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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
United Airlines, We put the "Hospital" in "Hospitality"!
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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
United Airlines, We put the "Hospital" in "Hospitality"!
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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
United Airlines, We put the "Hospital" in "Hospitality"!
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" |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
United Airlines, We put the "Hospital" in "Hospitality"!
Sylvia Else wrote in news:el5f1bFb5krU1
@mid.individual.net: 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), Overbooking is intentional. It is done to try and ensure paying passengers for all flights. 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. -- 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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
United Airlines, We put the "Hospital" in "Hospitality"!
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. -- 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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
United Airlines, We put the "Hospital" in "Hospitality"!
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. Lastly, the four employees big emergency was that they had to be at a meeting the next day. 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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
United Airlines, We put the "Hospital" in "Hospitality"!
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message ... 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. Airlines have been overbooking for years. It's nothing new. Through experience the airlines know a certain percentage of booked passengers will either not show or cancel at the last minute. Keeping the seats filled increases profits and most of the time there are no conflicts. The problem was United's, the paying customers should have come first and United should have found another way to get the aircrew to their destination. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
United Airlines, We put the "Hospital" in "Hospitality"!
On 11 Apr 2017, Sylvia Else posted some
: 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. Except in this case it was 4 United employees who could have been moved to another flight or comped by another airline. One hour wouldn't have made any difference to them. That flight was out of O'Hare. There were 48 flights to Louisville KY that day, 24 of them after 6 PM. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
United Airlines, We put the "Hospital" in "Hospitality"!
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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
United Airlines, We put the "Hospital" in "Hospitality"!
In article
Sylvia Else wrote: 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. There was no need to overbook until the imposition of the ineffective TSA layer of "security" using union deadbeats. That turned a lot of people off flying and spawned new business opportunities of collaboration and communication that did not involve travel - thus cutting into airline revenue. The TSA hasn't prevented anything but business expansion and customer satisfaction. The problem is not the overbooking, but how it's handled when, as occasionally happens, too many people actually turn up. You don't strong-arm your paying customers. It's going to be a long time before anyone forgets about this "re-accomodation". re-accomodate, verb: to bloody a paying passenger and drag his limp body away. Credit-Julia Carrie Wong Sylvia. |
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 |