grbauc wrote:

B752OS wrote:

This was not a gaffe - this was a major f*&$ up by United and they're being dragged through the mud for this.

The CEO releases a completely tone deaf response which only makes things worse.

United should have simply continued to increase the amount offered to passengers until 4 people volunteered. This would have avoided this whole mess.

Not nearly has much has one would think. Majority of people don't spend there time looking on forums so they can't get there inner OFFENDED generation outrage off.

I disagree. That photo of this poor old man standing in the aisle profusely bleeding from his mouth with blood streaking down his neck, while mumbling that he was going to get killed has circled the globe and is now accessible to the entire planet on every social media platform - Snapchat, Facebook, YouTube, A.net, and all the rest. The memes are already piling up.

Hell, I ,made a meme about buying my mother in law a flight to Chicago on United for Easter ... .

This image will become an iconic photo that represents United and the state of the airline industry for generations to come.

FlyHossD wrote:

transswede wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

I guess the question is what should the airline do with customer that refuses to vacate the aircraft??
Obviously, law enforcement will be contacted, and so we end up potentially with an escalated or nasty outcome.

This one is easy. Obviously increase the offer up to the maximum allowed. In cash. This is where they failed. Calling security should be the last option.

Just for the sake of the argument, let's say the maximum was offered and there still weren't enough volunteers - then what should have been done in your opinion? Please understand that I'm not critiquing your stance, I just want to know what should happen next.

Then security would have to be called. And hopefully the security crew would be better trained. Another option would be to deboard the entire plane, and only board the ones you want back on. (easier to handle in the gate area, where this *should* have been settled) Neither are great options, but you should do everything you can to avoid getting to that point.

Scanorama wrote:

But this passenger isn't rowdy or drunk, he wasn't causing any type of altercation with anyone onboard. If the airline or any private business refuses service and ask paying customers to leave, they need to compensate accordingly, unless the said customer is a safety threat to the patrons or staff (which this man wasn't). You cannot compare this man to some drunks.

UA in this case should have increased their offer, in cash, until this man, or another passenger put their hand up and deboard voluntarily.

For starters no one knows the condition of the customer at the time.. He could be on drugs, have mental issues etc.

Ultimately if a person refuses to deplane when asked multiple times, then next step clearly to contact law enforcement. Once in their hands, obviously outcomes can be tricky or nasty for those involved.

As far as volunteers, no need for endless solicitations. As mentioned prior, the airline can IDB person of their choice and be done with it. They pay the statutory compensation.

77H wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

77H wrote:

I'm a little confused at how you feel United is at fault here? We'll walk through this together so you can understand.

1) United had a fully booked flight.
2) Crew members for (Republic) a United Express contract carrier reported for the flight as a "Must Ride" due to operational needs of the company. They needed to be in SDF to operate an outbound flight the following day.
3) At that point, UA personnel solicited 4 passengers to volunteer to be re-booked with compensation and hotel accommodations.
4) No passengers volunteered after multiple attempts, each time at increasing amounts of compensation.
5) United was then forced to implement IDB. 3 of 4 passengers left the airplane without incident. 1 passenger, the passenger in question made a fuss.
6) After multiple attempts to de-board the passenger in a civil way, the customer got increasingly combative and belligerent.
7) At that point United called in Chicago Department of Aviation Law Enforcement to assist in the removal of the passenger.
8) Passenger was combative with Law Enforcement and was forcibly removed.

Is this the first time you have seen police be handsy with civilians? If so, I encourage you to turn on the news. Police assaulting civilians in the US is a daily issue. Is it because he is supposedly a doctor that people are up in arms? To me, a doctor should conduct themselves in a far better manner than this guy.

Second, if everyone else on board was so outraged by what was happening why did no one offer at that time to give up their seats? What enrages me is a punch of people sitting behind their camera phones and computers spouting off their misinformed opinions yet doing nothing to solve the situation. That day, every person on that plane thought only of themselves and thought they were the most important person on the plane. Which is unfortunately the norm these days. Self-entitlement.

You be sure to let me know if you need any other clarification on the flow through of events.
77H

You are right actually it is pretty simple, you see if UNITED would have boarded the crew first none of this would have happened, why would they have boarded those 4 passengers before the crew, if the crew was considered to be "MUST RIDE," its not like they didn't know the plane was full. Why board them if they would have to get off anyway. Not saying I agree with this by the way, but if they wanted to they could have boarded the crew first and then told the passengers there was no room on the plane before boarding. It would have killed two birds with one stone, the passenger would not have been assaulted and they could have handled the situation in the terminal (much easier and plane get depart on time). United is completely to blame with how they handled the situation, and of course this would have never happened if they wouldn't have placed crew members on a full flight.

If you read the order of events in my post you should have hopefully understood that the 4 crew members came to the gate AFTER, I repeat, AFTER boarding had concluded.

Consider this, the crew originally planned to operate the SDF outbound the next day timed out due to MTX, WX, etc (thats one scenario). Crew scheduling calls on its reserve crew roster to fill in. In most instances crew on reserve have a certain time to get the the airport ready for duty. The new crew arrives at the gate in question and advise the CSA they are a must ride due to their need to position to SDF to operate another flight. The CSA has already boarded all passengers and their are no remaining seats, including jump seats. CSA's must now solicit volunteers to de-board. No one volunteers, so they increase compensation. Again, no customers volunteer. The only thing the gate agent knows is that these crew members must be on board. At that point they have not choice but to involuntarily hold customers back. Again, 3/4 customers involuntarily denied boarding left the aircraft with no incident.

One customer, who valued himself over everyone else decided he wasn't getting up. UA tried multiple times to remove him in a civil way. When they had exhausted that option they called law enforcement. UA has no control over how Law Enforcement chooses to interact with their customer. Once law enforcement is called, how they handle it is up to the LEO's and the person in question.

77H

Your explanation underscores everything that is wrong in this situation and with United. Everything that you mention, ALL OF IT, is United's problem to figure out. United is responsible for scheduling and getting their workers to the right place in order to serve United's customers. United must find a way to do that without inconvenience the very customers that keep it in business. In no other industry would this happen. Can you imagine being dragged out of a hotel room in the middle of the night because the hotel decided that an employee should get the room you paid for? Can you imagine being dragged out of a restaurant in the middle of your meal because the kitchen staff needed to go on break and wanted to sit at your table? Of course you can't because it would be absolutely unacceptable just as this situation should be.

United's employees have a twisted sense of who the customer is and how they should be treated.

United's employees have an extremely over-entitled mindset centered around them vs. the customer.

Those defending United have lost sight of one of life's lessons: it doesn't matter what's done to you it only matters how you react to the situation. United acted in an extremely disgusting manner in this situation.

Oscar Munoz's response, as the senior most officer in the company, was so guided by legal advisors that it fell flat and caused more anger and disaffection among the people he depends on most to be successful -- HIS CUSTOMERS.

United is far from turning around anytime soon.

GoSteelers wrote:

So the guy repeating, "just kill me... just kill me..." seems normal? I think, as most times in these situations, there is more to the story.

Maybe you go a little nuts after you hit your head and go through a traumatic experience.

https://mobile.twitter.com/MerriamWebster/status/851602942037819392

And the dictionary is getting in a jab
How far gone is a story when the DICTIONARY is ragging on you

"Volunteer' means “someone who does something without being forced to do it.”

JFK31R wrote:

exunited wrote:

The flight was by Republic Airlines, not United mainline but then nobody would take the click bait if the headlines said Republic now would they?

That's an important point that it actually wasn't United, but with a video showing that, I'm pretty sure it would've gone viral regardless of the carrier.

But it IS United. That's what the airlines want us to believe.

They paint their planes in United colors. They sell the flight as a United flight with a United flight number. The inflight magazine in each seatback pocket is United's.

I've complained about this in the past: I think it is truly deceptive the way the big 3 market these flights operated by regionals as THEIR flights.

They are not.

Stop the deception. Go back to the way it was in the 60s and 70s when regionals like Allegheny, Ozark, PSA, Mohawk etc were the regionals, the planes were painted in the operating airline's colors and marketed as such.

blrsea wrote:

77H wrote:

Consider this, the crew originally planned to operate the SDF outbound the next day timed out due to MTX, WX, etc (thats one scenario). Crew scheduling calls on its reserve crew roster to fill in. In most instances crew on reserve have a certain time to get the the airport ready for duty. The new crew arrives at the gate in question and advise the CSA they are a must ride due to their need to position to SDF to operate another flight. The CSA has already boarded all passengers and their are no remaining seats, including jump seats. CSA's must now solicit volunteers to de-board. No one volunteers, so they increase compensation. Again, no customers volunteer. The only thing the gate agent knows is that these crew members must be on board. At that point they have not choice but to involuntarily hold customers back. Again, 3/4 customers involuntarily denied boarding left the aircraft with no incident.

One customer, who valued himself over everyone else decided he wasn't getting up. UA tried multiple times to remove him in a civil way. When they had exhausted that option they called law enforcement. UA has no control over how Law Enforcement chooses to interact with their customer. Once law enforcement is called, how they handle it is up to the LEO's and the person in question.

77H

It was United which needed those seats and it was Unite which had done the overbooking. They had a choice of increasing compensation to entice customers. But they decided to be cheap and preferred kicking off people by calling in LE instead of trying to deal properly with a mistake United had made. United did overbooking expecting some people to not show up, but all showed up. So they have to buy those seats back. Can't say we will overbook and deny you boarding by giving you money we think is worth your time!

Its like fuel hedging. You hedge assuming prices will move in a way advantageous to you. If they don't, you lose money. CX lost a bunch that way, they didn't call for LE help. Situation with overbooking is very similar to hedging. The airlines got the politicians in their pocket, so they can get away with it.

Do you agree that in life sometimes unforeseen things happen? When they sold the flight to capacity, which is the goal of every airline in the world they could have predicted that a crew of 4 were going to need to deadhead to SDF that day? I would wager that if those 4 crew members wouldn't have needed to be in SDF the following day the flight would have went out 100% full with no issues.

However, unforeseen things do happen, this crew was called in relatively last minute to crew a flight departing the next day. Should the airline have outright canceled the next days flight due to no-crew, potentially inconveniencing 70 passengers or should they inconvenience 4 passengers? Sounds like a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Or perhaps the airlines should all block out a certain number of seats in advance for deadheading crew? Of course the airlines will have to make up that loss in revenue by raising the prices of their seats further. Which of course you and everyone else will complain about.

At the end of the day, most seem to forget that 3 out of 4 passengers denied boarding left the airline without issue. One customer, decided he was all important and wasn't going to move. Lets not forget that fact.

77H.

LAXintl wrote:

Scanorama wrote:

As far as volunteers, no need for endless solicitations. As mentioned prior, the airline can IDB person of their choice and be done with it. They pay the statutory compensation.

Of course they can. But it is a terrible idea for a customer service organization. There's no reason why asking for volunteers should take a long time. No bidders at $800? Just go higher immediately and offer cash. There is no reason to treat it as a prolonged negotiation. They could have just started off with this: "We need four seats and are offering $1600 in cash", and then just pick the first four responders.

It's absolutely shocking how poorly UA is handling this PR nightmare. Companies have gone out of business for missteps like this. It's not like they broke someone's guitar.

Midwestindy wrote:

why is it involuntary denied boarding, if he was initially was allowed to board the plane

It happens every day.

Here at LAX last week an aircraft has maintenance issue at the gate and resultant weight limitations. Over 10 pax had to be IDBs at the last minute after already boarded as otherwise flight would never be able to depart.

Just because you are seated does not mean airline cant ask you to deplane...

An overbooking situation is one of the few times the customer has an upper hand in the "free market". Seats become a commodity, but sadly the airline, playing the same game, thinks they don't have to settle this turn.

FlyHossD wrote:

transswede wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

I guess the question is what should the airline do with customer that refuses to vacate the aircraft??
Obviously, law enforcement will be contacted, and so we end up potentially with an escalated or nasty outcome.

This one is easy. Obviously increase the offer up to the maximum allowed. In cash. This is where they failed. Calling security should be the last option.

Just for the sake of the argument, let's say the maximum was offered and there still weren't enough volunteers - then what should have been done in your opinion? Please understand that I'm not critiquing your stance, I just want to know what should happen next.

I don't see why that crew needed to be on that exact flight, it seems like that flight crew might have used their perks as flight crew to create a situation that wouldn't have happened otherwise. I understand they needed to be in louisville in the morning, but clearly so did every other passenger that bought a ticket on that flight. If no one offered to volunteer, why couldn't they find another plane to louisville later that night that had empty seats, or even a get a flight out of Chicago early the next morning, and if no other options are available they should rent a car to drive to louisville/jump-seat on a ups flight/charter a flight/private jet/bus/train. To make matters worse they "allegedly" arrived at the gate after everyone was already boarded, if you ask me it seems a bit selfish of them to kick paying customers off of a flight, because what they needed to do was "more important." Airlines should be focussed on serving their customers first not their employees first, considering it is the customers who were the ones who actually paid for their seat and it is the customers who are spending the money for those employees paychecks.

LAXintl wrote:

Scanorama wrote:

But this passenger isn't rowdy or drunk, he wasn't causing any type of altercation with anyone onboard. If the airline or any private business refuses service and ask paying customers to leave, they need to compensate accordingly, unless the said customer is a safety threat to the patrons or staff (which this man wasn't). You cannot compare this man to some drunks.

UA in this case should have increased their offer, in cash, until this man, or another passenger put their hand up and deboard voluntarily.

For starters no one knows the condition of the customer at the time.. He could be on drugs, have mental issues etc.

Ultimately if a person refuses to deplane when asked multiple times, then next step clearly to contact law enforcement. Once in their hands, obviously outcomes can be tricky or nasty for those involved.

As far as volunteers, no need for endless solicitations. As mentioned prior, the airline can IDB person of their choice and be done with it. They pay the statutory compensation.

And nor do you know the condition of the customer at the time. But, in the next breath, you mention drugs, mental issues - which is something of dog whistle wording.

The photo of the bloodied head of this Doctor will haunt United for a long time. It's a PR disaster. And because it has gone so widely, so quickly, there is no way to get rid of that image either. What does UA do when someone searches Google for United Airlines and in the images, they see the face of this Doctor? That's the first thing I saw when I did a Google search. 3 images of it, right at the top of the page. That's a massive disaster. A lot of people will just say, well I can take my money elsewhere and fly with someone else.

And it should always be noted that although media organisations can spin stories, corporate PR departments are equally notorious for spinning things in the manner that suits them most.

questions wrote:

77H wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

You are right actually it is pretty simple, you see if UNITED would have boarded the crew first none of this would have happened, why would they have boarded those 4 passengers before the crew, if the crew was considered to be "MUST RIDE," its not like they didn't know the plane was full. Why board them if they would have to get off anyway. Not saying I agree with this by the way, but if they wanted to they could have boarded the crew first and then told the passengers there was no room on the plane before boarding. It would have killed two birds with one stone, the passenger would not have been assaulted and they could have handled the situation in the terminal (much easier and plane get depart on time). United is completely to blame with how they handled the situation, and of course this would have never happened if they wouldn't have placed crew members on a full flight.

If you read the order of events in my post you should have hopefully understood that the 4 crew members came to the gate AFTER, I repeat, AFTER boarding had concluded.

Consider this, the crew originally planned to operate the SDF outbound the next day timed out due to MTX, WX, etc (thats one scenario). Crew scheduling calls on its reserve crew roster to fill in. In most instances crew on reserve have a certain time to get the the airport ready for duty. The new crew arrives at the gate in question and advise the CSA they are a must ride due to their need to position to SDF to operate another flight. The CSA has already boarded all passengers and their are no remaining seats, including jump seats. CSA's must now solicit volunteers to de-board. No one volunteers, so they increase compensation. Again, no customers volunteer. The only thing the gate agent knows is that these crew members must be on board. At that point they have not choice but to involuntarily hold customers back. Again, 3/4 customers involuntarily denied boarding left the aircraft with no incident.

One customer, who valued himself over everyone else decided he wasn't getting up. UA tried multiple times to remove him in a civil way. When they had exhausted that option they called law enforcement. UA has no control over how Law Enforcement chooses to interact with their customer. Once law enforcement is called, how they handle it is up to the LEO's and the person in question.

77H

Your explanation underscores everything that is wrong in this situation and with United. Everything that you mention, ALL OF IT, is United's problem to figure out. United is responsible for scheduling and getting their workers to the right place in order to serve United's customers. United must find a way to do that without inconvenience the very customers that keep it in business. In no other industry would this happen. Can you imagine being dragged out of a hotel room in the middle of the night because the hotel decided that an employee should get the room you paid for? Can you imagine being dragged out of a restaurant in the middle of your meal because the kitchen staff needed to go on break and wanted to sit at your table? Of course you can't because it would be absolutely unacceptable just as this situation should be.

United's employees have a twisted sense of who the customer is and how they should be treated.

United's employees have an extremely over-entitled mindset centered around them vs. the customer.

Those defending United have lost sight of one of life's lessons: it doesn't matter what's done to you it only matters how you react to the situation. United acted in an extremely disgusting manner in this situation.

Oscar Munoz's response, as the senior most officer in the company, was so guided by legal advisors that it fell flat and caused more anger and disaffection among the people he depends on most to be successful -- HIS CUSTOMERS.

United is far from turning around anytime soon.

I have been denied a room at a hotel before because they overbooked. The hotel overbooked and they gave the room to the first person that showed up. I was completely on my own to find accommodation in the late evening at my own expense. What I will tell you is that I didn't throw a temper tantrum or have to be escorted out by police. Why you might ask? Because I am an adult and I try my very hardest to act like it.

If this guy was a doctor, he should have conducted himself like a professional. While he has a lot of sympathizers he also has a bunch of clients who will likely not want him to practice medicine on them. I know I wouldn't want to be "under the knife" of a guy who throws a fit when life throws him a curve ball. What, if the nurse hands him the wrong gauge scalpel is he just going to cross his arms in disgust while I lay split open? No thank you.

77H

One last joke for fans of the movie "Airplane"

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=633961390135171&id=438987046299274

One of my favorite scenes

77H wrote:

Do you agree that in life sometimes unforeseen things happen? When they sold the flight to capacity, which is the goal of every airline in the world they could have predicted that a crew of 4 were going to need to deadhead to SDF that day? I would wager that if those 4 crew members wouldn't have needed to be in SDF the following day the flight would have went out 100% full with no issues.

However, unforeseen things do happen, this crew was called in relatively last minute to crew a flight departing the next day. Should the airline have outright canceled the next days flight due to no-crew, potentially inconveniencing 70 passengers or should they inconvenience 4 passengers? Sounds like a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Or perhaps the airlines should all block out a certain number of seats in advance for deadheading crew? Of course the airlines will have to make up that loss in revenue by raising the prices of their seats further. Which of course you and everyone else will complain about.

At the end of the day, most seem to forget that 3 out of 4 passengers denied boarding left the airline without issue. One customer, decided he was all important and wasn't going to move. Lets not forget that fact.

77H.

No, UA could have increased compensation. Could have offered $2000 to see if anyone accepts it. And as mentioned in the article, the destination was 5 hours by road. They could have ordered a cab/bus for the crew to go to that destination. They have to cater to the deadheadng crew, its part of doing business. Raise the ticket prices if you want to and let the market play it out. Since when did US airlines start caring for customers? They are charging for everything from checked in baggage to seat selection, and making billions in profits, and they try to be cheapskates and try to save few thousands for their business needs? They are not trying to do a favour for the ejected passengers. Shit happens, pay for it. Would you accept it if you were allotted a hotel room and just when you were trying to go to bed, the hotel tried to kick you out because they need it for their chef who needs to cook breakfast the next morning?

Its cost of doing business and UA should increase compensation. For a company like UA, its peanuts to offer $3000-4000 for something which offers once in a while. For the passengers who fly once or twice a year and want to get to their destination for whatever reason, its a big deal.

If its your mistake and unforseen circumstance, pay for it. Don't try to cheat customers or make them pay for your incompetance.

Oscar's response was awful.

Hey, Oscar, man up and be a leader!

How about...
"What I saw today was disgusting and deeply saddened me. No human being should be treated like that, anywhere, by anyone. We are working very hard to understand what led to this horrific situation and ensure what happened is corrected in a way that this never happens again at a United facility or on a United aircraft."

Flighty wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

If it is so unimportant to get a customer on the right time on the right day to his destination, scoffing at the need of a medical practitioner getting to his destination on time to be there for his patients the next day, why than is it so important to get some deadheading employees on the right day and right time to there destination, after the airline clearly had forgotten their own need for seats.
If the physician should have flown a day early to make sure to be on time, why not the deadheading employees?

It is the airline's sole discretion. The airline did not barge into the doctor's office and try to contradict him with regard to a procedure he was performing in his office, without even having a medical license.
Yet, he proposed that he should be able to make aviation decisions on their airliner, contradicting flight crew orders, which carry the force of law.
In the end, he was mistaken and he was removed without permanent injury. I think that's a job well done. He created a violent situation. He is an idiot. He paid the price.
What United and the police did appears to have been by the book.

If that is "by the book", what book are they reading? "Mein Kampf"?

FlyHossD wrote:

Just for the sake of the argument, let's say the maximum was offered and there still weren't enough volunteers - then what should have been done in your opinion? Please understand that I'm not critiquing your stance, I just want to know what should happen next.

I am pretty sure there is no maximum they can go to for compensation if they want too. The $1350 is the maximum that they have to pay for IDB but they can go above that if they choose.

LAXintl wrote:

Scanorama wrote:

As far as volunteers, no need for endless solicitations. As mentioned prior, the airline can IDB person of their choice and be done with it. They pay the statutory compensation.

So, basically, United's customer service philosophy can be summed up as "take it or leave it."
Sure, overbooking is a necessary evil (debatable, actually), but if the airline puts a customer in such a position, they better bend over backwards to get that customer out of that position, and not just the bare minimum like UA did. If UA assumed that a $1,000 voucher was good enough, and the customer rejected it, how presumptuous is that?

77H wrote:

At the end of the day, most seem to forget that 3 out of 4 passengers denied boarding left the airline without issue. One customer, decided he was all important and wasn't going to move. Lets not forget that fact.

77H.

He has every right to. Why do people keep thinking it is right for United, for the sake of marginal profit, deny this guy the seat he was already given(!!!) simply, because?!

goCOgo wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Unless UA violated the contract of carriage -which does not appear to be the case based on the limited information available - this is no gaffe..

It's called Involuntary DENIED BOARDING. He was not denied boarding. He was allowed to board, by all accounts. No one has claimed he rushed the gate agent. When your butt is in a seat, it's yours. With him is his seat, we have left Rule 25 of the CoC and are now in Rule 21: Refusal of Transport. That is the only clause that covers removing a passenger from the aircraft. And not a single enumerated reason in Rule 21 applies to this customer.

$400 was a pitiful offer for this situation. The compensation by law for a delay of this length is 400% of the fare up to $1,350 IN CASH. They could have offered way more. And that's what they should have done when they screwed up and let the bumped passengers board.

You airline employees defend even the most egregious actions, and it is frankly ludicrous. Call a spade a spade. They screwed up. Stop trying to blame the CoC, or pass the buck to the regional carrier or airport security. United is the one that chose to outsource. This passenger booked with United, not on rjet.com. And United's screw up is the one that put them in the situation. Security has their own blame, but that does not alleviate United of responsibility.

This is a mistake that will lead to a 6, or even 7 or 8 figure settlement, plus a ton of bad press. Offering $2,000 in vouchers (or even cash) times 4 passengers probably would have saved them all this trouble.

100% agree !!!!

will never fly United again !!! this is unacceptable way to treat customers !!!

United will feel the pain when a lot of casual and business travellers chose any other choice but United as punishment for this !!!!

77H wrote:

If this guy was a doctor, he should have conducted himself like a professional. While he has a lot of sympathizers he also has a bunch of clients who will likely not want him to practice medicine on them. I know I wouldn't want to be "under the knife" of a guy who throws a fit when life throws him a curve ball. What, if the nurse hands him the wrong gauge scalpel is he just going to cross his arms in disgust while I lay split open? No thank you.

77H

1) He didn't "throw a fit" - did you even watch the video?
2) He refused to deplane because he had patients that he needed to tend to the next morning.

Sounds like a good doctor to me; your attempts to slander the victim here are absurd. You even go on to make up a fake scenario. Are you sure you are an adult?

gatibosgru wrote:

77H wrote:

At the end of the day, most seem to forget that 3 out of 4 passengers denied boarding left the airline without issue. One customer, decided he was all important and wasn't going to move. Lets not forget that fact.

77H.

He has every right to. Why do people keep thinking it is right for United, for the sake of marginal profit, deny this guy the seat he was already given(!!!) simply, because?!

I don't really understand this argument. Let's take the suddenly deteriorating weather example again. Is in unacceptable to IDB passengers if weather imposes an unexpected W&B problem after boarding? What is the alternative? Cancel the flight?

jumbojet wrote:

tp1040 wrote:

Mr. Munoz will not be the first person to fall on his sword screaming, "But I am RIGHT. "

Give it up Oscar, you are beat on this. You are incompetent and unfit to lead. Today's CEOs need to know how to prevent and put out fires. .

yup. Nothing has changed much in Chicago.

OM is not that good a CEO. His main, and only focus, is trying to be liked by everyone and trying to get everyone to like one another. He needs to start acting like an airline CEO and not the kid that wants to be liked by everyone. I just saw on NBC that when the United employees came on board after the man was dragged out, a very large contingent of the planes passengers loudly booed those employees. so you tell me United Fanboys, while United might be right by the book, at the end of the day, they are very wrong in the eyes of millions of people throughout the world. Again, much like the leggings fiasco United handled this WRONG.

I agree that his tone has been one of conciliation to the employees as much as the public. It smacks a bit of not wanting to piss ANYONE off, and in the process he is pissing EVERYONE off. I don't think that makes him a bad CEO out of hand, and I don't think what happened on that plane means that Oscar needs to go. It does show a continued desire on the part of UA to look like absolute fools with their PR machine.

devyanks90 wrote:

Why is it not the responsibility of the crew members to be where they are scheduled when required?

Couldn't they have left earlier on a confirmed flight? Which would have avoided all of this.

Republic flies for DL as well. Maybe they were commuting in from ATL?

- On Chinese social media it is suspected that the picking ofthe Asian doctor is not random but is a decision based on racial stereotype that Asian seems to be easier to be handled
- And as the passenger is silence and not moving when he was dragged off from the plane combined with bloods on his face from the video, it is believed that they have stunned the passenger

77H wrote:

I have been denied a room at a hotel before because they overbooked. The hotel overbooked and they gave the room to the first person that showed up. I was completely on my own to find accommodation in the late evening at my own expense. What I will tell you is that I didn't throw a temper tantrum or have to be escorted out by police. Why you might ask? Because I am an adult and I try my very hardest to act like it.

If this guy was a doctor, he should have conducted himself like a professional. While he has a lot of sympathizers he also has a bunch of clients who will likely not want him to practice medicine on them. I know I wouldn't want to be "under the knife" of a guy who throws a fit when life throws him a curve ball. What, if the nurse hands him the wrong gauge scalpel is he just going to cross his arms in disgust while I lay split open? No thank you.

77H

Were you denied a room after you checked in or when you tried to check in? There in lies the difference. The UA deadheading crew arrived late. There were other options for taking the crew to their destination. They could have offered higher compensation none of which they did. They took the cheapest meanest option they could.

I find it troubling that people justify UA's failure to offer more compensation, not using the alternate options that they had and the enormous resources they have as a company. A little empathy with paying customers would have avoided the situation, instead of going on a power trip.

Cubsrule wrote:

gatibosgru wrote:

77H wrote:

I don't really understand this argument. Let's take the suddenly deteriorating weather example again. Is in unacceptable to IDB passengers if weather imposes an unexpected W&B problem after boarding? What is the alternative? Cancel the flight?

In that example case, the weather put those customers in that position.

In this particular case, the airline, and only the airline itself, put these customers in this position. They just presumptuously assumed that people would be cool with a $1,000 voucher as compensation, but when they didn't get their way, they took (what they thought) would be the path of least resistance for the sake of expediency, and they're surprised at the amount of backlash?

What else could have the airline done? How about everything else?

I don't understand using these vouchers as a compensation. Many leisure flyers would fly once or twice a year at most. Whats the use of these vouchers, especially if they have an expiration date. its worthless. Better to offer cash as compensation

LAXintl wrote:

Just because you are seated does not mean airline cant ask you to deplane...

Right, they can ask. Ask. What they can't do is drag you forcibly and smash your head on the armrest of your seat. That's called "assault".

I know, "United didn't do that, the security guys did", blah blah blah. United put everyone in that situation. UA screwed up here, plain and simple. They overbooked the flight, as is industry practice (one that needs to be seriously re-examined, btw), then they allowed those overbooked passengers to board. At that point, they're still within their rights to *ask* someone to leave. But if someone says no, common sense would suggest moving on to someone else and/or upping the incentive until somebody accepts. I've personally gone through this before, I have left a plane voluntarily when the flight attendants got to me and offered me what I considered a pretty insane amount of money to leave the plane. (I can't remember the exact amount - this was about 20 years ago - but I want to say it was something like $2,000.) Somebody on that plane would have left if the incentive was right - as they say, everybody has their price. But if somebody says they absolutely need to get home that day, hey, maybe they have a reason and there's a more likely candidate to entice off the plane for a smaller amount of cash.

The problem here is that UA screwed up and nobody at that gate wanted to take *real* responsibility for it. Call someone above you, say you screwed up, you need permission to up the limit on the incentive and/or give it in cash, or whatever. Either that, or those employees needed to be booked on a different flight, or hey, freakin' man up and charter them on a private jet to wherever they need to go. Because however expensive that would be, guess what? This is going to cost UA a lot more.

There are just so many ways UA was wrong here, it's hard to even count. Scheduling, booking procedures, boarding procedures, common sense, common decency, public relations, *probably* even the outright legality of everything they did. There are federal laws regarding how airlines handle overbookings and that's being looked into right now regarding this incident.

UA needs some serious changes, and after seeing Munoz' horrific non-apology apology today, not to mention Hobart's even worse statement, I don't see how that change is going to come without starting at the top.

Cubsrule wrote:

gatibosgru wrote:

77H wrote:

At the end of the day, most seem to forget that 3 out of 4 passengers denied boarding left the airline without issue. One customer, decided he was all important and wasn't going to move. Lets not forget that fact.

77H.

He has every right to. Why do people keep thinking it is right for United, for the sake of marginal profit, deny this guy the seat he was already given(!!!) simply, because?!

I don't really understand this argument. Let's take the suddenly deteriorating weather example again. Is in unacceptable to IDB passengers if weather imposes an unexpected W&B problem after boarding? What is the alternative? Cancel the flight?

I was just pondering the Delta debacle in ATL. Reasoning aside, UA IDB'd four people on this plane. DL IDB'd tens of thousands of people through their five day ordeal. Again, reasoning aside, what if people decided not to get off a plane in ATL on Saturday due to being exhausted/frustrated/etc?

c933103 wrote:

- On Chinese social media it is suspected that the picking ofthe Asian doctor is not random but is a decision based on racial stereotype that Asian seems to be easier to be handled
- And as the passenger is silence and not moving when he was dragged off from the plane combined with bloods on his face from the video, it is believed that they have stunned the passenger

Next time, hopefully, they just pick out the white people and be done with it.


From a witness on TV tonight:

http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2017/04/1 ... plane.html

Bridges said the unidentified passenger was told he had to leave, but the man refused to do so.

"He said he was a doctor, he had patients he had to see in the morning, he wasn’t going to get off the plane," Bridges recounted, "and the gate agent was like, ‘You have to get off the plane. If you don’t get off, we’ll call in security.’ And he was like, ‘Fine, call security, I’m not getting off the plane.’"

Bridges said the man wasn't being violent with security and police officers who responded, but did say he was "kind of [flailing] his arms and trying to keep them away from him and ultimately they had to use the force, as you can see in the video."

NameOmitted wrote:

This incident is going to frame public debate over a new "passenger bill of rights."

You say that like it's a bad thing.

klkla wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

Am I the only one who sees the woman in near-hysterics, screaming, "OH MY GOD!! OH MY GOD!!" and wondering, "Well, why didn't you volunteer to give up YOUR seat, then?"

So you're trying to put this on her? Like she is responsible? Sick.

Not at all, just addressing the hysterics of the one woman. Calm the heck down.

Cubsrule wrote:

gatibosgru wrote:

77H wrote:

At the end of the day, most seem to forget that 3 out of 4 passengers denied boarding left the airline without issue. One customer, decided he was all important and wasn't going to move. Lets not forget that fact.

77H.

He has every right to. Why do people keep thinking it is right for United, for the sake of marginal profit, deny this guy the seat he was already given(!!!) simply, because?!

I don't really understand this argument. Let's take the suddenly deteriorating weather example again. Is in unacceptable to IDB passengers if weather imposes an unexpected W&B problem after boarding? What is the alternative? Cancel the flight?

Completely different from moving 4 crew. There are alternatives for crew movement. Not so much in Wx.

blrsea wrote:

I don't understand using these vouchers as a compensation. Many leisure flyers would fly once or twice a year at most. Whats the use of these vouchers, especially if they have an expiration date. its worthless. Better to offer cash as compensation

To me, vouchers are basically a company's way of saving money and securing a sale in the future - they do little for most passengers. In and IDB situation (versus VDB), it really should be cash - period.

77H wrote:

[

I have been denied a room at a hotel before because they overbooked. The hotel overbooked and they gave the room to the first person that showed up. I was completely on my own to find accommodation in the late evening at my own expense. What I will tell you is that I didn't throw a temper tantrum or have to be escorted out by police. Why you might ask? Because I am an adult and I try my very hardest to act like it.

If this guy was a doctor, he should have conducted himself like a professional. While he has a lot of sympathizers he also has a bunch of clients who will likely not want him to practice medicine on them. I know I wouldn't want to be "under the knife" of a guy who throws a fit when life throws him a curve ball. What, if the nurse hands him the wrong gauge scalpel is he just going to cross his arms in disgust while I lay split open? No thank you.

77H

But you weren't in your room, already unpacked, lying in the bed when the staff came in and asked you to vacate the room because they overbooked? And if you refuse to leave with your belongings, security would come in and drag you out of your room. UA should have never allowed boarding until they worked out who would deboard to make room for their crew.

EA CO AS wrote:

klkla wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

Am I the only one who sees the woman in near-hysterics, screaming, "OH MY GOD!! OH MY GOD!!" and wondering, "Well, why didn't you volunteer to give up YOUR seat, then?"

So you're trying to put this on her? Like she is responsible? Sick.

Not at all, just addressing the hysterics of the one woman. Calm the heck down.

Of course she shouldn't feel required to give up her seat to keep someone from getting a beating. What I pictured, though, after watching it for the 3rd or 10th time was her screaming "Stop it! This is wrong!" as she tightened her seat belt, grabbed her cellphone, and stowed her carry-on.

Just how my mind works - probably too much SNL. BTW, be looking for this on Saturday night. lol

LAXintl wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

why is it involuntary denied boarding, if he was initially was allowed to board the plane

It happens every day.

Here at LAX last week an aircraft has maintenance issue at the gate and resultant weight limitations. Over 10 pax had to be IDBs at the last minute after already boarded as otherwise flight would never be able to depart.

Just because you are seated does not mean airline cant ask you to deplane...

That is a such a non sequitur, I was talking about the use of the phrase idb not whether it happened all the time. Anyway, I don't believe Idb is the correct phrase for this incident, because he was not denied boarding, he was allowed to board. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Scanorama wrote:

77H wrote:

[

I have been denied a room at a hotel before because they overbooked. The hotel overbooked and they gave the room to the first person that showed up. I was completely on my own to find accommodation in the late evening at my own expense. What I will tell you is that I didn't throw a temper tantrum or have to be escorted out by police. Why you might ask? Because I am an adult and I try my very hardest to act like it.

If this guy was a doctor, he should have conducted himself like a professional. While he has a lot of sympathizers he also has a bunch of clients who will likely not want him to practice medicine on them. I know I wouldn't want to be "under the knife" of a guy who throws a fit when life throws him a curve ball. What, if the nurse hands him the wrong gauge scalpel is he just going to cross his arms in disgust while I lay split open? No thank you.

77H

But you weren't in your room, already unpacked, lying in the bed when the staff came in and asked you to vacate the room because they overbooked? And if you refuse to leave with your belongings, security would come in and drag you out of your room. UA should have never allowed boarding until they worked out who would deboard to make room for their crew.

Wouldn't matter - he's an adult and that would have been perfectly fine with him. After all, the corporation is always right!

blrsea wrote:

If one looks at the leaked UA CEO's mail posted in the LA article United finds a new way to make itself look awful, and then its CEO shows how to make things worse, it was a total UA fuckup and instead of offering upto $1350 they were supposed to, they decided to use strong arm tatics to save a piddly $350-500 per passenger ? Wow, how cheap can a company be? And the CEO asserting they did right? Shame on UA!

But Munoz, whose version of the episode appears to come from the playbook of how to make a PR disaster even worse, also undermined the argument that the flight was overbooked. He related that “after the flight was fully boarded,” gate agents “were approached by crewmembers that were told they needed to board the flight.” The implication is that the crewmembers heading to Louisville were late in arriving, that every passenger held a paid ticket and had been properly boarded, and only that only belatedly did United decide to pull passengers off the plane to make room.

It wasn't UAL who started the altercation with the customer, it was the customer who started a contest of physical strength with the airport police, and ultimately the entire US government. That is delusional behavior. As somebody who knows senior citizens including a number of retired medical doctors, this mentality is not surprising to me. This is somebody who should not be traveling without supervision any longer - he may be a wonderful man, but he is no longer capable of the mental agility required to stay out of police custody. It does happen and I have seen it.

spacecadet wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Just because you are seated does not mean airline cant ask you to deplane...

Right, they can ask. Ask. What they can't do is drag you forcibly and smash your head on the armrest of your seat.

And why not? He challenged them to enforce the order with force, and they did. Happens all the time in bars, stores across the country. The only difference is, in aviation it is far more serious.

spacecadet wrote:

That's called "assault".

Absolutely not. He was responsible for the violence -- which was an outrage. It was abnormal and illegal behavior.

blrsea wrote:

77H wrote:

Do you agree that in life sometimes unforeseen things happen? When they sold the flight to capacity, which is the goal of every airline in the world they could have predicted that a crew of 4 were going to need to deadhead to SDF that day? I would wager that if those 4 crew members wouldn't have needed to be in SDF the following day the flight would have went out 100% full with no issues.

However, unforeseen things do happen, this crew was called in relatively last minute to crew a flight departing the next day. Should the airline have outright canceled the next days flight due to no-crew, potentially inconveniencing 70 passengers or should they inconvenience 4 passengers? Sounds like a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Or perhaps the airlines should all block out a certain number of seats in advance for deadheading crew? Of course the airlines will have to make up that loss in revenue by raising the prices of their seats further. Which of course you and everyone else will complain about.

At the end of the day, most seem to forget that 3 out of 4 passengers denied boarding left the airline without issue. One customer, decided he was all important and wasn't going to move. Lets not forget that fact.

77H.

No, UA could have increased compensation. Could have offered $2000 to see if anyone accepts it. And as mentioned in the article, the destination was 5 hours by road. They could have ordered a cab/bus for the crew to go to that destination. They have to cater to the deadheadng crew, its part of doing business. Raise the ticket prices if you want to and let the market play it out. Since when did US airlines start caring for customers? They are charging for everything from checked in baggage to seat selection, and making billions in profits, and they try to be cheapskates and try to save few thousands for their business needs? They are not trying to do a favour for the ejected passengers. Shit happens, pay for it. Would you accept it if you were allotted a hotel room and just when you were trying to go to bed, the hotel tried to kick you out because they need it for their chef who needs to cook breakfast the next morning?

Its cost of doing business and UA should increase compensation. For a company like UA, its peanuts to offer $3000-4000 for something which offers once in a while. For the passengers who fly once or twice a year and want to get to their destination for whatever reason, its a big deal.

If its your mistake and unforseen circumstance, pay for it. Don't try to cheat customers or make them pay for your incompetance.

Do you understand that the government has mandated rest requirements for crew (flight and cabin?). UA3411 is scheduled for 5:40PM. Putting the crew on a bus for 5 hours gets them in around 11PM if all goes to plan. Depending on what flight they were tasked to crew in the morning they could have been illegal due to rest requirements. Flight and cabin crew are also often union. Their contract may not allow for ground transport over a certain number of hours. That said, I don't see how booking a flight full, then having a emergency crew re-position makes an airline incompetent? I asked earlier if UA should have just canceled the next days flight, possibly inconveniencing 70 passengers (all of whom have their reasons to travel) so that they didn't have to remove 4? What if you were on the SDF outbound that next morning? How would you have felt if you missed an important meeting, a funeral, a birthday/anniversary and you found out the reason was that a customer the previous day thought his need to be on the plane was greater than yours?

77H

PlanesNTrains wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

klkla wrote:

So you're trying to put this on her? Like she is responsible? Sick.

Not at all, just addressing the hysterics of the one woman. Calm the heck down.

Of course she shouldn't feel required to give up her seat to keep someone from getting a beating. What I pictured, though, after watching it for the 3rd or 10th time was her screaming "Stop it! This is wrong!" as she tightened her seat belt, grabbed her cellphone, and stowed her carry-on.

Just how my mind works - probably too much SNL. BTW, be looking for this on Saturday night. lol

If there's anything to take away from this, other than more common sense and a nice discussion, will be the skit

DoctorVenkman wrote:

77H wrote:

If this guy was a doctor, he should have conducted himself like a professional. While he has a lot of sympathizers he also has a bunch of clients who will likely not want him to practice medicine on them. I know I wouldn't want to be "under the knife" of a guy who throws a fit when life throws him a curve ball. What, if the nurse hands him the wrong gauge scalpel is he just going to cross his arms in disgust while I lay split open? No thank you.

77H

1) He didn't "throw a fit" - did you even watch the video?
2) He refused to deplane because he had patients that he needed to tend to the next morning.

Sounds like a good doctor to me; your attempts to slander the victim here are absurd. You even go on to make up a fake scenario. Are you sure you are an adult?

I did watch the video. I also understand that there is more to the story that isn't captured on video. What adult is taken off a plane and runs back on repeating I must go home? Sounds like a fit to me.

LAXintl wrote:

There is zero need or requirement for continued or drawn out solicitation looking for VDBs. Ultimately just IDB and move on.

There was zero reason to go from VDB to IDB. Just increase the offer and be done with it.

United was wrong. They created the situation and caused the escalation and there was no need to do so. The safety of the flight and passengers was never an issue until they took the wrong action.

Let me repeat: United caused this situation.

77H wrote:

I have been denied a room at a hotel before because they overbooked. The hotel overbooked and they gave the room to the first person that showed up. I was completely on my own to find accommodation in the late evening at my own expense. What I will tell you is that I didn't throw a temper tantrum or have to be escorted out by police. Why you might ask? Because I am an adult and I try my very hardest to act like it.

OK, I'll bite. You don't actually say what is important: What did the hotel offer, what did you insist that they provide to you? That they obviously did provide because they behaved like the adult you were being as well? I ask this because I know what it is to have this happen and the hotel made it right. They booked me in their next closest hotel, at no cost, with a free meal (and breakfast) with a free weekend credit anywhere for a future stay. They also offered to call around to the next door hotels and get me a room and to reimburse me (with credits to any future stays) if the room cost more than the one I booked.

That is what an "adult" organization does. It's not that hard.

United was wrong to use IDB to force this person off. Just increase the offer and be done with it. Problem solved at low cost, with people who "volunteered" and are relatively happy.

Oh and just to be clear to some who may not understand, the $1350 in cash max being quoted by some here is what the required maximum is, it is not any limitation to what an airline can actually offer.

Tugg

Flighty wrote:

blrsea wrote:

If one looks at the leaked UA CEO's mail posted in the LA article United finds a new way to make itself look awful, and then its CEO shows how to make things worse, it was a total UA fuckup and instead of offering upto $1350 they were supposed to, they decided to use strong arm tatics to save a piddly $350-500 per passenger ? Wow, how cheap can a company be? And the CEO asserting they did right? Shame on UA!

But Munoz, whose version of the episode appears to come from the playbook of how to make a PR disaster even worse, also undermined the argument that the flight was overbooked. He related that “after the flight was fully boarded,” gate agents “were approached by crewmembers that were told they needed to board the flight.” The implication is that the crewmembers heading to Louisville were late in arriving, that every passenger held a paid ticket and had been properly boarded, and only that only belatedly did United decide to pull passengers off the plane to make room.

It wasn't UAL who started the altercation with the customer, it was the customer who started a contest of physical strength with the airport police, and ultimately the entire US government. That is delusional behavior. As somebody who knows senior citizens including a number of retired medical doctors, this mentality is not surprising to me. This is somebody who should not be traveling without supervision any longer - he may be a wonderful man, but he is no longer capable of the mental agility required to stay out of police custody. It does happen and I have seen it.

Your denial is amusing. No point in arguing with someone not looking for an open minded discussion. We'll agree to disagree.

77H wrote:

Do you understand that the government has mandated rest requirements for crew (flight and cabin?). UA3411 is scheduled for 5:40PM. Putting the crew on a bus for 5 hours gets them in around 11PM if all goes to plan. Depending on what flight they were tasked to crew in the morning they could have been illegal due to rest requirements. Flight and cabin crew are also often union. Their contract may not allow for ground transport over a certain number of hours. That said, I don't see how booking a flight full, then having a emergency crew re-position makes an airline incompetent? I asked earlier if UA should have just canceled the next days flight, possibly inconveniencing 70 passengers (all of whom have their reasons to travel) so that they didn't have to remove 4? What if you were on the SDF outbound that next morning? How would you have felt if you missed an important meeting, a funeral, a birthday/anniversary and you found out the reason was that a customer the previous day thought his need to be on the plane was greater than yours?

77H

As per the article on LA times, even the road trip wouldn't have violated the rest requirements. Simple, pay more, pay $5000 per passenger if required because its your problem, not the passengers who have paid, arrived on time and boarded the aircraft. If I have to book a last minute trip, airlines makes me pay more, regardless of my reason. If its my problem, I have to pay for it. Same for UA, if its their problem, they should pay. Offer $2000 cash and see how many accept. That is what makes UA incompetent, they didn't look for options beyond making the customer pay for their own mistakes and needs. Why should customers worry about crew unions and their rules, its upto UA to deal with it and make proper arrangements.

If you need something badly, pay for it, simple. Don't make paying customers who have already boarded pay for your business requirements. I am pretty sure UA can claim that amount as a loss under some heading!

77H wrote:

blrsea wrote:

77H wrote:

Do you agree that in life sometimes unforeseen things happen? When they sold the flight to capacity, which is the goal of every airline in the world they could have predicted that a crew of 4 were going to need to deadhead to SDF that day? I would wager that if those 4 crew members wouldn't have needed to be in SDF the following day the flight would have went out 100% full with no issues.

However, unforeseen things do happen, this crew was called in relatively last minute to crew a flight departing the next day. Should the airline have outright canceled the next days flight due to no-crew, potentially inconveniencing 70 passengers or should they inconvenience 4 passengers? Sounds like a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Or perhaps the airlines should all block out a certain number of seats in advance for deadheading crew? Of course the airlines will have to make up that loss in revenue by raising the prices of their seats further. Which of course you and everyone else will complain about.

At the end of the day, most seem to forget that 3 out of 4 passengers denied boarding left the airline without issue. One customer, decided he was all important and wasn't going to move. Lets not forget that fact.

77H.

No, UA could have increased compensation. Could have offered $2000 to see if anyone accepts it. And as mentioned in the article, the destination was 5 hours by road. They could have ordered a cab/bus for the crew to go to that destination. They have to cater to the deadheadng crew, its part of doing business. Raise the ticket prices if you want to and let the market play it out. Since when did US airlines start caring for customers? They are charging for everything from checked in baggage to seat selection, and making billions in profits, and they try to be cheapskates and try to save few thousands for their business needs? They are not trying to do a favour for the ejected passengers. Shit happens, pay for it. Would you accept it if you were allotted a hotel room and just when you were trying to go to bed, the hotel tried to kick you out because they need it for their chef who needs to cook breakfast the next morning?

Its cost of doing business and UA should increase compensation. For a company like UA, its peanuts to offer $3000-4000 for something which offers once in a while. For the passengers who fly once or twice a year and want to get to their destination for whatever reason, its a big deal.

If its your mistake and unforseen circumstance, pay for it. Don't try to cheat customers or make them pay for your incompetance.

Do you understand that the government has mandated rest requirements for crew (flight and cabin?). UA3411 is scheduled for 5:40PM. Putting the crew on a bus for 5 hours gets them in around 11PM if all goes to plan. Depending on what flight they were tasked to crew in the morning they could have been illegal due to rest requirements. Flight and cabin crew are also often union. Their contract may not allow for ground transport over a certain number of hours. That said, I don't see how booking a flight full, then having a emergency crew re-position makes an airline incompetent? I asked earlier if UA should have just canceled the next days flight, possibly inconveniencing 70 passengers (all of whom have their reasons to travel) so that they didn't have to remove 4? What if you were on the SDF outbound that next morning? How would you have felt if you missed an important meeting, a funeral, a birthday/anniversary and you found out the reason was that a customer the previous day thought his need to be on the plane was greater than yours?

77H

Simple, drive the crew/charter flight/ go to next closest city/ etc/etc

1. What would have Jeff Smisek have done if he was still the CEO?

Here's my observation:

I have been holding an elite frequent flier status with United over the past few years. Flying all over the world and across America, I have noticed that certain airports have poor customer service for United Airlines. The airports that I have received amazing customer service from United Airlines were, Boston, Houston, Washington Dulles and San Francisco. Chicago and Atlanta were dead last for United Airlines. I would say Boston is where a customer would receive the best customer service when flying UA. On the other hand, the premier service agent at Atlanta is absolutely horrible and I hope nobody has to check-in to their flights with her. I would rate Denver, LAX, and Newark just a little higher than Chicago and Atlanta.

I am not surprised that this happened in Chicago. Chicago is home to some of the worst ground staff out there. They are extremely rude in Chicago even to their frequent fliers, at least from my numerous experiences. Also, the general police in Chicago are not up to high standards as compared to other cities in America. I would have been extremely surprised if this happened in San Francisco, or even Houston.

Having flown in F and J class numerous times as well over the past few months where there is a bit more interaction between the passengers and cabin crew, I have also noticed a difference in service between crews from different bases and also ethnicities, but that's another story for another day.

77H wrote:

DoctorVenkman wrote:

77H wrote:

If this guy was a doctor, he should have conducted himself like a professional. While he has a lot of sympathizers he also has a bunch of clients who will likely not want him to practice medicine on them. I know I wouldn't want to be "under the knife" of a guy who throws a fit when life throws him a curve ball. What, if the nurse hands him the wrong gauge scalpel is he just going to cross his arms in disgust while I lay split open? No thank you.

77H

1) He didn't "throw a fit" - did you even watch the video?
2) He refused to deplane because he had patients that he needed to tend to the next morning.

Sounds like a good doctor to me; your attempts to slander the victim here are absurd. You even go on to make up a fake scenario. Are you sure you are an adult?

I did watch the video. I also understand that there is more to the story that isn't captured on video. What adult is taken off a plane and runs back on repeating I must go home? Sounds like a fit to me.

What is wrong with him repeating to go home??? He may have an urgent situation necessitating him to go back home. You don't know that do you? But as we all know, if indeed true, he is a doctor and needs to see patients the next day. That is very admirable of him to do so.