flag stop - san-iad red eye makes "flag stop" in CLE
Oct 9, 2015, 3:37 pm
#106
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: SAN
Programs: AS MVP 100K, Hyatt Globalist, Marriott Lifetime Titanium Elite, UA 1MM,
Posts: 1,710
Oct 9, 2015, 3:46 pm
#107
Moderator: Manufactured Spending
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,580
A flag stop is nowhere near as disruptive as a regular stop. A flight from SAN to IAD with one stop at a UA hub would involve getting off the plane, finding a new gate, waiting for some amount of time, and then proceeding. It would add 2-3 hours to the itinerary at the very least. A flag stop, on the other hand, involves no change of plane, and most likely no change of seat. Since this was a red-eye flight, I'm guessing some passengers slept right through it and wouldn't even have been aware that a flag stop occurred if they hadn't been told.
I think some compensation is in order, but not the $300 difference that has been mentioned. The delay was an hour, and few people can claim that an hour of their time is worth that much. $50 or 5000 miles would be sufficient to me.
I think some compensation is in order, but not the $300 difference that has been mentioned. The delay was an hour, and few people can claim that an hour of their time is worth that much. $50 or 5000 miles would be sufficient to me.
Oct 9, 2015, 5:12 pm
#108
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
Because the Courts have interpreted the 1978 ADA act, airlines get away with lots of things that would not fly for 99% of companies.
That united is immunized from liablity of its acts, does not make what it does right, it just prevents people from suing them for it, and forces them to file a complaint with the DOT.
Anyone who has even a mild amount of exposure to consumer law will tell you that a company can't immunize itself from consumer fraud liability by the fine print in its contract. For example if you buy a Toyota Camery, Toyota putting in the signed sale contract (note UAs is not even signed, they instead rely upon an old concept called the "filed rate doctrine") that "we reserve, at our sole option to provide a car of a different type and value from the Camery you purchased" is going to have zero effect when you sue Toyota for trying to give you a Yaris
I am not really interested in debating the law with you, absent the 1978 ADA and how it has been interpreted, what UA did here "giving goods of a different type and value from those purchased" would violate the uniform act.
The same rule, btb would apply to lots of things that we are used to with airlines - downgrading classes of service, or bumping comes to mind.
A flag stop is nowhere near as disruptive as a regular stop. A flight from SAN to IAD with one stop at a UA hub would involve getting off the plane, finding a new gate, waiting for some amount of time, and then proceeding. It would add 2-3 hours to the itinerary at the very least. A flag stop, on the other hand, involves no change of plane, and most likely no change of seat. Since this was a red-eye flight, I'm guessing some passengers slept right through it and wouldn't even have been aware that a flag stop occurred if they hadn't been told.
I think some compensation is in order, but not the $300 difference that has been mentioned. The delay was an hour, and few people can claim that an hour of their time is worth that much. $50 or 5000 miles would be sufficient to me.
I think some compensation is in order, but not the $300 difference that has been mentioned. The delay was an hour, and few people can claim that an hour of their time is worth that much. $50 or 5000 miles would be sufficient to me.
Anyway, my point, and I think many others, is that United gets an F for doing this to those going SAN-IAD and giving nothing in compensation whatsoever. That is what sticks in my, and others, craws.
Oct 9, 2015, 5:57 pm
#109
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
I think I made it very clear, for any other company, not immunized by a federal law (here the 1978 ADA ) what United did would be consumer fraud.
Because the Courts have interpreted the 1978 ADA act, airlines get away with lots of things that would not fly for 99% of companies.
That united is immunized from liablity of its acts, does not make what it does right, it just prevents people from suing them for it, and forces them to file a complaint with the DOT.
Anyone who has even a mild amount of exposure to consumer law will tell you that a company can't immunize itself from consumer fraud liability by the fine print in its contract. For example if you buy a Toyota Camery, Toyota putting in the signed sale contract (note UAs is not even signed, they instead rely upon an old concept called the "filed rate doctrine") that "we reserve, at our sole option to provide a car of a different type and value from the Camery you purchased" is going to have zero effect when you sue Toyota for trying to give you a Yaris
I am not really interested in debating the law with you, absent the 1978 ADA and how it has been interpreted, what UA did here "giving goods of a different type and value from those purchased" would violate the uniform act.
The same rule, btb would apply to lots of things that we are used to with airlines - downgrading classes of service, or bumping comes to mind.
I would agree $300 was rich on a day flight, but I think adding a stop on a red eye is far worse, it sort of defeats the purpose of a red eye. I can personally recall several times that I was forced onto a red-eye, and rather than flying to Chicago and connecting, I back connected through EWR or IAH so that I would get a longer time to sleep.
Anyway, my point, and I think many others, is that United gets an F for doing this to those going SAN-IAD and giving nothing in compensation whatsoever. That is what sticks in my, and others, craws.
Because the Courts have interpreted the 1978 ADA act, airlines get away with lots of things that would not fly for 99% of companies.
That united is immunized from liablity of its acts, does not make what it does right, it just prevents people from suing them for it, and forces them to file a complaint with the DOT.
Anyone who has even a mild amount of exposure to consumer law will tell you that a company can't immunize itself from consumer fraud liability by the fine print in its contract. For example if you buy a Toyota Camery, Toyota putting in the signed sale contract (note UAs is not even signed, they instead rely upon an old concept called the "filed rate doctrine") that "we reserve, at our sole option to provide a car of a different type and value from the Camery you purchased" is going to have zero effect when you sue Toyota for trying to give you a Yaris
I am not really interested in debating the law with you, absent the 1978 ADA and how it has been interpreted, what UA did here "giving goods of a different type and value from those purchased" would violate the uniform act.
The same rule, btb would apply to lots of things that we are used to with airlines - downgrading classes of service, or bumping comes to mind.
I would agree $300 was rich on a day flight, but I think adding a stop on a red eye is far worse, it sort of defeats the purpose of a red eye. I can personally recall several times that I was forced onto a red-eye, and rather than flying to Chicago and connecting, I back connected through EWR or IAH so that I would get a longer time to sleep.
Anyway, my point, and I think many others, is that United gets an F for doing this to those going SAN-IAD and giving nothing in compensation whatsoever. That is what sticks in my, and others, craws.
It would be appropriate to provide all affected customers a small gesture as an apology.
Oct 9, 2015, 6:31 pm
#110
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: LAS ORD
Programs: AA Pro (mostly B6) OZ♦ (flying BR/UA), BA Silver Hyatt LT, Wynn Black, Cosmo Plat, Mlife Noir
Posts: 5,992
Oct 9, 2015, 6:31 pm
#111
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,035
For UA customers, the terms are disclosed and the product is similar in value. For customers flying SAN-IAD-XXX, they ended up arriving at their final destination in the exact same amount of time since no connections were blown due to this flagstop. For customers only flying SAN-IAD, they ended up about an hour late to their destination which is within the margin of being the same product given the nature of air transportation.
In UA's case, you'd also have a hard time proving fraud unless you could prove that UA sold those SAN-IAD tickets with no intention of flying the route nonstop.
Now, if UA wanted to keep customers happy, a small token of compensation (say $100) would have been wise. However, there's no fraud here no matter how you try and twist it.
Oct 9, 2015, 7:08 pm
#112
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
No. Lots of companies reserve the right to substitute a similar product for the one purchased and it's perfectly legally as long as the terms are clearly disclosed and the product is similar in value.
For UA customers, the terms are disclosed and the product is similar in value. For customers flying SAN-IAD-XXX, they ended up arriving at their final destination in the exact same amount of time since no connections were blown due to this flagstop. For customers only flying SAN-IAD, they ended up about an hour late to their destination which is within the margin of being the same product given the nature of air transportation.
In UA's case, you'd also have a hard time proving fraud unless you could prove that UA sold those SAN-IAD tickets with no intention of flying the route nonstop.
Now, if UA wanted to keep customers happy, a small token of compensation (say $100) would have been wise. However, there's no fraud here no matter how you try and twist it.
For UA customers, the terms are disclosed and the product is similar in value. For customers flying SAN-IAD-XXX, they ended up arriving at their final destination in the exact same amount of time since no connections were blown due to this flagstop. For customers only flying SAN-IAD, they ended up about an hour late to their destination which is within the margin of being the same product given the nature of air transportation.
In UA's case, you'd also have a hard time proving fraud unless you could prove that UA sold those SAN-IAD tickets with no intention of flying the route nonstop.
Now, if UA wanted to keep customers happy, a small token of compensation (say $100) would have been wise. However, there's no fraud here no matter how you try and twist it.
(2) and regardless, the law is clear that even in a commercial transaction the term would be "clearly disclosed" no way that is in this case, 99.99999999% of consumers don't have any idea what the CoC is, nor is it provided when a ticket is sold.
(3) good luck convincing a judge or jury that a more expensive red-eye non-stop is as valuable as a one hop, getting in an hour later, when you could have (as with the OP) gotten it for $300 cheaper. So not gonna fly.
(4) the act, after payment, of switching what is given, here a take it or leave it basis, is per se consumer fraud. Intend to defraud arises at the point where they failed to deliver, not at the point of contracting. When Best Buy says "oh so sorry, we don't have that $1199 50" Sony TV, here is a $899 Panasonic one, take it or pound sand" it is consumer fraud, regardless of what they intended to do at the begaining.
Look, as I have said several times, its clear that CFA liability is preempted by Wolens/1978 ADA Act. But absent that, what UA did here would never fly in any other type of consumer transaction. Pick any other consumer business if they delivered a materially different item, that could be obtained for $300 less, on a take it or leave it basis, they would be slapped down by the Courts with you walking away in most states with attorney's fees and 3x your economic damages (here for OP $300).
OP, I assume UA compensated you, if not, I would complaint to DOT, which has authority to take action.
Oct 9, 2015, 9:13 pm
#113
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: LAS HNL
Programs: DL DM, 5.7 MM, UA 3.1 MM, MARRIOTT PLATINUM, AVIS FIRST, Amex Black Card
Posts: 4,479
UA should give all the PX that purchased the nonstop flt a UA voucher for the difference in price that they would have paid taking a connection. Simple. It is a win-win for UA and the PX. I love the term "flag stop". That term is about 100+ years old.
Last edited by goalie; Oct 10, 2015 at 9:02 am Reason: off topic comment removed
Oct 9, 2015, 10:34 pm
#114
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: LAS HNL
Programs: DL DM, 5.7 MM, UA 3.1 MM, MARRIOTT PLATINUM, AVIS FIRST, Amex Black Card
Posts: 4,479
As to "flag stop" flts. I have had perhaps 3 in my life. Never on UA. I guess that is pretty good odds. I fly a lot.
I guess UA made the right move on this. DL would have done it different.
UA needs to step up and give the people that booked the non-stop credit for the stop. THIS WAS A SCHEDULED STOP, when UA decided to do a "flag stop". UA chose to do this before the wheels left the ground.
I guess UA made the right move on this. DL would have done it different.
UA needs to step up and give the people that booked the non-stop credit for the stop. THIS WAS A SCHEDULED STOP, when UA decided to do a "flag stop". UA chose to do this before the wheels left the ground.
Last edited by goalie; Oct 10, 2015 at 9:04 am Reason: quote of deleted post removed along with response to said quoted post
Oct 9, 2015, 11:59 pm
#115
Moderator: Manufactured Spending
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,580
(4) the act, after payment, of switching what is given, here a take it or leave it basis, is per se consumer fraud. Intend to defraud arises at the point where they failed to deliver, not at the point of contracting. When Best Buy says "oh so sorry, we don't have that $1199 50" Sony TV, here is a $899 Panasonic one, take it or pound sand" it is consumer fraud, regardless of what they intended to do at the begaining.
I guess UA could have done that too. "Sorry we can't fly you on the itinerary you scheduled, here's your money back."
I don't know if they offered that option. But if they did, I think that would satisfy the requirements of consumer law. I'm not familiar with the uniform act, but I assume it makes provisions for a full refund when a good or service cannot be delivered.
Furthermore, if a passenger really wanted a nonstop flight, he/she could have waited for one. I don't know when the next one was, and I doubt that anyone would have chosen that option, but I'm sure it would have been offered if requested. Would you argue that this would also be a violation of the uniform act (assuming not preempted) because the passenger was delayed?
Oct 10, 2015, 12:11 am
#116
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: BOS
Programs: 1MM, UA 1k
Posts: 529
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....
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....
For starters, I never said you hoped it would happen, but just put yourself in the position of the stranded, something we've all been over and over. Planes break, and I can't speak for you, but sometimes Plan B (spare plane) goes bad too. They took a shot at fixing it instead of going by the typical playbook.
This feels like the typical FT "UA is damned if they do, damned if they don't" perspective that is so pervasive here. I like that UA tried to make the best out of a bad situation that impacted 60 people by 30 minutes connections and cut their sleep short by 90 minutes, maximum? For this they deserve compensation and I'd like to think UA checked connections - if we can make all the other leaps of faith being made in this thread, I'm making that one. I would argue a red-eye has MUCH less opportunities for mis connects than during the day.
I do agree there should be compensation for the affected non stop pax. They didn't get a vote in the inconvenience.
All that said, they likely won't do it again, and then we'll be back to the endless carping of "hotels and vouchers and UA stinks..." drumbeat tomorrow....
Cheers!
Oct 10, 2015, 9:44 am
#117
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: DAY
Programs: UA 1K 1MM; Marriott LT Titanium; Amex MR; Chase UR; Hertz PC; Global Entry
Posts: 10,159
A flag stop is nowhere near as disruptive as a regular stop. A flight from SAN to IAD with one stop at a UA hub would involve getting off the plane, finding a new gate, waiting for some amount of time, and then proceeding. It would add 2-3 hours to the itinerary at the very least. A flag stop, on the other hand, involves no change of plane, and most likely no change of seat. Since this was a red-eye flight, I'm guessing some passengers slept right through it and wouldn't even have been aware that a flag stop occurred if they hadn't been told.
I think some compensation is in order, but not the $300 difference that has been mentioned. The delay was an hour, and few people can claim that an hour of their time is worth that much. $50 or 5000 miles would be sufficient to me.
I think some compensation is in order, but not the $300 difference that has been mentioned. The delay was an hour, and few people can claim that an hour of their time is worth that much. $50 or 5000 miles would be sufficient to me.
Preparing the cabin for arrival, lights coming on, all seat backs fully upright, 65 people needing to get off the plane (are they crawling over the IAD passengers sleeping in aisle seats?), overheads slamming....absent an overdose of Ambien, no one is sleeping through that.
A more flyer-friendly option would have been putting the 65 people on the SAN->IAD flight, then adding a tag onto CLE at the end of the TCON red-eye. United would have had 6 hours to arrange the schedules of plane/crew. Of course that would have cost them more $....
Oct 10, 2015, 10:13 am
#118
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: NYC / TYO / Up in the Air
Programs: UA GS 1.7MM, AA 2.1MM, EK, BA, SQ, CX, Marriot LT, Accor P
Posts: 6,322
This feels like the typical FT "UA is damned if they do, damned if they don't" perspective that is so pervasive here. I like that UA tried to make the best out of a bad situation that impacted 60 people by 30 minutes connections and cut their sleep short by 90 minutes, maximum? For this they deserve compensation and I'd like to think UA checked connections - if we can make all the other leaps of faith being made in this thread, I'm making that one. I would argue a red-eye has MUCH less opportunities for mis connects than during the day.
Because honestly - there is no difference between these two situations other than it was UA's fault in the first instance and the pax fault in the second, and UA would have to pay for accommodation / OAL tickets in the first, and pax would in the second...
I'm sorry if you all think I'm being too tough but I've explained my position - a red-eye is a fundamentally different flight than a day time flight - people pay more because they have to sleep, and at least to me I honestly believe UA did this to save themselves money, because I don't for a second think that UA would EVER do situation 2 above - which all you supporters of this action would supposedly support because it's the right thing to do...
Oct 10, 2015, 12:19 pm
#119
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
I wonder if this discussion would be so favorable towards UA and this action if a bus full of passengers showed up late to the airport after a night and day of partying and then demanded that UA redirect an existing flight so they could get home - and then UA does it and OP posts.
Because honestly - there is no difference between these two situations other than it was UA's fault in the first instance and the pax fault in the second, and UA would have to pay for accommodation / OAL tickets in the first, and pax would in the second...
I'm sorry if you all think I'm being too tough but I've explained my position - a red-eye is a fundamentally different flight than a day time flight - people pay more because they have to sleep, and at least to me I honestly believe UA did this to save themselves money, because I don't for a second think that UA would EVER do situation 2 above - which all you supporters of this action would supposedly support because it's the right thing to do...
Because honestly - there is no difference between these two situations other than it was UA's fault in the first instance and the pax fault in the second, and UA would have to pay for accommodation / OAL tickets in the first, and pax would in the second...
I'm sorry if you all think I'm being too tough but I've explained my position - a red-eye is a fundamentally different flight than a day time flight - people pay more because they have to sleep, and at least to me I honestly believe UA did this to save themselves money, because I don't for a second think that UA would EVER do situation 2 above - which all you supporters of this action would supposedly support because it's the right thing to do...
Oct 10, 2015, 12:27 pm
#120
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: NYC / TYO / Up in the Air
Programs: UA GS 1.7MM, AA 2.1MM, EK, BA, SQ, CX, Marriot LT, Accor P
Posts: 6,322
In general they are cheaper than their daytime equivalent - but they are not typically cheaper on overnight flights that include a stop. For example, take SAN-IAD for this Sunday night - the direct is cheaper than the early morning flight, but the connections overnight are less than the direct...