dan1431

I did not know that, my question is now pretty much answered.

Dan

kb1992

hmmm every year MP sent 10 coupons good for alcoholic beverage to all 1K members, 21 or not, in the membership kit .....

freeupgrade

How pathetic that someone would have to put up with all that ***** just to get a couple of drinks.

AA may have its faults - yet I have never been treated like that in any Admirals Club.

That Matron needs to be kicked out - bag and baggage.

dcgators

I am usually the first to defend UA employees and union membership on this board.

HOWEVER ... I say this RCC matron was out of line.

I care not what her personal problems are. Customers are the only thing standing between her and the Unemployment Line. Period.

Wake up and smell the coffee folks. Either perform (or even better outperform) or join the Dodo Bird Exhibit at the Smithsonian Institution.

Everyone covering for this pathetic UA employee just needs to get a reality check.

And doing this to a 1K is even more pathetic.

MY 2 cents ...

beamMeUp38

Nicely done, lucky ^

I think what happened to the matron was that her shame turned to anger. The second matron was very cool. She admitted the fact that she was incorrect and did not get defensive.

The first matron forgot that she is in the service business. It does not entitle the customer to treat her like crap, but she is not entitiled to treat customers like crap either. to her.

dcgators

1. The RCC Admit rules do not mention age requirement.
2. The bartender or the server checks your ID, not the RCC matron.
3. The lounge matron is not the ABC manager.

Bingo.

Let's not bother complaining about anything less than a grand ...

The AGE thing a just a RED HERRING.

I am well over 21 and I still have to fight the dragons occasionally for the RCC Drink Chits WHEN FLYING UA C ...

Argue all you want but some just plain stink ... Some will smile and welcome you with 2 drink chits EVERY TIME.

It ain't the system, folks, just the individual ...

TOUCHE, MON AMI ...

jetsetter

Thanks for the report. Can you ellaborate more on the RCC agents call to security?

First of all, "security" is a terribly vague word. What does it mean exactly? I suppose it could mean:
*Calling the Dullis airport police. They are probably the only people with powers and abilities to act as "security,";
*UA may contract with a security firm similar to how hotels have security guards but I doubt it. I doubt a UA contracted security guard is going to get in to an altracation with a pax. Its too expensive to staff, and probably the insurance premiums are high. I know the security in our office building, they have a direct policy all they will do is call 911, and they are told directly not to get involved in any trouble or e.g. chase someone if they rob you;
*The agent may have referred to "security" but actually meant that she would call a UA staffer like a service director or a supervisor of airport operations to try to toss you out of the lounge. I suppose your average SD or SAO would try to toss you if they felt appropriate, but again it would be the IAD police that would have to literally toss you out. I am sure UA instructs its employees to never get physical with a customer, its a real liability if they hurt you and you sue them or vice versa. Conversly the police are trained in such matters, and they have the appropriate insurance say if the cop has to go out for 6 months because they get hurt during an altracation, and the government has deep pockets if they get you hurt and you need to sue .
*I don't think the TSA gets involved in dispute resolution or extracation of an unwanted guest from an airline rented facility. I don't know either that TSA can make arrests or detain people, but I would be curious if they do have any of these police powers?

I do think in this post 9/11 world a small subset of airline employees will use this "call security" buzz word, but what is security? If they want to threaten and intimidate you, why not just say "I'll call the police!" Who is this "security" besides the police?

Did you get a sense of who the RCC agent might have been talking too on the phone? Can you recall and report anymore on the conversation? It may be interesting if you remember, and you can quote some of the lines the RCC agent used on the phone when talking to this mysterious "security."

I'm glad you got your 2 drink chits, but you should receive extra compensation because of the hassle UA put you through, and because the IAD RCC has a reputation for this nonsense.

The drink chits are a sort of customer service coupon, and they should not be guarded as if they are so precious.

Given the frequency that this problem, surfaces, I might suggest that those of you who experience it start filing DOT complaints
http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov

I don't think UA or any legacy cares if you whine and compalain to them, unless you have a $ spend pattern like an UGS. They'll give you lip service as they have given many who have complained on this topic, but they appear not to be taking proactive steps to resolve the issue.

If anyone files a DOT complaint, what I would do, is to an FT search for IAD RCC, and send the DOT all the threads on this topic. I would probably print them and also include them on a cdrom, and mail the packet to DOT. You might also want to cc the packet to the travel media. The DOT is largely interested in what they call "pattern and practice" issues. There is a DOT complaint code for frequent flyer related issues.

If UA starts getting DOT complaints that may be what they need to fix it. There was a recent WSJ article that suggested that you get special attention if your complaint is routed throughDOT, where as the average complaint gets a form letter.

I have to wonder if somehow middle management at IAD is pressuring these agents to be stingy with the drink coupons. Believe me your average frequent flyer not on FT is incredibly and utterly ignorant about the rules, and 99% of non FT members would have no idea whether they are entitled to a drink chit or not. Your average person getting a drink chit would see it as a nice perk, but they would have no idea how or why they received it.

I have never flown intl out of IAD so I have no personal experience with this, but one reaction is again it is stupid how stingy they are with these "drink chits," that cost the company probably $2.

I will say overall, with maybe 2 exceptions, that I have not gotten the best service in the RCC with ticketing issues, etc. I find I have much better luck with ticket counter and gate agents as opposed to RCC agents on balance systemwide. I have not had either great or terrible experiences with the IAD RCC's. If anyone knows the agents either at IAD or the IAD RCC it might be good to get their persspective on why this stupid and petty issue is reappearing? I would almost be tempted myself next time I go to the RCC to mention the numerous threads on the issue and try to discuss this with the agents.

My only other reaction is you'd have a better story if you waited for security, but I suppose I see why you may not have wanted to do that if you actually wanted to go on time wherever you were going. But it would have been a better story if you had waited for security .

Thanks for sharing!

flyinryan

Great work, lucky. Given my location, I (fortunately!) don't have to deal with IAD that much. I've read all the horror stories about the IAD dragons over the years, and I always shake my head in bewilderment. It's as if these people seem to think their salaries will somehow be affected by giving out drink tickets. What nonsense - glad someone did something about it.
In terms of customer service, this airline has slipped - noticeably - in the 3 whole years I have been a frequent flyer. How sad.

Roger Lococco

Filing a DoT complaint because someone in an RCC didn't give you drink chits???

Pegasus23

It appears you prepared to ambush the RCC woman, not just get your drink chits. Now you boast of your success and others may do the same. This is intimidation. The reaction you received from the RCC woman to call security is because she felt threatened. The arrogance you received from her you dished out in spades. Paying for RCC access with a F-C ticket or buying a yearly membership just gets you in the door. You are not entitled to anything. If you don't like the women in the RCC or how United operates, why not take your business elsewhere or buy a controlling interest in UAL so you can say who get fired.

Clarification:
I am referring to "entitled" as an attitude, not to the fact that one may have qualified for two or more drink chits to be Given & Received. That one qualifies for them, does not mean they will be given graciously or received graciously. I suspect this is determined by both the giver & receiver.

dcgators

Incorrect, mon ami.

According to UA, international F or C ticket gets you RCC access AND drink chits at hub on trans-oceanic segment (actually international F gets you RCC or IFL access). So does *G on same-day *A ticket.

If you don't like the rules, change them FOR EVERYONE. Just don't create new fandangled ones on a whim.

And there would be NO AMBUSH if all employees followed their company's PUBLISHED RULES, instead of inventing their own ...

CO 1E

Give me a break! These abusive UA employees should be fired. And, you're completely wrong about the chits: the OP was entitled to two.

gj83

I agree that's extreme. It seems to be the theme on Flyertalk right now though. I recall someone giving instructions on filing DOT complaints i believe on the NW forum.

A complaint should be filed to UA. This is a clear pattern judging from the monthly threads on this topic and the fact that Lucky sounded like he went to the RCC with the intent to measure any progress.

blort

Does the DOT have jurisdiction over a private, members-only club?

fastair

I am, or have been an employee of UA.
There is no specific sensative information that I refer to, except anything that an employee of UA has access to that a non-employee would have access to would IMHO be considered "company confidential".
I am not the FT police for UA, but do know personaly of individual(s) who have posted both here and to other boards, information that was not available to the general public, and they are no longer employeed.

I don't say this for fear of termination, but rather of loyalty to the employment rules as well as in some cases FCC/DoJ insider information.

While I don't believe the RCC profiles are under FCC/DoJ scrutiny, anything that must be accesed by an employee using a sign on with their employee number and a password (UA Apollo access would be one) or things told to an employee but not to the public by any official spokesman/policy would also be the same.

Do you believe that if UA wanted all of it's internal profiles designed for the agents to use to be released by lower eshelon employees? If that were the case, they would link them all thru UA.com.

These profiles can be updated by many many people at very short notice, hense my reference to living doccuments. A hard copy could be months or years old, current or 2-3 revisions past dated. Getting unofficial information that is dated will cause more problems than it is worth at times. You think you know something (not you or anyone else specificly, but hypotheticly) as fact, you have a piece of paper that says it is so, yet in reality, that information may no longer be current or accurate. I believe to effectivly argue a point, one must be sure of the accuracy and authenticity of your evidence. Due to the risk of old profiles being no longer current, and the fact that they were never intended by UA to be used for customers, rather as a guideline for the agents, and the unauthorised posession of these profiles by passengers, I see them as a poor basis for an arguement.

I am not, nor never have been a lawyer, so I don't know the "legal" standpoints of what I say here. But I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express the other night.

And as for all UA Apollo profiles being in Apollo...well, I must disagree. In fact they may be in Apollo, but most are non-public profiles that other Apollo users do not have access to. UA makes certain profiles that are to be used by travel agents in Apollo and makes them accessable by them (i.e. certain fare rules and ticketing profiles.) I have no knowledge if this profile is agency accesable or not. If it is, then I believe the agency acts on behalf of UA as their agent. Any agents have any info on what they are to use for their business, and what they are supposed to print out and give to customers? (once again, I don't know the rules of this...I only argue from what seems to me a logical assumption, but personal knowledge of what an agency can make public of UA and what they are to use as references is beyond my knowledge.)

I wonder, this is semi-off topic, but what is the date of the most recent update on the profile that you have (addressed to lucky)?

And gators..."And there would be NO AMBUSH if all employees followed their company's PUBLISHED RULES, instead of inventing their own ..." UA's published rules? I haven't seen UA publish this for public consumption. but who knows, maybe they have. You bring up good points as to what is considered "company confidential" and what isn't. My assumption, which may be wrong is if due to a)either your employment to UA, or b) thru acting as an agent on behalf of UA, info that can only be obtained using a secure sign in, and not published to general members of the public, this would be considered confidential. I know our business conduct rules apply to venders, contractors and employees, but maybe those rules don't apply to "travel agents" I always considered them part of the afrore mentioned categories.



I by no means endorse UA going against any policies they have either internaly/externaly. I don't like to see poor treatment given to anyone. I think that if there is some reciprocal agreement at IAD with NH, then it should be included in whatever policies UA ddoes publish to the public. If it means by "drawing them out" like this, that everyone who flies on NH out of IAD must lose their RCC benefit, then that is what will happen. I doubt anything like that will happen, but "forcing an issue" for a victory with little actual value can often lead to a "clarification" of policies that hurt many.