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 14, 2015, 3:28 pm
  #3796  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 60137
Posts: 10,498
Originally Posted by ryan754
It is a bit funny.... At the moment United is offering 2 Euro each way fares TXL (Berlin) to ORD ((Chicago) It's been around a while, and is the same base fare as this one.. In Coach maybe, but still a low base fare with a bunch of fuel charges from when fuel was $100 a barrel..
Time for a new thread about this opp.

I'm ready for more combat with Untied.

Last edited by sonofzeus; Feb 14, 2015 at 3:37 pm
sonofzeus is offline  
Old Feb 14, 2015, 3:28 pm
  #3797  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Usually in SAN or Central Europe.
Programs: AA:EXP/1MM. Accor/Radisson:Silver; HH:Gold; ICH:Plt Amb.
Posts: 22,307
So how is it that the DOT is going to put pressure on UA to honor these tickets? Seeing that people had to falsely put Denmark as their home address in order for the system to give the low fare. UA cancelled these tickets and gave the buyers their money back. They didn't ask for more money in order to honor the tickets.
Fanjet is offline  
Old Feb 14, 2015, 3:32 pm
  #3798  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 60137
Posts: 10,498
Originally Posted by Fanjet
So how is it that the DOT is going to put pressure on UA to honor these tickets? Seeing that people had to falsely put Denmark as their home address in order for the system to give the low fare. UA cancelled these tickets and gave the buyers their money back. They didn't ask for more money in order to honor the tickets.
My refund requests have been declined on 2 tix. If the pending charges on the Chase Visa do not drop off this week, I will be seeing United's attorneys in court.
sonofzeus is offline  
Old Feb 14, 2015, 3:33 pm
  #3799  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: NYC
Programs: QF LTG
Posts: 1,200
Originally Posted by Fanjet
So how is it that the DOT is going to put pressure on UA to honor these tickets? Seeing that people had to falsely put Denmark as their home address in order for the system to give the low fare. UA cancelled these tickets and gave the buyers their money back. They didn't ask for more money in order to honor the tickets.
Yes they did. The cancelation email I received stated that I could go and rebook on their website for a higher price. Translation if you want us to honour your travel give us more money.
PbodyPhoto is offline  
Old Feb 14, 2015, 3:38 pm
  #3800  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
Originally Posted by Fanjet
Seeing that people had to falsely put Denmark as their home address in order for the system to give the low fare. UA cancelled these tickets and gave the buyers their money back. They didn't ask for more money in order to honor the tickets.
People didn't have to do what you suggest "had to" be done. Lots of these issued tickets with coupon status marked by UA as "voided" were actually booked by people in Denmark and/or from Denmark and/or with Danish bank cards on the day these tickets were sold. And yet UA voided things for all such customers too. I was in Denmark on the day I became aware of this fare and had locals book it.

And UA did ask passengers for more money in order to transport the customers on the flights as booked on these tickets.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Feb 14, 2015, 3:41 pm
  #3801  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 60137
Posts: 10,498
Originally Posted by Fanjet
So how is it that the DOT is going to put pressure on UA to honor these tickets? .
Settle with the mob or pay us 27k per incident.
sonofzeus is offline  
Old Feb 14, 2015, 3:49 pm
  #3802  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 11
Originally Posted by Fanjet
So how is it that the DOT is going to put pressure on UA to honor these tickets? Seeing that people had to falsely put Denmark as their home address in order for the system to give the low fare. UA cancelled these tickets and gave the buyers their money back. They didn't ask for more money in order to honor the tickets.
Nobody was forced to put in Denmark as home address. To obtain low fare
Nobody was forced to put in Denmark as billing address. To obtain low fare
I purchased tickets without doing either.
Others placed Denmark in both or either field as their home/billing address was so.
Others ommited to change the default billing country from Denmark - not a big deal.
The situation is much more complex than your version above what is a fact is UA removed legimitate/questionable (depending what side of fence you sit at) bookings without notice or reason as far as my booking was concerned.

Last edited by nonamethanks; Feb 14, 2015 at 3:50 pm Reason: Increase info provided.
nonamethanks is offline  
Old Feb 14, 2015, 3:50 pm
  #3803  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Programs: united
Posts: 1,636
To all those arguing that the EC nondiscrimination rule means that United MUST offer the same mistake fare to anyone in the EU that is offered to a Dane, and that the EU will certainly "educate" United about this if United says otherwise, a simple question.

Suppose the computer terminal at the ticketing counter at Barajas Airport in Madrid malfunctions, and as a result anyone who walks up to that ticket counter to purchase a ticket, for a week or so until the problem is fixed, ends up getting charged 1/3 of the regular fare.

United discovers the error and announces it will HONOR all the tickets as a customer service gesture.

At that point, someone who lives in Amsterdam brings an EU complaint arguing that United's customer service gesture violates the nondiscrimination rule, because the mistake fare was not offered on an equal basis to residents of Holland.

Do they win?

If your answer is "no", please explain how this case is different.

If your answer is "yes", I would respectfully say you are wrong. The issue of customer service gestures and dealing with the company's errors is simply not the same thing as discrimination (the discrimination rule would apply if United, for instance, published a base fare that was substantially different for residents of Holland than the published fare on the same flight for residents of Spain).
dilanesp is offline  
Old Feb 14, 2015, 4:00 pm
  #3804  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Usually in SAN or Central Europe.
Programs: AA:EXP/1MM. Accor/Radisson:Silver; HH:Gold; ICH:Plt Amb.
Posts: 22,307
Originally Posted by PbodyPhoto
Yes they did. The cancelation email I received stated that I could go and rebook on their website for a higher price. Translation if you want us to honour your travel give us more money.
No. They cancelled your ticket and refunded your money. There was nothing left for them to honour at that point. You were not being obligated to go back and rebook with them.
Fanjet is offline  
Old Feb 14, 2015, 4:01 pm
  #3805  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: BTS
Posts: 611
Originally Posted by dilanesp
To all those arguing that the EC nondiscrimination rule means that United MUST offer the same mistake fare to anyone in the EU that is offered to a Dane, and that the EU will certainly "educate" United about this if United says otherwise, a simple question.

Suppose the computer terminal at the ticketing counter at Barajas Airport in Madrid malfunctions, and as a result anyone who walks up to that ticket counter to purchase a ticket, for a week or so until the problem is fixed, ends up getting charged 1/3 of the regular fare.

United discovers the error and announces it will HONOR all the tickets as a customer service gesture.

At that point, someone who lives in Amsterdam brings an EU complaint arguing that United's customer service gesture violates the nondiscrimination rule, because the mistake fare was not offered on an equal basis to residents of Holland.

Do they win?

If your answer is "no", please explain how this case is different.

If your answer is "yes", I would respectfully say you are wrong. The issue of customer service gestures and dealing with the company's errors is simply not the same thing as discrimination (the discrimination rule would apply if United, for instance, published a base fare that was substantially different for residents of Holland than the published fare on the same flight for residents of Spain).
Your analogy is completely incorrect and even I would wipe the floor with you in a court room!

It would be the same if someone from AMS ***accessed*** the MAD terminal through regular means, i.e. the MAD terminal was meant to be accessible by everyone, and was denied because he/she is dutch. In other words, merchants are not obliged to offer the same products or services to everyone, but if they do, they cannot discriminate based on customers nationality/residency/billing address etc. Anyone from EU (or anywhere else for that matter) can change their country to Denmark (for various reasons), i.e. there is no ip reserve lookup check, and United.com is actually meant to allow customers to choose their point of sale. Once you do that, you cannot discriminate EU customers.

Originally Posted by Fanjet
No. They cancelled your ticket and refunded your money. There was nothing left for them to honour at that point. You were not being obligated to go back and rebook with them.
Wow, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. BTW, although completely immaterial to Section 399.88(a) not a single transaction has been refunded (at least my bank account still shows all charges)

Last edited by scibuff; Feb 14, 2015 at 4:07 pm
scibuff is offline  
Old Feb 14, 2015, 4:05 pm
  #3806  
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: BQH
Programs: United Airlines F for Fudge You Fanclub
Posts: 40
Originally Posted by IAN-UK
[*] if you were one of the early flyers and had your ticket revoked by UA, then a positive ruling by DOT would almost certainly bring you compensation for your loss. You couldn't have compensation from the European regulation as well, even if it were possible to enforce the regulation retroactively. [/LIST]
The whole issue rests on whether or not United can cry 'mistake' to DOT and be allowed to void our contracts, if we fly we fly on the contracts we entered into when purchasing our flights, it's not a case of new contracts suddenly coming into existence if DOT rule that we can fly.

If United can't void the contracts everyone who has been denied boarding has and always has had a valid reservation as defined by EU261, therefore they are and always have been covered by the regulation.

Airlines can not, and hopefully never will be able to, avoid EU261 by simply voiding a ticket, advising a passenger that they won't be boarding their scheduled flight, then reinstating their ticket 30 minutes later
rachcollins is offline  
Old Feb 14, 2015, 4:09 pm
  #3807  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Programs: united
Posts: 1,636
Originally Posted by scibuff
Your analogy is completely incorrect and even I would wipe the floor with you in a court room!

It would be the same if someone from AMS ***accessed*** the MAD terminal through regular means, i.e. the MAD terminal was meant to be accessible by everyone, and was denied because he/she is dutch. In other words, merchants are not obliged to offer the same products or services to everyone, but if they do, they cannot discriminate based on customers nationality/residency/billing address etc. Anyone from EU (or anywhere else for that matter) can change their country to Denmark (for various reasons), i.e. there is no ip reserve lookup check, and United.com is actually meant to allow customers to choose their point of sale. Once you do that, you cannot discriminate EU customers.
The problem with that argument, simply speaking, is that you are assuming that a non-discrimination rule guarantees you equal access to gross mistakes, as opposed to equal access to the actual intended price of a product.

(EDIT: the second problem is that the remedy for this was to complain to the EU, not to change the billing address to Denmark or the currency selection to DKK. Anyone could have made a formal complaint that this fare was not being offered to anyone other than Danes. Why didn't people do that instead of changing billing address or currency selection? I wonder.... )

I highly doubt that anyone in the relevant regulatory agencies is going to see the issue the way you see it. But I wish you luck nonetheless.

Last edited by dilanesp; Feb 14, 2015 at 4:15 pm
dilanesp is offline  
Old Feb 14, 2015, 4:12 pm
  #3808  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: FRA/MUC/NUE
Programs: M&M SEN, Starbucks Gold
Posts: 315
Originally Posted by dilanesp
The problem with that argument, simply speaking, is that you are assuming that a non-discrimination rule guarantees you equal access to gross mistakes, as opposed to equal access to the actual intended price of a product.

I highly doubt that anyone in the relevant regulatory agencies is going to see the issue the way you see it. But I wish you luck nonetheless.
Doesnt matter.

If it really comes down to billing adress or location, such a claim WILL NOT STAND. at least not for european customers.

But UA should be wise enough, not to do this.
FlyingLasse is offline  
Old Feb 14, 2015, 4:19 pm
  #3809  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: HEL
Programs: AY+ Gold (OWS)
Posts: 528
Originally Posted by dilanesp
The problem with that argument, simply speaking, is that you are assuming that a non-discrimination rule guarantees you equal access to gross mistakes, as opposed to equal access to the actual intended price of a product.

I highly doubt that anyone in the relevant regulatory agencies is going to see the issue the way you see it. But I wish you luck nonetheless.
I'm inclined to agree with this. Most, if not all, European countries (at least civil law countries) follow the abuse of rights doctrine. According to the doctrine, the law cannot be used for a malicious purpose or in bad faith. Therefore, one may not exercise the fundamental TFEU right to buy a service in Denmark, if the sole purpose for doing so is to take advantage of United's clear mistake. I don't think anyone can argue that the mistake wasn't clear.

Due to this (and the fact that EU law on mistake pricing in general is pretty clear; clear mistakes do not have to be honored), I would not hold my hopes up on getting the €600 based on EU261.

That being said, I am holding my hopes up with the DOT, as I have seven of these trips booked.

EDIT: I should add that the $1.5k fares to Australia are a whole different ball game. $1.5 k is something that could be considered an excellent deal rather than a mistake fare. However, since these fares represent the vast minority of bookings, the question isn't really that interesting.

Last edited by deissi; Feb 14, 2015 at 4:25 pm
deissi is offline  
Old Feb 14, 2015, 4:19 pm
  #3810  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Programs: united
Posts: 1,636
Originally Posted by FlyingLasse
Doesnt matter.

If it really comes down to billing adress or location, such a claim WILL NOT STAND. at least not for european customers.

But UA should be wise enough, not to do this.
You seem mighty confident about the sort of claim that lawyers constantly tell new or inexperienced clients tends to be a weak one-- that an adjudicator should rely on an overly-literalistic reading of legal language to effectuate an unjust result that could never have constituted the mutual intent of the parties, using legal rules that were created for a completely different purpose.

I'm not saying this never wins, but if I were to define the difference between the legal views of civil litigators and the rest of the population, I'd fix it right here-- civil litigators view this sort of claim as the second weakest possible claim (with the only weaker one being where the literal language of the statute doesn't even support the claim or a case precedent rejects it), whereas the rest of the population seems to think that what courts and regulators love to do is rule in favor of people based on technicalities despite it being totally out of whack with everyone's intent in the matter.
dilanesp 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.