Current events

[Rhino]

[Rhino]

http://youtu.be/5UEnTHQRi_M

[gPink]

 

[Rhino]

Aaaaand they just keep coming in...

[BruceR]

[B.D.F.]

Yeah, both  and yet  and     all at the same time. As my son likes to say when asked 'what is going on': "The result of a series of poor decisions". In the right context, that is downright hysterical and it applies here I think.

I think Oscar Munoz is going to be looking to be "re- accommodated" himself very soon; perhaps he could head up the customer service dept. of a large cable TV company? He can even hire an assistant pretty cheap 'cause I think a LEO from Chicago is going to be looking for a new 'career direction' also.

And the solution was so very simple: offer more money to give up a seat. We all know there is a magic number that would have eliminated that problem and it is far, far cheaper than this solution is going to cost United: their stock (UAL) has dropped 1.1% or ~225,000,000.00 today and the fallout from this will cost far more yet.

A friend of mine is a pilot working for United..... betcha' she does not think this was a spiffy move.

Brian

[mikeyw64]

And the solution was so very simple: offer more money to give up a seat. We all know there is a magic number that would have eliminated that problem and it is far, far cheaper than this solution is going to cost United: their stock (UAL) has dropped 1.1% or ~225,000,000.00 today and the fallout from this will cost far more yet.

Surely the solution would have been to have put the customer before crew and not asked anyone to give up their seat?

Maybe a bit more forward planning on who was needed where?

[Rhino]

Yeah, both  and yet  and     all at the same time. As my son likes to say when asked 'what is going on': "The result of a series of poor decisions". In the right context, that is downright hysterical and it applies here I think.

I think Oscar Munoz is going to be looking to be "re- accommodated" himself very soon; perhaps he could head up the customer service dept. of a large cable TV company? He can even hire an assistant pretty cheap 'cause I think a LEO from Chicago is going to be looking for a new 'career direction' also.

And the solution was so very simple: offer more money to give up a seat. We all know there is a magic number that would have eliminated that problem and it is far, far cheaper than this solution is going to cost United: their stock (UAL) has dropped 1.1% or ~225,000,000.00 today and the fallout from this will cost far more yet.

A friend of mine is a pilot working for United..... betcha' she does not think this was a spiffy move.

Brian

Here's my guess, the local manager had discretion to offer up to $1000 but needed approval to go above that. And was told that the flight crew HAD to be on that plane so United didn't have to cancel the flight that the crew was headed to. So you put those 2 competing directives together along with a weak manager or perhaps a culture of discouraging independent decision making and this is what you get. If this is true than Oscar should take the fall.

[B.D.F.]

I agree completely although I think the amount, written in the fine print of the contract you enter into when buying tickets, is $1,350 although that probably included hotel, etc.

Munoz and the LEO are going to take the fall;  the LEO is already down about three steps of the flight of stairs and I suspect Munoz is too, we just have not heard of it.

Bad management, including poor but binding instructions. Bad implementation of those instructions (calling for law enforcement to physically remove a customer 'in good standing' (he paid and was just sitting there)) and finally, poor execution of that poor solution.

I think the flight crew, specifically the P.I.C., also bears some responsibility; he / she should have been present and actively prevented, or at least tried to prevent the use of excessive force to remove that passenger. I can hear echos of "I was only doing my job" on that one.

At any rate, United will certainly pay far more than the $1,000 or $1,350 'limit' now, although I have my doubts that this latest event will get them any closer to their claim of offering "the friendly skies".

Brian

Here's my guess, the local manager had discretion to offer up to $1000 but needed approval to go above that. And was told that the flight crew HAD to be on that plane so United didn't have to cancel the flight that the crew was headed to. So you put those 2 competing directives together along with a weak manager or perhaps a culture of discouraging independent decision making and this is what you get. If this is true than Oscar should take the fall.

[BruceR]

Although I do think United handled this poorly, I'd like to point out they are a private company, and the good doctor's 'right' to that seat ended at the point that United told him he had to leave.  Cancellations and reschedules happen for any number of reasons on a daily basis.  Now, it may have inconvenienced the doc to not be there in the morning for his patients, and United could have simply moved to the next person on the list to remove from the plane, but that's all behind us now.  If the doc had simply got up and left, no one would be talking about this.  The fact he chose to resist, and be carried off, is why this escalated.  So he's as much to blame for being treated badly as the goons who carried him off the plane.  Now if they had simply said so long, and kept his money, we have a different conversation.  But they were actually offering a price above what he paid for the original ticket so it's not like he was getting the royal shaft.   Just a different perspective to consider.

[wally_games]

Isn't there something in the blurb that they quote when you get on the plane that federal law requires you to comply with all crew member instructions? They (United and the police) could have handled it better, but as far as I can see, he was in the wrong to begin with and that it then escalated way beyond what it should have.

I think there is even something when you buy your ticket that says that they may be "overbooked" and your flight plans could change.

Didn't I hear that he was there with his family? Why wouldn't they offer to take them all off and rebook them together? Then the others that were higher up the "get off the plane" list might have been able to stay. Inconvenience only one family that way.

I was on a flight out of Reagan National in DC once that was overweight due to snow on both the plane and the runway. They needed about a dozen people to get off. First was whoever would accept a $400 flight voucher. Second was everyone flying standby. Then they started down the list of who booked their flight last. One of the standby group tried to keep her seat when that group was asked to leave. They called her name out over the loud speaker and told her that she needed to get off because she was flying standby. She was pretty embarrassed as she walked the aisle after trying to sneak by and stay on board. In this case, nobody resisted or got a bloody lip and all went off without a hitch.

[mikeyw64]

but they weren't overbooked.

All the seat had been filled by fare paying passengers.

United decided that 4 staff members had to be in Louisana and ejected fare paying passengers (who had already been boarded) to achieve that.

WHat they should have done if they knew these 4 staff members had to be in Lousiana for whatever reason was to have not boarded  4 of the passengers.

[BruceR]

I'm sure United management weighed the costs of having to cancel a flight if their staff weren't on the plane in their decisions.  Bottom line, United owns that airplane and if they say you're not flying on that day, then you're not flying.  I look at it the same as if you're on a bus, in a taxi, using Uber....if the person who owns that vehicle says get out, and after all reasonable offers you refuse to get out, then expect to be forcibly removed.  Sorry it happened to this guy, but shouldas and couldas don't mean a thing at this point.  Sure there will be a civil suit, and we get to find out just how much rights an airline has to enforce their own policies.  Once you take emotion out of the equation then it's just a simple question:  Does an airline have a right to remove a passenger from their airplane?  If the answer is yes, then you need to say the passenger is at fault here  and any injury he suffered is probably caused by his own actions.

[mikeyw64]

Yes an airline has a legal right to refuse to carry any passenger but there are means and ways of achieving that aim and it doesn't always mean it's the right thing to do.

From a non emotive view point this action has cost them a huge chunk of value on the stock market, ok it will probably recover and actually now is probably a good time to buy some

NB I see that the CEO has made a statement

"“We’re not going to put a law-enforcement official on to remove a booked, paid, seated passenger,” Munoz said in an interview Wednesday with ABC. “We can’t do that.”"

WHich goes back to my point, they must have known before they boarded the flight that they had staff members who needed to get to the destination for whatever reason. They didn't just turn up out of the blue after the aircraft had been boarded and prepped for take off did they ?


The whole thing was handled badly and was poor customer service and bad PR.

[B.D.F.]

I agree with you and further, do not think any criminal activity happened other than <possibly> excessive force being used by the LEO(s).

But I also think there is a bigger picture here and the whole thing needs to be viewed in context and in order. Certainly passengers must comply with any / all instructions that involve safety but this was not a safety issue, it was an issue based totally on United's convenience. The point about the owner of an establishment having the ability to refuse service is a gray area also; yes, the signs say 'We reserve the right to refuse patrons' or something similar but in real life, try walking up to a customer stirring his / her coffee and saying "Get up and get out". It may be legal but it is almost certain to go badly.

In the end, I believe the question goes beyond what rights a company has regarding serving customers and speaks directly toward the treatment of a customer in good standing, in what appears to be a rather random event- what I mean here is that the customer did nothing to provoke any attention towards himself. The main problem is not in what they did or were trying to achieve but how they went about it. It was handled beyond badly, it was recorded and shown to the world by what seems to be about a million people (gotta' love smart phones and the 'Net, right?) and at least IMO, this issue is not over by a long shot. And one of the results of this will be strict rules put in place to prevent exactly what United did just a few days ago; the CEO as much as said they will not use LE personnel to handle matters like this one in the future.

By the way, this entire thing is a common procedure among virtually all airlines. The huge difference is that other airlines seem to be able to do it somewhat more...... gracefully.

Brian

I'm sure United management weighed the costs of having to cancel a flight if their staff weren't on the plane in their decisions.  Bottom line, United owns that airplane and if they say you're not flying on that day, then you're not flying.  I look at it the same as if you're on a bus, in a taxi, using Uber....if the person who owns that vehicle says get out, and after all reasonable offers you refuse to get out, then expect to be forcibly removed.  Sorry it happened to this guy, but shouldas and couldas don't mean a thing at this point.  Sure there will be a civil suit, and we get to find out just how much rights an airline has to enforce their own policies.  Once you take emotion out of the equation then it's just a simple question:  Does an airline have a right to remove a passenger from their airplane?  If the answer is yes, then you need to say the passenger is at fault here  and any injury he suffered is probably caused by his own actions.

[gPink]

I think the airlines should just drop all pretense of being customer friendly and start charging by weight like they do the rest of the freight. The last tickets sold in the worst seats should be standby only and plainly marked , not hidden in the fine print, that they would be the first bumped. If the customer doesn't like it they can pay a bump proof premium and upgrade their ticket.

[Rhino]

What rights does a passenger have in a situation like this? I certainly would have complied with the police and there would not have been any violent exchange. That said, what are my rights? I have a trip coming up next week where I leave Wednesday evening to go to a meeting in Albuquerque and come home Thursday afternoon. This meeting was hard to get and was scheduled almost 2 months ago. If I were to get bumped from the flight there would be no reason to continue on to ABQ. My fare is non-refundable but should I expect to get a full refund if the airline is the sole cause? I get that they cannot be held responsible for delays out of their control but this situation is totally within their control. What other service providers could get away with a contract where you have to pay for the service in advance and the provider can at their discretion decide not to provide the service?

[Rhino]

The funniest one yet:

http://youtu.be/lQ_BwnbSrWs

[tweeter55]

http://youtu.be/prqd3HLHCuc

[Rhino]

United announced they are now offering red eye and black eye flights.