United overbooked a flight so they dragged a passenger off the plane

[zEmini]

I can't believe there are people in this world that are still defending United.

[minteK917]

I can't believe there are people in this world that are still defending United.

There are people even shitter then Trump voters in this world after all. I guess i cant be surprised.

[caervek]

Again, doors were open. That's a boarding flight. The United staff took priority

1: The flight was fully boarded according to UA.
2: The staff were from another airline, UA was doing them a favour by chucking off it's own passengers to fly them.

[petej0]

They don't do it because they are gambling that passengers will accept the voucher, which costs them nothing, and they can dead head the crew for free.

What are you talking about, the voucher costs money. Even if it is a voucher for a future flight, that is a seat that they wont get revenue on. Hence it cost them.

In this case, they gambled and lost.

And in vast majority of flights they gamble and win.

Overbooking is a bad policy that allows airlines to sell seats twice, and should be regulated into non-existence. If an airline can't afford to fly a plane with empty seats,

The seat is sold twice, but they dont realize any extra income overall. That person that missed their connection and couldnt make the flight (and thus had it sold to someone else), got refunded or got compensation for the late flight.

they should increase the penalty for not showing up or make all sales final.

haha, if people hate the idea of over booking and think it is evil and greedy, I cant imagine what they would say about that.

[Allybeboba]

They don't do it because they are gambling that passengers will accept the voucher, which costs them nothing, and they can dead head the crew for free.

In this case, they gambled and lost.

Overbooking is a bad policy that allows airlines to sell seats twice, and should be regulated into non-existence. If an airline can't afford to fly a plane with empty seats, they should increase the penalty for not showing up or make all sales final.

There isn't no they to this. We have to regulate them. They won't change their own rules. We have to make the change them if we want them to change.

[Katchii]

If it was cheaper, they would do it. These corporations are evil greedy profit grabbers. If it was cheaper they would do it.

- - - Updated - - -



Not going to happen. Oversubscription is a method lots of industries and companies use.

Not talking about overbooking/ oversubscription really, though they SHOULD do their best to curb that too, but I'm just talking about the methods they used to remove him and the decision TO remove him. Did he have to be removed? Did they have to use that much force to remove him? What were their other options?

Saying it seemed excessive would be redundant at this point, but it still seemed way over the top considering the reason behind he was being asked to give up his seat and what they're currently going through as a result of their actions. One of the parties involved is going to have to pay a shitload of money to this guy because regardless of what the rules state, I can promise you that nothing gave them explicit rights to beat this guy up because what happened to him was a direct result of the whole overbooking/ seat exchange thing. So...pretty sure they need to re-evaluate their policies and decision making criteria for this kind of stuff.

[Allybeboba]

1: The flight was fully boarded according to UA.
2: The staff were from another airline, UA was doing them a favour by chucking off it's own passengers to fly them.

Oh really? I have not heard this. It wasn't UAs employees, how interesting. This is a new twist.

I am telling you guys, you can't trust the media 100%. They will spin it to their agenda each and every time.

[petej0]

Not talking about overbooking/ oversubscription really, though they SHOULD do their best to curb that too, but I'm just talking about the methods they used to remove him and the decision TO remove him. Did he have to be removed? Did they have to use that much force to remove him? What were their other options?

I agree..if I was the airline, and I had a passenger who refused to leave, I would hold the plane indefinitely.

[Allybeboba]

I can't believe there are people in this world that are still defending United.

Very few are.

Most are wondering why the person defied lawful orders from a police officer. Considering he was a convicted felon, he should have known what would happen. And being on a plane post 9/11 of all places.

[Tinykong]

What are you talking about, the voucher costs money. Even if it is a voucher for a future flight, that is a seat that they wont get revenue on. Hence it cost them.

They give out vouchers that are difficult to use, and most likely you will just accept and never use. Have you ever tried using one? In some cases you have to use the voucher at the ticketing counter of the airport, which means you are just going to be sitting standby and you might leave at some point.

Why do you think they offer vouchers and not cash?

Airline vouchers are a suckers compensation, why do you think no one took them? If they had offered straight up cash, someone would have accepted it. I value my time pretty highly, and I'd gladly sit in an airport for 24 hours for $1000.

And in vast majority of flights they gamble and win.

And? Overbooking is a terrible policy.

The seat is sold twice, but they dont realize any extra income overall. That person that missed their connection and couldnt make the flight (and thus had it sold to someone else), got refunded or got compensation for the late flight.

Sure they do, they get to charge cancellation fees and have someone flying in the seat they cancelled. They are double dipping.

[JohnBrown1917]

So many people here sucking corporate dick that I fear this whole forum will be covered in CEO cum.

[caervek]

If the doors are open, it's still a boarding flight, even if all passengers that weren't the staff were on-board. The fact that the staff then became passengers is relevant. The flight was still boarding, they took priority, and that's within the regulations, even if they showed up last minute to become passengers.

It's amazing that you know more about what happened on UA end than United Airlines do :P

[petej0]

They give out vouchers that are difficult to use, and most likely you will just accept and never use. Have you ever tried using one? In some cases you have to use the voucher at the ticketing counter of the airport, which means you are just going to be sitting standby and you might leave at some point.

If flying standby was so difficult nobody would do it. Except that many people do it.

Airline vouchers are a suckers compensation, why do you think no one took them? If they had offered straight up cash, someone would have accepted it. I value my time pretty highly, and I'd gladly sit in an airport for 24 hours for $1000.

I cant speak for the people on the flight, neither can you. I will say this, 63k took the compensation and 3k didnt last year.

Overbooking is a terrible policy.

Well when you start an airline you can choose not to overbook and get all the passengers from the evil greedy airlines that do it.

Sure they do, they get to charge cancellation fees and have someone flying in the seat they cancelled. They are double dipping.

Cancellation fees are largely dependent on refundable and nonrefundable tickets and how far in advance you cancel. I would expect a cancellation fee days before a flight, as opposed to weeks because the probability of the airline being able to fill that seat in a few daysthat they may have been able to fill weeks ago is lower.

Would you be ok, if all airline tickets were nonrefundable, no cancellation fees and could not be changed if it meant they couldnt overbook flights?

[caervek]

Because I know the doors were open?

That's interesting, because as the flight was fully boarded the doors should normally have been closed (that's what happens after boarding) while they waited for cargo to finish loading and clearance to taxi form the gate.

If the man was led off the plane, then came back on, then the Airline staff entered, the doors were then open

And what makes you think the doors were not opened when the staff from the partner airline arrived at the gate after boarding and asked to be let on? you know so they could get on and passengers could get off.

I think United Airlines know a bit more about the events than you :P

[belleflop]

United didn't physically accost anyone.

So when someone comes onto my property and causes harm (or is injured) I'm libel to be sued for damages. You telling me United somehow has immunity to anything that happens on their property? I'm pretty sure that's not how it works. This guy will sue the airline and easily win, never-mind the loss of revenue by the really bad PR they've generated from the vent and their weird public facing statements since.

[Karamaru]

So many people here sucking corporate dick that I fear this whole forum will be covered in CEO cum.

Could you imagine if KLM pulled a stunt like that?

Also the other airlines wasted no effort on this disgusting stunt United pulled

[Symphonic]

I can't believe the gall of the company to respond about "re-accommodating" customers. How about don't put your own employees on flights that are booked to capacity.

[Tinykong]

If flying standby was so difficult nobody would do it. Except that many people do it.

You're missing the point. The voucher is difficult to use, intentionally, so that people won't use it, effectively costing the airline nothing.

I cant speak for the people on the flight, neither can you. I will say this, 63k took the compensation and 3k didnt last year.

Common sense says that people won't accept the voucher because seasoned travelers know the restrictions.

Well when you start an airline you can choose not to overbook and get all the passengers from the evil greedy airlines that do it.

Spoken like a true corporate shill, rather than admitting that overbooking is a bad policy and should be regulated more heavily to punish it's use.

Cancellation fees are largely dependent on refundable and nonrefundable tickets and how far in advance you cancel. I would expect a cancellation fee days before a flight, as opposed to weeks because the probability of the airline being able to fill that seat in a few daysthat they may have been able to fill weeks ago is lower.

Would you be ok, if all airline tickets were nonrefundable, no cancellation fees and could not be changed if it meant they couldnt overbook flights?

Sure. Don't book a flight if you don't intend to use it.

[Stormspark]

I can't believe the gall of the company to respond about "re-accommodating" customers. How about don't put your own employees on flights that are booked to capacity.

The funny thing is, with the first 3 they did it right. Offered people money and a free flight to leave. 3 took it. If they really couldn't get 1 person to leave for the last one, just put the last employee on a different flight. Seriously.

[scarfdeath]

United’s stock is falling 2.6% and wiping $600 million off the airline’s market cap

Worth it ?

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/uni...cap-2017-04-11