MSPeconomist

If the UA GA filled the seat with a standby (including nonrevs) and all other seats on the plane were occupied, then it was an IDB according to DOT rules. If the flight had one or more empty seats when it departed, then DOT would not classify this as IDB.

raehl311

Arriving earlier than the contracted close of boarding *IS* hassle.

I don't want the hassle of having to arrive early because the airline might violate our contract.

I know I'm in the minority, but I don't agree with this interpretation. I do not believe an oversale condition is necessary for an IDB to occur. If you meet the contract of carriage and the airline doesn't let you fly, it's an IDB. Some parts of the IDB regs specify oversold flights, but those refer to the process that should be used to decide who gets an IDB, or exceptions to IDB in oversale situations. They don't say than an oversale is NECESSARY for an IDB.

Loren Pechtel

You just made me think of a nasty trick--if IDB requires a full flight then airlines could escape all IDBs by bouncing an extra passenger.

mherdeg

In the case of the original poster here (flyersky1) I don't think we have evidence that United has compensated the passenger yet or responded to the poster's documented claim that their agent lied to UA and the DOT.

I think you may be confused (I know I was confused) because there is another poster in this thread who does report a similar problem with a compensation outcome (they were given a travel credit after UA unilaterally threw them off the flight).

But as far as I can tell the original problem reported in this particular thread has not yet gotten a conclusion.

I do agree with you that if UA randomly decides to send a flight out early and it's not oversold, they haven't violated the special DOT rule prohibiting oversales and they don't need have an obligation to pay that special kind of compensation. But I do still think that if UA is routinely failing to comply with its contract of carriage maybe Congress and the DOT should re-evaluate UA's special legal protections — and a DOT complaint is warranted as it helps document a problem.

In addition to possibly expecting goodwill compensation (which I agree is not owed by law if the flight was not oversold), this customer might also be able to sue UA. While the contract of carriage is super clear that UA can randomly refuse to transport you and only owes you a refund, I have a hunch that if someone has real damages from that kind of event, they might win a small-claims suit.

raehl311

Upon further reading, while an oversale is not required for a passenger to be involuntarily denied boarding (i.e., any IDB should count towards IDB stats), there does need to be an oversale for IDB compensation to be due, as the verbiage is specifically "involuntarily denied boarding due to an oversold flight".

To your evil trick in particular, it wouldn't work, as there's also language in there that says the minimum number of passengers must be IDB'd.

Surftel

If you read the thread you would see the vast majority here on FT disagree with you. The OP followed the rules, arrived with plenty of time to board, and was screwed by United

LAX/HKG

Hey OP, any updates? I am curious to find out the outcome.

LaserSailor

Being right can be burdensome and unpopular, agreed.

However, the majority on FT don't even have an account, so reading a thread to determine how the group feels probably introduces some statistical bias.

The OP was screwed by UA.

Arriving at T-15+ epsilon at out stations is risky if you don't want to miss your flight.

theddo

Yet following the published CoC of your employer is still required, even if you work at an outstation and the GA doesn't get to dictate those rules. The rules UA made themselves, which you claim UA shouldn't be bound by.

Kendryk

Statistical bias is no worse than making a completely unsubstantiated and unverifiable claim.

I personally would not want to do business with anyone who thinks that upholding my end of the agreement (showing up to board T-15) is risking the other party not holding up their end (not allowing boarding at T-25+).

transportbiz

Well, how early is not "risky"? T-25? T-35? T-45 or should you just be there for a day or so just to be sure?

Being "right" is defined clearly here by United themselves: "Boarding ends 15 minutes before the scheduled departure time for flights within the U.S., Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Boarding ends 30 minutes before the scheduled departure time for flights out of Guam."

Anything else is just personal choice and opinion, but it is not "right".

LaserSailor

The persons interested in not missing an outstation flight can make this decision for themselves. These flyers aren't interested in who is right. They are also uninterested in chest thumping about who is right,

One data point..I would not show up at ELM less than T-45

T-15 is "right"

geo979

So even though T-15 is stated policy, we should all just automatically know somehow that at ELM we should show up at T-45. At XXX we should all know by some magic that we should be there by T-35 and at ZZZ (oh my goodness!) our ouiji board indicates we don't dare show up later than T-95!!

theddo

T-15 min is what UA has agreed to uphold by themselves, how much time you chose to spend at an airport is irrelevant to the contract UA wrote.

DiscHandler

LaserSailor is talking the difference between outrage and pragmatism.

Show up at T-15, miss your flight, come on to Flyertalk to discuss, rinse and repeat or show up earlier and get on. Your choice.