Originally Posted by
Axey
That's not at all what happened, though. SQ didn't ignore anyone. The OP was offered a reroute on his intended day of travel on JFK-SIN in economy class because (and let's re-emphasize) executive economy no longer exists on EWR-SIN on that day. Unless you consider the IMHO ridiculous request for business class as reasonable, there really isn't any other outcome possible. Especially for an award paid with a partner's miles, SQ was actually quite reasonable here. If you search the UA forum, you'll find plenty of cases where UA and/or partners essentially told customers in similar situations "tough luck, you'll have to find award space on alternate days - and if it's not available, sorry."
Once again: Capacity controlled partner award. Equipment no longer offers the class of service the partner desires. Alternate routing with product that requires the same amount of miles (ie, same price) offered. Unreasonable? Not at all.
And finally - since it's been conveniently "overlooked" a few times:
I remind you, in case you missed it earlier: the MONTREAL CONVENTION of 1999 takes precedence over everthing in the Contract of Carriage. REad the section on delays in the MOntreal convention. The airline has to do "everything possible" to get the passenger on their way (paraphrasing).
I find out outrageous that you find it outrageous that a confirmed passenger should expect, in this situation, to be DOWNGRADED, rather than UPGRADED. Clearly, it has to be one or the other, so why would you presume a downgrade is more reasonable than an upgrade? Is a downgrade doing "everything possible"? Read the montreal convention.
And I remind you: they can put ANYTHING they want in the Contract of carriage. They can put "if we cancel a flight, we still get to keep your money forever, and passenger owes us even more money", but the Montreal Convention takes precedence, as it is an INTERNATIONAL TREATY.
Got it? Read Article 19 of the Montreal Convention. Perhaps some savvy person can find that on the internet, and post that short paragraph Article 19 here, so there is no confusion about delay obligations of airlines that break laws, like Singapore Airlines.