This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Yes, this has been reported and is publicly known. Dao was willing to be bumped for a few hours, but not bumped until the following afternoon.
So the contention, then, is someone from the airline knew he was a doctor with an office, looked up that address, and intentionally sent his luggage there as an FU to him? Possible. ####ty if true. Also possible that was the address on the luggage tags and/or paperwork and that's what they went with? Seems like the kind of thing where omission of a small detail makes the airline look worse and just pours more gas on the fire.
I think you're right, but there's a problem here for United: they're going to get publicly hammered, for a while, for borderline offenses. AND, they're going to get hammered, for a while, for things other airlines have gotten away with. "United" now stands for "terrible customer service airline". Furthermore, people will be totally positive that overbooking** is way worse on United than on other carriers even though statistics don't bear that out.
Policy can ALWAYS be over ridden by someone in authority. I've said this numerous times in this thread and it keeps getting conveniently buried.
Perfect example of United getting a reputational ding for stuff that can and might happen on other airlines. If that happens on a Southwest flight, it never gets reported.
that's awesome! These people are serious morons. How are they employed and how is this CEO still employed?
I know this effect won't last forever ... but still, this thing has a lot longer legs than many initially expected. And media like this is self-reinforcing.
Somebody just put this company out of it's misery already - they don't deserve to continue operating as a business.
Meh I don't buy the couples story on this one
Yeah, their account seemed weak. However, since the name "United" was involved, it made national television news (saw it on CBS Evening News yesterday afternoon).
Their story is that someone was sleeping on their seats, so they squatted in first class? Then were kicked off the flight?
Correct. These people are lying.
... looking ahead 20-25 years ... could the feds one day break up the airline industry the way they did with the telecoms in the 1980s?
So, at least on American Airlines: once you're seated, you're golden.
They claimed they weren't in first class, but if they were in the preferred section that's still considered a different level of sevice.Jobber said:
Sure. If the removing officer had pulled a gun and shot him in the head, his survivors would absolutely have been able to sue for damages despite any crime he may have been committing in that video.
Airlines often do this. Remove someone, diffuse the situation, and then let them fly the next day.
Think of a temporary condition whereby people (who may otherwise not be) have been known to become obnoxious, combative, insolent, etc.
I guess but it seems disingenuous to say that people are a threat one day and safe the next. Maybe I'm wrong.
He did reinforce the fact that their initial decision/choice to remove him was a good one.
It's so easy for his lawyer to turn that behavior into a positive by reminding the jury about the concussion that he suffered.
Most people would after being treated like that. I'd put a $1000 on you acting like a bigger tool if you were in that situation.
Doug B said:
I haven't flown United in probably 6-7 years. Do you get anything other than a larger seat if you move from Economy to Economy Plus on United? If that's all you get--and the seats weren't going to be used by anyone else--it was a #### move by that United crew. I've been on lots of flights that weren't full and people move all the time.
They need to overbook. Their margins necessitate it because too many self entitled twats are not showing up to their bookings (inconsiderate sods), fuel costs are going down (good for them), but they are still rough, and government regulation (bad for them) and alternative lawsuits (very bad for them) are on rise. Ideally they would have needed to have a case by case analysis of the passenger's arguments when they alerted the passengers in the random testing. That costs time and money. That being said, but this was/is still a colossal poop-emoji. I would happily be on the passenger's side here.
Agency law is a thing guy. The guys with the police/security VESTS sure are going to be easy marks.
I don't fly United but assuming that's it's like other airlines in that you get more leg room and people pay generally around $30-50 (or have some level of status) that gives them those seats.
One thing that has surprised me a lot is that:
If the above is true then I can't blame the employees at the gate. It sounds like the word from higher up was not to ever analyze the situation, don't apply common sense and just stick to the plan for every and all situations.
I had a boss that thought like this, that there should be a rule for every situation with no deviation. He was let go without any of us crying.
What sense does that make? The whole reason for the problem was that they had to get crew to Kentucky on that flight, as they had (for whatever reason) decided that was the quickest way to transport those workers. Cancelling the flight wasn't an option and would have been an obviously empty threat. Genius suggestion pilot braino. The gate agent should have just kept upping the compensation amount until someone volunteered. Problem solved.
Why do people want to point the finger at employees? If the situation was caused by some rogue employee doing something they shouldn't have done, then that's management's fault for poor training or hiring practices. If the situation was caused by employees doing what they're told, then that's management's fault for poor policies. When a company screws up it's always management's fault. That's the #### you accept when going into management. If you go into management thinking you can blame your employees for business failures, then you shouldn't be in management.Buzzbait said:
I didn't know what UA had trained/allowed their employees to do in these types of situations. If the answer were that they afforded them quite a bit of latitude and the employee didn't exercise common sense then I'd have no problem blaming the gate employee for being lazy and not thinking thru options. As it stands it appears that UA handcuffed their employees and would rather they simply follow a flowchart. That being the case UA management is at fault for this mess by not allowing their employees to use their brain and consider other options.
You are supposed to escalate in that situation, not think on your feet. Find a supervisor, or call the panic line. Without knowing a damn thing about UA I am 100% for sure they have a panic line for this type of situation.
RE: rigidity, only a Sith deals in absolutes. But (in addition to the potential positives) I would hope you can also see the danger in giving low level, customer-facing personnel too much authority to act on behalf of the company. You keep saying "common sense" in your posts. Certainly, you realize not everyone has the same amount of common sense nor applies it uniformly. What happens when Gloria "I gots muh GED!" the Gate Agent decides its appropriate to add an extra half a grand to someone's check because its snowing in the layover city and that poor passenger doesn't have a winter coat? You (as mgmt) don't want your GAs doing stuff like that, do you? But can you really reprimand her much if she's just using the discretion you gave her? Also, believe it or not, not everyone is honest. What happens when some of your people take advantage of their empowerment by running a scam whereby they tip off their friends as to which flights are routinely oversold (so those people can buy a ticket) then they pick those same friends for IDB and cut 'em a fat check for their "trouble"? Or the GA starts colluding with random passengers to split the "proceeds"? These are obviously intentionally extreme hypotheticals but I think you get the point. There is a good reason companies put policy in place and its largely to limit the amount of thinking their people need to do and give them the least privilege necessary to get the job done. In the case of an airline, time is always of the essence. They need people to know what they are supposed to do in situations, act quickly, and keep schedules. The more that is left to individual discretion, the longer decisions take and higher the likelihood of inconsistency.Buzzbait said:
Unfortunately the bolded is not true. Too many times in business I've seen/experienced situations where decisions are made in absolutes which is one of the points I'm trying to make.
Yes, I've brought that up numerous time. You point that out like it's a bad thing.
