Acceptable Comp for Improper Processing of Standby?
 

I was flying SEA-SFO-LAX which encountered weather delays, and so I went on standby for the SEA-LAX direct, which left at the same time. I was #1 on the list as 1K, and so they had tagged my bag & everything, and loaded it onto the direct flight anticipating that I'd clear.

However, I was working with the UA Express CSR for the standby, when the UA CSR came over from the SEA-SFO desk, and told the UAX CSR that she transferred 4 people going SEA-SFO-SYD to SEA-LAX-SYD, and that she was not to deboard those people. As it happened, I notice that these 4 were general members, and that the SFO-SYD flight departs roughly the same time as SFO-LAX, and so it ended up being me missing my SFO-LAX connection because they got on the plane ahead of me.

I'm pretty pissed off @ the whole situation, especially since the SYD and LAX flights are so close together, that UA CSR must have known I was going to miss my connection, and still put those other 4 ahead of me. Is there some rule or policy that puts int'l connections ahead of 1K domestic connections?


[edit for more info]
Umm, I wouldn't be bringing the issue up had I not had an overnight delay. As it stands, EVERYONE involved was going to be stranded overnight, and yes, I spent the night at the lovely Red Roof Inn SFO...

As for the 24hour overnight delay vs. my 10hr overnight delay, is time the only criteria for 'inconvenience'? They were vacationing to SYD. I got 4 hours of sleep, missed my morning client meeting, and am now going to miss my afternoon meeting b/c UA also lost my bag in all of this. So yes... who's really more inconvenienced? Vacationers that could've slept for 10 hours & hung out in SF, or someone thats now going to miss 2 client meetings?


If not, what kind of compensation can I ask for? I'm assuming this would be similar to IDB rules?

Not that I know of, but think about the logistics here. There are many SFO-LAX flights per day; there is only one SFO-SYD and only one LAX-SYD. If they were going to miss SFO-SYD, they would have been stuck overnight; you would have been (and were) stuck for hopefully only an hour or so. There were also 4 of them and only one of you. For that reason, I would imagine they would have taken precedence out of sheer pragmatism, even if not policy.

As much as it would suck, I personally would be OK with losing even a few hours of my time in order to ensure that 4 others didn't have to lose an entire day. I suspect UA made the same call.

You should expect no compensation; this is nothing similar to IDB. You were going standby, something which is by definition not guaranteed. You ended up flying on your originally-ticketed flight, so you technically lost nothing (yes, I know you ended up missing your connection due to weather delays, but had you not gone standby or had standby not been available, that would have been your outcome anyway). You failed to clear standby, but since there was no guarantee of clearance, you didn't lose anything to which you were entitled. Since SEA-SFO was delayed due to weather, UA isn't at fault there, either.

It sucks that you missed your standby and then missed your connection, but this was not an IDB (nor similar), and you should expect no compensation.

Is there some rule that puts 1K domestic people ahead of int'l connections?
You aren't entitled to any compensation since you were on standby and it was a weather related issue.

Since UA loves to throw vouchers to it's 1K and above members, ask for the sun, moon and stars and be happy if you get anything.

It's not even clear to me that there was "improper processing". You were standby for the flight. The 4 passengers could very well have been confirmed on the flight by a CSR. That puts them ahead of you, even if they were GM's.

I also agree with cepheid's point: 96 passenger-hours of delays has to be balanced against a couple passenger-hours, even with status.

So they would have missed their flight to SYD if you'd gotten on the flight. And that is your preference? :( :confused:

I know as 1Ks we expect a lot, but if I were in your shoes, UA's decision would have made sense to me.

As you were on standby, you should expect no compensation. You missed your connection due to the delay on your SEA-SFO flight, there's no guarantee of getting on via standby.

I would agree with you guys had there been other LAX flights, but as it stands, both they and I were in the same spot: our original routings would have caused them to miss SFO-SYD, and me to miss the last SFO-LAX of the night. So we were both trying to get re-routed to avoid being stranded overnight @ SFO.

The one CSR said she couldn't confirm me and I had to wait on standby, while the other CSR confirmed them directly into SEA-LAX. We either both should have been confirmed at the onset, in which case I was first to request the re-route, or all put onto the standby list given that it all of us would've had to stay overnight and were in the same situation.

UA did the right thing. You are not entitled to any compensation. Status is not the only thing that determines standby priority - it goes below disserviced passengers and operational necessities.

Were there no flights on ANY airline from SFO-LAX that nite? If there were, as a 1K I am sure they would have put you on one. Not too many options for getting to SYD.

I know that I personally have volunteered to give up my seat in delays so that others can make international connections. I think UA did the "right" thing.

You were on STANDBY.

+1 for united doing the right thing.....I understand why you would have been a little irritated not to get the first stand-by, but with the circumstances of passengers flying to syd, this was a no brainer for united. sorry

Yes, but if you miss SFO-LAX, you are delayed until the next morning. If they miss SFO-SYD, they are delayed an entire day. If you missing SFO-LAX was a major issue, you should've called reservations or gone out front to the ticketing desk to see if they could've confirmed you on the SEA-LAX flight due to the weather.

I am sure this was because they had an international connection.

Did you end up getting stranded overnight? They would have been.

Actually, the OP should have booked the SEA-LAX non-stop in the first place.

Unfortunately (and probably very distressing to you) the agent was correct.
International travel--particularly missed connections go on the standby list as
BP5A which trumps any normal standby on the BP5B list. The 5B list is typically the status based list that we all refer to, but in this case United standby boarding priority was adhered to correctly and the GM members were placed on the higher than you on the 5A list.

Also, as a 1K they can do confirmed standby within 3 hours for free. So there was probably no inventory on SEA-LAX, possibly it was blocked due to people potentially missing and international connection. I think there is more to the story that the OP didn't know about. I would not think any comp should happen and things most likely were processes properly.

Since the other passengers were going to SYD, I think a roundtrip to SYD in F is the only acceptable compensation. Call the 1K line and state your case.

The 3 hour confirmed change must be the exact same routing... you cant change from a connection to a nonstop under this rule unless an agent makes an exception.

If there was that great a risk of missing the connection at SFO and having to overnight there I would have asked at SEA if they could put you on AS, DL or Virgin who all have nonstops to LAX... AS has frequent ones.

Your status should only come into play when other passengers are on
the exact same itinerary you are. Any airline would have done the same
thing. When there are any irregular operations, the airline needs to look
at all the inconvenienced passengers and do its best to accommodate
everyone as best as possible.

If I was United and you requested compensation for this, I would tell you
to take your business elsewhere. Sorry, I'm not trying to be rude, but
you should know what "standby" means by now.

While I agree UA did the right thing, I also believe they are at fault. In the list of published benefits, 1Ks are told they have top-priority and in this case, it wasn't the case. Perhaps the benefit statement needs to be revised to "most of the time".

Personally, if UA was going to trump someone on the list, they should have either put the 1K on another carrier or VDB'ed someone.

Do I think it's worth chasing for compensation, no. But I would shoot an email to 1kvoice.

It sucks, but it would suck more to be going to SYD and have to wait 24 hours. This just comes with traveling.

Well said. The audacity of the OP to complain over a multiple of non-status pax that would have misconnected and created a 24-hour delay versus their much shorter single-person delay that did not involve a misconnect is truly shocking. I guess the OP's status entitles them to believe that their one hour is more important than the other party's 24...well, 96 if you want to be picky.

One would think that a frequent flier on any airline would want to see their airline of choice succeed and do right by people as much as possible so the airline could continue to provide the travel experience that said frequent flier wants to keep on experiencing. The downside incurred of hours lost, hotel nights at UA's cost, general bad blood, and almost assuredly some other kind of compensation that would result from the inevitable nasty letter that would follow those SYD pax misconnecting is apparently still not enough for the OP to realize that those people getting the seats and you not getting a seat was a good call on UA's part.

I'm defending the majority's position on an issue in the UA forum...someone must have put angel dust in my coffee.

did the OP ever post if he got stranded overnight? whta was the final outcome?

Read post #13. The OP was on the top of the BP5B waitlist. But BP5A trumps that. Always has, and (hopefully) always will.

But the OP was not confirmed, why would they call for VDB's to let someone goo standby? Then they have to give out compensation to someone, in order to let a non-confirmed PAX fly. Makes no sense.

1Ks are never told they have top Priority. In fact, the 1K benefit states:

Priority airport standby (where allowed by law) if you do not have a confirmed reservation on a Star Alliance flight.

Priority does not equate to top-priority.

I agree, it should stay that way. I

But in all the marketing fluff, Elites are always told standbys are sorted by elite status. In this case, they weren't. If you simply look at it from that angle, it was wrong. Perhaps the message they send with standby-priority needs to be revised not to give elites a sense-of-entitlement in all cases.

Personally, if I was in the same shoes, i wouldn't care unless it caused me to overnight in transit.

Well, I wouldn't expect them to do a VDB, but it would have been a nice way to avert a situation. Plus, now they have a stuck passenger in SFO. I guess the question is if the delay was just a few hours or if there was an overnight involved. if it was just a few hours, suck it up and deal. If there was an overnight then I don't believe it was handled properly.

From what I remember, on the gate monitors the order listed is:
1) Irregular Operations
2) Status (GS, 1K, PremEx, Prem)

In this case, both the OP and the four passengers were affected by #1. One would assume within #1, #2 is considered as the secondary sort order.

Yes they were. The other passengers were not standby - they were considered disserviced passengers.

One would be wrong.

Actually, after re-reading the OP, the 4 PAX were not even on the standby list. They were transfered to this flight. So there was space available, that the OP was waiting for on standby. The other PAX were then re-ticket onto the flight, and the GA asked that the 4 pax not be IVDBd. Then no standby space was available for the OP. So basically, the OP was standby, and other PAX were confirmed for the flight, making the Sort Order moot.

The fact is - UA could have had four pax that would have required overnight stays in SFO/LAX and a full 24-hour delay vs. 1 who possibly had to stay in SFO and a few hour delay. Had the OP been proactive, after the flight closed, they should have requested to be put on another carrier. Everytime delays have caused me to miss my last connection, I have always called and asked to be routed on another carrier. As a 2P, i have never once been denied, and the cause has always been delays due to WX or ATC. While it is possible, as UA can be inconsistent, I would think chances are good that a 1K wouldn't have much trouble getting the same.

How would this have averted "a situation?" Sure, it would have averted the OP's situation, but the situation of the 4 stuck GM's would have been worse. UA made the right call here.

I think fozz meant having the GA ask for 1 other pax to VDB, not one of the 4 pax.

But why should they ask a confirmed PAX to VDB, so someone on the standby list can go. That makes no sense. They were not over booked.

Umm, I wouldn't be bringing the issue up had I not had an overnight delay. As it stands, EVERYONE involved was going to be stranded overnight, and yes, I spent the night at the lovely Red Roof Inn SFO...

As for the 24hour overnight delay vs. my 10hr overnight delay, is time the only criteria for 'inconvenience'? They were vacationing to SYD. I got 4 hours of sleep, missed my morning client meeting, and am now going to miss my afternoon meeting b/c UA also lost my bag in all of this. So yes... who's really more inconvenienced? Vacationers that could've slept for 10 hours & hung out in SF, or someone thats now going to miss 2 client meetings?

So this is the problem. I was trying to get confirmed into SEA-LAX direct, but told that Y was full, and that I had to go on standby list and wait to clear. All the meanwhile, another CSR goes ahead and confirms her 4 pax into SEA-LAX outside of the standby window, thereby effectively taking status and everything else out of the equation.

Just to clarify the situation. The 4 SYD pax were not standbys. They were transferred over as confirmed pax. OP was and remained #1 on the standby list, as BP5B. Too bad the flight went out full, but about the only issue here is a case of bruised ego.

good, you were not entitled to those seats by being a 1K.

Doesn't UA help 1K's out with hotel accommodations on overnight misconnects, regardless of cause? (That is, they don't play the "weather" card and tell you to beat it...) I thought I read this somewhere in the Wiki or FAQ thread here.

In any case, overnighting at SFO probably inconveniences you by a couple of actual waking hours at most, considering how many SFO-LAX flights there are every day. I'm glad UA took care of the four Sydney pax - I would hope that if I'm ever in that same situation, a quick-thinking CSR would get me taken care of and save me a full day of travel.

I had one case last year where I misconnected to the final ORD-LHR flight of the day. Snowstorm in Chicago...UA wasn't obligated to do much for me. Fortunately, I had a good agent on the phone: she said "Start heading towards T5 and look for SAS. I will work on your ticket." In that span of 10 minutes, she managed to get me onto an SAS flight minutes before the door closed and I made it to London three hours late (via Copenhagen) instead of a full day late. ^

So clearly, they do sometimes recognize that missing a long-haul international flight is a pain, and they try to rectify it when they can.

did you ask about rerouting on AS either to LA directly or to SFO? This has happened to me *many* times on UA when leaving SEA or PDX when a flight is delayed, and I've always gotten a reroute. It's great because I usually get a nonstop to wherever I'm going versus the connecting flight I had booked on UA. Once, I even was on a plane and got off and got re-ticketed right there. Once (cancelled/mechanical), I got rebooked on AS w/o even calling. But i have *never* been said no to at PDX when asked for a reroute on AS for weather delays. The UA agents at pdx are not nice to me, but a little pleading always got me to my final destination, and oftne times earlier than my scheduled arrival.

Wow!

I for one would rather re-schedule with a client and be inconvenienced work wise, than miss a part of my vacation. Did they say they were going on vacation, or is this an assumption? They could have been going for a special surgery, or to visit a relative before they died.

Seriously, assuming it is a vacation, Missing a vacation that people save up for and are going on to relax is quite serous. 4 PAX being stranded for 24 hours. That is a big deal. Not to mention, assuming they were on vacation, they probably have non-refundable hotels, etc. And clients are for more understanding of travel delays due to weather than hotels in another country.


Whenever I have been stranded overnight due to WX, I have always been put up on an Inter Continental or Sheridan by UA. Never a Red Roof Inn.

You don't want to know the answer, because it's certainly not you.

That doesn't make any sense. Basically, you're saying that I got screwed b/c I got an agent that wasn't willing to bend the rules and confirm me outside of the 20min window b/c the flight was oversold, whereas another agent was.

And to be clear, that other agent confirmed them when they didn't have the inventory. They only had 3 seats available when she confirmed all 4, and ended up waiting for a no-show to get the 4th on.

Wow...I fast-forwarded and missed that post about the 4 vacationing in SYD.

That changes things a bit for me. If the five of us had been standing there at the gate and there were 4 seats available, I would have insisted that UA make sure to overlook my 1K status and get them to Australia as fast as possible - figure me out after they're onboard and on their way. I'll make phone calls and reset my meetings...clients are generally understandable about weather delays because they've been there too. I'd hate to see four people lose a day of vacation because of a misconnect.

Priorities? Easy call. Theirs > Yours. By far. Again, I'm glad UA got it right.

What's the point of being 1K if vacation or length of delay takes priority? Is not a main value for status the ability to get to point A by time Y during irreg ops? Otherwise, why not just fly southwest?

Why are you a 1K? Do you like shoving your status in other people's faces, just so that you can make a business meeting? I'm sure you have canceled a few of those in your life time for dumb reasons.