UAs Official Response to HKG Ticketing/IT Error: Redeem @ Correct Amount or Redeposit
Jul 16, 2012, 10:39 pm
#196
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Here and there
Programs: General member, former 1P
Posts: 583
ok, guys/gals... I'm all in tonight... I've played the DoT game before and even sued airlines in small claims court. Seriously, I want to solve this amicabilly, but I've got my Popcorn and a cold beer ready.
This is going down in the history books, either good or bad. We are testing DoT regulations to the max on this discriminatory unilateral action from UA.
Passengers have travelled for 8 miles, I will not be discriminated against!
This is going down in the history books, either good or bad. We are testing DoT regulations to the max on this discriminatory unilateral action from UA.
Passengers have travelled for 8 miles, I will not be discriminated against!
And if you think UA will have to spend "a few hours" responding to your complaint, you're deluding yourself. The response will be boilerplate used for all the complaints. A paralegal - maybe even an offshore paralegal working for $2 an hour - will cut-and-paste or mail merge. The administrative cost of handling each complaint will be a couple bucks.
I'm not taking a position on who is "right" or "wrong," and I haven't taken the time to use Google and become a Certified FT Legal Expert. The DOT web site says this or that. Fine. Whatever.
But I have some knowledge, training and experience regarding the larger process. And I ask: Who do you think is more familiar with federal consumer protection regulations for air travel? A frequent flyer with a DSL line or UA's inside counsel? Or, better yet, a frequent flyer or UA's outside counsel on K Street in Washington that specializes in representing the airlines' interests before federal regulatory bodies?
This debacle consumed 95 percent of the oxygen in FT for a couple days, but I strongly suspect that it has consumed 1/100th of 1 percent of the oxygen inside UA. At most. They've got bigger fish to fry. It got kicked to legal for a few hours. They did some research - and probably made some informal phone calls to their "regulators" at the DOT, with whom they surely have longstanding relationships with - and crafted the message that UA Insider posted. Most folks will accept the redeposit-with-no-fee offer. Some will file DOT complaints. A couple may threaten to sue. Everyone will be dealt with in due time. Some bones may be thrown, but not in the form of free tickets to HKG.
Parting shot: The DOT's Aviation Consumer Protection Division is directed by Norm Strickman. He will be one of the people deciding what federal action - if any - comes about as a result of this. Not judge, jury and executioner, but a man with a lot of influence.
Here is a 1999 article from The Baltimore Sun about Strickman and his division. Read it and ask yourself how sympathetic he will be to a bunch of mileage savants wanting to fly first class to Hong Kong for 8 miles.
Jul 16, 2012, 10:40 pm
#197
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Clinging to the edifices of a decadent past from the biggest city in America nobody really cares about.
Programs: (ಠ_ಠ)
Posts: 9,077
While I have no additional information beyond what's been posted, I *highly* doubt Shannon had any say in this whatsoever.
Rather, UA senior management tasked her with being the bearer of bad news and left her in an impossible situation.
Without commenting on the HKG fare itself, I personally find it deplorable senior management choose to effectively throw her to the wolves as one could reasonable think an EVP/SVP could have broke the news (as CO has done in the past.)
Rather, UA senior management tasked her with being the bearer of bad news and left her in an impossible situation.
Without commenting on the HKG fare itself, I personally find it deplorable senior management choose to effectively throw her to the wolves as one could reasonable think an EVP/SVP could have broke the news (as CO has done in the past.)
Jul 16, 2012, 10:40 pm
#199
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Denver • DEN-APA
Programs: AF Platinum, EK Gold, AA EXP, UA 1K, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 21,602
We all know it was a mistake but so what? They offered. We accepted. Tickets were issued and we have receipts that clearly document the transctions at a cost of 8 miles plus taxes/fees. Whether or not they are honored will now be up to the DOT.
I do think that the reaction we're seeing here is in part a desire to stick it to a regime that considers elites to be over-entitled and is in the process of destroying a once great airline.
I do think that the reaction we're seeing here is in part a desire to stick it to a regime that considers elites to be over-entitled and is in the process of destroying a once great airline.
Jul 16, 2012, 10:43 pm
#200
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: SFO
Programs: UA Silver
Posts: 1,155
We all know it was a mistake but so what? They offered. We accepted. Tickets were issued and we have receipts that clearly document the transctions at a cost of 8 miles plus taxes/fees. Whether or not they are honored will now be up to the DOT.
I do think that the reaction we're seeing here is in part a desire to stick it to a regime that considers elites to be over-entitled and is in the process of destroying a once great airline.
I do think that the reaction we're seeing here is in part a desire to stick it to a regime that considers elites to be over-entitled and is in the process of destroying a once great airline.
Jul 16, 2012, 10:43 pm
#201
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: MSY (finally); previously NYC, BOS, AUH
Programs: AA EXP, 6MM; BA GLD
Posts: 17,248
Hard to tell who is trolling and who is serious. But the great HKG 8-Mile Mistake Fare of 2012... "in the history books?" The dockets of every court in the land is full of forgotten litigation that had little impact on the litigants and no impact on anyone else. I suspect that this matter - if it generates litigation - will be no different.
And if you think UA will have to spend "a few hours" responding to your complaint, you're deluding yourself. The response will be boilerplate used for all the complaints. A paralegal - maybe even an offshore paralegal working for $2 an hour - will cut-and-paste or mail merge. The administrative cost of handling each complaint will be a couple bucks.
I'm not taking a position on who is "right" or "wrong," and I haven't taken the time to use Google and become a Certified FT Legal Expert. The DOT web site says this or that. Fine. Whatever.
But I have some knowledge, training and experience regarding the larger process. And I ask: Who do you think is more familiar with federal consumer protection regulations for air travel? A frequent flyer with a DSL line or UA's inside counsel? Or, better yet, a frequent flyer or UA's outside counsel on K Street in Washington that specializes in representing the airlines' interests before federal regulatory bodies?
This debacle consumed 95 percent of the oxygen in FT for a couple days, but I strongly suspect that it has consumed 1/100th of 1 percent of the oxygen inside UA. At most. They've got bigger fish to fry. It got kicked to legal for a few hours. They did some research - and probably made some informal phone calls to their "regulators" at the DOT, with whom they surely have longstanding relationships with - and crafted the message that UA Insider posted. Most folks will accept the redeposit-with-no-fee offer. Some will file DOT complaints. A couple may threaten to sue. Everyone will be dealt with in due time. Some bones may be thrown, but not in the form of free tickets to HKG.
Parting shot: The DOT's Aviation Consumer Protection Division is directed by Norm Strickman. He will be one of the people deciding what federal action - if any - comes about as a result of this. Not judge, jury and executioner, but a man with a lot of influence.
Here is a 1999 article from The Baltimore Sun about Strickman and his division. Read it and ask yourself how sympathetic he will be to a bunch of mileage savants wanting to fly first class to Hong Kong for 8 miles.
And if you think UA will have to spend "a few hours" responding to your complaint, you're deluding yourself. The response will be boilerplate used for all the complaints. A paralegal - maybe even an offshore paralegal working for $2 an hour - will cut-and-paste or mail merge. The administrative cost of handling each complaint will be a couple bucks.
I'm not taking a position on who is "right" or "wrong," and I haven't taken the time to use Google and become a Certified FT Legal Expert. The DOT web site says this or that. Fine. Whatever.
But I have some knowledge, training and experience regarding the larger process. And I ask: Who do you think is more familiar with federal consumer protection regulations for air travel? A frequent flyer with a DSL line or UA's inside counsel? Or, better yet, a frequent flyer or UA's outside counsel on K Street in Washington that specializes in representing the airlines' interests before federal regulatory bodies?
This debacle consumed 95 percent of the oxygen in FT for a couple days, but I strongly suspect that it has consumed 1/100th of 1 percent of the oxygen inside UA. At most. They've got bigger fish to fry. It got kicked to legal for a few hours. They did some research - and probably made some informal phone calls to their "regulators" at the DOT, with whom they surely have longstanding relationships with - and crafted the message that UA Insider posted. Most folks will accept the redeposit-with-no-fee offer. Some will file DOT complaints. A couple may threaten to sue. Everyone will be dealt with in due time. Some bones may be thrown, but not in the form of free tickets to HKG.
Parting shot: The DOT's Aviation Consumer Protection Division is directed by Norm Strickman. He will be one of the people deciding what federal action - if any - comes about as a result of this. Not judge, jury and executioner, but a man with a lot of influence.
Here is a 1999 article from The Baltimore Sun about Strickman and his division. Read it and ask yourself how sympathetic he will be to a bunch of mileage savants wanting to fly first class to Hong Kong for 8 miles.
Jul 16, 2012, 10:43 pm
#202
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Programs: Hilton G/SPG G/IHG RA/Accor P/Aeroplan Elite/CZ S
Posts: 73
According to UA insider's annoucement, the class is even lower when UA is able to void all legal purchased fare (please don't tell me it was illegal. Even if it was a mistake, it was UA's) without giving customers any option (neither rebook nor refund is an option). I didn't see David or any other forcing UA to accept an single option of honoring all reservations (certainly it could be one of the options). Base on all these facts, who is playing tricks here?
Jul 16, 2012, 10:43 pm
#203
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,578
Hard to tell who is trolling and who is serious. But the great HKG 8-Mile Mistake Fare of 2012... "in the history books?" The dockets of every court in the land is full of forgotten litigation that had little impact on the litigants and no impact on anyone else. I suspect that this matter - if it generates litigation - will be no different.
And if you think UA will have to spend "a few hours" responding to your complaint, you're deluding yourself. The response will be boilerplate used for all the complaints. A paralegal - maybe even an offshore paralegal working for $2 an hour - will cut-and-paste or mail merge. The administrative cost of handling each complaint will be a couple bucks.
I'm not taking a position on who is "right" or "wrong," and I haven't taken the time to use Google and become a Certified FT Legal Expert. The DOT web site says this or that. Fine. Whatever.
But I have some knowledge, training and experience regarding the larger process. And I ask: Who do you think is more familiar with federal consumer protection regulations for air travel? A frequent flyer with a DSL line or UA's inside counsel? Or, better yet, a frequent flyer or UA's outside counsel on K Street in Washington that specializes in representing the airlines' interests before federal regulatory bodies?
This debacle consumed 95 percent of the oxygen in FT for a couple days, but I strongly suspect that it has consumed 1/100th of 1 percent of the oxygen inside UA. At most. They've got bigger fish to fry. It got kicked to legal for a few hours. They did some research - and probably made some informal phone calls to their "regulators" at the DOT, with whom they surely have longstanding relationships with - and crafted the message that UA Insider posted. Most folks will accept the redeposit-with-no-fee offer. Some will file DOT complaints. A couple may threaten to sue. Everyone will be dealt with in due time. Some bones may be thrown, but not in the form of free tickets to HKG.
Parting shot: The DOT's Aviation Consumer Protection Division is directed by Norm Strickman. He will be one of the people deciding what federal action - if any - comes about as a result of this. Not judge, jury and executioner, but a man with a lot of influence.
Here is a 1999 article from The Baltimore Sun about Strickman and his division. Read it and ask yourself how sympathetic he will be to a bunch of mileage savants wanting to fly first class to Hong Kong for 8 miles.
And if you think UA will have to spend "a few hours" responding to your complaint, you're deluding yourself. The response will be boilerplate used for all the complaints. A paralegal - maybe even an offshore paralegal working for $2 an hour - will cut-and-paste or mail merge. The administrative cost of handling each complaint will be a couple bucks.
I'm not taking a position on who is "right" or "wrong," and I haven't taken the time to use Google and become a Certified FT Legal Expert. The DOT web site says this or that. Fine. Whatever.
But I have some knowledge, training and experience regarding the larger process. And I ask: Who do you think is more familiar with federal consumer protection regulations for air travel? A frequent flyer with a DSL line or UA's inside counsel? Or, better yet, a frequent flyer or UA's outside counsel on K Street in Washington that specializes in representing the airlines' interests before federal regulatory bodies?
This debacle consumed 95 percent of the oxygen in FT for a couple days, but I strongly suspect that it has consumed 1/100th of 1 percent of the oxygen inside UA. At most. They've got bigger fish to fry. It got kicked to legal for a few hours. They did some research - and probably made some informal phone calls to their "regulators" at the DOT, with whom they surely have longstanding relationships with - and crafted the message that UA Insider posted. Most folks will accept the redeposit-with-no-fee offer. Some will file DOT complaints. A couple may threaten to sue. Everyone will be dealt with in due time. Some bones may be thrown, but not in the form of free tickets to HKG.
Parting shot: The DOT's Aviation Consumer Protection Division is directed by Norm Strickman. He will be one of the people deciding what federal action - if any - comes about as a result of this. Not judge, jury and executioner, but a man with a lot of influence.
Here is a 1999 article from The Baltimore Sun about Strickman and his division. Read it and ask yourself how sympathetic he will be to a bunch of mileage savants wanting to fly first class to Hong Kong for 8 miles.
Jul 16, 2012, 10:44 pm
#204
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Raleigh, NC, US
Posts: 74
There are no DOT incidents that I can find that apply to award travel.
These tickets were redeemed with miles - subject to Mileage Plus terms and conditions - I'm surprised nobody looked that up yet:
46. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY
The User (including the Registered User) agrees that your access to or use of any part of United services, Protected Property, associated databases, and other data and information accessible therewith or therefrom are provided on an "AS IS" BASIS, AND UNITED EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE, DESIGN, ACCURACY, CAPABILITY, SUFFICIENCY, SUITABILITY, CAPACITY, COMPLETENESS OR AVAILABILITY. You also agree that United, its suppliers, licensors, employees, agents and other information content providers do not represent that United services will be uninterrupted, without omissions or error free. Neither United or anyone else involved in creating, producing or delivering United services (including, but not limited to, scheduling, help desk, reservations, manifesting, refunding, or transporting) shall be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special or consequential damages arising out of the use or inability to use united.com services.
47. LIMITATION OF REMEDY
Some jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion or limitation of incidental or consequential damages, or limitations on the duration of an implied warranty, therefore such exclusions or limitations may not apply to you. In the event United accepts responsibility, or is determined liable in a court of competent jurisdiction (whether in contract or tort) for any of your damages pursuant to any of your claims associated with United services or its associated software, data, information or other content, your sole and exclusive remedy (but subject to the Terms) will be limited to the reimbursement of any registration fees and service charges paid by you to United for services reserved but not provided by United. You hereby waive any and all rights to bring any claim or action related to matters which are the subject of these Special Terms and Conditions in any forum beyond two (2) years after the first occurrence of the kind of act, event, condition or omission upon which the claim or action is based.
48. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
You understand and agree that United may, in its sole judgment, at any time and from time to time, modify, restrict or terminate United services or your access to United services, without any liability or notice, which modification, restriction or termination may be exercised without refund of any paid-up registration or license fees. The use of United services under the Registered User's identification codes and passwords will constitute your agreement not to infringe upon, or permit any of your authorized Users to infringe upon any Protected Property or Protected Property rights.
These tickets were redeemed with miles - subject to Mileage Plus terms and conditions - I'm surprised nobody looked that up yet:
46. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY
The User (including the Registered User) agrees that your access to or use of any part of United services, Protected Property, associated databases, and other data and information accessible therewith or therefrom are provided on an "AS IS" BASIS, AND UNITED EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE, DESIGN, ACCURACY, CAPABILITY, SUFFICIENCY, SUITABILITY, CAPACITY, COMPLETENESS OR AVAILABILITY. You also agree that United, its suppliers, licensors, employees, agents and other information content providers do not represent that United services will be uninterrupted, without omissions or error free. Neither United or anyone else involved in creating, producing or delivering United services (including, but not limited to, scheduling, help desk, reservations, manifesting, refunding, or transporting) shall be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special or consequential damages arising out of the use or inability to use united.com services.
47. LIMITATION OF REMEDY
Some jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion or limitation of incidental or consequential damages, or limitations on the duration of an implied warranty, therefore such exclusions or limitations may not apply to you. In the event United accepts responsibility, or is determined liable in a court of competent jurisdiction (whether in contract or tort) for any of your damages pursuant to any of your claims associated with United services or its associated software, data, information or other content, your sole and exclusive remedy (but subject to the Terms) will be limited to the reimbursement of any registration fees and service charges paid by you to United for services reserved but not provided by United. You hereby waive any and all rights to bring any claim or action related to matters which are the subject of these Special Terms and Conditions in any forum beyond two (2) years after the first occurrence of the kind of act, event, condition or omission upon which the claim or action is based.
48. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
You understand and agree that United may, in its sole judgment, at any time and from time to time, modify, restrict or terminate United services or your access to United services, without any liability or notice, which modification, restriction or termination may be exercised without refund of any paid-up registration or license fees. The use of United services under the Registered User's identification codes and passwords will constitute your agreement not to infringe upon, or permit any of your authorized Users to infringe upon any Protected Property or Protected Property rights.
This was all covered extensively in the other thread and DOT rules do apply to both the advertised/solicited price of award tickets, and issued award tickets. And, UA can't change federal law with their terms and conditions, so cite federal law in the future.
Jul 16, 2012, 10:48 pm
#205
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Houston, TX
Programs: United Gold, Bonvoy Titanium
Posts: 207
So you're saying, for those that have earned thousands and thousands of miles on UA, and have spent thousands of dollars. They should just accept that UA can treat them poorly and they will take it. You can file a lawsuit/DoT complaint/complain to UA, without being disrespectful or "unclassy".
Jul 16, 2012, 10:51 pm
#206
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 537
Truth. This and the Map Your Dreams promotion is getting ridiculous for UA Insider. I know what I would say if someone asked me to do these things...
Jul 16, 2012, 10:52 pm
#207
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 7
Thumbs up UA for doing the right thing, pricing mistakes happen all the time and if everybody honored a simple typo, many companies would be bankrupt.
Jul 16, 2012, 10:56 pm
#208
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: DL PM; IHG PlatAmb; Hilton Dia; Marriott Plat; Hyatt Discoverist
Posts: 7,320
Jul 16, 2012, 10:57 pm
#209
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Raleigh, NC, US
Posts: 74
AMEN. To both this post and the one a few back. AMEN.
the most annoying posts at this point are not those from people who you disagree with, but people who don't even understand the argument.
the most annoying posts at this point are not those from people who you disagree with, but people who don't even understand the argument.
Last edited by FlyinHawaiian; Jul 17, 2012 at 4:18 am Reason: multi-quote
Jul 16, 2012, 11:01 pm
#210
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Programs: Hilton G/SPG G/IHG RA/Accor P/Aeroplan Elite/CZ S
Posts: 73
If you recall the time of these corporations in deep trouble for their own misbehavings, "we the people"'s money bailed their a$$ out. Does it sounds high calss to you? If no, where were you guys?