Southwest Airlines said that they will be giving a refund to the family it considered too “threatening” to make their connection to Seattle. KPHO says Wendy Slaughter will receive a full refund for their six one-way tickets from Detroit to Seattle via Phoenix.
Southwest did not issue the “public apology” the family was hoping for. Do you think this is a fair compromise? Do the chronically unruly deserve refunds if they’re kicked off the flight?
Family Booted From Flight Gets Refund [KPHO](Thanks, Lucas!)
More From Consumerist
-
Southwest Doesn’t Approve Of Your Cleavage-Baring Outfit, Young Lady
-
Southwest Bills Customers Multiple Times In Failed Facebook Promotion
-
Southwest Airlines Pilot's Tiff With TSA Agent Escalates Until Cops Make Everyone Chill Out
-
‘Passenger Of Size’ Policies For The Largest Domestic Airlines
-
Southwest Raising Bag Fees, Will Start Charging For No-Shows
@poxpopulus: The family deserved what they got, but the mocking of their appearance is a bit much. No matter where you go, there will be assholes.
I don’t care what conditions your children might have – if you can’t get them to sit down and behave properly, you don’t need to be on the airplane. There is no “Oh they’re just kids and get excited” excuse. That might fly at Wal-Mart when your child destroys a product display, but not thousands of feet in the air when other passengers’ safety depends on everyone acting properly.
I’m glad Southwest kicked this family off WITHOUT an apology. I think they should only have been refunded the UNUSED portion of their tickets.
@EyeHeartPie:
I think you might get a refund from SW. A couple of years ago I showed up at the airport without I.D. (it was a very early flight and I was half asleep). I realized I did not have my I.D. (at the check in counter) and had to go home to get my I.D. (I was also renting a car at my desitantion). I decided to just forget the weekend trip and stay home and explained the situation to the agent. She said, I’ve got room on the next flight departing in a couple of hours, do you still want to take your trip? I inquired as to how much that would cost me – figuring a $50 change fee at the very least. Agent told me I could make the change for free, they had room on the flight, etc.
I love SW.
This is bullshit. They were kicked of rightfully. The kids were out of control. Out of their seats, bugging everyone. There is no (legitimate) complaint about being kicked off the plane, as they were out of control. So why should refunda be issued? This is bullshit. Giving them refunds ony encourages this type of thing, makes them think they were in the right, and sets it up for this to happen more.
@fostina1: That’s discriminatory. Misbehavior isn’t a disability, it’s the by-product of having jerks for parents.
This is a case of “seller beware” where SW knows they’re going to encounter uniqueness in their consumer population due to the low, low prices they charge and weird airports they frequent. The only reason they’re issuing a refund is to avoid a pr problem.
I can only imagine the number of people inconvenienced by SW over the years that never bothered to call a TV station. Those people are HOT for news like this.
@JoeVet: “I would think that the family had recourse under the Americans with disabilities act. At least two of the children had disabilities, both of which could lead to hyperexitation.” That’s much less of an issue if all 4 kids were causing the trouble (or if it was the 2 other kids causing the worst of the trouble).
On the question of what other passengers say, all I’ve found is from [www.abc15.com] – “Pat McElroy disagrees. As a passenger on the flight with the Slaughter family, he told KIRO, ‘It was the flight from hell. I never experienced anything like it in all my years of flying.’ McElroy said the children kept moving around when the seatbelt sign was on. He also said the kids were shouting, going up and down the aisle being disruptive.”
I think SW did the right thing in kicking these people off of the flight. Ms. Slaughter knew her kids were being unruly. Usually people’s perception of their children is higher than what the general population thinks of them. It makes me think they were being little brats and mom didn’t discipline them properly. I think it was fair of SW to not make everyone else on the flight suffer any longer than they had to and kick the family off.
The refund was appropriate, since they paid to get to their destination and didn’t get there. An apology is too much though. What do they have to apologize for? Because your kids were too out of control to handle?
Why is it that everyone blames the mother for not being able to control “her” kids? Why does the father get to slide out of any childcare responsibility when (as far as I understand the conception process) those rugrats are half his?
Better to say the parents couldn’t control their children and should probably consider automobile transportation nest time.
I’m glad they gave back the money these people paid for a service they never fully received. They should apologize for the inconvenience in my opinion and one of the above commentators made the suggestion to make the rules written so everyone that buys a ticket knows for what reasons they can be kicked off. I don’t think it’s too much to ask for.
I think they were certainly entitled to a refund, but they don’t deserve an apology. Did they apologize to anyone on the plane for their unruly, misbehaving children?
It’s stories like this that make me WANT to fly Southwest.
She tried to use her kids’ conditions as an excuse. She should be damn happy she got any sort of compensation.
Now I wonder if she’s going to use that money to pay back her relative for those tickets they bought her to get to Seattle?
I give credit to SW for giving her a refund when they didn’t have to. Echoing the sentiment of most people yesterday, the family/”Mother” is the one that needs to be issuing the apology.
@i.hate.trustafarians:
No one is blaming the father because the father wasn’t on the flight. It’s is kind of hard to control a child from 1000 miles away…
@i.hate.trustafarians: I don’t recall any information about the father in EITHER article. Maybe you should change tack and shift some of the parenting responsibility on Grandma?
@i.hate.trustafarians: Well we mostly hear about the mom here. Sure the dad gets the exact same blame. He’s one lousy father.
@i.hate.trustafarians: Dad wasnt on the flight… RTFA.
@IrisMR: Nice random judgement.
I’m not saying we should treat children like animals but I know many people give their pets sedatives before flying.
Why couldn’t the parent do the same thing?
I agree with this. Give them a refund but No apology. They admitted that their kids were being disruptive.
@bobbleheadr: It doesn’t matter that dad wasn’t on the flight. Unless mom and dad are separated and dad doesn’t have any contact with the kids, he’s still responsible for raising them.
I think a refund was fair since they did not receive what they paid for, but it was not a right but a privilege. I just think it seems the norm these days with overcrowded settings, unruly kids, and parents that don’t discipline their children. You almost feel for the mother, but kids will only respect your authority when you demand no less. Imagine the noise level in that plane with 4 kids screaming and running around and the other passengers just wanting to relax. I hope they never allow cell phones on planes!!
At most, at the absolute very most, those horrible people should be refunded the leg from Phoenix to Seattle.
No apology was warranted from Southwest, but a refund probably is. If the kids are so mentally challenged that they cannot behave well enough to fly under any circumstance, then unfortunately a different means of transportation should have been arranged. Sounds mean, but that is the reality. I have a son (who is just a normal kid) and expect him to behave in certain ways, and I try to think of how I would react to someone else’s kid doing these type of things when I expect him to behave. If the kid is hyperactive, bring a DVD player with earphones, coloring books, story books, gameboy. Kids need something to occupy their time, not just stare at the seatback in front of them.
On a lighter note, if anyone has the chance listen or read a stand up by Bill Cosby about a little boy on a plane he was on called “Jeffrey”.
This reminds me of the Violent Acres articles about controlling kids and teaching them not to behave like mindless animals.
[www.violentacres.com]
Perhaps this would have been a good use case for the TSA’s shock collar program?
A refund makes sense since they paid for a service (the flight) which they were denied, thus they didn’t get what they paid for and should get their money back. That however has nothing to do with the kids, and so as to them getting an apology for being ejected due to airline rules everyone knows about? Doubtful at best.
They are passengers first, then they are kids. We can cut them a little slack, but SOME control is required. An airplane is not the playground.
A refund should be given if the airline fails to provide a service that they agreed to provide. They airline provided the service in this case. The customer was unable to use the service. A refund is a nice thing to do, but I’m not sure it was necessary.
oh no! this means more white trash people might try to get on planes and cause havoc and then hope that by creating the havoc that they get kicked off AND get a free ticket/full refund.
shame on you southwest. don’t give in!
on a different note….. the best thing to do at airports is try to get on a flight that is overbooked, then say you don’t mind waiting for another flight later. they gave me a round trip ticket anywhere in the US for waiting 4 hours.
Lord have mercy. Forget about the kids, I would hate to be stuck sitting next to mom. Who knows what is being concealed under mom’s “Flyin Moo Moo” My fear is she would lift one of of the panels and begin treating her tetter and rash right there, midflight, dusting the whole cabin with Bonds Medicated Powder. I live in Phoenix and I know about those moo moo wearing women, they take up too much of everyone’s time complaining about the heat and applauding the likes of our Dear Leader.
On a more serious note. Southwest Airlines has fairly compensated these folk. I fly SWA every chance I get. My credit cards is a SWA Visa. I charge all of my business expenses on this card and pay off the balance monthly. Zero balance and currently I have 6 Rapid Rewards tickets on my account. SWA = Good Business Model = Happy Travelers
I honestly think they didn’t even deserve a refund. The family failed to behave in a manner that was safe for flight and inconvenienced the other 95% of passengers.
I hate to sound harsh, here, but they should thank their lucky stars they got anything, and back away quietly.
From the aritcle linked to by jenl1625, it seems that the family wants Southwest to reimburse them for the $2000 they spent on the other tickets after they were removed from their flight. That is completely not called for. Southwest went out of its way to refund them the price of the tickets they didn’t use, even though it was due to the family’s actions that they were kicked off.
That being said, the refund was a nice (unrequired) gesture, the reimbursement is asking for way too much, and no apology is needed because the family got themselves kicked off. Why should Southwest have to apologize to the family for the family’s crappy behavior? The family forced Southwest to enforce their rules, and Southwest should have to apologize for that?
Books, covers, deceiving appearances and all that – I realize making snap judgments about people based on their physical traits isn’t publicly acceptable policy.
However, that mom doesn’t strike me as someone very capable of maintaining control of any life, her own included.
I don’t know what the contract of carriage says, but if it says that Southwest Airlines can deny boarding upon refund of the ticket price, then that’s what they do. If it says that the price is forfeited if you’re determined unfit for transportation, then that’s what the rules say. Period.
Though I’m pretty sure at SW HQ they were sitting around going “God, how do we kill this story and look good doing it?” This was the best they came up with, and I’m sorry that this family’s stupidity cost SWA the fare they earned.
There’s no way Southwest owes them an apology. In all honesty, this family is lucky they weren’t arrested for causing a major disturbance on an aircraft, given the attitude (if not the actual practice) of heightened security in the air these days.
Not sure about the refund either. It makes Southwest look good, at least. But this family should undoubtedly be banned from Southwest for the foreseeable future. The fact that they’re trying to squeeze even MORE money out of Southwest just reinforces that.
I think what should have happened would have been for SW to put them up in a hotel for the night when they told the family they couldn’t fly their airline, and possibly help them locate another flight. No apologies and no further refunds. This mainly would have been a good-faith effort on SW’s part, while still holding firm to their decision. But since that didn’t happen, I think the refund, again, is a good-faith effort on SW’s part and further apologies are unnecessary.
the other passengers should have received free tickets
@linus: Knowing how some of these people are you’ll end up with hospitalized kids because these people overdosed their kids or something.
@i.hate.trustafarians: Mom gets the blame for failing to control her kids because dad wasn’t on the plane.
Whether that’s because he was back home working his tail off while mom, her sis, and the kids went on summer vacation, or whether it’s because there are 3 different guys who occasionally earn a paycheck and contribute to child support is completely unstated in any article I’ve seen . . . .
But whether or not “dad” exists, he wasn’t there – mom was, and apparently feels no shame in her inability (or unwillingness) to keep her kids in their seats while the “fasten seatbelts” light is on.
@mandiejackson: Ha! Yes. Or at least free booze during the flight.
If anyone is owed an apology it is the other passengers who had to put up with the Slaughters. If anything the mother and kids should have been hauled off the plane in cuffs by police when it arrived. However, I think the folks at Southwest realized that wouldn’t look very good. The airline should ban the family from traveling with them. The refund was no doubt a bit of damage control, but the Slaughter family doesn’t seem sympathetic instead they seem like the kind of people who will get some shyster to sue.
Methmouth can buy more cigarettes now for her unborn child.
Why do people believe that the fact that the children are (allegedly) disabled mean that they have the right to act like wild animals?
The reason I say allegedly–I live in the Phoenix area and the local news had video of the family on last night. I may be wrong, but isn’t it fairly obvious to tell when a person has cerebral palsy? I’m not trying to be cruel–just pointing out that we are taking the family’s word that these children are disabled. It certainly was not obvious looking at them.
You’ll remember a woman and her autistic child were kicked off a plane last week. Who’s to say this woman didn’t hear about that story and made up the story about her kids being disabled to get sympathy?
I’m not trying to be judgmental. However, I think Southwest acted appropriately and does not owe this family an apology.
If they live in Seattle and are coming from Detroit, how did they get to Detroit originally? I have a tough time believing it was their first flight. The disability thing is bogus too. When I was in college, one of my professor’s had a son with cerebral palsy. He said they will never fly because it would be a whole ordeal and his son might even freak out on the plane. His solution? They took the train from New York to Florida for their Disney World vacation. He said his son loved the trip and loved the train.
@linus: I’ve heard doctors recommending benadryl for little kids before going on a flight and I know of quite a few parents that use it. It works!
Next time I want to go to Las Vegas I’m going to book a flight to Chicago. Get piss drunk and unruly and get kicked off at Las Vegas. Then demand a refund.
This is even more of an incentive for me to fly SW besides the nicer staff and faster boarding, when you are catching a late or early flight home or to work the last thing you want to deal with is some idiot who can not control their children. I applaud SW in removing them and am surprised they gave a refund at all. The family broke the rules they agreed to when they purchased the tickets.
Southwest issuing a refund was not a compromise. They were legally obligated to do so by their Contract of Carriage.
According to Section 90(D): “Denied boarding – If Carrier denies boarding or removes a passenger from an aircraft under
conditions described in Article 10 above, Carrier will, upon surrender of the passenger’s
unused ticket or portion thereof, refund the fare paid for the unused ticket or portion thereof.”
If you read Article 10, it specifically says that they can deny boarding for failure to comply with FAA regulations or for the comfort and safety of other passengers. It also has this to say about passengers with disabilities: “Carrier will transport qualified individuals with a
disability in accordance with the conditions and requirements of U.S. Department of
Transportation regulations, 14 C.F.R. Part 382, unless the carriage of such individuals may
impair the safety of the flight or violate Federal Aviation Regulations.”
We already know the kids and mother were violating FAA regulations by not obeying the orders of flight attendants, and therefore Southwest was completely justified in removing them, but they also legally had to issue them a refund.
I think that Southwest was within their rights to boot them off the plane if they were disruptive. That said, since they paid for a service that they obviously didn’t receive, they were entitled to a refund, and got one.
All sounds copacetic to me.
Generous move by the airline, in my opinion. Fair alternative to a potential lawsuit. Is this a new trend for consumerist?
1) Post potentially damning story about company
2) Readers side with company…yes thats right, we side with the MAN!
3) Company gives in?