By I guess we will see if this ends Plane Ticket-gate:
A South Korean judge recommended Friday that the U.S. Embassy Association Business Center pay a $4,000 settlement to an American family for an airline ticket mix-up in 2006.
Marine Col. Thompson Gerke, and his wife, Catherine, want $11,054 for a March 2006 airline ticket mix-up in which they received business-class, not first-class, Delta Air Lines seats.
The Gerke family moved back to the United States earlier this summer, but their South Korean lawyer said Friday he thinks the family would accept a $4,000 settlement.
Business center spokesman Jimmy Park, reached by phone Friday afternoon, said his organization would hold a board meeting to decide whether to settle.
The contracted vendor business center agreed to close its travel service to the U.S. military community in the midst of the battle with the Gerke family. [Hwang Hae-rym & Jimmy Norris, Stars & Stripes]
And what about Mrs. Gerke rolling around on the floor?:
In court Friday, business center employee Bruce Lee told the judge that Catherine Gerke’s odd behavior — including when she lay down on the floor and screamed that she wanted $20,000 or $30,000 — damaged the center’s credibility.
Judge Cho Mi-ok said that was a separate issue.
The travel agency is contemplating counter-sueing Mrs. Gerkes over rolling around on the floor. I’m not sure how that will work out considering she now lives in America.
It is the sad reality. No mistake...
1:58 pm on September 18th, 2007 1
That should cover just under half their legal fees.
2:18 pm on September 18th, 2007 2
It sounds like that the only people who are going to win after this is all said and done will be the lawyers.
4:39 pm on September 18th, 2007 3
So what happened to the theory that Catherine Gerke is a Korean married to an American? Americans can never act crazy, only Koreans.
11:37 pm on September 18th, 2007 4
I didn't make that theory and the article says nothing about her ethnicity anyway even if that mattered for some reason.
5:41 am on November 1st, 2007 5
In a prior posting a commenter said she had seen the incident take place and that Mrs. Gerkes was on the ground crying because her back was bothering her and the travel agent guy was laughing at her.
This behavior if true is probably what has motivated the Gerkes to go after the guy so adamantly.
7:40 pm on October 31st, 2007 6
Why do you think the travel agency 'agreed' to close it's doors?
Don't you find this a curious action?
Who ordered the closing?
If the travel agency made a mistake and issued the tickets incorrectly, and overcharged the Gerkes, the Gerkes are due a refund.
And lot of companies weather disputes and don't go out of business! Sounds very suspicious to me.
1:02 pm on November 1st, 2007 7
My Hmmmm Sensor is starting to get a signal.
Both Mrs. Gerkes and the travel agency wanted their side of the story to be public and both sides had contact with Stars & Stripes.
Mrs. Gerkes, through Stars & Stripes, made no mention of back problems in the shop forcing her to the floor while the travel agent laughed at her before being loaded into an ambulance… something, I presume, she would make a big deal of if it had happened… and something S&S would have reported along with the agent’s claim of a tantrum.
Kate brings up good points. Why agree to close their doors? Why can’t everyone agree on a simple reimbursement which puts everything even… along with some reasonable compensation for the 30 minutes of inconvenience they endured to upgrade their ticket at the airport.
This whole deal is not adding up. S&S is not helping by not asking direct questions to the people involved and then reporting both sides of the story. If a colonel’s wife is accused of throwing a public tantrum, she must be given space to deny or defend these charges.
And why was she willing to settle later for $4,000 when she claimed to have spent $5,527 for the upgrade?
No… this is all very, very odd.
…but the real story is how a guy tossed out 18 THOUSAND dollars, the equivalent of a new car, just to be comfortable on a 12 hour flight. This is the type of thing that uncovers shady deals when CID/OSI/NCIS starts running their profiling software…
…or maybe it was tax dollars. Any ideas?
P.S. GI,
What’s up with the banner ad under this post?
“Lesbian or Bi?…Meet Her Today! http://www.lesbianpersonalsonline.com”
I took a screenshot just in case you don’t believe me.
I suppose military blogs aren’t exactly inappropriate from an advertiser’s point of view… although the picture is of a couple of petite lipstick lezzies with big smiles as opposed to the angry tattooed sasquatches this banner might attract in larger numbers.
J!
1:23 pm on November 5th, 2007 8
[...] Let’s hope this is the end of plane ticket-gate: [...]
12:19 am on November 5th, 2007 9
The verdict is in…
http://www.pstripes.com/article.asp?section=104&a…
Original cost of 3 tickets: nearly $18,000
Due to a mistake, the Gerke's extra cost was: $5,527
Army lawyers advised them they are owed: $11,054
Judge recommends: $4,000 settlement
Gerkes sue for: $11,054
Court finds: $1,500… less half of court costs
This sure seems needlessly complex.
The REAL questions have never been answered so who knows who is right or wrong. Where is some real reporting? Obvious questions with direct answers would clear this up a lot… and help anyone make good decisions who might find themselves in the same situation.
1. Is $18,000 reasonable for these tickets and conditions?
2. Is $5,000 reasonable for the upgrade?
3. Why did Army lawyers claim they were owed double?
4. Why did a Korean judge recommend slightly less than they spent?
5. Why did they sue for double their actual expense?
6. Why did they court award them less than the original recommendation or expenditure?
7. Why did the business center agree to stop selling tickets based on a single mistake?
8. And, would Mrs. Gerkes like to confirm or deny that she kicked and screamed on the floor?
Both the Gerkes and the business center were happy to talk to S&S… but these questions were never answered… ergo, the story was never "reported" except in kind of a lazy page-filler way… echoing whatever they were told without asking any insightful questions.
"Reporting" is not just giving some facts (or selective facts). The full story has to be told. In this case, it was NO effort to ask these questions and report the answer… and even refusal to answer is a reportable answer.
The oddly minimalist "reporting" that was done on this story, combined with the outcome, is almost enough to conclude that S&S doesn't want to come right out and say that Army lawyers are inexperienced idiots, Mrs. Gerkes is a greedy whacko, senior USFK leadership didn't tell this officer to rein in his wife before she embarrassed USFK and a Korean judge lost patience with the whole lot of them.
I'm not saying that's what happened… I'm just saying it is possible based on S&S's "facts but no story" reporting.
Anybody have an idea?
J!