Originally Posted by
docbert
Sure, but they were - according to the article - cheaper than other places to buy the ticket. Which in itself is interesting...
This comment raises a question in my mind about whether this "travel agent" is really a mileage broker.
Originally Posted by
kss5555
The link doesn't work for me, so I'm going to try the trick of quoting it.
Originally Posted by
GrayAnderson
So, a serious question: Could UA (realistically) restrict what can be done externally with a ticket, as a matter of policy, once a passenger has boarded (well, been "scanned in")? Basically, could they have the system set up so that only the pax (or someone in their party) or the gate agents at the departing airport can change a ticket at that stage? It seems like allowing an external cancellation after that point effectively violates the UA policy of not kicking someone off after they've boarded.
Setting that aside, I think UA might want to consider dropping a brick on the OTA in question. This isn't Expedia or Orbitz, so it might be worth UA's while to come out and "fire" them and to restrict what a third-party seller can use as a claim for a fraudulent ticket purchase (e.g. "an SDC or SDS change is, all else being equal, not considered suspicious by United and we will not consider a cancellation request on this basis to be valid").
FWIW, the blurb on Google about the company in question: " 24*7 Online support help desk for travelers looking for customer support for travel related quires, airline contact numbers, air travel reservation query, flight status and more". Bold is mine. Yes, that's "quires", not "queries"...boy, does that inspire confidence.
But I'll also agree that this would have been a case where some quick thinking on the part of the gate agent would have helped and should have been rewarded.
If someone is using a travel agent, they shouldn't need telephone contact numbers for airlines.
Originally Posted by
cjermain
I may be misreading the posts, but I don't think anyone has suggested that the GA just unilaterally let her fly.
This situation was quite unique in that they were asking someone who boarded with a valid ticket to deplane. Without the passenger's knowledge, the ticket was cancelled. This is a fantastic set of circumstances. I don't think any precedent would have been set.
I think the point is that a front line employee, upon encountering an extraordinary situation might consider various options to make things come out right. This could include a call to management to see what could be done. And if nothing could be done, or if the plane simply had to push back right away, some sympathy would have gone a long way. A good rule is: don't say things to a customer that won't look good printed in the paper tomorrow.
That said, I get the point that none of us were there, and some have suggested that the reporting is quite biased against UA. Plus almost everyone agrees that the real fault for the whole situation is with the agent. So I wouldn't judge UA too harshly.
The incident seems to violate UA's post-Dao policy of not removing passengers who have boarded. Moreover, IIRC the Dao flight had been delayed in order to permit those crew to fly, so UA does sometimes delay flights in order to permit some people to travel, although a better example using revenue passengers would be when flights are held for connecting customers coming from delayed flights.