Sorry, you are wrong. It's a Skywest flight and responsibility lies with them. UAL "codesharing" a flight number with Skywest does not make it responsible for that airline. Some fault also lies with the passenger, especially since he/she noted the destination as LAX. That was the time to inquire and point out his/her destination. Why are people so sheepish and unable to speak up ???

I did, in fact, confirm that the flight was going to Oakland when I checked in. They never mentioned changing planes, etc., etc.

And--I'm no lawyer--but the fact that it was booked on the United site, serviced at United gates, etc., indicates a level of involvement if not endorsement on their part.

I'll let you know their response when I write.

JP

[This message has been edited by j379pa (edited 01-21-2002).]

I have to say that my definitions of nonstop and direct have been those enunciated by Always Flyin. That is why I was so utterly confused here in BKK years ago when I was booking flights ex-BKK. I had asked for a 'non-stop' and was given a 'direct' flight. I forget if I had the conversation in English or Thai, but what I've remembered ever since is that there is no misunderstanding that 'nonstop' = 'direct' in Asia (at least in this neck of the woods).

Hmmmm, let's see here. If a flight is sold on UA ticket stock, by a UA reservations agent, with the word "United" in the airline's name (United Express), on a plane painted in United's colors, leaving from a gate with signs reading "United" or "United Express," with check-in performed by United personnel at a counter that says "United," with the inflight magazine being the official United inflight magazine, etc. etc. how can you argue that United bears no responsibility for this?

First, the employees were SkyWest, not United. The whole "image" thing is part of what regional carriers are all about. They even have uniforms that say United on them. However, the planes, gates, checkin posts all belong to SkyWest (or one of the other regionals branded as UX). There are contractual agreements about how these carriers are permitted to use the UA logo and are supplied with UA materials, but the obligations to the customer belong to the actual underlying carrier.

You'll note that the boarding pass (printed on UA ticket stock) has a message clearly printed on both your stub and the retained airline coupon indicating that "United Express service provided by XXXXXXXX" with the true carrier's name listed.

You suggest if the ticket was purchased at UAL.COM, that was further proof of responsibility. If I buy a ticket from ITN.COM directly, does American Express, GetThere, LP and SABRE have equal responsibility for my flight's operations the day of travel? I think not.

[This message has been edited by SFO 1K (edited 01-22-2002).]

I did not say anything about UAL.com. I described a situation in which the ticket was sold by a United reservations agent (i.e. telephone reservation); thus your ITN analogy doesn't apply.

Allow me to clarify my position. If I have been screwed by United Express and write a letter to United customer service, then I at least expect United to contact the United Express carrier to alert them to the issue. If the Express carrier does nothing, and I alert United to this, I expect United to contact the Express carrier again and get them to respond to my complaint. Just "forwarding" my letter to the Express carrier and then forgetting about the issue is not enough. United should follow up with the Express carrier to see what they have done to respond to the complaint.

I was involved in a situation where the United Express carrier I flew violated United Airlines' contract of carriage. United Airlines' contract of carriage explicitly states (or it stated in 1995, anyway) that the contract applies to United Express flights. Yet United Airlines did not do anything to rectify this violation of United's contract by the United Express carrier. United's position was that my complaint was totally unrelated to them, so they did not have to do anything. Of course, the only reason I was on that flight in the first place was that it was a UA-coded flight (which was sold to me over the phone by a United reservations agent, on United ticket stock).

United should also require Express carriers to abide by United's "customer service commitment" (or whatever it's called). This is simply good business. If United puts its name and logo on the flights of poorly run, second rate airlines, United's own image will suffer, and this will not be helped if United adopts the attitude, "It's not our flight, don't bother us with your complaint" when passengers complain.

Incidentally, I stopped flying United after the above referenced incident, and have been a much happier traveler since.

Please clarify your position further. Is that what did indeed happen?

And when did whatever in your case happen? Recently? Or several years ago?
United calls it their "Our United Commitment" (gack). United does claim they require United Express carriers to abide by its "major" points.

Some background: many parts of their "Commitment" came about the last time Congress was provoked into holding hearings into passenger complaints over airline practices. The "United Commitment" and related "commitments" from other airlines were what the airline CEOs offered Congress to back off from taking regulatory action. It worked -- at least as far as the airlines are concerned.

It's in United's business interest to at least look like they're making good on their commitment, cause if they don't, the airlines won't likely escape Congress so easily next time.

It will be interesting to hear the response the original poster of this thread gets from UA about his recent UA Express experience and compare it to what response you received (which I take it happened several years ago from your reference to the 1995 Contract of Carriage).


[This message has been edited by Quokka (edited 01-23-2002).]

It still does. From Rule 500:

A) AN INDEPENDENT OPERATOR WILL PROVIDE SERVICE UNDER AN AGREEMENT WITH UA. THE INDEPENDENT OPERATOR IS CONSIDERED EITHER A UNITED SHARED DESIGNATOR OPERATOR OR A UNITED EXPRESS OPERATOR AS IDENTIFIED BY THE
FLIGHT NUMBERS SHOWN IN PARAGRAPH (B).

1) FOR UNITED SHARED DESIGNATOR FLIGHTS, ALL TERMS OF TRANSPORTATION APPLICABLE TO UA SPECIFIED IN THIS TARIFF APPLY EXCEPT FOR SECTION V - BAGGAGE, OR EXCEPT WHERE SPECIFICALLY NOTED. SEE THE INDEPENDENT OPERATOR'S SECTION OF THIS TARIFF FOR BAGGAGE PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO THEIR FLIGHTS.

2) FOR UNITED EXPRESS FLIGHTS, ALL TERMS OF TRANSPORTATION APPLICABLE TO UA SPECIFIED IN THIS TARIFF APPLY EXCEPT WHERE SPECIFICALLY NOTED.

The references in the contract of carriage merely mean that the business arrangement between Sky West and United inolves an agreement to be bound by UA's contract of carriage.

So, legally, UA would be justified in disregarding this and pointing to SkyWest (although I'm not sure what the legal claim would be against United even if it were entirely on UA metal, since you were transported, just very late and very poorly served, neither of which is a legal matter).

However, having said all that, UA should obviously step up and mediate in service problems like this, because it's a copout to claim that your licensees have nothing to do with you. UA benefits from making UX look like a full-fledged part of the UA route network, and that requires maintaining that appearance in good times and bad. UA should go so far as to provide appropriate compensation on behalf of their licensee should it come to that. If this becomes a liability to UA, then they should either force UX to repay such compensations as part of their UA contract or they should fire that licensee and replace them with one that will generate fewer problems.

P.S. My understanding of direct has always been that it represents a single flight number with 0 or more intermediate stops and plane changes. Therefore, all non-stops are by definition direct (1 flight number with 0 stops), but not all direct flights are non-stop. Therefore, it is redundant, but possible to say "direct, non-stop"

Amen!

I finally received a response from United regarding this issue.

No letter, but a $100 certificate on stationary that reads "We hope this travel certificate will give United Airlines an opportunity to serve you again."

I guess it's more than I expected, but some kind of personal response like "we'll try to fix this problem" would have been nice.

Thanks for your above thoughts on this issue.

JP