ozark1 wrote:

2) This was Republic Airlines.

Was it Republic Airlines booking and crew scheduling system that caused this mess? No. United Airlines.
Was it Republic Airlines gate staff that decided to end the volunteer phase at much less than allowed/legal limit? No. United Airlines.

Oscar keeps opening his mouth and his foot goes deeper and deeper into it.

Regardless of whether UA is right/wrong, this is a PR disaster for them and they are handling it pretty poorly. Dare I say Jeff would've handled this better than Oscar has.

jumbojet wrote:

Just about every news outlet and the flying public are calling UA a disgrace, save for a few United fanboys.

Here is one clip just posted by CNN, very respected news outlet. Oscar Muniz must go
.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/11/news/un ... index.html

United Airlines shows how to make a PR crisis a total disaster.

Last month, United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz was named U.S. Communicator of the Year by the magazine PRWeek.
Now he's being raked over the coals for his response to a violent passenger incident on a United Airlines flight.

No one is surprised that CNN, Delta's hometown Internationalista propagator of "news", would add fuel to the fire. It's all of a piece, what you get is what they want you to see.

N212R wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

Just about every news outlet and the flying public are calling UA a disgrace, save for a few United fanboys.

Here is one clip just posted by CNN, very respected news outlet. Oscar Muniz must go
.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/11/news/un ... index.html

United Airlines shows how to make a PR crisis a total disaster.

Last month, United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz was named U.S. Communicator of the Year by the magazine PRWeek.
Now he's being raked over the coals for his response to a violent passenger incident on a United Airlines flight.

No one is surprised that CNN, Delta's hometown Internationalista propagator of "news", would add fuel to the fire. It's all of a piece, what you get is what they want you to see.

Its not just CNN. If you want I will post all the links to all the many different news outlets that are still running with this story.

What is Oscar's most recent statement? All I have seen is the same one that is on their website.

Has he been interviewed yet on TV? Has he posted a video?

Clearly a PR catastrophe of epic proportions.The department head and his immediate team should be replaced. Hire someone with proven competence to repair the damage. This guy Rick Clements had impressed with his handling of the Mi186 and SQ006 disasters. He left SIA in 2009 after 24 years of service to set up his own consultancy. No, I have never met him but saw his post-crashes handling of journalists and grieving relatives at the press conferences on TV. Real masterclases in dealing with the public and saying the right things with immaculate timing when faced with hostile questionings.

http://www.travelweekly-asia.com/Travel ... 2147457176

jumbojet wrote:

Oscar keeps opening his mouth and his foot goes deeper and deeper into it.

Yup, it seems his mouth has more personal space than the new Polaris business class seat...

I think the other thing that really gives this thing legs is that people can see themselves in this situation. It can happen to anyone and does many times daily.... well only to those that aren't rich and don't fly enough to have high status and bought low cost tickets for a trip they need to go on in the future... and that is a very large percentage of the flying public.

And people don't like the idea that they could be forced to miss something important to them when they actually did every thing right. That a corporation would willfully mistreat or abuse them without fair recompense.

People are saying that is wrong. And what United did was wrong.

Tugg

ozark1 wrote:

My blood pressure can't handle reading all 19 pages of this thread, so if these comments have been stated already, i apologize.
1) Were the UA employees who were boarded a flight crew that needed to get to SDF to cover a flight? I can only imagine that this was the case and I feel very bad for them. What other reason would there be? They had to have been must-riders in order to keep a flight in SDF from being cancelled.
2) This was Republic Airlines.
3) Bethune made a ludicrous comment under the circumstances.
4) "I will never fly United again". Yeah right. It's all about the fare and the frequent flier miles. In a month this will be forgotten when people are booking flights
5) I feel really bad for all the great airline employees who will be mistreated because of this.

Well a lot of the World's news networks are reporting it as how not to deal with an already bad PR situation. UA's CEO has made matters worse by his response. It was United and whether or not people understand that is not really an issue because its United's logo all over the worlds media. Hopefully they will be really smart and admit they were wrong and offer a massive payout . If not then they deserve to be getting all the bad PR and shares falling , loss of bookings. Talk about throwing petrol on a fire.

The only point I will agree with is the employees many of whom are equally as disgusted at their employers actions.

Mr. Munoz should go back to running trains where the railcars can't complain.

transswede wrote:

N212R wrote:

bob75013 wrote:

Passengers are taken off of gated planes on a very regular basis. The circumstances vary but it is only BIG news to those with a United axe to grind, ambulance chasers or readers of National Enquirer.

The UA defenders are out in force, I see. Did you forget to cast doubt on the Drs past history? (missed a talking point?)

I wonder who released his name to the press and perhaps helped dig up dirt on him? Who would have the list of passenger names on the plane to release that? Any idea who?

jumbojet wrote:

N212R wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

Just about every news outlet and the flying public are calling UA a disgrace, save for a few United fanboys.

Here is one clip just posted by CNN, very respected news outlet. Oscar Muniz must go
.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/11/news/un ... index.html

United Airlines shows how to make a PR crisis a total disaster.

Last month, United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz was named U.S. Communicator of the Year by the magazine PRWeek.
Now he's being raked over the coals for his response to a violent passenger incident on a United Airlines flight.

No one is surprised that CNN, Delta's hometown Internationalista propagator of "news", would add fuel to the fire. It's all of a piece, what you get is what they want you to see.

Its not just CNN. If you want I will post all the links to all the many different news outlets that are still running with this story.

I don't think he's going to like it if it's not breitbart, infowars or some rando in YouTube screaming at the screen about chemtrails.

Well this event is sure giving fodder to those that don't like UAL for some reason? It will blow over in a short time and the poor Dr. will get his pound of $$flesh. Nothing more to see so please keep the line moving as there are more important things happening in the news today.

mantistobogn wrote:

Seems as though United has now resorted to smearing passengers in order to discredit them.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/11/david-dao-doctor-dragged-off-united-flight-was-con/

Disgusting! Completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. How embarrassing.

EA CO AS wrote:

BostonGuy wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

You're allowing your emotions to cloud your judgment. Once UA asked him to leave the aircraft, refusal makes him a trespasser.

That's not true. The passengers and Munoz both have stated the passenger was "asked to volunteer" to be bumped and receive compensation.

You're wrong.

He was asked to volunteer. And when he didn't, he was volunTOLD.

At that point, he was being asked to leave the aircraft. His refusal to do so escalated things to the point where LEOs had to be called to remove him.

Yes, UA shouldn't have let this get anywhere near this far, and while there's a lot of grey here, you also have to look at (and cannot deny) the black-and-white where he was, in fact, trespassing once UA asked him to leave and he refused.

You do not evict a paying customer in that manner for no reason more so to accomodate you own staff, so fuck voluntold in this case.

I read this in one of the news stories: "Passengers have the right to insist on a check in lieu of a free flight or a voucher when they're kicked off a flight involuntary, according to the DOT."
Does that mean they may offer the voucher but if you don't accept that and are forced off the flight you can insist on and will be given a check instead? Of course you first have to be the person IDB'd and not the VDB who accepted the voucher.

Tugg

BravoOne wrote:

Well this event is sure giving fodder to those that don't like UAL for some reason?

You really don't understand why people don't like UAL? When passengers are treated more like inconveniences rather than customers, this is the impression that continues to solidify. (And no, UAL is not the only airline guilty of this, but they sure do their best to stand out in a crowd)

Here are two co-passengers sharing their account on CNN.
http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/04/11 ... nt-sot.cnn

BravoOne wrote:

Well this event is sure giving fodder to those that don't like UAL for some reason? It will blow over in a short time and the poor Dr. will get his pound of $$flesh. Nothing more to see so please keep the line moving as there are more important things happening in the news today.

This is not just about United though. Yes United is getting killed in the press right now, but hundreds of people get IDB'd daily (according to the stats) and that is across all airlines. And people don't like that idea. I am curious to see how the industry reacts. Right now all the other airlines are keeping mum because they really don't want this to be a threat to their current ability to boot anyone and then declare them a non-compliant criminal if they complain or resist. That's a huge power for a company to have.

...Hmmm... I think the phrase: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" may be the issue here. Many of the defenders here are stating that the airline and crew has absolute power to declare anyone a threat if they don't do exactly what they are told.

Tugg.

https://hub.united.com/united-express-3 ... 68629.html

Where was this urgency from the beginning?

Dear Team,

The truly horrific event that occurred on this flight has elicited many responses from all of us: outrage, anger, disappointment. I share all of those sentiments, and one above all: my deepest apologies for what happened. Like you, I continue to be disturbed by what happened on this flight and I deeply apologize to the customer forcibly removed and to all the customers aboard. No one should ever be mistreated this way.

I want you to know that we take full responsibility and we will work to make it right.

It’s never too late to do the right thing. I have committed to our customers and our employees that we are going to fix what’s broken so this never happens again. This will include a thorough review of crew movement, our policies for incentivizing volunteers in these situations, how we handle oversold situations and an examination of how we partner with airport authorities and local law enforcement. We’ll communicate the results of our review by April 30th.

I promise you we will do better.

Sincerely,

Oscar

So it looks like it (Oscar apology and United response to fix the situation) will happen today and not tomorrow.

This is what should have been sent out YESTERDAY.

Tugg

N212R wrote:

bob75013 wrote:

The DL weather related meltdown did make the news, but it's not BIG news because weather related meltdowns happen dozens of times a year. I recall DL, AA UA and WN all having at least one in the last year.

When's the last time you saw an (innocent) passenger dragged off a plane parked at a gate? The answer to that question tells you why that is BIG news.

You appreciation of "scale" is sorely distorted. The Delta story was NOT one of a "dozen times a year" weather meltdown. It was much more substantial and indicative of a systemic problem.

Passengers are taken off of gated planes on a very regular basis. The circumstances vary but it is only BIG news to those with a United axe to grind, ambulance chasers or readers of National Enquirer.

Yes, passengers are taken off of gated planes on a very regular basis, but when was the last time you saw a passenger bloodied and knocked unconscious before being taken off a plane?

This has nothing about having a UA axe to grind. I'm a United 1k holder. I have AA axes to grind, but not any with United.

United screwed up big time, and then compounded the effect with an ongoing PR disaster caused by Oscar.

Well, the social media team behind Leahy is playing hardball. They should have taken those A350 on schedule

dtw2hyd wrote:

Here are two co-passengers sharing their account on CNN.
http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/04/11 ... nt-sot.cnn

They're clearly UA haters, just trying to start trouble.... /sarcasm.

mjoelnir wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

The part where the person has been asked to leave their property and he refuses? He has options besides defying the police. He can sue. He can go to the media. He can take his business elsewhere.

So it is good business practice to rent out your property to somebody and than you have him removed because he is trespassing? Because you want to break your contract with him and are to cheap to pay a serious compensation?

Huh. I don't remember saying that. I think this proves it's quite bad actually. Where I worked in a similar environment as this, we would never have done that. Period.

fortytwoeyes wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

I think it's been clarified that the employees showed up during/after boarding, not before. They weren't originally expected.

Has it? The report quoted here viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1360189&start=450#p19467489 says that they were already looking for volunteers before boarding started. That would suggest the gate agent already knew about the employees. And if that is true I would say there can be zero justification for boarding people and then pulling them off.

At this point I've heard/read so many variations (news stories, quotes, videos, etc) that I don't think it's completely clear. However, as it's evolved I'm thinking that the flight was indeed "overbooked" as the four deadheading flight crew were included in the total, thus they were looking for volunteers. When boarding time arrived and the four hadn't shown up, the gate agent apparently went ahead and boarded everyone. Then, when the four arrived they decided to remove four passengers that had already gotten on. Again, this has been a bit of a grey area but I think that's close to the accepted story right now.

seahawk wrote:

Although UA wants to make it look this way, it was no case over overbooking, as the plane had space for all paying passengers that showed up. It did not have space for 4 additional nonrev passengers that UA needed to be on the plane for operational reasons.

I can't remember but I was thinking someone referred to these as "positive space" vs "nonrev" because they were needed for work in SDF. I think the flight may have technically been overbooked.

bogota wrote:

Forgive my ignorance about how things work in the USA but from an outsider´s perspective, for a country that prides itself in people above their government, ammendments to their constitution and right to defend themselves, these kind of represive police type incidents when people do really nothing to stand up for the abused is baffling. It always seems to me that honest people in the USA are terrified of authorities, even if authorities abuse their power..

With over 300,000,000 people, I think you will find a wide array of viewpoints. This was 70 people on an aircraft in a situation that they didn't fully know the legalities of. It clearly was received by them as morally wrong, but they probably questioned whether it was legally wrong. However, this passenger has rights and if they were violated then he has recourse in the courts. I'm sure he'll be availing himself of that avenue very soon, as is his right.

DABYT wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

....
People aren't generally dragged off of planes here in an IDB scenario either - that's why this is such a big deal. I think the stars just aligned with all the right (wrong?) players at the wrong place at the wrong time. Bad training. Bad gate agent decision-making. Bad customer decision-making. Bad police training. Bad PR machine.

Ugly, to be sure.

I'm not sure if i understand you correctly but what worries me a bit is that you throw everything together as if it was all the same. What exactly do you call "Bad customer decision-making"? Paying for a ticket, sitting on a plane he was accepted to board and waiting for the airline to fulfill their part of the transportation contract? If so i really don't get your point.

In an earlier post you stated:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

....
4. NOBODY at UA wanted the guy to get a concussion. That was never the goal I'm sure. They just wanted someone with more authority to browbeat this guy off the plane. Unfortunately they just beat him.
....

Again, maybe i get you all wrong, but i'd like to see your face when someone tells you: "Oh, the stars just aligned and unfortunately you got beat up, sorry man!"

There were no stars aligning in this situation, the airline completely messed it up. As simple as that. No one else to blame.

When I say that the customer had "bad decision-making", I'm not saying he was wrong, but I'm saying that once he chose to defy the police instructions there wasn't going to be a good outcome. Of course it's not his fault that he was put in that situation. United caused this mess. It just never would have been a news story if he had gotten off the plane and raised Holy Hell with them there. I absolutely am not defending how United handled this from beginning to end.

I'm at a loss on where you get that I'm brushing off his injuries, but I'll just assume I was not making a clear point at 3am.

CanadaFair wrote:

His wife was travelling with him and was seated three seats behind him, strange why nor together.

It's only strange if you want it to be strange. As stated, he paid around the lowest of anyone on the plane for his ticket, and he quite likely booked close-in. As stated in another thread, when I booked a trip for my wife and I next week, I waited until last week to do so. For our return, nearly every airline's flights had only random middle seats left. I finally found a flight with two seats together, but many people just have to suck it up and realize that booking cheaply and/or last minute means you might not have the best choice of seats.

DABYT wrote:

I don't know UA's policies but when LH, for example, accepts you to board they can not simply force you off the plane again as long as you're not unruly, violent, a wanted terrorist etc.

I think there is a lot of confusion about legal rights, airline policies, etc. They are getting mixed in with purported facts as well as high emotions. That is making it hard to separate the wheat from the chaff in this story. Clearly United screwed up royally by boarding these people then forcing some to get off, but whether it's legal or against a policy is still somewhat muddy.

goCOgo wrote:

So I have not caught up on every post, but I have read Oscar's letter to employees. Are his statements not contradicted by statements from the passengers? The claim is the crew did not show up for seats until after boarding. But passengers indicate they sought volunteers BEFORE boarding. So that makes no sense.

Also, the claim is $1,000 was offered (no indication of cash or vouchers). The passengers have indicated that the top offer was $800.

My take is, the crew was likely late. They knew thew would be overbooked if the crew showed, so they sought volunteers and got no one. When boarding time came and no crew was there, they boarded everyone. Then, before the doors were closed, the missing crew turned up. Now they had to remove 4 passengers. A manager may have authorized an increase in compensation, but this message never made it to the passengers.

If that is the case, then there were clearly issues. They should have kept the IDB candidates off the plane until the last possible second if they were going to wait for the crew.

I think this all sounds plausible. I've been there, also. Passengers (non-airline) don't show up so you board last-minute "stand-by's", only to have the customer come running up. Now what? The stand-by's have been billed and are on board, but the people who had also paid for those seats are here now. U-G-L-Y. Of course, it was never a crew person/employee who was bumping a paying passenger, but still not good.

goCOgo wrote:

Oh, and "pay the man per IDB rules"? You mean the paltry 400% of the one way fare? Bet that ~$400 was worth nothing to him. Heck, I bet the fast talking agents would try to offer him vouchers first and claim he was a volunteer. IDB compensation rules need a major overhaul. It should not be $1,350 max. It should be $1,350 MINIMUM to start. Time to start realizing everyone's time is important, not just refundable fare passengers and those with status.

I think that there's a good case right now to lobby for changes to the IDB rules.

UAL777UK wrote:

VC10er wrote:

brand damage.

Good time to do that livery update?

If any man would know you would.

I bet they're glad they waited now.

Tugger wrote:

ikramerica wrote:

Someone suggested that the whole plane be deplaned and then all reboarded -4, which sounds good until you factor in that this might have timed out the crew and meant nobody goes.

However it was in fact deplaned and then all reboarded.

Tugg

Obviously. like everything else with this flight, that was never the plan. It was the poor guy's blood that caused the delay/deplaning.

Virtual737 wrote:

ikramerica wrote:

Again, the only reason this is national news is because of the criminal actions of the doctor leading to a conflict.

I would bet money that many hundreds of thousands of people disagree with you. The conflict existed well before any potential criminal action by the doctor, and it was not of his doing.

The point is that it only made [inter]national news because the doctor refused to deplane. And no, I'm not "blaming" him, I'm just making a statement of fact.

AerolineasAR343 wrote:

One thing I still don't get is this: Why did it had to be THAT seat? When it was obvious that the doctor wasn't having it, why didn't the agent try to find another passenger more willing (even though nobody took the offer to volunteer in the first place) and be done? The doctor said he had patients in the morning to care to, ok, we'll find another seat. Why was the agent so hell-bent on getting THAT seat that it was worth all this scandal? Such lack of judgement.

1. They had already looked for "volunteers" - no takers.
2. As stated several times in this thread, they have a system in place that automatically selects those needing to be deboarded.
3. I would imagine there were other people on that Sunday evening flight who had work the next morning - why is him being a doctor an automatic pass?
4. If you were a passenger, and you heard them tell him to get off, and he said "Oh, I'm a doctor", so they came to you and said "Get off", and you said "But I'm a retail manager" and they said "Who give's a crap - get off" - you'd probably see it a bit differently in the moment.

shintaenam wrote:

I never understand why would United selling tickets to minorities and colored people if they think themselves a Caucasian airlines? All 4 passengers selected are Chinese citizens! What an coincident! On flights to Asia, Asian passengers are collectively assigned seats in the middle and at the very back of the aircraft regardless how early you check-in. This incidents clearing showing Americans are completely hypocrite with no respect of basic human rights. No foreigners, regardless of your skin color, receives differential treatment on all Chinese carrier or in the country - that is the country which should be the global model when it comes to respect in human rights.

OMG.....

Forgive me if this was already mentioned, but according to this article from AP. The crew members approached the gate staff after the boarding was complete. If this is true, then attempting to get customers to let go of their seats before boarding is out of question.

https://www.apnews.com/ae81a66dbc124acbad52e3cf8de9617d

In just over 24 hours, this has become one heck of a PR nightmare for UA. It could have been avoided, but as the saying goes, hindsight is always 20/20.

AerolineasAR343 wrote:

kavok wrote:

Flighty wrote:

UGH I am trying to stay away but I can't. The volunteer phase had passed. This passenger was deboarded according to a pre-agreed prioritization. This was a mandatory process, not a negotiation. That is the central, key understanding here.

The passenger had trouble getting out because of his behavioral problem, which was unacceptable, and should ban him from air travel in the future. He committed a number of crimes here, disorderly conduct, trespassing, trespassing again. That's a salient fact here, he is a criminal with a substantial criminal record. By letting him off the hook because of his high class status, United made a critical error. Now he is seen as an innocent doctor beaten by United. This is a sociopathic technique used by him.

I think United has lost this fight. What can we learn here is that policy depends on perception and status. Tweet gangs and woke bros now constantly agitate to take over political and business structures. Privileged people are now able to create new facts by posing as victims. Previously banned behavior is a norm now, perhaps even a sign of status. Especially if a member of the intelligentsia shouts other people down, such as experts. In this way, vaccination probably causes autism. And so on. That's the world United needs to learn how to deal with.

Rosa Parks also peacefully refused to give up her seat when she legally had to. It bet you think it is wrong all those civil rights activists rallied around her when she was breaking the law too.

Of course he thinks it was wrong. The blacks got all uppity thanks to those activists, and we can't have that! (sarcasm, in case anyone is thick enough)

Rosa Parks was proven right in the end. Maybe this guy will be too. Maybe INVOL should be illegal. That require a new design for the process, but it can (sort of...) be done. At a cost to everyone. It will likely involve fewer people getting to see their loved ones, not more. But maybe.

It is a bit better, but had that been the first response, it would have been great. Now... it misses a number of things. Apology for his own mistreatment of the matter, for instance. Does UA need a CEO who doesn't grok public relations, or groks them after a big delay, and billion dollar stock losses?

jreuschl wrote:

https://hub.united.com/united-express-3411-statement-oscar-munoz-2355968629.html

Where was this urgency from the beginning?

Dear Team,

The truly horrific event that occurred on this flight has elicited many responses from all of us: outrage, anger, disappointment. I share all of those sentiments, and one above all: my deepest apologies for what happened. Like you, I continue to be disturbed by what happened on this flight and I deeply apologize to the customer forcibly removed and to all the customers aboard. No one should ever be mistreated this way.

I want you to know that we take full responsibility and we will work to make it right.

It’s never too late to do the right thing. I have committed to our customers and our employees that we are going to fix what’s broken so this never happens again. This will include a thorough review of crew movement, our policies for incentivizing volunteers in these situations, how we handle oversold situations and an examination of how we partner with airport authorities and local law enforcement. We’ll communicate the results of our review by April 30th.

I promise you we will do better.

Sincerely,

Oscar

This should have been his first response. At least UA is owning up to it, finally.

I wonder who released the name of the passenger. I'm guessing because of his past, he didn't volunteer it. Must have leaked somehow.

N212R wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

Just about every news outlet and the flying public are calling UA a disgrace, save for a few United fanboys.

Here is one clip just posted by CNN, very respected news outlet. Oscar Muniz must go
.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/11/news/un ... index.html

United Airlines shows how to make a PR crisis a total disaster.

Last month, United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz was named U.S. Communicator of the Year by the magazine PRWeek.
Now he's being raked over the coals for his response to a violent passenger incident on a United Airlines flight.

No one is surprised that CNN, Delta's hometown Internationalista propagator of "news", would add fuel to the fire. It's all of a piece, what you get is what they want you to see.

United Struggles to Extinguish Social Media Firestorm

Here is a story from Bloomberg.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -worldwide

And this is trending BIG TIME in China. You don't want to piss off your customers in China but guess what, Oscar did. In defending his own companies policy, he most likely inadvertently caused a firestorm of epic proportions.

Does anybody even remember the Delta fiasco of last week?

jumbojet wrote:

Now he's being raked over the coals for his response to a violent passenger incident on a United Airlines flight.

It was not a violent passenger incident. It was a violent cop/airline incident.

transswede wrote:

ozark1 wrote:

2) This was Republic Airlines.

Was it Republic Airlines booking and crew scheduling system that caused this mess? No. United Airlines.
Was it Republic Airlines gate staff that decided to end the volunteer phase at much less than allowed/legal limit? No. United Airlines.

Yes it was. Republic books their own crews from their own crew scheduling department in IND.

BobPatterson wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

Now he's being raked over the coals for his response to a violent passenger incident on a United Airlines flight.

It was not a violent passenger incident. It was a violent cop/airline incident.

And the CEO of a very large company has the nerve to call this passenger belligerent?

He's not the commander in chief of the break room in some backroom flight attendant office in Chicago.

AerolineasAR343 wrote:

One thing I still don't get is this: Why did it had to be THAT seat? When it was obvious that the doctor wasn't having it, why didn't the agent try to find another passenger more willing (even though nobody took the offer to volunteer in the first place) and be done? The doctor said he had patients in the morning to care to, ok, we'll find another seat. Why was the agent so hell-bent on getting THAT seat that it was worth all this scandal? Such lack of judgement.

^ THIS (x1000). That's the whole point. The agent was so fixated on this person and this seat. Where's the presence of mind to think on your feet, maybe lean over to a few other passengers and offer up $1K or more to take a flight tomorrow. Lack of training, poor training, lack of management to delegate some reasonable authority to act autonomously outside their responsibilities. And now some third rate wanker CEO understandably, but wrongly, backing his people.

Sometimes what is right isn't necessarily so, it's what is the decent thing to do. At the first sign of trouble, call security, offload your responsibilities to others - Good lord.

Sorry UA employees, but your company and the action of a few has taken a brand that was already in the toilet and put it in the sewer.

While this may come back to haunt me, I'll say it anyway: you'd never see this at Alaska. Too many good people there at AS to act stupidly.

Stream of consciousness questions: Where are the gate agents? Too timid to do an interview? FA's? Had to run to the galley for something? Pilots? UA a steaming mess with no turnaround in sight.

A new response from Oscar:

https://hub.united.com/united-express-3 ... 68629.html

Apologies if this has already been posted. Emirates just released a commercial mocking UA.

http://www.businessinsider.com/emirates ... =buffer-ti

gatibosgru wrote:

jreuschl wrote:

https://hub.united.com/united-express-3411-statement-oscar-munoz-2355968629.html

Where was this urgency from the beginning?

Dear Team,

The truly horrific event that occurred on this flight has elicited many responses from all of us: outrage, anger, disappointment. I share all of those sentiments, and one above all: my deepest apologies for what happened. Like you, I continue to be disturbed by what happened on this flight and I deeply apologize to the customer forcibly removed and to all the customers aboard. No one should ever be mistreated this way.

I want you to know that we take full responsibility and we will work to make it right.

It’s never too late to do the right thing. I have committed to our customers and our employees that we are going to fix what’s broken so this never happens again. This will include a thorough review of crew movement, our policies for incentivizing volunteers in these situations, how we handle oversold situations and an examination of how we partner with airport authorities and local law enforcement. We’ll communicate the results of our review by April 30th.

I promise you we will do better.

Sincerely,

Oscar

This should have been his first response. At least UA is owning up to it, finally.

Good. I agreed with Oscar's email yesterday, and also with his reversal today. He was right yesterday, and today is a new day, and reality changed. For people mad at me, or dismissive of my comments at least remember that Munoz isn't a complete idiot and he was saying the same things, just with more class.

Apologies if this has already been posted. Emirates just released a commercial mocking UA.

http://www.businessinsider.com/emirates ... =buffer-ti

I wouldn't be surprised one bit if the BOD forces OM to step down.

ozark1 wrote:

My blood pressure can't handle reading all 19 pages of this thread, so if these comments have been stated already, i apologize.
1) Were the UA employees who were boarded a flight crew that needed to get to SDF to cover a flight? I can only imagine that this was the case and I feel very bad for them. What other reason would there be? They had to have been must-riders in order to keep a flight in SDF from being cancelled.
2) This was Republic Airlines.
3) Bethune made a ludicrous comment under the circumstances.
4) "I will never fly United again". Yeah right. It's all about the fare and the frequent flier miles. In a month this will be forgotten when people are booking flights
5) I feel really bad for all the great airline employees who will be mistreated because of this.

RE #4 For some people it will be the case. For some people in the past it HAS BEEN the case. I live in Dallas. I used to fly American 50k miles a year, and had for a decade. After American mistreated my for about the fourth (and final) time, I basically stopped flying American. I've flown AA maybe 3 times in the last 15 years - down from 50+k miles a year. I regularly have gone out of my way to deprive American of my revenue. Luckily, Love Field now gives me a viable option domestically.

There are some people who mean it when they say "I will not fly (insert airline name here) again...

kalvado wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

blrsea wrote:

The man had paid for this ticket, he was NOT a trespasser.

You're allowing your emotions to cloud your judgment. Once UA asked him to leave the aircraft, refusal makes him a trespasser. Having a ticket is irrelevant; that can be revoked at the property owner's (the airline, in this case) discretion, no different than even though you may have a ticket for a concert, the security guards can toss you out on your ass if you act up.

UA CoC contains word "revoke" only as "revoke the Passenger’s Elite status, if any," - and even that is in case of certain violations of ticketing laws and policies.
Do you have any better reference for ticket revocation rights?

He probably doen't even know what CoC is and so there is no point arguing with him.

I also like, how he frames his argument: Once UA asked him to leave the aircraft, refusal makes him a trespasser. Well. when the gate agents allowed him to board the aircraft in the first place, he wasn't a trespasser!! Phew! Whatever makes this poster sleep at night....

A public apology now via Facebook

https://hub.united.com/united-express-3 ... 68629.html

Glad justice seems to be forthcoming. No point praising UA's CEO though as he has buckled to public anger and disgust and I guess more important to him his shareholders and lost $$$ . Still the main thing is that he notes ''forcibly'' moved and they are at fault. Just a shame it took such a backlash for them to do the right thing.

Tugger wrote:

I think the other thing that really gives this thing legs is that people can see themselves in this situation. It can happen to anyone and does many times daily.... well only to those that aren't rich and don't fly enough to have high status and bought low cost tickets for a trip they need to go on in the future... and that is a very large percentage of the flying public.

And people don't like the idea that they could be forced to miss something important to them when they actually did every thing right. That a corporation would willfully mistreat or abuse them without fair recompense.

People are saying that is wrong. And what United did was wrong.

Tugg

Again, I think you are right. But I also think it's a little deeper. Most people probably think they would handle it differently or could take the abuse. Personally I'd get up when the police showed up. People don't want this to happen to their grand parents or kids. Could you imagine putting your 70 year old father on a United flight today? Are they going to kick his ass if he gets confused?

jumbojet wrote:

N212R wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

Does anybody even remember the Delta fiasco of last week?

Not any more they don't. For Delta, this couldn't have happened at a better time.

jreuschl wrote:

https://hub.united.com/united-express-3411-statement-oscar-munoz-2355968629.html

Where was this urgency from the beginning?

Dear Team,

The truly horrific event that occurred on this flight has elicited many responses from all of us: outrage, anger, disappointment. I share all of those sentiments, and one above all: my deepest apologies for what happened. Like you, I continue to be disturbed by what happened on this flight and I deeply apologize to the customer forcibly removed and to all the customers aboard. No one should ever be mistreated this way.

I want you to know that we take full responsibility and we will work to make it right.

It’s never too late to do the right thing. I have committed to our customers and our employees that we are going to fix what’s broken so this never happens again. This will include a thorough review of crew movement, our policies for incentivizing volunteers in these situations, how we handle oversold situations and an examination of how we partner with airport authorities and local law enforcement. We’ll communicate the results of our review by April 30th.

I promise you we will do better.

Sincerely,

Oscar

No one cares now, you messed up big time, that should have been your first statement not your last. You have clearly shown in your previous statements that you saw nothing wrong with what happened, so don't pretend like you care now.

uatulip wrote:

Apologies if this has already been posted. Emirates just released a commercial mocking UA.

http://www.businessinsider.com/emirates ... =buffer-ti

I honestly think that's kind of tasteless. You don't see other airlines chiming in on UA's PR disaster on this. It really could happen to other airlines with the wrong people at the wrong time. If it's not this event, something else could happen and that could wind up coming back to EK.

transswede wrote:

ozark1 wrote:

2) This was Republic Airlines.

Was it Republic Airlines booking and crew scheduling system that caused this mess? No. United Airlines.
Was it Republic Airlines gate staff that decided to end the volunteer phase at much less than allowed/legal limit? No. United Airlines.

Um Republic definitely schedules their own crews hombre.