|Quoting 01pewterz28 (Reply 23):|
Btw this was NOT a United Airlines mainline flight but a UNITED Express flight operation ( Trans States Airlines) under a UAL Flight # so let's not all get upset with United for the lack ok knowledge foe the Flightcrew of this flight.
|Quoting aviateur (Reply 50):|
It was NOT a United flight; it was a United Express flight.
|Quoting tu154 (Reply 64):|
This is NOT UA...
Only people who work in the airline industry would possibly think this way and, basically, you're out of your mind. United essentially outsourced this service to another company to provide the service as United. In every way except possibly bookkeeping, this is United. No typical customer cares about technicalities. It's United. If they do a bad job then United shouldn't do business with them.
|Quoting USAIRWAYS321 (Reply 65):|
The major carriers don't want the media and passengers to figure that out until the regional carrier does something wrong. The major carriers can't have it both ways. If they get the benefit of advertising additional service and a wider route network - all with major carrier branding, mind you - they need to own up when something goes wrong on a UAX flight and Joe Schmoe thinks it's UA. After all, that's how UA wanted it in the first place.
Let's put it this way: If you complain about, say, Dell's customer service is it fair for me to say "This is NOT Dell?" Based on the logic being applied here I could argue that it's really some call center in India that you have a problem with, not Dell. (not intending to pick on Dell here, I don't even know if their service is still a horrid experience or whether it's even an overseas call center).
|Quoting ozark1 (Reply 38):|
Near the anniversary of 9/11 i don't blame any crew member for any actions that they find suspicious
Where do you draw the line on that one? Is it OK to be suspicious that someone is wearing sunglasses? What if their action is to beat someone with a pipe for wearing them?
[Edited 2011-08-25 09:15:57]