rufflesinc

"What would you have them do?

They can't just let the passenger board without a ticket. They won't be on the manifest, and that breaks all sorts of laws."

There have been many postive articles about holding the plane or the pilot going back to the gate for a family in such a situation. Instead of making a crass and insensitive comment, the ga could have reached out to the pilot to see if they could stay at the gate for a few more minutes to see if the ta could be reached and resolve.

chrisl137

This is consistent with my experience - all my tickets for work are booked through an in house (contract) TA, and we have a preferred carrier deal with UA. The agents at the TA use their own credit cards, so the original payment isn't in my name, either. I routinely have gone in on the UA website and changed my own tickets without any ill effects - there were maybe three years recently when I never flew an itinerary as originally booked, and few, if any were booked more than a week out, some even booked while I drove to the airport and then I changed the return on the UA site when I figured out when I really needed to come back. I'm not sure about the T-48 business from another comment - I suspect I've made my own changes further out than that with no problems. I think the only times I ever had to actually talk to a TA after booking were due to wrong hotel reservations and I think to unwind upgrades (both paid and CPU) when it turned out I needed to change my flight after checking in. Nobody has ever made a peep about changing a TA reservation on the UA site. I've also occasionally (but infrequently) had coworkers call and change my flight when there were multiples of us traveling on the same flights and were finished early and flying back together. Normally everybody books independently based on their schedule and preferred airports. This is all SOP for how I travel, and if UA had to track down me and the TA to make a change, that could be a problem - if I were to send an email requesting a change be made while I'm working in a location with no cell reception, it could be very difficult for them to confirm my change.

The TA was in the wrong for the unilateral cancellation.

dls25

Then we would have another thread on here complaining about UA needlessly delaying flights so people miss their connections in Denver and have to spend the night...

FlyngSvyr

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ai...ng-mom-n841601

A more "balanced" article on the topic. Definitely does not start out with an anti UA slant & includes more details.

Unfortunately it sounds like the passenger was never going to make it to see her mother even if she flew on the flight. Her mother passed away a few hours into her drive

ellenyc

She had boarded, so the ticket must have been valid when it was scanned. At what point did it get cancelled and how did United get alerted?

GUM_elite

I have very little faith in a company that still lists contact phone numbers for Continental, Northwest, Ted, Pan Am, TAM, etc.

https://www.travelerhelpdesk.com/traveler-tools.html

Traveler HelpDesk's operations seem to be as shoddy as their website. The Pan Am number, btw, still works.

ExplorerWannabe

The United CSR did nothing wrong. From United's standpoint, they had no problems changing the reservation for the passenger and did so, even to the point that she boarded without problems.
The GA did nothing wrong either. Once the OTA cancelled the ticket, they couldn't leave her onboard -- and since the ticket was cancelled, driving to Denver to pick up a flight wasn't an option either unless the landlord booked a new ticket for direct travel from DEN. Reading between the lines in the article, I'm guessing the landlord probably would have done exactly that if she'd known what the problem was.
I blame the OTA for canceling the ticket in the first place and the reporter for writing a misleading article -- or maybe the editors messed it up, thinking it would have greater impact by implying blame on United rather than the OTA.

docbert

Sure, but they were - according to the article - cheaper than other places to buy the ticket. Which in itself is interesting...

rufflesinc

That a landlord would have gone to the absolute lowest bidder ?

kale73

I've read that the airline can't allow a passenger whose ticket has been canceled to fly. I understand that. What I don't understand is why they allowed her to board in the first place if the ticket had been canceled. You might reply, "Well, they canceled the ticket after she had boarded." And my next question is, "At what point in the process is a ticket considered 'used' and therefore no longer subject to cancelation? Is it...
a) when the ticket is scanned at the gate (apparently not);
b) when the passenger enters the aircraft;
c) when the boarding door is closed;
d) at pushback;
e) during the taxi out;
f) at takeoff and climbout;
g) halfway to the destination;
h) during final descent and landing;
i) during the taxi in;
j) when the breaks are set at the destination gate;
k) when the door is opened at the destinateion; or
l) when the passenger leaves the plane at the destination?"

I'd also be interested in what actions the airline would take to evict a passenger if a ticket is somehow canceled between points c) and k).

chermorg

To my understanding a ticket is "valid" and can thus be "modified" until the time the last leg of the ticket has been fully flown (i.e. there's absolutely no residual value on the ticket). That being said, it is possible to cancel or modify a ticket even if the first leg has been a *no show* - I have had to do this in the past when I had to miss the first leg of a flight and change to the next day (obviously the change fee applied, but it was better than losing the ticket altogether). It is understandable that the ticket was able to be cancelled - any valid ticket can be cancelled, and the ticket could have been cancelled mid-air if the travel agent desired (since this was the first flight of a two leg journey).

Whether this policy/procedure is correct or not is not for this thread. It's also possible my understanding could be incorrect.

usbusinesstraveller

From the NBC article linked above -

"Hanson's condition worsened, however — she was not expected to live through the night. The landlord, Ines Prelas, called United and paid $75 more so that Amrich could fly standby on an earlier flight, and the two rushed to the airport in Colorado Springs. She would fly through Denver to Minneapolis."

That sounds very much like the landlord made a SDC. In which case the coupon was under UA control and the third party was totally in the wrong.

robertr

Thanks Artpen,care to elaborate? Airline gets paid by me through an OTA after that the airline is responsible to carry me around not the OTA or am I missing something?
A case in point was a SYD-LAX United flight that was cancelled the afternoon before ( I knew as the inbound flight to SYD did not leave LAX) I contacted United directly, I did not contact the Travel agent and within half an hour they had me booked onto the QF flight which left 15 minutes prior to the cancelled United flight.

Ari

Because it was a $75 same-day change, not a full-blown change requiring a full change fee and re-issuance.

Is that an excuse for the travel agency to lie to the media about where the fraud liability falls and claim that they are "just protecting the landlord"? As most people on this board know, most forms of payment, be they credit cards or debt cards have $0-$50 max of fraud liability, so the consumer is virtually noting out of pocket in the case of fraudulent credit/debit card activity. You know is liable? The travel agent is under United's not-so-recent policy. The travel agent brazenly claimed that "the intention had been to protect [the landlord] against possible fraud". What fraud liability? It seems that the fraud liability was squarely on the TA had something gone awry and the TA is now intentionally spinning (downright lying) about its motives to the media. You can't protect someone from fraud who already had near-zero liability for fraud. :td to TA.

Yes; that's called a same-day change, and the other they are just setup to do for a fee of like $50 or something.

Wrong, period. This was a $75 SDC processed by United. Standard for any ticket issued by United or by the travel agency on the moon.

No mistake; it was a $75 SDC. Done all the time on any ticket directly with UA.

And there was no justification for doing so other than greed.

Least culpable party; best villain.

Again, myth, not fact. $75 SDC.

Nothing of the sort. Falls right back on the TA for playing detective Clouseau.

Duh, especially on a $75 SDC.

No argument there.

Especially a $75 SDC.

The were Protecting the Landlord of course.

At little more technical than necessary, but yes, that. In the context of a $75 SDC where and MCO is issued and the original ETKT isn't really changed, just the reservation and and EDD or MCO or whatever tacked on, the TA is on really shaky ground. TA thought it was CC fraud and didn't want to get dinged; probably lied about trying to reach the landlord too.

benitovacation

Just curious how did landlord found this Travelers' Helpdesk...? Horrible reviews with no google ad and literally impossible to find other than google its name. Facebook page is like a kid's starter littered with negative reviews and web site resembles Y2K style. Google its domain whois and some related information is interesting.

Why did lady choose to drive 1,000 miles with slim to none chance of making it? Several later direct flights DEN-MSP.

Needless to say, UA becomes an easy target of press...

Hindsight is 20/20...

It was very sad she missed her mom in that flight or not...