Originally Posted by fastair
If I read his post correctly, 2 of his segments were already confirmed using the system UG, so in effect, he burned nothing additionally based on his expectation from UA, than what he would have used anyway. (I may have read the post wrong, and correct me if I did.) I don't think he was lied to either. I would bet that the PNR comment did not state that he should go above a UGS member, although, it may have been the intention (or it may not have been.) This is a no-win situation for UA, as an employee should not offer to break UA's policies, especially those that will have a direct effect on another passenger (i.e. the UGS member who would then NOT have gotten his UG.)
UG's are not written in the contract of carriage, but last time I looked, it states that NO UA EMPLOYEE CAN MODIFY THIS WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM (Glenn Tilton, Board of Directors, Jesus, or the Major League Ball Club.) Since this is not covered in the contract it isn't governed the same way, but hypotheticaly, what form of compensation should the UGS member have been given for taking what should have been HIS seat away from him? Sure, you state that he would have never known, but truth is absolute, and is not dependant on whether a person is aware they have been wronged...the net effect would still have been the same.
For anyone who's ever read the NY Times Magazine column "The Ethicist," that's what this thread is seeming like...not that that's a bad thing. Anyway, I certainly don't think the UGS member should have been bumped due to UA's mistakes. But I'll take the OP's word on what he was told by UA reps; whether they did so out of ignorance or just a desire to not deal with him is another matter, though I'll give them the benefit of the doubt also and chalk it up to ignorance.
I guess I disagree with your interpretation of the situation, if not the post. I imagine that the OP would not have used his SWU unless he thought he had a good chance of landing the UG for HK to SF--Singapore to HK and SF to Seattle alone would not have been worth the SWU. So he was misled by UA, and used the SWU as a result. Which is why I still think the onus is on UA.
On the other hand--and now I'm really going off the deep end in reading his mind--if this were an SWU that is expiring at the end of this month, so he would not have a chance to use it on another trip, he would have used it regardless. In which case, he wasn't really relying on UA's mistaken promise.
OK, I'll shut up now.