de-plane boss

[Big RR]

Sure, he was in the wrong, but one would think an airline shouldn't inconvenience its paying passengers to accommodate its employees. But then, in the commodity state airlines are now in, they just don't give a damn.

And those other three passenger volunteered to accept the voucher an voluntarily deplane--I'm not sure they were all that unhappy. And I'd bet if United offered a few hundred more (or offered cash instead of a voucher) they would have easily had another volunteer and saved all this fuss.

And FWIW, I do think it is pretty lousy that an airline can keep your fare if you don't show up (unless you buy a ridiculously expensive refundable fare), but only have to give you a lousy voucher if you show up and they choose not to take you. But such are the rules which benefit only the airlines, and which people blindly accept without question.

As for requiring people to deboard a plane, I used to fly quite a bit (mostly on United) and I can't recall seeing it (except for the experience I reported above); it may well have happened, but if it occurred fairly often, I'm sure I would have seen it a few times. I have seen people denied boarding for a variety of reasons before they got on the plane, but never afterwards. Anyone else here see it?

[Burning Petard]

On a Lufthansa flight from Frankfurt to Barcelona about 10 years ago, I was bumped after boarding from business to coach. I was approached while seated and asked if I would volunteer. They gave me a nice bottle of Mosel wine and a voucher for 500 eu credit with the airline, or $100 cash if I took the voucher to the Lufthansa Hq in the USA, good for a year. It was done without any fuss. But that was a long time ago.

snailgate

[Big RR]

I presume they also credited your ticket for the fare difference?

I was once bumped on a United flight from Brussels to London (where I was connecting to another United flight. I had a business class ticket but they could only get me coach on Sabena (so I could make my connection), so I was given a decent voucher, had the difference in fares credited to the company, and was upgraded to first from London to NY; they also picked me up in a car in London and drove me across the airport to avoid having to clear security again when I switched terminals. It took some negotiating, but it worked out OK.

[RayThom]

When my daughter lived in Tampa I took a bump from an overbooked USAir flight from Philly. I negotiated two future round trip tickets. Less than two hours later I was on another flight -- bulkhead seating in 1st class.

Had I not been an alcoholic I could have enjoyed myself even more. Everyone has a price -- this was mine.

[Long Run]

From Fortune:

United Airlines Stock Drops $1.4 Billion After Passenger-Removal Controversy
Lucinda Shen
11:46 AM ET

Even as the internet kicked up a maelstrom of outrage, investors still thought United Airlines' decision to forcibly eject a customer from an overbooked flight would have little effect on the company's profits.

But that changed Tuesday, when shares of United fell as much as 6.3% in pre-market trading, dropping $1.4 billion from the now $21 billion company by market cap. By early trading Tuesday, shares were down 4%.

It didn't help that apologies from United and its CEO Oscar Munoz were deemed tone deaf and insensitive by many on social media. Or that more video footage surfaced throughout the day Monday showing the passenger bleeding from the head and clinging to a curtain on the aircraft. The incident even prompted an investigation by Department of Transportation.

And rather than blowing over after a night's rest, the outrage only grew after Munoz sent an email to employees late Monday defending his staff's action and calling the passenger "disruptive and belligerent." Soon enough, the anger became global, with some questioning the practice of overbooking flights.

In theory, a boycott against United should be a boon for other airlines as consumers seek other options. But that wasn't the case Tuesday, as shares of Southwest Airlines, Delta, and JetBlue also dropped roughly 1%, while the S&P 500 shed roughly 70 basis points in comparison. The minor stock fluctuation may also be stemming from FCC chief Ajit Pai's announcement late Monday that he wanted to ban cell phone calls on flights. Shares of American Airlines on the other hand rose nearly 2% after it released a more favorable outlook for the first quarter.

United's 4% drop Tuesday could also have just be an overreaction to the sheer volume of negative sentiment and press surrounding the airline, at least according to CFRA's analyst Jim Corridore.

"We think this situation was handled in a deplorable fashion, but note that United has the right to refuse boarding to any passenger for any reason... We hope United will respond with apologies and procedural changes." he wrote in a Monday note. "Overall, we think demand for United Airlines flights are unlikely to be affected by this poor customer service incident."

[Joe Guy]

[Long Run]

Sure, he was in the wrong, but one would think an airline shouldn't inconvenience its paying passengers to accommodate its employees. But then, in the commodity state airlines are now in, they just don't give a damn.

He was in the wrong only insofar as he refused to get off the plan when so instructed. If they had bumped him in the normal manner, before he got on the plan, he fumes outside and this is never a story.

I think the incident is a lightening rod, not for the incident itself, but because the traveling public is fed up with the overall crap service from most airlines, as well as the previously noted unfair bargaining situation with respect to the arrangement (i.e., Heads-airlines win, Tails-you lose). This is a very public chance for all of the frustrated travelers to vent on the airlines, and especially low-service ones like United.

[Big RR]

my understanding is that this was a continuing flight and he was onboard from the previous leg of the flight.

as for the public being frustrated, bet most will still fly United if it has the best fare. The airlines all know this, and so they treat people like crap because it doesn't make a bit of difference. Before, the business travelers could hurt an airline by refusing to fly it (because they usually paid full fare or something close to it), but with corporate travel departments, etc., this is a pretty toothless threat as well.

They might see a small drop off for a short time, but this will pass quickly and it will be business as usual.

[Bicycle Bill]

-"BB"-

[rubato]

"... What was the airline supposed to do at this point? ... " .

Increase the reward until someone accepted it. Its pretty basic capitalism to seek that magic balance where a willing buyer and a willing seller agree and the transaction can take place. What they did was to say that the passenger had no rights and thus they could say "take what we offer or get a beat-down".

If it was so valuable for them to get that last crew member on the plane they should pay for that value.


yrs,
rubato

[Long Run]

Pentagon awards contract to United Airlines to forcibly remove Assad
By Paul Sharpe On Apr 11, 2017 176,437

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon announced Tuesday it had awarded a sole-source contract to United Airlines for work related to the forcible removal of President Bashar al-Assad from Syria.

The contract, worth $2.1 billion, tasks the airline company with locating Assad, grabbing him from his seat in the presidential palace, and “dragging him out of Damascus by his arms.” The contract also notes that Assad should be “asked several times, politely” to give up his seat of power, though if he refuses, United workers should bloody his nose up a bit, according to the posting at FedBizOpps.

Read more: http://www.duffelblog.com/2017/04/penta ... z4dyJEY3aE

[rubato]

I hear they have already sub-contracted with two shifts of McDonalds "boiling coffee brigades".




yrs,
rubato

[BoSoxGal]

FAA mandates an even larger compensation if removed from flight involuntarily. By terms of his contract, one way or another he needed to leave. It's only because he behaved like a total ass that he got injured. It's all his fault and he'll probably sue and get a fat payout for being a dick.

[Big RR]

My recollection is that the compensation exceeds $1000 cash if they cannot get you to your destination within 2 hours of the scheduled time; now if they had offered $1000 cash, I'd bet they would have had another volunteer.

He was a dick, but those calling the shots for the airline were even bigger dicks; and it's not all his fault--they could have easily avoided dragging him off the plane by offering more compensation for a volunteer, but they chose not to do so.

[BoSoxGal]

They're not being dicks, they're enforcing a contract - they needed those seats to move crew to meet FAA mandatory safety guidelines as to flight time. This passenger was a dick and we should be praising the three who exited like adults and not defending this toddler-temper-tantruming puke.

[rubato]

FAA mandates an even larger compensation if removed from flight involuntarily. By terms of his contract, one way or another he needed to leave. It's only because he behaved like a total ass that he got injured. It's all his fault and he'll probably sue and get a fat payout for being a dick.

He was not acting like an ass he was demanding to be treated with the respect which everyone deserves. His refusal to leave the plane was a form of perfectly reasonable protest they were refusing to honor their contract with him and treating him like he was not a person. He stood up for himself when they tried to abuse their authority to bully him into compliance.


yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

No, they were dicks as well; they could easily have avoided it by offering more compensation to volunteers, compensation along the lines that they would have to pay him for being involuntarily denied passage, but they chose not to. and let's not forget, they could have found another way to get their crew to Louisville without having to inconvenience their paying customers (a little planning could have gone a long way)--but to the airlines the days of customer oriented service are long gone. So they completely brought this on themselves, but they really don't care; hell, look at the president's "apology" of having to "reaccomodate" the customer--what sort of euphemism is that? One that makes it seem like the customer was asking to be accommodated.

And look at the way the security personnel the airline used roughed the guy up. there was no excuse to use untrained bullies to remove him

Compared with the way the airline employees, the guy was a gentlemen. Or do you really think we should always just sit back and let others treat us like garbage?

Again, I'm not defending him, I just saying the airline and its employees acted much, much worse.

As for the other people who got off--they chose to do so and accept what was offered. Why should they be "praised"?

[rubato]

They're not being dicks, they're enforcing a contract - they needed those seats to move crew to meet FAA mandatory safety guidelines as to flight time. This passenger was a dick and we should be praising the three who exited like adults and not defending this toddler-temper-tantruming puke.

They were responsible for providing crews for scheduled flights. Their failure to meet that requirement does not oblige him to allow himself to be punished. Since it was their failure to plan ahead they should have to offer compensation which the passenger will accept in exchange for his inconvenience.


And this is an airline, they do have other planes.


yrs,
rubato

[BoSoxGal]

This is what our world is now and why so many people make life so unpleasant. He's an entitled puke. He's been convicted of exchanging drugs for sex from patients - his own wife turned him in to the medical board! He's been psychologically evaluated and has anger control issues.

And still you will defend him. So that means people who abide by the law and honor the contracts they've entered without resorting to totally unnecessary temper tantrums and refusing to move like a bloody toddler are what, stupid sheep?!



No wonder we are surrounded by snowflakes.

[Big RR]

Well you can defend the airline if you want, but it doesn't make them right.

They did as crappy job in serving their customers because they really didn't care who was inconvenienced by something totally within their control.

So that means people who abide by the law and honor the contracts they've entered without resorting to totally unnecessary temper tantrums and refusing to move like a bloody toddler are what, stupid sheep?!

Sometimes yes; what do you do when you believe you are being treated unfairly and rudely--just take it and say "thank you sir may I have another"?