It's gross incompetence that they didn't resolve the issue of staff travel in advance. The fact that they allowed passengers to board the flight is very unproffessional.

There's no doubt this whole thing has been a PR disaster.

Let's be realistic though, they'll put their marketing and advertising campaigns on hold until it dies down, to keep a low profile, then come back with new offers to entice customers back to UA, and people will see the $ saved by flying with them and all will be forgiven.
Who knows, another gorilla could be shot tomorrow and all of this will be forgotten...

They have had a pr disaster an absolute shocker.

There's no faux outrage it's all completely understandable outrage.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

They should have asked for volunteers like they did and when they got no response they should have done an auction for the seats. Eventually somebody will have sold them. The airline messed up at the end of the day.

What should they have done, out of interest?
_____________

In my opinion:-

Paid for their staff to take another flight - or get a cab.

Or address the situation before the flight was boarded.

comment by Greatteamswinit4times- a terrible enemy (U6008)
posted 6 minutes ago
What should they have done, out of interest? When the good Doctor refused to leave after randomly being selected, what should have happened? They move on to someone else just because he is a Doctor? That next person would say no, and then what? The plane stays grounded due to an en passe and people refusing to get off? The airline seemingly couldn't offer more money, the staff were always getting the seat and nobody else was willing to be take another flight. The random drawing was accepted by the 3 others, what should they have done with the only person that didn't accept it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They shouldn't have hurt an old man for sure.

What should they have done, out of interest?

................

They should not have had the passengers board the plane.

There are no 'what ifs or buts' here.

comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 42 seconds ago
What should they have done, out of interest?

................

They should not have had the passengers board the plane.

There are no 'what ifs or buts' here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Correct. This is not even the first time I have heard of this situation arising. However unlike this one, they usually let the people know at the gate and offer them first class tickets later in yr to a destination they fly to or something like that.

Very poor management by all the staff.

Do be completely honest the only 3 factors that influence which airline I pick are:
1. Price
2. Price
3. Am I close to a free ticket on miles

United could admit they just wanted to give a passenger a kicking for giggles, then crash a flight tomorrow, and if the flight I was looking at was 20% cheaper with them than anyone else I'd book the ticket right then and celebrate my good luck.

I still have no sympathy with the bloke. Mistakes have been made but refusing to cooperate will not fix them.

We all know what to do as customers about this outrage ie. boycott the airline in future (they only understand one language after all and that is '$$$$$$$$$$$$'... but will we?. Will we feck!

comment by I'll be The Judge of that! (U21434)
posted 50 seconds ago
We all know what to do as customers about this outrage ie. boycott the airline in future (they only understand one language after all and that is '$$$$$$$$$$$$'... but will we?. Will we feck!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hell no. I have about 250,000 air miles for united. I'll be using some of those to get home later in the year. Return to ireland for 40,000! I'm not getting value like that anywhere else

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

They shouldn't have hurt an old man for sure.

-

He wouldn't have gotten hurt had he not physically resisted them.

Don't mistake me, I'm not make excuses for the airline (though I do sympathise with the officers who were put in the impossible position of having to remove him). Nevertheless, what made him think that he's any more entitled to remain on the plane than any other passenger, including those who accepted the result of the random selection?

The airline is within its right to remove any passenger from the flight, if the need arises.

The airline staff shouldn't have allowed people onto the plane if they had foreseen that people would need to be removed, no doubt.
They should have offered better incentive for people to give up their seats, and not ceased with their offers until someone took them up on it.
However, thereafter, having poorly judged that a random selection was the best way to proceed, and having committed to that course of action, the two above points become irrelevant...
At that point, it was simply the case that the airline wanted to remove four passengers from the flight, which it is entitled to do, and for "fairness" they had randomly chosen those to give up their seats.
Three people bit the bullet. One did not.
At that point, there has to be some degree of personal responsibility from the subject individual. Accept that the flight isn't going to take off with you on it, unless someone willingly gives up their seat (which obviously didn't happen) and write it off as one of those things. Don't put your own sense of entitlement above that of the other few hundred people on the flight, to the point where you become so uncooperative that you need to be physically restrained.
He was being quite selfish in that way, judging himself more deserving of a seat on that plane than any number of others - any of whom could've been selected at random to lose their spot.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 2 minutes ago
I still have no sympathy with the bloke. Mistakes have been made but refusing to cooperate will not fix them.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Assaulted and humiliated in front of a packed airline the video of which has gone viral around the world

I suspect theres many a judge in the States that will sympathise with what was done to him

He wouldn't have gotten hurt had he not physically resisted them.
---------------
It doesn't matter. You don't hurt an old man.

That's a given, but it happened, so what do they then do?

..........................

Fix their own mistake without inconveniencing their passengers.

For example, make other arrangements to get their staff to Louisville.

comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 4 minutes ago
They shouldn't have hurt an old man for sure.

-

He wouldn't have gotten hurt had he not physically resisted them.

.......................

Poor comment.

comment by Cesc + Costa - The Spanish Duo (U21341)
posted 4 minutes ago
He wouldn't have gotten hurt had he not physically resisted them.
---------------
It doesn't matter. You don't hurt an old man.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly a 69 year old doctor ffs

comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 2 minutes ago
I still have no sympathy with the bloke.

.......................

That says a lot about you as a person.

.......................

Mistakes have been made but refusing to cooperate will not fix them.

......................

Co operating wouldn't have fixed them either.

comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 4 minutes ago
They shouldn't have hurt an old man for sure.

-

He wouldn't have gotten hurt had he not physically resisted them.

.......................

Poor comment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But absolutely true and a key point, he may not have been happy about it and had every right to complain but to disrupt a flight, any flight for whatever reason is just gross stupidity in my book.

Greatteamswinit4times

Surely there were quite a few option for United once they realised their mistake other than assault an elderly man.

Firstly they should have decided whether to put their 4 staff on other flights, either on their own airline or pay using another ones. Alternatively use other means of transport seeing as the distance wasn't that far and the staff were not needed for work until the next day.

If they didn't want to do that route then they should have not allowed customers onto the plane and worked out the correct compensation package for 4 people willing to take it. If no one was willing to take their low compensation then continue to raise it until someone agreed. Seeing as one customer had openly admitted he would get off for $1600 it really would not have cost United that much.

Also when deciding who to pick use a bit of common sense. Don't choose an elderly man who's job is to look after people's health who's wife was also on the flight and not ordered off the plane. Did anyone at United have any idea or concern how his wife would be able to get to where she needed to when arriving seeing as her husband was thrown off the airline?

I understand him being angry but I lost sympathy when he started screaming like a tart.

But absolutely true and a key point

............

No it isn't.