That's true at the internal level, in fact over last many years many airlines have stripped down their staff because of incurring losses. However that doesn't excuse the wide array of inexcusable front end behaviour across more or less every airline with some being downright shambolic. Don't know where to start with that.
United Airlines forcibly remove passenger from overbooked flight
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
This video shows it better. The drag him out and his face bounces off the armrest hard. Honestly don't know how people can stick up for United. If nobody was taking the $800 to get off for one of their employees, then offer more money. Not the passengers fault that this occurred. At least they paid their fare.
Spot on. I don't understand how anybody of rational mind could argue with this stance - even in spite of victim blaming being an edgy trend. If you've fecked up then cough up. It's so, so simple and UA have failed at their practice miserably.
I understand, and the business has a good foot in the natural monopoly space given that you won't get 10 airlines flying the same route.
But at the same time consumer behavior doesn't prioritize service at all. Business and other frequent travelers here in the US are maybe some of the most engaged (admittedly I don't have experience living as an adult in the EU), concentrating travel on their preferred airline, earning points, upgrades, perks, and generally willing to pay more for convenience (corporate expense accounts help). On the other hand, many people I know with healthy incomes (not blaming students or infrequent tourists) still just zero in on the cheapest ticket available regardless of airline reputation, rewards programs, number of stops.
That's why I think United will be just fine from this, because many of the people who might right now be saying they'll never fly with them again will probably end up doing so when they're shopping their trip home for thankgiving, and UAL shows up 20% cheaper than AA or DL.
Hasn't taken long for the smear pieces to come out either. His past has nothing to do with the incident.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4401980/Dr-dragged-United-swapped-drugs-secret-gay-sex.html
I'll ask again, are those United employees bouncing him around?
'What would the mail call me' is a fun, if morbid, game to play.
Have been an airplane guy since I was a kid, but realized over time that the business is brutal. Seems no one can really get ahead in it.
One thing that as an outsider (especially being from the finance field) I've balked at since I found out about was the pilot seniority lists as the alpha and the omega of all pilot issues. There's no reward for above avg performance?
I'm not sure about the halfwit in the pair of jeans but the other two are police officers. Or thugs, for want of a better term. Of course, they don't work for UA, but it's seemingly a cooperative procedure.
About as edgy as using the phrase victim blaming. Can people not offer opinions on all parties involved without such ridiculous labels.
He didn't cause the violent reaction so he's not at fault. Doesn't mean people cant call someone out for being difficult, it is what it is you act with decorum get off the plane then complain. You seriously saying you'd sit there like a toddler and say im not moving?
TheReligion on 1...2....
That video is disgusting btw. They obviously didn't intend to knock him out but when they did they should have shown a damn sight more concern than by dragging him out on his back. Scum. Imagine if that was your missus it happened to.
I don't think it's getting through!Well if they cared, they would handle this situation far better than they have. Absolutely ridiculous from a business pov, they deserve all the blowback they get.
Exactly. Scumbags!
In the time of live video you'd think people would act better. But you have like-minded twats that stick up for these people. It's appalling.
I gave the cops the benefit of the doubt yesterday because 99% of these incidents it's some drunk aggressive loudmouth and the airlines has the right to remove them, so they don't ask too many questions. What they did was certainly heavy handed though especially since the guy was unarmed and offered zero resistance. But I think their CEO's statement was far worse because he basically said his employees did nothing wrong when they were the ones who triggered the incident in the first place, not the cops. They stood back and watched it happen.
Depends how entirely stupid the opinion is, I'd say. I'd argue that acting with decorum could well go out of the window in such a situation. For various reasons, I find it difficult to criticise somebody for refusing to move given the many other people on the aircraft, the allegedly dubious selection of Asian customers asked to depart, as well as the paltry offering of money to leave the plane. Furthermore, he could have had even stronger reasons for wanting to stay on the aeroplane than merely getting to work. These details will all become clearer after the incident, but it's easy to criticise the actions of a near-70 year old man for refusing to move without knowing the finer details.
Ultimately, where do UA draw the line? What if a person soon-to-be-ejected is flying to spend time with a dying relative? What if their partner has gone into labour? What if they have spent a small fortune trying to be somewhere at a certain time on a certain day that simply mustn't be rearranged? If a person has paid money to fly on an aeroplane, have sat down on said aeroplane, and are randomly (or not randomly) told to leave the aircraft then yes, I can totally understand why they will sit there and argue the toss until the bitter end. Should that result in being knocked unconscious and violently assaulted? We both know the answer to this is no. I'm finding it difficult pointing too many fingers at the old fella, I'll be honest.
ffs. These are gonna be the new thing for a while.Why cant you understand people dont value money as important as you do
You have contradicted yourself in the same post.
Why do they charge for a seat multiple times? To make (more) money!
You didnt really answer my question, if you were told they'd done it randomly and you were asked to leave would you refuse? Especially if it was by police/air marshalls whatever? Refusing to leave a plane is itself an issue.
If you would fair enough but otherwise calling people out for victim blaming is odd as such comments on his conduct are clearly reasonable.
I did word it badly. Overbooking is not a response to a fiscal penalty, in that they do not lose money when people fail to show up. They do it to take advantage of the fact that some people do not show up and they can charge for the seat twice.
But in this case, he was removed to allow their own staff to travel, so it was not about overbooking anyway.
I don't know. I've never encountered such a situation and it would depend entirely on my reasons for being on the flight. I guess I'd eventually swallow my pride and get off, but as I say, it's a variable situation.
When there is a consensus, some people (not necessarily you) feel clever and important by going against the grain and taking an alternative view on a situation. It's a fairly common (and boring) trait they feel compelled to maintain. When I watched the footage, I initially thought the conduct of the security personnel and airline was unnecessary, as do seemingly most people. I didn't really factor the passenger's reaction into my thinking, in truth. There's a reason he's still sat there, surely...
Comparing him to a toddler is just odd. Toddlers don't buy seats, and take them, on planes. Toddlers don't have to get to work. The relationship between a corporation and a customer is not akin to the one between a parent and toddler. FFS.
Again something that has nothing to do with what is being discussed, but please continue spreading love, peace and utopia. Much vibes, wow
I know it wasn't about overbooking in this case - a complete cock up by United.
People in the thread have been suggesting overbooking should be banned. All i was pointing out was that Airlines wont just accept lower revenues if that happens, they will (probably) increase prices.
Im not supporting overbooking by the way, just pointing out the likely consequence of banning it.
I agree. But this will backfire on him and rightly so. I know I'll never fly with them again.
Should never have been allowed in the first place. It's just exploiting the hassle you will inevitably put customers through in order to make money.
Corporations do though.
Toddlers give you a seat then piss and whine, push and shove until you give them the seat back.
Refusing to move is a very toddler like reaction its stubborn and passive aggressive rather than just dealing with the situation. Most people get through life dealing with shit customer service in a reasonable and understanding way, employees work for shit companies or make mistakes and kicking up a fuss to them is rarely a route taken for a reason.
If you're the type of person that would refuse to leave even when youre going to be forcibly removed rather than deal with it then complain then fair enough.
Speaking of toddlers
Never understood why kids are allowed to fly unaccompanied.
So...what is the general consensus? How wrong was UA?
So they can get from point A to point B, but an adult can't travel with them for whatever reason.
"Most" is doing a hell of a lot of work in that sentence.
Semantics. Overbooking is when a passenger has to be deboarded because flight cannot accommodate the capacity. Whether it was for their own internal reasons or because of another passenger is just the reason for the problem.
UA was wrong to demand customers give up their spots for UA employees.
Once they decided to ask a passenger to be removed by law enforcement, pretty dumb of the passenger not to comply. It's the type of situation that you know at the end of the day you are going to be removed one way or the other. Then you handle the situation after you get off the plane.
The cops were rough, but again the post 9-11 US we are living in (a whole different discussion), you know that if you refuse to get off the plane, eventually the cops are going to remove you. That being said, it still looks awful and is awful to drag a person off a plane given the situation involved.
So no, the airline does not look good. The cops do not look good. Even to some extent the Doctor looks dumb.
Basically: "Learn to eat shit and like the taste of it."
Your condescension is totally unnecessary. Ive already told you I have more than "an ounce of understanding of such a basic system" - I've worked with hospitality systems that are built from the ground up, based entirely on the same airline yield management systems that went before them.
United are hiding behind "legitimate" overbooking policy to excuse their gross mishandling of this situation, so it's entirely reasonable that the issue of airline overbooking can be looked at.
The idea that there is literally no gambling involved is absurd. Yield management is gambling, no matter how much form and statistics you have at hand to improve your odds.
Every person who has ever been overbooked and refused a place on the flight they booked is proof of that.
You seem to be insisting that because it is an industry norm, it is by definition ethical and anyone who suggests otherwise is simply too stupid or ignorant to understand. With no small amount of arrogance I might add.
Being an industry norm has nothing to do with it. If you'd ever see the exact mechanism of overbooking you'd see where I'm coming from, which I've said is not something obvious to the outside eye and could seem as money grabbing or whatever.
I wasn't exactly referring to you in my post either, but the majority of the outrage following this, regarding the underlying system - something that wasn't at fault - vs. the particular handling of the situation by the airline staff - who obviously were.