United airlines..PR disaster

[Chester007 175]

It appears per news reports today that the paying passenger was removed for a UA employee.

 

UA really screwed up. Even the right to remove a passenger is not 100%.

It was 4 employees that were on stand by.

[midlifecrisis 4,048]

It was 4 employees that were on stand by.

 

Yes I heard an update moments ago.

 

UA started with offering a bunch of money for volunteers and when nobody took the offer the picked people at random. Three left quietly but the doctor refused. One witness said the doctor was unconscious when taken off.

 

The UA president is backing his employees.

Edited April 11, 2017 by midlifecrisis

[MM 6,562]

United's new customer service manager...

 

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[midlifecrisis 4,048]

lol

[ttk 236]

Bridges says United asked for four passengers to relinquish their seats for airline employees on stand-by. ....this is the LAST sentence in the article!!!![/size]

Article to read: Click[/size]

The article you provided a link for is the only one I can find that says they were "stand-by" everything else I have seen says they were a flight crew needed for a flight the following morning.

 

The UA CEO is defending the employees. It may seem harsh and unfair, but the airplane Captain is GOD. Once the passenger was told to leave, he was in fact breaking the law when he refused. Also, while United is getting the most crticism, it was in fact the Chicago airline police that removed the passenger. Once they were called to handle the disruptive passeneger ( by refusing to leave) it was pretty much out of United's hands.

 

I suspect that personal injury lawyers are linning up to sue United , the police department, the officers involved........$$$$$$$$

[js007 795]

United stock has today lost over a billion dollars in market cap. Perhaps they'll rethink their overbooking compensation.

[midlifecrisis 4,048]

United stock has today lost over a billion dollars in market cap. Perhaps they'll rethink their overbooking compensation.

 

It does not help them when their videoed behavior is backed uncategorically by their president. Investors are reacting to the video and the head of the airline is talking about how proud he is of his employees.

[Chester007 175]

The article you provided a link for is the only one I can find that says they were "stand-by" everything else I have seen says they were a flight crew needed for a flight the following morning.

 

The UA CEO is defending the employees. It may seem harsh and unfair, but the airplane Captain is GOD. Once the passenger was told to leave, he was in fact breaking the law when he refused. Also, while United is getting the most crticism, it was in fact the Chicago airline police that removed the passenger. Once they were called to handle the disruptive passeneger ( by refusing to leave) it was pretty much out of United's hands.

 

I suspect that personal injury lawyers are linning up to sue United , the police department, the officers involved........$$$$$$$$

The captain is god in the air. The plane was still at the gate.

[Chester007 175]

 

It does not help them when their videoed behavior is backed uncategorically by their president. Investors are reacting to the video and the head of the airline is talking about how proud he is of his employees.

He's the CEO, for how long?? I'd say not very.

[Chester007 175]

United Airlines' new uniforms

[Chester007 175]

[Chester007 175]

[Chester007 175]

[midlifecrisis 4,048]

 

That is so good!

[Chester007 175]

The article you provided a link for is the only one I can find that says they were "stand-by" everything else I have seen says they were a flight crew needed for a flight the following morning.

 

The UA CEO is defending the employees. It may seem harsh and unfair, but the airplane Captain is GOD. Once the passenger was told to leave, he was in fact breaking the law when he refused. Also, while United is getting the most crticism, it was in fact the Chicago airline police that removed the passenger. Once they were called to handle the disruptive passeneger ( by refusing to leave) it was pretty much out of United's hands.

 

I suspect that personal injury lawyers are linning up to sue United , the police department, the officers involved........$$$$$$$$

Well, an updated WP posting as at 1519 HHs

 

Hours earlier, according to USA Today, a United spokesperson had backed off the companies initial claims that the flight was “overbooked” — rather than disrupted to transport off-duty crew.

Full article here Click

Edited April 11, 2017 by Chester007

[ttk 236]

The captain is god in the air. The plane was still at the gate.

"The U.S. CFR Title 14, Part 1, Section 1.1 defines "pilot in command" as:[3]

 

...the person who:

 

Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight;

Has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight; and

Holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating, if appropriate, for the conduct of the flight."

 

 

If you truely believe that he does not have the authority to remove disruptive passengers at the gate, try showing up drunk and making a scene and see what happens. If have watched 2 different times where the captain came and talked to a drunk passenger before leaving the gate..... and shortly after watched them removed

[midlifecrisis 4,048]

According to the Contract of Carriage, United can refuse to transport or has the right to remove passengers from the aircraft at any point for any of the following reasons: (These are just a few of the listed reasons.)

• Passengers who appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs to a degree that the passenger may endanger themselves, another passenger or members of the crew
• Passengers who are barefoot or not properly clothed
• Pregnant passengers in their ninth month, unless the passenger provides a doctor's certificate dated no more than 72 hours prior to departure stating that the doctor has examined and found the passenger to be physically fit for air travel to and from the destination and that the estimated delivery date is after the date of the last flight
• Unaccompanied passengers who are both blind and deaf, unless the passenger is able to communicate with the representatives of United by other methods
• Passengers who are unwilling to follow United's policy that prohibits voice calls after the aircraft doors have closed, while taxiing before takeoff or while airborne
• Passengers wearing or possessing concealed or unconcealed deadly or dangerous weapons
• Passengers who are unwilling or unable to follow United's policy on smoking or use of other smokeless material
• Passengers who refuse to produce satisfactory proof of identification or those who present identification that does not match the name of the ticket
• Passengers who exhibit disorderly, offensive, abusive or violent conduct
• Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the flight crew members, federal regulations or security directives
• Passengers who assault any passengers or United employees, including the gate agents and flight crew
• Passengers who cause a disturbance such that the captain or member of the cockpit crew must leave the cockpit to attend to the disturbance
• Government request, regulations and security directives
• Failure to comply with the rules of the Contract of Carriages

 

http://www.kcra.com/...reasons/9261454

 

And then there is the ambiguous "interfering with a flight crew".

• Quote
• MultiQuote
• Edit

[js007 795]

It's not about contracts or legal technicalities. It's about public relations. If United wants to treat paying passengers in that manner, so be it. They aren't the only airline people can fly, and I'm sure that, from this day forward, many won't.

[midlifecrisis 4,048]

It's not about contracts or legal technicalities. It's about public relations. If United wants to treat paying passengers in that manner, so be it. They aren't the only airline people can fly, and I'm sure that, from this day forward, many won't.

True. They can do what they want and lose later in court or if nothing else the court of public opinion.

 

I am already down on flying United unless there is absolutely no other option. Many more joined that list over the last few days.

[Chester007 175]

"The U.S. CFR Title 14, Part 1, Section 1.1 defines "pilot in command" as:[3]

 

...the person who:

 

Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight;

Has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight; and

Holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating, if appropriate, for the conduct of the flight."

 

 

If you truely believe that he does not have the authority to remove disruptive passengers at the gate, try showing up drunk and making a scene and see what happens. If have watched 2 different times where the captain came and talked to a drunk passenger before leaving the gate..... and shortly after watched them removed

My point was he is not God as you described. In this instance he was wrong 100%

[Chester007 175]

It's not about contracts or legal technicalities. It's about public relations. If United wants to treat paying passengers in that manner, so be it. They aren't the only airline people can fly, and I'm sure that, from this day forward, many won't.

Back on point!

[Chester007 175]

"The U.S. CFR Title 14, Part 1, Section 1.1 defines "pilot in command" as:[3]

 

...the person who:

 

Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight;

Has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight; and

Holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating, if appropriate, for the conduct of the flight."

 

 

If you truely believe that he does not have the authority to remove disruptive passengers at the gate, try showing up drunk and making a scene and see what happens. If have watched 2 different times where the captain came and talked to a drunk passenger before leaving the gate..... and shortly after watched them removed

This is not the point of the incident. It was the way it was handled considering it was not over booked.

[MM 6,562]

This is not the point of the incident. It was the way it was handled considering it was not over booked.

Exactly! They tried to cheap it out by involuntarily removing passengers for a questionable reason without increasing the offers of compensation until the required number of passengers voluntarily accepted the offer. $800 or $1000 vouchers was not the best they could have done, and they're going to pay much more now for that mistake.

 

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[TheFiend 1,181]

First off, as far as I can tell, they were not "Stand by" passengers, they were an aircrew that was need in Louisville for a flight the following morning.

 

The flight in question was a puddle jumper that was operated by Republic airlines according to the reports I have read. Looking at the schedule for that route, only United has a non-stop, with one of those flights operated by Republic airlines and 4 operated by Trans States Airlines.

The schedule shows that the Republic flight leaves at 5:41 PM with one later flight at 9PM operated by Trans States Airlines. In addition, to United, American Airlines and Delta also fly that route but as a one-stop. These flights take 3-5 hours longer (4-6 hours total vs just over 1) so I can see why there were no volunteers. Why Republic could not place the 4 employees on one of the many other flights is not clear (other then maybe a Union contract that calls for them to be on their planes).

 

The decision to remove 4 seated passenger would have been done by Republic Airlines staff even though flight has United plastered all over the airplane and there is plenty of blame to spread around. NO way I defending the action by the airlines and police though.

 

Most airlines have a set procedure for deciding who does not fly and it is not a "random computer selection" . It is based on frequent flyer status, price paid, check-in time ...... I do not know which is most important, but I would guess that all 4 passengers removed were low fare no status and late check-ins.

 

I have been in the we have no room for you situation at Amsterdam flying KLM. Even though I was top tier frequent flyer, Y class ticket, I had done a layover in Amsterdam on a SEA-AMS-BAH trip and was checking in about 3 hours before flight time. Everyone doing the connection had checked in hours earlier. After having the KLM staff try to convince me to take a flight via Saudi Arabia (all KLM planes) or Turkey (on Turkish Airlines) we finally said we would go to the gate and wait. If seats were available we would go if not (800 euro and a hotel for the night)....we wound up in business class seats.

 

Yes the flight is operated by Republic, but they are operating it for United, so are representing United..... if anything both United and Republic are at fault for this PR disaster.

[jacko 8,813]

Overbooking made since 40 years ago but not now. Back then you could reserve a seat without putting any money on the plate. Its not that way now.

 

It is time to outlaw overbooking.

There are frequently no-shows so they try to compensate for them and avoid empty seats.

I don't know what the penalization for no-show is these days on USA flights.

 

If the guy is offered free flights for life. among other things, as compensation, I hope it is with another carrier.

 

I heard yesterday that seats were given to UA staff, compensation had been offered up to $800, and this guy had been selected at random as there were not enough takers.