beamMeUp38

Don't think lucky intended to ambush the RCC woman.
Given so many horror stories posted here, I think he just came prepared. The first matron was clearly arrogant and overly defnsive.

And you are wrong about saying that the OP is not entitled to anything. He is entitled to whatever the rules specifies. If UA is willing to reward the loyal customers, then UA should see to it that the employees do give the loyal customers what they are entitlted to.

And BTW, I don't see anywhere in the OP that suggested firing the woman. As OP has said, he was fighting over principle.

Spiff

Way to go, lucky! ^ ^

Perhaps a laminated copy of the rules could be presented to the dragon the next time drink chits are denied? (Or a pink slip... )

FLYMSY

[QUOTE=cepheid;8022306]
(And just to be pedantic, I believe the drinking age is actually 18 in Louisiana.... IIRC [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/[/QUOTE]

Wrong. Legal drinking age in Louisiana is 21 and has been for years.

emma dog

It's interesting... over the last 8 pages my opinion started squarely in [U]lucky's[U] court and then it swung over partly to the matron's side with goalie's logic and now it's back again on lucky's side.

Fact: *A pax flying C or F are entitled to 2 drinks free of charge in the RCC.
Fact: People have been complaining for years about the IAD Dragons.
Fact: This poor service led Lucky to arrive at the RCC:

• 3 Hours Early
• In a different terminal
• Rules in-hand

Fact: Lucky and the Dragon got into an altercation where she felt compelled to call security.

My take on it is thus:

1. Maybe everyone was having a bad day. Yes, the Dragon shouldn't be such a... well... dragon, however, here you have this young passenger walking in spouting this and that about "rules" and stuff and it's enough to get you to breath fire.
2. I admire Lucky for his travels and his dedication to FT. In my interactions with him, he's always seemed to be level-headed. However, I sense that he wanted to pick a fight with the Dragon. You sometimes get what you ask for.
3. It's rediculous that the Dragon would threaten security or acually call them. For all we know, she actually dialed her boyfriend the janitor. I really wonder what security would do and how it would be written up in their reports. I actually doubt they'd do anything except tell Lucky that he needs to leave and then threaten him with arrest if he refused to comply.
4. This whole thing is a fiasco. Every bit of it. I agree with hammering on principals, but... given everything what did you actually gain from this?

fastair

Not in the OP, but by the OP. Post #9 by lucky himself
"No doubt you are right. What I am happy about is that she had a meeting with the Supervisor, so I wish she were fired, but I am sure something is going in her profile at the very least. If I see her again, the same will happen, and hopefully she will get fired again. Or maybe some other FT'ers can continue this and be adamant about it."

Not just 1, but (2) wishes for termination. Sorry lucky...I am with you in principal on this one only, not practice.

And I am surprised to see Mods call IAD RCC workers dragons. "Attacks against groups or classes of job holders (such as Transportation Security Administration employees) will not be tolerated."

Maybe calling the IAD RCC agents instead of stereotyping them all with words that have negative feelings would be more in line with FT rules? (I can accept Matron as it isn't as negative as dragon.)

bhd87

You mean 6680?

668,030 is 1%

.01% is .0001 in decimal format.

dan1431

I apologize in advance if I gave the impression that I am arguing, that was not my intention. I do NOT know the law and was simply speculating that Lucky would have been on sturdier grounds had he been of age.

Had you had the same repartee(as Lucky), I would say Kudos without any addendum. However, IMHO Lucky could have been denied simply because he was underage and ineligible to consume alcohol. Let me be clear, the agent WAS wrong to deny Lucky chits under the guise of he is not welcome to them because he is/was flying ANA.

However, if the police had shown up, the agent could have been really "dubious" and realized that she was wrong RE: *GOLD and drink chits but could have told the police officer that she was concerned RE: underage drinking and that Lucky was pestering her to break the law and provide a minor access to alcohol(I do NOT know how the law in VA views drink chits and a minors eligibility to have access to them).

In terms of age being a RED HERRING, you are right, Lucky being denied drink chits as a STAR GOLD traveling INTL from a gateway(IAD)was WRONG and I believe that I have said that. I guess I was going past that saying that Lucky lost some credit by trying to obtain something that possible he was not legally(because of his age)able to obtain.

Again, I am not arguing, the agent was WRONG, I apologize if I caused any confusion.

Dan

jetsetter

It may be counterintuitive but DOT does take complaints on anything that a pax perceives as a "airline service issue." The DOT does not use you or me to determine what an "airline service issue," is.

A complaint about coffee not being warm enough would get logged in the database just as would a complaint about say an unaccompanied miner being stranded in a hub with no hotel overnight and made to standby for 3 days before they got out with lost luggage and a divertted flight and having to hitch hike home after the diversion because they were stranded. Both complaints would just be "logged in the database." As you probably know the logged complaints form a statistic where each carrier is ranked by number of complaints in a given month or year.

As to whether it makes sense to file a complaint the first answer might be no it is so petty, but then again given the threads here the problem does appear to be a pattern and practice at least at IAD. What else would you suggest instead? Do you believe that airlines pay more attention to complaints filtered through DOT than say complaints sent in through the customer relations web form?

kb1992

lucky's NH flight will arrive in NRT in 3 hours. He should be able to check FT at ANA Club there while waiting for the flight to Shanghai.

I am sure that he didn't expect this thread exploding to an FT fiasco.

UNITED959

Sorry, but I'm laughing at the visual here:

Police: Ma'am, what seems to be the problem here?
Dragon: This passenger is demanding I provide him with two free drink certificates.
Police: Well, is he supposed to get them?
Dragon: He seems to think so. I told him no, but he's got some rules printed that he demanded I read.
Police: Can I see the rules, please?
Dragon: Sir, please hand the officer your copy of the rules.
[Officer reads the rules.]
Police: Well, ma'am, it appears he deserves the certificates. Please put your hands behind your head.
Dragon: Put my hands behind my...my...my head?!?!?
Police: That's right. I'm going to have to arrest you.
Dragon: ARREST ME?!? What for??
Police: A few things...failure to follow your employer's free drink rules and mistreatment of one of your employer's most important customers. I'm going to waive the charge of your disturbance of the private club environment since this episode will make for a great contribution to Flyertalk.
[Dragon gets hauled off on a golf cart and transferred into the paddywagon.]

entilzhaFT

Lucky,

Wth man? Dropping the paper in front of her and asking her to read it? It's not a videotaped deposition.

That being said, I hope this leads to some positive change at the IAD RCC's.

Pegasus23

Clarification to post 121
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.

kb1992

No laugh, but we could also be looking at the visual here:

Police: Ma'am, what seems to be the problem here?
Dragon: This passenger is threatening me with some documents ....
Police: Mr. Lucky, please follow me.
Lucky: (refuse to move)
Police: Sir, if you don't move I will get you arrested.
Lucky: What did I do wrong? I was only asking for 2 drink chits which are allowed under *A Gold Rule RE. RCC when same day boarding pass on *A flights at US Gateway is present based on some UA internal profile available at Appollo ....
Police: Don't get technical with me. You are under arrest for disobeying the order from Police!

[Lucky stayed 4 hours at IAD Airport Police Department answering questions. He missed his ANA flight. UA cancelled his award tix for no show. He had to buy expensive same day QUAUP tix back to TPA. He wrote 10 letters to WHQ demanding compensation. The news got published in USA Today. Finally, UA sent him a free RTW ticket in F. And this thread ended up with 1,000+ replies and 100,000 hits.]

beamMeUp38

You forgot the part in which the police reads the dragon her rights...

UA_Flyer

IAD is my hometown airport and over 90% of my flights are international. I have experienced the "IAD RCC problems" almost every time I fly:

1. No drink chits when flying Y ( reasons: drink chits only for F and C passengers)
2. One drink chit only ( reasons: 1) you are only entitled to one drink chit; 2) you don't have a companion with you to get the second chit; 3) I am giving you one because you are 1K/MM.... usually we don't provide drink chits.
3. No admittance when flying Y on international itinerary as a 1K/MM/*G ( reason: 1) you are flying Y; 2) you are not a RCC member; 3) you are flying LH not UA.

I am not a confrontational person, and usually argue my case politely and write letters. My experience has been that letters don't work. Now I have to arm myself with "RCC Admittance and drink chit rules" every time I fly. Is it my fault when all my comments went unnoticed or lack of action by the people who read my letters?

Take a recent example on May 6th of this year, I was denied RCC chits again at IAD, I wrote to both the RCC Supervisor at IAD and 1K desk, and here are the responses:

Since the May 6 complaint and the responses from UA, I have flown three additional international flights to Paris, Sao Paolo, and Beijing, and used RCC at C7, C17 and D8. I have again experienced in all three lounges the #1 and #2 problems I described above.

I am a little tired of writing letters, and traveling with RCC rules will be my standard practice from now on.

I think Lucky did the right thing, because of my own experience and frustrations dealing with these same issues.