"She Boarded a Plane to See Her Dying Mother. Then Her (UA) Ticket Was Canceled"

[ExGingi]

Undoubtedly, the OTA is responsible here. The arguments is just if UA deserves bad PR for this or not. CMIIW

United bears the responsibility for its agents at the airport acting adversely first, and only later inquiring (maybe). They bear the responsibility for executing a rigid policy rather than using empathetic human judgment.

[yandmk]

United bears the responsibility for its agents at the airport acting adversely first, and only later inquiring (maybe). They bear the responsibility for executing a rigid policy rather than using empathetic human judgment.

Rigid policy? This passengers ticket was voided. (and possibly even after she boarded, as discussed)

[ExGingi]

Rigid policy? This passengers ticket was voided. (and possibly even after she boarded, as discussed)

Exactly. So following policy rigidly would (possibly) call for removing the passenger. Using some human touch would actually try to engage the passenger and try to sense if there was deliberate fraud involved, and possibly discovering the situation/circumstances.

[chff]

United bears the responsibility for its agents at the airport acting adversely first, and only later inquiring (maybe). They bear the responsibility for executing a rigid policy rather than using empathetic human judgment.

Yes, United should have showed sympathy, after they removed her they should have kept the plane waiting a few minutes and give the women an option to buy a new ticket, but in this industry sadly this is too much to ask. See when it does happen it makes national news that a pilot waited

Delta once had a YT ad named "UP" and at the end it said "And never let the rules overrule common sense" and it showed the gate agent re-opening an aircraft door to let a person with crutches board. Now for some reason they pulled the ad and redone without that line

http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2012/03/09/deltas-awesome-new-tv-ad/

[yandmk]

Using some human touch would actually try to engage the passenger and try to sense if there was deliberate fraud involved, and possibly discovering the situation/circumstances.

My question is one of legal liability. What do the contracts of the OTAs state? When something goes wrong, would both the airline and the OTA be named as defendants?

Anyone said United are tzadikim? Question was who was responsible in this situation.

[ExGingi]

Delta once had a YT ad named "UP" and at the end it said "And never let the rules overrule common sense" and it showed the gate agent re-opening an aircraft door to let a person with crutches board. Now for some reason they pulled the ad and redone without that line

http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2012/03/09/deltas-awesome-new-tv-ad/

So we are (almost) on the same page (I think that once a passenger is seated, things should be handled a little differently, and if in doubt one should err on the side of the passenger. Though IINM there was a connection to be made here, which makes things a little more complex).

[ExGingi]

Anyone said United are tzadikim? Question was who was responsible in this situation.

That is a question for lawyers, and will probably never reach a courtroom. United is likely to try and do damage control, which will definitely be more costly (unless true lessons learned) than allowing someone to fly for free.

[David Smith]

You seem to feel that the airline didn't do anything wrong, and that the liability lies 100% with the OTA (correct me if I am misunderstanding you). I beg to differ, and posit that at the point that a person was allowed to board, the airline assumes (full) responsibility. If they have an issue with the ticket being voided, they should address it with whoever voided it.

For all practical purposes, the passenger cancelled the ticket. The TA is an agent of the passenger, not the airline. Are you saying that the airline is required to accommodate a passenger that boarded a flight and then cancelled their ticket?

[ExGingi]

For all practical purposes, the passenger cancelled the ticket. The TA is an agent of the passenger, not the airline. Are you saying that the airline is required to accommodate a passenger that boarded a flight and then cancelled their ticket?

No.

But once a passenger was previously allowed to board try to inquire about the cancelation. And if passenger seems genuinely ignorant about the cancelation, use some human judgment about how to handle the situation, rather than just rigidly follow rules.

I can't recall at the moment where I read it, nor which retailer it was (I think it was Nordstrom) but there's a story told about this person whose feet were two different sizes. He walked into the store and was going to purchase two pairs, just so he could have a shoe of the right size on each foot. The salesperson that rang him up only charged for one pair, saying that it's not the customer's fault that they didn't have one pair that matched both his feet.

[chff]

[/b]try to inquire about the cancelation

That info is not always available (agents contact etc)

use some human judgment about how to handle the situation, rather than just rigidly follow rules.

I can't recall at the moment where I read it, nor which retailer it was (I think it was Nordstrom) but there's a story told about this person whose feet were two different sizes. He walked into the store and was going to purchase two pairs, just so he could have a shoe of the right size on each foot. The salesperson that rang him up only charged for one pair, saying that it's not the customer's fault that they didn't have one pair that matched both his feet.

Wrong industry to ask a bit

[chff]

http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2018/01/27/woman-visiting-dying-mother-kicked-off-united-flight/

Perhaps worst of all, the gate agent sounds like s/he should have shown a lot more compassion. While my initial instinct is to say that the gate agent is the most wrong here for his/her lack of compassion, I’m not sure it’s that straightforward. If the ticket were voided, the gate agent couldn’t simply put someone on the flight without a ticket. It’s not specifically about the money, but rather about having a passenger on the flight who doesn’t appear on the manifest. I doubt the gate agent could have done it if s/he wanted to. So presumably a ticket needed to be issued and/or restored, and that would have taken a significant amount of time. A delay on this flight could have lead to a bunch of other passengers misconnecting, and who knows if other people were dealing with equally dire circumstances. Furthermore, United claims that the plane had left by the time the landlord offered to buy a new ticket.

I have nothing but sympathy for the lady who lost her mother. I don’t think anyone was being intentionally malicious here, and based on what we know the only party I can blame here is the gate agent, and that’s for how she allegedly spoke to the passenger, more than anything else.

[chff]

This doesn't seem like a big OTA. This seems like a guy that has a website and then issues the tickets the regular way thru consolidators, as far as the airline it's a regular agent.

Airlines in general have very strict rules for OTA, like Delta you need to have special permission to sell online, JetBlue recently banned many OTAs

I don't believe this would have happened with a big OTA

I just took my first look at this site, far from an OTA...
https://www.travelerhelpdesk.com/index.html

[ilherman]

Trying to understand the facts. Afaik it's impossible to void a tkt when it's in C status. @chff am I missing anything ?  Especially once someone boarded

[chff]

Trying to understand the facts. Afaik it's impossible to void a tkt when it's in C status. @chff am I missing anything ?  Especially once someone boarded

016 you delete the seat assignment and it gets unchecked, or you uncheck on UA.com

Funny question? Especially with UA84/90, you never done this when the pax is after security?
Someone told me he did it when the pax was on board...

[smart man]

No.

But once a passenger was previously allowed to board try to inquire about the cancelation. And if passenger seems genuinely ignorant about the cancelation, use some human judgment about how to handle the situation, rather than just rigidly follow rules.

I can't recall at the moment where I read it, nor which retailer it was (I think it was Nordstrom) but there's a story told about this person whose feet were two different sizes. He walked into the store and was going to purchase two pairs, just so he could have a shoe of the right size on each foot. The salesperson that rang him up only charged for one pair, saying that it's not the customer's fault that they didn't have one pair that matched both his feet.

Was Nordstrom, but you can't expect all companies to be like them.

[yuneeq]

Undoubtedly, the OTA is responsible here. The arguments is just if UA deserves bad PR for this or not. CMIIW

What about the fact that UA changed the ticket and reassured the passenger that it was ok?
And then when things go bad they don’t give a darn? Or the fact that they have no sympathy to fix issues they themselves caused?

[yandmk]

What about the fact that UA changed the ticket and reassured the passenger that it was ok?

It was ok.

And then when things go bad they don’t give a darn? Or the fact that they have no sympathy to fix issues they themselves caused?

They did?
Airlines are allowed to change tickets issued by agencies, upon request from the passenger. They generally don't like to touch tickets issued by agencies, but they are allowed to and this is done (probably hundreds of times) every day.

[Dan]

I've never heard of an OTA doing this, has anyone else?

It is shocking that UA would take a change fee, board a pax, and still allow a void. This is a ticket under airline control.

[ExGingi]

I've never heard of an OTA doing this, has anyone else?

It is shocking that UA would take a change fee, board a pax, and still allow a void. This is a ticket under airline control.

Didn't notice if a change fee was mentioned, but as I have been saying, once the passenger was allowed to board, this is (or at least should be) under airline control. And even if they allowed anyone else to make changes to the PNR after this fact, they have (at the very least a) moral responsibility. My argument is similar to the one where Iberia stranded underage passengers in Madrid.

[yandmk]

I've never heard of an OTA doing this, has anyone else?

I just took my first look at this site, far from an OTA...
https://www.travelerhelpdesk.com/index.html