United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why
-
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
If people stop buying the cheapest fare, they will get less shitty service.
Thuggery goes well beyond "shitty service" and into felony territory.
-
@lolwhat said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@lolwhat said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
United had other options.
Such as...?
Get them on another airline's flight, or find a charter flight, or talk to Corporate and see what thoughts they have. Or, well, offer more than $800.
...do you think that there are bullpens full of Pakistanis waiting around at the airport with jets just waiting to transport 4 people to a specific destination?
Flights are not cab rides. Don't be stupid. There were likely no other options besides fuck over an entire flight.
-
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@cheong said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@cheong said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@lolwhat pilots and crew are not paying passengers.
But sure, let's not get them to where they need to be and let's fuck over 300 people who need to get to California or wherever.
Actually no.
I friend at Cathy Pacific told me that if they have staffs that has absolute need to travel on a particular flight, they're required to buy the ticket as normal passengers. If they only has "standby ticket" that's not officially sold but way way cheaper, when there is overbooking or someone have urgent need for a seat, they would be the first to be offloaded. (Actually, when they checkin their luggage, their luggage would be specially tagged to be placed somewhere where the workers can quickly unload them on need)
And there was a rumor that their CEO once had sent off the plane this way.
That is Hong Kong. This happened in Chicago.
That's about how an airline should handle ticketing matters, whether it's Hong Kong or not is irrelevant.
Fair enough. If people stop buying the cheapest fare, they will get less shitty service.
IMO, if the airline had issued regular ticket to the crews, or the crews board on-time so the land operators can do it with regular overbooking handling, it won't be such a mess.
-
@cheong said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@cheong said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@cheong said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@lolwhat pilots and crew are not paying passengers.
But sure, let's not get them to where they need to be and let's fuck over 300 people who need to get to California or wherever.
Actually no.
I friend at Cathy Pacific told me that if they have staffs that has absolute need to travel on a particular flight, they're required to buy the ticket as normal passengers. If they only has "standby ticket" that's not officially sold but way way cheaper, when there is overbooking or someone have urgent need for a seat, they would be the first to be offloaded. (Actually, when they checkin their luggage, their luggage would be specially tagged to be placed somewhere where the workers can quickly unload them on need)
And there was a rumor that their CEO once had sent off the plane this way.
That is Hong Kong. This happened in Chicago.
That's about how an airline should handle ticketing matters, whether it's Hong Kong or not is irrelevant.
Fair enough. If people stop buying the cheapest fare, they will get less shitty service.
IMO, if the airline had issued regular ticket to the crews, or the crews board on-time so the land operators can do it with regular overbooking handling, it won't be such a mess.
I never said that UA was not at fault here. But they are not at fault for this guy getting drug out of the aircraft while screaming like a baby. That is on him, and perhaps the airport police.
-
@lolwhat said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
If people stop buying the cheapest fare, they will get less shitty service.
Thuggery goes well beyond "shitty service" and into felony territory.
That's fine. But United Airlines did not do the thuggery.
If the story was "Doctor who immigrated to the United States is wrongfully bumped from UA flight and sues their ass off" I would be in the "Yeah!! Fuck United Airlines. I fucking hate airlines!!!" camp. But the doctor escalated this and handled it like a petulant child.
-
Bring on the downvotes @masonwheeler. Here is another one for you.
Elon Musk is a douche and the vacuum train will never work.
-
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Fair enough. If people stop buying the cheapest fare, they will get less shitty service.
I've never heard of anything like this happening on Spirit, which is as cheap as it gets (at least until you pay for luggage, and a non-random seat).
-
@antiquarian Spirit airlines has had their own issues. They once fucked 1,400 passengers at the same time due to overbooking.
-
@Polygeekery yeah, more than 20 years ago
In Summer 1994, Spirit Airlines overbooked flights, and 1,400 customers' tickets were canceled.[10] The overbooking occurred because Spirit Airlines had given incorrect instructions to travel agents, causing those tickets not to be valid, even though the customers had paid for the flights.[10] In response to criticism, Spirit Airlines said it would make sure all paid customers would always be able to fly to their destination, even if Spirit Airlines had to book them on a competitor's airline.[10]
-
@kt_ and they handled it pretty well, considering the shitfest they were in. But it still happens.
All airlines used to have spectacular customer service. Then the
murdersprice wars began.
-
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
...do you think that there are bullpens full of Pakistanis waiting around at the airport with jets just waiting to transport 4 people to a specific destination?
Let's say that someone calls you up at 3 AM and says, "Hey, we have a major IT emergency. We need you to come to our office ASAP and fix some shit. What would it take?" What would be your response? You'd quote a rather large premium on your billable rate, but you'd take the job, yes? Don't you think some enterprising charter operation wouldn't do the same in a situation like United's? "Don't be stupid."
-
@lolwhat said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
They have to always choose the solution that will affect the least amount of reserved confirmed seats.
They DID.
If they didn't bump people, they would bump another flight.
@lolwhat said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
find a charter plane to take the pilots?
Maybe. This gets into details we don't know.
@lolwhat said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
United had other options. They just didn't like them, so they decided to get the cops involved - and, worse yet, the cops went along with it. That's thuggery.
Maybe. Depends on the behavior of the cops.
@cheong said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
The point is there is no evidence that UA even try to do that on all possible candidates before calling the cops.
It was a one hour flight. Why should they have to offer the federal maximum.
Why is this such a false dilemma? More than one party contributed, I count at least 4. Security, UA, Passenger, Stupid federal law.
-
@cheong said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Did they? From what I heard that never happened. All they asked was just the four passengers that they decided should be taken off the plane. And it makes very little sense for the cop to just arrest Dao if there are other people who do not comply with order.
This explains why you are saying what you are.
They offered everyone on the plane $800.
They offered to ground the plane until people volunteered, this went on for a while.
They explained that they would choose four at random, still no one volunteered.
They picked 4 at random, 3 of which left without trouble.
-
@lolwhat said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Don't you think some enterprising charter operation wouldn't do the same in a situation like United's? "Don't be stupid."
Maybe. This is speculative. I don't form opinions on what MIGHT be possible.
Although I'm really interested in your capability to spin up infinite charter companies within 1 hour.
-
@lolwhat said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
If people stop buying the cheapest fare, they will get less shitty service.
Thuggery goes well beyond "shitty service" and into felony territory.
Oh lord.
UA is not guilty of a felony here. Sorry....
Next.
-
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@kt_ and they handled it pretty well, considering the shitfest they were in. But it still happens.
All airlines used to have spectacular customer service. Then the
murdersprice wars began.It doesn't help that business need is driving a lot of these flights, and there is a disconnect/conflict-of-interest between the company's need to put a person on the plane, and the person's desire to have a good experience.
I might check to see if they'll let me pay for an upgrade with a DIFFERENT business card on a DIFFERENT receipt, but if not, then that's really screwing the airflight economy over.
-
@xaade said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@kt_ and they handled it pretty well, considering the shitfest they were in. But it still happens.
All airlines used to have spectacular customer service. Then the
murdersprice wars began.It doesn't help that business need is driving a lot of these flights, and there is a disconnect/conflict-of-interest between the company's need to put a person on the plane, and the person's desire to have a good experience.
I might check to see if they'll let me pay for an upgrade with a DIFFERENT business card on a DIFFERENT receipt, but if not, then that's really screwing the airflight economy over.
WtfCorp travel policy is "You get the cheapest ticket available in economy class. Unless you are traveling on the same plane with a customer, have 'Sales' in your title or are a VP or above, at which point you can expense tickets at will"
-
@xaade said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Evidence is in the guy claiming they targeted him because he's Asian, despite other people being selected
Yeah... personally I think that after that he deserved the concussion.
-
@lolwhat said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Maciejasjmj said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
they were already past the voluntary phase
Nope. Federal maximum is $1350, not $800. The airline simply didn't want to offer more.
The DID give more. But you don't fucking get to "volunteer" to get the compensation that's given to involuntarily bumped passengers. If you want to volunteer, you should expect to get less than that.
It makes no sense whatsoever for them to offer more than the legally required maximum to anyone, volunteer or not. It's the maximum.
Also, it's not $1350. It's $1350 or 4x their one-way ticket price, whichever is less. How much does a Sunday evening flight between those two cities cost?
-
@xaade They could have increased the offer until people volunteered.
-
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Captain also, if they did not care, why did they offer the passengers $800 to take a later flight? That seems pretty generous. The average American household makes that in a week.
I had a friend that just returned from Florida. She got $1000 to take a later flight. (They had to bump 12 people because they had to take on an extra load of fuel because of expected nasty weather)
-
@Polygeekery we don't have TSA too
-
@xaade said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Thing is that United isn't even responsible for the violence in any capacity.
They're responsible for a lack of planning and organization, and offering weak incentives.
I agree on the organization, but we don't have enough information to confirm that there was any lack of planning. As I wrote earlier, this could have been caused by a different flight crew becoming unavailable for a completely unpredictable reason, and this may have been the only viable replacement crew.
@Weng said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Weng said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
I've never actually seen a bump in person. Probably 30 round trips in that, on a variety of airlines.
Next time you are waiting for your flight to board, sit next to the ticket counter. You will see it. It is usually no big deal. Dao made it a big deal.
I almost always park my butt next to the counter. Lots of poor bastards on standby being told there isn't room, but nobody actually booked in for that flight being bumped.
Maybe it's the particular routes I fly.
That could be. My mom often flies from Washington state to visit my family here in Phoenix, and they almost always ask for volunteers to take the next flight. She typically takes the bump for the credit, and then after a couple bumps, she has enough credit to visit my sister in New York for free.
@lolwhat said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
First of all, it’s airline spin to call this an overbooking. The statutory provision granting them the ability to deny boarding is about “OVERSALES”, specifically defines as booking more reserved confirmed seats than there are available. This is not what happened. They did not overbook the flight; they had a fully booked flight, and not only did everyone already have a reserved confirmed seat, they were all sitting in them. The law allowing them to denying boarding in the event of an oversale does not apply.
{snip}
Furthermore, even if you try and twist this into a legal application of 250.2a and say that United had the right to deny him boarding in the event of an overbooking; they did NOT have the right to kick him off the plane. Their contract of carriage highlights there is a complete difference in rights after you’ve boarded and sat on the plane, and Rule 21 goes over the specific scenarios where you could get kicked off. NONE of them apply here. He did absolutely nothing wrong and shouldn’t have been targeted. He’s going to leave with a hefty settlement after this fiasco.
Also, it's illegal to use, or threaten to use, criminal sanction to settle a civil dispute. O'Hare "security" is actually a unit of the Chicago Police Department, and as such is vested with full police powers.
In other words, @Polygeekery, you've bought the bullshit on this one.
This is why the flight was oversold:
@abarker said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
4 seats were needed to transport UA employees[, who were classified as must fly]. Therefore, 4 seats were not available for sale. Since the plane was full, that means that the flight was oversold by 4 seats. You may not like, and it certainly could have been handled by the UA employees on the scene, but those are the facts of the situation. The flight was oversold by 4 seats.
Yeah, the blog you quoted went on to say something about the employees not having "reserved, confirmed seats," but they did. They may not have had actual tickets, but they were in the computer system as must fly passengers, making them passengers with reserved, confirmed seats. You may claim that because they weren't guaranteed specific seats on the plane, that they don't count. But consider airlines like Southwest that don't assign specific seats, they only assign boarding priority. Does that mean those airlines can ignore the regulations that refer to passengers who have "reserved, confirmed seats?" Of course they can't ignore those regulations. Despite not having a specific seat reserved, Southwest's passengers have the same rights and protections as passengers on airlines that do give specific seat assignments. So, by that logic, the 4 member flight crew who were listed in United's computers as must fly for that flight had reserved, confirmed seats as well.
As for that bit saying that the guy had already boarded and couldn't be denied boarding, he's correct that Rule 21 of United's contract of carriage does not apply. However, there are indications that he may be wrong about whether or not the passengers seated on the plane were legally considered to be boarded. First of all, the contract of carriage does not define when boarding is complete, and neither do the applicable regulations, as far as I could tell. The only evidence I could find was on a law blog that @masonwheeler linked on the subject. Here's what I found:
@abarker said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Now, the blog claims that passenger was already boarded because he was already in his seat, but even in the comments on that blog post, there was an argument about the legal definition of "boarding," indicating that boarding might not be complete until after all airplane doors are closed, at which time the plane is considered "in flight." If that is true, then the passenger was not legally boarded at the time he was asked to give up his seat, and Rule 25 was correctly applied.
So, unless you can find something that definitively defines when boarding is complete in commercial aviation, we kind of need to table that argument. It looks like things could go either way, based on the information we have available.
As for your bit about using criminal sanction to settle a civil dispute, that's a pretty bold claim to make. You haven't even been able to show that it was just a civil dispute. If United was justified in asking Dao to leave the plane, then federal aviation law may have been involved as well, meaning that it wouldn't have been just a civil matter.
Now, I'll agree that there is ample evidence that the officers involved may have used excessive force. However, there is also the possibility that they were doing the best they could in the cramped confines of the airplane.
@cheong said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Highlighted the words for you to show you why this clause is irrelevant. The need to "schedule when to send crew to another airport to fly their plane" is what they should have policy to control.
While you are correct that the clause is irrelevant (as I later decided on my own), there are always going to be situations when they will not have complete control over the schedule. I mean, imagine another flight crew unable to reach a destination due to weather, or sudden illness. And those are just two simple scenarios that could require a replacement crew with no prior scheduling, there are others that I'm sure you could easily imagine.
-
-
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@cheong said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@cheong said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@cheong said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@lolwhat pilots and crew are not paying passengers.
But sure, let's not get them to where they need to be and let's fuck over 300 people who need to get to California or wherever.
Actually no.
I friend at Cathy Pacific told me that if they have staffs that has absolute need to travel on a particular flight, they're required to buy the ticket as normal passengers. If they only has "standby ticket" that's not officially sold but way way cheaper, when there is overbooking or someone have urgent need for a seat, they would be the first to be offloaded. (Actually, when they checkin their luggage, their luggage would be specially tagged to be placed somewhere where the workers can quickly unload them on need)
And there was a rumor that their CEO once had sent off the plane this way.
That is Hong Kong. This happened in Chicago.
That's about how an airline should handle ticketing matters, whether it's Hong Kong or not is irrelevant.
Fair enough. If people stop buying the cheapest fare, they will get less shitty service.
IMO, if the airline had issued regular ticket to the crews, or the crews board on-time so the land operators can do it with regular overbooking handling, it won't be such a mess.
I never said that UA was not at fault here. But they are not at fault for this guy getting drug out of the aircraft while screaming like a baby. That is on him, and perhaps the airport police.
I love that this got three downvotes. Fuckheads.
-
@wharrgarbl said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@xaade They could have increased the offer until people volunteered.
They could have offered them eleventy billion dollars.
-
@Polygeekery They could have been for 'drug', which is only a small step above 'payed'
-
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
They could have offered them eleventy billion dollars.
You understand they would only need the minimum value of any of the passengers, right?
-
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Maciejasjmj said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
So yeah, they deserve the bad PR. Even if they were technically in the right, and even if the passenger panicked, and even if the UA CEO didn't personally beat the guy up, it's still a result of bad practices they have going on.
With the way idiots are blaming the CEO for this guy getting roughed up, I would not blame him if he ended up beating the shit out of a random Asian guy. He is already taking the blame, he might as well fucking do it.
Is there any CEO code where you have to defend each other or something?
-
@wharrgarbl said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Maciejasjmj said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
So yeah, they deserve the bad PR. Even if they were technically in the right, and even if the passenger panicked, and even if the UA CEO didn't personally beat the guy up, it's still a result of bad practices they have going on.
With the way idiots are blaming the CEO for this guy getting roughed up, I would not blame him if he ended up beating the shit out of a random Asian guy. He is already taking the blame, he might as well fucking do it.
Is there any CEO code where you have to defend each other or something?
What did the CEO do wrong? Did he drag the drug dealer down the aisle of an airplane?
-
@Polygeekery Dunno, but I'm sure he is evil, like all CEO. The richer the eviler.
-
@wharrgarbl said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Polygeekery Dunno, but I'm sure he is evil, like all CEO. The richer the eviler.
At least you are not judging with preconceived notions.
-
@Polygeekery All the CEOs I've met personally were up to no good, and your avatar looks evil.
-
Yeahhhhhh... ok.
-
@anotherusername whoosh?
-
This post is deleted!
-
This post is deleted!
-
And the fun just keeps coming:
-
@dangeRuss said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
And the fun just keeps coming:
@abarker already posted that. But go ahead and blame the UA CEO for this if it makes you feel good.
-
@dangeRuss said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
And the fun just keeps coming:
Btw, this is not exactly UA's fault. Scorpion is tiny creature that excels at hiding, so whoever responsible to clean the cabinet is very likely to overlook it unless it stings them, unless they know there is scorpion on the plane at the beginning.
Also, given the scorpion was at the overhead bin, it should be some passenger from previous flights perhaps unintentionally brought it on the plane.
-
@abarker said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
it wouldn't have been just a civil matter.
It certainly wasn't a civil matter when he re-entered the plane.
-
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
They could have offered them eleventy billion dollars.
Yeah, I don't buy that argument either.
Wife made it too, at which point I told her, "We can't know if raising the offer would have worked."
-
@xaade said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@abarker said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
it wouldn't have been just a civil matter.
It certainly wasn't a civil matter when he re-entered the plane.
Is there video footage or a third party witness, or is that just from one of the early claims that United made and then retracted?
-
@xaade said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
We can't know if raising the offer would have worked.
We can't know if it wouldn't have, either. The point is, they didn't try all that hard to avoid violence.
-
@wharrgarbl said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@xaade They could have increased the offer until people volunteered.
Maybe.
We don't know if that would have worked, because it didn't happen. $1350 isn't far off from $800.
And part of the reason there were no takers is that it's a voucher for another flight, from what I read. A lot of people are flying one time, or rarely fly, making the voucher useless.
-
@ben_lubar said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Is there video footage or a third party witness
It was in a video of him walking to the back of the plane post-injury.
-
@lolwhat said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@xaade said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
We can't know if raising the offer would have worked.
We can't know if it wouldn't have, either. The point is, they didn't try all that hard to avoid violence.
This is where the argument gets into gray area.
For the sake of the law, they don't need to try all that hard.
For the sake of customer service, I'd rather not fly United for a while.
-
@xaade said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@ben_lubar said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Is there video footage or a third party witness
It was in a video of him walking to the back of the plane post-injury.
So your argument is that injuring someone is okay if they can still walk afterwards? I'm confused.
-
@ben_lubar said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@xaade said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@ben_lubar said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Is there video footage or a third party witness
It was in a video of him walking to the back of the plane post-injury.
So your argument is that injuring someone is okay if they can still walk afterwards? I'm confused.
You asked if there was evidence that he reboarded after being removed, and there is.
Going back to the original assertion. It does not justify the manner of the removal. However, it was no longer a civil issue when he reboarded. At that point he was trespassing in an area where trespassing is very much criminal.
-
@xaade said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
doesn't not
@xaade said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
However
Want to try that again without a triple negative? It's too late at night for me to figure out.