weirdlyndon

I think it's a nice gesture given the circumstances. If it was diverted due to an unruly customer or for weather, and they were let in - that's one thing. A mechanical is technically deemed 'within UA control' so this could serve as good service recovery.

exerda

My answer would have been, "I dunno, maybe by status, then fare? Surely those 38 seats could accommodate a few GS and 1Ks so you don't have to put them up for the night."

warreng24

Not exactly. Since this is an international departure and you've already "left" the USA, you need to re-enter the USA. Perhaps they are "holding" people in the RCC to keep them from re-entering the country illegally.

gawhite411

I would write for compensation immediately. The RCC is supposed to be haven from the chaos of the terminal. Brining an entire flight into the club is unthinkable. Supsension of the employee who made the decisions seems the minimum appropriate punishment, and termination more likely to be the right level of discipline.

N1120A

I don't think that is the issue.

halls120

You've got to be kidding. I'd give the employee that authorized this action a bonus.

At 8:45pm on a Sunday night, the IAD RCC's are lightly used at best. The D concourse club in particular.

I'm a long time RCC club member, and I wouldn't have resented it had I been sitting in the club. As long as I have my seat, and I can get what I need, so what if they gave some inconvenienced customers a break?

drewguy

At most United is diluting the RCC "exclusivity" a bit. If a bunch of flights were delayed and it filled up as a result, you'd have no real grounds to complain. Of course, if that started happening regularly you might not be too willing to pay for the diluted exclusivity. So, if United is making a habit of offloading flights into the RCC, then maybe you won't renew, but it's not like they guarantee some capacity level.

Not really--they hadn't left US airspace or passed immigration in another country.

millsdale

1. I have been in this same club and others numerous times, so it really can not be all that exclusive. Secondly it is UA's site, they can let whoever into there. As people are saying that club is not that busy, most of that flight probably has access through status, cabin, etc, and it was UA's fault for the divert, just give passengers cheap goodwill. Also think if you were in Y on this flight, probably would not be complaining too much.

mjg59

Anyone with a visa would have surrendered their I94 already, so would need to be reprocessed in some way. I don't know what the usual method for handling these situations is.

cerealmarketer

We're all quite curious how it all transpired. Hope it wasn't too uncomfortable but the cancellation doesn't sound like a lot of good came about...

Happy Hour

Soylent Snackboxes are made of peeeeople!

aCavalierInCoach

Where did I say United guaranteed some capacity level? Folks seem to be reading an awful lot into what I wrote that I, well, didn't write. .. I agree that traffic has increased and UA has diluted exclusivity, but United does publish rather specific rules as to who is permitted in - those who are members, Star Gold, purchased pass holders, etc. "Distressed passengers" does not appear on this list. Yeah, as someone who paid for a program bounded by those rules, I disagree with the idea that a planeload of non-members should be let in simply due to MX. And certainly, if this became a pattern or an actual change to the rules, I would reconsider the dollars I spend on lounge access. I think many folks around here would agree that use of the RCC and its staff during irrops is perhaps the primary reason they have a membership at all, and these kinds of actions could render that substantially less valuable.



fastair has pointed out that the flight may have been there during hours which the RCC would have otherwise not been operating, which would, if true, make this specific instance fairly different matter. As a customer, I still object to the concept.

I mean exclusive as in "there is a defined group of people who can come in here", not "exclusive" as in some Oscar's afterparty.

And while UA "can let whoever into there", I'm going to object to the practice as someone who paid for them to provide me a place they don't let everyone into.

Aspen

[QUOTE=warreng24;15775193]Not exactly. Since this is an international departure and you've already "left" the USA, you need to re-enter the USA. Perhaps they are "holding" people in the RCC to keep them from re-entering the country illegally.

I have gone MX on UA815 & UA839 LAX-SYD and returned to the gate and been off loaded and spent the night in an hotel near LAX without any concern about pax not boarding the delayed flight. I have been on UA 839 on two occasions and diverted to HNL, where once pax were held in the boarding lounge for an hour and then re-boarded for the flight to SYD. But once 839 diverted to HNL (when 1000 miles south of Hawai'i) making the crew go over their time so when we landed the HNL UAL ground staff had already organised accommodation and transportation at 2.30am. We had to collected our checked baggage and very easily could have not boarded the make up flight departing HNL at midnight some 20 hours later. Great stay in Hilton Waikiki Village resort. I had an empty seat next to me on the HNL-SYD leg because my seat mate's religious beliefs prevented him from flying on certain days of the week. (Friday?)

In the scheme of things, IMHO I don't think that many people could 'overstay' because of mechanically delayed flights after boarding. If confirmation of people departing the US is that critical a security issue I am certain the collected i-94 forms could be checked against the manifest of the delayed flight once it finally departs.

Mike Jacoubowsky

Whoa. Are you suggesting that an effort to take care of passengers distressed/stranded by a mechanical by letting them into the RCC is something you could get fired for? Is your sarcasm directed at the FT poster or UA policy? I can't tell. Seriously.

fastair

Neither. The FT poster (OP) didn't say anything bad about the call (which over the years, we have done at ORD for late Intl issues a few time), rather the poster(s) who might not even have been there (and thus not impacted by the decision,) but take issue to the RCC being used for anything else UA wants to use it for.

When we have done this at ORD, it has been as the RCC was closing or empty, we overstaffed the computers, so that anyone in there during business hours weren't negatively impacted, or if they were we tried to minimize it.

I all for using resources to their fullest potential, when it makes sense to do so. Given the time of the OP's post, it appears there was some overlap between closing of the club and the flight being moved in there. How much this impacted the service levels, I don't know, hopefully not very much.

As for the exclusivity, we have an entire thread on "guesting" people in with no knowledge of who they are. I am betting that sometimes, the member actually leaves before the guest. Yes, it is a membership club, and also allows people in other ways (ticket, guest, status, decision by UA mgmt) but any club that sells one day admittance at the door (or cheaper online) really doesn't have most of the common meanings of "exclusive" (omitting a group) as anyone can enter...for a price, it isn't like a background check to determine of you meet the club's criteria is given.