Just on my chase account and see a $5 charge from United. This fee was charged right after purchasing a RT BOS-SFO. I have bought nothing onboard recently and the BOS transaction was normal. I am a 1K in my last month before a downgrade to plat. In some respects this is not worth complaining about, but my strategy since the merger has been to make UA as accountable as possible. I have disputed the charge with chase. Any idea what this could be for?
That's it. Thanks for your help. Mods you can close this.
1. Chase lists authorizations as "temporary authorizations." Actual debits are noted as "Posted."
2. Separate and apart from Chase's requirement that you certify that you've sought to resolve with the carrier before disputing a charge is that if by some chance it's a legitimate debit (such as 9/11 security fee which wasn't collected), you run the risk that, when disputed, the carrier simply cancels your ticket.
Always better to call and ask. Once in a while, there's a reason. Lousy when you get to the airport and win up buying a walk-up fare if one's available.
Programs: UA Plat, AC, AA, DL, Marriott Silver, Hyatt
Posts: 5,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brattflyer
Just on my chase account and see a $5 charge from United. This fee was charged right after purchasing a RT BOS-SFO. I have bought nothing onboard recently and the BOS transaction was normal. I am a 1K in my last month before a downgrade to plat. In some respects this is not worth complaining about, but my strategy since the merger has been to make UA as accountable as possible. I have disputed the charge with chase. Any idea what this could be for?
Why would you ask what it could be for after disputing. If you thought there might be legitimate, why dispute.
I too, have seen temp. authorizations, for example, a small amount, in addition to a ticket charge, after purchasing. But the second charge always goes away. On the other hand, if the OP was able to dispute it, it must have posted, as IME, you can't dispute a charge until it, has, in fact, been charged.
Other thought: what about an on-board purchase like a snack box. If it was $5.00, not the right amount for Direct TV, but aren't there snack options at that price? While its been better in the latter half of the year for me, I've had UA take 5 - 6 weeks to charge a snack box to my card, and I had to think about it for a while too before I finally figured out what it was for.
And this is why we never get good "chargeback" resolution.
It should be more difficult to dispute a charge.
No it shouldnt. You may well make the case the people should take more care when making a dispute it most certainly should not be more "difficult".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brattflyer
How do I tell the difference?
That's it. Thanks for your help. Mods you can close this.
Isnt the ticket number listed in the description? I am pretty sure mine shows that but I also think it shows the route sometimes but the ticket number should help also if it is listed in the description.
Last edited by FlyinHawaiian; Jan 14, 13 at 5:53 pm..
Reason: merge
Programs: UA Plat, AC, AA, DL, Marriott Silver, Hyatt
Posts: 5,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcgahat
Isnt the ticket number listed in the description? I am pretty sure mine shows that but I also think it shows the route sometimes but the ticket number should help also if it is listed in the description.
For my Chase card, ticket number shows up in the description (online) - ticket number and route shows up on the actual statement.
Programs: UA 1K MM, Hyatt Plat, Marriott Silver, Hilton Silver
Posts: 19,447
Since Chase started showing "Temporary Authorizations" about a year ago, this has created a lot of confusion for many folks. This pre-charge technique is not uncommon for certain type of situation -- especially those where the card is validated prior to determining the actual costs (gas station, car rentals, hotels, ....). A potential give-away is the low charge amount $1, $2, ...
I'm not sure what's so confusing about the words "temporary authorization" vs. "posted charge."
What I don't understand is why someone would dispute a charge and then later ask what it might have been. Why not make that determination first and then dispute if appropriate.
I don't think that it ought to be harder to dispute an invalid charge, but it is readily apparent that banks have a low tolerance for people who do scammer disputes which get rejected. They're expensive for the CC issuer and the vendor and it's little to ask that the consumer take care before disputing something of which he's not sure.
