84fiero

That's a good point, assuming the 6K number is even correct, we don't have any idea how many would fall under the DOT rule.

I agree with AeroWesty, but I'd rephrase it slightly in that UA does have total control over the award booking process but failed to control changes in the software (or whatever happened) to preclude an error. It's up to them to ensure that their system functions as they intend it, along with any checks. The fact that something went wrong here seems to indicate a software or programming change occurred and it wasn't checked to ensure an error was not introduced. Relying, in effect, on users/customers to QC your software in real transactions is risky.

There were tickets issued by live humans (even at least one 1K agent) during the mistake fare period, yet tickets continued to be issued for some period after that so airline personnel were definitely aware of what was happening. Whether UA fixed its problem timely or not, is a matter of debate.

It certainly didn't take action, as far we can tell, to cancel within 24 hours of issuance, which I think is a fair deadline since they levy the same on passengers. They certainly didn't follow through with customers consistently.

DianeDakota

You seem to be missing the point. The point is that apparently there are checks as this has never happened before but something went wrong on this occasion. This was a one time incident so you can't say they normally don't have checks in place. That is the whole point...there was a malfunction.

It seems rather difficult to try and claim they recklessly disregarded the process in an intentional way when this was one time event.

It would be interesting to hear how you believe they intentionally harmed you and how much harm you have suffered at their hands when it was an obvious error. Anyone who claims that they didn't know this was an error that probably would not be honored when they took advantage of this is only fooling themselves.

AeroWesty

Now you're really leaping here. Time to reel it in.

First, I never claimed that I was harmed.

Second, I'm not missing the point at all. There was no final check in the process that said "does this redemption conform to all of the norms" before it ticketed. That is irrefutable. End of.

Global321

Open question to anyone...

What if UA issues 100,000,000 tickets for 4 miles each, or if you prefer a different argument, 100,000,000 tickets for $4 each...

Is it reasonable for the government to order UA - or people expect UA - to honor all 100,000,000, realizing this will run them out of business? All because of a computer glitch..., even a glitch they should have not allowed to happen.

If the "must honor" rule applies to 4,000, 6,000 or whatever the number of tickets sold, I would believe it would apply to 100,000,000. (Legally, the number of tickets sold would be irrelevant. The legal precedents/case law/regs etc are the only things that matter.)

I don't have a dog in this hunt, just maybe a different pov.

DianeDakota

Oh please. In the sum of your posts you keep saying they were negligent because there was no final check and that factually is not true if over the span of years this has never happened before. The only thing that is irrefutable is that there was a malfunction on this occasion.

If you haven't been harmed then why are you complaining about United not wanting to accept responsibility for you not being harmed???

AeroWesty

Caused by the reasons already supplied. You may argue that to the top of the hill, but if you don't understand the basic function something like a check digit performs, then you'll be lost in this.

Remember when all of the awards carried a certain code? It's certainly possible for the redemption system to be coded so that "Award C4" doesn't ticket unless it's priced at 70K miles, for instance. Apparently, that wasn't coded into the ticketing system, otherwise the abnormal mileage amount would have been caught prior to ticketing. That's UA's responsibility.

Where is the requirement for one to detail their level of harm first in order to point out the basic major flaw in UA's redemption ticketing process?

DianeDakota

There seems to be a basic failure to communicate here. I and no one else contends there wasn't a failure in the system. However, it is obvious that this situation was a one time malfunction, programming error or what ever you want to call it. There is no question about that. No system is perfect, regardless of the amount of over sight and there are failures.

Just because there was a failure by United's system which was quite obvious does it automatically extend a right to other's to take advantage of it and then expect to be compensated when they knew it was a mistake? That is the greater question involved.

That is the issue in a nut shell. It all boils down to what is reasonable.

AeroWesty

Again, the only thing irrefutable in this case is the failure of the conformance check process. Just because the weakness in the system was revealed in this case, doesn't make any indication that that weakness didn't exist prior to now or not. That very weakness may have been in the system all along, only discovered now due to perhaps award logic not written correctly, or some other factor.

As I said before, basic knowledge of the check digit process is important to understand.

If you recall, my original post today was refuting your claim that colpuck was going in circles regarding United's ignorance. In fact, I even said that I was okay with others determining what damages may or may not be due to those harmed in UA's negligence.

That's because I realize that all of these side defenses spouting "Well just HOW much burden do you expect UA to lie down and absorb?" have absolutely nothing to do in the correct placement of responsibility for this error. That's the number one reason why I haven't/will not/do not feel it's important to disclose whether I was harmed or not—it's irrelevant to this discussion.

Pat89339

That and perhaps an educational forum for newbies whose percentage of post counts are 90% (yes I did the math) in this single thread! Do you know there is a whole wide variety of threads out there on this board alone? Share the wealth! Visit other threads and forums! You obviously have a lot to say. Share your voice on other topics! Become a part of the community!

Now that I've made my one and only post here, I'm off to read, post and contribute elsewhere.

chinatraderjmr

Agreed that it's irrelevant but to others, it's not. Anyone here that's talking about "court", is also talking about "harm", you can't have one without the other. It's the DOT's job to levy fines, etc. a courts job is to make someone "whole" that's been harmed. That's why all this talk (not by you) about court is just bluster.

The DOT will determine if any fines are necessary. They may not do anything, they may just fine UA regardless and allow them to walk away with that or, they may make some deal where UA issues some compensation to avoid a fine (or lower one). Whatever they do, that should be the end if it. IMO anyone trying to take it further is going to be fighting a losing battle

ldpeters

Sure. Here's a quick rundown of the legal principles that have been tossed around recently in this thread. I'm going to use a criminal law example, because I think those are easier to understand, but the basic principles apply to civil proceedings as well.

Suppose you borrow a coat from your friend Bill. Later that day, you're pulled over for speeding by (bad luck!) a K-9 unit. The dog smells something in the car, the cops pull you out and find a gram of cocaine in the coat pocket (other lawyers, let's set aside the obvious legality-of-search argument here).

You cannot argue that you didn't know that carrying a gram of cocaine is illegal (this is called ignorance of law). You're right that, in the American legal system, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

However, you can argue that you had no idea that a gram of cocaine was in the coat pocket. This is called ignorance of fact. Ignorance of fact can generally be used as a defense (with restrictions), but the burden of this defense is generally on the accused (the law assumes that you know all the facts).

Let's use another example, which will lead us into another relevant issue. Let's say I'm the captain/owner of a pleasure boat, I'm stopped by the Coast Guard, and they find a gram of cocaine on board in the bag of one of my guests. They can confiscate my vessel immediately (and they will!) because in this case, the law places strict liability on cocaine present aboard a vessel. Knowledge of the facts are immaterial, because knowledge is not an element of the crime (the most serious strict liability crime is statutory rape -- here, whether or not you knew she was under 18, 17, 16, whatever age, is not a defense because it is a strict liability crime).

Related, though different, from strict liability in a criminal context is the civil concept of constructive knowledge or constructive notice. Here, the law places an obligation or assumption to know something regardless of whether or not you actually know it. These are the things you "knew or should have known." For example, if you sign a contract you are assumed to have knowledge of all of the terms and ancillary documents referred to in the contract. Even if you didn't read the contract (and thus have no actual notice) of its terms, by signing it the law assumes you have read and understood it, and thus have constructive notice of all of its terms. Even if you can prove in court that you were ignorant of certain provisions of the contract, this is (generally, usually, always some exceptions) irrelevant. You are also assumed to have had constructive notice of anything that is mailed to your home address (e.g., a ticket from a red light camera), even if you never open your mail.

However, the law does not require you have knowledge of everything. Like the criminal case where you are not liable for cocaine found in a jacket you have just borrowed, you are generally not liable for facts in a civil context of which you had no actual or constructive knowledge -- the big exception being if you were negligent in not finding out those facts.

Does that clear things up a bit?

Also, if you're going to disagree with my interpretation / explanation of the law (and I'll warrant it is a little bit simplified, but not too much), please, please, please have passed the bar in a US jurisdiction. I'm happy to take objections and clarifications from a real lawyer, but it is tiresome hashing this out with laypeople whose knowledge of the subject comes from watching Law and Order et. al.

DFWsakp

Aero: My apologies. I did not mean you in particular and just wanted to address those posters on this thread who think that UA should pay for this mistake as they have a crappy IT system.

DianeDakota

Thank you for the excellent explanation.

colpuck

There are some issues that demand to be taken into account using ldpeters analysis into account.

There is an element of willful blindness. That even if UA was ignorant of the facts (and there is NO evidence to suggest that they were) they remained willfully blind to the fact that their system could have errors in it.

A great example of willful blindness is if I pay person X $10,000 to drive a car from Miami to New York with the proviso that they do not look in the trunk of the car. The fact that there is something obviously illegal in the trunk, negates the driver's ignorance of the facts.

Also there is just something wrong with United claiming that their own negligence should absolve them from liability.

alex_b

Thanks for the well written explanation.

A question on this; I know that in certain jurisdictions (e.g. UK) there is a view that in un-negotiated consumer contracts, that presumptions of validity and notice are different due to the unequal powers of the two sides; this is drawn up in both UK and EU legislation. Therefore under English law the arguments in this thread along the lines of "it's in the CoC/MP rules that UA can do whatever they want, whenever they want with no liability at all" would hold little weight and such a one-sided contract could even be prejudicial to UA's ability to enforce such a contract.

I realise that this drama is playing out in the US, therefore my question to you is: do some/any/all jurisdictions in the US contain similar consumer protections, and in this case do you think that would change the position of the contractual position you state?