It was kind of funny to see the CEO come out like some mafia don and explain that it was not personal, it was just business. That was his genuine point of view, and he expected to be understood on his terms. That blew up in his face, now he cannot find strong enough terms to describe just how terrible awful it was, just "horrific." United stock at one point lost half a billion dollars yesterday, before rebounding a bit. And the fallout hasn't ended, it has only begun.

In your clueless arrogance, you are certain you can treat your customers like complete shit. And it comes as news to you, a shock, really, that-- well, you can't. Not without paying a big price.

Their new corporate motto should be, "Fly the friendly skies, or we busta you face."

I heard a guy on the radio yesterday, a pilot, refer to flying on a commercial flight as a "privilege".

Whether that's true or not I don't really care, but I have a "feeling" that when I'm paying for my damn ticket, it really doesn't seem like I'm purchasing a "privilege"...

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
...the doctor and his wife agreed to the $800 voucher and actually deplaned.

Once he found out that he wasn't going to fly later that day, he played his "I'm a doctor" card and went back onto the plane. That's when the kerfuffle started...

I seriously doubt that the United crew told him that there would be no way for him to get home that night, so he most-likely found out after he got off. That "oversight" on the part of UAL changed the scenario once again for the passenger and his wife.

He's still right and UAL is still wrong.

In the meantime, my girlfriend is hoping for $25 round-trip tickets to Hawaii as UAL tries to recover. As for me, there isn't enough money in the world to get me into an airport nowadays.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
What I see missing from this discussion are the intermediate facts leading up the removal. From multiple news stories, which is lost when all you focus on is the video, is that the doctor and his wife agreed to the $800 voucher and actually deplaned.

Once he found out that he wasn't going to fly later that day, he played his "I'm a doctor" card and went back onto the plane. That's when the kerfuffle started.

For all those who focus solely on UA's actions, was the airline supposed to let him back on and call it good? It wasn't acceptable by UA to do what they did but the good doctor isn't with entirely clean hands either.

Can you provide a source for this info?

Not attacking, just curious as there is so much BS flying around the interwebz.

quote:

Originally posted by tanksoldier:
United handled it poorly, but were within their rights to remove the passenger and he was breaking the law by not leaving when asked.

This is kinda like walking in the crosswalk when the do not walk sign is lit and getting hit by a car. The driver might have been well within the law, but he'll lose big every time. The smarter move is always to yield to the pedestrian and forego the pain and suffering.

There's a difference between what United can legally do, and what they should do, and they're learning a very hard lesson today as the entire market lines up against them. This behavior was stupid on steroids and they should have known better than to escalate the incident to this degree.

quote:

Originally posted by tanksoldier:
...United handled it poorly, but were within their rights to remove the passenger and he was breaking the law by not leaving when asked...

That law was meant to apply to unruly passengers who endangered the plane or other passengers. Not to overbooking.

quote:

NEW YORK, April 12 (Reuters) - United Airlines will no longer use law enforcement officers to remove overbooked passengers from aircraft in the wake of a video that showed a Chicago passenger dragged from one of its flights on Sunday.

"We're not going to put a law enforcement official... to remove a booked, paid, seated passenger," United Continental Holdings Inc Chief Executive Officer Oscar Munoz told ABC News on Wednesday morning. "We can't do that."

Munoz said the problem resulted from a "system failure" that prevented employees from using "common sense" in the situation and that Dr. David Dao , whom security officers dragged by his hands, on his back, from the cabin before takeoff, was not at fault .

God Oscar, just shut up will ya! You're not helping.

quote:

Oscar Munoz told ABC News on Wednesday morning. "We found out the hard way we can't do that."

Okay, fixed that.

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
Maybe in summary, United likely acted within the ticket/contract, broke no such rules. However, the way they carried out the contract will likely bring a civil penalty.

However, all that is peanuts compared to how potential customers will view the incident when it comes time to book a flight. The airlines industry is quite competitive, and profits don't come easy. Argue technicalities all you want, the bottom line will come in future ticket sales, profits (or losses), market share, and market valuation, all of which will likely take a hard hit.

And hopefully so. It is long past the time when companies should pay for screwing their customers.

I fly, UAL, a week from today. Unfortunately, none refundable tickets.

The CEO of UAL "apologized" but gave no indication of corrective action on the part of the company! Yeah, he is sorry. Sorry their treatment of customers is so shitty and they got caught.

And it will cost them a ton of money. Not only in lost revenue, but in civil penalties for their outrageous actions on that flight.

They could have provided a complete airliner, with cabin crew, to haul those crew members to their destination and it would not have been a small drop in the bucket compared to what this shin-dig will end up costing. Factor in lost sales, civil damages, their own legal fees, etc.

I used to fly at least 3 times a week. Chalked up so many flights that I had mileage to cover 4 round trip tickets to Europe. And all of those flights were on United. It got kind of funny when I was greeted by name when I entered the planes.

So glad I am flying JetBlue this month....

I think people are most disturbed if by instinct only is the clearly exposed low value UAL places on human life. In a business that asks us to place our lives in their hands, that revelation is sobering. It's almost as bad as media caught being more loyal to agenda than truth. It's their stock in trade...or should be. We all watch this kind of force occuring with increasing frequency and by lower and lower authorities. We see the trend and superimpose what we've seen historically and realize we are vulnerable to abuse ourselves. Now you have our attention.

On a somewhat related side note,

I have this memory of "standby" tickets on airlines.

You booked on standby, went to the airport and checked in. If there were enough empty seats you got to fly. If not, you got on the next flight!

Seems to be a much better system than overbooking a flight and then having this kind of crap going on.

You buy the ticket, even get a seat assignment perhaps, show up for the flight and find out they sold your seat to a couple other people.

quote:

Originally posted by newtoSig765:

quote:

Originally posted by tanksoldier:
...United handled it poorly, but were within their rights to remove the passenger and he was breaking the law by not leaving when asked...

That law was meant to apply to unruly passengers who endangered the plane or other passengers. Not to overbooking.

This actually wasn't a case of overbooking. The media got it wrong again.

The issue is United (and almost every other airline for that matter) in the never ending quest to fill all planes to capacity didn't allow for the possibility that they might need to shuttle their own people around for continuity of service.

This type of greed will lead to further problems as the slightest delay that causes missed connections or cases like this where seats are needed for employees will create a domino effect as finding space on other flights becomes harder and harder. Airlines just don't seem to care as they are in fact ramping up this behavior.

The big four U.S. Carriers make more on the loyalty credit card clawback than actual air fares. This dust up is a disaster to the friendly skies loyalty program. MG

BUT THE DOCTOR GUY AGREED TO THE CONTRACT!!!!!


sorry

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
I think people are most disturbed if by instinct only is the clearly exposed low value UAL places on human life.

Flying cattle cars

Is it true that UAL's flight attendant training manual talks about shocking heifers with a cattle prod?

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by newtoSig765:

quote:

Originally posted by tanksoldier:
...United handled it poorly, but were within their rights to remove the passenger and he was breaking the law by not leaving when asked...

That law was meant to apply to unruly passengers who endangered the plane or other passengers. Not to overbooking.

This actually wasn't a case of overbooking. The media got it wrong again...

You're right, we've been calling this an overbooking for several days now and I just fell into that catchphrase. I'll re-accommodate that word in future.

quote:

Originally posted by Elk Hunter:

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
What I see missing from this discussion are the intermediate facts leading up the removal. From multiple news stories, which is lost when all you focus on is the video, is that the doctor and his wife agreed to the $800 voucher and actually deplaned.

Once he found out that he wasn't going to fly later that day, he played his "I'm a doctor" card and went back onto the plane. That's when the kerfuffle started.

For all those who focus solely on UA's actions, was the airline supposed to let him back on and call it good? It wasn't acceptable by UA to do what they did but the good doctor isn't with entirely clean hands either.

Can you provide a source for this info?

Not attacking, just curious as there is so much BS flying around the interwebz.

NY Times

The article doesn't outright say he left agreeing to the $800 but he did after the offer was made and according to the article, the offer was increased to $1k.

During his first exit from the plane he said he was singled out because he was Chinese. He then reboarded the plane (article doesn't say how he got back on) and that's when he was muscled off.

YOU DON'T DRAG PAYING PASSENGERS OFF AN AIRPLANE IF THEY'VE DONE NOTHING WRONG.

quote:

Originally posted by newtoSig765:

You're right, we've been calling this an overbooking for several days now and I just fell into that catchphrase. I'll re-accommodate that word in future.

A distinction without much of a difference in this case I suppose.

The thing is, United was not bumping passengers in order to accommodate other paying customers which is usually the case. No, they were bumping paying customers to shuttle around their own employees.