Started By
Message
re: OT - United Airlines situation
Posted on 4/12/17 at 6:16 am to FaCubeItches
Posted on 4/12/17 at 6:16 am to FaCubeItches
quote:
Not a valid comparison. The store can't sell what it doesn't have. There would either be no sale, or they can also ask if you will accept a back order. It also ignores stuff like "First in time, first in right." The guy paid for his seat and got seated. Tough shite for anyone who comes after him.
Which is pretty much what United did. They offered him a back order, more or less. The seat was not available and they offered him money, hotel, (Typically they will give meal vouchers but this was never mentioned in any articles I have seen) and they offered to get him there on a later flight. Probably offered free tickets on a future flight, too. The biggest difference is that United offered him all kinds of other stuff to make up for the seat being "back ordered".
quote:
Fine, that's what it says. Pretty sure it's going to be a bit vague about "However, at our sole discretion, we may use third parties to commit battery and false imprisonment upon you in the event we frick up and don't have enough seats after already taking your money and seating you."
Thing is....United asked security to remove the guy from the airplane. They didn't ask them to "Commit battery". If you call the cops on your neightbor for a legitimate reason, and he refuses to cooperate with the police, and they rough him up....is that your fault? Are you responsible? the last thing United would want to happen, is what happened.
They handled it poorly. No doubt. but the only thing United did was deny boarding to a passenger, and ask that he be removed form their aircraft when he refused. They were perfectly in their right to do so.
Of course, the CEO screwed up royally with the way he handled the situation.
0
Posted on 4/12/17 at 6:18 am to djsdawg
quote:
A valid comparison is you buying the tv and putting it in your car and then they knock on your door and take the tv away from you while giving you a bloody lip, right?
No. I don't recall a United employee touching the guy.
Did i miss something?
Posted on 4/12/17 at 6:26 am to germandawg
quote:
The airline must not take it too seriously if they don't have someone to drive the next flight....
The greatest evil is failing to plan on the part of the airlines management.....everything else is just a sympton of the disease
So, it is your opinion that United should have an extra crew at every station they fly into?
Due to bad weather making an aircraft circle or divert to other airports, a crews time allotment can be used up. It cannot be foreseen. Typically an airline will have something like 6-7 crew bases in their whole system. To have extra crews in every city you fly into would be outrageously expensive. No airline would be able to stay in business.
AGAIN. I am not defending how the situation was handled. They handled it very poorly. All I am saying is they handled it within the law. IF they get sued, it will not be for removing the passenger. I don't see how they can be sued for his injuries, since none of their employees (As far as I know) touched the guy. But, sometimes the law does strange things.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 8:39 am to DawgsLife
quote:
From what I have read (And who knows if what we are reading is accurate) they were made offers. ($800, hotel, etc) and were turned down. Then once the plane was boarded (Shouldn't have waited that long) they chose 4 passengers to remove from the flight. As the four got off the aircraft, they told them what they would receive. Somewhere along the line, the doctor ran back onto the airplane and sat back down in his seat, and refused to get off the airplane again.
I've seen a few different accounts most of them seem to agree on some sequence of events similar to the below (my comments in parentheses). This may be overkill, but I've seen so many "I read/saw this" comments, that I felt it would be helpful to aggregate what seems to be generally accepted by most accounts...
United offered up $200 for volunteers prior to boarding, that number may have escalated to 400 prior to boarding but unclear (either way, indicating that they knew there was some issue with capacity prior to boarding... first big error here IMO - don't board the plane if you *know* that the crew is a "must take" and there aren't enough seats)
They then boarded the plane (filling it up), later going over the intercom stating that they needed 4 passengers to deplane to make room for crew that was needed *the next morning* in Louisville (If the crew isn't needed until the next morning, this is where I think they made a major tactical error - in that they could have hired a driver to get them the 4.5 hours to Louisville - even if it meant paying them extra. I'm somewhat unclear on how "timing out" works, but I don't think it applies to time on the ground, so it should have just meant eating the transport cost and extra OT? Also, I find it highly unlikely that all 4 *crew members* - I haven't seen any word on what their roles were: pilot, attendant, etc - were all in danger of timing out. It's possible, but not probable)
The number offered escalated up to $800 for volunteers and still didn't get any (next misstep, I won't say Delta does everything perfectly, but literally over the same weekend there's the story of a woman and her family who passed up on 2-3 flights to FL and cashed in on over $11,000 in Amex gift cards (not just flight vouchers) as well as some taxi fare, food expenses, etc. Hard capping at 800 was just silly. I *never* take the offer to delay, but if you offer me ~1300-1500 in amex gift cards (rather than a voucher), I'd be hard pressed not to get off the flight if I'm able to. I'm sure United has a credit card company they partner with that they could offer something similar if they needed to. If they had it all to do over again, I'm pretty sure they'd realize that 1500*4 is a shite load less than 250-300M in market cap and ridiculously bad publicity to boot. It's now causing everyone to rehash every bad United story out there... soon we'll see the "United Breaks Guitars" guy back in the news...
) After drawing the line in the sand at $800 (United has said they went to $1000, but no passengers have verified this... possibly this is what was offered to the IDB passengers who did get off?), it was announced to passengers that they would be "randomly selecting" 4 passengers to deplane at the $800 number if no one volunteered. Obviously no volunteers still, so they selected a couple and another passenger who begrudgingly (understandably so) cooperated and deplaned and then the 4th passenger, Dao, refused to get off (he did not get out of the seat prior to the physical removal). Conversation occurred with his side and their side and then they of course called in security/plain-clothes police officer who then escalates things a bit during removal. Somehow in the sequence here, after being dragged off as seen in the video, he must have come to a bit and ran back onto the plane stating that "he had to get home". Was removed again, and at that point the crew boarded.
(What's strange here is that from several accounts, this wasn't even the last flight to leave Chicago for Louisville that night. It was a 5:40pm flight that was delayed by 2 hours and they run a 9pm flight on Sundays. It would seem that the best option would have been to wait and see what checkins for that flight looked like, and then *prior to boarding* it, handle the IDB situation.)
As I said before, United may have been acting within their rights to remove the passenger, but they had so many opportunities to get it right before getting it so wrong. While UAL's stock is trending back to the positive, that initial drop was merely a reaction to the publicity... any real impact won't be felt until we see if there is a consumer reaction in airline selection.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 8:51 am to fibonaccisquared
Also of note, this flight was on an Embraer E170 which has an extra jump seat, which unless broken should have accounted for the 4th seat needed.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 8:51 am to fibonaccisquared
Memes have been pretty good on this issue lol.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 8:51 am to fibonaccisquared
Imagine being the crew member who came in and took that guy's seat after the incident. That's gotta be awkward.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 9:12 am to ATLdawg25
quote:
Imagine being the crew member who came in and took that guy's seat after the incident. That's gotta be awkward.
Yeah, apparently passengers jeered/booed them a bit, lots of "you should be ashamed" type comments. Which is misguided/aimed at the wrong people... The moral of the story appears to be simply that our species is doomed
Posted on 4/12/17 at 9:16 am to fibonaccisquared
quote:
(either way, indicating that they knew there was some issue with capacity prior to boarding... first big error here IMO - don't board the plane if you *know* that the crew is a "must take" and there aren't enough seats)
This is correct. Guessing? They were overbooked and offered the money, then boarded, then found out they needed 4 crew members. It's the only thing that makes sense to me. Otherwise they were not overbooked...they simply needed the seats for their crew.
quote:
passengers to deplane to make room for crew that was needed *the next morning* in Louisville (If the crew isn't needed until the next morning, this is where I think they made a major tactical error - in that they could have hired a driver to get them the 4.5 hours to Louisville - even if it meant paying them extra.
I don't know all of the details, but the crew would start getting paid and be considered on duty when they arrive at the airport. They would remain on duty until they arrived at their destination. They are required, by law to have at least 8 hours in between shifts. If the flight they were going to meet was early in the morning, they might not have had the 8 hour rest period. But, this, again is only speculation. the only other scenario that would make sense is that union rules would prevent this. If neither of these is correct, then you are 100% spot on saying that United screwed up royally.
quote:
there's the story of a woman and her family who passed up on 2-3 flights to FL and cashed in on over $11,000 in Amex gift cards (not just flight vouchers) as well as some taxi fare, food expenses, etc. Hard capping at 800 was just silly.
I am not saying this is not possible, but improbable. Typically, an airline will do everything in their power to get an inconvenienced passenger on the very next possible flight. They will, however, offer everything you just mentioned. (Cab voucher, food voucher, money, etc.) $11,000.00 seems a bit high, but I guess it is possible. Usually the airline will put a cap on how much they can offer. The gate agent would not have the authority to override this, but maybe his supervisor? I am like you....seems more reasonable that they would try to raise the $800.
quote:
(What's strange here is that from several accounts, this wasn't even the last flight to leave Chicago for Louisville that night. It was a 5:40pm flight that was delayed by 2 hours and they run a 9pm flight on Sundays. It would seem that the best option would have been to wait and see what checkins for that flight looked like, and then *prior to boarding* it, handle the IDB situation.)
I just checked their schedule for next Sunday (16th) and see they have flights at 6:42, 7:45 and 9:20 in the evening. It does seem odd they felt the need to push this at that moment, unless they did not want to pay the crew for sitting in the airport. Crew gets paid once they arrive at the airport, and then extra for time away from base. Just an odd, odd situation the whole way it was handled.
quote:
As I said before, United may have been acting within their rights to remove the passenger, but they had so many opportunities to get it right before getting it so wrong. While UAL's stock is trending back to the positive, that initial drop was merely a reaction to the publicity... any real impact won't be felt until we see if there is a consumer reaction in airline selection.
Yep. I don't think there will be a civil case (Who knows) but they sure handled it incredibly wrong. I would be shocked if somebody doesn't get some time off without pay.
Good job of tying up the loose ends!
Posted on 4/12/17 at 10:24 am to DawgsLife
quote:
I don't think there will be a civil case (Who knows) but they sure handled it incredibly wrong.
Big plaintiff attorney in Chicago has already been retained. Unless this gets settled quickly it will at least get filed.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 10:45 am to DawgsLife
quote:
quote:
A valid comparison is you buying the tv and putting it in your car and then they knock on your door and take the tv away from you while giving you a bloody lip, right?
No. I don't recall a United employee touching the guy.
Did i miss something?
"They" can be whoever, so it's a yes.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 12:30 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
This is correct. Guessing? They were overbooked and offered the money, then boarded, then found out they needed 4 crew members. It's the only thing that makes sense to me. Otherwise they were not overbooked...they simply needed the seats for their crew.
Yeah, I was leaning toward overbooking until United explicitly came out stating that the flight *wasn't* overbooked, which then leads me to believe they knew they had positive space fliers that were going to throw the numbers off before boarding... certainly some speculation involved there, but seems likely given their public statement.
quote:
I don't know all of the details, but the crew would start getting paid and be considered on duty when they arrive at the airport. They would remain on duty until they arrived at their destination. They are required, by law to have at least 8 hours in between shifts. If the flight they were going to meet was early in the morning, they might not have had the 8 hour rest period. But, this, again is only speculation. the only other scenario that would make sense is that union rules would prevent this. If neither of these is correct, then you are 100% spot on saying that United screwed up royally.
Yeah, this is the part I don't know enough about personally. I've got a ton of friends in the airline business between pilots and corporate, but just not sure the exact limits. My understanding though is the planned flight(s) for this crew was somewhere in the neighborhood of 8:30am/9am (single source and can't find it again)? At 7:30-7:40ish, it's possible that they could have gotten them to Lville by midnight or close enough to it, that if it really came down to it, they could have delayed the AM flight... not saying it's ideal, but there were still alternatives, if the reports on the next outbound flight times are correct (only saw one place, so who knows whether accurate).
quote:
I am not saying this is not possible, but improbable.
LINK
Improbable, sure... and I might not have made it really clear in my post, but this was a family (at least 3 seats, maybe 4?) and more than one flight that they bailed out of for re-imbursement. Interesting story, and just a very different take on how to handle a bad situation.
I think one of the more interesting components was the "random selection" altogether... There's no reason that it should be random... flat out state - we will be deplaning the passengers with the least "tenure" with our airlines and the lowest fares, since I can't imagine they would be dumb enough to IDB for a first class passenger, a high value frequent flyer of their airline, or one of the more expensive tickets that they have to reimburse at a higher amount.
Realistically, if I'm forced to make the call myself (would not have let it get there, but let's say for argument's sake it's there and now you get to try and un-frick it) from a PR standpoint, it seems you would want to target individuals that are either a) 18-25 year old young adults give or take - less likely that they have the ability or desire to cause a scene; b) couples/groups - fewer "parties" to irritate, rather than 4 separate passengers; or c) elderly/retired age - let's say 75+... possibly problematic (Dao is like 69, so not far off) but less likely to be in the active workplace and have a "real" need to get somewhere at an exact time. Obviously, none of it's perfect and there are outliers, but it would seem that those would be your 3 ideal target types all else being equal.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 12:50 pm to Jefferson Dawg
quote:
The universal outrage over this story says all you need to know about how doomed we are.
There was a time in this country (that I read about in a dusty old history book).....where the right of a private property owner to kick someone off his fricking own damn property was celebrated.
I hate you people.
Jefferson, I know you don't care about the injured Asian but think of the poor investors. Employees and management of United Airlines damaged the company and its shareholders by enforcing an idiotic policy in a violent manner. The simple solution would have been to keep offering more compensation until enough flyers agreed to deplane.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 2:40 pm to Cheese Grits
quote:
Big plaintiff attorney in Chicago has already been retained. Unless this gets settled quickly it will at least get filed.
I doubt it will go anywhere. Maybe from his injuries, but not from his being pulled off the aircraft. Just my opinion. I would think his injuries would be between him and the police, though. It's hard to say when they were removing him as agents of the airline. There is a lot of tricky legaleeze.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 2:43 pm to djsdawg
quote:
"They" can be whoever, so it's a yes.
You are arguing that United Air lines is to blame for his injuries. What I am saying is that a United Air Line employee, as far as I know, did not touch him.
If they did not touch him, I don't see how they would be liable. The people who touched him would...being the police. United requested his removal. They (United)have every right to expect the police to do this in a lawful manner.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 2:48 pm to fibonaccisquared
quote:
which then leads me to believe they knew they had positive space fliers that were going to throw the numbers off before boarding...
Possibly, possibly not. It typically takes about 30 minutes to board an aircraft. they could have gotten word they needed a crew in Indianapolis, then contacted a standby crew to go there. They then checked to see where their next flight to IND is, and realize they have one leaving in 30-40 minutes. Then they rush a crew down to the gate, and the plane is boarded. Stuff can happen just that quickly.
For me...the bad part was that United had another flight going to Louisville later. I think I would have kept the crew for that flight and see if they can get volunteers from that flight. Bad planning all the way around, but they sometimes have very little time to weigh all the options.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 2:50 pm to Whiznot
quote:
Jefferson, I know you don't care about the injured Asian but think of the poor investors. Employees and management of United Airlines damaged the company and its shareholders by enforcing an idiotic policy in a violent manner. The simple solution would have been to keep offering more compensation until enough flyers agreed to deplane.
I seriously doubt that the intent was to enforce it in a violent manner, though. Nobody wanted the guy to get hurt. Well, after he started to scream and squirm the people dealing with him might not have been too upset.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 2:53 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
Possibly, possibly not. It typically takes about 30 minutes to board an aircraft. they could have gotten word they needed a crew in Indianapolis, then contacted a standby crew to go there. They then checked to see where their next flight to IND is, and realize they have one leaving in 30-40 minutes. Then they rush a crew down to the gate, and the plane is boarded. Stuff can happen just that quickly.
Except they were already asking for volunteers before the flight. That's what I was getting at. If it was overbooked, that would explain the request for volunteers, but if it was simply "full", they had to know they needed to fit in other people and it was going to throw off the numbers.
And yeah, the later flight was the thing that stuck out to me as a WTF moment for sure, that's why I'd referenced it. Seems insane to bump from the earlier flight unless there was a concern that the later flight might not take off? It's always easier to control people prior to boarding.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 8:39 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
You are arguing that United Air lines is to blame for his injuries. What I am saying is that a United Air Line employee, as far as I know, did not touch him.
If they did not touch him, I don't see how they would be liable. The people who touched him would...being the police. United requested his removal. They (United)have every right to expect the police to do this in a lawful manner.
No, I am arguing your analogy was flawed, and I presented an unflawed analogy. The point is, he already had the product he paid for, which was his seat, just as a person buying a TV would already have the product he paid for.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 8:59 pm to djsdawg
If tarzan ordered a #3 from McDonalds, sat down with his food, and then McDonald's told him to leave without his food, offering him his money back plus $800, and tarzan refuse to leave, so McDonald's call police, and tarzan resist police, so police beat the shite out of tarzan, is this McDonald's liability for police beat the shite out of tarzan?
In court, the cause of action is against police. Not McDonald's.
Tarzan better call Saul.
In court, the cause of action is against police. Not McDonald's.
Tarzan better call Saul.
Page 4 of 6
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News