|
Options to change return of a super-cheap BE Int'l fare, after flying outbound leg?
Last August, a relative bought a crazy Basic Economy Fare of $279 RT France to SFO on LH and UA with perfect connections. No kidding. $127 fare and $151 taxes. Ha!
She just flew to SFO. We are getting her a LH J seat on UA miles for a later return. We don't mid throwing away half a $279 ticket, but I wonder if United would throw us a bone for canceling rather than no-showing. That way they'd have one more seat to sell. I'm thinking maybe a waived change fee on the J ticket if a better J option becomes available? Mods, feel free to merge this if there's an existing thread with replies that answer my question. |
Originally Posted by nsx
(Post 30748747)
We don't mid throwing away half a $279 ticket, but I wonder if United would throw us a bone for canceling rather than no-showing.
|
Originally Posted by nsx
(Post 30748747)
Last August, a relative bought a crazy Basic Economy Fare of $279 RT France to SFO on LH and UA with perfect connections. No kidding. $127 fare and $151 taxes. Ha!
She just flew to SFO. We are getting her a LH J seat on UA miles for a later return. We don't mid throwing away half a $279 ticket, but I wonder if United would throw us a bone for canceling rather than no-showing. That way they'd have one more seat to sell. I'm thinking maybe a waived change fee on the J ticket if a better J option becomes available? UA doesn't care if you cancel. If you don't check-in, your reservation will be cancelled regardless. You get no props for cancelling in advance. UA assumes some percentage of pax won't show up. That's how flights get oversold, when they estimate wrong. The right question is whether you're going to get in trouble if UA figures out you're throw-away ticketing. Which you're making pretty easy for them using UA miles in lieu of the discarded return. |
Originally Posted by Kacee
(Post 30748766)
The right question is whether you're going to get in trouble if UA figures out you're throw-away ticketing. Which you're making pretty easy for them using UA miles in lieu of the discarded return.
Furthermore, UA knows that many Basic Economy passengers decide to change return dates and buy new tickets. That has never been considered throwaway ticketing as far as I know. |
Originally Posted by nsx
(Post 30748809)
I wouldn't call it throw away ticketing when we bought a more expensive replacement ticket, also from UA.
Originally Posted by nsx
(Post 30748809)
Furthermore, UA knows that many Basic Economy passengers decide to change return dates and buy new tickets. That has never been considered throwaway ticketing as far as I know.
Anyway, long story short, it doesn't matter. The answer to your original question is that UA is not going to waive any fees or do you any other favor due to cancelling the return flight in advance. In fact, the only reason to cancel early would be if the two return flights are on the same day or otherwise impossible to fly -- if UA detects impossible bookings, it reserves the right to cancel one of them. Otherwise, wait and see if you get a lucky; perhaps a schedule change or a delay will allow for a refund. |
Originally Posted by nsx
(Post 30748809)
I wouldn't call it throw away ticketing when we bought a more expensive replacement ticket
|
Originally Posted by nsx
(Post 30748809)
I wouldn't call it throw away ticketing
Originally Posted by nsx
(Post 30748809)
UA knows that many Basic Economy passengers decide to change return dates and buy new tickets. That has never been considered throwaway ticketing as far as I know.
|
Originally Posted by mahasamatman
(Post 30748846)
If you bought a round-trip with no intention to fly the return, it's throwaway ticketing.
Throwaway costs the airline money when you fly only one way and don't pay the one-way fare. If you actually fly both directions the airline has no reasonable expectation that you would have bought two overpriced one-way fares rather a round-trip fare. I believe that if you fly the same airline both ways they have made their normal amount of money from you. (Domestically this would be no issue because round trip fare is the sum of one-way fares. It's only flights beyond the USA that a one-way can cost more than a round trip.) |
Originally Posted by nsx
(Post 30748921)
The intent until she arrived was to fly the return. Then we looked at J award availability and decided to splurge.
Throwaway costs the airline money when you fly only one way and don't pay the one-way fare. If you actually fly both directions the airline has no reasonable expectation that you would have bought two overpriced one-way fares rather a round-trip fare. I believe that if you fly the same airline both ways they have made their normal amount of money from you. (Domestically this would be no issue because round trip fare is the sum of one-way fares. It's only flights beyond the USA that a one-way can cost more than a round trip.) It's not a moral issue. But it's a very clear violation of the CoC. All attempts at rationalization notwithstanding. |
Originally Posted by Kacee
(Post 30749000)
She's throwing away half of a $279 RT TATL ticket, in circumstances where the OW would have cost over $3000. This is exactly what the throw-away ticketing rules intend to prohibit.
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. |
Originally Posted by nsx
(Post 30749055)
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 don't see how it's a violation of the CoC to:
(1) buy a discounted round-trip ticket (2) after arriving at your destination, decide to change your travel plans (3) attempt to change your ticket, but find that it's not changeable (4) purchase a one-way business class ticket home on the same carrier Maybe OP owes UA the fare differential between what they bought (r/t) and what they flew (o/w). Maybe. But I don't see how OP violated the CoC unless they are lying here and always intended to throw away the return. I have no reason to believe OP is lying, since changing one's travel plans is something that happens frequently. You cannot hold that buying a no-changes ticket legally requires you to board that flight. If it's "use it or lose it", there has to be a (legal) way to "lose it". I agree 100% the OP has little to gain from contacting UA and should probably just no-show for the flight (or hope it gets cancelled/delayed). But I don't understand all of this "you're violating the CoC by changing your plans!" nonsense. |
Originally Posted by threeoh
(Post 30750160)
You cannot hold that buying a no-changes ticket legally requires you to board that flight. If it's "use it or lose it", there has to be a (legal) way to "lose it".
So, yes, I think UA has backed themselves into a bit of a corner here. With a regular penalty fare, it's easy to make the argument that it's a CoC violation to throw away the return if plans change -- UA's expectation is that you pay the change fee and any necessary fare difference. But on a fare that disallows changes, I'm not sure what somebody is supposed to do. I think UA would have a difficult time enforcing throwaway ticketing rules on BE tickets, unless they could show that the passenger never intended to fly as ticketed. (For example, if a passenger purchased LAX-LHR-LAX at 3 PM, and then purchased a separate LHR-LAX reservation at 3:30 PM, UA probably has a case). |
Originally Posted by jsloan
(Post 30750250)
I think UA would have a difficult time enforcing throwaway ticketing rules on BE tickets, unless they could show that the passenger never intended to fly as ticketed. (For example, if a passenger purchased LAX-LHR-LAX at 3 PM, and then purchased a separate LHR-LAX reservation at 3:30 PM, UA probably has a case).
I'm fairly confident that UA would take the position it's a CoC violation regardless. Whether they would take action is a different question. Mods may want to move this discussion, as I'm afraid we've hijacked the thread. |
Moderator note
These posts were originally in our 2019, "Ask a Simple Question..." Thread. The protocol of that thread is that one or two answers to a basic question should suffice. Occasionally, a more complex question arises, such as this one started by nsx, which deserves the robust and extended discussion it's received. Hence, we've moved this to its separate thread so that the discussion can continue. Thanks, Ocn Vw 1K, Co-Moderator.
|
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. |
Originally Posted by nsx
(Post 30750453)
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.
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). |
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. |
Originally Posted by nsx
(Post 30750453)
I doubt a schedule change or even an outright cancellation (it's an LH flight) would earn me a refund on a BE fare.
|
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. |
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. |
Originally Posted by Kacee
(Post 30749000)
She's throwing away half of a $279 RT TATL ticket, in circumstances where the OW would have cost over $3000. This is exactly what the throw-away ticketing rules intend to prohibit..
|
Originally Posted by Sykes
(Post 30750619)
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. |
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. |
Originally Posted by drewguy
(Post 30750682)
I wonder if they would treat an individual purchaser the same (I assume you're a travel agent/arranger).
|
Originally Posted by nsx
(Post 30748747)
We don't mid throwing away half a $279 ticket, but I wonder if United would throw us a bone for canceling rather than no-showing. That way they'd have one more seat to sell. I'm thinking maybe a waived change fee on the J ticket if a better J option becomes available?
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.
Originally Posted by Kacee
(Post 30748766)
UA doesn't care if you cancel. If you don't check-in, your reservation will be cancelled regardless. You get no props for cancelling in advance. UA assumes some percentage of pax won't show up. That's how flights get oversold, when they estimate wrong.
Originally Posted by nsx
(Post 30748809)
I wouldn't call it throw away ticketing when we bought a more expensive replacement ticket, also from UA. We bought it with miles, but it accrues a lot more than $140 revenue on UA's books. For biz seats which were not available last August.
A throwaway ticket is still a throwawy ticket, whether or not you’ve bought a different return flight.
Originally Posted by Kacee
(Post 30748872)
I would, and so would UA.
You're wrong. 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.
Originally Posted by nsx
(Post 30748921)
The intent until she arrived was to fly the return. Then we looked at J award availability and decided to splurge.
Theres no mention of intention. It seems once they don’t take the return flight, the itinerary essentially is ‘one way travel only’.
Originally Posted by nsx
(Post 30749055)
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. 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.
Originally Posted by nsx
(Post 30750453)
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”?
Originally Posted by Ocn Vw 1K
(Post 30750476)
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. 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. |
Originally Posted by emcampbe
(Post 30750857)
Again, the definition in the CoC above makes no mention of ‘intention’.
|
Here's what United has to say in their BE "Terms and Conditions" https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...c-economy.aspx
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. |
Originally Posted by threeoh
(Post 30751125)
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.
|
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.
|
Originally Posted by jsloan
(Post 30751143)
"Wrong" is a value judgment, so I'll leave that aside. But your first and second sentences don't make sense together. If you think that UA can ask for the fare difference, the only logical reason is because the OP engaged in a practice contrary to the CoC. Otherwise, it would be a prohibited post-purchase price increase.
If you ask me, a truly unchangable fare was not envisioned when the CoC was drafted, and so it is a little vague. According to your interpretation, if I just no-showed for my simple SFO-LAX one-way BE ticket because I'm too sick to travel, I'm violating the CoC. If I call them and ask to change, they will say no. CoC interpretation by FTers aside, nothing UA has said about BE, either in interviews or on their website, makes me think that UA thinks that buying a BE ticket and not flying it is against the CoC. They say "use it or lose it" or "your ticket has no value if not flown as ticketed" or similar. |
Originally Posted by nsx
(Post 30748809)
I wouldn't call it throw away ticketing when we bought a more expensive replacement ticket, also from UA. We bought it with miles, but it accrues a lot more than $140 revenue on UA's books. For biz seats which were not available last August.
Furthermore, UA knows that many Basic Economy passengers decide to change return dates and buy new tickets. That has never been considered throwaway ticketing as far as I know. |
1. This is absolutely "throwaway" ticketing. Take a look at Rule 6(J)(2) of the contract to which the passenger agreed. The fact that this is a BE ticket is a red herring. Even if this were a standard penalty fare with a typical change fee of $300 and one wanted to change the return and the new one-way did not incur a fare difference, unlikely as it is, it would still make no sense to pay $300 to change half of a $279 ticket.
2. There is little risk of UA taking action against the passenger here presuming that she is not a serial offender. 3. There is zero advantage in cancelling the ticket in advance. As others note, UA has built into its RM/IM algorithms the likelihood of cancellations and thus overbooks its flights to take that into account. Additionally, if by some chance the return flight is cancelled or significantly delayed by UA, the passenger will be entitled to some kind of a refund, small as it may be. 4. The only caution here is that the new ticket cannot be an "impossible" booking. That will be picked up by UA and it is entirely possible that UA will cancel that. If the new ticket is "impossible" then go ahead and cancel the BE return segment and be done with it. |
Originally Posted by threeoh
(Post 30751572)
If you ask me, a truly unchangable fare was not envisioned when the CoC was drafted, and so it is a little vague
|
The purchase and use of round-trip Tickets for the purpose of one-way travel only, known as “Throwaway Ticketing” is prohibited by UA.
Originally Posted by Zorak
(Post 30750931)
But it does say "for the purpose of one-way travel". It's a different word, but arguably has enough semantic overlap with "intent".
|
Intent to fly
Originally Posted by emcampbe
(Post 30750857)
Theres no mention of intention.
Originally Posted by emcampbe
(Post 30750857)
Again, the definition in the CoC above makes no mention of ‘intention’.
UA reserves the right to cancel bookings and/or reservations which it deems fraudulent, abusive, illogical, fictitious, which are booked and/or reserved with no intention of flying, or for which the passenger makes a misrepresentation without notice to the passenger or the individual making the booking. |
Originally Posted by nsx
(Post 30751675)
Right. In the CoC context, "purpose" means what you intended at the time of purchase. Otherwise the CoC would have said "The use of..."
Anyway regardless of how the CoC is parsed, I think we could agree that this has the effect of being throwaway even if it wasn't originally intended, and also that it's unlikely to have any repercussions as a one-off. |
Originally Posted by Often1
(Post 30751657)
1. This is absolutely "throwaway" ticketing. Take a look at Rule 6(J)(2) of the contract to which the passenger agreed. The fact that this is a BE ticket is a red herring. Even if this were a standard penalty fare with a typical change fee of $300 and one wanted to change the return and the new one-way did not incur a fare difference, unlikely as it is, it would still make no sense to pay $300 to change half of a $279 ticket.
The 'correct' CoC-approved thing to do with a BE ticket is totally unclear. In both cases you can get away with no-showing once. But in one case it's clear what you're doing that instead of, and in the BE case it isn't at all clear what the alternative is. |
Originally Posted by TA
(Post 30751231)
I love how some members here think they're so expert that they can interpret UA's rules for them.
That being said, given that the money we are talking about seems too small to go to court over, United has all the power and is most likely going to go with their own interpretation. |
I love how these threads devolve into OP bashing and then lots of “what if’s”... the answer to the question is that you have lots of options depending on how much you want to spend. Lots of good suggestions already given and I see you just bought a ticket which makes me wonder why you asked the question. Overall, your strategy to buy cheap BE and then refare if needed is a good one. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:59 pm. |
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.