chinatraderjmr

I used the term "common sense" sarcasticly but Thanks for the law lesson. Your quite right anyway except there is a very big difference between a written law or statute (which by the way can be interpreted differently by different courts or judges) & and an ambiguous regulation that was only intended to protect the public from airlines using unfair or deceptive practices. (it was never untended to let people get away with simething for nothing). As i said, I didn't say "common sense" meaning seriously that they could use those words. I said "common sense" because that's exactly what the DOT used in looking for a loophole to the wording of this "regulation". Even courts are using common sense more & more these days to stop laws from being applied differently then they were intended.

Precedents are used all the time in courts to get one thing or the other admitted or argued. Precedents are also thrown out of court every day by different judges who don't believe they apply. Different judges look at precedents differently all the time. Nothing, including the law is black or white. A different DOT inspector could just have easily ruled against UA w this. That's how it goes.

Firewind

Oh, yes.

I suggested before that United wanted this reviewed, and a ruling. There were other measures they could have taken, short of forcing the issue. This fairly new law has very little application, so far. For United, at worst, clarification. At best, any rollback. They got clarification, but not rollback. Quite the opposite.

Now that the ruling is in, it seems to me that the discussion here has narrowed again to two potential results: Fly us or deny us. Reminder: The DOT's authority was actually only to fine United or not. A fine, however token, would have been a result that the vast majority here would have thought acceptable, I think. OK, didn't happen. But the DOT did take a very conservative - limited - but substantive decision as described by AeroWesty @3992 above. His point #3 is actually substantial, IMO.

And those with sympathy for the devil who are now smug might think again. No? I suggest that the decision has reverberated through the legal and loyalty program halls of all airlines doing business in the US, especially AeroWesty's third point.

sbrower

Any updates from people who filed suit? Or did people from the private Google forum get results and travel beyond the terms previously announced?

travelkid

FWIW I have an inside statement that noone has filed a lawsuit in the US.
Not sure if they consider SCC as lawsuit.

Anyone succesful of settling is likely bound by NDA. Any lawsuit will likely still be going as its been a few months only. Most cases are eventually settled. Most people involved in a lawsuit are smart not to post updates on a public forum.

amejr999

If anyone's wondering, I filed a FOIA request with the DoT for documents regarding this issue. I just got them today and am happy to scan them if anyone's curious. There isn't very much that's terribly interesting, though there are about 15 pages of printouts from various blogs :-)

Ari

I suppose I'd be interested in glancing at them-- what is the gist of the documents?

colpuck

Any internal DOT communication or communication between the DOT and United?

travelkid

I guess some bloggers may be interested in uploading them making a comment.

amejr999

Mostly the latter. If I'm feeling feisty I might appeal since I specifically requested copies of both, and not much of the internal DOT stuff came through.

I've gotten a few PM requests so I will scan them-- won't be until Monday or so though. Any suggestions on a good site to upload it to?

gfowler-ord-1k

Please post.

XLR26

I wouldn’t expect much substance. From what I’ve been told, there were a couple phone conferences between UA and DOT and that was that. No written response from UA. Investigation over. Case closed. Assuming that’s all true, I’m kinda surprised that DOT didn’t require a written explanation of what happened. The investigatory process must be pretty informal…at least for this type of complaint.

colpuck

Google doc will host and you can send out the link.

amejr999

A lot of this is emails about scheduling conference calls.

Thanks-- I will try to scan when I am in the office on Monday.

cblaisd

As was fitting, given the silliness of it all.

amejr999

Posted the documents here:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B1c...lJkWG9ZQ2dDUDQ