UAs Official Response to HKG Ticketing/IT Error: Redeem @ Correct Amount or Redeposit
Jul 20, 2012, 8:23 am
#2206
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: DFW
Posts: 1,145
"United spokesman Rahsaan Johnson said he doesn't believe his airline violated the rule because the tickets were not advertised for sale for four reward miles.
"We think we will get a fair outcome with the DOT," he said."
Based on this, it seems they haven't even spoken to the DOT...sounds like they got a ruling from their own in house counsel and felt they would prevail, so they made a choice to cancel it across the board. Wish I hadn't submitted my DOT complaint yet, I would have included the email from them (which I still don't have) that is wrong and misleading, as others have pointed out on here.
"We think we will get a fair outcome with the DOT," he said."
Based on this, it seems they haven't even spoken to the DOT...sounds like they got a ruling from their own in house counsel and felt they would prevail, so they made a choice to cancel it across the board. Wish I hadn't submitted my DOT complaint yet, I would have included the email from them (which I still don't have) that is wrong and misleading, as others have pointed out on here.
Jul 20, 2012, 8:25 am
#2207
Join Date: Feb 2011
Programs: Delta Gold Medallion
Posts: 449
If indeed DOT approved united's position I'm disappointed. Partially because I have a horse in this race. But also, as a consumer I would feel less protected.
United has shown many times that it is very strict about maximizing revenue based on the rules no matter what the "right thing to do" is, it's like a game for them. Every time they do somehting horrible like stranding peopole in china they point to the contract of carriage or whatever rule is applicable to justify their position (legally). That's why I think strong consumer protections are in place.
A ruling in this case that united had to honor the tickets would have sent a clear message that no games are allowed to circumvent this rule and would make the airlines very careful in desgning their systems and make sure that they don't incur any losses as a result of this rule and to not play games around it. However, ruling for united would indicate to airlines that:
1) With the right excuses they can get out of this rule, it's not that black and white, so they can now work on ways to game the system to their favor.
2) Specifically, DOT would have to give a reason why this rule didn't apply. For example "this was a billing error". This will give the airlines a tool and precedent that will help them to game the system (for example you might start seeing more "billing errors" that will somehow work to the advantage of the airlines).
Being very strict with united in this case will help the consumers in the long run.
United has shown many times that it is very strict about maximizing revenue based on the rules no matter what the "right thing to do" is, it's like a game for them. Every time they do somehting horrible like stranding peopole in china they point to the contract of carriage or whatever rule is applicable to justify their position (legally). That's why I think strong consumer protections are in place.
A ruling in this case that united had to honor the tickets would have sent a clear message that no games are allowed to circumvent this rule and would make the airlines very careful in desgning their systems and make sure that they don't incur any losses as a result of this rule and to not play games around it. However, ruling for united would indicate to airlines that:
1) With the right excuses they can get out of this rule, it's not that black and white, so they can now work on ways to game the system to their favor.
2) Specifically, DOT would have to give a reason why this rule didn't apply. For example "this was a billing error". This will give the airlines a tool and precedent that will help them to game the system (for example you might start seeing more "billing errors" that will somehow work to the advantage of the airlines).
Being very strict with united in this case will help the consumers in the long run.
Jul 20, 2012, 8:28 am
#2208
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicagoland, IL, USA
Programs: WN CP, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 14,189
I would think the list of customers who booked this ticket would be a great group for some new hire to audit looking for other "errors", such as hidden city, back to back, fuel dumps... I'm sure it isn't a 1:1 ratio, but I would suspect that those that a) frequent blogs about how to "maximize" their experience, and b) obtain tickets based on their knowledge, would have a greater likelihood of being able to teach UA about other loopholes in their systems. Almost like when the cops do a sting, they then run the suspects for other warrants. What they would do with this is completely up in the air, they could use it as a learning experience to fix problems, or they could use it to debit memo.
I doubt they would do anything like this, as I am sure UA's people are still already overloaded from 3/3 to free up manpower for such a task, but it does give them a list of people who have a higher probability at exploiting known (and unknown) glitches/loopholes, and that can help them refine other aspects of their ticketng platforms for anomolies.
I doubt they would do anything like this, as I am sure UA's people are still already overloaded from 3/3 to free up manpower for such a task, but it does give them a list of people who have a higher probability at exploiting known (and unknown) glitches/loopholes, and that can help them refine other aspects of their ticketng platforms for anomolies.
Be careful out there.
Jul 20, 2012, 8:42 am
#2209
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: body: A stone's throw from SFO, mind: SE Asia
Programs: Some of this 'n some of that
Posts: 17,263
I'm gonna pick up another bottle because this likely has a long way to go before it's over.
(Again, I have no dog in this race because I decided to stay on the sidelines when it was active.)
Jul 20, 2012, 8:42 am
#2210
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: PHL, NYC, DC
Posts: 9,708
probably set a precedence within the UA community, that future mistake fares (MAY NOT) be honored
Jul 20, 2012, 8:43 am
#2211
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Washington, DC (DCA)
Programs: UA, AA, AS, SPG.
Posts: 3,463
I'm having problems uploading my attachment to the DOT site. Can you upload PDFs?
Jul 20, 2012, 8:44 am
#2212
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: KSTP KSPG
Programs: AOPA
Posts: 974
I want to contact DOT by phone if I am flying out on Sunday 7/22
Jul 20, 2012, 8:47 am
#2213
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 690
I haven't gotten an email. I WANT my email.
Jul 20, 2012, 8:47 am
#2214
Original Member, Ambassador: External Miles and Points Resources
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Digital Nomad Wandering the Earth - Currently in LIMA, PERU
Posts: 58,607
It's a regulatory gamble UA is taking.
And a PR gamble.
I guess this is what happens when you have a lawyer running an airline....very lawyerly responses to situations like this.
And a PR gamble.
I guess this is what happens when you have a lawyer running an airline....very lawyerly responses to situations like this.
Last edited by iluv2fly; Jul 20, 2012 at 11:11 am Reason: off-topic
Jul 20, 2012, 8:48 am
#2215
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Chicago, IL
Programs: United 1K & AA Exec Plat
Posts: 87
Just received a reply from DOT
"Mr. XXXXXXXXX:
This is in regard to your complaint against United Airlines (UAL) about certain Mileage Plus Award tickets to, from, or via Hong Kong that could be acquired on UAL's website between July 14 and July 15, 2012. Information that we have obtained to date from affected consumers and the airline, including screen shots taken from various steps in the booking process, reflects a discrepancy in the mileage amounts required to be paid for these tickets. More specifically, the mileage amounts, as they appeared on the website's mileage award tables, itinerary selection page and at the top of the itinerary purchase page, were significantly higher (e.g., 320,000 miles plus taxes and fees for a roundtrip ticket) than the amount displayed as the "total price" on the itinerary purchase page (i.e., four miles plus taxes and fees). In short, it is unclear what full price was offered. We will continue to investigate this matter to determine the full price of these tickets, whether that full price was, in fact, paid by the consumers, whether the airline issued tickets upon full payment, and whether the carrier raised the price after full payment was made and the tickets were issued.
As you may be aware, the Department recently issued a regulation, 14 CFR 399.88, that is intended to prevent airlines from unfairly and deceptively raising the price of a ticket after a consumer has paid in full and purchased that ticket. As stated in the regulation, such conduct would constitute a prohibited unfair and deceptive practice under a statute enacted by Congress, 49 USC 41712. The goal of our investigation is to determine whether UAL has acted unfairly or deceptively to consumers who acquired Mileage Plus Awards tickets as described above. Please note that, regardless of the outcome of our investigation, consumers are free to pursue claims (e.g., a breach of contract claim) against the airline in an appropriate civil court for monetary damages and other remedies particular to their situation.
[name removed]
Aviation Industry Analyst
Aviation Consumer Protection Division
Office of the General Counsel
US Department of Transportation
"Mr. XXXXXXXXX:
This is in regard to your complaint against United Airlines (UAL) about certain Mileage Plus Award tickets to, from, or via Hong Kong that could be acquired on UAL's website between July 14 and July 15, 2012. Information that we have obtained to date from affected consumers and the airline, including screen shots taken from various steps in the booking process, reflects a discrepancy in the mileage amounts required to be paid for these tickets. More specifically, the mileage amounts, as they appeared on the website's mileage award tables, itinerary selection page and at the top of the itinerary purchase page, were significantly higher (e.g., 320,000 miles plus taxes and fees for a roundtrip ticket) than the amount displayed as the "total price" on the itinerary purchase page (i.e., four miles plus taxes and fees). In short, it is unclear what full price was offered. We will continue to investigate this matter to determine the full price of these tickets, whether that full price was, in fact, paid by the consumers, whether the airline issued tickets upon full payment, and whether the carrier raised the price after full payment was made and the tickets were issued.
As you may be aware, the Department recently issued a regulation, 14 CFR 399.88, that is intended to prevent airlines from unfairly and deceptively raising the price of a ticket after a consumer has paid in full and purchased that ticket. As stated in the regulation, such conduct would constitute a prohibited unfair and deceptive practice under a statute enacted by Congress, 49 USC 41712. The goal of our investigation is to determine whether UAL has acted unfairly or deceptively to consumers who acquired Mileage Plus Awards tickets as described above. Please note that, regardless of the outcome of our investigation, consumers are free to pursue claims (e.g., a breach of contract claim) against the airline in an appropriate civil court for monetary damages and other remedies particular to their situation.
[name removed]
Aviation Industry Analyst
Aviation Consumer Protection Division
Office of the General Counsel
US Department of Transportation
Last edited by FlyinHawaiian; Jul 20, 2012 at 10:18 am
Jul 20, 2012, 8:49 am
#2216
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: WAS
Programs: UA 1k, SPG Plat, Hyatt Diamond, Hilton Diamond, PC Plat
Posts: 484
Jul 20, 2012, 8:49 am
#2217
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: 10^7 mm from Ȱ
Programs: Hyatt D/HHonors D/ SPG P/ Marriott P/ IHG P/ UA 1K/ AA EXP/ DL D
Posts: 1,976
I don't think DoT is aligned with UAL
Just got a response from DoT:
Mr. Lewende:
This is in regard to your complaint against United Airlines (UAL) about
certain Mileage Plus Award tickets to, from, or via Hong Kong that could be
acquired on UAL's website between July 14 and July 15, 2012. Information
that we have obtained to date from affected consumers and the airline,
including screen shots taken from various steps in the booking process,
reflects a discrepancy in the mileage amounts required to be paid for these
tickets. More specifically, the mileage amounts, as they appeared on the
website's mileage award tables, itinerary selection page and at the top of
the itinerary purchase page, were significantly higher (e.g., 320,000 miles
plus taxes and fees for a roundtrip ticket) than the amount displayed as the
"total price" on the itinerary purchase page (i.e., four miles plus taxes
and fees). In short, it is unclear what full price was offered. We will
continue to investigate this matter to determine the full price of these
tickets, whether that full price was, in fact, paid by the consumers,
whether the airline issued tickets upon full payment, and whether the
carrier raised the price after full payment was made and the tickets were
issued.
As you may be aware, the Department recently issued a regulation, 14 CFR 399
.88, that is intended to prevent airlines from unfairly and deceptively
raising the price of a ticket after a consumer has paid in full and
purchased that ticket. As stated in the regulation, such conduct would
constitute a prohibited unfair and deceptive practice under a statute
enacted by Congress, 49 USC 41712. The goal of our investigation is to
determine whether UAL has acted unfairly or deceptively to consumers who
acquired Mileage Plus Awards tickets as described above. Please note that,
regardless of the outcome of our investigation, consumers are free to pursue
claims (e.g., a breach of contract claim) against the airline in an
appropriate civil court for monetary damages and other remedies particular
to their situation.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Aviation Industry Analyst
Aviation Consumer Protection Division
Office of the General Counsel
US Department of Transportation
************************
I don't know what your guys got, but my receipt clearly states:
2 awards: 8 miles
Additional $1xx.xx
taxes/fees
Total Price: 8 miles and
$1xx.xx
Mr. Lewende:
This is in regard to your complaint against United Airlines (UAL) about
certain Mileage Plus Award tickets to, from, or via Hong Kong that could be
acquired on UAL's website between July 14 and July 15, 2012. Information
that we have obtained to date from affected consumers and the airline,
including screen shots taken from various steps in the booking process,
reflects a discrepancy in the mileage amounts required to be paid for these
tickets. More specifically, the mileage amounts, as they appeared on the
website's mileage award tables, itinerary selection page and at the top of
the itinerary purchase page, were significantly higher (e.g., 320,000 miles
plus taxes and fees for a roundtrip ticket) than the amount displayed as the
"total price" on the itinerary purchase page (i.e., four miles plus taxes
and fees). In short, it is unclear what full price was offered. We will
continue to investigate this matter to determine the full price of these
tickets, whether that full price was, in fact, paid by the consumers,
whether the airline issued tickets upon full payment, and whether the
carrier raised the price after full payment was made and the tickets were
issued.
As you may be aware, the Department recently issued a regulation, 14 CFR 399
.88, that is intended to prevent airlines from unfairly and deceptively
raising the price of a ticket after a consumer has paid in full and
purchased that ticket. As stated in the regulation, such conduct would
constitute a prohibited unfair and deceptive practice under a statute
enacted by Congress, 49 USC 41712. The goal of our investigation is to
determine whether UAL has acted unfairly or deceptively to consumers who
acquired Mileage Plus Awards tickets as described above. Please note that,
regardless of the outcome of our investigation, consumers are free to pursue
claims (e.g., a breach of contract claim) against the airline in an
appropriate civil court for monetary damages and other remedies particular
to their situation.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Aviation Industry Analyst
Aviation Consumer Protection Division
Office of the General Counsel
US Department of Transportation
************************
I don't know what your guys got, but my receipt clearly states:
2 awards: 8 miles
Additional $1xx.xx
taxes/fees
Total Price: 8 miles and
$1xx.xx
Jul 20, 2012, 8:51 am
#2218
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: PHL, NYC, DC
Posts: 9,708
did u copy n paste your air tickets and your receipts to them?
Jul 20, 2012, 8:51 am
#2219
Join Date: May 2011
Location: LAS,LAX,SEA
Programs: AA,UA/CO, SPG50, Hilton Gold
Posts: 430
Just received a reply from DOT
In short, it is unclear what full price was offered. We will continue to investigate this matter to determine the full price of these tickets, whether that full price was, in fact, paid by the consumers, whether the airline issued tickets upon full payment, and whether the carrier raised the price after full payment was made and the tickets were issued.
In short, it is unclear what full price was offered. We will continue to investigate this matter to determine the full price of these tickets, whether that full price was, in fact, paid by the consumers, whether the airline issued tickets upon full payment, and whether the carrier raised the price after full payment was made and the tickets were issued.
Jul 20, 2012, 8:53 am
#2220
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Programs: UA Gold, Delta Gold, AA Plat
Posts: 1,269
"We will continue to investigate this matter to determine the full price of these
tickets, whether that full price was, in fact, paid by the consumers,
whether the airline issued tickets upon full payment, and whether the
carrier raised the price after full payment was made and the tickets were
issued."
that means united acted before the dot made a decision which is stupid. basically, the story goes on, and there is still hope for everyone who bought a ticket.
tickets, whether that full price was, in fact, paid by the consumers,
whether the airline issued tickets upon full payment, and whether the
carrier raised the price after full payment was made and the tickets were
issued."
that means united acted before the dot made a decision which is stupid. basically, the story goes on, and there is still hope for everyone who bought a ticket.