Can we talk about United Flight thing here?

[CitizenBBN]

Don't think this qualifies as politics, and since the social world is all abuzz about it I thought we needed a thread.

So far public opinion is running hard against United, which IMO really blew this thing in their initial response, trying to defend the situation and being somewhat cavalier about it to boot.

I like these, twitter ideas on what United's new motto should be:

https://twitter.com/hashtag/NewUnitedAirlinesMottos?src=tren&data_id=tweet%3A851786949400469505

I liked this one so far: "May the odds be forever in your favor." Don't know why, just got me to LOL On that one.

[CitizenBBN]

Love this one: "At United Airlines we'll help re-accommodate your teeth"

IMO the most offensive part of United's handling of it was the CEO's use of the phrase/word "re-accomodate" to refer to what they did and do to passengers when they just kick them off of flights. That is offensive to the intelligence of everyone who has ever flown, and really everyone who is literate. I keep thinking of the line in Princess Bride. United keeps using that word "accommodate", I do not think it means what they think it means.

[PedroDaGr8]

There is a WHOLE lot of blame to go around.

1) United's response had to be the most tone-deaf condescending elitist corporate double-speak I have ever seen. Had they handled this deftly then they could have resolved this with very little fanfare. Instead, the behavior from the get go was foolish and stupid.
2) The police's behavior in this was offensive if not criminal. Why are the police acting as the jackbooted thugs and enforcers of a corporate policy?
3) United STILL has not changed their policies to prevent this from happening.
4) If this happens to you and they bump you off a flight you ARE ENTITLED TO CASH REWARDS! Do not take a voucher, do not take their initial offers. If it delays your arrival to your destination by one to two hours (domestic) or one to four hours (international), then they owe you double your ticket price (up to $675) plus they must reschedule your flight. If it delays your flight by more than two hours (domestic) or more than four hours (international) then they must pay you up to four times your ticket price (capped at $1300). This is federal law, they will not volunteer it, you have to ask for it. They will try to pay you in vouchers, but must pay in cash if you request it as well.
5) The doctor behaved rather crazy, I have no clue what his issue was but his trying to GET BACK ON the plane bordered on insane.

[Catonahottinroof]

My employer is in the same jurisdiction. Liberal jury pool is putting it mildly. United will settle this out before it goes to trial, no matter how "right" the may be according to the terms of the ticket sold to Dr Dao.

[CitizenBBN]

Pedro, I agree on the guy as well. I have to think he saw a payday coming at some point in this, he has his own sketchy history.

That doesn't absolve United, nor does the fine print in their contract saying they can remove you at will. They walked into a PR buzzsaw trying to defend that policy b/c the customers absolutely don't like it anyway, and knocking a guy cold to enforce it makes it one messed up situation.

As for tone-deaf, this may be one of the most ever for a company. They've gone 100% the other way now of course, after losing a billion dollars in stock value and getting brutalized over it.

[CitizenBBN]

My employer is in the same jurisdiction. Liberal jury pool is putting it mildly. United will settle this out before it goes to trial, no matter how "right" the may be according to the terms of the ticket sold to Dr Dao.

Big settlement. Heard a guy on the radio estimate $5 million, I'm betting that's low.

[KentuckyWildcat]

My issue is making a horrific scene that terrified women and children. Right or wrong, had my daughter witnessed that, I'd made the scene worse and been in jail myself.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

[Catonahottinroof]

Going to court may see it be 10X that. That why I think United will settle.

Big settlement. Heard a guy on the radio estimate $5 million, I'm betting that's low.

[KSRBEvans]

United made several mistakes, the biggest of which IMHO was letting passengers board before resolving the issue. Airlines bump people before boarding starts all the time. But when they let passengers board and then start trying to pull off passengers who have not done anything wrong, you're creating the conditions for something like this to happen. And yes, they deserve all the negative PR they get.

http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/1b20244c4df7dac334b81a9c4f4da60b

[MickintheHam]

The term "re-accomodate" is what blew it for me it showed how little United thinks of their customers. I want to be respected as a customer. The guy should be removed as CEO, not because it was botched. Rather it showed the world and his BOD how little he thinks of customers.

[KentuckyWildcat]

The term "re-accomodate" is what blew it for me it showed how little United thinks of their customers. I want to be respected as a customer. The guy should be removed as CEO, not because it was botched. Rather it showed the world and his BOD how little he thinks of customers.

Yep

[PedroDaGr8]

The term "re-accomodate" is what blew it for me it showed how little United thinks of their customers. I want to be respected as a customer. The guy should be removed as CEO, not because it was botched. Rather it showed the world and his BOD how little he thinks of customers.

Yep, his one comment spent SO MUCH corporate goodwill and for absolutely no betterment of the company. It became very clear that their CEO and PR cannot be trusted in a crisis and as such their stock took a hit.

[suncat05]

I think this was one of those "perfect storm" scenarios.
United misplayed this from beginning to wherever it is now.
The police being involved should have been the very last resort. There was really no need for them to have been involved until somebody did something to present a clear and present danger to the plane, any other passengers, or airline staff members. From what I have gleaned from various accounts, Dr. Dao presented no such threat until the police showed up and incited the situation.
That said, there are also some questions about Dr.Dao himself.
And as always, we have to consider the truthfulness of the actual reporting of the news itself. What really did happen? I tend to think we may never know the complete, true facts of the story.

[Darrell KSR]

I think this was one of those "perfect storm" scenarios.
United misplayed this from beginning to wherever it is now.
The police being involved should have been the very last resort. There was really no need for them to have been involved until somebody did something to present a clear and present danger to the plane, any other passengers, or airline staff members. From what I have gleaned from various accounts, Dr. Dao presented no such threat until the police showed up and incited the situation.
That said, there are also some questions about Dr.Dao himself.
And as always, we have to consider the truthfulness of the actual reporting of the news itself. What really did happen? I tend to think we may never know the complete, true facts of the story.
Well said, Suncat.

[blueboss]

The Dr said that this experience was more terrifying than when he was fleeing Vietnam during the fall of Saigon. Or I should say that's what his attorney expressed for him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Catonahottinroof]

If United needed seats, they should have arranged that prior to accepting boarding passes. I can't ever, ever recall a flight I've taken where that has not been the case.

[CitizenBBN]

Love the insights here.

I think BEvans and hottin are dead on: United started down this road in a big way when they decided to yank people OFF a plane rather than get it settled at the gate and never let 4 people on. As I understand it they tried to get volunteers at the gate prior to boarding, didn't get any, then boarded and decided to boot 4 people involuntarily. What genius came up with that as SOP for them to use? That's a ticking PR time bomb.

The Dr. definitely has his own questions, and United has to be as unlucky as can be for the computer to come up with his name, BUT if this has been SOP it's possible they've booted thousands or tens of thousands of people sitting in their seats over the years, so maybe they were lucky before and finally got their statistical due with a guy who simply had the guts to say "no".

It's hard to be too understanding when airlines boot paying customers with valid tickets b/c they overbook and in this case b/c they need to move their own employees around.

But I agree the real blow up for me was the "re-accomodate" statement. It went from looking bad to revealing that no, the airlines think doing that sort of thing is perfectly acceptable and that the problem was the guy just not going along with it. "Re-accomodate" a person into screwing up their legitimately made plans, and in this case beating him up in the process? Wow.

[UKFlounder]

If they had "booted" him off the plane by demanding he leave, that is bad enough, but they PHYSICALLY DRAGGED HIM DOWN THE AISLE (insert bride/groom joke here?). They grabbed him and pulled him along the floor like a hunter might drag his freshly-killed deer. Maybe that's technically security's fault, but it was on a United flight, at United orders. They physically assaulted a paying customer who had apparently done no wrong.

The "re-accommodated" line was just stupid, of course, but they d aged that man like he was some inamonate object. They did not just "boot" him off the plane, they beat him off it. Ignore their tone-deafness and it was still inexcusable

[ribbonfish]

http://mashable.com/2017/04/12/united-airlines-new-video/?utm_cid=mash-com-fb-main-link#A9kxbeizkPqs
there doesn't seem anything quite wrong about Dr. Dao.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[blueboss]

Delta is now offering close to 10k for bumped seats in hopes of quelling regulations by the Feds.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kingcat]

There is no excuse or way to spin the story that absolves the inhumane treatment by United Airlines towards a paying customer. it was in fact, criminal.

I don't care if it was once a convicted murderer who had paid his debt to society. It was fitting for North Korea or the like, but not this country. I hope they go bankrupt.

Heres hoping he gets a half billion from the jerks.

[dan_bgblue]

If I understand correctly the ticket you by does not guarantee that you will be able to fly on that flight if it is overbooked or if the plane has mechanical issues or if they can not put a full crew on the plane for that scheduled flight and I am sure for various other things.

Was United's policy for handling the uncooperative passengers wrong? I think it was. Was the behavior of the person that purchased the ticket wrong? In my opinion it was.

[Darrell KSR]

I have refrained from commenting because I think there are parts to the story that I don't know and perhaps nobody knows that could change my opinion and sway it from one side to the other. The only thing that I know for sure is that the United CEOs comment immediately afterward was so tone-deaf as to make me wonder how he rose to his position.

[CitizenBBN]

Where the Dr. is in the wrong:

Per his contract, the airline can bump him even if he has a ticket and is sitting quietly in his seat. He is for sure the one who breached the contract, and at the point at which United told him to leave and he didn't he was committing trespass.

If I tell someone to leave my business and they refuse and I have cause, the are now trespassing, I call the cops and they come and ask that person to leave. If they don't the police in that case will do the same thing, and eventually try to physically remove that person. If they struggle I imagine they'll end up on the ground and a little worse for wear for resisting.

That's what he did, refusing to abide by the contract, and he was removed for trespass.

As for the injuries, the video does show him struggling once the officers tried to move him. You struggle with the cops and you will get roughed up for it, and the law does not allow anyone to resist arrest even if the arrest is wrongful. You comply, then you have options later for legal action.


Where United is wrong:

First, that contract is crappy. The whole process of overbooking and bumping, esp. for their own employees, is offensive to passengers. It's also in the fine print, I imagine most don't even know it. It's just a bad start.

Second, United didn't even go to the cap amount they can offer to buy someone's cooperation before they just selected people to bump involuntarily.

Third, they didn't handle it at the gate, adding insult to injury telling people on a plane to get off the plane.

Fourth, while they had the technical right to remove him even by force, it's a horrible PR decision in this case.

Fifth, their response to the incident was arguably one of the worst in corporate history.



There's some wrong to go around on this, but it's obvious what the result of such an action was going to be and United was foolish to do it.

To extend the analogy, if I call the cops to remove someone, there had better be a dang good reason I want them removed and I'd better not be defending some absurd policy that everyone in the country basically hates and resents (like overbooking). It had better be b/c they're drunk or stealing or something where if it goes public I'll get the sympathy. If it's for something people think I shouldn't enforce in the first place I'll be the one getting the beating.

This is one of those things where being technically right and within the rules/law doesn't make it right nor is it the right move.

[CitizenBBN]

I have refrained from commenting because I think there are parts to the story that I don't know and perhaps nobody knows that could change my opinion and sway it from one side to the other. The only thing that I know for sure is that the United CEOs comment immediately afterward was so tone-deaf as to make me wonder how he rose to his position.

My bet is that it will turn out that United was almost completely technically correct in what they did at each step, but that those steps were so tone-deaf with regards to customer service and public perception that it won't matter.

[KSRBEvans]

A couple kicked off a different United flight.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-fiancee-kicked-united-flight-en-route-wedding-article-1.3062286

This one has less egregious, disputed facts. Couple claims they tried to go back to their assigned seating and were told to get off, United claims they were kicked off because they repeatedly tried to access higher-cost seats. I'm more inclined to believe United on this one.

[KentuckyWildcat]

To me, it is still about the scene that was created over a seat. I don't care who was right or who was wrong. It was United's job to minimize the distraction. They failed greatly at that. I'm sure the fault is not 100% UA and 0% Dr. Dao, but it should have never came to that.

[CitizenBBN]

A couple kicked off a different United flight.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-fiancee-kicked-united-flight-en-route-wedding-article-1.3062286

This one has less egregious, disputed facts. Couple claims they tried to go back to their assigned seating and were told to get off, United claims they were kicked off because they repeatedly tried to access higher-cost seats. I'm more inclined to believe United on this one.

i'm iffy on it, but what I don't get is if the flight is half empty why not let people sit wherever? I've been on lots of flights where someone (sometimes me, sometimes not) is smart enough to ask if they can move to an exit row or something if it's empty and they let you.

Could also be someone fishing for a quick settlement check, so hard to say on this one for me.

[CitizenBBN]

To me, it is still about the scene that was created over a seat. I don't care who was right or who was wrong. It was United's job to minimize the distraction. They failed greatly at that. I'm sure the fault is not 100% UA and 0% Dr. Dao, but it should have never came to that.

It needed to be handled at the gate, as BEvans and others said at the time. The optics of making someone get off a plane so you can move your people around is just awful.

[KSRBEvans]

i'm iffy on it, but what I don't get is if the flight is half empty why not let people sit wherever? I've been on lots of flights where someone (sometimes me, sometimes not) is smart enough to ask if they can move to an exit row or something if it's empty and they let you.

Could also be someone fishing for a quick settlement check, so hard to say on this one for me.

Many airlines now sell seats in different sections--even economy--at higher prices. You want an exit row seat, you pony up $X more, for example. My guess is to enforce that (IMHO false) economy, they weren't letting people move around to empty seats.

Typical airline suckitude, but IMHO not the same as what happened in the previous incident. If you're told on multiple occasions to return to your seat and you refuse to do so, that's different than sitting in your assigned seat and being told you have to get off.

[PedroDaGr8]

Many airlines now sell seats in different sections--even economy--at higher prices. You want an exit row seat, you pony up $X more. My guess is to enforce that (IMHO false) economy, they weren't letting people move around to empty seats.

Typical airline suckitude, but IMHO not the same as what happened in the previous incident. If you're told on multiple occasions to return to your seat and you refuse to do so, that's different than sitting in your assigned seat and being told you have to get off.

Bingo, this is why many airlines would rather leave first/business class seats empty than bump paying customers from economy up to those.

[KSRBEvans]

^Yep, which just shows how backwards their customer service practices can be.

Mrs. BEvans and I went on our 1st cruise in 08 and got the cheapest available room: an inside stateroom with no porthole. On our 2nd cruise we got upgraded to a balcony stateroom for free. Guess who's now spoiled on balcony staterooms and will never cruise again unless we have one?

By upgrading us and giving us a great experience they guaranteed return business for which we'll pay more than we would've paid otherwise. Now the Uniteds of the world want to do the opposite and not only refuse to allow you to get up and walk forward a couple of rows and grab an empty seat, but kick you off if you try it again.

[CitizenBBN]

Many airlines now sell seats in different sections--even economy--at higher prices. You want an exit row seat, you pony up $X more, for example. My guess is to enforce that (IMHO false) economy, they weren't letting people move around to empty seats.

Typical airline suckitude, but IMHO not the same as what happened in the previous incident. If you're told on multiple occasions to return to your seat and you refuse to do so, that's different than sitting in your assigned seat and being told you have to get off.

Agreed. It's a lousy policy b/c once you're on the plane and those seats arent' sold you aren't going to get a penny for them, so make your customer happy. As they say, "don't cost nuthin'".

But for sure if they say you have to go to your assigned seat, that's what you do, then you just don't book another flight with them if you can help it.

[kingcat]

Bloody up a customer in a place of business and in front of children and then see what it gets you.
United will, pay dearly for this and should. And the official who inflicted wounds should be tarred and feathered and subject to public humiliation imo.

That's the common sense solution and would prevent such a thing from happening to one of us in the future.

The doctor has them by the gonads and should squeeze them until they scream.