United Airlines customer service

Everskyward said:
The company I worked for would not have made a passenger get off in order to accommodate their own parts. If time was that critical, they would have flown another airplane to the site of the stranded airplanes. In fact, they did this numerous times.
Click to expand...
What if there were NO other aircraft ? What if yours was the ONLY airplane fly able would they lose two other charters over it ?
 
Art VanDelay said:
Doesn't matter - the manager kept pointing to a sign that said they could refuse service to anyone.
Click to expand...
In that case, I will never go to Subway again.

Of course, I have not been in a Subway in about 30 years anyway. Publix makes much better subs.
 
EppyGA said:
Do not overbook. If someone bought a ticket and does not show for the flight tough luck on them, no refund or booking a later flight on that ticket.
Click to expand...

Winner!

The airlines are couching no shows as a problem. What they really are is an opportunity to double dip. Hence the overbooking.
 
Art VanDelay said:
What if there were NO other aircraft ? What if yours was the ONLY airplane fly able would they lose two other charters over it ?
Click to expand...
I'm sure they would have. They would have found another company to do the charters. This was a common occurrence when one of our airplanes had a maintenance problem and there was no way we could do the charter because of lack of aircraft or crew.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
And United's lawyers will have a field day showing you that boarding can be defined as the period in which boarding occurs, up until the door is closed.
Click to expand...
attorneys will argue about the definition of boarding (does that definition exist anywhere?), but I am pretty sure the way the whole situation unfolded, UA will settle outside court, and their lousy so called apology from the CEO is not helping either.
 
JOhnH said:
In that case, I will never go to Subway again.

Of course, I have not been in a Subway in about 30 years anyway. Publix makes much better subs.
Click to expand...

You can't tell me you've never seen a sign in place of business that says "we have the right to refuse service to anyone at any time". They're all over the place, hell there's probably even one in Publix !
 
Art VanDelay said:
What if there were NO other aircraft ? What if yours was the ONLY airplane fly able would they lose two other charters over it ?
Click to expand...
I have no doubt that a charter flight would have been available. In the obscure chance that wasn't available, I'll bet that United has hundreds of pilots (with commercial certificates) that own 6 seat airplanes that could have flown them. Or has been said before, Uber.
And I bet that if they offered cash instead of stupid vouchers, and maybe for a few bucks more, and a hotel (with more than one-star), someone would have taken them up on it.
 
Everskyward said:
I'm sure they would have. They would have found another company to do the charters. This was a common occurrence when one of our airplanes had a maintenance problem.
Click to expand...

And is this charter company still in business ? Because guess what - airlines run on too thin of margins to stay in business if they cancelled two other flights due to maintenance.
 
All those alternatives means of travel are possible but we don't know the condition of the crew. Maybe they had an early day and needed to get on the flight due to 117 rest requirements.
 
Art VanDelay said:
You can't tell me you've never seen a sign in place of business that says "we have the right to refuse service to anyone at any time". They're all over the place, hell there's probably even one in Publix !
Click to expand...
I had that sign in my business. And I actually had cause to use it. Keyword being "cause". The people I ejected gave me cause to eject them. What did this Asian Doctor do to deserve this, rather than resist AFTER THE FACT?
 
Art VanDelay said:
You can't tell me you've never seen a sign in place of business that says "we have the right to refuse service to anyone at any time". They're all over the place, hell there's probably even one in Publix !
Click to expand...

...and United decided to exercise that right...and they are paying the price for how they exercised it.
 
JOhnH said:
I have no doubt that a charter flight would have been available. In the obscure chance that wasn't available, I'll bet that United has hundreds of pilots (with commercial certificates) that own 6 seat airplanes that could have flown them. Or has been said before, Uber.
And I bet that if they offered cash instead of stupid vouchers, and maybe for a few bucks more, and a hotel (with more than one-star), someone would have taken them up on it.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute......your keen business acumen is showing you are a former airline president aren't you ?

SERIOUSLY ?????
Maybe take a minute and look at what you just wrote. Maybe even think about deleting it ?
 
Art VanDelay said:
You can't tell me you've never seen a sign in place of business that says "we have the right to refuse service to anyone at any time". They're all over the place, hell there's probably even one in Publix !
Click to expand...

Then refuse service BEFORE I pay.
 
Art VanDelay said:
And is this charter company still in business ? Because guess what - airlines run on too thin of margins to stay in business if they cancelled two other flights due to maintenance.
Click to expand...
Yes they are still in business because they know enough not to **** off passengers. There's no way they would have even considered bumping a passenger for parts. If they did that it would probably be the last time they saw that customer.
 
Shawn said:
...and United decided to exercise that right...and they are paying the price for how they exercised it.
Click to expand...
Yep, and let that be a lesson to you - whatever you do don't call the cops because if they're a little too aggressive ITS GONNA BE ALL YOUR FAULT. Right ?
 
Art VanDelay said:
In point of fact NONE OF THAT MATTERS. If you're asked to leave private property you have to GO - plain and simple.

Funny did anyone notice this was a black cop and a white person ? Wonder how bigger this would have been if it had been the other way around ????
Click to expand...

how is this private property when u use it commercially and people pay to get in?
 
Shawn said:
...and United decided to exercise that right...and they are paying the price for how they exercised it.
Click to expand...
It looks to me like they are paying the price for the actions of a security officer who was not one of their employees.
 
MadseasoN said:
Winner!

The airlines are couching no shows as a problem. What they really are is an opportunity to double dip. Hence the overbooking.
Click to expand...

Uh it's not at all about double dipping, several replies have addressed that red herring.
 
MadseasoN said:
Winner!

The airlines are couching no shows as a problem. What they really are is an opportunity to double dip. Hence the overbooking.
Click to expand...

Again, this was NOT an overbooking issue.
 
Everskyward said:
Yes they are still in business because they know enough not to **** off passengers. There's no way they would have even considered bumping a passenger for parts. If they did that it would probably be the last time they saw that passenger.
Click to expand...
I guess they're hooked up to an endless supply of money than.

I wouldn't expect ANY airline to potentially cancel two downline flights thus causing chaos with two plane loads of passengers over just one passenger - you don't need an MBA to see that.
 
dmspilot said:
Uh it's not at all about double dipping, several replies have addressed that red herring.
Click to expand...

The airline is hedging on people not showing up. Double dipping in some cases.

The rule should be - you don't show then you lose your airfare. Problem fixed.
 
Palmpilot said:
It looks to me like they are paying the price for the actions of a security officer who was not one of their employees.
Click to expand...

I would argue they are paying the price because they called to cops to solve their mismanagement issues and throwing the guy off the plane indiscriminately and forcibly for which he paid to be there.

There is little doubt in my mind that the airline was indeed within their "legal authority"...does not at all make their action and methods right by any means.
 
Art VanDelay said:
I guess they're hooked up to an endless supply of money than.

I wouldn't expect ANY airline to potentially cancel two downline flights thus causing chaos with two plane loads of passengers over just one passenger - you don't need an MBA to see that.
Click to expand...

But he SAT DOWN!!!
 
Art VanDelay said:
Wait a minute......your keen business acumen is showing you are a former airline president aren't you ?

SERIOUSLY ?????
Maybe take a minute and look at what you just wrote. Maybe even think about deleting it ?
Click to expand...
Are you saying that only airline presidents have keen business acumen?

I appreciate sarcasm as much as the next guy, and if you show me where I am wrong, I may retract my statement. But I see not reason to delete anything.
 
I'm under the impression that denied boarding is not uncommon, but that for it to be violent is VERY uncommon. So can anyone explain how the airline or the crew could have known that it would turn out that way?
 
Captain said:
Again, this was NOT an overbooking issue.
Click to expand...

I know what the issue was. They wanted to eject paying passengers to make room for United employees. Regardless, this flight was overbooked as they all are. If that weren't the case then there would have been empty seats.
 
Palmpilot said:
It looks to me like they are paying the price for the actions of a security officer who was not one of their employees.
Click to expand...
The CEO (with all his wonderful business acumen) could have defused this quickly. Instead he fanned the flames and made it worse.
And hey were airport security.
 
MadseasoN said:
I know what the issue was. They wanted to eject paying passengers to make room for United employees. Regardless, this flight was overbooked as they all are. If that weren't the case then there would have been empty seats.
Click to expand...

Maybe they should just not sell any tickets. Then all the seats would be available.
 
JOhnH said:
Are you saying that only airline presidents have keen business acumen?

I appreciate sarcasm as much as the next guy, and if you show me where I am wrong, I may retract my statement. But I see not reason to delete anything.
Click to expand...
Really ?
Ok no airline can just call up their pilots and get them to fly pax in their personal aircraft. Ok -? The fact that you would even suggest that is little ridiculous.
 
Art VanDelay said:
I guess they're hooked up to an endless supply of money than.
Click to expand...
No, but they understand that their reputation is valuable, and they can look beyond the immediate cash flow.

Art VanDelay said:
I wouldn't expect ANY airline to potentially cancel two downline flights thus causing chaos with two plane loads of passengers over just one passenger - you don't need an MBA to see that.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't expect many charters companies to bump passengers in order to fly their own parts, even if it means having to sub out two other charters.
 
Everskyward said:
No, but they understand that their reputation is valuable, and they can look beyond the immediate cash flow.

I wouldn't expect many charters companies to bump passengers in order to fly their own parts, even if it means having to sub out two other charters.
Click to expand...

Charter and airline are different in that regard. In fact, you could charter a UAL flight and be sure none of your passengers will be bumped. There will be zero chance of employees dead heading on your UAL charter. But this wasn't a charter flight so there were dead heading employees.
 
Everskyward said:
No, but they understand that their reputation is valuable, and they can look beyond the immediate cash flow.

I wouldn't expect many charters companies to bump passengers in order to fly their own parts, even if it means having to sub out two other charters.
Click to expand...
Well that's all very congenial and sounds lovely. But simply stated you can't stay in business if you choose to peeve 300 hundred of your customers off to prevent peeving just one. I thought I made that clear earlier but maybe not.
 
Art VanDelay said:
Well that's all very congenial and sounds lovely.
Click to expand...
That's why people who can afford it charter and don't fly on the airlines...
Art VanDelay said:
But simply stated you can't stay in business if you choose to peeve 300 hundred of your customers off to prevent peeving just one. I thought I made that clear earlier but maybe not.
Click to expand...
But they could have offered other passengers more in vouchers, or better yet cash, and there would have been takers. No need to force this one individual off the airplane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top