|
NYT Article - She Boarded a Plane to See Her Dying Mother. Then Her Ticket Was Cancel
Didn't see anyone had posted this yet. Seems like yet another issue with third party booking sites misaligning with the airline. The booking site handled it poorly and United will take most of the blame.
https://nyti.ms/2GlaNiu |
Picture of UNITED just below the headline: Have. To. Sell. Ads.
So the ticket purchaser changed the flight directly with United, then the travel agent cancelled the ticket thinking it was unauthorized? Hardly United's fault. |
I agree, United may have many faults but I don't think they necessarily did anything wrong in this case.
The photo is there most likely because that's the only thing that makes sense unless they put the logo of the booking website. |
Originally Posted by sethMCOflyer
(Post 29342382)
The photo is there most likely because that's the only thing that makes sense unless they put the logo of the booking website.
|
she already boarded the flight... there should be some cut off where an airline doesn't remove someone AFTER boarding. The optics of this story for united are terrible...
|
I mean... There’s a better way to prevent this completely - require confirmation from both the travel agent *and* customer before a ticket is cancelled before flight departure. A travel agent can cancel a ticket, but if the passenger does not confirm it, and shows up at the airport as normal, the travel agent’s cancellation would mean nothing.
I see no reason a travel agent needs the ability to unilaterally cancel a ticket (I say this knowing someone will prove me wrong). |
I think it's really poor quality journalism and furthermore, editorial discretion, for the NYT to publish this junk. Things like this happen to people every single day and they are not newsworthy. And to invite mischaracterizing the fault a United's is just irresponsible.
|
Originally Posted by chermorg
(Post 29342461)
I mean... There’s a better way to prevent this completely - require confirmation from both the travel agent *and* customer before a ticket is cancelled before flight departure. A travel agent can cancel a ticket, but if the passenger does not confirm it, and shows up at the airport as normal, the travel agent’s cancellation would mean nothing.
The travel agent clearly screwed up here. But the optics of it suck. |
Originally Posted by chermorg
(Post 29342461)
I mean... There’s a better way to prevent this completely - require confirmation from both the travel agent *and* customer before a ticket is cancelled before flight departure. A travel agent can cancel a ticket, but if the passenger does not confirm it, and shows up at the airport as normal, the travel agent’s cancellation would mean nothing.
I see no reason a travel agent needs the ability to unilaterally cancel a ticket (I say this knowing someone will prove me wrong). Just talk to each other, solve the problem, don't just be schmucks and impose the onus on customers always. United missed a good opportunity to do what is right here. It is a shame. It will cost them more than if someone did what was right. And no I am not letting the travel agent off the hook. They need bad press too. |
Originally Posted by skidooman
(Post 29342490)
I am sure. But really, this is crass bureaucracy at work. Frequent fliers may know better, but why burden people with these types of paperwork gotchas?
Just talk to each other, solve the problem, don't just be schmucks and impose the onus on customers always. United missed a good opportunity to do what is right here. It is a shame. It will cost them more than if someone did what was right. And no I am not letting the travel agent off the hook. They need bad press too. That being said, why in hell is it permitted for the travel agency to do this in the first case? The travel agency was, quite frankly, a butthole to the woman. She should never have been put in this situation. In this case, she made the choice to drive, where if she’d spoken to the ticketing at the airport or called United they likely could have (and honestly I believe they would have) reinstated the ticket. That doesn’t help anything once the plane has left, however. This is why it should have been prohibited for it to be cancelled anyway. |
Originally Posted by TA
(Post 29342471)
I think it's really poor quality journalism and furthermore, editorial discretion, for the NYT to publish this junk. Things like this happen to people every single day and they are not newsworthy. And to invite mischaracterizing the fault a United's is just irresponsible.
|
Originally Posted by skidooman
(Post 29342490)
United missed a good opportunity to do what is right here. It is a shame. It will cost them more than if someone did what was right.
HOWEVER, with this cutesy scenario where UA lets this non-paying passenger fly, I just wonder how many sick & dying mothers will suddenly appear all across the USA? It would be rife with abuse (think "emotional support animals"). |
Originally Posted by nerd
(Post 29342538)
The article blames the TA more than it blames United.
|
Originally Posted by chermorg
(Post 29342551)
The fact the article spends any time at all discussing the GA’s actions and that it repeatedly states she’s already seated when removed is poor editorialism as it invites comparison to Dr. Dao and invites readers to connect the actions directly to United’s judgement/decision, and not to the travel agency.
There are also plenty of points in the article that invite readers to connect the actions to the TA. |
Originally Posted by nerd
(Post 29342538)
The article blames the TA more than it blames United.
How many words is a picture worth again? :) |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 3:13 am. |
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.