quote:

Originally posted by Will McCarthy:
Hello Judge,

I am guessing you are the person we met at Bulawayo club on the 5th?

We also got screwed by Delta on the return leg. It was supposed to be non stop to Atlanta but they overpacked cargo and underpacked the fuel. We landed unscheduled in Puerto Rico 4 AM to no crew,no gas and no clearance from customs. Hours of delay and missed connections. Additionally, our guns are impounded by customs because they were not on our flight. I expect it will all work out, but Delta's stock is pretty low with me.

Glad to hear you got your elephant. Please keep in touch.

Will

And, the plot thickens!... and yes, I am the same fellow.

How went your hunt?

quote:

Originally posted by Duckear:

Funny you put up the cartoon. I've actually used the analogy in my correspondence with Delta, comparing myself to old Don Q, except, I have jousted corprate windmills for a living and have made the poor things bleed quite profusely and to the chagrin of the mindless minions who tried to hide behind "company policy".

I wish you well in your fight, just don't let it get you BP up.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:


Bet it doesn't make a bit of difference, though!

I won't bet against you Judge. I think you are right.
I am in the transportation industry (albeit on the cargo side) and I can see how it is changing to some extent.
The major US airlines are simply too big and too complex to be considered as a "service industry" in the classic sense of the word. The newer term "carrier" is more appropriate. They are cattle cars. The rest is PR window dressing and schemes to prevent revenue loss. But ,the fact is that an airline business model as big as Delta's cannot support the idea that "high service level=high revenue".

It's not that they don't have good people working for them and it is not that any of them intentionally set out to provide bad service. But, the reality is the distance from the guy who deposited your payment, the guy who screwed up, the guy who listened to your complaint, and the guy who understands HOW those three relate is simply too great. The organization is simply not built to respond to that type of problem quickly. Why? Well, they got paid which was their primary objective and that was already accomplished. Everything else is secondary and subject to time availability.

I don't think we will ever see better service until people quit flying because of bad service. Right now, the primary reason people don't fly is price. So, carriers chop price at the expense of service and this is the result on a micro scale.

Eventually, the industry will implode and regional carriers that specialize in particular lanes will re-emerge (remember Piedmont?) and service will trump price (as long as regulations and unions allow them to keep costs down). We'll probably be dead and buried long before the wheel turns that much.


I hope you get everything that is coming to you: your luggage, a refund for that leg of the trip and compensation for all additional costs you incurred. Barring that, I hope somebody that had a hand in it calls and apologizes direct. That would be the gentlemanly thing to do. But, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Ironically, I flew the same 200/201 flights last July and had zero issues. The flight was newer then with brand new birds. Maybe the focus of Delta has shifted off of this flight or maybe increased volume from the World Cup is causing second and third order effects already? I dunno. Just guessing.

Glad you made it home with meat on the ground as well, though.

Semper Fi.

Chet

Chet, excellent work.

Unfortunately I find no where in this fine piece of writing and thinking where I could add or disagree. Unless, Chet you would like to get away from the cargo side and go into the customer care side!!

Sad but very true.

I was on the Judge's flight as well. It is complete BS that they are trying to blame this on Weather. The pilots exact phrase on the intercom was, "They have grossly overloaded the plane". Everything was exactly as bad as the judge said. The total lack of communication once we returned to the gate was a joke. My guns arrived at my work yesterday. I noticed when I headed to work this morning that someone delivered my checked bags to my house last night after I went to bed. I have not gone through them to see if everything was in order though.
Mac

JudgeG - came across this article in the Wall Street Journal which really does emphasise the lack of service from the airlines, especially when it comes to the problem you experienced!

--

Why Fliers Get Fed in the EU but Not in U.S.
As More Governments Establish Passenger Rights Policies, Travelers Face Different Rules
By SCOTT MCCARTNEY.

Governments around the world have struggled to appease anger among air travelers and force better customer service from airlines. Despite major efforts in Europe and Canada, travelers still have little recourse from airline snafus.

A close comparison of traveler rights in the United States, European Union and Canada—three governments that have tried to tackle the issue—shows little advantage for airline customers in any particular part of the world. Although Europe and Canada have much stronger passenger-rights policies, there's little practical difference for travelers.

Travelers bumped from flights in Europe and the U.S. are entitled to much the same compensation, for example, and both Europe and the U.S. are more generous than Canada. Travelers whose bags have been lost are eligible for more money under U.S. rules than the caps in place on airline liability in the EU and Canada.

On delays, Europeans and Canadians are fed better than Americans. The U.S. has no requirements for accommodations during delays, while EU rules require free meals and refreshments and two free phone calls after two hours of sitting. Canadian ticket tariffs require a meal voucher after four hours of waiting for a flight.

The European Union put into place rigorous requirements in 2005. One change focused on safety: creation of a public "blacklist" of carriers considered unsafe so consumers worried about accidents could make more informed choices.

Other changes sought to force better airline service by penalizing airlines when things go awry and forcing them to compensate travelers for the ordeal of canceled flights, long delays and other travel indignities. The rules apply to any airline based in the EU or any flight departing from an EU airport, including trans-Atlantic flights on U.S. carriers, for example.

While the rules raised passenger expectations of money back when airlines don't deliver the service they promised on schedule, the reality has been different. There's a major catch to all the protections: The rules don't apply in any sort of "exceptional circumstances." That's not just weather problems or air-traffic control snarls, for which airlines aren't held responsible, but also mechanical issues that would create safety problems if planes flew, and even the airline's own labor battles.

European courts are trying to sort out exactly what the passenger-rights legislation requires, creating uncertainty for both airlines and travelers. Courts could strip away airline protections.

Last November, the European Court of Justice ruled that passengers delayed by airlines three hours or more should get the same compensation as passengers whose flights were canceled—up to €600 per passenger. And in December, the Court of Justice ruled that mechanical issues weren't "exceptional circumstances" because it's an airline's responsibility to make sure aircraft are sound. Those rulings are under appeal and aren't being followed yet by airlines.

If those rulings stand, the International Air Transport Association, which represents airlines, contends they could add €5 billion to airline costs annually. The Association of European Airlines says that would be ruinous.

"Extending this to delays is the real nightmare scenario, because then we will be seeing quarter-million dollar events with much more frequency," said AEA spokesman David Henderson. "Needless to say, the airlines will contest these. They will have to."

EUclaim, a Netherlands-based company that files traveler claims against airlines for a 27% commission of any compensation, says airlines apply "exceptional circumstances" liberally in denying claims. "Airline companies will often hide behind this term to avoid having to pay out," EUclaim says on its Web site.

Airlines deny abusing the exemptions they are allowed. They don't disclose how much they pay out.

Even with posters in airports and other materials advertising the EU's passenger-rights measures, expectations are low.

In a study last year conducted for the European Commission, seven out of 10 people who filed a complaint against an airline believed it was simply an efficient way to help airlines improve service and few expected to receive any compensation. The research was based on in-home face-to-face interviews with 26,757 people.

Rebecca Serbin, a U.S. college student who traveled in Europe last summer, nearly missed her brother's wedding when British Airways canceled her early morning flight from Athens to London where she was supposed to make a connection to Los Angeles.

After she waited in line with angry customers for hours, British Airways flew her that night to London, provided a hotel room and got her on a flight to Los Angeles the next day.

She filed a claim for compensation through EUclaim, but after several months the airline denied it. By then, her anger at the airline had subsided. "I'm not sure it mattered a huge amount either way," she said.

Government regulators have a balancing act when it comes to passenger rights—they don't want to create policy that would encourage airlines to operate unsafely to avoid paying passenger compensation.

In some cases, U.S. officials believe EU rules go too far. "The EU protections on cancellations and delays cause some concern for us on possible impact on safety," said one U.S. transportation official.

In Canada, the government pressed a "Flight Rights Canada" campaign in 2008, but it focuses mostly on measures to better inform the traveling public of protections included in airline ticket rules.

On several fronts, Canadian rules offer travelers fewer protections than in the U.S. On bumping, for example, Canadian airlines don't have to pay compensation to passengers for denying them the seat they bought. But unlike U.S. airlines, Canadian carriers do pledge in their tariff rules to buy customers a seat on another airline if they bump them from a flight.

I just got off of the phone with a great fellow at the FAA. I really don't feel at liberty to discuss his comments and proposed actions (if any), but I believe that he listened to my safety concerns, actually understood the dangerous matrix of overloading aircraft, long over-water flights without close diverts, tired pilots and inaccurate weather forecasting.

His concern, of course, was safety and not my comfort or compensation (and that of the other passengers who were lied to), but, I hope he will agree that three serious screw-ups in a week is enough for someone responsible for our safety to investigate.

We'll see.

As to a consumer complaint, I'm preparing a package for D.O.T. via the complaint process directed at http://airconsumer.dot.gov/problems.htm

Good luck Judge. There is a feeling of absolute helplessness at being stranded by an airline in an airport! Particularly, when you are in a foreign land with FIREARMS! And it always amazes me when a major corporation puts their own profit motives above the well-being and welfare of their clientele. Can anyone say Toyota? I hope you stick it to the sumbitches...

Judge
I totally agree with your approach with this. In my experience if you hammer away at any big organisation for finanacial compensation bases on being inconvenience they are used to it and have all the blockers in place, but come at them from the side on "Health and Safety"issues and you are more likely to have some success. - Good Luck.

I have an e-mail from Delta that states that Customer Relations is the "blocker" as you suggest. They refuse to inquire across departments. In other words, if Customer Relations actually admits a problem, they have no facility to report it to Operations (or wherever) so that it may be addressed. Worse than that, Customer Relations is the final arbitor as to whether a problem actually exist. So you have some none pilot minion deciding if a safety problem really exists.

That is pure insanity.

Obviously there are some severe safety problems when three flights on the same route, within 3 days (to include the divert to P.R.) have problems with crew rest, fuel and cargo loading and poor weather prognostication.

Delta is pushing the JNB to U.S. flights to damn far and to date the screw ups have just inconvenienced passengers. If they keep up the pressure on the pilots, there will be a trajedy and it won't be because I didn't report it to Delta and the folks at the FAA/DOT.

When my package is ready for consumer complaints at D.O.T., I'm contemplating sending it to the members of the board of directors of the company. I asked the Delta Customer Relations guy about that and he blew me off. One of the directors just may take notice before 300 people either get screwed like I did, or God forbid, worse.

Note to Self....
Do not, repeat do not, piss off the judge.

Humor aside...

Over the last 19 years I have flown Delta with great regularity, just got my 2 million mile card last fall. It is my opinion that their level of service and general concern for passengers has declined fairly steadily over that period. The idea that the decline might be sliding into the operations area is of concern although I ( I hold a multiengine ATP) have not seen specific evidence to date.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by stubbleduck47:
Note to Self....
Do not, repeat do not, piss off the judge.

QUOTE]

AMEN BROTHER

GOOD LUCK JUDGE!

Judge,
glad you are taking the initative to show them the error of the way they are running the business. Besides upsetting the client base and ruining a holiday the airline very well could get a plane load of people killed. Keep up the good fight and thank you from all of us.

Here is little information on flights leaving S.A for Atlanta. Those flights are constantly being overloaded with cargo because of contracts etc. Some times they catch it before taxing out but as on your trip, it was not caught until they were getting ready to taxi and fly out. The problem is with the people they contract to load the plane, luggage and cargo, they are constantly overloading the planes. The passangers now pay for the flight and the cargo is where the profit comes from. It use to be the reverse. I ran into the same problem with you couple of years ago and almost got bumped off. When I got back I contacted a good friend who works at Delta. He says they will remove luggage before they remove cargo. I found out they were contracting at that time with SAA to load their planes and handle their gates. They make more money off the cargo then they would for a passenger of the same weight. I wish you the best of luck. But, it seems Delta like most airlines are struggling to make a profit. They have several years of losses maybe this is the problem. But, that is no excuse for treating passengers the way they do.

Simple answer: if the $$$ is in cargo, switch to hauling cargo and let people fly with someone else.

Rich

I used to be a loyal DELTA customer & learned what DELTA's acronym really stands for...

D...doesn't
E...even
L...leave
T...the
A...airport.

'nuff said.

If I remember correctly, when I first started rersearching flying to Zim, through SA, there was something about the lanes not being able to fly NON STOP with enough reserve fuel, certain times of the year, because of the weather, and on certain days anytime of the year because of the weather.

By weather, I mean headwinds in flight and temp of the airport, takes more fuel to take off in warmer/hot weather, and also the takeoff head wind. Which the weight of the plane is a big factor as well.

In several of my flights we landed off the coast of western Africa to re fuel.

Looks like Delta is trying not to pay for the fuel, and airport landing fees on those islands.

The diverted flight to PR.... Well they probably "thought" they could make it, but used more fuel in the air that they planned on.

quote:

Originally posted by CamoManJ:
I used to be a loyal DELTA customer & learned what DELTA's acronym really stands for...

D...doesn't
E...even
L...leave
T...the
A...airport.

'nuff said.

I kindly disagree because that is reserved for US Air. They are the absolute worst airline in the world!!!!

I have read this whole thread and I am still puzzled. This is capitalism at its best isn't it?. This is how "maximizing profits" really works. Do you think the stockholders really care? What is the problem? Is it OK if it happens to someone else but not OK if it happens to you? There are only two solutions:
1. Government regulation.
2. Don't fly Delta.
Option 1 won't work because large American corporations own the government (ie. Congressmen and Senators). They would make sure that any regulations that were actually passed into law would be totally ineffectual. That leaves option 2.
The only language that American corporations understand is money.
Peter.

My option is the more in tune with what we are rapidly losing-FREE ENTERPRISE and freedoms in general: don't fly Delta. The last thing we need is more government regulations. jorge

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Malinverni:
Is it coming the day to found a airline company dedicated to the hunters travels? Could it have success?

Unfortunately, no, I don't think so.

Peter:

Two things.

First, on the Capitalism issue. It is pure Capitalism to pay your money and expect contract performance as promised... and if not, to seek recompense for a breach.

Secondly, while I have never even mentioned suing Delta (albeit, they have unilaterally offered money to me), I'm more concerned about the safety issures now as, apparently, the FAA is.

I'd not be raising hell about my situation if Delta had just admitted that they overloaded the plane (instead of lying and saying that the first instance was "weather" related. That pissed me off.

Then, when the same thing happened to me the next night, and the divert to Puerto Rico came to light, safety became my windmill.

I am preparing a consumer complaiint, also. Maybe, just maybe, the minion who told me I had no contractual rememdy to Delta's actions will think twice before "blowing off" his next screwed customer.

this is a symptom of the "New Age Part II" program that is sweeping America. It's called "I have all the rights, the other guy has all the responsibility in the deal...".

Reciprocity is the only way Capitalism can function.

Rich

Peter

The Airline industry is not a good example of capitalism at work. It sits in the business purgatory zone of highly regulated but not governemnt owned.

There are a fixed number of routes in the world. Not every airline can fly to any destination whenever it wants. Those routes are "awarded" by the government to specific airline to fly specific routes at specific times. And that's it. The "winner" now has a monopoly so to speak.

For those of us in the US trying to get to South Africa, the direct options are pretty, limited - Delta or SAA. Sure, yucan get there through Europe or the Middle East, but add about another day or two each way to your trip.

Capitalism with a monopoly provides more than a few opportities for abuse. That's why we have antitrust laws. Except where the government creates the monopoly. Delta has the route locked up to the exclusion of all other competitors. They can boost revenue per flight by using larger aircraft (too expensive to buy new) or they can cram more paying cargo into the nooks and crannies of its existing fleet. Safety rules tend to get in the way where the costs of the flight are covered by paying passengers, and every pound you add after that is pure profit.

Judge, did you ever get your luggage returned?

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
If I remember correctly, when I first started rersearching flying to Zim, through SA, there was something about the lanes not being able to fly NON STOP with enough reserve fuel, certain times of the year, because of the weather, and on certain days anytime of the year because of the weather.

By weather, I mean headwinds in flight and temp of the airport, takes more fuel to take off in warmer/hot weather, and also the takeoff head wind. Which the weight of the plane is a big factor as well.

In several of my flights we landed off the coast of western Africa to re fuel.

Looks like Delta is trying not to pay for the fuel, and airport landing fees on those islands.

The diverted flight to PR.... Well they probably "thought" they could make it, but used more fuel in the air that they planned on.

tony,
It is my understanding that the new 777 aircraft is what allows them to do the flight non stop now. I guess it is more fuel efficient.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Peter:

Two things.

First, on the Capitalism issue. It is pure Capitalism to pay your money and expect contract performance as promised... and if not, to seek recompense for a breach.

Secondly, while I have never even mentioned suing Delta (albeit, they have unilaterally offered money to me), I'm more concerned about the safety issures now as, apparently, the FAA is.

I'd not be raising hell about my situation if Delta had just admitted that they overloaded the plane (instead of lying and saying that the first instance was "weather" related. That pissed me off.

Then, when the same thing happened to me the next night, and the divert to Puerto Rico came to light, safety became my windmill.

I am preparing a consumer complaiint, also. Maybe, just maybe, the minion who told me I had no contractual rememdy to Delta's actions will think twice before "blowing off" his next screwed customer.

One thing that I often think about is the laws that apply to air travel and the fact that they were created in 1929 and the last update was done in 1975. The Warsaw convention allows airlines to greatly limit their liability to any passenger. I am still amazed that the limits on international flight are lower than those of domestic…makes no sense to me.

For example, the limit for lost or damages baggage on domestic flights is $2500 per passenger. The limit for international flights is $9.07 per LB. That is $453.50 for your 50 lb gun case! After this you have no legal ground to a higher claim.

Baggage is only one part of the Warsaw convention. Look at the limits established should you be killed in an accident. Last time I checked they were less than $100,000. So if Delta crashed because they chose to load too much cargo, you are only entitled to a set level of compensation.

I am amazed that this has not been updated and hope that at some point in the near future the airlines will have new laws to consider. I am not for adding regulation to the industry as I believe the nature of capitalism will prevail. However these laws prevent capitalism from working. If the limits were raised to modern levels maybe the airlines would rethink their policy and have skin in the game when luggage is lost.

Does anyone have advice on which airline is the lesser of two evils, SAA or Delta?? I swore off of SAA and now this crap with Delta. I need some help!!!!!

United flies to Jo'berg also.

Although they have their customer service fubars also. I'm Premier Executive on United and fly about 75K miles per year. I was stranded in Denver Thursday when they delayed the flight from Orlando that I was on and caused me to miss my flight to Bakersfield. The best they could do for me was a flight the next day at 9:30 AM to Los Angeles with a connector to Bakersfield arrivng at 2 PM. Unfortunately I had to be at a wedding at 3PM on Friday so that didn't work.

I told them this wouldn't work and to get me to any airport within 150 miles of Bakersfield that night. They said that they couldn't do it but I got on my Droid and found a flight to Fresno that arived there at 10:30 PM and made them book me on it. I arranged a rental car in Fresno and was home at 12:30 that night.

I found this on my account statement today:

Mar 19, 2010 CUSTOMER RELATIONS BONUS MILES 9,000

sevenmag

Not sure,why or when you "swore off" SAA but I have had good luck with them so far.

I have taken seven round trips with them since 2001 and, except for a strike on summer 2005? They have done a reasonably good job [actually was very good in the aftermath of the strike too]. Arrived pretty much on time, provided reasonable service,and food, in coach seats that are not the worst in the world. Could it be better or nicer? Sure, but it is coach, it is still the most efficient with connections in southern Africa, and compared with what I have gotten used to in US domestic carriers, it is almost a pleasure.

And, obviously Delta is not blowing SAA's doors off with service or performance. Overloading aircraft, diverting to Puerto Rico for fuel, Lying to customers to cover ineptitude, seem like acts of a desperate 2nd class carrier. I'd rather an airline run out of toilet paper, or beer, but fuel?!?

So,maybe give SAA another chance [but after the world cup hysteria dies out]. Or, of course, there are all those european routes too, but time is an issue and the hassles are just different, it appears to me.

Les

Stopped flying Delta after a mechanics error caused the R side jet engine to fall off the aircraft just after takeoff. Delta didn't apologize, buy us a free drink, did nothing. Was flying 100k + per yr. Still flying, but always with Delta's competitors. I have a long memory. Incident: January 1992, Dallas to Houston.

quote:

Originally posted by brevex:
Stopped flying Delta after a mechanics error caused the R side jet engine to fall off the aircraft just after takeoff. Delta didn't apologize, buy us a free drink, did nothing. Was flying 100k + per yr. Still flying, but always with Delta's competitors. I have a long memory. Incident: January 1992, Dallas to Houston.

Dang!

Now that is scary!

Last year on a couple of threads I stated what Gracy had told me about the incredible bad customer service that their clients had expereinced with Delta. At that time my post was not well received but perhaps now folks will pay a litte closer attention to who they choose. We have options in our travel to Africa and there is no reason to use an airline that is consistently problematic.

Mark

Several years ago I was jerked around by Delta on the way to a Canada hunt. It cost me a day of hunting, a fee from Delta, and an uncompensated night in a 5* hotel near the airport. Let me tell you, I needed every minute in my rooms hot tub to keep me from setting the Delta counter ablaze. I followed my issue up the food chain all the way to the Corporate Board. I finally told them, "make this right or I will never fly your airline again and will do my best to make sure everyone I know avoids you too" They did nothing so I sent them the cut up pieces of my frequent flier card and have been bashing Delta every chance I get ever since. Frankly, I am not and fortunately have never been so hard up for money that I have to pinch pennies on flights. I will therefore happily fly ANY other airline and pay a premium to do so if it means I can avoid Delta.

brevex: You're not going to believe this, but I saw that very incident happen while I was at the Dallas airport in 1992! I was down there on legal work, and personally watched as your plane took off and the engine fell to the ground. I thought that I was seeing things, until I saw them taxie the plane to a remote area and all kinds of things started happening. Incredible incident, and what a small world!

Probably weather related!!! Was the sun shining, or perhaps cloudy, maybe even raining? What did I tell you!
Peter.

No, it was a good day! No rain, no clouds that I can recall.