United has totally move the focus off the Atlanta storms backup. Delta thanks you!

The sad part is it takes an incident like this to get people to rally behind something.

Most people don't want to suffer the bruises or deal with the legal aspects of what a situation like this brings upon. Even though they know what is happening is ethically wrong, the "cost" to stand up to it isn't worth it. And yes, we can debate all day whether what happened was legally correct or not, but in the court of public opinion, the jury is nearly unanimous on it being ethically wrong.

This recent United training video has been leaked to the media, absolutely shocking scenes !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0GW0Vnr9Yc

Tugger wrote:

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

I'm guessing that that is all worked out at the podium after deplaning. Where I worked, we didn't stand around onboard and discuss the details - we apologized [for whatever was happening] and politely directed people to the counter to be taken care of. I'm fairly confident that in an IDB situation it's all in the CoC. I thought it was an automatic cash/check situation if it's IDB vs VDB. Anyone at an airline know for sure?

Tugger wrote:

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.

Tugg.

I wish someone would repost the list of airlines that do not overbook. That might be a productive approach to dealing with this in the short term, as all the people up in arms over this (and there are millions) can see who treats their passengers better and vote with their wallets.

Flighty wrote:

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's actually pretty simple - just change your fare rules. Eliminate refunds for late-cancels and no-shows, eliminate reschedules, etc - basically eliminate the airline's incentive to overbook.

jumbojet wrote:

Does anybody even remember the Delta fiasco of last week?

In the news? Not really. In reality? One bloodied guy, 70 horrified passengers, and probably some heads to roll VS Tens of thousands of inconvenienced passengers, many many many of whom were affected in very terrible ways (missing weddings/funerals/vacations/losing thousands of dollars/etc), likely no heads to roll, likely nothing changing, likely continued excuse making - but no bloody video, so....

The two incidents are completely apples in oranges, but yes, jumbojet, despite the fact that you are the person you are, real people were terribly affected by DL and it's unfortunate that UA is so stupid as to allow them to take the headlines away from them.

But keep up the diversions (pun intended).

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. Tugg

1. He is a doctor.
2. He made hundreds of thousands of dollars playing poker.
3. We have no idea of his wealth or status.
4. Rich people often get that way by being frugal.

But of course I agree that people see this and cannot understand why on earth such a thing could or should happen.

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

FINALLY! This is perfect and should have been the only thing released...

CrimsonNL wrote:

A public apology now via Facebook

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

The comments are insane. Too little, too late it seems.

jumbojet wrote:

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.

Not surprisingly, the "trend-makers" working overtime and to what end?

socalgeo wrote:

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?

I agree, but i wasn't meaning people would get beaten (almost everyone will do like you and just get up when the cops come. Fear and intimidation very much work.), what I was meaning to say was that being booted off a plane can happen to people, and they do not like that idea. Most people book flights because, and often we do not allow "extra time" before and after because we can't afford it. We have places to be and things to do before at home and after have to get back to those same things after, so we keep the window tight. And people are now very aware that they can and will be FORCED off that plane if the airline alone decides it is needed. I think most people are blind to that, were, before this.

Yes, it is actually relatively rare, and almost always another flight will be available shortly thereafter so you won't lose precious time. But what about when that isn't the case? You may be screwed and left with little recourse unless you want to take the airline to court (and then to win you have to not accept any compensation to be likely to win), where are you going to find the time and money for that?

People don't like this and are creeped out by the idea of it.

Tugg

flybaurlax wrote:

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.

Who knew that DL and EK had so much in common.

There are several points that should be considered . .
1) Any contract must still comply with the laws and regulations. If DOT mandates that steps A, B, and C must be taken before a passenger is removed from the flight, then it does not matter if a contract of carriage says otherwise. The airline is still required to take steps A, B, and C.
2) Laws are not interpreted word for word. This may be difficult for some airline employees to understand, since the structure of airlines is rigid and rule based (rightfully so) . . Now a flight crew cannot tell a passenger to strip naked, stand and sing to other passengers, or leave the plane because of his or her race. There is a line that I believe may have been crossed in this case, since the passenger was already seated and was not a safety concern. The employees involved missed this point, and were likely rolling on some power trip (as I've seen often with new/young employees, especially on regional flights).Trying to blame the passenger for not complying is missing this point, the employees were out of line with their requests. He was sitting in an assigned seat after being allowed on the aircraft, they violated their own contract of carriage by forcefully removing him.
Furthermore, one cannot make the argument "they can remove and perceived safety threat" - this argument is missing the idea of intent. He was not perceived as a safety threat.

I think the bigger context to be considered is the culture of flying has become so strict and procedural. People are afraid to have specific conversations in an airport, and basically do what is told. People give up their rights for added safety... (this isn't a bad thing)
Now I think the real problem is this: United's policies took advantage of the perceived and actual authority they have been granted to ensure passenger safety. How many other passengers have held in protests or been forced off of a plane in a similar (maybe less forceful) manner - not for safety, but in order for United to make room for crew or protect their bottom-line?
I understand the overbooking issue, its not the problem. In terms of consumer protection, however, I find it disturbing that United shifts its logistical costs to consumers. Any airline employee knows that another crew could have been sent. United could have raised the voucher or offered it in cash - where I think DOT will find they fell short. There were obviously internal policies discouraging the gate agent from offering more than $800.

Then the CEO comes out in a pathetic attempt to shift blame to the police. This falls on both of them, and the CEO should man up and accept responsibility for policies that may have led to this incident - because that's what leaders do.

United seem to pitch itself as superior to low budget carriers. After this incident, I am not so sure that their internal policies or attitudes are much different. I will consider them a low budget carrier from this point forward.

24 hours ago when this broke, it was clear that this was a MASSIVE story, one which would rapidly spread across the world via social media AND mainstream news...with disgust amongst the general public

I can't believe how poor United's PR has been over this, did they seriously believe that people would accept that what happened was acceptable?

Business Schools will be using this case for years

OA260 wrote:

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.

Let's not kid ourselves. The only motivation behind Muñuz' change of tone was stock value dropping by nearly $1 Billion.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

But of course I agree that people see this and cannot understand why on earth such a thing could or should happen.

I was going to clarify but I see you fully get what I was meaning. People are reading now what "classes" get booted, and that class is the majority of travelers.

Tugg

N212R wrote:

PA110 wrote:

What's painfully apparent is that most airlines (notably, United) have not yet learned to adapt to the realities of social media. Just like the leggings incident, the speed at which social media can amplify or distort needs to be factored into new customer service training. You can quote rules til the cows come home, but you'll still pay dearly in PR and, as shown today, by a significant hit to your stock price.

What's painfully apparent is the disproportional distorting ability of "social media" and those who control the who sees it, what prominence is it given, why it is given that prominence, when it is newsworthy and how long it is kept in the spotlight of "news". Case in point, this United story being given "headline" status on Google News, while the Delta meltdown (and subsequent ATL troubles) story mysteriously absent from same page. He who controls the media, controls the message.

Really! People searching and sharing determines what is popular. Technology is true justice and igornes biases or preferences.

That letter should've been released first and only this one instead of the other one. Oscar is certainly no leader, he is a puppet. Also Delta owes United big time.

32andBelow wrote:

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.

I stand corrected, then. But point 2 remains.

It seems that the Dr.'s past doesn't matter much in the public view (I'm not saying it should matter in this case) because FB comments seem to feel the Dr.'s past was brought out by UA as cover.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

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 sorry but saying they had bad decision making is victim shaming. The customer did nothing to initiate or escalate the issue.

The real issues at hand are the policies of the airline (overbooking, incentivizing) as well as the attitudes of staff members from both the airline and 'security' towards passengers. Instead of focusing in these aspects, which were directly responsible for the incident, an incredible amount of focus is being placed on the customer to justify his actions.

Here is an article I found - sorry, it's not directly related to this incident - that talks about how Delta handles the voluntary/involuntary boarding process in a much more proactive and healthy manner. Kudos to them. it mentions that while they have similar numbers of overbooked passengers to UA, the IDB number is less than half of UA's, and that would seem to be the key.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sens ... g-flights/

Good job Delta.

EA CO AS wrote:

Desh wrote:

this level of violence is never acceptable in this situation.

Perhaps not, but I'm not in law enforcement, so that's not really for me to answer. I do know that had the LEOs not used the amount of force shown in the video, this story wouldn't be a story in the least, and that's ultimately not United's fault.

Should they have done more to avoid being in the position of calling the police? Absolutely! But, once the man refused to leave the aircraft, he was trespassing, and then law enforcement gets called to correct the situation.

And as was stated earlier, the police will first ask you to comply, then they'll tell you to comply, and if you still don't do as directed, they will make you comply by force.

It is pretty darn clear that you are not in law enforcement nor do you have the slightest clues about law and justice system.

But, once the man refused to leave the aircraft, he was trespassing, and then law enforcement gets called to correct the situation. Law enforcement does not get to "correct a situation". They come to enforce the law. As part of that they will gather all the facts. The fact is that the subject boarded the aircraft with a "valid ticket" and was in his assigned seat without causing any disturbance. They will then speak to the subject why he is not leaving and the subject can explain his circumstances. The law enforcement is more than welcome to gather evidence or cross check information. If there were no violations of the law as per US criminal system, then their role ends right there. They can help the gate agents by requesting other passengers to volunteer and expedite the departure. If he was IN violation then he had to be arrested and escorted. Nothing in the video suggests he was arrested.

The police is there to enforce American laws and NOT that of United Airlines. If there are sexual assaults or terror activities inside aircrafts then the police follow procedures and prosecute the criminal per the applicable laws of the land and NOT according to what the CoC of UA states or what discretionary powers are entitled to UA. Even when the underpant bomber was discovered on DL, he was not thrashed by the cops and delivered a swift cowboy style justice !!!

It is clear that in this case the police were told to toss the passenger out and for some incredibly stupid reason they did precisely that.

jreuschl wrote:

It seems that the Dr.'s past doesn't matter much in the public view (I'm not saying it should matter in this case) because FB comments seem to feel the Dr.'s past was brought out by UA as cover.

Total douchebag move by united. This poor mans picture with blood all over his face will be the iconic symbol of all that is united airlines for years to come. I'm no expert, but I think it will stick with united until they either go under or change their name. They are done.

You don't kick an old mans ass for a seat and then assassinate his character. You just don't.

It's even turned into a source of jokes for Ellen Degeneres. Who's next, Sean Spicer?

smaragdz wrote:

I'm sorry but saying they had bad decision making is victim shaming. The customer did nothing to initiate or escalate the issue.

The real issues at hand are the policies of the airline (overbooking, incentivizing) as well as the attitudes of staff members from both the airline and 'security' towards passengers. Instead of focusing in these aspects, which were directly responsible for the incident, an incredible amount of focus is being placed on the customer to justify his actions.

Did I disagree? We are all faced with moments of decision in our lives. Sometimes that decision - while morally right - ends up harming us a great deal. That's not shaming, that's just life. If I road-rage driver tries bullying me out of my lane, I can stand my ground, slow down, pull out a gun, etc. I did nothing wrong by being in my lane, and he was completely in the wrong by trying to bully me out of my lane. However, in the moment the better decision might be to slow down and just let the crazy fool go rather than get shot in the head. I'm the victim either way, but in one instance I'm alive and can call the police and turn in my video, while in the other I'm six feet under. It's my choice, though.

QANTAS077 wrote:

TransGlobalGold wrote:

UA is still getting murdered in the media, both in the U.S. and abroad. I expect they will suffer some short term loss of business. They will settle with the passenger for a helluva lot more than the $800 voucher would have cost them. However, people have short memories, and limited choices on who to fly. This will be forgotten at some point, until it happens again on UA or another carrier, but it will indeed happen.

people may have short memories but I'll guarantee that when they google United Airlines this incident will be on the first page, and for some time to come.

and it'll get worse from here for UA..now that News Ltd has weighed in with the passengers past.

http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-up ... a0166e32a1

I understand and get your point. Mine was that for many people, especially in small markets there are three choices, and United is one of them. The only in some markets. I do admit the fallout is more than I expected. I just got a new breaking news alert that Munoz as apologized for the third time.

So in my view, Mr. Munoz first response was to support the troops, take care of the home front, that cost X amount of dollars.
Second response is after the public get's upset, unfortunately, that came around the same time that the stock market takes a hit,
based on the amount of that loss, some heads are going to roll, at least when the investors get their say. So major surgery last year sometime, one
can see early retirement due to health, it may be delayed by a few months for public perception but, some head has to roll, so.....

Muñoz must be kicked off because he is responsible for the perverted corporate "culture" within United Airlines. How could the staff order a violent solution to solve a problem? Instead of doing their utmost in order to de-escalate the situation? Are they instructed to fight difficult passengers as if those were war enemies?

Kilopond wrote:

Muñoz must be kicked off because he is responsible for the perverted corporate "culture" within United Airlines. How could the staff order a violent solution to solve a problem? Instead of doing their utmost in order to de-escalate the situation? Are they instructed to fight difficult passengers as if those were war enemies?

If by "responsible" you mean that he's accountable as the CEO, absolutely.
If by "responsible" you mean he created the culture, then I disagree. UA has seemed to be a cultural mess since the days of squeezing every last golden egg from the goose.

BravoOne wrote:

So sorry I will not be a part of the UAL pile on.

The key thing to understand is that I am not "piling on" to UA about this, I am stating clearly that this is wrong and a bad policy and was handled incorrectly. As many have noted it could have actually happened to quite a few other airlines. But for United in particular it appears there was bad policy piled on with bad decisions at the gate, followed by bad actions on board, followed by bad response by the airline. And that is on United.

But the truth is this is not uncommon for many airlines and it is not necessarily the right thing to allow "as is". It needs to and should change so something like this does not happen again on any airline.

Tugg

The overbooking of flights seems to be more and more systemic and business as usual. The digital age has made easy work of dissemination of news, information, and misinformation. From the comfort of my airline seat at FL310 I can find out how many boxes of a certain product the store down the street from my house has and where they are located on their store. I can watch a giraffe on the other side of the globe give birth in real time. Why do the airlines have so much trouble counting asses and accurately matching them up with available seats. Yes, passengers are regulated to obey commands of flight crew, law enforcement, and their moms, but those flight crews, LEO agencies, and moms shouldn't be able to easily hide behind those regulations when their processes are so inherently flawed. It's time for an overhaul!

Kilopond wrote:

Muñoz must be kicked off because he is responsible for the perverted corporate "culture" within United Airlines. How could the staff order a violent solution to solve a problem? Instead of doing their utmost in order to de-escalate the situation? Are they instructed to fight difficult passengers as if those were war enemies?

You are being facetious I think, but, yes, FA are trained to fight difficult passengers, and I question how we could forget that. Their job is not to take orders from uncooperative passengers, it is to give instructions and serve beverages. Under 50 years of practice, the airplane is a controlled environment, not a public square. The parameters of what you can do on an airplane are limited.

UA people basically did the right things yesterday, as explained by Munoz. In accordance with every major's procedure at every airport. However, this was an outrage by 99% of the whole world, SO now things have to change. That's cool. In China this would result in a revolution. Here it will result in new boarding procedures and clearer passenger rights.

For probably the 10th time, overbooking is not the issue here, it has always gone on, will continue to go on, and it wasn't a factor here. This was operational, not sales related.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

We are all faced with moments of decision in our lives. Sometimes that decision - while morally right - ends up harming us a great deal. That's not shaming, that's just life. If I road-rage driver tries bullying me out of my lane, I can stand my ground, slow down, pull out a gun, etc. I did nothing wrong by being in my lane, and he was completely in the wrong by trying to bully me out of my lane. However, in the moment the better decision might be to slow down and just let the crazy fool go rather than get shot in the head. I'm the victim either way, but in one instance I'm alive and can call the police and turn in my video, while in the other I'm six feet under. It's my choice, though.

But honestly, should an airline, heck any business, be allowed to go "rage" (road or otherwise) and continue on with no repercussions? This has been a standard practice for many airlines. Booting people that don't want to be booted without meeting the price required is not the right policy. Everyone may back down because individually it is the right decision but when or how does the comeuppance occur? This is one of those moments.

Tugg

Honestly, it sounds like the gate agent was the root of most of what happened.

1. She boarded the plane fully rather than holding back the four "extras".
2. She laughed at someone's $1600 offer.
3. She didn't offer enough to entice people.
4. She called the police in before it ever needed to get to that stage.

There is obviously much more to all of this, but this would appear to be an example of how one employee can kill a business.

NOTE: I know there are likely cultural issues within UA. Possibly this station, possibly this station manager, or possibly the entire company. I'm not trying to say "Oh, it was just this one evil person." However, clearly it largely revolved around how this person handled the situation. While I'm not sure that Oscar needs to go, somebody needs to be held responsible for the poor hiring/training/managing of the employees.

Again, is there anyone that can shed light on who would have been supervising this gate agent at this time on a Sunday? I know they wouldn't be standing there, but who was above this agent (in position) and how accessible are they in these situations? That person either was involved and made bad choices or is otherwise responsible for this fiasco.

mortkork wrote:

The overbooking of flights seems to be more and more systemic and business as usual. The digital age has made easy work of dissemination of news, information, and misinformation. From the comfort of my airline seat at FL310 I can find out how many boxes of a certain product the store down the street from my house has and where they are located on their store. I can watch a giraffe on the other side of the globe give birth in real time. Why do the airlines have so much trouble counting asses and accurately matching them up with available seats. Yes, passengers are regulated to obey commands of flight crew, law enforcement, and their moms, but those flight crews, LEO agencies, and moms shouldn't be able to easily hide behind those regulations when their processes are so inherently flawed. It's time for an overhaul!

The problem is that people no-show and the airline prefers to overbook and allow reschedules (with and without penalties depending on the ticket) and they are left with perishable inventory at the point of departure. That's my take on it.

TransGlobalGold wrote:

It's even turned into a source of jokes for Ellen Degeneres. Who's next, Sean Spicer?

Well while Spicer was asked about the United incident, it was after he claimed that Hitler didn't use chemical weapons in WW2. So while Delta is probably thanking United, United is now probably thanking Spicer. In any case, a very unfortunate incident for UA in Chicago on Sunday....

N212R wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

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.

Not surprisingly, the "trend-makers" working overtime and to what end?

Yea the new offended class waiting for something to be outraged about.

Tugger wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

We are all faced with moments of decision in our lives. Sometimes that decision - while morally right - ends up harming us a great deal. That's not shaming, that's just life. If I road-rage driver tries bullying me out of my lane, I can stand my ground, slow down, pull out a gun, etc. I did nothing wrong by being in my lane, and he was completely in the wrong by trying to bully me out of my lane. However, in the moment the better decision might be to slow down and just let the crazy fool go rather than get shot in the head. I'm the victim either way, but in one instance I'm alive and can call the police and turn in my video, while in the other I'm six feet under. It's my choice, though.

But honestly, should an airline, heck any business, be allowed to go "rage" (road or otherwise) and continue on with no repercussions? This has been a standard practice for many airlines. Booting people that don't want to be booted without meeting the price required is not the right policy. Everyone may back down because individually it is the right decision but when or how does the comeuppance occur? This is one of those moments.

Tugg

Again, I never said that they should. In my example, I called the police, filed a report, shared a video if I had one, etc. I just wasn't risking potential jail time or even my life over it. I didn't allow him to go "rage" - he already made that decision - but rather I put my well-being in the moment first and then followed up after. To each their own. That doesn't mean I'm saying the road rage guy was right in any conceivable way.

Wow. Just... wow.

I fully understand the needs of an airline to transfer their some crew members so that a minimum of passengers get stranded. But first asking for "volunteers" to accept a compensation and then forcing somebody to leave the airplane is crazy, if not contradictory. I understand that I will get bumped if I run into unlucky circumstances. But I would do as this man has done - resist. I will not walk out. They will have to drag me out. I'm not helping them to solve *their* issue on my costs.

"Because it is not your fault at all, honored customer, we will gladly accept any demand you may have in exchange for you leaving the airplane and taking a later flight. Offering you $800 is too cheap, given that we have to put four crew members urgently to their destination. When you purchase a flight, it's a promise."

And it seems that quite a few competitors have gladly seized this opportunity - to say they're delivering on a promise.


David

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Honestly, it sounds like the gate agent was the root of most of what happened.

1. She boarded the plane fully rather than holding back the four "extras".
2. She laughed at someone's $1600 offer.
3. She didn't offer enough to entice people.
4. She called the police in before it ever needed to get to that stage.

There is obviously much more to all of this, but this would appear to be an example of how one employee can kill a business.

NOTE: I know there are likely cultural issues within UA. Possibly this station, possibly this station manager, or possibly the entire company. I'm not trying to say "Oh, it was just this one evil person." However, clearly it largely revolved around how this person handled the situation. While I'm not sure that Oscar needs to go, somebody needs to be held responsible for the poor hiring/training/managing of the employees.

Again, is there anyone that can shed light on who would have been supervising this gate agent at this time on a Sunday? I know they wouldn't be standing there, but who was above this agent (in position) and how accessible are they in these situations? That person either was involved and made bad choices or is otherwise responsible for this fiasco.

Her actions were validated by the CEO. She did her job description correctly. Was not authorized to create and implement a new volunteer auction program on behalf of United. She is neither an executive nor a corporate counsel. It's literally not possible for her to improvise that. United has like 6,000 flights per day. It is an assembly line. I don't see clear signs that any of those 4 items you mentioned could have been done differently. Oscar's letter was quite detailed about that.

From an article on Yahoo about social media going crazy on United:

"Still, summoning security in a situation that could have been defused peacefully for a few extra bucks, will surely go down as one of the most obtuse corporate decisions in years.

Bad publicity following the incident has pushed the company’s stock price down a couple percentage points and shaved more than $500 million off the carrier’s market value. Lawsuits seem certain, as well"

United Airlines is really paying for this one. Another absolute looser of a United CEO why cant that company get someone decent?? The CEOs are ruining United and putting the pressure on a agents and people who made these mistakes.

Flighty wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Honestly, it sounds like the gate agent was the root of most of what happened.

1. She boarded the plane fully rather than holding back the four "extras".
2. She laughed at someone's $1600 offer.
3. She didn't offer enough to entice people.
4. She called the police in before it ever needed to get to that stage.

There is obviously much more to all of this, but this would appear to be an example of how one employee can kill a business.

NOTE: I know there are likely cultural issues within UA. Possibly this station, possibly this station manager, or possibly the entire company. I'm not trying to say "Oh, it was just this one evil person." However, clearly it largely revolved around how this person handled the situation. While I'm not sure that Oscar needs to go, somebody needs to be held responsible for the poor hiring/training/managing of the employees.

Again, is there anyone that can shed light on who would have been supervising this gate agent at this time on a Sunday? I know they wouldn't be standing there, but who was above this agent (in position) and how accessible are they in these situations? That person either was involved and made bad choices or is otherwise responsible for this fiasco.

Her actions were validated by the CEO. She did her job description correctly. Was not authorized to create and implement a new volunteer auction program on behalf of United. She is neither an executive nor a corporate counsel. It's literally not possible for her to improvise that. United has like 6,000 flights per day. It is an assembly line. I don't see clear signs that any of those 4 items you mentioned could have been done differently. Oscar's letter was quite detailed about that.

I disagree.

1. She boarded the plane fully rather than holding back the four "extras". Why could she not hold back the four from boarding until the door was ready to close?
2. She laughed at someone's $1600 offer. She obviously was empowered to offer more - she already had. Unless you're saying UA policy is to stop at $800 - period.
3. She didn't offer enough to entice people. Again, she is empowered to offer more unless their policy is to stop at $800 - period.
4. She called the police in before it ever needed to get to that stage. People on the plane state that she could have offered a bit more and some would have relented. She chose to stop and get the police. Unless you are saying it's UA policy to stop at $800 - period - and call the police, there was more that could have been done. And, frankly, SHOULD have been done.

Here is my take on this: 1) This is not about "overbooking" - so all the talk about overbooking policies are legally meaningless. 2) This is about how United/Partners decided to remove properly booked and boarded paying passengers for their own convenience... 3) The crews ability to tell passengers what they must do is limited. It is not absolute. They can clearly tell passengers what to do concerning safety of flight or other passenger issues, and some other airline operating procedures. But, it is not absolute; and I would not be surprised to see a Federal Court rule that given the circumstances that United did not have the legal authority to order this passenger off the plan or ask the police to remove him. 3) The police also do not have unlimited authority; and can only do things that are considered legal. Again, it appears to me that the police crossed the line as well.

I wish our system was otherwise; but, often it takes a major lawsuit to sort things out. Thus, I hope that the Passenger gets some really good lawyers and gets this into the right Federal court to sort these things out - and for the Airlines to be told that there are limits to what they can do to paying and properly boarded passengers. I also personally hope to see multi-million dollar claims against both the airline and the police over this. Unfortunately, that is likely the only things that will really change behavior.

Have a great day,

Perry

PlanesNTrains wrote:

The problem is that people no-show and the airline prefers to overbook and allow reschedules (with and without penalties depending on the ticket) and they are left with perishable inventory at the point of departure. That's my take on it.

I understand the practice but when it is the last flight of the day maybe it should be modified because peoples schedules can also be perishable.

Tugg

Atlwarrior wrote:

N212R wrote:

PA110 wrote:

What's painfully apparent is that most airlines (notably, United) have not yet learned to adapt to the realities of social media. Just like the leggings incident, the speed at which social media can amplify or distort needs to be factored into new customer service training. You can quote rules til the cows come home, but you'll still pay dearly in PR and, as shown today, by a significant hit to your stock price.

What's painfully apparent is the disproportional distorting ability of "social media" and those who control the who sees it, what prominence is it given, why it is given that prominence, when it is newsworthy and how long it is kept in the spotlight of "news". Case in point, this United story being given "headline" status on Google News, while the Delta meltdown (and subsequent ATL troubles) story mysteriously absent from same page. He who controls the media, controls the message.

Really! People searching and sharing determines what is popular. Technology is true justice and igornes biases or preferences.

Except for the biases and preferences of the people who use the technology, and or those people who abuse and use others with technology. You might want to do some study on what the definition of justice is.

Even on this thread things are starting to get confused. All we know is some guy got hurt by police and got taken off a plane, then came back on because we saw video. There are even questions about exactly what went on with other passengers, the gate people, even what kind of cops were involved (competent/incompetent, regular/or untrained rent-a-cops) and numerous other details that matter as almost everything else about this mess is in dispute except for the fact United has a PR disaster of mostly its own making.

Social media makes lots of mistakes along with its virtues, it will take weeks before all the facts that matter are made clear for all to see.

Tugger wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

The problem is that people no-show and the airline prefers to overbook and allow reschedules (with and without penalties depending on the ticket) and they are left with perishable inventory at the point of departure. That's my take on it.

I understand the practice but when it is the last flight of the day maybe it should be modified because peoples schedules can also be perishable.

Tugg

1. This wasn't the last flight of the day.
2. I don't disagree.
3. I suggested up-thread that all the airlines need to do is alter their rules with ticketing in regards to refunds/reschedules and they could elminate most overbooking tomorrow.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

1. This wasn't the last flight of the day.
2. I don't disagree.
3. I suggested up-thread that all the airlines need to do is alter their rules with ticketing in regards to refunds/reschedules and they could elminate most overbooking tomorrow.

Fair dinkum! OK, and thanks for the solid discussion and posts.
I had thought it was the last flight and why they were forcing the issue for getting their crew where they needed to be.

Tugg

The damage will be widespread and everlasting. Case studies about this will be taught in business schools. The only way to save this airline now, is to do a total re-brand. Re-brand the airline Continental Airlines, and get the HQ out of Chicago.

Tugger wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

1. This wasn't the last flight of the day.
2. I don't disagree.
3. I suggested up-thread that all the airlines need to do is alter their rules with ticketing in regards to refunds/reschedules and they could elminate most overbooking tomorrow.

Fair dinkum! OK, and thanks for the solid discussion and posts.
I had thought it was the last flight and why they were forcing the issue for getting their crew where they needed to be.

Tugg

Well, since I was saying for most of the night that it WAS the last flight of the night, it probably was me that you heard it from. lol

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Tugger wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

1. This wasn't the last flight of the day.
2. I don't disagree.
3. I suggested up-thread that all the airlines need to do is alter their rules with ticketing in regards to refunds/reschedules and they could elminate most overbooking tomorrow.

Fair dinkum! OK, and thanks for the solid discussion and posts.
I had thought it was the last flight and why they were forcing the issue for getting their crew where they needed to be.

Tugg

Well, since I was saying for most of the night that it WAS the last flight of the night, it probably was me that you heard it from. lol

Then you weren't the only one. With 22 pages of posts now to go through it is very tough to go back and find stuff anymore! Hell half the time by the time I post something almost a new page has appeared.

Tugg

grbauc wrote:

N212R wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

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.

Not surprisingly, the "trend-makers" working overtime and to what end?

Yea the new offended class waiting for something to be outraged about.

This whole argument is getting so exhausting.
The entire outrage is so this does not happen again to someone else. What an awful thing to be offended by...

Has anyone asked themselves the question, who actually runs UA? Look no further than Scott Kirby. Scott should be given the title of CEO.