I think you did ok with the 15K. Especially if your were able to eat on the ground.

 

to remind passengers how little they care about you as a passenger, just your money.

to maintain it�s important to preserve their rights is silly.

 

Again, we don't know what was said in the initial email to customer service. It may have been addressing a specific point in that email. We don't know whether it was necessary or not.

 

Because it addresses the airline's justification for not compensating the person

 

Tough crowd here. OP highlighted the complaint was the how they responded. I agree with OP. Was the compensation good? IMO Yes (especially considering what I rcvd for a F->Y downgrade and 12 hour delay getting from DC to DFW earlier this year). Is how they say meals are complimentary conveniences is pretty much insulting. When do they move from that to a EWR-PHX flight to a BOS-SAN? Or DFW-LHR?

I agree with the OP. Pretty crappy response.

 

What the OP fails to see here is how incredibly privileged he is, receiving a personalized reply from AA within days! My far more pressing issue dating back to September 13th has not been processed yet. I did receive two "we're still working on it" emails so there is hope yet for a reply although the issue itself is irrelevant by now. AA is fine as long as nothing goes wrong. Sorry for somewhat hijacking the thread.

 

Second this. Meals are explicitly advertised as part of the offering when booking the flight. They are not "complimentary conveniences" any more than your baggage allowance is


A simple, "we are sorry we couldn't deliver what was promised. Significant delays caused problems with catering, resulting in this unfortunate outcome. Here are 15k miles as our way of apologizing and we look forward to delivering a superior experience for you in the future" would have resulted in exactly the same outcome for AA and a likely much happier customer. Making up rubbish just serves nobody.

 

This. Whoever drafted the �complimentary conveniences� line ought to receive some remedial training. It was unnecessary, insulting and just plain stupid.

 

This is AA's new corporate policy, doubled down from their appearance in court recently where they stated that the ticket is transportation only and everything else - an actual seat to sit in, a place to store bags, the transportation of checked bags, etc etc etc - are all "complimentary conveniences" which the airline has no legal obligation to provide.

I could tell you what "AA" stands for, but it wouldn't be FT TOS compliant.

 

Which, as the screenshots above show, is a crock of manure.

Meals are advertised as part of the offering. They're not the second bowl of gruel that Oliver Twist was hoping for.

 

That would be a matter for a court to decide should the person decide to pursue compensation. If the person does and wins, it would show that the justification was flawed

Personally, I would suggest that the goodwill offer woulld be better to just accept

 

Think everyone can agree AA's comment is insulting and unnecessary.

But is there really anything else to do? Is OP going to file a DOT complaint? A chargeback? A small claims court case? 15K miles seems like a very reasonable compensation for not having a catered meal.

 

So, unless someone sues, it's okay in your book to falsely advertise?

No one is debating how this would play out in a court of law. This is customer support dealing with a customer with a problem.

Sure. However all of this could have been avoided without AA sounding like a litigation attorney. Customer support is not supposed to needlessly antagonize customers for zero gain; at least in well run companies.

Exactly. The sentence added nothing of value and needlessly turned a salvageable outcome into a dumpster fire. Who did they hire to write these? Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Un?

Heck, even for a Y customer about biscoff, it could be handled better. "We try to serve our complimentary snacks, however due to unforeseen circumstances, we were unable to do so. We apologize and appreciate your patience with us as we worked through the delay. Here is 1000 miles, please come back soon"

 

I think that if someone is stating that they did not receive something that they paid for, it's correct for the agent to quote AA policy about what is included in what they paid for. If the OP did not bring it up then I agree that the comment is uncalled for.

The point about the advertising not matching the airlines' policy is a good one. There's no need to sue; that's what the DOT is for. Anyone who feels that this is an issue can complain to them that what AA displays on the web page is misleading and does not match AA's policy. If they feel that AA's webpage and booking process is deceptive and misleading... they have an all-encompassing regulation just for that.

But the CS agent should not be blamed for quoting AA's policy if it was in direct response to the message that they are replying to. Whether AA's policy is fair (or even legal) is a separate issue -- the agent needs to follow the policy regardless.

 

It is included in what's paid for though. AA advertises F on that route as having a meal in addition to 2 checked bags, the better seat etc. A customer paid for that package of services that was advertised. Yes, it isn't itemized in that the next flight outside the meal window doesn't pay less, but neither does a passenger who doesn't check bags. I don't see how it can be AA's published policy to directly contradict what they advertise.

Agreed that the DOT is the right spot to complain. IME, 15k miles is plenty sufficient. I feel that they could have given the 15k miles in a less pointed way and ended up with a happier outcome for all parties.