United Airlines Roughed Up Passenger to Give Up His Seat

[REWahoo]

Admittedly I have only read a handful of comments about this "newz story" but man...250+ comments?!? I am glad most threads don't go this long; it wears me out just thinking about trying to read 'em all.

Not to mention the shameful waste of far too many perfectly good electrons...

 

[Hermit]

Agreed, but I thought I read that there are limits to what they can offer? I also heard $1,000 kicked around.

I would think eliminating the limit would be a good thing, a reverse auction would work, someone will bite, or the figure will get so large that the airline will find some alternative. But if these are the current rules, that's how it must go, until/if they change the rules.



I'm saying much the same things - am I a United employee also? Nope, just someone who is trying to cut through the "trial by social media" thing.

Full disclosure, I know an employee of United. My (now deceased) uncle used to work for TWA, many years ago, they might have been bought out by United, I don't recall. Is that too close for you?

-ERD50

Full disclosure is exactly what I was looking for. Thank you to both you and bUU for providing it. It is amazing how many people won't divulge such things.

 

[bUU]

It shows that perception and PR are done better at other airlines. Southwest and Jetblue have pretty high consumer approval ratings. Yet their involuntary bump rates are higher than United/Delta/AA, etc...

However, comparing these airlines you've listed to where they all were fifteen years ago, you'll see a remarkable trend, with Southwest and JetBlue getting much much worse, and United/Delta/American actually doing a little better. All these airlines compete in the same marketplace. Despite claims to the contrary, their management is all equally adept. What differs between the airlines is their circumstances, in the form of the age and composition of their fleet, and more importantly, the extent to which seniority of employees affects their operations. As Southwest and JetBlue have gotten "old" as airlines, they've trended toward the same problems that United/Delta/American have "always" had. There are still vestiges of the legacy airlines that United/Delta/American haven't been able to shed and that Southwest and JetBlue have been lucky enough to sidestep, but quite few now.

As for the amount legally required... As far as I can see that is the minimum they must pay for INvoluntary bumped passengers... 4x ticket price, capped at $1350.

What excuse would you give to shareholders for awarding more than what the FAA set as the standard?

In this case - hindsight being what it is - they would have saved a big bundle by upping the offer.

Hindsight is always 20/20. Look at the numbers; multiply it by the number of years it has been since United was (unfairly) tagged with how the police dragged one of their passengers off of their aircraft. What were the chances this was going to happen this way before it happened? Now put yourself in an industry that is afflicted by the maniacal bargain hunting of the typical American consumer and the maniacal pressure for profits and growth of the typical American investor. I doubt you'd make the decision you seem to be implying you'd make.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

For the third time now: Gandhi went to jail, peacefully. He didn't claim exemption from the consequences of his actions. He didn't demonize those who took him into custody nor the guards who kept him in custody. He invited the consequences he incurred because he felt it would give him an opportunity to draw attention to what he felt was injustice.

As noted previously, Ghandi got his start after being forcibly removed from a train for violating segregation laws. Who knows, maybe the United passenger will become a figurehead for more favorable aviation consumer rights laws.

 

[travelover]

Check my posting history. My comments here are 100% consistent with my well-established moral principles expressed in literally dozens of other threads..............

I don't need to. I put you on IGNORE when you first showed up and took you off after awhile. I now see that it was a mistake.

 

[Texas Proud]

+1.

Some folks may see what happened as "That guy was an instigator, toss the bum out." Or other may see as "My gosh, he's someone's grandfather/father, he didn't deserve that."

Or someone can see it as both....

I think he did make the matter worse and should have been removed from the plane.... but he did not deserve to be treated as he did.... still, I would not award him damages as some suggest for what happened...

 

[redduck]

Check my posting history. My comments here are 100% consistent with my well-established moral principles expressed in literally dozens of other threads.

Not at all. Consequences is to Consequences as Lawbreaker is to Lawbreaker.

Your well-established moral principles? Who talks that way about themselves?

Anyhow, your analogy falls way, way short in comparing someone who runs out of a store with a stolen TV to someone who has paid for his seat.
Because that was the analogy you were making. You were comparing a thief to a paid passenger.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

I wouldn't have stayed in my seat because I'm basically a coward. But I think it is pretty cool that the United guy did.

 

[mystang52]

Well, one positive may yet come from this incident:

Pentagon awards contract to United Airlines to forcibly remove Assad

 

[bUU]

Who knows, maybe the United passenger will become a figurehead for more favorable aviation consumer rights laws.

Stranger things have happened, but again this guy doesn't sound like he's in it for anything other than his own personal advantage. I'd love to be proven wrong about that.

Regardless, I suspect 90% of those folks bashing the airline in this incident would NOT support how such changes would affect them, in terms of higher fares and more operational complexities associated with flying. Remember: Things cannot change within a specific airline because the other airlines would cannibalize the changing airlines passengers. However, make it a rule, and make every airline comply, and suddenly the airlines are all lovey-dovey because they don't have to worry about a competitor trying to use their lower prices or simpler systems as enticement to switch.

They all make the change, and they all pass the costs along to the customer.

And the customers complain that prices are increasing and they're not getting anything extra for it, when in reality they made it happen. And the world spins around and around again.

Your well-established moral principles? Who talks that way about themselves?

Someone unfairly accused of the contrary. Of course, you managed to read my reply without recognizing the craven nature of what I was replying to. Imagine that.

Anyhow, your analogy falls way, way short in

We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Texas Proud]

I see this incident as being similar to college students doing a peaceful "sit-in" to oppose some policy/rule/principle. This physician's "protest" was against his own annoyance at being told to depart the plane.

The students paid their tuition and have a "right" to express their beliefs. This physician paid his ticket and had a "right" to express his beliefs. The students and this physician got what they deserved when legally told to leave the premises, and they refused; bloodied and dragged away. I'm blessed to live in a country that doesn't behead people because of their personal beliefs.

UA could have used a better approach, and probably will in the future. I hope UA doesn't give him a penny in compensation. My only sympathies go toward all the other passengers who were delayed.

I do not see that these are the same.... the students plan what they are going to do when it comes to a sit in.... this passenger had zero plan.... he just did not want to comply.... he was not doing it for the flying public, but his own needs... he was not protesting people getting kicked off planes, but just did not want to be one... a big difference IMO...

 

[Chuckanut]

I seems to me that the FAA and the airlines need to get together and find a better way to deal with problems like this. Unlike weather or mechanical issues which can't always been foreseen and prevented, this one was a mess-up by UA. Thus, IMHO, the burden to do the 'right' thing (which may be different than what they can legally get away with)is far greater than with weather or untimely mechanical issues. This is more like: "We goofed, you pay for it". Not a way to run an airline or any other business.

Of course, even if the airline messes up, that is no excuse for a passenger to act badly. Sainthood is earned, not bestowed on people just because somebody treated them badly.

 

[MichaelB]

Folks, there have been multiple complaints about disrespectful posts. Let's not forget we're among friends, and let's keep a positive tone to the conversation.

 

[bUU]

I seems to me that the FAA and the airlines need to get together and find a better way to deal with problems like this.

All indications are that the FAA is being tasked to reduce regulations on airlines, not add additional regulations.

 

[Alan]

Thanks for the interesting discussion.