Kacee

It's likely the T (or similar) is not available on one of the segments on OP's dates, resulting in the ticket booking into a much more expensive fare class, and UA can/will only sell through that throughfare, not an end-on-end combination.

M60_to_LGA

A few years ago I flew EWR-BFS (Belfast) on UA. Expedia had a cheaper price than UA's own website for the exact same flights. Of course I bought via Expedia.

I've long ago given up trying to understand airline pricing. Just check the price using a few different channels and go with the cheapest.

Gig103

It isn't just UA. I've found Expedia selling cheaper fares than AA, same flight numbers and dates. In my one purchase example, it was because Expedia would sell me mixed fares (T outbound and N returning) but AA would only sell me the same fare both ways.

M60_to_LGA

This is why I don't understand so many people on this site's heated aversion to OTAs. They can often save you money!

Sykes

Even if they don't codeshare it can still all be on a through-fare.

This doesn't really sound like a plating restriction (although it could be). United.com always seems to have trouble booking in another carrier's prime flight number when there is a codeshare available. I'd guess that's the real issue--that the United codeshare flight number for ZRH-SKG has tighter inventory than the LX flight number, and United.com won't use the LX flight number (for reasons I don't really understand).

cfischer

google flights should get around that problem. Within Europe united.com is usually o.k. with LX and LH flight numbers if booking segment-by-segment ... but pricing it correctly with UAs horrible IT infrastructure is another thing ...

Gig103

For me, the aversion is that if there are schedule or equipment changes, you are subject to the OTA's change policy and customer service, not the airline's. Example: Delta/Air France codeshare changed my layover by 2 hours, and Orbitz wouldn't put me on the earlier DL flight, but Delta would have. Example 2: AA will consider equipment swaps a valid reason for change/cancel but OTAs do not have to.

I also stopped using OTAs for economy tickets because you can't shop non-basic until the last page or even when you get to the airline website to book. And Expedia (last I tried) won't sell a hotel+flight package that isn't on Basic economy even for an upcharge.

cfischer

UA is perfectly happy to adjust OTA tickets, at least for 1Ks, in cases where schedule changes make things difficult. Never had any issues with this.

M60_to_LGA

I've heard people say OTAs are terrible in cancellations, etc, but in my experience the airline has treated me no differently than anyone else. I've never had to go back to Expedia.

Actually one time Expedia actually helped me out. Got caught by a blizzard in NY when I was trying to get to MEX; all flights cancelled. My original airline (maybe AA? Don't recall) put me on another flight days later which would have made me miss the conference panel I was speaking on. I called Expedia, rebooked a new flight on AC for an amazingly cheap last-minute price,, and Expedia cancelled the new AA flight for me. I couldn't cancel myself for some reason online, and the wait to reach them on the phone was interminable.

As to basic economy, I actually don't really mind it, and on their site it's easy to just ignore those flights if you want.

WineCountryUA

So back to the OP's query, it may have been
1) plating restrictions
2) UA may have been offering a codeshare of the LX with different codeshare inventory
3) UA forces a thru fare and using higher fare class due to a fare class shortage on one segment
4) fare combinability issue; UA forcing same fares vs end to end faring
5) issue related to forcing a fare on united.com

Any other reasons?

Without further details, the best we can offer is a list of potential reasons. A workaround, if any is possible, will depend on which was the reason.

tkc98110

Have been in meetings all day and night here, just now checking back in.

To respond to a few queries, I ended up booking two separate tickets, one on UA SEA-ZRH, 8/23-8/31, and one on LX ZRH-SKG 8/24-8/31. The price was roughly equal, maybe $100 more, compared to booking the same ticket as a combined itinerary on Orbitz. But to book a combined itinerary on UA only would have been more than double (i.e. >$3000 vs ~$1400). I booked on UA and LX as separate tickets b/c I wanted to (try) to use my GPUs for u/g's on the trans-Atlantic legs (SFO-ZRH). It sounds like I might have been able to book a combined ticket on Orbitz at a lower price and still could have applied for a GPU (maybe?), I'll have to study that more next time.

But, for me at least, the high level question remains--why should I have to go through an OTA to get a more efficient and protected ticketing? Why isn't it in UA/Star Alliance interests to keep me in their system rather than pushing me towards an OTA? If I could get the same ticketing in the UA/SA partnership that I can get from Orbitz, or Expedia, etc, then I would do that, and the percentage cut that an OTA gets would go to UA/SA instead. However I suppose the airlines know how to best separate us from our funds.

There sure are a lot of savvy people on FT!

I now much better appreciate the technical reasons as to why and how this could happen, but still not the higher level philosophical reasons "i.e. Why" for airlines trying to partner to attract business. In my world, when we partner/team with other companies, we work really hard to make the team look seamless, to present a single face to our potential clients, even though we often have quite different corporate cultures. That seems to not be the case with United and its Star Alliance partners.

Kacee

Airline alliances are primarily marketing alliances.

UA would have been happy to sell you the ticket you wanted, just at a higher price than you wanted to pay. The main reasons for this have to do with their fare structure, which is hardly unique in the industry. Whether the various restrictions, some of them rather arcane, result in money being left on the table is debatable. UA believes it is maximizing revenue.

jsloan

Star Alliance isn't a partnership. At best, it's a marketing alliance. UA is competing directly, head-to-head, with many of the other Star Alliance airlines.

LX, however, is a partner, and that generally helps things align better. I'd go in and try to figure out the actual root cause, but it seems like you've already flown the outbound so it's going to be tough to tell what, specifically, caused the issue. If you run into anything similar in the future, ask about it ahead of time.

hirohito888

Because your business is not the same as the airline industry? UA/LX and *A are all different entities. *A is just a brand marketing entity of sort and UA and LX are airlines. UA and LX are merely in a JV to coordinate schedule, capacity and share revenue on TATL routes. Cross ticketing, seat selection, managing reservations, onboard/ground products are not covered in the JV so there's no need to "present a single face". Look at lounge access rules and they vary widely between *A members.

UA certainly knows how many passengers are booking through OTA and how much distribution fees it's paying to OTAs. If cost gets too high then they can just withdraw from OTA (like what AA did in 2014). There are also many OTA who have more capable tools/people to put together complex itineraries.

BearX220

Anyone who has run into difficulties on an OTA-sourced itinerary, and had the airline disclaim responsibility because it didn't sell you the ticket and the OTA disclaim responsibility because the airline is providing transportation, understands this aversion very well. OTAs mean unnecessary risk.