comment by The Sniper (U21079)
posted 21 seconds ago
I imagine that overbooked flights are common. Most of the time, it doesn't lead to any debacle because there are enough people willing to take the airlines offer and leave willingly. This was probably the only time they had to forcibly remove someone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
close to half a million US passengers had to switch flights last year due to overbooking (admittedly against c. 900m passengers). over 430k did so voluntarily, a further 40k involuntarily.

comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 3 minutes ago
The Lambeau Leap

You keep saying United were within their legal rights to do what they did, do you actually have any evidence of this?

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


I posted the legal jargon earlier.

So if this doctor had to return to see a severely ill patient that's fine because the random computer picker says so.

Of all the people on the flight they could have picked they picked a 67 year old doctor who had patients he had to attend to back in Chicago.

Use a bit of common sense.

All airlines overbook all the time. The key difference here is that they were allowed to board before the passengers were told...which makes a huge amount of difference to the whole situation.
___________________

yes it does.

And so does the fact that the flight was not overbooked with passengers - it was airline staff that were given preferential treatment over a paying customer.

comment by Greatteamswinit4times- a terrible enemy (U6008)
posted 5 minutes ago
BTW the word is "false" not "faux". This is England.

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

How "right wing" of you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------



Well played sir.

comment by Greatteamswinit4times- a terrible enemy (U6008)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by The Sniper (U21079)
posted 18 seconds ago
I imagine that overbooked flights are common. Most of the time, it doesn't lead to any debacle because there are enough people willing to take the airlines offer and leave willingly. This was probably the only time they had to forcibly remove someone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

All airlines overbook all the time. The key difference here is that they were allowed to board before the passengers were told...which makes a huge amount of difference to the whole situation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I meant that even similar situations like this one occur regularly. However, most of the time, the airline is able to remove people willingly.

Rule 5 and 25 here should help.

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

For me it's not what they did but how they did it that's the issue.

comment by Don Draper's dandruff (U20155)
posted 12 minutes ago
And VC;s point about sorting it out at the gate is valid, only time it ever happened to me it was all sorted well before boarding, and it's a hell of a lot easier - and more customer friendly - to stop an annoyed passenger from boarding than to forcibly remove him after boarding

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

No one on any news outlet I have seen has actually mentioned this particular foul up by United.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

according to daily mail the airport cop has been suspended. looking the pictures again the poor doctor is bleeding from his mouth and is 69 years old FFS. at this day and age i can't believe shiite like this still happens. there were so many people there if he didn't want to go why didn't they ask others maybe he was asian 69 and thought he wouldn't put up a fight

comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)


For me it's not what they did but how they did it that's the issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
as bananarama established 30 years ago

comment by Don Draper's dandruff (U20155)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)


For me it's not what they did but how they did it that's the issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
as bananarama established 30 years ago

----------------------------------------------------------------------
And that's really saying something.

comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 1 minute ago
Rule 5 and 25 here should help.

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

For me it's not what they did but how they did it that's the issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly what I've said from the start. Now if only redmisty would get down from his soap box and take a breath he might be able to join the adults in sensible discussion.

I haven't seen one comment justify violence. Can you provide evidence?
_________________

No because you are being wilfully thick.

If no one is justifying this then you explain what was meant by "faux outrage".

You also need to explain what people mean when they write that the airline had a legal right to "forcibly remove" passengers as you would the "drunk and disorderly"

What do these statements mean if they are not justifying the use of violence in this instance?

It is crystal clear that the airline's behaviour has been defended consistently on this thread.

I don't need to provide evidence of that to anyone who can read.

The Lambeau Leap

Fair enough, I can't find it. Just that I have read quite a few bits on other sites clearly stating that United had no legal right to eject the man.

comment by Greatteamswinit4times- a terrible enemy (U6008)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by kneerash-23 Cara Gold (U6876)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Greatteamswinit4times- a terrible enemy (U6008)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by kneerash-23 Cara Gold (U6876)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by rossobianchi #EquipaLulaDaAlegria (U17054)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by Greatteamswinit4times- a terrible enemy (U6008)
posted 16 minutes ago
s Rosso says, the rule of business is the customer comes first,

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

Like that's a thing any more. In fact, it was never a thing, it was just a nice soundbite.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you worked in business strategy you'd know it absolutely is a thing. It's critical in a very strong proportion of markets.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
exactly any company worth its salt is primarily focused on the customer and their experience form the moment they are nagger a customer to the final interaction.

It's actually changed the way companies now operate which I'm sure you're aware of
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It's easy for companies to talk about x,y and z. To talk about everything being customer focused. I've been in hundreds of meetings where jargon like this has been used by huge companies and it actually meaning very little.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm literally testin something right now that we have had to change last minute to accommodate the customers journey.

It's a real thing that is core to business strategy
----------------------------------------------------------------------

customers journey<cringe>

I'm not doubting that it is a "thing" in its essence. What I am saying is that it is easy to dress up these things as being something that companies hold up as key to their growth/success but ultimately, when it comes down to things, then a hell of a lot of businesses won't put customers first.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree it's cringe but it's become a fundamental part of how business now operate, things have changed with the introduction of digital channels meaning a customer can be anywhere on the planet and engage you.

Whatever you think it's fact that the vast majority of companies start anything with the customer journey at the core

Exactly what I've said from the start. Now if only redmisty would get down from his soap box and take a breath he might be able to join the adults in sensible discussion.
__________________

What are you on about? Have I upset you somehow? Are you going to cry?

Counter my arguments if you can. Otherwise shut your arrogant trap.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by The Sniper (U21079)
posted 7 minutes ago
I imagine that overbooked flights are common. Most of the time, it doesn't lead to any debacle because there are enough people willing to take the airlines offer and leave willingly. This was probably the only time they had to forcibly remove someone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The flight wasnt overbooked for regular customers, they just needed to get extra staff on so kicked off people

Just to correct a few more errors. Both which keeps being repeated.

The flight was from Chicago, not to Chicago.

UA were not, I repeat, not, offering hard cash that you could spend.

The comments point to the airline, by right, being able to physically remove him.
_________________

So violence is justified in your view because it says so in a business contract....

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

I don't think anyone here is saying UA handled this well. Far from it.

It's a monumental PR disaster for them undoubtedly. How they handle this is going to be interesting and if you are booked on UA soon the service may be better than what it has been for a while.

Having said that the end result was legally allowable just the method to get there was very dubious.

We've all questioned Jose's treatment of certain players and, while it isn't exactly the same thing, if he gets the players playing well (the end result) the method will quickly be forgotten just as this incident will in a few weeks when people have moved on to other issues.

Having said that the end result was legally allowable just the method to get there was very dubious.

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

The fact that the aircraft was boarded for starters was totally wrong.

As I keep saying, this should not have got past the gate.

Why does it matter that he's a facking doctor? Would it have been more acceptable if he was a facking plumber? Or a facking binman?