United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why
-
@Rhywden said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
The people who do care about this, they matter.
No, not really. I don't matter, Poly doesn't matter, Rhywden doesn't matter. We might be able to stir up a fuss if we all agree on something, but this was part United, part airport security, part federal law. Media decided United would be the only scapegoat.
@Rhywden said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Plus for the guy.
Reasonable.
But, we're missing out that a lot of regulation had an impact on this problem, and we can shoot United in the foot over it, but only a small part of the problem would be solved by that.
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Overbooking flights and bumping people is a
dick policynecessary evil, if you understood how airline operation works
-
I've never actually seen a bump in person. Probably 30 round trips in that, on a variety of airlines.
Of course, I also swore off United after the very first time I ever flew.
-
@Rhywden said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Only after that made the passenger his mistake.
We agree on something. That's cool.
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Is there any possible way to do it better given the close quarters of a shitty commercial aircraft cabin?
"Excuse me everyone, we aren't leaving until four volunteers give up their seat. Thank you, have a nice day."
@Rhywden said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Another United employee told passengers that the plane would not leave until four people got off, Mr. Bridges said
They should have stuck to that.
@brianw13a said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
I'll call bullshit on that one. Those aren't the only people in the world that can crew a jet. Maybe United should have just ponied up and paid the overtime.
We don't know if this was possible. The crew was "must-fly". At that point the airline is legally obligated to put them on the plane. Once they found out too late they needed the crew, this was inevitable.
These are the solutions to this problem:
- Organize better so you can better predict crew needs.
- Lax the law so that an airline isn't legally required to "must-fly" if the flight is already boarded.
@brianw13a said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
It's possible but I'd wager they never explored the option. Some douche made a mistake and this was how they corrected it. It's shitty
No. You don't know this.
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
a good counterpoint
There is a difference from legally innocent and ethical.
@brianw13a said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Overselling
is a necessary evil.
I don't want the price of tickets to double.
@masonwheeler said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
selling something you do not actually possess constitutes fraud.
Then customers should stop cancelling, and airlines should stop offering refunds. Also, if your flight is delayed, all of your connecting flights should cancel, should they need to put you on another plane and bump someone else. Also, there should be a minimum of 10 hours stay-over on flight connections.
Yeah, I prefer a world where overbooking affects 1% of customers, rather than a world where underbooking affects 99%.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
The biggest outrage should be on airport security, which is also responsible for groping a young boy recently.
-
@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.
-
@xaade said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
The biggest outrage should be on airport security, which is also responsible for groping a young boy recently.
TSA and the airport cops are different.
-
@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.
After being boarded?
-
@dse said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
After being boarded?
Why is everyone dwelling on that? Why does it matter? FFS, you would think they asked him to leave the plane at 30K feet.
-
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@dse said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
After being boarded?
Why is everyone dwelling on that? Why does it matter? FFS, you would think they asked him to leave the plane at 30K feet.
Because people expect bumping to happen before they're sitting in the plane. When they're sitting in the plane, they feel like they're safe from it. So, it's extra shock value.
I think most people are thinking about this from a customer service point of view, but there's a tinge of social justice at the idea of being dragged out, but they're forced to admit that the passenger was actually wrong to behave this way.
So, we're getting mixed signals here.
A lot of bark, but no bite.
IOW, social justice outrage at the idea of being dragged out, but a big stepping back on that because it's clearly wrong to claim social justice here. I'd like to imagine it's the effect of the recent turning of tide, where people are realizing that outrage is not buying them sympathy bucks at the old going rate.
Good news is that it's create a sensible response to this. "I can feel upset at this and use my consumer power to convince companies not to behave this way, but I can't really claim injustice burn the house down at every little stretch of the word."
Which is exactly where I've been the whole time.
Evidence is in the guy claiming they targeted him because he's Asian, despite other people being selected, and it's at most got him a raised eyebrow, but no marching in the streets.
-
@Captain said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
You don't hate Mondays.
-
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.
Even if it did apply, the law is unambiguously clear that airlines have to give preference to everyone with reserved confirmed seats when choosing to involuntarily deny boarding. They have to always choose the solution that will affect the least amount of reserved confirmed seats. This rule is straightforward, and United makes very clear in their own contract of carriage that employees of their own or of other carriers may be denied boarding without compensation because they do not have reserved confirmed seats. On its face, it’s clear that what they did was illegal– they gave preference to their employees over people who had reserved confirmed seats, in violation of 14 CFR 250.2a.
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.
-
@Polygeekery said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
United deserves blame for nothing beyond the bumping of the passengers. They should not get all the bad PR of this video.
They should, because the video is the result of utterly shitty planning practices they have that result in people being ordered to give up their seats while already on the damn plane. Not only would it have likely been avoidable altogether if they planned their employee transfer better (don't know the details, but I'd think they should have at least some margin for unforeseen circumstances), but they probably could've announced it earlier to save people the trip to the airport, going through TSA, all that.
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.
-
-
@abarker said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@masonwheeler said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
I'll graciously assume that you didn't really just ask me to prove a negative, and instead respond with the basic principle that in the absence of being affirmatively allowed to do something that causes harm to people or their interests, they are not allowed to. This is reasonable, no?
From Rule 21 of their Contract of Carriage:
UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons:
…
C. Force Majeure and Other Unforeseeable Conditions – Whenever such action is necessary or advisable by reason of weather or other conditions beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, acts of God, force majeure, strikes, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, terrorist activities, or disturbances, whether actual, threatened, or reported.That seems to easily cover this scenario, especially since we don't entirely know the circumstances behind why the flight crew needed to be on that plane.
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.
-
@anotherusername said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Captain said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
This is kind of how like Home Depot can't take your money and kick you out of the store without giving you what you paid for.
This situation was more like Home Depot taking your money and kicking you out of the store without giving you what you paid for, but giving back 2x-4x what you paid in compensation for the inconvenience, because there's a law that specifically says that they can kick you out, but if they do, they must compensate you that much.
Oh, and letting you come back as soon as they had more of what you originally bought, to pick one up, free, in addition to giving your money back several times over.
It's more like Home Depot take your money without giving you the live saving medicine you need, and tell you they offer to "give the drug to you tomorrow or you can get full refund next week".
You know, he's a doctor, and he already told them he has patient to visit next day.
-
People keep talking about how this flight was overbooked. It wasn't - not under the legal definition, nor under any other really. The rules around overbooking/oversales simply don't apply.
-
@abarker said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@masonwheeler said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
I'll graciously assume that you didn't really just ask me to prove a negative, and instead respond with the basic principle that in the absence of being affirmatively allowed to do something that causes harm to people or their interests, they are not allowed to. This is reasonable, no?
From Rule 21 of their Contract of Carriage:
UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons:
…
C. Force Majeure and Other Unforeseeable Conditions – Whenever such action is necessary or advisable by reason of weather or other conditions beyond UA’s control including, but not limited to, acts of God, force majeure, strikes, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, terrorist activities, or disturbances, whether actual, threatened, or reported.That seems to easily cover this scenario, especially since we don't entirely know the circumstances behind why the flight crew needed to be on that plane.
Hardly.
(Since Oneboxing isn't working here, I'll quote the relevant bit of the introductory paragraph.)
Force majeure ... is a common clause in contracts that essentially frees both parties from liability or obligation when an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties, such as a war, strike, riot, crime, or an event described by the legal term act of God (hurricane, flood, earthquake, volcanic eruption, etc.), prevents one or both parties from fulfilling their obligations under the contract.
That's a very specific term with a well-understood legal meaning, and the airline's failure to plan properly for predictable events does not meet it.
-
@masonwheeler said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
the airline's failure to plan properly for predictable events
QFFT
-
@brianw13a said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
I'll call bullshit on that one. Those aren't the only people in the world that can crew a jet. Maybe United should have just ponied up and paid the overtime.
We don't know if this was possible. The crew was "must-fly". At that point the airline is legally obligated to put them on the plane. Once they found out too late they needed the crew, this was inevitable.
These are the solutions to this problem:
- Organize better so you can better predict crew needs.
- Lax the law so that an airline isn't legally required to "must-fly" if the flight is already boarded.
Or 3. If randomly selected passenger denied the offer for compensation, continue to find someone who will.
It's not like the doctor is the last candidate remaining on the passenger name list.
-
@cheong said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@brianw13a said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
I'll call bullshit on that one. Those aren't the only people in the world that can crew a jet. Maybe United should have just ponied up and paid the overtime.
We don't know if this was possible. The crew was "must-fly". At that point the airline is legally obligated to put them on the plane. Once they found out too late they needed the crew, this was inevitable.
These are the solutions to this problem:
- Organize better so you can better predict crew needs.
- Lax the law so that an airline isn't legally required to "must-fly" if the flight is already boarded.
Or 3. If randomly selected passenger denied the offer for compensation, continue to find someone who will.
It's not like the doctor is the last candidate remaining on the passenger name list.
That would go well, sure.
Okay, you. Off the plane.
But I don't wanna!
Hm, I suppose you have a point. Okay, fine. You, off the plane.
Oh, um... But I don't wanna either!
Aw, come on guys...
-
@Maciejasjmj 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:
@brianw13a said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
I'll call bullshit on that one. Those aren't the only people in the world that can crew a jet. Maybe United should have just ponied up and paid the overtime.
We don't know if this was possible. The crew was "must-fly". At that point the airline is legally obligated to put them on the plane. Once they found out too late they needed the crew, this was inevitable.
These are the solutions to this problem:
- Organize better so you can better predict crew needs.
- Lax the law so that an airline isn't legally required to "must-fly" if the flight is already boarded.
Or 3. If randomly selected passenger denied the offer for compensation, continue to find someone who will.
It's not like the doctor is the last candidate remaining on the passenger name list.
That would go well, sure.
Okay, you. Off the plane.
But I don't wanna!
Hm, I suppose you have a point. Okay, fine. You, off the plane.
Oh, um... But I don't wanna either!
Aw, come on guys...I think Dao denied being removed from the plane, and thereafter they called the cops.
Ask another passenger should happen well before that.
-
@cheong 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:
@cheong said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@brianw13a said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
I'll call bullshit on that one. Those aren't the only people in the world that can crew a jet. Maybe United should have just ponied up and paid the overtime.
We don't know if this was possible. The crew was "must-fly". At that point the airline is legally obligated to put them on the plane. Once they found out too late they needed the crew, this was inevitable.
These are the solutions to this problem:
- Organize better so you can better predict crew needs.
- Lax the law so that an airline isn't legally required to "must-fly" if the flight is already boarded.
Or 3. If randomly selected passenger denied the offer for compensation, continue to find someone who will.
It's not like the doctor is the last candidate remaining on the passenger name list.
That would go well, sure.
Okay, you. Off the plane.
But I don't wanna!
Hm, I suppose you have a point. Okay, fine. You, off the plane.
Oh, um... But I don't wanna either!
Aw, come on guys...I think Dao denied being removed from the plane, and thereafter they called the cops.
Ask another passenger should happen well before that.
But they were already past the voluntary phase. If the guy could get away just by saying he doesn't want to go, how do you plan on convincing other passengers that no, they can't pull the same stunt off?
-
@Rhywden said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
the airline looks to avoid separating families or leaving unaccompanied minors
That's decent of them.
-
@coldandtired said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Rhywden said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
the airline looks to avoid separating families or leaving unaccompanied minors
That's decent of them.
That's probably legally required of them, because seriously, how do you imagine bumping the parent and leaving a kid on the plane?
-
@lolwhat said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
People keep talking about how this flight was overbooked. It wasn't - not under the legal definition, nor under any other really. The rules around overbooking/oversales simply don't apply.
They had more passengers than seats they were able to sell. That is the definition of overbooked. It was overbooked.
-
@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. And this is fucking O'Hare, one of the largest and busiest airports in the world. Are you telling me that they couldn't, I don't know, find a charter plane to take the pilots?
-
@lolwhat said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Are you telling me that they couldn't, I don't know, find a charter plane to take the pilots?
...or even a commercial flight on a different airline, for that matter?
-
@cheong said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@anotherusername said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@Captain said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
This is kind of how like Home Depot can't take your money and kick you out of the store without giving you what you paid for.
This situation was more like Home Depot taking your money and kicking you out of the store without giving you what you paid for, but giving back 2x-4x what you paid in compensation for the inconvenience, because there's a law that specifically says that they can kick you out, but if they do, they must compensate you that much.
Oh, and letting you come back as soon as they had more of what you originally bought, to pick one up, free, in addition to giving your money back several times over.
It's more like Home Depot take your money without giving you the live saving medicine you need, and tell you they offer to "give the drug to you tomorrow or you can get full refund next week".
You know, he's a doctor, and he already told them he has patient to visit next day.
Yeah, those narcotics can't get traded for sex on their own.
Doctors aren't that important. He is not Dr. House the miracle doctor. He is Dr. Dao the dope pusher.
-
@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.
-
@lolwhat said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
Are you telling me that they couldn't, I don't know, find a charter plane to take the pilots?
Am I? Because I argued the exact point you're making, that they fucked up the planning phase. What I'm saying is that if you are going to remove passengers involuntarily, you can't just let them say no.
-
@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.
Even if it did apply, the law is unambiguously clear that airlines have to give preference to everyone with reserved confirmed seats when choosing to involuntarily deny boarding. They have to always choose the solution that will affect the least amount of reserved confirmed seats. This rule is straightforward, and United makes very clear in their own contract of carriage that employees of their own or of other carriers may be denied boarding without compensation because they do not have reserved confirmed seats. On its face, it’s clear that what they did was illegal– they gave preference to their employees over people who had reserved confirmed seats, in violation of 14 CFR 250.2a.
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.
We have already went over the contract of carriage. @abarker rebutted this argument adequately.
-
@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:
People keep talking about how this flight was overbooked. It wasn't - not under the legal definition, nor under any other really. The rules around overbooking/oversales simply don't apply.
They had more passengers than seats they were able to sell. That is the definition of overbooked. It was overbooked.
From United's Contract of Carriage:
Oversold Flight means a flight where there are more Passengers holding valid confirmed Tickets that check-in for the flight within the prescribed check-in time than there are available seats.
When did the pilots check into the flight? Was it during the prescribed check-in time?
-
@lolwhat said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
When did the pilots check into the flight? Was it during the prescribed check-in time?
They overestimated how many seats they had. What if they fucked up and let 110 people on a flight with 100 seats.
10 people get fucked. That's what. Same shit, different circumstances.
-
@Polygeekery You didn't answer my question.
-
@lolwhat that's because it is irrelevant. Why should I answer an irrelevant question?
-
@Polygeekery It's perfectly relevant from a legal point of view. What was the prescribed check-in time, and did the pilots get "checked in" after that time. If yes, then the flight was not oversold.
-
@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.
-
@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.
Now you're trying to strawman. 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.
Also, at the prescribed check-in time, there were enough seats for all checked-in passengers. It was only after the prescribed check-in time that the pilots showed up. So, nope, it wasn't an oversold flight.
-
@lolwhat said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
United had other options.
Such as...?
Yeah, they could have left the crew in Chicago and fucked over an entire airplane worth of passengers in Louisville. That's about it.
-
@Maciejasjmj 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:
@Maciejasjmj 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:
@brianw13a said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
I'll call bullshit on that one. Those aren't the only people in the world that can crew a jet. Maybe United should have just ponied up and paid the overtime.
We don't know if this was possible. The crew was "must-fly". At that point the airline is legally obligated to put them on the plane. Once they found out too late they needed the crew, this was inevitable.
These are the solutions to this problem:
- Organize better so you can better predict crew needs.
- Lax the law so that an airline isn't legally required to "must-fly" if the flight is already boarded.
Or 3. If randomly selected passenger denied the offer for compensation, continue to find someone who will.
It's not like the doctor is the last candidate remaining on the passenger name list.
That would go well, sure.
Okay, you. Off the plane.
But I don't wanna!
Hm, I suppose you have a point. Okay, fine. You, off the plane.
Oh, um... But I don't wanna either!
Aw, come on guys...I think Dao denied being removed from the plane, and thereafter they called the cops.
Ask another passenger should happen well before that.
But they were already past the voluntary phase. If the guy could get away just by saying he doesn't want to go, how do you plan on convincing other passengers that no, they can't pull the same stunt off?
When your dealing with your customer with something that cause inconvenience and the customer don't agree, you raise the deal and/or find another one who is willing to accept it.
The point is there is no evidence that UA even try to do that on all possible candidates before calling the cops. I'm pretty sure sending all the flight attendants to ask try all possible candidate will not take more time than calling the cops, and it won't hit UA's PR that badly.
-
@cheong 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:
@cheong 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:
@cheong said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
@brianw13a said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
I'll call bullshit on that one. Those aren't the only people in the world that can crew a jet. Maybe United should have just ponied up and paid the overtime.
We don't know if this was possible. The crew was "must-fly". At that point the airline is legally obligated to put them on the plane. Once they found out too late they needed the crew, this was inevitable.
These are the solutions to this problem:
- Organize better so you can better predict crew needs.
- Lax the law so that an airline isn't legally required to "must-fly" if the flight is already boarded.
Or 3. If randomly selected passenger denied the offer for compensation, continue to find someone who will.
It's not like the doctor is the last candidate remaining on the passenger name list.
That would go well, sure.
Okay, you. Off the plane.
But I don't wanna!
Hm, I suppose you have a point. Okay, fine. You, off the plane.
Oh, um... But I don't wanna either!
Aw, come on guys...I think Dao denied being removed from the plane, and thereafter they called the cops.
Ask another passenger should happen well before that.
But they were already past the voluntary phase. If the guy could get away just by saying he doesn't want to go, how do you plan on convincing other passengers that no, they can't pull the same stunt off?
When your dealing with your customer with something that cause inconvenience and the customer don't agree, you raise the deal and/or find another one who is willing to accept it.
The point is there is no evidence that UA even try to do that on all possible candidates before calling the cops. I'm pretty sure sending all the flight attendants to ask try all possible candidate will not take more time than calling the cops, and it won't hit UA's PR that badly.
They offered everyone on the plane $800 to take the bump. Every single person. Then no one volunteered.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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:
@Maciejasjmj 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:
@Maciejasjmj 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:
@brianw13a said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
I'll call bullshit on that one. Those aren't the only people in the world that can crew a jet. Maybe United should have just ponied up and paid the overtime.
We don't know if this was possible. The crew was "must-fly". At that point the airline is legally obligated to put them on the plane. Once they found out too late they needed the crew, this was inevitable.
These are the solutions to this problem:
- Organize better so you can better predict crew needs.
- Lax the law so that an airline isn't legally required to "must-fly" if the flight is already boarded.
Or 3. If randomly selected passenger denied the offer for compensation, continue to find someone who will.
It's not like the doctor is the last candidate remaining on the passenger name list.
That would go well, sure.
Okay, you. Off the plane.
But I don't wanna!
Hm, I suppose you have a point. Okay, fine. You, off the plane.
Oh, um... But I don't wanna either!
Aw, come on guys...I think Dao denied being removed from the plane, and thereafter they called the cops.
Ask another passenger should happen well before that.
But they were already past the voluntary phase. If the guy could get away just by saying he doesn't want to go, how do you plan on convincing other passengers that no, they can't pull the same stunt off?
When your dealing with your customer with something that cause inconvenience and the customer don't agree, you raise the deal and/or find another one who is willing to accept it.
The point is there is no evidence that UA even try to do that on all possible candidates before calling the cops. I'm pretty sure sending all the flight attendants to ask try all possible candidate will not take more time than calling the cops, and it won't hit UA's PR that badly.
They offered everyone on the plane $800 to take the bump. Every single person. Then no one volunteered.
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.
-
@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.
-
@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:
@Maciejasjmj 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:
@Maciejasjmj 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:
@brianw13a said in United Airlines: the airline we love to hate, but we can't agree on why:
I'll call bullshit on that one. Those aren't the only people in the world that can crew a jet. Maybe United should have just ponied up and paid the overtime.
We don't know if this was possible. The crew was "must-fly". At that point the airline is legally obligated to put them on the plane. Once they found out too late they needed the crew, this was inevitable.
These are the solutions to this problem:
- Organize better so you can better predict crew needs.
- Lax the law so that an airline isn't legally required to "must-fly" if the flight is already boarded.
Or 3. If randomly selected passenger denied the offer for compensation, continue to find someone who will.
It's not like the doctor is the last candidate remaining on the passenger name list.
That would go well, sure.
Okay, you. Off the plane.
But I don't wanna!
Hm, I suppose you have a point. Okay, fine. You, off the plane.
Oh, um... But I don't wanna either!
Aw, come on guys...I think Dao denied being removed from the plane, and thereafter they called the cops.
Ask another passenger should happen well before that.
But they were already past the voluntary phase. If the guy could get away just by saying he doesn't want to go, how do you plan on convincing other passengers that no, they can't pull the same stunt off?
When your dealing with your customer with something that cause inconvenience and the customer don't agree, you raise the deal and/or find another one who is willing to accept it.
The point is there is no evidence that UA even try to do that on all possible candidates before calling the cops. I'm pretty sure sending all the flight attendants to ask try all possible candidate will not take more time than calling the cops, and it won't hit UA's PR that badly.
They offered everyone on the plane $800 to take the bump. Every single person. Then no one volunteered.
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.
It is SOP to offer compensation in the event of a bump. In fact, they are required to by law. They asked for volunteers to take the bump and receive $800. No one took it, so they selected 4 people. Three left with no issue, then Dao escalated everything and acted like a petulant child.
-
@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.
-
@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.