Boarding door closed and seat given away 25 mins before departure. Any recourse?
Dec 31, 2015, 12:44 pm
#31
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
This does indeed appear to be an IDB.
Note that the GA's motivation may not have been to avoid giving comp, but rather (a) to get the flight out early because that's how GAs get unscheduled breaks, and (b) avoid the hassle of the VDB/IDB process, which would have virtually guaranteed no unscheduled break.
Sometimes employee conduct which tends here to be ascribed to a broad UA conspiracy to screw its passengers can be explained at a more personal level
Note that the GA's motivation may not have been to avoid giving comp, but rather (a) to get the flight out early because that's how GAs get unscheduled breaks, and (b) avoid the hassle of the VDB/IDB process, which would have virtually guaranteed no unscheduled break.
Sometimes employee conduct which tends here to be ascribed to a broad UA conspiracy to screw its passengers can be explained at a more personal level
It doesn't hurt to contact United and ask if IDB compensation is appropriate. I still suspect there's a chance the OP didn't make the 30 minute check-in deadline, especially since the OP said they arrived at the airport at T31.
Dec 31, 2015, 12:48 pm
#32
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 948
If this was 30 Dec 2015
The wiki of http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unite...solidated.html listed the key elements of IDB.
CRJ-200 appears to be the scheduled aircraft and there was no downsizing.
The 60 seat IDB limitation only applies if a weight restricted flight.
The check-in/gate time seems to be the only criteria for UA to claim for exemption.
Sounds like a over zealous, under trained UX GA but the offloading time stamp will be critical.
Complain to UA , ask to for IDB and flight credit.
If no resolution in 5 days, contact DoT would be my path.
The wiki of http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unite...solidated.html listed the key elements of IDB.
CRJ-200 appears to be the scheduled aircraft and there was no downsizing.
The 60 seat IDB limitation only applies if a weight restricted flight.
The check-in/gate time seems to be the only criteria for UA to claim for exemption.
Sounds like a over zealous, under trained UX GA but the offloading time stamp will be critical.
Complain to UA , ask to for IDB and flight credit.
If no resolution in 5 days, contact DoT would be my path.
Dec 31, 2015, 1:11 pm
#33
Join Date: Feb 2014
Programs: UA Plat, SPG Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 677
Why does it appear to be an IDB? A full flight and standbys doesn't mean someone needs to be denied boarding - it could mean there are non-rev or revenue passengers standing by for the flight. The only motivation that makes sense is getting the flight out early. It's probably an equal amount of work, at least at a small station like this, to VDB or remove a no-show. IDBs is more work, mostly due to having a pissed off customer.
It doesn't hurt to contact United and ask if IDB compensation is appropriate. I still suspect there's a chance the OP didn't make the 30 minute check-in deadline, especially since the OP said they arrived at the airport at T31.
It doesn't hurt to contact United and ask if IDB compensation is appropriate. I still suspect there's a chance the OP didn't make the 30 minute check-in deadline, especially since the OP said they arrived at the airport at T31.
The exception would be if the OP did not check-in 30 minutes prior to the flight. I have no idea why you consider this to be likely since the OP was at the gate at T-21. Are you proposing that the OP cleared security without a boarding pass? Or are you saying that the OP waited to check in until they got to the airport and then managed to convince UA to let them check-in at T-29 before racing through security and to the gate? Is this scenario possible? Sure. Is it more likely than a GA simply closing boarding early before all checked-in passengers were accounted for? I don't think so.
Dec 31, 2015, 1:35 pm
#34
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2009
Programs: WN A-list, Hyatt Glob, HH DM, Marriott Plat
Posts: 434
As I mentioned above, I checked in several hours before the departure. Checkin was never an issue.
Why does it appear to be an IDB? A full flight and standbys doesn't mean someone needs to be denied boarding - it could mean there are non-rev or revenue passengers standing by for the flight. The only motivation that makes sense is getting the flight out early. It's probably an equal amount of work, at least at a small station like this, to VDB or remove a no-show. IDBs is more work, mostly due to having a pissed off customer.
It doesn't hurt to contact United and ask if IDB compensation is appropriate. I still suspect there's a chance the OP didn't make the 30 minute check-in deadline, especially since the OP said they arrived at the airport at T31.
It doesn't hurt to contact United and ask if IDB compensation is appropriate. I still suspect there's a chance the OP didn't make the 30 minute check-in deadline, especially since the OP said they arrived at the airport at T31.
The flight went out full. Even if it was not oversold initially, as soon as they cleared a standby, UA created an oversold flight since they were not past the deadline to start offloading checked in passengers.
The exception would be if the OP did not check-in 30 minutes prior to the flight. I have no idea why you consider this to be likely since the OP was at the gate at T-21. Are you proposing that the OP cleared security without a boarding pass? Or are you saying that the OP waited to check in until they got to the airport and then managed to convince UA to let them check-in at T-29 before racing through security and to the gate? Is this scenario possible? Sure. Is it more likely than a GA simply closing boarding early before all checked-in passengers were accounted for? I don't think so.
The exception would be if the OP did not check-in 30 minutes prior to the flight. I have no idea why you consider this to be likely since the OP was at the gate at T-21. Are you proposing that the OP cleared security without a boarding pass? Or are you saying that the OP waited to check in until they got to the airport and then managed to convince UA to let them check-in at T-29 before racing through security and to the gate? Is this scenario possible? Sure. Is it more likely than a GA simply closing boarding early before all checked-in passengers were accounted for? I don't think so.
Dec 31, 2015, 1:36 pm
#35
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
This thread is full of terrible advice. And the conclusions are simply wrong.
The flight was served by a CRJ-200 with 50 passenger seats. DOT IDB rules exempt flights served by aircraft with less than 60 seats. Thus, while OP was likely involuntarily denied boarding, he is due $0 compensation.
OP should nonetheless file a short & sweet complaint with UA noting that he was at the gate with a valid BP at T-21 and that he was denied boarding. Let UA sort it out. UA will explain why the flight is exempt, but will likely toss some miles as a customer service gesture.
The DOT complaint is, of course, a waste, because there was no DOT violation.
The flight was served by a CRJ-200 with 50 passenger seats. DOT IDB rules exempt flights served by aircraft with less than 60 seats. Thus, while OP was likely involuntarily denied boarding, he is due $0 compensation.
OP should nonetheless file a short & sweet complaint with UA noting that he was at the gate with a valid BP at T-21 and that he was denied boarding. Let UA sort it out. UA will explain why the flight is exempt, but will likely toss some miles as a customer service gesture.
The DOT complaint is, of course, a waste, because there was no DOT violation.
Dec 31, 2015, 1:42 pm
#36
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,400
I'm frankly confused about whether the DOT exception for small aircraft applies ONLY when there are weight and balance issues or also for oversales due to just selling too many tickets.
Dec 31, 2015, 1:54 pm
#37
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
I'm not saying the GA was right, but if you're going to address this with United, it helps to also look at things from their perspective.
Dec 31, 2015, 1:57 pm
#38
Join Date: Feb 2014
Programs: UA Plat, SPG Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 677
This thread is full of terrible advice. And the conclusions are simply wrong.
The flight was served by a CRJ-200 with 50 passenger seats. DOT IDB rules exempt flights served by aircraft with less than 60 seats. Thus, while OP was likely involuntarily denied boarding, he is due $0 compensation.
OP should nonetheless file a short & sweet complaint with UA noting that he was at the gate with a valid BP at T-21 and that he was denied boarding. Let UA sort it out. UA will explain why the flight is exempt, but will likely toss some miles as a customer service gesture.
The DOT complaint is, of course, a waste, because there was no DOT violation.
The flight was served by a CRJ-200 with 50 passenger seats. DOT IDB rules exempt flights served by aircraft with less than 60 seats. Thus, while OP was likely involuntarily denied boarding, he is due $0 compensation.
OP should nonetheless file a short & sweet complaint with UA noting that he was at the gate with a valid BP at T-21 and that he was denied boarding. Let UA sort it out. UA will explain why the flight is exempt, but will likely toss some miles as a customer service gesture.
The DOT complaint is, of course, a waste, because there was no DOT violation.
Even if this is the case, then I personally think a DOT complaint is warranted to show why such a blanket exemption needs to be reconsidered, especially given the shift toward smaller aircraft among the majors.
Dec 31, 2015, 1:59 pm
#39
Moderator: Budget Travel forum & Credit Card Programs, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: YYJ/YVR and back on Van Isle ....... for now
Programs: UA lifetime MM / *A Gold
Posts: 14,428
Dec 31, 2015, 2:00 pm
#40
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MRY - CNX - TXL
Programs: UA 1K / *G / Marriott PE / Expedia Gold+ / Hertz PC
Posts: 7,058
Does the GA have visibility of a pax clearing security?
Dec 31, 2015, 2:07 pm
#41
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: LHR (sometimes CLE, SFO, BOS, LAX, SEA)
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 5,893
You can complain to the DOT. If UA isn't complying with its contract of carriage maybe Congress and the DOT should re-evaluate UA's special legal protections. Fill out this complaint form: https://www.transportation.gov/airco...umer-complaint.
I bet UA would be willing to classify this as an IDB incident and compensate accordingly (cash for 4x the one-way fare value up to $1350) in order to close the incident and prevent regulators looking too closely at the extent of their shady "close the gate earlier than the CoC says" express practices.
Alternately you can sue UA — from your description they did not honor their contract. What are your damages?
Please follow up when you've heard back from UA or regulators with what the resolution was. This should be easy to resolve quickly if you want (within a week or two).
I bet UA would be willing to classify this as an IDB incident and compensate accordingly (cash for 4x the one-way fare value up to $1350) in order to close the incident and prevent regulators looking too closely at the extent of their shady "close the gate earlier than the CoC says" express practices.
Alternately you can sue UA — from your description they did not honor their contract. What are your damages?
Please follow up when you've heard back from UA or regulators with what the resolution was. This should be easy to resolve quickly if you want (within a week or two).
Dec 31, 2015, 2:12 pm
#43
Join Date: Feb 2014
Programs: UA Plat, SPG Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 677
This thread is full of terrible advice. And the conclusions are simply wrong.
The flight was served by a CRJ-200 with 50 passenger seats. DOT IDB rules exempt flights served by aircraft with less than 60 seats. Thus, while OP was likely involuntarily denied boarding, he is due $0 compensation.
OP should nonetheless file a short & sweet complaint with UA noting that he was at the gate with a valid BP at T-21 and that he was denied boarding. Let UA sort it out. UA will explain why the flight is exempt, but will likely toss some miles as a customer service gesture.
The DOT complaint is, of course, a waste, because there was no DOT violation.
The flight was served by a CRJ-200 with 50 passenger seats. DOT IDB rules exempt flights served by aircraft with less than 60 seats. Thus, while OP was likely involuntarily denied boarding, he is due $0 compensation.
OP should nonetheless file a short & sweet complaint with UA noting that he was at the gate with a valid BP at T-21 and that he was denied boarding. Let UA sort it out. UA will explain why the flight is exempt, but will likely toss some miles as a customer service gesture.
The DOT complaint is, of course, a waste, because there was no DOT violation.
* If the airline must substitute a smaller plane for the one it originally planned to use, the carrier isn't required to pay people who are bumped as a result. In addition, on flights using aircraft with 30 through 60 passenger seats, compensation is not required if you were bumped due to safety-related aircraft weight or balance constraints
Dec 31, 2015, 2:27 pm
#44
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: ORD
Programs: Marriott Titanium Elite, UA Silver, AA Gold
Posts: 494
Some of the United Express carriers don't have electronic ACARS which means paper weight and balance. They're closing the door more than ten minutes before departure, if you're there or not. Also, with the weather at the various hubs this week, there could have been a call for release program. If you have a 2pm departure, the pilots call and request 2pm and are told they're released at 2pm, they're going to tell the gate agent they need to be moving no later than 1:50. If they're doing paper weight and balance, it means she's closing the door 1:35-1:40pm.
Dec 31, 2015, 2:52 pm
#45
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Ewa Beach, Hawaii
Posts: 10,909
But here is the rub on that. They offloaded the OP and filled his seat with another passenger so everyone was onboard. Just not the person who should have been. If all seats are filled then they can close the door and go. Where the problem is, is the GA offloaded the OP improperly before the cutoff time to make room for the other passenger. So the fault lies entirely with the GA in offloading the OP before the cutoff.