Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Mileage Run Deals > Mileage Run Discussion
Reload this Page >

[PREM FARE GONE] UA: NCL-EWR 600 DKK (mistaken fare) DOT ruled; see wiki for link

Old Feb 11, 2015, 11:49 am
FlyerTalk Forums Expert How-Tos and Guides
Last edit by: drewguy
If you've never gone through this process read this before posting!
Note: Please consider that with high probability, United is monitoring this thread, so please pay attention on what you post!

DOT Investigation UpdatesNews Media Updates:

-------

According to USA Today, Ben Mutzabaugh:
United is voiding the bookings of several thousand individuals who were attempting to take advantage of an error a third-party software provider made when it applied an incorrect currency exchange rate, despite United having properly filed its fares. Most of these bookings were for travel originating in the United Kingdom, and the level of bookings made with Danish Kroner as the local currency was significantly higher than normal during the limited period that customers made these bookings.
Note that United has also accidentally cancelled "legitimate" tickets paid for in USD, purchased in USD from LHR... Please check your other tickets if purchased today to ensure they were not unilaterally cancelled.

However, there is no chance at all that you can have your tickets re-instated if you complain to DOT on the basis of DOT rule § 399.88:
§ 399.88 Prohibition on post-purchase price increase.

(a) It is an unfair and deceptive practice within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 41712 for any seller of scheduled air transportation within, to or from the United States, or of a tour (i.e., a combination of air transportation and ground or cruise accommodations), or tour component (e.g., a hotel stay) that includes scheduled air transportation within, to or from the United States, to increase the price of that air transportation, tour or tour component to a consumer, including but not limited to an increase in the price of the seat, an increase in the price for the carriage of passenger baggage, or an increase in an applicable fuel surcharge, after the air transportation has been purchased by the consumer, except in the case of an increase in a government-imposed tax or fee. A purchase is deemed to have occurred when the full amount agreed upon has been paid by the consumer.
Form for filing DOT complaint. File complaint as soon as your ticket is cancelled.

Link to PDF of enforcement bodies for European customers affected. File complaint as soon as your ticket is cancelled.


Tips for DOT Complaint:
  • File on DOT for every ticket number affected.
  • If you have one reservation with four people traveling (four tickets) file 4 DOT complaints, one per ticket.
  • If you have separate reservations, file a DOT complaint for each.
  • The DOT complaint website may take several minutes to load, depending on demand.
  • When you go to upload a file, be careful as it will reset all your radio buttons. So, if you want a copy of the complaint, make sure you double check that "Yes" is still selected before submitting, especially if you upload a file.

Template For Complaint:
United has unilaterally cancelled my ticket without my consent.

Facts:
1. The ticket was ticketed (had a ticket number).
2. I received a confirmation number, ticket number, and emails stating both
3. The ticket was paid for and my credit card charged.

United must reinstate the ticket within its original cabin. This trip is for travel TO the United States.

At no time during the booking process was any other fare than the Danish Krone equivalent displayed. As a reasonable, prudent consumer, I believed I was paying the price displayed to me on the website. United never sent or displayed the equivalent fare in any other currency.

Trip Details
Ticket #: 016XXXXXXXXXX
PNR: XXXXXX
Routing: LHR-EWR-LAX-HNL

Attachments: Attached is a document showing the ticket, routing, and providing proof that the reservation was ticketed.

Filename: Cancelled - UA Reservation - LHR-EWR-LAX-HNL - XXXXXX - 016XXXXXXXXXX.pdf

+-------------------------------------------------------+
| Relevant Law |
| http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/399.88 |
+-------------------------------------------------------+
§ 399.88 Prohibition on post-purchase price increase.

(a) It is an unfair and deceptive practice within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 41712 for any seller of scheduled air transportation within, to or from the United States, or of a tour (i.e., a combination of air transportation and ground or cruise accommodations), or tour component (e.g., a hotel stay) that includes scheduled air transportation within, to or from the United States, to increase the price of that air transportation, tour or tour component to a consumer, including but not limited to an increase in the price of the seat, an increase in the price for the carriage of passenger baggage, or an increase in an applicable fuel surcharge, after the air transportation has been purchased by the consumer, except in the case of an increase in a government-imposed tax or fee. A purchase is deemed to have occurred when the full amount agreed upon has been paid by the consumer.

+-------------------------------------------------------+
| Relevant FAQ |
| http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/rules/EAPP_2_FAQ.pdf |
+-------------------------------------------------------+
Does the prohibition on post-purchase price increases in section 399.88(a) apply in the situation where a carrier mistakenly offers an airfare due to a computer problem or human error and a consumer purchases the ticket at that fare before the carrier is able to fix the mistake?

Section 399.88(a) states that it is an unfair and deceptive practice for any seller of scheduled air transportation within, to, or from the United States, or of a tour or tour component that includes scheduled air transportation within, to, or from the United States, to increase the price of that air transportation to a consumer after the air transportation has been purchased by the consumer, except in the case of a government-imposed tax or fee and only if the passenger is advised of a possible increase before purchasing a ticket. A purchase occurs when the full amount agreed upon has been paid by the consumer. Therefore, if a consumer purchases a fare and that consumer receives confirmation (such as a confirmation email and/or the purchase appears on their credit card statement or online account summary) of their purchase, then the seller of air transportation cannot increase the price of that air transportation to that consumer, even when the fare is a “mistake.”
-----
Tips for retrieving your ticket number:
  1. paste(right click copy link location first) following link into your web browser
  2. change XXXXXX next to COPNR= for your reservation number and LASTNAME next to LN= for you SURNAME
  3. go to the webpage address you have just created

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/app...NRCD=2/11/2015


Originally Posted by MatthewLAX
Originally Posted by MatthewLAX View Post
R E L A X

Breathe deep.

Congrats on all who got in.

Now comes the fun part.

1. Discovery - mistake fare is posted on FT. Novices frantically checks how much vacation time they have and if the dates of availability mesh with their schedules. Experienced FTers just book it and worry about contacting spouses or their boss later. Word spreads like wildfire.

2. Excitement - Tickets purchased, confirmation emails received and dates of travel shared with other FTers. Discussions of what to see and do and where to stay crop up in other threads. Novices contact source to change seats or inquire about upgrades, Seasoned FTers sit back and enjoy reading the discussion threads.

3. Stress Stage 1 - Concern over paper ticket delivery - Novices Frantically check otheFedEx website every few hours, constant monitoring of driveway for FedEx truck. Seasoned FT veterans sit back and relax.

4. Glee and happiness - Paper tickets in hand, vacation request submitted, spouses finally informed, hotel reservations made and bragging to friends and co-workers begins. Both novices and experts get very excited.

5. Stress Stage 2 - Rumors of fare not being honored, discussion threads about the airline and ticketing agency ensue. Rumors crop up like crabgrass at this stage. Many FTers begin to worry excessively about whether or not the trip will happen. Novices make non-refundable and financial committments to their trip. Seasoned FTers make mixed drinks (and maybe a sandwich) and is patient.

6. Reality Check - Accurate information is obtained - usually takes place a week to 10 days after mistake fare is published. Confirmed information from the source as to whether or not tickets will be honored.

7a. Pure Joy (Icelandair style- Fare is Honored) - Lots of happy people, FT threads on shared information regarding hotels, restaurants, tours, etc. Jealousy from others sets in. First "FT guinea pigs" embark, post confirmation threads that all is ok.


7b Hostile Feelings (Copa Airlines Style - fare is not honored) - Many angry and disappointed FTers. Refunds are issued. Novices have multiple discussion threads of lawsuits and hostile correspondence, FT pros mutter "c'est la vie" and look for the next fare mistake.

8a Success (Honored) - Trip Report thread becomes very active


Freedom of Information Act Request
File #2015-147, Office of the Secretary of Transportation - Receipt acknowledged 3/13/15

http://www.dot.gov/individuals/foia/office-secretary-foia-information

Relevant excerpt from my request on 2/24/15. There no need for multiple requests for the same thing, though feel free to request more or different information obviously. I'll post any updates as I get them.

"Under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S. C. subsection 552, I am requesting access to any and all records of correspondence, including electronic, between anyone working for, or on the behalf of, United Airlines and its subsidiaries, and with anyone working for, or on the behalf of, the Department of Transportation; specifically this would include only the date range beginning on February 11th, 2015 through and including February 24th, 2015.

In addition, I am requesting access to any and all internal records and correspondence in relation to coming to the decision made on February 23rd, 2015 regarding the Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings Determination Regarding United Airlines Mistaken Fare, with the exception of any of the consumer submitted complaints via phone, email, website, or letter. Specifically, this would be any records beginning on February 11th, 2015 through and including February 24th, 2015."
Print Wikipost

[PREM FARE GONE] UA: NCL-EWR 600 DKK (mistaken fare) DOT ruled; see wiki for link

Old Feb 12, 2015, 2:12 pm
  #2941  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Programs: united
Posts: 1,636
Long time lurker, first time poster here. I wanted to respond to this:

Originally Posted by exitcontrol
“You guys gamed the system by changing your country to Denmark and misrepresenting where you live! You’re as much in the wrong as United”
Not quite. Yes people listed their address as Denmark, however this was only done to take advantage of an offer made to those using the “Danish version” of the United website. As an EU citizen Article 56 TFEU and Art. 63(2) TFEU allows citizens to offer and receive goods and services without restriction. By forcing users to use their “local” version of the United website they were restricting free movement of goods and services in contravention of Article 56 TFEU and Art. 63(2) TFEU.

If United try and dismiss claims on this basis then they open themselves up to the greater claim that they were in contravention of Article 56 TFEU and Art. 63(2) TFEU.
I can't say DEFINITIVELY that this is incorrect under EU law (which I am not familiar with), but I can say that this FORM of argument, which is often beloved by non-lawyers, almost never succeeds.

You are confusing two different things:

1. Whether or not an EU consumer has the right to utilize a particular business offer that is offered to nationals of other EU members.

2. Whether or not a business, consistent with EU law, can require that you not misrepresent your address as part of a purchase.

2 does not depend on 1. United Airlines is entitled to insist on your real address for many reasons: (a) to contact you if there is a problem with your ticket purchase, (b) to verify the credit card you use to make your purchase, (c) to comply with governmental requirements including the TSA, etc., (d) to credit FF miles correctly if there are differences in the program rules for residents of different countries (note that EU rules do not prohibit offering different terms to EU and non-EU members), etc.

So a rule that says "if you don't provide your real address, your ticket is voidable" is entirely enforceable. Furthermore, even if that rule does not appear in United's CoC, misrepresenting your address to purchase an airline ticket, if United considers your real address material to the transaction, is a form of contractual fraud. And contracts can be rescinded for fraud, both in the US and in the EU (and just about everywhere else).

What you are doing is trying to circumvent 2 with 1, by saying "in this instance, what the website was doing was offering a preferential fare to Denmark residents in violation of EU rules". That is quite true, and that and 32 Kroners can get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks in Copenhagen. But it's not relevant here.

Obviously one reason it isn't relevant here is because the preferential fare was a mistake. Screwing up the programming on your website is not the same as intentionally engaging in price discrimination among EU nations.

Here's a simple example of this. Suppose United just flat got the exchange rate wrong. They exchanged Kroners at 30 cents on the dollar instead of 15 cents on the dollar. As a result, people buying tickets in Kroners got a deal. Now, if United decided to HONOR those tickets, would that violate the EU rule? I can't see how it would-- United wasn't intentionally discriminating in favor of Danes; there was a technical glitch, and they made a customer service gesture. That's not what the purpose of the EU rule is.

And that's the thing about law. You can't interpret statutes and regulations while ignoring their purpose. This rule's purpose is to prohibit businesses from intentionally offering services at a cheaper rate in France than they do in Germany. It's not to punish businesses for making mistakes, or to dictate their customer service practices when they do.

But the alleged violation of the EU regulation is also not relevant for a second reason-- the remedy you seek is not available for this alleged violation. Even if we construe this as "United offering a fare to Danish residents that is not available to other EU residents", which of these two options is the legally permissible way of obtaining a remedy:

1. Complaining to the proper authorities and requesting that United be ordered to offer the mistake fare to people living throughout the EU.

2. Fraudulently misrepresenting to United that you are Danish in order to get the fare?

If you chose "1", you are correct. If you chose "2", you are making the argument that I am telling you courts almost never accept.
dilanesp is offline  
Old Feb 12, 2015, 2:13 pm
  #2942  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Programs: Flying Blue Gold, Air Berlin Gold, Etihad Silver (bad move)
Posts: 420
Originally Posted by sonofzeus
Did I mention the process would be time consuming?
Everything worthwhile takes a little time
Irelandflyer is offline  
Old Feb 12, 2015, 2:17 pm
  #2943  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: BRU, AMS
Programs: Miles & More, FlyingBlue, Iberia Plus Gold
Posts: 485
I have been a long time lurker on this forum, trying to learn from the experts here and grasping information where possible.

So this is the first time I'll contribute as for once,I tried to book this deal.

First I'd like to thank all the people participating to this thread, thanks for sharing the deal and thank for all the reflections.

Regarding my actual thoughts; I booked the deal as I thought it could be the only chance I would have in my life to experience first. I will not get into the debate whether this is ethical or not. I have realized that where money is involded in a game, most people will try to cheat if they have a possibility. This applies to individuals but also to companies which use (often legal) incredible tricks to avoid taxes. So no suprise here.

Also, I am personally not outraged or shocked by the fact United tries the cancel the bookings.

What rather shocked me is how they handled the file. I really think the cancellation mail they sent is really rude: there was not a single word of excuse in this mail. I almost had the feeling United called me & other people who booked the fare 'crooks'.

There was no hack involved in getting the deal; I would have understood this wording in hacking some hacking/complicated manipulation of the website was involved. This was definitely not the case here: all you needed here wasa bunch of very simple clicks on the website. And yet this mail was basically blaming a third party and then blaming the customer for booking the fare, their declarations to the media also gave the same feeling.

Some people with less insight on what was going on here may have made other bookings (hotels, cars, ...) based on this and now need to cancel those too. This is why a word of excuse would have been a minimum minimorum in this case... Really this is not how a commercial company should treat (potential) customers. If anyone from United reads this thread, you really messed up with communication.

Now on how United could (have) handled this, I can think of 5 actions ranging from a minimum to the most favourable solution for the customers:
1. Send a word of excuse.
2. Send a word of excuses supplemented with a $ voucher for a next booking with them as an apology.
3. Honor the booked trip but downgrade all of them to Y class.
4. Honor the flights operated on UA and find another solution for flights on partner airlines.
5. Honor everything in original booked class.

If nothing is done, I think people will probably remember this story the next time they compare airfares.

I will conclude with a question.

The wording I copy-pasted below from the DOT FAQ seems very direct and straightforward to me. It seems very difficult for United to escape section 399.88 when a strict reading of this FAQ is applied. So I wonder how a FAQ is to be enforced in the US . I have some knowledge about ( most European and financial) law: some FAQs sometimes only give guidance as to how the law should be read. They still allow the actors/authorities to deviate from what the FAQ states in some specific cases. Could anybody with a US legal background give some more info on how this type of legal instrument works in the US?

" Therefore, if a consumer purchases a fare and that consumer receives confir mation (such as a confirmation email and/or the purchase appears on their credit card statement or online account summary ) of their purchase, then the seller of air transportation cannot increase the price of that air transportation to that consumer, even when the fare is a “mistake.”

A contract of carriage provision that reserves the right to cancel such ticketed purchases or reserves the right to raise the fare cannot legalize the practice described above. The Enforcement Office would consider any
contract of carriage provision that attempts to relieve a carrier of the prohibition against post -purchase price increase to be an unfair and deceptive practice
in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 41712."
tymoon25 is offline  
Old Feb 12, 2015, 2:18 pm
  #2944  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: LHR
Programs: Ex-NWA Plat
Posts: 1,486
Originally Posted by JohnnyColombia

Cheap opportunistic flights or not, it would be nice to see a ruling that actually it indeed is the airline's responsibility to make sure the information on its website is accurate and if they do contract out expertise or data provision, that does not absolve them of responsibility. That for me would be a bigger win than having a cheap ride on Luftie
^:-:^
gottaluvNW is offline  
Old Feb 12, 2015, 2:22 pm
  #2945  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 60137
Posts: 10,499
Originally Posted by Irelandflyer
Everything worthwhile takes a little time
Cheap, fast, good...pick 2.

We'd be willing to settle for one-half of what we purchased since the return leg would have been discarded.
sonofzeus is offline  
Old Feb 12, 2015, 2:25 pm
  #2946  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London / Los Angeles
Programs: Hilton Diamond, IHG Diamond Ambassador, Marriott Platinum, Hyatt Globalist, BA Silver
Posts: 1,635
Originally Posted by dilanesp
I can't say DEFINITIVELY that this is incorrect under EU law (which I am not familiar with), but I can say that this FORM of argument, which is often beloved by non-lawyers, almost never succeeds.

You are confusing two different things:

1. Whether or not an EU consumer has the right to utilize a particular business offer that is offered to nationals of other EU members.

2. Whether or not a business, consistent with EU law, can require that you not misrepresent your address as part of a purchase.

2 does not depend on 1. United Airlines is entitled to insist on your real address for many reasons....

What you are doing is trying to circumvent 2 with 1, by saying "in this instance, what the website was doing was offering a preferential fare to Denmark residents in violation of EU rules". That is quite true...but it's not relevant here.

Obviously one reason it isn't relevant here is because the preferential fare was a mistake. Screwing up the programming on your website is not the same as intentionally engaging in price discrimination among EU nations.
Good first time post.

Basically you seem to be saying two things:

1) The requirement that United offer fares to all EU citizens without discrimination does not entitle you to use a false billing country. This seems to make perfect sense. In a sense, this is the legal equivalent of "two wrongs do not make a right".

2) The above is most likely completely irrelevant anyway as this was a mistake, and not a preferential fare that United intended to offer.

I am not a lawyer(sounds like you might be) but your argument seems pretty sound.
Enigma368 is offline  
Old Feb 12, 2015, 2:25 pm
  #2947  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bay Area, CA
Programs: UA Plat 2MM; AS MVP Gold 75K
Posts: 35,072
Originally Posted by Irelandflyer
I'd be reluctant to start discussing what compromise would be appropriate as it would seem to tacitly acknowledge UA can weasel out of the contract.
Settling is not weaseling. Settling would acknowledge that both sides may be willing to agree to something that may not be what the original contract was.

United Continental Holdings does not want to fly people for the price paid in the cabin booked.

Many purchasers may not necessarily need the trip, rather they bought it because it was a good deal and would have otherwise taken it had it not been for the cancellation.

United Continental Holdings may also have a liability for their actions, specifically in unilaterally canceling the tickets.

Offering the purchaser something of perceived value that they desire in exchange for canceling the original trip purchased, while also releasing United Continental Holdings of their liability, may be a win-win.

Reminds me of the HA ICN deal a few years back -- they gave people a free Y ticket on HA when they canceled the ticket. HA knew perfectly well that the purchasers were mostly Americans and had to position to ICN for the trip.

United Continental Holdings knows just as well that most purchasers were likely Americans, and they would need to position to LHR or wherever to start their trips. That carries a cost -- both in cash and time. As such, if given the option of taking the trip as purchased, or being offered an alternative (e.g., voucher, miles, upgrade, etc.), I suspect many would sign a release for the right settlement.
channa is offline  
Old Feb 12, 2015, 2:28 pm
  #2948  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: FRA/MUC/NUE
Programs: M&M SEN, Starbucks Gold
Posts: 315
Originally Posted by channa
United Continental Holdings knows just as well that most purchasers were likely Americans, and they would need to position to LHR or wherever to start their trips. That carries a cost -- both in cash and time. As such, if given the option of taking the trip as purchased, or being offered an alternative (e.g., voucher, miles, upgrade, etc.), I suspect many would sign a release for the right settlement.
Still in for my Flights and in the booked class.
For me this was the one time chance to experience F with LH as my company does not waste money on F tickets.
FlyingLasse is offline  
Old Feb 12, 2015, 2:30 pm
  #2949  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 110
Originally Posted by dilanesp
Long time lurker, first time poster here. I wanted to respond to this:



I can't say DEFINITIVELY that this is incorrect under EU law (which I am not familiar with), but I can say that this FORM of argument, which is often beloved by non-lawyers, almost never succeeds.

You are confusing two different things:

1. Whether or not an EU consumer has the right to utilize a particular business offer that is offered to nationals of other EU members.

2. Whether or not a business, consistent with EU law, can require that you not misrepresent your address as part of a purchase.

2 does not depend on 1. United Airlines is entitled to insist on your real address for many reasons: (a) to contact you if there is a problem with your ticket purchase, (b) to verify the credit card you use to make your purchase, (c) to comply with governmental requirements including the TSA, etc., (d) to credit FF miles correctly if there are differences in the program rules for residents of different countries (note that EU rules do not prohibit offering different terms to EU and non-EU members), etc.

So a rule that says "if you don't provide your real address, your ticket is voidable" is entirely enforceable. Furthermore, even if that rule does not appear in United's CoC, misrepresenting your address to purchase an airline ticket, if United considers your real address material to the transaction, is a form of contractual fraud. And contracts can be rescinded for fraud, both in the US and in the EU (and just about everywhere else).

What you are doing is trying to circumvent 2 with 1, by saying "in this instance, what the website was doing was offering a preferential fare to Denmark residents in violation of EU rules". That is quite true, and that and 32 Kroners can get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks in Copenhagen. But it's not relevant here.

Obviously one reason it isn't relevant here is because the preferential fare was a mistake. Screwing up the programming on your website is not the same as intentionally engaging in price discrimination among EU nations.

Here's a simple example of this. Suppose United just flat got the exchange rate wrong. They exchanged Kroners at 30 cents on the dollar instead of 15 cents on the dollar. As a result, people buying tickets in Kroners got a deal. Now, if United decided to HONOR those tickets, would that violate the EU rule? I can't see how it would-- United wasn't intentionally discriminating in favor of Danes; there was a technical glitch, and they made a customer service gesture. That's not what the purpose of the EU rule is.

And that's the thing about law. You can't interpret statutes and regulations while ignoring their purpose. This rule's purpose is to prohibit businesses from intentionally offering services at a cheaper rate in France than they do in Germany. It's not to punish businesses for making mistakes, or to dictate their customer service practices when they do.

But the alleged violation of the EU regulation is also not relevant for a second reason-- the remedy you seek is not available for this alleged violation. Even if we construe this as "United offering a fare to Danish residents that is not available to other EU residents", which of these two options is the legally permissible way of obtaining a remedy:

1. Complaining to the proper authorities and requesting that United be ordered to offer the mistake fare to people living throughout the EU.

2. Fraudulently misrepresenting to United that you are Danish in order to get the fare?

If you chose "1", you are correct. If you chose "2", you are making the argument that I am telling you courts almost never accept.
I agree broadly with some of your analysis and your're right elements are over simplified however some more points to note:
  • [*]
  • [*]
  • [*]
  • [*]
  • [*]
exitcontrol is offline  
Old Feb 12, 2015, 2:36 pm
  #2950  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Programs: UA Silver/Marriott Gold/Hilton Gold
Posts: 540
This thread is in the running for the Comedy of the Year 2015.
Majikow is offline  
Old Feb 12, 2015, 2:37 pm
  #2951  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: FRA/MUC/NUE
Programs: M&M SEN, Starbucks Gold
Posts: 315
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/40492...#sp=show-clips
FlyingLasse is offline  
Old Feb 12, 2015, 2:46 pm
  #2952  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Programs: BA Gold, IB Silver, TP Gold
Posts: 95
Originally Posted by Irelandflyer
I want what I paid for. An old-fashioned notion, I know...

I'd be reluctant to start discussing what compromise would be appropriate as it would seem to tacitly acknowledge UA can weasel out of the contract.
Are u based in EU/Ireland?
I have no idea how to deal with this situation here

Cheers
DTCFlyer is offline  
Old Feb 12, 2015, 2:54 pm
  #2953  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: The electrified part of North Carolina
Programs: UA GM, AA GM, DL GM
Posts: 4,157
Originally Posted by tymoon25
What rather shocked me is how they handled the file. I really think the cancellation mail they sent is really rude: there was not a single word of excuse in this mail.
Welcome to the world of United Airlines

There was no hack involved in getting the deal; I would have understood this wording in hacking some hacking/complicated manipulation of the website was involved.
For people who have a Danish billing address for their credit card (or used PayPal or WE), I agree that no "hack" was needed. As I stated earlier, I think that UA should honor those tickets.

For people who used a credit card with a non-Danish billing address, there was a "hack" needed: stating that your billing address is in Denmark and/or other "hacks".
As one FT poster described it:
I provided the Adress of my friend who lives in Denmark. Once the transaction was on "Verified by Visa", I entered my German adress. easy as that.
UA1K_no_more is offline  
Old Feb 12, 2015, 2:56 pm
  #2954  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: LAS,LAX,SEA
Programs: AA,UA/CO, SPG50, Hilton Gold
Posts: 430
useless information
Bacopa is offline  
Old Feb 12, 2015, 2:56 pm
  #2955  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: FRA/MUC/NUE
Programs: M&M SEN, Starbucks Gold
Posts: 315
Originally Posted by UA1K_no_more
Welcome to the world of United Airlines


For people who have a Danish billing address for their credit card (or used PayPal or WE), I agree that no "hack" was needed. As I stated earlier, I think that UA should honor those tickets.

For people who used a credit card with a non-Danish billing address, there was a "hack" needed: stating that your billing address is in Denmark and/or other "hacks".
As one FT poster described it:
Thats not a "hack". That is "usage as intended", as it is intended to switch back and forth between countrys and use different countrys. Billing adress is only for authorisation purposes as someone said earlier.
FlyingLasse is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.