Author Topic: PRICING MISTAKE: 4 miles from Hong Kong (Read 297812 times)

JEWDA · « **Reply #1060 on:** July 19, 2012, 12:29:28 AM »

Is there no one at united that we can email to ask why no one was contacted?

AJK · « **Reply #1061 on:** July 19, 2012, 12:31:52 AM »

Quote from: PlatinumGuy on July 19, 2012, 12:28:05 AM

That seems to be exactly what they're doing. Why they won't anounce it and turn it into a public PR spin is consistent with their general behavior lately.

...except their first official reaction was to state in no uncertain terms that they will not be honoring them.

I just don't see how if it as insignificant as you guys say it is why UA would not simply eat the loss right from the beginning and move on with their lives, content they've avoided another potential PR debacle.

al613 · « **Reply #1062 on:** July 19, 2012, 12:32:02 AM »

Quote from: JEWDA on July 19, 2012, 12:29:28 AM

Is there no one at united that we can email to ask why no one was contacted?

If they would have an answer, they would tell you long time ago. I think new rules from DOT is unknown territory for them, so they want to make sure all i's are dotted.

Dan · « **Reply #1063 on:** July 19, 2012, 12:32:55 AM »

Quote from: AJK on July 19, 2012, 12:31:52 AM

I just don't see how if it as insignificant as you guys say it is why UA would not simply eat the loss right from the beginning.

Why should they eat a multi-million dollar loss if they don't have to?

AJK · « **Reply #1064 on:** July 19, 2012, 12:33:58 AM »

Quote from: Dan on July 19, 2012, 12:32:55 AM

Why should they eat a multi-million dollar loss if they don't have to?

1) PR ramifications; and/or
2) DoT ramifications;

Again, if the numbers were talking about (that you're talking about) are in fact accurate, it seems foolish not to simply pay the piper and avoid it altogether, the same way some companies settle lawsuits without merit just to avoid the time, hassle, and possible expense of litigation.

PlatinumGuy · « **Reply #1065 on:** July 19, 2012, 12:34:35 AM »

There's also an issue of setting a precdent by adhering to this pathetic regulation. Next time it can be $3B.

AJK · « **Reply #1066 on:** July 19, 2012, 12:43:45 AM »

Quote from: PlatinumGuy on July 19, 2012, 12:34:35 AM

There's also an issue of setting a precdent by adhering to this pathetic regulation. Next time it can be $3B.

So now you find this regulation pathetic? Rest assured, without it we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The tickets would have been cancelled Sunday afternoon.

And as to precedent, that makes no sense. If you're referring to UA, if it's next glitch costs it more than they're willing to stomach, say $3B, they simply don't pay out, its own precedent be damned. (Ya know, kinda like not honoring it this time when the last time they said "we always pay when its our mistake" or whatever that UA rep said in the newspaper article).

If you're referring to DoT, it doesn't need precedent, the law as it is has already been written and they've already bared their teeth to much effect.

PlatinumGuy · « **Reply #1067 on:** July 19, 2012, 12:46:17 AM »

I've stated all along I think this rule doesn't make any sense, & believe a lawyer can find a way to strike it down in real court. That doesn't contradict my intention to take advantage of it.

AJK · « **Reply #1068 on:** July 19, 2012, 12:57:07 AM »

I think it may... you seem to have a fundamental problem with the DoT trying to force airlines to abide by and honor mistake fares... yet you have no qualms of trying to exploit that same regulation for your own benefit. Hey, if you can't beat em, join em?

Besides, that's tangential to the point -- I still see no reason why, if the numbers being suggested are accurate, UA doesn't chalk it up as a (small) loss and try to spin the whole thing into good PR.

Dan · « **Reply #1069 on:** July 19, 2012, 01:00:31 AM »

Quote from: AJK on July 19, 2012, 12:57:07 AM

Besides, that's tangential to the point -- I still see no reason why, if the numbers being suggested are accurate, UA doesn't chalk it up as a (small) loss and try to spin the whole thing into good PR.

B/C the new UA isn't about good PR, it's all about the bottom line. And they didn't expect this to make national news.

PlatinumGuy · « **Reply #1070 on:** July 19, 2012, 01:02:57 AM »

If you disagree with state run healthcare, you won't take advantage of it?

I've stated earlier in this thread I do have more qualms with taking advantage of United, but I think they take advantage of enough unfair regulations (albeit more legal), I'm entitled too.

Quote from: Dan on July 19, 2012, 01:00:31 AM

B/C the new UA isn't about good PR, it's all about the bottom line. And they didn't expect this to make national news.

Its also not at all clear public sentiment will side with us.

Now its gonna be printed in every morning paper, they really shouldve made up their mind one way or another. Oh well, waiting for next horror story from all the IRROPs tonight.

AJK · « **Reply #1071 on:** July 19, 2012, 01:04:41 AM »

Quote from: Dan on July 19, 2012, 01:00:31 AM

B/C the new UA isn't about good PR, it's all about the bottom line. And they didn't expect this to make national news.

I can't believe either of those things.

It doesn't take a Harvard MBA to realize:

Good PR has a correlation to successful business, and not expecting this to reach national news? Seriously? I mean, who runs the company, Snooki?

Dan · « **Reply #1072 on:** July 19, 2012, 01:06:20 AM »

This coming from the same airline that promised in writing that MM'ers would get CR1's for life and then took away that benefit and is facing a class-action because of it.
And that's something that really costs them close to nothing.

PR ain't their forte.

AJK · « **Reply #1073 on:** July 19, 2012, 01:07:01 AM »

Quote from: PlatinumGuy on July 19, 2012, 01:02:57 AM

If you disagree with state run healthcare, you won't take advantage of it?

I've stated earlier in this thread I do have more qualms with taking advantage of United, but I think they take advantage of enough unfair regulations (albeit more legal), I'm entitled too.

So two wrongs make a right... I got it now.

Of course, if he's stealing, I should be able to steal, too, right?

And your approach is even more questionable in light of the fact that you believe the regulations that UA follows are "more legal."

PlatinumGuy · « **Reply #1074 on:** July 19, 2012, 01:08:26 AM »

Quote from: AJK on July 19, 2012, 01:04:41 AM

Seriously? I mean, who runs the company, Snooki?

Welcome to the new United.
Just pick 3 random posts on the FT UA board, and I guarantee one will be exactly that.

Quote from: AJK on July 19, 2012, 01:07:01 AM

So two wrongs make a right... I got it now.

Of course, if he's stealing, I should be able to steal, too, right?

And your approach is even more questionable in light of the fact that you believe the regulations that UA follows are "more legal."

it's not two wrongs, it's my entitlement to play by the same rules. The legality doesn't affect my personal morality.

AsherO · « **Reply #1075 on:** July 19, 2012, 01:10:34 AM »

Quote from: AJK on July 19, 2012, 01:04:41 AM

It doesn't take a Harvard MBA to realize:

Good PR has a correlation to successful business, and not expecting this to reach national news? Seriously? I mean, who runs the company, Snooki?

ROTF LMAO

ALOL

AJK · « **Reply #1076 on:** July 19, 2012, 01:11:07 AM »

Quote from: Dan on July 19, 2012, 01:06:20 AM

This coming from the same airline that promised in writing that MM'ers would get CR1's for life and then took away that benefit and is facing a class-action because of it.
And that's something that really costs them close to nothing.

PR ain't their forte.

I dunno, from a PR perspective, the fact that UA took away lifetime bennies for some elite members doesn't even rank compared to this. Do a google search on the news articles. I found... one. And that's debacle is a weeks-old development. With this, it's been 3 days and it's been picked up by several mainstream media outlets.

FriendlySkies · « **Reply #1077 on:** July 19, 2012, 01:30:21 AM »

Figured I would post this about my friend who is in the air right now..

"A certain FlyerTalker is now in the Air somewhere over the Pacific. I'm sorry but I can't reveal details as to departure city and destination. But trust me, this is not a drill. The FT will post on this thread once on or over American soil.

Sorry for not mentioning the name of this FT. But we have one of us already in the air!

PS: Seems like United is serving a 2006 Champagne on that flight in F... Yeah, no krug/Dom but better than a California sparkling wine! "

They had no problems getting a BP or boarding the flight.

AsherO · « **Reply #1078 on:** July 19, 2012, 01:31:24 AM »

Quote from: FriendlySkies on July 19, 2012, 01:30:21 AM

Figured I would post this about my friend who is in the air right now..

"A certain FlyerTalker is now in the Air somewhere over the Pacific. I'm sorry but I can't reveal details as to departure city and destination. But trust me, this is not a drill. The FT will post on this thread once on or over American soil.

Sorry for not mentioning the name of this FT. But we have one of us already in the air!

PS: Seems like United is serving a 2006 Champagne on that flight in F... Yeah, no krug/Dom but better than a California sparkling wine! "

They had no problems getting a BP or boarding the flight.

Congrats, and welcome to DDF!

FriendlySkies · « **Reply #1079 on:** July 19, 2012, 01:32:33 AM »

Quote from: AsherO on July 19, 2012, 01:31:24 AM

Congrats, and welcome to DDF!

Thanks!

Poll

Did you catch the 4 mile hong kong deal and book and get ticketed??

Author Topic: PRICING MISTAKE: 4 miles from Hong Kong (Read 297812 times)