United Airlines
One of this column’s goals is to point out nuisances in the air travel system and help you avoid them or minimize their negative impact. As I welcome the many readers who have become subscribers since my book, “Decoding Air Travel,” came out, I’d like to tell you about one such nuisance.
As my regular readers are well aware by now, I always know in what booking class a future ticket will be issued. I search for availability in that booking class and choose flights with available seats. That’s why, even if I have to make a reservations with an agent on the phone, I know how much the ticket will cost before I make the call.
The only time when this strategy fails is when I need an airline to book a seat on a partner-carrier, and the ticketing airline’s agent can’t “see” availability in the respective booking class in the partner’s inventory. I’m not talking about award seats, so comparisons with United’s StarNet blocking practice would be misplaced — this is about revenue tickets fully paid for with money, not miles.
So why don’t agents see availability in a certain booking class or fare bucket on another carrier? It usually has to do with the Global Distribution System (GDS) they use to book tickets. For example, United currently uses Apollo and Lufthansa Amadeus. Although most of the time the two systems show identical data, there may be occasional delays, and a United agent may not see a Lufthansa seat displayed as available on Amadeus.
I can explain most things in the airline world, but British Airways and Iberia posed a new challenge last month that left me utterly perplexed. The two companies and Oneworld alliance members merged last fall, and they both use Amadeus, which would mean that their agents should see the same data on their screens — at least it would mean so to a logically thinking person. That person, however, would be wrong.
I was booking a trip for a friend, who is also a client, from Washington to Africa in Business Class. He has Gold status with BA and wanted to fly BA to London and connect to Madrid and on to Africa on Iberia.
According to the BA website, his destination doesn’t exist — many airline sites don’t show cities they don’t fly to, but it’s high time BA added the airports served by Iberia now that they are one company. Fine, I thought, what’s the other option? Naturally, the Iberia site, as the Washington-London BA flight could be booked as an Iberia code-share. There was one problem, though: Iberia priced the desired itinerary almost $4,000 higher than BA.
Clearly, the only thing left to do was to call BA — an exercise I don’t look forward to because of the long waiting time. When I finally got an agent at BA’s call center in Jacksonville, Fla., she said there were no available seats in Business Class on Iberia’s flight from Madrid to the African destination, which I’m not revealing on purpose.
I thought she was joking. Amadeus was showing seven open seats in the full-fare Business booking class I needed, which is J class on Iberia. BA doesn’t code-share that particular flight, so it had to be booked a “true” Iberia flight number.
I started scratching my head. How was it possible for BA’s Amadeus-powered computers to show no seats at all when there were seven? Perhaps it had to do with the point of sale (POS) — I’ve seen airlines alter the inventory on the same flight, depending on where you view the data. But both the BA agent in Florida and I were in the U.S. Still, I changed the POS from the U.S. to Europe, but there was no difference. I also called Iberia to verify the seats were indeed available, and Iberia’s agent in Miami saw exactly what I did.
The BA agent tried to explain the discrepancy by telling me that Iberia hadn’t “given” BA any seats, but I immediately asked her to stop making stuff up. There is no such thing as one airline “giving seats” to another — anyone can book a seat if the operating airline has published it in its inventory, even if the second carrier is not a partner of the first.
Despite all the mystery and frustration, that wasn’t the end of the world, I thought. I asked the BA agent to waitlist the segment in question. My plan was to call back in case another agent could find a way to “see” the seat I needed, and if that failed, I would call Iberia and have them clear the waitlist, since their agent had confirmed availability earlier.
I’ve done just that with Star Alliance carriers several times. For example, Singapore Airlines tends to be stingy with D class availability on intercontinental flights. Star uses D class on round-the-world Business Class tickets, and Singapore deems those fixed fares too cheap. If I issue a ticket with another carrier, it might waitlist a Singapore segment. I’d then call Singapore and ask a supervisor to clear the waitlist if he or she found it appropriate. I’ve also done that with Lufthansa, Japan’s All Nippon Airways, South Korea’s Asiana and others.
However, that simple procedure proved too hard for the merged BA and Iberia, both of which use Amadeus, as mentioned earlier. When I called Iberia back, the agent saw available J seats but said that only BA could clear the waitlist. Except that BA couldn’t, because its agents saw no seats. The Iberia agent’s claim sounded odd, because Iberia controls its own inventory, and I thought it had a way to indicate electronically to BA that a waitlisted seat can be confirmed. So I called back but got the same response from another agent.
Then I phoned BA again and asked the agent to call Iberia, hoping the waitlist could be cleared that way. After keeping me on hold for about 20 minutes, the agent hung up without coming back on the line.
I’d had enough of both carriers’ nonsense, so I took matters in my own hands. I called Iberia yet again and asked the agent to book just that one segment in question separately from the original booking. He gave me the new record locator, and I called BA again, explained the situation and asked that agent if she could incorporate the second booking into the initial one and issue the ticket that way.
She couldn’t but a supervisor was able to do it. Part of me was grateful, but the other part was frustrated that the previous BA agents I’d spoken with never offered me the option I eventually thought of, and wasted hours of my time.
What sort of a merger have BA and Iberia created if they can’t perform the most basic airline function — booking available seats on each other’s flights?
Related stories:
British Air loses bags on $12,000 ticket
The peculiarities of airline agent training
American’s antiquated ticketing process
United fliers hit by pre-merger changes
Continue reading about British Air, Iberia’s dysfunctional merger
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) seems semi-serious about false airfare advertising. It fined several airlines this week for violating its rules of disclosing taxes and fees, but it still tolerates the disgraceful “one way based on a required round-trip purchase” manipulation practiced by some carriers.
Continental Airlines was fined $120,000 for failing to include fuel surcharges in fares listed on its website. US Airways and TACA, the Central American company, must pay $45,000 and $55,000, respectively, for the same wrongdoing — indicating that fares didn’t include taxes and surcharges, but not disclosing actual amounts.
“Consumers have a right to know the full price they will be paying for airfares,” said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “We established airline price advertising rules to protect the consumer, and will take enforcement action when these rules are violated.”
Starting on Oct. 24, DOT will require airlines to include all taxes, surcharges and government fees in advertised fares — not just using asterisks and fine-print explanations.
However, advertising only half of a ticket price will continue. As I’ve written before, I have nothing against listing one-way fares — when they can be truly bought as such. To this day, American Airlines, Delta, British Airways, Lufthansa and others promote only half of mandatory round-trip purchases on their websites.
In fact, Lufthansa doesn’t even bother to spell out the words, using instead “OW based on RT purchase.” The German carrier doesn’t do those gimmicks on its European sites because of strict European Union rules.
In March, I wrote that United Airlines became the first major U.S. carrier to begin advertising predominantly round-trip fares on its site. Continental has since followed suit. US Airways still uses a mixed method.
One would hope this item will be next on DOT’s agenda.
Related stories:
Proper airfare advertising comes to U.S.
Fare sales often lost in translation
When an airfare sale is not quite a sale
Airlines find new way to overcharge fliers
Continue reading about DOT cracks down on airfare advertising
American Airlines has been trying to cut booking costs by fighting to reduce the power of the Global Distribution Systems (GDS) — and the high fees they charge. However, its own ticketing process remains surprisingly outdated for one of the world’s largest carriers, and far from being cost-efficient.
It wouldn’t be difficult for American to save millions of dollars a year. All it needs to do is implement instant ticketing, which most other major airlines have had for years. The carrier says it plans to introduce instant ticketing on its website later this year, but it has no intention to allow phone reservation agents to issue tickets at this time.
“Several technology improvement processes are currently underway, which will ultimately allow instant ticketing for various functions. It won’t happen all at once, but will phase in during the second half of this year, with everything completed by the end of the year under the present schedule,” American spokesman Tim Smith said in an e-mail message.
“For now, our reservations group and its agents will continue to use their existing ticketing system,” he added. “They will, of course, monitor the situation once it’s up and running on AA.com to determine whether any changes are needed with the reservations ticketing model.”
Currently, when you purchase a ticket on AA.com or by phone, your reservation is queued up for ticketing by a dedicated department, which is the only one authorized to process credit cards. If your card is rejected, an employee is supposed to call you and let you know.
That happened to me last month — sort of. I bought a ticket on a Friday on AA.com for travel on the following Tuesday, which should have given it priority in the pipeline before reservations for later dates. But six hours later, the ticket wasn’t issued. I called American and was told there was a problem with the credit card. How was I supposed to know that? No one called or e-mailed to tell me. After I gave the agent a new credit card, it took another eight hours for the ticket to be issued.
In contrast, when you buy a ticket from other major airlines, including United, Emirates and British Airways, you get a ticket number right on the spot — both from phone agents and on their websites. If your credit card doesn’t go through, you are told immediately, so you can react. Just yesterday, I issued a ticket on the Emirates website — it took about 10 seconds.
Imagine how much money American would save if it eliminated the middleman — the so-called ticketing department — in every single purchase. Of course, every airline needs and has a ticketing department. But all those other carriers use it only in special cases, mostly when manual ticketing is required as a result of changing an existing ticket or when the computer fails to price out a ticket automatically.
There is actually another middleman when issuing American award tickets. After you make a purchase online or with an agent, it’s queued up first to the AAdvantage Customer Service. Why? Because that department deducts the miles from your account and verifies that your award complies with routing and other rules. Apparently, American has no trust in its dedicated AAdvantage agents or its automated computer system. Only after that is the reservation queued up to the ticketing department.
Last week, it took American four days to issue an award ticket. I was told that the AAdvantage Customer Service is closed on weekends. About the same time, I got a United award ticket — it took the United agent about five seconds to issue it.
Part of me is glad that many people have jobs, but the other part wonders why American is wasting so much money on creating work for two or three people when those functions can be easily accomplished by one employee.
“Any additional costs associated with our current system is offset by a different aspect of cost-savings for both the airline, the card issuer, and the cardholders,” said Smith, the spokesman. “The current process allows us to do additional card verification and transaction analysis that benefits all parties and help keep costs down. Simply put, less cost from fraud.”
Obviously, fraud is a major issue, but other airlines and companies have found more efficient ways to deal with it. Apparently, American recognizes that, too, since it plans to implement instant ticketing on its website.
Why does it matter when a ticket is issued? I’m told the American system is programmed to hold a reservation for seven days before it gets canceled, which is plenty of time. But what if a booking falls through the cracks, especially if there is a credit-card problem? In addition, if the itinerary includes flights on partner-carriers, those airlines may cancel their seats if they don’t get a ticket number from American by a certain deadline.
One huge advantage of AA.com is that it allows customers to hold a reservation for 24 hours for free before buying it. United’s decision last year to remove that option from its site has caused immense inconvenience to numerous customers. Most airlines, of course, don’t provide a “hold” option online, while others charge a fee for it. Sure, many carriers permit free refunds within 24 hours of ticketing, but that’s not the same thing.
Related stories:
American wins first battle in data war
Airlines, want better GDS model? Unite!
GDS travel-booking model faces change
New seminar on travel-booking war
Continue reading about American’s antiquated ticketing process
This should not be news, but it is: U.S. airlines have finally begun advertising some airfares properly, meaning they now show round-trip prices instead of the longtime marketing ploy of “each way based on a required round-trip purchase.” But those are just baby steps, as some taxes and fees are still being excluded.
When I wrote about false fare advertising in 2008, my copy editor at the Washington Times put this headline on my column: “Fare sales often lost in translation.” I compared the deliberately misleading airline practice to the mysterious “Twin Peaks” revelation “The owls are not what they seem.” I also wondered, If a round trip is required, why on earth is only half of the actual fare being advertised?
This month, United Airlines became the first major U.S. carrier to change its policy and advertise predominantly round-trip fares on its website — the only exceptions seem to be last-minute weekend specials. The airline is currently promoting five domestic and four international sales on its site, and they all include round-trip prices and fuel (YQ) surcharges — though some taxes and fees are excluded.
For example, a Business Class fare for a round trip from Los Angeles to Shanghai is shown as $3,513, while the total final price as of today is $3,572, if booked on nonstop flights. A round-trip Business Class fare from Washington to Rome is displayed as $2,411, and the final price is $2,460, if purchased today on nonstop flights. As you see, the differences are not that big.
All other carriers should follow suit. Continental and US Airways display some fares as round trips, but most of their advertising is still being done the old-fashioned way, as is American’s and Delta’s. Southwest, Alaska Airlines and Virgin America show one-way fares but don’t require round-trip purchases.
Although the Department of Transportation has looked into the issue and called on the industry not to deliberately mislead consumers, it has done nothing to stop the controversial practice. The European Union (EU), on the other hand, has been much more proactive on behalf of travelers. That’s why fares in Europe are advertised with the full ticket price.
Some of the European carriers that fly to the United States, such as Spain’s Iberia, are honoring the EU rules globally and displaying actual full prices on their U.S. websites as well. But others, such as British Airways, Air France and Lufthansa, while observing the rules on their home turf, have given in to the pressure from their U.S. competitors and adopted the “one-way based on a round-trip purchase” policy.
In January, all four above-mentioned European airlines offered the same fares from New York to London. The last three advertised $199, while Iberia showed $584, which is what the actual fare was, including all taxes and surcharges. Singapore Airlines, also having the guts to be honest with its customers, promoted a $586 fare from New York to Frankfurt that was truly the final price.
It’s high time the airline mentality of trying to trick customers changed once and for all.
Related stories:
Fare sales often lost in translation
When an airfare sale is not quite a sale
Airlines find new way to overcharge fliers
Continue reading about Proper airfare advertising comes to U.S.
As United and Continental prepare to become one airline, they are making changes that, though necessary, are affecting negatively their customers. One consequence is that upgrades on international flights will be harder to get in the short run, and more expensive in the long run.
The carriers announced last month that they would begin “cross-fleeting” — swapping routes in each other’s network — and some of those changes have already been loaded in their schedules. Both United and Continental will be serving certain routes in the next several months, but each of them is taking over other routes entirely.
For example, all Anchorage flying goes to Continental, as do the Washington-Paris and Washington-Amsterdam routes, now operated by United. The current Continental flights from Newark to Zurich and Brussels, as well as its Houston-Lima flights, will be flown by United.
That practice is not unusual in airline pre-merger situations. While the United-Continental merger was legally completed late last year, they will be operating as separate airlines until they secure a single certificate from the Federal Aviation Administration, which is expected to happen by early next year.
However, United and Continental are implementing the route changes before resolving some technical issues that will harm their customers.
If you are a United 1K flier and have system-wide upgrade certificates, you can’t use them on the previously United flights now operated by Continental — and the other way around. The same applies to your confirmed regional upgrade certificates on domestic flights. As of now, it’s technically impossible for the carriers’ reservations systems to accept upgrade certificates from the other airline’s frequent-flier program.
Mary Clark, a Continental spokeswoman in Houston, confirmed that certificates will be “carrier-specific” for the time being. “We are in the process of aligning the programs, and changes to the current policies will be announced as they are rolled out throughout the year. We aim to fully combine the programs by 2012.”
United is expected to adopt Continental’s reservations system eventually, but until then, there may be another way to resolve the issue. The carriers announced this week that miles can now be transferred between United and Continental accounts. I wonder if they can make it possible for upgrades to be transferred as well. It’s unclear if they looking into such an option yet.
There is another issue with the United system-wide upgrades whose impact is just now becoming apparent. For years, they have been allowed only on tickets booked in W class or higher, which makes S, T, L and K classes ineligible. Continental recently adopted the same rules.
This means that customers often have to spend hundreds of dollars more than the lowest available fare, just to qualify for an upgrade request — and if the upgrade doesn’t clear, they are left with a lot less money and the same coach seat they would have had if they had paid much less for it.
Things are getting even worse. In January, because of the merger, United added a 14th coach booking class, G, which was a regular published booking class on Continental, but on United it was previously an unpublished travel-industry discount class — it didn’t earn miles and was ineligible for upgrades.
Now, instead of four, there are five booking classes ineligible for system-wide upgrades. So what? you might ask — just a small technicality. Not quite. As a result of this change, W fares are getting more expensive. For example, a base fare of $800 that might have booked in W class before, now books in S or T. A few days ago, I helped a friend with a ticket from Washington to Bangkok, and the W base fare was more than $1,400 round trip — including taxes and surcharged, it came up to $1,900.
There is no question that fares have been going up for some time. A few years ago, a W fare to Bangkok was about $900, including taxes. In 2002, an H fare was $900. So the trend is clear and it didn’t start yesterday. But adding one more booking class makes things even worse.
It’s worth pointing out that American Airlines system-wide upgrades are allowed on all published booking classes.
Another negative change as a result of the United-Continental merger is that, similarly to the upgrades, discount vouchers from one airline cannot be used on the other. So if you want to use a United voucher for a ticket to Anchorage, you can’t, because United has given its seasonal service to Continental.
This week, the United website seems to be including Continental flights in electronic certificate-discounted itineraries, but the official policy hasn’t changed. It may be a website glitch, given that it also allows Lufthansa flights, and the vouchers’ terms and conditions specifically say that they are not valid on code-share flights.
One positive merger-related change is that United customers can now avoid StarNet blocking — it has diminished but still exists — by transferring their miles to Continental, which doesn’t block Star Alliance partner award seats.
NOTE: Several months after this column was published, United and Continental made it possible to use upgrades on flights operated by the other airline, including on mixed itineraries.
Related stories:
United, Continental execs at odds over loyalty program
United executive breaks old barriers
Keeping United international first class
Continue reading about United fliers hit by pre-merger changes
