If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
United Airlines, We put the "Hospital" in "Hospitality"!
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:02:39 -0500, RD Sandman
wrote: First-Post wrote in : On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:33:24 -0500, RD Sandman wrote: Sylvia Else wrote in : On 12/04/2017 12:06 PM, de chucka wrote: On 12/04/2017 11:43 AM, 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. There is absolutely no excuse for overbooking flights and bouncing booked passengers with valid tickets. In this case they bounced him down the aisle If they didn't overbook, then there'd be many more flights with empty seats when people didn't show up. If you were an airline exec wouldn't you been looking at those seats, and wishing you could earn some money from them. The problem is not the overbooking, but how it's handled when, as occasionally happens, too many people actually turn up. Pretty much. The problme in this case is that the passengers were bounced to make room for United employees who are not fare paying passengers. They probably could have easily talked some economy class passengers to take a different flight if they simply offered them first class fair on another flight, even if it had to be on a competitive airline. The broader picture I get from this incident is that United and likely a few other airlines seem to have forgotten that they are in a customer service industry. They may legally be able to treat passengers like they are conscripts in the military but just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should. I would assume you to be correct. Lastly, the four employees big emergency was that they had to be at a meeting the next day. Aaah, I thought that perhaps they were needed for another flight from the destination airport. I have been on many flights where airline personnel were being flown to their duty station for the day. A stewardess friend of mine lived in Waco but often flew out of Dallas or New Orleans. She would fly to the airport where her day started. I would think that they probably did have another flight out of Louisville as well. But the report I read stated that the meeting wasn't until the next morning which means that their flight would be after that. So they had plenty of time as well as, I believe, 28 other flights for Louisville from Chicago that same afternoon and evening. The whole situation could have been avoided had United simply rented the employees a nice car and let them make the 4½ hour drive which still would have had them in Louisville in plenty of time to have dinner, settle in and still get a full night's sleep before their meeting the next morning. And it wouldn't have cost the airline as much as those 4 non paying seats did. And still may. It appears that the doctor suffered broken teeth, broken nose and a concussion. It ain't over, mon ami. My bet is that UA will try to settle with him if he sues regardless of whether he has a good case or not. This incident is hurting them bad in the PR department and the stock holders are obviously getting nervous from the way their stock is looking. So they'll want this to go away ASAP. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
United Airlines, We put the "Hospital" in "Hospitality"!
First-Post wrote in
: On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:02:39 -0500, RD Sandman wrote: First-Post wrote in m: On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:33:24 -0500, RD Sandman wrote: Sylvia Else wrote in : On 12/04/2017 12:06 PM, de chucka wrote: On 12/04/2017 11:43 AM, 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. There is absolutely no excuse for overbooking flights and bouncing booked passengers with valid tickets. In this case they bounced him down the aisle If they didn't overbook, then there'd be many more flights with empty seats when people didn't show up. If you were an airline exec wouldn't you been looking at those seats, and wishing you could earn some money from them. The problem is not the overbooking, but how it's handled when, as occasionally happens, too many people actually turn up. Pretty much. The problme in this case is that the passengers were bounced to make room for United employees who are not fare paying passengers. They probably could have easily talked some economy class passengers to take a different flight if they simply offered them first class fair on another flight, even if it had to be on a competitive airline. The broader picture I get from this incident is that United and likely a few other airlines seem to have forgotten that they are in a customer service industry. They may legally be able to treat passengers like they are conscripts in the military but just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should. I would assume you to be correct. Lastly, the four employees big emergency was that they had to be at a meeting the next day. Aaah, I thought that perhaps they were needed for another flight from the destination airport. I have been on many flights where airline personnel were being flown to their duty station for the day. A stewardess friend of mine lived in Waco but often flew out of Dallas or New Orleans. She would fly to the airport where her day started. I would think that they probably did have another flight out of Louisville as well. But the report I read stated that the meeting wasn't until the next morning which means that their flight would be after that. So they had plenty of time as well as, I believe, 28 other flights for Louisville from Chicago that same afternoon and evening. That was news to me. I had not seen those reports as I was tied most of last night and this morning. Thx. The whole situation could have been avoided had United simply rented the employees a nice car and let them make the 4½ hour drive which still would have had them in Louisville in plenty of time to have dinner, settle in and still get a full night's sleep before their meeting the next morning. And it wouldn't have cost the airline as much as those 4 non paying seats did. And still may. It appears that the doctor suffered broken teeth, broken nose and a concussion. It ain't over, mon ami. My bet is that UA will try to settle with him if he sues regardless of whether he has a good case or not. I would also assume so. This incident is hurting them bad in the PR department and the stock holders are obviously getting nervous from the way their stock is looking. So they'll want this to go away ASAP. Exactomundo!! -- RD Sandman Airspeed, altitude and brains....two of the three are always required to complete a mission. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
United Airlines, We put the "Hospital" in "Hospitality"!
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 12:58:00 -0500, RD Sandman
wrote: Petzl wrote in news On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:30:47 -0500, RD Sandman wrote: Sylvia Else wrote in news:el5f1bFb5krU1 : 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), Overbooking is intentional. It is done to try and ensure paying passengers for all flights. The plane was full, not over booked. Not enough is known for me to argue with you. The point is that the plane was full, airlines can and do overbook to ensure that all seats are filled. Everyone was seated, so at the point the plane was full not overbooked (UA spin). More spin is that four passengers were "randomly" selected? Airport Security were called when one Asian refused to voluntarily comply. The Asian media noted all were Chinese Asian, are reacting against to what is seen by them as being profiled by UA and removed because of being Asian. UA are concerned because they have had over 30 years of operating profitably in China. Four un-booked "staff" turned up last minute requiring seats Yes, they had to be at the arrival airport for duties. I would assume those duties included working on another flight from that airport. 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. The maximum is $1350 and it is usually in the form of a voucher which can be used on other flights on that same airline. It used to be the cost of the ticket for a later flight and a dinner at the airport. It could also include an overnight stay at a local hotel if the later flight was tomorrow. I would expect an airline has the right to remove anyone it wants to? However United Air abused this privilege No argument on that point. One would expect that removal be done safely? It was not a frail old Asian man getting his head beaten in by "Airport Security" and he ruturned for more, "Somehow he got back on," Tyler Bridges, one of those who filmed the incident, told NBC News. "He runs back on — dazed, bloodied, kind of in a mess — yelling, 'I have to get home, I have to get home.'" Now if one of this Doctors patients took a turn for the worse? This sounds like a ambulance chasers dream (no win no fee) -- Petzl Arguing with a woman is like reading the Software License Agreement. In the end, you ignore everthing and click "I agree" |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
United Airlines, We put the "Hospital" in "Hospitality"!
"Petzl" wrote in message ... On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 12:58:00 -0500, RD Sandman wrote: Petzl wrote in news On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:30:47 -0500, RD Sandman wrote: Sylvia Else wrote in news:el5f1bFb5krU1 : 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), Overbooking is intentional. It is done to try and ensure paying passengers for all flights. The plane was full, not over booked. Not enough is known for me to argue with you. The point is that the plane was full, airlines can and do overbook to ensure that all seats are filled. Everyone was seated, so at the point the plane was full not overbooked (UA spin). More spin is that four passengers were "randomly" selected? Airport Security were called when one Asian refused to voluntarily comply. The Asian media noted all were Chinese Asian, are reacting against to what is seen by them as being profiled by UA and removed because of being Asian. UA are concerned because they have had over 30 years of operating profitably in China. Four un-booked "staff" turned up last minute requiring seats Yes, they had to be at the arrival airport for duties. I would assume those duties included working on another flight from that airport. 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. The maximum is $1350 and it is usually in the form of a voucher which can be used on other flights on that same airline. It used to be the cost of the ticket for a later flight and a dinner at the airport. It could also include an overnight stay at a local hotel if the later flight was tomorrow. I would expect an airline has the right to remove anyone it wants to? However United Air abused this privilege No argument on that point. One would expect that removal be done safely? It was not a frail old Asian man getting his head beaten in by "Airport Security" and he ruturned for more, "Somehow he got back on," Tyler Bridges, one of those who filmed the incident, told NBC News. "He runs back on - dazed, bloodied, kind of in a mess - yelling, 'I have to get home, I have to get home.'" Now if one of this Doctors patients took a turn for the worse? This sounds like a ambulance chasers dream (no win no fee) Further it might be noted that while UA has a lot of .... discretion.... before boarding, their terms of service contract set forth a limited and specific set of circumstances in which they can have you removed from the aircraft.....choosing not to volunteer because they want the seats for the own people is NOT among those circumstances. https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...-carriage.aspx Reference Rule 21 & Rule 25 It should be noted that last minute additions of employees is not case of "previously confirmed reserved space", per the definitions in Rule 1. Further none of these rules allow people to be booted on a random basis as was reported as the 'selection' criteria used. So a quick review of the rules would seem to indicate UA to be in direct violation of it's own Contract of Carriage Document, and thus the exclusion clause ( Rule 21, j ) wouldn't protect them from liability since they failed to comply with the terms of Rule 21. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
United Airlines, We put the "Hospital" in "Hospitality"!
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 18:24:23 -0400, "Scout"
wrote: One would expect that removal be done safely? It was not a frail old Asian man getting his head beaten in by "Airport Security" and he ruturned for more, "Somehow he got back on," Tyler Bridges, one of those who filmed the incident, told NBC News. "He runs back on - dazed, bloodied, kind of in a mess - yelling, 'I have to get home, I have to get home.'" Now if one of this Doctors patients took a turn for the worse? This sounds like a ambulance chasers dream (no win no fee) Further it might be noted that while UA has a lot of .... discretion.... before boarding, their terms of service contract set forth a limited and specific set of circumstances in which they can have you removed from the aircraft.....choosing not to volunteer because they want the seats for the own people is NOT among those circumstances. https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...-carriage.aspx Reference Rule 21 & Rule 25 It should be noted that last minute additions of employees is not case of "previously confirmed reserved space", per the definitions in Rule 1. Further none of these rules allow people to be booted on a random basis as was reported as the 'selection' criteria used. So a quick review of the rules would seem to indicate UA to be in direct violation of it's own Contract of Carriage Document, and thus the exclusion clause ( Rule 21, j ) wouldn't protect them from liability since they failed to comply with the terms of Rule 21. Sounds like you have checked it out Japanese media are questioning UA's "algorithm" that only picks Asians for ousting? http://diamond.jp/articles/-/124820?page=3 translated by Google, page 3 https://is.gd/bRb1X1 There was also pointed out that it was discrimination that "everyone who descended was an Asian" despite selecting a person descending by lottery in this news report. -- Petzl Arguing with a woman is like reading the Software License Agreement. In the end, you ignore everthing and click "I agree" |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
United Airlines, We put the "Hospital" in "Hospitality"!
On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 09:04:20 +1000, Petzl wrote:
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 18:24:23 -0400, "Scout" wrote: One would expect that removal be done safely? It was not a frail old Asian man getting his head beaten in by "Airport Security" and he ruturned for more, "Somehow he got back on," Tyler Bridges, one of those who filmed the incident, told NBC News. "He runs back on - dazed, bloodied, kind of in a mess - yelling, 'I have to get home, I have to get home.'" Now if one of this Doctors patients took a turn for the worse? This sounds like a ambulance chasers dream (no win no fee) Further it might be noted that while UA has a lot of .... discretion.... before boarding, their terms of service contract set forth a limited and specific set of circumstances in which they can have you removed from the aircraft.....choosing not to volunteer because they want the seats for the own people is NOT among those circumstances. https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...-carriage.aspx Reference Rule 21 & Rule 25 It should be noted that last minute additions of employees is not case of "previously confirmed reserved space", per the definitions in Rule 1. Further none of these rules allow people to be booted on a random basis as was reported as the 'selection' criteria used. So a quick review of the rules would seem to indicate UA to be in direct violation of it's own Contract of Carriage Document, and thus the exclusion clause ( Rule 21, j ) wouldn't protect them from liability since they failed to comply with the terms of Rule 21. Sounds like you have checked it out Japanese media are questioning UA's "algorithm" that only picks Asians for ousting? http://diamond.jp/articles/-/124820?page=3 translated by Google, page 3 https://is.gd/bRb1X1 There was also pointed out that it was discrimination that "everyone who descended was an Asian" despite selecting a person descending by lottery in this news report. try translated link again? https://is.gd/MI1yeu or yourself http://diamond.jp/articles/-/124820?page=3 https://translate.google.com/?hl=en -- Petzl Arguing with a woman is like reading the Software License Agreement. In the end, you ignore everthing and click "I agree" |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
United Airlines, We put the "Hospital" in "Hospitality"!
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. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
United Airlines, We put the "Hospital" in "Hospitality"!
On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 20:51:14 +0800, Gerrit 't Hart
wrote: 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. Latest reports are that the Dr. is filing a lawsuit against the "Chicago Aviation Police". |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
United Airlines, We put the "Hospital" in "Hospitality"!
Petzl wrote in
: On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 12:58:00 -0500, RD Sandman wrote: Petzl wrote in news On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:30:47 -0500, RD Sandman wrote: Sylvia Else wrote in news:el5f1bFb5krU1 : 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), Overbooking is intentional. It is done to try and ensure paying passengers for all flights. The plane was full, not over booked. Not enough is known for me to argue with you. The point is that the plane was full, airlines can and do overbook to ensure that all seats are filled. Everyone was seated, so at the point the plane was full not overbooked (UA spin). Perhaps. We don't know if there aother passengers in the terminal that were not added to the flight. Additionally, when the four airline employees were added to the manifest, the flight beame "overbooked". More spin is that four passengers were "randomly" selected? Yes, it is a computer program that does the selection. Computers do not make selections for any other reason than what is programmed into them, and it is very difficult to make that purely random. Airport Security were called when one Asian refused to voluntarily comply. Why should that be any different than if it had been a white female? The Asian media noted all were Chinese Asian, are reacting against to what is seen by them as being profiled by UA and removed because of being Asian. I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere, however, I do not subscribe to any Asian newspapers. UA are concerned because they have had over 30 years of operating profitably in China. They need to be concerned for more reasons than that. Four un-booked "staff" turned up last minute requiring seats Yes, they had to be at the arrival airport for duties. I would assume those duties included working on another flight from that airport. I have to correct my assumption here. They were not scheduled to work another flight, they were headed to a meeting the next morning. 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. The maximum is $1350 and it is usually in the form of a voucher which can be used on other flights on that same airline. It used to be the cost of the ticket for a later flight and a dinner at the airport. It could also include an overnight stay at a local hotel if the later flight was tomorrow. I would expect an airline has the right to remove anyone it wants to? However United Air abused this privilege No argument on that point. One would expect that removal be done safely? Of course. It was not a frail old Asian man getting his head beaten in by "Airport Security" and he ruturned for more, "Somehow he got back on," Tyler Bridges, one of those who filmed the incident, told NBC News. "He runs back on — dazed, bloodied, kind of in a mess — yelling, 'I have to get home, I have to get home.'" Now if one of this Doctors patients took a turn for the worse? This sounds like a ambulance chasers dream (no win no fee) -- RD Sandman Airspeed, altitude and brains....two of the three are always required to complete a mission. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
United Airlines, We put the "Hospital" in "Hospitality"!
On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 20:51:14 +0800, Gerrit 't Hart
wrote: 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. They do and did, but are not police, just "airport security" Chicago real Police are distancing themselves from this -- Petzl Arguing with a woman is like reading the Software License Agreement. In the end, you ignore everthing and click "I agree" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
aircraft - "National Museum of the United States Air Force.jpg" (1/2) 637.5 KBytes 204 KB | D. St-Sanvain | Aviation Photos | 0 | December 2nd 10 08:41 PM |
"Pop" Hotchkis bellys in a Bowen Airlines Lockheed Orion, 1920s. | Don Pyeatt | Aviation Photos | 1 | February 20th 09 10:51 PM |
"Chinese Land Attack Cruise Missile Developments and theirImplications for the United States" | Mike[_7_] | Naval Aviation | 8 | December 24th 08 01:32 AM |
Who remembers "Universal Airlines" my first flight many, many years ago | Observer | Aviation Photos | 1 | January 19th 08 04:21 PM |