PRICING MISTAKE: 4 miles from Hong Kong

[PlatinumGuy]

I believe argument #1 is at the top.
And don't understand how do you know its irrelevant, the receipt was printed in error, so. what? As long it stated the correct amount at the begining of the purchase.

I don't know anything. But I think online sites often apply discounts etc at checkout. Even if that weren't so, it's clear that the checkout page shows 2 different prices. What this means is that the customer knew it was a mistake, which is irrelevant. Who says the higher price applies? I would think the final 'total' price overrides it.


 There's another argument (#6) going around FT that the DoT only bars the airline from raising the price, but doesn't say they can't cancel it.

This is obvious BS. If they cancel a ticket, they have to provide alternative accommodation.



@elawyer, I'm writing all of this from my BlackBerry, so I'm not so careful with editing. I'm definitely curious to hear your opinion about what I said.

@ platinumguy

We know each other and I dont mean any offense in what I am going to write.

But because of people like you this deal will never get honoured. You booked 9 tickets... I know its fun flying first, but come on. You are spitting in their face... They see that and say, this guy is taking major advantage and only flying for the hell of it

I agree with you 100%. All I'm saying is that techinically, they probably have to.

I do have moral qualms about raping them like this, however the airlines in the US take advantage of us in many circumstances due to regulations keeping out competitors, etc. So, I decided I can take advantge of regulation too. 




I think we can all agree that there is a reason not a single ticket has been cancelled yet (one was cancelled and reinstated). I'm speculating they are trying to find out what the DoT thinks about it.

[chuchem]

I am not talking about this case, I am just talking in general.

Sometimes is better to settle with less, then loose all.

[AJK]

@PG - All the pros and cons that you wrote about their their possible arguments go out the window when it comes up that it's a unilateral mistake on the contract (you KNEW that they didn't really mean to charge 4 miles) and therefore they have a legal right to void the contract (as I wrote in greater detail here).

And I responded to that argument here.

[PlatinumGuy]

I am not talking about this case, I am just talking in general.

Sometimes is better to settle with less, then loose all.

That is true. On FT, a guy claims he did 45 tix. I find it hard to believe they will honor those who only booked 1, but not those who booked more.

You're right if only 10 tickets were made, or even 1000 by 1000 people they would be more likely to honor it, however since other would definitely do multiple bookings, I can't see why it doesn't make sense for me to make many.

FYI, I only booked trips I was planing on going on, I didn't just make random bookings.

[AJK]

2) The 4 miles were not deducted, thus the full price agreed was not 'paid'.

Setting aside the rest, this argument is unavailing. If this were the case, UA (or any other airline for that matter) could simply wait until 15 minutes before boarding (or even later) to "exact payment." This would give them carte blanche to cancel any tickets as "they were not paid for." Meh.

It doesn't make much sense, which is why I doubt this DoT reg is legal.

Just because DoT regulations don't make sense to you does not ipso facto mean they're illegal. Google 'federal preemption."

[Q274]

FYI, I only booked trips I was planing on going on, I didn't just make random bookings.

i can vouch for that- i had actually spoke to him a few days prior to this ordeal abt his "trips"

[PlatinumGuy]

I meant in contradiction to traditional contract law. This I don't know at all, but I would think there would be a way to strike it down. What do you think?

[AJK]

I meant in contradiction to traditional contract law. This I don't know at all, but I would think there would be a way to strike it down. What do you think?

Google 'federal preemption."

It is by its very nature contradictory.

[e-Lawyer]

@elawyer, I'm writing all of this from my BlackBerry, so I'm not so careful with editing. I'm definitely curious to hear your opinion about what I said. I agree with you 100%. All I'm saying is that techinically, they probably have to.

I am not a transportation lawyer. However, I don't believe that there is any on point / direct precedent for this scenario. As a result, I think this is all speculation. Ultimately I would wait for United to truly make the next move, not including a posting on FT by UA insider.

On the one hand this was a price mistake -loosely defined. On the other hand...... there is no strong "other hand argument."

Regardless of the law, if you want to do more than file a complaint with the DOT, it will cost time and money which many people cannot afford.

[PlatinumGuy]

 

It is by its very nature contradictory.

So what happens if they say when a flight leaves a minute late, they have to give every passenger $1,000,000?

[JEWDA]

I believe argument #1 is at the top.
And don't understand how do you know its irrelevant, the receipt was printed in error, so what? As long it stated the correct amount at the begining of the purchase.

How does United know what it said when I was booking, all they have now is the receipt which says 4 miles.

[Q274]

How does United know what it said when I was booking, all they have now is the receipt which says 4 miles.

i think the receipt said both

[chuchem]

A guy on Ft made a valid point, think of the whole thing the other way around.

What wouls you have done if UA charges you 200000 miles instead of 20000 miles, you didnt realize that it said a extra 0 and were charged to much. Would you also say, to bad, I accepted it and did a binding agreement with them

[AsherO]

  So what happens if they say when a flight leaves a minute late, they have to give every passenger $1,000,000?

1. They won't do that.
2. There are probably more specific guidelines than that, I'm sure even the ambiguous wording in the DoT regulations isn't that ambiguous.
3. Since when would the fine be paid to the consumer?

A guy on Ft made a valid point, think of the whole thing the other way around.

What wouls you have done if UA charges you 200000 miles instead of 20000 miles, you didnt realize that it said a extra 0 and were charged to much. Would you also say, to bad, I accepted it and did a binding agreement with them

Unfortunately for UA, the DoT regulations are skewed against them in this case (if they apply). In any case, UA offers the FFP to build goodwill and repeat-business, so I'm sure they'd credit you back in that instance, and theoretically you can make the same argument the other way around (like the Karma guy Dan linked to), but it's not the same.

[PlatinumGuy]

i think the receipt said both

Not it most cases. However, a simple look at FT will show them all they need to know.

A guy on Ft made a valid point, think of the whole thing the other way around.

What wouls you have done if UA charges you 200000 miles instead of 20000 miles, you didnt realize that it said a extra 0 and were charged to much. Would you also say, to bad, I accepted it and did a binding agreement with them

I agree that doesn't make sense. But the regulation applies to mistakes by the airline and not to the customer.

[PlatinumGuy]

1. They won't do that.
2. There are probably more specific guidelines than that, I'm sure even the ambiguous wording in the DoT regulations isn't that ambiguous.
3. Since when would the fine be paid to the consumer?

1. Yeah. I didn't think they will

2. I'm suggesting those guidelines may also outlaw this regulation

3. I said 'if'.

[AJK]

  So what happens if they say when a flight leaves a minute late, they have to give every passenger $1,000,000?

That's like asking what happens if DoT says for every cancelled ticket, Smisek has to wear a panda suit at work for a day. The fact is that's not the regulation that was passed.

[PlatinumGuy]

That's like asking what happens if DoT says for every cancelled ticket, Smisek has to wear a panda suit at work. The fact is that's not the regulation that was passed.

But if it was, they would be required to comply? Wouldn't a court be a able to override that?

[AsherO]

1. Yeah. I didn't think they will

2. I'm suggesting those guidelines may also outlaw this regulation

3. I said 'if'.

I really don't get your point. It's like asking what happens if the government passes a law that you have to send your right arm and youngest child to the President in a lime green box via UPS ground.

[JEWDA]

i think the receipt said both

Not rly