Originally Posted by
j2simpso
Out of curiosity, could the OP do a SDC on their itinerary with it routing through IAD (i.e. EWR > IAD > SFO) then call up UA and ask them to drop the first segment?
No, for about six different reasons, including the fact that UA would then require the walk-up fare for IAD-SFO. It's against UA policy for them to drop segments in that manner unless there are IRROPS, to protect against hidden-city ticketing (as you later suggest).
Originally Posted by
eeeee
Follow up: I was unable to accomplish any of this online, I could only cancel the entire round trip or make a change, at a higher cost. After a half hour on hold, I spoke to an agent. She split the PNRs, and after 20 or so minutes of back and forth, as she was confirming the cancel and that I would have a $142 credit, told me I had to pay the $200 change fee now. I told her I wasn't going to pay United for the privilege of not flying. No ma'am, you are changing your ticket and you must pay the fee. I asked to speak to a supervisor, trying to explain that I was not going to pay them money to not fly.
It is rarely a good idea to escalate to a UA supervisor unless there is a technical issue that the front-line support agent can't resolve. I know it's painful advice after a 30-minute hold, but hanging up and calling again is almost always better than escalating for anything that involves policy, as the supervisor will support the agent 99.9% of the time.
In this case, it's not entirely clear that the agent is wrong. I mean, I
think the agent is wrong, and
WineCountryUA and
Kacee both indicated that you can do this, and I'm 100% certain you can do it
after you've taken the outbound. But I'm not sure that the agent isn't
technically correct when you're trying to make this particular type of change
prior to departure, especially if your ticket was fared as a round-trip. You may have gotten a different answer if you had said "I know I'm going to have to stay later than the rest of the party, but I'm not sure exactly how long; can you cancel my return now, to free up the seat, and then I'll call back when I have my travel plans finalized?" Just a thought for next time.
Originally Posted by
eeeee
I'll probably check in for the united flight, too, just out of spite.
This will accomplish nothing. When you don't show up for the flight, you'll be offloaded and they'll put somebody else into your seat. The only people you'll affect will be gate agents who had nothing to do (personally, anyway

with your issue. What I would do, however, now that you're booked onto Alaska, is to have your husband let you know if there's a flight delay on EWR-SFO. If there is, and it's substantial enough, call UA and ask them to refund your PNR.
Originally Posted by
j2simpso
Please don't do that. While I can understand your frustration of UA's change policies and want to protest this stupidity, please consider the many passengers you may impact on doing this.
There will be no impact on anyone else. UA plans for a certain number of no-shows. They're not going to hold a flight waiting for someone who checked in online but never showed up at the airport.
Originally Posted by
j2simpso
At some point (unsure when) UA will conclude that while OP did check in, they're a no-show
At T-15.
Originally Posted by
phkc070408
buying non-refundable tickets is still way cheaper than buying flexible / refundable tickets.
Precisely.
OP: As crazy as this sounds, UA (and most airlines) actually forbids buying a ticket and then not using it. I mean, they won't drag you onto the plane

, but it's contrary to their contract of carriage (it's called throwaway ticketing). When you bought the ticket, they gave you a discount in exchange for some conditions; one of the conditions was that you would fly the itinerary as purchased or pay the necessary change fees to change it to something else. Now, they're known to be reasonable, and they understand that when the remaining credit is less than the change fee, few people are going to pay that fee, which is why I'm surprised that you ran into an agent who was being a stickler about it. But they're not wrong,
per se -- they're just being pigheaded.