colpuck

There is more to it than that. The ruling stated that because of the price inconsistencies, it could be reasonably inferred that a higher price was due. I am not sure what "reasonable" means, but it sounds like all UA has to do to get out of tickets is make the fares shown inconsistent with each other.

While I think it's unlikely that UA or really any airline will try and take advantage of the this loophole, it remains possible. I think a lot of people on this board would not describe UA management as filled with "good faith," so you can see my concern.

AeroWesty

A myopic viewpoint at best. What the DOT established in its ruling is that 1) it doesn't look at award charts when determining the validity of the "fare" involved in an award booking, 2) it only looks at what was displayed during the "booking process", and 3) the DOT will consider tickets purchased with miles the same as regular revenue fares when it comes to their jurisdiction over pricing issues. There's now no ambiguity where there was before.

Even though it's obviously easier for some bystanders to sit and point like they were on a school playground, a few important precedents were set in the DOT's answer to the complaints filed in this matter which shouldn't be overlooked.

Ari

I doubt that.

Unless someone wastes more time and sues.

UnitedFlyGuy

Lol at the greedy whiny people in this thread. None of you have a leg to stand on. 4 miles for F to HKG and the DOT response is a farce?

Give me a break. You're all too funny.

rankourabu

cblaisd

This. ^

Indeed. Even the thread title itself acknowledges that.

Once again, another well-stated point of view. And it is exactly such "common sense" that so many posters are calling for in other areas of UA's operations -- I guess trying to take advantage of an honest error, and treating UA in a way that one would not want to be treated, is some sort of exemption from common sense.

sbrower

What about all the people in the private Google group. Didn't they get their tickets reinstated?










P.S. - My post is total b.s. I am just challenging the concept that the "private" group got something out of this other than avoiding the legitimate questions being raised about the merits of the claim.

travelkid

^ The best analysis so far.

fastair

I don't know that this was a precedent setting case. I think the DoT looks at each case individually and tries toapply a) the rulesof which they are empowered to act on behalf of, ad b) common sense.

If the precedent that as set was common sense/consumer protection, I think that is what they are empowered to follow, and it is not a new precedent.

as219

Agreed. It seems to me that the basis of the DOTs ruling (if that's the right word) is that the zero-dollarness and four-mileness of the fare was not the issue here, rather what was and wasn't a tull displayed during the booking process. I'd like to think that even though UA "won," it has learned a lesson about the regulatory importance of getting it's IT right.

Global321

I agree it is interesting in the wording of their response... It would be interesting to see what the ruling would have been if the 4 miles had shown up through out the booking process due to a programming error. (Start to finish, 4 miles for international first from USA to HKG.)

From the response, it could be inferred in the case of an absurd fare from start to finish, the DOT would possibly rule UA could be held liable.

Anyway, UA must be very happy.

burlax

Of course, only undying optimists could expect that DOT will rule for the buyers of the 4 mile F tickets. However, there is one thing to learn from this ordeal.

IT glitches that benefit customer at the expense of UA get fixed immediately. IT glitches that benefit UA at the expense of the customer never get fixed.

chinatraderjmr

They would have just found different wording. I really don't know why the DOT didn't just come out and say "common sense" which is really the only reason UA won this. The DOT hasn't set any new precedents since every case is looked at differently & this case was just to ridiculous to let stand. Had 40 people taken advantage of this instead of 400 or 4000, UA probably would have eaten the loss or be made to. But the DOT does use common sense (thank God) and no one could let this stand and keep a straight face. DOT rules are there to PROTECT customers from unfair business practices. PERIOD. These regs are not there to help customers take advantage of a situation when COMMON SENSE says these customers KNEW they were getting something they really were not entitled to.

UA-NYC

Amen to that - "pricing glitches" that cause TODs, seat assignments that get scattered, upgraded seats that still show economy, T-24 waitlist drop-offs...the list is never-ending.

AeroWesty

Do you honestly believe that's how government works? Do the words "case law" mean anything to you?

A simple internet search brings up a good definition of "precedent" in a legal sense: Black's Law Dictionary defines "precedent" as a "rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases."

It works the same way within government agencies so that parties on all sides of a situation know what to expect from their actions, then be able to plan accordingly. Decisions by government agencies aren't made on the basis of "do we let X-number of people get away with this?" in one example, then rule differently in another based upon their whims. That would be preposterous.