Sep 24, 2016, 12:05 pm
Last edit by: Global321
From the United Website...
Rule 25 Denied Boarding Compensation
Denied Boarding (U.S.A./Canadian Flight Origin) - When there is an Oversold UA flight that originates in the U.S.A. or Canada, the following provisions apply:
B. Denied Boarding Non-U.S.A./Canada Flight Origin - Where there is an Oversold UA flight that originates outside the U.S.A. or Canada, no compensation will be provided except where required by local or international laws regulating Oversold flights.
Rule 25 Denied Boarding Compensation
Denied Boarding (U.S.A./Canadian Flight Origin) - When there is an Oversold UA flight that originates in the U.S.A. or Canada, the following provisions apply:
1. Request for Volunteers
a. UA will request Passengers who are willing to relinquish their confirmed reserved space in exchange for compensation in an amount determined by UA (including but not limited to check or an electronic travel certificate). The travel certificate will be valid only for travel on UA or designated Codeshare partners for one year from the date of issue and will have no refund value. If a Passenger is asked to volunteer, UA will not later deny boarding to that Passenger involuntarily unless that Passenger was informed at the time he was asked to volunteer that there was a possibility of being denied boarding involuntarily and of the amount of compensation to which he/she would have been entitled in that event. The request for volunteers and the selection of such person to be denied space will be in a manner determined solely by UA.
2. Boarding Priorities - If a flight is Oversold, no one may be denied boarding against his/her will until UA or other carrier personnel first ask for volunteers who will give up their reservations willingly in exchange for compensation as determined by UA. If there are not enough volunteers, other Passengers may be denied boarding involuntarily in accordance with UA’s boarding priority:
a. Passengers who are Qualified Individuals with Disabilities, unaccompanied minors under the age of 18 years, or minors between the ages of 5 to 15 years who use the unaccompanied minor service, will be the last to be involuntarily denied boarding if it is determined by UA that such denial would constitute a hardship.
b. The priority of all other confirmed passengers may be determined based on a passenger’s fare class, itinerary, status of frequent flyer program membership, and the time in which the passenger presents him/herself for check-in without advanced seat assignment.
b. The priority of all other confirmed passengers may be determined based on a passenger’s fare class, itinerary, status of frequent flyer program membership, and the time in which the passenger presents him/herself for check-in without advanced seat assignment.
3. Transportation for Passengers Denied Boarding - When UA is unable to provide previously confirmed space due to an Oversold flight, UA will provide transportation to such Passengers who have been denied boarding whether voluntarily or involuntarily in accordance with the provisions below.
a. UA will transport the Passenger on its own flight to the Destination without Stopover on its next flight on which space is available at no additional cost to the Passenger, regardless of class of service.
b. If space is available on another Carrier’s flight regardless of class of service, such flights may be used upon United’s sole discretion and the Passenger’s request at no additional cost to the Passenger only if such flight provides an earlier arrival than the UA flight offered in 3) a) above.
b. If space is available on another Carrier’s flight regardless of class of service, such flights may be used upon United’s sole discretion and the Passenger’s request at no additional cost to the Passenger only if such flight provides an earlier arrival than the UA flight offered in 3) a) above.
4. Compensation for Passengers Denied Boarding Involuntarily
a. For passengers traveling in interstate transportation between points within the United States, subject to the EXCEPTIONS in section d) below, UA shall pay compensation to Passengers denied boarding involuntarily from an Oversold Flight at the rate of 200% of the fare to the Passenger’s first Stopover or, if none, Destination, with a maximum of 675 USD if UA offers Alternate Transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the Passenger’s Destination or first Stopover more than one hour but less than two hours after the planned arrival time of the Passenger’s original flight. If UA offers Alternate Transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the Passenger’s Destination or first Stopover more than two hours after the planned arrival time of the Passenger’s original flight, UA shall pay compensation to Passengers denied boarding involuntarily from an Oversold Flight at the rate of 400% of the fare to the Passenger’s first Stopover or, if none, Destination with a maximum of 1350 USD.
b. For passengers traveling from the United States to a foreign point, subject to the EXCEPTIONS in section d) below, UA shall pay compensation to Passengers denied boarding involuntarily from an Oversold Flight originating at a U.S. airport at the rate of 200% of the fare to the Passenger’s first Stopover or, if none, Destination, with a maximum of 675 USD if UA offers Alternate Transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the Passenger’s Destination or first Stopover more than one hour but less than four hours after the planned arrival time of the Passenger’s original flight. If UA offers Alternate Transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the Passenger’s Destination or first Stopover more than four hours after the planned arrival time of the Passenger’s original flight, UA shall pay compensation to Passengers denied boarding involuntarily from an Oversold Flight at the rate of 400% of the fare to the Passenger’s first Stopover or, if none, Destination with a maximum of 1350 USD.
c. For passengers traveling from Canada to a foreign point, subject to the EXCEPTIONS in section d) below, UA shall pay compensation to Passengers denied boarding involuntarily from an Oversold Flight originating at a Canadian airport with a maximum of 200 CAD if UA offers Alternate Transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the Passenger’s Destination or first Stopover more than one hour but less than four hours after the planned arrival time of the Passenger’s original flight. If UA offers Alternate Transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the Passenger’s Destination or first Stopover more than four hours after the planned arrival time of the Passenger’s original flight, UA shall pay compensation to Passengers denied boarding involuntarily from an Oversold Flight with a maximum of 300 CAD. At the passenger’s request, compensation in the form of check, wire transfer, visa card, or a travel voucher will be made by UA, and if accepted by the Passenger, the Passenger will provide a signed receipt to UA.
d. EXCEPTIONS: A Passenger denied boarding involuntarily from an Oversold Flight shall not be eligible for denied boarding compensation if:
b. For passengers traveling from the United States to a foreign point, subject to the EXCEPTIONS in section d) below, UA shall pay compensation to Passengers denied boarding involuntarily from an Oversold Flight originating at a U.S. airport at the rate of 200% of the fare to the Passenger’s first Stopover or, if none, Destination, with a maximum of 675 USD if UA offers Alternate Transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the Passenger’s Destination or first Stopover more than one hour but less than four hours after the planned arrival time of the Passenger’s original flight. If UA offers Alternate Transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the Passenger’s Destination or first Stopover more than four hours after the planned arrival time of the Passenger’s original flight, UA shall pay compensation to Passengers denied boarding involuntarily from an Oversold Flight at the rate of 400% of the fare to the Passenger’s first Stopover or, if none, Destination with a maximum of 1350 USD.
c. For passengers traveling from Canada to a foreign point, subject to the EXCEPTIONS in section d) below, UA shall pay compensation to Passengers denied boarding involuntarily from an Oversold Flight originating at a Canadian airport with a maximum of 200 CAD if UA offers Alternate Transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the Passenger’s Destination or first Stopover more than one hour but less than four hours after the planned arrival time of the Passenger’s original flight. If UA offers Alternate Transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the Passenger’s Destination or first Stopover more than four hours after the planned arrival time of the Passenger’s original flight, UA shall pay compensation to Passengers denied boarding involuntarily from an Oversold Flight with a maximum of 300 CAD. At the passenger’s request, compensation in the form of check, wire transfer, visa card, or a travel voucher will be made by UA, and if accepted by the Passenger, the Passenger will provide a signed receipt to UA.
d. EXCEPTIONS: A Passenger denied boarding involuntarily from an Oversold Flight shall not be eligible for denied boarding compensation if:
The flight is cancelled;
The Passenger holding a Ticket for confirmed reserved space does not comply fully with the requirements in this Contract of Carriage Requirements regarding ticketing, check-in, reconfirmation procedures, and acceptance for transportation;
The flight for which the Passenger holds confirmed reserved space is unable to accommodate the Passenger because of substitution of equipment of lesser capacity when required by operational or safety reasons or, on an aircraft with a designed passenger capacity of 60 or fewer seats, the flight for which the passenger holds confirmed reserved space is unable to accommodate that passenger due to weight/balance restrictions when required by operational or safety reasons;
The Passenger is offered accommodations or is seated in a section of the aircraft other than that specified on his/her ticket at no extra charge. Provided, if a Passenger is seated in a section for which a lower fare applies, the Passenger will be entitled to a refund applicable to the difference in fares;
The Passenger is accommodated on Alternate Transportation at no extra cost, which at the time such arrangements are made, is planned to arrive at the airport of the Passenger’s next Stopover, (if any), or at the Destination, not later than 60 minutes after the planned arrival time of the flight on which the Passenger held confirmed reserved space;
The Passenger is an employee of UA or of another Carrier or other person traveling without a confirmed reserved space; or
The Passenger does not present him/herself at the loading gate for boarding at least 15 minutes prior to scheduled domestic departures, and 30 minutes prior to scheduled international departures. See Rule 5 D) for additional information regarding boarding cut-off times.
The Passenger holding a Ticket for confirmed reserved space does not comply fully with the requirements in this Contract of Carriage Requirements regarding ticketing, check-in, reconfirmation procedures, and acceptance for transportation;
The flight for which the Passenger holds confirmed reserved space is unable to accommodate the Passenger because of substitution of equipment of lesser capacity when required by operational or safety reasons or, on an aircraft with a designed passenger capacity of 60 or fewer seats, the flight for which the passenger holds confirmed reserved space is unable to accommodate that passenger due to weight/balance restrictions when required by operational or safety reasons;
The Passenger is offered accommodations or is seated in a section of the aircraft other than that specified on his/her ticket at no extra charge. Provided, if a Passenger is seated in a section for which a lower fare applies, the Passenger will be entitled to a refund applicable to the difference in fares;
The Passenger is accommodated on Alternate Transportation at no extra cost, which at the time such arrangements are made, is planned to arrive at the airport of the Passenger’s next Stopover, (if any), or at the Destination, not later than 60 minutes after the planned arrival time of the flight on which the Passenger held confirmed reserved space;
The Passenger is an employee of UA or of another Carrier or other person traveling without a confirmed reserved space; or
The Passenger does not present him/herself at the loading gate for boarding at least 15 minutes prior to scheduled domestic departures, and 30 minutes prior to scheduled international departures. See Rule 5 D) for additional information regarding boarding cut-off times.
5. Payment Time and Form for Passengers Traveling Between Points within the United States or from the United States to a Foreign Point
[/INDENT]a. Compensation in the form of check will be made by UA on the day and at the place where the failure to provide confirmed reserved space occurs, and if accepted by the Passenger, the Passenger will provide a signed receipt to UA. However, when UA has arranged, for the Passenger’s convenience, Alternate Transportation that departs before the compensation to the Passenger under this provision can be prepared and given to the Passenger, the compensation shall be sent by mail or other means to the Passenger within 24 hours thereafter.
b. UA may offer free or reduced rate air transportation in lieu of a check payment due under this Rule, if the value of the transportation credit offered is equal to or greater than the monetary compensation otherwise due and UA informs the Passenger of the amount and that the Passenger may decline the transportation benefit and receive the monetary compensation.
6. Limitation of Liability - If UA’s offer of compensation pursuant to the above provisions is accepted by the Passenger, such payment will constitute full compensation for all actual or anticipatory damages incurred or to be incurred by the Passenger as a result of UA’s failure to provide the Passenger with confirmed reserved space. If UA’s offer of compensation pursuant to the above provisions is not accepted, UA’s liability is limited to actual damages proved not to exceed 1350 USD per Ticketed Passenger as a result of UA’s failure to provide the Passenger with confirmed reserved space. Passenger will be responsible for providing documentation of all actual damages claimed. UA shall not be liable for any punitive, consequential or special damages arising out of or in connection with UA’s failure to provide the Passenger with confirmed reserved space.b. UA may offer free or reduced rate air transportation in lieu of a check payment due under this Rule, if the value of the transportation credit offered is equal to or greater than the monetary compensation otherwise due and UA informs the Passenger of the amount and that the Passenger may decline the transportation benefit and receive the monetary compensation.
B. Denied Boarding Non-U.S.A./Canada Flight Origin - Where there is an Oversold UA flight that originates outside the U.S.A. or Canada, no compensation will be provided except where required by local or international laws regulating Oversold flights.
Involuntary Denied Boarding on Baby's First Flight
Sep 25, 2016, 7:02 am
#181
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: PSM
Posts: 69,232
As I said before, I understand why you're pursuing it this way. But I think your read is badly twisted and is ultimately going to cost you.
I do not believe that a ticket can have only one destination; that's why multi-city itineraries are viable. But if you want to limit it to only one then LAX is the destination on that routing. It certainly is not MEM.
Sep 25, 2016, 7:12 am
#182
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 204
Yes, it can as the others are stopovers. See my post above. In this case, MEM-IAH-LAX-MEM, each on a different day, LAX is the destination as it is the point farthest from MEM and IAH is a stopover. Depending on available fares, MEM-IAH-LAX may be charged separate MEM-IAH and IAH-LAX fares or it may be charged a MEM-LAX fare with probably a stopover charge, whichever is available and works out to be least expensive.
Sep 25, 2016, 7:28 am
#183
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 42
I think you're misinterpreting what "ultimate point of the journey" means in defining Destination. I think you will find that they argue that it means farthest from the origin, not final place named on the ticket. For instance, if I travel ORD-HNL-OGG-ORD (with overnight stays at each and ignoring any connections), HNL is the destination and OGG is the stopover. OTOH, if I travel ORD-HNL-LIH-ORD, LIH is the destination and HNL is the stopover. Connections (which are not the same as Stopovers) do not change that so if I travel round-trip to OGG with a connection in HNL each way, OGG is still the destination even though HNL is farther from ORD.
Sep 25, 2016, 7:35 am
#184
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Between AUS, EWR, and YTO In a little twisty maze of airline seats, all alike.. but I wanna go home with the armadillo
Programs: CO, NW, & UA forum moderator emeritus
Posts: 35,426
More importantly, United defines "Destination" as the ultimate point of the Passenger's journey as stated on the ticket. The last point on my Ticket was Memphis.
...
It defines "Stopover" as a deliberate interruption of travel by the Passenger, agreed to in advance by the carrier, at a point between the place of departure and the place of destination. That describes my two night stop in Houston.
...
It defines "Stopover" as a deliberate interruption of travel by the Passenger, agreed to in advance by the carrier, at a point between the place of departure and the place of destination. That describes my two night stop in Houston.
t less respect.
Sep 25, 2016, 7:55 am
#185
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 42
You can parse the fine print as much as you like but when you get in front of a judge this argument is at best going to make you look silly. No reasonable person (judges included) would support your hypothesis that a ticket with a MEM-IAH-MEM routing has a ticketed destination of MEM. If you manage to tell that to the judge with a straight face you can expect the rest of your arguments to be treated with a lt less respect.
t less respect.This is not parsing fine print, this is just reading the actual words in the COC and applying normal understanding to these words. A judge will understand this just fine. He/she may disagree, but this is not a far-fetched position by any means
But the destination is not Memphis in this example.
I know of zero people in the world (other than you, apparently) who believe that's what a stopover nor a round-trip ticket is.
Only if you believe the manipulated meaning of definition.
As I said before, I understand why you're pursuing it this way. But I think your read is badly twisted and is ultimately going to cost you.
At any point you inquired of it. The agent on the phone has all the details and can easily share them with you if you ask. My guess is that your response here is, "I didn't ask and they didn't offer so I had no idea so my version of reality should win." I do not believe that will fly in court given that you had the option to easily get that information at any point in the process.
I do not believe that your version is a reasonable interpretation based either on the industry nor on common sense. You disagree with that. Good luck.
I do not believe that a ticket can have only one destination; that's why multi-city itineraries are viable. But if you want to limit it to only one then LAX is the destination on that routing. It certainly is not MEM.
I know of zero people in the world (other than you, apparently) who believe that's what a stopover nor a round-trip ticket is.
Only if you believe the manipulated meaning of definition.
As I said before, I understand why you're pursuing it this way. But I think your read is badly twisted and is ultimately going to cost you.
At any point you inquired of it. The agent on the phone has all the details and can easily share them with you if you ask. My guess is that your response here is, "I didn't ask and they didn't offer so I had no idea so my version of reality should win." I do not believe that will fly in court given that you had the option to easily get that information at any point in the process.
I do not believe that your version is a reasonable interpretation based either on the industry nor on common sense. You disagree with that. Good luck.
I do not believe that a ticket can have only one destination; that's why multi-city itineraries are viable. But if you want to limit it to only one then LAX is the destination on that routing. It certainly is not MEM.
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Sep 25, 2016 at 1:08 pm Reason: merging consecutive posts by same member -- please use multi-quote
Sep 25, 2016, 9:54 am
#186
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
The issue of how OP could have determined the segment costs of each ticket is irrelevant to his case and will only further harm his ability to stay on track. In a busy courtoom "on track" can be more important than anything else.
The issue at hand is what the segment was worth, not whether it was disclosed by UA on the receipt on the Saudia website or whether a UA phone agent would have told OP had he called and asked.
Based on the fact that UA is not calling witnesses who were present at the "scene" and based on the fact that OP has made his case to UA repeatedly, we may all presume that UA will not contest OP's version of the facts at the "scene". UA will simply put up a witness to describe how the fare was constructed and how that leads to the IDB compensation it calculated and which it was and presumably is willing to pay.
I have no idea whether a UA agent still has access to that information or whether OP's ticket # is blocked because it is in litigation, but it is certainly worth a phone call by OP to UA with the ticket # (not PNR as that has likely been recycled) with the simple question asking for the segment breakdown. Perhaps an agent can pull it up and provide it. At least OP can then figure out whether the UA offer really was "low ball".
Although "adhesion" sounds like a dirty word, there is nothing wrong with these contracts. Almost all consumer contracts are. They are generally enforceable unless unconscionable and the UA COC really is not unconscionable, certainly not in the context of calculating IDB compensation.
I am not sure how one can label an offer from UA as "low ball" or "reasonable" until one understands the fare construction and then evaluates the legal risk of maintaining the argument which OP intends to make.
It is SCC and the judge may be annoyed with UA, so he may just hand OP what OP wants. Or he may find OP annoying for making an argument which makes no sense and hand him nothing. So, there is always risk.
The issue at hand is what the segment was worth, not whether it was disclosed by UA on the receipt on the Saudia website or whether a UA phone agent would have told OP had he called and asked.
Based on the fact that UA is not calling witnesses who were present at the "scene" and based on the fact that OP has made his case to UA repeatedly, we may all presume that UA will not contest OP's version of the facts at the "scene". UA will simply put up a witness to describe how the fare was constructed and how that leads to the IDB compensation it calculated and which it was and presumably is willing to pay.
I have no idea whether a UA agent still has access to that information or whether OP's ticket # is blocked because it is in litigation, but it is certainly worth a phone call by OP to UA with the ticket # (not PNR as that has likely been recycled) with the simple question asking for the segment breakdown. Perhaps an agent can pull it up and provide it. At least OP can then figure out whether the UA offer really was "low ball".
Although "adhesion" sounds like a dirty word, there is nothing wrong with these contracts. Almost all consumer contracts are. They are generally enforceable unless unconscionable and the UA COC really is not unconscionable, certainly not in the context of calculating IDB compensation.
I am not sure how one can label an offer from UA as "low ball" or "reasonable" until one understands the fare construction and then evaluates the legal risk of maintaining the argument which OP intends to make.
It is SCC and the judge may be annoyed with UA, so he may just hand OP what OP wants. Or he may find OP annoying for making an argument which makes no sense and hand him nothing. So, there is always risk.
Last edited by Often1; Sep 25, 2016 at 11:22 am
Sep 25, 2016, 11:37 am
#187
Join Date: Mar 2012
Programs: Mileage Plus 1K; Marriott Platinum; Hilton Gold
Posts: 6,355
I've never been to Small Claims Court (and hope to maintain my perfect record) but you make it sound like the principle for resolving these disputes is that the less annoying party wins.
Sep 25, 2016, 11:51 am
#188
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: MSP
Programs: DL PM, UA Gold, WN, Global Entry; +others wherever miles/points are found
Posts: 14,414
Yes, it can as the others are stopovers. See my post above. In this case, MEM-IAH-LAX-MEM, each on a different day, LAX is the destination as it is the point farthest from MEM and IAH is a stopover. Depending on available fares, MEM-IAH-LAX may be charged separate MEM-IAH and IAH-LAX fares or it may be charged a MEM-LAX fare with probably a stopover charge, whichever is available and works out to be least expensive.
So you believe that if I had paid for my tickets and then asked the rep on the phone to confirm how much of the whole fare was specifically attributable to the Mem-IAH leg that he would have told me? I'm not saying he wouldn't, I'm just curious as to why this seemingly important information is left off the receipt.
Also, note that the new United website quotes (sometimes inaccurate) per-segment prices when you book your ticket. For a simple RT MEM-IAH however, the website would have been correct in showing you the per-segment cost when you clicked on each direction of your journey.
I think you have a case with your interpretation of the contract, but as others have said I think it's a bit of a reach and runs the risk of undermining your case. Out of curiosity, would you have settled if United offered all the (pax x IDBs) you have claimed, multiplied by 4x the half-round-trip MEM-IAH price (assuming your ticket was also refunded)?
Sep 25, 2016, 12:06 pm
#189
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SFO/SJC
Programs: UA Silver, Marriott Gold, Hilton Gold
Posts: 14,886
Thanks. You are the first person (including United) to try and explain how the ultimate point of the journey means something other than the final point. I think that if actually what they meant, they should have said "furtherst from origin" rather than "ultimate" because ultimate means final. So I disagree with your interpretation, as it requires a nonstandard understanding of the definition of "ultimate," but I appreciate the thought out response.
I have been reading, but haven't responded. You bought a round-trip ticket, which consisted of non-stop flights from MEM-IAH, and IAH-MEM. I don't know anyone who in their right mind would suggest that you were buying a ticket to MEM. If you were - it would have been a lot easier - you wouldn't have had to leave home - you'd be at your "destination" and wouldn't have had to spend a dime to do it, much less get involved in the pickle you've got yourself in now.
I'm not suggesting UA hasn't done things wrong here. But your interpretation of the 'destination' and 'stopover' (which quite frankly, doesn't exist on this itinerary) is definitely misguided.
When you buy a ticket, each portion is a given fare component, and it corresponds with a specific fare in the system. When you book a roundtrip, you are buying a roundtrip fare from MEM-IAH, and IAH-MEM, each of which has separate fare components which when put together, give you a roundtrip fare. Since each component is a single non-stop, its actually not that complicated - it gets more so when you have multiple flights on a single fare component, in the case of where you the MEM-IAH fare is flown as connecting MEM-EWR-IAH flights, or in multi-city bookings.
When you book a ticket, you can view the fare rules and fare class/code (or ask the agent for it). In your case, with a simple round trip, sometimes, the fare you book are going to be two fares of exactly the same value, and have the same fare code, but they are still listed separately (i.e. you have a ticket where the MEM-IAH is a KA14ESN fare (note: this is totally hypothetical fare code, but an example of what it might look like) and the return is the same fare code of KA14ESN, they are always listed separately). Or you may have one that is KA14ESN on the outbound, and a SD14HSN. In either case, the fares corresponding with each of the fare components are added to give the roundtrip fare.
Even if a judge decides to believe the OPs presupposition that IAH is a stopover, and not the destination, I'm having trouble figuring out what difference it makes for the OP. Per the parts of the COC listed in the wiki, it appears the IDB comp will be the same, as it is based on the fare to the first stopover, or destination if there is no stopover. So even if IAH is just a stopover, won't the IDB compensation just be based on the MEM-IAH component anyway?
I think the OP is hurting their case by getting into the nitty gritty of the stopover vs. destination argument, and it makes me less sympathetic to their case, especially since I'm not clear that it actually makes a difference for IDB comp purposes, and seems like a waste of the Court's time. I'm not a judge, but I'd guess it would be better to come at in simpler terms. Something like "I believe I'm entitled to X because of Y." The number should probably actually be 200% of the outbound fare X 2 IDBs (based on the fact the first rebooking, per the OP, was a flight that was scheduled to land 1 hour, 54 minutes after original landing time) and potentially 400% of the outbound fare X 2 IDBs for the second (I didn't read the whole thread again so I don't see confirmation of when the 3rd scheduled flight was supposed to arrive).
Sep 25, 2016, 1:26 pm
#190
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,455
You bought a round-trip ticket, which consisted of non-stop flights from MEM-IAH, and IAH-MEM. I don't know anyone who in their right mind would suggest that you were buying a ticket to MEM. If you were - it would have been a lot easier - you wouldn't have had to leave home - you'd be at your "destination" and wouldn't have had to spend a dime to do it, much less get involved in the pickle you've got yourself in now.
Sep 25, 2016, 3:23 pm
#191
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Between AUS, EWR, and YTO In a little twisty maze of airline seats, all alike.. but I wanna go home with the armadillo
Programs: CO, NW, & UA forum moderator emeritus
Posts: 35,426
If my ticket shows a journeyof MEM-IAH-MEM, what would you consider the ultimate point of this trip? if you believe it is Houston then you are understanding that ultimate means "furthest" rather than "final" despite the fact that "ultimate" is literally defined as "final, terminal"
This is not parsing fine print, this is just reading the actual words in the COC and applying normal understanding to these words. A judge will understand this just fine. He/she may disagree, but this is not a far-fetched position by any means
This is not parsing fine print, this is just reading the actual words in the COC and applying normal understanding to these words. A judge will understand this just fine. He/she may disagree, but this is not a far-fetched position by any means
Furthermore, as others have pointed out, this is not even the crux of your argument so you really don't want to get bogged down in this sort of small detail. You need to make your case easy for the uninitiated to understand. You will not have very long to explain everything to the judge, who will be looking to settle everything quickly so as to move on to the next case on the calendar.
I'm not going to keep beating the dead horse on destination vs stopover, as it doesn't seem productive. However, I am interested in your contention about fare construction. So you believe that if I had paid for my tickets and then asked the rep on the phone to confirm how much of the whole fare was specifically attributable to the Mem-IAH leg that he would have told me? I'm not saying he wouldn't, I'm just curious as to why this seemingly important information is left off the receipt.
t exist.
Sep 25, 2016, 5:11 pm
#192
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 42
I seriously do appreciate all the responses. It definitely helps to have lots of different perspectives to consider.
So just a few more questions... Have any of you ever tried to find out directly from United how they apportioned the fares in a round trip or multistop ticket? Not just viewing the website when you book the travel, but actually a confirmation from United as to the amounts? I understand from some of you that this information used to be included in the receipt. Any idea why they took that away?
Finally, if I'm understanding everyone correctly, the "industry" understanding of the meaning of destination is the furthest point away from the origin. So a multi city ticket of MEM-LAX-DFW would have a destination of LAX not DFW. Right?
So just a few more questions... Have any of you ever tried to find out directly from United how they apportioned the fares in a round trip or multistop ticket? Not just viewing the website when you book the travel, but actually a confirmation from United as to the amounts? I understand from some of you that this information used to be included in the receipt. Any idea why they took that away?
Finally, if I'm understanding everyone correctly, the "industry" understanding of the meaning of destination is the furthest point away from the origin. So a multi city ticket of MEM-LAX-DFW would have a destination of LAX not DFW. Right?
Sep 25, 2016, 6:28 pm
#193
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: 4éme
Posts: 12,041
(h) “final destination” means the destination on the ticket presented at the check-in counter or, in the case of directly connecting flights, the destination of the last flight; alternative connecting flights available shall not be taken into account if the original planned arrival time is respected;
Sep 25, 2016, 6:31 pm
#194
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SFO/SJC
Programs: UA Silver, Marriott Gold, Hilton Gold
Posts: 14,886
I seriously do appreciate all the responses. It definitely helps to have lots of different perspectives to consider.
So just a few more questions... Have any of you ever tried to find out directly from United how they apportioned the fares in a round trip or multistop ticket? Not just viewing the website when you book the travel, but actually a confirmation from United as to the amounts? I understand from some of you that this information used to be included in the receipt. Any idea why they took that away?
So just a few more questions... Have any of you ever tried to find out directly from United how they apportioned the fares in a round trip or multistop ticket? Not just viewing the website when you book the travel, but actually a confirmation from United as to the amounts? I understand from some of you that this information used to be included in the receipt. Any idea why they took that away?
I haven't actually asked an agent. And I'd guess the reason they don't generally do it is because most people don't care - they just want to know how much the ticket costs overall. The only time it would really matter is in terms of an IDB, which is still a fairly rare event, or if you needed to cancel a portion of itinerary. If you book online, each segment is priced by flight, which is probably pretty accurate in most cases (though perhaps not 100%). In addition, in the receipt they send you, there is typically a section lower down showing the mileage earning (PQM/PQS/PQD) earned for MileagePlus members, by segment. Not sure if that is shown if you don't have an MP number in the reservation, but that should also equal the fare for each segment (though that doesn't include government fees/taxes - not sure if that is incorporated into the IDB calculation, but even if not, gives you a good idea).
Well, that's a bit different then what you were talking about, which was a roundtrip. Multi-city complicates things. I suppose it could be considered a one-way ticket to DFW with a stopover in LAX, but I would think that would more be considered an 'open jaw' with LAX as the destination, but the return goes to DFW instead of the origin (MEM), hence the open jaw.
Sep 25, 2016, 6:44 pm
#195
Moderator: Information Desk, Women Travelers, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Programs: AA Gold
Posts: 15,651
Good luck, tomorrow OP! I'm just reading this thread for the first time, but was not surprised when you said you're a commercial litigator. I'm sure you'll do just fine.
I've worked in the legal profession for 25 years, but I'm not a lawyer. Needless to say I've learned a lot about the law during the time, including that many laws intended to protect consumers don't have a lot of teeth -- either, consumers can't take action against companies that violate the law, or the statute doesn't spell out the ramifications if a company violates the law, or it's near impossible to fight a mega-corp -- short of going to court -- if the mega-corp has decided it wants to disregard the law or its only policies and procedures. So it's always heartening to see David take on Goliath (even if David perhaps has more knowledge and resources at his fingers than the typical David). Good luck!
Also, did the DOT ever respond to your complaint?
I've worked in the legal profession for 25 years, but I'm not a lawyer. Needless to say I've learned a lot about the law during the time, including that many laws intended to protect consumers don't have a lot of teeth -- either, consumers can't take action against companies that violate the law, or the statute doesn't spell out the ramifications if a company violates the law, or it's near impossible to fight a mega-corp -- short of going to court -- if the mega-corp has decided it wants to disregard the law or its only policies and procedures. So it's always heartening to see David take on Goliath (even if David perhaps has more knowledge and resources at his fingers than the typical David). Good luck!
Also, did the DOT ever respond to your complaint?