# United drags passenger off the plane because of overbooking.



## Bunk (Apr 10, 2017)

Not so friendly skys.  
United overbooked its flight from O'Hare to Louisville.  Got volunteers to give up seats before boarding.  Then after boarding the plane United said four more people had to give up seats because it needed to fly four United employees  to Louisville for a Monday flight.  Apparently it had the computer choose 4 people.  Look what happened to the one who objected.

http://www.courier-journal.com/stor...d-united-flight-chicago-louisville/100274374/


----------



## Passepartout (Apr 10, 2017)

Hmmmm. Can you say, "Friendly Skies?" Someone will regret this decision.


----------



## sts1732 (Apr 10, 2017)

Bunk said:


> Not so friendly skys.
> United overbooked its flight from O'Hare to Louisville.  Got volunteers to give up seats before boarding.  Then after boarding the plane United said four more people had to give up seats because it needed to fly four United employees  to Louisville for a Monday flight.  Apparently it had the computer choose 4 people.  Look what happened to the one who objected.
> 
> http://www.courier-journal.com/stor...d-united-flight-chicago-louisville/100274374/


Another fine example of "friendly Skies".................Wonder if they had to sit in the taken seats or if they rearranged the whole plane so the flight crew could sit up front.


----------



## rapmarks (Apr 10, 2017)

That is unbelievable 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## klpca (Apr 10, 2017)

The PR folks for United must be shaking their heads at this point. Quite ridiculous. Why they didn't just offer up the big bucks to get people to voluntarily leave is beyond me. It would have been a much better option than handling it the way that they did.


----------



## Glynda (Apr 10, 2017)

So wrong on so many levels!  Can't wait to read how this one turns out in the courts!


----------



## Glynda (Apr 10, 2017)

klpca said:


> The PR folks for United must be shaking theirs heads at this point. Quite ridiculous. Why they didn't just offer up the big bucks to get people to voluntarily leave is beyond me. It would have been a much better option than handling it the way that they did.



Yes, it seems that their best offer was $800.  Yet this is irreversible PR and will end up costing them much more.


----------



## klpca (Apr 10, 2017)

Glynda said:


> Yes, it seems that their best offer was $800.  Yet this is irreversible PR and will end up costing them much more.


Exactly. It says a lot about their corporate culture.


----------



## Ken555 (Apr 10, 2017)

Simply absurd. Yet another reason not to fly United. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## davidvel (Apr 10, 2017)

What should  an airline do when a person who gets bumped ultimately refuses to leave the aircraft?


----------



## klpca (Apr 10, 2017)

davidvel said:


> What should  an airline do when a person who gets bumped ultimately refuses to leave the aircraft?


Easily solved with money. Find someone who will get off without a fight. Letting it get to this point is stupid.


----------



## presley (Apr 10, 2017)

What a cruel thing to do.


----------



## Passepartout (Apr 10, 2017)

davidvel said:


> What should  an airline do when a person who gets bumped ultimately refuses to leave the aircraft?


More to the point, since the airline entered into a 'Contract of Carriage' with the passenger, what penalty should the airline pay for breach of contract. After all, it was the airline that overbooked the flight. They KNEW how many people that airplane held, and they continued to book above that number. I think they should have put those passengers they chose to bump on a private jet if necessary to honor their contract & for PR.


----------



## Luanne (Apr 10, 2017)

klpca said:


> The PR folks for United must be shaking theirs heads at this point. Quite ridiculous. Why they didn't just offer up the big bucks to get people to voluntarily leave is beyond me. It would have been a much better option than handling it the way that they did.


I haven't read the article, but I read on another site where this was being discussed, that money, free tickets, etc. were offered and they still didn't get enough people to take those offers.  Of course, I'm not saying the way this passenger was treated was right.


----------



## klpca (Apr 10, 2017)

Luanne said:


> I haven't read the article, but I read on another site where this was being discussed, that money, free tickets, etc. were offered and they still didn't get enough people to take those offers.  Of course, I'm not saying the way this passenger was treated was right.


What I read was that they were offering $800. It appears that once you're seated on the plane, that's not enough of an incentive to get off. I just think they should have increased their offer. Everyone has a price. ☺


----------



## 2rebecca (Apr 10, 2017)

Passepartout said:


> More to the point, since the airline entered into a 'Contract of Carriage' with the passenger, what penalty should the airline pay for breach of contract. After all, it was the airline that overbooked the flight. They KNEW how many people that airplane held, and they continued to book above that number. I think they should have put those passengers they chose to bump on a private jet if necessary to honor their contract & for PR.



Good point, but to make it worse, it sounds like it was more than just being overbooked.  They decided their stand-by employees should get the seats instead of the paying customers (see quote below).  They could have just put the employees on a different flight, or bumped up the reward for voluntarily giving up your seat.  $800 is nothing if you miss a day of vacation.  I bet if they had sweetened the pot to $1200-1500 folks would have volunteered. I've volunteered before, but I waited until the reward was enough to make it worth the inconvenience.  
"...once the flight was filled those on the plane were told that four people needed to give up their seats to *stand-by United employees* that needed to be in Louisville on Monday for a flight."


----------



## davidvel (Apr 10, 2017)

Passepartout said:


> More to the point, since the airline entered into a 'Contract of Carriage' with the passenger, what penalty should the airline pay for breach of contract. After all, it was the airline that overbooked the flight. They KNEW how many people that airplane held, and they continued to book above that number. I think they should have put those passengers they chose to bump on a private jet if necessary to honor their contract & for PR.


The contract and Federal law allow passengers to be bumped. This happens hundreds of times a day, as I understand it.


Luanne said:


> I haven't read the article, but I read on another site where this was being discussed, that money, free tickets, etc. were offered and they still didn't get enough people to take those offers.  Of course, I'm not saying the way this passenger was treated was right.





klpca said:


> What I read was that they were offering $800. It appears that once you're seated on the plane, that's not enough of an incentive to get off. I just think they should have increased their offer. Everyone has a price. ☺





klpca said:


> Easily solved with money. Find someone who will get off without a fight. Letting it get to this point is stupid.


So I understand that people will say they should just keep increasing their offer, "to a million dollars...," which we of course know will not happen, as they will never offer more than what the law requires, which is up to 400% of your one-way fare (www.transportation.gov). 

So what should an airline do when a person who gets bumped (properly according to the laws and regulations), ultimately refuses to leave the aircraft? Let the passengers on the plane decide who the most important travelers are? Leave the loudest, most combative passengers, etc?


----------



## klpca (Apr 10, 2017)

davidvel said:


> The contract and Federal law allow passengers to be bumped. This happens hundreds of times a day, as I understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Honestly I'm just looking at this from a PR standpoint. United created the situation themselves and then expected passengers to get them out of their jam. The most efficient way to get a combative passenger off of a plane is to not have the situation rise to that level. And I didn't say to increase compensation to a million dollars, but increase it enough to get that person off the plane without having to call the police. They overbooked the flight and they needed to move employees to another airport - this was on them.

For the record (without defending United Airlines) once the police get on the plane I think you should just go with them. Because it's not going to end well for you.


----------



## Laurie (Apr 10, 2017)

I recently had the most nightmarish cross-country flight experience with United. Every flight ias overbooked, and everything (information, computer system, broken equipment) was chaotic, and some of the employees had a hard time restraining from commenting on that. Other employees acted like power-drunk prison guards. A pilot and flight attendant actually went down to baggage and reclaimed for me a regulation-conforming suitcase that had been forcibly wrested from my hands at the gate - it contained documents too risky for me to lose - good thing because they found it in the wrong place, not bound for my destination, and with all the delays and changed flights I endured, it was certain to be at best delayed, if not lost. So much incompetence and hostility. We had volunteered to be bumped - big mistake because that began one of the many cascades into chaos. Serious overbooking is customary, and I won't ever fly that airline again.


----------



## davidvel (Apr 10, 2017)

klpca said:


> Honestly I'm just looking at this from a PR standpoint. United created the situation themselves and then expected passengers to get them out of their jam. The most efficient way to get a combative passenger off of a plane is to not have the situation rise to that level. And I didn't say to increase compensation to a million dollars, but increase it enough to get that person off the plane without having to call the police. They overbooked the flight and they needed to move employees to another airport - this was on them.
> 
> For the record (without defending United Airlines) once the police get on the plane I think you should just go with them. Because it's not going to end well for you.


I agree it was mishandled badly. What I was trying to say is that, there will always be people dozens of people every day who get involuntarily bumped for various reasons we or the passengers don't agree with. At some point, there will always people that refuse to leave the aircraft, because they are drunk, disobey orders, or are involuntarily bumped. At that point, they will have to be removed, willingly or not. 

The reason this is a story is not because the airline offered crappy compensation, bumped people for its own scheduling purposes, etc. That happens multiple times every single day, but you don't see stories like this every day. We are reading this because someone refused to leave the aircraft when instructed by the airline, and then physically resisted against the police and cried and screamed like a baby who fell down the stairs.


----------



## vacationhopeful (Apr 10, 2017)

I see a 'closed settlement' with a mutual non-disclosure agreements. And the TSA and airport security will be involved. And another suit/payout to all the stunned and shocked passengers who were treated to this event of flying.

Whether ANY settlement is deserving, called for or should be paid ... is NOT what I am commenting on or recommending ... it is the drama which is being 'rewarded'. 

Since 9/11, the number 1 rule when on ANY airplane is, FOLLOW ALL INSTRUCTIONS YOU GET FROM THE FLIGHT CREW. Else, you will be removed and will be charge with a criminal act(s) and fined & jail time PLUS all costs and damages.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 10, 2017)

I've sat in airports long after the flight was supposed to take off because the flight crew was unable to get to their next assignment on time.  That affects far more passengers throughout the system than just one planeload or one unlucky passenger whose number was called when the airline had exhausted all other methods to lighten the passenger load.

So if this turns out to be a case of them needing to ferry a flight crew to their next assignment, offering the usual incentives for passengers to voluntarily give up their seats without enough takers, having to resort to a stated lottery system to force passengers to give up their seats, and then a passenger thinking the rules don't apply to him so he had to be physically forced?  Well, in that case I don't think the airline should be faulted at all and I don't think any compensation above or beyond the usual is warranted.

Whether airlines should be allowed to overbook flights is a different issue.  If enough people actively lobbied against it then maybe it could be legislated against but I doubt that's ever going to happen.


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 10, 2017)

guess im in the minority.

the guy wasnt forcibly removed "to make room"...he was forcibly removed because he refused to give up his seat after losing the "lottery" that randomly picks passengers to get bumped.

we are talking HOURS here of the airline offering money for people to give up their seats...explaining that people were going to be bumped if they did NOT give up their seats....even offering hundreds of dollars in travel vouchers to give up the seats.

everyone has heard this message if they travel regularly, its repeated nearly every 5 minutes or so over the loudspeakers until they get enough volunteers....and its also explained that they are going to randomly select folks to get bumped off the flight if noone steps up to the plate.

I get the concept of not wanting to give up your seat because you HAVE to get to your destination...but its not like cops just walked on the plane and began dragging this guy off....he made a conscious decision that he was "not going to get up" for the flight attendants and captains orders...thus they called security to have him removed.


I grow weary of the mainstream media making up inflammatory headlines...and no doubt that "man forcibly removed from plane to make room for standby passengers" causes more arguments and outrage than "man refuses to listen to flight attendants and thus security had to be called to remove him from the plane"


its just like the previous story about the girl and her "leggings" when the headline narrative was trying to make the airline out to be some sort of fashion police that turned out to not be the case at all.


----------



## ace2000 (Apr 10, 2017)

Well said Brian... and exactly my thoughts.


----------



## heathpack (Apr 10, 2017)

Sorry but there is always someone who will get off a flight if you offer enough.  $800 for me- to miss a day of work?  I'm sorry, I would lose way more in income that that with a day off work.

If you need to get a flight crew somewhere, you need to get a flight crew somewhere.  But carrots are always way better than sticks IMO.

Does the airline have the "right" to force you off a plane after you've been seated?  Yes, apparently so.  Is it "right," though?  Not in my mind, especially since United could've made that happen with better compensation offers.

@SueDonJ, you are concerned about the delays of maybe 100 people on a single flight out of Louisville.  But remember that physician who was dragged off the flight may have had 20 appts booked that next day, so you're automatically inconveniencing at least 20 people, perhaps more.  Also the physician's office staff who have to work late some other day that week, and each one of their childcare providers, and the employers of the patients who must now give the employee another few hours off to get to the doctor. 

And so on.  This is why it is way better to offer compensation until you have volunteers.  Passengers have a much better sense of how urgently each of them needs to get to their destination.  Miss your mother's funeral?  Not worth $800.  Miss two midterm exams?  Not worth $800.  Miss a day of work when you are a solo practitioner MD?  Not worth $800.  Get home a day late when you're retired?  Worth $800 or $1000 for sure.  Or a college student with no exams?  Or even an employee at a regular place of employment where you're a cog who can be done without for a single day with little impact?  Those people will eventually bite if you offer enough.  Do it and avoid the miserable publicity.


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 10, 2017)

> Does the airline have the "right" to force you off a plane after you've been seated? Yes, apparently so. Is it "right," though? Not in my mind, especially since United could've made that happen with better compensation offers.



unfortunately right and wrong really dont apply once you buy the ticket, you are already agreeing to the chance of this happening the moment you purchase it.  the time to protest the possibility of this activity happening would be before you bought the ticket, not while sitting on the plane.

perhaps the passenger in question could have offered another passenger more money to volunteer if he truly was going to lose out on countless dollars by not making it to his destination.

while not exactly a reasonable solution, its LIGHT YEARS more reasonable than throwing a fit and flopping on the ground to be dragged off by police.


----------



## Chrispee (Apr 10, 2017)

To me, the major failure here was United not solving their overbooking problem prior to boarding. I agree with others who say "everybody had their price".  If I were involuntarily bumped at the gate, I'd be upset but probably get over it. If I were involuntary bumped after boarding and asked to deplane, I would never fly that airline again.


----------



## heathpack (Apr 10, 2017)

TUGBrian said:


> perhaps the passenger in question could have offered another passenger more money to volunteer if he truly was going to lose out on countless dollars by not making it to his destination.



Well describing it as "countless dollars" in an inaccurate description of what I said.  It wasn't countless dollars of lost income, but likely way more than $800 and, beyond that, the disruption to what was likely a very full schedule, if he's been away for a bit of time. 

But I'm sure there were several people on that plane who would have gotten off for $1200 or $1500 or $1800.  Heck, I'm surprised that they didn't get a few nibbles at $800, this may have to do with the cost of lodging in Chicago since it seems like they must have been unable to get him out that day.

Would I personally take it to the extent of being physically dragged off a plane?  No.  But I get the pressure he was under to get back to work.

Lol and I love your concept that its ok for the *airline* to be unwilling to compensate people "enough" to make it worth their while to get off the plane.  But should the passenger be unwilling? Now *he* has crossed a line.


----------



## lizap (Apr 10, 2017)

Unfortunately, this is one of the many adverse side effects of too much consolidation in the airline industry.  They think they can do whatever they want, when they want, and to whomever they want.  I hope this guy gets millions from United.  This will cost them big time..


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 10, 2017)

another article mentioned that some folks did actually take the 800 offer and got off...

the fact is, 4 people were getting off that plane one way or another.  I get the point of not wanting to volunteer and thus take your chances with the lottery pick after all, you have like a 1/100 chance of being the unlucky winner.

however once chosen, and it was explained to him that he was getting off the plane by both the gate crew, and the flight crew...he should have gotten up and left.  throwing a tantrum isnt a valid option for an adult, and especially not an option on a fully boarded airplane.

more along those lines, once the airport police showed up and explained he needed to get off the plane one should realize that no matter what he does, hes not going to remain in the seat and get to his destination....but taking it even further and deliberately flopping on the ground to force the officers to drag him down the hallway was again nothing more than a tantrum...and completely unacceptable no matter what your opinion is of the airline policy on overbooking.

I only take offense to the media narrative that the person was "forcibly dragged off" merely because the flight was overbooked, when in fact he was dragged off because he was acting like a petulant child, and refused repeated instructions by the gate crew, the flight crew, and uniformed police.


----------



## vacationhopeful (Apr 10, 2017)

And over the years ... I have taken multiple SWA voluntary bumps. "Loot" was good, got food vouchers and even once, a PAID overnight stay (private room) in a hotel .. rode the shuttle with a flight & cabin crews & ate breakfast the next AM with the same cabin crew who I flew home with. Yes, the same Southwest Airlines. 

I still always ask at my outbound gate, if the flight is oversold. 

PS I believe if the airline pays the last passenger agreeing to a BUMP ... the other bump passengers will get the same 'loot'. Plus free rebooking on the NEXT available flight.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 10, 2017)

At what point are the passengers _who voluntarily choose to do business with an airline_ in the wrong when they refuse to comply with the stated rules of airlines AND the Passengers' Bill of Rights as legislated?  Granted, it's no picnic flying these days but holding the airlines hostage for more compensation than what's already being offered isn't the answer!

This guy flopped like a seal because he knew it would end up on social media and he knew that the airline would be subject to very public pressure to give him more than he's entitled.  What's going to happen if the airline caves to all this faux outrage and gives him $1,000, $2,000, $8,000, whatever it takes to shut him and the Entitled Public up?!?!  You know what's going to happen - the next guy is going to demand more and then the next guy and then the next guy and then the next guy ... and we all end up paying more because all those costs are going to make their way into ticket prices eventually.

I have no doubt that if someone who is involuntarily bumped from a flight actually has a LEGITIMATE reason to stay on it like a family funeral or because life-saving surgery requires his/her presence or because the world will end, if the person acts like an adult and discusses the situation privately with airline personnel and security then s/he'll be allowed to keep the seat and someone else will get bumped.  In fact, when the announcements start coming that bumps will take place, IMO an adult would go up to the gate agent and explain the situation rationally so that the agent could act accordingly.

And this might go a little bit too far into "contentious issues" but ... I'd hazard a guess that someone supporting a family on minimum wage with little job security is probably less able to afford losing a day's work than someone losing $800 for a day's work.  I don't want any part of ranking the bump-ability of airline passengers based on their incomes.


----------



## lizap (Apr 10, 2017)

While the guy should not have acted this way, my understanding is that this situation was terribly botched/mishandled by United.  The vivid passenger accounts/videos over on Reddit appear to substantiate this.


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 10, 2017)

the problem with all the "vivid videos" is that they all start long after the guy has repeatedly refused to get out of his seat and only show what supports the media narrative.


----------



## lizap (Apr 10, 2017)

TUGBrian said:


> the problem with all the "vivid videos" is that they all start long after the guy has repeatedly refused to get out of his seat and only show what supports the media narrative.




The passenger accounts are very important in this case as the passengers heard/saw the entire event unfold.  It will be up to the courts to determine the validity of this case, but I suspect the man will settle for millions prior to this going to trial.  And the negative goodwill will cost United bigtime, as well..


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 10, 2017)

*shrug...ive watched at least 3 of them, and they all "conveniently" start after the police officers have begun to forcibly remove him from his chair.

surely if the encounter up to that point supported the narrative of this guy being a completely innocent victim...they would show that right?


----------



## Ken555 (Apr 10, 2017)

Not sure if the facts are really in dispute, but I don't think so. They asked for volunteers, they offered future travel credit (which, of course, is not the same as cash), and then they resorted to violence. I don't think it really matters if the passenger waived his rights in this regard. I agree with those of you who believe that the passenger rights were met based on the contract, and I agree with those you think United could have handled this so much better. These goals really aren't mutually exclusive. 

As for the "narrative"...and "mainstream media"...sigh...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 10, 2017)

I guess we are just of completely different mindsets as to what is or isnt acceptable behavior after you have been instructed to comply peacefully a number of times by law enforcement....and or what is acceptable behavior by said law enforcement once you have repeatedly refused to comply.

not to mention they are on a crowded airplane post 9/11...we arent talking about someone who refuses to get up from their seat at starbucks.


I will agree that it should not have gotten to the point that it did, but thats just as much the fault of the passenger with his decisions as it is the airline with their policies.

the simple fact is that the guy was going to get off the plane one way or another, he could have easily complied and walked off at any time long before it escalated to "violence"...but he deliberately chose not to.


----------



## Ken555 (Apr 10, 2017)

I don't disagree with you. I just don't think it's quite so black and white as you do. As for 9/11...the plane was on the ground, the passenger boarded legally and there was no security threat (that I've yet read). I think it's a stretch to imply passengers rights in this specific situation was affected by 9/11 at all.

Personally, I think this guy was crazy. If they tell me to get off the plane I might object but I'll get off. And if this guy really is a doctor...I think his patients should consider finding a new one. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## davidvel (Apr 10, 2017)

Ken555 said:


> I don't disagree with you. I just don't think it's quite so black and white as you do.


Ken, how would you have removed him if you were in charge?


----------



## vacationhopeful (Apr 10, 2017)

Brian,

Most people will just sit in the plane there and say, "NOT ME ... I am good ... it is not me being BUMPED". Let's get this flight into the air. 

When the police came on board, NOW there is going to be action. Like a icy spot on the road and cars are slip, sliding and hitting telephone poles at 10-15 MPH.

Cell phone cameras and videos will roll to film the meltdown/icy car crashes ... to post on Facebook & get likes OR better, to SELL to the TV stations.

And if the person being ejected ... the loser of this forced lottery ... did have a funeral to attend or going home to a sick child/spouse/parent or doing a rapid business meeting for a night to sign a BIG business deal or hates flying at all or drove 4 hours or only has meds & clothes for their planned trip?

Asking for volunteers and upping the OFFER PRICE as the airline OVERBOOKED the flight is one way.

Personally, they could have selected 3 persons via lottery AND then asked the gate agent as to who stays on the plane. MOST people will try to be civil and recognize, that others might be far worst off than themselves ... being inconvienced is one thing; being unable to accommodate is another. And working a deal is best done via a small group on a personal level.


----------



## Ken555 (Apr 10, 2017)

davidvel said:


> Ken, how would you have removed him if you were in charge?



The moment it became clear that he wasn't going to move voluntarily (even perhaps being asked and quoted the contract), I would have offered more incentive for him, or anyone else, to leave. The PR nightmare that United is facing today (and this story is all over my Facebook feed today) isn't worth a few hundred bucks to United.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## vacationhopeful (Apr 10, 2017)

And if guy was a doctor ... $800 is chump change if he has to pay for his staff to sit idle in the office for the next day, his patient load being re-scheduled and cramped into already overbook times.

Could have picked the last (or was it 3 persons originally?) person who got a boarding passes for the flight.


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 10, 2017)

This is like a police state! Just horrendous! Lawsuit time. The only way I would ever get off the plane is if they offered me thousands of dollars- CASH- because after forcing me off the plane I would never fly again.


----------



## Ken555 (Apr 10, 2017)

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/united-video-scandal-law/522552/

"In this way, the United video serves as a stark metaphor, one where the quiet brutalization of consumers is rendered in shocking, literal form. The first thought that I had watching the outrageous footage of a passenger being dragged through an aisle like a bag of trash was that this should never happen. But fundamentally, this is an old story: Companies in concentrated industries, like the airlines, have legal cover to break the most basic promise to consumers without legally breaking their contracts. The video is a scandal. But so is the law."


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 10, 2017)

Airlines have to be held accountable for overbooking flights! This should not be allowed. People buy their tickets on good faith that they will be able to fly as scheduled. It is absolutely crazy!


----------



## davidvel (Apr 10, 2017)

Ken555 said:


> The moment it became clear that he wasn't going to move voluntarily (even perhaps being asked and quoted the contract), I would have offered more incentive for him, or anyone else, to leave. The PR nightmare that United is facing today (and this story is all over my Facebook feed today) isn't worth a few hundred bucks to United.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


And what if nothing enticed him (or anyone else) to get of voluntarily? Just let him stay?


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 10, 2017)

Ken555 said:


> Simply absurd. Yet another reason not to fly United.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



Another reason for me to be worried about my upcoming flight on United!


----------



## Ken555 (Apr 10, 2017)

davidvel said:


> And what if nothing enticed him (or anyone else) to get of voluntarily? Just let him stay?



Are you being argumentative for a reason? I would suspect that had United offered more, perhaps even up to the legal limit, they would have found a volunteer. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Maple_Leaf (Apr 10, 2017)

United Airlines customer service training video:


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 10, 2017)

Laurie said:


> I recently had the most nightmarish cross-country flight experience with United. Every flight ias overbooked, and everything (information, computer system, broken equipment) was chaotic, and some of the employees had a hard time restraining from commenting on that. Other employees acted like power-drunk prison guards. A pilot and flight attendant actually went down to baggage and reclaimed for me a regulation-conforming suitcase that had been forcibly wrested from my hands at the gate - it contained documents too risky for me to lose - good thing because they found it in the wrong place, not bound for my destination, and with all the delays and changed flights I endured, it was certain to be at best delayed, if not lost. So much incompetence and hostility. We had volunteered to be bumped - big mistake because that began one of the many cascades into chaos. Serious overbooking is customary, and I won't ever fly that airline again.




Just great. You are all scaring me now.


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 10, 2017)

Chrispee said:


> To me, the major failure here was United not solving their overbooking problem prior to boarding. I agree with others who say "everybody had their price".  If I were involuntarily bumped at the gate, I'd be upset but probably get over it. If I were involuntary bumped after boarding and asked to deplane, I would never fly that airline again.



I would never fly again period no matter what the outcome. As an employee who has to get back to work or the boss will take my vacation day off my next vacation forcing me to leave the next vacation early. The hassles of having to reschedule everything- flights, getting another hotel room, the car service waiting at the airport for me to get home? Countless other scenarios? 

Nope- no way would I ever fly again. They would have to shell out BIG BUCKS- take their travel vouchers and shove it because they will be useless to me.


----------



## Luanne (Apr 10, 2017)

mpumilia said:


> Just great. You are all scaring me now.


Not saying this recent action was correct, but I've flown United many times over the past years and I've never had any experiences that even come close to these.


----------



## wackymother (Apr 10, 2017)

I'm flying United tonight. And I'm wearing leggings. Wish me luck. When your closest airport is a United hub, there's almost no way to avoid them. 

BTW, we were bumped at Christmas on Delta from LaGuardia--our flight was cancelled. There were four of us traveling together, so we lost two days of vacation before they could find seats for us. 

On the day we were finally taking off, Delta had to offer a fortune to get four seats. I think they got two people at $600, one person at $900, and I think my seat, the last one, cost them $1200. We were already making plans for what we would do if my husband had to go on ahead with our teenage kids.


----------



## Luanne (Apr 10, 2017)

wackymother said:


> I'm flying United tonight. And I'm wearing leggings. Wish me luck. When your closest airport is a United hub, there's almost no way to avoid them.
> 
> BTW, we were bumped at Christmas on Delta from LaGuardia--our flight was cancelled. There were four of us traveling together, so we lost two days of vacation before they could find seats for us.
> 
> On the day we were finally taking off, Delta had to offer a fortune to get four seats. I think they got two people at $600, one person at $900, and I think my seat, the last one, cost them $1200. We were already making plans for what we would do if my husband had to go on ahead with our teenage kids.


As long as you're not flying on a buddy pass you're good with the leggings.


----------



## lizap (Apr 10, 2017)

Consolidation in the airline industry things (ie., poor service, no food, higher fares, paying for extra legroom in coach


davidvel said:


> Ken, how would you have removed him if you were in charge?



Why NOT find a way to get the four crew to Louisville?  You're a large airline with a lot of resources, surely they could have found a way. Heck, they could have rented a car and driven; its not that far.  Even UA frequent flyers (on FlyerTalk) are upset with the way UA handled this..


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 10, 2017)

I understand that the airlines can get away with so much that's detrimental to passengers (overbooking, changing flights, etc) but the way to change what they can do isn't through temper tantrums or standing your ground in the face of Homeland Security or demanding MORE-MORE-MORE money that's just going to end up in the ticket prices paid for by passengers.  Lobby for legislation if what they can do bothers you so much!  That's how the Passengers' Bill of Rights came to be and there is definitely room for improvement.  But in the meantime, if you fly then follow the rules and stop making it harder than it already is!

I don't know what I'm missing in all this but as far as I'm concerned, I don't want the airline to compensate this guy any further than was already offered to every other passenger on that plane!  What I do want is for Homeland Security to press charges against him for interfering with flight operations, endangering those around him with his stupid antics, and causing a public disturbance.  Maybe some of his fellow passengers can get together and claim that  his antics just piled more stress onto what is already a routinely stressful situation for many people because of 9/11, and sue him for mental anguish.  I'd be willing to give that claim more credence than whatever it is he was trying to claim.


----------



## lizap (Apr 10, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


> I understand that the airlines can get away with so much that's detrimental to passengers (overbooking, changing flights, etc) but the way to change what they can do isn't through temper tantrums or standing your ground in the face of Homeland Security or demanding MORE-MORE-MORE money that's just going to end up in the ticket prices paid for by passengers.  Lobby for legislation if what they can do bothers you so much!  That's how the Passengers' Bill of Rights came to be and there is definitely room for improvement.  But in the meantime, if you fly then follow the rules and stop making it harder than it already is!
> 
> I don't know what I'm missing in all this but as far as I'm concerned, I don't want the airline to compensate this guy any further than was already offered to every other passenger on that plane!  What I do want is for Homeland Security to press charges against him for interfering with flight operations, endangering those around him with his stupid antics, and causing a public disturbance.  Maybe some of his fellow passengers can get together and claim that  his antics just piled more stress onto what is already a routinely stressful situation for many people because of 9/11, and sue him for mental anguish.  I'd be willing to give that claim more credence than whatever it is he was trying to claim.




Sue, there were passengers on board (from passenger accounts) who strongly disapproved of the way this was handled by UA.  I won't rehash the particulars, but evidently they really mishandled/botched this process.  It appears some were so upset, they deplaned. However, this does not excuse the man's behavior.


----------



## Marathoner (Apr 10, 2017)

A major airline like United typically earns over a billion dollars a year by overbooking flights.  To simply offer only $800 and forcibly remove passengers because they want to earn extra revenue may be legal but it is wrong.  I hope United gets what they deserve for treating people like cattle while they chase their almighty dollar.  To all those people who cite contract of carriage and legal enforcibility to justify such gross behavior by the airline, there have always been bystanders rationalizing force throughout history as their fellow man have been treated wrongly.


----------



## lizap (Apr 10, 2017)

Marathoner said:


> A major airline like United typically earns over a billion dollars a year by overbooking flights.  To simply offer only $800 and forcibly remove passengers because they want to earn extra revenue may be legal but it is wrong.  I hope United gets what they deserve for treating people like cattle while they chase their almighty dollar.  To all those people who cite contract of carriage and legal enforcibility to justify such gross behavior by the airline, there have always been bystanders rationalizing force throughout history as their fellow man have been treated wrongly.




Completely agree with this comment.  Many people do NOT vote with their purses/wallets, even though they disagree with a fundamental business practice of a company.  We will be voting with our purse/wallet and will NOT be flying UA when we have a choice..


----------



## davidvel (Apr 10, 2017)

Ken555 said:


> Are you being argumentative for a reason? I would suspect that had United offered more, perhaps even up to the legal limit, they would have found a volunteer.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


(My comments are not all responsive or directed at you.) 

I don't think I'm being argumentative, we just see things very differently. It seems many have a utopian view that nothing can go wrong, and bad scenes can always be avoided. Its just not realistic. When you refuse to follow airline directives, and those of the police, they aren't just going to say, OK, we'll let you stay on the plane.  I'm not defending United, nor overbooking policies and the law regarding them. I haven't seen how this guy responded to police telling him to exit the plane. 

He refused to leave as he was required to by the contract and laws applicable thereto. He could have walked off, bitched and moaned and maybe found a different flight on another airline, etc., but certainly not dragged off.  Its easy to just say there was a way to get him (or anyone else in any other similar situation) to leave without having law enforcement grab him and drag him off, but I don't see how. I also don't understand the idea that the established rules and procedures are at the mercy and whim of any single individual, to decide at any given moment that they will protest and resist law enforcement (on an aircraft), and those that cheer him on just because they agree with him and think the rules suck.


----------



## Luanne (Apr 10, 2017)

So what was the reason?  Overbooking, or the need to get UA employees to their destination?

None of us posting here were involved in this and know the whole story of how this went down, even if there is video available for a portion of it.

Having been a passenger waiting for a crew member to be brought in on another flight, that can be pretty annoying.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 10, 2017)

Marathoner said:


> A major airline like United typically earns over a billion dollars a year by overbooking flights.  To simply offer only $800 and forcibly remove passengers because they want to earn extra revenue may be legal but it is wrong.  I hope United gets what they deserve for treating people like cattle while they chase their almighty dollar.  To all those people who cite contract of carriage and legal enforcibility to justify such gross behavior by the airline, there have always been bystanders rationalizing force throughout history as their fellow man have been treated wrongly.



I'm all for holding airlines to higher standards and fixing the laws so that they're more protective of passengers' rights than what's currently on the books.  But if you're saying that this guy's antics are as powerful and righteous as say, Rosa Parks' and those who supported her, that's preposterous IMO.  And if you're saying that protests which hold the airline schedules and other passengers hostage are the way to enact change, I simply disagree.  Find out what worked to get a Passengers' Bill of Rights enacted and then do what's necessary, within legal parameters, to improve on it.

Flying is a choice that all passengers make.  Sure, it's sometimes the only choice and oftentimes it's the best of all possible bad choices, but it's still a choice.  Anybody who makes that choice should understand what it entails.


----------



## lizap (Apr 10, 2017)

davidvel said:


> (My comments are not all responsive or directed at you.)
> 
> I don't think I'm being argumentative, we just see things very differently. It seems many have a utopian view that nothing can go wrong, and bad scenes can always be avoided. Its just not realistic. When you refuse to follow airline directives, and those of the police, they aren't just going to say, OK, we'll let you stay on the plane.  I'm not defending United, nor overbooking policies and the law regarding them. I haven't seen how this guy responded to police telling him to exit the plane.
> 
> He refused to leave as he was required to by the contract and laws applicable thereto. He could have walked off, bitched and moaned and maybe found a different flight on another airline, etc., but certainly not dragged off.  Its easy to just say there was a way to get him (or anyone else in any other similar situation) to leave without having law enforcement grab him and drag him off, but I don't see how. I also don't understand the idea that the established rules and procedures are at the mercy and whim of any single individual, to decide at any given moment that they will protest and resist law enforcement (on an aircraft), and those that cheer him on just because they agree with him and think the rules suck.




From other passenger accounts, it appears UA terribly mishandled the situation.  Was it due to lack of training, supervisor mistake and what will happen to the employee(s) who will cost UA goodwill and much $? The flying public would like to know.  As they say, we have a choice in who we fly...


----------



## Passepartout (Apr 10, 2017)

I can understand this particular passenger not standing for the bump. He is a doctor, he lives in Louisville and was going home on the last flight of the day, and he was scheduled to work at the hospital the following day. I know some may disagree, but well doctors, rightly or wrongly, feel that they are just a little more privileged than mere mortals. Now, once the cops were called, and they smacked his head on the armrest and blood gushed forth, even mere mortals will yell like crazy.

We won't settle this here, and it will cost United untold amounts of money that cannot even be calculated, but I, as a casual observer will remember when booking a flight, and United, Delta, and American have equivalent prices and schedules. I won't be choosing United.

Jim


----------



## Talent312 (Apr 10, 2017)

lizap said:


> Why NOT find a way to get the four crew to Louisville?  You're a large airline with a lot of resources, surely they could have found a way. Heck, they could have rented a car and driven; its not that far.



Per Google Maps, its only a 5-hour drive. They could'a hired a van + driver.
When we were bumped off a flight to Asheville, they sent us to Tri-Cities in NE Tennessee.
They hired a van to drive us 90 minutes to the Asheville Airport.

Or they could'a sent the crew over to General Aviation and chartered a Cessna Citation.
.


----------



## Marathoner (Apr 10, 2017)

Holy cow.  Here is a video of the same guy who is bleeding from his mouth after having been roughed up by security!  

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...g-giants-that-are-gnawing-at-our-economy.html


----------



## rapmarks (Apr 10, 2017)

There must be a totally different standard for airline employees than for a lot of other professions, a plane got sent to another airport because the elderly man told an employee they should  be taken behind a woodshed, a man is dragged out forcibly from an overbooked plane, was it a surprise that four employees needed a ride?   I have been retired a long time but still have nightmares of 35 kids in a class, thirty desks, thirty books, and a counselor telling me to deal with it.,  and even adding two or three kids who are 18 but have never passed freshman English to the mix,  I have been talked back to pretty horrendously.  A lot of people made pretty bad judgements, but airline employees really should have better ways of dealing with them


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## lizap (Apr 10, 2017)

Talent312 said:


> According to Google Maps, its only a 5-hour drive. Shirley, they could'a hired a van + driver.
> When we were bumped from a flight to Asheville, they sent us to Tri-Cities in NE Tennessee.
> They hired a van to drive us 90 minutes to the Asheville Airport.
> 
> ...




This problem could have been mitigated/rectified by a competent supervisor.  Unfortuately, too often today, we don't think 'outside' the box.


----------



## WalnutBaron (Apr 10, 2017)

Ken555 said:


> I don't disagree with you. I just don't think it's quite so black and white as you do. As for 9/11...the plane was on the ground, the passenger boarded legally and there was no security threat (that I've yet read). I think it's a stretch to imply passengers rights in this specific situation was affected by 9/11 at all.
> 
> Personally, I think this guy was crazy. If they tell me to get off the plane I might object but I'll get off. And if this guy really is a doctor...I think his patients should consider finding a new one.
> 
> ...



He may not have been "crazy". He may be an opportunistic predator who decided he was going to make sure the cell phones were recording. I am also guessing that within a day--and probably a matter of hours--he was on the phone with an attorney willing to take up the case and sue the airline. As others have said, there's no doubt United did a terrible job of handling a difficult situation. There is also no doubt that the guy who decided he wasn't going without a fight is a complete jerk. But beyond being a jerk, I suspect he had a larger motive--and I will not be at all surprised when Chapter 2 of this sordid tale is published announcing the spurious multimillion lawsuit claiming he was "irreparably damaged" and is suffering "post traumatic disorder" as a result of what happened.


----------



## lizap (Apr 10, 2017)

WalnutBaron said:


> He may not have been "crazy". He may be an opportunistic predator who decided he was going to make sure the cell phones were recording. I am also guessing that within a day--and probably a matter of hours--he was on the phone with an attorney willing to take up the case and sue the airline. As others have said, there's no doubt United did a terrible job of handling a difficult situation. There is also no doubt that the guy who decided he wasn't going without a fight is a complete jerk. But beyond being a jerk, I suspect he had a larger motive--and I will not be at all surprised when Chapter 2 of this sordid tale is published announcing the spurious multimillion lawsuit claiming he was "irreparably damaged" and is suffering "post traumatic disorder" as a result of what happened.




But, it should not have gotten to this point...


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 10, 2017)

If someone slammed my face into the seat arm I would be screaming too!


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 10, 2017)

wackymother said:


> I'm flying United tonight. And I'm wearing leggings. Wish me luck. When your closest airport is a United hub, there's almost no way to avoid them.
> 
> BTW, we were bumped at Christmas on Delta from LaGuardia--our flight was cancelled. There were four of us traveling together, so we lost two days of vacation before they could find seats for us.
> 
> On the day we were finally taking off, Delta had to offer a fortune to get four seats. I think they got two people at $600, one person at $900, and I think my seat, the last one, cost them $1200. We were already making plans for what we would do if my husband had to go on ahead with our teenage kids.








Sorry, but I do not consider those payments a fortune by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 10, 2017)

I think we are all in agreement that it should not have gotten to the point it did...

the only thing i hate worse than airline/airport/tsa ridiculous rules and regulations....are passengers who seem to think they dont apply to them and thus cause everyone around them to be otherwise inconvenienced or delayed.


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 10, 2017)

mpumilia said:


> If someone slammed my face into the seat arm I would be screaming too!



this has me curious, ive sat in alot of airline seats...and its safe to say I couldnt put my face in contact with an armrest without breaking my spine in multiple places....much less hit it with enough force to draw blood.

the tray table in front of me perhaps, but not an armrest.

how on earth did it happen here?


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 10, 2017)

Marathoner said:


> A major airline like United typically earns over a billion dollars a year by overbooking flights.  To simply offer only $800 and forcibly remove passengers because they want to earn extra revenue may be legal but it is wrong.  I hope United gets what they deserve for treating people like cattle while they chase their almighty dollar.  To all those people who cite contract of carriage and legal enforcibility to justify such gross behavior by the airline, there have always been bystanders rationalizing force throughout history as their fellow man have been treated wrongly.




Exactly right. Only in the airline business is this tolerated. If someone does not show up for, let's say, a ball game that they have tickets for, it is not allowed for their seats to be resold! This is all part of doing business. I find this whole thing of bumping passengers despicable.


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 10, 2017)

I hate overbooking too, but its not a new policy and has existed for decades.

alternatives would be things like all tickets being non refundable, and or no ability to travel standby or change flights etc etc.


----------



## lizap (Apr 10, 2017)

mpumilia said:


> Exactly right. Only in the airline business is this tolerated. If someone does not show up for, let's say, a ball game that they have tickets for, it is not allowed for their seats to be resold! This is all part of doing business. I find this whole thing of bumping passengers despicable.




Mary Ann, I agree.  It will be interesting to see what the 'real' facts are in this case. I strongly suspect there was supervisory failure (or at a minimum, very poor judgment) on UA's part..


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 10, 2017)

also, the sporting event ticket item doesnt apply because there is no contractual agreement made between the buyer and the seller that allows for the possibility of being bumped off a flight for a later one.

while one may not like the policy, it is one that is agreed upon when any airline ticket is purchased.


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 10, 2017)

Passepartout said:


> I can understand this particular passenger not standing for the bump. He is a doctor, he lives in Louisville and was going home on the last flight of the day, and he was scheduled to work at the hospital the following day. I know some may disagree, but well doctors, rightly or wrongly, feel that they are just a little more privileged than mere mortals. Now, once the cops were called, and they smacked his head on the armrest and blood gushed forth, even mere mortals will yell like crazy.
> 
> We won't settle this here, and it will cost United untold amounts of money that cannot even be calculated, but I, as a casual observer will remember when booking a flight, and United, Delta, and American have equivalent prices and schedules. I won't be choosing United.
> 
> Jim




It doesn't even matter whether he is a doctor or a janitor. The fact is, he paid for a ticket for a seat on that flight. He did nothing wrong. He just wanted what he rightly paid for. The airline is at fault for overbooking.

I at first didn't want to book United for our Durango trip since I heard bad things recently and so booked American. But then they changed out schedule and so when changing all our vacation plans I chose United as they had more and better flights as Denver is a hug for them (aren't they merged with American anyway?).

Then, someone also posted about Delta cancelling their flight and that Delta picked the lower cost tickets to bump first as well. I have heard a lot of bad things about Delta. I think probably all the airlines stink today except maybe Jet Blue- maybe. But a lot of times you don;t have many choices except not to fly, which will be me if we have any major issues.


----------



## lizap (Apr 10, 2017)

lizap said:


> Mary Ann, I agree.  It will be interesting to see what the 'real' facts are in this case. I strongly suspect there was supervisory failure on UA's part..





mpumilia said:


> It doesn;t even matter if he is a doctor o
> 
> 
> 
> ...



One huge reason we fly Southwest.  They are so much easier to deal with (and this coming form someone who has flown 1mill plus miles on AA).


----------



## Maple_Leaf (Apr 10, 2017)

TUGBrian said:


> this has me curious, ive sat in alot of airline seats...and its safe to say I couldnt put my face in contact with an armrest without breaking my spine in multiple places....much less hit it with enough force to draw blood.
> 
> the tray table in front of me perhaps, but not an armrest.
> 
> how on earth did it happen here?



The security guys (Bouncers?)lifted him out of the window seat by his belt or pants and face-planted him into the arm rest of the aisle seat across the aisle. It appeared to stun him so they were able to drag him like a sack of potatoes from the plane.

The Louisville guy Jayse has a video from across the aisle on Twitter. It's the smoking gun for United and the Chicago Airport Security, whoever those guys are.


----------



## lizap (Apr 10, 2017)

Maple_Leaf said:


> The security guys lifted him out of the window seat by his belt or pants and face-planted him into the arm rest of the aisle seat across the aisle. It appeared to stun him so they were able to drag him like a sack of potatoes from the plane.



No way to justify this...


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 10, 2017)

Marathoner said:


> Holy cow.  Here is a video of the same guy who is bleeding from his mouth after having been roughed up by security!  According to the article, they apparently let him back on the plane and flew him after the incident.
> 
> http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...g-giants-that-are-gnawing-at-our-economy.html



Wow! Excellent article!


----------



## vacationhopeful (Apr 10, 2017)

lizap said:


> One huge reason we fly Southwest.  They are so much easier to deal with <snip>.


Yes ... and my best flight ever was on SWA ... where the party flew from LAX to Chicago. The traveling crew for HS Musical 2 and us regular passengers. Their "leader of the pack" put up his credit card for drinks in the rear of the plane ... I almost missed my connecting flight out of Chicago ... too much partying.


----------



## Ken555 (Apr 10, 2017)

davidvel said:


> (My comments are not all responsive or directed at you.)
> 
> I don't think I'm being argumentative, we just see things very differently. It seems many have a utopian view that nothing can go wrong, and bad scenes can always be avoided. Its just not realistic. When you refuse to follow airline directives, and those of the police, they aren't just going to say, OK, we'll let you stay on the plane.  I'm not defending United, nor overbooking policies and the law regarding them. I haven't seen how this guy responded to police telling him to exit the plane.
> 
> He refused to leave as he was required to by the contract and laws applicable thereto. He could have walked off, bitched and moaned and maybe found a different flight on another airline, etc., but certainly not dragged off.  Its easy to just say there was a way to get him (or anyone else in any other similar situation) to leave without having law enforcement grab him and drag him off, but I don't see how. I also don't understand the idea that the established rules and procedures are at the mercy and whim of any single individual, to decide at any given moment that they will protest and resist law enforcement (on an aircraft), and those that cheer him on just because they agree with him and think the rules suck.



(My comments are in response to your post, in case it's not obvious.)

We actually agree more than you think, and perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear in my previous posts. 

I see this, as has now been posted numerous times, as a UA failure to adequately handle the situation. The moment law enforcement got involved, UA failed in their responsibility to provide the service they were contracted to do. I suspect this is all due to someone at United having a lousy day, and I'm suspect the gate agents weren't having any fun with this plane, either. 

Did you read my post where I thought he should have left, and was crazy not to?  

As for being a doctor...sorry, but I actually agree that doctors should be able to get home so they can treat patients. I'd have voluntarily offered my seat on this plane had I been there and told that the person randomly selected was a doctor with a full day of appointments starting the next morning. Many might not be as flexible as I normally am, but I definitely would have done so if schedule permitted (i.e. if i wasn't en route to a cruise where timing is more critical). There are nice people out there, though many of us have been relegated to the silent majority in recent years... that said, UA failed miserably regardless of the law and they should have done everything possible to avoid such a PR nightmare (which, btw, is continuing to increase...I just saw another five posts about this on my Facebook feed).  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 10, 2017)

lizap said:


> One huge reason we fly Southwest.  They are so much easier to deal with (and this coming form someone who has flown 1mill plus miles on AA).



My son said he hates Southwest. LOL! When I looked at flights with them they hardly had any nonstop flights, which ended it for me.


----------



## lizap (Apr 10, 2017)

mpumilia said:


> My son said he hates Southwest. LOL! When I looked at flights with them they hardly had any nonstop flights, which ended it for me.



Depends on where you fly from. Another big reason we like them is they have so many nonstops from New Orleans and almost always, the lowest ticket prices. The older I get, the more I hate connecting. Though I do long for the days where we had more competition in the airline industry. Less competition has resulted in higher prices and poorer service.


----------



## Luanne (Apr 10, 2017)

mpumilia said:


> It doesn't even matter whether he is a doctor or a janitor. The fact is, he paid for a ticket for a seat on that flight. He did nothing wrong. He just wanted what he rightly paid for. The airline is at fault for overbooking.


I thought it wasn't overbooking, which pretty much EVERY airline does, but that they needed to get employees to another location .


----------



## Luanne (Apr 10, 2017)

mpumilia said:


> My son said he hates Southwest. LOL! When I looked at flights with them they hardly had any nonstop flights, which ended it for me.


I love Southwest, but if it's a choice between Southwest with stops, and an airline that flies direct, I'll take the airline that flies direct.  Luckily a lot of the places we go to, well mostly the San Francisco Bay area, does have a direct flight from Albuquerque.


----------



## Sugarcubesea (Apr 10, 2017)

Ken555 said:


> Simply absurd. Yet another reason not to fly United.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk





klpca said:


> Exactly. It says a lot about their corporate culture.





Ken555 said:


> Simply absurd. Yet another reason not to fly United.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



My cousin retired from United and told me that she felt bullying was the norm at this company. So sad, I have not flown United in over 10 years and will continue to not fly them.


----------



## Chrispee (Apr 10, 2017)

United is taking a beating on my FB feed right now.  It would be interesting to find out how much this problem (which likely could have been solved by offering another $500 x4 to pax) will cost United in lost revenue.


----------



## lizap (Apr 10, 2017)

Chrispee said:


> United is taking a beating on my FB feed right now.  It would be interesting to find out how much this problem (which likely could have been solved by offering another $500 x4 to pax) will cost United in lost revenue.




Very telling also that UA is taking a beating over on Flyertalk, from the most frequent flyers. At a minimum, the supervisor/gate agent who is responsible for this fiasco, should be terminated (and the public informed of this decision).  The current president of UA appeared to make light of the situation this morning on CNBC as did the former CEO of Continental. Of course, they are not going to admit how bad this is for UA.


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 10, 2017)

hard to disagree with most of the comments here, and id be on his side....right up until he refused to follow the directions of the flight crew and airport security/law enforcement.

at that point, anything that happened to him is just as much his fault as anyone elses when he knew full well he could have just complied and gotten up and walked off the plane peacefully.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 10, 2017)

I can't read all the posts. Sorry if this has been covered.

Anyway...
In my view - 3 parties are at fault as they do not need to be exclusive (black/white) of each other IMO
1) United (of course - no brainer)
2) The Chicago Dept of Aviation Police (they do not work for United) - big surprise...
3) The 'Doctor' -- seriously this guy is a Doctor?  Behaving like that?  I'd like to see proof of that (sorry, I am a skepical person...)
I wouldn't want him to be my Doctor (or family member, friend, or employee for that matter...).

'mainstream media' - funny


----------



## RLS50 (Apr 10, 2017)

For what it's worth, Erin Burnett had on the guy who sat in front of the guy who was pulled off.  The guy being interviewed was I think a college teacher of some kind.   He said that guy that got pulled off the plane was a nice and normal guy.  He said the guy did not want to get off the plane because he was a doctor with appointments the next day, and the real kicker (for me) was that his wife was sitting 3 rows behind him.   He said that when the Security guys came on the plane they weren't looking to talk it thru, they grabbed him and dragged him out of his seat almost immediately.

He said that the United woman that originally got on the plane and said that 4 people needed to get off, offered $800 per person (in United money...not real money) and did not offer any more.  Then she quickly said that they would just decide the 4 people to be taken off and that was that.   He implied the United woman was the one that had a bit of an attitude.

As soon as they found out the guy was traveling with his wife or family, they are supposed to go to another person.  Again, who the heck continues to target this doctor when he is traveling with his wife?   At the very least he should have been excluded immediately and they should have moved on to somebody traveling alone.

I have flown all over the world for my job over the last 25 years.  I have given up my seat on overbooked flights.  It was always an auction format where they kept upping the price until customers volunteered (jumped up).   I have seen young people jump up at $400.  I have seen a couple volunteer for guaranteed first class domestic flight tickets anywhere in continental U.S.  I have seen 2 middle aged woman get into a slightly heated argument because they each claimed they were first jumping up once the offer reached $1500 (I was traveling with the wife and kids on that one).

As more details emerge, while I would not have handled it the way this doctor did, United appears to have bungled this incident at multiple levels.   It seems this incident could have been avoided entirely with better training and / or a better, more customer focused attitude from the United folks.

JMO.


----------



## heathpack (Apr 10, 2017)

mpumilia said:


> It doesn't even matter whether he is a doctor or a janitor. The fact is, he paid for a ticket for a seat on that flight. He did nothing wrong. He just wanted what he rightly paid for. The airline is at fault for overbooking.



I agree that being a doctor v. janitor is not the crux.  It's about how badly you individually need to get to your destination.  This is why the airline needs to keep upping their offer until they get volunteers.  Somebody *will* voluntarily get off the plane if the offer is sweet enough.

Defending United as if this were some sort of public safety issue is just enabling this kind of behavior by the airline.  United was being cheap, resorted to treating paying customers shabbily rather than cough up a few hundred dollars.  Then they resorted to creating a situation in which force was used.

Although I would not have personally behaved like the passenger in the case did, I'd have gotten off the plane, the truth it he did the rest of us favor.  Airlines (and their defenders) pretending this is a post-9-11 security issue when in fact it is a cost-saving measure is just laughable.  This guy shed light on the behavior of unreasonable airline employees, and hopefully all airlines will take a second look at their own attitudes & practices.


----------



## RLS50 (Apr 10, 2017)

heathpack said:


> I agree that being a doctor v. janitor is not the crux.  It's about how badly you individually need to get to your destination.  This is why the airline needs to keep upping their offer until they get volunteers.  Somebody *will* voluntarily get off the plane if the offer is sweet enough.


This is absolutely true.  $800 in "United money" is sort of like getting some frequent flyer miles.  There are usually conditions and stipulations that can make actual use difficult depending on how one wants to use it.   I am not sure if $800 was a United corporate mandated threshold, or just the individual agent who felt she should not have to go over $800.   But this offer wasn't all that generous.   Saving another $400-$800 in United funny money seems like the epitome of penny wise and pound foolish on United's part.

I have seen other airline agents handle this situation so well.  They up their price until they get one or more volunteers.  They then have those travelers disembark.  Then after those folks are gone if they need more seats they start bidding at the last accepted offer and go up from there.   I have seen this general process followed for 20+ years.   It shouldn't be that hard.


----------



## dioxide45 (Apr 10, 2017)

heathpack said:


> Defending United as if this were some sort of public safety issue is just enabling this kind of behavior by the airline. United was being cheap, resorted to treating paying customers shabbily rather than cough up a few hundred dollars. Then they resorted to creating a situation in which force was used.


I think the problem is that the employees at the gate are not empowered to offer more. They have a set policy of what compensation rates to offer each successive time they get no takers. I would say it rarely ever gets this far. The employees then don't know what to once it gets this far and they aren't empowered to make the decision to offer more compensation. Once they reach the max, this is where it goes, though I would think most of the fliers simply comply instead of resist.


----------



## RLS50 (Apr 10, 2017)

Here is the Erin Burnett interview clip embedded in the article...

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/04/he-...cribes-brutal-removal-of-screaming-passenger/


----------



## heathpack (Apr 10, 2017)

dioxide45 said:


> I think the problem is that the employees at the gate are not empowered to offer more. They have a set policy of what compensation rates to offer each successive time they get no takers. I would say it rarely ever gets this far. The employees then don't know what to once it gets this far and they aren't empowered to make the decision to offer more compensation. Once they reach the max, this is where it goes, though I would think most of the fliers simply comply instead of resist.



Well I can't say whether this is true, I honestly don't know.  But if that is United policy, then this guy took one for the team by creating enough of a PR nightmare for United that they will perhaps rethink their policy and how they empower their employees to proceed.

As far as this guy delaying everyone's travel further: again, good.  If the airline is in such a rush to get a flight crew from point A to point B, maybe they will realize next time that sweetening their offer is more expedient than calling airport security.


----------



## lizap (Apr 10, 2017)

I think executives at UA just wish this would go away, but I don't think it's going away anytime soon.  Apparently, they are making things worse by sending out internal memos denying wrongdoing and placing blame on the doctor.


----------



## mdurette (Apr 10, 2017)

lizap said:


> One huge reason we fly Southwest.  They are so much easier to deal with (and this coming form someone who has flown 1mill plus miles on AA).




Yes, yes and yes...this is just what I was thinking as I was reading through this thread. 

Sad all the way around....but here are my curiosity questions.
1.  Would the computer pick a minor to get booted?  
2.  The 3 others that got the boot....do they get the $800?

Personally, I know if they picked my kid...Dh and I would also be going.   And say if they picked DH...I know my kid would be a crazy mess if dad was called off.  It would cause all of us to leave.

Such a tough call for a computer to pick.  The poor passenger at the end could just be inconvenienced by the delay or could be flying for to see a dying friend.  Just terrible.


----------



## Maple_Leaf (Apr 10, 2017)

https://mobile.twitter.com/JayseDavid/status/851223662976004096/video/1

From this video it looks like the bouncers lifted the guy up out of the window seat, pulled his torso up over the aisle seat to move his centre of gravity, then did a "pile-driver" into the arm rest across the aisle. That's how his face got injured and he was likely dazed and confused, so it was easy for them to drag him like a sack of potatoes off the plane.  I'd expect to see that in a biker bar in Key West, not on a US flag air carrier.


----------



## lizap (Apr 10, 2017)

mdurette said:


> Yes, yes and yes...this is just what I was thinking as I was reading through this thread.
> 
> Sad all the way around....but here are my curiosity questions.
> 1.  Would the computer pick a minor to get booted?
> ...



Wonder if UA's computer could decipher that the good doctor was on his way back to Louisville to see ill and possibly dying patients in the hospital? This is where you need human judgment. Also, he was traveling with his wife, who was not kicked off. Again, where is human judgment? Yet, UA continues to defend the decision.


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 10, 2017)

im pretty sure the computer bases who wins that lottery the same way it does for standby and upgrade passengers...some bizarre algorithm that takes into account your membership status with the airline and the cost of your ticket.

or put more simply, a (million miler/platinum medallion/whatever united uses to rate repeat travelers) whos flying in first class and paid full freight for the ticket is likely going to be the last guy to lose his seat on an overbooked flight etc.


----------



## davidvel (Apr 11, 2017)

Ken555 said:


> (My comments are in response to your post, in case it's not obvious.)
> 
> We actually agree more than you think, and perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear in my previous posts.
> 
> ...


You're right I think we generally agree. There are obviously two parts, the first being the policies that allow overbooking/bumping, and what to do (in any situation) where the airline determines that a passenger needs to deboard and the passenger refuses.


----------



## davidvel (Apr 11, 2017)

TUGBrian said:


> hard to disagree with most of the comments here, and id be on his side....right up until he refused to follow the directions of the flight crew and airport security/law enforcement.
> 
> at that point, anything that happened to him is just as much his fault as anyone elses when he knew full well he could have just complied and gotten up and walked off the plane peacefully.


B I N G O.


----------



## davidvel (Apr 11, 2017)

heathpack said:


> Then they resorted to creating a situation in which force was used.


Do you think United told the police to use force to drag this screaming "doctor" off the plane down the aisle on his back?


----------



## davidvel (Apr 11, 2017)

heathpack said:


> Although I would not have personally behaved like the passenger in the case did, I'd have gotten off the plane, the truth it he did the rest of us favor.


So he is a hero like Snowden?


----------



## heathpack (Apr 11, 2017)

davidvel said:


> So he is a hero like Snowden?



Lol dude, between you and TUGBrian- the only way you can attempt a cogent argument is to put words into someone else's mouth.

The passenger indeed did the rest of us a favor by calling United on their BS.  United had quite a few options that they could have exercised- but none of them were exercised in order to save the airline a few hundred dollars.

This was never a safety issue.  United involved security unnecessarily.  Security shouldn't even be willing to be complicit in being United's patsies on this.  If it were a safety issue, I'd actualy support United.  

Hire a limo to drive the crew.  Offer the passengers onboard more $.  When you tell someone to leave the plane & they tell you why they need to be home, don't double down on your mistakes and force them off the plan.  Reverse course and offer more compensation.  Be smart, these are your customers, people who in this case have done zero wrong and have ALREADY been boarded.  Good grief, how y'all can defend United on this is absolutely beyond me.


----------



## tompalm (Apr 11, 2017)

klpca said:


> What I read was that they were offering $800. It appears that once you're seated on the plane, that's not enough of an incentive to get off. I just think they should have increased their offer. Everyone has a price. ☺



You got that right. At some point, money talks.


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 11, 2017)

Im sorry that you feel that im putting words in your mouth, we merely share a completely different opinion.

its already been pointed out earlier (assuming its accurate) that the security personnel were not united employees, they were simply told a passenger refused to give up his seat despite being told otherwise.  upon arrival and the passenger still not getting up on his own...they forcibly removed him from the plane.

I have little to no sympathy for folks who deliberately make poor decisions that result in even worse things happening to them especially when a simple and peaceful alternative is available.

one can argue up and down until blue in the face about how crappy the rules are, but any airline can remove a passenger from a flight...its not illegal in any way shape or form and happens every single day.  As someone mentioned above, its only news because this person decided he didnt want to follow the rules he agreed to when he purchased his ticket and give up his seat.

the argument for why it got to the point it did is a totally separate one, and the airline will bear the fault on that issue no doubt about it....but there is no arguing with the fact that he was well aware he needed to give up his seat as he was bumped off the flight, and made a decision to refuse and cause a scene.


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 11, 2017)

Luanne said:


> I thought it wasn't overbooking, which pretty much EVERY airline does, but that they needed to get employees to another location .



Yes. Actually, that does seem to be the case. But even so- the plane was full. So now they throw paying customers off the plane for their employees? I think that is outrageous!


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 11, 2017)

I will say again, after a customer having to be at the airport for 2 hours ahead of time; then being subjected to TSA; then being charged for luggage; then having to tolerate flight delays and changes; then being squished into the tube like sardines in a can; then having no meals, etc. Now they want to throw you- a paying customer- off the plane.They should be paying thousands of dollars in CASH if they want that seat so badly. 

Vouchers are not enticing for a lot of people. For all you know the next time you fly the airline could be out of business. They might require all kinds of stipulations. Maybe you are, like me, a person who rarely flies because you don't like flying or have no need to fly a lot. What good would a voucher be? 

After an experience like this, who the heck would want to come back and do this all over again anyway? LOL! That would be the end of flying for me- even if the airline paid me a ton of cash. If forced off, I would take a BIG payoff and stay away from airports forever after that.


----------



## vacationhopeful (Apr 11, 2017)

Having flown since 1970 ... many times alone ...* if* I am flexible, I LOVE volunteering to be bumped. I have gotten overnight lodging (last flight out), airlines dollars, vouchers for meals, etc.

And I have run hard out to make a flight ... it was a regular run at Atlanta airport after security screening got started and I was YEARS younger. And never check any bags as they never made the connection.

But the rules & times have changed. The finances (the numbers) are far different. 9/11. Industry consolidation. Attitudes/stress of passengers. Passenger overload. 

As for the flight crew needing to be moved. A 5 hour limo ride would have been better than being stuck in a airline seat for them. The limo seats would have been more comfortable, more leg room, quieter, better food ... just appears that thought process OUT of the BOX for the airline management.

It was NOT a smart move by the airline supervisors/management. Shame on them.


----------



## Talent312 (Apr 11, 2017)

Found on Twitter: United's new seating chart...


----------



## heathpack (Apr 11, 2017)

TUGBrian said:


> Im sorry that you feel that im putting words in your mouth, we merely share a completely different opinion.



Fair enough.  But make your own argument, don't try to stretch mine into something ridiculous by claiming words I didn't say.

Your feeling is that the airline can handle things poorly from a customer service perspective and then throw their hands up when their actions result in a less-than-immediate compliance from a customer, and just escalate the issue to physical confrontation- even if it's not a safety issue.

This situation was not "Give me that box cutter, young man".  It was, "I'm going to inconvenience you majorly because I'm too cheap to make it attractive to someone on the plane and too lazy/uncreative to solve my problem any other way."

Sure, the second law enforcement tells me personally to get off the plane, I do it.  But the reason they told this guy to get off the plane is pure BS IMO.  And you do that kind of crap enough times, someone is gonna push back and blood will get spilled.  United's willingness to spill a customers blood rather than pay another $200 or $500 is what blows my mind.  Chump change compared to the impact on their business with the negative visuals of them having a customer dragged off a plane, so they could move an aircrew around.


----------



## Jan M. (Apr 11, 2017)

Am I getting the story straight that they waited until the plane was fully boarded to announce they needed four people to give up their seats? Is this typical? Did they not know well before the passengers boarded the plane that they needed those seats? I know it's probably been at least five or six years since I've been on a flight that they asked for volunteers "just in case" but it was always well before boarding began. I always used to ask as soon as I got to the gate if I could put my name on the list if they needed seats and not once did I ever get the chance to be compensated for giving up my seat! Now I fly the discount airlines, Spirit and Allegiant. I've never been on flight with them that they've asked for volunteers to give up their seats and I've made 8-9 trips a year on them for the last several years. 

Hey Mary Ann, I don't know if you remember me recounting my bad experience with Delta 16 years ago that made me vow to never fly them again? But then I finally had to give them another chance as they were the airline with the best flight times and prices for my trip from Fort Lauderdale, FL to Little Rock, AR? Well I made the trip and there were only two minor issues on the way home. 

We had a two hour drive to the airport coming home and mid afternoon they announced almost an hour delay for our evening flight so we didn't leave for the airport quite as early as we originally had planned. About 30 minutes into the two hour trip to the airport we got texts that there was now no delay. We are still okay timewise and since we have the TSA pre check that speeds things up going through security so my husband isn't freaking out. Anyhow just as we are getting close to the airport we get another message that there is now a 15 minute delay. When we are sitting at the gate they announce there is now no delay and the plane arriving has so few people and there aren't many of us getting on either so we will be boarding and leaving ahead of the originally scheduled time. So late, not late, just a little late and finally leaving early. Not a big deal, just one of those what the heck moments.

Next we get to Atlanta for our connecting flight and told we need to get from terminal D to terminal B. Our gate at terminal B is clear at the far end of course. We have plenty of time so no big deal except that my husband hurt a muscle in his thigh while working a couple of days before and was really hurting from the drive and all the walking he had already done after returning the rental car, getting to the gate in Little Rock and now getting to this gate. We had been sitting there all of about 10 minutes max when they announce a gate change and we now have to go from terminal B to terminal E. We were able to get a ride back to the escalator to get to the train but once we got off the train we still had to do two more escalators and shorter walk to the new gate. He was limping along in serious pain and grumbling about how much he dislikes the Atlanta airport. It never occurred to either one of us to request assistance when he checked in for the flight. He has travelled enough for business that he is familiar with a lot of airports but I had forgotten how big and busy the Atlanta airport is as it had been years since I had a connecting flight through there.


----------



## Bunk (Apr 11, 2017)

What happens to your luggage when you're bumped?

How do airlines handle the checked in luggage for people who are bumped?  Are they able to unload them from the plane and give them back to you before you leave the airport.  If the luggage flies to the destination and arrives at the airport before you, how is your luggage safeguarded.  If you're not there, does the airline pick up your luggage before it is placed on the carousel.  If it is loaded on the carousel and accessible to the public,  what do the airlines do to prevent someone from walking away with it.


----------



## Phydeaux (Apr 11, 2017)

Classic example of penny wise and dollar stupid.

The money that UA is now going to have to shell out after this passenger sues the pants off of them would have more than paid for hiring a charter flight to ferry their people. Perhaps just buy the charter aircraft! 

Very very stupid on United.


----------



## Chrisky (Apr 11, 2017)

I saw that fiasco on tv.  What I don't understand is the report I saw showed that same passenger back on the plane, with blood all over his face!  So, United didn't need his seat anymore!  What a disgrace.


----------



## WalnutBaron (Apr 11, 2017)

What's really amazing to me is the completely tone deaf reaction of United's CEO, Oscar Munoz, to this entire fiasco. His company is getting _raked_ in the social media platforms, the video has gone viral on a massive scale, and he chooses to triple down saying that the passenger was "disruptive and belligerent" (which I'm sure he was) and the CEO approves of everything his employees did to handle the situation by "following established procedures". "I stand by you emphatically", he concludes. Maybe so.

But in the meantime, Mr. Munoz, shares of United Continental are down 2.5% in early trading today. While you're emphatically backing your employees, there are thousands of existing and potential customers who are saying "I will never fly United again". And even if that is considered by you a short-term and emotional response and that this whole thing will blow over, there will be some who stick by their pledge that you've lost forever as customers. Why? Because you come across as the leader of a huge, monolithic, uncaring, and heartless corporation which cares more for established policy than for your own customers. Oh, I guess that's exactly what you are.

This thing is going to overtake you unless you immediately change tone and issue statements listing your mistakes and what you will do to _change_ your revered policies that have completely failed you in this instance. I can easily see this overtaking United in the same way as the Wells Fargo push selling fiasco of last year, which Wells is still reeling from.


----------



## billymach4 (Apr 11, 2017)

If this were 15 years ago no video would have captured this. Video is so omnipresent these days and makes this so vivid and brings this into our personal space. 
This would not have been a news story at all without the clear cut evidence. 

Not sure United will have to pay, however the security authority and the officer certainly went way too far. I am glad the one officer has been put on leave.


----------



## maddog497 (Apr 11, 2017)

I completely understand the fact that any airline may have the legal right to bump any passenger at anytime.  I am not convinced that being allowed to bump someone, is the same as being allowed to physically remove someone for anything other than the safety of the crew and passengers (and as we have seen recently stating safety as a concern is very broad). The time for bumping was prior to allowing passengers to board. Again, it may be legal but I am sure it isn't just wide open. Bumping so they can put there own crew members on again, may be legal but is certainly a public nightmare that they risk every time they chose to do so.

I mean anyone can post a sign in any store stating they are not responsible for any injury occurred while on their premises.  That dose not remove or make them not libel if an injury was occurred because they were negligent or didn't provide a safe environment in the first place.

One option that the airline had was to seek legal action against the one(s) that did not comply with the airlines right to bump.  If, and that's a big if the airline did everything they had to do to legally bump passengers, then they would certainly have the right to leave them on the plane and then sue them for any expenses occurred as a result of them not following what they agreed to when purchasing the ticket.  I'm pretty sure the threat of legal action would have been worse than the threat of force.  Airlines have deep pockets.

They have sued passengers that have become aggressive or drunk on planes that were then diverted.

I agree the passenger didn't handle this well and he owns how it elevated to what it did as most would have complied.  I am sure they thought that sending security on board, the passenger would comply.  When he didn't and they new they were going to have to physically force him passenger off the plane, they should have stepped back re-evaluated the situation.


----------



## x3 skier (Apr 11, 2017)

When the Captain tells you to get off the plane, get off the plane. Their airline, their plane and if they want you off, it's their right to get you off. Stupidly handled in this case but entirely legal.

https://thepointsguy.com/2017/04/your-rights-on-involuntary-bumps/

Cheers


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 11, 2017)

IF this was a case of the airline needing to ferry a flight crew to their next assignment, I'm surprised that any of us regular travelers would be okay with them being put in a car for a long drive ahead of their work duty rather than bumping passengers to get them there quickly and more-rested.  I honestly don't understand how it makes any sense to delay an entire planeload waiting for its crew plus whatever flights are delayed after due to a chain reaction.  Of course the four bumps are the best option considering that no options are good!

Some are making it sound as though airline employees regularly bump passengers when taking advantage of their free-flight perk for leisure travel.  I have a friend who's an airline employee and he says that's not the case.  He only gets a seat if there are extras or if someone voluntarily takes a bump, which is always done prior to boarding.  (And he dresses for those flights the way that his employee rules specify, so I guess that means he doesn't wear leggings.)

It's odd to me that on a travel-centric website that regularly has discussions complaining about the ever-increasing costs of flying, there are so many who are saying that United should have kept upping the ante until enough passengers bit.  How much more are you willing to pay for flights?  How much are YOU willing to add to your already-ridiculous flight costs so that the airlines will keep contingency seats empty on every flight without impacting profit, or submit to ever-increasing pay-off demands from passengers who may be infrequently inconvenienced?  Because we all know that until/unless airlines are regulated to the point that exorbitant profits and exec compensation are reduced, it's the passengers who are going to foot the bill.

As for this passenger's injuries he may be due some shut-up money but not from United, rather the company that employees whatever security/law force had to be called when the United employees were made unable to enforce the rules that every passenger agrees to when purchasing a ticket (regardless of whether they bother reading the terms and conditions.)  And that's a damned shame, too, because as soon as we start taking away their right to physically enforce the rules when necessary, we render them useless.

Sadly, I'm certain that this is going to end up with that guy getting millions and probably all the other passengers on that flight getting some, the gate agents are probably going to lose their jobs, and the security guys may be charged with brutality.  All because the gate agents were in an impossible situation, put there by a system that's totally beyond their control and exacerbated by just one more guy who is too self-important to have to follow the rules like everybody else.  Gah, I'm so tired of the people who think the rules don't apply to them.

And one last comment ... it's also funny, not ha-ha, how Facebook and Twitter are so outraged.  The very same people who think that social media videos/reports should not be trusted in cases of obvious police brutality, for example, are now convinced that these particular videos/reports are the absolute final definitive proof that this airline needs to be put out of business by paying off everyone and their mothers.  Maybe that's not happening on your feeds but it is on mine, and it disgusts me.


----------



## lizap (Apr 11, 2017)

UAL stock down 3.5% this morning as the outrage escalates...


----------



## x3 skier (Apr 11, 2017)

Interesting info about the "Dr" who was "removed".

http://www.courier-journal.com/stor...united-flight-doctor-troubled-past/100318320/

Be careful who is your Physician.

Cheers


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 11, 2017)

lizap said:


> UAL stock down 3.5% this morning as the outrage escalates...



Of course.  Honest to God, I am dreading flying on Sunday.  Everybody is going to think that they can do whatever they please and it's going to be a nightmare.  This may be the first time I tip a flight crew just for them showing up to battle.


----------



## bizaro86 (Apr 11, 2017)

This is fundamentally an economic issue. Current law allows airlines to use force, or more commonly the threat of force, to remove extra passengers from an airplane. They take advantage of this in a few ways. Selling way more seat than they possess, and then not sufficiently compensating those they refuse to fly without consent.

If the law was changed such that it was less economically advantageous for the airlines to bump, they would over book less, as it is a simple economic calculation to them.

I'd suggest a mandatory offer of the legal max to everyone before anyone is involuntary bumped. And maybe bump the legal max to 8x the highest fare paid in that class of service. Maybe ticket prices go up a bit from less over booking (or airline profits down a bit). On the other hand, would a civilized nation really let their bus drivers operate companies where the threat of force is part of the business plan? Then why can airlines do it?


----------



## klpca (Apr 11, 2017)

If I were a UAL shareholder I would be furious at the way this has been handled. Sure the guy *should* have gotten up and walked off of the plane. But he didn't. There were two choices - get someone, anyone - off the plane to free up that seat and get your crew to Louisville or drag that particular passenger out of his seat and down the aisle. In my opinion, the second choice was the wrong choice for the company. I hate rewarding bad behavior as much as the next person (maybe more - I am a stickler) but sometimes you have to make the expedient choice.

Btw, I expect that the crew couldn't have been driven to Louisville because of the mandated rest time before flying. But golly, why didn't they offer to chauffeur four volunteers to their homes to make this problem go away? Or offer better compensation? I am still in disbelief that they chose to take a stand in this way.

I am so spoiled. We have many choices on Southwest and Alaska out of San Diego. They are reasonable with prices and I've never had an issue on any of their flights. They allow me to make changes to my tickets without a fee (Alaska up to 60 days out) and offer free bags (SWA is always free, Alaska is free with their credit card). They know how to make a customer feel that they are valued. United has always been near the bottom of my list and won't be moving up after this fiasco.


----------



## Elan (Apr 11, 2017)

bizaro86 said:


> This is fundamentally an economic issue. Current law allows airlines to use force, or more commonly the threat of force, to remove extra passengers from an airplane. They take advantage of this in a few ways. Selling way more seat than they possess, and then not sufficiently compensating those they refuse to fly without consent.
> 
> If the law was changed such that it was less economically advantageous for the airlines to bump, they would over book less, as it is a simple economic calculation to them.
> 
> I'd suggest a mandatory offer of the legal max to everyone before anyone is involuntary bumped. And maybe bump the legal max to 8x the highest fare paid in that class of service. Maybe ticket prices go up a bit from less over booking (or airline profits down a bit). On the other hand, would a civilized nation really let their bus drivers operate companies where the threat of force is part of the business plan? Then why can airlines do it?



  Nice post.  You've hit the nail on the head.  It's not that the procedure in place wasn't adhered to, it's that the procedure stinks.  It's not rocket science to get something better in place.  Typically, it's events like the one that transpired that motivate change.


----------



## lizap (Apr 11, 2017)

klpca said:


> If I were a UAL shareholder I would be furious at the way this has been handled. Sure the guy *should* have gotten up and walked off of the plane. But he didn't. There were two choices - get someone, anyone - off the plane to free up that seat and get your crew to Louisville or drag that particular passenger out of his seat and down the aisle. In my opinion, the second choice was the wrong choice for the company. I hate rewarding bad behavior as much as the next person (maybe more - I am a stickler) but sometimes you have to make the expedient choice.
> 
> Btw, I expect that the crew couldn't have been driven to Louisville because of the mandated rest time before flying. But golly, why didn't they offer to chauffeur four volunteers to their homes to make this problem go away? Or offer better compensation? I am still in disbelief that they chose to take a stand in this way.
> 
> I am so spoiled. We have many choices on Southwest and Alaska out of San Diego. They are reasonable with prices and I've never had an issue on any of their flights. They allow me to make changes to my tickets without a fee (Alaska up to 60 days out) and offer free bags (SWA is always free, Alaska is free with their credit card). They know how to make a customer feel that they are valued. United has always been near the bottom of my list and won't be moving up after this fiasco.




This is an excellent post.  This problem could have been most likely handled by the gate agent/supervisor. Unfortunately, the UAL CEO has made matters worse by defending them, when there is no defense.


----------



## lizap (Apr 11, 2017)

x3 skier said:


> Interesting info about the "Dr" who was "removed".
> 
> http://www.courier-journal.com/stor...united-flight-doctor-troubled-past/100318320/
> 
> ...




Irrelevant, but not surprised dirt is being dug up on him.  It won't matter; he hit the jackpot -bigtime.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 11, 2017)

"We have no choice but to ferry a flight crew to their next assignment and there have not been enough seats given up voluntarily, so we are forced to perform mandatory bumps.  Your seat number has been randomly selected and you will be compensated at 2X the rate offered for voluntary bumps.  If you refuse to give up your seat, your credit card will be charged that same 2X amount."  Then they move on to the next guy.  Maybe the flight will take off on time, hopefully.

Anybody willing to accept those terms?


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 11, 2017)

lizap said:


> This is an excellent post.  This problem could have been most likely handled by the gate agent/supervisor. Unfortunately, the UAL CEO has made matters worse by defending them, when there is no defense.



I'm sorry but I fundamentally disagree, which is obvious by the book I'm writing here.  

There are rules in place and the gate agents applied them correctly.  They can't be expected to change the rules on the fly and they can't be held hostage by someone who has an over-inflated sense of entitlement.  What could a supervisor have done differently, except give in to the guy who thinks he's exempt from the rules?  So then what happens next time?  And the time after that?  And on and on and on ... until it costs us all in more ways than just money.

If you don't like the rules then work to change them via the correct channels.  Holding a flight and all its passengers hostage, along with whatever other flights are impacted by the delay chain reaction, isn't the right answer and it shouldn't be rewarded.  This guy is no hero.


----------



## Marathoner (Apr 11, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


> "We have no choice but to ferry a flight crew to their next assignment and there have not been enough seats given up voluntarily, so we are forced to perform mandatory bumps.  Your seat number has been randomly selected and you will be compensated at 2X the rate offered for voluntary bumps.  If you refuse to give up your seat, your credit card will be charged that same 2X amount."  Then they move on to the next guy.  Maybe the flight will take off on time, hopefully.
> 
> Anybody willing to accept those terms?



I don't know why you think that it is desirable to force passengers to potentially pay to avoid being bumped when the plane ticket they purchased entitles them to be flown to their destination.  As has been commented many times already, United used the threat of force and then actual force to avoid paying higher compensation amounts to find more volunteers.  Your comments only enable this behavior by airlines.


----------



## klpca (Apr 11, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


> "We have no choice but to ferry a flight crew to their next assignment and there have not been enough seats given up voluntarily, so we are forced to perform mandatory bumps.  Your seat number has been randomly selected and you will be compensated at 2X the rate offered for voluntary bumps.  If you refuse to give up your seat, your credit card will be charged that same 2X amount."  Then they move on to the next guy.  Maybe the flight will take off on time, hopefully.
> 
> Anybody willing to accept those terms?


No, but if they had increased the compensation enough to entice some takers, they could have avoided this problem. (The one that they, themselves created).


----------



## Elan (Apr 11, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


> "We have no choice but to ferry a flight crew to their next assignment and there have not been enough seats given up voluntarily, so we are forced to perform mandatory bumps.  Your seat number has been randomly selected and you will be compensated at 2X the rate offered for voluntary bumps.  If you refuse to give up your seat, your credit card will be charged that same 2X amount."
> 
> Anybody willing to accept those terms?



  No.  Incrementally increase the offer until you get enough volunteers.  If you still don't have enough, the onus is on the airlines to make other arrangements.  It's not the passengers responsibility to accommodate a poorly run business.   

  If the numbers I quickly checked are accurate, UA has shed around $1B in market cap this morning.  I would have given up my seat for less than half that.


----------



## lizap (Apr 11, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


> "We have no choice but to ferry a flight crew to their next assignment and there have not been enough seats given up voluntarily, so we are forced to perform mandatory bumps.  Your seat number has been randomly selected and you will be compensated at 2X the rate offered for voluntary bumps.  If you refuse to give up your seat, your credit card will be charged that same 2X amount."  Then they move on to the next guy.  Maybe the flight will take off on time, hopefully.
> 
> Anybody willing to accept those terms?




Still hasn't been determined whether the 4 crew had to go to Louisville to catch a flight the next morning OR going home for perhaps a few days off.  Still wrong on either account.  Shows UAL putting money/operating efficiency ahead of customers (excellent article in Forbes about this).


----------



## lizap (Apr 11, 2017)

Elan said:


> No.  Incrementally increase the offer until you get enough volunteers.  If you still don't have enough, the onus is on the airlines to make other arrangements.  It's not the passengers responsibility to accommodate a poorly run business.
> 
> If the numbers I quickly checked are accurate, UA has shed around $1B in market cap this morning.  I would have given up my seat for less than half that.




UAL is in real trouble.  Frequent flyers (over on FlyerTalk) many with status say they are finished with United and will never fly them again..


----------



## klpca (Apr 11, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


> I'm sorry but I fundamentally disagree, which is obvious by the book I'm writing here.
> 
> There are rules in place and the gate agents applied them correctly.  They can't be expected to change the rules on the fly and they can't be held hostage by someone who has an over-inflated sense of entitlement.  What could a supervisor have done differently, except give in to the guy who thinks he's exempt from the rules?  So then what happens next time?  And the time after that?  And on and on and on ... until it costs us all in more ways than just money.
> 
> If you don't like the rules then work to change them via the correct channels.  Holding a flight and all its passengers hostage, along with whatever other flights are impacted by the delay chain reaction, isn't the right answer and it shouldn't be rewarded.  This guy is no hero.



I hear what you are saying, but why focus on *that* guy? They didn't need his seat, they needed any seat. Another way of handling it - tell that guy that he this will be his last United flight if he doesn't get off willingly, then go on to the next guy. You just need an empty seat. Any empty seat.

I wouldn't worry too much about people holding out for more, better "compensation". Everyone wants to be on their flight because they need to go somewhere. That's exactly what happened in Chicago. Everyone wanted to get to where they were going and an $800 United voucher wasn't enough to make them change their mind. Increasing the offer would have worked out better in this situation.


----------



## billymach4 (Apr 11, 2017)

Also United Breaks Guitars. Remember this?


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 11, 2017)

So where is the ceiling?  Really, how high do you expect them to go, realizing all the while that any bump offer compensation is eventually going to drive the price of flying ever higher for all of us?  And how long are you willing to delay flights while they effectively hold a free-for-all with passengers knowing that the airlines will have no choice but to keep going higher if they get no takers?


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 11, 2017)

klpca said:


> I hear what you are saying, but why focus on *that* guy? They didn't need his seat, they needed any seat. Another way of handling it - tell that guy that he this will be his last United flight if he doesn't get off willingly, then go on to the next guy. You just need an empty seat. Any empty seat.
> 
> I wouldn't worry too much about people holding out for more, better "compensation". Everyone wants to be on their flight because they need to go somewhere. That's exactly what happened in Chicago. Everyone wanted to get to where they were going and an $800 United voucher wasn't enough to make them change their mind. Increasing the offer would have worked out better in this situation.



I'm focused on *that* guy because it was his refusal to follow the rules covering that exact situation that caused the problem.  And yes, I'd be okay with banning that guy for life because he refused to follow the rules _to which he agreed_ when he purchased.  But I also think the rules are useless if they're not enforceable so I'd like to see him charged for being a menace.


----------



## Elan (Apr 11, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


> So where is the ceiling?  Really, how high do you expect them to go, realizing all the while that any bump offer compensation is eventually going to drive the price of flying ever higher for all of us?  And how long are you willing to delay flights while they effectively hold a free-for-all with passengers knowing that the airlines will have no choice but to keep going higher if they get no takers?



  It's United's business to run.  They are responsible for getting crews to their destination.  What would be their cost to hire a charter plane to get a 4 person crew to their destination on time?  Take that number, divide by 4.  There's your max per seat offer.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 11, 2017)

billymach4 said:


> Also United Breaks Guitars. Remember this?



That one came to mind immediately!  Now that guy did it right.  He didn't cause a delay, he didn't think he was exempt from the rules, and he went through the proper channels to get satisfaction.  All the while he entertained us and the airline, and he was a rational change agent.  I like that guy.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 11, 2017)

Elan said:


> It's United's business to run.  They are responsible for getting crews to their destination.  What would be their cost to hire a charter plane to get a 4 person crew to their destination on time?  Take that number, divide by 4.  There's your max per seat offer.



And if still no takers, then what?


----------



## uscav8r (Apr 11, 2017)

Lost in this whole story is that United picked a passenger at random, but it was the O'Hare security/police that was solely responsible for the rough treatment of the passenger. But no one seems to care about that fact and lay all blame on the airline. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Marathoner (Apr 11, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


> So where is the ceiling?  Really, how high do you expect them to go, realizing all the while that any bump offer compensation is eventually going to drive the price of flying ever higher for all of us?  And how long are you willing to delay flights while they effectively hold a free-for-all with passengers knowing that the airlines will have no choice but to keep going higher if they get no takers?



Let the price of bumping passengers go as high as it takes.  Airlines should do a better job of flying people to their destination when they sold the tickets to the flying public.  Nobody forced them to oversell their seats and there should be a price that the airline pays when they are on the wrong end of their yield management calculations.


----------



## Elan (Apr 11, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


> And if still no takers, then what?


  Get that charter in the air.  Not the passenger's problem.


----------



## klpca (Apr 11, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


> I'm focused on *that* guy because it was his refusal to follow the rules covering that exact situation that caused the problem.  And yes, I'd be okay with banning that guy for life because he refused to follow the rules _to which he agreed_ when he purchased.  But I also think the rules are useless if they're not enforceable so I'd like to see him charged for being a menace.



I think that it's fine for you to be focused on *that* guy, but I think that United should have been focused on getting any empty seat. Having them focus on that guy got them into this PR pickle.

And I am sure that the costs of offering compensation are more than offset by the revenue they receive by overbooking. I decided to look it up, their 2016 net income was 2.3 billion last year. http://newsroom.united.com/2017-01-...Full-Year-and-Fourth-Quarter-2016-Performance  They can probably afford a few hundred more when trying to free up a seat. 

Fun discussion  but I am very glad that I am not working for United today.


----------



## Tank (Apr 11, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


> So where is the ceiling?  Really, how high do you expect them to go, realizing all the while that any bump offer compensation is eventually going to drive the price of flying ever higher for all of us?  And how long are you willing to delay flights while they effectively hold a free-for-all with passengers knowing that the airlines will have no choice but to keep going higher if they get no takers?



$1350.00 is the limit, (ceiling in place) other measurements taken AFTER the limit has been offered. Many times the $800 would be sufficient, just not this day.


The hero COULD have been a bystander get up and say "enough , I will get off before you drag someone off kicking and screaming"


----------



## Marathoner (Apr 11, 2017)

uscav8r said:


> Lost in this whole story is that United picked a passenger at random, but it was the O'Hare security/police that was solely responsible for the rough treatment of the passenger. But no one seems to care about that fact and lay all blame on the airline.
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



It was lazy action on the behavior of United employees that resulted in their calling the police.  Rather than trying to rationally deal with the situation with all the passengers or by increasing their bump offer, they resorted to escalating to threats of force.  Because threats of force works 99.9% of the time, they brought in Chicago Aviation Police to quickly deal with the situation.  When this turned into a situation where the passenger was uncooperative, the police then used force.  Guess what - when you call in the police, then you are implicitly agreeing to the measures that the police may employ.

But I agree with you - excessive laziness by the airline, poor judgement by the airline, and disproportionate use of force by the police were all to blame.  I hope everyone involved gets fired at both the airline and the police.


----------



## Passepartout (Apr 11, 2017)

uscav8r said:


> Lost in this whole story is that United picked a passenger at random, but it was the O'Hare security/police that was solely responsible for the rough treatment of the passenger. But no one seems to care about that fact and lay all blame on the airline.


Yes, and THAT security 'cop' will never work at that job again. He has been canned. Once the airline called security, and told them the chosen passenger refused to leave the plane, it was out of the airline's hands. 

Now, (IMO) since the passenger was traveling with his wife, and she was NOT chosen, another solution would have been for her to surrender her seat, send the doctor home, to go to work the next day, take the $800 and hotel room the airline offered and tell Hubby, "See you in the morning." But that didn't happen and United will pay, and pay and pay the consequences for years.

Jim


----------



## Elan (Apr 11, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


> And if still no takers, then what?



  Working in engineering for eons, I'll just add that most systemic problems can't be solved by looking through a microscope.  

  As I stated earlier, it often takes an event like this to point out how f'ed up procedures/policies/rules/laws are.  Quite frankly, I'm glad it happened.  Will likely force *all* airlines to rethink their procedures.


----------



## RLS50 (Apr 11, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


> I'm sorry but I fundamentally disagree, which is obvious by the book I'm writing here.
> 
> There are rules in place and the gate agents applied them correctly.  They can't be expected to change the rules on the fly and they can't be held hostage by someone who has an over-inflated sense of entitlement.  What could a supervisor have done differently, except give in to the guy who thinks he's exempt from the rules?  So then what happens next time?  And the time after that?  And on and on and on ... until it costs us all in more ways than just money.
> 
> If you don't like the rules then work to change them via the correct channels.  Holding a flight and all its passengers hostage, along with whatever other flights are impacted by the delay chain reaction, isn't the right answer and it shouldn't be rewarded.  This guy is no hero.


From my experience you hold an auction until you get the number of people you need.  This is not cash money, it's "frequent flyer miles" type money with usage stipulations.  There is no real cost to the airline as usually these vouchers can only really be used for what would probably be empty seats on any future flight.

Again I have seen agents handle this situation so well they had the customers on the plane actually laughing.

The guy was traveling with his wife and I have heard no witnesses claim he was belligerent.  Having said that I do not agree with how this passenger handled the situation.  But from all accounts from other passengers I have heard so far, they all seem to feel United handled this incredibly poorly and allowed it to escalate beyond reason.

After all the airline carrier consolidations over the last decade, the major domestic carriers now have a practical oligarchy and their profits are higher than ever as they charge for everything...at the same time reducing services and comfort for passengers.  I just have a very hard time mounting any sympathy for them when the entire situation could have been avoided with them just holding an auction using United Monopoly money until they got the volunteers they needed.

Retail clerks have to deal with customers who are jerks on a daily basis, far worse than this guy on the plane.  Airlines do this kind of stuff because they think they can get away with anything and their definition of customer service has a totally different meaning than other industries.

JMO


----------



## Passepartout (Apr 11, 2017)

I wonder what would have happened if a member of Congress, headed home to his/her district had hit this lottery and been chosen to deplane. I betcha those overbooking rules would be on the chopping block the next day.


----------



## DeniseM (Apr 11, 2017)

IMNSHO -

-United created this fiasco, and then handled it very badly.
-The passenger should have gotten off when asked, and dealt with the issue off the plane, for their own protection.
-However, there is no justification for using this *level of force* in a situation like this, especially against an elderly person.


----------



## Marathoner (Apr 11, 2017)

DeniseM said:


> \
> -The passenger should have gotten off when asked, and dealt with the issue off the plane, for their own protection.



While I agree with you, I can understand why the passenger did not want to get off the plane.  He really wanted to get to his destination that day.  The moment he gets off the plane, he will get some United dollars and absolutely nothing else by the airline.  Airlines only do the bare minimum for their customer which is to fly them to their destination.  This time around, United couldn't even manage that.


----------



## RLS50 (Apr 11, 2017)

Tank said:


> $1350.00 is the limit, (ceiling in place) other measurements taken AFTER the limit has been offered. Many times the $800 would be sufficient, just not this day


In my experience most veteran flyers won't take any offer until it gets over $1,000+.

With the stipulations attached, it really needs to be high enough to guarantee you will be able to actually use it for a flight worth taking in the future while negatively impacting your plans in the present.

I have no idea why United stopped at $800.  I find it hard to believe the agent did not have the authority to go beyond that.

Even if this guy and this incident didn't happen, there is no good economic reason to go to forced off boarding.  It leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth about your airline and risks customers boycotting your airline in the future (if they can) because they don't trust you anymore that it won't happen again.

So I personally don't understand why any CEO worth their salary would defend this scenario ever happening...even without this worst case scenario.  Talk about missing the forest for the trees.  A CEO is supposed to have that position because they understand strategy.


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 11, 2017)

mpumilia said:


> Yes. Actually, that does seem to be the case. But even so- the plane was full. So now they throw paying customers off the plane for their employees? I think that is outrageous!



well it was a primary flight crew for another plane at the destination...since it was the last plane out (according to the news story)...its certainly reasonable to need to get that crew to the destination to avoid an entire flight being cancelled.

(but that also goes back to the point where the gate attendant should have offered more money)


----------



## Elan (Apr 11, 2017)

RLS50 said:


> In my experience most veteran flyers won't take any offer until it gets over $1,000+.
> 
> With the stipulations attached, it really needs to be high enough to guarantee you will be able to actually use it for a flight worth taking in the future while negatively impacting your plans in the present.
> 
> ...



  Exactly.  This is, fundamentally, business mismanagement.  

  This episode aside, I don't think one could state that the ability to deny services to a prepaid customer on a moment's notice (due to something you could otherwise control) should ever be corporate policy.   It's just inherently wrong.  If your business model breaks without these policies, then it's time to rework your model or get out of the business.


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 11, 2017)

the more fascinating part of all this, is how outraged so many people are who werent even on the plane but just read about the story.

then seeing the videos about how many of the passengers were outraged at the guy being removed  (all while shooting video of course).

but noone was outraged enough to give up their seat and a few hours of their time +800 dollars and a seat on the first flight out the next morning...thats pretty telling to me.


----------



## davidvel (Apr 11, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


> What could a supervisor have done differently, except give in to the guy who thinks he's exempt from the rules?


Sue, he's just not into following rules (laws):


> As for Dao's history as a doctor in Kentucky, the medical licensure board documents allege that he was involved in fraudulent prescriptions for controlled substances and was sexually involved with a patient who used to work for his practice.... Dao was convicted of multiple felony counts.


Quite charming, this doctor. I bet he hogs pool chairs too.


----------



## pedro47 (Apr 11, 2017)

This is going to hit United in their pocket. If all the Asian market stop flying this airlines for six months there are going to be plenty of empty seats for their flight crew to sit.


----------



## maddog497 (Apr 11, 2017)

From someone who has taken the money to stay, there is another issue here with the airline. The promise that you will get a flight the next day.
We had a plane that was disabled during a layover in Philadelphia.  The 2 hours became 7.  They ended up bringing a plane from another city to get us to our destination.  This was now 11pm.  Just prior to the new plane landing they asked for 3 more volunteers (they already had 2 take the money)as the plane's flight crew coming didn't have enough flying hours left to finish the trip and they brought 3 additional crew for the trip to Rochester. We (4 of us) went up and volunteered to be bumped. They said they only needed 3 but would take us just to make it happen (everyone was now frustrated, including the gate attendants. We each got $400, plus the night in hotel and $60 in airport vouchers for food and such.

The only thing we were concerned with was that we would get a flight out the next day. 2 of the 4 had work commitments. We were given assurance we would have priority boarding and not to worry.

We found out the next day not true. Only 3 of us got seats and the 4th was 8th for standby!  The gate attendants were sympathetic but said there was nothing they could do for us.  The best they could offer was to put the 4th person on standby on a couple other flights but no guarantees. Fortunately, We were flexible enough that the 4th got a seat to Syracuse instead of Rochester. (We figured this out, not United)  Since we are Canadians and were heading back to Ontario from Rochester, going to the Syracuse Airport was not out of our way.  The 4th person that went to Syracuse had a 2 hour wait for us but it all worked out.

We now make sure to leave an extra day of travel at the end. We would take another voluntary offer in a heart beat.  The above issue was more of an adventure, then a problem.


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 11, 2017)

pedro47 said:


> This is going to hit United in their pocket. If all the Asian market stop flying this airlines for six months there are going to be plenty of empty seats for their flight crew to sit.



eh, folks have extremely short memories and tight pocketbooks.

if there are two flights from A to B....and hundreds of dollars difference in the fares....most folks could care less about this incident and will still buy the cheaper ticket even if its on united.


----------



## RLS50 (Apr 11, 2017)

TUGBrian said:


> the more fascinating part of all this, is how outraged so many people are who werent even on the plane but just read about the story.
> 
> then seeing the videos about how many of the passengers were outraged at the guy being removed  (all while shooting video of course).
> 
> but noone was outraged enough to give up their seat and a few hours of their time +800 dollars and a seat on the first flight out the next morning...thats pretty telling to me.


I hear you, and agree in principle, but hindsight is always 20/20.  I doubt anyone was expecting the sequence of events to devolve in the way it happened.

Once those things start people are kind of frozen...not necessarily from fear...but indecision on what they should do individually. 

For example what if you are one of those guys that are willing to do it but were traveling with your wife?  Or part of a group? Then what?  What if you and your wife volunteered to get off but the agent refused your request?  What if the airline said fine but your only getting $800 for one person?

This doesn't even include the people on the plane who may not fly much and never even realized an airline could do this.  Those people were probably in shock and couldn't believe it was happening.

It's not like anyone had life experience to draw from since most people know how these things go and were expecting what normally happens in these situations.  Has anything like this ever happened?

And I would bet there were 10 people on that plane just waiting to raise their hands and volunteer as soon as the agent went over $1k.  I've seen it a dozen times over the years.

From the reports I've heard or read from people on the plane they all were surprised and not really sure why the agent stopped at $800 and went directly to forced off boarding.    Some sounded like they were just waiting for the offer to go up a little more before the offers ended abruptly.

I am not trying to defend the passenger as much as I can't believe how badly United bungled this from start to finish.  There were so many de-escalation points available to United as this incident unfolded...including the CEO's messaging after the incident.  It appears United failed at every instance.   How many years have they been doing this again?


----------



## Maple_Leaf (Apr 11, 2017)

pedro47 said:


> This is going to hit United in their pocket. If all the Asian market stop flying this airlines for six months there are going to be plenty of empty seats for their flight crew to sit.


True, this incident is a BIG deal in Asia.


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 11, 2017)

I agree, its just a sad state of affairs when the immediate reaction for so many people is to start crying/whining and or whipping out their phones to ensure they get a great video to post on social media!


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 11, 2017)

maddog497 said:


> From someone who has taken the money to stay, there is another issue here with the airline. The promise that you will get a flight the next day.
> We had a plane that was disabled during a layover in Philadelphia.  The 2 hours became 7.  They ended up bringing a plane from another city to get us to our destination.  This was now 11pm.  Just prior to the new plane landing they asked for 3 more volunteers (they already had 2 take the money)as the plane's flight crew coming didn't have enough flying hours left to finish the trip and they brought 3 additional crew for the trip to Rochester. We (4 of us) went up and volunteered to be bumped. They said they only needed 3 but would take us just to make it happen (everyone was now frustrated, including the gate attendants. We each got $400, plus the night in hotel and $60 in airport vouchers for food and such.
> 
> The only thing we were concerned with was that we would get a flight out the next day. 2 of the 4 had work commitments. We were given assurance we would have priority boarding and not to worry.
> ...



That all sounds like a nightmare by my standards. And you got duped with such a low offer- come on! $400 each and $60 in vouchers? Are you kidding me! That stinks as far as I am concerned. For all that trouble?! Crazy!


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 11, 2017)

TUGBrian said:


> eh, folks have extremely short memories and tight pocketbooks.
> 
> if there are two flights from A to B....and hundreds of dollars difference in the fares....most folks could care less about this incident and will still buy the cheaper ticket even if its on united.



I wonder how many people who were already booked on a future United flight when this happened, are now going to put their money where their mouths are and book with another airline considering that it will mean forfeiting what they've already paid United?


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 11, 2017)

TUGBrian said:


> I agree, its just a sad state of affairs when the immediate reaction for so many people is to start crying/whining and or whipping out their phones to ensure they get a great video to post on social media!



I read that this docs' wife was on the plane a few seats behind him. And she didn't stand up to help him and follow him? I don't get it. If it were my husband I would be right there- probably go to jail because I wouldn't stand for that treatment of him.


----------



## Maple_Leaf (Apr 11, 2017)

One of the most intelligent points I've heard made on this subject was from an Australian famous for investigating the MH370 disappearance:


> The matter really turns on whether United were within their rights to involuntarily remove passengers once they had boarded. Under United’s own Contract of Carriage the determination as to whether they have an Overbooked Flight should be made prior to boarding. RULE 25 DENIED BOARDING COMPENSATION is pretty clear in that the process of voluntarily and involuntarily denying passengers carriage on an Overbooked Flight is meant to occur prior to boarding. Here we had an airplane full of paying passengers who had already been issued with boarding passes and who had boarded the flight. Technically, United’s right to deny boarding involuntarily is extinguished once they commence boarding.
> 
> So, if Rule 25 no longer applies after boarding, then the manner in which passengers can be dealt falls under RULE 21 REFUSAL OF TRANSPORT and the airline does not have an unfettered right to simply deplane passengers under that rule.
> 
> A lot of people think that the airlines can do whatever they want, most of them certainly act that way, but passengers have rights under the Contract of Carriage too.



IMO United violated an unwritten commandment of airline management: Thou shalt not bump passengers for crew positioning once they are on the aircraft.  If this Australian is right, United might have to demonstrate that our doctor was a security risk to justify their actions under their own Contract of Carriage.  This may be why United's boss appears to be doubling down on the "disruptive" and "belligerent" theme.


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 11, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


> I wonder how many people who were already booked on a future United flight when this happened, are now going to put their money where their mouths are and book with another airline considering that it will mean forfeiting what they've already paid United?



I will tell you I won't. Why should I? I can't afford to lose $800. I changed from American to United because they messed up my connecting flight plans.

I am hoping this incident will make them more accommodating by the time we leave- wishful thinking, I know.


----------



## Chrispee (Apr 11, 2017)

TUGBrian said:


> eh, folks have extremely short memories and tight pocketbooks.
> 
> if there are two flights from A to B....and hundreds of dollars difference in the fares....most folks could care less about this incident and will still buy the cheaper ticket even if its on united.



Although I agree with you in principle, United does battle in the trenches where we're not talking about hundreds of dollars in price differentiation. I think they're going to get crushed in the next 6 months.


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 11, 2017)

Maple_Leaf said:


> One of the most intelligent points I've heard made on this subject was from an Australian famous for investigating the MH370 disappearance:
> 
> 
> IMO United violated an unwritten commandment of airline management: Thou shalt not bump passengers for crew positioning once they are on the aircraft.  If this Australian is right, United might have to demonstrate that our doctor was a security risk to justify their actions under their own Contract of Carriage.  This may be why United's boss appears to be doubling down on the "disruptive" and "belligerent" theme.




One has to assume this only applies to crew flying standby...vs a primary flight crew who quite literally had to go to the destination to avoid an entirely separate flight from being delayed or cancelled no?


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 11, 2017)

Chrispee said:


> Although I agree with you in principle, United does battle in the trenches where we're not talking about hundreds of dollars in price differentiation. I think they're going to get crushed in the next 6 months.



agreed, if the price difference is minimal...folks would certainly choose another option as a silent form of protest.  Im just saying that people would forget their "outrage" in a hot minute when significant cost savings are involved.

especially in what is quite literally a "only ever happened once in a lifetime" experience.


----------



## maddog497 (Apr 11, 2017)

mpumilia said:


> That all sounds like a nightmare by my standards. And you got duped with such a low offer- come on! $400 each and $60 in vouchers? Are you kidding me! That stinks as far as I am concerned. For all that trouble?! Crazy!



We used the $800 to pay for a flights to Vegas (first time going so that was nice).  The $800 covered my middle adult daughter, wife and myself(I think we had to add $40-$50 to it. We couldn't figure out how to use the vouchers online and I'm pretty computer savey, so we had to do it over the phone which was supposed to be an additional fee but they never charged it). 

We didn't use the entire $60 in vouchers either.

In my younger years things like this would completely put me over the top.  Now, I like to say "it is what it is!" and then move on.

Social media is both a blessing and a curse.  Depending on what side your being portrayed. 

I think anyone that has spent much time on a plane most likely has some sort of story.


----------



## RLS50 (Apr 11, 2017)

TUGBrian said:


> agreed, if the price difference is minimal...folks would certainly choose another option as a silent form of protest.  Im just saying that people would forget their "outrage" in a hot minute when significant cost savings are involved.
> 
> especially in what is quite literally a "only ever happened once in a lifetime" experience.


In this case I agree with your cynicism 100%.  In fact I am your example of it.

While I would try to avoid United if I could, if I need to get somewhere and they were significantly cheaper than the next competitor, I would book with them.

United did not maliciously target this man with premeditated intent.  They just demonstrated a total lack of common sense or good business process that contributed to this chain reaction of events.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 11, 2017)

Years ago we had a nightmare travel day that should have been a 2-1/2 hour direct flight Baltimore-to-Boston, but ended instead twelve-plus hours and four or five flights later that took us through Dallas and Chicago into Providence instead of Boston.  We were a plane-ful of RedSox fans returning from an away weekend, and every time we landed everybody's phones started buzzing with a new change/cancellation.  En masse we raced through airports to get to a customer service kiosk for re-ticketing which might have appeared comical to others in the terminals but got very old very quickly.  The icing on the cake was when Don and I finally got into last-row seats on a plane leaving Chicago or Dallas at 11PM only to have the flight attendant ask for our charge card for a stupid bag of potato chips after we hadn't been able to stop to eat all damn day.

All along they let us know that weather and equipment were conspiring against us so there was nothing to do but slug it out.  If they'd been able to tell us from the start what we were in for, more than half of us would have called it a day and re-booked for the next.  But they didn't know any more than we did so it was useless to take it out on them.  If any of us had decided to pull a Custer's Last Stand anytime during the fiasco, adding a stupid unnecessary delay on top of the unforeseen, I'm sure the rest of us would have happily hogtied him/her to the tail.

The point being, flying is bad enough without somebody deciding that the rules aren't meant for him, and sometimes you are just unlucky.  I really hope to never be involved in a flight that includes somebody deciding to stage a self-righteous protest, because going by the majority opinion in this thread it'll be me who ends up hogtied!  Protest for the sake of social injustice and inequality?  I'm all for that!  Protest to preserve a self-indulgent sense of entitlement?  No way - that type of protest deserves punishment.  And if this guy had respected the security the way he should have, instead of pulling a flop that resulted in him being catapulted into the armrest, he wouldn't have suffered any injury except missing out on the flight.


----------



## davidvel (Apr 11, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


> Years ago we had a nightmare travel day that should have been a 2-1/2 hour direct flight Baltimore-to-Boston, but ended instead twelve-plus hours and four or five flights later that took us through Dallas and Chicago into Providence instead of Boston.  We were a plane-ful of RedSox fans returning from an away weekend, and every time we landed everybody's phones started buzzing with a new change/cancellation.  En masse we raced through airports to get to a customer service kiosk for re-ticketing which might have appeared comical to others in the terminals but got very old very quickly.  The icing on the cake was when Don and I finally got into last-row seats on a plane leaving Chicago or Dallas at 11PM only to have the flight attendant ask for our charge card for a stupid bag of potato chips after we hadn't been able to stop to eat all damn day.
> 
> All along they let us know that weather and equipment were conspiring against us so there was nothing to do but slug it out.  If they'd been able to tell us from the start what we were in for, more than half of us would have called it a day and re-booked for the next.  But they didn't know any more than we did so it was useless to take it out on them.  If any of us had decided to pull a Custer's Last Stand anytime during the fiasco, adding a stupid unnecessary delay on top of the unforeseen, I'm sure the rest of us would have happily hogtied him/her to the tail.
> 
> The point being, flying is bad enough without somebody deciding that the rules aren't meant for him, and sometimes you are just unlucky.  I really hope to never be involved in a flight that includes somebody deciding to stage a self-righteous protest, because going by the majority opinion in this thread it'll be me who ends up hogtied!  Protest for the sake of social injustice and inequality?  I'm all for that!  Protest to preserve a self-indulgent sense of entitlement?  No way - that type of protest deserves punishment.  And if this guy had respected the security the way he should have, instead of pulling a flop that resulted in him being catapulted into the armrest, he wouldn't have suffered any injury except missing out on the flight.


According to CNN, more than 125 people are *involuntarily *bumped every single day, for various reasons. Almost 50,000 a year. But I've never seen a video like this before.


----------



## Maple_Leaf (Apr 11, 2017)

TUGBrian said:


> One has to assume this only applies to crew flying standby...vs a primary flight crew who quite literally had to go to the destination to avoid an entirely separate flight from being delayed or cancelled no?


I don't claim to know whether there were other circumstances affecting airline schedules last Sunday, but it appears a more intelligent decision would have been to put that single crew member on a later flight from ORD or Uber them to Midway to catch the Southwest flight to SDF.

FWIW, as a result of this debacle, the Canadian Parliament is scheduled to review overbooking in Canada to determine if additional federal consumer protection legislation is warranted.


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 11, 2017)

I think its what, a 4 or 5 hour drive from louisville to ohare (and thats not including the time to get out of the airport, find a car/cab/bus/whatever etc).

doing that would have stranded yet another plane on the tarmac for a lengthy delay while the flight crew traveled by car vs the 45min flight.

alternatively, the airline could have offered to transport said passengers via car to chicago...but id imagine that most folks would have accepted the voucher + a free hotel stay and arrived the next morning vs a 5 hour car ride.


----------



## b2bailey (Apr 11, 2017)

Maple_Leaf said:


> United Airlines customer service training video:


Okay, I confess. I am laughing so hard tears are flowing. I vote we close this thread. Enough has been said. As the saying goes: There are at least three sides to every story.


----------



## uscav8r (Apr 11, 2017)

Passepartout said:


> Now, (IMO) since the passenger was traveling with his wife, and she was NOT chosen, another solution would have been for her to surrender her seat, send the doctor home, to go to work the next day, take the $800 and hotel room the airline offered and tell Hubby, "See you in the morning."


I had the exact same thought. This guy DID have other options than to play hard ball.so I don't quite buy his "I'm a doctor and I have appointments" excuse. Sounds like a bit of overinflated ego / entitlement factor we're possible contributing factors. But then, none of us were there to know for sure. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 11, 2017)

ive also gotten a laugh out of all the videos and pictures being made to make light of the situation...its truly a PR nightmare for united regardless of who was at fault.


----------



## Luanne (Apr 11, 2017)

mpumilia said:


> I will tell you I won't. Why should I? I can't afford to lose $800. I changed from American to United because they messed up my connecting flight plans.
> 
> I am hoping this incident will make them more accommodating by the time we leave- wishful thinking, I know.


I won't be changing my upcoming United flights for the same reason.  My dd sent me a message that she wants to change her upcoming flight to another airline.  I reminded her she'd lose all of the money she spent for the flight.  She decided to keep it, but use another airline in the future.


----------



## "Roger" (Apr 11, 2017)

Many years ago (and I think airlines have gotten more sophisticated about the amount that they overbook now - better computer algorithms) I had a friend take a trip to Hawaii. He deliberately booked his return trip starting Jan. 1 when people were desperate to get back to work. After having exactly the vacation he wanted, he would show up at the airport, volunteer to not take his (and his wife's) scheduled flight, take the money together with a free overnight in a hotel, come back the next day after lounging around, and do the same thing.

By the time four or five days were over, he had paid for his original trip (airline fare and hotels). Bottom line was he had worked the system for a free trip to Hawaii. (He could have stayed a few more days, but having to show up at the airport every day was beginning to get tiresome.)


----------



## lizap (Apr 11, 2017)

TUGBrian said:


> I think its what, a 4 or 5 hour drive from louisville to ohare (and thats not including the time to get out of the airport, find a car/cab/bus/whatever etc).
> 
> doing that would have stranded yet another plane on the tarmac for a lengthy delay while the flight crew traveled by car vs the 45min flight.
> 
> alternatively, the airline could have offered to transport said passengers via car to chicago...but id imagine that most folks would have accepted the voucher + a free hotel stay and arrived the next morning vs a 5 hour car ride.




Havn't seen a report from UA that tells whether the 4 person flight crew needed to go to Louisville for a flight the next day or just going home.


----------



## ace2000 (Apr 11, 2017)

Is there a remote possibility the guy could've been trying to hurt himself while getting "accomodated" off the plane?


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 11, 2017)

lizap said:


> Havn't seen a report from UA that tells whether the 4 person flight crew needed to go to Louisville for a flight the next day or just going home.



its been mentioned in a number of articles that it was a primary flight crew for another flight leaving from chicago.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 11, 2017)

ace2000 said:


> Is there a remote possibility the guy could've been trying to hurt himself while getting "accomodated" off the plane?



Yep.  Just like it's possible that some of the hysterics that can be heard on all the videos from other passengers were deliberate.  Social media makes all sorts of situations the perfect gigs for claims of mental anguish.  Score!


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 11, 2017)

Maple_Leaf said:


> ... FWIW, as a result of this debacle, the Canadian Parliament is scheduled to review overbooking in Canada to determine if additional federal consumer protection legislation is warranted.



That's a very good thing.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 11, 2017)

davidvel said:


> According to CNN, more than 125 people are *involuntarily *bumped every single day, for various reasons. Almost 50,000 a year. But I've never seen a video like this before.



That's not surprising if it's an average figure when you consider how many flights are impacted by weather events - for just one example look at how many Delta flights were cancelled/rescheduled last week because of bad weather at the Atlanta hub and how the effects reverberated through the system.  Now add in mechanical issues, flight crew delays/illnesses and whatever else routinely grounds flights.

But one guy deliberately falls on his sword in the name of Entitlement and all of a sudden the airlines are The Devil Incarnate.  I don't get it.  Maybe, just maybe, this might result in slight changes that force the airlines to hold a number of seats empty so that the system isn't strained at the gills all the time, but there's no way with the number of flights in the air every day that there will be seats held on every flight.

For passengers the main effects are going to be that the rules will be clearly posted so that none of us can claim we're exempt, and maybe there will be more-strictly legislated compensation amounts so that the airlines won't be able to use discretion when they have to refund passengers.  But whatever can be done to alleviate this type of thing, if this guy successfully makes bank then we're all going to be seeing more rather than fewer passengers behave like him.  And we're all going to pay for it.


----------



## rapmarks (Apr 11, 2017)

My sisters, one from New York City and one from Chicago, flew to Tucson to see my elderly aunts who at that time were both in the hospital.  The NY one flew through Chicago. While in Tucson, My younger sister fell and broke her leg, she was in a wheelchair, leg was not set.  Because of weather, they had to leave a day early. They were flying united . on the way the flight was diverted to Houston, in Houston the airline told NY sister to get on a plane to Newark.  Chicago sister was supposed to stay alone overnight at airport.  nY sister argued she could not leave her alone, was told either she left or her ticket was cancelled.  NY sister decided she couldn't leave my sister with a broken, unset leg to fend for herself.  So she waited and flew to Chicago with her, her luggage is on plane to Newark, where she finally arrived a day or two later.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## PigsDad (Apr 11, 2017)

TUGBrian said:


> ive also gotten a laugh out of all the videos and pictures being made to make light of the situation...its truly a PR nightmare for united regardless of who was at fault.


My favorite is this one:







Kurt


----------



## vacationhopeful (Apr 11, 2017)

Personally, overbooking does NOT bother me. It is part of an efficient market necessary for almost all successful markets where the item being SOLD has a finite expiration date.

Airline KNOW passengers will NOT show up ... illness, traffic issues or not going. The airlines USE complex models ... using historical, weather conditions, day of the week, holiday patterns and route & destination histories. And any other possible factor or condition people might not show up to fly.

I will play the game ... booking early or late in the day ... bonus money or refund & free new flight (or any combination). I book some flights HOPING to get bumped .. to recover the cost of my original ticket. And get some dollars for a future flight.

And almost every flight I take, after going thru security, finding my gate and then I ask the gate agent, is this flight flying FULL? And when is the NEXT flight to my destination? And what is the current 'loot offer'? Even when I change planes somewheres...same dance.

The January I took my nephew to WDW from Baltimore to WDW .. we volunteered for a BUMP and took the bump & the Southwest cash voucher. That bump help to pay for our RT airfare to Seattle WA for our Alaskan cruise in August. And made his mother happy! Dang ... I paid for his flight ... my sister got the value. I brought my nephew a SNACK at the airport as part of the deal (my sister was sure he would do a meltdown when our original aircraft pull back from the gate).

I have taken bumps on flights I used 'bump funds' to book. Taking BUMPS pays towards my next vacation. And I have gotten FREE hotel rooms when I have taken SWA bumps ... put up where the flight crews stay .. so transportation is included as is breakfast...all via airline voucher. 

And yes, I know a lot of people who are the total opposite of me. Their face could be the guy being dragged off the plane...in handcuffs.

PS I don't fly as much as I did even 5 years ago. So pardon my looking back at the good old days.


----------



## Chrispee (Apr 11, 2017)

davidvel said:


> According to CNN, more than 125 people are *involuntarily *bumped every single day, for various reasons. Almost 50,000 a year. But I've never seen a video like this before.



Exactly.  I'd like to know how many of those bumped people were actually boarded and settled into a seat before getting bumped?  How many of those people were randomly selected to be bumped?  I'd wager a bet that it would be an extremely small percentage.

Overbooking is a financial incentive for the airlines, so any problems that arise from overbooking should be solved with financial incentives for passengers.


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 11, 2017)

im not terribly sure id be less "upset" to get bumped off a flight before boarding, vs actually being in my seat.

the inconvenience of both situations is the wasted time of me missing the flight, not where my body was located at the time I got bumped.


----------



## Ken555 (Apr 11, 2017)

Wow. I've been on a flight all day and it seems there are more than 100 posts since I last checked. FWIW, lots of people at AA this morning were discussing this incident.

This may already be posted above, but it seems UAL lost $1B in value today, at least as of a few hours ago. They'll gain it back, but still...

And, now the company is saying they're investigating and apologizing. The marketing consultants finally got heard at corporate. 

So yeah, what a stupid maneuver by United. I realize they don't want to set a precedent, but they could have paid a lot more than they offered to get people to volunteer. Instead, they lost $1B in value and have a marketing disaster on their hands. 

This is why what's best for a business is rarely using the law to defend bad decisions.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## lizap (Apr 11, 2017)

b2bailey said:


> Okay, I confess. I am laughing so hard tears are flowing. I vote we close this thread. Enough has been said. As the saying goes: There are at least three sides to every story.



The Jimm


TUGBrian said:


> im not terribly sure id be less "upset" to get bumped off a flight before boarding, vs actually being in my seat.
> 
> the inconvenience of both situations is the wasted time of me missing the flight, not where my body was located at the time I got bumped.




Apparently, from a legal perspective, it makes a difference when you are bumped. Bumping should occur prior to boarding (from what I'm seeing on FlyerTalk).


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 11, 2017)

eh, people are tossing around semantic arguments...dicussing "prevented from boarding" vs "already boarded"

rest assured until the boarding door is closed and the plane pushes back, the seating on the plane and passengers within it are not set in stone....heck even then if something were to go wrong the captain and flight crew have full rights to return to the gate and remove someone from the flight if they see fit.

surely if the engine fell off the wing (an extreme example, i admit) of the plane passengers would happily get off to board another plane or flight even after they have taken their seats without anyone demanding that "this is my seat, i paid for it, im not getting off this plane until we arrive at the destination"


----------



## dsmrp (Apr 11, 2017)

Personally I think the better time to bump people is before the plane has been boarded; more people are accustomed to this timing.
United erred more than the passenger. United will come out the biggest loser.
I haven't flown United much recently because their fares are generally higher or less direct for the routes I travel.
I would think twice about flying with them in the future; but would fly on one of their partners to use up my miles.

I relate this incident to some defensive driving situations.
How many of you have done a maneuver to avoid an accident, even tho' "legally" you had the right of way?
(Rhetorically) Would you rather yield right of way and avoid an accident, or keep on your way and have higher risk of get hit?
IMO United in their handling during and after situation, chose the latter.


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 11, 2017)

I just see this coming down to blame being placed on people for following the rules and guidelines given to them to adhere to on a day by day basis which forces them into a situation with no right answer.

lets say the gate agent offers the 2000 bucks to passengers, and get 4 to take it.  then gets fired the next week for violating company policy in offering far more than the limit for such a small/short flight on a commuter carrier (note they would never know he/she saved them from this pr nightmare that costs far more).

same goes with the police.  they dont care what led up to the situation, they merely got told that a passenger refuses to give up his seat despite the flight crews instructions...and thus after THEY also were unable to get him to move by asking, removed him and he got hurt in the process.

meanwhile the management/executives who enacted these policies will largely go unpunished, and wont get any media attention etc...laying the blame firmly at the feet of the people involved with "following policy"


----------



## dsmrp (Apr 11, 2017)

TUGBrian said:


> I just see this coming down to blame being placed on people for following the rules and guidelines given to them to adhere to on a day by day basis which forces them into a situation with no right answer.
> 
> lets say the gate agent offers the 2000 bucks to passengers, and get 4 to take it.  then gets fired the next week for violating company policy in offering far more than the limit for such a small/short flight on a commuter carrier (note they would never know he/she saved them from this pr nightmare that costs far more).
> 
> ...



yeah and those mgmt/execs likely have golden parachutes too, unlike the average operations staff.


----------



## bizaro86 (Apr 11, 2017)

TUGBrian said:


> eh, people are tossing around semantic arguments...dicussing "prevented from boarding" vs "already boarded"
> 
> rest assured until the boarding door is closed and the plane pushes back, the seating on the plane and passengers within it are not set in stone....heck even then if something were to go wrong the captain and flight crew have full rights to return to the gate and remove someone from the flight if they see fit.
> 
> surely if the engine fell off the wing (an extreme example, i admit) of the plane passengers would happily get off to board another plane or flight even after they have taken their seats without anyone demanding that "this is my seat, i paid for it, im not getting off this plane until we arrive at the destination"



If you want to talk about how important it is for the passengers to obey the rules, then I think United obeying it's own contrace for carriage is pretty important. When you consider that their lawyers wrote it, it seems like obeying it should be SOP.

Since there is a distinction in that contract, it seems relevant. There doesn't seem to be any moral high ground for United here to me "we sold more seats than we had so someone can't go". If they also violated the contractual fine print by removing him after boarding, that seems incredibly relevant.


----------



## John Cummings (Apr 11, 2017)

I think this is going to cost United a lot of money. Their stock dropped today because of this PR screw up. I heard where several lawyers have contacted the bumped passenger just aching at a law suit against United. They could have picked someone else that was agreeable. It was United's fault that this ever occurred.


----------



## Talent312 (Apr 11, 2017)

Perhaps UAL and Wells-Fargo have an exchange program for executives.







.


----------



## Jan M. (Apr 11, 2017)

How many of you have experienced or observed surly, bored, lazy or certainly less than congenial flight crew and gate attendants in the past few years? With most of the airlines you aren't "flying the friendly skies" anymore so I can say it isn't just one or two airlines that the employees give the passengers attitude these days. It sounds to me like a case of the United employees or maybe just one employee having attitude. I'm convinced that the United employee or employees responsible did have the authority to handle the situation differently but chose not to.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Apr 11, 2017)

In the midst of all of this furor, I think we should give credit to the United management for recognizing the PR disaster they created and adroitly figuring out a way to turn it positive.  Knowing that what passengers really want is low fares, they are introducing a new fare class with their absolutest lowest ticket prices. It's going to be class KO; passengers in this class will be subject to forced removal.  Passengers will now be able to choose between "red-eye" and "black-eye" flights.

I understand that they've hired the guy who used to do the Verizon "can you hear me now?" commercials to be the spokesperson for the new fare.   They're prepping some ads that will show him sitting in various planes, greeting the flight crew with hands to his face, saying, "Can you beat me now?"

Pretty savvy way to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse, don't you think?


----------



## Luanne (Apr 11, 2017)

Jan M. said:


> How many of you have experienced or observed surly, bored, lazy or certainly less than congenial flight crew and gate attendants in the past few years? With most of the airlines you aren't "flying the friendly skies" anymore so I can say it isn't just one or two airlines that the employees give the passengers attitude these days. It sounds to me like a case of the United employees or maybe just one employee having attitude. I'm convinced that the United employee or employees responsible did have the authority to handle the situation differently but chose not to.


I think there is plenty of blame to go around.  United for their part in handling, or not handling the issue of needing to get 4 people to give up their seats.

The airport police on how they handled it after they were called in.

The passenger for refusing to leave the plane when asked.  He maybe has the least amount of blame, but still has some.


----------



## dominidude (Apr 11, 2017)

I blame the training videos that United provides its employees






(it's hilarious)


----------



## "Roger" (Apr 11, 2017)

When people say how much United lost today, that is mutual funds, pension funds, individual stock holder, and, admittedly some of the executives with their stock bonuses. Mostly it is others who are paying the price.


----------



## LannyPC (Apr 11, 2017)

TUGBrian said:


> I only take offense to the media narrative that the person was "forcibly dragged off" merely because the flight was overbooked, when in fact he was dragged off because he was acting like a petulant child, and refused repeated instructions by the gate crew, the flight crew, and uniformed police.



My feelings too.  It was probably media trying to grab attention with sensational headlines.

If I'm not mistaken, the headlines generally read "United dragged man..." when it was actually airport police who dragged him off.


----------



## dominidude (Apr 11, 2017)

TUGBrian said:


> but noone was outraged enough to give up their seat and a few hours of their time +800 dollars and a seat on the first flight out the next morning...thats pretty telling to me.



I was in a situation like this once, flying from a big airport to a much smaller one. The problem is that there arent very many flights that go to small airports. so you have to compare the $800 to one or two lost days of work, which would lower your weekly income, and possibly endanger your job (many small towns are known to have high unemployment), etc.

So, from my viewpoint, it seems that people in that flight did not seem the +$800 as enough of a monetary incentive to give up their seat. Maybe $900 or $1200 hundred would have been, but we'll never know. I'd say even $5000 would have been cheap in retrospect.


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 11, 2017)

i thought it said the flight was going from louisville to chicago...if so there are united flights all day every day to and from these locations.


----------



## Marathoner (Apr 11, 2017)

Insightful article on how United uses dynamic pricing to wring the last dollar from the flying public but can't take it when the shoe is on the other foot and uses force when it suits them economically.  The hypocricy is telling.

http://time.com/4734931/united-airlines-oscar-munoz-attack-passenger/

_...I’m talking about dynamic pricing. It’s a familiar concept to anyone who has booked an airline ticket in recent years. Computer power now lets the carriers adjust their ticket prices constantly to the ebbs and flows of supply and demand. This power allows United to measure exactly how many people want to travel to a given place at a given time, and how badly they want to go, and how comfortable they want to be, and how much luggage they want to carry, and how frugal they want, or need, to be. The airline applies these variables like pliers to squeeze out as much revenue as the market will bear.

Guess what? The same thing was playing out aboard the disastrous flight from Chicago to Louisville—only the other way around. Passengers on the overbooked flight were dynamically pricing their willingness to surrender their seats. According to reports, airline employees offered $400 travel vouchers in hopes of finding four people willing to wait for a later flight. They got no takers. So they doubled the offer to $800—but still the passengers were more interested in getting to their destination as quickly as possible.

That’s where United lost faith in dynamic pricing and resorted to monopoly thuggery. And that was a foolish thing to do. Instead, they should have continued their exploration of the value of those four seats. I bet they would have found the price pretty quickly after they crossed the magic $1,000 threshold...

So add hypocrisy to the rest of United’s offenses. Munoz and his minions are all in favor of supply and demand as long as they control the supply and can use it to wring every penny from our demand. But when the tables are turned even briefly—when United wants some of those seats back—they aren’t willing to play by their own rules.



_


----------



## LannyPC (Apr 11, 2017)

davidvel said:


> He refused to leave as he was required to by the contract and laws applicable thereto. He could have walked off, bitched and moaned and maybe found a different flight on another airline, etc., but certainly not dragged off.  Its easy to just say there was a way to get him (or anyone else in any other similar situation) to leave without having law enforcement grab him and drag him off, but I don't see how. I also don't understand the idea that the established rules and procedures are at the mercy and whim of any single individual, to decide at any given moment that they will protest and resist law enforcement (on an aircraft), and those that cheer him on just because they agree with him and think the rules suck.



Yes, I agree with this too.  Do I feel sorry for the man who lost the lottery system and is getting involuntarily bumped?  You betcha!  But to carry on that type of behaviour (a 69-year oold man?!) on a full airplane in this age of strict airplane security is just asking for trouble.  

As I already said, I do feel for the passenger who got involuntarily bumped, especially if it was vitally important that he make that flight.  But flights not flying according to schedule are an everyday occurrence.  That's the risk anyone takes when buying a plane ticket.  The problem might not necessarily be overbooking.  I've never been involuntarily bumped due to overbooking.  But what I have faced is planes grounded due to mechanical problems, flights being delayed due to inclement weather, cancelled flights because of lack of passengers, and so on.  Not to mention there was that issue with the shooting at the Fort Lauderdale airport some months ago which closed down the airport and obviously put a monkey wrench in flight schedules.

The point is, when buying a plane ticket, there is always the significant risk that you will not get to your scheduled destination at the time you were hoping.  It's a sad fact of life, but behaving like this man did will not make things better.


----------



## LannyPC (Apr 11, 2017)

Luanne said:


> I thought it wasn't overbooking, which pretty much EVERY airline does, but that they needed to get employees to another location .



I thought so too.  From what I gathered, the number of seats sold matched the number of seats available and number of passengers who showed up.  The airline needed four more spaces for stand-by employees to get to the destination and felt it was more necessary to get those employees to Louisville than it was to get four paying passengers there.


----------



## dioxide45 (Apr 11, 2017)

Not sure why everyone is espousing the greatness of Southwest. Realize of the big airlines, they involuntarily bumped more passengers than any of the other three big airlines. They just didn't happen to have this unfortunate incident happen on their plane.






http://www.marketwatch.com/story/th...ers-involuntarily-united-isnt-no-1-2017-04-11


----------



## dioxide45 (Apr 11, 2017)

LannyPC said:


> I thought so too.  From what I gathered, the number of seats sold matched the number of seats available and number of passengers who showed up.  The airline needed four more spaces for stand-by employees to get to the destination and felt it was more necessary to get those employees to Louisville than it was to get four paying passengers there.


It would seem that those employees not getting to where they needed to go would have impacted far more people and other flights than those four impacted customers?


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 11, 2017)

also it had me wondering about UALs stock price, id been blindly looking at news headlines saying it was "tanking" etc....it didnt even drop a full point today...and closed a full point higher than it did last monday.

*shrug


----------



## LannyPC (Apr 11, 2017)

mpumilia said:


> Yes. Actually, that does seem to be the case. But even so- the plane was full. So now they throw paying customers off the plane for their employees? I think that is outrageous!



I agree but, as outrageous as this may seem, I'm guessing that UA felt it was in its best interests to have those four employees in Louisville ASAP and take the loss of the four paying passengers.  It's possible that a more lucrative flight from Louisville needed those four employees right away.  Or it's possible that without those four employees in Louisville, a particular scheduled flight would not have gotten off the ground and caused a domino effect that would lead to other flights not taking off.

So in the big picture (putting this passenger-dragging incident aside), losing four paying passengers on this one flight was a pittance compared to what the airline would have lost had those four employees not gotten to Louisville ASAP.


----------



## Luanne (Apr 11, 2017)

dioxide45 said:


> It would seem that those employees not getting to where they needed to go would have impacted far more people and other flights than those four impacted customers?


Yep.  It would have impacted all of the people on the flights the crew was needed on.  And were these four crew members all on the same flight, or on four separate flights?  That could have quadrupled the number of people impacted.


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 11, 2017)

"Roger" said:


> Many years ago (and I think airlines have gotten more sophisticated about the amount that they overbook now - better computer algorithms) I had a friend take a trip to Hawaii. He deliberately booked his return trip starting Jan. 1 when people were desperate to get back to work. After having exactly the vacation he wanted, he would show up at the airport, volunteer to not take his (and his wife's) scheduled flight, take the money together with a free overnight in a hotel, come back the next day after lounging around, and do the same thing.
> 
> By the time four or five days were over, he had paid for his original trip (airline fare and hotels). Bottom line was he had worked the system for a free trip to Hawaii. (He could have stayed a few more days, but having to show up at the airport every day was beginning to get tiresome.)




Wanting to get bumped is all great for people who don't have employers, or major responsibilities at home, but for the majority of people our time is not our own. We maybe take a week off if we are lucky and have to get back to work or to our responsibilities.. We don't have time to get home a couple of days or even a day later. Not to mention many people are not frequent fliers and might not be taking another vacation for a long time, making vouchers useless.


----------



## Luanne (Apr 11, 2017)

dioxide45 said:


> Not sure why everyone is espousing the greatness of Southwest. Realize of the big airlines, they involuntarily bumped more passengers than any of the other three big airlines. They just didn't happen to have this unfortunate incident happen on their plane.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry, had trouble reading your chart, too many lines crossing each other.

I fly Southwest quite a lot.  I don't remember any announcements of being oversold or seeing people get bumped, either voluntarily or involuntarily.  I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I've just never seen it.


----------



## bizaro86 (Apr 11, 2017)

LannyPC said:


> I agree but, as outrageous as this may seem, I'm guessing that UA felt it was in its best interests to have those four employees in Louisville ASAP and take the loss of the four paying passengers.  It's possible that a more lucrative flight from Louisville needed those four employees right away.  Or it's possible that without those four employees in Louisville, a particular scheduled flight would not have gotten off the ground and caused a domino effect that would lead to other flights not taking off.
> 
> So in the big picture (putting this passenger-dragging incident aside), losing four paying passengers on this one flight was a pittance compared to what the airline would have lost had those four employees not gotten to Louisville ASAP.



In that same big picture, those employees needing to get to Louisville is a function of United''s scheduling, and clearly not the fault of the passengers. Seems like if those other flights were so important, United could have offered moreally than 800 to get them back.

Personally, while it would be too bad for the folks the next day, I don't see why that is the problem of the folks on the first flight.  Seems like United made conflicting promises it couldn't keep, and then resorted to force instead of paying for their mistake.


----------



## x3 skier (Apr 11, 2017)

BTW, Never have been on them but ...........


----------



## Chrispee (Apr 11, 2017)




----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 11, 2017)

> My cousin retired from United and told me that she felt bullying was the norm at this company. So sad, I have not flown United in over 10 years and will continue to not fly them.


My sister-in-law says the same thing.  She was with United for 31 years.  Says a lot about an airline when the retired crew members have such poor opinions of their employer.

My understanding is that $1,000 was offered to anyone willing to give up a seat.  Rick and I would have jumped at the chance, if they also offered food and a decent hotel room near the airport (or first class seats on the next plane).


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 11, 2017)

Chrispee said:


> Exactly.  I'd like to know how many of those bumped people were actually boarded and settled into a seat before getting bumped?  How many of those people were randomly selected to be bumped?  I'd wager a bet that it would be an extremely small percentage.
> 
> Overbooking is a financial incentive for the airlines, so any problems that arise from overbooking should be solved with financial incentives for passengers.



As rare as it is for me to fly, I remember being on a flight that we were all boarded and they came on and asked if anyone would give up their seat.


----------



## x3 skier (Apr 11, 2017)

mpumilia said:


> As rare as it is for me to fly, I remember being on a flight that we were all boarded and they came on and asked if anyone would give up their seat.



Happened to me several times back in the day. I usually took it if I was on the way back home after a trip by myself. 

Cheers


----------



## LannyPC (Apr 11, 2017)

bizaro86 said:


> In that same big picture, those employees needing to get to Louisville is a function of United''s scheduling, and clearly not the fault of the passengers. Seems like if those other flights were so important, United could have offered moreally than 800 to get them back.
> 
> Personally, while it would be too bad for the folks the next day, I don't see why that is the problem of the folks on the first flight.  Seems like United made conflicting promises it couldn't keep, and then resorted to force instead of paying for their mistake.



Don't get me wrong.  I'm not excusing UA for bumping four passengers.  Yes, I think UA is to blame for the lack of co-ordination in scheduling.  Should those four bumped passengers have to pay the price for UA's mess-up?  Definitely not.  Should UA have offered much huger incentives for people willing to get bumped?  Definitely, especially if UA felt it was vitally important for those four employees to get to Louisville ASAP.

I'm just saying that UA probably did this looking at the big picture.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 11, 2017)

> t would seem that those employees not getting to where they needed to go would have impacted far more people and other flights than those four impacted customers?



So why not offer a higher and higher amount of money to get cheerful volunteers to leave the aircraft?  It's nonsensical to cause all of this vitriol.


----------



## nightnurse613 (Apr 11, 2017)

Well, the "cost" to United has already been $250M based on the NYSE (MAY have been other factors). I hate the whole concept of overbooking-can I sell you something I don't have? Although, UA is spinning the cause as they needed to get a crew to another plane so, not really overbook (just poor planning??)  They could have chartered a private jet for about $2500!! While no one (?) reads the contract that is referenced on your ticket-there is a contract. I'm pretty sure we will find out this doctor has "other problems" that affected his behavior. Lastly, this behavior is indicative of the "entitlement" culture that permeates our society.


----------



## easyrider (Apr 11, 2017)

We have been bumped. No big deal. We ended up getting to our destination 3 hours later. They gave us a nice credit for future flights and got us to where we wanted to go.

I just find it odd that this was newsworthy. Maybe if Dr Dao was African American and protesters showed up I might think otherwise.

Bill


----------



## Maple_Leaf (Apr 11, 2017)

TUGBrian said:


> im not terribly sure id be less "upset" to get bumped off a flight before boarding, vs actually being in my seat.
> 
> the inconvenience of both situations is the wasted time of me missing the flight, not where my body was located at the time I got bumped.


It's the difference between a civil and a criminal matter. Rule 25 DENIED BOARDING COMPENSATION should be treated as a contractual dispute at the ticket counter.  Negotiation required, no police necessary, no beating up the customers. Rule 21 REFUSAL OF TRANSPORT can be a criminal matter, e.g. flight safety. I believe the police thought they were responding to a Rule 21 incident when really they were actually called to a Rule 25 situation that was mistakenly criminalised by United personnel.


----------



## LisaH (Apr 11, 2017)

uscav8r said:


> I had the exact same thought. This guy DID have other options than to play hard ball.so I don't quite buy his "I'm a doctor and I have appointments" excuse. Sounds like a bit of overinflated ego / entitlement factor we're possible contributing factors. But then, none of us were there to know for sure.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The wife is also a doctor. She may have appointments scheduled just as many and as important as her husband.


----------



## bluehende (Apr 11, 2017)

I have seen quite a few interviews today with lawyers that specialize in these things.  Of course there is a difference in opinion depending on who the lawyer works for.  Generally it is conceded that United violated their own policy.  The disclaimer talks about being bumped before boarding.  The lawyers conceded that the airline lawyers argue that boarding is until the plane pulls back from the gate, but usually lose.  One of the interesting things is that this situation is common enough to have a lot of legal proceedings in place.  If this is the case why does United not have better rules and procedures in place.  In this thread many viable options have been discussed.  Not sure I 100% believe it but one lawyer mentioned that the bar is low for removing a person once boarded but they cannot be removed unless for cause.  And no the circular argument of refusing to leave a flight thereby not complying with the flight crew would be a stretch without some evidence to show the customer deserved to be thrown out.

Personally I think overbooking is fine.  Airlines make more revenues thus bringing down costs.  However if they screw up it is their responsibility to pay for the error.  Like many of said 200 more dollars or maybe up to 800 would have probably solved what will become a very expensive problem for them.  Most who act indignant will not change their behavior, but some do.  It usually is shown that with these PR problems there is an immediate loss of revenue that slowly goes away.  Even if it is slight UA will lose a lot of money.

I have another scenario to end the scene without violence.  Let the man remain peacefully.  Go to the next on the bump list.  Upon arrival have the person arrested or sue him if you have a case.  Again offering a sweet deal to unlucky number 5 could help.  This allays the pacifist in me that believes violence is not the answer.  

I must say the funniest thing I have heard on this thread is that if airlines keep going up it will cost them a lot of money as people wait.  So a couple hundred people would collude to raise the price without talking in a few minutes.

Also one thing I learned today is that the airline has to compensate you if you are chosen to be bumped and have to inform you of this immediately.  The requirements are CASH not vouchers.  Generally it is 2X the ticket up to 650 for less than 2 hours and 4X the ticket up to 1300 if over that.  My understanding is they will offer vouchers.  Do not accept them.


----------



## Luanne (Apr 11, 2017)

easyrider said:


> We have been bumped. No big deal. We ended up getting to our destination 3 hours later. They gave us a nice credit for future flights and got us to where we wanted to go.
> 
> I just find it odd that this was newsworthy. Maybe if Dr Dao was African American and protesters showed up I might think otherwise.
> 
> Bill


Uhhh, it was probably "newsworthy" because he was removed from the airplane bloody and dragged down the aisle.


----------



## LannyPC (Apr 11, 2017)

Marathoner said:


> Let the price of bumping passengers go as high as it takes.  Airlines should do a better job of flying people to their destination when they sold the tickets to the flying public.  Nobody forced them to oversell their seats and there should be a price that the airline pays when they are on the wrong end of their yield management calculations.



I think so too.  The airline took a risk/gamble that did not pay off so the airline should pay the price, not the passengers.  But, as Sue Don J said in an earlier post, if the airline pays the price, sadly it will eventually pass that on to all its customers via higher prices (or possibly lesser service).


----------



## klpca (Apr 11, 2017)

dioxide45 said:


> Not sure why everyone is espousing the greatness of Southwest. Realize of the big airlines, they involuntarily bumped more passengers than any of the other three big airlines. They just didn't happen to have this unfortunate incident happen on their plane.



I've taken a few bumps on SWA. They have always made it worth my while. It's been a few years so I may be fuzzy on the details, but I believe that the last one was a full refund of my ticket, a seat on the next flight, plus $500 credit on Southwest. Both my daughter and I took the compensation and she flew free to and from home/college for the entire school year. They help me, I help them. That's they way it's supposed to work. I have also heard them soliciting volunteers for other flights and they have had no problems increasing the price until they get people to take the offer.


----------



## klpca (Apr 11, 2017)

LannyPC said:


> I think so too.  The airline took a risk/gamble that did not pay off so the airline should pay the price, not the passengers.  But, as Sue Don J said in an earlier post, if the airline pays the price, sadly it will eventually pass that on to all its customers via higher prices (or possibly lesser service).


I expect the revenue offset has been factored into prices already. They have everything analyzed, I am sure (says the bean counter  )


----------



## LannyPC (Apr 11, 2017)

TUGBrian said:


> eh, folks have extremely short memories and tight pocketbooks.
> 
> if there are two flights from A to B....and hundreds of dollars difference in the fares....most folks could care less about this incident and will still buy the cheaper ticket even if its on united.



Agreed.  That's my policy.  In the possible scenario you mentioned, I'm not going to pay an extra $50 to get from A to B just to pass a message on to a particular airline.  I know some here will disagree with me but, hey, we're all entitled to our opinions, standards, and principles.


----------



## myoakley (Apr 11, 2017)

I am shocked by the number of posts siding with United.  No human being, who is not in the process of committing a crime, should be treated in this way, let alone a paying customer.  I hope the doctor gets a good lawyer and receives enough compensation to insure a comfortable, maybe even luxurious, retirement.


----------



## Luanne (Apr 11, 2017)

myoakley said:


> I am shocked by the number of posts siding with United.  No human being, who is not in the process of committing a crime, should be treated in this way, let alone a paying customer.  I hope the doctor gets a good lawyer and receives enough compensation to insure a comfortable, maybe even luxurious, retirement.


I'm not sure anyone is actually siding with United.  As I posted earlier, there is enough blame to spread around.


----------



## LannyPC (Apr 11, 2017)

vacationhopeful said:


> Personally, overbooking does NOT bother me. It is part of an efficient market necessary for almost all successful markets where the item being SOLD has a finite expiration date.
> 
> Airline KNOW passengers will NOT show up ... illness, traffic issues or not going. The airlines USE complex models ... using historical, weather conditions, day of the week, holiday patterns and route & destination histories. And any other possible factor or condition people might not show up to fly.



It does not bother me either.  But it's a gamble that airlines take.  And if more paid passengers show up than there are seats available, then the airline in this case loses the gamble and it should pay, not the customers.


----------



## LannyPC (Apr 11, 2017)

Luanne said:


> I'm not sure anyone is actually siding with United.  As I posted earlier, there is enough blame to spread around.



I don't think anyone is siding with UA either.  Some are just pointing out that UA is getting unfairly blamed for the rough treatment of this passenger when it was the airport police who brutally dragged him off.


----------



## am1 (Apr 11, 2017)

Saturday I was flying with my son from TYS to YYZ through Newark.  We were using united miles and in business class.  I always hoped to get bumped out of business class.  I only chose business class because Our first leg only had business class seats available.  We were two of 4 out of 16 seats.  Coach very empty as well.  We arrive in Newark in Terminal C and go to the United Lounge for dinner.  Thankfully so as the new Maple Leaf Lounge in Terminal A was the worst lounge I have seen.  We were told if we walk to Terminal A we would have to go through security again but if we take the shuttle we are fine.  That is only for one Concourse in Terminal A but not the one we need to get to.  

We get into to the security line and the TSA employees do not care that our plane is going to start boarding in a few minutes and are told we have lots of time.  We arrive at the gate 5 minutes late as part of it is they have to search my bag as I have a solar pump.  The plane is still there and actually the agent wanted to see my bag tags as they are on the plane.  It ended up taking 25 minutes to get my bags off instead of a few minutes to allow me to board.  Was never told if our seats were given away/someone got upgraded to them.  While unloading my sons car seat it was dropped which I complained about but no one cared other then the gate agent offering to give me cash to buy another car seat.  She was worried about losing her job as by bags went on by mistake in the first place.  A good worker but clearly overworked.  

We are told we would be given standby seats to the next flight.  I check at the gate and another agent gave us two business class seats so I make my arrangements.  Before boarding I am called to the gate and am told my seats are cancelled because there are others on standby ahead of us.  Apparently business class seats booked with miles do not clear before people with economy tickets to the flight who are placed on stand by.  Even if business seats are available.  The agent asked me how I would feel about bumping a traveller and I told them the airline does it all the time.  

In all of this thankfully I was told my seats were taken back before I boarded.  I would not have been happy if they waited until we were in our seats.  Still very frustrating.

Would the union allow United employees to 1) drive to the airport they are required at, 2) be driven to the airport they are required at) 3) charter a plane to get them there?  

For this weekend I wanted to have our return flight changed from Monday to Sunday but of course they wanted $125 a person.  I may call again and see if they lighten up.


----------



## mdurette (Apr 11, 2017)

CEO now issues apology:  From the TPG

_April 11, 2017_

_The truly horrific event that occurred on this flight has elicited many responses from all of us: outrage, anger, disappointment. I share all of those sentiments, and one above all: my deepest apologies for what happened. Like you, I continue to be disturbed by what happened on this flight and I deeply apologize to the customer forcibly removed and to all the customers aboard. No one should ever be mistreated this way.  _

_I want you to know that we take full responsibility and we will work to make it right.  _

_It’s never too late to do the right thing. I have committed to our customers and our employees that we are going to fix what’s broken so this never happens again. This will include a thorough review of crew movement, our policies for incentivizing volunteers in these situations, how we handle oversold situations and an examination of how we partner with airport authorities and local law enforcement. We’ll communicate the results of our review by April 30th. _

_I promise you we will do better. _

_Sincerely,_
_Oscar _


----------



## mdurette (Apr 11, 2017)

x3 skier said:


> View attachment 3640
> BTW, Never have been on them but ...........



I certainly hope that is not a real SW ad.


----------



## Marathoner (Apr 11, 2017)

Threatening people with arrest to get their seat occurs more that I thought - even to United first class passengers.

http://www.latimes.com/business/laz...ed-low-priority-passenger-20170412-story.html


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Apr 11, 2017)

I accept overbooking.  I understand that no-shows occur, and that overbooking generates more revenue.  I presume that is part of the overall revenue model.  I assume that when airlines were losing money fares would have been even higher if they hadn't been generating revenue from overbooking.  

I also appreciate the process of asking for volunteers, and escalating the amount of money offered until the required number of people surrender their seats.  I think that is an excellent way of responding when it is necessary to remove passengers.  

I recall a flight one time that I had on Alaska Airlines from McCarran Airport in Las Vegas to Seattle. I was mid-afternoon in August and Las Vegas was experiencing a brutal heat wave.  Because of the high temperatures, planes could not take off with full passenger load.  (Lift developed from a wing decreases with air density, and air density decreases with both temperature elevation.)

So Alaska Airlines was looking at volunteers.  They announced very clearly that they needed to bump passengers, they were going to offer compensation, they would continue increasing the compensation until they got the required number of volunteers, and the everyone who volunteered to bump would receive the final amount offered (so there was no incentive to hold out for more money if you were willing to bump.).  They started at $200, increased to $400, then $600, then $800, then $1000, before they had enough volunteers.  

An excellent solution. Everyone was happy. Presumably everyone that bumped did so because they voucher was worth more than the hassle. Alaska accepted the compensation as simply part of the cost of doing business. Those who were willing to bump at $400 did exceedingly well.  A number of those who were bumped said the voucher more than offset their gambling losses. 

*******

To me, the big mistake that United made was not doing what Alaska did.  Forget about the terms of the contract.  The optics are far more important.  And the people who deal with customers face-to-face are the ones who need to have the power to manage the situation postively.


----------



## Kozman (Apr 11, 2017)

davidvel said:


> What should  an airline do when a person who gets bumped ultimately refuses to leave the aircraft?



Raise the offer to get someone to voluntarily leave. I was once offered $800 to leave and refused. They went to $1000 and I almost tripped over myself to leave.


----------



## WalnutBaron (Apr 11, 2017)

Kozman said:


> Raise the offer to get someone to voluntarily leave. I was once offered $800 to leave and refused. They went to $1000 and I almost tripped over myself to leave.



As many have said here earlier in this thread, everyone has their price. United blew it by not recognizing this simple fact.


----------



## Luanne (Apr 11, 2017)

WalnutBaron said:


> As many have said here earlier in this thread, everyone has their price. United blew it by not recognizing this simple fact.


Have there been any statements from the United personnel?  The gate agents, or flight crew?  I don't remember seeing anything from them stating what they felt they could, or couldn't do.


----------



## WalnutBaron (Apr 11, 2017)

mdurette said:


> CEO now issues apology:  From the TPG
> 
> _April 11, 2017_
> 
> ...



Looks like his PR department finally got to him, but the damage is done. This will turn out to be a case study in why it's never a good idea for your CEO to dig the hole deeper. Every major corporation has a crisis management procedure and the PR portion of that procedure is crucial in shaping public opinion--especially in this age of social media. It used to be that corporations had 1-2 days to form a good press release. Now, it's got to be done in a matter of hours--and it's got to be done right. Munoz's responses to this point have been a) completely tone deaf; b) bordering on belligerent; and c) clearly lacking leadership. If I was on the United board, I'd be suddenly wondering if we had the right guy at the top of the organization.


----------



## klpca (Apr 11, 2017)

Marathoner said:


> Threatening people with arrest to get their seat occurs more that I thought - even to United first class passengers.
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/business/laz...ed-low-priority-passenger-20170412-story.html



Not even surprised. It *is* a corporate culture thing. And the CEO's response to the current situation took over 24 hours to sound even somewhat sincere. It seems to be a mess there. I truly hope for them that this is an opportunity to figure out a way to treat people like customers instead of widgets. Very often, kindness is free.


----------



## easyrider (Apr 11, 2017)

Luanne said:


> Uhhh, it was probably "newsworthy" because he was removed from the airplane bloody and dragged down the aisle.




I do not agree with the decisions or the way Dr Dao was abusively removed from his seat but he did have opportunity to leave on his own. If he wasn't knocked out while being removed this would be as newsworthy as the yoga pants girl, imo. It is just interesting enough though, to read all of the angst about the situation. 

Bill


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Apr 11, 2017)

Luanne said:


> Have there been any statements from the United personnel?  The gate agents, or flight crew?  I don't remember seeing anything from them stating what they felt they could, or couldn't do.


Exactly.  I don't know if this is still true, but one time an Alaska gate agent told me that she had quite a bit of latitude to make "adjustments", solely at her discretion.  Because I was kind to her in a stressful overbook situation, non only did I get my bump voucher, but she rebooked me into first class on the bumped flight.  

You attract more flies with vinegar than with honey.


----------



## am1 (Apr 11, 2017)

Is a company trying to buy off customers the right thing to be doing in 2017?  Enough people do have a price to resolve the situation but should a company exploit that?  $800 may be a pay check for some and a bar tab for others.  It cannot be last one to have bought a ticket as those are normally the most expensive.  Least expensive may be fair but hard to know if the ticket involved connections.


----------



## dioxide45 (Apr 11, 2017)

Couldn't they have at least lifted the arm rests in the row he was sitting? It seems that pulling him over them is what led to the injury. It would have also been a lot easier to remove him had the arm rests not been lowered.


----------



## Talent312 (Apr 11, 2017)

The CEO's first "apology" was obviously more authentic, real corporate-speak.
I saw a tweet that said something about "reaccomodating" his face with a fist.

This stumble is almost on a par with "new Coke."

.


----------



## PigsDad (Apr 11, 2017)

mdurette said:


> I certainly hope that is not a real SW ad.


Of course it is not.  It is just one of the many memes that have appeared on social media today.

Kurt


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Apr 11, 2017)

am1 said:


> Is a company trying to buy off customers the right thing to be doing in 2017?  Enough people do have a price to resolve the situation but should a company exploit that?  $800 may be a pay check for some and a bar tab for others.  It cannot be last one to have bought a ticket as those are normally the most expensive.  Least expensive may be fair but hard to know if the ticket involved connections.


"Buy off"?  This simply a question of "price" vs. "value".  I would hazard a guess that whenever you make any purchase, you do so because the "price" you pay is less the "value" you receive. If not, why would you spend the money?

This is simple economics at work.  The airline has "x" number of seats on the plane, "y" number of passengers, and "x" is greater than "y'. Those are the facts, and given those facts does it not make sense that the passengers who fly are the ones for whom the flight has the most value?  By doing a price auction, the net effect is that those for whom the flight has the most "value" take the flight. Those for whom the flight has the least "value" accept the buyout when the buyout exceeds their value.  

The problem really arises because United removed from the plane a passenger who valued the flight more than the offered charge.  There is actually a simple fix to the situation. Which is to simply adopt the free market solution that if the company has sold a ticket on the flight, the company is obligated to accommodate the passenger on the flight or find alternate arrangements suitable to the passenger. Don't give the company the refuge of some mercantile provision that has been developed in cahoots with the government.  If they sell passage, they need to provide passage or face the consequences for breach of contract.


----------



## PigsDad (Apr 11, 2017)

Luanne said:


> Have there been any statements from the United personnel?  The gate agents, or flight crew?  I don't remember seeing anything from them stating what they felt they could, or couldn't do.


I'm sure it is policy that individual employees are not allowed to comment on a situation like this -- United wants all responses to go through official channels / spokespersons.  That was the policy of any company I have worked for.

Kurt


----------



## PigsDad (Apr 11, 2017)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> You attract more flies with *vinegar* than with *honey*.



Are you sure you got that one right? 

Kurt


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Apr 11, 2017)

PigsDad said:


> Are you sure you got that one right?
> 
> Kurt


probably not.  I think that you attract more vermin with honey than with vinegar.


----------



## am1 (Apr 11, 2017)

I can agree with you and the airlines about asking for volunteers and offering money but then it makes it a class system.  That is not something that is popular in 2017.  

It does not seem fair to the ones who highly value $800 as more times then not they will want to be bumped even if they are inconvienced by it.



T_R_Oglodyte said:


> "Buy off"?  This simply a question of "price" vs. "value".  I would hazard a guess that whenever you make any purchase, you do so because the "price" you pay is less the "value" you receive. If not, why would you spend the money?
> 
> This is simple economics at work.  The airline has "x" number of seats on the plane, "y" number of passengers, and "x" is greater than "y'. Those are the facts, and given those facts does it not make sense that the passengers who fly are the ones for whom the flight has the most value?  By doing a price auction, the net effect is that those for whom the flight has the most "value" take the flight. Those for whom the flight has the least "value" accept the buyout when the buyout exceeds their value.
> 
> The problem really arises because United removed from the plane a passenger who valued the flight more than the offered charge.  There is actually a simple fix to the situation. Which is to simply adopt the free market solution that if the company has sold a ticket on the flight, the company is obligated to accommodate the passenger on the flight or find alternate arrangements suitable to the passenger. Don't give the company the refuge of some mercantile provision that has been developed in cahoots with the government.  If they sell passage, they need to provide passage or face the consequences for breach of contract.


----------



## uscav8r (Apr 11, 2017)

bizaro86 said:


> In that same big picture, those employees needing to get to Louisville is a function of United''s scheduling, and clearly not the fault of the passengers. Seems like if those other flights were so important, United could have offered moreally than 800 to get them back.
> 
> Personally, while it would be too bad for the folks the next day, I don't see why that is the problem of the folks on the first flight.  Seems like United made conflicting promises it couldn't keep, and then resorted to force instead of paying for their mistake.



There is deliberate scheduling and then there is contingency scheduling if something does not go according to plan. Stuff happens and it does not comply with anyone's timeline. 

FYI, the force was applied by airport security, not the airline. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MULTIZ321 (Apr 11, 2017)

How a Disconnected Corporate Culture Cost United Airlines $800 Million Overnight
By Sonia Thompson/ Inc/ inc.com

"Corporate culture impacts your bottom line. Fact.

If you were ever skeptical about this truth in the past, look at what's been unfolding with United Airlines as your proof source.

The company lost $800 million in value almost overnight. Their stock took a hit, just a day after a video surfaced of a passenger being dragged off one of their planes.

As many airlines unfortunately do, United oversold their flight, and then had to figure out a way to accommodate crew members that needed to travel on it...."





CREDIT: Getty Images


Richard


----------



## bizaro86 (Apr 11, 2017)

uscav8r said:


> There is deliberate scheduling and then there is contingency scheduling if something does not go according to plan. Stuff happens and it does not comply with anyone's timeline.
> 
> FYI, the force was applied by airport security, not the airline.
> 
> ...



Respectfully, I don't see how contingent scheduling makes it the passengers problem. It seems like it was UA that had the problem to me, and more money would have been a good solution. 

Also, calling someone to use force seems morally the same to me as using it. While the security team is responsible for any excessive force used, I doubt the UA employees expected security to ask nicely and then leave if that didn't work. UA directed the action to have him removed, in a way that appears contrary to their contract for carriage to me.


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 12, 2017)

dioxide45 said:


> Couldn't they have at least lifted the arm rests in the row he was sitting? It seems that pulling him over them is what led to the injury. It would have also been a lot easier to remove him had the arm rests not been lowered.



id say that him refusing to get up and forcing 3 grown men to grab him and pull him out of a window seat on a crowded airline aisle is what led to the injury.


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 12, 2017)

bizaro86 said:


> Also, calling someone to use force seems morally the same to me as using it. While the security team is responsible for any excessive force used, I doubt the UA employees expected security to ask nicely and then leave if that didn't work. UA directed the action to have him removed, in a way that appears contrary to their contract for carriage to me.




well yea, people are certainly expected to listen and follow the instructions of the gate and flight crew...as 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of all passengers who fly do...and those who dont can deal with airport security.

what are there, 2 million or so passengers that board aircraft every single day, a few hundred of which are bumped off a flight every day...and a minuscule fraction of those refuse to give up their seat no matter what. 

its also been reported by more than one outlet that the guy become more and more belligerent as the requests for him to give up his seat went on.

Heck pilots have thrown people off planes for far less than that in the past, much less getting lippy with the flight crew just trying to get the plane out of the gate.  again id imagine that there is simply a policy in place for uncooperative passengers and part of that policy is to simply contact airport police to handle a situation that escalates.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Apr 12, 2017)

am1 said:


> I can agree with you and the airlines about asking for volunteers and offering money but then it makes it a class system.  That is not something that is popular in 2017.
> 
> It does not seem fair to the ones who highly value $800 as more times then not they will want to be bumped even if they are inconvienced by it.


Why is it not fair to to give a resource to those to whom it has the most value?

Let me give a specific example. 

Some years ago when I was working in California, during one of the 1980s droughts, I had a client in the Silicon Valley who was facing a mandatory cutback in water supply. My client was faced with the possibility of shutting down operations. Their net revenue from operations was on the order of $200,000 per day, with a workforce of about 100 people.

Meanwhile, there was water available to meet their needs, but the water was associated with agricultural water rights in San Joaquin River delta near Stockton.  The growers who had those water rights would net ~$50,000 for the entire year from using that water.  In what world does it make sense to put that water to use to produce $50,000 of profit to one individual while putting 100 people out of work and causing millions of dollars  of disruption to a business?  Would  it not be better to simply have my client give $100k to the grower and let my client continue uninterrupted operations?  But, no, that was not allowed because it would be classist to allow the simple, starving grower to sell his water (at a 200% profit, without even considering the fact that he wouldn't have to also spend time tending to his crops) to a capitalist industrialist.

The world where that doesn't make sense is a simplistic world that says the grower is part of a deserving protected class and my semiconductor client is a greedy technologist with an insatiable demand for water. 

******

The simple fact is that at a given point in space and time, time is more valuable to some people than to others.  When I was a graduate student in 1974, my time was less valuable than the time of many business people.  So I, and a number of my acquaintances, helped pay for graduate school by refilling cars with gasoline.  At that time, it often took two or three hours of standing in line to refill a gas tank.  So we would arrange with people to take their cars to be filled with gas, spending our time waiting in line instead of their time.  I charged $10/hour for my time waiting in line.  So filling a 15-gallon gas tank with a 2-hour wait time came to about $50 total.  Since my clients' time was typically valued at >$100/hour, this was a clear winner for them and for me. 

Eliitist and classist?  Perhaps, but I believe that what two consenting adults do without coercion is nobody else's business.  It doesn't matter if that activity involves a bedroom or a boardroom.  I was better off trading my time for money, and my client's were happy swapping my time for theirs.  It was a win-win.

Same thing applies with offering money to give up seats.  It's a win-win for the airline and the passenger.  The passenger walks away with something that is more valuable than their original ticket. The airline leaves with a passenger load on the plane  that is more valuable to them than the original load.

I have a problem with those who would object to a transaction in which both parties leave the transaction having something that is more valuable to each of them than what they started with.


----------



## famy27 (Apr 12, 2017)

I've actually been on a flight where there had to call for volunteers once the plane was boarded. Big surprise, it was a United flight. We were coming home from Orlando, and there was a family of four standing in the aisle with no seats. We were offered compensation and a flight out of Tampa with reimbursement for the transfer costs to Tampa. We decided to take the voluntary bump, as the family seemed like they needed to be on the flight more than we did. I never did find out if they got a fourth volunteer, as we were a family of three giving up our spots. When we got off the plane, they were still trying to round up another volunteer. Here's the fun post-script. The supervisor who arranged our compensation gave us his card and said to send him the receipt for our rental car to Tampa, and he would make sure we got reimbursed. I sent two letters by snail mail, and we never heard a peep back. Sort of makes you feel uninspired to take the next offered bump. Here was a guy who used creativity to free up seats by sending us to a different airport, but it was apparently a flawed system, as we never received our promised compensation.

However all of this shakes out, I am feeling really bad for pretty much every flight attendant and gate agent. This sort of thing becomes a free pass for all sorts of bad behavior. As pointed out, people are IDB'd every day, but now every airline is going to be walking on eggshells. People who are involuntarily bumped will just say, "Nope. Not me. Move on to the next person on the list." It's going to create operational problems for all airlines, because nobody wants to be "like United."

I agree that United really needs to work out their counts to make sure they don't have to kick people off of planes. That's the biggest issue. It's not the bumping. It's when and how it happens. It's got to be some sort of behavioral economics issue. At the gate, I imagine they would have been able to get more volunteers if they'd upped the amount earlier.  When you are waiting at the gate, you don't feel like the seat is yours, so you are probably more likely to give up your place on the plane. It's just hypothetical at that point. But once you board and sit, that seat is your real estate. It's your home for the next 90 or 120 minutes. You aren't giving it up unless it's really worth your while.


----------



## WalnutBaron (Apr 12, 2017)

Famy makes an excellent point. The outcome of all of this is that passengers whose first inclination is going to be to say, "Hell no, I'm not giving up my seat for anything less than $1500--and I want the gate agent to kiss my butt while I take the money" is going to be the new reality. The abhorrent behavior of Dr. Jau will be imitated--and the jobs of the gate agents and flight attendants just got a little bit more difficult.

This entire episode would not have even started had it not been for the arrogance of an airline that grossly oversells its capacity, coupled with the extreme example of a passenger whose belligerence is only exceeded by the belligerence of the airline's CEO in the following hours and days in trying to justify what happened to that passenger. United has been raked over this situation to such a degree that--as I and others on this board have noted--their domestic business will be affected, and not just in the short term. This will have "legs" long into 2017 and beyond. It's actually quite reminiscent of the Wells Fargo fiasco, which made the front page of the Wall Street Journal again today, nearly a year after the first headlines broke on the story. When a huge corporation publicly displays such a complete disdain for its own customers, those customers vote with their feet and their pocketbooks--and United's shareholders are not going to like the outcome.


----------



## LannyPC (Apr 12, 2017)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> If they sell passage, they need to provide passage or face the consequences for breach of contract.



Some might argue that, in this case, UA did not breach contract because the terms of a passenger purchasing say that he could be subject to involuntary bumping.

That aside though, I agree that if a passenger buys a ticket, the airline sells more tickets than available seats, and more passengers show up than available seats, then the airline should make restitution.  When the airline overbooks, it's a gamble or risk that it takes.  Sometimes the gamble pays off in that some customers who bought tickets don't show up.  Sometimes the gamble or risk backfires and more paid passengers show up than there are available seats.  

As with any gamble or risk, if the company loses the gamble, it should pay.


----------



## LannyPC (Apr 12, 2017)

uscav8r said:


> FYI, the force was applied by airport security, not the airline.



Bingo!  Yet the media seems to paint UA as the bad guys with headlines reading "United drags man...".  Now people are all over social media calling for a boycott of UA.  United is not the only airline that overbooks and then bumps passengers.  It happens every day.  It's just unfortunate for UA that one of its passengers refused to get off when instructed to and then security had to be called in to remove him.

So if people are going to boycott UA over this incident, then they should boycott all airlines that overbook and then bump people against their wishes.


----------



## MuranoJo (Apr 12, 2017)

lizap said:


> Still hasn't been determined whether the 4 crew had to go to Louisville to catch a flight the next morning OR going home for perhaps a few days off.  Still wrong on either account.  Shows UAL putting money/operating efficiency ahead of customers (excellent article in Forbes about this).



And this is hitting the nail on the head for me.  They may have had every legal 'right,' but was it really wise in the long run?  Of course they could have upped the ante and made it cash instead of a voucher.  They would have had takers. 
A bit OT, but maybe I'm a bit sensitive about this airline employee favoritism a bit because I was burned by it myself (to a much less degree).
On a long-haul domestic flight, DH & I were upgraded to First Class and they had us wait in the boarding area before boarding.
Well, we got to our nice First-Class seats, and there were two UA employees sitting there who wouldn't respond when we showed them our seating assignments.  Needless to say, we were the ones shuttled to seats in coach, downgrades from what we'd originally reserved.

Um, note to self:  Read through ALL posts before posting.    Sorry, got carried away before I made it through. Oh well, still my sentiments.


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 12, 2017)

and more info coming to light in the wee hours!

latest news story said that he and his wife actually DID accept the $800 and got off the plane...but then changed their minds and instead got back on the plane.

not sure if they just ignored the gate agent and walked back on the plane and sat down themselves or what, but that would certainly at least provide an explanation for how it then escalated to having airport security called.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Apr 12, 2017)

LannyPC said:


> Some might argue that, in this case, UA did not breach contract because the terms of a passenger purchasing say that he could be subject to involuntary bumping.
> 
> That aside though, I agree that if a passenger buys a ticket, the airline sells more tickets than available seats, and more passengers show up than available seats, then the airline should make restitution.  When the airline overbooks, it's a gamble or risk that it takes.  Sometimes the gamble pays off in that some customers who bought tickets don't show up.  Sometimes the gamble or risk backfires and more paid passengers show up than there are available seats.
> 
> As with any gamble or risk, if the company loses the gamble, it should pay.


I've been involved with selling and providing professional services going on 35 years.  In virtually all cases, I have a scope of work and terms and conditions that define what is covered contractually. That being said, despite what my actual contract terms are, I will never, never, never leave a client hanging out to dry because the situation doesn't fall within the scope and terms and conditions of my contract.  It is bad business for me to do so.  I trust that my clients will recognize that I have gone out of my way for them and will assure that I am taken care of for my efforts.  If they don't do so, and are willing to exploit my good will, then that is a client that I will readily "outplace", considering myself fortunate to have learned my client's true colors when the stakes are small rather than when the stakes are huge.

In that roundabout way I am saying that it both good business practice and good personal ethical practice to do what is right, not what is contracted.  In doing contracts one should be sure that one is adequately managing risk and there is an effective stop-loss to keep things from getting out of hand.  But it is good practice to be willing to go beyond the contractual minimum to provide good customer service.  The terms of passage on airline ticket provide a means for the airlines to manage risk in the worst-case situations.  But if a business wants to receive customer service kudos, the business should focus on what is right and fair, not on minimum contractual obligations. The minimum contractual obligations should only be used as a stopgap when reasonable customer service obligations have not sufficed.


----------



## Pens_Fan (Apr 12, 2017)

United could have saved themselves a lot of money and aggravation by just putting the four employees in a limo and having them driven the five hours to Louisville.


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 12, 2017)

LannyPC said:


> I don't think anyone is siding with UA either.  Some are just pointing out that UA is getting unfairly blamed for the rough treatment of this passenger when it was the airport police who brutally dragged him off.




Yes- but who called the airport police?


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Apr 12, 2017)

From newsthump. com. Now for some comic relief,

*United Airlines confirms that the beatings will continue until volunteering improves:*
http://newsthump.com/2017/04/11/uni...gs-will-continue-until-volunteering-improves/


----------



## ace2000 (Apr 12, 2017)

Just by the fact that this story has gone on now for 3 full days proves our society has serious issues...  

Anybody know where I can get some help?  Seriously, we all need help folks.


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Apr 12, 2017)

ace2000 said:


> Just by the fact that this story has gone on now for 3 full days proves our society has serious issues...
> 
> Anybody know where I can get some help?  Seriously, we all need help folks.



I think it's more of identifying with what most view as an unwarranted and/or unjust act(s) by UAL.  So, for me, it's reassuring, in an odd way,  to know that the ongoing controversy is based on the reaction to the unfairness and overreaction by UAL. Again, YMMV. Thanks.

Something good always comes out of something bad, IMHO.


Edited to correct prior editing errors. It's complicated.


----------



## billymach4 (Apr 12, 2017)

There has been so much back an forth and posturing on this issue for the passenger, and for United.

I really don't care that the airlines have the right to bump you off a flight even if you are sitting in your seat, accepted compensation and then changed your mind or what ever the situation was.

In my mind I paid for a ticket and that ticket needs to be honored. I don't care if any crew member needs to be re positioned. Not my problem. In this age of transportation
the airlines need to figure out how to position their own crews without inconveniencing the flying paying passenger.

Bottom line... United and the local authorities screwed up big time.


----------



## Ironwood (Apr 12, 2017)

Flying just isn't a pleasant experience anymore......period!


----------



## bizaro86 (Apr 12, 2017)

LannyPC said:


> Some might argue that, in this case, UA did not breach contract because the terms of a passenger purchasing say that he could be subject to involuntary bumping.
> 
> That aside though, I agree that if a passenger buys a ticket, the airline sells more tickets than available seats, and more passengers show up than available seats, then the airline should make restitution.  When the airline overbooks, it's a gamble or risk that it takes.  Sometimes the gamble pays off in that some customers who bought tickets don't show up.  Sometimes the gamble or risk backfires and more paid passengers show up than there are available seats.
> 
> As with any gamble or risk, if the company loses the gamble, it should pay.



UA contract for carriage says they have the right to deny boarding for any reason. It doesn't say they have the right to remove you from the plane for any reason. Once he was in that seat, it was contractually his. 

The contract does differentiate between denying boarding and removal from the plane in several other circumstances, and ambiguity in contracts is always resolved against whoever drafted it, which is UA in this case.

So UA broke their own contract, and has no moral high ground.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 12, 2017)

Again, why not up the amount offered to the entire plane packed with people, so some retired couples like the two of us would willingly walk off the plane.  Wouldn't it be worth it to just offer more money, rather than invite all of this negative publicity?


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 12, 2017)

guess the comment got lost...but in the news story last night they did up the offer to $1000 (according to onboard passenger/eyewitness reports)...he and his wife accepted and got off the plane...then changed their minds and "got back on".

if they did so after already agreeing to deplane and then actually getting off...and got back on themselves bypassing the gate agent...one can easily see why security would get called.

also, it kinda wipes out the narrative of the "random selection" being passed around...its not exactly random if the guy and his wife willingly took the deal, got off the plane...then changed their minds.


----------



## davidvel (Apr 12, 2017)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Again, why not up the amount offered to the entire plane packed with people, so some retired couples like the two of us would willingly walk off the plane.  Wouldn't it be worth it to just offer more money, rather than invite all of this negative publicity?


Maybe because the gate agent was following the instructions from their employer as to how to do their job so they wouldn't lose it and not be able to feed their kids, and every other time this has happened the passenger complied with authorities and left the plane (probably pissed and making a scene, but not bloody and dragged), when the police/security came on the plane and told them to get off. 

And said gate agent never thought this would happen (passenger defying authorities, getting bloody, video shared on social media) when they did what they probably do numerous times every week. And said gate agent was frazzled and frustrated, trying to ferry a crew needed so a flight the next day could happen, and was under a time crunch so didn't take the time to try to find the number for the CEO/ P.R. department to have them try to predict that "this" would happen, when it never happened to this gate agent before.


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 12, 2017)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Again, why not up the amount offered to the entire plane packed with people, so some retired couples like the two of us would willingly walk off the plane.  Wouldn't it be worth it to just offer more money, rather than invite all of this negative publicity?



Because if upping the ante is the only solution that anybody is comfortable with, and every flyer learns that the airlines'/gate agents' only option is to keep upping the ante, eventually the bump compensation is going to soar into the stratosphere _and every single new threshold is going to result in ticket prices soaring ever higher_.  Taking away the airlines' right to involuntarily remove passengers when things get stupid is not the answer.


----------



## WalnutBaron (Apr 12, 2017)

CNBC is now reporting that a huge backlash is brewing against United Airlines in China. United accounts for 20% of all flights between the U.S. and China. 

On a separate note, and as is unfortunately predictable, Dr. Dao gave his first interview today, saying he "is not doing well" and--when asked what parts of his body are injured--he replied "Everything". Here comes the multi-zillion dollar lawsuit to reward him for his boorish and outlandish behavior, trumped only by United's boorish and outlandish behavior. There is no sympathetic figure in this sorry, sordid affair.


----------



## Ken555 (Apr 12, 2017)

This isn't going to end well for United. I wouldn't be surprised if we learn of more about their wonderful customer service.

http://www.latimes.com/business/laz...ed-low-priority-passenger-20170412-story.html



> Suddenly it had more first-class passengers than it knew what to do with. So it turned to its “How to Screw Over Customers” handbook and determined that the one in higher standing — more miles flown, presumably — gets the seat and the other first-class passenger, even though he’s also a member of the frequent-flier program, gets the boot.
> 
> “I understand you might bump people because a flight is full,” Fearns said. “But they didn’t say anything at the gate. I was already in the seat. And now they were telling me I had no choice. They said they’d put me in cuffs if they had to.”




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## lizap (Apr 12, 2017)

ace2000 said:


> Just by the fact that this story has gone on now for 3 full days proves our society has serious issues...
> 
> Anybody know where I can get some help?  Seriously, we all need help folks.




Actually glad to see the public and consumers taking an interest in things like this...  people need to closely observe corporate behavior and vote with their wallets...  This is not going away anytime soon...


----------



## vacationhopeful (Apr 12, 2017)

WalnutBaron said:


> ....
> On a separate note, and as is unfortunately predictable, Dr. Dao gave his first interview today, saying he "is not doing well" and--when asked what parts of his body are injured--he replied "Everything". Here comes the multi-zillion dollar lawsuit to reward him for his boorish and outlandish behavior, trumped only by United's boorish and outlandish behavior. There is no sympathetic figure in this sorry, sordid affair.



Good .. he is going for the MEGA-MILLIONS lawsuit ... that means United most likely will not roll over and just settle to the Dao & Company's liking. United might offer a decent settlement, but the good doctor and his lawyers are seeking BLOOD. And as such, the legal process will be SLOW with opportunity for the airline to disprove some/most/all of his permanent injury claims. 

Of course, the end result is United files for Bankruptcy protection. I hope Dao or his lawyer has a place to land & park a commerical plane.


----------



## lizap (Apr 12, 2017)

vacationhopeful said:


> Good .. he is going for the MEGA-MILLIONS lawsuit ... that means United most likely will not roll over and just settle to the Dao & Company's liking. United might offer a decent settlement, but the good doctor and his lawyers are seeking BLOOD. And as such, the legal process will be SLOW with opportunity for the airline to disprove some/most/all of his permanent injury claims.
> 
> Of course, the end result is United files for Bankruptcy protection. I hope Dao or his lawyer has a place to land & park a commerical plane.




Reportedly, this has gone viral in Asia on social media, where UAL derives a good portion of its revenue.  There are consequences for bad decisions..


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 12, 2017)

indeed, apparently bad decisions can lead to you getting a huge monetary settlement in the right conditions!


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 12, 2017)

The CEO of the company (Oscar Munoz?) was on Good Morning America today.  I saw a replay of his interview.  He is a soft-spoken person who is appalled at the behavior of his employees and airport security.  It was a complimentary interview.  The man is humbled and sorry this happened.  

Rick and I would have taken the $1,000 bucks happily.  Maybe we will get such a chance someday.  That would pay for the movie theater projector we just bought.


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 12, 2017)

sadly its not usually ever 1000 cash...its merely a voucher worth 1000 bucks to use on a future united plane ticket.


----------



## lizap (Apr 12, 2017)

rickandcindy23 said:


> The CEO of the company (Oscar Munoz?) was on Good Morning America today.  I saw a replay of his interview.  He is a soft-spoken person who is appalled at the behavior of his employees and airport security.  It was a complimentary interview.  The man is humbled and sorry this happened.
> 
> Rick and I would have taken the $1,000 bucks happily.  Maybe we will get such a chance someday.  That would pay for the movie theater projector we just bought.




He is "now" humbled with the public uproar and that UAL is losing customers/revenue.  His first response was not so humble and apologetic..


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 12, 2017)

I think most people are so fed up with the airline companies and that is why they relate so much to this story. They feel they have been abused long enough and this situation epitomizes it. People are mad as hell and they're not going to take it anymore! LOL!


----------



## isisdave (Apr 12, 2017)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Again, why not up the amount offered to the entire plane packed with people, so some retired couples like the two of us would willingly walk off the plane.  Wouldn't it be worth it to just offer more money, rather than invite all of this negative publicity?



Here's my suggested announcement: "Ladies and gentlemen, we need four volunteers to get off the plane, and *the plane will not depart*  until that happens. The bidding starts at $600 cash, and will rise by $100 every 30 seconds until we have the needed volunteers."


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Apr 12, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


> Because if upping the ante is the only solution that anybody is comfortable with, and every flyer learns that the airlines'/gate agents' only option is to keep upping the ante, eventually the bump compensation is going to soar into the stratosphere _and every single new threshold is going to result in ticket prices soaring ever higher_.  Taking away the airlines' right to involuntarily remove passengers when things get stupid is not the answer.


Not at all.  As I posted upthread, I've seen it done that way, and it works.  

It works because there's a disincentive for a passenger not to accept the offer once that passengers value threshold is crossed.  If it's worth it to me at $600, and I decide to hold out for more, someone else might volunteer at $800.  So by holding out I lose the $600 I would gladly have taken. 

And, as I posted in my experience, Alaska made a point of telling people that if a passenger volunteered at a lower price and Alaska had to increase the offer to get more volunteers, then everyone would get the higher compensation.  That also eliminates the incentive to hold out for more money.


----------



## Elan (Apr 12, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


> Because if upping the ante is the only solution that anybody is comfortable with, and every flyer learns that the airlines'/gate agents' only option is to keep upping the ante, *eventually the bump compensation is going to soar into the stratosphere* _and every single new threshold is going to result in ticket prices soaring ever higher_.  Taking away the airlines' right to involuntarily remove passengers when things get stupid is not the answer.



  Yeah, I don't think so. First, this would require some sort of collusion among the passengers, which is unlikely.  And, even if they did collude, someone will break the pact when their number is reached.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 12, 2017)

Yes, that sounds much more right, Steve, than forcing people off of a plane.  I do wonder what limits the company puts on these offers. 

There are so many stories about this particular incident, I cannot imagine what the truth is.  Some are saying he took the offer, then wouldn't get out of the seat. Another story said he was chosen by lottery.  I don't know what to believe.


----------



## "Roger" (Apr 12, 2017)

mpumilia said:


> I think most people are so fed up with the airline companies and that is why they relate so much to this story. They feel they have been abused long enough and this situation epitomizes it. People are mad as hell and they're not going to take it anymore! LOL!


At the same time, people are not willing to pay more for better service. 

Midwest Express used to offer service that is better than what you see as first class on today's domestic flights. It cost maybe fifteen percent more than competing flights on the same routes. Midwest Express - gone. People didn't want to pay the extra. For a while American was advertising more foot room for every passenger, even having display seats sitting in airports. Gone. American had to reduce costs to stay competitive. I have been on flights where there might have been three rows dedicated to economy plus. Not that much more. Still half of those seats were empty while every seat in basic economy was filled.

How much more would people be willing to spend on an airline that guarantees no bumping, ever? My bet is that airline wouldn't last a year.

Pogo got it right. We have met the enemy and it was us.


----------



## Elan (Apr 12, 2017)

"Roger" said:


> At the same time, people are not willing to pay more for better service.
> 
> Midwest Express used to offer service that is better than what you see as first class on today's domestic flights. It cost maybe fifteen percent more than competing flights on the same routes. Midwest Express - gone. People didn't want to pay the extra. For a while American was advertising more foot room for every passenger, even having display seats sitting in airports. Gone. American had to reduce costs to stay competitive. I have been on flights where there might have been three rows dedicated to economy plus. Not that much more. Still half of those seats were empty while every seat in basic economy was filled.
> 
> ...



  Having the massage chair won't greatly enhance my root canal experience.  I'm not paying more for the massage chair.

  Air passengers will pay up for non-stop flights and reasonable departure times.


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 12, 2017)

"Roger" said:


> At the same time, people are not willing to pay more for better service.
> 
> Midwest Express used to offer service that is better than what you see as first class on today's domestic flights. It cost maybe fifteen percent more than competing flights on the same routes. Midwest Express - gone. People didn't want to pay the extra. For a while American was advertising more foot room for every passenger, even having display seats sitting in airports. Gone. American had to reduce costs to stay competitive. I have been on flights where there might have been three rows dedicated to economy plus. Not that much more. Still half of those seats were empty while every seat in basic economy was filled.
> 
> ...




Why do they have to bump people? Why can't they just make all tickets non refundable. That is what travel insurance is for. Then, if someone doesn't show- they have already paid so the airline isn't out any money. Then, people on standby can have at those seats.

I just don't get it.


----------



## Luanne (Apr 12, 2017)

mpumilia said:


> Why do they have to bump people? Why can't they just make all tickets non refundable. That is what travel insurance is for. Then, if someone doesn't show- they have already paid so the airline isn't out any money. Then, people on standby can have at those seats.
> 
> I just don't get it.


If you really want to know you can just Google "why airlines overbook" and find out the reasons given.


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 12, 2017)

Luanne said:


> If you really want to know you can just Google "why airlines overbook" and find out the reasons given.



I don't need to. I know they do it because they are greedy.


----------



## Luanne (Apr 12, 2017)

mpumilia said:


> I don't need to. I know they do it because they are greedy.


You can look at it that way.  They are a business, they do need to make a profit. They answer to their stockholders.  They are betting that people won't show, be delayed, whatever, and they will have empty seats.


----------



## "Roger" (Apr 12, 2017)

Here is a modest proposal (in the spirit of Johnathon Swift).

When you buy your ticket, you have a choice of a guarantee of no-bump. That ticket will cost 15% more. Otherwise, you can get bumped costing the going current rate for bumping.  This is not greedy. It is what airlines would need to do in order to offer such a guarantee.

So what percentage of people do you think would take advantage of the no-bump guarantee? My bet is the vast, vast majority would prefer the cheaper tickets and the current policies.


----------



## PigsDad (Apr 12, 2017)

mpumilia said:


> I don't need to. I know they do it because they are greedy.


Business 101: you don't leave potential revenue on the table.  An empty seat is lost potential revenue.

Kurt


----------



## Elan (Apr 12, 2017)

"Roger" said:


> Here is a modest proposal (in the spirit of Johnathon Swift).
> 
> When you buy your ticket, you have a choice of a guarantee of no-bump. That ticket will cost 15% more. Otherwise, you can get bumped costing the going current rate for bumping.  This is not greedy. It is what airlines would need to do in order to offer such a guarantee.
> 
> So what percentage of people do you think would take advantage of the no-bump guarantee? My bet is the vast, vast majority would prefer the cheaper tickets and the current policies.



  What's the basis for 15%?


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 12, 2017)

I still believe this exists already....if you pay for a higher fare/class ticket...you are far less likely (although not guaranteed) to be bumped off a flight.

those buying the most bargain deal/economy tickets will always be much higher on the list of "folks to suffer inconveniences" should the situation arise.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Apr 12, 2017)

mpumilia said:


> I don't need to. I know they do it because they are greedy.


Do you think that your dentist is greedy because the dentist tries to put patient into every available time slot?  If your dentist charges a fee for no-show, does that make your dentist greedy?


----------



## Elan (Apr 12, 2017)

I read that, on average, the no-show rate is 5% and can occasionally go as high as 15%.  So the airlines could raise all prices by 18% and then kick back a percentage to each passenger based on occupancy.  I'd even allow the airlines to skim 1% to cover the rare case of greater than 15% no show.  So your $500 ticket would increase to $590, but you'd get back roughly $60 on the average flight.  If the flight was full you'd get almost all of the $90 back.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## LannyPC (Apr 12, 2017)

mpumilia said:


> Yes- but who called the airport police?



I am assuming UA agents/employees did.


----------



## Talent312 (Apr 12, 2017)

I wonder what would'a happened if they had announced that the plane would not move until the passenger in seat xxx is off the plane, one way or another -- you figure it out.

Would other passengers have dragged him to the door and pushed him out?


----------



## WalnutBaron (Apr 13, 2017)

Or what would have happened if one of the four "randomly selected" passengers who were asked to give up their seat ended up being an 83-year-old lady who had a cut rate ticket with no frequent flier status? I'm guessing the gate agent would have found a different "solution".


----------



## Marathoner (Apr 13, 2017)

On top of everything else, a law professor from George Washington University writes that United has no legal basis for forcing passengers out of their seats in order to fly their own crew.  United's contract of carriage does not mean that they can just throw people off their plane for whatever arbitrary reason they have.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/united-cites-wrong-rule-for-illegally-de-boarding-passenger/


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 13, 2017)

Talent312 said:


> I wonder what would'a happened if they had announced that the plane would not move until the passenger in seat xxx is off the plane, one way or another -- you figure it out.
> 
> Would other passengers have dragged him to the door and pushed him out?



I think its pretty much a given that the flight isnt going to push back from the gate until all the seating is sorted out.


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 13, 2017)

Luanne said:


> You can look at it that way.  They are a business, they do need to make a profit. They answer to their stockholders.  They are betting that people won't show, be delayed, whatever, and they will have empty seats.



Yes, but if they lose their bet then THEY should be the one to take the hit. If they cannot make money doing business in an honest and ethical way, and not make their customers miserable, then they shouldn't be in business.


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 13, 2017)

PigsDad said:


> Business 101: you don't leave potential revenue on the table.  An empty seat is lost potential revenue.
> 
> Kurt



Yes- but again- you must do business in an ethical way or get out of the business.


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 13, 2017)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> Do you think that your dentist is greedy because the dentist tries to put patient into every available time slot?  If your dentist charges a fee for no-show, does that make your dentist greedy?



You don't have to tell me about it. I work in healthcare and I know exactly what goes on. That said, at least in our facility, we do not make the patients miserable. If anything, we take the hit- the employees and the docs take the strain that having to volumize creates. We accommodate people by squeezing them in and don't take lunch, for example- this on an almost daily basis. We don't tell them- too bad- you can't have a test until next month. We don't tell them when they arrive that they really didn't have a guaranteed appt. and they have to leave (bumped)and come back another time- too bad. And they haven't even paid us yet!

But that is what the airlines do. There is a big difference.


----------



## x3 skier (Apr 13, 2017)

I'm getting off this plane, sorry thread, since it started going in circles 10 pages ago. And I expect Brian to refund 10 years of dues . 

Cheers


----------



## ace2000 (Apr 13, 2017)

x3 skier said:


> And I expect Brian to refund 10 years of dues .
> 
> Cheers



Do we have a problem here?  Are you aware that Brian has a special security department to deal with troublemakers like you?  Any further questions?


----------



## "Roger" (Apr 13, 2017)

Could be a problem. Brian still needs two more "volunteers."

On a more serious note, NPR had a game theorist on this morning discussing how airlines could be more effective in dealing with overbooked situations.  The first suggestion (repeated many times on this thread) is to do something before people board the plane. The second was to talk to people privately and not to the entire group. Apparently Delta already does this and talks to people individually as they check in explaining that there is an overbooked situation, would they be willing to take an offer. The third suggestion was the most interesting. Start at a very high price (e.g. - $2000) saying that they would pay up to that price depending on the number of volunteers and hopefully get a surplus of volunteers. Then say that they have too many volunteers and keep lowering the price until they hit the right number (or close to it and randomly choose from the remaining willing volunteers).


----------



## vacationhopeful (Apr 13, 2017)

I think the song "We won't take it any more" sums up the feeling of many (regular and causal) commercial airline flyers.

Fees and fees on top of the ticket price, smaller seats and less leg room, overworked cabin attendants, security screenings ... all this frustration starts with even trying to get a decent price & buying the ticket ... it is like an insider game and the less you know, the more you pay.

I have been MANY times at the Southwest terminal gate ... with a passenger who has NEVER flown SWA. They THINK the C-5 is a seat number and ask when do they board? How do you tell a couple or a parent with a small child or an older person ... they are among the LAST to board and will likely be in a middle seat?


----------



## Brett (Apr 13, 2017)

x3 skier said:


> I'm getting off this plane, sorry thread, since it started going in circles 10 pages ago.
> 
> Cheers



The United Airlines CEO said Dr. Dao was horrifically mistreated and now the 'good' doctor has hired two prominent personal injury lawyers that filed "bills of discovery" for more evidence.   
Dr. Dao won't even need to work his court appointed one day a week!


----------



## Tia (Apr 13, 2017)

Heard on the am news that UA is now refunding $ to all passengers on that flight


----------



## Jimster (Apr 13, 2017)

I am sympathetic to the doctor but he isn't exactly an innocent.  According to the AP he is a felon who lost his license for several years for over prescription of drugs. That may or may not make any difference but i think it needs to be said.  There is also a new video that shows he was totally compliant up to the point of removal.

A solution that now seems to be seriously considered is that United would just cancel the whole flight and will not forcibly remove anyone again.   I think this may be the best solution.  Once the flight is canceled, everyone will leave the plane and United can do what they want.  We will have to wait and see what United establishes as their procedure in other like incidents.


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 13, 2017)

I just read an article that said that airlines are regulated by the government as to how much they can actually offer in an overbooking situation. Maybe that is why United did not offer a better deal?


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 13, 2017)

Jimster said:


> I am sympathetic to the doctor but he isn't exactly an innocent.  According to the AP he is a felon who lost his license for several years for over prescription of drugs. That may or may not make any difference but i think it needs to be said.  There is also a new video that shows he was totally compliant up to the point of removal.
> 
> A solution that now seems to be seriously considered is that United would just cancel the whole flight and will not forcibly remove anyone again.   I think this may be the best solution.  Once the flight is canceled, everyone will leave the plane and United can do what they want.  We will have to wait and see what United establishes as their procedure in other like incidents.




You have got to be kidding...


----------



## Passepartout (Apr 13, 2017)

Jimster said:


> I am sympathetic to the doctor but he isn't exactly an innocent.  According to the AP he is a felon who lost his license for several years for over prescription of drugs. That may or may not make any difference but i think it needs to be said.


WHY does it 'need to be said?' This has absolutely NOTHING to do with this passenger who had a paid seat that he was already in, being forcibly removed.

Actually, the fact that the airline is being pilloried here is not the issue. They were bound by published maximums they were authorized to offer bumped passengers (which should be waived-but that's a different issue). As soon as the Airport Police were told to remove this particular passenger, it became a matter of police brutality, not an airline issue.

Jim


----------



## Elan (Apr 13, 2017)

Jimster said:


> A solution that now seems to be seriously considered is that United would just *cancel the whole flight* and will not forcibly remove anyone again.   I think this may be the best solution.  Once the flight is canceled, everyone will leave the plane and United can do what they want.  We will have to wait and see what United establishes as their procedure in other like incidents.



  That would seen to be a harsh solution to a problem that has far more reasonable solutions.  And, it doesn't really benefit anyone.  Passengers are pissed and United has lost a full flight's worth of revenue.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 13, 2017)

Does the doctor's past really have anything to do with this?  I don't think so.  He is a human being and was treated badly after paying money for a seat.  That is how I see it.

As for cancelling the entire flight, that sounds rather childish.  "Well, if you won't play the game, we are done with all of you."


----------



## Elan (Apr 13, 2017)

Passepartout said:


> WHY does it 'need to be said?' This has absolutely NOTHING to do with this passenger who had a paid seat that he was already in, being forcibly removed.



  Exactly.  I don't care if it was the Pope or Charles Manson.  Not relevant.


----------



## Luanne (Apr 13, 2017)

Jimster said:


> I am sympathetic to the doctor but he isn't exactly an innocent.  According to the AP he is a felon who lost his license for several years for over prescription of drugs. That may or may not make any difference but i think it needs to be said.  There is also a new video that shows he was totally compliant up to the point of removal.
> 
> A solution that now seems to be seriously considered is that United would just cancel the whole flight and will not forcibly remove anyone again.   I think this may be the best solution.  Once the flight is canceled, everyone will leave the plane and United can do what they want.  We will have to wait and see what United establishes as their procedure in other like incidents.


And I read something that there are *two* Dr. Daos and the information that is being circulated about him being a felon is wrong.  So, who to believe.


----------



## Passepartout (Apr 13, 2017)

Well, now it is announced by his lawyer, that Dr Dao suffered a broken nose, lost two front teeth, got a concussion, and would require reconstructive surgery. I suspect that O'Hare's attorneys are checking their insurer's legal coverage. Obviously, United will also be named, but it was Airport Police that caused the physical damage.

Jim


----------



## Jimster (Apr 13, 2017)

I posted what i did about his background in response to the post that called him "the good doctor."  I said I was sympathetic to him but he is not really Mr. Clean and I think people see it that way.  He is a paying customer-that alone means he should be treated with respect but don't think he is not without his own history.  If that history is correct, I feel less sympathetic to him than I otherwise would.

The idea of canceling the flight is not as unreasonable as you may think.  It solves the problem and then United can do what they want including offering a new flight but with restricted access.  Of course, you would not do this all the time but it would work in a heirarchy of actions to avoid this PR disaster.  Of course soliciting "volunteers" for pay outs up to FAA limits would be a first step, but additional procedures need to be in place if that is ineffective.  Canceling the flight altogether would empty the plane without incident.   Many people blame United CEO, Munoz for this, but the truth is he is much better than his predecessor.  I used to be a UA 1K but stopped flying them due to customer service issues.

What i think is wrong is that the airport police are suspended for doing what they were ordered to do.  They were told to get him off the plane and I don't think they were given any conditions.  Also once it started not a single UA employee said stop or tried to intervene.  It is a case of the little guy paying the price for the action they were ordered to do.

United will have to settle this and probably not at trial.  The Dr. Has one of the top lawyers in the nation representing him.  As an attorney, I can tell you he will get a substantial money settlement that will mean he will never have to work again.  I am sure the press conference is a tactic to improve the chances of that huge settlement.


----------



## Jimster (Apr 13, 2017)

Passepartout said:


> Well, now it is announced by his lawyer, that Dr Dao suffered a broken nose, lost two front teeth, got a concussion, and would require reconstructive surgery. I suspect that O'Hare's attorneys are checking their insurer's legal coverage. Obviously, United will also be named, but it was Airport Police that caused the physical damage.
> 
> Jim



LOL of course UA will be named- they have the money!!  No lawyer would sue those barely minimum wage airport police without suing UA.  This will be a huge settlement and it will all come from UA.


----------



## davidvel (Apr 13, 2017)

vacationhopeful said:


> I have been MANY times at the Southwest terminal gate ... with a passenger who has NEVER flown SWA. They THINK the C-5 is a seat number and ask when do they board? How do you tell a couple or a parent with a small child or an older person ... they are among the LAST to board and will likely be in a middle seat?



Small children and "older" people who need additional time to board, are boarded *before* group B.


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 13, 2017)

x3 skier said:


> I'm getting off this plane, sorry thread, since it started going in circles 10 pages ago. And I expect Brian to refund 10 years of dues .
> 
> Cheers



im calling security...


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 13, 2017)

Im also going to need 4 volunteers to take over some westgate timeshare ownerships from the marketplace.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Apr 13, 2017)

TUGBrian said:


> Im also going to need 4 volunteers to take over some westgate timeshare ownerships from the marketplace.



You would have to drag me, kicking and screaming, to the closing on those.


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 13, 2017)

rickandcindy23 said:


> You would have to drag me, kicking and screaming, to the closing on those.


I think we have our first volunteer! =D


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 13, 2017)

HAHAHA!!!  Today I hate everything in the world except Brian's post looking for Westgate volunteers.  Well done!


----------



## heathpack (Apr 13, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


> HAHAHA!!!  Today I hate everything in the world except Brian's post looking for Westgate volunteers.  Well done!



You hate everything in the world?  That's a lot of hate for sure.


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 13, 2017)

shes going to hate alot more when she finds out shes volunteer number 2!


----------



## Patri (Apr 13, 2017)

A pilot's wife tells another side of the story. (So this guy was forced off after he ran back into the plane???)

https://thepilotwifelife.wordpress....thoughts-from-a-pilot-wife-about-flight-3411/


----------



## SueDonJ (Apr 13, 2017)

heathpack said:


> You hate everything in the world?  That's a lot of hate for sure.



You're telling me!

I finally finished scraping the wallpaper in two rooms, getting them ready for the painters to come in next week.  Now I can concentrate on our granddaughter's first birthday this weekend (where does the time go?!?!) and how to get out of Brian's forced Westgate purchase.


----------



## SkyBlueWaters (Apr 13, 2017)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Does the doctor's past really have anything to do with this?  I don't think so.  He is a human being and was treated badly after paying money for a seat.  That is how I see it.
> 
> As for cancelling the entire flight, that sounds rather childish.  "Well, if you won't play the game, we are done with all of you."



Wrong doctor smeared, according to the news.


----------



## SkyBlueWaters (Apr 13, 2017)

Jimster said:


> I posted what i did about his background in response to the post that called him "the good doctor."  I said I was sympathetic to him but he is not really Mr. Clean and I think people see it that way.  He is a paying customer-that alone means he should be treated with respect but don't think he is not without his own history.  If that history is correct, I feel less sympathetic to him than I otherwise would.
> 
> The idea of canceling the flight is not as unreasonable as you may think.  It solves the problem and then United can do what they want including offering a new flight but with restricted access.  Of course, you would not do this all the time but it would work in a heirarchy of actions to avoid this PR disaster.  Of course soliciting "volunteers" for pay outs up to FAA limits would be a first step, but additional procedures need to be in place if that is ineffective.  Canceling the flight altogether would empty the plane without incident.   Many people blame United CEO, Munoz for this, but the truth is he is much better than his predecessor.  I used to be a UA 1K but stopped flying them due to customer service issues.
> 
> ...



Really?
Security acted like thugs. That's Chicago style of security for you.


----------



## Talent312 (Apr 13, 2017)

This thread is getting way too many posts -- I can't keep up.
Some of you need to leave.

On the idea of cancelling the flight and getting everyone off:
The flight crew and the crew needing to travel would have the plane to themselves
... along with a lot of liquor bottles. Party time!


.


----------



## heathpack (Apr 13, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


> You're telling me!
> 
> I finally finished scraping the wallpaper in two rooms, getting them ready for the painters to come in next week.  Now I can concentrate on our granddaughter's first birthday this weekend (where does the time go?!?!) and how to get out of Brian's forced Westgate purchase.



I am pretty confident that you don't hate the baby granddaughter.  

Your new Westgate ownership, OTOH, now there I can see the hate...


----------



## ace2000 (Apr 13, 2017)

Talent312 said:


> On the idea of cancelling the flight and getting everyone off:
> The flight crew and the crew needing to travel would have the plane to themselves
> ... along with a lot of liquor bottles. Party time!



Something similar to this???


----------



## lizap (Apr 13, 2017)

Patri said:


> A pilot's wife tells another side of the story. (So this guy was forced off after he ran back into the plane???)
> 
> https://thepilotwifelife.wordpress....thoughts-from-a-pilot-wife-about-flight-3411/




The comments (at the end) are the most telling..


----------



## DeniseM (Apr 13, 2017)

This was written by someone who _claims_ to be *A* pilot's wife, not *THE* pilot's wife.  So I am not sure why it should be considered any more accurate than any of the millions of opinion posts that are on the internet right now.

And no, he was dragged off the plane _initially_, and then ran back on the plane - kind of a strange thing to do IMNSHO.



> A pilot's wife tells another side of the story. (So this guy was forced off after he ran back into the plane???)
> 
> https://thepilotwifelife.wordpress....thoughts-from-a-pilot-wife-about-flight-3411/


----------



## geekette (Apr 13, 2017)

DeniseM said:


> This was written by someone who _claims_ to be *A* pilot's wife, not *THE* pilot's wife.  So I am not sure why it should be considered any more accurate than any of the millions of opinion posts that are on the internet right now.
> 
> And no, he was dragged off the plane _initially_, and then ran back on the plane - kind of a strange thing to do IMNSHO.


Not so strange if you've suffered a concussion.  He wanted to go home, that's what he kept saying.  He knew the way home was that plane.  

A bonk on the head causes weird behavior.  My boyfriend got hit in the head by a ski lift.  He was messed up for a very long time, very strange behavior, weird outbursts out of nowhere, invented slights against him, etc.  I was lucky that his doc insisted he bring me a booklet for loved ones of the injured.


----------



## geekette (Apr 13, 2017)

Elan said:


> Exactly.  I don't care if it was the Pope or Charles Manson.  Not relevant.


Exactly.

We should not be going down the road of victim blaming.  Quite possibly another pax on the plane had something worse in their history.  Should that person have been harmed even more?

Should we have to submit our "permanent record" to fly now so they can determine which pax should be harrassed or denied boarding?  Should persons with misdemeanor crimes be subjected to the most extensive genital search by TSA while uncaught felons don't undergo it?  Should my college dean's list outweigh the GED graduate's right to keep their paid-for seat??   Where does it end???  He's a CUSTOMER.  Not an applicant for pilot.  not a terrorist.  

This guy did nothing wrong.  he bought a ticket, he sat in his seat.  

Between airline thugs and TSA, I'm staying on land into the foreseeable future.  I just don't need this in my life.


----------



## geekette (Apr 13, 2017)

WalnutBaron said:


> Or what would have happened if one of the four "randomly selected" passengers who were asked to give up their seat ended up being an 83-year-old lady who had a cut rate ticket with no frequent flier status? I'm guessing the gate agent would have found a different "solution".


This is the scary thing!  My 84-yr-old mother is deaf in one ear.  They could be demanding compliance on "her wrong side" and take it as non-compliance and rough her up.  This is troubling stuff. 

When did we start using bouncers for non-violent non-offenses?


----------



## geekette (Apr 13, 2017)

davidvel said:


> What should  an airline do when a person who gets bumped ultimately refuses to leave the aircraft?


Find a reasonable solution vs resorting to violence.


----------



## geekette (Apr 13, 2017)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> In the midst of all of this furor, I think we should give credit to the United management for recognizing the PR disaster they created and adroitly figuring out a way to turn it positive.  Knowing that what passengers really want is low fares, they are introducing a new fare class with their absolutest lowest ticket prices. It's going to be class KO; passengers in this class will be subject to forced removal.  Passengers will now be able to choose between "red-eye" and "black-eye" flights.
> 
> I understand that they've hired the guy who used to do the Verizon "can you hear me now?" commercials to be the spokesperson for the new fare.   They're prepping some ads that will show him sitting in various planes, greeting the flight crew with hands to his face, saying, "Can you beat me now?"
> 
> Pretty savvy way to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse, don't you think?


I think I will hold out for the bean bag seats in the cargo hold...


----------



## geekette (Apr 13, 2017)

myoakley said:


> I am shocked by the number of posts siding with United.  No human being, who is not in the process of committing a crime, should be treated in this way, let alone a paying customer.  I hope the doctor gets a good lawyer and receives enough compensation to insure a comfortable, maybe even luxurious, retirement.


because with that head injury, he may never work again.


----------



## RLS50 (Apr 13, 2017)

TUGBrian said:


> Im also going to need 4 volunteers to take over some westgate timeshare ownerships from the marketplace.


I would rather take my beat down on my next United flight.


----------



## Ken555 (Apr 13, 2017)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinenegroni/2017/04/12/united-flight-not-overbooked-ceo-admits/



> Some argue this parsing of words is irrelevant and that the airline's contract of carriage is meant to be applied more broadly. Not true. Airlines are required to present bumped passengers with the written document explaining their rights. I would not bet on the success of a legal argument that begins, "what the document intended to express."






Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## geekette (Apr 13, 2017)

SueDonJ said:


> Because if upping the ante is the only solution that anybody is comfortable with, and every flyer learns that the airlines'/gate agents' only option is to keep upping the ante, eventually the bump compensation is going to soar into the stratosphere _and every single new threshold is going to result in ticket prices soaring ever higher_.  Taking away the airlines' right to involuntarily remove passengers when things get stupid is not the answer.


Then perhaps the overbooking and bumping for flight crew will end.  Just as (most) everyone has a price at which they will agree to be bumped, there is also a choice of max rate of what to pay for your seat in the first place, or not fly.  It will be the overbookers that customers turn away from with extremely high prices.  High price + high chance of bump?  No thanks, I'll take a sure seat at a lower price elsewhere.   And United might try that, too, Guaranteed Seat Pricing, a whole new way to extort!  If that plane is leaving, you're on it.  Maybe that gets popular, narrowing the bump pool.  Maybe a GSP holder that agrees to be bumped gets extra bump perks that are dbl the worthless flight bucks.  

Each provider can run their business how they like, and I'm in favor of more competition via upstarts.  Let the market sort it out.  I'm not keen on paying for something well in advance of when I need it, then finding I can't have it at the last minute.  I don't want excuses or change of plan, I want what I paid for months ago, days ago, hours ago, whatever.  Failure to produce has consequences; people do vote with their wallets.   

I am not a fan of jam-packed flights where the unlucky last to board can't have their carry-ons (don't get me started on the giant crap people are jamming in teh overheads...) and being a small person I have been crammed in that back corner more than once.    I would rather fly a line that doesn't insist on overfull.  Pax cabins are not generally laid out for normal size people comfort.  

There is also a choice to avoid the increasingly-invasive TSA by staying on land.  Not long until the self-driving cars make a lot of short-hop flights unnecessary, and especially when I'm retired, I'm a-ok with long road trip to other side of the country.  I like driving, but taking a snooze through some of the desert would be safer on autopilot.

A man was hurt badly.  It didn't have to go like that.  A concussion is a serious life-impairing injury.  There should have been better behavior by all involved.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Apr 14, 2017)

davidvel said:


> What should  an airline do when a person who gets bumped ultimately refuses to leave the aircraft?





heathpack said:


> Sorry but there is always someone who will get off a flight if you offer enough.  $800 for me- to miss a day of work?  I'm sorry, I would lose way more in income that that with a day off work.
> 
> …
> 
> ...





geekette said:


> Find a reasonable solution vs resorting to violence.



Precisely.  This should be just a commercial issue.  Airline sells ticket.  Airline does not provide transportation in accordance with ticket.  Airline is responsible for damages resulting from breach of contract.  

This is only an issue because airlines have colluded with the government to create an artificial world where they are shielded from paying the full damages resulting from denying transportation to a passenger. If the airline had to pay those costs, I'm sure that the airline would find a way to be sure that they minimized that liability.  And the easiest way to do that is via the escalating auction, with people who accept that offer agreeing that taking the compensation is adequate compensation for the damages incurred.

If airlines were forced to pay the consequences for bumping passengers, I believe that we would see them selling tickets based on whether or not a passenger was subject to bump.  Of course a non-bump ticket would cost more.  But passengers would then be the ones making the decisions about whether or not to take a bump, based on their personal situation.


----------



## Talent312 (Apr 14, 2017)

In an old post I suggested that the airline could make $$ by using the lavatory for an extra seat. Just install a seat-belt on the toilet, an O2 mask and other amenities. Here, they could've offered it as a free upgrade.

More seriously, I liked the part of the NPR story where they said that the before someone has possession of something, they're willing to trade or sell it for peanuts (like it's someone else's), but once they've taken possession, they develop a its-mine attitude and their price goes up -- maybe double.

So, perhaps the better plan would have been to use some excuse to get everyone out of their seats or off the plane and start the bumping process over again.

.


----------



## pedro47 (Apr 14, 2017)

The end results of this story; there is going to be a very huge settlement for this person paid by United Airlines, the City of Chicago tax payers and the City of Chicago insurance carriers.


----------



## ace2000 (Apr 14, 2017)

pedro47 said:


> The end results of this story; there is going to be a very huge settlement for this person paid by United Airlines, the City of Chicago tax payers and the City of Chicago insurance carriers.



You left out all of us.  I'm sure there will be rule changes which will mean less profits for the airlines and in turn higher prices for us.


----------



## geist1223 (Apr 14, 2017)

I did not go back and reread all the Posts. But what almost everyone is missing is this Flight was not technically over booked. The Flight was fully booked. There was not a problem until 4 UA Employees presented themselves at the Gate after Boarding had been completed. Also UA's rights are vastlously different in an overbooked flight and preventing someone from Boarding but once you present your ticket, the Gate accepts it, and you are permitted to Board the AC UA's ability/legal right to remove a passenger are severely limited. Overbooking or need to move Flight Crews are not reasons a passenger can be removed after Boarding.


----------



## geoand (Apr 14, 2017)

lizap said:


> Consolidation in the airline industry things (ie., poor service, no food, higher fares, paying for extra legroom in coach
> 
> 
> Why NOT find a way to get the four crew to Louisville?  You're a large airline with a lot of resources, surely they could have found a way. Heck, they could have rented a car and driven; its not that far.  Even UA frequent flyers (on FlyerTalk) are upset with the way UA handled this..



I don't know if this is truly an overbooked situation.  Didn't they need to get 4 crew members to a location and that caused the problem?  If this is true, than United screwed up with their scheduling of having the proper crew at a location other than Chicago.  They screwed up and than decided to use the tactics that caused this PR fiasco.  If airlines paid more attention to their schedules and to the flight crews availability, this situation would not happen.  The airlines choose to use the "Oh my gosh, we need to get a crew to a location and we don't know how this happened.  We will just bump passengers, they will understand."  Bad scheduling and bad management caused this problem.


----------



## geoand (Apr 14, 2017)

mpumilia said:


> Exactly right. Only in the airline business is this tolerated. If someone does not show up for, let's say, a ball game that they have tickets for, it is not allowed for their seats to be resold! This is all part of doing business. I find this whole thing of bumping passengers despicable.


I have never been bumped from a bus, train, taxi, etc.


----------



## davidvel (Apr 14, 2017)

This thread about United is great. Its even better because: this flight was not operated by United, but by its regional carrier Republic Airline; no one at United (or Republic) was involved in the altercation between the authorities and the passenger; the crew being shuttled were Republic employees, not United. Yes, it is branded as United Express, but Republic also flies for Delta and American. 

I also really like the argument that because the Republic agents called the authorities to remove the passenger, they are responsible for the conduct of those thugs. So, remember, if you call the police because your neighbor has a loud party or someone is racing up and down your street, you will be held liable if the cops wrongfully beat your neighbor or shoot the driver.


----------



## geoand (Apr 14, 2017)

TUGBrian said:


> well it was a primary flight crew for another plane at the destination...since it was the last plane out (according to the news story)...its certainly reasonable to need to get that crew to the destination to avoid an entire flight being cancelled.
> 
> (but that also goes back to the point where the gate attendant should have offered more money)


Bad management.  Why wait until the last flight out to take care of this situation?  On the other hand, why did they have a flight scheduled without a crew?  Bad Management.


----------



## davidvel (Apr 14, 2017)

Dao: No, I am not going, I am not going!
Cop: We'll have to drag you. 
Dao: You can drag me but I'm not going. 
Cop: I'm telling you this is going to be a lot harder. 
Dao: I would rather go to jail. 
Cop: You'd rather go to jail than just getting off?
Dao: Yeah.


----------



## Marathoner (Apr 14, 2017)

davidvel said:


> I also really like the argument that because the Republic agents called the authorities to remove the passenger, they are responsible for the conduct of those thugs. So, remember, if you call the police because your neighbor has a loud party or someone is racing up and down your street, you will be held liable if the cops wrongfully beat your neighbor or shoot the driver.



False analogy. What happened is that United did not have legal basis to remove the passenger after he took his seat because they entered a contract with him by taking his money and agreeing to fly him to his destination. All airlines can remove passengers for certain reasons such as safety but none of those issues applies in this situation. 

Moreover, the Chicago Aviation officers were not police and were not empowered to be on the plane and remove the passenger as they did. 

Bottom line is that airline passengers have certain legal rights because we are a nation of laws. Be glad that you cannot be thrown off planes and that you do not have to comply with unlawful orders by safety officers. 

Sent from my LG-H830 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ken555 (Apr 14, 2017)

https://www.inc.com/cynthia-than/th...-was-not-overbooked-and-why-that-matters.html



> The fact that the flight was not overbooked may seem trivial, or pedantic, but there is very important legal distinction to be made. There may not be a difference in how an airline (typically) responds when it needs additional seats, such as asking for volunteers who wish to give up their seat for a voucher or cash. But there is a legal difference between bumping a passenger in the instance of overselling a flight versus bumping a passenger to give priority to another passenger. Any thoughtful person can see the problem that arises if an airline were allowed to legally remove one fare-paying passenger to allow for another passenger it prefers.
> 
> Since the flight was not actually overbooked, but instead only fully booked, with the exact number of passengers as seats available, United Airlines had no legal right to force any passengers to give up their seats to prioritize others. What United did was give preference to their employees over people who had reserved confirmed seats, in violation of 14 CFR 250.2a. Since Dr. Dao was already seated, it was clear that his seat had already been "reserved" and "confirmed" to accommodate him specifically.






> 14 CFR 250.2a - Policy regarding denied boarding.
> 
> § 250.2a Policy regarding denied boarding.
> In the event of an oversold flight, every carrier shall ensure that the smallest practicable number of persons holding confirmed reserved space on that flight are denied boarding involuntarily.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## davidvel (Apr 14, 2017)

Marathoner said:


> False analogy. What happened is that United did not have legal basis to remove the passenger after he took his seat because they entered a contract with him by taking his money and agreeing to fly him to his destination. All airlines can remove passengers for certain reasons such as safety but none of those issues applies in this situation.


Whether they had the "legal" right to bump the passenger for its flight crew is still up for debate. Not at all settled. I for one do not want to leave that decision up to weary passengers at the time of flight who decide they don't want to follow the instructions of the airlines, who clearly believed they had the right to bump him.

So if a flight crew (wrongfully) tells someone that their suitcase is too big and must be checked (when technically it complies), that person should refuse to give up the bag or leave until the issue can be decided by a judge? I do not think there should have been a judge, jury, and appellate court all convened to finally settle the legal rights of the parties when Mr. Dao refused to leave. Whether contractually allowed or not, Republic Airline decided it had a need and right to remove the passenger from its aircraft, and he refused. If they were wrong he could sue of breach of the contract.


Marathoner said:


> Moreover, the Chicago Aviation officers were not police and were not empowered to be on the plane and remove the passenger as they did.


I don't know where you are getting this. What does "empowered to be on the plane" mean? According to the City of Chicago, aviation officers can "temporarily detain and take people into custody until Chicago police arrive," and they are in fact off-duty police officers.


Marathoner said:


> Bottom line is that airline passengers have certain legal rights because we are a nation of laws. Be glad that you cannot be thrown off planes and that you do not have to comply with unlawful orders by safety officers.
> Sent from my LG-H830 using Tapatalk


And its not a false analogy at all. The airline and airport has policies and procedures in place, which is to defer to airport security when a passenger is not compliant with instructions. The airline contacted security and asked that the passenger be told to leave the plane. No one at the airline told the officers to bash his face in, and drag him off the plane on his back. There are no facts supporting a claim that the gate agents expected (or could conceivably have imagined) that security would rough the doctor up. Their experience is likely that passengers always get off when security arrives.


----------



## IngridN (Apr 14, 2017)

geist1223 said:


> I did not go back and reread all the Posts. But what almost everyone is missing is this Flight was not technically over booked. The Flight was fully booked. There was not a problem until 4 UA Employees presented themselves at the Gate after Boarding had been completed. Also UA's rights are vastlously different in an overbooked flight and preventing someone from Boarding but once you present your ticket, the Gate accepts it, and you are permitted to Board the AC UA's ability/legal right to remove a passenger are severely limited. Overbooking or need to move Flight Crews are not reasons a passenger can be removed after Boarding.



I thought so too until I read an article in yesterday's WSJ. There's a loophole that allows this because if a passenger refused to follow flight crew's instructions (depart plane because you're bumped), the airline can then remove the passenger for not following crew's instructions!


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 14, 2017)

geoand said:


> Bad management.  Why wait until the last flight out to take care of this situation?  On the other hand, why did they have a flight scheduled without a crew?  Bad Management.



happens every single day as flights get delayed/cancelled/etc...flight crews and aircraft get re-arranged on a constant basis.


----------



## lvhmbh (Apr 14, 2017)

What no one has mentioned was that the pilots were on VACATION but instead of getting to the airport earlier to standby for flights they wait til the last one.  Don't want to ruin their vacation I guess.  Gate Agent apparently made the decision to accommodate them.


----------



## Elan (Apr 14, 2017)

TUGBrian said:


> happens every single day as flights get delayed/cancelled/etc...flight crews and aircraft get re-arranged on a constant basis.



  Perhaps.  But what happens every day doesn't really matter.  What matters is what happened in this particular instance.  Might have been avoidable, might not.  I haven't been reading up on the specifics, but even if I had, going by this thread, there's a lot of mis-information circulating.  Will just have to see what ultimately comes out.  Even then, the facts will likely get distorted so much by the attorneys we might never know the truth.


----------



## Tank (Apr 14, 2017)

I wish I was  the one dragged out - just saying


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 14, 2017)

as with all polarizing stories...the actual truth comes out long after everyone has already formed an opinion one way or another.....and noone will care by then.


----------



## Tank (Apr 14, 2017)

The money will be in the bank , hope we hear.

speculations ?     I think it will be HUGE !!  Broken nose, concussion , teeth, blood.

Who knows what else they will come up with public embarrassment / humiliation


----------



## Jimster (Apr 14, 2017)

pedro47 said:


> The end results of this story; there is going to be a very huge settlement for this person paid by United Airlines, the City of Chicago tax payers and the City of Chicago insurance carriers.



The doctor will probably die before he sees any money out of the City of Chicago.  The tort liability fund in Chicago is years behind on payouts.  They have to pay out  tons of other settlements before he will see a cent.  Since it is joint and several liability they better hope United comes up with a big paycheck.

In the highly unlikely event that this would be a jury trial, it could well be 5 years before it came to trial.  Once a judgement is taken it will be years after that before he will get anything.  The doctor is 69 years old.  Do the math!


----------



## LannyPC (Apr 14, 2017)

TUGBrian said:


> happens every single day as flights get delayed/cancelled/etc...flight crews and aircraft get re-arranged on a constant basis.



Exactly.  There are many other things beyond the control of the airlines that can put a crimp in their scheduling.  I guess there are a number of unknown and undisclosed facts that must be considered before quickly blaming the airline(s) for poor scheduling.


----------



## Ken555 (Apr 14, 2017)

If this is accurate, then it seems the passenger was within his rights not to give up his seat. Expect the airline contract to change in the near future to accommodate this issue to the detriment of the passenger. 

http://flyingwithfish.boardingarea....ublic-airline-legality-deboarding-passengers/



> Passengers must obey the rules when instructed to, we should all agree on that, but must we blindly follow the rules when instructed if those aren’t the rules? The law must apply equally and airline staff cannot make up and enforce rules on the fly. Specific language exists for a reason, and it may very well change the Contract of Carriage’s language in the near future, but for now the rules are the rules and Republic Airline failed to follow the rules, leading to a chain of events that negatively impacted Dr. Dao as well as United Airlines.
> 
> 
> 
> Which leads to this question … how do gate agents enforcing such rules not know the rules?




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Talent312 (Apr 14, 2017)

davidvel said:


> ...I also really like the argument that because the Republic agents called the authorities to remove the passenger, they are responsible for the conduct of those thugs. So, remember, if you call the police because your neighbor has a loud party or someone is racing up and down your street, you will be held liable if the cops wrongfully beat your neighbor or shoot the driver.



What if you also showed the police a photo of your neighbor with an assault rifle, told them that he was heading for a school with guns, you knew quite well he was just going to pick up his kid? You might be liable for his injuries. A lot depends on what info the rent-a-cops were relying upon.
.


----------



## am1 (Apr 14, 2017)

Delta approves allowing almost $10000 for compensation per seat if needed.  How long will it take for that to be abused?  Book up a plane with a group and have a few hold out for 10k a seat.


----------



## geist1223 (Apr 14, 2017)

I think it is Delta. They have just increased a Gate Agent's Authority to offer up to $2,000 for over booked flights to be voluntarily bumped. Supervisors can now offer up to $9,500. Remember you want a Check and not a Travel Voucher that might have a lot of restrictions.


----------



## davidvel (Apr 15, 2017)

Talent312 said:


> What if you also showed the police a photo of your neighbor with an assault rifle, told them that he was heading for a school with guns, you knew quite well he was just going to pick up his kid? You might be liable for his injuries. A lot depends on what info the rent-a-cops were relying upon.
> .


If any of that was true, then, yes, you would likely be liable. Of course, there is no evidence of anything remotely close to such an absurd situation involved in this case.


----------



## MULTIZ321 (Apr 15, 2017)

United Airlines Changes Its Policy on Displacing Customers
By Richard Gonzales/ The Two-Way: Breaking News from NPR/ National Public Radio/ npr.org

"United Airlines crew members will no longer be able to bump a passenger who is already seated in one of the airline's planes.

The policy change was first reported by TMZ. A spokesperson for the airline confirms that United has updated its policy "to make sure crews traveling on our aircraft are booked at least 60 minutes prior to departure. This ensures situations like Flight 3411 never happen again."

If the crew member is not booked an hour before the flight, then he or she will have to wait for the next available flight...."





Two United Airlines planes taking off at George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston. After a man was dragged off a United flight, the company changed its policy on overbooked flights.

David J. Phillip/AP


Richard


----------



## MULTIZ321 (Apr 15, 2017)

Rival Airlines Pounce On United's Bad Press
By Camila Domonoske/ America/ The Two-Way: Breaking News from NPR/ National Public Radio/ npr.org

"As United Airlines continues to grapple with a long-haul public relations disaster, rival airlines are pouncing on the opportunity to poke fun and promote themselves.

United has been roundly lambasted after a passenger was violently removed from a flight to make room for a crew member. The airline's initial response was widely seen as inadequate, and in recent days United has been trying to apologize.

Meanwhile, rival airlines have hastened to mock United and snag a little good PR for themselves — especially Middle Eastern airlines...."





After a passenger was dragged off a full flight on Sunday, United has had to do damage control, to the delight of some competitors.

Seth Wenig/AP 

Richard


----------



## Jimster (Apr 15, 2017)

I dont fly Delta much but I think their process is significantly different.  They don't offer anything and let "volunteers" tell them what it will take to surrender their seats.  In that case it would be rare to have someone ask for the max when they know they could be easily significantly undercut.  So someone might give up their seat for an easy $50.  That seems to me to preclude much of a cash in.  Having said that i know the bloggers wrote about a family last week that got $11000 on Delta but that involved 3 flights.

It's like merit pay.  Sure their is merit pay for teachers, but no one gets it.  It looks good but it is totally illusorary.


----------



## MULTIZ321 (Apr 16, 2017)

United Airlines Debacle Teaches Valuable Social Media Customer Care Lesson
By Shep Hyken/ Leadership/ Forbes/ forbes.com

"On Monday, United Airlines experienced a customer service incident that went viral. The problem began when a flight from Chicago to Louisville was overbooked and four United employees needed to get to Louisville as they were scheduled to be on another flight the next morning. After the plane was boarded, the crew realized they needed four passengers to disembark and take a later flight to accommodate the employees who were on their way to work. As is typical for oversold flights, United offered compensation to anyone willing to give up their seat. Nobody accepted the offer, so the gate agent picked four passengers, supposedly at random, to remove from the flight. Three people got off the plane peacefully; however, one passenger said he was a doctor and had to get home to take care of patients and refused to give up his seat....

....My opinion is that the public, while they may not forgive United so quickly, will move on and begin to forget about this incident as soon as something more interesting, or at least new, comes along. This will be a blip in United’s history. The stock price will come back. Business will return to normal, but what we learned will hopefully be remembered for a long time.

And, the lesson is that a customer, or in this case a passenger, with a cell phone is like a small-scale media outlet that can broadcast anything that seems interesting (or newsworthy) to friends, family members and followers. And, if it is interesting enough to those people, they will share it with their circles. And, the next thing you know, the video a customer shared with a few friends is seen by millions of people on different social channels."





(AP Photo/Mel Evans, File)

Richard


----------



## Tank (Apr 16, 2017)

Getting away with stupid stuff is definitely a thing of the past. Thank God no videos , pictures, and phones back in my day.

I am amazed what people still will do in todays "recording" world and think they will get away with it.  Every day we see it plastered on the news another "You can't fix stupid"  moment.


----------



## Tamino (Apr 16, 2017)

MULTIZ321 said:


> United Airlines Changes Its Policy on Displacing Customers
> By Richard Gonzales/ The Two-Way: Breaking News from NPR/ National Public Radio/ npr.org
> 
> "United Airlines crew members will no longer be able to bump a passenger who is already seated in one of the airline's planes.
> ...



This is an interesting statement because crew members do not book themselves on flights.  They are booked by the airline´s crew scheduling department at the same time the crew members themselves are notified that they must be on a specific flight.  All this may occur as little as two hours before the planned flight departure but will always be in advance of any passengers being boarded.

When the airline booked the crew, apparently they were only booked as standbys meaning that the gate agent would have to sort out any oversell situation.  Had the crew been booked as regular passengers, which apparently the airline now plans on doing, the oversell situation could have been resolved early before anyone was boarded.




MULTIZ321 said:


> United Airlines Debacle Teaches Valuable Social Media Customer Care Lesson
> By Shep Hyken/ Leadership/ Forbes/ forbes.com
> 
> "On Monday, United Airlines experienced a customer service incident that went viral. The problem began when a flight from Chicago to Louisville was overbooked and four United employees needed to get to Louisville . . . ¨



Apparently, the crew was not a United crew at all.  This flight was operated for United Airlines by Republic Airlines and the 4 crew members were Republic employees going to Louisville to operate a Republic flight the following morning.  Republic does not offer scheduled service using its own name, it sub contracts regional service for major air carriers. Interestingly, the flight the four crew members were to fly was one that Republic was operating for Delta Airlines as Republic has contracts to operate regional service for both United and Delta.

United Airlines took the blame for this unfortunate incident and appears responsible but ironically, had little to no direct involvement with the handling of the situation.  

 Two things I find intriguing in this whole mess:

1.  The general public seems to dislike airlines and is ready to believe just about anything that justifies their perceptions.

2.  The news media can be very lazy in how they present their stories.  Some call this media bias, perhaps it´s nothing more than sloppy reporting.  Sometimes there is a lot more behind a story than just someone´s mobile phone video.


----------



## Talent312 (Apr 16, 2017)

Tamino said:


> ... The news media can be very lazy in how they present their stories.  Some call this media bias, perhaps it´s nothing more than sloppy reporting.



It may also be that journalists being taught to dumb-down news stories.
In a journalism class, I was told that stories should be told in simple terms at an 8th-grade level, and to assume that by the end of 2nd paragraph, the audience will think they know all they need to know. Salient details which are not considered essential are relegated to the discard pile.


.


----------



## Luanne (Apr 16, 2017)

Talent312 said:


> It may also be due to journalists being taught to dumb-down news stories.
> In a journalism class, I was told that stories should be told in simple terms at an 8th-grade level, and to assume that by the end of 2nd paragraph, the audience will think they know all they need to know. Salient details which are not considered essential are relegated to the discard pile.


Sad.


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 16, 2017)

I dont think they are taught to dumb down anything, I believe they write headlines and stories to generate controversy and spark arguments.

there is no profit in boring uncontroversial stories...those dont bring tens of thousands of comments and or millions of clicks to the site.

print newspaper is dead...and in the online world...every visit to a site is worth money....these sorts of stories are quite literally a goldmine for newspapers!  the more controversial (regardless of which side of the fence the story is written on) the better!


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Apr 16, 2017)

Tamino said:


> Apparently, the crew was not a United crew at all.  This flight was operated for United Airlines by Republic Airlines and the 4 crew members were Republic employees going to Louisville to operate a Republic flight the following morning.  Republic does not offer scheduled service using its own name, it sub contracts regional service for major air carriers. Interestingly, the flight the four crew members were to fly was one that Republic was operating for Delta Airlines as Republic has contracts to operate regional service for both United and Delta.
> 
> United Airlines took the blame for this unfortunate incident and appears responsible but ironically, had little to no direct involvement with the handling of the situation.
> 
> ...


The flight crew might have been Republic, but I would be amazed if the *gate *crew was not United.  And it was the gate crew that made the decision to board the Republic employees and off-board the four passengers. 

So it seems to me that the blame is rightly placed on United.


----------



## x3 skier (Apr 16, 2017)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> The flight crew might have been Republic, but I would be amazed if the *gate *crew was not United.  And it was the gate crew that made the decision to board the Republic employees and off-board the four passengers.
> 
> So it seems to me that the blame is rightly placed on United.



There's a possibility the gate folks are a third party company. Pretty unlikely at one of United's main hubs but at smaller airports, the gate agents are all from a separate company that staff different airline gates. They just wear different uniforms depending which airline they support and who contacted with the third party to perform ticket, boarding and arrival.  Just another quirk in "who dun it" if something bad happens.

Cheers


----------



## Luanne (Apr 16, 2017)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> The flight crew might have been Republic, but I would be amazed if the *gate *crew was not United.  And it was the gate crew that made the decision to board the Republic employees and off-board the four passengers.
> 
> So it seems to me that the blame is rightly placed on United.


I think there is enough blame to be spread around.


----------



## billymach4 (Apr 16, 2017)

United Breaks Guitars.

Apparently this guy produced 3 videos about his experience. 

Here is his commentary about this most recent tragic incident.


----------



## davidvel (Apr 17, 2017)

So now a similar incident on United: A couple sat in economy plus seats and wouldn't move back to regular economy, refusing crew instructions. A federal officer was summoned and they left the plane. 

Strange the similarities and differences to Dr. Dao's incident.


----------



## VacationForever (Apr 17, 2017)

davidvel said:


> So now a similar incident on United: A couple sat in economy plus seats and wouldn't move back to regular economy, refusing crew instructions. A federal officer was summoned and they left the plane.
> 
> Strange the similarities and differences to Dr. Dao's incident.


Do you know if they paid for the economy plus seats?  I have encountered people in economy class seats simply moved themselves up and the crew said nothing.


----------



## Tamino (Apr 17, 2017)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> The flight crew might have been Republic, but I would be amazed if the *gate *crew was not United.  And it was the gate crew that made the decision to board the Republic employees and off-board the four passengers.
> 
> So it seems to me that the blame is rightly placed on United.



The gate agent could have been an employee of United but either way, the agent was simply implementing the Untied policy.  Apparently Dr Dao had originally exited the airplane along with the three other passengers to make room for the crew.  I do not know if he did so as a compensated volunteer or not.  However, it was when he realized that he could not be accommodated on a same day flight to Louisville and would not reach his destination until the following day that he rushed back onto the aircraft, took his original seat, and refused to move.

We might agree that what made this story unique was what happened next, his being forcedly removed from the aircraft by the Chicago airport police.  At this point, no airline; not United, not Delta, not Southwest dictates how the police should or should not perform their duties.

I believe the details of the event will eventually emerge in print but it is too late for any explanation to come from United.  Anything that United says other than they are sorry and anything that they might do other than implement a procedure to preclude a future event of this type will only sound like a hollow excuse or an insincere cover up.

If one pauses to examine all of the facts, and most will draw decisive conclusions on little more than the mobile phone video, there is plenty of blame to be shared among all of the parties.


----------



## lizap (Apr 18, 2017)

The fallout continues.  UAL stock down 4.27% at close..


----------



## ace2000 (Apr 18, 2017)

lizap said:


> The fallout continues.  UAL stock down 4.27% at close..



Actually, if you compare their stock price to that of the other airlines, they're not getting hit that hard. (UAL).

https://finance.yahoo.com/chart/UAL...uZUNvbG9yIjoiIzQ1ZTNmZiIsInJhbmdlIjoiMW1vIn0=


----------



## lizap (Apr 18, 2017)

ace2000 said:


> Actually, if you compare their stock price to that of the other airlines, they're not getting hit that hard. (UAL).
> 
> https://finance.yahoo.com/chart/UAL#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




If you take a look at their short-term stock price relative to other carriers, they are getting hit very hard.  The incident occurred on April 9.  Since the market was closed, comparing the close on April 7 to the end of the close today:

UAL -4.42
AA  +4.78
LUV -.27
DAL -1.68
JBLU -1.47

So yes, the fall out continues..


----------



## VegasBella (Apr 18, 2017)

Talent312 said:


> It may also be that journalists being taught to dumb-down news stories.
> In a journalism class, I was told that stories should be told in simple terms at an 8th-grade level, and to assume that by the end of 2nd paragraph, the audience will think they know all they need to know. Salient details which are not considered essential are relegated to the discard pile.
> 
> 
> .



"50% of adults cannot read a book written at an eighth grade level and 45 million are functionally illiterate and read below a 5th grade level"

http://literacyprojectfoundation.org/community/statistics/

Thus, if you want to actually present information to "the public" you HAVE to dumb it down.


----------



## ace2000 (Apr 18, 2017)

lizap said:


> If you take a look at their short-term stock price relative to other carriers, they are getting hit very hard.  The incident occurred on April 9.  Since the market was closed, comparing the close on April 7 to the end of the close today:
> 
> UAL -4.42
> AA  +4.78
> ...



Ok, we'll agree to disagree then.  It closed on Friday, April 7th, at $70.88 and closed yesterday, April 17th, at $70.77 for a total drop of 11 cents since the incident occurred - up till the close yesterday.

Then today, it fell $3.02 (-4.27%) to $67.  I wouldn't classify a one day drop of 4%, 9 days later after the incident occurred, as a major fall out.  Let's agree to evaluate it in a week and see the real impact, if you're still concerned about it.  Shoot, it may even fully recover tomorrow.


----------



## jestme (Apr 20, 2017)

The GTAA (Toronto's international airport, YYZ) is privately run. Every day, between 5% and 25% of flights are cancelled for some reason. That costs the GTAA money. 
Perhaps they should overbook the runways and gates using an algorithm to compensate for this loss of revenue. Then, if all the flights actually do show up, some (I would suggest focusing on airlines that overbook the most) get told "sorry, but you cannot be accommodated at this time because of runway / gate overbooking. You can either try to land later, or go to another airport." (Which also may be overbooked). The airport would give them a "voucher" though.
It may be a good business practice for airlines, but I'll bet they wouldn't like it to happen to them.


----------



## dougp26364 (Apr 20, 2017)

I think the moral of the story is, know your rights, both as passenger and airline. As for UAL, understand the public is not only listening, they're recording. 

In the end it will all come down to $$. The public might voice loud indignation over how UAL handled the problem but, if a UAL flight is $5 cheaper, they'll still book UAL.


----------



## Talent312 (Apr 20, 2017)

dougp26364 said:


> The public might voice loud indignation over how UAL handled the problem but, if a UAL flight is $5 cheaper, they'll still book UAL.



I just spent $10 more on a car rental becuz it was Hertz, not Thrifty... So there is hope for us, yet.

.


----------



## davidvel (Apr 20, 2017)

jestme said:


> The GTAA (Toronto's international airport, YYZ) is privately run. Every day, between 5% and 25% of flights are cancelled for some reason. That costs the GTAA money.
> Perhaps they should overbook the runways and gates using an algorithm to compensate for this loss of revenue. Then, if all the flights actually do show up, some (I would suggest focusing on airlines that overbook the most) get told "sorry, but you cannot be accommodated at this time because of runway / gate overbooking. You can either try to land later, or go to another airport." (Which also may be overbooked). The airport would give them a "voucher" though.
> It may be a good business practice for airlines, but I'll bet they wouldn't like it to happen to them.


I would argue that the airports, FAA, and airlines already do exactly what you describe, "overbook" airports. Your statistics even bear this out. 

Airports, FAA, and the airlines know that there are weather issues, mechanical issues, priority (air force one) aircraft, and ATC staffing issues that will reduce airport capacity at times, and affect the number of flights that can be handled at any given airport. This is especially true during winter and thunderstorm seasons. They could just not "overbook" the airport, and reduce capacity by 10-20% just to ensure that when bad things happen all flights won't have any delays. This would cost airlines, and passengers, and airport authorities, tons of $.

Or, they can deal with these delays as they come up, like they do now.


----------



## PigsDad (Apr 20, 2017)

Talent312 said:


> I just spent $10 more on a car rental becuz it was Hertz, not Thrifty... So there is hope for us, yet.


Compared to the general mouth-breathing public, you are an anomaly.  

Kurt


----------



## Luanne (Apr 20, 2017)

Talent312 said:


> I just spent $10 more on a car rental becuz it was Hertz, not Thrifty... So there is hope for us, yet.
> 
> .


Was that $10/day?  $10 for how long of a period?

For flights I find it boils down to available routes and schedules, as well as price.  If I have a choice there are a few airlines I won't fly, but I'm pretty open to the rest.


----------



## Talent312 (Apr 20, 2017)

Luanne said:


> Was that $10/day?  $10 for how long of a period?



It was $10 for a 2-day rental ($5/day) rental. I'll admit... I did dither over it for a bit.


----------



## MULTIZ321 (Apr 29, 2017)

United Airlines is Offering Cheap Flights to Europe to Make Up for Its Horrible Month
By Megam Friedman/ Lifestyle/ Cosmopolitan/ cosmopolitan.com

*"Round-trip flights are as low as $364.*

United Airlines has been having a not-so-great month. First, video showed aviation officers violently dragging a doctor off a flight to make room for its staff members. And then, an adorably gigantic rabbit named Simon died while in the airline’s care. Those were two public-relations nightmares for the airline, but now they’re making major changes—and dropping prices, too.

According to the _New York Times_, United will now up its financial incentives for people to get bumped from overbooked flights; you can now get up to $10,000 in travel certificates if you volunteer. The airline is also changing its booking and boarding processes to make sure that people who have boarded flights never have to give up their seat, and starting a new team to deal with overbooked flights.

And at the same time, flights just so happen to be super cheap with United at the moment. Scott Keyes, who runs the website Scott’s Cheap Flights, told _Travel + Leisure _that there has been a “noticeable drop” in fares on United since the incident with Dr. David Dao. And he assumes that means that customers were steering clear of the airline. “I’m not privy to United’s internal numbers,” Keyes told the site, “but whatever drop in bookings they were seeing must have scared theme enough to slash prices.” According to CNNMoney, United’s profits did drop 69 percent in the first quarter, but that actually was better than expected, and only because of high fuel and labor costs...."





Getty


Richard


----------



## Talent312 (Apr 29, 2017)

MULTIZ321 said:


> "Scott Keyes, who runs the website Scott’s Cheap Flights... assumes that means that customers were steering clear of the airline. 'I’m not privy to United’s internal numbers,” Keyes told the site, “but whatever drop in bookings they were seeing must have scared theme enough to slash prices'."



Silver Lining: More seats for travelling flight crews... Less bumping.

.


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 29, 2017)

I am hoping for a good experience because of all this. Now I just have to hope the government doesn't shut down and close the national parks!


----------



## uscav8r (Apr 29, 2017)

Talent312 said:


> Silver Lining: More seats for travelling flight crews... Less bumping.
> 
> .



More seats for me to stretch out. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

