Often1

But again, IDB compensation only occurs if the flight was oversold. Merely denying boarding won't trigger the DOT rule, but might still be an unfair practice over which DOT has jurisdiction. That won't compensate OP, but may result in a penalty to the carrier.

Bottom line here is that nobody including OP can sort this out. It is entirely possible that AA issued the ticket, but did not "push" it to UA or that it did push it to UA and UA did receive it or that UA did receive it and the GA or UA generally loused up receiving and processing it.

Where in the process this went sideways can't be determined by what OP says he was told. AA says it sent the ticket and UA says it didn't receive it. Who is correct?

dat4life

I'm not sure if it's related, but I did run into a similar issue. Due to the troubles with Chicago ATC last October, my DEN-ORD flight was delayed and I would misconnect with my ORD-DCA flight. An AAgent rebooked my on the UA DEN-IAD flight. I was able to check in for that flight via the mobile app and get a mobile BP, but when I scanned it at the gate, no dice. The UA GA made a call to their help desk to release and/or validate my ticket, and then I then I was able to board. She did make the comment it happens regularly to those pax who are rebooked from another carrier.

SeeBuyFly

It would seem that the UA flight left with empty seats i.e. it would have cost them nothing to 'extends credit' to AA.

Often1

That is true. But, GA's don't make finance decisions. They follow instructions and with however many transactions there are per day, nobody is going to sit down the next day and call the other carrier to work it out.

This is pretty much a problem on most carriers in most places. No valid ticket = no boarding. Many carriers would not even make a call to fix it as the UA tried. They would simply tell the passenger that it's his problem to get it fixed.

The real issue is that here it is 2015 are still using the rules applicable to paper tickets to deal with what ought to be a whole lot easier. In fact, in this situation, a paper ticket would have been easier. A ticket coupon physically handed in would have been payment, it would have been stapled to a new BP and collected at time of boarding.

formeraa

Yes, when something like this happens, AA will pay UA for these passengers later. UA would just have to contact AA the next day (this is why they have operations people at the airport) to get it all straightened out and, yes, it would have been straightened out.

The UA agents were just plain lazy, perhaps UAE agents who weren't trained well?

WhIteSidE

A different series of events led to the cancellation, but I had virtually identical response from UA being rebooked from an AS flight a few years ago. I'm not sure what hoop UA makes the other airlines jump through, but I've never had the problem when getting rebooked between AS/AA or KL/LH, etc.

BayAArea

I had no checked bags - can't speak for the others. I am not sure if AA had agreed to get their bags to them the following day at SFO once the original flight was canceled. I have never had the rule 240 thing with checked bags so I'm not sure how it works.

BayAArea

I'm going to send my expenses to both airlines, and also ask for each side's explanations (if I get any). I will follow up with any correspondence I get back.
There seem to be enough people here who care to see how it plays out.

AAs evidence the following day (both customer service supervisor at LAX and Admirals Club staff showed me screens and said they did it right, and then explained the agreement in place) was compelling. However I never got UAs side once they booted us out of the terminal, so I will see what they say.

The thing that leaves the worst taste in my mouth is that, if in fact there is an agreement in place between UA and AA (the AA staff claims they do this every day, especially given SFO's delays on a near daily basis) among them, the fact that any customer-facing staff would look 5 passengers in the face and tell them to take a hike at 1am when there were open seats, is just unimaginable in my mind. I have to think they have a way to override the scanning machine and board people. How did planes board before ten years ago?

I had several family members that were ex-TWA so I have done my share of hanging around gates (EEE tickets and standby were a function of my childhood) and I have just never seen that sort of customer service, or lack thereof.

Even if this was AAs fault, I will likely never fly UA again (which is a shame as I live in SF, logically it SHOULD be my first choice in airlines) just because of the way they handled this. Their reputation of late among my SF colleagues especially since the merger and FF devaluation has been horrible, and in this case it seems deserved.

eajusa

UA needs to get their act together. Their response to the OP is reprehensible.

Dave Noble

If it was AA that messed up ( which would seem most likely to me since it is the one responsible for dealing with booking and ticketing issues ) then anything that UA tried to do would be beyond what it needs to do

it sounds like the UA agent tried to contact AA

TerryK

I concur. It reads to me that AA failed to push over eticket to UA. UA refused to transport passengers without tickets. Sounds logical to me.

All airlines system will print boarding pass without eticket in order to accommodate paper tickets (yes they still exist). UA boarding pass is only valid for boarding if there is a 13-digit eticket number printed on it. Without it, a paper ticket or FIM is required.

BayAArea

I think a key issue here is figuring out if this 'agreement' that AA says is in existence between UA and AA is in effect.

If it is, then no matter if UA could see payment or not, they should have put us on that flight and called over to AA 7 hours later and figured it out. This is Customer Service 101. Especially given that plan B was to send 5 people out of the terminal at 1AM.

If it is not, then it gets a bit hairy - I am admittedly not an expert on operations at airports, but I have to think there is a way for a GA to override what the scanner is telling them and be able to board customers holding UA boarding passes, and figure out the details later.

A third thing that gets me that a previous poster brought up is - how can an airline, in this secure day and age, be able to generate boarding passes for people that don't have valid tickets? Every airport has huge signs that say "Ticketed passengers only beyond this point" - what is the way they confirm that one is a ticketed passenger? They ask for a boarding pass. I would think every res system in the US would have a trip that would be unable to issue a boarding pass without a valid ticket. But again, I am not an expert, and will defer to people smarter than me on this site. Just frustrating, that's all.

TerryK

The opposite is true. Every system can print boarding pass without valid eticket as ticket can be paper or FIM. You cannot, however, OLCI without valid eticket and cannot self-print boarding pass.

Yes, the boarding pass security requirement is a joke. But what else is new with TSA?

channa

Did the UA BP have a ticket number?

It's possible they checked you in as paper and then realized the mistake when the boarding scanner asked for the paper ticket.

If that happened, it would be UA's mistake, at least partly, for not catching it sooner.

In fact, since UA's systems are involved, chances are it's UA's mistake. Ever since they downgraded to CO's computer systems, their technology has been impossible. For those of you not familiar with how bad CO's systems are, it would be mind-boggling if you saw what UAers put up with.

Sorry about the situation, but I've been f'ed up enough by UA I actually check to make sure there's an E-ticket number on the BP.

exwannabe

Most would assume that when UA issued a BP they already had a valid ticket assigned to them from AA.

Where the ball was dropped between the 2 is unknown (and will certainly remain so forever). But to blindly claim that UA has no fault is a bit biased.

Your post is really strange.