worst customer service ever!!!
 

My husband, 9 month old, and I were flying to see my in-laws in State College, PA. We have to stop in Philadelphia on the way to and from using US Air. Philadelphia always has you coming or leaving late or both, but normally your next flight is also delayed. On our trip home, we landed in Philly 10 minutes after our flight to Jax boarded and it wasn't delayed. We found the only other flight out for the night was with Southwest and they don't accept US Air tickets. We went to US Air "customer service" and were told that the only thing they would do is get us out of Philly between 6:30 and 6:45 the next morning. When we asked what we were suppose to do about our baby only having enough food for the night, we were ignored. They didn't offer us a hotel or anything, so we had to pay $511 and change for Southwest tickets to get home the same evening and have enough food for our baby. We were told that since it was Air Traffic Control's fault, they aren't responsible for hotel vouchers or anything else, so I would have had to pay for a cab to get my child formula and a cab back to sleep in an airport...seriously, I haven't ever been treated so badly and with a baby!!! I wouldn't have cared as much had it just been my husband and I, but how was my child suppose to go without food for that long and we wouldn't have gotten home until 11:30 the next morning! Thanks US Air for confirming our hate for you and the fact that we'll drive before we fly with you again! They also refused to deliver our luggage and so we had to go back the next day and pick up our carseat and luggage.:mad:

The sad fact is, no matter what airline you fly, none will give you anything for air traffic and weather delays, even Southwest. Also as I am aware, if you misconnect on Southwest, you can't transfer to another airline as they don't have an agreement with any other airline. But my question, but if you have 511 dollars for new tickets on Southwest.... uhmmmmm.... why not use the money for a hotel and food for your baby? The 511 you spent? That was actually more than enough to book a room, get a cab to get food, plus USairs would have rebooked you.

We actually didn't have $511...we had to have a relative pay for us. If we're going to have to expend the money for a hotel, cab, food, baby food, etc. why not spend the money to go home and be comfortable?!? Most hotels don't have cribs that I know of, so how would my baby have really gotten to sleep there either? The fact is that US Air should have offered some sort of compensation and they could have held the flight knowing it was the last flight out for the night and our flight landed only 5-10 minutes after they backed away from the gate. They sat on the runway in line for at least 30 minutes before taking off. They also could have at least been kind at customer service and not rude as if we were inconveniencing them.

Flights close at about 10-15 minutes before departure. That means the paperwork and manifest is finalized, and stand-by passengers have gotten the empty seats. All airlines do this. So all those customers already on the plane, and ready to go, should now have to wait for you? Maybe miss THEIR connections? Being a bit selfish there.

As far as the staff goes, maybe they were rude, maybe not. I wasn't there to see it. From experience observing agents in high stress situations (like a late flight) most of the time they tend to reply in kind. If they're treated rudely, they might react rudely. That's human. They probably shouldn't, but at the end of the day with someone in their face, I can just image how it might go.

If you're not traveling on a non-stop flight then you should always have enough funds for a hotel and at least one meal in case you find yourself stuck at a connecting airport. This goes double when traveling with children. At the very least you should have had some extra food/formula in your carryon for your child.

By the way...most hotels do have cribs.

As for you still believing you should have received some compensation...why? It was an ATC delay so nobody on your flight who missed their connections was compensated in any way. Do you think you're so special just because you're traveling with a small child?

It seems the OP knew a little too much and this knowledge worked against her. She knew that Philadelphia always has you coming or leaving late or both. So I gather that she at once put the blame on the air traffic controllers because her flight which presumably was to arrive in time for her to catch her flight, arrived too late.

So was this the scenario:

Mrs Doublea to USAirways agent: I know the fault is with the air traffic controllers and I lost my connecting flight, what is my child going to eat?

US Airways agent: Since it is Air Traffic Control's fault, we are not responsible

If it was me, I have never landed in Philadelphia and so being ignorant of Philadelphia's delays of aircraft (and not as well informed as the OP) I would have gone to the USAir counter and say, "You brought me too late for me to catch my flight out and I want you to pay for my hotel tonight and baby food for my child."

I think US air is liable. The reason is that unless there was some unusual situation, e.g. air traffic controllers strike, outside of their control, they are in breach of their contract with her which was to bring her at a certain time to make that connection. They must know from their computers who is arriving to make the connection and if they sell the seats to stand by passengers and take off without the arriving passengers who are stuck on their aircraft arriving at the gate too late, then they must foot the bill occasioned by the delay.

Something unusual like a strike would frustrate a contract and then no side is in breach, but if the OP knows that PHiladelphia has delays (I presume this means a delay in the aircraft getting to the gate even when the aircraft touches down on time), then the airlines surely know of this situation and they must plan their schedules to take this into consideration. Passengers dont help them to plan schedules. They do and must take responsibility.

In this case the OP chose to pay $511 for new flights. This is entirely reasonable given that she had a baby and needed to get home.

I would think she has a valid claim and should write to the airline to demand compensation

The reply to which would have been "It's an air traffic control delay - we don't give meal/hotel vouchers when it's ATC and/or weather."

The reason for the flight delay is posted in the computer. It's right there for any agent to see. The way in which the agent is approached or the semantics of the question isn't going to change what they are trained to do. If an agent had issued any voucher for the OP or any other affected passenger he or she would have been disciplined and possibly fired.

Unfortunately you are completely wrong here. I don't disagree that it would have been a nice gesture for the airline to do something for this person but what they do for one they would end up doing for all. Philadelphia's air space is part of the congested northeast region which includes the three New York area airports (six if you count White Plains, Long Island MacArthur and Hartford) and Boston Logan and Providence. ATC delays are common and the common factor in the ATC delays is weather. If the wind picks up or there is any weather that reduces visibility even by a small amount ATC must space arriving and departing aircraft further apart. Because aircraft are not departing/arriving as quickly it causes delays. ATC will also issue ground stops to aircraft which haven't even taken off yet to keep them out of the airspace of the affected airport.

So you see even though it's officially labeled as an ATC delay the root cause is weather over which the airline has no control and is therefore not liable for any consequences of the delay.

I am now enlightened as to what is being called an ATC problem. I had thought that the aircraft touched down on time, but congestion in the airport prevented it from reaching the gate. It is apparently something which prevents the aircraft from landing although they are hovering in the air ready to land.

Does that exonerate the airline? Absolutely not.

The passenger and the airline had a contract. She was to get into Philadelphia at a certain time and with enough time to catch a flight on another flight of the very same airline.

That can't be termed a "weather" problem which will provide the airline with an excuse, even if ATC slows down landing because of weather conditions. A weather problem that will excuse the airline is like if a flight is cancelled or delayed because of an approaching storm.

Parties to a contract are held liable if they do not perform. If the contract is frustrated by circumstances which they do not contemplate when the contract is made. They did not contemplate a storm on a particular day, so that is an excuse. If the air traffic controllers went on strike they also did not contemplate that.

However you say that that is the customary situation at Philadelphia. Even if it was because of visibility problem, it is the situation always to be contemplated by both the passengers and the airline if I understand both the OP and PHX correctly.

The airline must cater for that in planning their schedules. When their flight out of Philadelphia took off without the OP, they must have known that connecting passengers were on an arriving flight that was being delayed by ATC. They also must have expected such an occurrence since it is a regular occurrence. what they did was to make money on their seats by most likely selling them to stand by passengers. They could have held back the leaving flight until the passengers making the connection arrived. Its their decision and some would be inconvenienced either way. They chose to inconvenience those arriving, by allowing the leaving flight to leave on time. Long term they should plan schedules with longer times for connections. Again their decision.

As a passenger the OP need not get into all that. All her concern is, she did not make the connecting flight and there was no unusual occurence that frustrated the contract of carriage. If that was in Court, the airline has no sustainable argument that I could see.

You are still missing the point. It is in all airlines' Contract of Carriage. Here's Continental's:

And here are the relevant parts of US Airways' COC:

Other airlines' COCs contain similar language.

So your arguments are all covered by the contract of carriage which states that scheduled departure/arrival times are never guaranteed and that a delay due to either weather or ATC delays precludes the passenger from receiving any amenities or services in the form of food vouchers or hotel accommodations paid for by the airline.

There were some special considerations where the condition of weather/ATC delays would be waived but the OP did not fall into any of those categories. Sorry, but your arguments are all wrong. You say you're an attorney but perhaps you should actually read the various contracts of carriage before posting legal advice. I'm sorry but the OP is entitled to nothing. As a customer service gesture US Airways may issue travel vouchers for the value of the unused portions of their tickets since the OP bought the other tickets on Southwest but US is not going to reimburse her the $511 she paid for those tickets.

PHX I know what the ticket says, but this OP had a connecting flight on the same airline. Her contract was not just to land in PHilly. It if was and she arrived late and was say late for a wedding, the airline would not comnpensate her. But she had a connection and in your reasoning you do not deal with how the airline will escape liability for the connecting flight leaving without her. They are in breach. Even if for ATC reasons their aircraft arrived late in Philadelphia, it was not ATC control that led them to decide to let the next plane take off without the connecting passengers. That was their decision and it was that, and not the late arrival that caused the problem

And just to add...you keep saying that since delays in Philadelphia are such a common occurrence why don't the flight schedules reflect this? Actually, they do. It's built into the block time which is the time between the scheduled departure and arrival. Looking at the State College to Philadelphia flights the block times are all between 55-57 minutes. During normal operations the flight takes between 41-47 minutes so there is about 10-15 minutes of built in time for taxi and other minor delays. Weather and ATC delays are fairly common in the northeast but are not an everyday occurrence so if there was to much time built into the schedule most flights would be arriving far earlier than scheduled and the time of the ground would be increased. The airline isn't making money unless the aircraft are in the air.

I think the OP should also ask herself why she booked such a tight connection in the first place. It sounds as though even if the flight from State College had been on-time they would have been pressed for time on the connection anyway. When one books a flight there is an automatic minimum connect time which does not allow one to book connecting flights which are too close together but the OP knew Philadelphia can sometimes be problematic and should have chosen the flights she booked with that knowledge.

The last flight of the day from Philadelphia to Jacksonville i usually operated on an A319 aircraft which holds 124 passengers. Assuming the flight was full you are saying that US Airways should have delayed 122 passengers to wait for 2 who were on a late connecting flight? By your logic US Airways would then have to compensate those 122 for a late arrival in Jacksonville.

What kind of law do you practice anyway? And which Law School dd you graduate from? I would suggest you go back for some continuing education but consider another school!

Let me give you an example. If you pay me to pick you up from your home in New Jersey, bring you to the 34th Street heliport by limousine where I have helicopter waiting, and then transport you on my helicopter to somewhere on Long Island, all for one price. My employee picks you up at NJ and on the way the cops stop him for a case of mistaken identity. He is delayed for an hour through no fault of mine or his. He arrives an hour late to the heliport. I am sitting in my helicopter with another passenger who arrived on his own to the heliport, but is making the same trip as you to Long Island.

My employe phones me an lets me know that the police have stopped him and will be an hour late bringing you. But I have another passenger who will be delayed if I wait for you.

Now if I have a contract with you whose fine print says that I am not liable for delays if my employees get stopped unnecessarily by the police. That will relieve me of liability for the delay in bringing you to the heliport. But if I decide that I will leave in the helicopter before you arrive, am I not liabile to you if you have to take another form of transport to Long Island? That fine print is not going to help me.

Your lost trip on the helicopter did not come from the delay in arriving at the heliport. That was neither my fault nor yours. Your lost trip came from my decision which I took to leave without you, knowing you were late in my employee,s car arriving to the heliport.

This is exactly the situation that the OP was in.

No, it is not. Apples/Oranges.

Try again.

Not at all. US Air's decision was to leave so that they would not have to compensate the 122 for delay in their take off. So be it. Their decision. When they weighed which compensation would be less it would be for the two who were left behind. So compensate the 2 who were inconvenienced. It makes perfect sense to take off with the 122 and compensate the 2. You said it, almost.

Since you asked, I was called to the Bar in London, England and I practice civil litigation. So you do us the favour since you are impliedly expressing an opinion on the legality of the airline's acts, and tell us, which law school did you attend and what kind of law do you practice?

I said by your logic/statement they would have to compensate those 122 delayed passengers when in reality they would not. It was simply a choice of inconveniencing 2 or 122. Furthermore you don't know where the aircraft was scheduled to fly after the Philadelphia to Jacksonville flight. Jacksonville is not a US Airways hub so it may very well have gone back to Philadelphia or even Charlotte. By delaying the departure not only would the 122 going to Jacksonville be delayed but those waiting for the aircraft in Jacksonville as well. You are so short-sighted it is unbelievable.

But none of that is the passengers business. She had a contract with the airline to take her from Philadelphia to Jacksonville when she arrived in Philadelphia and they defaulted. End of story.

No, sir, they did not. They offered her a flight the following morning. Had she paid for a hotel or slept in the airport she could have taken that flight. She opted to pay for a ticket on a different airline instead of flying the next morning. That was her choice. Because the delay was caused by weather/ATC issues US Airways was not obligated to provide her with food or a hotel. US Airways did not say she couldn't fly any further and did not strand her. Had she been able to financially she could have checked into a hotel for the night and been in Jacksonville the next morning. She obviously did not have enough cash nor sufficient credit to pay for the hotel, did not want to sleep in the airport, so she called a family member who paid for the Southwest tickets using their credit card.

As I said before, and as a gesture of goodwill, US Airways may refund the remaining value of the unused tickets in the form of a voucher since the tickets were most likely non-refundable. That's the most the OP should expect but should not be surprised if they do nothing since she is owed nothing.

BTW you may be interested in knowing that time and again Courts have ruled against the validity of that fine writing that is found on printed tickets, which is the same thing you quoted above. The leading U.S. case is Lisi v Alitalia a 1967 case reported in the American Journal of International Law Vol 61 page 812. The airline sought to rely on those conditions of carriage to exclude their liability, but failed to show that the conditions of carriage were adequately brought to the attention of the passenger even though the passenger had received a ticket from his travel agent with those printed conditions, and the Court held that the passenger was not bound by it.

In case any lawyer read my above post, and thinks I don't know, the Lisi doctrine has been tempered somewhat by later cases. The Lisi case went as far as saying that the Warsaw Convention was made inapplicable because the passenger did not see the writing on the ticket. Later judgments found that the Warsaw Convention was still applicable, because it was an international "Convention, but what all Courts have agreed is, and this is what is relevant to our present discussion, is that where airlines make conditions of carriage that are not the subject of the Convention (like this case) these conditions must be brought to the attention of the passenger for them to be valid. Those conditions you quoted are not in any Convention

airlinesmustpay, it seems like you are contradicting yourself a bunch, also by one of your examples (the helicopter one) over here in the US at least cops are not allowed to just randomly pull you over unless they actually did something or have some kind of warrent or unpaid requirements, so you can be pulled over for speeding, invalid registration, no insurance, etc, but theres gotta be a reason

but to this subject, it does seem like your saying that they should hold the plane for 2 people, which is actually very inconsiderate to the many, pilots and flight attendants have their scheduled hours, people want to get back home or to the hotel or whereever to sleep, and there are rules and regulations to when planes are allowed to fly due to noise complaints (not sure when it takes off/lands)

and what if the couples first flight is delayed 3 hours and they only had an hour connecting time for example, are you suggesting that they wait 2 hours just for 2 people? that would be nice for the couple, but think about the majority, they will be ******, and if they did wait than the second they get on the plane there will be a ton of looks coming their way.

US air offered to get them to jacksonville, so they were still keeping their part of the contract, the couple decided to modify/cancel it by paying to go on a different airline, so that is their fault not the airlines

ATC and weather are not controled by the airlines, and if they were than life would be simple, and it would be sunny and 70*F everyday, but its not, and at philadelphia if you miss your slot than it can take a long time before you can take off

airlinesmustpay:I had thought that the aircraft touched down on time, but congestion in the airport prevented it from reaching the gate. It is apparently something which prevents the aircraft from landing although they are hovering in the air ready to land.
i dont know about you, but if they have to slow down airtraffic due to congestion than i may feel more relieved, it would be safer and it seems that warnings have been increasing, so it is safer in my books to slow it down to a reasonable pace where it isnt delaying drastically

also everyone knosw that it was a very close connecting time and know that philly is notorious for delays and that people need to plan accordingly, or see if there is a different route (even if it costs a few more $)

talking about conditions on tickets, that must be ONE GIANT ticket if they wanna fit everything on, now a days they put it on the web and other areas, many people dont look at the ticket in the first place, just look at date, time, airline

and it happens in alot of areas, people go oh it wasnt visable, i didnt notice it, it wasn't my fault, etc, and all you need to do is point to them here it is and they go ooooooooh yeah now i see maybe i should read what it says next time and not just jump to conclusions, and sometimes you see the same people make the same mistake again, but maybe we will all learn that you got to look at things before they go south

Well perhaps you are right and the US Supreme Court was wrong. Next time Alitalia may want to retain you to put their case to the Court.

Just what planet are you guys living on? Surely not planet earth. And Surely not in America. Because no one on this planet will consider that it was reasonable for a passenger to overnight in an airport with a baby. But baby aside, If a passenger has a ticket to travel in the evening and the airline says we will put you on another flight in the morning, that is a breach. Their contract of carriage was for a particular flight. You will find that American Courts will dismiss any argument that the contract is not for any particular time. based on that written contract of carriage, unless that writing was brought specifically by the airline or its agent to the attention of the passenger. If the 122 passengers were told that their flight was leaving at 6 in the morning instead of the evening before, can you imagine the uproar in the airport. And because it was just the 2 it becomes OK.? I have kept on saying, the airline makes its decision who to fly and who to leave behind. And if they chose to fly the 122 on time and leave the 2 behind, that's a prudent business decision. It is prudent because they leave only 2 aggrieved passengers and have 122 flying on time. The airline is definitely in breach of contract with these two. I cannot understand why anyone would think that it is acceptable to offer passengers a flight the next morning, and this is not a breach of contract.

What about if passengers turn up next morning for a flight that left the evening before, will the airline honour their ticket? If the passenger has an obligation to show up for a particular flight at a particular time, then the airline has a reciprocal obligation to permit them to travel on that flight, and to travel next morning after sleeping in the airport would have been outside the contemplation of both passenger and airline when the contract was made.

If the airline can send passengers on a flight the next day and not be in breach, where will it stop? What about if you turn up for a flight and the airline says, sleep two nights in the airport and we'll send you on another flight two days later?

If a prudent business decision requires an airline to leave two passengers, they just need to compensate those 2.

Its too simple not to be understood

You're really grasping at straws now to "prove your point." You are citing a case from 1968. The internet did not exist. Mainframe airline reservation systems were still in their infancy. Most, if not all, people purchased their tickets through travel agencies. Travel by air was also so expensive at the time it precluded many people from traveling by air simply because it wasn't affordable.

Now all of the information regarding contracts of carriage, fare rules, etc. are accessible on the airlines' websites. If one chooses not to read them and then experiences a delay or cancellation due to weather, ATC, or any other force majeure reason covered in the contract and is then informed that they will not receive a free meal or hotel they should not cry foul. They used the internet to buy the tickets they should have taken the time to read the terms and conditions if they really wanted to know what to expect. Trouble is that air travel is so relatively inexpensive many don't consider it a major purchase. The same people that will read every clause in a contract when buying a home or car will lay out hundreds or even thousands of dollars for an airline ticket without bothering to read anything. Caveat emptor, let the buyer beware.

Without rehashing all of the legalese you have tried, unsuccessfully, to muddy the waters of this situation we can break it down very simply. The airline has no obligation to provide food and shelter (other than the airport terminal if the passenger chooses) if the delay is due to ATC (controlled by the US government) or weather (controlled by mother nature, God, or whoever/whatever you attribute it to). The airline offered re-accommodation on the next available flight which just so happened to be the next morning. The passenger (OP) when given that option without a free hotel decided to book her own flight that night on another airline. She has said she wanted special consideration (in other words wanted rules broken) since she was traveling with a small child. She admittedly was traveling with insufficient funds or supplies to adequately provide for the needs of the child. She also, admittedly, knows that connecting in Philadelphia can be problematic at times yet booked an itinerary with such a close connection that a relatively minor delay caused her to miss her connecting flight.

Was it the airlines fault that she had no money for a hotel nor sufficient food for her child? No. Was it the airline's fault that she knowingly booked a ticket with such a short connection time that a minor delay to her inbound flight would cause a mis-connect. No. The OP even stated that she was relying on the possibility that her connecting flight would be late as well. The gamble didn't work. I checked online and there are two flights out of State College that are offered which connect to that last flight of the day to Jacksonville. The first leaves State College around 2PM and there is a layover in Philadelphia of just over three hours. The second leaves just after 4 PM and has a layover of about one hour and ten minutes. Of course the flight is closed to boarding 15 minutes before the scheduled departure time so it really only gives one only 55 minutes plus you have to subtract the time it takes to deplane, walk to the connecting gate, etc. With a youngster in tow why would you book that second option? Even if the flight had been on time they would have been rushed to make the connecting flight.

The OP shouldn't expect nor is she going to get her money back for the Southwest tickets. As I have suggested before she should ask for the remaining value of the unused tickets to be issued as a voucher. US Airways is under no obligation to do so but from a customer service standpoint it might be the right thing to do to have a chance at repeat business. Additionally if she is on this website bashing US Airways you can bet she's been telling all her friends and family about it too. A little goodwill could go a long way for the airline in terms of it's image.

I feel sorry for the baby, the baby didn't do anything wrong here, but than again neither did the airline, and to some extent neither did the couple, but the couple knew the situation about philly and decided to have a short connecting time with their baby and any delay would put them over and they wouldn't make their connecting flight. They then wanted some "special service" since they had a baby with them, a baby cannot be an excuse for your mistake in a short connecting time, as many people know that it would take longer to go from gate A to gate B with a baby than without, and if they were given special services than where would these special services end? it was unfortunate that they didn't make the flight, but they knew the situation before hand and still booked that flight

they made the choice to fly on another airline that night since they didn't have the food and etc for the baby, and didn't want to spend the night. Even though it would have been cheaper to spend the night in a hotel and if they showed that they were distressed passengers than the hotel room would be much cheaper than a regular priced room due to the discount, and yes many hotels have baby cribs and many times have baby supplies.......also they could have had the baby in the bed so it feels safe and close with his/her mommy

and no it is not a breach, they are still getting you to your destination, and they are not the ones who made you miss the connection, in this case it was ATC, so they offered the next available flight, a breach would be if they didnt offer to get them to their final destination......so are you saying that if my flight was delayed 6hours and missed my connecting flight by 4hours that it is a breach even though i was put on a flight that was 2hours after i landed after the delay? i would say no it isnt because i still got where i wanted, and it wasn't their fault that they were delayed (weather) and i would be suprised and uncomfortable if i made my original plane wait for me, its just commen sense, put you on the nxt flight to your destination, in this case it was the next morning.

if there are 122 people than yes, the airline will wait for them, as long as its not a extensive delay, they will try to make the majority satisfied and having only 6 people on a plane is not effective and is very uneconomical, and it is a very hard situation to get those 122 people to the destination since they need to find all those unbooked seats to put them in, it is easier to find two or three seats on the next flight instead of 122

if the airline had no control over the situation why should they be required to compensate? should they compensate for people who go to the check in desk 10mins before the flight because the person didnt leave for the airport in time? no, and the airline here rebooked them for the morning which was the most they could have done, airlines wont wait 40mins for 2 people, thats just not going to work, it will push everything back, its like many industries, they wont wait for you, they try and keep to the schedule as much as possible

Let me sort this argument into issues, one by one

Issue 1: Was the late arrival of the flight at Philadelphia within the control of the airline?

I think we all now say it was not. It was an ATC problem

Issue 2: Was the departure of the flight out to Jacksonville that left the OP behind within the airline's control?

I am saying it was their decision and from your posts you appear to be agreeing it was their decision, but justifying it because of the 122 odd passengers that would have been delayed, had they waited. So we are all saying that that departure was within the airline's control.

Issue 3: Was the airline justified to depart for Jacksonville even knowing that there were connecting passengers who were late?
We all say it was not practical to delay 122 passengers for the two, so we agree that the airline made the correct decision depart and leave the OP behind

Issue 4: Was the airline in breach of contract by so departing?
Here is where we part company. You say they are not because they offered her another flight the next morning and I say they were in breach because the OPs flight to Jacksonville was for the same evening. Here is where a party to a contract makes a decision to suit the many but find himself in breach of contract with a few.

To answere whether they are in breach, we need to step back a bit to answer this: Was the contract merely for departure or destination points or for dates and times as well. I say it is for dates and times as well. The passenger's corresponding obligation to present himself at the check in counter for a particular date and time must be met with a reciprocal obligation on the part of the airline. Next, to ask if the date and time were part of the contract, what would the officious bystander say if he heard this conversation between a passenger and an airline agent when the agent sold the ticket:
Airline agent: Mr Phx, I trust you know that although your ticket says you are flying from New York JFK to Miami at 9 a.m. on 10th October 2009, remember the date or time is not part of the contract and we can take you there whenever we want while you sleep at JFK
PHX: Sure, Mr Agent. I love sleeping in JFK airport. We all know that when we turn up at the airport for a flight, any kind of delay is acceptable.
The test in law as to whether this is the contract, is what the officious bystander will say when he heard that conversation. He will be positively horrified. And that is because it is within the experience of passengers that when they turn up for a flight, they will travel on time or perhaps with reasonble delays of an hour or two, or even three or four, but any delay more than that would be absolutely unacceptable.

People returning home after a trip often take up work the next day, and it cannot be that the contract is for travel anytime.

The IATA conditions of carriage have been declared void many times by the Court for any number of reasons - writing too small, not drawn to passengers attention, in conflict with the Warsaw Convention, only coming to passengers attention after completion of the contract.

What would the officious bystander say if he heard this converstion:
Agent: Mr Mars, we are selling you a ticket from JFK to MIA on 10th October 2009 at 9 a.m. as you requested
Mars: Not so fast. Let me read that writing on the ticket.
[Mars pulls out his magnifying glass and reads the writing while passengers behind him start complaining]
Agent to passengers behind: Please, our practice at this airline is that everyone must read the conditions of contract written on the ticket otherwise we can't sell you the ticket.

The officious bystander would be most surprised.

It is beyond any question in my mind that the date and time on a ticket are part of the contract, and I would invite any lawyer working for any airline to come on this site and contradict me on this.

Issue 5: Did the OP act reasonably to pay $511 for new tickets when she may have spent the night in a hotel?
This may be her weakest point but I still think she could succeed in this claim.

She would have had to pay at least $120 or so for a hotel room, and that is for the two star Red Roofs and Comfort Inns, and unless it had free airport shuttle, pay, say $20 or so each way from airport to hotel. Then once at the hotel she would have to take a taxi to and from an all night superstore or drugstore to look for her baby formula. Then she would have to find dinner for herself and her husband that night in Philadelphia and breakfast next morning. That is at least $250. When one considers the strain the baby would be put through in this exercise, she decided to spend get her relative to pay the $511 for the new tickets. I can't see that she acted unreasonably. She is not asking for any special favour because of the baby. Once she establishes that the airline was in breach of the contract, she has to act reasonably and this includes ensuring her baby's welfare which is to get home asap.

again your missing the point, your examples showed for 9AM opposed to the last flight of the day, so either everyone has to be dissatisfied by 2 customers that were inconvenienced by ATC not the airline, and they will not have an extra plane to take 2 people down, thats why they offered the next available flight which was in the morning, so the airline acted responsible by putting them on their next flight.

That when the customer decided to take their business elsewhere, meaning they ended yhe contract and US airs responsibility to get them to the final destination, it is not US airs fault the customers paid for another flight, that is totally the customers responsibility as they CHOSE to do that, and in either case, many parents with babies carry enough food and baby needs for unforseen events

So should they get refunded the $511 or however it was? no, it was the customer who breached the contract, not the airline, again they made other arrangements

and there is something called distressed passengers that get massive discounts at hotels, so they could get a room for $120 at a 4 star hotel in many situations. And even by your math, if they waited for the flight the next morning, it still would have been cheaper, so if they brought the ickets believing that they would be refunded than thats just naiive and they shouldnt be refunded for breaking the contract.

The airline did what they could, and it wasn't good enough for them and now they are expecting the airline to "bail them out" since they went else where, which as a breach in its own mind.

OMG Mars, aren't you paying attention? I have said over and over that my view is that the airline acted correctly and the OP could not have expected that the airline would inconvenience everyone for her sake. The airline has individual contracts with 124 people. Their decision was to fulful their obligations with 122, but they had to know full well that they were breaching their contracts with the two. But I still say they acted correctly to honour their contracts with the 122 and to breach the contracts with the 2.

If I hire you as a photographer and pay you to come at 4 p.m. to photograph my daughter's wedding. You phone me during the day to say, "I can't make it. My mother got a heart attack and i had to take her to the emergency room, but I will come first thing in the morning and take the photographs."

I will answer: I don't need you in the morning. I understand why you cant be here but the wedding is today. I will have to get another photographer.

You were the one in breach. You acted correctly because you cant leave your mother to chase after a contract.

By going to someone else who could do the job, I did not breach the contract. It was your breach (albeit for good reason) that caused me to go elsewhere.

You have to be joking if you think I would be wrong to at least expect a refund of my money.

um first of all yet again the airline DID NOT BREACH the contract, it had to be modified because they were not present at time of departure and due to the fact it was not the customers fault they booked them on the next flight, as their original flight had already left the gate, modify does not equal breach.....the airline did what was exected of them, and followed their policies, which is understandable, since policies are made to be followed

second, your example again shows differences, it is for another profession in which a horrible cause happened and was understandable and was humane to have the person go be with te family member, and what i have witnessed is that if the photographer was not able to make it, than he would find alternatives such as calling another photographer to fill in for him/her, or if you went through a company they would send a replacement, in either case it most likely would be discounted......where as in a airline industry planes are scheduled and are meant to keep to that schedule as best aspossible, and there are no extra or replacement planes that could be used.

And why would you expect a refund? you went to another airline, ending your contract with the original one, so your the one who breached the contract, so why should they refund the money to you? in that case people would take advantage of the situation, a ticket would be cheaper to go from flyville to barnsville via atlanta compared to flysville to atlanta, so people would just breach the contract and stay in atlanta and ask for a refund, kinda crazy

they made the CHOICE to get out of the contract, they left it not the airline, so its their fault, thus making a refund very unlikely since they were the ones who changed the plans

Well Mr Mars, for your information a modification of a contract by one side that is not agreed by the other side is in fact a breach. At least that is how it is on earth. It might be different on Mars

considering that the definition is a break of a contract or trust, in which way did the airline break it? they did not break the contract in any way, they were going to get them to their destination in a reasonable amount of time (the next available flight) thus showing that no breach was made by their contract, and if you read the conditions than you will see that no breach was made and they followed the policy, instructions, and rules for when a ticket is purchased and a delay is involved

as for the passengers, they are the ones who breached the contract, they broke it by canceling the contract in Philly and going on another airline

so yeah point proven, thank you, and i am sure that if you have taken any business law classes in university and any where in form of higher education, than you would understand what a breach is and how it is applied, the only breach here was by the passengers, they had the resources to check the rules and conditions, if they did they would have understood the situation, and they knew that the connection was tight and that philly is notorious for delays

so yeah i know what a breach is, what about you

Well I don't know who can trust your knowledge of the law. You were earlier expressing a view contrary to the judgment in Lisi v Alitalia a landmark case that reached the US Supreme Court.

You don't regard the opinion of the United States Supreme Court, so what can I say?

If the passengers file a case against US air, the airline can always appeal to the Mars High Command and you will rule in their favour

well let me see, that case was created in the late 1960's (1968) and some parts have been kept while others have either been editted for better words or are not used to a great amount of deal since it does not effect people today, thats not saying i dont regard it, it is saying that times have changed and the industry now is completely different than 40 years ago so new policies and laws have been created

and in this case the airline was following its policy which is completely legal and it is shown on the airlines website and under their terms and conditions

and i ll take you to basic business law 101 from university, as i was a business major and took some classes that are helpful

What is a breach of contract?
A breach of contract is a cancelation of the contract by both parties mutually or by one of the parties, the contract was not completed as stated and was ended, any damages caused would be at an expense, such as a refund if a company was involved and ended the agreement, or if the customer broke the contract than they forfeit the money owed and are not eligable for a refund, unless prior arrangements or notifacations have been made available


........this again bringing us to the point that, the customer breached the contract and that the airline complied to its policies which the customer should have read prior to purchase as it is in the contract, making the airlines case that there was no breach on their part

thank you

Did you complete it or did you dropout? I think you should go back and complete it.

Now I can't help think from the way your posts are constructed that you are a child. If so, is it that your daddy is an executive in an airline and you feel that you have to stand up for the airlines no matter what?

You need to realise that you live in a world where consumers are becoming more and more aware of their rights. Aggrieved passengers often walk away when airlines refuse to compensate them, and don't go to even a small claims court, but they will bad mouth the airline and cause them more damage. This OP will not easily forget the $511, and the damage she can do to the airline by bad publicity will easily cost them much more than the $511.

You should tell your daddy, that in these competitive times, to stay afloat, airlines need their customers goodwill and repeat business.

I think I have said all I could in this thread, and the OP would have enough of the arguments on both sides to assist her to decide what if anything she should do about her claim.

haha funny, as i said before i majored in business (economics) and minor in marketing, and yeah i finished it

how do you define breach of contract?

the OP again i will have to point it out, chose to pay the $511 by getting out of the first contract and paying southwest or whoever it was to get them to the destination that night, so why would the first airline pay for their ticket on another airline when they were supposed to fly with them as to what their original contract said? 2 different contracts that are seperate, meaning the first one has nothing to do with the new one

and yea i guess you could kinda say my dad is an executive, he is president in his area in the company he works for, but i am sorry to dissapoint you yet again, he doesn't work for any airline and his company has absolutely nothing to do with airlines other than when they fly accross the world for meetings

so stop coming up with these stories that have nothing to do with anything, and understand what breach really means, since you clearly wont answer what it is, and that you are basing things on a law that passed 40years ago where things were completely different, and read the terms and conditions of each airline and you will clearly see that your wrong

Breach of contract is a legal concept in which a binding agreement or bargained-for exchange is not honored by one or more of the parties to the contract by non-performance or interference with the other party's performance.

Since airlinesmust pay didn't answer it, well I did it for you. heh. And by that definition the airline offered to rebook the pax, albeit a day later, they cannot be considered in breach of contract only if they decided not to honor the ticket. 2nd, all flights are subject to change, which includes connecting flights as there are such issues as air traffic, weather, hell even mechanical delays can cause a disruption in an itinerary. Maybe a passernger bill of rights might change that? doubtful, but we can hope.

Plain and simple, it was an air traffic delay, no airline assumes responsibilty for it (I can't speak for european market with that warsaw act and such). I would think as parents, no matter the situation, they would be more prepared for such situations when dealing with a child, obviously not. But that's another issue all together. But in this case, a decision was made, an expensive one, but a decision nonetheless.

Bob, I didnt define it because he did above, and although his definition did not make too much sense to me, it came from a Business major, so I assumed he did not need any assistance from me in a legal definition.

The difficulty here is not in knowing what a breach of contract is, but in knowing what are the terms of the contract. I have tried to identify this as an issue but our friend whose daddy is a President of a company in Singapore, is not addressing this and assuming that the contract is not for a specific date and time. He bases his reasoning on the printed conditions of carriage. This happens all the time not only in air travel and those printed conditions are not valid.

You take a suit to the laundry and they give you a receipt and when you come to collect it there is a hole or a burn mark on it and the little chinese guy says, "But sir, we are not responsible, look at the back of your receipt it says that we are not responsible for any damage to your clothes."

Well who is?

airlinesmustpay, do yourself a favor and stop coming up with examples that dont work with the situation

and it even says in the terms of the contract what happens if your flight is delayed due to ATC or weather or something that is not controlable, in that it says that the passengers will be put on the next available flight (next day in this case) and i clearly stated what the breach here was

and also yeah my dad works in singapore but is constantly traveling between there, switzerland, london, and here in new york, but fail to see the importance of why you bring that up

and i asked YOU to define what you believe a breach is, because than you would realize by definition you would see that the airline was correct in what they did and the passangers were wrong so this means they dont recieve any refund since it was them changing the plans, and they should have read the terms to see that in a situation like that than they would be in that predicament

It is very relevant, Mars my young friend. Let me hazard a guess. You have a degree in Business, moved with your dad when he went to take an executive job in Singapore. Now you don't work, enjoy all the good life that Singapore has to offer and sometimes jet around the world on the strength of your dad's wallet. If the airline costed you $511 unnecessarily, you would just pull out the gold credit card your dad gave you and pay it without question.

I myself grew up many years ago in a middle class family in England, enjoyed all the good things for many years and would in my earlier days have always sided with the establishment, which would include airlines, and against the consumer. But there comes a time when you pause and ask yourself whether all of what you support is right, expecially when you see advantage being taken of people by large corporations.

Now I am not saying that you necessarily will take the same direction as me in your thinking. When you reach the point when you begin to think independently, you may still side with the airlines. But at least you would be thinking independently and your opinion would be worth something. At the moment, when you express a view, especially when you are rehashing and rehashing and rehashing the same arguments over and over without even trying to address what the other side is saying, I can see not an independent voice speaking, but the voice of someone who doesn't want to upset the apple cart he is riding on and is depending on for all the good things he enjoys.