Originally Posted by
fumje
For the record, I didn't mean I would let UA 'out of jail' with that footnote, but rather that I think UA is hoping it serves as an adequate fig leaf when they can't figure out how to make a proper receipt. But even so, it is still unclear what that footnote means.
Fair enough. I guess that may be what they're hoping.
As for the meaning of the footnote: heck, in this case, I could easily read that as meaning "as long as you (the redeemer) still have 1K status at the time of check-in, the traveler is entitled to these allowances, even if you're not traveling together." I don't even think that's much of a stretch, in context: since UA knows the traveler's status, and knows that the 1K isn't on the reservation, you could easily deduce that the footnote actually applies to the status of person who booked the travel. OP certainly appears to have believed that, and I honestly can't point to anything in that receipt that would say otherwise.