Red_Rob

Doesn't sound like OP is asking for a full refund, only the amount charged for the change. UA will still end up with $600 for the flight, which is the posted fare. Seems reasonable that since the individual was changed back to the original flight (not at their own request) that UA should be willing to refund the change fees.

I think there are likely some decent people at UA who would even make this call, the problem is for a GM to actually reach any of those people.

cordelli

Not after you take another flight to get to the destination they won't.

Which is what the OP did. They did not say they were not going and did not ask for a refund instead of taking the trip.

cordelli

Once the passenger changed flights, the original flight no longer mattered. It's like it never existed. Like they just bought a ticket on the earlier flight and were delayed and moved to the later flight.

I_Can_Fly_US_Airways

As you are NEW to United, here is a fairly simple answer...

Non-Refundable tickets=change fees + penalties. Not sure how it works over at Delta cause I don't fly them!

Hope this helps (-:

DaviddesJ

Well, duh. That's completely different from what he said and I replied to.

Ragnarok

No. I agreed with you that UA's CoC does not guarantee flights go according to schedule.

As such, the flight itself may be delayed, canceled, etc.

The airline still provided the service, that is, getting you from Point A to Point B, in exchange for the fare paid by the passenger.

However, in this case, I argue that the passenger paid $550 in exchange for, to a service of changing to a different flight. That change service, if rendered originally, was reversed.

How is this different than the E+ scenario discussed a few post back? E+ seat assigned then reversed?

stifle

Sure. But UA isn't making a habit of it.
Correct.

The people treating the change fee and upfare payment as a separate reversible transaction are getting it wrong. The $550 was an additional payment under the original contract, and did not magically delete the part of the CoC quoted upthread that flight times are not guaranteed or a part of the contract. UA owes the passenger nothing at law.

Do I think it would be nice of UA to refund the $550? Sure. Do nice businesses stay in business? You answer that for yourselves. Could it chuck her some funny money? Probably.

DaviddesJ

It is, in fact, a separate transaction, and subject to the credit card terms of service (which are different from UA's ticket terms). That's why there is some logic in treating it separately.

Yeah, definitely. It's a no-brainer that treating your customers better in unfortunate situations more than pays for itself, in an industry that depends on repeat business and has lots of competition. I think virtually everyone agrees on that.

Mike Jacoubowsky

For the airline business, is there bottom-line evidence to support that? Are "nicer" companies more profitable than not-so-nice? Do the nicer companies stay in business while the others fail?

A case might be made that the "nicer" companies don't last in this biz. Midwest Express was generally highly-regarded; that's the only recent example that comes to mind. Where are they now? And the legacy carriers consistently rank at the bottom of the surveys, and yet they plunder on (with a few exceptions).

The customer says nice is important, but isn't willing to pay more $$$ for nice. If nice cost the same, would it win out? Certainly. But nice doesn't cost the same. It's easy to believe otherwise, but you have to invest to be nice. You have to hire trainable employees, and train them. You have to be willing to make things right, which costs money.

Ah, but those short-term costs lead to long-term profits, right? In theory, yes. In practice, the consumer sees a flight from SFO-ORD as an 1800 mile trip where price is the #1 determining factor, and the airlines made it that way. How? By a screwy pricing model that encourages us to work around our plans to get a reasonable fare. Price is first and foremost in our minds, because it might cost $600 if we leave on a Sunday afternoon (when we want to) and $300 if we left on a Saturday or Tuesday. Once we're in price mode, of course we compare to other airlines, and the idea of "nice" has kinda gone out the window as a factor because the airlines have already made a mess of your plans.

twtrvl

OP, will you report back on the outcome?

coolcoil

WN. They do a great job, and treat customers well (not that I have any complaints about UA myself) and make money.

I do understand, though, that Spirit and Allegiant are the two most profitable airlines right now, and they are not known for customer-friendly policies.

In the particular case of the OP, I am not sure which way I come down on the issue. I do get that UA probably has no legal responsibility to pay, but I certainly understand the sentiment that they should.

On the other hand, if say for example, the OP did fly on the flight originally scheduled, but it was delayed such that it left at the same time as the other flight, I think that few people here would argue that he is due a refund.

A few weeks ago, I paid a higher fare to take an earlier flight on US to avoid the risk of being late into MIA. My connecting flight in CLT was delayed, and I watched the "later" flight board while waiting for mine. I don't think anyone would argue that I was due a refund of the difference.

astroflyer

I think the OP clearly has a good case for a refund of change fees. It's not a delay, but rather an outright cancellation. I agree that from the credit card agreement that these are distinct transactions. Forget this contract of carriage nonsense. The customer used a credit card to incur a charge for a particular service (changing her flight). This service was not provided. The charge should be reversed.

Think about this: What if Best Buy had a conditions of purchase contract that stated they are not responsible for any damaged items delivered to a customer. The customer orders a TV online and receives a TV that doesn't work. Just because it's in such a contract of adhesion does not mean it's enforceable. No credit card issuer would force someone to pay for a broken TV. Let's be reasonable here folks.

One thing I'm not clear on though is what if she had declined the schedule change. Would she be refunded the original cost + change fees or just the original cost? That's not obvious to me.

raehl311

Says who?

It seems a lot of people are relying on, "The CoC says so, so the passenger is screwed."

That's not valid logic. Just because it's in the CoC doesn't mean it's enforceable.

The CoC is a contract of adhesion - it's not negotiated between the two parties. That means the terms of the contract are subject to heightened scrutiny, and terms that may be valid in a contract negotiated between and agreed to by both parties may not be valid in a contract of adhesion.

There is a very key difference between, "Your flight was late because of things out of our control (like the weather)" and "You paid to change to a different flight which we chose not to operate so we didn't process your change but kept your money". I would suggest that terms in the CoC that basically amount to, "We will charge you several hundred dollars to change flights, but reserve the right to not actually change your flight and keep your money" would be ruled unconscionable.


OP will get their money back - hopefully because someone at UA with some sense receives their correspondence. But the idea that not refunding the change fee+fare difference is ok as a matter of law is just silly.

craz

while in a docs waiting room waiting my turn, The Peoples Court was on. Turns out a woman was suing for her broken TV. She had it for a few days and had someone else sign for it when it came.The delivery guy wanted to open it and have the other person inspect it and she Reused. End of story since the person signed that the TV was AOK and working the Judge found for the Defendent. Happens all the time when you buy something marked "As Is"

twtrvl

Those are different facts than astroflyer's scenario.