|
Not all of the mom’s tweets are accurate. But there was enough accurate info there to start with. https://viewfromthewing.boardingarea...any-yesterday/ |
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 31263319)
Not all of the mom’s tweets are accurate. But there was enough accurate info there to start with. https://viewfromthewing.boardingarea...any-yesterday/ No one checked the boy’s identification against the passenger list. |
Originally Posted by Repooc17
(Post 31263539)
From the article:
In reality, Eurowings (or LH) messed up. In reality: there wouldn’t be this mess up if UA had a more practical UAM policy that doesn’t attempt to infantilize older minors; if UA had more competent UAM service provider at EWR; or if UA at RDU didn’t waive a UA policy in the interest of being customer-friendly while charging money for being so. |
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 31263319)
Not all of the mom’s tweets are accurate. But there was enough accurate info there to start with. https://viewfromthewing.boardingarea...any-yesterday/
|
Originally Posted by seenitall
(Post 31263596)
Again, the source for the article seems just to be the Mom. While everything she says could be correct, the story being spun is that on the one itinerary:
|
Sounds like there’s enough blame to go around. The story I read said the ticket was booked through SAS. Sounds to me like the first error was allowing the ticket to be purchased in the first place, given UAs UM requirements. Yes, the booking was done through SAS (according to the story i read), but given part of this was done via UA, and there UM policy should apply to the UA portion (unless SAS is going to have UM contractors pretty much everywhere for this kind of situation), seems like the purchase shouldn’t have been allowed. Or, if this was discovered afterward, and it’s not like this was a last minute purchase, so it should have been), SAS should have contacted the purchaser to discuss any options, which most likely should have been a refund of the trip, or perhaps reducing the trip to EWR-ARN, with the parent accompanying the minor to EWR. Second was the UA agent in RDU allowing the travel at all, given UAs policies. While well-meaning to try and allow the customer to fly as ticketed, seems the scenario that happened is a likely reason why UA doesn’t allow this kind of UM itinerary in the first place anymore. Back in the day it did, but back in the day, expensive lawsuits weren’t filed over pretty much any minor error that could occur in everyday life. Once allowing the exception though, sounds like the UA contractor escorting the minor to his connecting flight, something they likely weren’t trained for given that UA doesn’t allow this kind of UM itinerary, brought the kid to the wrong flight, potentially because of the gate switch or mishearing an announcement. But beyond that, EuroWings staff (or their contractors) then proceeded to allow the kid to board. Presumably, the staff didn’t check the BP - either manually by reading it, or by scanning it (or ignoring whatever warning beep the would have sounded - every time the warning beep sounds, they should look to see the problem and verify the BP. Here, I’m counting 4 things that went wrong between the 3 different carriers involved. To those who say UA shouldn’t require UM service for kids that are 14 - you need to look at it in context of not one incident that happened (which is against UA policy anyways), but in the scheme of things in real life. I have no doubt there are plenty of 14 year olds that could handle flying by themselves - even a connection in EWR. There are many more that really can’t. Here in the US, we are in lawsuit-happy society where people simply want to blame someone else for any issues - whether it’s legitimate or not. And who are trying to the pay the lowest amount of money for everything, and so would rather just send an unprepared 14 yo to travel on their own rather than book the UM service (not saying everyone is like this, but many are. Having someone take care of a kid through their trip costs $. And we aren’t back in the era where airlines were pushing market share over profits, and so would send hourly flights between destinations that were half empty. So yes, they charge for UM service. Why shouldn’t they? |
Using litigation as an excuse for UA’s policy would make more sense if the airlines lacked all ability to get a signed waiver to limit liability of sorts. Unless and until you’ve successfully sued an airline in court in the US and gotten a public court judgment in your favor from doing so, it’s hard to buy the excuse of “oh, if but not for the lawsuits”. |
I still would like to know how the UM got from terminal C to B. Especially considering the ticket was booked on SAS. One interpretation of what happened is that UA fulfilled its UM responsibility, and got the UM to the destination on their segment. How the UM made it to Terminal B, no trivial matter at EWR, and who got him there isn’t clear. A lot of assumptions are being converted to facts here. |
Originally Posted by emcampbe
(Post 31263640)
Sounds like there’s enough blame to go around. The story I read said the ticket was booked through SAS. Sounds to me like the first error was allowing the ticket to be purchased in the first place, given UAs UM requirements. Yes, the booking was done through SAS (according to the story i read), but given part of this was done via UA, and there UM policy should apply to the UA portion (unless SAS is going to have UM contractors pretty much everywhere for this kind of situation), seems like the purchase shouldn’t have been allowed. |
Originally Posted by drewguy
(Post 31263828)
Given the differing UA and SAS policies re UAM, why shouldn't UA collect the UAM fee for the RDU-EWR portion and tell the parents "child's on his own once he gets to EWR"? ....
Once your child’s flight has arrived, a United representative will meet your child and bring them to meet their designated pick-up person.....The designated adult meeting your child will need to show their ID so we can verify their identity. They’ll also need to sign a release form that says they’ve accepted custody of your child ... |
IMHO, UA is being bashed for something that was not their fault in this case. The UA UM contractor cannot simply just drop the UM off at the OAL connecting gate - there would be a formal handoff of the UM to the OAL ground handling staff with signatures and all. IMO, the problem in this case is that SK and EW use the same ground handler in EWR and they put him on the wrong plane. Really, the EW/SK ground handler should be getting bashed not UA.
|
The whole journey from RDU was on a SAS ticketed PNR according to the mom. If UA didn’t force such teenagers to use the UAM service to go from RDU, this incident wouldn’t have happened. I am curious to know if this has made the news in Sweden yet. It seems to be getting some news attention here in the US, and not necessarily as much as it may yet get here.
Originally Posted by WineCountryUA
(Post 31263844)
But UA's UM process is to turn the UM over to a responsibile adult at the destination -- not "you are on your own" https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unit...ame-cabin.html
|
Is this 14 & lower a new thing? I remember doing an international flight with connections on my own when I was like 13/14. I did not have nor want any assistance.
|
Originally Posted by mr8
(Post 31263929)
Is this 14 & lower a new thing? I remember doing an international flight with connections on my own when I was like 13/14. I did not have nor want any assistance.
|
Originally Posted by mr8
(Post 31263929)
Is this 14 & lower a new thing? I remember doing an international flight with connections on my own when I was like 13/14. I did not have nor want any assistance.
https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unit...ame-cabin.html However, as there is a separate theard for UCM discussion, let's stay focused in this thread on this incident and use the other thread for generic UCM discussion WineCountryUA UA coModerator |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 9:31 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.