Originally Posted by
Kacee
It's a reasonable bet this is indeed a weak effort by UA to loophole itself out of the reg.
Given the nifty things UA is able to accomplish with its IT when it actually tries, it's really not excusable this hasn't been properly fixed.
Indeed, for example I think they have made themselves a big, fully functional 'PZ=0 systemwide this instant' button!
Originally Posted by
jsloan
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.
That interpretation seems to me totally valid as well. Bringing it back to the case at hand, I agree with the suggestion that nctaitingfong request a refund for any fees paid. And let us know what happens, please, nctaitingfong!