Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > United Airlines | MileagePlus
Reload this Page >

Man pulled off of overbooked flight UA3411 (ORD-SDF) 9 Apr 2017 {Settlement reached}

Community
Wiki Posts
Search
Old Apr 10, 2017, 8:42 pm
FlyerTalk Forums Expert How-Tos and Guides
Last edit by: WineCountryUA
WELCOME, THREAD GUIDELINES and SUMMARY PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING

If you are new to us, welcome to FlyerTalk! Who we are: FlyerTalk features discussions and chat boards that cover the most up-to-date traveler information; an interactive community dedicated to the topic of travel (not politics or arguments about politics or religion, etc. – those discussion are best in the OMNI forum)

The incident discussed in this thread has touched a nerve for many, and many posters are passionate about their opinions and concerns. However we should still have a civil and respectful discussion of this topic. This is because FlyerTalk is meant to be a friendly, helpful, and collegial community. (Rule 12.)

1. The normal FlyerTalk Rules apply. (Including not discussing moderation actions in thread). Please be particularly attentive to "discussing the idea and not the poster" when you have a disagreement. Civility and mutual respect are still expected and are what we owe each other as a community.

2. You are expected to respect the FlyerTalk community's diversity, and therefore refrain from posting inflammatory comments about race, religion, culture, politics, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. Do not cite, copy, or report on such.

3. While you can disagree with an opinion, the holder of that opinion has the same right to their opinion as you have to yours. We request all to respect that and disagree or discuss their point of views without getting overly personal and without attacking the other poster(s). This is expected as a requirement in FT Rule 12.

4. Overly exaggerative posts as well as posts with information that has been posted several times previously may be summarily deleted.

5. In addition, those who repeatedly fail to comply with FlyerTalk Rules, may be subjected to FlyerTalk disciplinary actions and, e.g., have membership privileges suspended, or masked from this forum.

If you have questions about the Rules or concerns about what another has posted in this or other threads in this forum, please do not post about that. Rather, notify the moderators by using the alert symbol within each post or email or send a private message to us moderators.

Let’s have this discussion in a way that, when we look back on it, we can be proud of how we handled ourselves as a community.

The United Moderator team:
J.Edward
l'etoile
Ocn Vw 1K
Pat89339
WineCountryUA

N.B. PLEASE do not alter the contents of this moderator note
Statement from United Airlines Regarding Resolution with Dr. David Dao - released 27 April 2017
CHICAGO, April 27, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- We are pleased to report that United and Dr. Dao have reached an amicable resolution of the unfortunate incident that occurred aboard flight 3411. We look forward to implementing the improvements we have announced, which will put our customers at the center of everything we do.
DOT findings related to the UA3411 9 April 2017 IDB incident 12 May 2017

What facts do we know?
  • UA3411, operated by Republic Airways, ORD-SDF on Sunday, April 9, 2017. UA3411 was the second to last flight to SDF for United. AA3509 and UA4771 were the two remaining departures for the day. Also, AA and DL had connecting options providing for same-day arrival in SDF.
  • After the flight was fully boarded, United determined four seats were needed to accommodate crew to SDF for a flight on Monday.
  • United solicited volunteers for VDB. (BUT stopped at $800 in UA$s, not cash). Chose not to go to the levels such as 1350 that airlines have been known to go even in case of weather impacted disruption)
  • After receiving no volunteers for $800 vouchers, a passenger volunteered for $1,600 and was "laughed at" and refused, United determined four passengers to be removed from the flight.
  • One passenger refused and Chicago Aviation Security Officers were called to forcibly remove the passenger.
  • The passenger hit the armrest in the aisle and received a concussion, a broken nose, a bloodied lip, and the loss of two teeth.
  • After being removed from the plane, the passenger re-boarded saying "I need to go home" repeatedly, before being removed again.
  • United spokesman Jonathan Guerin said the flight was sold out — but not oversold. Instead, United and regional affiliate Republic Airlines – the unit that operated Flight 3411 – decided they had to remove four passengers from the flight to accommodate crewmembers who were needed in Louisville the next day for a “downline connection.”

United Express Flight 3411 Review and Action Report - released 27 April 2017

Videos

Internal Communication by Oscar Munoz
Oscar Munoz sent an internal communication to UA employees (sources: View From The Wing, Chicago Tribune):
Dear Team,

Like you, I was upset to see and hear about what happened last night aboard United Express Flight 3411 headed from Chicago to Louisville. While the facts and circumstances are still evolving, especially with respect to why this customer defied Chicago Aviation Security Officers the way he did, to give you a clearer picture of what transpired, I've included below a recap from the preliminary reports filed by our employees.

As you will read, this situation was unfortunately compounded when one of the passengers we politely asked to deplane refused and it became necessary to contact Chicago Aviation Security Officers to help. Our employees followed established procedures for dealing with situations like this. While I deeply regret this situation arose, I also emphatically stand behind all of you, and I want to commend you for continuing to go above and beyond to ensure we fly right.

I do, however, believe there are lessons we can learn from this experience, and we are taking a close look at the circumstances surrounding this incident. Treating our customers and each other with respect and dignity is at the core of who we are, and we must always remember this no matter how challenging the situation.

Oscar

Summary of Flight 3411
  • On Sunday, April 9, after United Express Flight 3411 was fully boarded, United's gate agents were approached by crewmembers that were told they needed to board the flight.
  • We sought volunteers and then followed our involuntary denial of boarding process (including offering up to $1,000 in compensation) and when we approached one of these passengers to explain apologetically that he was being denied boarding, he raised his voice and refused to comply with crew member instructions.
  • He was approached a few more times after that in order to gain his compliance to come off the aircraft, and each time he refused and became more and more disruptive and belligerent.
  • Our agents were left with no choice but to call Chicago Aviation Security Officers to assist in removing the customer from the flight. He repeatedly declined to leave.
  • Chicago Aviation Security Officers were unable to gain his cooperation and physically removed him from the flight as he continued to resist - running back onto the aircraft in defiance of both our crew and security officials.
Email sent to all employees at 2:08PM on Tuesday, April 11.
Dear Team,

The truly horrific event that occurred on this flight has elicited many responses from all of us: outrage, anger, disappointment. I share all of those sentiments, and one above all: my deepest apologies for what happened. Like you, I continue to be disturbed by what happened on this flight and I deeply apologize to the customer forcibly removed and to all the customers aboard. No one should ever be mistreated this way.

I want you to know that we take full responsibility and we will work to make it right.

It’s never too late to do the right thing. I have committed to our customers and our employees that we are going to fix what’s broken so this never happens again. This will include a thorough review of crew movement, our policies for incentivizing volunteers in these situations, how we handle oversold situations and an examination of how we partner with airport authorities and local law enforcement. We’ll communicate the results of our review by April 30th.

I promise you we will do better.

Sincerely,

Oscar
Statement to customers - 27 April 2017
Each flight you take with us represents an important promise we make to you, our customer. It's not simply that we make sure you reach your destination safely and on time, but also that you will be treated with the highest level of service and the deepest sense of dignity and respect.

Earlier this month, we broke that trust when a passenger was forcibly removed from one of our planes. We can never say we are sorry enough for what occurred, but we also know meaningful actions will speak louder than words.

For the past several weeks, we have been urgently working to answer two questions: How did this happen, and how can we do our best to ensure this never happens again?

It happened because our corporate policies were placed ahead of our shared values. Our procedures got in the way of our employees doing what they know is right.

Fixing that problem starts now with changing how we fly, serve and respect our customers. This is a turning point for all of us here at United – and as CEO, it's my responsibility to make sure that we learn from this experience and redouble our efforts to put our customers at the center of everything we do.

That’s why we announced that we will no longer ask law enforcement to remove customers from a flight and customers will not be required to give up their seat once on board – except in matters of safety or security.

We also know that despite our best efforts, when things don’t go the way they should, we need to be there for you to make things right. There are several new ways we’re going to do just that.

We will increase incentives for voluntary rebooking up to $10,000 and will be eliminating the red tape on permanently lost bags with a new "no-questions-asked" $1,500 reimbursement policy. We will also be rolling out a new app for our employees that will enable them to provide on-the-spot goodwill gestures in the form of miles, travel credit and other amenities when your experience with us misses the mark. You can learn more about these commitments and many other changes at hub.united.com.

While these actions are important, I have found myself reflecting more broadly on the role we play and the responsibilities we have to you and the communities we serve.

I believe we must go further in redefining what United's corporate citizenship looks like in our society. If our chief good as a company is only getting you to and from your destination, that would show a lack of moral imagination on our part. You can and ought to expect more from us, and we intend to live up to those higher expectations in the way we embody social responsibility and civic leadership everywhere we operate. I hope you will see that pledge express itself in our actions going forward, of which these initial, though important, changes are merely a first step.

Our goal should be nothing less than to make you truly proud to say, "I fly United."

Ultimately, the measure of our success is your satisfaction and the past several weeks have moved us to go further than ever before in elevating your experience with us. I know our 87,000 employees have taken this message to heart, and they are as energized as ever to fulfill our promise to serve you better with each flight and earn the trust you’ve given us.

We are working harder than ever for the privilege to serve you and I know we will be stronger, better and the customer-focused airline you expect and deserve.

With Great Gratitude,

Oscar Munoz
CEO
United Airlines
Aftermath
Poll: Your Opinion of United Airlines Reference Material

UA's Customer Commitment says:
Occasionally we may not be able to provide you with a seat on a specific flight, even if you hold a ticket, have checked in, are present to board on time, and comply with other requirements. This is called an oversale, and occurs when restrictions apply to operating a particular flight safely (such as aircraft weight limits); when we have to substitute a smaller aircraft in place of a larger aircraft that was originally scheduled; or if more customers have checked in and are prepared to board than we have available seats.

If your flight is in an oversale situation, you will not be denied a seat until we first ask for volunteers willing to give up their confirmed seats. If there are not enough volunteers, we will deny boarding to passengers in accordance with our written policy on boarding priority. If you are involuntarily denied boarding and have complied with our check-in and other applicable rules, we will give you a written statement that describes your rights and explains how we determine boarding priority for an oversold flight. You will generally be entitled to compensation and transportation on an alternate flight.

We make complete rules for the payment of compensation, as well as our policy about boarding priorities, available at airports we serve. We will follow these rules to ensure you are treated fairly. Please be aware that you may be denied boarding without compensation if you do not check in on time or do not meet certain other requirements, or if we offer you alternative transportation that is planned to arrive at your destination or first stopover no later than one hour after the planned arrival time of your original flight.
CoC is here: https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...-carriage.aspx
Print Wikipost

Man pulled off of overbooked flight UA3411 (ORD-SDF) 9 Apr 2017 {Settlement reached}

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:23 pm
  #4996  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NY Metro Area
Programs: AA 2MM Yay!, UA MM, Costco General Member
Posts: 49,049
Originally Posted by ROCAT
How much more per ticket are you willing to pay in lieu of this benefit? And based on the fact that RPA struggles to find pilots how many flights are you will to be cut?
Not sure it would be that big on an issue. But if it were I think it would fine to leave that as is as long as IDBs were very severely curtailed to the point of near elimination. Basically require the airlines to pay whatever was necessary to get enough VDBs. And constrain airlines from using cops to carry out customer service - only allow them in safety/security issues.
GadgetFreak is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:25 pm
  #4997  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 17,460
Last flight on Sunday night. Next flight Monday afternoon.
They expected 800 bucks of vouchers to get people to call in.
"Sorry boss. United had 4 guys that needed to be at work tomorrow and they offered me some money and a hotel room, so I decided I don't need to be there. See you tomorrow."
That's what they had in mind?
rickg523 is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:26 pm
  #4998  
sw3
Used to be 'etrevino'
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: MTY
Programs: AA, BA, AM Plat, HH Silver, SPG Gold, Amex Plat
Posts: 134
Originally Posted by Klimo
He doesn't sound naive in the least. He sounds like he is saying that for all intents and purposes his client was boarded. Since he was boarded United had no authority whatsoever to kick him off. There is a list of reasons why United can kick him off. None of those boxes seem to have been ticked.
He is naive because he thinks that any single passenger becomes more important than keeping the whole aviation system running smoothly the very millisecond his/her butt touches a seat, or the very millisecond his/her shoes touch the plane floor or whatever.
sw3 is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:28 pm
  #4999  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Danville, CA, USA;
Programs: UA 1MM, WN CP, Marriott LT Plat, Hilton Gold, IC Plat
Posts: 15,722
Originally Posted by cerealmarketer
I will say for Southwest, if IDB is banned or severely restricted, you might see change fees crop up there.
Yes, our family took $1100 in WN vouchers to accept a re-route on an overbooked flight from MCO. Maybe we should have pushed them higher That being said, I've never seen WN call LEOs to assault an otherwise law-abiding passenger. One benefit to having no assigned seats is that you can cut off the number of boarding passes when you reach your max.

No way DOT would ever eliminate overbooking - airlines would scream bloody murder and they have tremendous clout on the Hill. More likely we will see an overdue update to regulations that cover IDB, VDB, oversell, and whatever this was (ejection after boarding?) Overbooking is not the problem - it is how the airlines treat paid customers when they oversell that is the problem.

Originally Posted by RustyC
I don't think Munoz is really that sincere, either (more like a weathervane), but would other airline CEOs really have done better? Maybe ones for airlines that don't overbook as aggressively in the first place.
Few CEOs have the temperament to deliver an immediate and sincere apology, and they are often poorly advised by legal and PR. The best approach would have been to immediately admit fault ("this was wrong and should never have happened," pledge to make it right, commit to a policy that this will never happen again, and commence an overhaul of the systems/policies/practices/personnel that allowed this to happen.

Originally Posted by Wexflyer
I wasn't joking. It must be a rare frequent flyer who has not heard airline staff threatening to call security over any and all disagreements. That threat usually suffices to cow most of us into submission. Dr. Dao, however, having fled a totalitarian regime, and no doubt recognizing such, had more intestinal fortitude than most of us, and refused to follow their "orders" (sic). So United pulled the trigger on the threat.
We should all be eternally grateful to Dr. Dao. It really does remind me of the kid who stood in front of the tanks in Tianamen Sq., Rosa Parks, etc. except that in 21st Century America the bad guys are now corporations and their minions who behave with impunity, even towards their paying customers.
Boraxo is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:28 pm
  #5000  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: YVR
Programs: Ice Cream Club, AC SE MM, Bonvoy Life Plat
Posts: 2,803
About 1000 posts ago I tried to articulate this, but it was like 5AM local time with minimal sleep.

1) United has a CoC with Pax.
2) United decided to breach it for whatever reason it pleased, incurring whatever civil liabilities would be accrued.
3) United informed pax of #2 , and allowed pax to quietly comply with new situation
4) Pax refuses.
5) the rest...

It's #2 that breaks our trust in UA, sure. And this is what Oscar is referring to "doing better".
It's #4 that is criminal.
and #5 may have criminal components too, of zero interest to me on FT.

And for those who think once you're seated in your assigned seat it is yours, I really think this is unreasonable. Any FF should expect IRROP post-boarding can occur resulting in complete offload, inoperable seat requiring musical chairs, onboard seat swap negotiation between private parties, FA juggling for "weights and balances" or just to make space for friends... all this has happened to me, as I'm sure all of you.

But worst of all, the empty F and some UA*S sitting in the back getting CPU or whatever the UA lingo is, post boarding. This practice would need to be stopped as well, in order to stay consistent with the "My seat is my seat. I bought THIS seat!" doctrine.
DrunkCargo is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:28 pm
  #5001  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Nawthun Virginia
Programs: Air: UA (Gold), AA, WN, DL; Hotel: Hilton (Diamond), plus all the rest
Posts: 135
Originally Posted by minnyfly
One big fact about that has not been talked about. Next afternoon was the first flight with confirmed space. That is what the airline is required to state and guarantee. It's sounds bad, but that's not necessarily what would have happened. You can bet every bumped passenger would have been placed on standby for the next flight, and so on, and there was one more flight that night. He might have been home that night anyway. From the video we've seen, it's unknown whether the Dr. knew everything about the situation, and it doesn't appear the Dr. was interested in finding out either.
Once again, we make it the customer's fault for not solving the carrier's problem. It is not his responsibility to know every aspect of the provider's operations. It's the provider's responsibility to present that to him, especially if it is classed as an IDB. By one eyewitness account, the gate agent was "brusque and demanding", and certainly dismissive of other offers. Solutions were at hand, and were rejected.
Rdenney is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:29 pm
  #5002  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
Originally Posted by minnyfly
One big fact about that has not been talked about. Next afternoon was the first flight with confirmed space. That is what the airline is required to state and guarantee. It's sounds bad, but that's not necessarily what would have happened. You can bet every bumped passenger would have been placed on standby for the next flight, and so on, and there was one more flight that night. He might have been home that night anyway. From the video we've seen, it's unknown whether the Dr. knew everything about the situation, and it doesn't appear the Dr. was interested in finding out either.
No it is bad, and post Hoc reasoning. United had no right to kick Doa off the flight under the IMDb rules, or its coc (which applies before boarding). Having Him assulted as part of the deal was just the consequence of playing fast and loose 🔩 With CS.

You guys just gave up the china market, hope you are happy with the system Jeff set up.
spin88 is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:30 pm
  #5003  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NY Metro Area
Programs: AA 2MM Yay!, UA MM, Costco General Member
Posts: 49,049
Originally Posted by sw3
He is naive because he thinks that any single passenger becomes more important than keeping the whole aviation system running smoothly the very millisecond his/her butt touches a seat, or the very millisecond his/her shoes touch the plane floor or whatever.
I'm guessing that by the time UA settles or has a ruling in this case "naive" won't be in the first 500 adjectives UA's CEO uses to describe Dau's lawyer.

Last edited by GadgetFreak; Apr 13, 2017 at 3:40 pm
GadgetFreak is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:30 pm
  #5004  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,478
Originally Posted by sw3
He is naive because he thinks that any single passenger becomes more important than keeping the whole aviation system running smoothly the very millisecond his/her butt touches a seat, or the very millisecond his/her shoes touch the plane floor or whatever.
Right. The fate of the "whole aviation system" hinged on these four employees getting on that flight.
Kacee is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:30 pm
  #5005  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Programs: Top Tier with all 3 alliances
Posts: 11,670
I don't know if anyone mentioned it, but CNN reported that UA's offer to compensate passengers for the fare they paid is contingent on their agreement not to sue, lol...

How cheap, sneaky and clueless can UA be, eh? Don't they deserve a class action, what do you think?
nk15 is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:31 pm
  #5006  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Programs: WN, AA, UA, DL
Posts: 1,313
Originally Posted by Klimo
ohhh wow. I might have an oft chance at getting home earlier. How awesome. /s
Oh sure, blow off facts because they're inconvenient. Here's another data point - the late morning ORD-SDF flight left with an empty seat. The Dr. would not have had to wait until 2pm to leave ORD. Not that it would have mattered in his case, but it might have mattered to somebody else in the VDB process to know exactly how soon they might get home, not just how late.
minnyfly is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:33 pm
  #5007  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: MCI
Programs: AA Gold 1MM, AS MVP, UA Silver, WN A-List, Marriott LT Titanium, HH Diamond
Posts: 52,575
Originally Posted by fastair
I'll take that bet. AMR closed down about the same %, DAL closed down 2.5x as much as UAL or AMR, LUV closed down about the same as DAL, down 2.5x as much in terms of %
It's interesting: I think we've moved past some of the initial outrage at United and their cruelly unsympathetic CEO. Now there's a broader nationwide conversation about the entire airline cartel and how it treats customers. While I don't actually *expect* the current crop of Congresscritters to actually do anything (there's no evidence they have any inclination to do anything for "the little guy" at the expense of their corporate patrons), it would be a pretty easy way to score some favorability ratings (and votes) of their own. United might be the single most hated entity in America right now, but Congress could easily be #2 - and that's true in both red and blue districts.

Thus I can see the market playing all of the stocks a bit cool for a while. Perhaps equally cool, as any change to existing rules would affect all of them, not just United.
pinniped is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:35 pm
  #5008  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NY Metro Area
Programs: AA 2MM Yay!, UA MM, Costco General Member
Posts: 49,049
Originally Posted by pinniped
It's interesting: I think we've moved past some of the initial outrage at United and their cruelly unsympathetic CEO. Now there's a broader nationwide conversation about the entire airline cartel and how it treats customers. While I don't actually *expect* the current crop of Congresscritters to actually do anything (there's no evidence they have any inclination to do anything for "the little guy" at the expense of their corporate patrons), it would be a pretty easy way to score some favorability ratings (and votes) of their own. United might be the single most hated entity in America right now, but Congress could easily be #2 - and that's true in both red and blue districts.

Thus I can see the market playing all of the stocks a bit cool for a while. Perhaps equally cool, as any change to existing rules would affect all of them, not just United.
Yes, all good points.
GadgetFreak is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:37 pm
  #5009  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Nawthun Virginia
Programs: Air: UA (Gold), AA, WN, DL; Hotel: Hilton (Diamond), plus all the rest
Posts: 135
Originally Posted by DrunkCargo
About 1000 posts ago I tried to articulate this, but it was like 5AM local time with minimal sleep.

1) United has a CoC with Pax.
2) United decided to breach it for whatever reason it pleased, incurring whatever civil liabilities would be accrued.
3) United informed pax of #2 , and allowed pax to quietly comply with new situation
4) Pax refuses.
5) the rest...

It's #2 that breaks our trust in UA, sure. And this is what Oscar is referring to "doing better".
It's #4 that is criminal.
and #5 may have criminal components too, of zero interest to me on FT.

And for those who think once you're seated in your assigned seat it is yours, I really think this is unreasonable. Any FF should expect IRROP post-boarding can occur resulting in complete offload, inoperable seat requiring musical chairs, onboard seat swap negotiation between private parties, FA juggling for "weights and balances" or just to make space for friends... all this has happened to me, as I'm sure all of you.

But worst of all, the empty F and some UA*S sitting in the back getting CPU or whatever the UA lingo is, post boarding. This practice would need to be stopped as well, in order to stay consistent with the "My seat is my seat. I bought THIS seat!" doctrine.
#4 is not a crime. I believe that has been solidly established, and also acknowledged by United. You should revise your thinking about that; it changes your conclusions.
Rdenney is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:38 pm
  #5010  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Programs: Amtrak Guest Rewards (SE), Virgin America Elevate, Hyatt Gold Passport (Platinum), VIA Preference
Posts: 3,134
Originally Posted by lazard
The problem with that is if the GA just accepted Dao's refusal, the next person(s) on the list, seeing that refusing the request will let them stay on the plane, will simply refuse also.
That really depends. Odds are pretty good that there is at least one passenger onboard who paid a higher-bucket coach or first fare for whom the IDB compensation would crack $1000 and who would willingly take it. There are others who would probably haggle (asking for a full refund instead of the replacement flight, for example, or for a fullsize rental car and a tank of gas in lieu of a hotel and a later flight). For example, I'm pretty sure Mr. $1600 Voucher would have gladly taken $1350 cash-in-hand and gambled on a car rental. I know I would have. The problem is that UA /really/ wants to IDB the cheapest person to IDB, not end up clearing out F.

Now, on a long enough flight this gets stickier (this is why the cap needs to go away...I can't drive a car to LHR or NRT, for example) but on a flight <500 miles there's room for a lot of folks to haggle.

FWIW the fact that they had a VDB pax come back and the fact that there are some "horror shows" of mangled alternative bookings, vouchers not being processed right or being overly restrictive, etc. is another thing that probably gave folks pause.

TBH on a flight of this duration, presuming I was on a time crunch? At $800 there's a chance I would have flagged the GA and said "I'll take the $800 voucher but instead of a flight tomorrow I want a refund of the flight in cash, I want a voucher to take to a rental car company of your choosing for a one-day, one-way rental car of Standard or better with the Fuel Purchase Option and Loss Damage Waiver, and most importantly I want all of this in writing, including the check for my refund, before I leave my seat. I also want credit for any miles and spend from this flight which I would have recieved had I flown. If I have to come down to $500 on the voucher to get the rest of this I will, or I'm willing to take $250 cash in lieu of any voucher."

If I wasn't on a time crunch, and noting that I almost exclusively book into a premium cabin, my request would be more along the lines of "I want (circuitous domestic routing) in J/F with full mileage credit" or, if I'm in the FFP of the airline, I'd rather take a credit of some sum in MQDs (not vouchers, straight credit towards status) and a related sum of MQMs (using the DL terminology) as a comp. On UA, I'd be wrangling for something that will get me status on SQ; on DL, status on VS; on AA, status on AS.

But this is also me looking at this from the perspective of being willing to negotiate as long as I know I won't get screwed over at the gate...and that is a real problem that I think UA probably has in perception.
GrayAnderson is offline  


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.