United LHR- New York in F $100 return

[MEL_Traveller]

Some people with cancelled fares within that timeframe will be inevitably affected.

If pax are affected it is their own doing.

If they were going to fly anyway (needed to be in new York for a meeting) they will buy the same fare they were going to buy anyway.

If they were using this as an 'opportunity' (let's fly to NY to go shopping for the weekend), they haven't lost anything there either because it was simply that, an opportunity.

A passenger can't sue UA on the basis of DOT regs... only the DOT can take action. If the pax then sue UA I think we'd get back to the above... establishing 'loss'.

I don't know if EU261 will apply for those who turned up at Heathrow. They didn't have valid tickets under the scope of EU261. I'm not sure if it would apply retrospectively if the tickets are later held valid.

 

[anat0l]

I don't know if EU261 will apply for those who turned up at Heathrow. They didn't have valid tickets under the scope of EU261. I'm not sure if it would apply retrospectively if the tickets are later held valid.

Not holding "valid reservations" would be a problem, but even with EU261 protection it is not even a matter of "if", it is a matter of time. UA could drag out (in disputing the validity of affording any protections - if any - under EU261) as long as they disagree and the most they will face is having to recompense the passenger in the first place plus perhaps a small cursory fine.

This doesn't help any affected traveller at all, but as you say since most already knew it was a "mistake", punting on the ticket holding as-is and then planning all non-flexible logistics around it would be a fool's errand.

 

[anat0l]

The FT thread has been closed by the moderators due to too much dead-horse flogging and mud slinging.

It will likely only see further activity once the DoT makes a statement regarding this mistake.

 

[Shanye2233]

You know i have read probably every page on that and keep going around in circle but one post stuck out for me. The poster said if UA hired some third party company to do maintainence on their aircrafts and god forbid there was a accident do you think the third party copmpany who provided the staff would be to blame or do you think united would get the blame and be responsible .Because thats what UA is saying

 

[docjames]

You know i have read probably every page on that and keep going around in circle but one post stuck out for me. The poster said if UA hired some third party company to do maintainence on their aircrafts and god forbid there was a accident do you think the third party copmpany who provided the staff would be to blame or do you think united would get the blame and be responsible .Because thats what UA is saying

There would be shared liability and the lawyers would get rich fighting over the % each.

See Gulf of Mexico Oil spill and BP/Halliburton/TransOcean etc.....

 

[MEL_Traveller]

You know i have read probably every page on that and keep going around in circle but one post stuck out for me. The poster said if UA hired some third party company to do maintainence on their aircrafts and god forbid there was a accident do you think the third party copmpany who provided the staff would be to blame or do you think united would get the blame and be responsible .Because thats what UA is saying

The two concepts aren't really related. Some things can't reasonably be outsourced... such as the delivery and operation of a safe product.

When it comes to safety and maintenance, it is a safe assumption that the service provider is ultimately responsible for ensuring they have a safe product. This is reflected, for example, in the laws governing compensation for injury suffered on board aircraft.

It is possible however that an airline might not necessarily be (wholly) responsible, but another party. The QF32 might be an example, where the engine was the issue, and perhaps too soon into the operation of the aircraft for that to have been apparent or discoverable by the airline.

But the UA issue concerns the filing of an airfare. It's a somewhat different kettle of fish.

You have nothing to worry about flying UA: they will be held to account if you have an accident.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

DOT will not take action against UA's decision to cancel the mistake fares.

Decision from the DOT here: https://cms.dot.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/Mistaken_Fare_AEP_Statement_on_United_Airlines.pdf

Matters taken into consideration include: (a) that the fare was not marketed towards US consumers, (b) that many passengers had to manipulate the website to include a Danish billing address. The latter is evidence of 'bad faith by the large majority of passengers'.

 

[opusman]

Seems like a fair outcome to me, although obviously disappointing for some

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Seems like a fair outcome to me, although obviously disappointing for some

the decision is murky.

while the outcome is fair and equitable, the grounds are somewhat cobbled together, and leaves open the issue of Danish credit card holders not being protected by a piece of regulation that clearly covers them.

had the DOT left it at the 'the fares were not marketed at the U.S.' it would have been tidier.

 

[amaroo]

Seems like a fair outcome to me, although obviously disappointing for some

+ 1

...........

 

[opusman]

leaves open the issue of Danish credit card holders not being protected by a piece of regulation that clearly covers them.

Surely that's an issue for the EU authorities and nothing to do with the US DoT?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Surely that's an issue for the EU authorities and nothing to do with the US DoT?

The DOT (supposedly) covers the activities of all airlines flying to/from/within the USA.... the same way EU regs cover airlines within their jurisdiction.

Here we have a US carrier, a mistake, and an attempt to either cancel or increase the post purchase price. That is not allowed under the reading of the DOT regs.

Now the argument could be that those who falsified a Danish billing address got themselves into the position by their own bad faith, and shouldn't then be able to rely on regulation to right that wrong, the same can't be said for those who 'legitimately' bought with a danish credit card with a danish address.

In essence the DOT has refused to enforce the fare for danish residents based on the actions of others.

The decision could probably have stood on the grounds that the fare was not offered to US citizens, therefore the US (ie DOT) won't take action.

I'm not up on Danish law, but for residents of the UK (and I know for Germany too) purchasing these fares, it would be unlikely for them to have a case based on contract law alone. This was a clear mistake.

 

[vitagen]

I don't get the issue here, it was a clear mistake and people tried to exploit the situation. No one in their right mind would think 100USD is a fair price for that flight. I hope some people get burnt and burnt bad relying on fares like this. Sometimes I just sigh at society in general.

 

[mandja]

Now that is decided....what next?

I'm presuming that UA will refund fares paid?

 

[clazman]

They should charge a administration fee for all refunds

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I don't get the issue here, it was a clear mistake and people tried to exploit the situation. No one in their right mind would think 100USD is a fair price for that flight. I hope some people get burnt and burnt bad relying on fares like this. Sometimes I just sigh at society in general.

Some people will argue until they're blue in the face that they had no idea this was a mistake! The common argument is that Ryanair offers fares for a pound, therefore this was UA doing the same.

Others see this as a way of punishing airlines for what they perceive as unfair practices in general (for example, if the customer makes a mistake, they can't cancel without penalty).

The regulations are badly written. The intention is good... it wants to protect consumers from unscrupulous airlines who decide to increase a fare, but the DOT just didn't think it through to the potential end result (ie mistake fares where people knowingly and willingly engage in activity which is manifestly unfair).

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Now that is decided....what next?

I'm presuming that UA will refund fares paid?

They have to - by law.

Many people still have outstanding credit card authorisations... but they blame this on UA rather than their own bank/credit card providers.

 

[burmans]

I don't get the issue here, it was a clear mistake and people tried to exploit the situation. No one in their right mind would think 100USD is a fair price for that flight. I hope some people get burnt and burnt bad relying on fares like this. Sometimes I just sigh at society in general.

Whether you regard it at right or not, DOT have previously issued statements that mistake fares ARE covered, sorry don't have it easily available and cant be bothered looking.

The language here is actually quite interesting in saying they are not enforcing, which kind of indicates (again) that these ARE enforceable but the combination of events meant that the majority of people are acting in bad faith and hence they are not enforcing in THIS INSTANCE. As such not sure how much we can read into this as a precedent.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Whether you regard it at right or not, DOT have previously issued statements that mistake fares ARE covered, sorry don't have it easily available and cant be bothered looking.

The language here is actually quite interesting in saying they are not enforcing, which kind of indicates (again) that these ARE enforceable but the combination of events meant that the majority of people are acting in bad faith and hence they are not enforcing in THIS INSTANCE. As such not sure how much we can read into this as a precedent.

the precedent was established a while ago... namely that DOT will exercise discretion where it feels necessary.

The LX RGN fares were considered outside the scope of the DOT because tickets were not to, from or within the USA. The DOT decided a stopover in excess of 24 hours would be required before they would consider it. This time stipulation is not mentioned in the regs.

They also found a loop-hole for the UA 4 mile fares.

Each of these will be determined on a case-by-case basis. I guarantee you that grandma won't be stuck at a domestic check-in counter on the eve of Thanksgiving because an airline decides an advertised fare was 'too low' and therefore a 'mistake' which it will be allowed to cancel.

DOT is looking to amend the regs to exclude mistake fares in certain cases, particularly where there might be an element of bad faith.

 

[burmans]

the precedent was established a while ago... namely that DOT will exercise discretion where it feels necessary.

The LX RGN fares were considered outside the scope of the DOT because tickets were not to, from or within the USA. The DOT decided a stopover in excess of 24 hours would be required before they would consider it. This time stipulation is not mentioned in the regs.

They also found a loop-hole for the UA 4 mile fares.

Each of these will be determined on a case-by-case basis. I guarantee you that grandma won't be stuck at a domestic check-in counter on the eve of Thanksgiving because an airline decides an advertised fare was 'too low' and therefore a 'mistake' which it will be allowed to cancel.

DOT is looking to amend the regs to exclude mistake fares in certain cases, particularly where there might be an element of bad faith.

Not disagreeing with any of this but just pointing out its not the "mistake" part which gets UA off the hook (and the statement issued in no way suggests this has changed). But the two instance you mention have solid backing for their interpretation.
1. Transits of <24 hours are pretty widely not regarded as a stopover so while not specifically mentioned in the DOT regs would suggest they can find some case law to support.
2. The 4 mile fare was rejected on the basis that the correct fare did appear elsewhere in the booking process.

Like you I feel the regs need rewriting but don't think the latest ruling helps, in fact it directly contradicts in parts.

Not sure what the line "appears on a website not marketted to US Consumers" even means, its the same United.com website. Sure I agree it was manipulated but the claim as written that it was "not marketed" in my view is a nonsense. If I'm an American who books one ways to/from the US and I book one of these on an European website that's possibly not normally used or marketed to US citizens/residents I think the DOT regulations clearly still applies and DOT has now just introduced precedent for Airlines not to honor.

I also feel the logic that because some people abused the T&C's that UA has the right to cancel all is flawed, this is clearly the opposite of treating on a case by case basis.