Options to change return of a super-cheap BE Int'l fare, after flying outbound leg?
Feb 7, 2019, 10:17 am
#16
Moderator: Southwest Airlines, Capital One
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN Companion Pass, A-list preferred, Hyatt Globalist; United Club Lietime (sic) Member
Posts: 21,625
Breakage (people not flying the return or even the entire trip) is a benefit to the airline and part of the reason for the low price on non-changeable tickets. Penalizing non-flying on such a ticket seems crazy except in the rare situation where the customer is obviously gaming the fare rules in a way that costs the airline money.
I doubt a schedule change or even an outright cancellation (it's an LH flight) would earn me a refund on a BE fare. I'm a little sad that we can't brag about flying RT for $279, but the days of getting a J seat for reasonable FF miles are gradually ending.
I doubt a schedule change or even an outright cancellation (it's an LH flight) would earn me a refund on a BE fare. I'm a little sad that we can't brag about flying RT for $279, but the days of getting a J seat for reasonable FF miles are gradually ending.
Feb 7, 2019, 10:21 am
#17
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,415
(EC.261 would apply because the flight is operated by LH).UA's schedule change policy is relatively generous. A schedule change by 2+ hours -- which, in practice, includes a 2+ hour delay -- is enough to trigger a refund if the passenger indicates that the new time is no longer feasible and UA cannot offer acceptable alternative transportation. (Some people have reported success for refunds with < 2 hour delays, but 2 hours is what's in the policy).
Feb 7, 2019, 10:23 am
#18
Senior Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Francisco, CA
Programs: UA Plat/2MM [23-yr. 1K, now emeritus] clawing way back to WN-A List; MR LT Titanium; HY Whateverist.
Posts: 12,396
I don't see this as a clear case of throwaway ticketing, assuming that when this BE fare was ticketed, the traveler intended in good faith to fly it as written.
Aren't throwaway tickets intended to evade hidden city ticketing rules and notable differentials between OWs and RTs bought with a likely throwaway intent at the time of original ticketing? As I read the OP's recent post, he implies that the traveler had the intent to fly BE R.T. as ticketed; but is looking to fly a higher class after flying the outbound.
Except perhaps for BE tickets, isn't there a waiver of the change fee if a traveler buys up to a higher fare class? Then the Q. becomes whether the issue of a M+ award ticket would be considered a higher class, coupled here with the obvious aim of UA (except as to GS) to hold customers to the strict rules of BE as to change fees.
Aren't throwaway tickets intended to evade hidden city ticketing rules and notable differentials between OWs and RTs bought with a likely throwaway intent at the time of original ticketing? As I read the OP's recent post, he implies that the traveler had the intent to fly BE R.T. as ticketed; but is looking to fly a higher class after flying the outbound.
Except perhaps for BE tickets, isn't there a waiver of the change fee if a traveler buys up to a higher fare class? Then the Q. becomes whether the issue of a M+ award ticket would be considered a higher class, coupled here with the obvious aim of UA (except as to GS) to hold customers to the strict rules of BE as to change fees.
Feb 7, 2019, 10:26 am
#19
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 2,531
An outright cancellation by the carrier or a delay of over 5 hours would get you, at minimum, EUR 600 in EU261 compensation plus a refund, assuming you met the check-in deadline etc.
Feb 7, 2019, 10:59 am
#20
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: SF Bay Area
Programs: UA 1K, Hyatt Globalist, Virtuoso Travel Agent, Commercial Pilot
Posts: 2,117
It IS throw-away ticketing. As a travel agent, I had a similar situation happen with a client flying BA.
Client bought a non-changeable roundtrip ticket A-B-A within Europe on BA. Once they got to B, their business plans changed and they needed to travel onward. They abandoned the return and bought an onward ticket (also on BA). BA did an audit and hit me with an $600 debit memo for the cost difference between the one-way that the client flew and the roundtrip that he paid for (and denied the debit memo appeal).
Is it fair? Not really (IMO). But it is throw-away ticketing.
Edited to add: In most cases, such an issue would never catch someone's attention as long as it is a one-off, but BA was on a campaign to combat intentional throw-away ticketing and was hitting agencies on every single throw-away ticket, even when there was a reasonable explanation.
Client bought a non-changeable roundtrip ticket A-B-A within Europe on BA. Once they got to B, their business plans changed and they needed to travel onward. They abandoned the return and bought an onward ticket (also on BA). BA did an audit and hit me with an $600 debit memo for the cost difference between the one-way that the client flew and the roundtrip that he paid for (and denied the debit memo appeal).
Is it fair? Not really (IMO). But it is throw-away ticketing.
Edited to add: In most cases, such an issue would never catch someone's attention as long as it is a one-off, but BA was on a campaign to combat intentional throw-away ticketing and was hitting agencies on every single throw-away ticket, even when there was a reasonable explanation.
Last edited by Sykes; Feb 7, 2019 at 11:06 am
Feb 7, 2019, 11:03 am
#21
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: WAS/TYO
Programs: AA PPro, TP Gold, UA Silver, Bonvoy/Hilton Gold, Global Entry
Posts: 296
Yeah, I'm not sure if UA, even if they noticed, would pursue action if at all - especially if the award ticket was booked after the BE ticket, and especially if after the outbound leg was flown.
I'd think that's a pretty clear indication that the original intent was not to drop the return.
Admittedly I haven't done this with UA, but there's been occasions where I was flying bargain-basement Y fares on JL and NH, and found F availability on the return leg (on the same flight that I was originally booked on). I called it in both times, and they were more than happy to cancel the return and didn't bat an eye at the apparent "throwaway" ticketing.
Now knowing UA, I'm not sure if they'll go so far as to cancel a BE ticket for you, but I doubt they'd pursue any action.
I'd think that's a pretty clear indication that the original intent was not to drop the return.
Admittedly I haven't done this with UA, but there's been occasions where I was flying bargain-basement Y fares on JL and NH, and found F availability on the return leg (on the same flight that I was originally booked on). I called it in both times, and they were more than happy to cancel the return and didn't bat an eye at the apparent "throwaway" ticketing.
Now knowing UA, I'm not sure if they'll go so far as to cancel a BE ticket for you, but I doubt they'd pursue any action.
Feb 7, 2019, 11:16 am
#22
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: UA 1K 1MM, AA, DL
Posts: 7,418
If the ticket had flexibility on a RT, then the issue wouldn't arise. UA has gotten themselves into it a bit by having a ticket with zero flexibility - indeed, BE fares are literally "throw away" tickets because if you don't use them they have zero value. Given that, anyone who ultimately has a need to change their ticket would arguably be violating the CoC, even someone who got a flat tire on the way to the airport or took desperately ill a few hours before the flight, but then ultimately returned to their point of origin. That can't be right.
Feb 7, 2019, 11:18 am
#23
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: UA 1K 1MM, AA, DL
Posts: 7,418
It IS throw-away ticketing. As a travel agent, I had a similar situation happen with a client flying BA.
Client bought a non-changeable roundtrip ticket A-B-A within Europe on BA. Once they got to B, their business plans changed and they needed to travel onward. They abandoned the return and bought an onward ticket (also on BA). BA did an audit and hit me with an $600 debit memo for the cost difference between the one-way that the client flew and the roundtrip that he paid for (and denied the debit memo appeal).
Is it fair? Not really (IMO). But it is throw-away ticketing.
Edited to add: In most cases, such an issue would never catch someone's attention as long as it is a one-off, but BA was on a campaign to combat intentional throw-away ticketing and was hitting agencies on every single throw-away ticket, even when there was a reasonable explanation.
Client bought a non-changeable roundtrip ticket A-B-A within Europe on BA. Once they got to B, their business plans changed and they needed to travel onward. They abandoned the return and bought an onward ticket (also on BA). BA did an audit and hit me with an $600 debit memo for the cost difference between the one-way that the client flew and the roundtrip that he paid for (and denied the debit memo appeal).
Is it fair? Not really (IMO). But it is throw-away ticketing.
Edited to add: In most cases, such an issue would never catch someone's attention as long as it is a one-off, but BA was on a campaign to combat intentional throw-away ticketing and was hitting agencies on every single throw-away ticket, even when there was a reasonable explanation.
Feb 7, 2019, 11:25 am
#24
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: London & Sonoma CA
Programs: UA 1K, MM *G for life, BAEC Gold
Posts: 10,227
It's all a great theoretical argument, but in practice it will not come to UA's attention and they will do nothing about it. I wouldn't even worry about having two tickets at the same time (impossible to fly cancellations) as UA's software won't sync with LH's.
The only recommendation is: don't call UA and bring it to their attention.
The only recommendation is: don't call UA and bring it to their attention.
Feb 7, 2019, 11:32 am
#25
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: SF Bay Area
Programs: UA 1K, Hyatt Globalist, Virtuoso Travel Agent, Commercial Pilot
Posts: 2,117
They wouldn't unless it was a significant and repeating problem with a single individual, as others have mentioned. I was just mentioning it because it substantiates the claim that this is throw-away ticketing, even if airlines don't usually take any action to enforce the terms for end travelers..
Feb 7, 2019, 12:07 pm
#26
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SFO/SJC
Programs: UA Silver, Marriott Gold, Hilton Gold
Posts: 14,891
If the return isn’t being flown, it is what it is. If UA doesn’t come after you for the one way fare (probably unlikely for then to do so if it isn’t a habit), then I’d say they’ve already given you a huge break.
A throwaway ticket is still a throwawy ticket, whether or not you’ve bought a different return flight.
this, also.
Its been a while since I read the CoC, so decided to pull it up. This bullet appears in the ticketing section, under the prohibited practice sub-section:
The purchase and use of round-trip Tickets for the purpose of one-way travel only, known as “Throwaway Ticketing” is prohibited by UA.
Theres no mention of intention. It seems once they don’t take the return flight, the itinerary essentially is ‘one way travel only’.
The Basic Economy fare rules prohibit changes, period. It's use it or lose it. The airline can't impose that restriction and then demand payment of a penalty for not using the nonchangeable ticket and returning another way.
I'm disappointed but not surprised that United doesn't give us any reason other than courtesy to cancel a Basic Economy trip we won't use: If United gave any incentive someone would figure out how game it.
I'm disappointed but not surprised that United doesn't give us any reason other than courtesy to cancel a Basic Economy trip we won't use: If United gave any incentive someone would figure out how game it.
While non-changeable tickets, by the way, are relatively new to most flying US-based carriers, they have existed for a long time on other carriers and in certain jurisdictions on US carriers, pretty much I think where US carriers are matching others. Some ex-EU tickets, for example, have been non-changeable even before BE.
Breakage (people not flying the return or even the entire trip) is a benefit to the airline and part of the reason for the low price on non-changeable tickets. Penalizing non-flying on such a ticket seems crazy except in the rare situation where the customer is obviously gaming the fare rules in a way that costs the airline money.
so let’s say, Im a business traveler who sees this $279 fare. Instead of buying a single round trip at a say, Q fare, let’s say I buy two round trips, one ex-US and throw away the return, and one ex-EU where I throw away the return, netting a fare of say, $560 for the two, vs. $1300 for the single round trip option (or say, $5000 for two single one ways).
Are you going to tell me this is ok because the pax is indeed flying ‘round-trip”?
I don't see this as a clear case of throwaway ticketing, assuming that when this BE fare was ticketed, the traveler intended in good faith to fly it as written.
Aren't throwaway tickets intended to evade hidden city ticketing rules and notable differentials between OWs and RTs bought with a likely throwaway intent at the time of original ticketing? As I read the OP's recent post, he implies that the traveler had the intent to fly BE R.T. as ticketed; but is looking to fly a higher class after flying the outbound.
Except perhaps for BE tickets, isn't there a waiver of the change fee if a traveler buys up to a higher fare class? Then the Q. becomes whether the issue of a M+ award ticket would be considered a higher class, coupled here with the obvious aim of UA (except as to GS) to hold customers to the strict rules of BE as to change fees.
Aren't throwaway tickets intended to evade hidden city ticketing rules and notable differentials between OWs and RTs bought with a likely throwaway intent at the time of original ticketing? As I read the OP's recent post, he implies that the traveler had the intent to fly BE R.T. as ticketed; but is looking to fly a higher class after flying the outbound.
Except perhaps for BE tickets, isn't there a waiver of the change fee if a traveler buys up to a higher fare class? Then the Q. becomes whether the issue of a M+ award ticket would be considered a higher class, coupled here with the obvious aim of UA (except as to GS) to hold customers to the strict rules of BE as to change fees.
You cant upfare a BE ticket, though there is supposedly an exception for GS. So it’s irrelevant. The only thing you can do with a BE ticket aside from flying as ticketed is to cancel within 24 hours of booking, or change/refund in case of IRROPS or the thresholds for delays per the COC or in the case of cancelation.
Feb 7, 2019, 12:23 pm
#27
Moderator: Hyatt; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: WAS
Programs: :rolleyes:, DL DM, Mlife Plat, Caesars Diam, Marriott Tit, UA Gold, Hyatt Glob, invol FT beta tester
Posts: 18,942
but it's not clear to me such an argument should automatically be dismissed either.
Feb 7, 2019, 1:11 pm
#28
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 2,531
Here's what United has to say in their BE "Terms and Conditions" https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...c-economy.aspx
This seems to suggest United contemplates that a BE ticket purchaser may cancel or not use a BE ticket. And it doesn't suggest any penalties. Just says ticket has no value.
I'm open to the idea that UA could say to OP (or OP's TA): "hey, you flew one-way on this ticket, please pony up $XXX to cover the difference between a one-way fare and the fare you purchased". I'm not open to the idea that UA could say "hey you violated the CoC here" or that OP has done anything wrong.
- Basic Economy tickets are nonrefundable and non-changeable except as allowed by our 24-hour flexible booking policy — and they cannot be combined with any other fare type. They have no value if canceled or unused.
I'm open to the idea that UA could say to OP (or OP's TA): "hey, you flew one-way on this ticket, please pony up $XXX to cover the difference between a one-way fare and the fare you purchased". I'm not open to the idea that UA could say "hey you violated the CoC here" or that OP has done anything wrong.
Feb 7, 2019, 1:16 pm
#29
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,415
I'm open to the idea that UA could say to OP (or OP's TA): "hey, you flew one-way on this ticket, please pony up $XXX to cover the difference between a one-way fare and the fare you purchased". I'm not open to the idea that UA could say "hey you violated the CoC here" or that OP has done anything wrong.
Feb 7, 2019, 1:40 pm
#30
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: if it's Thursday, this must be Belgium
Programs: UA 1K MM
Posts: 6,484
Regarding BE fares, I think most outside observers would say that when you have something explicitly sold as "use-it-or-lose-it", not using it and losing it are clearly expected behavior by the seller.
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Feb 8, 2019 at 2:09 am Reason: Discuss the issues, not the poster(s)