pdxdtm

I'm traveling on an UA ticket. To date my calls with UA have not been fruitful. Just trying to see if Hong Kong has other laws that would give me greater protection in the case, where UA has cancelled one of my legs on a reward ticket. I looked at the Cathay CoC to see if I might find any reference to HK laws governing this situation.

I haven't the slightest what the penalty would be for non-compliance of the CoC for Cathy.

garykung

I saw your prior post to determine your routing. In this case, you are ticketed for HKG-CHC (via GUM, AKL).

UA's only obligation is to transport you (via partners) from HKG to CHC. UA has no obligation to keep the routing. Keep in mind that *A barely have service in CNS and there is no alternative service. It is not something that UA does not want to do. In fact, there is nothing UA can do.

Your best recourse is check for J award for HKG-AKL.

The reason I am saying this is there is no penalty for violating the CoC. If you claim the airline violating the CoC, the best airline can do is refund your ticket (if unused) or some goodwill gestures.

HKG may be one of the most popular destination. However, HKG is definitely one of the worst place when it comes to consumer protection of air travel.

pdxdtm

Well thats good to know. United has been telling me they are not obligated to transport me... since I am booked on a reward ticket and that unless they can find reward space availability (either X, I or O seats), they will end up refunding my miles for that half of the ticket and washing their hands. They've also told me they are negotiating 'protections' for travelers who have flights booked and that I should wait until those are determined, but they can't give me a timeline for when that will be announced or what that will include. Where i've got a huge problem is that most of the reward space has already been eaten up and is not available the dates I need to travel. I'm definitely not tied to the routing, and in fact, would prefer to get to CHC earlier than the 3 days of travel I had to book to get down their with the HKG-GUM-AKL-CHC routing.

All told, I'm just pissed this is taking so long... its already been more than a week since the route cancellation was announced and still no idea if or when I'll get to NZ.

Kacee

That is not correct. CoC Rule 24 has been discussed at length upthread and in related threads. UA has no obligation to transport under these circumstances.

spin88

you are technically correct under the CoC Rule 24, but I am unaware of hearing about (and if anyone knows a prior example, would be interested in a link) United ever just cancelling reward tickets due to a scheduled change. I think they have always re-accommodated (on partners when need be).

If I have not missed United doing this, then it may be a new low, or in United's case a new "low low"

OP, I am afraid that you are sort of at UA's mercy (friend's don't let friends put themselves at UA's mercy). If UA truly cancels and tell you to pound sand, then I would file a DOT complaint. I would not hold out hope (DOT seems to care less about reward tickets) but it is worth a shot, it sometimes gets UAL to act.

Kacee

UA usually finds something that will work. This is a tough situation because there is no UA metal, only partners now fly the route, and award space to NZ is so very difficult.

spin88

My memory is that in prior retrenchments (e.g. BKK) UA found alternative space for people on OALs. I can't recall an example of UAL (or any UA major carrier) ever saying "sorry, your reward reservations are cancelled, here are your miles back"

Its sort of like the "break the buck" rule with money market funds, regardless of what some fine print says, the notion that they just take away the reward and say point sand, has not (as far as I can recall) come to pass.

This is why I would suggest filing a DOT complaint if they actually go this way... It is a reservation, and if the airlines are retaining a right to unilaterally cancel, and actually do so, then it raises all kinds of issues.

Kacee

But BKK was easy due to the large number of alternatives. The issue here is how do you get replacement space from HKG-CHC?

Perhaps UA will come through. Perhaps they are working with NZ right now to rebook displaced CNS pax who were traveling onward to New Zealand. I'm just saying they have the option of refund. And if they did, I suspect DOT would say that's not within their jurisdiction. That's what they said about the UP fares, and that was much worse IMO.

garykung

It actually does according to the Rule 24 you have mentioned:

Under Rule 24 (C) Change in Schedule, UA has 2 options: rebooking on (1) UA or (2) partners.

Since UA will pull from CNS, (1) is not an option. So (2), which I have suggested, was the only option.

Rule 24 (C) also says if only if (1) and (2) options are exhausted, and OP does not want to (3) extend the ticket, then (4) refund will be available.

The only segment now in question is HKG-AKL (as AKL-CHC is confirmed). Since there is still time, I am optimistic that something will be available. But it may not be J.

As I said previously, there is no penalty for UA to violate its CoC. OP can file a DOT complaint as he/she sees fit.

3Cforme

IMHO you really ought to wait to see what protection agreement(s) UA offers. Protection can be far better than the C of C minimum. Out of alliance carriers might well be part of it.

KosherKimchee

You are giving UA a lot of credit for rebooking customers. Let's see. When BA cancelled LGW-MLE seasonally I think they basically told customers to either (1) pound sand or (2) fly to India and swim south.

mrswirl

Not even 7 months in and already UA is pulling the plug on DEN-PTY. Absolutley shameful given the press surrounding the launch last Dec.
http://www.denverpost.com/business/c...nk-panama-city

Interesting quote from CH2MHill person:

Kacee

You are not reading Rule 24(c) correctly. It offers four options, and expressly states that the choice among them is "at [UA's] election."

Rule 24(c)(1) is an option only if UA still has flights to the destination. Here, it does not. Rule 24(c)(2) (reroute on other carriers) is expressly at UA's discretion. Because (c)(2) is purely discretionary, UA can opt not to reroute on another carrier. In that case, the pax is left with the remedy of 24(c)(3) or (4) - apply the ticket towards another flight within 1 year or request a full refund.

And btw, the remedy for a breach of the CoC is a lawsuit. A claim for breach of contract is not preempted by the ADA. In this case, of course, that's academic, because UA can decline to reroute without breaching the CoC.

jk88usa

I loved the route, took it twice to PTY in May and in June, but I understand completely why they are pulling the plug. Twice a week still makes sense for tourism purposes but the 5 days a week deal was overkill on a limited market. Both of my flights were nearly totally void in the Economy Plus section, 2-4 open F seats, and about 3/4 full in the economy cabin....I definitely see why they aren't making money and I'm guessing the subsidies finally ran out. Especially on a 737...

Hopefully they eventually bring back an early week departure rather than only Fri/Sat in the near future, but I actually think it's being handled quite fairly by UA.....because as far as I could tell it was a money pit

uanj

UA has its warts for sure, but usually they take of customers who already were booked and confirmed when they cancel a route. This particular instance will be interesting because of the lack of partner service to CNS.

Am I missing something? When I was speaking to someone at UA they said the route was going seasonal because of traffic patterns, not a full out cancellation of the route. Anyone know for sure?