Business History Books » Business Plans » United Stiffs Cancer Patient
United Stiffs Cancer Patient
Question:
Although you could say that United was completely _justified_ in their actions, I wouldn’t say it makes good business sense. They had an opportunity to make loyal customers out of that person’s family. Something very similar happened to me a few years back. I had purchased a round trip ticket from NYC to SFO on American and was then diagnosed with cancer. The airline promptly refunded my money, no hassles, no questions. Five months later, I was cured and booked another trip on American to SFO. Within the next year, I had to go back to SF on business 3 more times and booked the trips on American. I suppose they didn’t _have_ to do what they did. (And certainly, wouldn’t be worthy of flaming) But because they cooperated with me, I’ve given them my business for years.
Response:
: alter itineraries at the last minute." Only a ticket holder’s : death can justify a refund. Evidently, Mr. Billard is a victim of all the abuse the airlines have had to put up with throughout the years. Yes, it’s unfortunate, but others have abused the reservation system to the point that airlines have to take a hard stand on ticket refunds. A travel agent told me one time that some people will go as far a faking a death in their immediately family and supporting it with false documents to get a refund! (Now that’s pretty low.) Don’t blame United, blame all those SOBs that have caused the airlines to react so defensely. BTW, My dad who has since passed away was also a victim of this policy.
Response:
>Although you could say that United was completely _justified_ in >their actions, I wouldn’t say it makes good business sense. They >had an opportunity to make loyal customers out of that person’s >family.
Hold on. You’re saying that giving a $100 value certificate in lieu of a NON-REFUNDABLE ticket isn’t making people loyal? Quite legally and rightly UA could have told the customer that "Sorry, but bad luck" yet they gave him an option with a certificate. Sure, it wasn’t what he wanted, but it was a whole lot better than could have happened. I know when I read the original story I thought the UA folks were being pretty good about it. I mean all the fuss over a $118 fare. I’m sorry but for that money we folks can’t even get from Melbourne to Sydney ! 
As I said in another post it’s sad what happened to the poster, but UA were being pretty good when they didn’t have any obligation at all to try and help this guy. Oh, and he was upset about the conditions on the certificate. Well sure, there’s always conditions, but with not too much fuss you can usually meet them. If you want no restrictions you buy full fare (which next to nobody actually does anyway). >Something very similar happened to me a few years back. I had purchased >a round trip ticket from NYC to SFO on American and was then diagnosed >with cancer. The airline promptly refunded my money, no hassles, no >questions. Five months later, I was cured and booked another trip on >American to SFO. Within the next year, I had to go back to SF on business >3 more times and booked the trips on American.
Ah but was your ticket a non refundable ticket? This is the issue. I’m sure had the poster spent say $50 more (or whatever) the non-ref condition may not have existed. I’m not saying that it’s fair that he’d bought this ticket and then had such terrible news put on him – life is full of that – but he, IMHO, got a pretty good deal out of UA. -richard — Richard A. Muirden, Sys. Admin |Fan of Shostakovich, "Star Trek" and BOEING! Phone: (+61 3) 9660 3814 |I created alt.fan.shostakovich! Fly: UA,AN,WN http://www.rmit.edu.au/richard |Can *YOU* beat my 120 Shost CD’s? * 1995: Remembering 20 years since the death of Shostakovich (1906-75) *
Response:
(Story Deleted) I think that while United appears like the bad guy in this situation, they are just sticking by their policies. I’ve had 2 experiences with different airlines in the past 2 years (NW and DL) where I have been unable to take a trip due to medical reasons. NW offered me, as a prefered WorldPerks member, to take my old ticket and apply it to the next trip I wanted to take minus a $50 fee. DL said, "This was a non-refundable ticket. Sorry". While I wasn’t too happy about that, I accepted the loss of the $375 ticket. There was nothing I could do – it was NON-REFUNDABLE. One of the facets of such cheap airline tickets is that medical excuses are now a thing of the past. I think that it is worthwile to pay less if that one time you get in trouble and end up eating the ticket. Apparently most people thing=k this way, even if they don’t know the policy (as in this United case) because tickets are cheaper. I think that United could have showed a little but of heart and helped out a dying man. For $118 tickets, however, it doesn’t have much to gain and nor do the ticket holders have much to loose. The fact that United gave $100 certificates is a good thing in itself. Granted there are restrictions, but in the end the loss of a $118 ticket shouldn’t be such a major concern while on your deathbed. I don’t blame United – they stick to their policies on matters such as these where the loss is so small to both parties ($118). Just my $0.02 -Noah Cole — "Could I have been anyone other than me?" – Dave Matthews
Response:
> UNITED AIRLINES: NO REFUND FOR UNEXPECTED CANCER SURGERY > Dumb and Dumber?
At first look UAs position looks pretty insane yes? But look a little deeper. If they make tickets refundable for medical conditions it puts them in the postion of deciding what is a real one (like this example) and what is a scam to get a refund. This was exactly the situation some years ago. People pulled every trick in the book, including fake doctors notes etc etc. You get the idea. It isn’t that the airlines want to be heartless. They just don’t want to be in the middle of a logistical nightmare. So they make it simple. If you want refundability, buy a ticket that is refundable. If you want the cheapest fare, accept the risk that if something happens you can’t get your money back from the airline. Note however you do have some options. You could buy trip insurance. Not always a good deal but if you want to know you can get your money back, this does it. Also note you can always use the ticket (minus a fee of about $50) for a future trip with no time limitation. And the airlines are much more willing to transfer that credit to another name so this customer had the option of asking UA to let someone else use the value of the ticket. The problem is really that customers want it both ways. They want the cheap fare, which is clearly stated to be nonrefundable and then they want the refundability. BTW I have no connection with the airline industry.
Response:
[tale of unexpectedly terminally-ill passenger refused money snipped] >death can justify a refund. However, as a one-time exception, >United offered a $100 travel certificate in exchange for each >$118 nonrefundable ticket. >Mr. Billard plans to post his story all over the Internet, >reaching the business and travel media–newspapers, magazines, >radio and television stations, etc.–as well as travel agents, >politicians, government agencies, United’s competitors, Internet >newsgroups on travel, consumer protection, and cancer support, >and anyone else likely to pay attention. He expects the people he >contacts will suggest additional outlets for his message. Some >may also send comments to United. Stay tuned for futher >developments on how this new form of consumer activism unfolds.
I would hope he is severely flamed for such a pointless abuse of the other users of the Internet. If he has a disagreement with United, the correct approach is to pursue it through the courts. Making everyone else suffer just because he feels that he did seems childish, to say the least. His story is undeniably tragic, it must be horrifying for anyone to be given only months to live, but I really don’t see why United should be blamed. They are a commercial operation, in business to make money. If someone, though no fault of theirs or of United’s, is unable to fulfill their side of a contract, why should United be made to bear all the cost? They made a generous offer, undoubtedly losing money on the deal. Did your friend take out travel insurance protection to cover the cost of his cancelled flight? That is what insurance is there for, and to expect United to act like an insurance company is not reasonable. Steve
Response:
> In February, 1995, Philip Billard and his wife purchased > round-trip tickets from United for travel between Orange County, > California, and San Francisco. The tickets cost $118 each and > carried a nonrefundable condition. > Just days later Mr. Billard fell ill. Tests showed he needed > immediate surgery for pancreatic cancer. He canceled his > reservations, and his work supervisor sent a refund request to > United supported by a certification from the surgeon.
I’m saddened to read of your medical troubles. > United finally responded in August that this unforeseeable > medical emergency was not enough. "Discount fares were never > intended to offer travelers the flexibility of being able to > alter itineraries at the last minute." Only a ticket holder’s > death can justify a refund. However, as a one-time exception, > United offered a $100 travel certificate in exchange for each > $118 nonrefundable ticket.
Non-refundable has a clear meaning. I think United is generous in refunding non-refundable tickets in case of death. If they refunded non-refundable tickets because of medical problems, non-refundable tickets would cost more. The consumers wouldn’t win, only the bureaucrats would win. > Weary from post-surgery chemotherapy and radiation, and thankful > for not yet having satisfied the "death" condition in United’s > refund policy, Mr. Billard reluctantly accepted the travel > certificates. Then came some bad news. Besides the $18 reduction > in ticket value, each certificate carried numerous restrictions > not mentioned in United’s offer. They included a one-year time > limit and prohibitions against using two certificates together, > transferring certificates, or using them to obtain cash.
Seems both normal and reasonable. > Later in August, Mr. Billard received even worse news from his > doctor. Despite earlier, encouraging signs, his cancer had spread > to his liver, leaving him little hope of living more than another > three to nine months. Further travel would soon be impossible.
If I had only three to nine months left, I would try to enjoy it. I would go on vacation. If I were married, I would take my wife with me. The one-year limitation would not be problem. The prohibition against combining certificates would not be a problem (two persons need two tickets). > Through all this, United stubbornly held its ground. A deal is a > deal; no refund! But this brushoff has given Mr. Billard a reason > to live. Seeing himself as a David with enough residual strength > to slay the United Airlines Goliath, he vows to use the Internet > (not the slingshot) to show that individuals can confront > insensitive, misguided bureaucracies on a level playing field.
I would probably go on holiday, but if you want to go down fighting I can respect that. However, if you look hard enough, you might find a more heinous evil somewhere in the world, that is more deserving of your efforts. > Mr. Billard plans to post his story all over the Internet, > reaching the business and travel media–newspapers, magazines, > radio and television stations, etc.–as well as travel agents, > politicians, government agencies, United’s competitors, Internet > newsgroups on travel, consumer protection, and cancer support, > and anyone else likely to pay attention.
Is this really the most beneficial thing you can do for posterity with the time you have remaining? M Carling —
Response:
UNITED AIRLINES: NO REFUND FOR UNEXPECTED CANCER SURGERY Dumb and Dumber? Employee-owned companies are more customer-friendly than ones whose employees have no stake in the business, right? Wrong . . . if the company is United Airlines, and the issue is providing a refund to a customer who undergoes unexpected cancer surgery! In February, 1995, Philip Billard and his wife purchased round-trip tickets from United for travel between Orange County, California, and San Francisco. The tickets cost $118 each and carried a nonrefundable condition. Just days later Mr. Billard fell ill. Tests showed he needed immediate surgery for pancreatic cancer. He canceled his reservations, and his work supervisor sent a refund request to United supported by a certification from the surgeon. The surgery required six hours in the operating room, two weeks of hospital recovery, and another month of rest at home. Meanwhile, Mr. Billard’s employer and his travel agent contacted United several times to seek a refund for him. United finally responded in August that this unforeseeable medical emergency was not enough. "Discount fares were never intended to offer travelers the flexibility of being able to alter itineraries at the last minute." Only a ticket holder’s death can justify a refund. However, as a one-time exception, United offered a $100 travel certificate in exchange for each $118 nonrefundable ticket. Weary from post-surgery chemotherapy and radiation, and thankful for not yet having satisfied the "death" condition in United’s refund policy, Mr. Billard reluctantly accepted the travel certificates. Then came some bad news. Besides the $18 reduction in ticket value, each certificate carried numerous restrictions not mentioned in United’s offer. They included a one-year time limit and prohibitions against using two certificates together, transferring certificates, or using them to obtain cash. Later in August, Mr. Billard received even worse news from his doctor. Despite earlier, encouraging signs, his cancer had spread to his liver, leaving him little hope of living more than another three to nine months. Further travel would soon be impossible. Through all this, United stubbornly held its ground. A deal is a deal; no refund! But this brushoff has given Mr. Billard a reason to live. Seeing himself as a David with enough residual strength to slay the United Airlines Goliath, he vows to use the Internet (not the slingshot) to show that individuals can confront insensitive, misguided bureaucracies on a level playing field. Mr. Billard plans to post his story all over the Internet, reaching the business and travel media–newspapers, magazines, radio and television stations, etc.–as well as travel agents, politicians, government agencies, United’s competitors, Internet newsgroups on travel, consumer protection, and cancer support, and anyone else likely to pay attention. He expects the people he contacts will suggest additional outlets for his message. Some may also send comments to United. Stay tuned for futher developments on how this new form of consumer activism unfolds.