.

mlj said:

So I guess no one in first class was selected to give up their seat. (not that there is anything wrong with first class seating).

First/business class, frequent flyers are the airlines' sacred cows. The message is clear: everyone else is at risk for getting yanked out of their seats. Just because you've got a ticket,a boarding pass and are sitting snugly in your seat guarantees nothing. Tom is right. It's about class and privilege. Everyone else is just cattle.

Link to the rules. se

ction 25 is the one that governs for the fiasco.

https://www.united.com/web/en-...

I don't even know if United has even attempted to reach out to the doctor and apologized and offered to make him whole. Are they fearful of a lawsuit? It is incredible to me that the poor man, visibly injured, dazed and bleeding, returned to the plane with no one to assist him after he had been physically assaulted. In one video of the incident, his head got whacked pretty hard on the chair arm rest.  This was shameful cruelty beyond the pale.

the news.com: China Internet Outcry over Airline Fiasco: "Boycott United Airlines"

https://www.thenews.com.pk/lat...

this is true. There needs to be some sort of set of consumer protections put in place for air travelers. The fact is that this incident took place on United, but it just as easily could have been American or Delta. Customer service nightmares like this occur on all of the big 3 airlines. They have had all the laws written in their favor, and the consumer has virtually no rights. And if you don't agree to the TCs, what are you going to do, not travel? And the reality is that especially at Newark, there are certain destinations that unless you want to have a bunch of connections, or travel at incredibly inconvenient hours, or drive two hours to JFK, you are only left with one airline to choose from.

with the near-monopolies and the record profits should come some responsibility to consumers. And the only way to compel that is through regulation.

mikescott said:

And why do the police blindly follow and assume the airline is in the right? UAL's own rules state that the "volunteers" should not be allowed to board and as Tom says -- this is class warfare. They randomly pick people based on what class of seats they are in starting with those who pay the least. it is not as if someone from first class is ever bumped.

Let's hope this latest fiasco with UAL forces the CEO to resign and maybe triggers a passengers bill of rights. it is insane that when you buy a ticket you have to put a check mark next to a box saying you agree to their rules but they are over 35 pages long (all favoring the airline).

The industry is a disgrace and needs stricter regulations.

Can't prove, but guess that United decided to dig into this man's background in order to humiliate and passenger shame. Nothing he has done in his past, although if true, embarrassing to him and his family, correlates to what happened to him via United. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

United Airlines is pathetic and they as well as the security /police need to admit they did not handle the situation correctly. Even if the passenger was guilty of the above, UAL did not know that when they decided to pull him off the plane.

And it is sad that they are pretty much the only choice for most destinations leaving from Newark airport.

When your stock is tumbling at a cost that could buy ten Learjets to ferry your employees back and forth you will passenger shame to save face. I don't see the CEO staying long, he's moved around a lot and is fairly new to United. His faux apology was worse than silence IMO... i give it a week before he issues a revised apology. In a capitalist economy, the shareholder is king, he won't be able to dig in his heels much longer.

kibbegirl said:

Can't prove, but guess that United decided to dig into this man's background in order to humiliate and passenger shame. Nothing he has done in his past, although if true, embarrassing to him and his family, correlates to what happened to him via United. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

mikescott said:

Link to the rules. se

ction 25 is the one that governs for the fiasco.




https://www.united.com/web/en-...

That is in regards to being denied boarding. The people booted had already boarded the plain, they weren't denied boarding, they were being ejected. A technicality, sure, but one that may end up biting them in the ***.

As frustrating as it may be, your ticket does not give you a right to a flight. When the airline decides you are going to be rebooked and the police tell you to leave, you might give them a piece of your mind, but the smart thing to do is to leave. He didn't do the smart thing and it ended badly.

United isn't going to pay this guy anything, because barring information not yet publicly known, they didn't do anything legally wrong. A settlement with him would only encourage similar refusals in the future.

Danny, his best case might be against the police.

I think they will settle. I'm so sure of it I wish I could put money on it. Sure they may settle with zero admission of wrong doing, but they will pay this poor man.

DannyArcher said:

As frustrating as it may be, your ticket does not give you a right to a flight. When the airline decides you are going to be rebooked and the police tell you to leave, you might give them a piece of your mind, but the smart thing to do is to leave. He didn't do the smart thing and it ended badly.


United isn't going to pay this guy anything, because barring information not yet publicly known, they didn't do anything legally wrong. A settlement with him would only encourage similar refusals in the future.

DannyArcher said:

As frustrating as it may be, your ticket does not give you a right to a flight. When the airline decides you are going to be rebooked and the police tell you to leave, you might give them a piece of your mind, but the smart thing to do is to leave. He didn't do the smart thing and it ended badly.

United isn't going to pay this guy anything, because barring information not yet publicly known, they didn't do anything legally wrong. A settlement with him would only encourage similar refusals in the future.

Very true, but this really doesn't help United. Airlines are generally hated and United has been a PR person's nightmare lately.

And honestly, if the man has anger management issues, then the airport bouncers really screwed up.

Just ask Pepsi, who was probably having a lousy week, how quickly the news cycle can flush away bad PR.

DannyArcher said:

Just ask Pepsi, who was probably having a lousy week, how quickly the news cycle can flush away bad PR.

Yep. Any minute now, I expect United Airlines to attack North Korea to focus people's attention elsewhere.

Fair point well made. But this beats Pepsi hands down. I mean really, they upped the ante like a ton.

DannyArcher said:

Just ask Pepsi, who was probably having a lousy week, how quickly the news cycle can flush away bad PR.

and Pepsi is a soda... nobody really cares about their product and there are other options. Almost everyone who travels can relate to this situation and most people already dislike United. On top of not letting a 10 year old girl on a plane because she was wearing leggings was bad enough but they managed to top it by a lot.

This will cost them something...

I guess I completely missed whatever happened to Pepsi ...

sac said:

I guess I completely missed whatever happened to Pepsi ...

I think the real ad has been pulled, but this explains it well enough

mikescott, you are far too kind to United. They called the police, and they wanted the police to remove the passenger by force. I will not be satisfied if an employee or executive loses their job. Someone needs to go to prison. If that doesn't happen, the message to corporations is loud and clear: do this to your customers whenever you want and whenever it is profitable.

Oh @sac, consider yourself lucky.

Pepsi had the PR smarts to waive the white flag and pull the plug from their ish show. United hasn't and we're still waiting...

What gets me is that we've all been in meetings and we've all have given our 2 cents. Did NO ONE at Pepsi or United have the courage to say, "This is not a good look for us"?

Tom_Reingold said:

mikescott, you are far too kind to United. They called the police, and they wanted the police to remove the passenger by force. I will not be satisfied if an employee or executive loses their job. Someone needs to go to prison. If that doesn't happen, the message to corporations is loud and clear: do this to your customers whenever you want and whenever it is profitable.

You are way overreaching on this. Who committed a crime, other than possibly the passenger? Someone who is trespassing can only be asked nicely so many times to disembark before you have no option but to physically remove them. That being said, the use of force needs to be proportional to the situation.

Did United ask them to use force or merely relay the situation? There's a difference. I doubt the former.

I suppose by now everyone has seen the United Airlines re-accommodation training video.

ElizMcCord said:

When your stock is tumbling at a cost that could buy ten Learjets to ferry your employees back and forth you will passenger shame to save face. I don't see the CEO staying long, he's moved around a lot and is fairly new to United. His faux apology was worse than silence IMO... i give it a week before he issues a revised apology. In a capitalist economy, the shareholder is king, he won't be able to dig in his heels much longer.

kibbegirl said:

Can't prove, but guess that United decided to dig into this man's background in order to humiliate and passenger shame. Nothing he has done in his past, although if true, embarrassing to him and his family, correlates to what happened to him via United. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

Ironically, The CEO won some Communications award last year. So there's that, anyway. 

Given the vultures rampant in the media, no way United ordered a look into the man's irrelevant past... I'm sure the minute his name was released there were scores of people looking into him... they wouldn't have to trigger that.  

As to the share price... meh. Down about 0.80 at the close and roughly in line with about a week ago.

ctrzaska said:

Did United ask them to use force or merely relay the situation? There's a difference. I doubt the former.

United is defending it now

They finally apologized and the CEO took "full responsibilty"

.https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

From what I've seen, United is defending the conduct of its employees, not the conduct of airport security. Big difference. The last thing that United needs is having its employees feel like they are being thrown under a bus on this thing.

ml1 said:

I suppose by now everyone has seen the United Airlines re-accommodation training video.

I think someone could make a great spoof video along the lines of those clever "pre-flight safety orientation" videos that United has that have scenes out in the world rather than inside the airplane about seat belts and exit doors and oxygen masks and such. (One of the few things I usually enjoy on United flights.)

sac said:

ml1 said:

I suppose by now everyone has seen the United Airlines re-accommodation training video.

I think someone could make a great spoof video along the lines of those clever "pre-flight safety orientation" videos that United has that have scenes out in the world rather than inside the airplane about seat belts and exit doors and oxygen masks and such. (One of the few things I usually enjoy on United flights.)

that someone would be Jimmy Kimmel: