https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/04/11/united-ceo-employees-followed-procedures-flier-belligerent/100317166/
After nickel/dime baggage strategies, crappy service, overcrowding, and overbooking, now United Airlines is dragging passengers off the plane when they refuse to give up their overbook seat. Apparently, they are within their rights. Of course they are, as corporations write the laws for the congressmen that pass the laws, so we're good, right? Passengers don't think so, but fuck the passengers. The rub is that now investors are selling their stocks, and UAL has tumbled on the market. The next concern is whether passengers will stop booking with United.
I'm not really ranting. Well, I am, but that's a minor part of the thing for me. I thought the shock and horror of the passengers filming the event was entertaining, and that poor guy running around the cabin crying that he just wanted to go home. He looked like a child needing to pee. This is better than reality TV.
As flying keeps going down hill, I've been wondering what the next thing airlines will to do take advantage of customers. I have an idea though, why not quit overbooking passengers? Yeah, I know, stupid idea. That takes the whole business plan in the wrong direction. Dragging a guy off the plane and creating a media frenzy is just a minor hiccup. I mean why the Hell should a corporation care about being nice to their customers? What would be the point in that?
Corps are people too. But they are people who have the money and the pockets of the politicians to make the laws they want. After all, the good ole USA is really the United Corporations of America. They are the only people who really count.
Remember kids, corporations and politicians care about the peasants....um I mean regular working joe as well! Just ignore everything that says otherwise.
Quote from: SGOS on April 11, 2017, 10:12:27 AMAs flying keeps going down hill, I've been wondering what the next thing airlines will to do take advantage of customers. I have an idea though, why not quit overbooking passengers?
They overbook because a certain percentage of ticketholders are going to be no-shows, like that young couple who are fated to be together and Kate is about to board a plane to move to Paris with Pierre, but Jack races to the airport to profess his love at the last second. He probably should have used his phone or professed his love much, much earlier and he's lucky as hell that he got the fastest cab in town, but I digress.
The airline could prevent this sort of overbooking situation by:
1) Simply not overbooking flights (the drawback is flights with empty seats, hurting profit margins)
2) When passengers on overbooked flights check in, they’re asked what the dollar value of the travel voucher they would accept as compensation for giving up their seats. When the flight is overbooked, some of these people are called up (low bids first) and offered a travel voucher in exchange for their ticket. Incidentally, this is how Delta does things.
3) Beat the shit out of a random passenger and toss him out like a mid-January Christmas tree.
If you picked 3, you're either a United Airlines employee or a sadist. Come fly the friendly skies, but when you're on the ground, you're cruisin' for a bruisin'.
4) Blow up the plane with everyone in it. Deny there was ever a plane. Deny those people existed. Deny that you're a plane company. Deny that planes exist.
Over booking flights ought to be illegal, but it isn't. When someone buys a ticket they are entering into a contract with the airline. The fine print in the contract says the airline overbooks flights, and you can get bumped if they don't have enough seats for everyone. If you don't agree with the terms of the contact don't buy the ticket. Involuntary bumps happen 40 to 50 thousand times a year so the possibility is real. Voluntary bumps are far more common than that.
When you buy a ticket the airline is obligated to get you to your destination. Just not necessarily on the flight you bought your ticket for. The longer it takes past your original scheduled flight the more monetary compensation you are entitled to when you get bumped. But when you get bumped you have no legal recourse to not being bumped. That's what your contract with the airline says. You have to get off the plane if the airline tells you to. If you don't the police jack booted thugs are going to drag your tantrum throwing ass off the plane. Anyone that expects to be treated differently by the police jack booted thugs hasn't been paying attention lately.
Welcome to TrumpMerica.
Quote from: Atheon on April 11, 2017, 12:06:25 PM
Welcome to TrumpMerica.
Been going on since before the last election. The last good plane flight I took was in 1983. Ronald Reagan started the destruction.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on April 11, 2017, 12:05:32 PMOver booking flights ought to be illegal, but it isn't.
I have mixed feelings about this.
On one hand, it seems pretty straightforward to not sell what you don't have. You don't sell 50 new 4k-resolution TVs when you only have 45 in stock. And if your concert can seat a maximum of 200 people, you can't sell 220 tickets. At least not afaik.
On the other hand, when you're providing a service and you can reliably predict a certain number of no-shows, it's inefficient to have empty seats. ISPs used to provide internet access to people knowing full well that their network couldn't possibly handle everyone connecting to the internet at the same time. But they don't all connect at the same time, so the network works fine most of the time. If the ISP had to set aside a certain amount of bandwidth to every customer, the bandwidth requirements for the network would balloon to the point of being unfeasible. Or at least unfeasible at the current price.
With airlines, it seems like some amount of overbooking is practically unavoidable. What is avoidable is how often it happens and how they handle it when it does happen. People should talk with their wallet and simply not buy from terrible companies.
And the crazy thing about this United Airlines fiasco is that this particular flight wasn't actually overbooked. They needed the seats to transport United Airlines personnel to work at another airport. Imho, the employees should've just gotten on another flight when it was clear that not enough people were going to voluntarily leave the flight. Besides, any competent person in charge wouldn't have let the situation escalate to the point that it did. United Airlines is going to lose a lot of customers over this, as they should.
I'm sorry, but as a veteran of eighteen hour flights from Sicily to Spain I have to say this is not "shittier".
Overbooking has been standard practice for decades, and the vast majority of the time it works out. There's a consistently predictable rate of no-shows. On occasion, though, everyone shows up. When that happens, seating priority is given to those who re-confirmed their flights in advance. Prior to boarding, the passengers are informed of the overbooking status and are asked for volunteers to give up their seats for compensation (usually around $400), and they'll be put on a later flight. Almost all the time, someone volunteers. (I volunteer whenever the opportunity arises; it's a great way to make money! One time I was put on another flight, and it so happened that the original flight ended up being delayed, so I arrived home earlier and richer than expected!)
I have nothing against overbooking, because it is mathematically sound, and when done right, socially acceptable.
They fucked up this time in the following ways:
1. The matter was not settled before boarding. This is big. Once you're seated, you're seated.
2. The people who were to take the seats were employees, not other passengers. Passengers should come first.
3. They did not consider other, more reasonable options. The employees could have been put on a different flight, or even sent by car. (I used to live in Louisville, and often drove to Chicago... no big deal.)
4. They removed the passenger using physical force, injuring him.
5. Their post-incident PR work sucked anuses.
Quote from: Atheon on April 11, 2017, 01:57:34 PM5. Their post-incident PR work sucked anuses.
That doesn't matter when you can silence criticism (https://www.dailydot.com/debug/twitter-deleting-tweets-united-airlines-video/).
Quote from: Atheon on April 11, 2017, 01:57:34 PM
Overbooking has been standard practice for decades, and the vast majority of the time it works out. There's a consistently predictable rate of no-shows. On occasion, though, everyone shows up. When that happens, seating priority is given to those who re-confirmed their flights in advance. Prior to boarding, the passengers are informed of the overbooking status and are asked for volunteers to give up their seats for compensation (usually around $400), and they'll be put on a later flight. Almost all the time, someone volunteers. (I volunteer whenever the opportunity arises; it's a great way to make money! One time I was put on another flight, and it so happened that the original flight ended up being delayed, so I arrived home earlier and richer than expected!)
I have nothing against overbooking, because it is mathematically sound, and when done right, socially acceptable.
They fucked up this time in the following ways:
1. The matter was not settled before boarding. This is big. Once you're seated, you're seated.
2. The people who were to take the seats were employees, not other passengers. Passengers should come first.
3. They did not consider other, more reasonable options. The employees could have been put on a different flight, or even sent by car. (I used to live in Louisville, and often drove to Chicago... no big deal.)
4. They removed the passenger using physical force, injuring him.
5. Their post-incident PR work sucked anuses.
about 4. United didn't remove anyone by force. They asked four passengers to get off the plane. When one of the four refused United notified airport security, and airport security forcibly removed him. Airport security isn't United. They are unarmed Chicago Aviation Security Officers. They work for the airport authority not United. They are empowered under the law to detain passengers.
Quote from: SGOS on April 11, 2017, 10:12:27 AMI have an idea though, why not quit overbooking passengers?
It would certainly make standby flying a lot easier.
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 11, 2017, 11:32:50 AM
They overbook because a certain percentage of ticketholders are going to be no-shows
I wonder how many of those no shows get their money back, and the airline simply sells the same seat twice. I've not made a flight on two occasions. One time, I received nothing, so an empty seat was still producing cash flow. The other time was even more offensive, I was offered credit valued at the price of my ticket, but penalized $100 for canceling my ticket. When I tried to use the credit, I was only offered the tickets that I would never buy because cheaper tickets were available. I decided it was too expensive to use the credit I had coming, and didn't book the flight, and the credit eventually expired. They have their ways of squeezing you. Flying at the last minute, they've got you over a barrel. Cancel a flight for a ticket you paid for, and they've got you compromised and over a barrel.
I am on overbooked flights all the time. Never have I had them seek volunteers after the plane was boarded though.
Quote from: Mermaid on April 11, 2017, 06:03:31 PM
I am on overbooked flights all the time. Never have I had them seek volunteers after the plane was boarded though.
When my ex used to fly across the country to visit her family, she always told me she would try to get bumped, and she would call right away to tell me not to go to the airport to pick her up. That was 30 years ago and she would get her next trip free. I don't know if the reward is still that good, but it seemed like a good deal back then.
Quote from: SGOS on April 11, 2017, 06:40:54 PM
When my ex used to fly across the country to visit her family, she always told me she would try to get bumped, and she would call right away to tell me not to go to the airport to pick her up. That was 30 years ago and she would get her next trip free. I don't know if the reward is still that good, but it seemed like a good deal back then.
It's not. They usually start out with an offer for a $200 travel voucher and go up from there until someone volunteers. I have not heard them get above $1000. I was on a flight recently where there were no volunteers, but they worked that out and didn't have to bump anyone.
Quote from: Mermaid on April 11, 2017, 07:57:47 PMI was on a flight recently where there were no volunteers, but they worked that out and didn't have to bump anyone.
What airline? (I'm going to take a guess that it wasn't United Airlines)
When you are on the plane with a paid ticket, they shouldn't be able to remove you from the plane unless you are acting crazy. That person wasn't. before they assaulted him. I hope he gets $10 million in recompense.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on April 11, 2017, 12:05:32 PM
Over booking flights ought to be illegal, but it isn't.
I completely disagree. We get the airlines that we the public are willing to put up with that's exactly how it should be.
Its not that over booking flights should be illegal. Is that over booking flights should be impossible or at least a very very poor idea because the consumers will boycott you if you do it. But that's not the case. Hire a lawn guy and pay him and then have him decide mid-summer that he doesn't want to have you as a customer anymore, no problem. He gives you your money back, you NEVER use him again. Then he either learns not to do that or he goes out of business. No law required.
But for some reason, we the public just can't wrap our heads around not flying certain airlines. Oh their ticket to Omaha is $0.12 cheaper? Book it. There is a dirt simple way to stop airlines from over booking. But the public seems to be too fucking stupid to pull it off. So what you're really saying is we need a law because we're too fucking stupid to fix the problem ourselves.
Quote from: Johan on April 12, 2017, 07:15:28 AM
I completely disagree. We get the airlines that we the public are willing to put up with that's exactly how it should be.
Its not that over booking flights should be illegal. Is that over booking flights should be impossible or at least a very very poor idea because the consumers will boycott you if you do it. But that's not the case. Hire a lawn guy and pay him and then have him decide mid-summer that he doesn't want to have you as a customer anymore, no problem. He gives you your money back, you NEVER use him again. Then he either learns not to do that or he goes out of business. No law required.
But for some reason, we the public just can't wrap our heads around not flying certain airlines. Oh their ticket to Omaha is $0.12 cheaper? Book it. There is a dirt simple way to stop airlines from over booking. But the public seems to be too fucking stupid to pull it off. So what you're really saying is we need a law because we're too fucking stupid to fix the problem ourselves.
And we could do it. We've got the sheep instincts to do it. We just need an alpha sheep and then it's off to storm Corporate HQ with torches and farm implements. But every time we get an alpha sheep to tell us what we should do, they kill him off, or sully his name, or most likely just pay him to go away. Then they send in their own shepherd of complacency, and we all calm down again.
Quote from: Johan on April 12, 2017, 07:15:28 AM
I completely disagree. We get the airlines that we the public are willing to put up with that's exactly how it should be.
Its not that over booking flights should be illegal. Is that over booking flights should be impossible or at least a very very poor idea because the consumers will boycott you if you do it. But that's not the case. Hire a lawn guy and pay him and then have him decide mid-summer that he doesn't want to have you as a customer anymore, no problem. He gives you your money back, you NEVER use him again. Then he either learns not to do that or he goes out of business. No law required.
To be fair, there are already lot of laws on the books that legislate common sense. Don't talk on a cellphone while driving. Don't pass a schoolbus while it's unloading kids. Don't litter. Don't dump raw sewage into the river. Don't overbook flights and then kick people off the plane (and rough them up in the process) wouldn't really stand out.
QuoteBut for some reason, we the public just can't wrap our heads around not flying certain airlines. Oh their ticket to Omaha is $0.12 cheaper? Book it. There is a dirt simple way to stop airlines from over booking. But the public seems to be too fucking stupid to pull it off. So what you're really saying is we need a law because we're too fucking stupid to fix the problem ourselves.
Yeah, the low fares have it, no matter what else. An airline could have customers run the gauntlet before boarding, but if its fares were $20 cheaper than its competitors, I'm fairly certain they'd have willing customers.
People are willing to patronize sweatshops. Doing business with an abusive airline seems rather tame in comparison.
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 11, 2017, 08:49:24 PM
What airline? (I'm going to take a guess that it wasn't United Airlines)
Delta.
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 12, 2017, 11:42:03 AM
To be fair, there are already lot of laws on the books that legislate common sense. Don't talk on a cellphone while driving. Don't pass a schoolbus while it's unloading kids. Don't litter. Don't dump raw sewage into the river. Don't overbook flights and then kick people off the plane (and rough them up in the process) wouldn't really stand out.
True. But none of those laws have anything to do with regulating independent businesses in terms of choosing to refuse service to customers or overselling their product. I'm just not a fan of making laws for things which should be left to the free market to sort out.
QuoteYeah, the low fares have it, no matter what else. An airline could have customers run the gauntlet before boarding, but if its fares were $20 cheaper than its competitors, I'm fairly certain they'd have willing customers.
And those customers had better learn to keep their fucking yaps shut when that airline decides to treat them like crap instead of trying to make poor treatment illegal.
Make an appointment at a dentist then go there and find out they don't have time to fit you in and they have to reschedule. If the dentist does that too often, that dentist will soon find lots of room in the schedule as patients decide they won't put up with it and find other solutions. So do we need a law that prevents dentists from overbooking their schedule? Nope the market takes care of that on its own.
Take your car in for a scheduled service appointment only to be turned away because they won't have time that day and they'll have to reschedule. If your service shop does that to you more than once, you'll be looking for a new service shop. Why should the airlines be any different? United is perfectly within their rights to do what they did. And you are perfectly within your rights to never patronize them because of it. No laws required.
There are other airlines. There are other modes of transportation. There are other things you can with your free time besides travelling. Yep, some of us have to travel for business. But the airline industry would wither and die quickly if their only passengers were traveling on business. The market has the power to fix this problem. If they choose not to that's fine. But if they choose not to, then they need to pull up their big girl panties and quit bitchin' about it.
Quote from: Mermaid on April 12, 2017, 12:17:09 PM
Delta.
That is who I few with in 1979 ... but they weren't so nice more recently.
Quote from: Johan on April 12, 2017, 07:15:28 AM
I completely disagree. We get the airlines that we the public are willing to put up with that's exactly how it should be.
Its not that over booking flights should be illegal. Is that over booking flights should be impossible or at least a very very poor idea because the consumers will boycott you if you do it. But that's not the case. Hire a lawn guy and pay him and then have him decide mid-summer that he doesn't want to have you as a customer anymore, no problem. He gives you your money back, you NEVER use him again. Then he either learns not to do that or he goes out of business. No law required.
But for some reason, we the public just can't wrap our heads around not flying certain airlines. Oh their ticket to Omaha is $0.12 cheaper? Book it. There is a dirt simple way to stop airlines from over booking. But the public seems to be too fucking stupid to pull it off. So what you're really saying is we need a law because we're too fucking stupid to fix the problem ourselves.
But every business is part of the MIC, a national security asset. So boycotting a business is treason ;-)
Also this event clearly illustrates a common fact that so many businesses and organizations seem to be completely oblivious to these days. That fact being that this device:
(http://cdn.ndtv.com/tech/images/gadgets/samsung_mobile_reuters_336.jpg)
Is a video camera and EVERYONE has one in their pocket. It seems positively baffling how many people, businesses and organizations don't seem to understand this simple fact. Honestly, if I were United, I'd make sure that somewhere in every United facility, there was a giant poster with a picture of a cellphone on it and caption that said 'THIS IS A VIDEO CAMERA AND EVERYONE HAS ONE'
Be sure and take lots of sexy selfies ... the CIA guys love to upload them and laugh. Where I work I keep mine in my pocket (just a flip phone, but it has a camera) ... and am careful ever taking it out ... it would be a violation of security in a government facility.
Topol is singing. ♫If I were a rich man...♫
The airlines need a taking-down on their practices. A few million dollar legal settlements are not enough.
The other passengers on the lane SHOULD have stood in the aisles blocking the removal of the passenger being forcibly removed. Civil disobedience has good effects against irrational authority.
I would have stood up and blocked the aisle. I'm glad it was videoed, but that wasn't sufficient action.
Well AT LEAST United didn't throw them off the plane after the plane was in the air. Let's be reasonable here.
You didn't hear, "This is your pilot speaking. We're flying at an altitude of 50,000 feet. We need 4 volunteers to jump off the plane....but don't worry. We're going to be flying over a river somewhere along the way.."
Quote from: Johan on April 12, 2017, 01:38:47 PM
Also this event clearly illustrates a common fact that so many businesses and organizations seem to be completely oblivious to these days. That fact being that this device:
(http://cdn.ndtv.com/tech/images/gadgets/samsung_mobile_reuters_336.jpg)
Is a video camera and EVERYONE has one in their pocket. It seems positively baffling how many people, businesses and organizations don't seem to understand this simple fact. Honestly, if I were United, I'd make sure that somewhere in every United facility, there was a giant poster with a picture of a cellphone on it and caption that said 'THIS IS A VIDEO CAMERA AND EVERYONE HAS ONE'
Yeah but most people only use them to brag about the cool video they captured of all the blood and gore. I always seem to forget I have mine in such times and inevitably have to tell authorities " I almost got video of it.."
Quote from: Cavebear on April 17, 2017, 05:23:39 AMThe other passengers on the lane SHOULD have stood in the aisles blocking the removal of the passenger being forcibly removed. Civil disobedience has good effects against irrational authority.
I would have stood up and blocked the aisle. I'm glad it was videoed, but that wasn't sufficient action.
Obstructing a law enforcement officer is a crime. And you'd probably get a taste of that passenger's experience yourself.
Imo, the passengers took the best option available to them - they got video of the event with them clearly expressing their disapproval and made it a viral hit. If they hadn't whipped out their phones when they did, we wouldn't even know this was happening and United Airlines (and airlines' overbooking policies in general) wouldn't be suffering a public backlash.
They did good. Not everyone can be like Superman, but a lot of the time, being like Clark Kent is enough to do good.
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 17, 2017, 11:08:23 AM
Obstructing a law enforcement officer is a crime. And you'd probably get a taste of that passenger's experience yourself.
Imo, the passengers took the best option available to them - they got video of the event with them clearly expressing their disapproval and made it a viral hit. If they hadn't whipped out their phones when they did, we wouldn't even know this was happening and United Airlines (and airlines' overbooking policies in general) wouldn't be suffering a public backlash.
They did good. Not everyone can be like Superman, but a lot of the time, being like Clark Kent is enough to do good.
Citizen actions in objection to over-action by authority can have a profound effect. Suppose one person had stood up and blocked the aisle. And then another had followed. How many would it have taken? 3? 4? 6? If you don't act when seeing a wrong, where WILL you act?