Friend missed flight and hit with $150 fee
Nov 28, 2008, 7:33 pm
#46
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: ORD, MDW or MKE
Programs: American and Southwest. Hilton and Marriott hotels primarily.
Posts: 6,459
So then if you show up late and miss a doctor's appointment, they charge you the co-pay for the missed appt....
You show up late for court and they find you guilty by default...
Based on your argument you shouldn't be charged and you shouldn't be guilty.
When do you feel personal responsibility for your own actions?
You show up late for court and they find you guilty by default...
Based on your argument you shouldn't be charged and you shouldn't be guilty.
When do you feel personal responsibility for your own actions?
Nov 28, 2008, 7:50 pm
#47
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: HH Gold, AA Gold
Posts: 10,458
The passenger was late (passenger's fault).
As is standard policy at EVERY US carrier including WN, the passenger was offered accomodations on the next available flight (+1 to US).
As a result of DECLINING US's generous offer, the passenger BROKE the fare rules and, thus, the ticket had to be changed. (passenger's fault for DECLINING the next available flight)
How is it US's fault that the next available flight was the next day? If the OP's friend had been overseas with a single flight per day and the friend had been accomodated the next day, would we even be having this conversation?
Bottom Line: US played by the rules. I believe that we have a bunch of prima donnas in this thread.
As a former airline employee, I heard every excuse, every con, and every argument in the book plus some. If you really want to understand how ridiculous this thread sounds, spend a week as a GA. I guarantee that your tune would change.
As is standard policy at EVERY US carrier including WN, the passenger was offered accomodations on the next available flight (+1 to US).
As a result of DECLINING US's generous offer, the passenger BROKE the fare rules and, thus, the ticket had to be changed. (passenger's fault for DECLINING the next available flight)
How is it US's fault that the next available flight was the next day? If the OP's friend had been overseas with a single flight per day and the friend had been accomodated the next day, would we even be having this conversation?
Bottom Line: US played by the rules. I believe that we have a bunch of prima donnas in this thread.
As a former airline employee, I heard every excuse, every con, and every argument in the book plus some. If you really want to understand how ridiculous this thread sounds, spend a week as a GA. I guarantee that your tune would change.
Nov 28, 2008, 9:35 pm
#48
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: MBS/FNT/LAN
Programs: UA 1K, HH Gold, Mariott Gold
Posts: 9,630
Just my .02 worth:
The vibe I get is that the OP's situation was very similar to getting pulled over for speeding. Yea, it would have been really cool to let it "slide", but that not what happened. The change fee is almost like paying the fine for getting caught.
The vibe I get is that the OP's situation was very similar to getting pulled over for speeding. Yea, it would have been really cool to let it "slide", but that not what happened. The change fee is almost like paying the fine for getting caught.
Nov 29, 2008, 6:19 am
#49
Join Date: May 2005
Location: FLL
Programs: DL ♦M MM|HH♦|Marr Slvr|CO UA AA US|Pri Cub Plat|SPG|Avis 1st|Htz 5*
Posts: 5,044
I read this entire thread and I am going to try not to repeat what so many others have stated. The OP wants US not to "punish" late people and apply the fee only to those nefarious individuals trying to work the pricing system. This same POV is displayed in countless threads in the FT forums. "But it wasn't my fault" is such a common theme - the idea being that "if I didn't premeditate the murder I shouldn't be found guilty."
Who would admit to being at fault if by just saying "it wasn't my fault" would get them off the hook? Why don't the courts just ASK a defendant if he/she should be punished?
Society has an expensive and long-drawn-out process for determining guilt because the human stakes are very high. In the case of an airline change fee we are talking about $150!!!! For US to implement a grievance system to determine one's "punishment" based on the customer's culpability would be a stupid and unnecessary expense.
Also, the idea that US would be courting a loyal flier if they just didn't charge the OP's friend that fee is, well, LYING!! The OP and the OP's friend do not believe US should have charged him at all. So if US dropped the fee would either of them bat their eyes lovingly at US and say "thank you for being so good to me?" I doubt it. Neither believes the passenger owns any of the responsibilty so neither will credit US with any accolades for dropping the fee.
Now if the passenger were to believe that the fee was indeed a just charge then dropping the fee might bring US a loyal customer.
The following might be a bit off topic but as I was reading this thread several other "issues" popped into my head.
Orlando tourist: "It rained every day. They should refund our money."
(By "they" the meaning is "hotel","airline", "Disney")
-----
Teenager after writing a check for their first auto insurance invoice: "I should get the money back if I don't have an accident?"
-----
DUI defendant: "But I didn't MEAN to kill them"
-----
S.A.T. subject: "I was told there would be no math on this test." Or: "I have 'math block'. I should still be allowed to go to M.I.T."
-----
FA: "You need to turn your cell phone off."
Pax: "This is a very important call." (As opposed to everyone else's unimportant calls. Or: "The rule was intended for others, not me.")
Who would admit to being at fault if by just saying "it wasn't my fault" would get them off the hook? Why don't the courts just ASK a defendant if he/she should be punished?
Society has an expensive and long-drawn-out process for determining guilt because the human stakes are very high. In the case of an airline change fee we are talking about $150!!!! For US to implement a grievance system to determine one's "punishment" based on the customer's culpability would be a stupid and unnecessary expense.
Also, the idea that US would be courting a loyal flier if they just didn't charge the OP's friend that fee is, well, LYING!! The OP and the OP's friend do not believe US should have charged him at all. So if US dropped the fee would either of them bat their eyes lovingly at US and say "thank you for being so good to me?" I doubt it. Neither believes the passenger owns any of the responsibilty so neither will credit US with any accolades for dropping the fee.
Now if the passenger were to believe that the fee was indeed a just charge then dropping the fee might bring US a loyal customer.
The following might be a bit off topic but as I was reading this thread several other "issues" popped into my head.
Orlando tourist: "It rained every day. They should refund our money."
(By "they" the meaning is "hotel","airline", "Disney")-----
Teenager after writing a check for their first auto insurance invoice: "I should get the money back if I don't have an accident?"
-----
DUI defendant: "But I didn't MEAN to kill them"
-----
S.A.T. subject: "I was told there would be no math on this test." Or: "I have 'math block'. I should still be allowed to go to M.I.T."
-----
FA: "You need to turn your cell phone off."
Pax: "This is a very important call." (As opposed to everyone else's unimportant calls. Or: "The rule was intended for others, not me.")
Nov 29, 2008, 6:45 am
#50
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: PIT
Programs: DL (Medallion), AA, WN, Scareways, HH, MR, SPG
Posts: 522
Nov 29, 2008, 6:51 am
#51
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 56
The really great news is that the "whole problem" is solved by US implementing the same policy that they have in terms of cancelling flights without providing $150 cash payments to each affected passenger:
Eliminate all charges to customers that have no basis in cost of goods sold. The original poster's friend showing up late for his flight represented $0 in cost to US. So, simply never charge any customer anything for something that costs US nothing.
That way (along with the elimination of all other failings by US), the company can stay in business.
What a simple concept: connect with your customers, while never allowing them to purposefully rip your enterprise off, and stay in business. Remember, please, that "showing up late" (like aircraft do occasionally) is not "ripping the enterprise off". Under any circumstance.
Eliminate all charges to customers that have no basis in cost of goods sold. The original poster's friend showing up late for his flight represented $0 in cost to US. So, simply never charge any customer anything for something that costs US nothing.
That way (along with the elimination of all other failings by US), the company can stay in business.
What a simple concept: connect with your customers, while never allowing them to purposefully rip your enterprise off, and stay in business. Remember, please, that "showing up late" (like aircraft do occasionally) is not "ripping the enterprise off". Under any circumstance.
Nov 29, 2008, 7:38 am
#52
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: PIT
Programs: Marriott Silver, Priority Club Platinum, Hilton Gold, Airline Peon (United, Delta, Southwest)
Posts: 335
IMHO: Summary of this thread so far…..
Point of view A:
It’s the customers fault. The Rules are the Rules are the Rules. It’s the customers fault. The rules say the airline can put the customer on a flight the next day. If that is too late for the customer to do what the customer intended to do at the arrival location; too bad so sad – It was the customers fault. If the customer wants to fly someone else today at his own cost and want to fly back on the flight that the customer already paid for the airline will need to change a few bits in their computer and charge the customer $150 for this service because it was the customers fault. The airline told the customer in the rules that the airline would charge him $150 to do this. It’s the customers fault, anyway. The airline is entitled to $150 because it was the customers fault.
Point of view B:
The rule is not customer friendly. The customer is already eating the cost of the missed flight - which the airline may have already resold to someone else. The rule is not customer friendly. It chases the customer away, without customers there is no airline. The rule is not customer friendly. The customer is feeling ripped off by an unjust fee. The rule was written by the airline to benefit the airline, not the customer. The rule is not customer friendly. If the airline was late would they pay the customer $150? The rule is not customer friendly. Other airlines waive fees in this situation. The rule is not customer friendly. Without customers there is no airline. The rule is not customer friendly.
It’s the customers fault. The Rules are the Rules are the Rules. It’s the customers fault. The rules say the airline can put the customer on a flight the next day. If that is too late for the customer to do what the customer intended to do at the arrival location; too bad so sad – It was the customers fault. If the customer wants to fly someone else today at his own cost and want to fly back on the flight that the customer already paid for the airline will need to change a few bits in their computer and charge the customer $150 for this service because it was the customers fault. The airline told the customer in the rules that the airline would charge him $150 to do this. It’s the customers fault, anyway. The airline is entitled to $150 because it was the customers fault.
Point of view B:
The rule is not customer friendly. The customer is already eating the cost of the missed flight - which the airline may have already resold to someone else. The rule is not customer friendly. It chases the customer away, without customers there is no airline. The rule is not customer friendly. The customer is feeling ripped off by an unjust fee. The rule was written by the airline to benefit the airline, not the customer. The rule is not customer friendly. If the airline was late would they pay the customer $150? The rule is not customer friendly. Other airlines waive fees in this situation. The rule is not customer friendly. Without customers there is no airline. The rule is not customer friendly.
Nov 29, 2008, 11:43 am
#53
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 56
Point of view A:
It’s the customers fault. The Rules are the Rules are the Rules. It’s the customers fault. The rules say the airline can put the customer on a flight the next day. If that is too late for the customer to do what the customer intended to do at the arrival location; too bad so sad – It was the customers fault. If the customer wants to fly someone else today at his own cost and want to fly back on the flight that the customer already paid for the airline will need to change a few bits in their computer and charge the customer $150 for this service because it was the customers fault. The airline told the customer in the rules that the airline would charge him $150 to do this. It’s the customers fault, anyway. The airline is entitled to $150 because it was the customers fault.
Point of view B:
The rule is not customer friendly. The customer is already eating the cost of the missed flight - which the airline may have already resold to someone else. The rule is not customer friendly. It chases the customer away, without customers there is no airline. The rule is not customer friendly. The customer is feeling ripped off by an unjust fee. The rule was written by the airline to benefit the airline, not the customer. The rule is not customer friendly. If the airline was late would they pay the customer $150? The rule is not customer friendly. Other airlines waive fees in this situation. The rule is not customer friendly. Without customers there is no airline. The rule is not customer friendly.
It’s the customers fault. The Rules are the Rules are the Rules. It’s the customers fault. The rules say the airline can put the customer on a flight the next day. If that is too late for the customer to do what the customer intended to do at the arrival location; too bad so sad – It was the customers fault. If the customer wants to fly someone else today at his own cost and want to fly back on the flight that the customer already paid for the airline will need to change a few bits in their computer and charge the customer $150 for this service because it was the customers fault. The airline told the customer in the rules that the airline would charge him $150 to do this. It’s the customers fault, anyway. The airline is entitled to $150 because it was the customers fault.
Point of view B:
The rule is not customer friendly. The customer is already eating the cost of the missed flight - which the airline may have already resold to someone else. The rule is not customer friendly. It chases the customer away, without customers there is no airline. The rule is not customer friendly. The customer is feeling ripped off by an unjust fee. The rule was written by the airline to benefit the airline, not the customer. The rule is not customer friendly. If the airline was late would they pay the customer $150? The rule is not customer friendly. Other airlines waive fees in this situation. The rule is not customer friendly. Without customers there is no airline. The rule is not customer friendly.
Since there is no cost of goods sold that applies to the $150 charge, it becomes clear that "option A" is a failed business practice. It is like your doctor charging you an additional fee equvalent to your weekly grocery bill when the doctor provides you with nothing in return for that grocery fee. Nobody disagrees that when profit equals revenue on a given transaction, the customer has been ripped off.
I am sitting in Portland, Maine now as part of my weekend visits eating an "Italian Sandwich" from one of the Amato's stores that cost $4.25. I asked them to not include the usual pickles and black olives when they made the sandwich because I do not like them (shame on me for disliking pickles and olives, ie. missing the flight). The sandwich still cost me the usual $4.25. But, Amato's saved the food cost of transporting me to "point B", ie. the cost of the pickles and black olives not included on my sandwich. In other words, I didn't get ripped off for getting the sandwitch (the flight) the way I needed and enjoyed it.
The entirely unethical and wrongful concept of US (if they owned Amato's)charging me $1.00 (or any other amount above $0.00) more for removing the pickles and olives doesn't pass the brain test of any person with an IQ above zero.
But of course, a dramatic minority of US employees support such a concept like a one way flight costing more than one-half of two one way flights (ie.-a roundtrip flight).
...even if it (and many other aspects of the US business model) puts them out of business. That, in fact, is probably the only way that these baseless ripoffs by US will cease.
Last edited by here2thereinAZ; Nov 29, 2008 at 1:23 pm Reason: spelling correction
Nov 29, 2008, 1:20 pm
#54
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: MBS/FNT/LAN
Programs: UA 1K, HH Gold, Mariott Gold
Posts: 9,630
Great summary Myadvice.
Since there is no cost of goods sold that applies to the $150 charge, it becomes clear that "option A" is a failed business practice. It is like your doctor charging you an additional fee equvalent to your weekly grocery bill when the doctor provides you with nothing in return for that grocery fee. Nobody disagrees that when margin equals revenue, the customer has been ripped off.
I am sitting in Portland, Maine now as part of my weekend visits eating an "Italian Sandwich" from one of the Amato's stores that cost $4.25. I asked them to hold the pickles and the black olives because I do not like them. The sandwich still cost me $4.25. Amato's saved the food cost on the pickles and black olives.
The entirely unethical and wrongful concept of US (if they owned Amato's)charging me $1.00 (or any other amont above $0.00) more for removing the pickles and olives doesn't pass the brain test of any person with an IQ above zero.
Since there is no cost of goods sold that applies to the $150 charge, it becomes clear that "option A" is a failed business practice. It is like your doctor charging you an additional fee equvalent to your weekly grocery bill when the doctor provides you with nothing in return for that grocery fee. Nobody disagrees that when margin equals revenue, the customer has been ripped off.
I am sitting in Portland, Maine now as part of my weekend visits eating an "Italian Sandwich" from one of the Amato's stores that cost $4.25. I asked them to hold the pickles and the black olives because I do not like them. The sandwich still cost me $4.25. Amato's saved the food cost on the pickles and black olives.
The entirely unethical and wrongful concept of US (if they owned Amato's)charging me $1.00 (or any other amont above $0.00) more for removing the pickles and olives doesn't pass the brain test of any person with an IQ above zero.
Furthermore, I disagree with your COGs statement. There is a cost of goods that applied to the 150.00 change... the cost of the empty seat that flew away before the OP's friend got there.
As had been mentioned Ad nauseum, the OP's friend was the one who showed up late. If his lifestyle dictates a certain amount of flexability.... then he should have purchased a product that would account for his requirement (a changeable/refundable ticket).... which as we know would cost more then 150.00 extra.
Now, one last thing: Do I personally think the 150.00 is excessive? YES I absolutely think it is too much to charge (but sadly it has become more the standard for legacies). However, it is what the OP's friend agreed to pay (when he bought the ticket, and when he paid the fee to keep the return).
Oh, also... I am just curious if the OP could answer about his friend:
- Why was he late?
- Did he have any status?
- How/where did he buy the ticket?
- Did he purchase any travel insurance?
Nov 29, 2008, 2:13 pm
#55
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 56
IMhO, the sandwich comparison is not reasonable. The OP's friend did not want less then what US was offering (ie: hold the onion/pickle) he wanted MORE (ie: combo meal, double meat, extra cheese).
Furthermore, I disagree with your COGs statement. There is a cost of goods that applied to the 150.00 change... the cost of the empty seat that flew away before the OP's friend got there.[/LIST]
Furthermore, I disagree with your COGs statement. There is a cost of goods that applied to the 150.00 change... the cost of the empty seat that flew away before the OP's friend got there.[/LIST]
There is no additional COGS on an empty outbound seat. The COGS on that seat were covered by the original purchaser, at a higher margin level for US, since he was not even sitting there. Each seat on a flight has only one COGS.
Nov 29, 2008, 2:24 pm
#56
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: MBS/FNT/LAN
Programs: UA 1K, HH Gold, Mariott Gold
Posts: 9,630
Nope. The OP's friend requested and received not one iota more from US. He missed the flight, and never asked for anything more. They also gave him nothing else, other than the return seat that he had already paid for. And, the COGS on that return seat did not change one iota due to the fact that the OP's friend missed the outbound flight.
The sadwich comparison would work if he DID get a un-restricted ticket, and did not change it.
. They just charged him to change the outbound (keep the itin intact). If the OP's freind shows up late again, he will get dingged another 150.00.
Nov 29, 2008, 3:04 pm
#57
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Right Creek, AZ
Programs: UA Silver, AA Lifetime Gold, Marriott Lifetime Platinum
Posts: 593
Bottomline... yes, US was well within their rights to enforce the published policy and terms. No doubt about it.
But, we all know that exceptional customer service often comes from bending the rules.
Could US have done that, and most likely earned customer loyalty? Of course. Did they instead chose to uphold the fees and possibly lose a customer? Possibly...
The agent had a choice, and made the one they felt was best for US.
IMO, penny-wise, and pound foolish.
I am sure we can all cite examples of times we have had CSR's go "above and beyond" for us, and we all know the relationship and loyalty that helps build. Sadly, US chose the path of least resistance, once again.
But, we all know that exceptional customer service often comes from bending the rules.
Could US have done that, and most likely earned customer loyalty? Of course. Did they instead chose to uphold the fees and possibly lose a customer? Possibly...
The agent had a choice, and made the one they felt was best for US.
IMO, penny-wise, and pound foolish.
I am sure we can all cite examples of times we have had CSR's go "above and beyond" for us, and we all know the relationship and loyalty that helps build. Sadly, US chose the path of least resistance, once again.
Nov 29, 2008, 3:44 pm
#58
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: USA, Europe
Programs: AAdvantage, Flying Blue, Mileage Plus
Posts: 839
Great idea, so why not let everyone with non-refundable tickets make changes at no charge? It doesn't cost the airline anything to do that, other than having an agent spend 5 minutes reissuing the ticket. Ok, so maybe charge the customer a few dollars for the agent's time. Or better yet, why even charge someone for a ticket at all? The plane is going to fly anyway, and the marginal cost for the airline to fly someone is next to nothing. I should go to the airport right now and find a flight that is going out half full and ask if I could fly for $10 (which will cover the agent's time and the security fees) since it doesn't cost them anything extra to fly me.
Nov 29, 2008, 5:26 pm
#59
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Tampa, FL
Programs: Nothing - I'm useless!
Posts: 2,441
Nov 29, 2008, 6:21 pm
#60
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Southern California/In the air
Programs: DL
Posts: 10,382
I read this entire thread and I am going to try not to repeat what so many others have stated. The OP wants US not to "punish" late people and apply the fee only to those nefarious individuals trying to work the pricing system. This same POV is displayed in countless threads in the FT forums. "But it wasn't my fault" is such a common theme - the idea being that "if I didn't premeditate the murder I shouldn't be found guilty."
Thanks to everyone who's chimed in here.
You read too much into my post, which was the form of a question as to whether proper policy was followed. To me, there was an ambiguity arising from the fact that my friend was traveling on Thanksgiving to get somewhere on Thanksgiving and if there had been no schedule cutback, there would have been no post here; he would have taken the later flight.
He missed the flight because of problems getting a cab to the airport for an early flight; cab was called and came much later than promised. The culpability here seems akin to having a flat tire on the way to the airport.
My take from these posts is that US followed its own rules and properly charged the fee, which is what I was after. That being said, while it may have been within the rules, it was a poor customer service decision under the circumstances of a holiday.