Jump to content


This is what happens when United Airlines needs your seat & you refuse


  • Please log in to reply
274 replies to this topic

ThePigSheFlies #41 Posted Apr 11 2017 - 16:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 74587 battles
  • 17,640
  • [SIMP] SIMP
  • Member since:
    10-20-2012

View PostFulcrous, on Apr 10 2017 - 23:50, said:

 

It wasn't overbooked. It was so employees could be moved to their next place of work - which is a sad excuse.
Then handling it in a horrible manner and paying the bare minimum they were required as compensation.

 

This.

 

this is entirely united's fault.  their gate attendants have control of who boards.  their mistake was not handling this prior to boarding.  they then compounded the mistake by not deplaning everybody and then refusing boarding to the 4 "randomly picked" lottery winners.  that they offered an $800 voucher for "volunteers" and still chose to not hit the maximum allowable amount to compensate PAYING customers compounded it further.

 

then, their complete debacle of mis-managing the news/PR on it made it even worse.

 

the top 3 airlines are hitting record profits - in part due to the chronic over booking, and in part due to their income from non-core operations like bank-card/reward program affiliations.  they chose through ignorance, malfeasance or greed to mishandle this.  they likely lost several thousand potential customers over it.

 

United is one of the approved airlines I can choose when I travel for work.  Whereas most of my miles are currently spread across AA and Delta, rest assured I won't willingly be looking at United based on what I have seen of how they have handled this.

 

as an aside, I'm not a huge fan of AA, but when they screw up, they have been pretty good about compensating me.  last time they had a mechanical incident that forced me to sleep at O'Hare, I was given a hotel voucher, a meal voucher, and in total 20,000 air miles for the inconvenience.  I have also had rockstar agents on the phone scramble to rebook/change flights for me that were cancelled or massively delayed due to winter weather events...  those are positive ways to handle inconveniencing a customer - not releasing an internal memorandum that gets leaked calling one of your paying customer's "belligerent" for refusing a request to accommodate a company's horrible logistics planning



120mm_he #42 Posted Apr 11 2017 - 17:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 16104 battles
  • 15,511
  • [PBS] PBS
  • Member since:
    02-17-2011

View PostThePigSheFlies, on Apr 11 2017 - 10:52, said:

 

This.

 

this is entirely united's fault.  their gate attendants have control of who boards.  their mistake was not handling this prior to boarding.  they then compounded the mistake by not deplaning everybody and then refusing boarding to the 4 "randomly picked" lottery winners.  that they offered an $800 voucher for "volunteers" and still chose to not hit the maximum allowable amount to compensate PAYING customers compounded it further.

 

then, their complete debacle of mis-managing the news/PR on it made it even worse.

 

the top 3 airlines are hitting record profits - in part due to the chronic over booking, and in part due to their income from non-core operations like bank-card/reward program affiliations.  they chose through ignorance, malfeasance or greed to mishandle this.  they likely lost several thousand potential customers over it.

 

United is one of the approved airlines I can choose when I travel for work.  Whereas most of my miles are currently spread across AA and Delta, rest assured I won't willingly be looking at United based on what I have seen of how they have handled this.

 

as an aside, I'm not a huge fan of AA, but when they screw up, they have been pretty good about compensating me.  last time they had a mechanical incident that forced me to sleep at O'Hare, I was given a hotel voucher, a meal voucher, and in total 20,000 air miles for the inconvenience.  I have also had rockstar agents on the phone scramble to rebook/change flights for me that were cancelled or massively delayed due to winter weather events...  those are positive ways to handle inconveniencing a customer - not releasing an internal memorandum that gets leaked calling one of your paying customer's "belligerent" for refusing a request to accommodate a company's horrible logistics planning

 

All of that is true but if you were in the same situation as the man would you have screamed like a wild child and gone limp when the officers asked you to deplane? That's the real meat of the story here. These events are common and it seems for the most part are handled to the 'volunteers' benefit. Why didn't the man instead record the entire incident then when the officers got to the point they were going to remove him with force he complies then uploads to youtube and gets the same attention but without the idiocy? 

ThePigSheFlies #43 Posted Apr 11 2017 - 17:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 74587 battles
  • 17,640
  • [SIMP] SIMP
  • Member since:
    10-20-2012

View Post120mm_he, on Apr 11 2017 - 11:11, said:

 

All of that is true but if you were in the same situation as the man would you have screamed like a wild child and gone limp when the officers asked you to deplane? That's the real meat of the story here. These events are common and it seems for the most part are handled to the 'volunteers' benefit. Why didn't the man instead record the entire incident then when the officers got to the point they were going to remove him with force he complies then uploads to youtube and gets the same attention but without the idiocy? 

 

no, it is not common to ask for volunteers once the plane has fully boarded...

 

what I would, or would not have done is irrelevant.  the bottom line is United made a moronic decision to have him forcibly removed instead of raising the compensation offer which would have probably gotten volunteers. 

 

OR deplaning everyone, which they ultimately ended up having to do anyway, and the plane was 2+ hours late.

 

 



Cutthroatlemur #44 Posted Apr 11 2017 - 17:34

    Major

  • Players
  • 19640 battles
  • 10,477
  • Member since:
    08-24-2011

View Post120mm_he, on Apr 11 2017 - 08:11, said:

 

All of that is true but if you were in the same situation as the man would you have screamed like a wild child and gone limp when the officers asked you to deplane? That's the real meat of the story here. These events are common and it seems for the most part are handled to the 'volunteers' benefit. Why didn't the man instead record the entire incident then when the officers got to the point they were going to remove him with force he complies then uploads to youtube and gets the same attention but without the idiocy? 

 

I understand your point...but it's not really relevant.  The actions of the passenger (victim) did not cause him to be removed.  He was removed for the airline's convenience.  Your argument comes dagerously close to the old arguments about rape victims "asking for it" due to being intoxicated or suggestively dressed.  The passenger was a victim here, and was under no obligation to give up his seat.  He was physically assaulted.  I just wish he was a big tough guy who could have defended himself appropriately, if he looked like Julian from Trailer Park Boys do you really think they would've laid hands on him?  

120mm_he #45 Posted Apr 11 2017 - 17:34

    Major

  • Players
  • 16104 battles
  • 15,511
  • [PBS] PBS
  • Member since:
    02-17-2011

View PostThePigSheFlies, on Apr 11 2017 - 11:26, said:

 

no, it is not common to ask for volunteers once the plane has fully boarded...

 

what I would, or would not have done is irrelevant.  the bottom line is United made a moronic decision to have him forcibly removed instead of raising the compensation offer which would have probably gotten volunteers. 

 

OR deplaning everyone, which they ultimately ended up having to do anyway, and the plane was 2+ hours late.

 

 

 

I'm not defending united's action. I'm attacking the idiots response to it. His tantrum is the only reason this is making the news at all and could have been handled by him far more efficiently with greater leverage in a court case. Now he just looks like a man child and united's lawyers will make short work of him. This could have been a real chance to change united's policies to be more consumer friendly but nope raw emotion and juvenile behavior loses where logic would have won the day.

 

View PostCutthroatlemur, on Apr 11 2017 - 11:34, said:

 

I understand your point...but it's not really relevant.  The actions of the passenger (victim) did not cause him to be removed.  He was removed for the airline's convenience.  Your argument comes dagerously close to the old arguments about rape victims "asking for it" due to being intoxicated or suggestively dressed.  The passenger was a victim here, and was under no obligation to give up his seat.  He was physically assaulted.  I just wish he was a big tough guy who could have defended himself appropriately, if he looked like Julian from Trailer Park Boys do you really think they would've laid hands on him?  

 

Of course the passenger was the victim. That however doesn't entitle him to act in a lunatic fashion. In the end its only going to muddy the waters and allow united to keep doing business as usual because the fickle public will have long forgotten this incident as the news cycle goes to the next 'big story' and the lack of a solid plaintiff will stop any chance of a real legal settlement which would have garnered the media attention to keep the heat up on united to be more consumer friendly. The guy mishandled a golden chance to make real change and all everyone sees is him screaming like child instead of a reasoned adult making a moral stand.

 



BudTugly #46 Posted Apr 11 2017 - 17:39

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 25146 battles
  • 640
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012
That video is huge in China where United is trying to expand business. Could cost them a lotta money.

120mm_he #47 Posted Apr 11 2017 - 17:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 16104 battles
  • 15,511
  • [PBS] PBS
  • Member since:
    02-17-2011

View PostBudTugly, on Apr 11 2017 - 11:39, said:

That video is huge in China where United is trying to expand business. Could cost them a lotta money.

 

Air travel is too vital to too many people for them to not use it and most lines are already maxing out flight capacity. This won't even be a story in a few days.

Flarvin #48 Posted Apr 11 2017 - 17:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 54455 battles
  • 16,467
  • Member since:
    03-29-2013

View PostThe_Golden_Falcon, on Apr 11 2017 - 09:32, said:

Hope you know that priorities come first if you read their guidelines idiots. Oh and that "doctor" has drug abuse, and anger management issues, and more. United had every right for what they did, the passenger was in the wrong.

 

Based on the contract Union attaches to its tickets, they did not have a right to do what they did. 

 

Once the passenger is in the seat, they do not need to give it up based on that contract. Union is allowed to force passengers to give up seats in the case of overbooking before loading. This case the flight was not overbooked and the passenger was in his seat. 



120mm_he #49 Posted Apr 11 2017 - 17:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 16104 battles
  • 15,511
  • [PBS] PBS
  • Member since:
    02-17-2011

View PostFlarvin, on Apr 11 2017 - 11:42, said:

 

Based on the contract Union attaches to its tickets, they did not have a right to do what they did. 

 

Once the passenger is in the seat, they do not need to give it up based on that contract. Union is allowed to force passengers to give up seats in the case of overbooking before loading. This case the flight was not overbooked and the passenger was in his seat. 

 

This wasn't an overbook issue. This was a clause to allow 'important' united employees travel and allows them to replane customers at any time to make room for them. Sure its a bad practice and in this case completely mishandled but it won't go very far in court if it gets a trial at all. This will be settled out of court after the media interest dies off in a few days.

Flarvin #50 Posted Apr 11 2017 - 18:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 54455 battles
  • 16,467
  • Member since:
    03-29-2013

View Post120mm_he, on Apr 11 2017 - 11:34, said:

 

I'm not defending united's action. I'm attacking the idiots response to it. His tantrum is the only reason this is making the news at all and could have been handled by him far more efficiently with greater leverage in a court case. Now he just looks like a man child and united's lawyers will make short work of him. This could have been a real chance to change united's policies to be more consumer friendly but nope raw emotion and juvenile behavior loses where logic would have won the day.

 

 

United had no right to remove that passenger, regardless how he acted. 

 

The funny thing is you actually think United would have changed its policies without this video. Quite naive. 



120mm_he #51 Posted Apr 11 2017 - 18:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 16104 battles
  • 15,511
  • [PBS] PBS
  • Member since:
    02-17-2011

View PostFlarvin, on Apr 11 2017 - 12:02, said:

 

United had no right to remove that passenger, regardless how he acted. 

 

The funny thing is you actually think United would have changed its policies without this video. Quite naive. 

 

Nothing will come of this as they will settle out of court. The video is only one more distraction to show you that will be replaced tomorrow by another distraction and another and next week the united man child incident will be loooooong forgotten. No one here will give a rats [edited]about it as the new patch threads will move this to the second page and beyond by the end of the day.

Speedy_DePalma #52 Posted Apr 11 2017 - 18:09

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 3329 battles
  • 595
  • Member since:
    09-21-2011

http://www.marketwat...-cap-2017-04-11

 



Flarvin #53 Posted Apr 11 2017 - 18:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 54455 battles
  • 16,467
  • Member since:
    03-29-2013

View Post120mm_he, on Apr 11 2017 - 11:47, said:

 

This wasn't an overbook issue. This was a clause to allow 'important' united employees travel and allows them to replane customers at any time to make room for them. Sure its a bad practice and in this case completely mishandled but it won't go very far in court if it gets a trial at all. This will be settled out of court after the media interest dies off in a few days.

 

The passenger based on ticket contract, can not be forced to be removed once seated. United had no right to remove him. 

 

It won't go far, because united knows they are in the wrong and will settle. 



120mm_he #54 Posted Apr 11 2017 - 18:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 16104 battles
  • 15,511
  • [PBS] PBS
  • Member since:
    02-17-2011

View PostSpeedy_DePalma, on Apr 11 2017 - 12:09, said:

 

This is normal for any company that gets bad press. It will quickly rebound.

 

View PostFlarvin, on Apr 11 2017 - 12:10, said:

 

The passenger based on ticket contract, can not be forced to be removed once seated. United had not right to remove him. 

 

It won't go far, because united knows they are in the wrong and will settle. 

 

I know? Hence my statement saying it was mishandled? The clause is still there but instead of doing it before boarding it was done after boarding. This is why it won't go anywhere because it was a one off issue which is normally done correctly and apparently accepted as part of travel by most frequent flyers. Again the only reason this is even news is the dudes lunatic reaction.

 



Flarvin #55 Posted Apr 11 2017 - 18:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 54455 battles
  • 16,467
  • Member since:
    03-29-2013

View Post120mm_he, on Apr 11 2017 - 12:04, said:

 

Nothing will come of this as they will settle out of court. The video is only one more distraction to show you that will be replaced tomorrow by another distraction and another and next week the united man child incident will be loooooong forgotten. No one here will give a rats [edited]about it as the new patch threads will move this to the second page and beyond by the end of the day.

 

If the video did not surface, united would never have changed.

 

But like in many cases in the past, united will be forced to do something. The media already did its job, and reported on it. Now it is known how United is willing to treat their customers. Their stock price will fall, and united will change their ways. 



120mm_he #56 Posted Apr 11 2017 - 18:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 16104 battles
  • 15,511
  • [PBS] PBS
  • Member since:
    02-17-2011

View PostFlarvin, on Apr 11 2017 - 12:14, said:

 

If the video did not surface, united would never have changed.

 

But like in many cases in the past, united will be forced to do something. The media already did its job, and reported on it. Now it is known how United is willing to treat their customers. Their stock price will fall, and united will change their ways. 

 

And you called me naive.. :bajan: Their stock prices will bounce right back up and the story will disappear like mist on a lake after the sun rises and no one will care as they get on a united flight because it was the only flight available and they gotta get where they are going. Million's of people travel by air every day and only a microscopic fraction are ever effected by these things. Besides Trump's next tweet will blast this out of the newsroom or the next terrorist attack or whatever they decide to make important for a day. They will offer better vouchers for volunteers for a bit till it blows over then it will be back to business as usual.

BudTugly #57 Posted Apr 11 2017 - 18:33

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 25146 battles
  • 640
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012
It's amusing to see people assert that companies which spend vast amounts of money on marketing would not care about negative exposure.

The_Golden_Falcon #58 Posted Apr 11 2017 - 18:51

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 14672 battles
  • 239
  • Member since:
    02-28-2015
Haha he wasn't even a doctor, his license was revoked for illegal prescription distribution and drug use & abuse. He was even under investigation by the police. Yeah, United Definitely had every single right.

Yenny #59 Posted Apr 11 2017 - 18:55

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 53949 battles
  • 236
  • Member since:
    09-01-2010

View PostThe_Golden_Falcon, on Apr 11 2017 - 12:51, said:

Haha he wasn't even a doctor, his license was revoked for illegal prescription distribution and drug use & abuse. He was even under investigation by the police. Yeah, United Definitely had every single right.

 

What he is or is not is irrelevant. Just look at him as a regular paying customer.

eXs11 #60 Posted Apr 11 2017 - 19:00

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 15338 battles
  • 2,584
  • Member since:
    06-07-2015
so basically what you're trying to say is we have it actually pretty good with serb? yea they take away our light tanks but at least 3 thugs don't show up and beat you over the head after you buy the Defender? great success!




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users