xzh445

transparent

As WineCountryUA indicates, you used the term "back-to-back"

To airlines, that means buying several tickets, often in the same markets, in an attempt to get around the 3 night or weekend stay requirements.
(explained here: http://businesstravel.about.com/od/f...-ticketing.htm )

It sounds like you were buying consecutive tickets vs back to back, but to clarify... did ANY of your ticket "overlap"?

fastair

Well, the "lecture" was prompted when the customer asked the supe for it "This time, I sensed underlying hostility, and I called the supervisor out on it. I asked him why the hostility, and whether it was affecting his willingness to help" My theory is if you don't want a question answered honestly, don't ask the question. Had this been a purely business call by the customer, the supe would have never "lectureed" him on it, as it were, the customer had numerous times asked multiple people, hung up on them all for not breaking the rules, when he ran across a supe who seemed to be irritated by such a waste of resources, the customer prompted the reply by asking the outisde of the transaction related question.

SHould the supe have volunteered the info? No, should the customer have repeatedly hung up on agents who were doing what they were supposed to do, and then escalate to a supervisor to break the rules, then ask the question as to why the supe seems irritated? No, most likely that shouldn't have been done to promt it either.

The whole "mileage run is bad" is a red herring here. The fact that the customer kept hangin up on agents doing their job, then when horizontal shifts from agent to agent didn't work, he then tried for vertical shifts to get rules to be broken on his behalf...well, few businesses have surplus resources dedicated to correctly answering the same question correctly to the same individual across multiple agents and multiple levels, hoping he can convince someoene into breaking the rules in his /against the companies financial interests.

The mileage run is fine, but one gets what one paid for. You buy restricitve tickets to maximize one's return on minimal investment in self interest. You want to change one where the clearly stated rules require a fee, one should expect to pay that price, and not initiate a 1 man campaign of monopolizing the res lines until one can convince someone to break the clearly stated and understood rules for your gain and the airlines loss. One must live with the consequences of one's actions.

emcampbe

Yes, there was. Back in the days, up until about 2008 or so, maybe, you could put most tickets on hold, and would hold until midnight CT the next day. Believe terms didn't guarantee price, but I never saw the price increase, even when it did on a new ticket booked within the period. So if you booked at 00:05 CT, would have almost 48 hours.

There was also the period of 24 hours after purchasing when you could cancel fee-free (same as today) - so you essentially could technically have up to 72 hours on hold/fee-free cancel.

And by the way, even today, you can still hold tickets - in fact for longer - up to 7 days, as long as its all UA metal. Its called Farelock. Yes, it costs a bit - I've used it and won sometimes by purchasing a ticket at a later date when things are more settled. I've also used it, and ended up letting it expire when I found a cheaper ticket or needed to change my plans. In most cases, I've found its a good use of a few bucks.

This is how I read it, too. To ask for a favor that they bend the rules once is ok in my opinion. To HUCA, then have the gall to ask a supervisor, definitely not even close to ok. Supervisor, based on the OP, was harsh, as reasons for flying shouldn't matter. They should have just said we can do the change for $200 change fee and fare difference - end of story

This. I see so many people here having so many issues with staff members. Now, I've run into occasional bad apples for sure, both pre- and post-merger. But funny thing is, when asking for something reasonable, nicely and with a smile, I've always felt like they try and help the best they can, even if its not the answer I wanted to hear. Something tells me this is not coincidence.

Stop here. This is everything - in two sentences. OP wanted to change the ticket but didn't want to pay the fee.

Didn't demand anything, perhaps, in that you didn't say "make the change...or else." But by constantly calling back and then asking for a supervisor (and let's be clear, any fee-free change after 24 hours is a favor), you kind of were. Your record likely also had notes in it from one or more CSRs that you were calling back on the same issue.

I don't think anyone here is saying you can't ask for assistance, but I think the idea is that after trying once, maybe twice, you should stop there. We've all made mistakes, and most of us, at one point or another, have had to learn something the hard way. Take it as a (somewhat expensive, yes) lesson, and move on.

roadkit

THIS, EXACTLY.

Thank you. Are you paying attention, UA?

And WTH is HUACA anyway?

WineCountryUA

Hang
Up
And
Call
Again

jadenus

I'm going to strongly disagree with your analysis of HUACA being a "cancer borne in part...". Certainly OP got some exceptions in the past, but the overwhelming majority of HUACA is because UA's agents don't know the rules as well as a random, well-read FTer. We are required to HUACA because we're given the wrong information that we know to be wrong.

TA: "Sorry, Mr. Jadenus, we can't split the legs on your ticket."
Me: "Yes you can, you guys have done it before."
T: "Oh, well there's a change fee of $150." (This was a couple of years ago)
M: "I just booked it 20 minutes ago, there's no change fee, only incremental taxes."
T: "Well, I don't know how to do it."
M: "Then you can get someone from the rate desk to do it."

Of course, that was the 4th agent I had talked to in a row where I didn't even get past the first step.

So, with UA either hiring agents that can't/don't understand the rules or the system or UA not training those agents properly, how are we to know when a "no" is actually a "no" and when it's a "I don't want to deal with this because it'll drive up my call handling time." or a "I don't know how to do this."?

Again, OP stated he was looking for an exception, so some HUACAs are truly "gaming" the system. But HUACA is, as documented on innumerable threads, a valid and viable solution when you're not getting the correct response to your request. If HUACA is a cancer, it might be slightly aggravated by one-time exceptions (that any company is able to make to their customers), but that cancer was borne, reared, and perfected by a legion of uninformed and/or untrained call center agents.

danielonn

^

Thanks for clarifying my original posting above WineCountryUA about back to back ticketing which indeed is illegal. I agree that consecutive ticketing is ok so as long as the segments are married together properly. I myself wouldn't do consecutive tickets as I would like to allow at least a day or so in a destination to rest after long flying days.

WineCountryUA

based on what do you know splitting legs is allowed, is the written policy or just something many agents will do??

Understand the point you trying to make but your example is a poor case.

LAX88

Your analysis assumes UA would otherwise sell the seat. That is a big assumption.

That said, OP should have been told no. It was past 24 hours and no one deserves "one time exceptions" -- all they do is lead to the ridiculous notions of entitlement that continue to haunt UA.

sinoflyer

I do agree with you on the latter point. Many times we urge or advise HUACA here on FT because indeed we understood the rules better and that the agents were wrong. But it is a slippery slope, like using heroine to combat opium, because eventually we learn that "one time exceptions" aren't really for just one time only. Then, it doesn't take much for us to convince ourselves that we are right in expecting a waiver, because the agents have the ability to do it, and also because we've received it in the past.

In other words, when attempting HUACA, first consult FT for a consensus whether it is a good idea or not.

roadkit

Thank you -- I searched the term but couldn't find where it originated. ^

TWA Fan 1

Funny, when I used to fly EWR-YQB (non MR) for $1,789 roundtrip (it's 443 miles each way) I was never told by anyone at UA that I was "doing the right thing," even though I was paying over $2 per mile flown...

eflyte

Well, if the CSR had expressed disappointment that the OP was unnessesarily polluting the atmosphere and making disproportionate contributions to the growth of greenhouse gas levels, and suggested that the OP consider a hobby that made a positive impact on the world...then they would have been on solid ground. Maybe he/she was struggling to express this sentiment. (Written in the tone of a good-natured but not entirely disingenuous jab)

halls120

So, here's our summary so far.

The OP was wrong for trying to game the system outside the 24hr window. It's a very simple rule, and using HUACA to get around it is arguably offensive.

The CSR was wrong for being critical of his MR. If UA doesn't want mileage runners, they should stop advertising the benefits of acquiring miles.

robbert

This is another myth, back-to-back (which is not what the OP did) are NOT illegal, as in criminal. This will not put you in jail, it is simply against the rules that many airlines put forward. The most they could do is recalculate the fare based on a one-way and try to claim this from you. As far as I know this has never been done for the individual on an incidental back-to-back ticket, but there have been a few (older) reports of travel agents getting billed if they make a habit of selling such tickets. Nowadays, mostly becuase of the Southwest/Jetblue/AirTran effect, the majority of tickets are calculated based on one-ways and the whole issue is moot. It's probably most prevalent still with non-stop flights out of the major hubs without low-fare competition.