WineCountryUA

There maybe a grain of truth in this, some TATL base fares are as low as $50 have been reported BUT the YQ needs to be consider in addition to the base fare. Potential sounds like an inexperienced agent.

MSPeconomist

Cases like this cause people not to believe any fare breakdown into segments that UA might claim. Hence, UA should at least refund the entire fare component (which people can verify on most ticket receipts) plus associated taxes and fees.

I wonder whether there was a fuel surcharge on the ticket that got the $50 refund.

JBord

Seems like it would be rare if under $100 base. Some coincidence if this was one of those flights, but possible. But your point is right on, UA should refund everything the pax paid for that segment, otherwise it's just a partial refund.

I would be unhappy if I purchased a broken TV from Best Buy for $1000 and only got $890 back when I returned it because they kept taxes (or surcharge in this case). That's similar, although UA doesn't technically have to offer a refund to those pax who eventually made it to LHR.

Even worse, if it's a $50 base, it's like the passenger paid $300 and only got $50 back for the broken flight.

luckypierre

This particular episode in the continuing saga of UNITED IRROP misadventures has taken on greater meaning with me as each little piece of the story falls in place. Tons of insights into current UA management/operational policies. Few, if any, in favor of the passenger. I understand they were under no obligation to refund anything (apart from those passengers who were informed enough and flexible enough to declare the trip in vain as they left Goose Bay) since they arrived at Heathrow two days later, but if I read this report correctly not only are they not refunding the entire outbound portion, but they are keeping the fraction assigned to taxes and govt fees?

Perhaps it all makes sense; a large multinational dominated by an accounting approach would only understand goodwill as defined in FASB 142.