-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
NEWS The Not So Friendly Skies....
- Thread starter Randy Daytona
- Start date
I have zero sympathy for United. They could take a page from Delta on how to handle an incident such as this: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017...-take-customer-service-lesson-from-delta.html
Instead of offering an $800 voucher on United in exchange for missing a day of work, Delta offered the maximum of $1350 in AMEX gift cards to those it had to push off a flight. United was trying to do it on the cheap and should reap the consequences.
Wonder how many times this video will be shown as "Open Skies" gets debated in Congress - and if Emirates, Etihad and Qatar gain full access to the American market, it will be a massive price to pay for all of the American airlines. http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...p-can-support-america-first-by-upholding-open
If anyone wants the regs for Europe, here they are. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.h...a7-8bf4-b0f60600c1d6.0004.02/DOC_1&format=PDF
From the Singapore Times...
D
Deleted member 24525
Guest
"Trying to do it on the cheap"
Right, the employee deliberately set out to be cheap. Dumb comment.
How about they need to reevaluate their voucher program. 99% of people find 1000$
(The real offered amount BTW) to be perfectly adequate compensation for a 200$ ticket.
Cheap? Outdated, definitely.
United blinked. No reason to apologise. None. So Munoz is really apologizing for not sounding compassionate enough or being tone deaf, of what? Our candy ass society needs meaningless platitides from the CEO of one of the world's largest airlines because they saw a video of a man being forcefully removed from a plane, a plane he didn't belong on? Almost everyone agrees established procedures were followed by the airline. Pax got hurt because of HIS actions. No apology required. Everyone played by the rules and followed procedures but the pax. Where is his apology for delaying the flight? I am disappointed now. I thought UAL was standing tall like most businesses don't.
Last edited:
Even if they do, they'll still pick the lowest fare, which is the whole reason overbooking exists to begin with.
Agreed. In 2mo the average traveler will still fly united if it's the cheapest fare.
Not sure how much longer overbooking will be around after this.
THE HOUSE: Rep. Dan Lipinski, D-Ill., said Congress may need to act to make sure United Airlines — or any other carrier — can never again drag a passenger off a plane.
Lipinski is a member of the House Transportation Committee’s Aviation subcommittee. The panel has broad jurisdiction over airlines and almost every other aspect of flying.
Lipinski and Rep. Rodney Davis, R-Ill, wrote to Chao on Tuesday noting that the “flying public” has concerns about “how a mistake that was admittedly the airlines own doing could lead to a violent confrontation between a passenger and law enforcement.”
http://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/united-airlines-incident-may-spur-congress-to-act-lipinski/
What a joke. US Airlines booted 40,000 people last year and not one mention in the news. 434,000 voluntarily gave up their seats and silence. One guy acts like a bitch and gets manhandled by the cops for not following the law and now everyone is up in arms. This bill doesn't mean anything, it's to make people temporarily feel good that something is being done when nothing will be.
Sweet. In the unlikely event this happens, we can all look forward to paying significantly more for every flight to subsidize empty seats, rather than accepting a 1 in 1000 chance of being involuntarily bumped and compensated. Not only that, we can expect many more flights to be canceled when airlines can't effectively move personnel where they're needed. And all to avoid a situation anyone can stay out of by simply obeying legal authorities.
Right, because what we need are more government rules, because one dude acted like a little bitch when he drew the short straw.
Or you can solve the problem by the airline simply increasing the incentive until someone volunteers to give their seat. That easy - and everybody is happy.
You may think $800 in compensation is enough - but if you have limited vacation days, have an itinerary for a family vacation that is already paid for, work to be at - it is a minuscule "compensation". I am buying a ticket to get from A to B at a scheduled time. Weather, sure. Mechanical, understood. Act of God, well that happens. Oversold? No.
Again, as The Economist stated: the airlines can solve the problem simply by increasing the incentive until someone voluntarily cashes in their ticket. Supply and demand. And you could avoid extra government regulation.
I don't have a problem with that - it doesn't seem necessary to me to have a cap there anyway. I do have a problem with legislators hamstringing airlines in a way that will hurt everyone in order to appease a bunch of outraged, entitled morons on Twitter. Something tells me Congress has more important shit to do...
...like burning through their special interest dollars to get reelected again.
I just don't understand the police response. Not to go off on police violence/BLM/political hand grenades, but why use violence so early? They could have at least explained to the good doctor "You can sit here all day, but this plane is NOT leaving with you on it" or any number of other things to get through to him he had to leave the plane.
This is a complicated matter, particularly in the context of the modern social media paradigm. It's never black and white. In this case: United (or rather, its contracted regional carrier) was within its rights to remove passengers from the plane. They should have not boarded them to begin with, and they might have upped the incentive a bit more, considering the unfairness of boarding and then removing.
The passenger was reasonably upset, but failing to obey a crewmember is, I believe, a federal offense? So he was videotaped committing a crime.
The fact of the matter is, that with the above aside, or rather in the context of our society, most people will only see a sensational newsclip and wringe their hands before typing angry social media posts with the intent to DESTROY United. Because that's what we do now. We don't just disagree with things. When people disagree with us, or say/do things that upset us, we must DESTROY THEM in every facet. United should have handled this better on social media and merely given a vague answer of "we're looking into our procedures and working with police to resolve this type of conflict in the future".
With that being said, let the dude try to sue... he is on video committing a crime. Whether THAT is good for the company is up to their PR/Legal folks. If I was principled and he sued, I'd take him on and drain his funds in a case he'll lose.
This is a complicated matter, particularly in the context of the modern social media paradigm. It's never black and white. In this case: United (or rather, its contracted regional carrier) was within its rights to remove passengers from the plane. They should have not boarded them to begin with, and they might have upped the incentive a bit more, considering the unfairness of boarding and then removing.
The passenger was reasonably upset, but failing to obey a crewmember is, I believe, a federal offense? So he was videotaped committing a crime.
The fact of the matter is, that with the above aside, or rather in the context of our society, most people will only see a sensational newsclip and wringe their hands before typing angry social media posts with the intent to DESTROY United. Because that's what we do now. We don't just disagree with things. When people disagree with us, or say/do things that upset us, we must DESTROY THEM in every facet. United should have handled this better on social media and merely given a vague answer of "we're looking into our procedures and working with police to resolve this type of conflict in the future".
With that being said, let the dude try to sue... he is on video committing a crime. Whether THAT is good for the company is up to their PR/Legal folks. If I was principled and he sued, I'd take him on and drain his funds in a case he'll lose.