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.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why didn't United know these flight attendants were coming in? From what I read they commute via this flight regularly.

There is a staffing shortage and it was decided last minute that they were needed to work a flight out of Louisville the following morning.

Too bad they refused to offer the full $1350. for giving up your paid seat.

True. Let's say they did up it to $1350 and there were no takers. What should they do then?

Then they should transport their staff to Louisville by alternate means - another airline, bus, paid car.

In this case, taht wouldn't work. No other flight options, and going by car means the crew would be too long on the road and not get enough sleep to be able to work the early morning flight out of Louisville that they were assigned to.

Supposedly American Airlines also flies that route. No idea if they had available seats that day, but it's possible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm very interested to know what algorithm they use. On a 70 seat plane, after you subtract the business class,frequent flyers, people who paid full price etc, there's probably not many people left in the "random drswing".

I think united and the police need to testify before congress on this.

United has been questioned re this several times and reports have claimed United refused to disclose the algorithm. I really want to know this. It isn't a random computer picking, there is a method/calculation and a computer picks from that.

Apparently all 4 people picked to deplane were Asians . Some computer algorithm.

That's crazy. Can you post your source?

She can't, because it's not true.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why didn't United know these flight attendants were coming in? From what I read they commute via this flight regularly.

There is a staffing shortage and it was decided last minute that they were needed to work a flight out of Louisville the following morning.

Too bad they refused to offer the full $1350. for giving up your paid seat.

True. Let's say they did up it to $1350 and there were no takers. What should they do then?

Then they should transport their staff to Louisville by alternate means - another airline, bus, paid car.

In this case, taht wouldn't work. No other flight options, and going by car means the crew would be too long on the road and not get enough sleep to be able to work the early morning flight out of Louisville that they were assigned to[i][u].

It's what, about 5 hours between Chicago and Louisville. And between taxiing and ground ops, it's at least an hour flight. So, absolute worst case scenario in driving, the flight the next morning would have been delayed by ~4 hours. Not ideal, but certainly a heck of a lot better than the situation United has now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did we ever find out if this guy is really a doctor?

Daily Mail reports he IS, in fact, a doctor and is married to a doctor.

So?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From a first person account of a fellow passenger (on reddit) This doc and his wife had originally volunteered to get off the plane, then they found out that United couldn't get them home later that day and the next flight wasn't for 24 hours so they said no.

The same first person account also said the manager who came on the plane said the four people chosen were the ones who had paid the least for their tickets.

by definition, that's not "random" then.

Well, it isn't discriminatory at least based on race. The computer doesn't have a "only boot Asians" algorithm nor does it know the race of travelers.

The way it works is they look first at factors like if the passenger missing the flight means they'll miss their connection, since that becomes more of a mess and more costly. Then they eliminate underage travelers and the like. Then, they go by frequent flyer program membership and fare paid. The reason it looks at lowest fare paid is that the regulations limit compensation to a multiple of _fare paid_.

So yes, United is being cheap, but they are not discriminating based on race.

If you believe United. I know I don't.

They have no incentive to discriminate based on race. What does it get them if they do?

They have plenty of incentive to pick based on what saves them the most money, so that's why their algorithm is very plausible -- it saves them the most money.

Maybe the incentive is that the staff is racist?

The computer picks it, and that's programmed by the IT people back at headquarters. The computer doesn't know the race of the traveler.

How do you know that's what they actually did?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From a first person account of a fellow passenger (on reddit) This doc and his wife had originally volunteered to get off the plane, then they found out that United couldn't get them home later that day and the next flight wasn't for 24 hours so they said no.

The same first person account also said the manager who came on the plane said the four people chosen were the ones who had paid the least for their tickets.

by definition, that's not "random" then.

Well, it isn't discriminatory at least based on race. The computer doesn't have a "only boot Asians" algorithm nor does it know the race of travelers.

The way it works is they look first at factors like if the passenger missing the flight means they'll miss their connection, since that becomes more of a mess and more costly. Then they eliminate underage travelers and the like. Then, they go by frequent flyer program membership and fare paid. The reason it looks at lowest fare paid is that the regulations limit compensation to a multiple of _fare paid_.

So yes, United is being cheap, but they are not discriminating based on race.

If you believe United. I know I don't.

They have no incentive to discriminate based on race. What does it get them if they do?

They have plenty of incentive to pick based on what saves them the most money, so that's why their algorithm is very plausible -- it saves them the most money.

Maybe the incentive is that the staff is racist?

The computer picks it, and that's programmed by the IT people back at headquarters. The computer doesn't know the race of the traveler.

http://i.imgur.com/99dgkTs.gifv


United Meme

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From a first person account of a fellow passenger (on reddit) This doc and his wife had originally volunteered to get off the plane, then they found out that United couldn't get them home later that day and the next flight wasn't for 24 hours so they said no.

The same first person account also said the manager who came on the plane said the four people chosen were the ones who had paid the least for their tickets.

by definition, that's not "random" then.

Well, it isn't discriminatory at least based on race. The computer doesn't have a "only boot Asians" algorithm nor does it know the race of travelers.

The way it works is they look first at factors like if the passenger missing the flight means they'll miss their connection, since that becomes more of a mess and more costly. Then they eliminate underage travelers and the like. Then, they go by frequent flyer program membership and fare paid. The reason it looks at lowest fare paid is that the regulations limit compensation to a multiple of _fare paid_.

So yes, United is being cheap, but they are not discriminating based on race.

If you believe United. I know I don't.

They have no incentive to discriminate based on race. What does it get them if they do?

They have plenty of incentive to pick based on what saves them the most money, so that's why their algorithm is very plausible -- it saves them the most money.

Maybe the incentive is that the staff is racist?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why didn't United know these flight attendants were coming in? From what I read they commute via this flight regularly.

There is a staffing shortage and it was decided last minute that they were needed to work a flight out of Louisville the following morning.

Too bad they refused to offer the full $1350. for giving up your paid seat.

True. Let's say they did up it to $1350 and there were no takers. What should they do then?

Then they should transport their staff to Louisville by alternate means - another airline, bus, paid car.

Well if it is true that the United employees were commuters than IMO it's their own personal responsibility to find a way to Louisville. They have chosen to live somewhere outside of Louisville but be based out of Louisville. If they can't get a personal pass to fly because the flight is full, then On to plan B. The duty is on the employee to find a way to get to work. This entire situation is so ridiculous. It's like society has lost its mind. No one intervenes as they gawk and watch this 69 year old man be dragged and bloodied. The United employees don't think well maybe this isn't going well. And he commuters are perfectly find manhandling this gentleman just so they can get to work free. The most sane one is the poor man.

And he has been identified and he is a doctor, married to a doctor, who has 4 grown children who are also doctors. He is Vietnamese American. He lives about 30 minutes from Louisville and did in fact have patients to see on Monday. What's it going to take to get humanity back?

Oops. They picked the wrong guy. His settlement should be more than enough to send all his grandchildren to medical school. And then some.

This man is an American hero!

I hope this guy owns the crappy airline once this is over!

+1,000,000 - I love how this man stood up for the rest of us. I want to thank him for what he did.

+1. Flying has become nightmarish and I've been involved in a similar scenario where people were bullied to get off a plane because of a weight limit. They are so rude when they get on the PA and threaten that the plane won't leave until someone volunteers. Luckily that didn't turn violent, but it was unpleasant to say the least.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From a first person account of a fellow passenger (on reddit) This doc and his wife had originally volunteered to get off the plane, then they found out that United couldn't get them home later that day and the next flight wasn't for 24 hours so they said no.

The same first person account also said the manager who came on the plane said the four people chosen were the ones who had paid the least for their tickets.

by definition, that's not "random" then.

Well, it isn't discriminatory at least based on race. The computer doesn't have a "only boot Asians" algorithm nor does it know the race of travelers.

The way it works is they look first at factors like if the passenger missing the flight means they'll miss their connection, since that becomes more of a mess and more costly. Then they eliminate underage travelers and the like. Then, they go by frequent flyer program membership and fare paid. The reason it looks at lowest fare paid is that the regulations limit compensation to a multiple of _fare paid_.

So yes, United is being cheap, but they are not discriminating based on race.

If you believe United. I know I don't.

They have no incentive to discriminate based on race. What does it get them if they do?

They have plenty of incentive to pick based on what saves them the most money, so that's why their algorithm is very plausible -- it saves them the most money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did we ever find out how this guy got "randomly" picked?

I think they picked an Asian guy on purpose-imagine if they dragged a black person off the plane? Or even a Latino? All hell would break loose. This backfired on them bad-but at least they do not have the "race card" issue to deal with either.

I wouldn't be so sure about that!

+1

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/worldviews/wp/2017/04/11/was-that-doctor-dragged-off-the-united-airlines-flight-because-he-was-asian-many-in-china-think-so/

So the boycott of United Airlines has now gone global. Nice going, United! I have a feeling that a few of you will be looking for new jobs, starting with your dispicable CEO guy.

So incompetent Munez who never worked his way up in the business [brief stint in freight] can't even read the contract of carriage? How does one get to be the main man at a passenger airline with NO experience? Affirmative action?

United's contract of carriage.
https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec25

Under Rule 25 Denied Boarding Compensation is this:
4. Compensation for Passengers Denied Boarding Involuntarily
a. For passengers traveling in interstate transportation between points within the United States, subject to the EXCEPTIONS in section d) below, UA shall pay compensation to Passengers denied boarding involuntarily from an Oversold Flight at the rate of 200...

Note the word interstate. That means between states not within a state which is intrastate. United runs small jets within states non -stop like Houston to Dallas and LA area to San Francisco in CA. So no compensation for involuntary bump?

Phila to Pittsburgh isn't direct-it's 1 stop at Dulles [4 hour flight but a lot less than drive time] so it crosses a state line.

But the passenger wasn't denied boarding so this is Rule 21 Refusal of Transport
UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons:
Breach of Contract of Carriage – Failure by Passenger to comply with the Rules of the Contract of Carriage.
Government Request, Regulations or Security Directives – Whenever such action is necessary to comply with any government regulation, Customs and Border Protection, government or airport security directive of any sort, or any governmental request for emergency transportation in connection with the national defense.


There is nothing in refusal of transport about boarded passengers oddly being for NO reason except nasty stuff unless it was the security stuff above.

Anonymous wrote:United is always the airline I pick last when selecting personal flights. Unfortunately, it's the airline my work picks most of the time. The last flight I was on with United (in Feb. '17) was overbooked by 8 people. I travel a lot for work and the most I've ever seen not show for a flight is 4 people, which was a whole family.

What bugs me about United is how they start their monetary incentive so low. I mean, you really have to haggle with them more than used car salesmen! $400? Really? I'm not even seriously considering volunteering for anything under $800 and even then I'm probably holding out for at least $1,000.

Delta, who has many shortcomings as well, at least starts their monetary incentive at $800 and goes from there.

But the main reason why most people can't simply volunteer to take a later flight is that their future plans depend on that transportation arriving at a certain time. The fact that United fails to even acknowledge that their customer's time is valuable is what really angers me.

Not true. I was bumped off Delta for $250. It was fine and I was able to get a flight 4 hours later. I figured 4 hours was worth my $250 voucher. Cash is always better than a voucher though!

United is always the airline I pick last when selecting personal flights. Unfortunately, it's the airline my work picks most of the time. The last flight I was on with United (in Feb. '17) was overbooked by 8 people. I travel a lot for work and the most I've ever seen not show for a flight is 4 people, which was a whole family.

What bugs me about United is how they start their monetary incentive so low. I mean, you really have to haggle with them more than used car salesmen! $400? Really? I'm not even seriously considering volunteering for anything under $800 and even then I'm probably holding out for at least $1,000.

Delta, who has many shortcomings as well, at least starts their monetary incentive at $800 and goes from there.

But the main reason why most people can't simply volunteer to take a later flight is that their future plans depend on that transportation arriving at a certain time. The fact that United fails to even acknowledge that their customer's time is valuable is what really angers me.