Absolutely not. I also don’t want an airline to announce that there will be no change fees or higher fares collected for a seat in the original cabin on account of the airline’s mistake and then have some employees try to gouge customers during the rebooking process.

By the same token, when I have a contract with an airline to fly from A to B at X time to arrive at Y time, if the airline then chooses to disrupt this to use the aircraft or flight crew elsewhere and then gets me to B 8 hours later, why should the airline get to keep 100% of my payment and have no requirement to reimburse any of my expenses while I was hostage?

In the litigious society we live in, an airline rushing a flight in that manner to avoid penalties and suffering any incident would be sued out of existence. Surely a percentage of fare penalty based upon delay, and some duty of care, is reasonable in cases when the airline chose the delay. EU/UK261 isn’t a blank check, in that delays beyond the control of the airline are not penalized. (Edited to add the dropped “not” after it’s absence was noted below)

This is very real. Guy flew from IAH on his way to Taipei. Missed flight because of outage and they are asking for more money. It’s happening folks.

A bit premature to make that accusation without knowing more details --there are T&Cs to the waiver
Asking outside of these parameters is a problem.

Separate tickets is another problem case

The only report of higher fares were for someone trying to change cabins.

You're entitled to a full refund if you elect not to travel. Prior to government intervention last year, UA offered a better refund policy.

Maybe, but people take shortcuts all the time.

I might actually concur when the airline chooses the delay.

False. Delays that are "extraordinary" are exempted. The courts, which are not in the business of running airlines, have decided that just about anything can be considered "ordinary" if you squint hard enough. The Canadians are closer, in that delays for safety reasons are not penalized.

I see no reason that we need socialized delay compensation vs. individual insurance, but if we're to have it by government fiat, I certainly hope that they follow the Canadian model and exempt anything safety-related. There should never be a question of safe vs. on-time; safe should win 100% of the time.

Cancelling and a full refund is an option.

The problem is an open ended nature of "reimburse any of my expenses while I was hostage"

I suspect, as UA did during CloudFlare UA will offer mass compensation

See post #97

To be pedantic, you don't. You only have a contract to fly from A to B. United expressly disclaims the schedule part from being part of the contract:



There are various consumer protections that give you rights of the schedule is not adhered to but The schedule isn't part of the contract.

Not a first-hand report, so the situation is not clear, but a hint of changed airports which is outside the waiver.

I believe UA is on verge of fatal accident and I’ve generally avoided them. The Swiss cheese model will get them eventually. It’s incidents like yesterday that seem to be constant. It’s basic. What else is United doing wrong that we just don’t see. 1.6MM and I dont trust them. I put my money where my mouth is.

United truly is America’s number one global airline and I’m sorry you experienced this.

Nope. You’re buying transportation from A to B, that’s all. Seat and schedule not guaranteed. You agreed to this when you bought the ticket. Failure to read/understand the contract of carriage provided during the ticketing process is on you, not United.

I suggest you read the Contract of Carriage instead of ignoring it. The terms are pretty much standard across all airlines and you’ll have an understanding of what you’re actually buying - transportation. In event of prolonged delay, you’re certainly entitled to not fly and ask for a refund of unflown segments.

They literally initiated a self-imposed ground stop yesterday for safety reasons because their weight and balance software wasn't functioning, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

Entitled to a full refund, yes…but when you’re sitting at your holiday destination and need to get home, that’s little consolation. In most contracts, there is a penalty clause…

I meant to type ARE beyond their control ARE NOT penalized, but mistyped, so your correction is correct.

As for private insurance, IF there was a standard insurance coverage, much like many States regulate polices for auto and homeowners, that allowed proper comparison between offers, it’s not a terrible choice, but still leaves too much power on the airline/company side. My note above related to a situation where three of U.S. were marooned in SFO for 8 hours due to a company decision to support other flights, and the only option would have cost three times what we would have been refunded. Sorry, but that is NOT a fair contract, in my opinion. Many trip insurance polices require quite long delays before benefits accrue.

You are free to believe that, and statistically every airline will eventually have a fatal accident but I don't see the connection here

This is a system that does not directly impact safety of flight (however the numbers produced are very relevant to SOF) that went down. UA stopped the operation until the system (and the output from the numbers) was available -- I can't think of a better way to close the hole in the swiss cheese.

Now if UA had just continued to launch flights while the system was down in the absence of W&B data I'd be very concerned l, bit it is a risk that is acceptable low for me (as I taxi out for the first of 22 UA segments over the next ~50 days)