes. Mr. Holmes did not argue with the officers. It is coincidental that Mr. Holmes' uncle is the well-known Chicago suburb Police Chief David Kelly. Mr. Holmes proceeded to inform the officers of this relationship, presented them his own ID, his uncle's business card and explained to them the situation. At this time, eight (8) passengers seated around the incident including the gentleman who was also given the "dupe" seat corroborated Mr. Holmes story and passed their business cards to Mr. Holmes with unsolicited offers to give statements on Mr. Holmes behalf. One passenger even wrote a letter for the group. Three (3) of these passengers requested to be included in any class action law suit if it was possible, having seen this same situation in the past on ATA airline, and having it now happen to them.
Two of the officers then asked the flight attendants if anything could be done to fix this situation. When Ms. Barber refused, Mr. Holmes deplaned with the officers and filed an official complaint with the airport police taken by officer Pinzine (badge number 9196. March 8, 2000. 09:25pm. ATA Gate C5). After filing the report, Mr. Holmes requested to be put on another airline to continue on to LA that evening. Ms. Barber refused and told Mr. Holmes that he would have to settle for flight #301 leaving at 8:35am the next day. Mr. Holmes requested to speak to her supervisor. She refused to call them. Mr. Holmes requested a reasonable room at the Holiday Inn for the night. Ms. Barber refused. Ms. Barber ignored Mr. Holmes from that point on while she wrote up her own report of the incident. Mr. Holmes requested a copy of this report and she refused once again. Ms. Barber then refused to assist Mr. Holmes in any way and walked off without making an attempt to present Mr. Holmes with any aid what so ever, essentially leaving Mr. Holmes stranded.
Even without my proper counsel at the time, Mr. Holmes explained that he had a binding contract with the airline to travel direct from NY to LA and had provided ATA with $780 worth of good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which was acknowledged by ATA by both the ticket receipt and when ATA allowed Mr. Holmes to board the plane in New York. . Mr. Holmes then explained that if ATA did not allow him to continue on his flight and fulfill their obligation under their contract, ATA would be liable for breach. The terms under which ATA airline chose to breach the contract were and are unacceptable; ATA had no right to give Mr. Holmes' seat to someone else.
Ms. Lolita Barber (the supervisor at the scene) was a particular offender in this process. Her actions: threatening to have Mr. Holmes dragged off the airplane; unwilling to even talk to Mr. Holmes and offer any explanation for what was happening; ordering six (6) police officers to escort Mr. Holmes out of the plane, an act with no other goal or reason but to seriously embarrass Mr. Holmes in front of fellow businessmen seated in the plane (a fact that Mr. Holmes had made clear to her); and finally culminating in the racial remark (witnessed by several other passengers and police officers alike): speaking to her colleague, believed to be Gustavo Miranda, she clearly stated that "it's always the "White" folks that think WE have to help THEM."
My client Mr. Holmes purchased a ticket on ATA airline to fly from New York JFK to Los Angeles on flight 307. The flight was scheduled to make one stop at Chicago Midway but no change of planes was scheduled. Mr. Holmes boarded that flight and traveled to Chicago. Mr. Holmes was waiting to continue onto Los Angeles when another passenger flying only from Chicago to Los Angeles boarded the plane and was assigned the same seat as Mr. Holmes. The flight attendant then informed them that there was a "duplicate seating" error and would try to fix it. He later returned and told Mr. Holmes someone had made a mistake and that he would have to give up his seat to the new passenger and work something out with the gate attendant.
Mr. Holmes explained he was not willing to accept a flight voucher in exchange for giving up his seat; he had a pivotal business meeting with relation to the same trip that took him to New York in the first place. The flight attendant then explained that Mr. Holmes had no choice but to give up the seat to the new passenger. Mr. Holmes refused and again explained to the attendant that he was booked through to Los Angeles and needed to continue. He also showed the flight attendant his ticket and it's receipt that proved this. At this time, six other passengers in the immediate area, faced with similar situations but who were allowed to continue, began to pay attention and support Mr. Holmes' position.
Mr. Holmes again explained to the flight attendant that he needed to be at work for an important event at 9am the next day and couldn't afford to stay in Chicago for the night. The flight attendant then volunteered information to Mr. Holmes and the six passengers seated around Mr. Holmes that an earlier flight from Chicago Midway was canceled because it wasn't full enough and they were combining it with Mr. Holmes' flight in ATA's effort to be more efficient and profitable. He explained that there were not enough seats to accommodate everyone from both flights. He explained that the new passenger had been given Mr. Holmes seat and Mr. Holmes did not have a choice in the matter.
Mr. Holmes then called me from his seat (29D) on his mobile phone. I advised Mr. Holmes to inform the flight attendant of the legal ramifications and also advised Mr. Holmes to tape record this conversation and any further conversations. Mr. Holmes then turned on his Dictaphone tape recorder, informing the flight attendant and the six passengers around them that he was recording this in case he needed to use it for any reason.
No equipment failure occurred to prevent ATA's ability to fulfil its' duty. Mr. Holmes had not done anything to warrant ATA to require non-fulfillment of their obligation; the only problem being an error on ATA's behalf. ATA had no right to give his seat to someone else. It was ATA's responsibility to provide the new passenger with the alternative compensation and not Mr. Holmes. At this point Mr. Holmes and several other passengers suggested they offer the deplaning incentives to other passengers on the flight. The supervisor, a Ms. Lolita Barber refused, and then in a rude manner, boarded the plane and threatened to have Mr. Holmes "dragged" off the plane.
Mr. Holmes then explained to Ms. Barber that he would be embarrassed if she did so and he would consider that action harassment and that, he would consider the act harmful to his reputation and extremely embarrassing. Mr. Holmes also provided this information, which was recorded, to the ATA flight attendants, Ms. Barber, and the other ATA passenger/ witnesses. Ms. Barber then proceeded to call the Chicago Airport police in order to remove Mr. Holmes from the plane in an incident that was disturbing and degrading to my client. It may be important for you to know that Mr. Holmes was not abusive, rude, nor did he in any way raise his voice or use profanity at any time during this entire ordeal (all of this is of course documented in the tape recording).
Mr. Holmes calmly stated his rights and that he refused ATA's offer of incentive to give up his seat. Yet, Ms. Barber had the six police officers board the plane to remove Mr. Holmes. Mr. Holmes did not argue with the officers. It is coincidental that Mr. Holmes' uncle is the well-known Chicago suburb Police Chief David Kelly. Mr. Holmes proceeded to inform the officers of this relationship, presented them his own ID, his uncle's business card and explained to them the situation. At this time, eight (8) passengers seated around the incident including the gentleman who was also given the "dupe" seat corroborated Mr. Holmes story and passed their business cards to Mr. Holmes with unsolicited offers to give statements on Mr. Holmes behalf. One passenger even wrote a letter for the group. Three (3) of these passengers requested to be included in any class action law suit if it was possible, having seen this same situation in the past on ATA airline, and having it now happen to them.
Two of the officers then asked the flight attendants if anything could be done to fix this situation. When Ms. Barber refused, Mr. Holmes deplaned with the officers and filed an official complaint with the airport police taken by officer Pinzine (badge number 9196. March 8, 2000. 09:25pm. ATA Gate C5). After filing the report, Mr. Holmes requested to be put on another airline to continue on to LA that evening. Ms. Barber refused and told Mr. Holmes that he would have to settle for flight #301 leaving at 8:35am the next day. Mr. Holmes requested to speak to her supervisor. She refused to call them. Mr. Holmes requested a reasonable room at the Holiday Inn for the night. Ms. Barber refused. Ms. Barber ignored Mr. Holmes from that point on while she wrote up her own report of the incident. Mr. Holmes requested a copy of this report and she refused once again. Ms. Barber then refused to assist Mr. Holmes in any way and walked off without making an attempt to present Mr. Holmes with any aid what so ever, essentially leaving Mr. Holmes stranded.
Even without my proper counsel at the time, Mr. Holmes explained that he had a binding contract with the airline to travel direct from NY to LA and had provided ATA with $780 worth of good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which was acknowledged by ATA by both the ticket receipt and when ATA allowed Mr. Holmes to board the plane in New York. . Mr. Holmes then explained that if ATA did not allow him to continue on his flight and fulfill their obligation under their contract, ATA would be liable for breach. The terms under which ATA airline chose to breach the contract were and are unacceptable; ATA had no right to give Mr. Holmes' seat to someone else.
Ms. Lolita Barber (the supervisor at the scene) was a particular offender in this process. Her actions: threatening to have Mr. Holmes dragged off the airplane; unwilling to even talk to Mr. Holmes and offer any explanation for what was happening; ordering six (6) police officers to escort Mr. Holmes out of the plane, an act with no other goal or reason but to seriously embarrass Mr. Holmes in front of fellow businessmen seated in the plane (a fact that Mr. Holmes had made clear to her); and finally culminating in the racial remark (witnessed by several other passengers and police officers alike): speaking to her colleague, believed to be Gustavo Miranda, she clearly stated that "it's always the "White" folks that think WE have to help THEM."
17 Updates & Rebuttals
Michael
New Port Richey,Florida,
U.S.A.
Here you go again, making personal attacks without addressing the real issue
#2Consumer Suggestion
Sat, January 31, 2004
Hey Kitty hawk..... First of all here you go again making personal attacks without addressing the real issue, and no my mode of transportation is not hitch hicking, it's flying on an airline that makes Alaska look like Hooterville Air. I have seen your posts in many places on this site and it's the people like you who I forced to work with at the ticket counter or gate that give airlines a bad rep. I have seen many of your posts where you put the passnegers down, and tell them they should be ridding greyhound. You need to grow up
Wilbur Wright
Kittyhawk,North Carolina,
U.S.A.
ATA Vs Alaska Airlines
#3Consumer Suggestion
Fri, January 30, 2004
Hey bonehead. I hate to confuse you witht he FACTS about Alaska Airlines and the crash of AS261. The jackscrew was within tolerances when it was replaced by the MTX Supervisor in OAK. The cause of the failure was the fact that Boeing had approved the WRONG lubricant for the part when it purchased McDonnell-Douglas (origional builder of the MD-80). All parties accepted liability for the accident and placed stricter controls on MTX. NOW - Lets talk about ATA. The safety violations, near accidents, union busting and corner cutting by ATA is legendary in the Airline industry. ATA has more "non-scheduled" (IE-Emergency)landings per flight hour than all the other airlines COMBINED! Of couse I guess ATA would be a step up from your normal mode of transportation (Hitch Hiking)
Nick
Chicago,Illinois,
U.S.A.
ATA was wrong but within rights
#4Consumer Comment
Tue, January 27, 2004
I worked at a company that provided a service for all the major airlines and yes airlines DON'T Care about you. However the passenger should have left the plane AND THEN talked about it. As it turned out he didn't get the flight anyway. FAA permits the pilot to deny boarding to anyone he feels may be disruptive to the flight. By yelling on the plane you proved this. I'm not saying you weren't right, I'm saying it was not a wise move. I work for hotels and let me tell you when someone calls me an admits they screwed up I NEVER bill them. But when they lie and scam I make sure they get that charge how ever ridiculous it is. Airlines have us over a bag. I've taken the train and bus and it is 1,000 times worse. If you're going to be uncomfortable better fly. It's short time.
Michael
New Port Richey,Florida,
U.S.A.
let's talk about the shady safety record at Alaska
#5Consumer Suggestion
Sun, January 18, 2004
I don't see that. Would you care to tell me where in ATA's contact of carraige it says they can deney you borading based on wearing shorts? I have just looked at it and it's not there. Incidentally, their boarding priority is whoever checks in last gets bumped first (with the exeption of handicapped and minors). So if the client was the last to get checked in, then he is the first to get bumped. By the way, Orville Wright, let's talk about the shady safety record at Alaska. Lets talk about how you guys absolutly SUCK at baggage handleing and how you guys normally have a very high number of lost bags. ATA does very well (and no I don't work for them). Talk about the pot and the kettle.
Michele
Minocqua,Wisconsin,
U.S.A.
no one can really do a damn thing because no agency regulates how airlines treat their passengers , they are not a real airline!
#6Consumer Comment
Sat, January 17, 2004
I was also kicked off of ATA. I tried for 2 years to get some sort of compensation, but they just ignored me. I sent letters, emails, and called them. They just ignored me.. ONE of the worst parts was that they took my luggage with them and did not return it to me for 3 days...when I was suppose to return from my trip. I had to rent a hotel in downtown Chicago for hundreds of dollars a night--as everything was booked. When they kicked me off the plane it was because the plane was overweight(several others kicked off too) This was 10pm by the way, and the flight was suppose to leave at 3pm. When I asked why we were being kicked off the plane the ATA rep. said "dont you get smart with me or I will have you arrested...off the plane now!" Tried to get a different flight but they didnt have any for 4 days. ATA SUCKS....and I agree, they are not a real airline! And, if you ever do get around to reading their contract of carriage~it states they can even deny you a seat if you are wearing shorts, because if the plane has an emergency you will not be able to assist as well,as if you are wearing pants... It really seems to cover any reason they want! And no one can really do a d**n thing because no agency regulates how airlines treat their passengers and such!
Orville Wright
Kittyhawk,North Carolina,
U.S.A.
Next time, book a REAL AIRLINE
#7Consumer Suggestion
Mon, December 22, 2003
Read The Contract of Carraige! If you really ARE a businessman - then why the heck did you book a flight on ATA? NOBODY with a decnet job would EVER fly on ATA. It is a JOKE in the airline industry. They are BARELY able to maintain their FAR 121 (Scheduled Airlne) with the FAA. I am NOT kidding. They had every right to deny you boarding according to their Contract of Carraige. Your attorney is probably to Perry Mason, what ATA is to British Air. NO COMPAIRISON. Your atorney's adivce is what got you arrested. I'd recommend you sue him, but he probably isnt even a member of the State Bar. Next time, book a REAL AIRLINE like Midwest.
Michael
New Port Richey,Florida,
U.S.A.
ATA still is at fault for two reasons. #1 the way they treated him
#8Consumer Comment
Mon, December 08, 2003
All of the interference stuff aside.... ATA was at fault here. First of all, If they cancel a flight and want to put the passengers on another flight, but that flight is then oversold, they would have to ask for volunteers first. If this didn't happen they would be subject to DOT fines. I would also find it hard to beleive that this didn't happen because it is much to the airline's advantage to do so, because if you have to bump someone involuntarily, they are entitled to a refund on theri ticket if they choose, and can be due a refund of twice the value of the ticket depending on when the airline can get them there. (By the way, it's a refund on that portion of the ticket, not the round trip) It's usually cheaper to give out a few free ticktes. The problem here is that if ATA did in fact ask for volunteers and didn't get enough, then they may have had to bump passengers (and yess it could have been that they only needed one seat) In that case they would have to use, as the law states, "thei airline's particular priority" which generally would be wither whoever checked in last gets bumped first, or who ever paid the least for their ticket gets bumped first. Many airlines use the latter of the two, and if ATA uses this, and your client was the cheapest paying, he may have been the unlucky one. I would still have to say that even if that were the caase, ATA still is at fault for two reasons. #1 the way they treated him, and # 2, they didn't properly inform him of his rights to a refund of the unused portion. And in his case of going the next day, it deffinatly qualifiys for a double refund of the face value of the ticket.
Michael
New Port Richey,Florida,
U.S.A.
ATA still is at fault for two reasons. #1 the way they treated him
#9Consumer Comment
Mon, December 08, 2003
All of the interference stuff aside.... ATA was at fault here. First of all, If they cancel a flight and want to put the passengers on another flight, but that flight is then oversold, they would have to ask for volunteers first. If this didn't happen they would be subject to DOT fines. I would also find it hard to beleive that this didn't happen because it is much to the airline's advantage to do so, because if you have to bump someone involuntarily, they are entitled to a refund on theri ticket if they choose, and can be due a refund of twice the value of the ticket depending on when the airline can get them there. (By the way, it's a refund on that portion of the ticket, not the round trip) It's usually cheaper to give out a few free ticktes. The problem here is that if ATA did in fact ask for volunteers and didn't get enough, then they may have had to bump passengers (and yess it could have been that they only needed one seat) In that case they would have to use, as the law states, "thei airline's particular priority" which generally would be wither whoever checked in last gets bumped first, or who ever paid the least for their ticket gets bumped first. Many airlines use the latter of the two, and if ATA uses this, and your client was the cheapest paying, he may have been the unlucky one. I would still have to say that even if that were the caase, ATA still is at fault for two reasons. #1 the way they treated him, and # 2, they didn't properly inform him of his rights to a refund of the unused portion. And in his case of going the next day, it deffinatly qualifiys for a double refund of the face value of the ticket.
Michael
New Port Richey,Florida,
U.S.A.
ATA still is at fault for two reasons. #1 the way they treated him
#10Consumer Comment
Mon, December 08, 2003
All of the interference stuff aside.... ATA was at fault here. First of all, If they cancel a flight and want to put the passengers on another flight, but that flight is then oversold, they would have to ask for volunteers first. If this didn't happen they would be subject to DOT fines. I would also find it hard to beleive that this didn't happen because it is much to the airline's advantage to do so, because if you have to bump someone involuntarily, they are entitled to a refund on theri ticket if they choose, and can be due a refund of twice the value of the ticket depending on when the airline can get them there. (By the way, it's a refund on that portion of the ticket, not the round trip) It's usually cheaper to give out a few free ticktes. The problem here is that if ATA did in fact ask for volunteers and didn't get enough, then they may have had to bump passengers (and yess it could have been that they only needed one seat) In that case they would have to use, as the law states, "thei airline's particular priority" which generally would be wither whoever checked in last gets bumped first, or who ever paid the least for their ticket gets bumped first. Many airlines use the latter of the two, and if ATA uses this, and your client was the cheapest paying, he may have been the unlucky one. I would still have to say that even if that were the caase, ATA still is at fault for two reasons. #1 the way they treated him, and # 2, they didn't properly inform him of his rights to a refund of the unused portion. And in his case of going the next day, it deffinatly qualifiys for a double refund of the face value of the ticket.
Michael
New Port Richey,Florida,
U.S.A.
ATA still is at fault for two reasons. #1 the way they treated him
#11Consumer Comment
Mon, December 08, 2003
All of the interference stuff aside.... ATA was at fault here. First of all, If they cancel a flight and want to put the passengers on another flight, but that flight is then oversold, they would have to ask for volunteers first. If this didn't happen they would be subject to DOT fines. I would also find it hard to beleive that this didn't happen because it is much to the airline's advantage to do so, because if you have to bump someone involuntarily, they are entitled to a refund on theri ticket if they choose, and can be due a refund of twice the value of the ticket depending on when the airline can get them there. (By the way, it's a refund on that portion of the ticket, not the round trip) It's usually cheaper to give out a few free ticktes. The problem here is that if ATA did in fact ask for volunteers and didn't get enough, then they may have had to bump passengers (and yess it could have been that they only needed one seat) In that case they would have to use, as the law states, "thei airline's particular priority" which generally would be wither whoever checked in last gets bumped first, or who ever paid the least for their ticket gets bumped first. Many airlines use the latter of the two, and if ATA uses this, and your client was the cheapest paying, he may have been the unlucky one. I would still have to say that even if that were the caase, ATA still is at fault for two reasons. #1 the way they treated him, and # 2, they didn't properly inform him of his rights to a refund of the unused portion. And in his case of going the next day, it deffinatly qualifiys for a double refund of the face value of the ticket.
Dan
Kansas City,Kansas,
U.S.A.
Mark you are wrong
#12Consumer Comment
Mon, February 24, 2003
Below I have cut and pasted one of your comments: He probably cost himself whatever compensation and extra perks he could have gotten out of this situation by REFUSING to deplane and then calling on his cellphone. BTW, this could also be considered a crime as 2 way communications devices are prohibited except when authorized by the flight crew. But this hasnt been mentioned so I will leave it alone. Mark there is no way you can be stupid enough to believe anyone who travels regularly would believe the statement about 2 way communication. Cell phone are allowed to be used until the aircraft door is closed and that obviously had not occurred due to what was going on. That is just a plain STUPID STATEMENT. Which takes away any credibility you might have had. This airline is WRONG is ABUSIVE and deserves any bad press this man can give them. I for one will never use them based on this incident. If he was already in the seat most airlines would have chosen to inconvience the new passenger not the one already on board. If they continue to employ that particular alleged "Customer Service" supervisor they deserve to go bankrupt.
Dan
Kansas City,Kansas,
U.S.A.
Mark you are wrong
#13Consumer Comment
Mon, February 24, 2003
Below I have cut and pasted one of your comments: He probably cost himself whatever compensation and extra perks he could have gotten out of this situation by REFUSING to deplane and then calling on his cellphone. BTW, this could also be considered a crime as 2 way communications devices are prohibited except when authorized by the flight crew. But this hasnt been mentioned so I will leave it alone. Mark there is no way you can be stupid enough to believe anyone who travels regularly would believe the statement about 2 way communication. Cell phone are allowed to be used until the aircraft door is closed and that obviously had not occurred due to what was going on. That is just a plain STUPID STATEMENT. Which takes away any credibility you might have had. This airline is WRONG is ABUSIVE and deserves any bad press this man can give them. I for one will never use them based on this incident. If he was already in the seat most airlines would have chosen to inconvience the new passenger not the one already on board. If they continue to employ that particular alleged "Customer Service" supervisor they deserve to go bankrupt.
Dan
Kansas City,Kansas,
U.S.A.
Mark you are wrong
#14Consumer Comment
Mon, February 24, 2003
Below I have cut and pasted one of your comments: He probably cost himself whatever compensation and extra perks he could have gotten out of this situation by REFUSING to deplane and then calling on his cellphone. BTW, this could also be considered a crime as 2 way communications devices are prohibited except when authorized by the flight crew. But this hasnt been mentioned so I will leave it alone. Mark there is no way you can be stupid enough to believe anyone who travels regularly would believe the statement about 2 way communication. Cell phone are allowed to be used until the aircraft door is closed and that obviously had not occurred due to what was going on. That is just a plain STUPID STATEMENT. Which takes away any credibility you might have had. This airline is WRONG is ABUSIVE and deserves any bad press this man can give them. I for one will never use them based on this incident. If he was already in the seat most airlines would have chosen to inconvience the new passenger not the one already on board. If they continue to employ that particular alleged "Customer Service" supervisor they deserve to go bankrupt.
Dan
Kansas City,Kansas,
U.S.A.
Mark you are wrong
#15Consumer Comment
Mon, February 24, 2003
Below I have cut and pasted one of your comments: He probably cost himself whatever compensation and extra perks he could have gotten out of this situation by REFUSING to deplane and then calling on his cellphone. BTW, this could also be considered a crime as 2 way communications devices are prohibited except when authorized by the flight crew. But this hasnt been mentioned so I will leave it alone. Mark there is no way you can be stupid enough to believe anyone who travels regularly would believe the statement about 2 way communication. Cell phone are allowed to be used until the aircraft door is closed and that obviously had not occurred due to what was going on. That is just a plain STUPID STATEMENT. Which takes away any credibility you might have had. This airline is WRONG is ABUSIVE and deserves any bad press this man can give them. I for one will never use them based on this incident. If he was already in the seat most airlines would have chosen to inconvience the new passenger not the one already on board. If they continue to employ that particular alleged "Customer Service" supervisor they deserve to go bankrupt.
Mark
Arlington,Texas,
U.S.A.
Rebuttal to Kristi
#16Consumer Comment
Mon, December 23, 2002
Well Kristi I agree that the AIRLINE is wrong when they make mistakes like this. However that still doesnt change the fact that they are in control of the aircraft and who should be on it or not. If you are in the right then there are steps that can be taken. However REFUSING to obey an order from a FLIGHT CREW MEMBER is a FEDERAL CRIME when you are on a commercial aircraft. He probably cost himself whatever compensation and extra perks he could have gotten out of this situation by REFUSING to deplane and then calling on his cellphone. BTW, this could also be considered a crime as 2 way communications devices are prohibited except when authorized by the flight crew. But this hasnt been mentioned so I will leave it alone. Overall when a AIRLINE has to call out the POLICE to have a passneger removed they usually are going to go to JAIL for INTERFERENCE WITH A FLIGHT CREW or probably have the rest of their itinerary cancelled out with very little remittance. You will find in the CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE the usual FINE PRINT that basically states that the airline can change the flights and times on you without recourse for operational needs or other such things. So this basically makes what they did LEGAL. I didnt say it was RIGHT, just LEGAL. As a FREQUENT FLYER and EX Airline Employee I have seen it from several different sides. And the best thing you can do is STAY CALM, DEPLANE if requested and then work out the best possible solution you can with the airline at the GATE or Ticket counter. The reason they want you to DEPLANE is to allow them to keep the operation moving, work with you in a somewhat more relaked, less cramped enviorment and besides trying to discuss things in a crowded airplane cabin isnt the best atmosphere for any type of serious business discussion. Overall by REFUSING to deplane when requested and then making this whole situation very adversiral he hurt himself and lost all chances he pretty much had of getting a QUICK and GOOD resolution.
Kristi
midlothian,Virginia,
U.S.A.
mark you are only slightly right
#17Consumer Suggestion
Mon, December 23, 2002
yes maybe he should have gotten off immediatly, however that does not change how the situation could have been completely avoided had the airline properly booked their seats. He should NOT have been made to leave the plane at all, because he was already on the plane then he had already checked all needed bags and gone through security so his presence was in no way to be judged as he was holding weapons or anythinglike that,and I totatly disagree that it is "abusive" to question why when you pay for an airline ticket, board the plane and are sitting waiting to take off again to be asked to leave due to an AIRLINE mistake. I have seen it before and it steams me everytime. He made his reservervations correctly, his times correctly and did everything exactly how it should be done to avoid missing the plans he had and he should not be made to suffer due to others lack of planning. There is no way I would just stand up and say "okay" and get off the plane half way through my trip and I think your blowing smoke if you say you would. I am sure you are not the first to give up your seat for no reason with no compensation because the airline made a mistake. and to say that either have an attitude for wanting what Mr. Holmes was in a binding contract to recieve is just nonsense. Who cares if you think they are "playing lawyer" or anything like that, if only all of us were so lucky to have legal advisors with us maybe we wouldnt get ripped off so often
Mark
Arlington,Texas,
U.S.A.
Interference with a Flight Crew
#18Consumer Comment
Thu, December 19, 2002
While you may think your Client was not being abusive. It seems he was commiting a FEDERAL CRIME. Interference with a Flight Crew. If he was ordered to deplane for whatever reason, he has to comply. By his refusal, he was INTERFERING WITH A FLIGHT CREW and what they wanted. While the FA may not have liked it, the Airline still owns the plane & controls it. Trying to play LAWYER IN COURT on a plane or at a Gate is not going to help you. I feel that your client was lucky they still were going to allow him to travel. Today, he would have been ARRESTED & ESCORTED off in handcuffs. YES, it is that serious. While the airline may have been wrong, you dont argue with them on a plane. You do it thru channels. Good Luck & I hope you stay out of Jail with you attitude.....
