UA violates US DOT order 2009-9-20 to charge an extra (out of contract) baggage fee
Jan 13, 2012, 1:47 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 286
UA violates US DOT order 2009-9-20 to charge an extra (out of contract) baggage fee
My itinerary started with an operator who allows 2 check-on bags at no additional cost, with a destination in the U.S. Per US DOT order 2009-9-20 (which trumps IATA 302):
The booking documentation that was sent to me stated:
on every leg of the outbound journey and every leg of the return (as expected, because this is the allowance for the first operator of the itinerary).
When I appeared for my return trip with two bags, United refused the second bag, and stated that the documents sent to me were "wrong". The uncooperative moron then stated that the return trip begins a new "first flight", which determines the number of bags allowed to return home with me. Both the law and the documentation are on my side, but this UA person refused to accept it, and also refused to escalate the problem to management.
I was trapped, and with a non-refundable ticket, forced to either accommodate United Airlines breech of contract and pay for the second bag, or walk.
I paid. It did not make sense to walk and demand a refund to the non-refundable fare -- because even if they would do the refund, a last-minute one-way ticket back would cost at least triple that of the unused portion.
Out of curiosity, has anyone ethically strong-willed enough and simultaneously flexible in travel options tried to "walk" in this type of situation, and not take the flight? How did it pan out?
What's the most effective way to report DOT violations?
Code:
(a) For passengers whose ultimate ticketed origin or destination is a U.S. point, the baggage provisions selected at the beginning of the itinerary shall apply throughout the itinerary, regardless of stopovers
Code:
Baggage: 2 piece(s) per traveler
When I appeared for my return trip with two bags, United refused the second bag, and stated that the documents sent to me were "wrong". The uncooperative moron then stated that the return trip begins a new "first flight", which determines the number of bags allowed to return home with me. Both the law and the documentation are on my side, but this UA person refused to accept it, and also refused to escalate the problem to management.
I was trapped, and with a non-refundable ticket, forced to either accommodate United Airlines breech of contract and pay for the second bag, or walk.
I paid. It did not make sense to walk and demand a refund to the non-refundable fare -- because even if they would do the refund, a last-minute one-way ticket back would cost at least triple that of the unused portion.
Out of curiosity, has anyone ethically strong-willed enough and simultaneously flexible in travel options tried to "walk" in this type of situation, and not take the flight? How did it pan out?
What's the most effective way to report DOT violations?
Last edited by garyschmitt; Jan 13, 2012 at 2:52 pm
Jan 13, 2012, 1:53 pm
#2
Join Date: Jun 2007
Programs: UA, AA, LH, Hyatt, Hilton, Marriott, Hertz
Posts: 1,759
I am not a lawyer so I can't comment on the legality of the issue but I believe that the first carrier on the itinerary is different for the outbound and inbound directions of the round trip (unless it is the same company, of course).
Furthermore, the wording of the US DOT order mentions stopovers, which are generally different than destination. Unless your ticket was purchased as a one way ticket between your origin and your origin (not a typo and very highly unlikely to happen) you may be interpreting the rule the wrong way.
Furthermore, the wording of the US DOT order mentions stopovers, which are generally different than destination. Unless your ticket was purchased as a one way ticket between your origin and your origin (not a typo and very highly unlikely to happen) you may be interpreting the rule the wrong way.
Jan 13, 2012, 2:00 pm
#3
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NYC
Programs: DL PM, Marriott Gold, Hertz PC, National Exec
Posts: 6,736
My itinerary started with an operator who allows 2 check-on bags at no additional cost, with a destination in the U.S. Per US DOT order 2009-9-20 (which trumps IATA 320):
The booking documentation that was sent to me stated:
on every leg of the outbound journey and every leg of the return (as expected, because this is the allowance for the first operator of the itinerary).
Code:
(a) For passengers whose ultimate ticketed origin or destination is a U.S. point, the baggage provisions selected at the beginning of the itinerary shall apply throughout the itinerary, regardless of stopovers
Code:
Baggage: 2 piece(s) per traveler
Jan 13, 2012, 2:09 pm
#4
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 286
I am not a lawyer so I can't comment on the legality of the issue but I believe that the first carrier on the itinerary is different for the outbound and inbound directions of the round trip (unless it is the same company, of course).
Furthermore, the wording of the US DOT order mentions stopovers, which are generally different than destination. Unless your ticket was purchased as a one way ticket between your origin and your origin (not a typo and very highly unlikely to happen) you may be interpreting the rule the wrong way.
Furthermore, the wording of the US DOT order mentions stopovers, which are generally different than destination. Unless your ticket was purchased as a one way ticket between your origin and your origin (not a typo and very highly unlikely to happen) you may be interpreting the rule the wrong way.
On the one hand I have a machine-generated answer saying 2 bags for the whole trip (a machine that was designed to incorporate the law into the algorithm), and on the other hand I have a human -- a desk clerk who is not an aviation lawyer, saying the computer is wrong.
At the moment I'm not convinced that the human was correct.
Last edited by iluv2fly; Jan 13, 2012 at 8:22 pm Reason: merge
Jan 13, 2012, 2:21 pm
#5
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: MHT/BOS
Programs: Many
Posts: 429
What is sensible to me?
What is sensible to my lawyer?
What is sensible to the UA check in agent you spoke with?
What is sensible to the UA person given the task of writing the rules?
What is sensible to UA management?
---------
As different people will consider different things to be sensible, it is not a good measure. What matters is the most correct and enforceable interpretation of the pertinent rules and laws.
Jan 13, 2012, 2:45 pm
#6
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: SEA, OGG(I wish)
Programs: was UA 1K now Gold, cuz UA 1.3 MM; HA,DL,AS (no status in these), Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,238
Interesting philosophical question, but in practice you lose. IME, a couple of years back had an itinerary SEA-SFO-OGG all on United metal, then the return was OGG-HNL (on a Hawaiian Airlines codeshare w/a UA flite #), then HNL-SFO-SEA (on UA metal). Outbound, no problem w/ bags; however, Hawaiian charged a bag fee on the 20 minute OGG-HNL codeshare flight. Appealed to UA; answer was policies of 1st carrier on the 2nd half of the RT apply; too bad. IIRC, posted this experience on an FT thread at the time & got sympathy from others who'd had the same experience. Is there no justice <gr>?
Last edited by BH62; Jan 13, 2012 at 2:49 pm Reason: clarify code share airline
Jan 13, 2012, 2:52 pm
#7
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: LHR (sometimes CLE, SFO, BOS, LAX, SEA)
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 5,893
Hmmm. If you'd like clarity as to whether the DOT regulation requires that the return trip be treated as part of the "throughout the itinerary" period under DOT order 2009-9-20, you could try filing a DOT complaint: http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/CP_AirlineService.htm and see what they say.
I imagine UA will be pretty responsive.
I imagine UA will be pretty responsive.
Jan 13, 2012, 2:58 pm
#8
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Jersey Shore/YYZ
Programs: UA 1K, Marriott Plat, Hilton Diamond, Hertz PC
Posts: 12,521
Hmmm. If you'd like clarity as to whether the DOT regulation requires that the return trip be treated as part of the "throughout the itinerary" period under DOT order 2009-9-20, you could try filing a DOT complaint: http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/CP_AirlineService.htm and see what they say.
I imagine UA will be pretty responsive.
I imagine UA will be pretty responsive.
The DOT does not define the itinerary as the round-trip. End of story.
Your own quotation proves it. Your ultimate destination is not back home, it is the ending point of your first outbound leg(s).
Jan 13, 2012, 3:23 pm
#9
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Melbourne
Programs: ►QFWP/LTG►VA WP►HyattExpl.►HiltonGold►ALL Silver
Posts: 21,993
See this post of the above linked thread for clarification that the "itinerary" is indeed represented by the travel indicated by the entire PNR: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...l#post17804880
Since the introduction of the MSC IATA rules in April last with the special exceptions for single bookings that begin, end or have a turnaround point in the USA, the OP is entitled to the same checked luggage allowance that they had on the first "journey"ą of the trip for the entire trip.
The checked luggage allowance would be that for the segment of the "Most Significant Carrier" of the first "journey". Since the itinerary has a turnaround point in the USA, this would be that of the Marketing carrier of the segment.
See here for ANA's information: http://www.ana.co.jp/wws/sg/e/asw_co.../iata_302.html
and here for a reprise: http://www.businesstraveller.com/asi...ggage-policies
ą first "Journey" being the travel from the point of embarkation(origin) to the first stopover.
Jan 13, 2012, 3:25 pm
#10
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NYC
Programs: DL PM, Marriott Gold, Hertz PC, National Exec
Posts: 6,736
By the same token, it would be "sensible" for the DOT to put a regulation in place that makes it clear that passengers flying LGA-ORD-STL won't be told at ORD "since your trip to STL is on carrier X, which doesn't allow any free bags, it's a $50 fee if you want them to go on." My understanding, and, if you disagree, I certainly encourage you to submit a DOT complaint, is that it's exactly what I describe that the regulation is designed to prevent.
Jan 13, 2012, 3:39 pm
#11
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NYC
Programs: DL PM, Marriott Gold, Hertz PC, National Exec
Posts: 6,736
Turns out there's a thread on this here, and, based on the DOT powerpoint here, it looks like you're right, the definition of "itinerary" includes the return.
Problem is, the rule hasn't yet gone into effect, and won't until 1/24/12. So, next month, you'd be right, but as of now, IATA 302 appears to hold.
Problem is, the rule hasn't yet gone into effect, and won't until 1/24/12. So, next month, you'd be right, but as of now, IATA 302 appears to hold.
Jan 13, 2012, 4:23 pm
#12
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 12,481
I will file this thread under Travel Philosophy.
Jan 13, 2012, 8:23 pm
#13
Moderator: Midwest, Las Vegas & Dining Buzz
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 17,976
Turns out there's a thread on this here, and, based on the DOT powerpoint here, it looks like you're right, the definition of "itinerary" includes the return.
Problem is, the rule hasn't yet gone into effect, and won't until 1/24/12. So, next month, you'd be right, but as of now, IATA 302 appears to hold.
Problem is, the rule hasn't yet gone into effect, and won't until 1/24/12. So, next month, you'd be right, but as of now, IATA 302 appears to hold.
iluv2fly
Moderator, UA