Originally Posted by fastair
It stinks that an airline's (UA's or anyones for that matters) contracts have no provisions or liability for failing to operate a schedule...I guess if they did, prices would have to increase to cover the additional liability.
Why on earth do you keep insisting that UA's (and other airlines') Contracts of Carriage have no provisions for this??? Have you ever actually looked at UA's Contract of Carriage? Here is a link to it (in .pdf format):
http://www.united.com/ual/asset/Cont...age_042907.pdf
I call everyone's attention to the section titled "Failure to Operate on Schedule or Failure to Carry." Note in particular, under "Schedule Irregularity," the reference to "Rule 260 (refunds - involuntary):"
If UA is unable to arrange alternate air transportation acceptable to the passenger, UA shall refund the flight coupon(s) for the unflown portion(s) in accordance with Rule 260 (refunds - involuntary).
I won't cut and paste the whole section here right now, but the bottom line is that United DOES promise certain things in the event of schedule delays, provided they are United's fault, as opposed to force majeure or other causes.
It's pretty sad that airline employees are apparently fed the BS that airlines promise ONLY to get passengers from point A to point B, but not necessarily on a schedule, when in fact their contracts of carriage DO make provisions for delays under certain circumstances.
Anyhow, if
jetsetter can take a look at this, and wade through all the paragraphs of legalese, perhaps he will find the answer to his original question.