chermorg

Artpen100

Yup. A much more useful article might have been "why you should never use a an online travel agent". Many of us have learned that the hard way, yet I don't recall ever seeing an article warning about the many ways things can go wrong with OTAs.

TA

Well, the headline is "...then her ticket was canceled".

Not, "her travel agent canceled her ticket". That's a little bit of a passive statement leading people to wonder who did it when the answer is in fact known, yes?

nerd

"Passive Voice Frequently Seen in News Headlines"

I would say the title invites the reader to learn more.

spin88

I know in the age of "fake news" being hurled around in misleading ways, lots of people can't see good journelism, but there is nothing wrong with the article. It reports Facts. Lady called UA to change flight, was told no issue, passanger boarded, no issue, was yanked off the plane while seated, landlord called UA, offered to pay, UA refused to put her back on the plane for unexplained reasons, UA called to send flowers (a nice touch, trying to get ahead of the story they knew was coming).

Poor woman gets messed over in a horrible way, and lots of blame to go around. That this resonates with (a) united beats passenger to take his seat from him, or (b) united steals seat from toddler, makes him sit on mom's lap for 7 hours, (c) United tosses people for wearing leggings, etc, is not the NYT's fault, its the fault of the airline that just can't seem to get its act together, and as such gets no breaks. United created this, United owns it.

skidooman

I agree. However, in this case, the purchase WAS performed and then just unilaterally canceled by a third party based on a miscommunication or lack of communication between UA and that third party.

Line responders should be trained to recognize when the system is breaking down in limit situations like this and use sound judgment, just not blindly impose fatwas.

Again, I can understand United needs to get paid. But here, the situation would have required a bit more judgment. If that happened, UA would have come up on top. Now, not so much.

BTW, I am not saying UA is alone in that boat. Plenty of very stupid decisions taken every day in big organizations.

BearX220

Like it or not, a United agent told the customer it would be no problem to modify an OTA ticket. The customer relied on United advice and was traumatized as a result.

Neither the TA nor UA are heroes here. A brutal corporate process at the TA and misinformation from UA combined to ruin things.

Let he who has never heard a UA employee make something up, state a falsehood due to ignorance or haste, etc. cast the first stone.

Misery perhaps compounded by a GA who was focused on deplaning the woman and dispatching the flight no matter what. I read these little employee-hero stories in the Southwest magazine every month in which Southwest GAs, FAs, station managers, etc. knock themselves out to take care of customers in dire situations like this. That impulse at UA, while not exactly nonexistent, doesn't get much press.

zymm

My main question here...how was she allowed to modify her ticket direct with United? They generally won't touch a TA issued ticket.

seawolf

United does have a fault here. They shouldn't be touching the agency reservation to begin with unless IRROPS.

^

minnyfly

It's takes a lot of spin to claim there is "nothing wrong". Let's make a tally:

1. Web address has United Airlines in it.
2. The first thing people see is a picture of a UA check-in desk
3. Caption of said photo says United Airlines removed her before saying it was canceled by the TA. That's true, but note what's stated first and connotation behind it.
4. Initial blame is placed on United because "they told her so".
5. The blame game continues at the end by punishing a good deed (flowers) that was all that could be done at that point, and quoting a claim that implies UA could have gotten her back on a plane without any evidence corroborating the claim.

This was exceptionally poor "journalism", but it's sadly not uncommon these days, particularly when an airline can be punished for clicks. What the media has done to UA and ignored for other airlines is disgraceful.

Putting it another way, UA went the extra mile for a customer and ended up getting burned by the TA. Imagine the backlash if the story was "UA refuses to change ticket so she could see her dying mother"?

Yep, no good deed goes unpunished.

mduell

I thought Oscar said they weren't doing that anymore except for safety/security issues?

Client credit/payment issues?

chermorg

I had this in another reply, but I don't see this as a big problem. I really doubt there's an epidemic of people attempting to snub their travel agency out of their plane ticket cost, and if they **do** file a chargeback/miss a payment/whatever it would be exceedingly simple for the TA to fax in the contract (or applicable portion) and proof of lack of payment before the airline would allow cancellation.

narvik

(bolding mine)
Well, apparently it didn't report the facts too well then, as I read that a little different.
There's a total of 4 parties involved (5, if you count the mother): UA, travel agent, landlord and passenger. If I read correctly, the landlord booked the ticket with travel agent AND made then made a change with UA. UA said "no problem" and made the change BUT travel agent saw this change and unilaterally cancelled ticket. Passenger was removed from flight as ticket was cancelled before plane took off.
UA's position is (I have no idea if true or not) that landlord didn't offer to pay for new ticket until AFTER the plane had left (or likely left gate).

THAT is a good point nevertheless!


Added:
BTW, a different question altogether: mother was in Minnesota, and passenger was going to fly from COS when ticket was canceled.
Why didn't she just drive to DEN and catch a plane from there (where she would have had to switch planes to MSP anyway.)
There were other options available other than "driving 1000 miles".

WineCountryUA

Clearly the optics are bad but ......

Suspect because all of this was the same day -- the booking, the change ... and the traveler's name was different from the credit card used --- fraud flags when off for the travel agency.

As for UA touching a TA ticket, UA will on the day of travel which this was (and will do for a fee prior to day of travel)

As for buying a new last-second ticket, it was probably well under the 30 minutes before departure, as the plane was boarded, when the systems will not allow a ticket to be purchased. So not a heartless refusal by the agent, the agent's, hands were tied.

Now all of the above is "inside air traveler knowledge " which is probably not known by the traveler, by the purchaser, by the article author -- but to the travel agent and airport agent these issues would raise concerns

rufflesinc

They managed to have the landlord end up being the hero. Quite the accomplishment.