fly18725

The OP last posted on 10/6, one day after departure. Tough to be proactive in the middle of the night...

I'm not sure why there's a need to attack United for not providing compensation without knowing what actually happened.

dmurphynj

It does work both ways but there's nothing early about moving people whose flight was cancelled.

It wasn't done for convenience, but to get people where they had to
go as best and as reasonably as possible.

Maybe my wants in life are too simple, but I just don't see it as a big deal. Chalk a few points up in the good karma bank and go about my day ....

spin88

failing to deliver what people bought and paid more for (a non-stop red-eye), and doing to as it saved United money on rebooking/lodging, does not fly in the karma department. Had compensation been offered - we know from OP it was not - I would agree with you. But here United did not ask, it just took something from people who had bought something, and paid more for it, did so to save itself money, and paid nothing in compensation.

That is just as much theft as if I liberated your car from your garage for a few hours to save myself having to rent a car. You might be ok with it, most folks are not.

Imstevek

I think it would be a good exercise for those talking about compensation and stealing, to put themselves in the shoes of those stuck in the first place. would you still be singing the same tune?

bmwe92fan

This happens to me 3 to 4 times per month with UA - and NO I've never hoped that UA would inconvenience so many other people just to get me there when it was UA that messed up - or for any other reason in that respect.

My overall issue with UA doing this would have been far more generous if it had been a day flight - but red eyes are at least to me different - you pay more to try and at least get some sleep because you typically need it because you have to be somewhere the next day - otherwise you would have taken a day flight....

haddon90

i agree, however, the flight to DEN which started this was scheduled at 12pm i believe. so they knew way ahead of time in terms of offering compensation ahead of time.

and correct. it is possible they reached out afterwards, and we do not know that. i have been on flights where the &%$# hit the fan beforehand, and were offered an option from the F/A when we landed.

i am not attacking UA. i applaud them for handling this the way they did in terms of getting the CLE passengers to CLE as quick and reasonable as possible. i am curious to hear what UA will do to offset the n/s that was purchased by the SAN-IAD customers.

ConnFlyer

Replies like this are why UA doesn't give much credence to FT anymore. Your comparison isn't even remotely analogous. While I agree that UA does owe some compensation to customers, I think people have made a mountain out of a mole hill with this scenario.

And let's remember, many of the people on the SAN-IAD flight weren't bound for IAD anyway. So for them, this stop (while annoying) meant nothing in regard to their final destination. If you flew SAN-CLE-IAD-BDL or SAN-IAD-BDL and ended up in BDL at 9:30am, would it really matter?

bmwe92fan

Losing 25 to 33 percent of possible sleep time makes a big difference to me - and then trying to catch up sleep in the CLE to IAD segment is nearly worthless - at least to me.

rolltribe

It's rare that I say this, but UA actually did the smart thing IMHO. Minimize the disruption for 65 pax. It's not like being 1 hour late into IAD is a rare occurrence. Also, this could have been a large group traveling together, or maybe there were a dozen or two upper tier elites out of the 65 and UA wanted to get the upper tiers home and put the rest of the pax on there as well.

fly18725

I think most people, particularly lawyers, would also understand the legal nuances of the situation. United does not have a contractual obligation to give you a nonstop, even if that's what you reserved (however, I agree there is a moral/practical obligation to provide some token compensation in this situation). Conversely, I am both legally and morally obligated not to steal your car. The previously provided restaurant analogy is equally absurd. Restaraunts regularly seat reservations late or at not requested tables. Occasionally, restaurants can't honor reservations. In those cases, you're entitled to nothing.

spin88

To be clear, legally what United did is consumer fraud. No way that their CoC would protect them, a company can't immunize itself by small print in a long documents, for per se violations of the law. The Uniform Consumer Sales Protect Act (adopted in nearly every state) would clearly find selling a non-stop at a higher price and then delivering a one stop, with a delay, and not the (due to being woken up) same ability to sleep, so as to increase the profits of United, was a per se violation of the law.

That said, people can't sue United under Wollens v. AA, because it pre-empts CFA suits vs. airlines. But it does not make United taking something of value away from those who bought SAN-IAD, and giving them less, appropriate.

JC5280

Before we light the torches here (whoops, too late), the OP said he/she paid $300 for the non-stop, but that doesnt necessarily mean that flight was fared differently. Its very possible that fare buckets/capacity priced that flight in to different fares than other flights. In fact, OP only compared it to a connection on AA. So just because the non stop cost $300 than another flight doesnt mean that fare was flight specific. Yes, United got the revenue on OP's seat, but unless the fare rules/price we specifically for that flight, then saying the OP paid more for it was more about the date/time and choices made at booking.

And I would like to see the part of the CoC that one would bias a lawsuit on. What "law" are you speaking of? I know there is nothing in that CoC that claims you wont be delayed for a variety of reasons. What happens when there is a fuel stop on a flight? A supposedly non-stop flight? Do passengers get to sue the airline there? The carrier didnt act illegally here folks.

fly18725

It is interesting that by the end of your post, you conclude this is not fraud. Some additional reading about how the CoC will generally preempt state law:

http://www.hklaw.com/publications/Re...ge-09-30-2013/

As a refresher, here's what the CoC says:

"UA may substitute alternate carriers or aircraft, delay or cancel flights, and alter or omit stopping places or connections shown on the ticket at any time."

JC5280

Sorry, it is not.


Yes it can. If you buy a ticket, you agree to this:

"RULE 24 FLIGHT DELAYS/CANCELLATIONS/AIRCRAFT CHANGES
A) General
1) U.S.A. Origin Flights - Where the UA flights originate in the U.S.A., the provisions of this Rule apply to a
Passenger who has a Ticket and a confirmed reservation on a flight that incurs a Change in Schedule, Force
Majeure Event or a Schedule Irregularity.
2) Non-U.S.A. Origin Flights - Where the UA flight originates outside the U.S.A., the following provisions apply to
a Passenger who has a Ticket and a confirmed reservation on a flight:
a) If local or international laws regulate Change in Schedule, Force Majeure or Schedule Irregularity events,
then the procedures in Rule 24 will not be applied.
b) If no local law otherwise regulates Change in Schedule, Force Majeure or Schedule Irregularity events, then
the procedures in Rule 24 will be applied.
3) Schedules are Subject To Change Without Notice - Times shown on tickets, timetables, published schedules or
elsewhere, and aircraft type and similar details reflected on tickets or UA’s schedule are not guaranteed and form
no part of this contract. UA may substitute alternate carriers or aircraft, delay or cancel flights, and alter or omit
stopping places or connections shown on the ticket at any time. UA will promptly provide Passengers the best
available information regarding known delays, cancellations, misconnections and diversions, but UA is not liable
for any misstatements or other errors or omissions in connection with providing such information. No employee,
agent or representative of UA can bind UA legally by reason of any statements relating to flight status or other
information. Except to the extent provided in this Rule, UA shall not be liable for failing to operate any flight
according to schedule, or for any change in flight schedule, with or without notice to the passenger"

gengar

How is this relevant at all? OP notes that at the time of booking he considered the choice to book on AA with one stop or on UA nonstop but paying $300 more. OP made his choice to pay $300 more based on the nonstop. That's all that matters. Who cares what the fare buckets were or any of that - OP made a typical consumer decision based on the pricing at that time.

I'm not talking about any legal liability UA has (who cares about that anyway, UA goes out of its way to avoid paying out anything whenever it can - just look at how many FT'ers on here have to resport to DoT complaints). The relevant issue is how UA's choices impact the consumer post-purchase decision, and how that may affect consumer decisions/behavior moving forward.