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
  #31  
Old April 13th 17, 07:46 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 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.

Ads
  #32  
Old April 13th 17, 08:14 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"!

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  
Old April 13th 17, 11:00 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 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  
Old April 13th 17, 11:24 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,aus.aviation,alt.law-enforcement,talk.politics.guns,sac.politics
Scout[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default 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  
Old April 14th 17, 12:04 AM 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 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  
Old April 14th 17, 12:09 AM 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 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  
Old April 14th 17, 01:51 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,aus.aviation,alt.law-enforcement,talk.politics.guns,sac.politics
Gerrit 't Hart
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default 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  
Old April 14th 17, 03:36 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 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  
Old April 14th 17, 07:43 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"!

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  
Old April 15th 17, 02:37 AM 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 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

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 07:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2018 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.