"Ryron"? Who named them? Scooby Doo?

Their older brother Raggy was eating Cheetos in the van down by the river...

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
"Ryron"? Who named them? Scooby Doo?

It's a Brazilian thing. They're Brazilian.

You know - that country in South America that speaks Portuguese just to be different than everyone else on the entire damned continent.

-Rob

quote:

And "overbooking" isn't going away, so we can table that idea right now; 99.89% of the time it works without incident. Unfortunately, the "perfect storm" was generated on this one.

The event was not a "perfect storm", this was bound to happen. Overbooking is not going away, but I guarantee the other policies that led to this event will change. Read the following, twice or more if needed (I've bolded the particularly relevant parts):

" The CEO vowed to never again let a law enforcement remove "a booked, paid, seated passenger," from a plane.

He said he has unsuccessfully tried to reach the passenger to apologize directly. He said Dao is not at fault , a change in tune from his initial comments on the matter.

"He can't be. He was a paying passenger sitting on our seat in our aircraft, and no one should be treated like that. Period." " LINK

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
"The CEO vowed to never again let a law enforcement remove "a booked, paid, seated passenger," from a plane.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If that's gonna be UAL's policy (under which I'm bound), then if this happens again (escalates to the point where someone has to be physically removed), I'm sure not gonna do it. I'll just go to Starbuck's, have a coffee, maybe a sandwich, and let crew scheduling call me when the flight is ready to go. And just for the sake of clarification, in the particular system under which I work, the Captain isn't responsible for aircraft security as long as the plane is on the ground and the main cabin door is open. If this happens on my plane and I have no law enforcement option, I'll just go relax somewhere and if it causes me to time out of my duty day, so be it.

And yes...the event was a perfect storm. If it wasn't, this would happen every other flight.

Going 10-10 on this conversation......and maybe even 10-100.

ETA:
This thread is very much like an "active shooter" event which we've been duly instructed to NOT discuss until ALL available FACTS have been submitted on the case. Who here knows why, the EXACT reason(s), the doc was eventually dragged out? I certainly don't. And no...before someone gets their thong twisted in their crack, I'm not condoning anything that happened.

NOW I'm 10-10. Don't have to 10-100.....yet.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:

Denying that doc was completely legal and within long term practices in the industry which are regulated by the federal government and carefully explained in the contract the customer enters into.

NOBODY is denying that this was 'legal.'

We are saying it wasn't 'right.'

If you just want to go back and justify the actions of the United crew and management, knock yourself out. Yes, the passenger was non-compliant. Yes, that standby crew needed to get to St Louis. Yes, refusing direction by law enforcement agents rarely turn out for the best.

That is all irrelevant. So are the 'big picture' economics of airlines, over-booking (of which this was NOT an example), weather delays, and cheap tickets.

What matters is the at the flying public is P***** off after watching a horrifying video of an old man getting beaten up because United chose to screw its customers instead of taking other options to fix THEIR own screw-up.

United didn't 'get' this until Tuesday. Many here seem to miss this point entirely - that UAL displayed blatant disregard for their paying customers, and many of us think there should be a price to pay for this crappy attitude.

quote:

If prices were higher, there'd be less trash flying these days. That's how it used to be. Trash took the bus.

My god is that hilarious. I couldn't agree more.

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:

ETA:
This thread is very much like an "active shooter" event which we've been duly instructed to NOT discuss until ALL available FACTS have been submitted on the case. Who here knows why, the EXACT reason(s), the doc was eventually dragged out? I certainly don't. And no...before someone gets their thong twisted in their crack, I'm not condoning anything that happened.

Huge difference. Apples and Volkswagens.

There are no circumstances where a passenger, who is seen speaking calmly to law enforcement over a civil matter, should be assaulted by LE, over said civil matter, because WE CAN. What he said 2 minutes or two hours before this happened is not relevant. There are no circumstances to which you can instigate a fight, and then claim the other person started it.

Not one.

In no other circumstance, NONE, would LE go to a restaurant, where a patron has paid for a meal and been seated, and physically assault the patron because the restaurant owner could claim he could eat later, and that the table was needed for higher priority customers. Not one. Restaurant employees wouldn't start claiming the competitiveness of the restaurant business is responsible for the shitty business practice and decisions. Cooks wouldn't be throwing tantrums on social media because it is their kitchen, their rules.

Not one reason. FACT- The airline decided they wanted to remove a passenger so their could keep their revenue stream going. It has been attempted to disguise it as "service to other passengers down the line" and crap like that, but it was about money in their pocket. FACT- They instigated a situation by trying to remove that passenger. FACT- The airport police has already stated that the officers did not follow policy. FACT- The CEO of UAL, after getting hemmed up by pressure from these little people (other places called paying customers) admits that it was wrong and his people instigated all of this.


I'm not sure what else we need to wait on to form our decision making here.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:

How? Every seat on the airplane is full. You have 4 crew to get to the destination. How do you get them there without bumping 4 revenue pax?

Not getting them there means hundreds of paying customers tomorrow will be "expendable". So you better get them there.

How do you do it?

Very simple, you offer enough incentive that 4 people would take the offer. And make the incentives money not vouchers. I guarantee that if enough money was offered there would have been 4 volunteers. Let's say the magic number was $10,000 per volunteer, which as we all know is unlikely because someone would volunteer well before then. Do you think that the cataclysm that would occur if those 4 crew couldn't fly wouldn't cost more than $40,000? You've said hundreds of people would be inconvenienced so don't you think that would end up costing even more?

I'll put it this way. Most of the time I fly I am flying for the government and not for my own personal recreation. This unfortunately means that I do have to shop primarily on price and means that I'm flying coach and not first class. Generally speaking on a return flight I want to get home because I am tired and because I have already lost a weekend traveling in the process. Frankly any amount of vouchers aren't going to interest me to inconvenience myself. However, give me a first class ticket on the first flight out tomorrow and $1500 - $2500 cash and I could probably convince myself to be inconvenienced. I'd be willing to bet that other people would be willing to settle for less. See my point? Everyone has a price, and that price will often vary considerably.

Lastly to address the concern of fiscal responsibility and good corporate governance. Nowhere does it say that every flight needs to be profitable. In an ideal world every flight would be profitable but we know that we don't live in that world. Being the best steward of corporate money might mean taking a loss, maybe even a sizable one, on one flight to save money and gain loyalty for additional flights. Even if this video shit storm hadn't occurred, I guarantee you that the act of ejecting somebody from an airplane that has already been seated is not going to fare well with more than the passengers that are directly involved. It's going to cost you future revenue. So why not be willing to take a short term hit for improved long term revenue? I can speak for myself regarding Southwest airlines. My wife and I were horribly inconvenience due to a couple of cascading situations a few years ago. To make matters worse Our luggage was allowed to sit uncovered in the rain for long enough that most of our clothes were dripping wet when we finally arrived at our destination. When we expressed our displeasure to Southwest they didn't give us any BS about FinePrint on a contract or federal regulations. They took care of us. They cut us a check for a couple of hundred dollars at the airport to cover dry cleaning of our clothes as well as some items until the dry cleaning was completed. They also gave us over $1000 in future vouchers. They undoubtedly lost money flying us on that occasion. However because of the way they treated us they have gained loyal customers. When I am flying for personal reasons, as long as Southwest is a carrier to where we need to go, we rarely even check pricing for other airlines. I will gladly pay more to fly on an airline that I feel values their customers. I know I am not alone in that sentiment.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
I'm not sure what else we need to wait on to form our decision making here.

I heard that there's a cousin of a baggage handler in Toledo who is going to write an epic op-ed today that you need to read before forming an opinion.

So now, noncompliance with flight crew instructions will become an art form, a new litigation lottery ticket to fame and fortune.

We all have a certain amount of "You can't make me" in our DNA. We're Americans. Now it pays to be a defiant jerk.

These damned cameras in everybodies hand and instant upload is changing the culture in important, and not always beneficial, ways.

I don't think people would be as hard on the airlines as they are if it wasn't for the fact that for at least the last 20 years the airlines have continuously been bankrupt and or under government subsidy. The fact that they are now raking in record profits by their own corporate statements in an era where there have been so many consolidations that there is very little competition also adds to the frustration. I think people are rightly pissed that the airline seems to have dug in their heels on maintaining profitability for one flight. It isn't like this one Flight is going to kill that airlines profit and loss statement for the quarter. Yet they seem to be acting like it will when the public knows the airlines were losing money hand over fist for the last several decades. I think the public just finds it very distasteful that airlines are essentially saying that they cannot provide customer service and maintain a profit when the taxpayers have bailed out the airlines on so many occasions. Meanwhile airline CEOs are raking in all kinds of performance bonuses. It just isn't the atmosphere to find a sympathetic public.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:...He chose the one option which guaranteed the police would be called. Then he chose the one option which guaranteed the police would physically remove him.

Correct and correct. And United chose the one option that would probably do the most damage to their reputation and future business.

Calling the police was the wrong option? What would you have done?

As has been said over and over again in this thread, OFFER MORE MONEY! Sooner or later, the cash incentive will be large enough to get some takers, and it will be far, far, less costly to the airline than the fallout from the brutish, boorish, way that the incident was handled.

So easy, a caveman could do it.

quote:

So now, noncompliance with flight crew instructions will become an art form, a new litigation lottery ticket to fame and fortune.

Several of the airline pilots have said repeatedly, in this thread, that customers will not willingly pay more for better service.

I have no idea where they came up with this "fact," but I do have empirical evidence that it just is not true.

Many years ago, I worked for the education and training division of a very large computer manufacturer. We offered classes, usually one or two weeks long, either at our facilities or on-site at customer locations.

I traveled weekly to teach those classes. I used the V-Tail when practical for the trip, at other times I used airlines.

I remember that there was one airline at the time that offered business class only flights. No coach or economy, just business class. Yes, there were many lower cost alternative flights. I was never, not once in several years, able to fly on one of those flights. Every time, every single time that I tried, the business class flight was totally booked. I never found a seat available.

Not willing to pay more for better service? You're wrong, folks, there certainly are people who are willing to pay more.

There is room in the industry for both types of service. Maybe provide flights for business travelers at the times when business travel is statistically most likely, and provide lower cost, sardine can seating, for Disney-bound families at times when fewer business travelers will be flying.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:

But the passenger was a huge part of the equation, and he chose to escalate to the point of requiring law enforcement being called. His actions dictated the outcome. When you become belligerent and non-compliant on an airplane, you're going to be removed. He could have chosen to do what others do when denied boarding, which is to comply.

The only reason we have a video of someone being dragged off the airplane is because he escalated the situation. He is not the first to be denied boarding, but he is the one who chose to be non-compliant even with police officers.

Yes, he CHOSE to become non-compliant. He wasn't "belligerent" from what I've seen, though. It's his reaction to being beaten that evokes so much sympathy from me. He kept muttering "I want to go home" as he ran to the back of the plane in fear; not screaming "F**** you and your ***** **** ******* *******!!!!!!."

And I understand the rules about how a flight crew CAN remove anybody they want. In most cases, I don't have a problem with this (drunk, stoned, or otherwise legitimately crazy passengers who become belligerent or a threat to the safety of others). However, 'his actions' did not FORCE the aircrew to have him forcefully removed. The airline staff CHOSE this course of action. THIS choice is why UAL is getting crucified in the court of public opinion.

They could have chosen another passenger. They could have upped the incentive. They could have done a lot of stuff BEFORE they drug the guy from his seat bloody and terrified.

It's not about cheap tickets - it's about the jack-boot thug approach the airline CHOSE to take with one of their customers.

Yes, it would be nice had UAL offered more incentive. But think about if this guy had refused to be involuntarily denied boarding and then they turned to you and said "OK, that guy refused, so Hound Dog you're being involuntarily denied". Are you going to get off the airplane or are you going to refuse like the other guy? If you refuse, they're going to acquiesce and let you stay. They'll try to tap someone else on the shoulder. Who is going to get off the airplane? Nobody! Because everybody now knows they have the choice to refuse "involuntary" denial.

And, yes, his actions did force the crew to have him removed. When he refused compliance there was no choice. The time for choices were past. Again, it would have been nice had UAL offered more $, but once nobody has volunteered and it moves to involuntary, there is no going back. Once a person has been denied boarding, they have been denied boarding.

If there was JBT going on, it was the police officers who removed him. Once they step on the aircraft, they operate under their rules. I don't know if they overreacted or violated any of their rules. It was out of the hands of the airline when the passenger was non-compliant with the crew and then non-compliant with the police.

Ok, I've been reading all of this, trying to catch up on what I have missed and I cannot continue to read to the end without commenting: There was no reason, that this man needed to be put in the position that United put him in. If not for UAL's actions here, the Dr. would have gone about his business like every other time he had been on an airplane. The airline caused the fucking compliance issue! Think of it this way. Entrapment...The airline agent(s) induced a person to commit a criminal offense that the person would have otherwise been unlikely to commit. It is a conduct that is generally discouraged and thus, in many jurisdictions, it is a possible defense against criminal liability. So anytime you say that it's your plane and your rules will keep this in mind when looking upon this situation.

There was talk of goading earlier. Perfect example here? This person was goaded into giving a "no" for "non-compliance", thus making it legal(?) for UAL call the police to physically remove the individual from the plane, because it's private property and pilots have GOD complexes. Is that about right?

I have a scenario for you.... It's your anniversary. You went and paid $5000 for the week long stay at an uppity and posh resort. You get your room key, and you get upstairs with your significant other. Unpack for your week long stay, shower, pop your Viagra, light some candles, etc and as you are getting ready to rip your ladies panties off, in comes some buffoon saying that the manager needs the room because he has to get some sleep before he goes to work the next day. What do you do? If you say no, you will be beaten to a bloody pulp however if you comply, they will put you up in a Holiday Inn on the other side of town next week. Seem fair?

How anyone can sit here, willfully ignore good solid reasoning and try to make the VICTIM into the bad guy; I will never comprehend. Even after having the CEO of UAL say that the man did nothing wrong, you are still trying to explain that the Dr. was wrong! Do you get it?

Is not there in the travel contract when you purchase your airline ticket, information that you may be bumped, unwillingly and what your rights / compensation is? Of course no one reads the fine print, or understands it.

Of course most passengers do not comprehend the instructions of number and size of carry on luggage either.

It's a me me me world, and fuck everyone else.

I have no pity for Dr. Me. Shit happens.

I have a number of personal instances where the airlines held flights for me due to delays on other legs. Especially once out of Atlanta - 6 hr delay there. I've seen it for others too on flights I was on, waiting 20 minutes for take off so we could get passengers from the other delayed flight arriving late.

Alaska Airlines refunded me for damages to my broken in to gun case on the spot at PDX. Gun was not taken. A theft ring was busted 6 months later at PDX. I think the thieves thought my locked gun case had jewelry in it.

Airlines can stop overbooking, but airline seat cost to fly will go up.

I've been able to afford 1st class for a number of years now, where I get a real knife, fork and glass to 'take over an airliner' at my leisure. I'll keep enjoying it while I can.

I've read through this thread and other places. I apologize if I've missed it, but I'm still in the dark about the reason for overbooking flights.

In this article from the LA Times, some "expert" says "overbooking can actually benefit consumers. If an airline flies with empty seats, it forgoes revenue on the flight."

That does not make sense to me. Aren't most tickets non-refundable? If United sells a ticket and the passenger does not show, they get to keep the revenue for the ticket. )In addition, it would save them money if the fly with empty paid seats because they save money on fuel.)

So, unless there is a higher percentage of refundable tickets, this "lost revenue" for no shows argument does not make any sense.