Originally Posted by Kacee

They would only have responsibility if the flights are on the same ticket. It's possible UA systems would auto-rebook you based on the two flights being on the same itinerary, in the absence of any obligation to do so.

Have you checked the actual ticket numbers? Do you have two of them, one on UA stock (001) and one on SQ stock (081)?

If they are on the same ticket, there should be no charge for rebooking the SQ flight, as the IRROPS would override any such charges.

Originally Posted by Kacee

Note that one reason to book the two flights on separate tix is because the lower priced fares on UA and SQ are not going to be compatible, i.e., capable of being booked on a separate ticket. The correct way to book this itinerary would be either all on UA or with an SQ codeshare (likely AS) for the LAS-SFO/LAX segment. Not actually sure SQ is presently codesharing with anyone for that routing though.

Originally Posted by jsloan

Did you have checked luggage? If the missed flight was on the UA record, the computer might well have tried to rebook it (and, if you had luggage checked all the way through, UA would have had to put the SQ flight on the UA record). It’s even vaguely plausible that you might have been able to board, as Star Alliance has an alliance-wide agreement to allow for reissuance of tickets during IRROPS. So even though you didn’t purchase a ticket from them, it’s possible that they were trying to help you out. It doesn’t create a legal (or, IMO, ethical) responsibility on UA to pay for either a hotel or the fare difference. (It’s also plausible that you would have tried to board and would have ended up with a very confused gate agent, because the boarding computer would have thrown an error about a missing ticket).

I disagree. Unless OP comes back and says that the two ticket numbers were both sequential, OP was definitely on separate tickets.


The zeal that you’re employing to try to wrest compensation from UA would best be used trying to find a travel agent who actually acts as your agent. Handling IRROPS is a big part of their job, and they absolutely should not be asking you, as the traveler, to intercede with the airlines. That’s Office Space levels of “what would you say you do here?”


I suspect the costs were a fare difference. And it was likely the correct amount, and it was caused specifically by their insistence upon booking you on separate tickets in the first place. Instead of buying you a contract with either SQ or UA for transportation from LAS to SIN — which could have still involved both carriers — they bought you a contract with UA from LAS to SFO, and then a separate contract from SQ from SFO to SIN. Therefore, when you were unable to appear on time for your SFO-SIN flight, SQ was not obligated to accept your ticket without it being reissued based upon the current advance purchase (one day) and inventory.


OK, fair enough. But your travel agent let UA off the hook here. I respect your principles, but I still believe your concerns are misdirected. You’re asking UA to compensate your company for something that was out of their control.


It is possible that UA will decide that the corporate account is worth the money and will reimburse the costs.


What they stand to gain should be the same as what UA stands to gain: your corporate account. Put my comments aside for a moment — perhaps you think I’m biased. Pretty much every respondent on this thread has had the same general comment: “You need a new travel agent.” With 30 years of experience in your company, I presume you have enough connections to get the a message through to your leadership that your current travel agent is incompetent and is costing the company money.


Agreed, although UA probably would have tried to rebook only on the UA flights even if the ticket was originally for an SQ flight.


Agreed.


(There’s a typo here — Kacee has been flying American Airlines too much recently. ;-) UA tickets begin with 016).


Right.


Agreed, although FWIW this itinerary would normally have been ticketed on 081. So it would have been a question of getting the UA flight onto a 081 ticket, not the long-haul SQ flight onto a 016 ticket. That should have been substantially easier — though Kacee is correct that the LAS-SFO/LAX segments might have needed to be on AS to get it to price nicely.