American Airlines changes flight without notifying passenger
Given that I had to buy a whole new ticket because of their unannounced schedule change, is there any way I can get a full refund from American?
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
ERICA REMER,
Beachwood, Ohio
A.
You should have received a clear and timely notification about your flight change. According to American's conditions of carriage, the legal agreement between you and the airline, you're entitled to a full refund if the carrier reschedules your flight by more than 4 hours.
The airline should have notified you of the schedule change well in advance of your departure. While they notified you of the first, minor change, the lack of communication about the second, more drastic change is unacceptable.
When you contacted American to address the issue, the agent should have sent you a written confirmation of your refund eligibility. Instead, you received a verbal assurance, followed by a written denial.
Advertisement
While nonrefundable airline tickets generally don't qualify for cash refunds, significant schedule changes — especially those involving international flights — often warrant exceptions. The Department of Transportation mandates airlines to issue refunds for 'significant' delays. Under its new consumer protections adopted last year, this is defined as any change exceeding 6 hours from the original departure or arrival times.
But this doesn't apply to canceled flights, and a look at your itinerary suggests that American canceled your flight and rebooked you on a different one. For a canceled flight, you always have the option of a full refund.
Bottom line: American can't keep your money and offer you an expiring flight credit. A brief, polite email to one of the American Airlines executives I list on my consumer advocacy site, Elliott.org, may have helped you get what you deserved. As I review your correspondence, it looks like you were stuck talking to an AI bot.
I contacted American on your behalf. The airline reviewed your case and issued a full refund of your original flight to your credit card, which is what you requested. Too bad it took my team's intervention to achieve this outcome. If you're ever in this situation again, remember to cite the airline's contract of carriage and DOT rules to get what you deserve.
Christopher Elliott is the founder of Elliott Advocacy (elliottadvocacy.org), a nonprofit organization that helps consumers solve their problems. Email him at chris@elliott.org or get help by contacting him at elliottadvocacy.org/help
.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
I delayed retiring for years. My husband's heart attack taught me we could not take time for granted.
This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Kim Hunter-Borst, 57, a healthcare professional based in New York City. It has been edited for length and clarity. My husband and I got married when we were a bit older. I was 42 and he was 49, and he had two children already. I saw my role in our family as the person who brought in all the fun. We just lived life thinking there was always a paycheck coming around the corner. I work in healthcare and always thought my job was recession-proof. But when I had to lay off people in 2016, I realized that we had no financial cushion if my husband and I were to lose our jobs. We were both earning well, but somehow, we were living paycheck to paycheck, something that feels so normal in American culture. I was embarrassed to say we messed up After the layoffs, I audited our finances and saw that we were $69,000 in debt. Our oldest kid was ready to go to college, and losing our jobs would mean tapping into our savings to pay for it. I had about $219,000 in savings because someone early in my career advised me to put 3% in my 401(k). My husband, who had been divorced and raising kids on his own, had $17,000 in savings. I didn't want to live with that anxiety and wanted to be debt-free and credit-card-free. We were in our forties and in good careers. It felt embarrassing to admit to others that we had messed up and were in debt. I'm not ashamed of it now, but we used to make excuses about missing vacations with friends instead of simply saying that the trip wasn't in our budget. We started eliminating things like unnecessary cable TV, switched to a cheaper cellphone carrier, and stopped going to Target unnecessarily. We paid off our debt in about two years by 2018, and began looking for what we'd do with our money moving forward. I found the financial independence community one day while I was online and learned about different types of investing. We realized that what worked best for us was to keep investing in our 401(k)s and pensions. Every time we got a raise, we'd ask if there was anything we were unsatisfied with that the money could help pay for. The answer was always no, and we always just invested the extra amount. I was delaying retirement By 2021, we felt like we had enough to retire. But I was delaying quitting my job one year at a time, because it was hard to imagine a paycheck not coming in. I was also trapped in golden handcuffs: I got promoted or got a raise every time I decided to walk away. I knew my family would look at me like I was crazy if I told them I was leaving $200,000 a year behind. I also attached my work to my identity. Around this time, my husband told me that I had my job and a bunch of other commitments in front of me and that he felt like my fourth priority. In 2023, he had a serious heart attack. When I was waiting in the hospital, his words stayed with me, and I realized that this isn't what I want him to believe if he's not coming back to me. Quitting wasn't easy If my husband had died, I would've missed the opportunity to really be with him without work, without all that other stuff going on. When he made it through, I told him we're retiring. Still, it took me a whole year to tell my company. I ran my numbers and every worst-case scenario with a friend, and I spent some time thinking about who I was outside my job. Once I settled on the idea that I was a mom and wife before I was a strategist, things fell into place. Since March, I've been loud and excited about my retirement, which starts at the end of this month, close to my 58th birthday. Now that I'll have more time, I've started my own financial planning retreats for women. I'm planning more neighborhood events, and we have a lot of travel booked. I want to be able to not set an alarm and do what I want to do, at least for a little while.
Newsweek
4 hours ago
- Newsweek
Over 30 More Countries Could Be Put on Travel Ban by US—Reports
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Trump administration is floating the idea of adding 36 more countries to its travel ban that began earlier this month, according to an internal State Department cable reviewed by The Washington Post and Reuters. A spokesperson for the State Department told Newsweek in a Sunday email: "The Department does not comment on internal deliberations or communications, but we are constantly reevaluating policies to ensure the safety of Americans and that foreign nationals follow our laws." Why It Matters Earlier this month, President Donald Trump issued a proclamation restricting travel by foreigners from 12 countries and partially restricting entry from an additional seven countries. The ban, which Trump said is to "protect the nation from foreign terrorist and other national security and public safety threats," went into effect on June 9. Since his inauguration on January 20, Trump has cracked down on foreign nationals in the United States, mainly through executive orders, and has prioritized immigration enforcement as a key pillar of his agenda. During his first administration, Trump imposed a ban that barred people from seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the U.S. Critics then and now, have called out the restrictions as xenophobic and racist. What To Know The internal cable, which was signed by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, "identified 36 countries of concern that might be recommended for full or partial suspension of entry if they do not meet established benchmarks and requirements within 60 days," as reported by Reuters. The weekend memo was first reported by The Washington Post and includes 25 African nations, as well as several Pacific Island nations, Caribbean, and Central Asian. The countries mentioned in the cable that may face a potential partial or full ban are: Angola Antigua and Barbuda Benin Bhutan Burkina Faso Cabo Verde Cambodia Cameroon Cote D'Ivoire Democratic Republic of Congo Djibouti Dominica Ethiopia Egypt Gabon The Gambia Ghana Kyrgyzstan Liberia Malawi Mauritania Niger Nigeria Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Sao Tome and Principe Senegal South Sudan Syria Tanzania Tonga Tuvalu Uganda Vanuatu Zambia Zimbabwe Some of the countries under consideration, such as Egypt, are key U.S. diplomatic partners and receive American military aid. When asked earlier this month why Egypt wasn't on the original list, Trump responded, "Because Egypt has been a country that we deal with very closely. They have things under control." Djibouti hosts Camp Lemonnier, the only permanent U.S. military base in Africa. The countries would be in addition to the 12 fully restricted countries of Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, and the seven partially restricted, Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela, that Trump already limited. There are, however, some exceptions to the restrictions, including certain visas. The Washington Post identified the benchmarks in the memo as regarding lack of "competent or cooperative central government authority to produce reliable identity documents or other civil documents," or experiencing "widespread government fraud." Immigration also played a role in their potential selection, with some reportedly having large numbers of citizens who overstayed their visas in the U.S. The memo also touched on ideology, reportedly saying, there were accounts of "antisemitic and anti-American activity in the United States" by some people from those countries. Trump announced the first version of the ban earlier this month after citing national security concerns following a recent terror attack in Boulder, Colorado, when Mohamed Sabry Soliman, a 45-year-old Egyptian national, carried out a firebombing attack at a pro-Israel rally, injuring 12 people. Trump has detained several vocal pro-Palestinian voices, most notably Mahmoud Khalil. President Donald Trump speaks during an event in the East Room of the White House on June 12 in Washington, D.C. President Donald Trump speaks during an event in the East Room of the White House on June 12 in Washington, D.C. AP Photo/Alex Brandon What People Are Saying A spokesperson for the State Department told Newsweek in an email Sunday: "The Department of State is committed to protecting our nation and its citizens by upholding the highest standards of national security and public safety through our visa process." Amnesty International's Secretary General Agnès Callamard said in a press release on June 5: "President Trump's new travel ban is discriminatory, racist, and downright cruel. By targeting people based on their race, religion, or nationality, from countries with predominantly Black, Brown and Muslim-majority populations, this blanket ban constitutes racial discrimination under international human rights law. It also spreads hate and disinformation, reinforcing the misleading idea that certain populations are more likely to pose security risks or engage in acts of violence." Senator Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, wrote in a June 4 X, formerly Twitter, post: "This is Trump's reckless first term travel ban all over again. Just like before, Trump's expanded ban on travelers from around the world will not improve our national security and will only further isolate the U.S. from the rest of world. Bigotry is not a national security strategy." What Happens Next? It remains unclear whether the State Department will move forward with the additions or when the countries might face restrictions if they fail to meet certain requirements.
New York Post
5 hours ago
- New York Post
The growing case for rate cuts, federal cuts won't gut health care and other commentary
Fed watch: The Growing Case for Rate Cuts 'President Trump's tariffs present the Federal Reserve with two conflicting challenges,' observes The Wall Street Journal's Greg Ip. Tariffs 'raise prices, which weakens the case for cutting interest rates' but also 'sap confidence and demand, which strengthens the case.' So far, 'the Fed has focused on the first risk, keeping its interest rate target between 4.25% and 4.5% since December. It might soon have to pivot to the second': 'Evidence is accumulating that inflation, despite tariffs, has been milder than feared, while the labor market might be deteriorating.' Unemployment 'has risen every month since January, by a quarter percentage point in all.' A 'restrictive stance' on interest rates 'make sense so long as inflation is all the Fed has to worry about. It no longer is.' Eye on NY: Federal Cuts Won't Gut Health Care 'New York's health-care industry stands to lose billions of dollars in federal funding' under the GOP federal budget bill, notes the Empire Center's Bill Hammond, yet that wouldn't 'be enough to 'decimate' or 'gut' New York's health care system,' as Gov. Hochul has claimed. 'The House budget would reduce federal health-care aid by $10.1 billion while obliging the state to spend an additional $3.3 billion,' a state Health Department analysis finds — yet federal aid 'would still be higher than it was in 2023.' Cut the state's Medicaid enrollment by 1.2 million, and New York 'would still be providing free coverage to about 36 percent of its population' — still '12 points higher than the national average.' Republican: Don't Let Judges Help China Steal Tech The Patent Trial and Appeal Board is 'effectively allowing a Chinese firm to keep stealing an American semiconductor technology,' warns Rep. Nathaniel Moran at The Hill. The judges on the board 'just sided with Innoscience, a Chinese firm' accused of 'stealing patented technology and selling knockoff chips' from Cali company Efficient Power Conversion. 'After a 16-month investigation,' the US International Trade Commission 'found that Innoscience had indeed stolen the technology.' Yet Innoscience separately the patent board to invalidate Efficient Power Conversion's patent. 'The Trump administration has the authority to overrule' the board's 'dangerous decision' and 'should do so immediately,' but also 'implement broader reforms' to stop 'rogue administrative judges from helping Chinese companies pilfer US intellectual property in the future.' Democrats: San Francisco Shows the Way 'In the most famously liberal city in America, voters are no longer satisfied with symbolism or purity tests — they want results,' cheer Nancy Tung & Eric Kingsbury at Real Clear Politics. San Francisco voters 'still support Democratic principles, but they are demanding leaders who deliver.' In elections since 2022 through the rise of 'outsider' Mayor Daniel Lurie, voters are supporting a 'New Pragmatism' that's 'reshaping' how the Democratic Party 'governs and earns trust.' In other parts of the country, when 'voters asked for outcomes,' the party 'gave them process and vibes.' To win back voters, Dems 'need to be practical, not performative.' New Pragmatism is about 'solving problems, using power, and being honest about what is broken and what can be fixed.' If Democrats 'want to win again, they should start paying attention' to what voters want. Media watch: Don't Follow the Money? The media can 'no longer be trusted to tell anything like the truth,' blasts the Issues & Insights editorial board. 'The FBI is investigating the financial ties behind' the LA riots, but 'the mainstream press could care less,' fearing the facts might 'implicate Democrats or upset the left's agenda.' The Post has reported how the 'Party for Socialism and Liberation, which has ties to the Chinese Communist Party, is said to be behind some of the protests,' but other outlets remain mute. 'If you want to uncover corruption, find out where the money is coming from and where it is going. At least it used to be. Today? Not so much.' — Compiled by The Post Editorial Board
