Apr 8, 2015, 3:27 pm
Last edit by: WineCountryUA
One of the more confusing aspects of cash upgrades is "does this upgrade get premium cabin mileage bonus and is the fee included in PQD?"
The best assumption is no bonus and fee is not included in PQD but there are some cases where there will be a premium cabin bonus and amount will count toward PQD.
There are multiple cash upgrade paths and different ones are offered at different times (and can be quite hard to separate).
The key is what is the new fare basis after the upgrade. Note R, RN, P, PN, ZN, ON, A and others have been reported.
The following are generally not eligible for PQD or bonus:
However the offer, in "My Reservations" via the cash method tab "Buy Up to First" under "View {Upgrade} Options" is likely to be eligible for PQDs & PQM bonus.
**** Due to UA changes in May 2018, this statement may not be relieable ****
**** This now appears to be an Upgrade Fee (no PQDs) and may book into Upgrade fare class (no extra PQMs) or into a mileage earning bonus fare class (PQMs earning). Unclear if that is a way to tell which will happen ****
Generally these will be reflected on the receipt as
Notice the words "generally" and "likely" -- those are weasel words to protect the wiki author because of the lack of transparency in this system 
For instance, some time of checkin paid upgrades that book into P, will earn PQM bonus but not earn PQDs.
Checking the actual fare basis during booking when you are given access (or using the Saudi site) is key in understanding the outcome.
UA Insider commented on this a while back, but there has been no improvement in the confusion / clarity in the meantime.
The best assumption is no bonus and fee is not included in PQD but there are some cases where there will be a premium cabin bonus and amount will count toward PQD.
There are multiple cash upgrade paths and different ones are offered at different times (and can be quite hard to separate).
The key is what is the new fare basis after the upgrade. Note R, RN, P, PN, ZN, ON, A and others have been reported.
- Many of the upgrade offers results in R/PN/ZN fare class (and post as Zx) -- so like a regular upgrade the mileage posting is based on the original fare class. The upgrade fee does not earn PQDs.
- Others bump the fare basis to a -UP fare which reports as a P/Z/A fare class, these are now earning PQMs at the up-fared fare class and the up-fare costs earns PQDs.
- And others book into a true P/Z/A fare basis and will earn the PQM bonus and the up-fare cost will earn PQDs.
The following are generally not eligible for PQD or bonus:
- Pop-up upgrade immediately following purchase on united.com
- Last minute upgrade at check-in
Additional Charges:
Date/CreditCard XXXX was charged xxx USD for the Merchandising / EDD
xxx USD for: Premium Cabin Upgrade
Date/CreditCard XXXX was charged xxx USD for the Merchandising / EDD
xxx USD for: Premium Cabin Upgrade
**** Due to UA changes in May 2018, this statement may not be relieable ****
**** This now appears to be an Upgrade Fee (no PQDs) and may book into Upgrade fare class (no extra PQMs) or into a mileage earning bonus fare class (PQMs earning). Unclear if that is a way to tell which will happen ****
Generally these will be reflected on the receipt as
Add Collect: An additional amount for the difference in fare was charged to {card} on {date}. $yyy USD per ticket for an additional total of $yyy USD was collected.
For instance, some time of checkin paid upgrades that book into P, will earn PQM bonus but not earn PQDs.
Checking the actual fare basis during booking when you are given access (or using the Saudi site) is key in understanding the outcome.
UA Insider commented on this a while back, but there has been no improvement in the confusion / clarity in the meantime.
Hi Everyone,
I’ve done a little bit of research on this, and I wanted to share some background on the scenario vandrei shared.
At a high level, and as a some of you have noticed more recently in the thread, the buy-up offer we sometimes present immediately upon booking an economy ticket is indeed distinct from the one presented when viewing a reservation in My Account at some point after the flight has been ticketed and confirmed. For example, the offer at booking enables customers to the flexibility to confirm an upgraded seat on a segment-by-segment basis, whereas the one in My Reservations is based on the line of flight.
Additionally, from a functional perspective, the offer immediately upon booking does not change the underlying fare basis for the original purchased fare (even though the visible fare class is reflective of the buy-up inventory), whereas the one in My Reservations results in a complete re-issue of the existing ticket. It is this aspect of the functionality which drives mileage accrual, which is based on the original purchased fare for the offer immediately after booking, but based on the new fare class for the offer in My Reservations. These policies are disclosed in each offer’s respective (and indeed, different) terms and conditions.
Longer-term, the vision is indeed to align mileage accrual policies between the two types of offers. In the meantime, the tradeoff between the two offers continues to be one of additional miles vs. the flexibility to confirm on a segment-by-segment basis.
Aaron Goldberg
Sr. Manager - Customer Experience Planning
United Airlines
I’ve done a little bit of research on this, and I wanted to share some background on the scenario vandrei shared.
At a high level, and as a some of you have noticed more recently in the thread, the buy-up offer we sometimes present immediately upon booking an economy ticket is indeed distinct from the one presented when viewing a reservation in My Account at some point after the flight has been ticketed and confirmed. For example, the offer at booking enables customers to the flexibility to confirm an upgraded seat on a segment-by-segment basis, whereas the one in My Reservations is based on the line of flight.
Additionally, from a functional perspective, the offer immediately upon booking does not change the underlying fare basis for the original purchased fare (even though the visible fare class is reflective of the buy-up inventory), whereas the one in My Reservations results in a complete re-issue of the existing ticket. It is this aspect of the functionality which drives mileage accrual, which is based on the original purchased fare for the offer immediately after booking, but based on the new fare class for the offer in My Reservations. These policies are disclosed in each offer’s respective (and indeed, different) terms and conditions.
Longer-term, the vision is indeed to align mileage accrual policies between the two types of offers. In the meantime, the tradeoff between the two offers continues to be one of additional miles vs. the flexibility to confirm on a segment-by-segment basis.
Aaron Goldberg
Sr. Manager - Customer Experience Planning
United Airlines
Some Paid Upgrades Count Towards PQD & mileage bonus and some DON'T!
May 1, 2013, 9:34 am
#76
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Minneapolis, MN (MSP)
Programs: DL DM, UA 1K MM, Subway Club Member
Posts: 1,988
A few points in response to this.
1. What you describe makes it impossible for someone to use EF to search for cheap fares. It implies that the only way to search for cheap fares is to go to each airline site individually and search day by day. What I usually do is go to EF and look for P or Z, on a range of days, across a range of airlines, to see where there is some cheap J inventory. If what you say is true, this strategy is incomplete, and the only alternative is one that requires 1000x more time and effort. Because, it seems, nobody except the airline knows these rules.
2. What you have described, assuming it's accurate, seems virtually impossible to understand. We can see fare class on web site. With a lot of work, we can find fare basis. But, we can't find booking code or booking class and in the case you describe where booking codes, which are invisible to the pax to begin with, don't even map to a fare basis, what the heck is a person supposed to do?
3. None of this ties to UA's language that says the "fare" determines the PQM rate. "Fare" is still undefined.
Look. They can do whatever they want to do in their revenue maximization efforts. But, refusing to honor promised PQM earning rates is fraud. And totally unacceptable.
If the ticket looks like it's P then it should earn an P rates. If not, they should make it clear.
1. What you describe makes it impossible for someone to use EF to search for cheap fares. It implies that the only way to search for cheap fares is to go to each airline site individually and search day by day. What I usually do is go to EF and look for P or Z, on a range of days, across a range of airlines, to see where there is some cheap J inventory. If what you say is true, this strategy is incomplete, and the only alternative is one that requires 1000x more time and effort. Because, it seems, nobody except the airline knows these rules.
2. What you have described, assuming it's accurate, seems virtually impossible to understand. We can see fare class on web site. With a lot of work, we can find fare basis. But, we can't find booking code or booking class and in the case you describe where booking codes, which are invisible to the pax to begin with, don't even map to a fare basis, what the heck is a person supposed to do?
3. None of this ties to UA's language that says the "fare" determines the PQM rate. "Fare" is still undefined.
Look. They can do whatever they want to do in their revenue maximization efforts. But, refusing to honor promised PQM earning rates is fraud. And totally unacceptable.
If the ticket looks like it's P then it should earn an P rates. If not, they should make it clear.
#1 - You're right that you can search for P or Z in the availability search on EF. I have yet to find a filed fare that uses a P basis. It does not seem that UA discloses what fares map to P. I think your approach to searching is complete in that if there is P reservations availability there is a fare to back it up (but it's not a P fare). The ambiguity is linking the P bucket to the underlying fare. It seems that until you submit a reservation for pricing you can't manually match it.
#2 - I think the single letter codes (or 2 letter in some cases) you see on the UA website are the booking codes and you don't see the any of the fare codes unless you click though the terms and conditions link. For example, a reservation with a P booking code actually shows a V fare class and V2UP14N3 fare code. This, again, is where there is a underlying fare to booking code mystery (or at least non-public) map.
#3 - Agreed, UA doesn't seem to have a clear definition for Fare and uses it conflicting ways throughout their website and business.
I think the biggest problem is the "Faux" codes such as P that don't have a corresponding fare. I seems that most fares that book into P do get COS bonuses but there are some exceptions (hence the OP).
May 1, 2013, 9:52 am
#77
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,645
If you spend an extra $20 to UG from SFO to LAX and you don't get your extra 250 miles, then suck it up, let them lie and cheat, then get on with the day. Not worth the breath to fight about.
But, if you put down $4,600 for a 12,000 mile journey and you choose UA over another carrier because you're expecting (in fact, counting on) those extra 6,000 bonus miles to make a status goal, then it's a fraud with material consequences.
Since I never know in advance whether or not they're going to screw me, it makes me that much less interested in giving them $4,600.
Watch the yield go down ...
May 1, 2013, 10:05 am
#78
Formerly known as CollegeFlyer
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: JRA
Programs: UA 1K MM, AA PLT, Hyatt Diamond, Marriott Gold, Hertz 5*
Posts: 6,716
The new UA is designed based on the old CO's strategy of ensuring high yields by using hub captives, rather than things like customer satisfaction or not screwing the customers. As a result, UA does not do very well in the latter two categories anymore.
May 1, 2013, 10:08 am
#79
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Minneapolis, MN (MSP)
Programs: DL DM, UA 1K MM, Subway Club Member
Posts: 1,988
However, it could be (is) an indication of a much larger problem at UA around delivering a consistant product that generally meets customers expectations. I think they are failing at doing this in enough places that it has/will have an impact. Their competitors generally are much better have having their act together...time will tell if UA can do the same.
May 1, 2013, 7:27 pm
#80
Join Date: May 2006
Location: New York, London, Sydney
Programs: United GS/2MM, DL*P, VS*G, AA*EXP, Avis CHM, Hertz Platinum, Sixt*D, HH*D, HGP*P, Starwood*P
Posts: 9,847
What was the fare basis you upgraded into? If it was still an economy fare with some premier or other upgrade upgrade than you do only get the economy miles. The bonus miles are based on the fare code not the booking code. The booking code is what shows on your reservation page and is usually 1 or 2 letters. The fare code is usually 3 or more letters (and sometimes some numbers). It's really confusing but fare codes and booking codes are at best loosely related and sometimes not related at all. When it comes to bonus miles, the fare code is what matters.
The fare basis code on UA doesn't matter. It's the booking class. The B/M-Ups your refer to (as well as any other true -UP fare) will always book into A/Z/P. Coach fares with free elite upgrades, i.e. straight Y/B/M fares with no -Up will always upgrade into PN (on FN/JN for Y). Either way, it's very easy to differentiate a first class ticket (even if it's an -Up fare) from a coach ticket with an elite upgrade. The mileage earning should match accordingly. The complications arise with the distinction between cash upgrades (with should book into R, but don't always) and buying up to the appropriate fare (which, as you state, can be anything from M to F). In the former case, obviously you only get credit for the original coach fare. In the latter case, as is with the OP, you get credit for whatever you have bought up to. If he was really booked in P, not PN, regardless of whether the fare basis is a straight P fare basis or an -Up fare basis, he's entitled to P credit. If it's PN, he's only entitled to credit for the underlying (but not his original necessarily) coach fare.
May 2, 2013, 7:47 am
#81
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: SAN
Posts: 2,426
Add me to the list.
I have a receipt that says "Z" class. In fact, this is the only receipt I got from the entire transaction, since I bought up to first-class right away. The website says Z gets bonus. Nothing ambiguous about it at all.
Super slimy but not surprising.
I have a receipt that says "Z" class. In fact, this is the only receipt I got from the entire transaction, since I bought up to first-class right away. The website says Z gets bonus. Nothing ambiguous about it at all.
Super slimy but not surprising.
May 2, 2013, 8:16 am
#82
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,645
I can't think of another case in which they lie and cheat so blatantly.
Usually, the lies are more subtle. Like, 'get status, then get higher priority for upgrades' but you'll never get upgraded because we'll sell all the seats for tens of dollars to kettles.
That's a subtle lie, a manipulation.
But, to sell something and to PROMISE a 50% pqm bonus and then, after that, to simply refuse to give what was promised - that meets the definition of fraud by any standard. It can't get any more blatant than this.
May 2, 2013, 8:25 am
#83
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: ORD / DUB / LHR
Programs: UA 1K MM; BA Silver; Marriott Plat
Posts: 8,243
I think this is yet another new low, even for UA.
I can't think of another case in which they lie and cheat so blatantly.
Usually, the lies are more subtle. Like, 'get status, then get higher priority for upgrades' but you'll never get upgraded because we'll sell all the seats for tens of dollars to kettles.
That's a subtle lie, a manipulation.
But, to sell something and to PROMISE a 50% pqm bonus and then, after that, to simply refuse to give what was promised - that meets the definition of fraud by any standard. It can't get any more blatant than this.
I can't think of another case in which they lie and cheat so blatantly.
Usually, the lies are more subtle. Like, 'get status, then get higher priority for upgrades' but you'll never get upgraded because we'll sell all the seats for tens of dollars to kettles.
That's a subtle lie, a manipulation.
But, to sell something and to PROMISE a 50% pqm bonus and then, after that, to simply refuse to give what was promised - that meets the definition of fraud by any standard. It can't get any more blatant than this.
Luckily, these types of issues are usually resolvable, although it may take multiple phone calls / emails. It's ridiculous that we have to do this as customers.
I'm just not seeing any intent here - I've carefully read all the posts on this subject. I'd love to know why you think this is a lie.
May 2, 2013, 8:58 am
#84
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,645
Another lie? Again, this just sounds like dysfunctional processes and one part of the company not knowing what the other is promising.
Luckily, these types of issues are usually resolvable, although it may take multiple phone calls / emails. It's ridiculous that we have to do this as customers.
I'm just not seeing any intent here - I've carefully read all the posts on this subject. I'd love to know why you think this is a lie.
Luckily, these types of issues are usually resolvable, although it may take multiple phone calls / emails. It's ridiculous that we have to do this as customers.
I'm just not seeing any intent here - I've carefully read all the posts on this subject. I'd love to know why you think this is a lie.
Spending 3 hours on the phone to "fix" something like this is not a resolution. How much is a person's life worth? You buy a ticket, get a promise, then promise is broken, then you have to give up 3 hours of your life to get it fixed? If UA needs $200 in compensation for the 'cost' of changing a ticket 300 days in advance on an empty flight when done by the customer on the web site in a fully automated process, then were is the compensation for the customer who has to waste 3 hours on this?
If UA deserves the $200 change fee then this ought to be worth $1,200.
Is there intent here?
They are promising 50% PQM then refusing to provide the promised PQM.
Those are the facts.
Someone wrote that text on the web page making the promise. That is intent. That text didn't show up accidentally.
May 2, 2013, 9:07 am
#85
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: ORD / DUB / LHR
Programs: UA 1K MM; BA Silver; Marriott Plat
Posts: 8,243
Unless I missed something, I don't think OP got any resolution. As far as I recall, OP got a "hand in face" flat out "no" from UA after repeated attempts to get resolution. I think OP wasted more than 3 hours on this?
Spending 3 hours on the phone to "fix" something like this is not a resolution. How much is a person's life worth? You buy a ticket, get a promise, then promise is broken, then you have to give up 3 hours of your life to get it fixed? If UA needs $200 in compensation for the 'cost' of changing a ticket 300 days in advance on an empty flight when done by the customer on the web site in a fully automated process, then were is the compensation for the customer who has to waste 3 hours on this?
If UA deserves the $200 change fee then this ought to be worth $1,200.
Is there intent here?
They are promising 50% PQM then refusing to provide the promised PQM.
Those are the facts.
Someone wrote that text on the web page making the promise. That is intent. That text didn't show up accidentally.
Spending 3 hours on the phone to "fix" something like this is not a resolution. How much is a person's life worth? You buy a ticket, get a promise, then promise is broken, then you have to give up 3 hours of your life to get it fixed? If UA needs $200 in compensation for the 'cost' of changing a ticket 300 days in advance on an empty flight when done by the customer on the web site in a fully automated process, then were is the compensation for the customer who has to waste 3 hours on this?
If UA deserves the $200 change fee then this ought to be worth $1,200.
Is there intent here?
They are promising 50% PQM then refusing to provide the promised PQM.
Those are the facts.
Someone wrote that text on the web page making the promise. That is intent. That text didn't show up accidentally.
But even if the OP spends a year trying to resolve the issue, that in itself doesn't make this a lie. The two aren't related. It's a terrible way to do business, sure, but a lie is something completely different entirely.
What you are effectively telling us is that some variant of the following events happened:
1. UA management decided that buy-ups to a higher fare class would not be awarded the higher PQM / RDM
2. The systems were then configured to prevent any additional miles being credited
3. UA management then decided to direct their web front-end team to create a page saying that buy-ups would be awarded the higher PQM / RDM, so that they could lie to their customers
Do you realise how preposterous this sounds? Would you agree that it's far more likely that UA is actually dysfunctional in many areas, and there is just poor communication causing this issue?
And what are you bringing change fees into this for?
Vendor-customer relationships are by their nature asymmetrical - the fact that you think there should be some equality in the compensation offered is amusing. Your rights are set out in the CoC.
May 2, 2013, 9:09 am
#86
Formerly known as CollegeFlyer
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: JRA
Programs: UA 1K MM, AA PLT, Hyatt Diamond, Marriott Gold, Hertz 5*
Posts: 6,716
When a "mistake" is brought to the company's attention repeatedly, and multiple people at the company persistently refuse to correct it, it no longer matters whether it was originally accidental or intentional. It is intentional, either because it was all along, or because it became effectively intentional when the company intentionally refused to correct its mistake, choosing instead to pocket the windfall.
May 2, 2013, 9:16 am
#87
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: ORD / DUB / LHR
Programs: UA 1K MM; BA Silver; Marriott Plat
Posts: 8,243
When a "mistake" is brought to the company's attention repeatedly, and multiple people at the company persistently refuse to correct it, it no longer matters whether it was originally accidental or intentional. It is intentional, either because it was all along, or because it became effectively intentional when the company intentionally refused to correct its mistake, choosing instead to pocket the windfall.
I'm absolutely not excusing UA's behaviour here but calling it a lie (a blatant lie, in fact, and fraud, and various other hyperbolic phrases) is a huge stretch. They're just dysfunctional in some areas.
May 2, 2013, 9:46 am
#88
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
I agree it's a big deal to those who make the decision based on the extra miles. However, given the size of UA's customer base, I'd venture to guess the number of people doing so is so relatively small it won't have a material impact to yields.
However, it could be (is) an indication of a much larger problem at UA around delivering a consistant product that generally meets customers expectations. I think they are failing at doing this in enough places that it has/will have an impact. Their competitors generally are much better have having their act together...time will tell if UA can do the same.
However, it could be (is) an indication of a much larger problem at UA around delivering a consistant product that generally meets customers expectations. I think they are failing at doing this in enough places that it has/will have an impact. Their competitors generally are much better have having their act together...time will tell if UA can do the same.
Another lie? Again, this just sounds like dysfunctional processes and one part of the company not knowing what the other is promising.
Luckily, these types of issues are usually resolvable, although it may take multiple phone calls / emails. It's ridiculous that we have to do this as customers.
I'm just not seeing any intent here - I've carefully read all the posts on this subject. I'd love to know why you think this is a lie.
Luckily, these types of issues are usually resolvable, although it may take multiple phone calls / emails. It's ridiculous that we have to do this as customers.
I'm just not seeing any intent here - I've carefully read all the posts on this subject. I'd love to know why you think this is a lie.
I'm not disputing the fact that the OP is getting the run-around. I've had to deal with similar issues relating to conflicting information with UA in the past and it can be a pain to resolve.
But even if the OP spends a year trying to resolve the issue, that in itself doesn't make this a lie. The two aren't related. It's a terrible way to do business, sure, but a lie is something completely different entirely.
What you are effectively telling us is that some variant of the following events happened:
1. UA management decided that buy-ups to a higher fare class would not be awarded the higher PQM / RDM
2. The systems were then configured to prevent any additional miles being credited
3. UA management then decided to direct their web front-end team to create a page saying that buy-ups would be awarded the higher PQM / RDM, so that they could lie to their customers
Do you realise how preposterous this sounds? Would you agree that it's far more likely that UA is actually dysfunctional in many areas, and there is just poor communication causing this issue?
And what are you bringing change fees into this for? Vendor-customer relationships are by their nature asymmetrical - the fact that you think there should be some equality in the compensation offered is amusing. Your rights are set out in the CoC.
But even if the OP spends a year trying to resolve the issue, that in itself doesn't make this a lie. The two aren't related. It's a terrible way to do business, sure, but a lie is something completely different entirely.
What you are effectively telling us is that some variant of the following events happened:
1. UA management decided that buy-ups to a higher fare class would not be awarded the higher PQM / RDM
2. The systems were then configured to prevent any additional miles being credited
3. UA management then decided to direct their web front-end team to create a page saying that buy-ups would be awarded the higher PQM / RDM, so that they could lie to their customers
Do you realise how preposterous this sounds? Would you agree that it's far more likely that UA is actually dysfunctional in many areas, and there is just poor communication causing this issue?
And what are you bringing change fees into this for?
Vendor-customer relationships are by their nature asymmetrical - the fact that you think there should be some equality in the compensation offered is amusing. Your rights are set out in the CoC.
Any express representation (oral or written) will trump the fine print. OP had an express representation, he posted it. Its very clear he gets the extra miles.UA failing to honor that is a breach of contract. However, if they then give him the run around, don't fix when shown the offer, and it is a "consumer" transaction for the sale of goods or services, then under the laws of every state UA has committed "consumer fraud" by having an unfair business practice. legally we say "fraud" not "lie" but the concept is the same.
And as to your three part premise, I have no idea what UA intended. Clearly OP (and others) have been told "no miles" so I assume that is a policy somewhere. The REAL problem is that when confronted with what their own web-site is showing UAs representatives did not (1) award the miles, (2) say "sorry for any confusion", and (3) send an APB to higher management to get either the policy changed or the web site made more clear.
When a problem that results in people getting ripped off keeps occurring, after a while people assume (and the law allows an inference) the company is on notice of the problem but has chosen to keep ripping people off and therefore has scienter.
When a "mistake" is brought to the company's attention repeatedly, and multiple people at the company persistently refuse to correct it, it no longer matters whether it was originally accidental or intentional. It is intentional, either because it was all along, or because it became effectively intentional when the company intentionally refused to correct its mistake, choosing instead to pocket the windfall.
Says who? Have you ever tried to turn around an oil tanker in a short distance?
I'm absolutely not excusing UA's behaviour here but calling it a lie (a blatant lie, in fact, and fraud, and various other hyperbolic phrases) is a huge stretch. They're just dysfunctional in some areas.
I'm absolutely not excusing UA's behaviour here but calling it a lie (a blatant lie, in fact, and fraud, and various other hyperbolic phrases) is a huge stretch. They're just dysfunctional in some areas.
But if not, he has the law 100% correct. We infer scienter ("guilty mind" or "guilty knowledge") from having notice of a practice or policy that results in fraud and not changing/fixing that policy/practice. When an act would constitute an "unfair business practice" and it is first brought to the person/company's attention and they say "hey, sorry, I did not know that was happening, let me fix it" scienter is going to be hard to show. But when they act like UA and go "FU" and flip you the bird, well is easy to show scienter.and the Oil Tanker analogy is silly. You have posted elsewhere that the merger is done, CO pulled it off, bravo all around, bully for Jeff!. [I disagree, they still have messy labor issues to resolve.] So you can't now turn around and argue that there has not been enough time to address/fix these issues. Changing a disclosure/clarifying a policy does not take a year in any event, it just takes a willingness to address issues so that you are fair and honest with your customers.
Last edited by spin88; May 2, 2013 at 9:52 am
May 2, 2013, 10:02 am
#89
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,597
Agree 100%. The real problem is that these issues occur on UA, UA does not fix them, people get mad, leave. Miles that go missing, flights that get auto cancelled, e+ seats that go missing, upgrades that don't move, miles that don't post, buy ups to e+ that don't get refunded. Each is a chance to lose a customer. All result from a culture of "don't empower anyone to fix anything, it might cost us some incremental revenue somewhere."
......
Changing a disclosure/clarifying a policy does not take a year in any event, it just takes a willingness to address issues so that you are fair and honest with your customers.
......
Changing a disclosure/clarifying a policy does not take a year in any event, it just takes a willingness to address issues so that you are fair and honest with your customers.
it isn't rocket science.
May 2, 2013, 10:15 am
#90
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,645
But even if the OP spends a year trying to resolve the issue, that in itself doesn't make this a lie. The two aren't related. It's a terrible way to do business, sure, but a lie is something completely different entirely.
What you are effectively telling us is that some variant of the following events happened:
1. UA management decided that buy-ups to a higher fare class would not be awarded the higher PQM / RDM
2. The systems were then configured to prevent any additional miles being credited
3. UA management then decided to direct their web front-end team to create a page saying that buy-ups would be awarded the higher PQM / RDM, so that they could lie to their customers
Do you realise how preposterous this sounds? Would you agree that it's far more likely that UA is actually dysfunctional in many areas, and there is just poor communication causing this issue?
What you are effectively telling us is that some variant of the following events happened:
1. UA management decided that buy-ups to a higher fare class would not be awarded the higher PQM / RDM
2. The systems were then configured to prevent any additional miles being credited
3. UA management then decided to direct their web front-end team to create a page saying that buy-ups would be awarded the higher PQM / RDM, so that they could lie to their customers
Do you realise how preposterous this sounds? Would you agree that it's far more likely that UA is actually dysfunctional in many areas, and there is just poor communication causing this issue?
It was a lie. What they promise is not being given. That's the definition of a lie.
We are debating the extent to which there was intent to lie. That, I don't know. All I know is that they keep doing stuff like this. It's part of a pattern of deception.
Star, when they gave away trip to HKG for 4 miles (or 4 cents or whatever it was), it took them less than a day to deal with it.
When there is a problem in favor of the customer, they always find the resources to take away the benefit - and fast.
But, when there is a problem that benefits them, somehow, all we get is silence.
We know that UA Insider reads (or used to read) these threads so we can presume that UA Insider has read this. And, UA Insider has said nothing. Why is that?
This is a pattern and this thread fits into that pattern.
When a "mistake" is brought to the company's attention repeatedly, and multiple people at the company persistently refuse to correct it, it no longer matters whether it was originally accidental or intentional. It is intentional, either because it was all along, or because it became effectively intentional when the company intentionally refused to correct its mistake, choosing instead to pocket the windfall.
Says who? Have you ever tried to turn around an oil tanker in a short distance?
I'm absolutely not excusing UA's behaviour here but calling it a lie (a blatant lie, in fact, and fraud, and various other hyperbolic phrases) is a huge stretch. They're just dysfunctional in some areas.
I'm absolutely not excusing UA's behaviour here but calling it a lie (a blatant lie, in fact, and fraud, and various other hyperbolic phrases) is a huge stretch. They're just dysfunctional in some areas.
They need to be accountable for delivering what they promise, just like the rest of us are in other aspects of life.
UA failing to honor that is a breach of contract. However, if they then give him the run around, don't fix when shown the offer, and it is a "consumer" transaction for the sale of goods or services, then under the laws of every state UA has committed "consumer fraud" by having an unfair business practice. legally we say "fraud" not "lie" but the concept is the same.
...
When a problem that results in people getting ripped off keeps occurring, after a while people assume (and the law allows an inference) the company is on notice of the problem but has chosen to keep ripping people off and therefore has scienter.
...
I assume EsquireFlyer is a lawyer But if not, he has the law 100% correct. We infer scienter ("guilty mind" or "guilty knowledge") from having notice of a practice or policy that results in fraud and not changing/fixing that policy/practice. When an act would constitute an "unfair business practice" and it is first brought to the person/company's attention and they say "hey, sorry, I did not know that was happening, let me fix it" scienter is going to be hard to show. But when they act like UA and go "FU" and flip you the bird, well is easy to show scienter.
...
When a problem that results in people getting ripped off keeps occurring, after a while people assume (and the law allows an inference) the company is on notice of the problem but has chosen to keep ripping people off and therefore has scienter.
...
I assume EsquireFlyer is a lawyer
But if not, he has the law 100% correct. We infer scienter ("guilty mind" or "guilty knowledge") from having notice of a practice or policy that results in fraud and not changing/fixing that policy/practice. When an act would constitute an "unfair business practice" and it is first brought to the person/company's attention and they say "hey, sorry, I did not know that was happening, let me fix it" scienter is going to be hard to show. But when they act like UA and go "FU" and flip you the bird, well is easy to show scienter.They've even gone as far as digging back 13 months and retroactively clawing back miles without even providing any notice - just making them disappear - then stripping flyers of status they thought they earned.
Their ability to execute on things that hurt the customer is unprecedented and incredibly efficient.
Yet, their ability to execute on things like this is zero?
No way this is not intentional. Too many patterns over too much time.
This could all be solved by a simple note from UAInsider saying "we understand there may be an issue with the earning of pqm in cases where a customer has purchased an upgrade. We are working hard to identify what the problem is, if any, and will take the necessary steps to resolve any problems we uncover. In the meantime, if anyone believes they have not been properly credited with pqm earned on a UA flight, please sent me a note with the details."
The silence of UA Insider is deafening.