Did anyone hear about the new food option United included to try to gain back some customers?... Spoiler Chinese takeout
1. The FAA rules on denied boarding and compensation refer to oversold flights. A non-revenue passenger (even confirmed) should never count towards that tally. I've never seen an airline prioritize crew over paying passengers (even if crew is confirmed). I realize the crew had a flight in the morning but that still is not something I've ever seen. The flight was fully sold and ticketed. I don't see how UA can credibly call this an oversold flight. 2. If you are involuntarily bumped, the airline is required to explain your rights and why you were bumped (including an explanation of the priority). UA owes everyone an explanation of their priority scheme as they are required to disclose it the moment someone is bumped. 3. UA's contract of carriage states that the priority is tied to a variety of items but most importantly, advanced seat assignment is a criteria. He had a seat assignment. There's no effing way he is last on priority. The non-revs without seat assignment should be last by virtue of not having a seat. With involuntary removal, that's always the governing criteria. The only exception is when a medallion passenger purchased a guaranteed full fare ticket within 24 hours but I've never seen non-rev guarantees. I'm almost certain UA broke their contract of carriage to weasel the non-rev crew onto the plane. I can't see how UA didn't break protocol. Someone in Chicago determined that the flight in Louisville couldn't fly without this crew making it onto this flight so they twisted the re-accommodation priority to make this work. And most likely, the gate agent let everyone board because no one volunteered and if involuntary removal rules were correctly applied, the non-revs would be the one to get the boot (and since they're non-rev, they won't get compensation). However, some manager probably saw this and intervened in order to find a way to get the crew on board. I have a strong suspicion UA might get hosed in court if someone takes a good look at the contract and the involuntary re-accommodation rules.
LOL that's sill an absolutely ridiculous position and it reminds me of the people who support fighting with the police when they feel they are being treated unfairly.....I truly hope you never end up in that position because I believe it would end very poorly for you given what you seem to think you have the right or responsibility to do.
Dude, he may have been technically "trespassing" (which there is plenty of legal debate about and isn't clear) but you're making false equivalence of him being some sort of criminal. No one deserves to be beaten and bloodied for acting poorly to incredibly unfair customer service.
and the law enforcement officer is on leave. as I said in the first post, the officers are the people who the internet should be raging on.
What I'm saying is that it should have never gotten to that in the first place. If he was even a halfway dignified person he would have simply left the plane when he was ordered to do so and filed complaints or lawsuits at that point. I'm not saying he's a criminal, he's not, he's just an entitled prick that caused a situation to go from bad to worse due to his poor decisions......and he's probably going to profit from being that kind of a prick. All he had to do was follow the commands of flight staff and police and not a hand would be laid on him....instead he chose to be beaten and bloodied. Let's not overlook that fact. He decided this was how it was going to end.
Perhaps they shouldn't be held accountable for the actual assault, but they for sure deserve criticism for letting it get to that point. This was so easily avoidable.
1.4 billion lost in stock value? I'm sure united is continuing to make the right decision by letting this story persist (even as the attempted character assinations start to get leaked). It's probably a similar mindset to the 2-3 people here still supporting the airlines and feeling they did nothing wrong. It's going to continue to cost more and more money to the stockholders as long as it's a story, and CEO's will then be in jeopardy.
LOL, fair enough. To be clear, I think what the airline did was a complete dick move and that policy needs to be changed....I just can't support people acting the way this guy did.
I have absolutely no idea how his past has anything to do with this. How does that justify a multi-billion dollar company treating the very REASON why (i.e. THE CUSTOMER) they are a multi-billion dollar company like a complete sack of ****?? I understand respecting authority, and complying with law enforcement in most situations, but this wasn't a criminal situation where he posed a threat to the people around him. This is about a manager getting her rocks off on a power trip instead of doing the pragmatic thing and finding the right price to get people off the plane in a civil manner. I put the blame mostly on her shoulders because it sounds like she handled the entire situation completely wrong. And also, **** United, and **** Oscar Munoz.
What about the manager who supposedly had no interest in actually getting people off the plane in an orderly fashion? All she wanted to do was exert her power on this guy.
He chose to get assaulted? Having your head slammed and and bloodied is not a reasonable expectation for a situation like this. Do you want to live in a police state?
They were not police. They were "security officers" in the Chicago Department of Aviation. They aren't even allowed to carry guns and the CDA said they should not have even been involved. The police should have been called in.
It was up yesterday. And up nearly 10% in the weeks following Trump's electronics ban. Regardless, glad I sold last week.
Absolutely. When police officers are ordering you to leave and you refuse, you are choosing to be forcefully removed and that can potentially include being "slammed" and "bloodied" when we are talking about removing a person from a difficult location like the seat of a plane. I'm not supporting a police state, I'm supporting people TRULY knowing their rights and refusing to comply in that situation isn't something people have a right to do. When you decide that you want to be forcefully removed, you are choosing exactly what this guy chose. Now we can argue that he was an idiot who didn't realize that's what he was choosing.....but that's a different conversation.
Would you still feel the same if he died from this? The force certainly was enough to kill if he was unlucky. Police should just be allowed to murder people who are insubordinate?
