The 1350 number isn't a cap for re-accommodation. An airline can absolutely make a voluntary offer above 1350. 1350 is the FAA cap for involuntary removal. Airlines generally do an open bidding system at the gate where they progressively raise the bid price every few minutes until someone bites. I've seen it get close to 1350 on a voluntary basis and there's nothing stopping an airline from going above that. In theory however, its more cost effective to just do the involuntary removal as it would make little sense to make an offer above 1350 when you can just involuntarily remove someone. However, if there's one time where they should have made a voluntary offer above 1350, its this oddball scenario where they boarded a plane but then realized that they needed four seats for crew.
No, I said his lawyer would add a zero for United leaking the old news story. Which the lawyer should and will... regardless of whether United leaked it or not.
A Chinese person can have a Vietnamese last name, grow up in Vietnam, but still identify as Chinese. I'm still not sure why this is relevant at all. Except the law says he was in the right this time. So...how is his criminal past relevant again?
The United employees had to be on a flight the next morning. Making the drive would have rendered them unable to work due to FAA regulations.
I know what you mean, but there are well over 100 million hits on this in the Weibo(chinese twitter) in less than two days. Many are calling for the boycott of United. No one is going to verify he is a real Chinese or not, this is going to really damage United's reputation in some Asian countries.
boy, I'm not really clear on what you're arguing, but . . . you sound as if you are suggesting that "this guy got what was coming to him." That sort of logic is used all the time to justify what any reasonable person would likely term "excessive force." Your postings could conceivably apply to the NYC chokehold case, where the guy who died was selling illegal cigarettes. While I agree there is a general principle of respect for law enforcement that generally applies here, there is also a corresponding duty on the part of law enforcement to avoid the use of excessive force. Someone's refusal to comply with a "reasonable request" would not justify killing that individual--we would consider that excessive force and disproportionate to the nature of the crime. I think the tone-deaf response of United in this case reflects a too-heavy reliance on "it's the passenger's fault for not complying," whereas the rest of the world is sensing that the force that was used to eject this passenger was unjustified. For you or United to fall back on a sort of "the bottom line is you should respect law enforcement" just shows how blinkered United has been in creating and responding to this PR disaster. That "he got what was coming to him" logic is just not going to cut it, I'm afraid.
This is particularly bad for United as Asia-Pac is a huge strength for them. United's San Francisco hub pretty much dominates for Asia-Pacific direct flights. They literally have a fortress hub in the strongest Asia-Pac market in the US. Plus United has their Tokyo flights that connect onto ANA for onward connections as well. Their Asia coverage is arguably the best among American carriers so losing any marketshare there is really quite devastating.
I am sure they could have used a helicopter, it would be so much cheaper than this is going to cost them.
Thanks, important clarification. Then they just need to remove "involuntary removal", period. Why have it if there's already no cap on voluntary removal? The only thing it does is exactly what you said--allow them to artificially cap voluntary removal because there's no reason they would go beyond right now
I try to "boycott" UA all the time as Air China has direct flight to PEK and bigger seats. The problem is those flights are often full so I am forced to choose UA that adds headache and hours to the trip.
some people are so ridiculous in this thread - oh he has a criminal history - oh he's vietnamese, not chinese neither accounts for United not taking the right approach for getting their employees on a fully booked airplane. they didn't have a right to take him and the other 3 off involuntarily since it wasn't an overbooked plane. the manager of United needs to be let go or have proper training on how to problem solve. I don't see how anyone can bring up these 2 irrelevant points unless you have something invested in United
So there is a soft-cap of $1350 in compensation for an involuntary reaccomodation. UA maxed their offer at $800. So this was a $500 cost cutting move that ended up costing UA over a billion dollars. L-M-A-O
