cl.lurker

I recall reading in one of these pages that dad has no status, but I think (and FT Gurus, please correct this noobie if I'm wrong) that the guest is also eligible for the drinks chits...

yay? nay?

goalie

emphasis mine: if this is in fact true, then who is at fault-the staff for following what they have been told is policy or those that trained them.

^ ^ folks, fwiw, i have been trying to say this all along-there are always two sides to every story-both may be right, both may be wrong or one may be right and the other wrong but there ARE always 2 sides.

nnn

1) If the matron denied the chits because of perceived age, then why would she not have asked his age or carded him first? Clearly, if age was any factor in this situation, it was only insofar as the matron thought she could "run over" him due to his young age.

2) Can't drink chits be used for virgin mixed drinks, shirley temples, etc., which otherwise would cost money at the bar? If so, then chits have value to persons under 21 as well.

Enough with the age red herring. Virginia law . . . give me a break.

l etoile

I mostly use the intl RCC at SFO, where they are quite giving with the drink chits. I have never received them for guests, however (maybe a couple of times as favors), but I certainly don't see that guests are "entitled" to them from reading the profile. And some of my guests have been FTers who are well-versed in the rules; they agreed they were not to receive drink chits.

Bring a guest into the IFL and, of course, they will receive free drinks since it's self-serve.

nnn

My guess is this problem at the IAD RCC is systemic. The OP's experience reflected the acts not of a "rogue matron" but rather the common IAD RCC agent. Thus, my guess is that -- as others have said -- the agents are directed to behave this way.

As for why? Perhaps it is a cost-benefit analysis. Think about the number of passengers who are supposed to get the chits but do not. And think about how many of those passengers even realize they were entitled to chits, let alone raise a stink about it. Someone at UA or IAD must feel it is worthwhile to upset a few passengers to save all that liquor money.

SkiAdcock

NUMEROUS, I REPEAT, NUMEROUS FTers (of the appropriate age, including me) have reported that not getting the drink chits is an on-going issue at IAD. They have received letters & emails from UA confirming that yes, it is the policy to provide 2 drink chits. 'Nuf said.

It's actually unfortunate that lucky is underage because that's sidetracking what is the real issue - the non-compliance by the IAD RCC agents of a UA policy.

Let's keep our eyes on the ball folks; that's what this was all about - and given the talking out of both sides of UA's mouth, will continue to be at IAD. The other stations (LAX, SFO, ORD) seem to comply w/ the policy on a regular basis - it's just IAD that it's an on-going non-compliance issue. I've never read anywhere that says it's a UA policy that you're entitled to 2 drink chits - except at IAD.

And there is literally NO justification for calling security over a matter of drink chits, short of a drag-out fight/feeling physically threatened, which doesn't appear to be the case here.

I hope folk will continue to ask for the 2 drink chits that they're entitled to when transiting through IAD - and bring those letters from UA reminding them of the policy or call the toll-free # provided above. As mentioned by many others, it's not about the drink chits per se, but UA providing the benefit that they put in writing/told people they would provide.

And remember, the reason for the drink chits in the first place is because UA is trying to compete w/ other airlines whose clubs provide free booze in their international lounges. This isn't UA just deciding to be nice, but attempting to be somewhat competitive.

Cheers.

NWILGuy

[QUOTE=nnn;8033052]My guess is this problem at the IAD RCC is systemic. The OP's experience reflected the acts not of a "rogue matron" but rather the common IAD RCC agent. Thus, my guess is that -- as others have said -- the agents are directed to behave this way.[QUOTE]

Possibly. But are they directed or do they fall into to a collective mentality that says it is OK to behave that way? Follow that up with local management that probably doesn't check in except when a customer forces them to and training that is probably less about a service philosophy than it is on how to use FastAir or what have you.

In the end, regardless of Lucky's age or his "intent to ambush" or not (unless he is outright lying or omitting some personal attack on the woman which I do not believe), the age or status of his guest and all the other arguments put forward here, I would still fault the agent for her demeanor in handling a customer with elite status. Any customer really but particulary one with his status. Clearly both United as an organization and this particular RCC employee have failed in this case.

AdamUK

Spot on... in all respects ^

camachinist

Perhaps Lucky can clarify later, but the OP contained the following:

Assuming his father was also flying in C with him and possessed a C boarding pass, regardless of status, he should have also been entitled to drink coupons, yes? I didn't see that discussed or clarified elsewhere in the thread, though mention was made of dad's possible non-status. I can't imagine Lucky leaving dad back in economy on that long-haul , but anything is possible.

Pat

jetsetter

1. A lot of people, including me, are being hypocritical in how we state we want rules to be enforced. The truth is that probably a majority of flyers want rules enforced that benefit us like getting drink chits, but we are all to happy to have other less desireable rules waived. So let's call a sapde a spade, and let's not pretend we always love the letter of the rules . Lots of things in our culture and society are hypocritical so its not so bad to just admit we want the rules like heck when it serves us and otherwise we are happy to have rules bent and waived;
2. Imagine you are a 25+ year UA employee veteran like these "matrons" are most likely. When you joined UA it was almost glamorous to work for an airline. You had good pension, benefits, nice working conditions, airport not as stresfful as now, etc. I've had friends tell me that in the past airline employees as a perk could gas up their car once a week at the company pump, and I'm sure there were many other benefits. You've now lost your pension, less pay, less favorable working conditions, etc. etc. In short, UA has given you the shaft, while the executives live in million dollar homes and seemingly aren't held accountable. I don't think it would be a surprise if some employees are so bitter at how they've gotten the shaft from management that perhaps consciously or not they try to make the customer experience poor. Such a bitter employee, whose again gotten the shaft from UA management, might feel they can get back at the company by for example driving away the companys frequent flyers who contribute to the bottom line by making them miserable. Call it right or wrong, but I could see how an angry and bitter employee who feels taken advantage of might do this again either consciously or unconsciously. Its just icing on the cake that the people that frequent the RCC probably come across as rich priviledged snobs who have had evrything handed to them on a silver platter, and who live on lavish expense accounts and dress in expensive clothes, etc. I'm not saying any one person is a snob, just collectively that let me peg it at say 65% to be conservative of these airline club visiters probably look like spoiled rich kids to someone who again has gotten the shaft from the company. On some level the typical RCC patron might remind the employee of UA management types. Lucky doesn't fit this profile, but still, all the pax probably fall under this noise of a typical RCC patron. I've brought people in to airline clubs, and sometimes it is all men, just all sort of businessmen types in suits, etc. Sometimes these clubs do have a nice vibe, but other times they have kind of a snobby vibe. Probably the least snobby and best club vibe was at the Virgin Atlantic club.

stevenshev

Nicht.

And, I'm still not convinced that UA intends this policy for *Gs not departing on UA transoceanic flights. I think the transoceanic gateway implies the UA transoceanic gateway...but many here are all about the letter, not the spirit.

camachinist

That's weird, as my wife and I were on NC tickets (buyup from Y) to KIX back before I was *G (she had no status) and we both got drink coupons at the SFO Int'l RCC. I remember it because I was a RCC member at the time but just handed the lady my BP. She later looked at the screen after handing us our coupons and thanked me for being a RCC member and asked why I hadn't mentioned it. I thought SFO was known to be a stickler for the rules (which I like).

(I'm assuming "nicht" is German for "not")

Pat

stevenshev

That's the difference between UA C and *A C.

dan1431

DISCLAIMER: I understand that age does not play a role in the rules governing drink chits. But, I have to wonder did Lucky's age play some role in this particular case of denial?

I was wondering, what if Lucky had made it clear that the drink chits were going to be used by his Father. Would that have made a difference?

Did Lucky's Father say anything? How did he perceive the situation? Was he as upset as Lucky?

Just some questions,
Dan

camachinist

Ah, yes, NH. Thank you!

Pat