Author Topic: PRICING MISTAKE: 4 miles from Hong Kong (Read 294614 times)

meshugener · « **Reply #1440 on:** October 12, 2012, 10:13:38 AM »

Why do you think so?
Its so easy to take revenge and -1 back in his face.
No need to be a big boy for that.

Ergel · « **Reply #1441 on:** October 12, 2012, 10:18:30 AM »

Quote from: eis517 on October 12, 2012, 10:10:08 AM

OUCH! I guess I am not ready to play with the big boys yet.....

I'm not a big boy and you're entitled to your own opinion. I was just expressing that I disagree.
I think the DOT's logic was very sound.
And I think it was not at all out of place for them to tell you that you still have the legal right to sue

milechazzer · « **Reply #1442 on:** October 12, 2012, 10:18:49 AM »

Quote from: eis517 on October 12, 2012, 09:55:59 AM

To me that sounds like they think United screwed up but don't want to take them on because they know United will be pissed off, and you probably don't want to piss off the largest airline in the US. I am shocked that they even mentioned lawsuits. So unlike a government agency to suggest that.

Any way you slice it, this is a copout by the DOT. And there's no possible reason that it could take them this long to reach the "conclusions" in their email.

milechazzer · « **Reply #1443 on:** October 12, 2012, 10:34:25 AM »

"Our review found that the actual price of the advertised fare was never clearly stated during the booking process, thereby creating ambiguous circumstances in which it could be reasonably interpreted that the actual price of the fare was significantly more than the amount consumers paid at the time they attempted to purchase the fare, e.g., $40 plus 4 frequent flyer miles. Therefore, we are not able to establish that consumers, in fact, paid the full amount of the offered fare at the time of purchase."

This isn't true. There may have been conflicting information displayed on the website during the purchase, but there was, in fact, a point in the purchase where the "4 miles" price was displayed. DOT's explanation seems to imply that consumers were never actually offered the 4-mile fare, just that their balances were mistakenly "charged" only 4 miles.

springles · « **Reply #1444 on:** October 12, 2012, 10:56:50 AM »

Quote from: milechazzer on October 12, 2012, 10:34:25 AM

"Our review found that the actual price of the advertised fare was never clearly stated during the booking process, thereby creating ambiguous circumstances in which it could be reasonably interpreted that the actual price of the fare was significantly more than the amount consumers paid at the time they attempted to purchase the fare, e.g., $40 plus 4 frequent flyer miles. Therefore, we are not able to establish that consumers, in fact, paid the full amount of the offered fare at the time of purchase."

This isn't true. There may have been conflicting information displayed on the website during the purchase, but there was, in fact, a point in the purchase where the "4 miles" price was displayed. DOT's explanation seems to imply that consumers were never actually offered the 4-mile fare, just that their balances were mistakenly "charged" only 4 miles.

I tend to agree with you that the DOT's explanation is weak, nevertheless this is their conclusion and there is no other recourse (other than SCC or a class action, both of which I think would be a waste of time unless you have particular circumstances different than most people). I consider this to be officially over

AJK · « **Reply #1445 on:** October 12, 2012, 11:01:18 AM »

Quote from: eis517 on October 12, 2012, 09:55:59 AM

To me that sounds like they think United screwed up but don't want to take them on because they know United will be pissed off, and you probably don't want to piss off the largest airline in the US. I am shocked that they even mentioned lawsuits. So unlike a government agency to suggest that.

-1

The US is not scared of "taking on" big corporations...

See US v. Microsoft.

milechazzer · « **Reply #1446 on:** October 12, 2012, 11:41:58 AM »

Quote from: AJK on October 12, 2012, 11:01:18 AM

-1

The US is not scared of "taking on" big corporations...

See US v. Microsoft.

I think it's safe to assume the DOT has a far greater interest in maintaining a good working relationship with United Airlines, than the Dept of Justice is interested in maintaining a any relationship with Microsoft.

eis517 · « **Reply #1447 on:** October 12, 2012, 11:43:33 AM »

Quote from: milechazzer on October 12, 2012, 11:41:58 AM

I think it's safe to assume the DOT has a far greater interest in maintaining a good working relationship with United Airlines, than the Dept of Justice is interested in maintaining a any relationship with Microsoft.

+1

AJK · « **Reply #1448 on:** October 12, 2012, 11:54:06 AM »

Quote from: milechazzer on October 12, 2012, 11:41:58 AM

I think it's safe to assume the DOT has a far greater interest in maintaining a good working relationship with United Airlines, than the Dept of Justice is interested in maintaining a any relationship with Microsoft.

I fail to see the distinction.

eis517 · « **Reply #1449 on:** October 12, 2012, 12:06:22 PM »

Quote from: AJK on October 12, 2012, 11:54:06 AM

I fail to see the distinction.

DOT works mainly with airlines, of which United is the biggest. DOJ deals with thousands oif various companies. ALso, the goal of the DOT and the goal of the DOJ are very different.

milechazzer · « **Reply #1450 on:** October 12, 2012, 12:08:11 PM »

Quote from: eis517 on October 12, 2012, 12:06:22 PM

DOT works mainly with airlines, of which United is the biggest. DOJ deals with thousands oif various companies. ALso, the goal of the DOT and the goal of the DOJ are very different.

+1

AJK · « **Reply #1451 on:** October 12, 2012, 03:39:53 PM »

Quote from: eis517 on October 12, 2012, 12:06:22 PM

DOT works mainly with airlines, of which United is the biggest. DOJ deals with thousands oif various companies. ALso, the goal of the DOT and the goal of the DOJ are very different.

They both regulate industry.

Any curtailing of either company has a direct affect on the economy (customers, employees, shareholders, management).

It's not like UA can just "take their ball and go home" if DOT chose to get all up in UA's business over this fare mistake.

eis517 · « **Reply #1452 on:** October 12, 2012, 03:49:34 PM »

Quote from: AJK on October 12, 2012, 03:39:53 PM

They both regulate industry.

Any curtailing of either company has a direct affect on the economy (customers, employees, shareholders, management).

It's not like UA can just "take their ball and go home" if DOT chose to get all up in UA's business over this fare mistake.

yes, they both regulate industry, but the DOT only deals with transportation, of which United is a huge and integral part. DOJ deals with all industries. If they felt United really violated the law they would have gona after them. But the way I read the statement was that United screwed up, but this wasnt worth the DOT going after them for. Had it been a much worse offense, they would have, but they ahve to pick their battles with United...

AsherO · « **Reply #1453 on:** October 12, 2012, 04:21:52 PM »

Quote from: eis517 on October 12, 2012, 03:49:34 PM

yes, they both regulate industry, but the DOT only deals with transportation, of which United is a huge and integral part. DOJ deals with all industries. If they felt United really violated the law they would have gona after them. But the way I read the statement was that United screwed up, but this wasnt worth the DOT going after them for. Had it been a much worse offense, they would have, but they ahve to pick their battles with United...

I think this guy has a point, it's the same way the FCC is in bed with the big telecoms, the FAA with the big airlines, the FDA with the food conglomerates etc. This country is way too corrupt...

Moishebatchy · « **Reply #1454 on:** October 13, 2012, 01:12:36 PM »

Quote from: AJK on October 12, 2012, 03:39:53 PM

if DOT chose to get all up in UA's bidness over this fare mistake.

FTFY.

Drago · « **Reply #1455 on:** October 13, 2012, 02:51:21 PM »

I'm going to tell the DOT that since it priced my infant's fare correctly (over 1k), I had reason to believe that the process was correct.
Think it has over a 2% chance of working?