KevinB

Nope, haven't heard anything....

E-ticket is still there when I sign in on ual... and if it isn't, I have it all printed out....

And feel free to tell Mr. NYT to contact me if he wants to talk to another person on an e-ticket....

You know, THIS e-ticket is better than Mission to Mars *ever* was! :-)

KevinB

Merci UAL pour me donner un billet incroyable! Je pense que je visiterai Paris beintot....

Droneklax

tfung, yes, I have received the paper ticket, priced at $ 573.00

Since I still have not heard from UA, I sent a scathing letter to Customer Relations expressing my unhappiness with their appalling communication. Intentional or not, this silence is not acceptable, and sounds suspiciously manipulative.

unagi1

Droneklax suspicion is consistent with other I suspect.

I could translate (as I am sure others could)
KevinB's musing, however no more gasoline
is needed..

unagi1

Edited dupe

[This message has been edited by unagi1 (edited 02-14-2001).]

seawolf

PremEx, I'm surprised you wrote this. Not everyone bowing out of the deal should not get compensation.

If UA refuses to honour the ticket on the day of departure AND failed to notify the passenger in advance, then yes, compensation for denied boarding PLUS compensation for failure to notify the passenger in advance should be given.

If you purchased the reservation at the lower fare but UA charged the higher, then yes, demand compensation.

If the passenger opts for the refund on the lower fare and was charged for the lower fare, then UA is not at fault here. Why should compensation be given to these passengers?

[This message has been edited by seawolf (edited 02-14-2001).]

kokonutz

Hold fast!!! I agree that not honoring those prices, and particularly charging your CC more then your reciept says is INTERNET FRAUD and should be pursued as such.

Those of you who were charged more then your reciept says should at least take the time to write letters to

Senator John McCain, Chairman
Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee
241 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

and

The Honorable John Mica, Chairman
House Subcommittee on Aviation
2251 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington D.C. 20515

Explain what UA is up to (or not up to) on this issue. Hey, offer to testify about how UA is not honoring its United commitment on this issue.

And it's good that the press is involved.

I agree with Rudi. Go to the matresses on this.

I also agree with what Premex AND Rudi seem to be saying: Punitive damages are called for based on UA's handling of this situation, IMHO.

ozstamps

For only a couple of dozen tickets it seems, that their own computer programming allowed to be issued lower than they "intended", and involving a number of 1Ks, they seem to be handing this curiously. But I'll repeat the earlier question - has anyone who has a $27-30 type internet receipt and confirmed booking been refused boarding on a UA flight???

That seems the nub. These guys are booked for March. It may be UA lets them on, allows upgrades and gives them points. And all they ever need pay is what the internet receipt says. No way can UA with any conscience demand otherwise, no matter what may or may not be on the Visa/Amex statement. It was an offer and acceptance deal as explained by our unpaid Attorney pages back. United offered at $27, these guys accepted when they pressed "ACCEPT". A legal deal. Fly, enjoy Paris, and don't worry about it if you have e-tickets.

------------------
~ Glen ~

Droneklax

I consider my clicking on the "purchase the ticket" button on the web page the equivalent of my signature on a credit card slip, for the amount indicated on the slip. There is no other way I can indicate my acceptance of the transaction!

For UA to charge me any higher amount, without my consent, is completely wrong and akin to fraud even if it is a mistake. Particularly when they remain silent.

I am still waiting to hear from anyone at UA. I called yesterday and they hung up on me. Not pleased.

unagi1

If anyone else wants to talk to the NYT guy,
his name is Greg Bruno. Call the NYT
Washington bureau at 202-862-0300 and ask
for him. He said he is supposed to finish
his piece Friday and would talk to anyone
else about it.

PremEx

seawolf, my point is that those that are "bowing out" are doing so either because they have no choice or are fed up with the hassle United is giving them. I would hardly call that voluntary.

Yes, they should be entitled to compensation, IMHO. And I may add, many are receiving it.

naxos

PremEx, As usual, UA is probably privately honoring or compensating for its "technical error" as they have done in the past. Quiet and persistent insistance on doing the right thing has prevailed in the past.

------------------

fallinasleep

this story has made the news (WSJ 2/15/01)

United Site Quotes Super-Low Fares,
Balks at Honoring the Ticket Prices
By JANE COSTELLO
WSJ.COM

Eric Bescher almost flew to Paris for less than $30.

An elite level United Airlines frequent flier from Los Angeles, Mr. Bescher visited United's Web site on Jan. 31 to search for a low fare to Europe in March. The deal he found was a lot better than he'd bargained for -- passage to France for less than the price of a bottle of good burgundy. A technical glitch at the site listed the round-trip fare from San Jose to Paris as just $27.98. "I snapped it up right away," he says.

Mr. Bescher wasn't alone in his good fortune. United Airlines says it inadvertently sold 143 tickets to destinations such as Hong Kong at really rock bottom prices via its Web site, ual.com, during a 55-minute period on the evening of Jan 31.

United says a computer bug "zeroed out" the fare on a number of international flights so that the amounts shown reflected only a portion of the taxes and miscellaneous fees. In fact, fares were in a free-for-all: One minute a round-trip fare from San Francisco to Paris was $85.42; seconds later that same ticket sold for $24.98.

United spokesman Chris Brathwaite says the airline won't honor any tickets sold at those prices. "Anyone who thought they could fly from L.A. to Paris for $27 should have known better," Mr. Brathwaite says. He likens the situation to a bank error when the teller inadvertently hands the customer a $1,000 bill instead of $100. "It's clearly a mistake: everyone knows you don't fly first class to Paris for $29," he says. "You don't get something for nothing."

United is in the process of contacting customers to let them know what the "correct" fare is. As a consolation, United says it will waive any cancellation fees should passengers not wish to pay the difference.

see http://interactive.wsj.com/articles/...9544528745.htm for the full article (subscription required)

ozstamps

Great link.

He, he, those will be words pretty soon he will regret having said I suspect! WHO ever claimed to have got a First Class ticket for $29? The guy is floundering. And lying it now seems.

------------------
~ Glen ~

estnet

okay I can't resist any more.
I price sfo-bkk on ual.com - gives me a fare of $1300 or $1500, etc (depending on ?), log off go to UA cxn - same flights same dates $707. Okay had I booked on ual.com would they have called me to tell me the "mistake" and give me $600 - he he?
If I weren't adept at this I'd end up paying a lot more - will UA do this in both directions (of course never tried it) - rhetorical question.
If they really only sold 143 tickets what a PR nightmare in exchange for not much revenue- WHAT ARE THEY THINKING (as if they did think)
I do honestly believe that people who jumped on a good thing shouldn't be held responsible for knowing the UA error - after all there was a legitimate $39 fare sfo-cmh for a while last year - how are we to know what weirdness they are doing. After all when a fare goes from 200 to 1500 in a day (or hour or week) do we get to say "oh no the 1500 must be a mistake give us the 200"?
As someone else pointed out there were very low fares offered by another airline (albeit on an auction - but had there only been 1 bid would they have refused to sell it)
Thanks for letting me rant.

PremEx

Please rant on. I agree with you.

I tend to look at this as indicating a much broader problem at United.

They want the benefits of the internet, yet they don't want to pony up to the responsiblities that they must take with all that comes with direct internet booking.

They want you to use the internet vs, direct phone, Ticket Counter, or Travel Agent purchases because of the much lower cost to United! Making the customer do all the work and purchasing directly from them off of their internet site saves them lots of dough.

But guess what? When you purchase on the internet and you get some nutcase price, there is no one there to say "Hey, this doesn't look right! Hold on, I need to check something out."

Why isn't there someone there to look out for United's interests? Because United has elected to do business this way...without the additional "checks" that human beings inherently provide.

I think that if United elects to do business on the web, requireing customers to do their own legwork via United's own set-up and system, then United must take extraordinary steps to assure that mistakes are not made. And if they are, well...Wake Up! That's just the price of doing business this way!

You can't expect the customer to know something is not right, or not on sale, or some promotion, or even a give-away! Hey, United's elected to do away with the human agents in these transactions. They want to do it because it saves them much money.

But with that, comes additional responsiblities. Responsiblities of the Internet Age. United needs to face up to this. They need to honor those fares, even if they were zip (which, I might point out, they have done in the past). It's the right thing to do.

This ain't like getting a thousand dollar bill instead of a hundred from a bank teller. You know that's not right.

But how in this day and internet age, is someone supposed to know that they didn't just stumble across some super deal or 10 minute promotion. Perhaps they were the lucky 100th ticket purchaser that day, in some contest United was running.

The point is that if United's systems and checks are sloppy, they shouldn't blame the customer! Or hold the customer liable.

The poor customer may have already:

1. Purchased non-refundable hotel vouchers from United Vacations or other non cancellable land providers and Priceline type deals, etc.

2. May have already arranged with their employer (with some degree of difficulty) to get the time off for these trips.

3. May have made appointments with business clients, etc.

...and on and on. And United wants to, at some point in the future, tell the customer that their tickets are no good!? And have the "goodwill" to waive the cancelations fees!!! What a riot!

Never mind the insane PR. It's just not right. Especially the way they've handled it (which up to this point, is not at all!). Bad decision.

Not a shining moment for United, IMHO.


[This message has been edited by PremEx (edited 02-15-2001).]