Baze

So what? Are we 6 years old and playing even steven? 2 wrongs never make a right. Just 2 wrongs. Yes, I know in math multiplying 2 negatives together gives you a positive but this is not that.

I am sure there are people who booked it and intend to fly and I am equally, if not more, sure there are people who booked it only for the possible compensation after the dust settles and never intended to fly. There are people who could care less and there are people who are angry they missed out. And there are people who would never take advantage of something like this because they know it is a mistake.

I won't get into the debate over ethics or anything else. I know how I feel on the subject and that is all that matters to me. Stating my opinion in a public forum where there are definitely 2 very divided sides would only open myself up to flames from the people on the other side of the fence.

I just hope that after all the dust settles, the DOT makes an official statement (if they have, sorry I missed it). People accept the resolution, whichever way it goes, and we all move on to more important things in life.

murphyUA

I hope it would, but unfortunately I have many doubts.

pdx1M

Staying completely away from the ethics questions, what do folks think DoT wants to do. I will observe that a literal reading of the current rules enforced in the extreme is simply unworkable. It could require an arbitrarily large cost up to bankrupting a company for an arbitrarily small mistake. I am not saying this is the case with UA here but rather that a literal enforcement approach could do this in a future case. Beyond this one needs to understand the purpose of the regulation which was to provide consumer protection against deceitful or misleading practices by unscrupulous companies. Here the request to DoT is to levy an arbitrarily large cost/penalty for an obvious error which pretty clearly was not intentionally deceitful. It is pretty hard to believe that the intent of the regulation (forget for a moment the literal reading of it) was to punish simple mistakes. Is there a reading of the rule under which DoT should act - certainly. Is it likely that that reading aligns with the intent when the rule was written - pretty unlikely. Would a absolutist interpretation that any mistake would be enforced without thought create future problems even worse that this one - pretty certainly. So back to my initial question - given all this what do you think the DoT "wants" to do given that it is a political creation that has to live with the industry that it regulates. I'd be very surprised if they took an action that forced universal honoring of these tickets. Perhaps they will find some compromise or they will permit the canceling and levy an administrative fine on UA for the sloppiness (this is my guess as to the outcome) but it seems that expecting more is not really considering the larger context in which DoT exists.

kokonutz

Me too. But I hope it ends up being a bright line, rather than a 'we know it when we see it' sort of thing.

That will only fan the flames.

burmans

+1
We should wait for DOT ruling but for those who keep banging on about this being a mistake, the DOT rules seem fairly clear about this as being irrelevant.

The UA communication to date has not stressed the mistake angle but rather the angle that we showed you the correct fare on the screen and in the rules, I don't think they will be using the mistake fare argument either because they know it won't fly.

elitetraveler

I empathize for the UA tech who made the programming error.

I wonder what happened to him/her?

If I were in that person's place, I would sure wish my company's customers were a bit more understanding.

Have there been any reports on how the mistake actually happened?

chff

I still haven't received any email or notification from United. Nor have I gotten from the DOT.

J.Edward

Well said. ^

UA, through their own action(s), dropped the ball and do need to shoulder responsibility for their error. However at the same time, I do not know if I *personally* feel forcing them to honor *all* tickets issued *as is* is the right response - or to say it another way - that particular punishment may not fit the crime.

That's not to say UA should escape this unscathed; after all it was *their* IT system which allowed a shocking breach of such magnitude to occur and they IMHO will need to do something (regardless of the "morality" of customers opting to purchase such tickets.)

Again well stated. ^

As I poorly understand it, the DOT has wide latitude in how they can enforce fines against a carrier and presumably what they can coerce behind the scenes. To that end I wonder if a fine equivalent to a Y ticket for the *first* ticket booked for a passenger (and then $1 for subsequent tickets booked for the same passenger) would make sense here.

Simply put, doing so would arguable allow customers who truly wanted to travel to do so in Y (hence the fine pegged to whatever a Y ticket cost, plus I suspect the average FTer would argue schlepping it all the way to HKG in Y constitutes a form of personal contrition), weed out those who had their snouts -and two front trotters to boot!- in the trough, and allow UA to regain their premium cabin(s) but still serve as a concession by UA in a manner which seems far more appropriate (or at least IMHO) for their mistake.

In doing so the DOT appears not only strong as a regulator but a balanced one, UA is able to obtain a far more economically palatal resolution, and the issue of people booking multiple tickets for themselves is addressed. @:-)

Again, well said. ^

hobo13

I think that a lot of people who booked this deal could have been bought off by UA if they had simply come out in a conciliatory tone offering SOMETHING to those who got in on the deal.

Instead, they chose careful wording that takes an antagonistic tone, essentially blaming their own (loyal or otherwise) customers. They basically are so arrogant that they believe they are unequivocally right, and told all of us to go pound sand.

And then we wonder why this company is so maligned around here....

srdshelly

I'd actually like to see United grow a pair and shut down the accounts of these whiny freeloaders who think they're so entitled. Stick to your guns, United. It was obviously, unmistakably an error, and nobody deserves a free ticket to Hong Kong because of it.

elitetraveler

What would be the basis for UA shutting down their accounts?

gvol21

Right, because shutting down the accounts of those who took advantage of United's own mistake makes sense...

Yosef

+1

Lets just say this was a Chase glitch, and they were giving 320K miles for certain purchases. United would be very happy with the outcome, and willingly give us the tickets that we would "purchase" with said miles. IOW, the only thing UA is actually losing is the 320K miles at the rate they are willing to sell them for.

Added to that, the fact that UA metal would have been given away to a non-rev or gone empty, there are plenty of tickets that would have cost UA close to nothing (the cost of the meals, ammenities, etc.), and its highly possible that when UA charged me $150 for a mistake I made, that they still come out ahead, even if they honored my ticket.

uwr

+1

US Constitution Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html

No excessive fines allowed. (Although some on this board might argue that flying UA is a cruel and unusual punishment. )

cblaisd

Right, because threatening individual lawsuits, small claims court actions, class action lawsuits, and tying up UA's headquarters with phone calls from folks who wanted to take advantage of an obvious clerical error and want to treat UA in a way that they would never want to be treated makes sense.

And, by the way, before the obligatory "spare me the moralizing" comment, I would note that every single post in this or any thread both presupposes and exhibits some sort of understanding of ethics. Some are just less aware of that than others.

Did UA handle this perfectly (whatever that would be); perhaps not. Can we control their behavior? No. Can folks control their attitudes and actions and seek to behave toward UA in the way they'd want to be treated?

One would hope.