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
  #11  
Old April 12th 17, 06:15 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 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.
Ads
  #12  
Old April 12th 17, 06:52 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 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  
Old April 12th 17, 12:09 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,aus.aviation,alt.law-enforcement,talk.politics.guns,sac.politics
Petzl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default 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  
Old April 12th 17, 05:30 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,aus.aviation,alt.law-enforcement,talk.politics.guns,sac.politics
RD Sandman[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default 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  
Old April 12th 17, 05:33 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,aus.aviation,alt.law-enforcement,talk.politics.guns,sac.politics
RD Sandman[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default 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  
Old April 12th 17, 07:03 PM 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 11:33:24 -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  
Old April 12th 17, 07:06 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,aus.aviation,alt.law-enforcement,talk.politics.guns,sac.politics
Lebovitz Dubois
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default 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  
Old April 12th 17, 08:13 PM 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, 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  
Old April 12th 17, 08:21 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting, aus.aviation, alt.law-enforcement,talk.politics.guns, sac.politics
Christopher[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default 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  
Old April 12th 17, 09:23 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting, aus.aviation, alt.law-enforcement,talk.politics.guns, sac.politics
Christopher[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default 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

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 11:32 PM.


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