May I recommend utilizing a travel agent then?

Me, too, but fortunately there's the whole Karma thing. One of these days the OP might find himself in the shoes of the SYD-bound travelers, and get bumped off his desperately needed vacation flight by some more-important traveler. I'll be patiently waiting for that thread. :D

Or perhaps they simply value their respect for others more... @:-)

Yes, there is a difference, but part of that difference is that the former is very often not practical, especially when in a time crunch. UA clearly feels that they would rather deal with the ire of a single 1K than 4 GMs - it's more practical and, on average, perhaps even more economical. I happen to agree with them in this circumstance.

Of course, I'm not a 1K, so I guess my opinion doesn't really mean much. :p

I guess you always just assume that the agents processed you correctly huh? And never look into if it was the right call or not?

That's actually quite alright. When I was 1P, I got bumped off flights by 1K's and never complained. I've also been bumped as 1K by GS, and never complained. The difference is that you know they followed the right procedures.

Or, s/he thinks there's more to life than retribution for perceived (whether real or not) wrongs.

Seeing as how I was standing right there, they could have simply explained the situation to me. They did not.

Yes. And that is also a great way to approach business :rolleyes:

And based on your responses here, would you have acquiesced? I think not. It was more practical for UA to simply not give you the choice, especially as you were not entitled to confirmed space anyway. So, perhaps other people got something to which they were not entitled... so what? They "got away" with it, so you should, too?

Funny that 80+ % of the posters in this thread seem to think that UA followed the right procedures in your case. The fact that you found a UA agent who was willing to give you money (either because they agreed with you or to just make you go away) isn't exactly proof of anything, given the consistency of answers people tend to get from UA.

So be happy with your compensation. I personally am very happy with the overwhelming responses from fellow FT-ers here in this thread. ^

Thanks! And yes, I do.


Now I know who that PAX I always see telling the FA how to do her/his job is, even though they are usually doing it right!

You time must be VERY important since you are following this thread so closely!

Good lord, the crux of it is "did the agent follow the correct procedure? Or did she incorrectly put someone else onto the flight?"

Regardless of SYD vs. LAX, 1K vs. GM, 4 seats vs. 1, confirmed vs. standby or whatever, that's the underlying question. Once you answer that, the other things don't matter.

As I said, this has now become a work 'night' and well, I can't exactly do work while on the phone w/ UA agents.

Except... they really didn't. Between the supervisor at SFO last night, the baggage service director today, and the 1K CR, i'm pretty sure they have it figured out.

Once again, following policy to the letter is not always the most practical, customer-friendly, or even (dare I say it?) moral/ethical way of handling things.

Alright! Now we're getting somewhere. So since we have recognized that this wasn't following policy, we get back to my original question. What kind of fair compensation could be expected? And... we've come full circle, but unfortunately, the point is moot and 1K CR already issued the travel cert.

My opinion is that United WAS following policy.

UA allows CSRs to rebook passengers on oversold flights when their situation is serious. This is up to the CSR's discretion.

As seen in this thread a HUGE majority believe that 4 pax missing a SYD connection is serious, and most think that a missed SFO-LAX connection is a lot easier pill to swallow.

What the CSR did is certainly not against policy as policy allows them to make a judgement call in this case.

You were #1 on the standby list, and policy was followed in that case. No standbys trumped you, only disserviced pax (this is up to the CSR/GA to define).

Popular opinion here seems to dictate that UA's judgement call was the correct one.

Yes. They have the discretion to sort these things out to cause the least amount of disservice. That's what they did.

just because the policy isn't followed, doesn't mean you desesrve compensation. imho, you deserve nothing, yet you got something anyway. why do you deserve nothing? because you lost nothing that you were entitled to or paid for. you were on standby and didn't confirm. you were delayed because of weather. yet you are ranting and raving about it because of your important meeting. if it was that impoortant, and you couldn't reroute on AS to lax, bur, ont, sna or any of the gazillions of flights they have from seattle to southern cali every day, you could have bought a ticket on wn, but you didn't.

i also don't understand how a person of your importance could afford to spend this whole morning with ua regarding your lost bag. ime, when they've lost my bag...which is many times (or so it seems, perhaps it's an exageration here), you fill out the form at the airport and eventually it shows up at your doorstep, but spending time on the phone with them doesn't really help the situation, other than to waste one's time and UA agent's time.

No, "we" have not recognized any such thing. My statement said merely that following policy explicitly and without deviation is not always the "correct" thing to do; I did not state whether or not, in this case, policy was followed. All that I stated or implied in the previous post was that following policy to the letter is not necessarily the right thing to do, irrespective of whether or not policy was followed in your particular case. Gate agents are given leeway to deviate from standard operating procedure when they deem it necessary or beneficial; they are given such leeway for a reason. That leeway is granted by policy which supersedes other policy, so....

As I answered the first time around, none. Even if policy was not followed (and I am not stating that it wasn't), you did not lose anything to which you were guaranteed or entitled; you flew on your originally-ticketed itinerary, which was delayed due to circumstances outside of UA's control. Hence, "fair" compensation would be: nothing. IMHO.

Most of the posters think United followed procedure. No standbys cleared ahead of you. A few posters think United didn't follow procedure but still did the correct thing. I don't think any posters thought you should have cleared. You decided to book a less expensive routing.

Compensation should be however much grease it takes to stop your squeaking. You should not confuse compensation give to you shut you up as admission of wrong.

I specifically asked the 1K CR if this was normal and just bad luck/timing and I was sol (mainly due to the responses here), and they said no, and offered comp

Good god, how many people did you already talk to about this "problem"? Did the RCC bathroom attendant and the Red Roof Inn check-in staff also agree with you? Maybe I don't understand job roles at UA right, but the SFO baggage services director chiming in on standby handling at SEA has very little value to me. But I am beginning to understand why your luggage hasn't arrived! :) J/K... I think.

So, to answer your original question, since you came here for advice: I think fair compensation would be $0.

Pax could have been coming from YVR, YYC, PSC, or any number of other airports :)

Seems as though you're the one that should have had a direct flight into LAX instead of transiting through SFO.

Using that logic, shouldn't you have booked a NS from SEA to LAX?

Quote:
Originally Posted by shazbot
A) its an easy assumption since SFO would be the gateway, and they'd have direct flights into SFO instead of transiting through SEA

I value my status. But I don't think it should extend to my standby flight bumping off a confirmed passenger.

Breaking it down.

There was no improper processing of standby list
Compensation due: $0

You did not clear standby on a full flight
Compensation due: $0

You were overnighted in SFO due to a weather delay
Compensation due to <1K: $0
Compensation due to 1K/GS: Hotel & meal

Delayed bag
Compensation due: Bag delivery

Seems that you got what you deserved already.

Eight hours of FT education: priceless

<bow>

i believe wx hotel is >=1p

delayed bags don't get comp?

I believe that if it's your outbound flight, UA will occassionally reimburse the reasonable cost of clothing until the bag is delivered... but no official policy exists here I am aware of.

I'll not take sides in all of this since I see points that sway for the OP, the SYD pax, and for UA's handling of this. Clearly, some oddball things happened...

I still can't fathom why a UA agent faced with one or two extra pax, one of them a 1K, all under irrops, and all with a dire need to fly didn't simply overbook the flight by one more and then get VDBs to clear space? That way everyone is happy: The SYD pax make it to their vacation, the OP gets to his meetings, and 2 volunteers that can spare the delay get VDB compensation.

it was weather related. why should ua pay $400 or whatever for a vdb? gosh, wouldn't it be ironic if the OP who seems to mostly be after compensation got confirmed, then vdb'd himself...

I really see no issue here. You were standby, so why would there be compensation for not getting on that flight. Your original flight was delayed due to weather, again, not due compensation. United took care of 4 international passengers over one local standby passenger. They did it right in my view.

Sorry for your delay, but it happens sometimes when there are weather issues.

AD

Sure, I understand the reason. However, it seems like the agent was already pushing/bending the system pretty hard to get the 4 SYD pax on-board. In that case, why not go the extra mile and also take care of a 1k pax that you just flat out told had to standby? In the end you probably only need to offer the DBCFREE to get the volunteers and the net cost of those is pretty minimal, especially considering breakage.

The UA agent worked pretty hard. The OP was working with the UX agent, not the UA agent.

And if they got zero volunteers, they would then need to IDB someone, and how is that any better than simply leaving the OP as a standby? At least that way there was no actual IDB (a statistic which has to be reported to DOT) and nobody having to be removed from their originally-ticketed, confirmed itinerary. We also don't know how many minutes prior to departure this whole event took place... if it was too close to boarding time, the UX agent wouldn't have wanted to delay departure in order to ask for volunteers.

Glad you got some cash. Still think you were wrong. Still dont understand why you have not answered why you did not ask for a reroute on another airline.

As I said earlier, I have voluntarily reliqueshed my confirmed seat in a similar instance. ( and yes I am a 1K ).

What goes around, comes around

There are two issues here.

1) Did UA break the rules? Yes (apparently) they did. UA put non-status pax ahead of status pax.

1.5) As UA broke their own rules did they compensate the status pax fairly. From the quote above it looks like they did. UA provided a hotel room during a WX delay. I call that fair.

Issue 2

2) Did the GA and by implication do anything wrong? This answer is no both on a rules level and on a moral level. MP belongs to UA and they can do whatever they want. Morally when the agent decided to monkey with the list did the right thing as well.

If the OP was that unhappy with his room, he could have rented a car and driven to LAX. (Gmaps says it is a 6hr drive) There is no similar alternative to SYD (despite the fact that Gmaps gives directions from Sydney to Los Angeles).

Good luck with your compensation fight.

1) Nah. You are wrong. They did not break the rules. It's simila to being on the BP5 standby list. I was at ORD one time and the weather was making all connections invalid. I asked to be put on a flight that would get me to my connecting city on time. Sure, no problem. "The good news, Mr. luv, is that you are first on the BP5B list. The bad news is that you are over 100 pax on the BP5A list ahead of you." Why? Because they were disserviced pax. I was jut trying to get to my city as a standby. And guess what? THis all happened in the GS room at ORD, and as a GS, the sea did not part for me. Was I pissed? Nah. I understand what's going on. Did I get to my final destination? Yup. About nine hours after scheduled. Stuff happens.

1.5) Compensation? I hope not. I really hope not.

Agents are given latitude to do whatever is in the best interest of the company and pax taking everything into consideration. I won't bother rehashing the "once a day SYD flight" argument.

How about VDB's? Sometimes the agent gives you F on the flight they confirm you on. Did the pax originally have F? Of course not. So now F goes from F6 to F0. And you were first on the waitlist for F for that flight. Got a gripe? I think not.

I love this tread.

Everyone seems to always know what we (CSRs) can and can't do, yet noone really knows...except us.

People post BP priorities from the shuttle days, and other people quote it.

People say that a CSR can sell a flight to Y-1 (nope, a CSR can't)

There are MANY ways to get people on a flight. Some of them will tick off your co-workers, some of them won't.

I'm not gonna get into what was supposed to be done, what wasn't...blah blah, but I am laughing at you guys/gals here (in a fun way, not in a evil way) at how everyone seems to KNOW the correct course of action. I really don't believe there is "A" correct course for many situations.

Based on the 1 sided story (none of us, including the OP) know what really happened to the other party, or how it was done. I can think of plenty of ways. In all of those ways, I would have had to talk to the CSRs at the departing gate, as all of the ways would screw with their numbers, if they were not aware of it. I would have wanted their consent as well. (My rule #1 is NEVER screw with a flight that someone else is working without their knowledge and consent.)

I think the vast majority of posters on this thread think like human beings. A few think like his status somehow guarantees him the universe, some kind of all powerful being.

As much as airlines flaunt status to you all, you are all still bound by the same rules that whatever deity made for you. And you are all bound by the rules of the CoC and your fare. And we know that UA has broken rules for you as a 1k. Guess what...they may have broken some rules for you b4 u were a 1k. And maybe, just maybe they broke them for 4 trans-pac passengers.

And tomorrow, the sun will rise, and UA will be in business, and the people will be in SYD, and the OP will have gotten to Cali, and the sun will set, and most of us will still be fine.

Absolutely gorgeous post!

And is it just me, but am I the only one here who has read this entire thread and smell something really fishy regarding the accuracy/truthfulness in their story? I don't believe the OP is being completely forthright.

Please advise me how you want UA to confirm you out of the 20 min window with no seats. Do you want to sit in the lav?

Also, I don't understand your way of thinking. 4 people going to SYD (you call them vacationers) are going to miss their connection in SFO, so UA is proactive and books them thru LAX to make their flight. You come along after, and request the SEA-LAX flight as well, but there are not any seats now. Did you expect UA to take 1 of the 4 people going to SYD off the plane for you? No. That is whole game of STANDBY.

Such an easy philosophy... And yet, somehow, some people think that "stuff" should never happen, or should always be reimbursed with compensation (or retribution, should compensation not occur). Thankfully, they seem to be a small few...

Unfortunately, while you may have missed it, the OP reported getting compensation from the 1K line earlier in the thread. It's IMHO a sad state of affairs when companies (or individuals) are willing to shell out compensation to silence even the most unreasonable complaints because it's faster/easier/cheaper than standing their ground...

I don't claim to know the correct (vis-à-vis official policy) course of action... but I do know what I think is the right course of action and what I would have done in the GA's place - which, incidentally, is what happened.

I don't think that really matters; even if the OP made the story as favorable to himself/herself as possible, most people still disagree with the OP's premise and recognize that what did happen is what "should" have happened (however you define "should"). That, at least, makes me not lose all faith in humanity...