Remember

Hi All!

I searched the forums and found some older references to this situation such as here but nothing up to date: https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/32511399-post2878.html

I had a flight with a small schedule change (only ~10 minutes), but the carrier shifted for one leg from United mainline on an A319 to United Express (Skywest) on an E175. It seems United previously allowed for refunds in this case, but I just tried with the refund department and they denied the refund. Any recourse here in terms of what is supposed to happen, and if there are any magic words to say to the refund department?

FWIW, I had two similar tickets refunded in the month past without issues but these days a lot with United seems to be hit-or-miss depending entirely on who you get.

IAH-OIL-TRASH

Maybe UA is starting to notice that you seem to ask for a lot of refunds on non-refundable tickets?

Remember

Maybe I answered my own question, found this document from US DOT: https://www.transportation.gov/sites...s/20010925.pdf

I'm going to send this to them and see if they budge any.

Maybe true indeed! But the DOT seems to think I'm qualified for the reasons I am asking for a refund. I'd argue they shouldn't change operating carriers if they don't want to offer their customers refunds.

mahasamatman

I think you mean "did think" 20 years ago. You may need to find a document more recent than that if you're going that route.

319 to 175 sounds like an upgrade to me.

WineCountryUA

UA may argue that a change United Airlines to UX dba United Airlines is not a change of carrier

Then UA will point to its CoC
Rule 24 Flight Delays/Cancellations/Aircraft Changes
24.B.1 Schedule Change – an advance change in UA’s schedule (including a change in operating carrier or itinerary) that is not a unique event such as Irregular Operations or Force Majeure Event as defined below.

Section C Schedule Changes -- stating anything under 30 minutes is not subject to any remedy

but
Rule 18 Service Provided by United Express and Other Codeshare Partners
Suggest UX is a different carrier

This has long been an area of uncertainity and generally UA has been willing to refund, just unclear if they are required.

A similar case is a change in sitting say from a lie-flat to standard domestic F. Generally UA will be flexible, does not appear to be required.

IAH-OIL-TRASH

You might spread your ticket gaming around to other airlines. A slew of refunds in a short period for minor changes is going to attract attention. The change from a a 319 to a 175 is more of an excuse than a reason to most people. UA will probably become less accommodative to someone who is perceived to be more trouble than value.

jsloan

I agree that the E175 is a much nicer plane than the A319.

That said, there's no ambiguity here. UA is required to disclose the operating carrier at the time of booking, and they can't then turn around and subcontract that flight to someone else without giving passengers the option to take a refund.

If UA wants to refuse to sell the OP tickets in the future, that's certainly their prerogative, but the existing booking is going to fall under DOT rules, and the DOT is clear on this. There's no need for a more recent document if nothing has changed in the DOT policy.

emcampbe

To be fair, UA did disclose the carrier at time of booking, which at the time was United. It’s not like UA is intentionally scheduling mainline flights that they intend to change to be operated by an Express carrier. While OP hasn’t specifically noted, UA almost certainly disclosed the new carrier when changed (which OP calls ‘United Express’ but that’s definitely not right - United Express is simply a brand for flights marketed by United but operated by other carriers on smaller equipment than United does). UA is required to disclose that carrier - could be Skywest, or Mesa for example.

that said, I thought CoC pretty much always allowed for refund due to change of carrier, and while probably a bit of a copout in many cases, it seems that should be a reasonable reason for a refund.

while I do suspect United could use multiple refund requests in a short period of a time as a ‘flag’, no one has suggested yet a more likely reason (IME) for the denial, which probably isn’t a flag but more likely a bad agent who just didn’t want to do it or didn’t see something that was there - perhaps they misapplied a rule, looked at the schedule change and automatically assumed that was the reason (did the OP mention that in their request?), or perhaps is getting more pressure these days to deny requests whenever it seems to make sense. To me, this seems more like a HUCA situation, where another agent will likely just take care of the request.

IAH-OIL-TRASH

In some Las Vegas poker rooms, some cheapskate players walk away from the table and do not play in order to rack up hours to qualify for a freeroll tournament, only to return when it's their blinds. Basically absent 7 or 8 out of 9 or 10 dealt hands. Then they go away again. Meanwhile, there's someone else sitting on the waitlist for a seat who wants potentially to play any decent hand that comes his/her way (and contributing to poker rooms "rake" when he/she does). Casinos often find these absentee players and tell them to take hands a bit more or show them the door. The other players are annoyed by the cheapskate and the house is making less money (more players = bigger average pot = bigger house rake).

If I was United, I'd get annoyed with flyers who frequently try to refund tickets for trivial reasons/excuses. They take away inventory and drive up prices for those who actually want to fly on the dates/times they commit to. If a ticket buyer (not accusing the OP here) is asking for money back because plane changed to a 175 and with little change in times and has been on 175 several times before, it's a shame UA (and other carriers) can't call BS. United to DOT: "Yeah, he wants a refund because he's been switched to a Skywest -operated flight, but he seemed fine with them the last 5 trips". This is where the DOT is wrong - they should let airlines separate BS from a real concern about an operator. Or, since he/she refunded a ticket since flight was "operated by a UA regional carrier", he/she should be not be able to book any more flights on a regional carrier since he/she has already expressed an aversion

I don't know where I was going with the poker room tale - maybe casinos, like airlines, like seats to be sat in when committed to.

mahasamatman

Are you sure there's been no change? They could have made some ruling regarding regional carriers.

docbert

The passenger (potentially) committed to fly fly on that date/time, in much the same way as the airline committed to use a specific type of plane. Neither is actually much of a "commitment".

The simple fact is that United's own Contact of Carriage refers to what has happened here as an irregular operation ("Substitution of aircraft type that provides different classes of service or different seat configurations") and gives the option for a refund.

bluedemon211

No recent change that reverses this position. Like it or not this is a reason for cancel and refund if the passenger so chooses. That's why UA MUST disclose the carrier at time of booking. While I may personally prefer an E175 to an A319, the change from UA to Skywest is a valid reason for cancel or refund if that's what I want to do.

Personally, I'll fly dozens of Express flights, but refuse to fly Air Wisky due to some really poor history with them. If UA changes me onto that from UA, I will either change to a different flight or cancel.

WineCountryUA

While I beleive a change to a previous non-disclosed carrier is a reason for a refund, what is cited above is not correct.
UA refers to irrops as a day of travel / unscheduled events. A schedule change is not irrops in UA language. And don't see the customer refund option

docbert

Please feel free to quote/reference the section of the Contract of Carriage that states that, as I can't see it mentioned in the definition of an "Irregular Operations" (Rule 24(B)(7))

There have been multiple cases mentioned in other threads here of people being allowed change/cancel flights due to changes such as between types of aircraft with different business class seating as a result of this section of the CoC.

jsloan

Right, but "disclosing it and then changing it and disclosing it again" fits neither the spirit nor the letter of the regulation.

I agree that it's a somewhat chintzy thing to do. I've done it once and I was mildly embarrassed about it. I wouldn't do it now, in an era of no-change-fees. But it doesn't change the fact that UA has a legal obligation to carry the passenger on the airline that they originally specified.