IRROPS, United's ongoing fare fraud and why you should complain to the DOT
Jul 5, 2014, 9:42 am
#61
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
These “instant upgrade” fares are an airline’s way of filling a cabin with higher-fare passengers before they offer upgrades. Fundamentally, I don’t mind the practice to that point. Where I do believe they should be force-fed a rule change by the DOT is when there are situations where they cannot accommodate someone in the upgraded cabin due to a change in circumstances.
The airlines should be COMPELLED to refund the difference between the “Instant Upgrade” fare and the highest fare for the next equivalent ticket with the same level of restrictions. So, if one were to get bumped to coach, and the instant upgrade fare had restrictions, the difference between the restricted coach ticket on sale at the time that the “Instant Upgrade” fare was issued, and the “Instant Upgrade” fare, should automatically (yes, automatically) be refunded.
In one respect, I see the current situation as little more than legalized gambling. I paid for an upgraded seat, at a higher price. The gamble is that there won’t be any problems that cause me to lose that seat. If I win, I fly the way I wanted. If I lose, I forfeit the fare difference between the lower fare I could have paid for the downgraded seat, and the fare I actually paid. A roll of the dice.
Joel
The airlines should be COMPELLED to refund the difference between the “Instant Upgrade” fare and the highest fare for the next equivalent ticket with the same level of restrictions. So, if one were to get bumped to coach, and the instant upgrade fare had restrictions, the difference between the restricted coach ticket on sale at the time that the “Instant Upgrade” fare was issued, and the “Instant Upgrade” fare, should automatically (yes, automatically) be refunded.
In one respect, I see the current situation as little more than legalized gambling. I paid for an upgraded seat, at a higher price. The gamble is that there won’t be any problems that cause me to lose that seat. If I win, I fly the way I wanted. If I lose, I forfeit the fare difference between the lower fare I could have paid for the downgraded seat, and the fare I actually paid. A roll of the dice.
Joel
The rule ought to be either (a) accommodate in the ticket cabin (F,J, Y) or (b) if impossible, then its a IDB and they get compensation plus the fare difference to the lowest available fare at the time they purchased (which may still be too high if e.g. UAL was higher in Y, but F was cheap compared to OALs).
DOT can, and if enough folks complain, will address the issue, as its clearly a major problem in people not getting what they paid for. And like with the IDB issue, DOT can, and I think will act.
Jul 5, 2014, 9:53 am
#62
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,399
These “instant upgrade” fares are an airline’s way of filling a cabin with higher-fare passengers before they offer upgrades. Fundamentally, I don’t mind the practice to that point. Where I do believe they should be force-fed a rule change by the DOT is when there are situations where they cannot accommodate someone in the upgraded cabin due to a change in circumstances.
The airlines should be COMPELLED to refund the difference between the “Instant Upgrade” fare and the highest fare for the next equivalent ticket with the same level of restrictions. So, if one were to get bumped to coach, and the instant upgrade fare had restrictions, the difference between the restricted coach ticket on sale at the time that the “Instant Upgrade” fare was issued, and the “Instant Upgrade” fare, should automatically (yes, automatically) be refunded.
In one respect, I see the current situation as little more than legalized gambling. I paid for an upgraded seat, at a higher price. The gamble is that there won’t be any problems that cause me to lose that seat. If I win, I fly the way I wanted. If I lose, I forfeit the fare difference between the lower fare I could have paid for the downgraded seat, and the fare I actually paid. A roll of the dice.
Joel
The airlines should be COMPELLED to refund the difference between the “Instant Upgrade” fare and the highest fare for the next equivalent ticket with the same level of restrictions. So, if one were to get bumped to coach, and the instant upgrade fare had restrictions, the difference between the restricted coach ticket on sale at the time that the “Instant Upgrade” fare was issued, and the “Instant Upgrade” fare, should automatically (yes, automatically) be refunded.
In one respect, I see the current situation as little more than legalized gambling. I paid for an upgraded seat, at a higher price. The gamble is that there won’t be any problems that cause me to lose that seat. If I win, I fly the way I wanted. If I lose, I forfeit the fare difference between the lower fare I could have paid for the downgraded seat, and the fare I actually paid. A roll of the dice.
Joel
Jul 5, 2014, 9:59 am
#63
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Since the BoSox and ChiSox won it, now it is the Cubs turn to take the Series. Go Cubs Go!
Posts: 3,685
Your post missed a fundamental of Anglo-American Law, the "benefit of the bargain" If a passanger buys a F (or J) fare, whether it is sold as a F/J fare (as was OPs, it was listed that way) or buys an "upgrade" after they buy a coach seat, they bought that, and were inticed to fy United by what they bought. They did not buy a cheaper Y seat. If someone wants that F seat for $700, and United says "well sorry, you are in Y, and that is $500, here is your $200 back." The entire reason for the transaction has been destroyed.
The rule ought to be either (a) accommodate in the ticket cabin (F,J, Y) or (b) if impossible, then its a IDB and they get compensation plus the fare difference to the lowest available fare at the time they purchased (which may still be too high if e.g. UAL was higher in Y, but F was cheap compared to OALs).
DOT can, and if enough folks complain, will address the issue, as its clearly a major problem in people not getting what they paid for. And like with the IDB issue, DOT can, and I think will act.
The rule ought to be either (a) accommodate in the ticket cabin (F,J, Y) or (b) if impossible, then its a IDB and they get compensation plus the fare difference to the lowest available fare at the time they purchased (which may still be too high if e.g. UAL was higher in Y, but F was cheap compared to OALs).
DOT can, and if enough folks complain, will address the issue, as its clearly a major problem in people not getting what they paid for. And like with the IDB issue, DOT can, and I think will act.
Jul 5, 2014, 10:20 am
#64
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 23,046
§250.6 Exceptions to eligibility for denied boarding compensation.
A passenger denied boarding involuntarily from an oversold flight shall not be eligible for denied boarding compensation if:
(c) The passenger is offered accommodations or is seated in a section of the aircraft other than that specified on the ticket at no extra charge, except that a passenger seated in a section for which a lower fare is charged shall be entitled to an appropriate refund;
DOT rules also only apply to oversale situations, not IRROP's. I fairly confident that expanding IDB compensation to downgrades of F pax in IRROP situations is pretty low on DOT's priority list. I could certainly see them clarifying refunds and refund amounts in such situations, but not providing IDB compensation.
Last edited by xliioper; Jul 5, 2014 at 10:32 am
Jul 5, 2014, 12:17 pm
#65
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,399
Clarifying the refund, yes, but only if it's done in a sensible way. Currently airlines try to use the walkup of FULL Y fare for the comparison or they rewrite the ticket so as to break the fare if one or more connecting flights are flown in the original premium class. The result is that the passenger gets little or nothing in many cases, despite having paid much more for the premium cabin at the time of ticketing.
I'm not saying that downgrades from whatever-UP fares should count as IDBs but there should be rules about how the refund is calculated and some additional compensation should be paid because, remember, the customer decided to purchase FC rather than coach given the price difference at the time of ticketing.
I'm not saying that downgrades from whatever-UP fares should count as IDBs but there should be rules about how the refund is calculated and some additional compensation should be paid because, remember, the customer decided to purchase FC rather than coach given the price difference at the time of ticketing.
Jul 5, 2014, 12:18 pm
#66
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SRQ
Programs: UA Plat-Million Miler (1.6MM), IHG-Plat Amb; Amex Plat-P, Marriott-Gold;Hertz Gold; Hilton-Gold
Posts: 762
Business Class and Rule 240
I routinely purchase Z and P fares, i.e. discounted Business Class on international flights, usually to/from Bahrain. In more than one instance, I have experienced MX or other IRROPS. The default position for UA is to book me on the next UA flight in Business class, but since the UA flights to/from BAH operate 4 times per week, the next flight can sometimes be two days later. My question, does Rule 240 and the CoC require UA to book me into Business Class on LH or TK even if there are no Z or P fare seats ? I have never been successful in getting UA to book me into Business Class on MX and IRROPS situations.
Jul 5, 2014, 12:27 pm
#67
Moderator: United Airlines
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SFO
Programs: UA Plat 1.995MM, Hyatt Discoverist, Marriott Plat/LT Gold, Hilton Silver, IHG Plat
Posts: 66,834
UA CoC.24 allows UA to issue a refund if unable to accommodate in purchased cabin.
Jul 5, 2014, 1:15 pm
#68
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: ORD
Programs: 1K, MM, Marriott Plat
Posts: 427
Yes, it absolutely stated F but I wasn't concerned about F vs. JN. What concerned me, and confirmed by the calls and question to GA were the fact it now stated it was a confirmed upgrade and treated no different than a 72 hour upgrade. As both calls and question in person confirmed, I did not receive a confirmed F class seat for the miles spent, simply an upgrade that could be downgraded if space was needed. Crazy...
Jul 5, 2014, 1:28 pm
#69
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
DOT already addresses downgrades for pax on full-fare F tickets. If downgraded, you are entitled to the fare difference between coach, but not IDB compensation. Why would they give someone on UP fare IDB compensation when they don't even provide that for someone on a full F fare?
§250.6 Exceptions to eligibility for denied boarding compensation.
A passenger denied boarding involuntarily from an oversold flight shall not be eligible for denied boarding compensation if:
(c) The passenger is offered accommodations or is seated in a section of the aircraft other than that specified on the ticket at no extra charge, except that a passenger seated in a section for which a lower fare is charged shall be entitled to an appropriate refund;
DOT rules also only apply to oversale situations, not IRROP's. I fairly confident that expanding IDB compensation to downgrades of F pax in IRROP situations is pretty low on DOT's priority list. I could certainly see them clarifying refunds and refund amounts in such situations, but not providing IDB compensation.
§250.6 Exceptions to eligibility for denied boarding compensation.
A passenger denied boarding involuntarily from an oversold flight shall not be eligible for denied boarding compensation if:
(c) The passenger is offered accommodations or is seated in a section of the aircraft other than that specified on the ticket at no extra charge, except that a passenger seated in a section for which a lower fare is charged shall be entitled to an appropriate refund;
DOT rules also only apply to oversale situations, not IRROP's. I fairly confident that expanding IDB compensation to downgrades of F pax in IRROP situations is pretty low on DOT's priority list. I could certainly see them clarifying refunds and refund amounts in such situations, but not providing IDB compensation.
If someone buys F, the airline telling them to go sit in Y, and then giving them some $$ (which are calculated by the airline using fuzzy math to be as little as possible) is not reasonable. What DOT's IDB rules provide for F>Y downgages is far less than what a Court would award under basic contractual principles.
Jul 5, 2014, 2:05 pm
#70
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: ORD
Programs: United Plat 2MM, Hilton Gold
Posts: 2,727
I don't think that's United's position. United's position seems to be that while you thought you bought an first class fare for $700, you really bought a coach fare for $700, not $500. They tossed in an upgrade to First, but one only usable on the original flight.
Jul 5, 2014, 2:12 pm
#71
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 12,691
Yes, it absolutely stated F but I wasn't concerned about F vs. JN. What concerned me, and confirmed by the calls and question to GA were the fact it now stated it was a confirmed upgrade and treated no different than a 72 hour upgrade. As both calls and question in person confirmed, I did not receive a confirmed F class seat for the miles spent, simply an upgrade that could be downgraded if space was needed. Crazy...
Jul 5, 2014, 2:17 pm
#72
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
Its is also why the issue is not IDB, but instead disclosure/fraud on UALs part, and why its important that DOT know this is going on. Clarity of pricing and what you get is a focus for DOT at this point.
I was simply trying to address the IDB point, and the idea (of repeated on this forum) that the IDB rules make what United does hunky dorie. That DOT has not regulated in an area does not mean that anything United does in that area, however unfair or misleading is ok. Rather it means DOT needs to know about the issue so they can decide if they want/need to address.
Jul 5, 2014, 2:36 pm
#73
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,568
If they want to do that, they should be transparent about it up front. I think most of the ire displayed here is because UA isn't honest about what their customers are purchasing.
Jul 5, 2014, 3:02 pm
#74
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: near to SFO and LHR
Programs: BA Gold, B6 Mosiac, VS, AA, DL (and a legacy UA 2MM)
Posts: 2,274
I routinely purchase Z and P fares, i.e. discounted Business Class on international flights, usually to/from Bahrain. In more than one instance, I have experienced MX or other IRROPS. The default position for UA is to book me on the next UA flight in Business class, but since the UA flights to/from BAH operate 4 times per week, the next flight can sometimes be two days later. My question, does Rule 240 and the CoC require UA to book me into Business Class on LH or TK even if there are no Z or P fare seats ? I have never been successful in getting UA to book me into Business Class on MX and IRROPS situations.
Jul 5, 2014, 3:29 pm
#75
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,719