If they didn't take away your original seats then I'm not understanding the "dishonest" part.

I had a very different experience late last year. I had an F ticket CLE-ORD-SFO with the second flight on a 772. I chose it over the direct CLE-SFO flight because there was significant fare savings. The day before the flight, an agent calls me up and asks if would take the direct flight because the connection was switched to a domestic HD 772 which made the flight massively oversold in F. I said "sure" and they gave me an ETC for the accommodation. Left later, arrived a little earlier, gave up the lie flat.

You don't see how it's so relevant? MCI-ORD-DEN is 142% longer than MCI-DEN. You're talking about < 2 hours of travel time vs. > 5 hours. It's entirely reasonable for UA to think they were doing someone a favor by putting them onto the nonstop.

You're assuming they were trying to be dishonest. It sounds like you took your original flights. Did they solicit any volunteers? Did they go out full? Did standbys clear?

It looks like you're pretty upset anyway.


It is true, and your straw-man argument is irrelevant. However, if you insist: UA's CoC covers these scenarios and gives you the ability to request a refund (or, for purchased F, flew Y, you can take a refund of the fare difference). It remains true, however, that they can do this, and that they do not owe you any compensation, even if you are removed from your original flight, even if it is oversold, as long as they get you to your destination within an hour of your scheduled arrival time.

VDBs are always INVOL, as they're at UA's convenience. This should also be marked INVOL, although I agree that if the agent doesn't annotate it that way, you'd likely run into problems.

As I mentioned earlier, UA2174 MCI-ORD (10.38am) was canceled due to mx. It was an A320, so there were up to 150 pax that needed to be re-accommodated on available seats on other flights. I think it's entirely reasonable to offer you a non-stop to your final destination to free up availability to ORD to assist those displaced pax. And they offered it to you (didn't bump you from the original flight). There my well have been communication issues but I see absolutely nothing dishonest.

And as you're looking for PQS, you may well be down on the deal, max 1 but if they rebooked you into a premium bucket down 0.5. If that's important you can request ORC and get that credited.

I am still unsure what there is to be upset about here. There was no change to OP's flights, OP was just protected on other flights. It was entirely reasonable to offer the non stop. Why would anyone expect any compensation in this scenario?

Or take the time to write a 1000 word rant accusing UA of fraud?

Title of thread should be changed, this was a proactive move by UA, not fraud.

You know what drives me nuts? Are dishonest titles for threads. As anyone who flies a bunch knows. (You’re a 1K?) weather can affect the route you’re on. Not just the airport itself you’re departing from.

There is so much UA bashing. Only maybe to be outdone (by the recent AA bashing) UA ain’t perfect. But come on. Enough is enough. I’m calling this one. 🤨

there are so many what ifs here. Sorry. Don’t see you eye to eye here.

That would explain J1 Y0 without there being any oversale at all: they'd have filled up the seats with displaced passengers, and they were likely going through trying to find alternative arrangements for as many people as possible.

A supervisor who noticed that OP was flying MCI-ORD-DEN would definitely have wanted to offer MCI-DEN instead: not to save UA money -- because they wouldn't be VDB'ing anyone due to displaced passengers from an earlier flight -- but just to offer better service for everyone. It's a win-win; OP gets to DEN earlier and UA is able to accommodate one additional passenger from the cancelled flight.

I'm presuming the "dishonest" part referred to the claim of weather in ORD potentially causing a delay, when the OP's app stated it was fine. As has already been stated above, the latter is not in any way proof that the former is not true, and it appears there were weather concerns at ORD, at least earlier in the day.

Only if the nonstop left at or around the same time as the original flight, and if it didn't, only if it arrived earlier than the ORD connection, and only if they contacted the passenger first.

This thread's title has way more punch than its story.
Judging by the many views and replies, I see now why journalists use such tactics.

Sure, if UA had actually made the changes. They didn't. They just protected OP on a different set of flights; something that would have been worked out at the airport, at the latest.

Maybe the OP should change the thread title to "I need 120 segments to requalify for 1K and I lost 1 due to UA showing positive customer service and offering me multiple options. I want the segment and compensation!!!" ;) Sorry, but for all the bashing UA gets that may be justified, this seems pretty petty to me IMHO.

This whole thread is an example of why so many of the people who live on FT are not the target customer group for airlines. Most people who fly simply want to arrive at their destination in the least time and with the fewest complications. This almost always means nonstops over single connections; single connections over double connections, double connections over triple connections, etc. Further it means shortest trip length over longer trip length (e.g., ATL-EWR-BOS over ATL-IAH-BOS). Most customers don't like to run through airports to catch connecting flights, or to change terminals in order to use a nonUA or non*A carrier -- if they have they choice.

Therefore, it is crazy to expect that UA should desist from offering Pax shorter or less complex routings. Most will welcome them. And if you are the one who is on a MR and wants more distance and more segments, simply decline these offers. Don't equate them with anti-customer intentions.