United Airlines Force Customer Off Plane Due to Overbooking
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 41715
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered intelligent.

PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:02 pm    Post subject:

lakersken80 wrote:
Airlines have every right to overbook their flights...the only thing they did wrong was the overreaction to a guy who wasn't a threat to the safety of the flight crew. Perhaps offering more incentives to the customers would've resolved this situation peacefully or if the airline realizes the costs to put those 4 airline employees were too great they could've booked them on a competitors airline to get them to the destination....either way it was a poor solution to a problem.

What gives them that right? Flights don't have standing room options.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

Your prayers are always answered. Sometimes the answer is NO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 28513

PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:10 pm    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
Airlines have every right to overbook their flights...the only thing they did wrong was the overreaction to a guy who wasn't a threat to the safety of the flight crew. Perhaps offering more incentives to the customers would've resolved this situation peacefully or if the airline realizes the costs to put those 4 airline employees were too great they could've booked them on a competitors airline to get them to the destination....either way it was a poor solution to a problem.

What gives them that right? Flights don't have standing room options.


They have the right to make sure their flights are filled to capacity and also to ensure they are making money. What they did wrong to haul the guy off the flight and leave him injured and bloodied. He was not a threat to the flight crew. That was what they did wrong. Don't forget just because the airline is booked doesn't mean it will be filled to capacity. There could be unforseen circumstances where the passenger couldn't make it to the flight, whether thru last minute cancellations or they didn't arrive in time, etc.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 41715
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered intelligent.

PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:19 pm    Post subject:

lakersken80 wrote:
jodeke wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
Airlines have every right to overbook their flights...the only thing they did wrong was the overreaction to a guy who wasn't a threat to the safety of the flight crew. Perhaps offering more incentives to the customers would've resolved this situation peacefully or if the airline realizes the costs to put those 4 airline employees were too great they could've booked them on a competitors airline to get them to the destination....either way it was a poor solution to a problem.

What gives them that right? Flights don't have standing room options.


They have the right to make sure their flights are filled to capacity and also to ensure they are making money. What they did wrong to haul the guy off the flight and leave him injured and bloodied. He was not a threat to the flight crew. That was what they did wrong. Don't forget just because the airline is booked doesn't mean it will be filled to capacity. There could be unforseen circumstances where the passenger couldn't make it to the flight, whether thru last minute cancellations or they didn't arrive in time, etc.

I don't see why they wouldn't be able to fill all seats. Most flights have standby lists. Most flights have vacant seats. If flights aren't full seems as though the reason would be because there weren't enough people to fill them. I don't see a reason to overbook.

If anyone should have been inconvenienced I think it should have been the crew that caused the overbooking. I don't think any were pilots. The crew they were going to relieve should have been asked to do some OT.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

Your prayers are always answered. Sometimes the answer is NO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 19183

PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:22 pm    Post subject:

lakersken80 wrote:
jodeke wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
Airlines have every right to overbook their flights...the only thing they did wrong was the overreaction to a guy who wasn't a threat to the safety of the flight crew. Perhaps offering more incentives to the customers would've resolved this situation peacefully or if the airline realizes the costs to put those 4 airline employees were too great they could've booked them on a competitors airline to get them to the destination....either way it was a poor solution to a problem.

What gives them that right? Flights don't have standing room options.


They have the right to make sure their flights are filled to capacity and also to ensure they are making money. What they did wrong to haul the guy off the flight and leave him injured and bloodied. He was not a threat to the flight crew. That was what they did wrong. Don't forget just because the airline is booked doesn't mean it will be filled to capacity. There could be unforseen circumstances where the passenger couldn't make it to the flight, whether thru last minute cancellations or they didn't arrive in time, etc.


That's all true, but again, it isn't what went wrong here. Anyone who has traveled extensively by air has experienced overbooked flights. There is a routine ritual for dealing with the situation. Heck, there are people who are eager for overbooking situations because they want to snag the freebies.

What went wrong is that the passengers were already on the plane. It was NOT overbooked. Then United decided that it needed to boot four seated passengers for its own reasons. Once people are already on the plane and in their seats, it is going to be harder to get them to volunteer. And they didn't.

If it was another airline, you would say that this was astounding incompetence. In the case of United, it was just another day.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 18765

PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:25 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
My comment was in response to DMR's comment that United prioritized the employees over the 4 passengers. That isn't entirely accurate.


It's 100% accurate. Their problem was not overbooking. Their problem was screwing up their personnel rotations. No amount of your semantic games changes that.


No, it's not 100% accurate DMR. Sorry.

The choice had to be either to pull 4 people off of Flight 3411, or, prevent hundreds of people from traveling on another flight. So they didn't prioritize the employees, they prioritized the hundreds of passengers and made the decision to inconvenience 4 instead of 200. It's not like they took off passengers and replaced them with 4 employees going on vacation or something. Man, whether it is "hacking" the election, you guys sure love to overstate the truth and then call semantics when challenged. lol.

Bottom line is that it doesn't matter if they screwed up their rotations or didn't plan well. This happens ALL the time. You do know this right? People are bumped off their flights all of the time, generally without incident. I want to say around 40,000 times in 2016 this happened.

And most of the time, it happens through no fault of the person being bumped which means most of the time, it is the fault of the airline not planning properly whether due to overbooking or faulty scheduling. This is nothing new and has been going on for years and years.

The only thing that is different in this case, is that the airlines didn't spend enough time or effort trying to prevent an unnecessary situation from occurring. That's why I say the issue isn't as much a legal one, as it is a customer service one.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 18765

PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:26 pm    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
Airlines have every right to overbook their flights...the only thing they did wrong was the overreaction to a guy who wasn't a threat to the safety of the flight crew. Perhaps offering more incentives to the customers would've resolved this situation peacefully or if the airline realizes the costs to put those 4 airline employees were too great they could've booked them on a competitors airline to get them to the destination....either way it was a poor solution to a problem.

What gives them that right? Flights don't have standing room options.


You do. When you buy a plane ticket.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
governator
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 6815

PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:36 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
My comment was in response to DMR's comment that United prioritized the employees over the 4 passengers. That isn't entirely accurate.


It's 100% accurate. Their problem was not overbooking. Their problem was screwing up their personnel rotations. No amount of your semantic games changes that.


No, it's not 100% accurate DMR. Sorry.

The choice had to be either to pull 4 people off of Flight 3411, or, prevent hundreds of people from traveling on another flight. So they didn't prioritize the employees, they prioritized the hundreds of passengers and made the decision to inconvenience 4 instead of 200. It's not like they took off passengers and replaced them with 4 employees going on vacation or something. Man, whether it is "hacking" the election, you guys sure love to overstate the truth and then call semantics when challenged. lol.

Bottom line is that it doesn't matter if they screwed up their rotations or didn't plan well. This happens ALL the time. You do know this right? People are bumped off their flights all of the time, generally without incident. I want to say around 40,000 times in 2016 this happened.

And most of the time, it happens through no fault of the person being bumped which means most of the time, it is the fault of the airline not planning properly whether due to overbooking or faulty scheduling. This is nothing new and has been going on for years and years.

The only thing that is different in this case, is that the airlines didn't spend enough time or effort trying to prevent an unnecessary situation from occurring. That's why I say the issue isn't as much a legal one, as it is a customer service one.


not necessarily ringfinger. It's not that United prioritized the hundreds of passengers in lieu of the 4 passenger. They prioritized monetary savings because there are other flights that the crew could take to get to their destination including other airlines
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 3320

PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:39 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
My comment was in response to DMR's comment that United prioritized the employees over the 4 passengers. That isn't entirely accurate.


It's 100% accurate. Their problem was not overbooking. Their problem was screwing up their personnel rotations. No amount of your semantic games changes that.


No, it's not 100% accurate DMR. Sorry.

The choice had to be either to pull 4 people off of Flight 3411, or, prevent hundreds of people from traveling on another flight. So they didn't prioritize the employees, they prioritized the hundreds of passengers and made the decision to inconvenience 4 instead of 200. It's not like they took off passengers and replaced them with 4 employees going on vacation or something. Man, whether it is "hacking" the election, you guys sure love to overstate the truth and then call semantics when challenged. lol.

Bottom line is that it doesn't matter if they screwed up their rotations or didn't plan well. This happens ALL the time. You do know this right? People are bumped off their flights all of the time, generally without incident. I want to say around 40,000 times in 2016 this happened.

And most of the time, it happens through no fault of the person being bumped which means most of the time, it is the fault of the airline not planning properly whether due to overbooking or faulty scheduling. This is nothing new and has been going on for years and years.

The only thing that is different in this case, is that the airlines didn't spend enough time or effort trying to prevent an unnecessary situation from occurring. That's why I say the issue isn't as much a legal one, as it is a customer service one.


4 passengers X 1350
What if they used one of their extra planes to fly that crew ..

My whole argument was after you're on the plane barring national emergency the seat belongs to me. I shouldn't even be considered for removal. Especially against my will

United is in another tough spot.. a lot of this lays squarely in the lap of police brutality

SIXTY NINE YEARS OLD... young punk cop basically brutalizes an old Grandpa.

How will United hold the authorities responsible..without looking like they're deflecting or without pissing off the cops
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 39639
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 5:44 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
My comment was in response to DMR's comment that United prioritized the employees over the 4 passengers. That isn't entirely accurate.


It's 100% accurate. Their problem was not overbooking. Their problem was screwing up their personnel rotations. No amount of your semantic games changes that.


No, it's not 100% accurate DMR
. Sorry.

The choice had to be either to pull 4 people off of Flight 3411, or, prevent hundreds of people from traveling on another flight. So they didn't prioritize the employees, they prioritized the hundreds of passengers and made the decision to inconvenience 4 instead of 200. It's not like they took off passengers and replaced them with 4 employees going on vacation or something. Man, whether it is "hacking" the election, you guys sure love to overstate the truth and then call semantics when challenged. lol.

Bottom line is that it doesn't matter if they screwed up their rotations or didn't plan well. This happens ALL the time. You do know this right? People are bumped off their flights all of the time, generally without incident. I want to say around 40,000 times in 2016 this happened.

And most of the time, it happens through no fault of the person being bumped which means most of the time, it is the fault of the airline not planning properly whether due to overbooking or faulty scheduling. This is nothing new and has been going on for years and years.

The only thing that is different in this case, is that the airlines didn't spend enough time or effort trying to prevent an unnecessary situation from occurring. That's why I say the issue isn't as much a legal one, as it is a customer service one.


This is why so many people here refrain from engaging you. Your disingenuous semantics games are pointless discussions.

The events that lead to Dao being removed from the flight had nothing to do with overbooking and was due to staffing issues - regardless of what was happening in Louisville, as several here have pointed out. Dao was NOT removed to accommodate other passengers. No amount of false rationalization is going to demonstrate otherwise and will neither deflect from nor erase that simple, obvious and core fact.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
Heís something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built thatís all for show goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 18765

PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 6:00 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
My comment was in response to DMR's comment that United prioritized the employees over the 4 passengers. That isn't entirely accurate.


It's 100% accurate. Their problem was not overbooking. Their problem was screwing up their personnel rotations. No amount of your semantic games changes that.


No, it's not 100% accurate DMR
. Sorry.

The choice had to be either to pull 4 people off of Flight 3411, or, prevent hundreds of people from traveling on another flight. So they didn't prioritize the employees, they prioritized the hundreds of passengers and made the decision to inconvenience 4 instead of 200. It's not like they took off passengers and replaced them with 4 employees going on vacation or something. Man, whether it is "hacking" the election, you guys sure love to overstate the truth and then call semantics when challenged. lol.

Bottom line is that it doesn't matter if they screwed up their rotations or didn't plan well. This happens ALL the time. You do know this right? People are bumped off their flights all of the time, generally without incident. I want to say around 40,000 times in 2016 this happened.

And most of the time, it happens through no fault of the person being bumped which means most of the time, it is the fault of the airline not planning properly whether due to overbooking or faulty scheduling. This is nothing new and has been going on for years and years.

The only thing that is different in this case, is that the airlines didn't spend enough time or effort trying to prevent an unnecessary situation from occurring. That's why I say the issue isn't as much a legal one, as it is a customer service one.


This is why so many people here refrain from engaging you. Your disingenuous semantics games are pointless discussions.

The events that lead to Dao being removed from the flight had nothing to do with overbooking and was due to staffing issues - regardless of what was happening in Louisville, as several here have pointed out. Dao was NOT removed to accommodate other passengers. No amount of false rationalization is going to demonstrate otherwise and will neither deflect from nor erase that simple, obvious and core fact.


Well, I just disagree. Theres no semantics here. The 4 employees were to support anothet flight. If there was another flight in KY, this would never have happened. Its not the employees that wanted to go there, its UA that wanted them there. Why? For that other flight. Thats why I say they prioritized that other flight, the 4 passengers were just the means to ensure that flight left as intended. If it was 4 employees going on vaca and UA prioritized them in thar case, I'd agree with that point then.

Now I agree they screwed up because a) there were other flights and b) they didnt try hard enough. I'm just disagreeing with the notion the employees were prioritized.

Regardless of the reason why, they should never have called the police. The proper thing to do would have been to try harder to work it out peacefully with 4 passengers to make room.

I mean, almost no one is disagreeing with the idea UA screwed up big time here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LakerLanny
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 Oct 2001
Posts: 38527

PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 6:39 pm    Post subject:

I haven't gone through the thread so I apologize if these have already been used:

Did you hear the news? United is no longer offering Red Eye Flights, only Black Eye Flights.


OK, one more:

United Airlines - Board a Doctor, leave a Patient.


I will be appearing all week, just be glad LG doesn't allow me to post internet memes.
_________________
Love, Laker Lanny
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LakerLanny
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 Oct 2001
Posts: 38527

PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 6:40 pm    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
Revised United seating chart:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9D393kVwAAdTRX.jpg




Well played! I love it!
_________________
Love, Laker Lanny
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LakerLanny
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 Oct 2001
Posts: 38527

PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 6:41 pm    Post subject:

BadGuy wrote:
the cheapest airlines are almost always the worst (e.g., Delta, United, etc.). not surprised at all


Those aren't the cheapest airlines.

I know because I fly and am cheap.
_________________
Love, Laker Lanny
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 39639
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 6:45 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
My comment was in response to DMR's comment that United prioritized the employees over the 4 passengers. That isn't entirely accurate.


It's 100% accurate. Their problem was not overbooking. Their problem was screwing up their personnel rotations. No amount of your semantic games changes that.


No, it's not 100% accurate DMR
. Sorry.

The choice had to be either to pull 4 people off of Flight 3411, or, prevent hundreds of people from traveling on another flight. So they didn't prioritize the employees, they prioritized the hundreds of passengers and made the decision to inconvenience 4 instead of 200. It's not like they took off passengers and replaced them with 4 employees going on vacation or something. Man, whether it is "hacking" the election, you guys sure love to overstate the truth and then call semantics when challenged. lol.

Bottom line is that it doesn't matter if they screwed up their rotations or didn't plan well. This happens ALL the time. You do know this right? People are bumped off their flights all of the time, generally without incident. I want to say around 40,000 times in 2016 this happened.

And most of the time, it happens through no fault of the person being bumped which means most of the time, it is the fault of the airline not planning properly whether due to overbooking or faulty scheduling. This is nothing new and has been going on for years and years.

The only thing that is different in this case, is that the airlines didn't spend enough time or effort trying to prevent an unnecessary situation from occurring. That's why I say the issue isn't as much a legal one, as it is a customer service one.


This is why so many people here refrain from engaging you. Your disingenuous semantics games are pointless discussions.

The events that lead to Dao being removed from the flight had nothing to do with overbooking and was due to staffing issues - regardless of what was happening in Louisville, as several here have pointed out. Dao was NOT removed to accommodate other passengers. No amount of false rationalization is going to demonstrate otherwise and will neither deflect from nor erase that simple, obvious and core fact.


Well, I just disagree. Theres no semantics here. The 4 employees were to support anothet flight. If there was another flight in KY, this would never have happened. Its not the employees that wanted to go there, its UA that wanted them there. Why? For that other flight. Thats why I say they prioritized that other flight, the 4 passengers were just the means to ensure that flight left as intended. If it was 4 employees going on vaca and UA prioritized them in thar case, I'd agree with that point then.

Now I agree they screwed up because a) there were other flights and b) they didnt try hard enough. I'm just disagreeing with the notion the employees were prioritized.

Regardless of the reason why, they should never have called the police. The proper thing to do would have been to try harder to work it out peacefully with 4 passengers to make room.

I mean, almost no one is disagreeing with the idea UA screwed up big time here.


This is the last I will waste of my time in this discussion with you. United was clearly NOT prioritizing "hundreds of passengers in Kentucky". They were prioritizing their financial bottom-line. Their treatment of passengers makes it obvious that they are not about prioritizing passengers for the benefit of their clients. There were other ways to resolve their staffing issues that didn't involve forcibly removing Dao. They didn't even exhaust their compensation resources when asking the flight's passengers to volunteer to give up their seats. They chose to find the cheapest and most expedient way of solving their internal issues. The idea that United was prioritizing passengers in Kentucky doesn't pass the logic test.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
Heís something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built thatís all for show goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 3320

PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 8:51 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
My comment was in response to DMR's comment that United prioritized the employees over the 4 passengers. That isn't entirely accurate.


It's 100% accurate. Their problem was not overbooking. Their problem was screwing up their personnel rotations. No amount of your semantic games changes that.


No, it's not 100% accurate DMR
. Sorry.

The choice had to be either to pull 4 people off of Flight 3411, or, prevent hundreds of people from traveling on another flight. So they didn't prioritize the employees, they prioritized the hundreds of passengers and made the decision to inconvenience 4 instead of 200. It's not like they took off passengers and replaced them with 4 employees going on vacation or something. Man, whether it is "hacking" the election, you guys sure love to overstate the truth and then call semantics when challenged. lol.

Bottom line is that it doesn't matter if they screwed up their rotations or didn't plan well. This happens ALL the time. You do know this right? People are bumped off their flights all of the time, generally without incident. I want to say around 40,000 times in 2016 this happened.

And most of the time, it happens through no fault of the person being bumped which means most of the time, it is the fault of the airline not planning properly whether due to overbooking or faulty scheduling. This is nothing new and has been going on for years and years.

The only thing that is different in this case, is that the airlines didn't spend enough time or effort trying to prevent an unnecessary situation from occurring. That's why I say the issue isn't as much a legal one, as it is a customer service one.


This is why so many people here refrain from engaging you. Your disingenuous semantics games are pointless discussions.

The events that lead to Dao being removed from the flight had nothing to do with overbooking and was due to staffing issues - regardless of what was happening in Louisville, as several here have pointed out. Dao was NOT removed to accommodate other passengers. No amount of false rationalization is going to demonstrate otherwise and will neither deflect from nor erase that simple, obvious and core fact.


Well, I just disagree. Theres no semantics here. The 4 employees were to support anothet flight. If there was another flight in KY, this would never have happened. Its not the employees that wanted to go there, its UA that wanted them there. Why? For that other flight. Thats why I say they prioritized that other flight, the 4 passengers were just the means to ensure that flight left as intended. If it was 4 employees going on vaca and UA prioritized them in thar case, I'd agree with that point then.

Now I agree they screwed up because a) there were other flights and b) they didnt try hard enough. I'm just disagreeing with the notion the employees were prioritized.

Regardless of the reason why, they should never have called the police. The proper thing to do would have been to try harder to work it out peacefully with 4 passengers to make room.

I mean, almost no one is disagreeing with the idea UA screwed up big time here.


there wouldn't even be another flight if it weren't for those worthless passengers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 3320

PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 8:53 pm    Post subject:

LakerLanny wrote:
BadGuy wrote:
the cheapest airlines are almost always the worst (e.g., Delta, United, etc.). not surprised at all


Those aren't the cheapest airlines.

I know because I fly and am cheap.


Delta United Continental

Highest prices possible!

Look for the underlings who are growing..

We don't beat our passengers we beat the competition
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 19183

PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 9:08 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
I'm just disagreeing with the notion the employees were prioritized.


The employees were prioritized. Duh. United wasn't doing it out of altruism. United was doing it for its own convenience, because it had zero concern for the convenience of its customers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
governator
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 6815

PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 4:14 am    Post subject:

governator wrote:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-united-legally-wrong-deplane-134223391.html

From a lawyer, it touch the definition of boarding vs boarding process also


https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/100317166/

Facts from USA Today:
The 4 crew needed to go to KY for A NEXT DAY job/flights
United didn't overbook the flight
United didn't maximize $incentive to 're-accommodate' passenger
That 4 crew had other ways to get to their KY job without United resorting to 're-accommodate' the passengers

Hope it put to rest the notion that United Airlines prioritized hundreds of KY passenger over 4 passengers. It's simply $ and convenience
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 13764
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 5:38 am    Post subject:

governator wrote:
governator wrote:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-united-legally-wrong-deplane-134223391.html

From a lawyer, it touch the definition of boarding vs boarding process also


https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/100317166/

Facts from USA Today:
The 4 crew needed to go to KY for A NEXT DAY job/flights
United didn't overbook the flight
United didn't maximize $incentive to 're-accommodate' passenger
That 4 crew had other ways to get to their KY job without United resorting to 're-accommodate' the passengers

Hope it put to rest the notion that United Airlines prioritized hundreds of KY passenger over 4 passengers. It's simply $ and convenience


Thanks. There is only one person in the thread trying to argue the counterfactuals in this case. The rest of us are pretty clear on the facts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 18765

PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 6:24 am    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
Well, I just disagree. Theres no semantics here. The 4 employees were to support anothet flight. If there was another flight in KY, this would never have happened. Its not the employees that wanted to go there, its UA that wanted them there. Why? For that other flight. Thats why I say they prioritized that other flight, the 4 passengers were just the means to ensure that flight left as intended. If it was 4 employees going on vaca and UA prioritized them in thar case, I'd agree with that point then.

Now I agree they screwed up because a) there were other flights and b) they didnt try hard enough. I'm just disagreeing with the notion the employees were prioritized.

Regardless of the reason why, they should never have called the police. The proper thing to do would have been to try harder to work it out peacefully with 4 passengers to make room.

I mean, almost no one is disagreeing with the idea UA screwed up big time here.


This is the last I will waste of my time in this discussion with you. United was clearly NOT prioritizing "hundreds of passengers in Kentucky". They were prioritizing their financial bottom-line. Their treatment of passengers makes it obvious that they are not about prioritizing passengers for the benefit of their clients. There were other ways to resolve their staffing issues that didn't involve forcibly removing Dao. They didn't even exhaust their compensation resources when asking the flight's passengers to volunteer to give up their seats. They chose to find the cheapest and most expedient way of solving their internal issues. The idea that United was prioritizing passengers in Kentucky doesn't pass the logic test.


I agree with your point about the bottom line being the priority. I just don't agree that the reason they were prioritizing their bottom line wasn't the other flight they were trying to salvage. Because if it weren't for the other flight, then, how exactly does UA stand to profit from booting 4 paying customers for 4 non-paying employees?

I don't disagree with any of the points in here that UA had alternative options they didn't pursue. But that could easily be explained by incompetence which I believe to be the culprit.

I would only ever say UA was prioritizing the 4 employees, if it was the 4 employees' wishes that were being granted at the expense of Flight 3411 passengers. But that wasn't the case here. They didn't want to go, UA wanted them to go. UA saw an opportunity to salvage another flight in KY, at the expense of 4 passengers in Chicago, and put the blinders on to all other avenues to accomplishing that goal.

The 4 employees were just the vehicle to greater perceived profits, not the driver.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 39639
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 6:27 am    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
governator wrote:
governator wrote:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-united-legally-wrong-deplane-134223391.html

From a lawyer, it touch the definition of boarding vs boarding process also


https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/100317166/

Facts from USA Today:
The 4 crew needed to go to KY for A NEXT DAY job/flights
United didn't overbook the flight
United didn't maximize $incentive to 're-accommodate' passenger
That 4 crew had other ways to get to their KY job without United resorting to 're-accommodate' the passengers

Hope it put to rest the notion that United Airlines prioritized hundreds of KY passenger over 4 passengers. It's simply $ and convenience


Thanks. There is only one person in the thread trying to argue the counterfactuals in this case. The rest of us are pretty clear on the facts.


Yes. Thanks gov.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
Heís something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built thatís all for show goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 18765

PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 6:31 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
I'm just disagreeing with the notion the employees were prioritized.


The employees were prioritized. Duh. United wasn't doing it out of altruism. United was doing it for its own convenience, because it had zero concern for the convenience of its customers.


No, as I said in the post above, the employees were simply a means, not the end. The end was, as you said, greater $$ in their pockets and convenience in terms of having to spend time looking for other ways to resolve the problem. And it was that $$ and time/convenience that was prioritized over the 4 passengers. The 4 employees were simply the instrument used to try to realize that $$ and time.

Putting it another way - when a company moves their manufacturing from the U.S. to China, do we say they are prioritizing China or prioritizing $$? I think most people would probably say they are prioritizing $$. I just don't think it would make a whole lot of sense to say they were prioritizing China unless the company made the move in order to appease China's wishes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
audioaxes
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 9158

PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 6:36 am    Post subject:

lakersken80 wrote:
Airlines have every right to overbook their flights...the only thing they did wrong was the overreaction to a guy who wasn't a threat to the safety of the flight crew. Perhaps offering more incentives to the customers would've resolved this situation peacefully or if the airline realizes the costs to put those 4 airline employees were too great they could've booked them on a competitors airline to get them to the destination....either way it was a poor solution to a problem.

this is what I really dont get and cant believe an airline would be so cheap with their incentives that nobody bites on giving up their seat. Offer $2K and a free ticket to the next available flight to that same destination. I'm sure someone would happily give up their seat and if not keep upping the ante until someone bites.
_________________
tank.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 18765

PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 6:40 am    Post subject:

audioaxes wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
Airlines have every right to overbook their flights...the only thing they did wrong was the overreaction to a guy who wasn't a threat to the safety of the flight crew. Perhaps offering more incentives to the customers would've resolved this situation peacefully or if the airline realizes the costs to put those 4 airline employees were too great they could've booked them on a competitors airline to get them to the destination....either way it was a poor solution to a problem.

this is what I really dont get and cant believe an airline would be so cheap with their incentives that nobody bites on giving up their seat. Offer $2K and a free ticket to the next available flight to that same destination. I'm sure someone would happily give up their seat and if not keep upping the ante until someone bites.


Yeah. That's exactly what they should have done. And if at some breaking point, no takers, they should have looked for alternative options.

Whether they were legally allowed to deny transport to the passenger or not, I think they should change their policy to never involuntary deny a seated passenger for reasons other than passenger/crew safety. It's just good business.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 19183

PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:11 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
I'm just disagreeing with the notion the employees were prioritized.


The employees were prioritized. Duh. United wasn't doing it out of altruism. United was doing it for its own convenience, because it had zero concern for the convenience of its customers.


No, as I said in the post above, the employees were simply a means, not the end. The end was, as you said, greater $$ in their pockets and convenience in terms of having to spend time looking for other ways to resolve the problem. And it was that $$ and time/convenience that was prioritized over the 4 passengers. The 4 employees were simply the instrument used to try to realize that $$ and time.

Putting it another way - when a company moves their manufacturing from the U.S. to China, do we say they are prioritizing China or prioritizing $$? I think most people would probably say they are prioritizing $$. I just don't think it would make a whole lot of sense to say they were prioritizing China unless the company made the move in order to appease China's wishes.


This made me laugh. Jeez, man. In your effort to deny the obvious, we're now analogizing this to foreign trade? I guess United dropped the MOASR (Mother of All Seat Reassignments) on the doctor. Sad!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 5 of 6
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2010 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB