Programs: UA 1K & UC, HHonors Gold, Hyatt Diamond, Avis PC, AS, US, AA
Posts: 690
So, is this new? My previous understanding was that IDB on a 50-seater was effectively exempt from IDB compensation because of the ambiguous wording. But now it sounds like we have a precedent in which the FAA denies that interpretation -- and IDB on 30-60 seat planes is exempt only if it is specifically for W&B reasons.
Anybody want to confirm or deny my interpretation?
Programs: Formerly over-entitled UA 1K, now under-entitled UA PP.
Posts: 2,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBK
So, is this new? My previous understanding was that IDB on a 50-seater was effectively exempt from IDB compensation because of the ambiguous wording. But now it sounds like we have a precedent in which the FAA denies that interpretation -- and IDB on 30-60 seat planes is exempt only if it is specifically for W&B reasons.
Anybody want to confirm or deny my interpretation?
Yes, I think it is new information.
I posted it for two reasons -
1) Because the article suggests that UA is mis-interpreting the rule in its favor, and this information is helpful for us all to understand, and
2) Because it seems to provide a precedent/interpretation from the DOT that clarifies the exception for 30-60 seat planes is only applicable for W&B, not when the airline makes a choice to over-booking for the sole purpose of maximizing profit - in other words, the airline is protected if they IDB for safety reasons, but the law does not give them protection to abuse passengers for purposes of unlimited greed
So, is this new? My previous understanding was that IDB on a 50-seater was effectively exempt from IDB compensation because of the ambiguous wording. But now it sounds like we have a precedent in which the FAA denies that interpretation -- and IDB on 30-60 seat planes is exempt only if it is specifically for W&B reasons.
Anybody want to confirm or deny my interpretation?
This is new to me. $1300 cash for being denied boarding on a 50 seater where weight and balance is not an issue is unprecedented IME.
That said, expect these claims to be disposed of by the GA claiming weight and balance. By the time they go to trial, UA will have lost all evidence pertaining to to the passenger and cargo load.
Unless a pax has a recording of the GA announcing an oversold situation, the IDBed pax will be out of luck.
__________________
Robert Crandall on American Airlines: it's a great company that does important work. But airlines are not an investment.
No news and no interpretation, 14 C.F.R. Sec. 250.6(b) has always been clear on the point. It's urban myth on FT that 60< aircraft are exempt from IDB. See quoted text below. This hasn't changed since IDB rules first put in place.
A passenger denied boarding involuntarily from an oversold flight shall not be eligible for denied boarding compensation if:
...
(b) The flight for which the passenger holds confirmed reserved space is unable to accommodate that passenger because of substitution of equipment of lesser capacity when required by operational or safety reasons; or, on an aircraft with a designed passenger capacity of 60 or fewer seats, the flight for which the passenger holds confirmed reserved space is unable to accommodate that passenger due to weight/balance restrictions when required by operational or safety reasons;
Programs: UA 1K, PC Plat Amb, Marriott Plat, HHonors Gold
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by mre5765
This is new to me. $1300 cash for being denied boarding on a 50 seater where weight and balance is not an issue is unprecedented IME.
That said, expect these claims to be disposed of by the GA claiming weight and balance. By the time they go to trial, UA will have lost all evidence pertaining to to the passenger and cargo load.
Unless a pax has a recording of the GA announcing an oversold situation, the IDBed pax will be out of luck.
$1300 is the max I think - it's 4x your one way ticket cost - don't think most of these regional one ways would cost $425+
Programs: Formerly over-entitled UA 1K, now under-entitled UA PP.
Posts: 2,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by juniorsu
$1300 is the max I think - it's 4x your one way ticket cost - don't think most of these regional one ways would cost $425+
Probably not but I have found that regional one-ways can be disproportionately expensive in many instances, particularly where they are abusing a monopoly position between underserved markets. I've paid some shocking fares for < 1 hour flights on puddle jumpers.
1) Because the article suggests that UA is mis-interpreting the rule in its favor, and this information is helpful for us all to understand, and
I've been IDBed once in my life, and that was due to a strange reservation record SK had. The GA insisted I had no reservation, the travel agent insisted I did, and the SK ticket office (after the flight left) agreed with the travel agent. The ticket office attempted to low ball me on comp, but even in those days I was up to speed.
As most of us here are elites, no UA GA is going to be foolish enough to IDB us, so not sure how useful it will be. The airline is going to prey upon the inexperienced pax, that is the law of the jungle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by juniorsu
$1300 is the max I think - it's 4x your one way ticket cost - don't think most of these regional one ways would cost $425+
Um, 4 times 425 is 1700. And a non stop CRJ COS to SFO on April 1 prices out to $475.
Keep in mind that RJs are incredibly fuel inefficient per pound of pax transported.
Regardless, 1300/4 is $325, and that is easily the price of many RJ one ways.
__________________
Robert Crandall on American Airlines: it's a great company that does important work. But airlines are not an investment.
$1300 is the max I think - it's 4x your one way ticket cost - don't think most of these regional one ways would cost $425+
$425 for a regional one way is not out of the ordinary at all. As a matter of fact, I would argue that many regional jet operated flights are more expensive than mainline because of the small(er) markets they sure and thus less competition.
No news and no interpretation, 14 C.F.R. Sec. 250.6(b) has always been clear on the point. It's urban myth on FT that 60< aircraft are exempt from IDB. See quoted text below. This hasn't changed since IDB rules first put in place.
A passenger denied boarding involuntarily from an oversold flight shall not be eligible for denied boarding compensation if:
...
(b) The flight for which the passenger holds confirmed reserved space is unable to accommodate that passenger because of substitution of equipment of lesser capacity when required by operational or safety reasons; or, on an aircraft with a designed passenger capacity of 60 or fewer seats, the flight for which the passenger holds confirmed reserved space is unable to accommodate that passenger due to weight/balance restrictions when required by operational or safety reasons;
The DOT rules seem pretty clear. It's too bad that a passenger had to go to court to see the enforced correctly. I wonder which people were responsible for misinterpreting the rules and whether they have been re-trained.
Programs: UA O-E 1K 0.98MM, AA EXP, SPG Plat (Ambassador), Hertz 5*
Posts: 10,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrequentFlyKid
$425 for a regional one way is not out of the ordinary at all. As a matter of fact, I would argue that many regional jet operated flights are more expensive than mainline because of the small(er) markets they sure and thus less competition.
That's standard ex-EWR on 1-3 day non-leisure routes (if not more) - and they serve big markets with competition too
Last edited by UA-NYC; Jan 3, 13 at 10:12 am..
Reason: clarification
The DOT rules seem pretty clear. It's too bad that a passenger had to go to court to see the enforced correctly. I wonder which people were responsible for misinterpreting the rules and whether they have been re-trained.
Remember, this whole thing is not first-hand. It's just an FT member posting a link to a blog he read. Who knows what the facts really were.
Programs: UA MM 1K; Fairmont & Starwood platinum; Hyatt diamond; Kimpton IC Elite
Posts: 16,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Often1
Remember, this whole thing is not first-hand. It's just an FT member posting a link to a blog he read. Who knows what the facts really were.
Not exactly. It is a column written by Chris Elliott that was published in the Washington Post. Like Elliott or not, he does tend to do do his research and I have not known him to make up quotes. From Elliott's column on this:
I shared the correspondence between Posch and United with the DOT. Bill Mosley, a department spokesman, said it appeared that the Posches were eligible for compensation. “If that’s the case, each of them would be entitled to a check for 400 percent of their one-way fare from Washington to Cleveland, with a maximum of $1,300 per person,” he told me.
I also forwarded the Posch file to United and asked it to review its response to him. It re-examined his case and lawsuit. “After reviewing Mr. Posch’s circumstances, we determined that he was, in fact, entitled to compensation,” United spokesman Charles Hobart said. “We are honoring his claim.”
Not exactly. It is a column written by Chris Elliott that was published in the Washington Post. Like Elliott or not, he does tend to do do his research and I have not known him to make up quotes. From Elliott's column on this:
I shared the correspondence between Posch and United with the DOT. Bill Mosley, a department spokesman, said it appeared that the Posches were eligible for compensation. “If that’s the case, each of them would be entitled to a check for 400 percent of their one-way fare from Washington to Cleveland, with a maximum of $1,300 per person,” he told me.
I also forwarded the Posch file to United and asked it to review its response to him. It re-examined his case and lawsuit. “After reviewing Mr. Posch’s circumstances, we determined that he was, in fact, entitled to compensation,” United spokesman Charles Hobart said. “We are honoring his claim.”
Ah, so no lawsuit as others in this thread have suggested. The details matter.
