trini19

There is nothing here amiss in terms of how companies do business. If you try to buy apple in the UK, it costs the same amount as an apple product in the US, except in pounds so makes it more costly than the US product.

Lots of airlines and other companies charge differently for the same exact product based on cc details. Call it discrimination or call it simple global business but thats the world we live in. As to the exact reason this occurs, I am sure it is a mixture of all the reasons given in the previous posts.

I can guarantee though that UA is not the only airline worldwide that does this practice.

WhyPayRent

Wait...what? Seriously this happens? I have bought tickets for other people and this has never happened.

How can I tell? I in fact just purchased two people tickets and I am definitely not travelling with them.

Actually, with cars, you pay based on where you live. Someone living in an unincorporated town will likely have lower taxes than the location of the car dealership, for example.

If you went out of state, you can either have the dealership collect your local taxes from you or you can just take your temp plates and pay the tax when you register the car.

trini19

+1 ^

fastair

That's what I was saying, where I live/where I register it are for most, the same place. It isn't where the sale was made.

WhyPayRent

Ah. Reading comprehension. My bad.

embarcadero1

You don't understand the issue or the technology.

The issue: market based pricing that doesn't make consumers feel cheated.

The technological "challenge" (which makes it seem much more difficult than it is) requires the sales tool (a website) to know the currency of the transaction before offering a price quote.

It's currency that matters, not location. These two often coincide and there are ways to disambiguate conflicting signals. This is not complex technological wizardry. BA and CX figured this out long ago. There are excellent, proven approaches. United opted for this one instead. They did so out of sheer incompetence. Perhaps laziness or stupidity also played a role, I don't know.

If you're okay with having the price quoted to you swapped out for a much higher one at check out, all I can say is that you are exceedingly unusual.

If you want to see how Fastair insulted the OP, read his post.

Mike Jacoubowsky

I read his post, a couple of times. Could you elaborate? And perhaps instead of suggesting that I don't know anything about this particular subject, maybe explain the specifics of how BA and CX do it differently? That could be of interest.

(Serving as the unofficial "complaint department" for a large 'net retailer based in the UK, which shares a similar name to my own business, I know a bit more about such things than you may wish to believe).

embarcadero1

This is a problem that's been solved a dozen different ways, all of them better than United's.

Again, the issue is to confirm the transaction currency prior to issuing a quote. BA takes this approach, which isn't my favorite but is fairly straightforward. Their pricing is complex, but location signals are key for BA:

- If available signals about the system user (IP address, cookies, signed-in state, delta between point of sale and points of travel) suggest that there is a co-incidence of location and currency, the system states the transaction currency and then presents a quote. For example, if you're in the US and you search for flights to the UK, you'll see fares quoted in US dollars. The UI will reinforce this by stating the currency.

- If there is ambiguity about these signals, the system requires that the user clarify elements that can include location, language and transaction currency. For example, if you're in the US and you inquire about internal UK flights, when you change the country of departure, you'll likely see the page refresh. Currency has now been reset to GBP. When you conduct your search, prices quoted will be in GBP. You will be reminded of this before you complete your transaction.

The solution is clunky because it requires the user to guess about currency conversion. But it meets BA's goals and allows pricing based on market and currency. United's pricing model is different, but this example shows how you might swap out currency for location to the same end.

As I stated in my post, no system is infallible. The corporate goal is a sales tool that allows market-based pricing without making consumers feel cheated. While clunky and less than elegant, BA's solution to the problem does the trick most of the time.

I'm sorry to be snarky. You claimed this was "not a realistic goal." Not only is it a realistic goal, it is such a well established best practice for e-commerce that I find it odd to see it questioned, let alone read posts that claim it's not achievable. No serious e-commerce sales tool would rely on IP to set currency, so I'm not sure why IP spoofing techniques are relevant. That is why I presumed you did not understand the underlying technical questions; IP is only one of several signals that might be considered. I can imagine successful designs that do not rely on IP at all.

United probably decided to optimize its systems for US users and decided that some number of angry consumers in other places was an acceptable cost to pay in exchange for an inferior, below-market-standard technical infrastructure. Operators like BA and CX cannot make such assumptions without incurring enormous brand equity/consumer loyalty costs. That's why they figured this out early on. But this is now the standard and global e-commerce, and United fails to meet that standard.

fastair

I've read my posts prior to you claiming I insulted the OP, numbers 4,6, and 21, including the OP's reply to me directly in 39. There was no insult and the OP didn't seem insulted when he replied directly to me in post 39. Just like in another thread last week where I described a post as a "rant or diatribe", you made the same accusation. Same result, the OP replied directly to me stating it was, in fact, a rant. Perhaps you should consider discussing the posts more and less of adding words and ideas to my posts that don't exist. Being critical of a view that you empathize with is not the same as insulting the person who stated the view.

One of the longstanding security measures of many internet sales outlets has been that extra measures are in place (pre-shares UA had this as well) when a purchase is made to be delivered to a different address than the billing address of the credit card used to pay for it. It reduces fraud, as the likelihood of a stolen card will rarely buy things to be delivered to the legit card holder. Billing address has purposes that give it some advantages over simple questions like "what form of currency would you like to pay?" or "what is your language of choice?" None of these methods are perfect, each have their benefits and weaknesses. Some allow easier fraud against the vender or ways to bypass revenue mgmt. strategies, some allow easier fraud when CC numbers are stolen. Is it perfect? By no means. Is it something new or that can't be explained? No to that either.

nanyang

OP here.

Just some thoughts:
- I do not think this type of differential pricing (by where one is based) is as common as some folks here might suggest
- This case is rather different vs. different pricing by sales channel (direct sales / OTA etc.), by point of origin (NYC-LON-NYC // LON-NYC-LON) etc.
- I recall e.g. BA and KLM will direct you the local website depending on where you start your journey, but I do not recall the price going up if you don't have a local credit card

I was actually travelling in the US when this ticket (HNL-STL) was issued, and not for a minute would I think of going to Singapore / European "site" of united.com.

It is somewhat annoying and inconvenient when you realise you cannot get the ticket issued on united.com and have the options of either:
(a) coughing up an additional USD500
or
(b) being inconvenienced

As far as I know, most of UA's network is in N. America. So effectively the message would appear to be that when travelling in the UA network, I should expect to pay a relatively high premium because I am not based in the US (do not have a local credit card)?

I can certainly understand the logic that UA could take the view that they can get a higher yield from foreign visitors flying certain type of domestic itineraries. Whether that makes me particularly happy (also as a 1K member of their programme ) - well, that is the issue here.


Agreed on point 1 - and I'm no expert re point 2.

I would be quite interested in seeing examples of this type of price discrimination outside developing countries.

Good points.

As for BA, I have booked a number of ex-UK fares over the years on ba.com - and the price certainly did not increase due to myself not having a GBP/UK credit card.

Thanks again ^

embarcadero1

You've become a United cheerleader. Your response to the OP, like your responses on the other thread, belittle the nature of the complaint and the person who posts.

Didn't you first claim that United is engaging in an ordinary business practice, that nothing is wrong and that the problem is that the OP doesn't understand this? That wasn't true. United has a below-market-standard web sales tool. As is the case in so many other technology related matters, United is distinguished by its inferior product and deafness to consumers who are negatively affected. There is no reason to switch prices at the last minute. Period.

Now you claim that this is a security measure related to credit card fraud. Again, there isn't a shred of truth to this. Credit card companies have protocols related to security that price transactions (for the merchants) in accordance with the measures they take to mitigate risk. If merchants fall below certain standards, credit card companies can and do institute their own measures (e.g., Verified by Visa). We all know that. The OP's address and language did not change when he tried to buy a ticket from United.

None of what you posted has anything - at all - to do with why United engages in bait-and-switch pricing with consumers, the problem described by the OP.

It seems clear that you will go to any length to justify and defend United's rock bottom service and inferior product. I find this baffling to the point where I'm unable to take anything you say about United seriously.

ani90

Unfortunately, the same can be increasingly said of your posts for the opposite reason. While probably not your intent, your negativity about United often overwhelms the useful points you make. It seems too, at least to this onlooker, that you will go any length to expose and portray United as rock-bottom and inferior.

Such extreme negativity has not too dissimilar effect to 'cheerleading' and also risks pushing readers (who are looking for objective analysis) away from taking what you say seriously.

DCF

I have recently had the same problem.

Next year I fly Lufthansa to the USA, where I have 7 domestic First Class flights on UA.

Using United.com's US site quoted my first five flights in A class for $1600. As soon as I entered my European credit card, the fare was switched to $3400, even though the itinerary, my address and phone number were all in the USA.

I rang United but while they quoted me the lower fare, when I gave them my credit card number the fare reverted back up to more than double.

I then tried Expedia's US website, and thought that I was winning....until I entered my credit card details and.......the fare doubled again.

The only work-around which is still effective is to pay a US travel agency and then have them pay for your ticket.

bmwe92fan

I wonder if this has anything to do with the revenue sharing agreements in place between the airlines. I've noticed that when I add on a segment using UA.COM from FRA or MUC on LH I can only get Y class for Economy and D it seems for business class...

fastair

No, even pointing out the actual post and asking you to read it, you still quote the exact opposite of what I said. This is a cut and paste direct quote of what I said: "You clearly understand tbe concept of point of sale restrictions." (including typo) In what world does saying you DO understand something mean that you do NOT understand something.

Please stop misquoting me and placing things you want me to say so you can bash me into my quotes and instead, quote what I actually said. Next time you need clarification, again, I ask you to read my long standing signature. When someone says you misquoted me, and directs you to the actual post, why in the world would you again misquote instead of re-analyzing what the person is asking you to re-analyze?

I also didn't say this was solely used as a security measure in reference to why UA does this on it's PoS sales, I stated that UA (I don't know about CO) and many other corporation use billing address of CC as a security measure. Again, read what was written, not what dumbed down thoughts you want me to say and reference what I write, not what I didn't write. Again, read my sig. It's a simple concept, quote what people write, summarize the ideas they give, don't interject things that are not there.

And I'm far from a cheerleader, I just like looking at situations objectively. When someone posts an emotional 1st hand account or one based on what they heard from someone else, I ask to examine the objective facts. I'm a big fan of facts and entering into a discussion with clean hands, no preconceived biases, and then discuss the individual points based on what happened in that situation.