Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i'm so confused... why would anyone who doesn't work for United even try to defend United in this incident? people get bumped every day but never one made headline news like this... and you think United didn't screw up here?

There's a large segment of the population - typically conservatives with authoritarian leanings - who love to verbally fellate anyone with "power." These are the same types that go to extreme lengths to defend LEOs or soliders who violate human and civil rights. A part of this mindset is also defending powerful corporations that violate the rights of consumers in the perverse hope that they will one day be an "insider" who gets to profit off the misery of others. In other words, they are awful people who are, unfortunately, often driven to become politicians or CEOs themselves out of an innate desire to control others.

It's democrats who love taking away people's liberty

Anonymous wrote:I am willing to bet Oscar Munoz (United CEO) is furious beyond words. I am also confident that several lawyers advised him on what to say, and what not to say. Personally, if I was the CEO...... I would have come in like a wrecking ball. If something like this happened at Southwest when Herb was CEO, he would have likely come in like a tank.

I am willing to bet heads will roll, if they have not already. While many are slamming Oscar for his tweet, I am certain behind the scenes, he is slobbering furious. Wouldn't you be if you were the CEO? I am also certain there will be some big changes on how UA handles overbooked flights. Not just that, but I am pretty sure other airlines are already learning lessons from this.

To be fair. This isn't just a United problem.... This is an industry wide problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am willing to bet Oscar Munoz (United CEO) is furious beyond words. I am also confident that several lawyers advised him on what to say, and what not to say. Personally, if I was the CEO...... I would have come in like a wrecking ball. If something like this happened at Southwest when Herb was CEO, he would have likely come in like a tank.

I am willing to bet heads will roll, if they have not already. While many are slamming Oscar for his tweet, I am certain behind the scenes, he is slobbering furious. Wouldn't you be if you were the CEO? I am also certain there will be some big changes on how UA handles overbooked flights. Not just that, but I am pretty sure other airlines are already learning lessons from this.

To be fair. This isn't just a United problem.... This is an industry wide problem.

If he was furious he shouldn't have said the guy was belligerent and in the wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i'm so confused... why would anyone who doesn't work for United even try to defend United in this incident? people get bumped every day but never one made headline news like this... and you think United didn't screw up here?

There's a large segment of the population - typically conservatives with authoritarian leanings - who love to verbally fellate anyone with "power." These are the same types that go to extreme lengths to defend LEOs or soliders who violate human and civil rights. A part of this mindset is also defending powerful corporations that violate the rights of consumers in the perverse hope that they will one day be an "insider" who gets to profit off the misery of others. In other words, they are awful people who are, unfortunately, often driven to become politicians or CEOs themselves out of an innate desire to control others.

Anonymous wrote:I am willing to bet Oscar Munoz (United CEO) is furious beyond words. I am also confident that several lawyers advised him on what to say, and what not to say. Personally, if I was the CEO...... I would have come in like a wrecking ball. If something like this happened at Southwest when Herb was CEO, he would have likely come in like a tank.

I am willing to bet heads will roll, if they have not already. While many are slamming Oscar for his tweet, I am certain behind the scenes, he is slobbering furious. Wouldn't you be if you were the CEO? I am also certain there will be some big changes on how UA handles overbooked flights. Not just that, but I am pretty sure other airlines are already learning lessons from this.

To be fair. This isn't just a United problem.... This is an industry wide problem.

Anonymous wrote:i'm so confused... why would anyone who doesn't work for United even try to defend United in this incident? people get bumped every day but never one made headline news like this... and you think United didn't screw up here?

Anonymous wrote:According to United's Contract of Carriage, it appears the Asian Hero was in the right, and United was wrong. United's Contract of Carriage speaks only to DENYING BOARDING to confirmed passengers on flights that are OVERSOLD.

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

United didn't try to deny the Asian bro boarding, they permitted him to board the flight and then physically removed him from the flight. Second, the flight did not appear to be OVERSOLD, in that United did not sell tickets to the individuals it attempted to give preference to over its paying, boarded passengers.

As such, Asian bro was an authorized licensee of United and his presence on the plane was lawful at all times. United attempted to unilaterally and unlawfully revoke his licensee status, and he was within his rights to refuse.

EDIT: The above is based upon Rule 25 in United's Contract of Carriage. Rule 21, which lists the circumstances where United may refuse to transport a ticket holding passenger, further supports this interpretation of the Contract of Carriage.

Asian bro's situation was clearly a "refusal to transport" by United. However, overselling the flight is not listed as a reason in Rule 21 for United to refuse transport of a passengers. The only relief afforded to United for oversold flights is in Rule 25, which is limited to "denying boarding." The Contract of Carriage's Rule specifically pertaining to situations where United may remove a boarded passenger from a flight dispels any remaining doubt that Rule 25 concerning "denied boarding" can be interpreted to apply to forced deboarding.

Anonymous wrote:According to United's Contract of Carriage, it appears the Asian Hero was in the right, and United was wrong. United's Contract of Carriage speaks only to DENYING BOARDING to confirmed passengers on flights that are OVERSOLD.

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

United didn't try to deny the Asian bro boarding, they permitted him to board the flight and then physically removed him from the flight. Second, the flight did not appear to be OVERSOLD, in that United did not sell tickets to the individuals it attempted to give preference to over its paying, boarded passengers.

As such, Asian bro was an authorized licensee of United and his presence on the plane was lawful at all times. United attempted to unilaterally and unlawfully revoke his licensee status, and he was within his rights to refuse.

EDIT: The above is based upon Rule 25 in United's Contract of Carriage. Rule 21, which lists the circumstances where United may refuse to transport a ticket holding passenger, further supports this interpretation of the Contract of Carriage.

Asian bro's situation was clearly a "refusal to transport" by United. However, overselling the flight is not listed as a reason in Rule 21 for United to refuse transport of a passengers. The only relief afforded to United for oversold flights is in Rule 25, which is limited to "denying boarding." The Contract of Carriage's Rule specifically pertaining to situations where United may remove a boarded passenger from a flight dispels any remaining doubt that Rule 25 concerning "denied boarding" can be interpreted to apply to forced deboarding.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why is the passenger's personal info at ALL RELEVANT? should airlines bump customers based on a subjective assessement of what "good reasons" they have for wanting to go on the flight that they booked and paid for?

I'll bite: I think that if it is an unemployed person that person should be automatically bumped first. He or she doesn't have to get to work so they aren't a priority

Do you see how ridiculous this exercise is?

I agree. Which is why "I'm a doctor, I need to see patients" isn't a good excuse to avoid the bump. Everyone on the plane has a valid reason to be at their destination in a timely manner.

He does not need an excuse. He is a paying customer, he does not have to beg to stay on the flight.

Yep. He paid his fare. If United wanted HIM off the flight they needed to offer a price point that he would have accepted. And perhaps money wasn't an issue, in which case United obviously should have regrouped and come up with another option. It's pretty frightening that an airline like United was so out of its depth on this "crisis" situation which did not have to escalate the way that it did. I sort of wish this would happen to me so that I could sue and never work again. The use of the work "voluntary" by United is so odd. Don't they have legal counsel who can at least use a dictionary? And now this passenger is being trashed and criticized in the media?! The lawsuit is just getting bigger. He could be a convicted felon. Who cares? He paid his fare, he had a ticket that correspond with his seat, he was seated. Policy or not United did a very boneheaded thing that they will regret for many financial quarters to come. And you people who love to be contrarian and talk about "policies" and technicalities need to ask yourselves how indignant you'd feel about being told you MUST VOLUNTEER to get off of a flight you paid for and needed. Would you be OK with being asked to give up your seat at a concert or sporting event once you're seated?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why is the passenger's personal info at ALL RELEVANT? should airlines bump customers based on a subjective assessement of what "good reasons" they have for wanting to go on the flight that they booked and paid for?

I'll bite: I think that if it is an unemployed person that person should be automatically bumped first. He or she doesn't have to get to work so they aren't a priority

Do you see how ridiculous this exercise is?

I agree. Which is why "I'm a doctor, I need to see patients" isn't a good excuse to avoid the bump. Everyone on the plane has a valid reason to be at their destination in a timely manner.

that's not true. some reasons are more important than others--like visiting a dying relative, a wedding or a critical job meeting. if united had offered a more compelling price to be bumped, people would have taken it...when I didn't have kids, I used to wish to be bumped so I could get a voucher. United just didn't handle it well.