TerryK

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes...g_2004_261.pdf

In this case, the passenger might have a ticket at some point but didn't have a valid ticket at time of check in.@:-) Note in case of interline bookings, tickets are usually pushed over to operating carrier 24 hours prior to departure.

kale73

Although the ADA makes it difficult / impossible to sue the airline, does the same restriction apply to the "third party agency retained by United to increase fraud surveillance"? It seems that the "third party agency" might be held liable for damages resulting from their ineptitude.

warakorn

Well, this is the idea of EC261/2004. The legislator wanted to protect the traveller of not being pushed around the airlines. So, they made it easy to the traveller. The legislator were pretty much aware of codesharing, interlining etc. Thats why always the operating carrier is on the hook.

Its a European legislation. You cannot compare it to how things are handled in the US or how illogical EC261/2004 is. I am aware that many people here are US Americans. But things are different across the pond.

Is EC261/2004 unfair? No, Austrian can just pay up to the traveller without much fuzz (saving on legal costs) and claim that money back from the culprit.



That is very easy. The OP can sue Austrian Airlines in Vienna court.

I dont think so. If this were the case, airlines would just cancel the ticket when they cancel a flight and THUS circumventing the protection clauses EC261/2004. A judge in Vienna would through out that argument.

The passenger is fine once the ticket was issued.
If the airline touches the ticket without any good reason (e.g. chargeback by the traveller would be a good reason), it does not diminish the legal position of the traveller, esp. when it comes to the article 7 and article 8 of EC261/2004.
A lot of court cases around EC261/2004 has shown it again and again. Once airlines are trying to circumvent the rules, they wont have a good day in court.

Often1

EC 261/2004 does not apply. The ticketing carrier, UA is neither a community (EU) carrier, nor was the flight in question departing from the community (EU). OS is, of course, a community carrier, but the passenger presented himself without a valid ticket for the flight.

Whatever happened to the ticket, it is clear from OP's posts that it was UA which cancelled the ticket, whether right or wrong.

No ticket = no boarding. If it had been OS which unreasonably cancelled the ticket, this might be a case for denied boarding under EC 261/2004. But, it wasn't.

Bear in mind that there are reservations and tickets. While it is unusual these days for there to be a reservation without a ticket, it does occur with TA bookings. But, it is the ticket which is evidence of payment. Without evidence of payment, it would be absurd to expect any business to board someone.

Finally, it was the passenger, not OP who is due whatever he is due, whether under EC 261/2004 or the law of Ukraine, Austria, US or anywhere else for that matter. OP did not suffer any damages beyond perhaps a bit of time.

Bear96

But it is kind of a different situation, isn't it. I suspect most cases of mileage fraud involve a FF program member selling upgrades or flights. If the airline contacts the member to question the usage, the member is likely to say it is a valid usage and the itin should not be cancelled - even though it is clearly against the terms of the program.

So from the airline's view, most of the time the customer really is in cahoots to defraud the airline.

(I am not suggesting this is at all what happened in the OP's case.)

warakorn

You know that this is not correct. As you stating rightfully in the next sentence, that OS is an EU airline.

Technically he was not in possession of a ticket. I have serious doubts that OS could get away with such a line. The ticket was issued, OS accepted the transportation contract. That is all that counts. The unilateral cancellation of the tickets was not lawful.
OS still had the chance to rectify the situation and has choses not to do so. Too bad. OS has to pay up.

Hey, its not only about EC261/2004. Austrian contract law comes into play (Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch).

Again, there has been a contract in place between the passenger and OS.
OS broke the contract. OS has to pay up.


Fine, I am not disputing. It is, however, irrelevant to the fact whether OS owes the passenger compensation (either through EC261/2004 or through Austrian contract law).

johnden

The most important issue is the lack of a solution from UA on the day of travel.

No one was empowered to open inventory for the OP. A simple solution existed, use miles to buy a new ticket (to replace the suspended one), which no one claimed was fraud (the replacement purchase). This required a very simple exception to open inventory.

I've had saver inventory opened in a number of cases. The most common is during IRROPs or tight connections when a segment is cancelled/rebooked/protected erroneously (many reasons, another topic). It is not that big a deal.

Totally inexcusable that no one opened the needed inventory on UA metal to accommodate the passenger. Yes, worse stuff happens to travelers. I've had to buy last minute full fare tickets and swallow the cost. I've never had UA refuse to open inventory to fix a mistake.

IAH-OIL-TRASH

EU261 is to protect the traveler in cases of flight cancellations or delays - i.e. irregular flight operations. The flight WAS NOT cancelled. It flew without the passenger. This is a flight reservation cancellation issue and not even close to qualifying for EU261 compensation.

"I dont think so. If this were the case, airlines would just cancel the ticket when they cancel a flight and THUS circumventing the protection clauses EC261/2004. A judge in Vienna would through out that argument."

Zero relevance - the flight was not cancelled.

Kacee

That's not correct. EU261 applies to more than cancels and delays. It applies as well to denied boarding (which is arguably what happened here) and downgrades.

I also know that I don't know enough to start arguing about whether EU261 applies on these facts. I'll defer to our European members on that one.

IAH-OIL-TRASH

From summary on EU261:
"(a) have a confirmed reservation on the flight concerned and, except in the case of cancellation referred to in Article 5, present
themselves for check-in,"

Flyer did not have a confirmed reservation. It was mistakenly (it appears) cancelled before he/she arrived at airport. One did not exist.

From summary on EU261:
"Article 4: Denied boarding
1. When an operating air carrier reasonably expects to deny boarding on a flight, it shall first call for volunteers to surrender their
reservations in exchange for benefits under conditions to be agreed between the passenger concerned and the operating air
carrier. Volunteers shall be assisted in accordance with Article 8, such assistance being additional to the benefits mentioned in
this paragraph.
2. If an insufficient number of volunteers come forward to allow the remaining passengers with reservations to board the flight,
the operating air carrier may then deny boarding to passengers against their will.
3. If boarding is denied to passengers against their will, the operating air carrier shall immediately compensate them in
accordance with Article 7 and assist them in accordance with Articles 8 and 9."

Denied boarding applies to overbooked flights. But it doesn't matter, flyer had no reservation. UA did wrong, but EU261 is not the avenue for redress.

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes...g_2004_261.pdf

FlyWorld

The pattern I am starting to see from these recent posts looks something like this:

UA's outsourced fraud vendor marks a transaction as fraud when it's not fraud or UA's internal security team marks an account as fraud when it's not fraud and then when that happens, we revert back to the "there's nothing I can do" mantra that Jeff introduced in 2012. It seems that the marriage of the "there's nothing I can do" attitude with the refusal to even investigate false claims of fraud by UA's fraud vendor or security team is creating havoc for innocent customers caught in their net.

The fix is indeed simple, there should be an escalation path for these cases to be reviewed and then agents should be empowered to fix the mess and there should be an expectation of urgent resolution when a good customer is incorrectly marked as a criminal by an incompetent agent or flawed system rule.

Unfortunately, I don't see this getting on to Oscar's radar ahead of the much larger messes he needs to clean up, so this is likely to be the new normal.

johnden

This already exists. There IS a commonly used path to open award inventory for mistakes/IRROPs/CS/etc. Agents have the power (most require higher approval) to do this in a myriad of cases, some of which they do not recognize as a "UA error", but do as a special "one-time" exception.

This situation was more due to heartless UA staff than policy. Sure, policy changes can help force a heartless agent to do the right thing. UA could have issued a "one-time" exception as they do thousands of times a day. If the OP recounted his experience correctly, there was no "heart" or "service" in the UA response.

It's kind of like being told by a agent that you can't rebook onto any not-full flight for the next week after your segment was cancelled because they do not believe they are required to do it (input whatever reason here). Sure it happens, but most of the time it doesn't happen, because the agent can do it pretty easily, and almost always will if there is a semi-compelling case.

This is purely bad customer service. No changes were needed to do this.

HereAndThere

In addition to other suggestions offered here, I suggest that the OP take this issue to one of the newspaper consumer advocates. Some local and national papers have a consumer advocacy column that deals with travel incidents in which a company fails to offer decent care to a customer. Local TV and radio stations sometimes have advocacy segments too.

The action and response by United is quite outrageous in my view.

channa

I agree with this.

OS denied the pax boarding. The pax had a valid, purchased ticket, and nobody had communicated otherwise to him.


The whole credit card issue is a red herring. Credit cards get swapped out all the time (account number changes, fraud, lost/stolen cards, new expiration date, mergers, etc.). The old credit card number is still tied to the new account and takes refunds.

After UA has played dirty with the OP, the only strategy I can think of is to utilize UA's resources until they cough something up.

File the EU claim against OS for the denied boarding (use UA's own admissions that they goofed as evidence the denied boarding was in error). OS will have to fight it out with UA to get recourse, but at least it will get attention.

File a DOT complaint against UA for a post-purchase price increase, as the only way to get home was to buy a second ticket at current available fares, which is a post-purchase price increase, which is illegal. Spin this part as an error that UA later acknowledged with the DOT. Don't spend too much time on the fraud, it's irrelevant. UA wanted you to pay more money to fly, that's a problem.

RNE

I don't know what percentage of fraud is the account holder's doing versus some malefactor doing it without the account holder's knowledge. Either way, I'd argue UA has an ethical duty not to assume the former and instead to contact the account holder accordingly, and—failing that—to allow the flight to happen and pick up the pieces afterward. This ethical duty is acutely true nearer the time of travel. From a business ethics standpoint, UA owes the OP compensation.