United Airlines, We put the "Hospital" in "Hospitality"!

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 04:09:54 -0000 (UTC), "P. Coonan"
wrote:

On 11 Apr 2017, First-Post
posted some :

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:43:04 +1000, Sylvia Else
wrote:

On 12/04/2017 7:51 AM, Air Gestapo wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STJQnu72Nec

Find us on http://www.facebook.com/flightorg. On the 9th April,
2017, a man was forcibly removed from United Airlines Flight
3411 in Chicago, set for Louisville. While we'd normally say
that until we have all the information, we have no information
at all, the United response tends to confirm the incident as
described by passengers. United Airlines said that ... "Flight
3411 from Chicago to Louisville was overbooked. After our team
looked for volunteers, one customer refused to leave the
aircraft voluntarily and law enforcement was asked to come to
the gate. We apologize for the overbook situation."


It's a difficult situation. If a person refusing to leave were allowed
to stay, then passengers would never comply. If force has to be used
to remove a non-compliant passenger, then that's what has to be done.

Bumping passengers in favour of its own staff looks strange, but it
may be that if those staff weren't carried, it would have knock on
effects for other flights.

To my mind, the proper solution to the overbooking problem is either
to ban it outright (given that it's deliberate, not just a mistake),
or to require that the airline just keep offering more and more money
until they do get the needed volunteers. If that means they have to
offer tens of thousands of dollars, then so be it - that's the price
of overbooking.

Sylvia.

As queried in another thread, are the airlines' budgets so tight that
they are so desperate as to overbook flights just to insure that not a
single seat is empty? What kind of **** poor business model are they
using?

https://www.tsa.gov/for-industry/security-fees

It hasn't been very many years back that I flew on flights that were
barely half capacity and the airlines still made their profit.
If one or two empty seats on a flight is going to put them in the red
then they need to seriously rethink how they are running their
business.

I'm sure opportunism has nothing to do with it.

http://quotes.wsj.com/UAL/company-people

United Continental Holdings Inc UAL
2015 Executive Compensation Compensation
$39,668,505

http://insiders.morningstar.com/trad...ion.action?t=U
AL

United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz returns to work on Monday only two
months after a heart transplant. Was the airline exec’s speedy recovery
spurred by a desire to get back to business, or did Munoz return earlier
than planned because it was the only way to earn his full bonus?

United announced last week that Munoz would return to the helm on
Monday, weeks before his previously anticipated return date of the end
of the first quarter.

Los Angeles Times columnist David Lazarus uncovered a regulatory filing
from the airline, made just a day after Munoz’s January heart
transplant, that details an extensive list of what the airline head
could get if he returned to work sooner rather than later. Spoiler
alert: it’s a lot of money.

According to the filing [PDF], the employment agreement between United
and Munoz was signed on Dec. 31, just a week before his heart
transplant, but two months after he suffered a major heart attack that
took him away from his corporate duties.

Under the agreement, Munoz would received a bonus of $10.5 million if he
put in six straight months of work. If he works for a full year, he’ll
receive a base salary of $1.25 million and a signing bonus of $5.2
million. He would also become eligible for an annual performance bonus
of at least $3.75 million.

All of these incentives and salary marks began with the start of the
2016 calendar year. And with three months already passed, that gives
Munoz just nine months to meet the stringent requirements.

For example, the $10.5 million six-month employment bonus stipulates
that Munoz is not eligible for the bonus until “such date as he has been
in continuous active service as President and Chief Executive Officer
for a period of six months.”

...

Munoz, who quickly began trying to repair United’s relationship with
employees and passengers after taking over when former CEO Jeff Smisek
abruptly stepped down, has a lot on his plate when he heads back to the
office. The New York Times reported last week rumblings began to surface
that some United shareholders were ready to shake the board up, tasking
former Continental CEO Gordon Bethune as chairman to oversee Munoz’s
performance.

https://consumerist.com/2016/03/11/u...-millions-by-r
eturning-early-from-heart-transplant/

Very informative. Thanks.

From the looks of their stock, that bonus may be the last one he sees
for quite a while if they don't boot him.
I haven't done the math myself but I've read articles that say so far
United has lost around $700 million thanks to this fiasco that was
effectively caused by their desire to make every single seat on every
flight profitable. Their stock has fallen like a rock.

The market can penalize screw ups worse than any court.

On 12/04/2017 3:08 PM, First-Post wrote:

I haven't done the math myself but I've read articles that say so far
United has lost around $700 million thanks to this fiasco that was
effectively caused by their desire to make every single seat on every
flight profitable. Their stock has fallen like a rock.

The market can penalize screw ups worse than any court.


The $700 is a reduction in market capitalisation, not a loss made by the
company. The stock will bounce back.

Sylvia.

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:15:00 +1000, Sylvia Else
wrote:

On 12/04/2017 3:08 PM, First-Post wrote:

I haven't done the math myself but I've read articles that say so far
United has lost around $700 million thanks to this fiasco that was
effectively caused by their desire to make every single seat on every
flight profitable. Their stock has fallen like a rock.

The market can penalize screw ups worse than any court.


The $700 is a reduction in market capitalisation, not a loss made by the
company. The stock will bounce back.

Sylvia.

Yes but in the eyes of the stock holders it is a big loss to them. And
if it doesn't rebound fast enough and high enough, the CEO may very
well see the end of his tenure.

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 00:52:41 -0500, First-Post
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:15:00 +1000, Sylvia Else
wrote:

On 12/04/2017 3:08 PM, First-Post wrote:

I haven't done the math myself but I've read articles that say so far
United has lost around $700 million thanks to this fiasco that was
effectively caused by their desire to make every single seat on every
flight profitable. Their stock has fallen like a rock.

The market can penalize screw ups worse than any court.


The $700 is a reduction in market capitalisation, not a loss made by the
company. The stock will bounce back.

Sylvia.

Yes but in the eyes of the stock holders it is a big loss to them. And
if it doesn't rebound fast enough and high enough, the CEO may very
well see the end of his tenure.

The Aircraft was not over booked.
Those seated were given boarding passes and seated
The four made disembark were all Asian so selection was not random
Four "staff" turned up at last minute not booked requiring seats.
Three of the Asian passengers left quietly.
--
Petzl
Arguing with a woman is like reading the Software License Agreement.
In the end, you ignore everthing and click "I agree"

In article
Petzl wrote:

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 00:52:41 -0500, First-Post
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:15:00 +1000, Sylvia Else
wrote:

On 12/04/2017 3:08 PM, First-Post wrote:

I haven't done the math myself but I've read articles that say so far
United has lost around $700 million thanks to this fiasco that was
effectively caused by their desire to make every single seat on every
flight profitable. Their stock has fallen like a rock.

The market can penalize screw ups worse than any court.


The $700 is a reduction in market capitalisation, not a loss made by the
company. The stock will bounce back.

Sylvia.

Yes but in the eyes of the stock holders it is a big loss to them. And
if it doesn't rebound fast enough and high enough, the CEO may very
well see the end of his tenure.

The Aircraft was not over booked.
Those seated were given boarding passes and seated
The four made disembark were all Asian so selection was not random
Four "staff" turned up at last minute not booked requiring seats.
Three of the Asian passengers left quietly.

Maybe the selection priority should have been blacks, Mexicans,
Asians. We could have seen some cops get punched and beaten
before they pulled guns and started shooting everybody.

After this Asian guy wins his lawsuit, United might as well
paint black eyes on each cockpit window because this will never
ever go away.

It's going to haunt them like Pan Am Flight 103.

On 12 Apr 2017, Petzl posted some
:

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 00:52:41 -0500, First-Post
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:15:00 +1000, Sylvia Else
wrote:

On 12/04/2017 3:08 PM, First-Post wrote:

I haven't done the math myself but I've read articles that say so
far United has lost around $700 million thanks to this fiasco that
was effectively caused by their desire to make every single seat on
every flight profitable. Their stock has fallen like a rock.

The market can penalize screw ups worse than any court.


The $700 is a reduction in market capitalisation, not a loss made by
the company. The stock will bounce back.

Sylvia.

Yes but in the eyes of the stock holders it is a big loss to them. And
if it doesn't rebound fast enough and high enough, the CEO may very
well see the end of his tenure.

The Aircraft was not over booked.
Those seated were given boarding passes and seated
The four made disembark were all Asian so selection was not random
Four "staff" turned up at last minute not booked requiring seats.
Three of the Asian passengers left quietly.

He was an arrogant chink. Who do these people think they are anyway?
Having a job, earning money, being responsible and paying taxes. Having
the means to fly. The nerve of this guy anyway. How dare he?

If he was an illegal alien or radical Muslim, United Airlines would
already be hanging by the neck, hoisted by their own petard.

In article
Stitch wrote:

On 12 Apr 2017, Petzl posted some
:

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 00:52:41 -0500, First-Post
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:15:00 +1000, Sylvia Else
wrote:

On 12/04/2017 3:08 PM, First-Post wrote:

I haven't done the math myself but I've read articles that say so
far United has lost around $700 million thanks to this fiasco that
was effectively caused by their desire to make every single seat on
every flight profitable. Their stock has fallen like a rock.

The market can penalize screw ups worse than any court.


The $700 is a reduction in market capitalisation, not a loss made by
the company. The stock will bounce back.

Sylvia.

Yes but in the eyes of the stock holders it is a big loss to them. And
if it doesn't rebound fast enough and high enough, the CEO may very
well see the end of his tenure.

The Aircraft was not over booked.
Those seated were given boarding passes and seated
The four made disembark were all Asian so selection was not random
Four "staff" turned up at last minute not booked requiring seats.
Three of the Asian passengers left quietly.

He was an arrogant chink. Who do these people think they are anyway?
Having a job, earning money, being responsible and paying taxes. Having
the means to fly. The nerve of this guy anyway. How dare he?

If he was an illegal alien or radical Muslim, United Airlines would
already be hanging by the neck, hoisted by their own petard.

Now United and the hateful left-wing racist mass media are going
after this Vietnamese refugee / naturalized American citizen
with a vengeance.

They went and dug up dirt from 50 years ago in an effort to make
him look bad to trivialize the abuse actions by Chicago police
and United Airlines employees.

Talk about two tools of the state. United and AT&T, both
enemies of the American public.

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 23:35:00 -0000 (UTC), Stitch
wrote:

On 12 Apr 2017, Petzl posted some
:

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 00:52:41 -0500, First-Post
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:15:00 +1000, Sylvia Else
wrote:

On 12/04/2017 3:08 PM, First-Post wrote:

I haven't done the math myself but I've read articles that say so
far United has lost around $700 million thanks to this fiasco that
was effectively caused by their desire to make every single seat on
every flight profitable. Their stock has fallen like a rock.

The market can penalize screw ups worse than any court.


The $700 is a reduction in market capitalisation, not a loss made by
the company. The stock will bounce back.

Sylvia.

Yes but in the eyes of the stock holders it is a big loss to them. And
if it doesn't rebound fast enough and high enough, the CEO may very
well see the end of his tenure.

The Aircraft was not over booked.
Those seated were given boarding passes and seated
The four made disembark were all Asian so selection was not random
Four "staff" turned up at last minute not booked requiring seats.
Three of the Asian passengers left quietly.

He was an arrogant chink. Who do these people think they are anyway?
Having a job, earning money, being responsible and paying taxes. Having
the means to fly. The nerve of this guy anyway. How dare he?

If he was an illegal alien or radical Muslim, United Airlines would
already be hanging by the neck, hoisted by their own petard.

He was just one of four "chinks" removed by airline security (not
police) three did not argue.
--
Petzl
Arguing with a woman is like reading the Software License Agreement.
In the end, you ignore everthing and click "I agree"

On 13/04/2017 12:27 PM, Petzl wrote:

SNIP
He was just one of four "chinks" removed by airline security (not
police) three did not argue.


I seem to recall they had the word POLICE on their backs.

In article
Sylvia Else wrote:

On 12/04/2017 3:08 PM, First-Post wrote:

I haven't done the math myself but I've read articles that say so far
United has lost around $700 million thanks to this fiasco that was
effectively caused by their desire to make every single seat on every
flight profitable. Their stock has fallen like a rock.

The market can penalize screw ups worse than any court.


The $700 is a reduction in market capitalisation, not a loss made by the
company. The stock will bounce back.

Maybe without Mr. Munoz at the helm.

I've seen some clueless people in my time, but this guy takes
the cake.

The United investigation into why a passenger refused to get out
of a seat he'd paid for to accomodate airline employees astounds
me.

The priority here is those who pay. Shuffling crews around is
an airline's problem and should never affect passengers.

I used to fly a lot and I've seen crews from different airlines
traveling on other carriers numerous times. There is no reason
United couldn't have re-accomodated their crew on another
airline.