EsquireFlyer

+1.

DaviddesJ

If it was on The People's Court, it must be the law. Case closed.

MrMarket

I'm really surprised at the number of people in this thread who were so quick to say "sorry, the OPs friend is screwed". I don't know a single business traveler who wouldn't contest the change fee charge and just accept that as a reasonable outcome. It would be like paying for a buy-up to first and then not getting a refund when you were downgraded. She incurred a second expense to be moved to an earlier flight which she was bumped off of.

That doesn't mean UA won't attempt to blame weather or something for the cancellation and therefore refuse the refund, but if this were me I'd spend a few weeks contesting it via United CS and my business AMEX. I'd venture to say that most everyone here would -- even those who are quick to dismiss the situation as intractable.

mduell

The ticket was changed when she paid the change fee. If the flight had operated, she'd be on it. If the flight had DB's her, she'd get DB compensation.

The change was made. It doesn't mean no further changes would ever be made.

prestonh

I ended up paying nearly 2X for a UA ticket on a change fee + upfare several years ago. Last leg went mechanical , nearly 6 hour delay pushed return nearly 3am plus drive time home. Original flight arrived on time. There were no other carriers available. So CofC was in default, but nothing I could really do to get the $ back. I got some compensation of course, so it ended up taking some of the pain away and felt like they met me half-way. I would go for down the compensation route, it costs nothing to ask.

xliioper

A basic given in the Contract of Carriage is that schedules are not guaranteed. Paying a change fee does not magically change this provision. It is completely different from buying up to first and not getting it. Completely. The distraction here is that she ended up on her original flight. It's beside the point. Most people understand that we they buy an non-refundable fare they are going to be subject to non-refundable change fees if they need to make a change to a flight. It's a given that irrops may affect those changes at times. The basic problem is that the flight chosen was cutting it way too close to make the meeting and did not take into account that delays are a fact of life. If she had changed to a flight the day before the meeting, taken a delay but still made the meeting, we would not be having this discussion. Bottom line, she made a risky bet that she would not encounter any delays and lost. That does not entitle one to a refund.

MrMarket

I've received compensation (and yes, even reversal of charges) from UA both pre and post merger for issues that were much more in my own control (or more "fair" losses to me, if you will) than the OP's situation. The idea that it's not even worth the effort to challenge is true FT hyperbole.

EsquireFlyer

OP, just call the credit card company. They will most likely side with you. Even if you get attacked by FTers who say that the CoC is printed in gold, CC consumer protections are not real, and that customers who don't just "shut up and take it" are the source of all evil, etc., etc.

seenitall

While UA may offer a goodwill refund or other compensation, there is no question that they don't have to. The following situation is demonstration, enough.

In OP's situation, what if the earlier flight had not be cancelled, but simply was delayed because of technical reasons or a late-arriving aircraft -- and the result was it did not depart until the original flight was scheduled to depart. The OP would not have arrived any earlier than their original ticket specified. Would s/he be given a refund for the change fee. Not on your life.

So hope for the best, but don't expect that you are entitled to it.

aacharya

And even when the same FTers are correct.

It's no different from any other passenger on that flight, who might've paid a price premium for that flight versus the other one. No compensation will come to them either.

DaviddesJ

United chose to accept her credit card for payment. That means that they are subject to her bank's terms, too.

stifle

Care to quote which of the bank's terms entitle the passenger to a refund?

DaviddesJ

"Entitle" is not strictly the question here, because she's not suing the credit card company in court to demand that they reverse the transaction. Rather, the suggestion was that she ask them to do so. One of the most relevant aspects of the credit card agreement is that the bank can decide whether or not to perform a chargeback; it's not at the sole discretion of the vendor. The credit card contract/agreement therefore enables the credit card company to chargeback a transaction even when the vendor disagrees. Of course, UA could always sue the bank to try to get their money back, but they would be the ones who would have to then make their case in court. And that seems an unlikely outcome.

Duke787

There's also the fact as I noted upthread that UA is much more likely to pay attention to a bank than to a customer (sad but true). Particularly if you used an AMEX (or a corporate AMEX), AMEX in particular has a track record of actually going to bat for their customers b/c you know they understand the value of loyalty (unlike UA these days) and may even choose to just write the transaction off themselves given the set of circumstances because again unlike UA they understand that a little loyalty can go a long way. I've had this happen before (not related to airline tickets but to cab charges that were fraudulent but AMEX has no real way to know if they were or not other than to trust me).