Travel

United forces another passenger off...

  • Last Updated:
  • Feb 14th, 2018 8:45 pm
Tags:
[OP]
Deal Addict
Feb 22, 2016
1504 posts
827 upvotes
Raggie wrote:
Feb 2nd, 2018 7:11 pm
Same. I trust booking thru Expedia or Orbitz more than directly with the hotel.
So you don't trust marriott.com if you are booking a Marriott hotel room? If you can't trust the owner to get your booking right, why stay with them?
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jul 29, 2005
6692 posts
1156 upvotes
Mississauga
EastGTARedFlagger wrote:
Feb 2nd, 2018 10:12 pm
So you don't trust marriott.com if you are booking a Marriott hotel room? If you can't trust the owner to get your booking right, why stay with them?
Did I stay at Marriott?
My food blog - Reggie The Food Critic.
[OP]
Deal Addict
Feb 22, 2016
1504 posts
827 upvotes
Raggie wrote:
Feb 2nd, 2018 10:26 pm
Did I stay at Marriott?
You can replace Marriott with Sheraton, Hilton, Best Western, Choice, etc... the same point is being made, which is that you believe Hilton is incapable of handling bookings in its own properties. Which makes no sense at all.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 6, 2002
7246 posts
505 upvotes
Toronto
McKinsey wrote:
Jan 28th, 2018 5:22 am
You’d be surprised what you see in the back end on the business processes and rules implemented in a system.

I use an agent myself, nothing stops me from calling them to cancel my ticket myself.

Here is my analysis based on the limited information:
-traveler asked landlord to book a ticket
-landlord used a 3rd party
-neither are exactly savyy travelers
-traveler asked United to make a change
-United comply rather than tell them to go F themselves and call the 3rd party as they should have
-After the “change”, this triggered an alert in the 3rd party’s system
-I would hope that the 3rd party would have tried to contact the traveler or landlord by phone during that time
-Their system cancelled the ticket as a fraud prevention method
-This is updates real-time in the system which now the traveler no longer has a “coupon” for the flight

At the end of the day, vote with your wallet. You can avoid United like me, even if they are several hundreds cheaper than AC for example. After the David Dao incident, United’s revenue increased as well as their stock.
How did this thread turn into hotel discussions (not aimed at quoted above but rather all the recent posts) this is about airlines. Not hotels. big difference. Planes take off, other rooms can be had, other hotels as a worst case. Different when flying around.

I think McKinsey nailed it, between multiple uninformed ticket buyers, the flyer not flying on their own credit card. Some sort of story about changes. As much as I don't want to say this, United really hasn't had an opportunity to tell their side of the story.

I think we are all a little spoiled being savy RFD'ers in that booking simple domestic flights even in distress isn't really that big of a deal. this bereaved person needed their landlord to book tickets (landlord? not a friend? strange they specifically say landlord). Many people in the USA just don't fly, don't travel don't leave their state etc...

The fact that the landlord booked via a 3rd party vs a bereavement fare from the airline (which isn't always a good deal) adds to the fact that whoever kicked them off maybe didn't know the dire circumstances.

Really tough to judge here, overall I think airlines need to treat passengers a little bit better, or at least have an understandable set of rules that cover these situations and more importantly have a plain English card to handle these situations, one that outlines the specific reason the situation is happening and why. Maybe a bolded section if you do not comply you are potentially committing x crime.

Then again airfares are cheap, if we start demanding rights which serve a small portion of situations, we all pay higher fares. The average idiot should be able to fly without having to hang out on rfd and flyer talk to figure out whats right and wrong.

Call me a coward but airports and planes, I don't raise my voice, and I think in a removal situation I'd lip off maybe once or twice before being a sheep and doing what is told of me. Not cool, but flying is way too handy to be in the bad books with airlines/authorities.

I'm really starting to like this Gabor Lukacs guy, I like how he tells the airlines to sue him confidently and constantly questions our airline authorities. He seems like a real pain in the butt for airlines. Go Gabor!

http://business.financialpost.com/trans ... oublemaker

Interesting story about his upbringing too.

Also recently I flew spirit FLL-IAG when I boarded the plane the gate agent wasn't scanning tickets and doing a rough look at ID (pointless without look at ticket?) and although its a domestic flight, that wing of FLL handles lots of central America flights. Not making this up but its possible united didn't scan boarding passes. Although this was the first and only time I've seen this (nov 2017)
Did I post something that interests you? Feel free to PM further questions.
[OP]
Deal Addict
Feb 22, 2016
1504 posts
827 upvotes
GangStarr wrote:
Feb 3rd, 2018 4:52 am
I think McKinsey nailed it, between multiple uninformed ticket buyers, the flyer not flying on their own credit card. Some sort of story about changes. As much as I don't want to say this, United really hasn't had an opportunity to tell their side of the story.
[...]
Then again airfares are cheap, if we start demanding rights which serve a small portion of situations, we all pay higher fares.
[...]
I'm really starting to like this Gabor Lukacs guy, I like how he tells the airlines to sue him confidently and constantly questions our airline authorities. He seems like a real pain in the butt for airlines. Go Gabor!
Total agreement on me. The problem is in those last 2 parts I quoted from you. Sure, in a perfect world Gabor would be the federal Transport Minister and would introduce and pass all sorts of bills to give us what we want -- no bumping, minimum 34 inch seat pitch and 18 inch seat width, no fees on water or hand baggage, 1 free checked bag per ticket, and so on.... But guess who ultimately will pay for it? Won't be the government, won't be the airlines. It'll be the one paying the bills, the customers. Just like hiking the minimum wage and changing employment standards -- great for the underpaid workers in such jobs but, again, ultimately the customers will pay for it.

In a way I feel Gabor is a wasted talent. Only a small minority of the population absolutely NEEDS to fly. I wish he would have been the whistleblower for the bread price-fixing scandal rather than the Weston family throwing their competitors/co-conspirators under the bus and winning immunity. I wish he would fight the dairy and poultry cartels. I'd rather he have used his energies to go after that kind of thing, which would benefit a lot more people.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jul 29, 2005
6692 posts
1156 upvotes
Mississauga
EastGTARedFlagger wrote:
Feb 2nd, 2018 11:41 pm
You can replace Marriott with Sheraton, Hilton, Best Western, Choice, etc... the same point is being made, which is that you believe Hilton is incapable of handling bookings in its own properties. Which makes no sense at all.
Another time I had booked accommodations directly with a hotel in London almost a year in advance (prices are better the earlier you book). About a couple of months before our trip, they somehow increased the amount owing without my knowledge. Really stressed us out.
My food blog - Reggie The Food Critic.
Member
Jan 8, 2012
382 posts
127 upvotes
Williams Lake
If you're aware of the risks, and capable of dealing with the problems that might arise, booking with a third party is fine.

Whether that is for flights or rooms, or tours, or any other aspect of travel.

This is RFD, where the deal is the thing.

And determing what is a deal and what is not means weighing the pluses and minuses of any situation.

Adopting a "never book with a third party" stance means you're potentially missing the deal.
Deal Fanatic
Sep 21, 2004
8037 posts
672 upvotes
I travel a decent amount for pleasure and work, family and solo. How I book varies depending on the circumstances, destination, etc. There is no hard fast rule because different situations can benefit from different bookings.

Eg. My work travel (flights only) is booked through an agency. Corporate rules, I have no say. I find the flights I want and pass it over to be booked. Never had an issue. Leading up to the flights I deal with the agency and once the flight commences I deal with the airline.

Eg. Personal travel, standard bookings I book direct. Price difference is negligible. Easiest to work with the airline directly.

Eg. Personal travel, price errors. I book with whatever engine will allow me the booking. I was part of the group that got in on the Etihad price error. We flew to the Seychelles for $600rt. Only way to book this was via Orbitz and that's what I did. A few months after our tickets were confirmed, Etihad changed the flight schedules. I called Etihad up directly and was able to arrange for a free stopover for 2 days out and 2 days back. Family had an amazing experience that simply couldn't have been booked directly.

Eg. Hotels - standard large chain. I book direct as I am a Marriott gold and enjoy the perks of loyalty. Between Marriott/spg /delta properties, I'm sufficiently covered availability. Their policies are good for booking at a good price. I collect points for future travel. No reason to not book direct. It's also still combinable with Ebates for some extra cash back.

Eg. Hotels+airfare, all inclusive. We went to Mexico this last Christmas as a family and I did not book direct. It was significantly cheaper to book a package with Expedia. I also wanted to book with Expedia in case something went wrong at the resort. Large chains have plenty of customer service, etc to resolve issues when something happens. The small resort we went to would be a different matter. I wanted a TICO registered travel agency to work with for extra leverage.

Ymmv but I think when it comes to travel,its best to review and analyze on a case by case basis. Depending on what you're trying to do, there's probably an optimal way of going about it and it's not always the same.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 6, 2002
7246 posts
505 upvotes
Toronto
EastGTARedFlagger wrote:
Feb 3rd, 2018 6:22 am
Total agreement on me. The problem is in those last 2 parts I quoted from you. Sure, in a perfect world Gabor would be the federal Transport Minister and would introduce and pass all sorts of bills to give us what we want -- no bumping, minimum 34 inch seat pitch and 18 inch seat width, no fees on water or hand baggage, 1 free checked bag per ticket, and so on.... But guess who ultimately will pay for it? Won't be the government, won't be the airlines. It'll be the one paying the bills, the customers. Just like hiking the minimum wage and changing employment standards -- great for the underpaid workers in such jobs but, again, ultimately the customers will pay for it.

In a way I feel Gabor is a wasted talent. Only a small minority of the population absolutely NEEDS to fly. I wish he would have been the whistleblower for the bread price-fixing scandal rather than the Weston family throwing their competitors/co-conspirators under the bus and winning immunity. I wish he would fight the dairy and poultry cartels. I'd rather he have used his energies to go after that kind of thing, which would benefit a lot more people.
Agreed, it would be nice to have those crazy benefits Europe has, but then again planes are competing with trains in Europe and trains are very reliable particularly in western Europe. I don't think we will ever see such gracious rules and of course if we do, someone has to pay.

Gabor is insisting airlines payout when they are required to, and it seems they do their best to mislead and downplay what they are responsible for. Airlines should be upfront when they mess up according to our weak rules. I've only once been stuck on a tarmac in Montreal for a long time and luckily was the last flight out before the cancelled the rest of the flights. Really bad weather, was happy I got where I was going.

Outside of weather if airlines are in clear violation of the weak rules we have in this country, they need to be upfront and pay out. Not try and trick rookie travellers. Gabor has called out the CTA numerous times for not doing what they should be doing, why do we have useless branches of government like the CTA when the yare clearly on the airlines side? May as well disband them.
Did I post something that interests you? Feel free to PM further questions.
[OP]
Deal Addict
Feb 22, 2016
1504 posts
827 upvotes
GangStarr wrote:
Feb 3rd, 2018 2:24 pm
Gabor has called out the CTA numerous times for not doing what they should be doing, why do we have useless branches of government like the CTA when they are clearly on the airlines side? May as well disband them.
The CTA is to the airlines what the CRTC is to the telecoms. But at least you can say the CTA plays its part to screw all the customers equally, rather than favoring one airline over the others. By comparison the CRTC is in one particular telecom's back pocket, and it isn't Bell, Telus, or Shaw. Part of why I refuse to do business with that one.

Definitely Gabor would be helping more Canadians by going that route vs the airlines.
[OP]
Deal Addict
Feb 22, 2016
1504 posts
827 upvotes
GangStarr wrote:
Feb 3rd, 2018 2:24 pm
Agreed, it would be nice to have those crazy benefits Europe has, but then again planes are competing with trains in Europe and trains are very reliable particularly in western Europe. I don't think we will ever see such gracious rules and of course if we do, someone has to pay.
And if the U.S. based airlines get their way, you definitely would not want to be flying with any of them in the near future:

https://www.inc.com/chris-matyszczyk/th ... ngers.html

Top