milypan

It's not even HCT specific at this point. The very first sentence of the contract states that by purchasing the ticket I verify that I agree to and understand all of the fare rules and CoC provisions. I am telling you that I do not. Forget understanding them, I haven't even read all of them. Do you really not believe me on this?

Given your philosophy, I figured that would be your one exception. Fortunately in this specific case the HCT provision only been deemed unenforceable in court by UA, not by the court itself. So I'm guessing that means you'd still be unwilling to ignore it.

Edit: At first pass I overlooked that you do actually believe one has an ethical obligation to adhere to unreasonable provisions. Interesting. So if UA tomorrow added a clause to the CoC that you must eat a plate of dog feces before you can depart the aircraft, then all passengers who bought tickets tomorrow would be ethically compelled to do so (as I'm not aware of any applicable law that prohibits the eating of dog feces, and obviously the clause would not yet have been tested in court.). Well, I'm glad I understand that now. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

As I admit above, guilty as charged. Every. Single. Time. As is everyone else who buys an airline ticket in this country, other than a select few on this board.

Of course not. UA took this to court and it got thrown out. That was over three years ago, and, AFAIK, they haven't made any attempt to refile the case. That speaks volumes as to what they think their chance of prevailing would be.

Honestly, I think the most unreasonable part of the contract is the first clause, i.e. that I agree to and understand all fare rules and the CoC. I haven't read the full CoC, but I've read fare rules before, and I never come away fully understanding them.

I don't adhere to the very first provision of the contract (see above). Neither does anyone else in the country, except a few on this board.

I'm certain America[n] has the same contract. Thanks for the suggestions, but I'll just break the contract and continue flying.

You may be confusing me with someone else. I think the HCT restriction is silly, but I don't dislike silly things per se. To the contrary I find it mildly amusing that UA puts it in there, and I found it even more amusing that they tried to enforce it in court. In that sense I kind of enjoy it.

Often1

Nobody here knows who UA will pursue for ticket fraud issues. But, it appears to have been set up in a fairly automated manner and does not involve UA suing or otherwise interacting with the offender. E.g., you violate your ticket conditions and UA sends you an invoice. If you do not pay up, UA either or both shuts down your MP account or reports the credit deficiency.

Will this happen if you do it once, twice, or ten times? Anybody here who claims to have insight, does not. Perhaps UA will use a dollar cutoff, perhaps an occurence cutoff and perhaps it will insert some randomness into the process. Perhaps it will look particularly hard at people flying on tickets issued by corporate TA's (where UA can simply debit the TA and leave it to the TA to collect or not from the customer).

As to the contract (COC), analogies don't work. You either agree to the COC or you don't get your ticket. You can't agree to the conditions and then change them and the idea that you can send a letter to the RA (who exists solely to accept service of complaints) and tell the RA of a future violation and somehow make the problem go away is even more ludicrous than the rest.

This will be an interesting topic to revisit in a year. More likely, most who are invoiced won't show up on FT to whine.

Colin

milypan

Colin

corporations insert bs into their terms all the time - MLB tells me that I can't describe the smackdown the Dodgers are just about to deliver to the Brewers - and I will do it anyway, because whatever crap some corporation inserts into its terms does not define the bounds of morality. that's what a brain is for.

physioprof

You are misunderstanding the legal significance of the term "verify that I agree to and understand all of the fare rules and CoC provisions", which is a representation you are making by buying the ticket. The is no legal significance to whether you actually agree and/or understand, or not, which is the entire point of including a representation in a contract. By making the representation, you are giving United the legal right to rely on the conclusion that you do agree and understand, regardless of whether you actually do, and you are foreclosing yourself from arguing later that you didn't agree or understand.

milypan

Colin

mic drop

WineCountryUA

Has that happened?

In the case of Skiplagged -- they were not a party to the CoC (a defect many had with the UA case) and apparently the court dropped the case for a jurisdiction issue -- nothing related to the merits of the case. So neither of those apply to a passenger.

Actually not aware of anyone posting that a passenger was taken to court.

Xyzzy

I like it -- but that's not quite it. In practice, UA never even notices and doesn't confiscate anything. End f story.

UA isn't going to do anything -- unless you do whatever it is something approaching the 38 times being discussed here.

Often1

You haven't read the recent reporting, albeit in travel blogs, about actions UA is taking. If they are accurate (and the sample letter published at least appears to be that), UA has simply repriced the tickets in question and invoiced the passenger. The UA letter then simply states that should the passenger not pay, UA may close the passenger's MP account and refer the matter to a collection agency.

If UA does not have the intent to follow through, no sane attorney would advise it to write such a letter. And UA doesn't do anything without consulting one of its attorneys.

So, nobody gets taken to court by UA. You just lose your MP account (and thus status & miles) and face the prospect of a loused up credit rating.

Whether you bother to read the contract or not is up to you. But, until you check the box acknowledging that you accept the terms and conditions, you don't get a ticket. Once you do check the box, here in the US you've done the same thing as signing a paper copy with a pen. Same in most of the world.

milypan

Colin

bocastephen

Good question, but IIRC, acceptance of the COC is implied with the purchase of any ticket regardless of channel.

As to UA being able to collect on such a "balance billed" invoice, the answer is very likely "no". They could send the invoice to collections, but this is something even a basic debt collection attorney can get tossed easily. However, UA can terminate the MP account and there is nothing one can do about that, hence my warning upthread - don't poop where you sleep, especially if you care about your bedsheets.

Often1

This is the key. AA went through a spate of account shutdowns for misuse of miles and certs. Both are property of the carrier at AA, as well as at UA. Shutting down the account means: 1. Miles zeroed out, 2. Status gone, 3. Pending tickets paid with miles cancelled, 4. Pending upgrades paid with certs revoked.

And they're just gone. Can't even deduct the loss unless you were crazy enough to have reported the income when you earned them.