tornado163

Legally, UA seems to be in the right. Once the ticket was changed, the old flight is irrelevant, and it's as if the OP originally bought the ticket for the early flight which happened to get cancelled.

This highlights the difference between a business focused solely on the bottom line, and a business which values customers. The OP paid a considerable amount of money to change to a different flight, only to wind up flying essentially on their original ticket. A customer-oriented business would recognize that charging a customer $550 to change their ticket, only for the change to be negated will result in a very frustrated customer. If the customer feels that UA has screwed them by charging $550 without providing anything tangible, that customer is likely to switch to a different airline and will cost UA more than $550 in the long run.

So in short, I don't think UA is legally required to refund anything, however it will build a good customer relationship (and potentially more than $550 in profit) to acknowledge the customer's raw deal.

kale73

WWJJS?

(What would Judge Judy say?)

PainCorp

Since when does UA care about a good customer relationship?

OZJET

If I paid $550 to change flight then was put back on the same original flight I would expect refund and fight for the change fees.
I would tell the CC company that you did not get the flight you paid the change fee for .
I think the person contesting the fee would have it reversed.

jpezaris

Despite what everyone else is saying about rules, regulations, chargebacks, CoC, etc., this is the -- the -- reason United should apologize and refund the $550.

One simple, targeted gesture can change a customer's outlook and behavior for a very long time. I became a lifelong CO / UA flyer because CO was willing to offer a deep discount on fares to a group of people visiting a very sick friend. In 1987. That's almost 30 years worth of business that they got from me for a measly hundred dollars or so.

mre5765

Why not? She paid money to fly to arrive at time Y. UA could not get her to arrive at time Y. Therefore, if she does not take the flight, she is owed what she paid.

DaviddesJ

I'm just telling you what UA's policies actually are. What they should be, that is a different question, and ultimately subjective.

mduell

United never, ever sells you a ticket to arrive at time Y. They will not do it, and they make it clear they're not doing it.

IAH-OIL-TRASH

Huh? We all pay to get from somewhere to another at time Y. Every time UA arrives past time Y, they owe us our money back? Yeah, sure. Good luck with that. OP bought discounted non-refundable tickets with change fee and potential for more expensive fare if she changed. Its a risk she took. She decided she didn't like the scheduled arrival, so she changed her ticket to a more suitable schedule. UA does not guarantee the arrival time. I kid you not. She gambled. She lost (twice).

She opted to change the flight on her own. That money is gone, plus the money for the higher fare class. That decision was hers. UA arrived late - she is due whatever UA is on the hook for that late arrival. T&C say she is due N.O.T.H.I.N.G. If UA decides to goodwill compensation, it might be for the late arrival, rather than refund of change fees and up-fare.

cordelli

Really? That's what she bought a ticket to leave and arrive at a specific time? They issued a special contract of carriage just for her that specified that?

Maybe they will totally cross out this part of it (which pretty much all airlines have)

Schedules are Subject To Change Without Notice - Times shown on ticket, timetable or elsewhere are not guaranteed and form no part of this contract. UA will promptly provide Passengers the best available information regarding known delays, cancellations, misconnections and diversions, but UA is not liable for any misstatements or other errors or omissions in connection with providing such information. No employee, agent or representative of UA can bind UA legally by reason of any statements relating to flight status or other information. Except to the extent provided in this Rule, UA shall not be liable for failing to operate any flight according to schedule, or for any change in flight schedule, with or without notice to the passenger.

When you buy a ticket you agree to certain terms. It's good to know those terms before making crazy statements.

raehl311

There is a difference between, "You didn't arrive at time Y because of weather, mechanical, air traffic, whatever" and "We charged you $550 to put you on a different flight, then we decided not to operate that flight at all."

If there were an airline out there that made a habit of scheduling 4 AM flights and charging a $200 price premium to buy tickets on them but then always cancelled the flights and put passengers on the next available flight, that airline would find themselves staring down an action for deceptive trade practice (or some other more appropriate legal term.)

What if you walked up to the ticket counter the morning of the flight and paid $550 to change, then once the transaction processed, the airline cancelled the flight 2 minutes later? Technically OK by the CoC, right? No rational person would argue that was ok in real life, because it isn't.

Just because an airline puts a term in a contract of carriage doesn't necessarily mean that term is enforceable.

UA should refund the change fee / fare difference.

My personal recommendation, if the web form doesn't work (and it may not, just as a matter of odd circumstance and overworked CS reps): Twitter. A simple, "Paid $550 to change flights, UA kept me on same flight, need refund."


Nobody wants to fly an airline where you pay for something and then don't get it and the airline thinks that's OK. And I would hope UA wouldn't think that was OK either.

Tunapalooza

The law does not always require us to do the right thing. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, "Integrity is doing the right thing, even when the COC gives you a free pass.” Focussing on the COC language to the exclusion of the equities is rather cynical.

The key facts here are: (1) the passenger already held a ticket for the later flight; and (2) the passenger paid an additional amount to change to the earlier flight. The dispute concerns UA's inability to make good on the change, not the general principle that flights can be delayed or cancelled. United can hide behind its COC and affirm its lack of integrity, as several here have argued. It shouldn't.

craz

If say the OP paid for E+ on their original flight and then switched flights, wouldnt they have to pay for E+ again? Then if the new flight was CXed wouldnt UA charge them a 3rd time for E+ on the new flight even thou at 1 time they paid for it. Each time you pay and its CXed out the window goes the $$s.

It would be great if UA wouldnt hit people up in this way but since its not out looking to win any popularity awards, thats exactly what it will do

Yea it Stinks but each transaction stands on its own. Once the new flight was CXed couldnt the OP simply have gotten a refund of all the $$s paid and then flown on XX instead?

IflyfromABE

well, same thing should apply to every cancelled flight out there, right? And both you and I know that this is not the case.

People should make non-refundable ticket arrangements after they know their schedule, otherwise they should go for refundable fares.

That simple.

Again, that is the difference between non-refundable and refundable fares.

Very simple.

But we all are used to $500 flights or less. If someone wants to change their fares, they should opt for the $1200 flights.

Really...

craz

Nope Ive had non-refundable tkts where my Outbound was CXed I didnt like what they offered and was told I could simply get a full refund. Of cause having used an eCert and on a G fare that wouldnt have been too smart a move on my part.

But had I been in the OPs shoes I would have jumped at that as long as I saw I could purchase a tkt on another carrier for less $$