A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 11th 17, 10:51 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting, aus.aviation, alt.law-enforcement,talk.politics.guns, sac.politics
Air Gestapo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default United Airlines, We put the "Hospital" in "Hospitality"!

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."

United Airlines, Inc.

Mr Oscar Munoz CEO

Email

Telephone +1 847 700 4000
Website
http://www.united.com
Social Media T

Postal Address 233 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL, 60606M
CIK 0000319687

United Airlines, Inc. (Customer Service and Complaints)


Email

Telephone (800) 864-8331
Website
http://www.united.com
Social Media T

Postal Address 233 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL, 60606M
CIK 0000319687

Oscar Munoz's Email
Chief Executive Officer @ United Airlines
Location Chicago
Work Board Member @ United Airlines
President and Chief Operating Officer @ CSX
Chief Operating Officer @ CSX
Education Bachelor's Degree in Finance & Strategy @
University of Southern California - Marshall School of Business
Master of Business Administration (M.B.A.) @ Pepperdine
University, The George L. Graziadio School of Business and
Management
*

Ads
  #2  
Old April 12th 17, 02:11 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,aus.aviation,alt.law-enforcement,aus.politics
Petzl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default United Airlines, We put the "Hospital" in "Hospitality"!

On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 23:51:45 +0200 (CEST), "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."

United Airlines, Inc.


All four evictees were Asian and AFTER they were allowed to board then
seated?
"Our" media are not reporting this, the Japanese media are
--
Petzl
Arguing with a woman is like reading the Software License Agreement.
In the end, you ignore everthing and click "I agree"
  #3  
Old April 12th 17, 02:43 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,aus.aviation,alt.law-enforcement,talk.politics.guns,sac.politics
Sylvia Else
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 58
Default United Airlines, We put the "Hospital" in "Hospitality"!

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.

  #4  
Old April 12th 17, 03:06 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,aus.aviation,alt.law-enforcement,talk.politics.guns,sac.politics
de chucka
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default United Airlines, We put the "Hospital" in "Hospitality"!

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

  #5  
Old April 12th 17, 03:08 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,aus.aviation,alt.law-enforcement,talk.politics.guns,sac.politics
First-Post
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default United Airlines, We put the "Hospital" in "Hospitality"!

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?
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.

  #6  
Old April 12th 17, 03:25 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,aus.aviation,alt.law-enforcement,talk.politics.guns,sac.politics
Wayne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default United Airlines, We put the "Hospital" in "Hospitality"!

On 4/11/2017 6:43 PM, 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.

But United ****ed up the deal from the gitgo.
The overbooking problem should have been solved before boarding.
If $800 won't get 4 passengers to volunteer, then try $1000, etc.
United should never have told boarded passenger that four had to leave
to make room for employees.

And then United just said to hell with it, let the cops throw the guy
off. The cops are only interested in submission and compliance totally
by the book. He's lucky LAPD wasn't involved or he would have been shot.
  #7  
Old April 12th 17, 03:26 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,aus.aviation,alt.law-enforcement,talk.politics.guns,sac.politics
Wayne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default United Airlines, We put the "Hospital" in "Hospitality"!

On 4/11/2017 7:08 PM, First-Post wrote:
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?
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.

Agreed. When is the last time you took a flight that had even one empty
seat. United wouldn't have had to kick the guy off if they didn't
overbook to start with.
  #8  
Old April 12th 17, 05:03 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,aus.aviation,alt.law-enforcement,talk.politics.guns,sac.politics
Sylvia Else
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 58
Default United Airlines, We put the "Hospital" in "Hospitality"!

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.

Sylvia.
  #9  
Old April 12th 17, 05:09 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,aus.aviation,alt.law-enforcement,talk.politics.guns,sac.politics
P. Coonan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default United Airlines, We put the "Hospital" in "Hospitality"!

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/

  #10  
Old April 12th 17, 06:08 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,aus.aviation,alt.law-enforcement,talk.politics.guns,sac.politics
First-Post
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default 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.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2017 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.