Reports are saying that the passenger was removed by the Chicago Police, at the request of United - not by United personnel or United security. Does that make a difference regarding your meme's message?
I would think, after seeing the violence involved in making room for them, the off duty crew would have declined to board.
United created the situation and should claim the fall out
What did United do wrong? Not just an opinion on business ethics, without knowing what went on, but legally wrong?
Live to Learn, I felt the same way when the video broke onto our screens. I still think United should, (and will) suffer the consequences of a very poor decision made by United personnel.
But... there are some other facts to consider in forming your opinion.
Most basic of all is that an airline ticket purchase is a contract. Whether folks take the time to understand that contract doesn't change the fact that it clearly states that United, (or any airline), has the right to cancel it, and pay the customer appropriate compensation for doing so.
Although it isn't known yet what the need for the deadheading crew member seats was, knowledgeable airline industry observers say the most frequent need, (and one that would warrant such intransigence by the airline folks in this instance), is to get pilot crews to a destination that needs them to fly another scheduled flight. In other words, it is possible that if those four crew members did not make that flight - then two other planeloads of people may have been stranded due to lack of pilots.
Wait now... just offering that as a consideration, not a fact or excuse.
Finally, it does seem clear that United was only responsible for the request to remove the passenger. It was members of the Chicago Police that did the actual removal. *I haven't confirmed that, but that is the reporting from several public sources.
So, I still hold that United handled this very poorly, as a company, and will end up paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in direct and indirect costs. Their on-scene decision maker should have been smart enough to understand the potential PR explosion. All-in-all I think that all parties involved contributed to the problem - even the victim passenger. He was wrong from the start.
Managers and decision-makers shouldn't have their job if they aren't smart enough, or have the authority, to make better decisions.
Side note: One related story told of an airline industry associated person that received almost $11,000 in voluntary compensation for her and her family due to a 'bumping' incident. I bet that in hindsight, United now wishes they had upped their compensation offer to $20,000 instead of calling the police.
GA (aka The Wet Blanket)
It appears he was removed twice. The second time on a stretcher.
From what I understand a group of high school students disembarked because their chaperone felt they should not see anymore. At that point, I would think United could have diffused the situation by letting that passenger sit down. That is all he wanted to do.
Sorry. I think their actions were heinous and heavy handed. Whether the heavy handedness came from the police or United personnel it was instigated by United personnel.
Contract, or not. United screwed up by letting the passengers board the plane. They were past the point of polite refusal once everyone was seated.
Hello Live to Learn, I think Wilderness' link might be useful to you.
I have a copy with me if you haven't read it yet:
The Real United Story!
Come, come! United has problems with a recalcitrant customer throwing a tantrum on the airplane, they call security as they are supposed to, and it is their fault he got hurt? Why? Because they made the mandated call to security?
Because security over reacted the first time. Because the second time circumstances changed and the passenger could have been accommodated, not beaten senseless. It was still their call.
Not sure where you're coming from here - I've not seen a single report where he was "beaten". The only "violence" was in lifting him out of a seat he was hanging on to.
But what circumstances changed and opened up new seats? That, too, is something I haven't heard (although it was now in the hands of security and I'm not sure United could have done anything else.)
At least you are talking about something you know ;0
a person with an obstinately uncooperative attitude.
Stubbornly adhering to an attitude, opinion, or course of action
Assuming that it was known well ahead of time that employees had to travel (and I'm certain it was known before passengers boarded), and that it was a simple clerical error that their seats were not "saved", what other options did managers have?
Another carrier? Apparently there wasn't one.
A charter flight? Was there one and would it arrive in time?
Bus? Same question - would it arrive in time?
Rent-a-car? Same question.
Another United plane, sitting on the ground? Was there a pilot and would it arrive in time?
Raising the award indefinitely I don't see as a solution, not as long as airlines WILL overbook. What would the next customer require, and the 100th one after that? A bidding war with no ceiling is not the answer.
Lots of possibilities, and it's real easy to sit back and say that none were checked for viability, but that is an assumption that should not be made. Just as the assumption that something short of a Star Trek transporter was available.
United screwed up, all right, in not notifying boarding personnel, but that could be anything from a computer glitch to a disgruntled employee to somebody got busy and forgot. And as you point they could pay an awful lot of money for what could be a very simple problem and a very stupid customer.
Wilderness, Regarding the bidding war part - Yes, if an airline gambles with over-booking, then they have to understand the public shaming of unseating, (as opposed to denying boarding), a passenger, and pay whatever price required to get the seats they need. Any other position is a dumb one. Either don't do it, or be prepared to open their wallet. By the 100th unseated customer they may find overbooking to be a bad gamble.
As for the decision maker part - I say the deciding authority must have the sense to make the right decision, and the authority to make it. So, either the decision wasn't bumped up the chain to the proper decider, or that "proper decider" made a bad decision. Ipso facto - someone should not be in the position they are in.
Of course these responses all deal with a proper action in the arena of a business dealing with the public. Technically and legally United was within their rights, and the ejected passenger was wrong from the start. But I am sure that won't be much solace by the time they finish paying for this poor decision - whoever made it.
Personally, I agree with the overbooking thing. But the law is quite strict about what has to be done, and sets that maximum they must pay. Ergo, the law (and thereby the people) WANT the lower ticket prices overbooking gives. I hate it, but the law says it is quite all right and all the airlines follow the same practice. Consider as well that without overbooking ticket prices will rise, and the airline that puts themselves into the position of bidding wars without ceilings will be at a very distinct disadvantage.
The decision matter - you're still assuming that there was another option, but the only one you've listed is to pay unlimited amounts of booty, when the law is specific about what is necessary. That leaves nothing but to disagree with you - until there is indication that offering the amount that was offered, followed by involuntary de-seating of customers and calling security to enforce the law, I cannot agree that there was another reasonable, working option for anyone to make. Airlines are quite severe with disruptive passengers, a policy I wholeheartedly agree with.
Yep - public sentiment, particularly after an emotional event where business is presented as an evil aggressor (isn't it always?) may cost them dearly. Still, without a viable alternative that seems to be just the cost of doing business according to best, and common, business practices. Once the idiot got himself hurt, the public doesn't much care about anything else. Maybe it will convince legislators to make intentional overbooking illegal - a solution that I would rather see.
Wellll, yeah... the law does set maximum compensations. I am chagrined that I didn't check that out before engaging my hunt & pecks.
But... even though I am begrudgingly owning that error, I can't stop myself from trying to mitigate it by noting that the maximums are the amounts that airlines can be required to pay - and it appears most airlines do draw the line at those maximums - but I did find several references that noted those maximums aren't the last word. There have been some occasions where an airline did offer more. Still, I was sloppy. Doesn't really change my overall perspective, as noted, but it does shoot down the thought of unlimited compensation bidding wars.
As a side note; I did find the article about that $11,000 compensation story. It was a family of three, and it was a perfect storm of events. They were voluntarily bumped three days in a row; Friday, Saturday, & Sunday. Receiving about the maximum for each ticket for each day. It was a family trip for a weekend in Florida's Disney World.
[EDIT]*original last paragraph snipped for review[END EDIT]
A little different view, from someone that should know how it all works. One point that I hadn't considered was security; once Dao made such an extreme fuss about being on that plane TSA becomes involved as well, and their job is not to cajole fliers. She also brings out something about "must fly" personnel, which is a requirement of federal law: the airline had to put those four on the plane in order to be legal. An interesting read, and does shed a little light on what went down.
https://thepilotwifelife.wordpress.com/ … ight-3411/
Well damn... that was an excellent read. But here is how you should have posted it:
The Real United Story!
Hell, After understanding the passenger had been escorted out once already - I'm even feeling a little sympathy for those "decision-makers" I berated earlier. (but just a little)
** (now, I'm just hoping her story wasn't 'fake' news too)
It could be 'fake[' news. But too much of what is in there just makes too much sense. That United legally has to bump passengers as necessary to get that flight crew where they need to be and stop a domino effect before it starts, for instance. Some of the reasons it might be necessary, such as weather, weather or more weather, which I had not considered at all. And, most importantly, that scheduling is a massively complex topic that those of us outside the company not only don't have a grasp on but don't even see the problem.
For these and other reasons, I'm taking it at face value and considering it mostly true and factual.
I believed your link too. (but I always try to have a back door just in case)
Made me glad I didn't jump on the 'crucify United' bandwagon.
UA policy is to offer up to 400% or $1325 max
They didn't do that.
Entirely the fault of UA
The doctor makes $1.2 mil a year but somebody else would take a higher offer
After boarding shouldn't not bump people at all
bumping is done at the check out, last 4 people, no split families, no VIP's.
Total UA fault. 100% UA fault.
All comes down to 4 major airlines becoming a monopoly and screw the customer.
"After boarding shouldn't not bump people at all"
How do you suggest UA obey the law and get those 4 people to the next airport without bumping? If you're suggesting that the last 4 people in the boarding line always be the ones bumped, can you imaging the pushing, shoving and general mayhem in that line? Or what would be the rationale to automatically bump the last few to check in? Are their tickets worth less somehow?
"Total UA fault. 100% UA fault."
Why was it necessary for those 4 to travel? Did the weather delay the flights of those regularly scheduled to fly the next plane? Was there a flight delay that cause the other crew to be late? Was there an illness, requiring more people? Was there a car wreck, killing the regular pilot and requiring another?
If it was 100% UA fault, what did they do that required those 4 to fly on the plane?
I have no idea what you are talking about 'obeying the law' All I said was by protocol they can and should have raised the compensation to the max if the 4 deadhead riders needed a ride.
As far as the what ifs you mentioned - yes - anything IS possible in an infinite universe. So why didn't UA offer 400% or $1350? Because they are penny pinching pandas who disdains their customers IMHO.
The law requires that they bump people as necessary to get the flight crews to where they need to be. It is NOT a choice that United makes.
What I'm seeing is that they offered $800 (one report was a thousand), PLUS motel PLUS eating. You're getting close enough I really don't see any value of running it up any more - Dao would likely still have been chosen.
Rather than rape United for not doing something illegal, how about the good doctor offering to buy a seat for a couple of grand. If that didn't work, he could offer 5G's. Or 10, or a years income of a cool million. THAT would get a buyer!
You're right that was a shitty idea:
Last person able to keep their seat:
The Goon Squad
Chicago Aviation Commissioner Ginger Evans tried to correct one alderman when he referred to the officers as police. Alderman Edward Burke retorted that the state of Illinois recognizes them as exactly that.
Evans said the officers were ordered in January to take the word "Police" off their jackets in favor of "Security," but that nobody followed through ... There was even confusion among officers about their duties. Jeff Redding, the deputy commissioner of security for the aviation department, said officers are instructed not to board planes unless there's an imminent threat. - http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/remo … e-46790388
Mr Dao has a broken nose, will undergo reconstructive surgery of the sinuses, 2 missing front teeth and a brain concussion.
Ptosis, Does this response mean you have changed your mind about the statement of your OP's memes regarding United?
Was it the additional facts and explanations of Wilderness' The Pilot's Wife link that caused you to rethink your viral video-formed original opinion?
no and no. Where did you get the idea that I changed my mind? Does your browser automatically change words of other people's posting? Interesting add-on......
That browser bit was pretty cute ptosis. Do you mind if I hold it in reserve for later use?
I was just following your own words. You started the thread condemning United, but now, your "Goon Squad" comment seems to be condemning the Chicago Airport Security Commission, and its law enforcement officers.
Since that Commission and United are separate entities, and since United had nothing to do with the ejection process - other than summon the Airport security officials - your comment read as if you had shifted focus.
What words did you think my browser changed? Or do the words even matter, the video is all you need for an informed opinion?
I didn't realize wanting to keep a seat you'd already paid for classified as an imminent threat. United obviously made mountain out of a mole hill. Their lack of concern for the safety and security of their passengers should not soon be forgotten.
How did they show lack of concern for the safety or security of passengers? Did Dao threaten to harm others if he could have his way?
(On the other hand one might theorize, given airport attitudes towards security, that Dao must have ulterior motives for demanding that flight, given his intense objection to following the law. This is the same general group, after all, that checks infant shoes for bombs.)
Oh my, Live to Learn... I certainly agree that United should have recognized the negative potential of this situation, but...
If an Airport law enforcement officer requested, (that is what they did first), you exit the plane, regardless of the reason, would you comply?
If you would not, then would you think Ahmed the Terrorist,* (Ahmed paid for his seat just like Dr. Dao), has the same right of refusing to obey a legitimate law enforcement officer?
Can you imagine that officer might be a bit more concerned to see the previously ejected Dr. Dao rushing back onto the plane - again? What about Ahmed the Terrorist*, what would you think seeing him dash back into the plane - again?
*Note: Ahmed is just a caricature to illustrate a point - not an inference that Dr. Dao is a terrorist. But... could those airport security folks consider risking the lives of the other passengers with a similar assumption?
You rational appears to say it is ok to refuse a legal law enforcement request if you don't agree with them. I hope that is not the case.
Pretty sure Ahmed the terrorist wouldn't have been given a boarding pass.
I'm afraid Americans need to look closely at what we have allowed to evolve. Did the good doctor go too far? Certainly. Does that give the airport security the right to beat him? No. He wasn't a terrorist. All parties were aware that he wasn't a terrorist.
If we compare everyone to a terrorist that simply allows more and more of us to be put into jeopardy of being beaten.
I don't believe you can disobey a law just because you don't agree but the nature of this situation is a little trickier than running a red light. I think anyone defending the actions of security personnel on this one is simply playing devil's advocate.
I agree Ahmed the Terrorist was an extreme illustration, but could it be an impossible one?
I wasn't aware the Airport officers beat him. All I have seen and read was that he was physically pulled from his seat, and his injuries were the result of that struggle, (as he was pulled across the center seat arm rest). Where did you read that they beat him?
You speak of the nature of the situation, does the nature you perceive include the fact that United was by Federal law - required to find four seats on that plane for those airline crew members? Or the fact that he had already been removed once, or that there is another video that clearly shows the security officer asking him to leave his seat - first, before any physical actions took place?
I suppose they could have kicked off the airline attendants for that flight, and let the flight take off with just the pilots - locked in their cockpit, and the passengers on their own. That might have gained them three of the four needed seats,
Where do you suppose they could get the fourth one?
Or do you propose United break the law, take off anyway, and potentially ground two other planeloads of passengers?
Hold on now... Don't misconstrue what I have said as a 'blank check' defense of United. I have repeatedly said they blew it. I don't think they made a "mountain out of a molehill," but I do think their poor decision(s) allowed a molehill to become a mountain. When I initially saw that viral video - I felt just as you do. But, when I looked at the facts of the incident - my opinion changed. I am puzzled that you appear to comfortable with your emotion-driven opinion, and the facts be damned!
Whether Ahmed was an extreme illustration or not is irrelevant. Airport security is not paid to let anything by - if there is any doubt whatsoever it will be checked. And this is a point that most have forgotten: when he disobeyed orders to leave that plane Dao instantly became a possible threat.
No, Dao wasn't beaten. He hit his head on the arm rest of the opposite chair.
No, they can't kick the attendants off, either - they are legally required.
On an aside, the news tonight says Delta will now authorize agents to offer as much as $10,000 for being booted. If it spreads I predict we will see the end of that practice, along with a corresponding increase in ticket prices. Can't say I'm particularly sorrowful about the possibility; that was always a part of flying I hated.
Ya know... I am having second and third thoughts about this United event, and over-booking in general.
I think I am OK with over booking now. Approximating my recall of reading, it amounts to something like 1 in 13,000+/- customers getting bumped. The flip side is that 1) the airlines can maximize profit by hedging against no-shows, (thus helping keep fares low), and 2) a person bumped can reap rewards that should be comparable to the inconvenience. Wait now... I understand the inconvenience for some may not be monetarily evaluated.
This new thought of mine doesn't negate my opinion of United's poor decisions in the Dao affair, but if your Delta comment is true, then it just validates my original thoughts that the damage to United was a self-inflicted wound.
Someone, somewhere, in the decision chain should have been aware of the potential PR disaster for United. They could have authorized that $10,000 carrot and avoided the hundreds of millions that United lost because of the PR perspective of this event. One report noted their stock took a $250 million dollar tumble. Although I think their stock will recover, I have no doubt their actual costs will still be in the millions.
My life has been in the restaurant and hospitality industry - dealing with the public. My success or failure depended on public perception. I know how valuable public perception is. Right or wrong isn't always the deciding factor, (but sometimes it is, some customers just need to be told to go to hell, go spend your money somewhere else). That is why I am so adamant that United's sin was not the booting of Dr. Dao, but the failure of an intelligent decision-maker.
I would comp an entire table, and eat the food costs - even when I was right, just to avoid a PR disaster of having four or more people talking bad about my restaurant - and costing me 10 times the comped costs of their meals. That is the decision that United's decision makers failed to make. That was their error. All this "viral video" stuff is just emotional manipulation.
And look at how successful it was. Can you think of a news source that hasn't covered it? And covered it on a much less than factual basis! So where was United's decision makers that could understand this? $10,000 to Dr. Dao, or any other passenger, would have been a bargain.
I can honestly say that had I been the United decision maker, after Dr. Dao dashed back on the plane a second time - I would have offered whatever it took to get any passenger to agree to be bumped. Because I would have recognized the PR disaster that would, (and did), take place in that plane's cabin.
Yep, United screwed-up, but not in the way all the emotion reactions to the video think.
You would comp the table, just as many other places do. How many times did you offer to comp the table as many times in a year as they chose to return?
That's the point here. You're suggesting a comp far beyond anything else anyone else does, while knowing it will go extremely public. In your case the entire country will now know that if they complain loudly at your restaurant they will get a years worth of free food. From a business sense it doesn't make sense, not if you wish to continue comping the occasional customer that complains.
Delta may or may not ever "comp" at the $10,000 rate, but if the rates even so much as double, to $2,000, I predict we'll see the end of the practice. It will no longer be sustainable.
Of course, all this is based on my personal idea that the American public has become so greedy that they will go to nearly any length. We've decided that the customer is always right, and make darned sure we get our share. By blackmail if necessary, threatening to go public with ridiculous complaints (like Dao's) in the expectation that companies will cave to public opinion.
Stores never used to take back unlimited merchandise, and restaurants never comped an additional meal. We're all paying the price for those things, things that benefit only the few willing to cross the line, and I don't like it. I think it's time business took a stand to stop the nonsense, offer only reasonable comps (which United did) and quit being held hostage by the internet and media.
Now you are in the realm of Ahmed the Terrorist extremes.
The "comp" problem, (comps, unlimited or unqualified returns, etc.), isn't new. It was there 40+ years ago when I started in the restaurant, (public perception), business. And a "comp" wouldn't have been repeated for the same customer, (much less a year's worth), and a customer obviously 'playing' me would not get a comp. I held, then and now, that the customer is usually right, but not always - sometimes a principle is more important than an avoidance of grief.
Your point is just a discussion of degrees of a problem. I don't disagree, just pointing out it is not a new problem.
As for businesses taking a stand... most already do - they weigh the costs vs. the benefits, and set policies that promote their ultimate goals. Or they decide the cost is not worth the benefit and close shop.
Which brings us back to the over-booking practice. As long as the benefits outweigh the costs it will continue. To you point of an abusive public - those costs may soon end overbooking, and all air traveler costs will reflect it.
How do you think the doctor sustained those injuries without being beaten? Why was a stretcher necessary the second time he was removed if there was no violence?
I understand your points however violence is not a solution and should not be condoned. This escalation of acceptable hostility toward paying customers is one reason I don't fly anymore. The invasive searches coupled with a desire not to appear to be profiling left white women like me subject to touchy feely sessions at every check point. And now, we are discussing a respectable doctor being beaten. For wanting to remain in a seat he paid for.
The airlines will never get a free pass for this type of behavior (from me). It doesn't matter if federal regulation says seats have to be found. There is a civilized way to make that happen and there is the United way. I think they are will aware of the problems with their way.
If you watch the video, when he finally came out of his seat he smacked his head/face into the armrest of the seat on the other side of the aisle. He wasn't "beaten", only dragged from the seat. And no, he certainly wasn't the "respectable" doctor you mention - no one throwing a tantrum on an airline is.
Violence is about the only solution left when people ignore and violate laws. A good part of why our nation is so crime ridden is because we give in, we let lawbreakers go with a slap on the wrist. We all too often simply ignore it in the wish that it will go away if we pretend it isn't there. Give this guy his seat, choosing someone else to bounce, and it will only get worse the next time an airline boots someone off.
Well, I tried Live to Learn. I may doubt that you can find proof that Dr. Dao was beaten, but I do not doubt that the lack of such proof would not matter to you.
I think your emotion-driven opinion is unsupportable, and you appear to think I am an apologist.
Next stop... the coffee shop. There will always be more discussion opportunities.
Emotion driven opinion? Perhaps. But, I don't see it as unsupportable. It appears to me that United has caved in to reality, set aside the lies, attempts at excuses and all other foolish moves to pretend that there was justification for that action. Probably because more people were willing to think about how they would want to be treated in similar circumstances than were willing to jump on the United bandwagon.
But, but, b ut.... whbat about those words my browser changed????
Detrumpify 1.1.39 This simple Firefox add-on converts all occurrences of "Donald Trump" (and several variations) and replaces them randomly with insulting other names culled the web. There are lots of user options to let you control what kinds of insults you get, how often they change, how they're formatted, etc.
The starting list of insults came from here:
http://theslot.jezebel.com/in-honor-of- … 1781899319
It only took United Airlines to lose $750M in value after passenger ejection video for it to change policy for crews traveling on their aircraft have to be booked into seats at least 60 minutes before departure. And 'ensure' that a situation in which a passenger is forcibly removed from a plane does not occur again.
Monday, 4/10 9:45, stock prices was 71.21
Tuesday, 4/11 9:45, stock price was 68.50
Wed. 4/12 9:56, stock price was 71.11
Since then both the Dow and United have lost, although the Dow did worse than United did.
Seems they didn't lose much - investors took the time to understand the fiasco Dao caused even if the hysterical internet crowd didn't.
United Breaks Guitars song
http://theblacksphere.net/2017/04/unite … ir-planes/
When the plane landed in Chicago, passengers looked out the window at baggage handlers and noticed they were tossing the band’s musical instruments
by Jack Lee5 months ago
A man who complained about a $12 charge for a blanket cause the plane to be diverted to LA and affected all the passengers...How did we come to this?What is wrong with or airline industry?Can a $12 blanket be compared...
by Susan Reid7 years ago
I post this with the certainty that people will weigh in (oops-- sorry for the bad pun) on this story. Basically, it's about being too fat to fit in a single airplane seat. But there's more to it:Published: Saturday,...
by karl4 years ago
After reading this article http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/why-ai … 03449.html i was wondering should airlines be offering larger seating for those who have to pay more?I believe it raises many questions and...
by Stacie L4 years ago
Airline offers baby-free 'quiet zones' on flightsFor many of us (the childless ones, anyway), few things about flying are as excruciating as a crying baby. We know, babies have to travel too, but when you're trapped in...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.