Maybe all 4 people either came from low fare origins, or came from an origin with a low attributed fare on the ORD-LEX leg. Such as coming from Asia where most of the fare goes to the Asia leg. That wouldn't be entirely unrelated to being Asian. Still, the measurement of "dollars" is race-neutral enough. The Lexus dealer discriminates based on dollars too.

zippy wrote:

mortkork wrote:

The overbooking of flights seems to be more and more systemic and business as usual.

The flight wasn't overbooked.

Flighty wrote:

UA people basically did the right things yesterday, as explained by Munoz.

No, United did the wrong thing at pretty much every turn.

1.) United or Republic should not have scheduled things this tight for the crew.
2.) United should have begun boarding knowing that the flight was overcapacity (and if the crew didn't call a head to indicate they were on their way, they should have done that).
3.) United should have offered more money to entice people to leave
4.) United or Republic should have looked for alternative transport for the crew
5.) Failing #4, United or Republic should have looked for alternative transport for the passengers they wanted to bump.

There were ten other flights that night that would've dropped passengers off either at SDF or within a 2 hour drive of SDF. Plus a flight departing around the same time (crew should've checked if it was as full full). Plus an air taxi that serves MDW, ORD, and SDF. United could've hired the taxi, they could've placed people on the other flights and given them rental car vouchers, cash, or whatever. Instead United took the cheap bastard route and did the bare minimum (overnight hotel stay) and then jumped to the nuclear option: calling the cops. The United employees and the cops are professionals, a such they should be held to a higher standard than civilians. Both United and Chicago PD should've deescalated the situation, instead both made it worse.

I can even agree with you to a degree BUT WHAT ABOUT What the passenger should of done???? OBEY OFFICERS COMMAND>> involuntary bumps are a pain and airlines most likely want to avoid them. Does Government intervention needed? Take the action of the passenger and the airport security officers out of the equation. Is it such a big issue happening so much that it needs to be regulated to non existence ? Many seats go unsold due to no show's and there costly to airlines and in return costly to US the consumer. Like it or not airfares are almost has low has 20 yrs ago. Are paychecks have just not gone up in the last 15-20 yrs.

xjetflyer2001 wrote:

shintaenam wrote:

727LOVER wrote:

Oh, this happens in China too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXyVGhA ... 72.7722063

Do not try smearing American's fault on to Chinese. First, that was also a United flight. Similar situation would never appear on any Chinese airlines, which are known for excellent customer service. Second, Chinese authority lead off thatvpassenger with great courtesy and ultimate politeness, unlike those at O'Hare. Third, Chinese airlines and authority would not single out a passenger due to his race or skin colour, unlike United Airlines and US police. You comment was the utmost insulting to all Chinese people in the world.

Before you start jumping to conclusions, let me set you straight on one thing. This guy was not pulled off the aircraft because he was Chinese, Vietnamese, Russian, or any other nationality.

He was pulled off the aircraft because according to information at hand he had the lowest paid ticket and when the airline can not get enough volunteers, that's how the next passengers are then selected. Keep you racist comments to yourself.

This.

As I've said repeatedly, UA should have offered more than the $800 they apparently stopped at when soliciting volunteers. See, the idea is that since the top end they're required to give out under the law for involuntarily bumping someone - for any reason - is $1350, they'll try to get volunteers for less than that, if possible.

If not, then they head down the IDB road and bump who they need to, giving out the required amount up to the $1350 top-end.

But would it have been a huge deal for UA to sweeten the deal by going even a little higher, say, to $1500 or so? No, not in the least. And they should have done so to avoid this getting out of hand.

But, they didn't. And it did.

And here we are.

But race/nationality had ZERO to do with it, and anyone suggesting otherwise is being intellectually dishonest for the sake of manufacturing added outrage.

PA110 wrote:

Bottom Line: United's need to position a crew at last minute is a cost of doing business. It should not come at the expense of their paying customers. United tried to do this on the cheap. They should have kept upping the offer until they had the necessary volunteers. That should be the ultimate outcome of this incident. Airlines should no longer be allowed to disembark passengers for a deadheading crew. Period. They can and should solicit volunteers by offering increased compensation until they have secured the needed space. That will be the market value of having to reposition crews.

1. This all would have been moot had they simply denied boarding to the four BEFORE they got onto the plane. That is pretty much normal industry practice from what I can tell. Obviously that can change.

2. They ABSOLUTELY should have paid whatever was needed to get the people to volunteer once they were onboard. No doubt about it.

xjetflyer2001 wrote:

transswede wrote:

xjetflyer2001 wrote:

Why would UA be in even deeper trouble if all 4 who came off were Asian? The first 3 that came off volunteered, so that doesn't matter if they were Asian or not, if they volunteered, that's their choice

I thought nobody volunteered, and those were just the three of the four that were picked?

3 volunteered

They didn't need the police, but they didn't volunteer.

Cerecl wrote:

There is, as I wrote, yet unsubstantiated claim then 4 passengers removed were all Asians, so not zero evidence. You give me the race of the 4 passengers, and if they are not all (or majority) Asian, I will delete the part in my post about race. Unless you are involved in the decision making of which 4 to remove, how can you be so certain race played no role??

Unreal.

OSUk1d wrote:

kavok wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Absolutely true. It's one reason I try to step back a bit from the hoopla and imagine each step. I try to keep a bit of humility in it as well, probably because I try to imagine myself being in their shoes and having things unfold unintentionally into this disaster. Not that I would have handled it the same, but I've backed into things innocently before and in hindsight you can see where it went wrong but in the moment it isn't always quite as clear cut.

I'll probably get nailed for supporting United now. Ugh.

To be in their shoes, you had to be someone who was morally okay with removing a seated passenger for a company employee. Legal or not, that is not morally okay.

so you'd rather cancel a whole flight the next day than inconvenience four people on that flight?

As others have said, I see this as a false dilemma. This was not the only option. Let the free market work, raise the value of the compensation, and all takes care of itself. The airline(s) in question rolled the dice and lost. Instead of paying up for the lost gamble, they declared a fare-paying customer a trespasser and called the police to have him removed. Pay up for the lost gamble on getting that crew where they needed to be on time, and none of this happens.

sphealey wrote:

"http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/united-airlines-promised-federal-regulators-all-ticketed-passengers-are-guaranteed
Less than three years before a passenger was forcibly removed from one of its aircrafts, United Airlines assured federal regulators that all ticketed passengers are guaranteed seats on flights. The promise was delivered in federal filings reviewed by International Business Times.

In September 2014 comments to federal officials, the Chicago-based airline outlined its opposition to proposed rules that sought more disclosure of the fees airlines charge to customers. One of the rules at issue was designed to compel airlines to more explicitly disclose fees charged for reserving specific seats.

“Including advance-seat-assignment charges among the ‘basic ancillary service’ fees that must be disclosed as part of initial fare displays makes no sense,” the airline wrote to the Department of Transportation. “Every ticket, of course, guarantees a passenger a seat on the plane, with no additional mandatory seat-assignment charges."

Later in the filing, United Airlines expanded on its promise to regulators that it guarantees every ticketed passenger a seat. [...]"

Well, this certainly strengthens a few arguments.

Cerecl wrote:

Actually no, my sympathy does not stem from the fact that this guy is Asian. Nowhere did I unconditionally accuse UA of racism. What I wrote was 100% correct. IF all 4 passengers were Asian, which is a minority race, then UA has a lot more explanation to do and their corporate image in Asian countries would suffer further as this is a statistically very unlikely event and likely debunks the claim that the selection was random. I'd like to see you disputing that. I also cautioned that the rumour was yet unsubstantiated, so much for "letting your emotions decide what happened".

I dispute it. lol What if they were all white, like the guy in the earlier story from UA last week that was told to get out of his first class seat or face handcuffing? Here's a question - what was the race of the gate agent? Does it matter? And if does matter, why? And if it doesn't matter, why?

Flighty wrote:

11725Flyer wrote:

Flighty wrote:

Excellent memo from Munoz. It is time for United to defend itself strongly. The criminal was removed so the lawful passengers could continue.

The story is an utterly routine day at the airport. Other than the fact that a licensed doctor was an irate passenger and needed to be helped off the aircraft. Any injuries sustained were his responsibility. Emphatically.

UAL will settle because as another poster said, they do not want to risk changing longstanding process has evolved for 50+ years and works well.

Do you still think it was an "excellent memo"?

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

Let me explain, yes it was an excellent memo. It told a consistent, true story of how the industry operated, quite effectively, and I think fairly, for many many years. People have been arrested off of planes many times. They often feel very mad and swear to "sue the airline!!!" Moreover, by all known legal frameworks, this guy was wrong. He did break the rules, it's confusing, but he did. Nobody has argued otherwise previously - that denied boarding can't happen on a plane. That a flight crew can't unseat paying passengers. That police can't touch passengers or move them unless they are hit first. These are new ideas.

The country and the world were outraged yesterday. Lawyers now re-interpret that you don't really have to do what the airline says, that much of the customary process is invalid. The boarding process must become more political, less technical, more feelings oriented. Nobody cares about airline jargon, so stuff it. Airlines are glorified hotels now. The people demand this, so hey, the world changed.

Airlines are glorified buss companies. They can charge more because they get you to your destination faster, they need to adhere to more stringent safety rules because the impact of the failure will be more severe, but nothing grants them exemption from fair business practices.

IMHO anything less than "We will not sell tickets to people we cannot assign a seat for..." on April 30 will aggravate the PR situation.

727LOVER wrote:

4 people were asked to leave the aircraft. 3 complied.

So those 3 get $800 and this guy gets $1 million?

Same way a passenger pays $150 and another $750 on the same ticket. Commodity.

OSUk1d wrote:

Cerecl wrote:

OSUk1d wrote:

You have zero evidence that race did play a role. Yet that doesn't stop you from implying it. There is however a method to determine who is denied, and it has nothing to do with race or occupation.

There is, as I wrote, yet unsubstantiated claim then 4 passengers removed were all Asians, so not zero evidence. You give me the race of the 4 passengers, and if they are not all (or majority) Asian, I will delete the part in my post about race. Unless you are involved in the decision making of which 4 to remove, how can you be so certain race played no role??

That's called a coincidence, not evidence. I can be certain because these are procedures to determine who is denied that have been done forever and they don't involve race or occupation.

Let me put it into number for you. Let's say 20% of the passengers were Asian. the chance of randomly picking 4 Asians out of this group is 0.2 to the power of 4. or 0.0016 (barely 1 in 1000). If 10% were Asian, the probability is 1 in 10000. Is it conclusive evidence that race played a role? Clearly not. Is it enough to drag UA's image through the mud again in Asia? You bet.
By the way, you keep on repeating race played no role. How do you know the person involved applied the rule you described?

dlphoenix wrote:

Airlines are glorified buss companies. They can charge more because they get you to your destination faster, they need to adhere to more stringent safety rules because the impact of the failure will be more severe, but nothing grants them exemption from fair business practices.

IMHO anything less than "We will not sell tickets to people we cannot assign a seat for..." on April 30 will aggravate the PR situation.

I think they can still (definitely will) overbook as long as the resolution process is always voluntary, no exceptions. See below.

PA110 wrote:

Bottom Line: United's need to position a crew at last minute is a cost of doing business. It should not come at the expense of their paying customers. United tried to do this on the cheap. They should have kept upping the offer until they had the necessary volunteers. That should be the ultimate outcome of this incident. Airlines should no longer be allowed to disembark passengers for a deadheading crew. Period. They can and should solicit volunteers by offering increased compensation until they have secured the needed space. That will be the market value of having to reposition crews.

Agreed. If they want to deadhead a crew, they should auction the seats, never invol people. In fact they should never invol people at all. They should always auction.

This isn't a huge change. It will raise the oversale cost by a little bit as they compute their overbooking. It will work ok. The airline whose business process will change the most? That's right... JetBlue.

OSUk1d wrote:

Yup, and there was an option at 540 pm which was their right to utilize. They could have been going on very minimum rest and anything later and they wouldn't have been good for the next flight.

That's not reasonable justification for giving a paying customer a traumatic brain injury (mTBI / concussion). Even if it were reasonable to bump seated, paying passengers for late crew, United still could have rebooked the passengers on a different carrier. Instead, United chose to get the police involved and violently remove the less desirable passengers. No sympathy there as options that would've gotten the crew and passengers to SDF on-time were available and unused. Penny-wise, pound foolish indeed.

Cerecl wrote:

OSUk1d wrote:

Cerecl wrote:

There is, as I wrote, yet unsubstantiated claim then 4 passengers removed were all Asians, so not zero evidence. You give me the race of the 4 passengers, and if they are not all (or majority) Asian, I will delete the part in my post about race. Unless you are involved in the decision making of which 4 to remove, how can you be so certain race played no role??

That's called a coincidence, not evidence. I can be certain because these are procedures to determine who is denied that have been done forever and they don't involve race or occupation.

Let me put it into number for you. Let's say 20% of the passengers were Asian. the chance of randomly picking 4 Asians out of this group is 0.2 to the power of 4. or 0.0016 (barely 1 in 1000). If 10% were Asian, the probability is 1 in 10000. Is it conclusive evidence that race played a role? Clearly not. Is it enough to drag UA's image through the mud again in Asia? You bet.
By the way, you keep on repeating race played no role. How do you know the person involved applied the rule you described?

1. Because there's no reason not to.
2. Everything is trackable.
3. You've obviously never dealt with Asian passengers. It would be way easier to pick anyone else.

gatibosgru wrote:

sphealey wrote:

"http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/united-airlines-promised-federal-regulators-all-ticketed-passengers-are-guaranteed
Less than three years before a passenger was forcibly removed from one of its aircrafts, United Airlines assured federal regulators that all ticketed passengers are guaranteed seats on flights. The promise was delivered in federal filings reviewed by International Business Times.

In September 2014 comments to federal officials, the Chicago-based airline outlined its opposition to proposed rules that sought more disclosure of the fees airlines charge to customers. One of the rules at issue was designed to compel airlines to more explicitly disclose fees charged for reserving specific seats.

“Including advance-seat-assignment charges among the ‘basic ancillary service’ fees that must be disclosed as part of initial fare displays makes no sense,” the airline wrote to the Department of Transportation. “Every ticket, of course, guarantees a passenger a seat on the plane, with no additional mandatory seat-assignment charges."

Later in the filing, United Airlines expanded on its promise to regulators that it guarantees every ticketed passenger a seat. [...]"

Well, this certainly strengthens a few arguments.

That is very damaging in the current situation, although I suspect someone will find a way to say that the four passengers were not technically ticketed passengers because of obscure rule 34, sub-rule 87, article 9, point B, subsection D, variation 45.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Cerecl wrote:

Actually no, my sympathy does not stem from the fact that this guy is Asian. Nowhere did I unconditionally accuse UA of racism. What I wrote was 100% correct. IF all 4 passengers were Asian, which is a minority race, then UA has a lot more explanation to do and their corporate image in Asian countries would suffer further as this is a statistically very unlikely event and likely debunks the claim that the selection was random. I'd like to see you disputing that. I also cautioned that the rumour was yet unsubstantiated, so much for "letting your emotions decide what happened".

I dispute it. lol What if they were all white, like the guy in the earlier story from UA last week that was told to get out of his first class seat or face handcuffing? Here's a question - what was the race of the gate agent? Does it matter? And if does matter, why? And if it doesn't matter, why?

Statistically, randomly picking 4 white out a cohort of white majority passengers (happy to be proven wrong if this is not the case) is much more likely than picking 4 Asians out of it. So if 4 white passengers where picked, obviously the implication of racism is not there and I think it would be very difficult to argue that UA favoured non-white passengers. Consider this, on a domestic flight in an Asian/African country, when 4 people needed to be randomly removed and all 4 were Caucasian would you think there is zero evidence of racial-based selection?
As I have said a few times, if the "all Asian" story is proven wrong I would delete my posts (if I can?). However if it is proven true I really cannot see how you don't see a problem with UA's image.
The race of gate agent does not matter. What matters is what algorithm she used to pick the 4 passengers.

zippy wrote:

OSUk1d wrote:

Yup, and there was an option at 540 pm which was their right to utilize. They could have been going on very minimum rest and anything later and they wouldn't have been good for the next flight.

That's not reasonable justification for giving a paying customer a traumatic brain injury (mTBI / concussion). Even if it were reasonable to bump seated, paying passengers for late crew, United still could have rebooked the passengers on a different carrier. Instead, United chose to get the police involved and violently remove the less desirable passengers. No sympathy there as options that would've gotten the crew and passengers to SDF on-time were available and unused. Penny-wise, pound foolish indeed.

And just how do you rebook someone who won't get off the plane?
Also, did you evaluate him after the fact?

OSUk1d wrote:

Cerecl wrote:

OSUk1d wrote:

That's called a coincidence, not evidence. I can be certain because these are procedures to determine who is denied that have been done forever and they don't involve race or occupation.

Let me put it into number for you. Let's say 20% of the passengers were Asian. the chance of randomly picking 4 Asians out of this group is 0.2 to the power of 4. or 0.0016 (barely 1 in 1000). If 10% were Asian, the probability is 1 in 10000. Is it conclusive evidence that race played a role? Clearly not. Is it enough to drag UA's image through the mud again in Asia? You bet.
By the way, you keep on repeating race played no role. How do you know the person involved applied the rule you described?

1. Because there's no reason not to.
2. Everything is trackable.
3. You've obviously never dealt with Asian passengers. It would be way easier to pick anyone else.

You are still using your own experience to judge the action of others. Maybe the gate agent's perception of Asian passengers is not the same as yours. Maybe she went through the proper process and in a 1 in ten thousand event she picked 4 Asians. I would almost argue it does not matter. If it is true (please read the "if" lest more posters bring emotion into this) that all 4 passengers were Asian, UA will suffer even more.
Also, you keep on mentioning the "process", may I ask if one of the criteria is how much the passengers paid? If it does I don't know if it is any better than picking people based on race. Most of the passengers are not seated at the pointy end. I think part of the reason this story became so explosive is people realised this could happen to them-what if they are the lowest paying customer?

bob75013 wrote:

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...

I'd say most do. The whole "They'll be back when its cheap" bs is nothing other than lazy echo chamber thinking and in this case, not found outside of airline enthusiast and employee circles.

The fact is that in most major metros, there is more competition than ever and there is no reason to reward a poor carrier like UA or AA.

This extends far beyond here. It's very common for people not to shop at a particular store or use a given telecom over some experience from decades before.


As for UA, they need to show that they are voiding the policies and replacing the employees (that means you too, Oscar) that made this happen. And even then, it will be a long road back.

Maybe a good time to advance that rebranding after all...

Cerecl wrote:

OSUk1d wrote:

Cerecl wrote:

Let me put it into number for you. Let's say 20% of the passengers were Asian. the chance of randomly picking 4 Asians out of this group is 0.2 to the power of 4. or 0.0016 (barely 1 in 1000). If 10% were Asian, the probability is 1 in 10000. Is it conclusive evidence that race played a role? Clearly not. Is it enough to drag UA's image through the mud again in Asia? You bet.
By the way, you keep on repeating race played no role. How do you know the person involved applied the rule you described?

1. Because there's no reason not to.
2. Everything is trackable.
3. You've obviously never dealt with Asian passengers. It would be way easier to pick anyone else.

You are still using your own experience to judge the action of others. Maybe the gate agent's perception of Asian passengers is not the same as yours. Maybe she went through the proper process and in a 1 in ten thousand event she picked 4 Asians. I would almost argue it does not matter. If it is true (please read the "if" lest more posters bring emotion into this) that all 4 passengers were Asian, UA will suffer even more.
Also, you keep on mentioning the "process", may I ask if one of the criteria is how much the passengers paid? If it does I don't know if it is any better than picking people based on race. Most of the passengers are not seated at the pointy end. I think part of the reason this story became so explosive is people realised this could happen to them-what if they are the lowest paying customer?

I am using my years of experience dealing with thousands of passengers a day. Looking at the name and not knowing whether they are American, it is not unreasonable to assume it could be very difficult to get a passenger to follow instructions.
I don't know United's exact criteria.. it might be price paid, it might be last to check in, it might be a combination. But I do know it does not involve race or occupation and to suggest there is any chance otherwise is incorrect.

Cerecl wrote:

OSUk1d wrote:

Cerecl wrote:

Let me put it into number for you. Let's say 20% of the passengers were Asian. the chance of randomly picking 4 Asians out of this group is 0.2 to the power of 4. or 0.0016 (barely 1 in 1000). If 10% were Asian, the probability is 1 in 10000. Is it conclusive evidence that race played a role? Clearly not. Is it enough to drag UA's image through the mud again in Asia? You bet.
By the way, you keep on repeating race played no role. How do you know the person involved applied the rule you described?

1. Because there's no reason not to.
2. Everything is trackable.
3. You've obviously never dealt with Asian passengers. It would be way easier to pick anyone else.

You are still using your own experience to judge the action of others. Maybe the gate agent's perception of Asian passengers is not the same as yours. Maybe she went through the proper process and in a 1 in ten thousand event she picked 4 Asians. I would almost argue it does not matter. If it is true (please read the "if" lest more posters bring emotion into this) that all 4 passengers were Asian, UA will suffer even more.
Also, you keep on mentioning the "process", may I ask if one of the criteria is how much the passengers paid? If it does I don't know if it is any better than picking people based on race. Most of the passengers are not seated at the pointy end. I think part of the reason this story became so explosive is people realised this could happen to them-what if they are the lowest paying customer?

The fact that it has nothing to do with race has already been presented to you. Not sure more we can say about it.

Do you think the people who designed United's deboarding algorithm are not Asian? Because I will bet you $5 that they are. I've even met 1 or 2 people in that department, have you?

When this story first broke I really didn't think it would get this far, so far that it is still getting covered on the news right now. I think the United shareholders and other people high up in United need to coach the CEO OM, so that in the future he knows how to properly handle PR situations like this. He basically added gasoline to a forest fire. Plenty of these types of videos surface multiple times every year. The difference is most of the time when a company or an airline mistreats a customer they are quick to take full responsibility or blame, whether or not they are believed to be in the right. However CEO OM, acted like a first grader and blamed everyone but himself, and then had the nerve to send out a private message to employees saying that it was the passenger that was wrong. Why would you issue another apology so far after the incident, barely any of the general public knows that another apology was added, sure I'm glad they ACTUALLY apologized but it is to little too late. United is going to feel the burn for the next week or so, but soon after that most of the general public will keep flying United. But you know where United is really going to feel the burn..... their already struggling Asian market. I have heard stories over the past days of thousands of people rebooking their flights from United to ANA on their flights coming to America.

Another thought.. does anyone think that Oscar and the united staff had two responses ready, and they chose to go with the first one. Because the second one doesn't directly address any of the other statements that United sent out, and looks as if the incident just happened.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Cerecl wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

I dispute it. lol What if they were all white, like the guy in the earlier story from UA last week that was told to get out of his first class seat or face handcuffing? Here's a question - what was the race of the gate agent? Does it matter? And if does matter, why? And if it doesn't matter, why?

Statistically, randomly picking 4 white out a cohort of white majority passengers (happy to be proven wrong if this is not the case) is much more likely than picking 4 Asians out of it. So if 4 white passengers where picked, obviously the implication of racism is not there and I think it would be very difficult to argue that UA favoured non-white passengers. Consider this, on a domestic flight in an Asian/African country, when 4 people needed to be randomly removed and all 4 were Caucasian would you think there is zero evidence of racial-based selection?
As I have said a few times, if the "all Asian" story is proven wrong I would delete my posts (if I can?). However if it is proven true I really cannot see how you don't see a problem with UA's image.
The race of gate agent does not matter. What matters is what algorithm she used to pick the 4 passengers.

I give up. Have a great day.

If it helps, Dr. Dao's race and mine are not the friendliest in history and present. I also have no personal interest in UA, having decided to avoid it well before the incident. I am just appalled how inappropriately he is treated and how horribly UA handled the aftermath. I can't change my race and I don't think it should automatically lead to suspicion of putting emotions before logic. You have a good day too.

Flighty wrote:

Cerecl wrote:

OSUk1d wrote:

1. Because there's no reason not to.
2. Everything is trackable.
3. You've obviously never dealt with Asian passengers. It would be way easier to pick anyone else.

You are still using your own experience to judge the action of others. Maybe the gate agent's perception of Asian passengers is not the same as yours. Maybe she went through the proper process and in a 1 in ten thousand event she picked 4 Asians. I would almost argue it does not matter. If it is true (please read the "if" lest more posters bring emotion into this) that all 4 passengers were Asian, UA will suffer even more.
Also, you keep on mentioning the "process", may I ask if one of the criteria is how much the passengers paid? If it does I don't know if it is any better than picking people based on race. Most of the passengers are not seated at the pointy end. I think part of the reason this story became so explosive is people realised this could happen to them-what if they are the lowest paying customer?

The fact that it has nothing to do with race has already been presented to you. Not sure more we can say about it.

Do you think the people who designed United's deboarding algorithm are not Asian? Because I will bet you $5 that they are. I've even met 1 or 2 people in that department, have you?

And what are these facts? As I replied to OSUk1d, I am guessing you don't know if the gate agent applied the algorithm, or she used some other standard. What I consider facts would be the race of the 4 passengers picked, do you have this information?
Your words would have a lot more credibility if you haven't consistently called this poor man a criminal and insisted that the first response by Munoz was great. You implied that you have some contact in UA or may even work there. I sincerely hope most of your colleagues do not hold the same attitude that you do.

Cerecl wrote:

Flighty wrote:

Cerecl wrote:

You are still using your own experience to judge the action of others. Maybe the gate agent's perception of Asian passengers is not the same as yours. Maybe she went through the proper process and in a 1 in ten thousand event she picked 4 Asians. I would almost argue it does not matter. If it is true (please read the "if" lest more posters bring emotion into this) that all 4 passengers were Asian, UA will suffer even more.
Also, you keep on mentioning the "process", may I ask if one of the criteria is how much the passengers paid? If it does I don't know if it is any better than picking people based on race. Most of the passengers are not seated at the pointy end. I think part of the reason this story became so explosive is people realised this could happen to them-what if they are the lowest paying customer?

The fact that it has nothing to do with race has already been presented to you. Not sure more we can say about it.

Do you think the people who designed United's deboarding algorithm are not Asian? Because I will bet you $5 that they are. I've even met 1 or 2 people in that department, have you?

And what are these facts? As I replied to OSUk1d, I am guessing you don't know if the gate agent applied the algorithm, or she used some other standard. What I consider facts would be the race of the 4 passengers picked, do you have this information?
Your words would have a lot more credibility if you haven't consistently called this poor man a criminal and insisted that the first response by Munoz was great. You implied that you have some contact in UA or may even work there. I sincerely hope most of your colleagues do not hold the same attitude that you do.

He is a criminal, that is a fact.
How else would she do it. Most likely they are not on the plane when they are processing the removal from seats. They are not looking at anyone, and probably are not going to risk their job just to get this random guy off the flight. Everything is tracked and traceable.

OSUk1d wrote:

I am using my years of experience dealing with thousands of passengers a day. Looking at the name and not knowing whether they are American, it is not unreasonable to assume it could be very difficult to get a passenger to follow instructions.
I don't know United's exact criteria.. it might be price paid, it might be last to check in, it might be a combination. But I do know it does not involve race or occupation and to suggest there is any chance otherwise is incorrect.

You are defending an entity that was caught violating what is considered fair business practices (Sell what you can deliver), and called the police to pry the merchandise out of the buyer's hand.
Let me remind you that:
- Tobacco companies maintained that they are not responsible for the damages caused by smoking
- Doctors were immune from criticism
- Car companies were not responsible for charging extra for seat belts
All in the name of small print in the contract.
The airline industry will succumb to the new reality, and sooner due to several righteous United employees that forgot that no business can survive without customers.

Oscar Munoz was inducted into the business hall of shame (trust me, this case will be thought in business schools long after we both move on to greener pastures) before he realized his mistake.
What would it take for you to admit that UA was wrong?

This whole incident is turning out to be very similar to what happened to Korean Air till the end of the 1990s, where their cockpit culture led to so many crashes. Delta Airlines sent in instructors from Atlanta to change their culture. For the most part, Korean Air has rebounded and has become a lot safer now. I don't recall them having an incident ever since. Look up Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers, for more information about Cockpit Culture Theory.

In United's case, you can safely say that they have a horrible culture that hates customers. This incident is just the type of the iceberg. Many more incidents have happened without much coverage. I have been through similar incidents even as a frequent flier on elite status with them. United may have good pilots and planes, but they are in no shape to run an actual airline.

This could have very well have happened to Delta or even American Airlines. It's part of the US culture to receive horrible service from the mainline carriers.

What needs to be done is that, United needs to ask ANA/ Singapore Airlines for help to train any of their employees that have to face customers. At this point, they would be better off if they replaced their gate and customer agents with a bunch of 5th graders....

dlphoenix wrote:

OSUk1d wrote:

I am using my years of experience dealing with thousands of passengers a day. Looking at the name and not knowing whether they are American, it is not unreasonable to assume it could be very difficult to get a passenger to follow instructions.
I don't know United's exact criteria.. it might be price paid, it might be last to check in, it might be a combination. But I do know it does not involve race or occupation and to suggest there is any chance otherwise is incorrect.

You are defending an entity that was caught violating what is considered fair business practices (Sell what you can deliver), and called the police to pry the merchandise out of the buyer's hand.
Let me remind you that:
- Tobacco companies maintained that they are not responsible for the damages caused by smoking
- Doctors were immune from criticism
- Car companies were not responsible for charging extra for seat belts
All in the name of small print in the contract.
The airline industry will succumb to the new reality, and sooner due to several righteous United employees that forgot that no business can survive without customers.

Oscar Munoz was inducted into the business hall of shame (trust me, this case will be thought in business schools long after we both move on to greener pastures) before he realized his mistake.
What would it take for you to admit that UA was wrong?

I dunno, maybe start with United actually being wrong. But it doesn't really matter. This country is pretty much over. 98% of the American public is incredibly stupid. Seemingly unable to think or function on their own. Not able to follow simple instructions. Dealing with it all day every day makes me wonder how it took so long for this country to fall apart.

UA was really being cheap here. Not only did they not up the compensation, they also didn't offer to book the kicked off passengers on next available flight even if its with competitors. They offered UA flight the next day! As per some other posts in the thread, there was an AA flight that wasn't full that left later in the day.

UA wanted to have the cake & eat it too. They wanted to screw the passengers as much as possible. If they had at least offered cash compensation and/or another flight leaving the same day, they would have probably found some takers. This is what happens when the company is not customer focused and is concerned more only about the bottom line. There were multiple threads earlier about how bad UA's customer service was, and it was supposed to have changed with Oscar becoming CEO. Looks like it still believes customer service comes last and that too only if required.

OSUk1d wrote:

I dunno, maybe start with United actually being wrong. But it doesn't really matter. This country is pretty much over. 98% of the American public is incredibly stupid. Seemingly unable to think or function on their own. Not able to follow simple instructions. Dealing with it all day every day makes me wonder how it took so long for this country to fall apart.

Don't know about 98% of the American public.
But there is a high likelihood that certain United employees that led to a situation where no seats were reserved for 4 crew members that had to be in Louisville the next morning may qualify.
As for the person that believes that the only person at fault for this incident is the victim - The jury is still out.

Happy travels
DLP

Nearly every way the United incident could have ended differently—in one flowchart

https://ibb.co/jByYvk

Source: https://qz.com/955853/flowchart-of-near ... fferently/

juliuswong wrote:

Nearly every way the United incident could have ended differently—in one flowchart

https://ibb.co/jByYvk

Source: https://qz.com/955853/flowchart-of-near ... fferently/

Good one! Well, I hope Oscar sees the workflow

Those choosing to defend United on here. Put your money where your mouth is. How many of you agree willing to pay United's legal bill?

Or heck, I'll take a wager that United will lose in court. Please PM your wager.

If anyone hasn't yet seen this, here's a fair, well-thought-out analysis of what occurred, and where things fell apart:

http://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.com ... happening/

Cerecl wrote:

and their corporate image in Asian countries would suffer further....

Check out the reaction in China. Far worse than the US.

People are free to defend UA over this. They shouldn't be surprised though if bookings actually get impacted in Asia.

EA CO AS wrote:

If anyone hasn't yet seen this, here's a fair, well-thought-out analysis of what occurred, and where things fell apart:

http://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.com ... happening/

No, it's a piss-weak defense of complete incompetence and PR tone-deafness. He attempts to suggest that United couldn't have kept increasing the offer because the maximum REQUIRED compensation was $1350 (emphasis mine). Clearly not familiar with the term "required". Plus he claims that such a procedure would have delayed the plane and made it miss its slot. Calling the police and dragging him off the plane clearly didn't delay things at all of course.

Also, this is good: "So what do we do to prevent this in the future? The truth is there’s not very much. Running an airline is hard. "

That's the kind of visionary thinking which has gotten United's brand image to where it is today.

My favorite part of all though is where he says "It wasn’t “to maximize their profits” although they certainly wanted to limit their losses".

zckls04 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

If anyone hasn't yet seen this, here's a fair, well-thought-out analysis of what occurred, and where things fell apart:

http://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.com ... happening/

No, it's a piss-weak defense of complete incompetence and PR tone-deafness. He attempts to suggest that United couldn't have kept increasing the offer because the maximum REQUIRED compensation was $1350 (emphasis mine). Clearly not familiar with the term "required". Plus he claims that such a procedure would have delayed the plane and made it miss its slot. Calling the police and dragging him off the plane clearly didn't delay things at all of course.

Yep. And according to multiple reports from other passengers, they only offered $800 in vouchers. Not $1350. And not in cash.

ytz wrote:

Cerecl wrote:

and their corporate image in Asian countries would suffer further....

Check out the reaction in China. Far worse than the US.

People are free to defend UA over this. They shouldn't be surprised though if bookings actually get impacted in Asia.

408 million Weibo users (That's China's version of Twitter). One market, 1.2 billion population, UA is largest player in US-China player. Good luck!

(PS: Not sure why the reaction in China is massively angry, guess it was before the ID was made known the doctor is Vietnamese.)

zckls04 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

If anyone hasn't yet seen this, here's a fair, well-thought-out analysis of what occurred, and where things fell apart:

http://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.com ... happening/

No, it's a piss-weak defense of complete incompetence and PR tone-deafness. He attempts to suggest that United couldn't have kept increasing the offer because the maximum REQUIRED compensation was $1350 (emphasis mine). Clearly not familiar with the term "required". Plus he claims that such a procedure would have delayed the plane and made it miss its slot. Calling the police and dragging him off the plane clearly didn't delay things at all of course.

Also, this is good: "So what do we do to prevent this in the future? The truth is there’s not very much. Running an airline is hard. "

That's the kind of visionary thinking which has gotten United's brand image to where it is today.

My favorite part of all though is where he says "It wasn’t “to maximize their profits” although they certainly wanted to limit their losses".

1. I think his point about the compensation - poor as it may have been - was that once they got to $1350, they were at the level where they could just end the process and go straight to IDB since $1350 is the max cash payout for IDB passengers. IOW, I think he's implying that it was a waste of time and money to keep "asking" when they were at the threshold where it was a wash to just "tell". Again, not defending it.

2. He's saying that UA was going to take a loss on this because they were giving back compensation to these passengers and replacing them with zero revenue. By not doing a "the sky's the limit" bidding process with the passengers, they minimized these losses. This wasn't about booting people off and replacing them with higher yielding passengers. Granted, it would have cost them a fortune in the morning taking the delay out of SDF if this crew wasn't there.

Anyhow, I liked the balanced approach of it but disagreed with aspects as well. I think he missed some opportunities for UA to avoid or temper the problems.

EA CO AS wrote:

If anyone hasn't yet seen this, here's a fair, well-thought-out analysis of what occurred, and where things fell apart:

http://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.com ... happening/

United had an operational issue, they call the police to help with "an unruly passenger" an the police is to blame?
Very credible.

Now that I know how resourceful UA is dealing with crew positioning I am sure I can trust them to handle real emergencies.

zckls04 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

If anyone hasn't yet seen this, here's a fair, well-thought-out analysis of what occurred, and where things fell apart:

http://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.com ... happening/

No, it's a piss-weak defense of complete incompetence and PR tone-deafness. He attempts to suggest that United couldn't have kept increasing the offer because the maximum REQUIRED compensation was $1350 (emphasis mine). Clearly not familiar with the term "required". Plus he claims that such a procedure would have delayed the plane and made it miss its slot. Calling the police and dragging him off the plane clearly didn't delay things at all of course.

Also, this is good: "So what do we do to prevent this in the future? The truth is there’s not very much. Running an airline is hard. "

That's the kind of visionary thinking which has gotten United's brand image to where it is today.

My favorite part of all though is where he says "It wasn’t “to maximize their profits” although they certainly wanted to limit their losses".

He's a blogger, not someone who has any vested interest in minimizing what occurred, nor inflating it. He's simply calling out what happened.

And yes, as I pointed out earlier, airlines will seek volunteers for LESS than $1350 in hopes of not having to simply bump people involuntarily for the $1350 amount. Should UA have offered the top end? Sure, but as he points out, it's possible there wasn't further time to seek volunteers before that crew timed out, and knowing you're paying out the $1350 per person regardless, you may as well do it involuntarily and get it done quickly.

Once again, the headline-making part of this whole fiasco was the treatment by the police, not by UA. Had they not been forceful, this would have been a non-story.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

1. I think his point about the compensation - poor as it may have been - was that once they got to $1350, they were at the level where they could just end the process and go straight to IDB since $1350 is the max cash payout for IDB passengers. IOW, I think he's implying that it was a waste of time and money to keep "asking" when they were at the threshold where it was a wash to just "tell". Again, not defending it.

2. He's saying that UA was going to take a loss on this because they were giving back compensation to these passengers and replacing them with zero revenue. By not doing a "the sky's the limit" bidding process with the passengers, they minimized these losses. This wasn't about booting people off and replacing them with higher yielding passengers. Granted, it would have cost them a fortune in the morning taking the delay out of SDF if this crew wasn't there.

Anyhow, I liked the balanced approach of it but disagreed with aspects as well. I think he missed some opportunities for UA to avoid or temper the problems.

FINALLY, someone gets it! I was beginning to wonder why everyone was only relying on emotion when looking at this situation instead of balancing it with logic and common sense. It's not like UA started out their operation that day looking to screw over customers, let alone beat them bloody!

PlanesNTrains wrote:

[1. I think his point about the compensation - poor as it may have been - was that once they got to $1350, they were at the level where they could just end the process and go straight to IDB since $1350 is the max cash payout for IDB passengers. IOW, I think he's implying that it was a waste of time and money to keep "asking" when they were at the threshold where it was a wash to just "tell". Again, not defending it.

But they never got to $1350. That's what is so maddening. (Only $800 according to passenger reports) Apparently the person in charge thought it was a brilliant idea to call security BEFORE upping the offer to $1350.

Only ONE offer was made: http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/04/11 ... nt-sot.cnn

EA CO AS wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

1. I think his point about the compensation - poor as it may have been - was that once they got to $1350, they were at the level where they could just end the process and go straight to IDB since $1350 is the max cash payout for IDB passengers. IOW, I think he's implying that it was a waste of time and money to keep "asking" when they were at the threshold where it was a wash to just "tell". Again, not defending it.

2. He's saying that UA was going to take a loss on this because they were giving back compensation to these passengers and replacing them with zero revenue. By not doing a "the sky's the limit" bidding process with the passengers, they minimized these losses. This wasn't about booting people off and replacing them with higher yielding passengers. Granted, it would have cost them a fortune in the morning taking the delay out of SDF if this crew wasn't there.

Anyhow, I liked the balanced approach of it but disagreed with aspects as well. I think he missed some opportunities for UA to avoid or temper the problems.

FINALLY, someone gets it! I was beginning to wonder why everyone was only relying on emotion when looking at this situation instead of balancing it with logic and common sense. It's not like UA started out their operation that day looking to screw over customers, let alone beat them bloody!

I will repeat: $1,350 is NOT the maximum. There is no maximum amount that an airline can pay, they can freely negotiate to whatever the market will bear. And I guarantee you it will be infinitely cheaper than what this just cost and it is fair for all parties involved in situations like this.

There was no actual need for United to escalate this to the point of IDB.

Tugg

PlanesNTrains wrote:

1. I think his point about the compensation - poor as it may have been - was that once they got to $1350, they were at the level where they could just end the process and go straight to IDB since $1350 is the max cash payout for IDB passengers. IOW, I think he's implying that it was a waste of time and money to keep "asking" when they were at the threshold where it was a wash to just "tell". Again, not defending it.

He's conflating two issues- what United are legally required to do vs. what is a smart move for them in terms of PR, and using the former to justify the latter.

Yes, it's true they weren't legally required to offer more than $1350, but they didn't even offer that, so it's a completely moot point. His suggestion that increasing the amount offered would have reached $100,000 before anybody took them up on it is laughable.

2. He's saying that UA was going to take a loss on this because they were giving back compensation to these passengers and replacing them with zero revenue. By not doing a "the sky's the limit" bidding process with the passengers, they minimized these losses. This wasn't about booting people off and replacing them with higher yielding passengers. Granted, it would have cost them a fortune in the morning taking the delay out of SDF if this crew wasn't there.

Profit and loss are inextricably linked. You limit your losses to maximize your profits. I understand his point; I just think it's a diversion.

EA CO AS wrote:

He's a blogger, not someone who has any vested interest in minimizing what occurred, nor inflating it. He's simply calling out what happened.

Whether he's a blogger or not doesn't strengthen or weaken his arguments.

And yes, as I pointed out earlier, airlines will seek volunteers for LESS than $1350 in hopes of not having to simply bump people involuntarily for the $1350 amount. Should UA have offered the top end? Sure, but as he points out, it's possible there wasn't further time to seek volunteers before that crew timed out, and knowing you're paying out the $1350 per person regardless, you may as well do it involuntarily and get it done quickly.

It doesn't have to take long. Just announce to the passengers that you'll offer $250 cash (not vouchers, which are worthless if you aren't planning on flying) to the first person who hits their call light to voluntarily give up their seat. Every minute, increase the offer by $250. If you're delayed by longer than six minutes I'll eat my hat.

And a reminder- this flight took off two hours late. Was that a better outcome, timeslot-wise?

Once again, the headline-making part of this whole fiasco was the treatment by the police, not by UA. Had they not been forceful, this would have been a non-story.

Yes, but it ISN'T the headline-making part of this fiasco. What's fuelling outrage is United's actions, not the PD's.

EA CO AS wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

FINALLY, someone gets it! I was beginning to wonder why everyone was only relying on emotion when looking at this situation instead of balancing it with logic and common sense.

You have it backwards. Those defending the airline are the ones being ruled by emotion.

Seriously, which part of United's actions do you believe falls under "common sense"?

OSUk1d wrote:

kavok wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Absolutely true. It's one reason I try to step back a bit from the hoopla and imagine each step. I try to keep a bit of humility in it as well, probably because I try to imagine myself being in their shoes and having things unfold unintentionally into this disaster. Not that I would have handled it the same, but I've backed into things innocently before and in hindsight you can see where it went wrong but in the moment it isn't always quite as clear cut.

I'll probably get nailed for supporting United now. Ugh.

To be in their shoes, you had to be someone who was morally okay with removing a seated passenger for a company employee. Legal or not, that is not morally okay.

so you'd rather cancel a whole flight the next day than inconvenience four people on that flight?

Yes, I'd rather they cancel a flight than kick my ass and drag me down the aisle with a bloody face.... Duh!

Tugger wrote:

FINALLY, someone gets it! I was beginning to wonder why everyone was only relying on emotion when looking at this situation instead of balancing it with logic and common sense. It's not like UA started out their operation that day looking to screw over customers, let alone beat them bloody!

I will repeat: $1,350 is NOT the maximum. There is no maximum amount that an airline can pay, they can freely negotiate to whatever the market will bear. And I guarantee you it will be infinitely cheaper than what this just cost and it is fair for all parties involved in situations like this.

There was no actual need for United to escalate this to the point of IDB.

Tugg[/quote]

Wasn't the actual offer that was made $800 in vouchers, and rebooking on a flight the following afternoon?
Now offer someone the AA flight on the same route one hour later the same day, which other posters have told us went out with empty seats, and they might well have got takers.
Offer someone $800 cash/check and they might have got takers.
Will we ever know what the gate agents were empowered to offer under company rules?

Tugger wrote:

I will repeat: $1,350 is NOT the maximum.

It's the maximum they're required to pay under the law if they involuntarily bump someone, which is why they probably figured, "Well if we're going to end up paying that anyway, we might as well just bump people instead of continuing to seek volunteers by offering MORE than that amount."

And I think you know that.

Now again, if it's my company, I'm sweetening the deal in hopes of getting a happy volunteer instead of a disgruntled, but legally made-whole, IDB customer.

zckls04 wrote:

Yes, but it ISN'T the headline-making part of this fiasco. What's fuelling outrage is United's actions, not the PD's.

No video = no reaction. The PR is entertaining but ultimately the outrage is over the treatment of this guy.