Passenger sues Delta for "weather" delay, wins

flyingcheesehead

flyingcheesehead

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
25,357
Location
UQACY, WI
Display Name
Display name:
iMooniac
Finally.

Delta cancelled a flight and blamed it on "weather" while other airlines were still flying the same route. Passenger complains, asks to be rebooked. Delta agent says "Sorry, no can do, we can't control the weather" blah blah blah. Passenger buys ticket on another airline, completes the flight, sues Delta, wins the price of his ticket on the other airline.

The funny part? Delta asked him to stay quiet about it. Pax counter-offers a $100 discount on the settlement if they pay within two weeks. Delta says "Sure, how about you stay quiet?" Pax says they can EITHER have him stay quiet and pay the whole thing, OR get $100 off the settlement, NOT both.

Sign of how bad the airlines are doing? Delta took the $100!

http://information.travel.aol.com/n...prim0402&icid=100214839x1209735970x1200564081
 
Nice.

All I saw of the article was: blah, blah, blah, "55....wife pregnant with twins...."

It's good that they paid up. I thought it was hilarious that they took the discount!!!

--Matt Rogers
 
I liked the comment about 47% of cancellations are due to weather this year, up from 5% last year.

Somehow, I don't think that the weather has been that much worse this year.
 
I don't know how much longer that excuse will fly. I had a flight from Lincoln, NE to NOLA vis Memphis. Just as I was shutting down at work to leave, NorthWorst called to tell me the Lincoln-Memphis segment was canceled due to WX. Checked the Blackberry- clear between here and Memphis and clear at both airports too. I shrugged and got rebooked next day (We have a travel coordinator). No problem since I expect the airlines to drop the ball.

The point is- we have precedent now, and the information is easily available to anyone with a standard cell phone now since most phones have internet access, even if you have to pay for it. The airlines use the weather excuse to avoid giving anything to pax.
 
... not completely true.

Some PAX will look out the window and say "It's fine here!"

The problem is the wx where the plane is now, not where you are.

So while it's CAVU at JFK, and it's gorgeous at your destination, the aircraft you are expecting to board is grounded by fog in PIT.

It happens.
 
dmccormack said:
... not completely true.

Some PAX will look out the window and say "It's fine here!"

The problem is the wx where the plane is now, not where you are.

So while it's CAVU at JFK, and it's gorgeous at your destination, the aircraft you are expecting to board is grounded by fog in PIT.

It happens.
Click to expand...

Right, but do you really think that in the past year the weather has gotten so much worse that flight cancelations have justifiably gone from 5% to 47%?

You're absolutely right, it does happen, but not that much.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Right, but do you really think that in the past year the weather has gotten so much worse that flight cancelations have justifiably gone from 5% to 47%?

You're absolutely right, it does happen, but not that much.
Click to expand...

Oh, no doubt that figure is just plain stupid -- one big Statistical excuse, and in no way supportable by objective data.

My only point is that this case will make every passenger who thinks he should be boarding now because "it's clear where I am!" will become an even bigger PITA.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I liked the comment about 47% of cancellations are due to weather this year, up from 5% last year.
Click to expand...
Actually it said
With 47% of all delays so far in 2008 caused by weather (up 5% from last year), most fliers can relate.
Click to expand...
Meaning that it was 42% last year and 47% this year. I missed it the first time too.
 
nitpicking alert: up 5% to 47% would mean it was 44.76% last year.
 
Keith Lane said:
Actually it said Meaning that it was 42% last year and 47% this year. I missed it the first time too.
Click to expand...

Oops... good catch! Clearly I need to learn how to read.

A 5% increase seems a lot more reasonable, but I would wonder if you checked on a year to year trend over the past, say, 10 years that the average should be right about the same. If 10 years ago the average was 35% and now it's up to 47%, to me that's a bit more than we can blame on El Nino. :)

I wonder where that statistic exists? :dunno:
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Oops... good catch! Clearly I need to learn how to read.

A 5% increase seems a lot more reasonable, but I would wonder if you checked on a year to year trend over the past, say, 10 years that the average should be right about the same. If 10 years ago the average was 35% and now it's up to 47%, to me that's a bit more than we can blame on El Nino. :)

I wonder where that statistic exists? :dunno:
Click to expand...
You would still need to normalize the value per # of flights. Otherwise you would get a false number as flights increased or decreased.
 
Keep in mind that weather delays are often caused by weather that has nothing to do with either of your airports. All it takes is a delay at a major hub and it will mess the whole system up.

For example, your airplane might be stuck in Chicago and as a result unable to get to your departure airport to fly you to the destination airport. There are tons of other exceptions that the airline guys could probably come up with that happen commonly.
 
jesse said:
Keep in mind that weather delays are often caused by weather that has nothing to do with either of your airports. All it takes is a delay at a major hub and it will mess the whole system up.

For example, your airplane might be stuck in Chicago and as a result unable to get to your departure airport to fly you to the destination airport. There are tons of other exceptions that the airline guys could probably come up with that happen commonly.
Click to expand...

And as we all know, if it were not for all those little airplanes clogging up the airways while using the system for free there wouldn't be any delays.
 
jesse said:
Keep in mind that weather delays are often caused by weather that has nothing to do with either of your airports. All it takes is a delay at a major hub and it will mess the whole system up.

For example, your airplane might be stuck in Chicago and as a result unable to get to your departure airport to fly you to the destination airport. There are tons of other exceptions that the airline guys could probably come up with that happen commonly.
Click to expand...
That's certainly what the airlines would argue. However, if they invested in more capital and people, they would be able to complete the flight regardless of the availability of the originally scheduled equipment and personnel. Of course, that would mean they'd have to raise fares to be able to afford having the extra stock around, but it shows that it's an effect of their pricing and decision-making; not the weather per se.
 
gprellwitz said:
That's certainly what the airlines would argue. However, if they invested in more capital and people, they would be able to complete the flight regardless of the availability of the originally scheduled equipment and personnel. Of course, that would mean they'd have to raise fares to be able to afford having the extra stock around, but it shows that it's an effect of their pricing and decision-making; not the weather per se.
Click to expand...
I guess you can call it whatever you like. Under the current system--no matter if you like it or not--weather can delay and cancel many flights. Do the airlines probably abuse the weather excuse? I'm sure. Is it possible that weather can delay your flight because the airplane OR crew was held up somewhere else? Yup.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like yet another good reason to 86 the hub and spoke system. If a hub is socked in due to wx, the entire system takes a dump.

Airlines that do not rely on the hub and spoke are less affected (I am NOT saying they are unaffected) by wx in one portion of the country.
 
kevin47881 said:
Sounds like yet another good reason to 86 the hub and spoke system. If a hub is socked in due to wx, the entire system takes a dump.

Airlines that do not rely on the hub and spoke are less affected (I am NOT saying they are unaffected) by wx in one portion of the country.
Click to expand...

Except that I talked to one airline pilot (none you know here) who had the ALPA attitude "They wanna tell us hub and spoke is bad..." like it's SWA that's got it wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top