You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
some footage has surfaced showing events before the "reacommodation" occured, which disputes the airline CEO's early claims that the passenger was "disruptive and belligerent":
i was just listening to a talk radio channel and someone mentioned that the flight was actually not overbooked, but i haven't found anything online to support this claim atm...
United spokesman Jonathan Guerin said Tuesday that all 70 seats on United Express Flight 3411 were filled, but the plane was not overbooked as the airline previously reported. Instead, United and regional affiliate Republic Airlines, which operated the flight, selected four passengers to be removed to accommodate crew members needed in Louisville the next day. The passengers were selected based on a combination of criteria spelled out in United’s contract of carriage, including frequent-flier status, fare type, check-in time and connecting flight implications, among others, according to United.
__________________ "The guy in the CR-V meanwhile, he'll give you a haughty glare. He's responsibly trying to lessen his impact, but there you go lumbering past him with your loud V8, flouting the new reality. You may as well go do some donuts in a strawberry patch and slalom through a litter of kittens." Dan Frio, Automotive Editor, Edmunds
Oscar Munoz, the CEO of United Airlines, today said he felt "shame" when he saw viral video of airport police dragging a bloodied passenger from one of his airline's flights Sunday night.
"This will never happen again," Munoz told ABC News' "Good Morning America" in an exclusive interview.
He added, "We are not going to put a law enforcement official onto a plane to take them off … to remove a booked, paid, seated passenger. We can't do that."
Regarding blowback Munoz received for his initial muted response, which did not include an apology, he said a more forceful reaction was delayed because he was still gathering the facts.
"I think my reaction to most issues is to get the facts and circumstances," he said. "My initial words fell short of truly expressing the shame."
Munoz said the feelings of embarrassment were "palpable" for him and his United colleagues...
Or, to put it another way, "After trying to forcibly remove a paying passenger from one of our airlines, I was annoyed to see that other customers filmed the incident. Once my attempt to address the error of our client's ways to staff, my internal letter was posted publically and caused an even bigger PR disaster. Now that our stocks have fallen, and people are calling for Federal regulations regarding over booking, I would like to say that I felt 'shame' watching the video. I mean, I felt 'shame the first time I saw it..."
US airline giant United launched an innovative new seating class today, which will see customers dragged to and from their seats for a modest extra fee.
The ‘Drag-on/Drag-off’ fares will be targeted at those who simply can’t be bothered to walk to their seat, as well as business people who want to spend more time on their phone or laptop while moving down the aisle.
“It’s a whole new way of looking at airline service,” United CEO Oscar Munox said.
“While some people will want to continue with the traditional mode of walking to their own seat, we think a lot of customers will appreciate the convenience of being physically removed from a flight at the end of a busy day”.
Customers will be able to purchase the service – which will cost around $800 – when they book online.
Munoz said there will be an extra surcharge for those at the back of the plane. “It’s what we call a long-haul,” he joked.
__________________ "The guy in the CR-V meanwhile, he'll give you a haughty glare. He's responsibly trying to lessen his impact, but there you go lumbering past him with your loud V8, flouting the new reality. You may as well go do some donuts in a strawberry patch and slalom through a litter of kittens." Dan Frio, Automotive Editor, Edmunds
No individual has the right to use force unless the target is a threat.
But he refused to comply with the officer's request, did he not?
I'm totally with the poor man in this whole incident, but it seems to me that he could have walked out unharmed (and proceed to sue them afterwards instead) in this whole incident, had he listened to them.
If I'm not mistaken, these are actual airport police officers, and independent of United Airlines.
RS.net, where our google ads make absolutely no sense!
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Squamish
Posts: 925
Thanked 2,300 Times in 556 Posts
Failed 7 Times in 7 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by trd2343
But he refused to comply with the officer's request, did he not?
I'm totally with the poor man in this whole incident, but it seems to me that he could have walked out unharmed (and proceed to sue them afterwards instead) in this whole incident, had he listened to them.
If I'm not mistaken, these are actual airport police officers, and independent of United Airlines.
While I would like to agree with you, I can't. The problem is, had he exited the plane as requested and attempted to deal with customer service afterwards...even if he sued...he would get screwed by United. I'm 100% sure of it. Even though there is nothing in their ToS that say they can remove you from a flight after boarding (due to overbooking), they would find a way to loop around it. ONLY because they tried to physically remove him, and the resulting over-use-of-force by the officers, has this become the issue that it is.
Crap tactics like they used to "re-accommodate" the passengers, mainly "if no one will volunteer at $X dollars we will volunteer you", have been in place for YEARS...only once it hit assault do we finally recognize the problem and act as a society.
This is a company that offers $300 to voluntarily take the next flight, but then provides that $300 voucher in $50 increments that can't be used together. They absolutely do not have the paying client's best interest in mind, at any time.
he can sue united and win im sure, but the damage to united has been done.
even if the guy gets some obscene amount in the millions, united has already lost consumer confidence to the tune of at least hundreds of millions.
he can sue united and win im sure, but the damage to united has been done.
even if the guy gets some obscene amount in the millions, united has already lost consumer confidence to the tune of at least hundreds of millions.
__________________ "The guy in the CR-V meanwhile, he'll give you a haughty glare. He's responsibly trying to lessen his impact, but there you go lumbering past him with your loud V8, flouting the new reality. You may as well go do some donuts in a strawberry patch and slalom through a litter of kittens." Dan Frio, Automotive Editor, Edmunds
While I would like to agree with you, I can't. The problem is, had he exited the plane as requested and attempted to deal with customer service afterwards...even if he sued...he would get screwed by United. I'm 100% sure of it. Even though there is nothing in their ToS that say they can remove you from a flight after boarding (due to overbooking), they would find a way to loop around it. ONLY because they tried to physically remove him, and the resulting over-use-of-force by the officers, has this become the issue that it is.
Crap tactics like they used to "re-accommodate" the passengers, mainly "if no one will volunteer at $X dollars we will volunteer you", have been in place for YEARS...only once it hit assault do we finally recognize the problem and act as a society.
This is a company that offers $300 to voluntarily take the next flight, but then provides that $300 voucher in $50 increments that can't be used together. They absolutely do not have the paying client's best interest in mind, at any time.
-Dave
I agree too, UA probably would've screwed him had he just bowed down and walked off. It does seem like his best interest to stay put (even maybe in harm's way), so to turn this into big issue.
I'm just curious how the lawsuit will turn out, if one does proceed. I can't comment on the excessive force part, but what I'm certain is that he did not comply with the officers.
But I guess the main focus is still on UA's poor decision to kick out the passenger. UA probably or certainly will need to do some damage control, and compensation seems inevitable.
I'm just curious how the lawsuit will turn out, if one does proceed. I can't comment on the excessive force part, but what I'm certain is that he did not comply with the officers.
Well the officer that dragged the guy was put on leave, and the Chicago Avation Department spokeswoman has publicly stated the officer didn't act in accordance with their operating procedures and that his actions weren't condoned.
Well the officer that dragged the guy was put on leave, and the Chicago Avation Department spokeswoman has publicly stated the officer didn't act in accordance with their operating procedures and that his actions weren't condoned.
Regardless, this ends the debate on whether the officers were right to drag him off like an animal because he didn't comply to their requests.
Did you not see this post (emphasis mine):
Quote:
Originally Posted by Great68
Well the officer that dragged the guy was put on leave, and the Chicago Avation Department spokeswoman has publicly stated the officer didn't act in accordance with their operating procedures and that his actions weren't condoned.
But he refused to comply with the officer's request, did he not?
I'm totally with the poor man in this whole incident, but it seems to me that he could have walked out unharmed (and proceed to sue them afterwards instead) in this whole incident, had he listened to them.
If I'm not mistaken, these are actual airport police officers, and independent of United Airlines.
If the passengers comply to leave the plane, there is no case. On top of that, the public and the media wouldn't give a shit about the doctor's complaint.
I guess I should have mentioned "excessive force". Using force to remove someone is fine, but the doctor is bleeding FFS. Anyways, the outcome of the situation speaks for itself. The officer who used excessive force is put on leave with administration review.
My prediction is that, the officer will most likely be fired not only because of his action, but because the result of the situation caused the company's stocks to fall, which means that a lot of people are involved now (stakeholders, shareholders, board of directors, etc). When an individual's action is held accountable for the loss of a company's asset/finance, it's pretty serious.
recent flight to japan on AC, flight was delayed about an hour, for people (4) on a connecting flight + they were looking for volunteers (3) to go the next day... wtf.. if they are late,, maybe have them take the next flight... (dont get)
I stopped posting in here as it's tough to argue with people with half the story. This lady does a decent job of explaining the situation. For anyone who actually cares to read this, it will answer some of the silly questions.
I don't really see why she is mentioning the fact he boarded the AC again afterwards (How is still a puzzle). I just assumed he had a concussion. But she's better explaining a lot of that better then I am. I'm already sick of hearing about this story as it's pretty blown out of proportion, but hey. That's just me. It's good to see some media attention as the rule is BS. If they made a law to ban overbooking, we'll pay for it. But at least your guaranteed to make it there... until one of the other thousands of scenarios show up to cancel or delay your flight....
I'm not taking any sides here but there's always more facts to consider
I agree it's not fair that any airlines can kick you off to accomadate staff or whoever the fuck they want to accommodate, but it's reserved in their right to do so when you skip through that whole body of text and hit accept when booking your ticket.
When they need that seat and ask you nicely to leave, then you run back back like a child who won't accept their bedtime, the police will see you as a threat to aviation security and will forcibly remove you.
This article was a good read, prime example was the writer was saying how when she was taking her kid through a TSA checkpoint they made her kid take off their socks. It didn't make sense to her at all but instead of fighting with the rules and regulations that were put into place with the right intentions in mind (to protect the lives of all traveling, the coworkers of the aviation industry and to avoid another potential 9/11)
he can sue united and win im sure, but the damage to united has been done.
even if the guy gets some obscene amount in the millions, united has already lost consumer confidence to the tune of at least hundreds of millions.
I've heard a bunch of people say "boycott United" - but lets be honest here - how many people will let their conscience override their wallet or time? If United is the cheaper option, or the most direct option, would you really not take it because you vowed to boycott them?
As others have mentioned, this will blow over in a few weeks and life will go on. United sure isn't the only airline who overbooks - they just got caught red handed handling it poorly. The guy that did the beating was a Chicago Airport cop so this probably could have happened on any airline. A couple of hundred million dollars on a company with an over 22 billion dollar market cap is just a blip and shareholders will barely blink an eye at the drop in valuation over the last 2 days.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
