FT interview CEO United. The crucial difference
 

Interesting interview in this weekends FT with Oscar Munoz, CEO of United. And I quote: " I represent the interests of almost 90,000 human beings (employees) in our system" he says. "That's by far my FIRST and FOREMOST commitment".

Note he said the employees are his most important commitment. Not the passengers. He has the maturity to realise that to have happy customers, you must first ensure you have happy employees. Wow, what a concept, in a people business. Who would have thought it?? :ugh:

Welcome to the dark ages in the history of Cathay Pacific.

Passengers? CX is all about the share holder. Everything else is an annoyance.

Sorry it's not about the shareholders , it's about the directors bonuses

This week's events have kind of changed things about United eh!

Well, to be fair, at first he backed his staff up (saying they followed procedure, and that Dr Dao was belligerent)

Doesn't matter if he was belligerent or not , he entered into a contract with united for travel from A to B once he purchased his ticket . Then once seated he had a legal right to that seat . To beat him up and drag him off the aircraft was disgusting and not acceptable . Had united simply kept upping the offer they would soon have found 2 other people willing to give up their seats .
The CEO initially made a half hearted apology to the Dr which he had to reverse a couple of days later , the share price lost $250 million overnight and united has suffered the worst kind of PR nightmare to say nothing of the tens of millions that they will have to pay to this passenger . Personally I don't think that it will get to court because if it goes in front of a jury he will be awarded a lot more money than a confidential settlement .
Had the CEO of united come out immediately and made a heartfelt apology and got ahead of this incident he could have circumvented a lot of the issues he has now . I wouldn't be surprised to see him step down over his handling of this
Co incidentally a family made $11,000 over the weekend by continually accepting compensation for a flight to Florida . I think they got 3 nights in hotels and cash incentives . So had united offered even $5000 someone would have taken it and they would be a lot better off in the long run

Still... No matter how many tickets you hold for that seat, or how much you paid for that seat; if the crew tells you to get off the plane, you have to get off.

When the police tells you to do something, you better do it, especially in the states. The doctor should've known better, bad judgement.

Police was too aggressive (what else is new), but was out of control of United.

No not all true at all. Yes, passengers must obey a lawful command from the commander and yes, this can be delegated in many cases to cabin crew but the order MUST be lawful. Too many people readily quote commander is God etc........only in certain defined circumstances.

As to this incident itself, I would bet folding money that this will, in addition to appalling customer service and subsequent PR, boil down to the fact that the gate staff or their immediate manager, were not empowered to offer more than a defined amount to volunteer offloads. Up the ante and you will surely have success.
See any parallels in this neck of the woods?

In the aftermath of 9-11, and the paranoia in the US about another such attack, you would have to be an idiot to resist the direct order of airport security services or the Police.
All of your nicey-nice opinions about 'your rights' reduce to ZERO in the face of a direct order from the Cops. As Dr.Dao found out.
Now, you can debate all you like AFTER you follow the ORDER.
If you refuse....you know the consequences.

RTFQ
 

Not even remotely relevant to my reply. Oasis made the point that once the crew tell you to get off, you must get off. My comments are all about Commander authority (not security) and the oft misunderstood and quoted belief that passengers must follow any crew instructions-any! Simply not true, only lawful ones. If you believe otherwise then good luck when you apply that to the wrong person.

But you indirectly raise another valid point; That since 9/11 airlines and crew especially in the USA think they now have carte blanche to treat their customers any which way they like, under the very guise you highlight. This event, I am sure will go some way to disabuse many of you that hold such views.

The USA is becoming a police state. That's right.
Your delusion of freedom is clouding your perception.
Remove those rose tinted spectacles, wake up and smell the coffee.
This is the new REALITY.
Deal with it.

Ok I will as long as you promise to go back to school and learn to read what posts actually say and respond accordingly and not to what you think you read/understood they said.
Oh and btw USA always been a police state, in "the land of the free" just tightened up even more.

I just saw a new video of the doctor in question, before the removal on the airplane.
The guy had it coming, the police were quite patient with him actually.
Maybe it was one of those 'loss of face' situations?
High ego individual vs police, not a good combo.


http://http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4405764/New-video-shows-United-passenger-s-argument-police.html

Now the airline concedes
that the flight wasn't overbooked. When the lawyers are done with United and the city of Chicago will see who exactly had it coming. United just handed a winning lottery ticket to this individual.

I don't care who you are, El Capitan or a Walmart security official, passengers have rights.You can't arbitrarily remove a passenger that has been already issued a seat. What's the difference between being issued keys to your room only to be told midway through your hot shower that you have to vacate your room because the hotel now decided to give your room to one of their staff.

Oasis, for the crew to remove a passenger from an aircraft they have to have a valid reason. It's all spelled out in the contract of carriage the reasons you may be removed, and none of the reasons were met in this case. Visit the UA website and read the contract of carriage.

They had a valid reason, they needed to uplift crew to operate other flights.

The airline always said that they needed to uplift crew to operate other flights, in that respect, it doesn't 'now concede'.
The police deplaned the pax, not united, police brutality maybe, as they were rough, but that's how they are, ever watch 'cops'?
The captain and law enforcement have the right to deplane any passenger, and frequently do so for even lesser reasons, so in that case it does 'matter who you are'.
Passengers have rights, sure, but there is absolutely no obligation to carry them either.

No they don't, there has to be valid reason in accordance with the carriage of contract. Tell you what, on your next full flight, if you are even a Captain, why don't just offload a passenger to let your wife onboard. Let's see if there will be no consequences, let's see how fast CX will have you packing...bwahahahaha.

First of all they weren't police! They were security officials. Second of all they are not judges or there to determine the validity of the instructions given by United. They are robots acting on behest of United. So ultimately it's United that is liable.

Instead of going back and forth, just sit back and watch the lawsuit unfold and see if they had the legal right to remove him for any reason.

http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2017/04/11/united-denied-boarding-illegal/

Actually, they are police officers with the Chicago Department of Aviation.

Perhaps, I dunno the details, but every new organization refers to them as security officials.