Stranded in Kiev (UA cancels award ticket due to mistakenly suspected fraud)
Nov 28, 2015, 3:35 pm
#46
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Programs: UA 1K, AA Lifetime Platinum, DL Platinum, Honors Diamond, Bonvoy Titanium, Hertz Platinum
Posts: 7,969
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.
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.
Nov 28, 2015, 3:45 pm
#47
Suspended
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PVG, FRA, SEA, HEL
Programs: UA Premier Gold
Posts: 4,783
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.
Again, if an issueing airline decided to cancel a ticket unilaterally (without a lawful cause) and the operating carrier is denying boarding, the passenger has every right to invoke article 7 and article 8 of EC261/2004. This is true for all flights, departing from an EU airport + for all flights, operated by an EU airline and have an EU airport as destination.
Denied boarding applies to overbooked flights.
The most important issue is the lack of a solution from UA on the day of travel.
I agree with this.
OS denied the pax boarding. The pax had a valid, purchased ticket, and nobody had communicated otherwise to him.
OS denied the pax boarding. The pax had a valid, purchased ticket, and nobody had communicated otherwise to him.
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.
My recommendation:
- The passenger should demand in writing (email) the compensation of EUR 600 and reimbursement of additional costs from Austrian Airlines.
- If OS blocks this request, the next step would be to file a case with the independent arbitration court APF in Austria.
- United Airlines is the wrong entity to follow up with the claim and communication. (I would recommend to move this thread over to the Miles & More forum)
http://www.apf.gv.at/de/
Things work differently here in the EU than in the US. We may have fewer churches, but we have EC261/2004, which is a pretty cool tool.
Last edited by warakorn; Nov 28, 2015 at 3:51 pm
Nov 28, 2015, 7:56 pm
#48
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,450
It's been pointed out to you many times previously that you can't just quote the text of EU261 in response to these sorts of issues. There has been substantial judicial interpretation of the reg such that its application now bears literally no relation to the text itself.
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Nov 29, 2015 at 12:09 pm Reason: discuss the issue, not the poster
Nov 28, 2015, 8:12 pm
#49
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
EU261 is not some Texas law designed to mess over consumers, but a real consumer friendly law, to prevent harm to consumers. It applies to reward tickets, and broadly to any reason (absent what we in American Law would call an "act of god") that causes a delay or cancellation.
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Nov 29, 2015 at 12:10 pm Reason: quote updated to reflect Mod edit
Nov 28, 2015, 8:40 pm
#50
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: ORD
Programs: AA EXP,2MM, DL Gold,Starwood PLT
Posts: 3,876
Absolutely. Added to the fact it was from the Kiev and the cc had been canceled when the re booking was made. It triggered every fraud suspicion in the book with all of that. Not letting UA off the hook for bad customer service but it's not surprising this got flagged for fraud suspicion.
Nov 29, 2015, 6:07 am
#52
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Bay Area
Programs: UA 1K, AA Gold
Posts: 157
Nov 29, 2015, 6:41 am
#53
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
Two separate issues:
First, as to OP. His sole issue is setting things right with UA. He was not the passenger and is not entitled to anything.
Second, as to the passenger. While EC 261/2004 applies because OS is a community carrier even though the flight departed from outside the community (EU), there is no violation of the rules because the passenger lacked a valid ticket. Right or wrong, UA cancelled the ticket and without a ticket OS did not permit the passenger to board.
The fantasy that EC 261/2004 applies or that OS bears any responsibility here even outside EC 261/2004 is just that: a fantasy and it does neither OP nor his friend any good.
If UA chooses to make good here on the passenger's losses, he will be lucky. If it does not, the choices are to move on or to start a lengthy series of legal proceedings which will hinge not on whether UA was right or wrong, but whether it acted reasonably.
First, as to OP. His sole issue is setting things right with UA. He was not the passenger and is not entitled to anything.
Second, as to the passenger. While EC 261/2004 applies because OS is a community carrier even though the flight departed from outside the community (EU), there is no violation of the rules because the passenger lacked a valid ticket. Right or wrong, UA cancelled the ticket and without a ticket OS did not permit the passenger to board.
The fantasy that EC 261/2004 applies or that OS bears any responsibility here even outside EC 261/2004 is just that: a fantasy and it does neither OP nor his friend any good.
If UA chooses to make good here on the passenger's losses, he will be lucky. If it does not, the choices are to move on or to start a lengthy series of legal proceedings which will hinge not on whether UA was right or wrong, but whether it acted reasonably.
Nov 29, 2015, 11:39 am
#54
Suspended
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PVG, FRA, SEA, HEL
Programs: UA Premier Gold
Posts: 4,783
rapidex wrote:
Unfortunately EU261/2004 is not applicable here.Ukraine is not a community member and United is not a community carrier.The denied boarding happened outside of the EU.
Unfortunately EU261/2004 is not applicable here.Ukraine is not a community member and United is not a community carrier.The denied boarding happened outside of the EU.
It has been established that Austrian Airlines is an EU airline. For EC261/2004 it is the operating carrier that matters. A denied boarding situation by an EU airline, happening outside the EU (with a flight departing for the EU), is covered by EC261/2004.
We have a geniune discussion here on the legal interpretation of that clause:
"(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,"
Some say that article 7 and article 8 are not activated by such kind of situation.
Some say that article 7 and article 8 are activated by such kind of situation.
That is what the discussion is about.
The fantasy that EC 261/2004 applies or that OS bears any responsibility here even outside EC 261/2004 is just that: a fantasy and it does neither OP nor his friend any good.
Legally speaking OS is the face to the passenger. Whoever screwed up, OS was the party who ultimatelly denied boarding.
Its not like UA forced that reservation on OS.
OS had every right to deny the reservation/ticket, right before the ticket was issued by UA.
At the moment OS accepted that reservation/ticket, a transportation contract was formed between the passenger and OS.
OS needs a very good reason to cancel that contract and deny transportation. I fail to see a good reason here. What UA did was completely out of the control of the passenger.
That is what is written in the Austrian civil code (Allgemeine bürgerliche Gesetzbuch ABGB).
A judge in Austria will analyze the situation in that way.
The passenger may bring a suit against OS in Austrian court, including the enforcement on EC261/2004.
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Nov 29, 2015 at 12:12 pm Reason: unneeded comment removed
Nov 29, 2015, 12:02 pm
#56
Suspended
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PVG, FRA, SEA, HEL
Programs: UA Premier Gold
Posts: 4,783
I have seen no indication that anyone has suffered enough harm to justify the cost of starting a lawsuit.
My hint: its pretty cheap.
Please! Austria is not the United States. From a US-centric all my talk sounds not plausible.
Nov 29, 2015, 7:42 pm
#57
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38,410
I would think in the primer on preventing credit card fraud, any third party transaction ranks way higher on the suspicion list. That said, as usual, United takes a routine fact of life in this world-preventing fraudulent credit card use-and manages to mangle it up, denies any responsibility for the error and refuses to assist the aggravated party.
Remember the monk stranded in Africa when his return ticket was cancelled! by a "third party agency retained by United to increase fraud surveillance?" Is anyone at the controls reviewing these items before they pull the trigger? In this case, I believe the OP remarked that the item presumably triggering the review was a discrepancy of 20 cents. Hardly the fodder for fraud. Seems like coding 101 to have a routine that would ignore all transactions under, let's say $5 bucks unless they happen xxx times in the same account.
Remember the monk stranded in Africa when his return ticket was cancelled! by a "third party agency retained by United to increase fraud surveillance?" Is anyone at the controls reviewing these items before they pull the trigger? In this case, I believe the OP remarked that the item presumably triggering the review was a discrepancy of 20 cents. Hardly the fodder for fraud. Seems like coding 101 to have a routine that would ignore all transactions under, let's say $5 bucks unless they happen xxx times in the same account.
Nov 29, 2015, 8:21 pm
#58
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bangkok or San Francisco
Programs: United 1k, Marriott Lifetime PE, Former DL Gold, Former SQ Solitaire, HH Gold
Posts: 11,886
While not explicitly mentioned, my reading is the lack of raising that as an issue suggested that was not an issue.
Suspect the original miles were used to rebook the replacement.
Does appear there were some unfortunately coincidences but UA owes a better apology / compensation. They own the mistake made by their subcontractor.
Suspect the original miles were used to rebook the replacement.
Does appear there were some unfortunately coincidences but UA owes a better apology / compensation. They own the mistake made by their subcontractor.
Seems to me that once UA had established that this was not the OP's fault they should make a good faith effort to make it right. Some miles and an apology might make a difference.
I'm thinking 25,000 miles. Given the hassle that people suffered seems reasonable.
Nov 30, 2015, 7:19 am
#59
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,645
It might be helpful then for you to explain the process.
Nov 30, 2015, 9:29 am
#60
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Suburban Philadelphia
Programs: Marriott Lifetime Plat, IHG Gold
Posts: 3,392
This is a bit of a tangent, but with Citi you have to use virtual account numbers to buy plane tickets on United. It's frankly a bit bizarre. United is probably the single biggest expense on my credit card each year, with over 50% of my charges going to United. And yet somehow, whenever I bought tickets--even in my own name--I would get calls from Citibank checking that this wasn't fraudulent behavior. This was particularly problematic if I missed the call.
I'm curious what specific fraud they are concerned about. Suppose someone did fraudulently buy a ticket in my name. Presumably they would then cancel the ticket and pay the change fee to use the value for a different ticket for a different person? Maybe a different person who paid them cash for the ticket? But at that point, wouldn't the person perpetrating the fraud be traceable through the payment of the change fee, and the person flying the itinerary be traceable through the government issued ID check?
Anyway, after switching to the virtual account numbers I have not had the problem a single time. It is more annoying to have to log into Citi's web site in addition to United, and to have to cut and paste from the annoying flash plugin. But at least the problem is solved.
I'm curious what specific fraud they are concerned about. Suppose someone did fraudulently buy a ticket in my name. Presumably they would then cancel the ticket and pay the change fee to use the value for a different ticket for a different person? Maybe a different person who paid them cash for the ticket? But at that point, wouldn't the person perpetrating the fraud be traceable through the payment of the change fee, and the person flying the itinerary be traceable through the government issued ID check?
Anyway, after switching to the virtual account numbers I have not had the problem a single time. It is more annoying to have to log into Citi's web site in addition to United, and to have to cut and paste from the annoying flash plugin. But at least the problem is solved.