United Airlines is pushing back against reports that it authorized reservation agents to offer free flight changes to travelers who did not want to fly into the newly renamed President Donald J. Trump International Airport, following the circulation of an internal memo that appeared to provide that guidance.
The controversy centers on the airport formerly known as Palm Beach International Airport in West Palm Beach, Florida, which has since been renamed President Donald J. Trump International Airport. While the new name has drawn praise from supporters of President Donald Trump, it has also prompted objections from some travelers.
Earlier this week, aviation blogger Matthew Klint reported that United Airlines had issued an internal memo instructing reservation agents to accommodate customers who no longer wished to fly into the airport because of its new name. According to a memo shared with Live And Let’s Fly, United was updating its internal systems to reflect the airport’s new designation, changing West Palm Beach Airport (PBI) to President Donald J. Trump International Airport (DJT).
The memo also included guidance for handling customers who objected to flying into the airport. It instructed reservation agents that if a customer no longer wanted to fly there, they could use their discretion to offer alternative destinations, including Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport or Miami International Airport.
The document even provided suggested language for agents to use when speaking with travelers, stating that they could acknowledge the customer’s concerns and offer nearby airport alternatives before processing the itinerary as an even exchange.
After the memo gained widespread attention, United responded with a statement disputing the interpretation of the guidance while describing the internal message as “poorly worded.”
In a statement provided to USA TODAY, the airline said the memo was not accurate and emphasized that customers are allowed to make changes to tickets without paying a fee for a variety of reasons. However, the airline said its policy does not permit free ticket changes solely because of an airport’s name or its three-letter airport code.
United’s statement stopped short of denying the authenticity of the leaked memo, instead stressing that objections to the airport’s name alone do not qualify under the airline’s official change policy.
Klint, however, stood by his reporting following the airline’s response. He argued that the memo itself was clear in authorizing reservation agents to use discretion when accommodating passengers unhappy with flying into the renamed airport, even if that guidance did not represent official company policy established by senior leadership.
According to Klint, the airline later updated the memo, removing the language that referenced offering alternative airports while leaving the remainder of the document intact, including the internal system updates reflecting the airport’s new name.
Klint also wrote that he understood why United chose to end what he described as a generous accommodation policy. He argued that allowing travelers to switch to other South Florida airports at no additional cost created opportunities for abuse, particularly for passengers who may have intentionally booked flights into the renamed airport because fares were lower before requesting transfers to Fort Lauderdale or Miami under the unpublished guidance.
United maintains that its official policy does not permit complimentary itinerary changes based solely on objections to an airport’s name or airport code.
