Don't fly United

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:United is getting hits where it hurts.

Shares down 4% this morning. Board won't ignore that.

Keep selling people!

And.. the traders on Wall Street are loving this emotional sell-off. They're eagerly buying and will do well when everyone forgets about this next month, and the stock goes back up again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe how poorly United is handling this crisis. They are letting kitchen fire burn down the whole house.

Seriously. They should have apologized, promised to investigate, etc, but they keep acting like corporate jerks who care nothing about their customers.

Agreed. Their CEO is their #1 jerk.

I read his statement a few times and it was such an asshole non-apology. "Re accomodate" ugh.

"This is an upsetting event to all of us here at United," CEO Oscar Munoz said in a statement. "I apologize for having to re-accommodate these customers. Our team is moving with a sense of urgency to work with authorities and conduct our own detailed review of what happened."

[Anonymous]

Keep dreaming, 10:36. United Airlines will not recover. Just watch. They'd have to at least get a new CEO first.

[Anonymous]

The whole world is boycotting United Airlines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Keep dreaming, 10:36. United Airlines will not recover. Just watch. They'd have to at least get a new CEO first.

Yeah this CEO needs to get on his knees and grovel. I think a better apology would have staved off the worst of this. Everyone is angry at United, but it was the police that pulled him off the plane like that.

[Anonymous]

The problem for me is the mixed discussion of legalities and what United and the police "should have done". The two are different.

First, let's get a couple of things clear. The O'Hare Airport Police are police. That's it. They are certified law enforcement officers and you listen to them the same as you would a Chicago PD officer, because that's what they are. They don't have to wear a uniform, some are plainclothes, and there is no question that all of them identified themselves to the doctor as to what they were. The plainclothes officer displayed a badge. None of this is in dispute.

It's probable that the gate agent didn't communicate to the police the reason the passenger was being deboarded. Airport police deal all day with people who have to be deboarded because they are drunk, belligerant, crazy, etc., and many of them don't want to get off and have to be forcibly removed, just like some drunks in bars. It isn't pretty, but the protocol is the same, as mentioned above: ASK, then TELL, then MAKE. I appreciate the comment by some LEOs that if they knew that a person was simply being deboarded as an overbook and the person refused, they would put it back on the gate agent to try to work it out before using force. I commend that approach, but these guys were under no obligation to take it when the passenger defied a direct instruction, and more than likely the Captain or someone else in authority had told the police that the person's license to travel was revoked, that they were now a trespasser, and needed to be removed. The outcome of the people dragged off to the cheers of the passengers is usually that the cops don't arrest the person and they work out whatever they work out -- usually a flight the next day -- with the airline after the incident. The police use force to remove the person, then go on their way.

The reason for the outrage is the nature of the "offense" by the person sought to be removed, which was simply to refuse the airline's revocation of his license to travel on their airline after he had taken his seat on the plane. There's no question legally that the airline is within its rights to revoke that license in the face of positive-space company travelers on an otherwise-full flight, and there is no question that when asked to remove a passenger by the Captain or other airline authority, the police are entitled to use force if the person refuses. It's always ugly, which is why imperious gate agent idiots should call the police only as a last resort, and should exercise judgment before doing so.

In the case of an otherwise-appropriately-behaving overbook who refuses to leave the plane, probably supervisors or the station manager should be involved before calling the police; it should not be a gate agent decision. That should be an important policy change at United and its express carriers. There should also be some guidance, if there isn't at present, as to what to do if crew shows up with positive space (or higher) priority at the gate after a full flight has been boarded and not enough volunteers come forward. There is an amount of money that, if offered, would have secured volunteers. In hindsight, it would have been worth spending that amount of money last night. After that, you can IDB people who have already boarded, but if they refuse to go, common sense has to prevail before you call the cops. They got 3 off without the police being involved. It was an enormous mistake by the airline's people to call the police instead of taking a step back and seeing if they couldn't find a single volunteer for $2000, or call the station manager for guidance, etc.

That said, the doctor should have complied with the police instruction. I have seen enough of these incidents to know that the police tell you very quietly and calmly after making the request and then the instruction that you refuse, that you are going to be leaving the plane and that they will be taking you off if you don't go voluntarily. At this point, it was extremely poor judgment for the doctor to refuse to go. There were many other alternatives available to him; creating a disturbance like that is entirely-bad-judgment. The AIRLINE may be in the wrong for taking you off, but it isn't up to the police to arbitrate this stuff, and likely they only knew that the person had been deemed by the airline to be a trespasser at this point.

And, frankly, it's pretty self-important to refuse the police request and then instruction, and to think that if you make enough of a scene, you won't have to go. What the doctor did was wrong, regardless of whether the airline should have handled the situation better, which there is no question that they should have.

I certainly don't want to see how much acting out by passengers is now going to occur when the police ask them to get off the plane. Saying that the police shouldn't have done this, blah blah, is only going to cause more delays as more idiots create more drama when asked to leave the plane. And I'm sure that politicians are going to leap all over this and try to impose stupid rules that won't help the problem.

What should happen, I think, is that airlines should put in place policies to avoid dragging folks off the plane for higher-priority passengers. And they should take the authority to involve the police away from the gate agent when the issue is merely boarding priority, not bad acts by the passenger. It isn't that hard to imagine how one might set this up, and I think Oscar and his senior people and advisors should take a crack at coming up with a new policy before the politicians impose a stupid one on them.

At the end of the day, though, I still put the major fault for this incident on the guy who said "screw you" when told by police that he was about to be dragged off the plane. United shouldn't have put him in that position, but ultimately he was the author of his own destiny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It wasn't an Involuntary Denied Boarding. He had ALREADY boarded. It was an involuntary de-boarding.

You are incorrect. A passenger is not officially boarded until the aircraft door is shut. Please stop spreading misinformation.

Please apply some common sense. Normal people consider showing your boarding pass and getting on the plane to be *boarding the plane*. He had already done that. HE BOARDED THE PLANE.

NP. I looked on the FAA site and couldn't easily find a definition of "boarding," but those who fly a lot will note that once all passengers are on the plane, the doors are closed and the flight attendant announces that "boarding has been completed."

Not to justify what United did, but, based on my experience, I would interpret the process of boarding to end at that point, and no passenger would be considered "boarded" until boarding has been completed.

Odds are that United was in compliance with the law, FAA regulations and their contract with the passenger when they did this.

However, just because it was legal doesn't mean it was right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Keep dreaming, 10:36. United Airlines will not recover. Just watch. They'd have to at least get a new CEO first.

And they will recover with the new CEO and a few letters saying how it was a learning experience and they look forward to serving their customers, blah blah blah. I just bought UAL.

[Anonymous]

Well. United's government affairs person just posted.

You're an asshole too. I hope you get stranded somewhere. And do try to figure out something to do with your life that has a positive benefit. Right now, you're just a waste.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem for me is the mixed discussion of legalities and what United and the police "should have done". The two are different.

First, let's get a couple of things clear. The O'Hare Airport Police are police. That's it. They are certified law enforcement officers and you listen to them the same as you would a Chicago PD officer, because that's what they are. They don't have to wear a uniform, some are plainclothes, and there is no question that all of them identified themselves to the doctor as to what they were. The plainclothes officer displayed a badge. None of this is in dispute.

It's probable that the gate agent didn't communicate to the police the reason the passenger was being deboarded. Airport police deal all day with people who have to be deboarded because they are drunk, belligerant, crazy, etc., and many of them don't want to get off and have to be forcibly removed, just like some drunks in bars. It isn't pretty, but the protocol is the same, as mentioned above: ASK, then TELL, then MAKE. I appreciate the comment by some LEOs that if they knew that a person was simply being deboarded as an overbook and the person refused, they would put it back on the gate agent to try to work it out before using force. I commend that approach, but these guys were under no obligation to take it when the passenger defied a direct instruction, and more than likely the Captain or someone else in authority had told the police that the person's license to travel was revoked, that they were now a trespasser, and needed to be removed. The outcome of the people dragged off to the cheers of the passengers is usually that the cops don't arrest the person and they work out whatever they work out -- usually a flight the next day -- with the airline after the incident. The police use force to remove the person, then go on their way.

The reason for the outrage is the nature of the "offense" by the person sought to be removed, which was simply to refuse the airline's revocation of his license to travel on their airline after he had taken his seat on the plane. There's no question legally that the airline is within its rights to revoke that license in the face of positive-space company travelers on an otherwise-full flight, and there is no question that when asked to remove a passenger by the Captain or other airline authority, the police are entitled to use force if the person refuses. It's always ugly, which is why imperious gate agent idiots should call the police only as a last resort, and should exercise judgment before doing so.

In the case of an otherwise-appropriately-behaving overbook who refuses to leave the plane, probably supervisors or the station manager should be involved before calling the police; it should not be a gate agent decision. That should be an important policy change at United and its express carriers. There should also be some guidance, if there isn't at present, as to what to do if crew shows up with positive space (or higher) priority at the gate after a full flight has been boarded and not enough volunteers come forward. There is an amount of money that, if offered, would have secured volunteers. In hindsight, it would have been worth spending that amount of money last night. After that, you can IDB people who have already boarded, but if they refuse to go, common sense has to prevail before you call the cops. They got 3 off without the police being involved. It was an enormous mistake by the airline's people to call the police instead of taking a step back and seeing if they couldn't find a single volunteer for $2000, or call the station manager for guidance, etc.

That said, the doctor should have complied with the police instruction. I have seen enough of these incidents to know that the police tell you very quietly and calmly after making the request and then the instruction that you refuse, that you are going to be leaving the plane and that they will be taking you off if you don't go voluntarily. At this point, it was extremely poor judgment for the doctor to refuse to go. There were many other alternatives available to him; creating a disturbance like that is entirely-bad-judgment. The AIRLINE may be in the wrong for taking you off, but it isn't up to the police to arbitrate this stuff, and likely they only knew that the person had been deemed by the airline to be a trespasser at this point.

And, frankly, it's pretty self-important to refuse the police request and then instruction, and to think that if you make enough of a scene, you won't have to go. What the doctor did was wrong, regardless of whether the airline should have handled the situation better, which there is no question that they should have.

I certainly don't want to see how much acting out by passengers is now going to occur when the police ask them to get off the plane. Saying that the police shouldn't have done this, blah blah, is only going to cause more delays as more idiots create more drama when asked to leave the plane. And I'm sure that politicians are going to leap all over this and try to impose stupid rules that won't help the problem.

What should happen, I think, is that airlines should put in place policies to avoid dragging folks off the plane for higher-priority passengers. And they should take the authority to involve the police away from the gate agent when the issue is merely boarding priority, not bad acts by the passenger. It isn't that hard to imagine how one might set this up, and I think Oscar and his senior people and advisors should take a crack at coming up with a new policy before the politicians impose a stupid one on them.

At the end of the day, though, I still put the major fault for this incident on the guy who said "screw you" when told by police that he was about to be dragged off the plane. United shouldn't have put him in that position, but ultimately he was the author of his own destiny.

Wow... Thank you Mr. Munoz.

[Anonymous]

None of this would have happened if United had offered appropriate compensation.

Penny wise, pound foolish.

It was a completely avoidable disaster of their own making.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem for me is the mixed discussion of legalities and what United and the police "should have done". The two are different.

First, let's get a couple of things clear. The O'Hare Airport Police are police. That's it. They are certified law enforcement officers and you listen to them the same as you would a Chicago PD officer, because that's what they are. They don't have to wear a uniform, some are plainclothes, and there is no question that all of them identified themselves to the doctor as to what they were. The plainclothes officer displayed a badge. None of this is in dispute.

It's probable that the gate agent didn't communicate to the police the reason the passenger was being deboarded. Airport police deal all day with people who have to be deboarded because they are drunk, belligerant, crazy, etc., and many of them don't want to get off and have to be forcibly removed, just like some drunks in bars. It isn't pretty, but the protocol is the same, as mentioned above: ASK, then TELL, then MAKE. I appreciate the comment by some LEOs that if they knew that a person was simply being deboarded as an overbook and the person refused, they would put it back on the gate agent to try to work it out before using force. I commend that approach, but these guys were under no obligation to take it when the passenger defied a direct instruction, and more than likely the Captain or someone else in authority had told the police that the person's license to travel was revoked, that they were now a trespasser, and needed to be removed. The outcome of the people dragged off to the cheers of the passengers is usually that the cops don't arrest the person and they work out whatever they work out -- usually a flight the next day -- with the airline after the incident. The police use force to remove the person, then go on their way.

The reason for the outrage is the nature of the "offense" by the person sought to be removed, which was simply to refuse the airline's revocation of his license to travel on their airline after he had taken his seat on the plane. There's no question legally that the airline is within its rights to revoke that license in the face of positive-space company travelers on an otherwise-full flight, and there is no question that when asked to remove a passenger by the Captain or other airline authority, the police are entitled to use force if the person refuses. It's always ugly, which is why imperious gate agent idiots should call the police only as a last resort, and should exercise judgment before doing so.

In the case of an otherwise-appropriately-behaving overbook who refuses to leave the plane, probably supervisors or the station manager should be involved before calling the police; it should not be a gate agent decision. That should be an important policy change at United and its express carriers. There should also be some guidance, if there isn't at present, as to what to do if crew shows up with positive space (or higher) priority at the gate after a full flight has been boarded and not enough volunteers come forward. There is an amount of money that, if offered, would have secured volunteers. In hindsight, it would have been worth spending that amount of money last night. After that, you can IDB people who have already boarded, but if they refuse to go, common sense has to prevail before you call the cops. They got 3 off without the police being involved. It was an enormous mistake by the airline's people to call the police instead of taking a step back and seeing if they couldn't find a single volunteer for $2000, or call the station manager for guidance, etc.

That said, the doctor should have complied with the police instruction. I have seen enough of these incidents to know that the police tell you very quietly and calmly after making the request and then the instruction that you refuse, that you are going to be leaving the plane and that they will be taking you off if you don't go voluntarily. At this point, it was extremely poor judgment for the doctor to refuse to go. There were many other alternatives available to him; creating a disturbance like that is entirely-bad-judgment. The AIRLINE may be in the wrong for taking you off, but it isn't up to the police to arbitrate this stuff, and likely they only knew that the person had been deemed by the airline to be a trespasser at this point.

And, frankly, it's pretty self-important to refuse the police request and then instruction, and to think that if you make enough of a scene, you won't have to go. What the doctor did was wrong, regardless of whether the airline should have handled the situation better, which there is no question that they should have.

I certainly don't want to see how much acting out by passengers is now going to occur when the police ask them to get off the plane. Saying that the police shouldn't have done this, blah blah, is only going to cause more delays as more idiots create more drama when asked to leave the plane. And I'm sure that politicians are going to leap all over this and try to impose stupid rules that won't help the problem.

What should happen, I think, is that airlines should put in place policies to avoid dragging folks off the plane for higher-priority passengers. And they should take the authority to involve the police away from the gate agent when the issue is merely boarding priority, not bad acts by the passenger. It isn't that hard to imagine how one might set this up, and I think Oscar and his senior people and advisors should take a crack at coming up with a new policy before the politicians impose a stupid one on them.

At the end of the day, though, I still put the major fault for this incident on the guy who said "screw you" when told by police that he was about to be dragged off the plane. United shouldn't have put him in that position, but ultimately he was the author of his own destiny.

Wow... Thank you Mr. Munoz.

Seriously. PP with your lengthy explanation, you're an asshole. The ONLY REASON it got to the point of physically dragging a guy off the plane is because the airline personnel refused to offer enough incentives for someone to choose to get off the plane. They chose to let it reach this point to save the airline a few hundred dollars. The major fault does not lie with the doctor, it lies with the airline. If you can't see that, you're part of the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well. United's government affairs person just posted.

You're an asshole too. I hope you get stranded somewhere. And do try to figure out something to do with your life that has a positive benefit. Right now, you're just a waste.

Wow. Would love to see what they're saying now, if anyone can please post a link, or the full quote. Thank you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well. United's government affairs person just posted.

You're an asshole too. I hope you get stranded somewhere. And do try to figure out something to do with your life that has a positive benefit. Right now, you're just a waste.

Wow. Would love to see what they're saying now, if anyone can please post a link, or the full quote. Thank you!

I think PP was referring to 10:43 post??

[Anonymous]

This is going to cost them big-time. I just cancelled a non-refundable fare and was offered a full refund if I booked a new reservation within the next 12 months. I took them up and changed a $600 fare to a $120 flight which I will happily cancel.

And I'm a no-status non frequent flier. I can only imagine how much $ they are going to spend on customer retention, not to mention the likely 7 figure payment to this guy.

Oh, and yeah the CEO is toast. He will get his golden parachute but I put the over-under on him gone at this time next week.