USA Today: UA forcibly remove random pax from flight
Malicious people might suspect that United, in a hole, kept digging, and employed folk to hunt for dirt about the passenger and leak it to the Press (even though any oddities in his life - we all have oddities and failures in our lives - are totally irrelevant to the rightness or wrongness of what happened).
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: EU
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever past this man has, is irrelevant regarding what happen in this case. It will bare no view on whatever settlement he deservedly receives.
Even eyewitnesses have come out stating that the man had not done anything wrong and had not been disruptive until UA decided to have him removed by force.
My prediction UA's CEO is living on borrowed time, UA have lost over 600 million on their share prices because of this, how funny how ignorant some SkyGods are, and how little respect they have for their paying customers.
Even eyewitnesses have come out stating that the man had not done anything wrong and had not been disruptive until UA decided to have him removed by force.
My prediction UA's CEO is living on borrowed time, UA have lost over 600 million on their share prices because of this, how funny how ignorant some SkyGods are, and how little respect they have for their paying customers.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ridiculous
First, to all the supposed "professionals" who claim that it's fine to toss or drag someone off a plane, remember what business you're in and who pays your company.
Without the idiots, who you call punters and self loading freight, you'd have no work to do. This has been mentioned before. Get over it. We pay your company to transport us. We don't pay your company to abuse us or leave us stranded because your company can't put personnel in the right place at the right time through internal operations.
I'd love to see the reaction on West's face if a hostess asked him to leave a restaurant after he'd been seated, telling him that staff had to eat instead.
I pay for a ticket, show up, and expect to be taken to my destination. I don't expect to suffer because of bad planning or bad business practices on your part.
I haven't looked at schedules and don't intend to, but this idea crossed my mind.
If the flight was full of paying pax, couldn't the four have been accommodated on a competitor's flight? That's not unheard of.
Years ago, I saw a Delta captain (in uniform) board the Southwest flight I was on. I didn't ask questions, other than how are you doing? He was sitting across the aisle. He said that he'd had more pleasant days, and as soon as we reached cruise he took a nap.
Some of you forget what business you're in. That business is transporting people who have purchased tickets.
The good news for you is that people will continue to fly to get from A to B as soon as possible.
The bad news is that your attitude has already infected the traveling public, and most travelers choose based on price instead of satisfaction.
So when another company undercuts United, your alienated customers will flock there.
Serves you right.
Without the idiots, who you call punters and self loading freight, you'd have no work to do. This has been mentioned before. Get over it. We pay your company to transport us. We don't pay your company to abuse us or leave us stranded because your company can't put personnel in the right place at the right time through internal operations.
I'd love to see the reaction on West's face if a hostess asked him to leave a restaurant after he'd been seated, telling him that staff had to eat instead.
I pay for a ticket, show up, and expect to be taken to my destination. I don't expect to suffer because of bad planning or bad business practices on your part.
I haven't looked at schedules and don't intend to, but this idea crossed my mind.
If the flight was full of paying pax, couldn't the four have been accommodated on a competitor's flight? That's not unheard of.
Years ago, I saw a Delta captain (in uniform) board the Southwest flight I was on. I didn't ask questions, other than how are you doing? He was sitting across the aisle. He said that he'd had more pleasant days, and as soon as we reached cruise he took a nap.
Some of you forget what business you're in. That business is transporting people who have purchased tickets.
The good news for you is that people will continue to fly to get from A to B as soon as possible.
The bad news is that your attitude has already infected the traveling public, and most travelers choose based on price instead of satisfaction.
So when another company undercuts United, your alienated customers will flock there.
Serves you right.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Mosquitoville
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will be quite surprised if Munoz still has his job in a week. This is the biggest corporate PR cockup since Volkswagen and I think at this point nothing short of the CEO resigning will do. Even then United better start thinking about company wide brand perception initiatives to rehabilitate their image. If I was a large shareholder I would be demanding these changes as a start.
Munoz has had a few opportunities to stem the PR tide against them and possibly save his job and he has only muffed it with half apologies. I sort of don't get it because at that point the only big benefit in doing that is personal and corporate pride. In a customer service industry sometimes you have to say sorry for things that are beyond your control (or don't really agree with).
For those that think United's personal had the right to do what they did, you should remember that in the end result of this PR disaster, the rules are irrelevant. Besides if this happened more frequently you can be sure the rules would be changed... which might now happen anyway.
Munoz has had a few opportunities to stem the PR tide against them and possibly save his job and he has only muffed it with half apologies. I sort of don't get it because at that point the only big benefit in doing that is personal and corporate pride. In a customer service industry sometimes you have to say sorry for things that are beyond your control (or don't really agree with).
For those that think United's personal had the right to do what they did, you should remember that in the end result of this PR disaster, the rules are irrelevant. Besides if this happened more frequently you can be sure the rules would be changed... which might now happen anyway.
Who left this gate open? And where's my horse?
Never mind taxis or rent-a-jet, there are about 10 direct flights per day Chicago to Louisville (though not all from ORD), plus the non-direct options. Five of those flights are UA and two of which would probably have got him to his destination in time to see his morning patients.
Put yourself in this guys shoes, he was apparently agreeable to what was offered until he learned that "we'll put you on another flight" did not necessarily mean on the "next scheduled flight". In fact, it seems like they were going to put him on the 4th next available flight, or later.
How would you feel about that?
Could they have not bumped someone on the later flight that night, someone who had not yet already boarded an aircraft and occupied their seat, to get this fellow home before midnight?
Or is overbooking so frequent that cascading "bumps" is vetoed?
Did none of those other flights present acceptable options for offer to either a) the other UA passengers, or b) the DH crew?
Or is a veto of the use of opposition airlines also part of UA's policy? Probably is, right?
This for the same reason that they give travel vouchers and not cash. Who wants to give a passenger cash that he might use to sample the opposition's services.
Seems like there were lots of available and acceptable options. Just none that were listed in the passenger service manual.
Never mind taxis or rent-a-jet, there are about 10 direct flights per day Chicago to Louisville (though not all from ORD), plus the non-direct options. Five of those flights are UA and two of which would probably have got him to his destination in time to see his morning patients.
Put yourself in this guys shoes, he was apparently agreeable to what was offered until he learned that "we'll put you on another flight" did not necessarily mean on the "next scheduled flight". In fact, it seems like they were going to put him on the 4th next available flight, or later.
How would you feel about that?
Could they have not bumped someone on the later flight that night, someone who had not yet already boarded an aircraft and occupied their seat, to get this fellow home before midnight?
Or is overbooking so frequent that cascading "bumps" is vetoed?
Did none of those other flights present acceptable options for offer to either a) the other UA passengers, or b) the DH crew?
Or is a veto of the use of opposition airlines also part of UA's policy? Probably is, right?
This for the same reason that they give travel vouchers and not cash. Who wants to give a passenger cash that he might use to sample the opposition's services.
Seems like there were lots of available and acceptable options. Just none that were listed in the passenger service manual.
This may not be relevant to the outcome in this case, but I'm interested to know more about the "randomly selected" algorithm that their computer system uses.It is far more likely that any such selection algorithm looks at such things as fare type, travelling alone, customer loyalty, etc. than that it selects randomly.
Perhaps random selection is applied to a final short-list.
And that raises another point, some video footage seems to suggest that he was travelling with a female companion. See female running down aisle in hot pursuit.
Can we presume in such a case, if it is the case, that the offer to re-accommodate was for both him and his companion? After all, they only needed ONE more seat, or so it has been reported.
Perhaps random selection is applied to a final short-list.
And that raises another point, some video footage seems to suggest that he was travelling with a female companion. See female running down aisle in hot pursuit.
Can we presume in such a case, if it is the case, that the offer to re-accommodate was for both him and his companion? After all, they only needed ONE more seat, or so it has been reported.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the vital crew needed so badly could have gotten seats on a different carrier and done so without displacing and inconveniencing paying customers, what would have been the difference?
Actually, it would have saved $$ as well. No comp checks, no hotel vouchers.
As it sits, United set up a catastrophic situation because of poor resource management.
Aggravated by trying to fill every seat one hundred and ten percent.
And they've dragged others into a legal situation which won't end well.
Beat the **** out of some trailer trash drunk dude who carried a garbage bag on as carry on luggage, you'll get away with it.
A doctor?
Not so much.
Stepped in dung, they have.
I was in the Regionals for 10 years doing hub flying. Weather, overbooking, crew out of position requiring paid pax to be offloaded. Very common. Sometimes we wasted so much time waiting for volunteers the flight ended up canceling anyway. People want cheap tickets and the airlines don't have crew standing by in every city.
Some are saying the crew should have taken a rental car. Are there that many people on this board who have so little knowledge of airline operations? When YOUR flight the next day is delayed for hours and everybody misses their connections and now needs hotels and re-accomodation on other flights (that are probably full) that is OK because one emerging American folk hero refused a legal order from Law Enforcement officials to deplane?
Our contract now does not allow DH in a jumpseat. Some are still tempted at times by ground staff to take one, it is a personal choice but doing so can create an expectation that undermines the contract and your fellow workers and can screw over another guy who is trying to commute. Management understands this , no longer generally done.
Some are saying the crew should have taken a rental car. Are there that many people on this board who have so little knowledge of airline operations? When YOUR flight the next day is delayed for hours and everybody misses their connections and now needs hotels and re-accomodation on other flights (that are probably full) that is OK because one emerging American folk hero refused a legal order from Law Enforcement officials to deplane?
Our contract now does not allow DH in a jumpseat. Some are still tempted at times by ground staff to take one, it is a personal choice but doing so can create an expectation that undermines the contract and your fellow workers and can screw over another guy who is trying to commute. Management understands this , no longer generally done.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My prediction UA's CEO is living on borrowed time, UA have lost over 600 million on their share prices because of this, how funny how ignorant some SkyGods are, and how little respect they have for their paying customers.
Since Munoz took over less than 2 years ago, United's market cap has risen by US $4.5 Billion. Even counting today's blip, UAL shares are still trading near record highs, up an impressive 27% vs. last year.
Munoz has his detractors (and health issues) but somehow I don't see United's board removing him very soon.
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Siargao Island
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some are saying the crew should have taken a rental car. Are there that many people on this board who have so little knowledge of airline operations? When YOUR flight the next day is delayed for hours and everybody misses their connections and now needs hotels and re-accomodation on other flights (that are probably full) that is OK because one emerging American folk hero refused a legal order from Law Enforcement officials to deplane?
the vital crew needed so badly could have gotten seats on a different carrier and done so without displacing and inconveniencing paying customers, what would have been the difference?
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You keep painting a picture of management having been hamstrung with no options, when in fact there were loads of unexplored options.
About the brutality that is a problem related to Policing in America. Nobody at ORD at United got angry with the man or touched him as far as I know. After he disregarded crew instructions, multiple times (Federal Offense in the USA), the staff followed SOP and called Law Enforcement.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's fairly straight forward:
It is fairly safe to assume that there was a legal contract of service between the man and UAL, or UAL would not have issued him a boarding pass and he would never have made it onto the plane. It is reasonable to assume that UAL should fulfil its part of the exchange of consideration (ie transport to his destination) because the man paid his money (his part of the exchange of consideration). This is basic contract law.
Unless good cause can be shown that UAL acted within its CoC and the provisions of 14 CFR §250 — and the burden is on UAL (as the party to have breached contract) to prove that it did so — it is reasonable to assume that what transpired was unlawful and/or a breach of contract.
I have seen no such evidence, and I am not inclined to give UAL the benefit of the doubt until I do.
It is fairly safe to assume that there was a legal contract of service between the man and UAL, or UAL would not have issued him a boarding pass and he would never have made it onto the plane. It is reasonable to assume that UAL should fulfil its part of the exchange of consideration (ie transport to his destination) because the man paid his money (his part of the exchange of consideration). This is basic contract law.
Unless good cause can be shown that UAL acted within its CoC and the provisions of 14 CFR §250 — and the burden is on UAL (as the party to have breached contract) to prove that it did so — it is reasonable to assume that what transpired was unlawful and/or a breach of contract.
I have seen no such evidence, and I am not inclined to give UAL the benefit of the doubt until I do.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Around the place
Age: 43
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blah blah, Captain can throw off anyone they want blah Passenger was belligerent blah...
But isn't the problem (legally) that he was seated and not at check-in before they decided to bump him off the flight?
All the legal stuff about bumping passengers I've looked at refers to check-in and not whilst they are boarded. Considering he wasn't 'belligerent' or a 'threat to safety' before they decided to smash his face up and drag him unconscious down the isle, how can UA have a leg to stand on when this inevitably goes to court?
But isn't the problem (legally) that he was seated and not at check-in before they decided to bump him off the flight?
All the legal stuff about bumping passengers I've looked at refers to check-in and not whilst they are boarded. Considering he wasn't 'belligerent' or a 'threat to safety' before they decided to smash his face up and drag him unconscious down the isle, how can UA have a leg to stand on when this inevitably goes to court?