Jade_BR

My turn to disagree. Wether UA passed on the money to UK or not, it does not change the fact that a) it charged something that the UK does not require and b) refused to refund when alerted to the issue. Definitely something DOT has jurisdiction over.

And I'm a female. You can stop using the forward slash

mgcsinc

A female lawyer on FT. Welcome!

Wx4caster

Wow, I owe a few posters here drinks! ^

I upgraded my wife and I on HNL-IAD-LHR-DUB using GPUs and can find no evidence that I was charged the ADP. However on the wife's return, I used miles/copay and was charged the $100. (no fee on my return GPU that I can see).

I just called and got an agent here in HI who put me on hold to verify, and came back a few minutes later saying that I was correct and should not have been charged. She submitted a refund request for me. If I don't see a refund in 7 days, I'll pass it on to DOT along with my tracking number, indicating that I did try to resolve through the airline directly. Even if the refund comes through, I will still let the DOT know because this systematic error needs to stop!

Kacee

Where did you get the idea that UA automatically pays over to the UK revenue authorities every cent it collects under the guise of UK Passenger Duty? That's just not how this works. Collection and payment are entirely separate processes. Just because dollars are collected from pax does not mean they are paid to the taxing authority.

Jade_BR

Are we really that elusive?

And don't get too excited. My diploma never left the drawer and I never took the bar exam in the US. Never worked a day in my life as a lawyer. Never regretted it

I'm a true unicorn - a female cross-cultural negotiator. Good luck finding that in the yellow pages

TWA Fan 1

You see, that's why I used the forward slash...

It's all good.

I hope the U.S. DOT can provide satisfaction. But why not get the most hard info possible?

Yes, the money was collected by UA and, in error. Your research was excellent. Now it's time to get the money back and to make sure UA stops it.

But the APD is in fact a UK departure tax, and even though UA is the ticketing carrier I'm assuming your connection to IST is not on UA, most likely not a U.S.-based carrier.

All complicating factors that will muddy the waters as far as the U.S. DOT is concerned...

TWA Fan 1

I have no doubt that's the case, but then thar doesn't exactly jibe with the explanation JadeBR received from UA, namely that it is "collecting a fee that it is required to pay to British authorities?"

And I'm curious, if UA isn't paying its APD funds to HMRC, what are they doing with them?

SamuelS

The point has been laboured somewhat, but...

The OP did not in fact pay the tax. (S)he did not pay the tax because there is no tax due. Not for a transit within 24 hours. So while (S)he may have been charged $200, it was not for a tax, on the contrary UA has charged him/her $200 incorrectly / under false pretences, with that money ultimately going into UA general revenues.

You say this is not the DOT jurisdiction? While the APD and other taxes themselves are not the jurisdiction of the DOT, it is most certainly within the DOT's remit if UA is collecting additional fees that go to general revenues, whilst incorrectly (fraudulently?) claiming these are for a legitimate government tax (they're not - and UA won't be sending that money to HMRC).

Kacee

DOT has jurisdiction on multiple grounds. It has jurisdiction over UA as a US based carrier. It also has jurisdiction over all airline ticket sale transactions in this country, regardless of where the carrier is based.

That's called a lie. Or if you want to give them a break, a negligent misrepresentation.

Keeping them. Are you really this naive?

TWA Fan 1

Right, but if UA really wants to play hardball it can obfuscate in a way that would make it hard for U.S. DOT to verify the validation of the APD collections...

That's not to say, of course, that HMRC wouldn't cooperate with U.S. DOT, just a complicating factor, especially since the issue is a UK departure tax.

TWA Fan 1

The question was rhetorical...

SamuelS

All taxes are ultimately fees that are required to be paid to the relevant authority. So in a sense, that information is correct. It's just that in this case, this fee is not required to be collected or paid to the British authorities and UA is incorrectly collecting it in the first place.

If UA is collecting a tax that is not actually due, then those funds simply get retained by the carrier and won't be remitted.

UA does not keep every single tax, for every single country, for every single ticket issued, segregated out into separate bank accounts.

This, and similar issues, have been going on for years. For instance, how many non-refundable tickets do you think go unused each year? I remember having quite a fight with Air Canada after they refused to refund any of my ticket purchase when i wasn't able to complete the journey. When I requested the "government taxes and fees" to be refunded, they refused. However, things like airport facility fees, airport improvement fees, and the majority of the government taxes are in fact not even payable by the carrier if the passenger doesn't complete the journey. Nice bottom-line bonus revenue - all in the name of "taxes/fees".

TWA Fan 1

The OP was in fact forced by UA to pay a tax which she did not owe.

That alone is pretty serious.

Then she was given the old-school runaround, the classic pass-the-buck explanation "we're just collecting the tax..."

Of course, U.S. DOT has jurisdiction over UA. But the game definitely gets a little more dicey when you consider that UA is collecting a UK departure tax that is due on a flight segment LHR-IST that is almost certainly not on a U.S. based carrier.

Perhaps it's just basic incompetence or inattention on UA's part (as in "we're collecting the APD for any segment originating in the UK) or perhaps it's something more devious (as others have intimated).

I'm not drawing any conclusions except to say that if UA wants to play hardball, they can keep this issue easily obfuscated...

TWA Fan 1

Well, there is a big difference between unused non-refundable tickets and obliging passengers to pay a tax that is not due, namely the CoC.

When you buy a non-refundable fare, the CoC clearly states the contractual conditions. If you don't use your non-refundable ticket then the airline keeps the money and you don't get your trip. That's totally above board and agreed to.

If, on the other hand, a $200 charge appears on your credit card bill for a tax that is not applicable, one that, as JadeBR attempted to do, is not disputable because of the pass-the-buck explanation ("we just collect the tax") then that's completely different.

No CoC includes language that forces passengers to pay government fees that are not due, and even if they did, these CoC's would be in violation of law.

I think these two scenarios are very different.

Kacee

It's not a deliberate scheme. It's a systems flaw that works in UA's favor. Those tend to be corrected slowly, if at all.