Originally Posted by
Vunder31
Aaaaawwww, more people... Oh, the horror....
Seriously, how entitled do you think you are?
Are you kidding me? Business cost 3* coach because people buying it need a better flying experience. And 200 Y passengers trumping up and down the aisles is a severe disruption. I am 100% entitled to what I paid for.
I'm not connoting the Y pax should pee in a cup, G-D forbid, but UA failed to deliver on the C product and compensation is in order.
Originally Posted by
Vunder31
If not having the expected access to restrooms justifies compensation, having the expected access must be worth worth a certain amount. If passengers do not use the lavs, they should be entitled to compensation. If not, neither should people get compensation if they don't have the expected access.
I thought you were kidding the first time - but heres the flaw in your 'logic'. Suppose UA offers a meal onboard. If they fail to provide that service, they are in breach of contract (well, maybe not exactly but they didn't deliver what you paid for), if you fail to consume something you paid for - too bad.
What youre saying basically is, since a steak cost $100, if a patron eats only half his steak, he is entitled to $50 compensation... just like if the restaurant only serves half the steak they must refund $50.
The difference is very simple. UA is obligated to provide a
separate business class cabin, including lavatories. Failure to deliver is ground for refund, but not failure to consume.
BTW, it's not like the world came apart because a certain flight didn't work out 100% well. I very rarely complain myself, and would not of even if I had been on that flight. I'm now staying in a 5* Manhattan hotel which hasn't been cleaned all day, yet unsure if I will complain about it. But I recognize UA failed here, and think it is only right to compensate.