$800 was too low an offer and United knew it. They should have upped it to $2000 at least.
They know that overbooking generates millions in profits each year, they should take a small hit every time their gamble leaves passengers in the lurch.
$800 was too low an offer and United knew it. They should have upped it to $2000 at least.
They know that overbooking generates millions in profits each year, they should take a small hit every time their gamble leaves passengers in the lurch.
Read today they are limited to $1350 by law, which is ridiculous.
United Airlines insists they "followed the right procedures" after video of a passenger being dragged from an overbooked flight and being left with a bloodied face sparked outrage.
As the flight waited to depart from Chicago's O'Hare Airport, police officers could be seen grabbing the screaming man from a window seat, pulling him across the armrest and dragging him down the aisle by his arms.
The airline was trying to make room for four of its employees on the Sunday evening flight to Louisville, Kentucky.
Passenger Audra D Bridges posted the video on Facebook. Her husband, Tyler Bridges, said United offered $US400 and then $US800 in vouchers and a hotel stay for volunteers to give up their seats.
When no-one volunteered, a United manager came on the plane and announced passengers would be chosen at random.
"We almost felt like we were being taken hostage," Mr Bridges said.
"We were stuck there. You can't do anything as a traveller. You're relying on the airline."
When airline employees named four customers who had to leave the plane, three of them did so. The fourth person refused to move, and police were called, United spokesman Charlie Hobart said.
"We followed the right procedures," Mr Hobart said.
"That plane had to depart. We wanted to get our customers to their destinations."
not the right way to deal with people at all, but im sure the passengers would of complained if none of them didnt get to there destinations.
I am sorry but I am sure if none of them didn't get to their destination, that means they all got there!
Having a United Airlines mileage plus account that I essentially only have cos my FIL worked with them for years - they have plenty of other issues outside this anyway. Fucking miserable cabin staff who are nothing like as friendly or open as other airlines like Virgin or BA, fuck knows where they get the food from but it is shite - pasta or chicken EVERY bloody time. And the bread roll shouldn't make it through security - it's a lethal weapon. And on my last flight to LA my screen froze every time I was 10 mins in to Bad Neighbours 2. Meaning I had to spend 10 hours using the free on board wifi. Which was so slow it took me 3 hours to upload one post onto this board.
Frankly maybe getting knocked out by the staff would have made the flight go faster.
I have thought for a while they could be a Pan Am waiting to happen but does the Star Alliance collaboration lessen the chance of that happening?
I dunno, minus the miserable cabin crew, your description could fit a number of Air Canada flights I have taken, another Star Alliance airline, so maybe they will just all go down the pan together.
The CEO is now saying that the passenger was dragged off because he became disruptive and belligerent. When asked to get off a flight for which he had a valid ticket and boarding pass.
He will be an ex CEO by Easter.
You have to admire his chutzpah. Most CEOs would be probably heading down the apology route and desperately trying to put the fire out. Instead, despite the overwhelming evidence out there, the CEO said that the passenger was 'reaccomodated' and that the passenger was not cooperating. I'd like to see how cooperative he would be whilst a group of men broke his jaw and beat him unconscious.
It's such a fantastic encapsulation of what it's like to work for/with rich white dudes at the top of companies. I haven't worked for anyone in his sphere, but I see this in varying degrees: your company does something really dumb and/or heartless, maybe intentionally, maybe not, and the default is always "we were just following procedure." All you had to say was "Sorry."
The aviation rules ought to be changed to say that passengers can never be involuntarily removed from a plane if there are no security issues involved. We have enough trouble with possible terrorists without inviting unnecessary aggro for reasons which are purely economic or convenient.
In this case, United screwed up by letting too many people board the plane. OK - it's a simple mistake. But they should have been forced to live with it.
United weren't breaking any law. But there should have been a law!
The CEO is now saying that the passenger was dragged off because he became disruptive and belligerent. When asked to get off a flight for which he had a valid ticket and boarding pass.
He will be an ex CEO by Easter.
You have to admire his chutzpah. Most CEOs would be probably heading down the apology route and desperately trying to put the fire out. Instead, despite the overwhelming evidence out there, the CEO said that the passenger was 'reaccomodated' and that the passenger was not cooperating. I'd like to see how cooperative he would be whilst a group of men broke his jaw and beat him unconscious.
It's such a fantastic encapsulation of what it's like to work for/with rich white dudes at the top of companies. I haven't worked for anyone in his sphere, but I see this in varying degrees: your company does something really dumb and/or heartless, maybe intentionally, maybe not, and the default is always "we were just following procedure." All you had to say was "Sorry."
Mate and myself got asked if we were happy to take a later flight with BA from Heathrow to Munich a few years back. Got immediate compensation (loaded onto a charge card) of 200 odd quid. Also managed to get them to let us into their 'Club Lounge' as part of the deal whilst waiting for the next flight. So, 200 quid better off, loads of free booze and food and a flight 3 hours later than anticipated. Result.
The aviation rules ought to be changed to say that passengers can never be involuntarily removed from a plane if there are no security issues involved. We have enough trouble with possible terrorists without inviting unnecessary aggro for reasons which are purely economic or convenient.
In this case, United screwed up by letting too many people board the plane. OK - it's a simple mistake. But they should have been forced to live with it.
United weren't breaking any law. But there should have been a law!
Ultimately the Captain is responsible and in charge of who can come onto (and be ejected from) his / her aircraft. Having a law to regulate the exercise of his / her authority is unnecessary and would create more issues than it would solve. Slightly drunk passenger - security issue or inconvenience? The Captain cannot be bound by grey areas of law in interpreting the safe operation of their flight. It is at their discretion and they do not need a law to define their actions.
United have screwed up and there is no defence against the way they allowed a security guard to remove the passenger - it's probable that there were better solutions but they got it wrong.
The aviation rules ought to be changed to say that passengers can never be involuntarily removed from a plane if there are no security issues involved. We have enough trouble with possible terrorists without inviting unnecessary aggro for reasons which are purely economic or convenient.
In this case, United screwed up by letting too many people board the plane. OK - it's a simple mistake. But they should have been forced to live with it.
United weren't breaking any law. But there should have been a law!
But you would need to be prepared for the price of all fares to increase on every flight if that became the case. The price we pay for fast, efficient, cheap, internatioanl flights is that sometimes it goes wrong and we have to change our plans. The way United and the ground team handled this event was preposterous. But the fact that sometimes people get bumped isn't going to change any time soon.
The aviation rules ought to be changed to say that passengers can never be involuntarily removed from a plane if there are no security issues involved. We have enough trouble with possible terrorists without inviting unnecessary aggro for reasons which are purely economic or convenient.
In this case, United screwed up by letting too many people board the plane. OK - it's a simple mistake. But they should have been forced to live with it.
United weren't breaking any law. But there should have been a law!
But you would need to be prepared for the price of all fares to increase on every flight if that became the case. The price we pay for fast, efficient, cheap, internatioanl flights is that sometimes it goes wrong and we have to change our plans. The way United and the ground team handled this event was preposterous. But the fact that sometimes people get bumped isn't going to change any time soon.
I'm not talking about "normal" bumping.
Just the situation where people have already boarded the plane. Does this happen more than a dozen times a year?
it's not so bad internally in the US as usually they are more like buses and fly frequently, when it's an international flight and or means leaving a day later, it's a different ballgame
And just as you could expect, some daft twat from the Guardian is already calling it racist. Unbelievable
The opinion pieces on The Guardian are absolutely dreadful, and really damage the integrity of the associated journalism IMO.
I read one about an hour ago where the author began banging on about the two girls in leggings last month; not one mention about the fact they were travelling under employment benefits that dictated a professional attire. Of course that doesn't whip up quite the intended frenzy does it?
Sometimes The Guardian can be brilliant, at least for actual journalism. Alas, sadly it seems to be deteriorating in to little more than a left leaning Daily Mail that aims to provoking the same kind of ill-informed furores via Social Media.
And just as you could expect, some daft twat from the Guardian is already calling it racist. Unbelievable
The opinion pieces on The Guardian are absolutely dreadful, and really damage the integrity of the associated journalism IMO.
I read one about an hour ago where the author began banging on about the two girls in leggings last month; not one mention about the fact they were travelling under employment benefits that dictated a professional attire. Of course that doesn't whip up quite the intended frenzy does it?
Sometimes The Guardian can be brilliant, at least for actual journalism. Alas, sadly it seems to be deteriorating in to little more than a left leaning Daily Mail that aims to provoking the same kind of ill-informed furores via Social Media.
Completely agree, I feel that much like the Daily Mail, it knows it's readership well and how to whip people up into an idiotic frenzy
I perceived the Guardian's slide into DM style Bullshit as coinciding with the rise of the Facebook news feed. It's like they figured out how to master Facebook and the rest of their website's approach was built around that.
And just as you could expect, some daft twat from the Guardian is already calling it racist. Unbelievable
The opinion pieces on The Guardian are absolutely dreadful, and really damage the integrity of the associated journalism IMO.
I read one about an hour ago where the author began banging on about the two girls in leggings last month; not one mention about the fact they were travelling under employment benefits that dictated a professional attire. Of course that doesn't whip up quite the intended frenzy does it?
Sometimes The Guardian can be brilliant, at least for actual journalism. Alas, sadly it seems to be deteriorating in to little more than a left leaning Daily Mail that aims to provoking the same kind of ill-informed furores via Social Media.
Completely agree, although I feel that much like the Daily Mail, it knows it's readership well...
Well as a committed Guardianista I have to say that I don't much care for some of these op-ed pieces either. However, they are there for a very similar reason to the United debacle; that people think increasingly they can get something for nothing, or very little, that they use to pay for, without stopping to ask themselves how on earth the company can provide the same level of service for far less money.
The Guardian has gone down the digital ad revenue route, and has a relatively large readership in the States. Such articles are aimed mainly at that market and probably don't even reach the print edition.
Owen Gibson tried to explain when he was at the Trust AGM that for similar reasons the Guardian cannot cover football outside the FAPL as much as it would wish. You could see that as a journalist he very much regretted that. But somebody has to pay the poor bugger's salary.
Finally I would say that with the exception of the FT (which can charge a huge amount behind a paywall) all the other papers run op-ed pieces that are equally trashy and fact-free, but they may just be slightly closer to your personal view of the world, so you give them more of a break. Which is not a dig. It's natural. I'd still argue that when it comes to the important issues the Guardian has a greater commitment to uncovering inconvenient facts than either the Times or the Telegraph. But again, I may be more interested in what's in the Panama Papers than the average Telegraph reader.
The aviation rules ought to be changed to say that passengers can never be involuntarily removed from a plane if there are no security issues involved. We have enough trouble with possible terrorists without inviting unnecessary aggro for reasons which are purely economic or convenient.
In this case, United screwed up by letting too many people board the plane. OK - it's a simple mistake. But they should have been forced to live with it.
United weren't breaking any law. But there should have been a law!
Ultimately the Captain is responsible and in charge of who can come onto (and be ejected from) his / her aircraft. Having a law to regulate the exercise of his / her authority is unnecessary and would create more issues than it would solve. Slightly drunk passenger - security issue or inconvenience? The Captain cannot be bound by grey areas of law in interpreting the safe operation of their flight. It is at their discretion and they do not need a law to define their actions.
United have screwed up and there is no defence against the way they allowed a security guard to remove the passenger - it's probable that there were better solutions but they got it wrong.
Whilst in theory I agree, pilots also have to be governed by policy and legal regulation in a situation like this. It isn't a simple matter of an unruly passenger but an airline making a cock up and therefore passenger rights come into play. A lawyer on a youtube channel that I occasionally watch has been going through this incident. As part of his research he looked at United Airlines own "Contract of carriage". Whilst it covers the airline from stopping passengers from boarding because of overbooking or behaviour, and covers the ejection of passengers for various reasons, nowhere can he find anything stating that the airline have a right to remove a passenger because of their overbooking once a passenger has already been allowed to board. And remember this passenger removal was to allow a member of staff to fly instead, not because they had overbooked paying customers. There's also nothing in there about the pilot being able to eject a passenger at his own discretion outside of the guidelines. And saying that a passenger became disruptive after he was possibly illegally ordered to leave isn't a defence for the forcible ejection.
The aviation rules ought to be changed to say that passengers can never be involuntarily removed from a plane if there are no security issues involved. We have enough trouble with possible terrorists without inviting unnecessary aggro for reasons which are purely economic or convenient.
In this case, United screwed up by letting too many people board the plane. OK - it's a simple mistake. But they should have been forced to live with it.
United weren't breaking any law. But there should have been a law!
But you would need to be prepared for the price of all fares to increase on every flight if that became the case. The price we pay for fast, efficient, cheap, internatioanl flights is that sometimes it goes wrong and we have to change our plans. The way United and the ground team handled this event was preposterous. But the fact that sometimes people get bumped isn't going to change any time soon.
I'm not talking about "normal" bumping.
Just the situation where people have already boarded the plane. Does this happen more than a dozen times a year?
I'd guess it's unusual to happen after boarding, but probably far from being unique. Passengers need to remember that the purrchase they make (the "fare") entitles them to expect the airline to get the from airport A to airport B, but not necessarily at the time of the passengers' choosing. As loong as United (or any airline) meet that expectation, they're doing the "right" thing.
But, as we have seen, there's a big difference between doing what's right and what's proper.
Comments
They know that overbooking generates millions in profits each year, they should take a small hit every time their gamble leaves passengers in the lurch.
http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2017/04/11/ryanair-passenger-charged-15-euro-for-being-dragged-off-plane/
In this case, United screwed up by letting too many people board the plane. OK - it's a simple mistake. But they should have been forced to live with it.
United weren't breaking any law. But there should have been a law!
The chap in question faced drugs charges for illegal prescribing, as well as accusations of misconduct for sexual relations with a patient.
Obviously totally irrelevant, but just shows the damage to the poor chap will go beyond the physical if the PR teams and press have their way.
United have screwed up and there is no defence against the way they allowed a security guard to remove the passenger - it's probable that there were better solutions but they got it wrong.
Just the situation where people have already boarded the plane. Does this happen more than a dozen times a year?
I read one about an hour ago where the author began banging on about the two girls in leggings last month; not one mention about the fact they were travelling under employment benefits that dictated a professional attire. Of course that doesn't whip up quite the intended frenzy does it?
Sometimes The Guardian can be brilliant, at least for actual journalism. Alas, sadly it seems to be deteriorating in to little more than a left leaning Daily Mail that aims to provoking the same kind of ill-informed furores via Social Media.
The Guardian has gone down the digital ad revenue route, and has a relatively large readership in the States. Such articles are aimed mainly at that market and probably don't even reach the print edition.
Owen Gibson tried to explain when he was at the Trust AGM that for similar reasons the Guardian cannot cover football outside the FAPL as much as it would wish. You could see that as a journalist he very much regretted that. But somebody has to pay the poor bugger's salary.
Finally I would say that with the exception of the FT (which can charge a huge amount behind a paywall) all the other papers run op-ed pieces that are equally trashy and fact-free, but they may just be slightly closer to your personal view of the world, so you give them more of a break. Which is not a dig. It's natural. I'd still argue that when it comes to the important issues the Guardian has a greater commitment to uncovering inconvenient facts than either the Times or the Telegraph. But again, I may be more interested in what's in the Panama Papers than the average Telegraph reader.
You can set your watch by it.
A lawyer on a youtube channel that I occasionally watch has been going through this incident. As part of his research he looked at United Airlines own "Contract of carriage". Whilst it covers the airline from stopping passengers from boarding because of overbooking or behaviour, and covers the ejection of passengers for various reasons, nowhere can he find anything stating that the airline have a right to remove a passenger because of their overbooking once a passenger has already been allowed to board. And remember this passenger removal was to allow a member of staff to fly instead, not because they had overbooked paying customers.
There's also nothing in there about the pilot being able to eject a passenger at his own discretion outside of the guidelines. And saying that a passenger became disruptive after he was possibly illegally ordered to leave isn't a defence for the forcible ejection.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=sdtG0WyktMM&t=0s
But, as we have seen, there's a big difference between doing what's right and what's proper.