Thanks for taking the time to read my comment, and offer your response.

I understand your point that the report, and in fact the response from United as a whole, is by no means conclusive. However, my concern with your article is that you didn’t mention it AT ALL. Whether it’s conclusive or not, it is the airline’s current explanation, and if true, would be a valid, wholely believable reason for the incident.

I also have to disagree with your interpretation of the “if that were the case” line included in United’s statement. Please read it again. The way it actually reads, they are not saying “if it were the case that the gate agent believed that.” Instead, what they are saying “if it were the case that Mr. Alvarez was an employee.” In other words, they are not being equivocal in their reason behind the incident at all – they are stating that it WAS, in fact, because the gate agent believed Mr. Alvarez was an employee. All they are doing is helping to clarify that IF Mr. Alvarez HAD been an employee, he would have been subject to a dress code, which helps to further explain (if not justify) the agent’s actions.

I hope you can see my point here, and I believe that if you go back and read United’s statement again, you will agree.

That being the case, I do believe that it was crucial to your article to include United’s statement. They gave a reasonable, believable explanation, which should have been mentioned. It certainly makes more sense then some rogue gate agent suddenly deciding he can dictate how passengers need to dress!

And frankly I’m inclined to believe their explanation.

Why? Because years ago, back when American Airlines flight attendants used to wear blue suits with red bow ties, I was once mistaken for a flight attendant because I was wearing a blue suit with a red bow tie. After a long day and facing a long flight home, I removed my jacket, untied my tie, and unbuttoned my blouse several buttons down. I probably looked rather wrinkled and slovenly…which I am entitled to, as a passenger flying home after a long day of work.

On my way down the plane to the restroom, I was stopped by a man in a suit who stood up, put his hand on my shoulder, handed me his American Airlines business card (he was evidently some executive who just happened to be onboard), and angrily said, “Button your blouse NOW, and for pete’s sake, put yourself back together!”

I calmly replied, “Take your hand off me NOW, and shove that card up your ***!” Well, he went white in apoplexy, and was still trying to sputter out some kind of response as I made my way down to the rest room.

Fortunately, by the time I returned to my seat, the REAL flight attendants had set him straight, and he came to me all apologetic and offered me free drinks for the remainder of the flight.

Point is, I have seen for myself that airline personnel can, and do, sometimes mistake passengers for employees. It happened to me…it could just as well have happened to Mr. Alvarez. I find that explanation to be far more believable than anything else.

Again, thanks for paying attention to my comment. I still maintain you should have included United’s response in your article.

Unfortunately, this report from USA Today is far from conclusive. The exact quote from the article by Ben Mutzabaugh was that Robin Urbanski, spokesperson from United Airlines, said to him on November 5th was, “… the airline does not have a policy that would prevent a customer from sitting in first class for dressing too casually. Instead, the gate agent apparently thought the customer in a track suit was an airline employee. If that would have been the case, an employee would have been subject to a dress code.”

The operative words from Urbanski were “apparently,” and “If that would have been the case.” In other words, Urbanski didn’t really know why the gate agent revoked the upgrade. This was about a week after Alvarez complained to United management and they still had no definitive answer.

What United does have are a bunch of excuses, “apparent” excuses that is. The gate agent really worked for Air Wisconsin. He was trying to help two passengers at once. He thought Alvarez was an employee of United.

Frankly, I don’t believe it, and like Alvarez, I’m waiting to definitively hear from United Airlines. Think about it. Why in the world would the gate agent think Mr. Alvarez, who said he bought the upgrade with miles, (This was no free upgrade handed out by the gate agent.) was an employee. Alvarez certainly never identified himself as one, and the boarding pass certainly didn’t indicate he was an employee. As a matter of fact, the boarding pass would have clearly indicated Alvarez’s elite level in United’s Mileage Plus program like all Star Alliance boarding passes. It’s also hard to believe there was no mention to Alvarez that as an employee he wasn’t dressed properly. I find it extremely hard to believe this excuse and until United didn’t qualify it, I’m wasn’t going to offer it. It’s all supposition on the part of United in their effort to squirm out of their responsibility. If they’ve come out with a definitive statement, I haven’t seen it. There is certainly no UAL press release about it.

In the scheme of the problem, it doesn’t really matter anyway. It still points to a lack of training. It still points to United offering excuses instead of apologies and an action plan for properly training their gate agents.

Again, thanks for your comments.

According to a USA Today update on Nov. 5, the gate agent thought Mr. Alvarez was an airline employee. Had he been an employee, he would have been subject to a dress code. It was an error by the contract gate agent.

For more details, see this link:

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/item.aspx?type=blog&ak=620001025.blog

@Mr. Levi – this updated report has been out for several days now, and was widely reported. It would appear that you didn’t do your homework before you published this article, perpetuating the inaccurate belief that he was denied his FC upgrade as a passenger. I expect better from Tripso.

A little different then the United deal.