Fook United Airlines

[Irving]

Meh, pretty dumb article.

[BushMasterBoy]

Meh, pretty dumb article.

Yeah and they blocked the comments. Wtf...the comments are the best part of stupid troll op-eds.

[Dave_L]

Meh, pretty dumb article.

Agreed. I think the backlash from this is deserved.

[Gman]

Part of the problem is that some airline employees seem to have become drunk with authority. "If you even look at me sideways, it's a Federal offense."

[Aloha_Shooter]

I fly United a lot. I've generally had good experiences with them. The few times I have had bad experiences, it's generally been for circumstances beyond their control (like the ground controllers at DIA pushing every plane around to the other end of the runway after a major snowstorm). I'm sure there's more to the story. Munoz's email to the employees read like he was trying to keep morale in the company up -- it definitely wasn't intended for public release.

I hate the way they use the phrase "denied boarding" - yeah, that would be one thing if he was stopped FROM boarding but the guy was already seated. He wasn't "denied boarding", he was being deboarded involuntarily. Having said that, if the "staff" that they were trying to put on the flight were crew for follow-on flights, there would have been rolling impacts in not getting them down there that would have affected a lot more people so I understand the airline's urgency in trying to get them down there.

I suspect -- as with so many stories -- we'll find out more details later that make the whole thing less cut-and-dried.

[flogger]

I fly United a lot. I've generally had good experiences with them. The few times I have had bad experiences, it's generally been for circumstances beyond their control (like the ground controllers at DIA pushing every plane around to the other end of the runway after a major snowstorm). I'm sure there's more to the story. Munoz's email to the employees read like he was trying to keep morale in the company up -- it definitely wasn't intended for public release.

I hate the way they use the phrase "denied boarding" - yeah, that would be one thing if he was stopped FROM boarding but the guy was already seated. He wasn't "denied boarding", he was being deboarded involuntarily. Having said that, if the "staff" that they were trying to put on the flight were crew for follow-on flights, there would have been rolling impacts in not getting them down there that would have affected a lot more people so I understand the airline's urgency in trying to get them down there.

I suspect -- as with so many stories -- we'll find out more details later that make the whole thing less cut-and-dried.

Good point, always more to the story.

[clodhopper]

I hate the way they use the phrase "denied boarding" - yeah, that would be one thing if he was stopped FROM boarding but the guy was already seated. He wasn't "denied boarding", he was being deboarded involuntarily. Having said that, if the "staff" that they were trying to put on the flight were crew for follow-on flights, there would have been rolling impacts in not getting them down there that would have affected a lot more people so I understand the airline's urgency in trying to get them down there.

The term boarding has broad interpretation. For airlines it is generally applied to the whole process of loading passengers on the plane prior to takeoff. It is not the limit line of actually stepping on the plane and yelling "safe!". Even if you are on the plane, sitting and buckled, until they close the door everyone is still boarding. I wouldn't be surprised if it extended until wheels up such that a return to the gate to eject a passenger would still be considered boarding denial.

[Aloha_Shooter]

The term boarding has broad interpretation. For airlines it is generally applied to the whole process of loading passengers on the plane prior to takeoff. It is not the limit line of actually stepping on the plane and yelling "safe!". Even if you are on the plane, sitting and buckled, until they close the door everyone is still boarding. I wouldn't be surprised if it extended until wheels up such that a return to the gate to eject a passenger would still be considered boarding denial.

Oh, I know that's how the airline is interpreting it but any reasonable person with a comprehension of the English language would say he had already boarded when they let him set foot on the plane. His past history does seem to explain his reaction with the shrieking when the cops came to get him as well as his persistent reboarding and "just kill me now" mantra so I don't think it's totally irrelevant. I also think it's important that it was Chicago PD that forcibly pulled him off -- yes, United (or Republic) called for them but Chicago LEO has a reputation for doing things "the Chicago Way."

I suspect the reason United didn't offer even more to get someone to leave voluntarily is that they are worried about setting a new high bar for the future across all overbooked flights ("are you kidding? $250? I'm not giving up my seat until they offer me $2000.") but it still would have been better to quietly try to get another volunteer with higher compensation than get the PR blackeye they're suffering today.

[clodhopper]

I suspect the reason United didn't offer even more to get someone to leave voluntarily is that they are worried about setting a new high bar for the future across all overbooked flights ("are you kidding? $250? I'm not giving up my seat until they offer me $2000.") but it still would have been better to quietly try to get another volunteer with higher compensation than get the PR blackeye they're suffering today.

My understanding is they had reached the approved compensation cap that could be offered. The facility staff couldn't raise it anymore. Makes sense that the gate staff is limited so they don't get out of hand with crazy high compensation packages. Hindsight suggests a higher level manager be contacted to exceed the local cap, but of course at the time who knew the guy wouldn't comply, and once the cops were called to escort him, it was out of the airline's hands.

[Gman]

United Promised Regulators Ticketed Passengers Are Guaranteed Seats

Less than three years before a passenger was forcibly removed from one of its aircrafts, United Airlines assured federal regulators that all ticketed passengers are guaranteed seats on flights. The promise was delivered in federal filings reviewed by International Business Times.

In September 2014 comments to federal officials, the Chicago-based airline outlined its opposition to proposed rules that sought more disclosure of the fees airlines charge to customers. One of the rules at issue was designed to compel airlines to more explicitly disclose fees charged for reserving specific seats.

“Including advance-seat-assignment charges among the ‘basic ancillary service’ fees that must be disclosed as part of initial fare displays makes no sense,” the airline wrote to the Department of Transportation. “Every ticket, of course, guarantees a passenger a seat on the plane, with no additional mandatory seat-assignment charges."

Later in the filing, United Airlines expanded on its promise to regulators that it guarantees every ticketed passenger a seat.

“Importantly, every passenger who buys a ticket on a United flight or a flight on any of United’s partners or competitors in the United States will be assigned a seat at no additional charge (though in some cases this will still happen at the gate),” the airline wrote. “Therefore, the rule does not need to prescribe how carriers must disclose charges concerning advance seat assignments because passengers need not purchase this service to receive a seat assignment.” 

United has faced withering criticism—and calls for a congressional investigation—after video surfaced of a passenger being forcibly removed from a flight from Chicago to Louisville, Kentucky. United issued a statement saying its flight was “overbooked” and asserting that “after our team looked for volunteers, one customer refused to leave the aircraft voluntarily and law enforcement was asked to come to the gate.”

The company’s CEO, Oscar Munoz, later apologized for having to "re-accommodate these customers.”

Federal rules do not prohibit airlines from overbooking flights. Despite United's assurance to federal regulators in 2014 that it guarantees seats for all ticketed passengers, the fine print of the airline’s “contract of carriage” agreement on its tickets says the company retains a right to bump passengers off flights for myriad reasons.