apk123

The same "experts" who said that there was NO WAY the mistake fare law applied to award tickets, are still sure that there is NO WAY united would honor these tickets

Eryeal

It's a bit over-the-top to say your interpretation is flawless - others have to make that determination in the end. By definition, your interpretation is an individual opinion and nothing more, until it is proven otherwise. Maybe you actually fall in with the 90% majority rather than the minority?

GMUJD06

That's fair. They're certainly not identical situations, and this mistake would cost United much more money in the long run than a footrest.

My point is, before everyone blasts everyone else for costing the airline money in this particular case, I think they should take a step back and look at how many times they've somehow gotten something ridiculous (like a $200 cert for a footrest) or gotten a rep to waive fees they otherwise should have paid.

One of my biggest pet peeves in life is hypocrisy. None of us here are completely virtuous. I'd argue that most of us came to FT in the first place as a place to share ideas on how to gain something from our chosen airline. If we all wanted to play 100% by the rules United set up, why does FT exist in the first place? I'd just ask Alex all of my questions.

gvol21

A well-stated argument. The analogy's a bit off, but still worth reading.

The UA ‘deal’ is sleazy – should I stiff my barber for 14 cents, too?

Great comment, this:

BigPoppaCO

^

teddy25

I want to know what Harvard Professor Michael Sandel thinks.

my $81 has given me some great entertainment for the past couple of days. Plus I am heading to HKG ;-)

Eryeal

SUPERBLY written article. The more you try and game and take advantage of a system or a mistake, the harder it will be in the future to use the system (if available at all). Sometimes you have to know that even though a rule or law says one thing, doesn't make it the absolute right thing. Even if DOT enforces this and requires the tickets to be valid - it still doesn't mean it is right in the end. There are millions of examples of companies starting out with the best intentions (whether it's liberal returns policies or something completely different), and then due to so many consumers taking wrongful advantage, those intentions come to an end. It doesn't end because their rules, or lack thereof, were faulty. It ends because of so many folks abusing the system. Yeah, Sam's Club may have an unlimited returns policy, but I'm not going to take the TV I bought a year ago and accidentally dropped in for a refund or replacement, despite the fact they will accept the return.

I love the #3 comment on the bottom of the article by "Bob" - saying exactly what the article points out is the wrong way to think.

alex_b

I would be interested in whether there is any legal precedent for whether this is permitted? I have asked this question a couple of times only been told that a) the T&Cs say they can b) that some people have had their accounts closed for dodgy behavior. What no-one seems to have answered is whether anyone has ever fought such a thing and what the outcome was.

In other jurisdictions (e.g. the UK) such a transparently one sided contract would be deemed 'unfair' under the relevant consumer legislation; this would seem doubly so if UA tried to engage those unfair terms on an arbitrary basis to punish lawful behavior (e.g. complaining too much, only buying 'mistake fares') and took away something of value (miles, instruments etc). However I don't know US consumer law and therefore would be interested in whether there is any settled case law in this area.

PS In case you can't guess I'm not interested in the "my bud Joe says the conditions of carriage say that they can take away your miles if you're rude about their videos" type answers that seem to predominate this thread.

Eryeal

Doesn't really matter - it is impossible that something like this happens. A company is not going to go the route of taking a financial hit and then applying mass retribution. That's suicide.

GMUJD06

I have a question for everyone who claims those of us who booked the deal should be kicked out of MP.

As oft-noted above, I booked one trip. At the time I booked it, I had no expectation that UA would honor the ticket, but figured hey, if they do, awesome! I have not made one post threatening to sue, or even file a DOT complaint should my ticket be cancelled. I simply booked a ticket, and am sitting back to let the chips fall as they may.

To date, other than Shannon's post about this time last night, no one from UA has contacted me to inform me of their intention to cancel my ticket. To date, UA has not unilaterally chosen to cancel my ticket.

Assuming I fulfill my original intent to go quietly in the night if UA cancels my ticket (I'm fairly non-confrontational...ironic for a lawyer, eh?), do you think it would be fair for UA to cancel my MP account should they decide to honor the deal without any threats or provocation from me?

Given the facts as they currently stand, I don't think any of us should lose our status, miles, accounts, simply because we booked a ticket. If we, individually, were to cause bigger headaches for United, say, by filing a lawsuit, that's a different argument for a different day. But as things currently stand, UA hasn't even contacted me to say "hey, we made a mistake, mind if we cancel" and given me the courtesy of agreeing.

gvol21

There are a lot of accusations being thrown around here. Full disclosure, I'm in for one ticket in a few weeks. If it plays out, great; if not, I'll see what my options are, and if there aren't any, then that's OK, too.

Some people have come down on those who took advantage of the deal. That's what it is - taking advantage. Usually, it's for moral reasons. Check out Matt's upgrd post on why he's sitting this one out. Quite honestly, I really do believe that the majority of people who are preaching from alleged moral high ground are sitting on a big pile of sour grapes. "This is awful," "you're taking advantage of the airline," "you're making it harder for people who play by the rules", and so on.

Guess what? Chances are that you all do this too - after all, that's why we're all here on FT. As someone wisely pointed out, if I wanted to play it completely straight, I'd ask Alex all my UA-related questions. How is this any different from taking advantage of a $300 mistake fare to RGN (or however much it was), or even credit card churning? The extent, of course, but that's really it. If everyone started churning cards like some serious FTers, they'd change the rules (and in some cases, I'm sure they already have, thanks to over-eager churners). That's the way travel hacking works, folks - it's gaming the system for your own benefit.

A few people have brought up the massive lost revenue that UA faces due to this deal. There are a lot of armchair airline accountants chiming in that this figure could be in the tens of millions. As has been pointed out, it's not likely to be anywhere near that high (wanna bet that the majority of those F seats would be empty or shilled to pax at the gate for a hundred or two?), but let's assume that this high figure is correct. If so, that would be the only ground on which to criticize this deal - UA's excessive loss. That's it. So please, leave the morality out of this. Chances are, if you're posting on FT, you've gamed the system in one way or another.

Clarkcc1

Fair points and agreed it can be a slippery slope - but United (and airlines in general) dug it's (their) own grave with regard to mistake fares - they allow NO LEEWAY (like Sams Club) in normal day-to-day transactions (if I goof up beyond 24 hrs I have no recourse, unlike your Sams Club example), so they must be held to the same standard when they goof up. Karma perhaps? Or is that the golden rule?

To all the nuts who have claimed 'offending MP accounts should be vaporized' or whatever: in this very pro-consumer govt environment, the only ways an airline could do something like that would be to have a case that vast fraud or breaking of rules had occurred. Miles are more considered a different form of currency than ever before and to assert that airlines could wipe out large 'sums' of 'money' on a whim is ludicrous. If precedent hasn't been reached in court cases already and this ever happens either A) the court would rule in favor of the account holder or B) court rules against account holder then the airlines get their mileage currency regulated by legislation. Either way to insinuate account balances could be vaporized at a whim is just insane.

redtailshark

What's the basis for this continual repetition of "obviously a mistake"? The DoT ruling specifically calls out "mistakes" by vendor as an ineligible "justification" for post-ticketing price increases.

I cannot understand why anyone thinks the DoT can follow anything other than a consistent course in their interpretations. If they permit a "mistake" to be defined, how would DoT protections "still sort of stand"? The ruling is designed to establish a clear line between compliance and violation.

Nothing is clearer than if ticketed, defined as possession of eticket receipt specifying price, flights, cabins, T&C etc. Those who buy, fly as specified.

This is also in the long run helpful to service providers. It means they will need to allocate resource to verifying and checking prior to ticketing because they will know very clearly where they stand vis a vis consumer protection.

In the past it's been a gray area. Nobody has known what would happen when misfiles occur. Rather than filing and reneging as they see fit, in the expectation that such behavior cannot be corrected or challenged (viz. BA), the airlines will need to ensure they offer what they want us to buy. Their call to put systems in place to deliver this.

burlax

Plenty of law on that. The rule is along the line that, absent other circumstances, a clerical error (such as putting $4 instead of $400) would usually get you your relief, but poor business judgment won't.

N9MD

The actual expression comes from German ... "gar nichts" = "absolutely nothing". The same expression found its way into Yiddush as "gur nisht" ... most often stated as "gur nisht hilfen" = "absolutely nothing would help". Yiddish was widely spoken by Eastern European Jews (long before WWI), representing a bas.tard.ized form of German created by Polish/Russian Jewish merchants who dealt with Germans at the constantly changing borders.