• What's ticked?
• Accolades
• Contact us

c o l u m n s

• Cheap Charlie
• ChrisCrossings
• Err Travel
• Leocha
• Travel Notes
• Archives

Rights or Wrong?
ChrisCrossings · October 28, 1999

Q: I recently flew from Minneapolis to Chicago on Vanguard Airlines. My scheduled flight was canceled and so they booked me on the next flight two hours later. The flight was 1 1/2 hours late in taking off. We received no compensation for lost time. The next day I was scheduled for a return flight leaving at 6 p.m. Upon arriving at the terminal, I was informed by the captain that there were only 80 passengers and 120 seats on the flight. I went to the gate desk to ask about getting on and the clerk said there was room and it would cost me $50 to change my ticket. I began to argue that there were 40 empty seats and then realized that the clerk had no authority, so I paid the $50. I sent a letter to Vanguard explaining the problem and asked for a refund of the $50. I indicated in the letter to Vanguard that I realized I had a 30 day in advance and nonrefundable ticket, but felt because of my being delayed and inconvenienced I should be refunded the $50. They have said no. I am thinking of taking Vanguard to small claims court here in Minnesota and for compensation for my lost time and inconvenience. What do you think my chances are?

-- Donald DeMarce

A: Let me be blunt with you, Donald. Your chances are zero.

Was Vanguard wrong to keep you waiting for a total of 3 1/2 hours? Absolutely. Should it have waived the $50 fee after your initial delay? You bet.

Coulda, shoulda, woulda.

From a legal point of view, Vanguard did not appear to violate its contract of carriage with you. (Small but important disclaimer, here. I'm not a lawyer.) Remember, these were two separate incidents. First the delay, which although it was reprehensibly long, still didn't stop you from reaching your destination. And second, the $50 fee, which for a restricted ticket such as yours is common.

Your question -- and your intent to take Vanguard to court -- exemplifies all that is wrong with the so-called "passenger rights" movement. You don't just want the airline to follow its own rules and to treat you fairly. If it slips up, as airlines are known to do from time to time, you want revenge. You want blood.

I can completely understand how you feel. I'll never forget my flight from Brussels to Frankfurt a few years ago, when the gate agent refused to let me change my itinerary because of the rules. I had arrived at the airport almost four hours before my scheduled departure, hoping to catch an earlier flight home. But the gate agent flat out refused to let me on the almost empty early plane. I couldn't even pay a change fee. She insisted that I wait.

"If we made an exception for you," she sniffed in bad English. "We would have to make one for everyone."

It's times like that when you want to take the gate agent in a bear hug and bodyslam her on the floor. That's the most twisted logic I've ever heard. In fact, it's not logic at all -- it's sheer bureaucratic lunacy. But I didn't Newark her on that day, nor would I ever resort to violence to solve a problem like that.

No, I'll just write about it. And you, Donald, will take an incident like this to small-claims court.

There's nothing wrong with complaining about the occasional snafu that keeps you on the tarmac for half an eternity. Nor is there any shame in berating a gate agent for blindly following rules -- or hiding behind the rules. But there is something wrong with feeling as if you're entitled to bend the rules, and that if you're not permitted to, the airline should pay with a hefty fine.

I'm not comfortable with the passenger rights movement as it is, because many of its most vocal supporters believe fair treatment by airlines should mean special treatment, such as waiving restrictions, free upgrades, and personal service.

It would be nice if gate agents were given more flexibility to make exceptions to their rules, but they shouldn't be compelled to do so. I grumbled when I was denied a seat on an earlier plane, but I didn't sue the carrier or attack the airline employee.

Often, I get the feeling that some of the folks writing to me are on the verge of resorting to one of the two. Neither is an acceptable option.

Christopher Elliott's column appears on Thursdays. All e-mailed questions to ChrisCrossings become property of Ticked.com and may be edited, condensed or republished at the site's discretion. You may reach Elliott at christopher@elliott.org. Or visit his home page at http://www.elliott.org.