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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
United Airlines, We put the "Hospital" in "Hospitality"!
In article
Wayne wrote: 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. That they did and they need to pay heavily for it. The overbooking problem should have been solved before boarding. Agree 100%. United knew they had to accomodate their crew members. 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. Agree. 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. Shot multiple times and they would have killed a couple passengers for good measure. This is what happens in cities under Democrat control. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
United Airlines, We put the "Hospital" in "Hospitality"!
In article
Petzl wrote: 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. Maybe the selection priority should have been blacks, Mexicans, Asians. We could have seen some cops get punched and beaten before they pulled guns and started shooting everybody. After this Asian guy wins his lawsuit, United might as well paint black eyes on each cockpit window because this will never ever go away. It's going to haunt them like Pan Am Flight 103. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
United Airlines, We put the "Hospital" in "Hospitality"!
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. Four un-booked "staff" turned up last minute requiring seats 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 -- Petzl Arguing with a woman is like reading the Software License Agreement. In the end, you ignore everthing and click "I agree" |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
United Airlines, We put the "Hospital" in "Hospitality"!
On 12 Apr 2017, Petzl posted some
: 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. He was an arrogant chink. Who do these people think they are anyway? Having a job, earning money, being responsible and paying taxes. Having the means to fly. The nerve of this guy anyway. How dare he? If he was an illegal alien or radical Muslim, United Airlines would already be hanging by the neck, hoisted by their own petard. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
United Airlines, We put the "Hospital" in "Hospitality"!
In article
Stitch wrote: On 12 Apr 2017, Petzl posted some : 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. He was an arrogant chink. Who do these people think they are anyway? Having a job, earning money, being responsible and paying taxes. Having the means to fly. The nerve of this guy anyway. How dare he? If he was an illegal alien or radical Muslim, United Airlines would already be hanging by the neck, hoisted by their own petard. Now United and the hateful left-wing racist mass media are going after this Vietnamese refugee / naturalized American citizen with a vengeance. They went and dug up dirt from 50 years ago in an effort to make him look bad to trivialize the abuse actions by Chicago police and United Airlines employees. Talk about two tools of the state. United and AT&T, both enemies of the American public. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
United Airlines, We put the "Hospital" in "Hospitality"!
On 13/04/2017 5:21 AM, Christopher wrote:
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. Well, we don't know the details. Perhaps there were no seats available on other airlines, and the staff were needed at their posts on time, or it *would* affect passengers. Sylvia. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
United Airlines, We put the "Hospital" in "Hospitality"!
On 12/04/2017 2:03 PM, 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. As the seat has been paid for what difference does it make if the seat is empty? If you were an airline exec wouldn't you been looking at those seats, and wishing you could earn some money from them. In fact they get paid twice for the same seat The problem is not the overbooking, but how it's handled when, as occasionally happens, too many people actually turn up. There is absolutely no excuse for overbooking flights and bouncing booked passengers with valid tickets. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
United Airlines, We put the "Hospital" in "Hospitality"!
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 23:35:00 -0000 (UTC), Stitch
wrote: On 12 Apr 2017, Petzl posted some : 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. He was an arrogant chink. Who do these people think they are anyway? Having a job, earning money, being responsible and paying taxes. Having the means to fly. The nerve of this guy anyway. How dare he? If he was an illegal alien or radical Muslim, United Airlines would already be hanging by the neck, hoisted by their own petard. He was just one of four "chinks" removed by airline security (not police) three did not argue. -- Petzl Arguing with a woman is like reading the Software License Agreement. In the end, you ignore everthing and click "I agree" |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
United Airlines, We put the "Hospital" in "Hospitality"!
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. 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. -- 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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
United Airlines, We put the "Hospital" in "Hospitality"!
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. 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. -- 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 |
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 |