United Airlines customer service

[Clark1961]

Maybe there weren't any other reasonable choices (in the eyes of United). From what I hear, when they kick people off, they do it by who checked in last, who has the least status, who paid the least. The doctor may have just had unfortunate timing.

Fortunately there are other eyes than United's in this world. Perhaps they will take this lesson to heart as indicated by today's words from the CEO. Perhaps not.

You asked why a physician might be given consideration. I responded based on my experiences with health care providers. Other posters have mentioned situations which might reasonably give other passengers priority. Ignoring the human side and strictly following procedure lead to this debacle. Do you really want to support the practices used to date?

I certainly understand why particular procedures might be in place but there must be flexibility in a common carrier's response to a self inflicted problem.

 

[NoHeat]

One impression from this whole episode is that in the airline industry, management despises customers, and will only pretend otherwise if CEOs are humiliated publicly.

Oscar Munoz was humiliated publicly, so now on cue he pretends to care about customers ... a little.

 

[Palmpilot]

Yes. The dip in stock price was negligible. Of course, even a small number multiplied by 315 million will be a big number, but stocks go up and down more than that for a lot of reasons....

I agree. I think the real reason for the change in the way he's handling it is the magnitude of the PR disaster.

 

[orange]

I know that United has red-eye flights and but I heard they now offer black-eye flights.

 

[wsuffa]

They know the conditions of their coach flights. They don't care. It's all units and bottom line to them. Look at DUI Dougie (AA) and his track record at USAir. Regional contract stooges. When things flare up, they have to react politically, but they still hedge their bets that most of the time the denizens board and suffer through steerage class obediently as we're conditioned to, judging by calls to authority in many of the responses to this event.

The problem for legacies like United, is that having to deal with these domestic riff raff flights hurts their intl marquee. Spirit, Allegiant and Southwest don't have that opportunity cost by comparison. Add a sense of anti-Asian racism (legitimate or perceived) in their Pacific market, and a higher quality product offered by ME3 airlines being bankrolled at a loss by oil-rich despots, and you're between a rock and a hard place.

People should just give up the pretenses. The airline travel experience is a drag, and you pay a premium for it. Avoid as much as possible. I say again, most airline pylets privately admit they'd fly boxes if it wasn't for the schedules.

Remember that UA's president, Scott Kirby, came from AA and worked with Doug at America Worst.

 

[weilke]

Whatever happened to 'fly the friendly skies' ?

 

[CMongoose]

I should have said, passengers have no rights above what is in the contract of carriage .

I'm reasonably sure their constitutional rights are not affected just because they are traveling on a privately owned aircraft? I'm not a lawyer though, so I'm sure someone will correct me if i'm wrong.

 

[weilke]

I know that United has red-eye flights and but I heard they now offer black-eye flights.

Local drunk got arrested for trespass and ended up with two black eyes in the process. One of the first comments on the article with the mugshot was 'should have taken southwest'.

 

[Silvaire]

At least the whole episode is generating some first class humor and then there are the promotions - if you download United's new mobile app with the upgraded drag and drop features they will give you a free concussion on your next flight.

 

[Fearless Tower]

View attachment 52721 UAL has E-170's on the property??

I know, it's all in the paint job.

As has been mentioned already, the aircraft was operated by Republic, but Republic does not have its own gate agents. The Gate Agents (the ones running the boarding and the ones who called the cops) were 100% United employees.

 

[SoonerAviator]

I'm reasonably sure their constitutional rights are not affected just because they are traveling on a privately owned aircraft? I'm not a lawyer though, so I'm sure someone will correct me if i'm wrong.

Well, you don't have a Constitutional right to a seat on an aircraft, whether you paid for it or not. You are subject to the airlines' rules, his Constitutional rights were never violated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fearless Tower]

Remember that UA's president, Scott Kirby, came from AA and worked with Doug at America Worst.

Hey now, America West was actually a pretty decent airline, until dumbass Doug started buying up failing carriers and created the miserable mess that exists today.

Seriously, it is a race to the bottom for the majors.

 

[ejensen]

Maybe there weren't any other reasonable choices (in the eyes of United). From what I hear, when they kick people off, they do it by who checked in last, who has the least status, who paid the least. The doctor may have just had unfortunate timing.

And of course the crew or gate agents couldn't exercise any judgement? I heard a computer picked the lucky people

 

[mscard88]

Too soon?

 

[JOhnH]

I heard the CEO said something like "we have to give the personnel the tools to do the job; more authority, more leeway, more training, more common sense."

How do you give an employee more "common sense", besides firing the ones that don't have enough?

 

[jordane93]

And of course the crew or gate agents couldn't exercise any judgement? I heard a computer picked the lucky people

Clearly they couldn't exercise any judgement or they wouldn't be in this mess

 

[wsuffa]

Hey now, America West was actually a pretty decent airline, until dumbass Doug started buying up failing carriers and created the miserable mess that exists today.

Seriously, it is a race to the bottom for the majors.

Kirby was Doug's henchman at America West. And my experiences on the airline were not as good as yours.... Though it didn't fall as far as Piedmont did after they became part of USAir, now American.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Kirby was Doug's henchman at America West. And my experiences on the airline were not as good as yours.... Though it didn't fall as far as Piedmont did after they became part of USAir, now American.

HP did have some rough years, but they were on an upswing when Parker started getting greedy. HP saved my butt a few times when SWA left me hanging.

This latest merger is just a complete mess. The American employees were miserable and approaching a point of almost wanting AMR to fail. So what did ole Doug do when he took over? They adopted American's way of doing business.

Now everyone at that airline is miserable.

 

[wsuffa]

HP did have some rough years, but they were on an upswing when Parker started getting greedy. HP saved my butt a few times when SWA left me hanging.

This latest merger is just a complete mess. The American employees were miserable and approaching a point of almost wanting AMR to fail. So what did ole Doug do when he took over? They adopted American's way of doing business.

Now everyone at that airline is miserable.

I always though of AA as the Chevrolet of the airline world. Most of my miles are on Delta, but I flew AA enough to know that it's worse now since Parker took over.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I always though of AA as the Chevrolet of the airline world. Most of my miles are on Delta, but I flew AA enough to know that it's worse now since Parker took over.

One little historical tidbit that I just learned was Parker apparently started at AA working under Crandall.

 

[dmspilot]

One little historical tidbit that I just learned was Parker apparently started at AA working under Crandall.

Did Doug Parker run over your dog or something? You never pass up an opportunity to slam him. Seems like you have an axe to grind.

 

[CMongoose]

Well, you don't have a Constitutional right to a seat on an aircraft, whether you paid for it or not. You are subject to the airlines' rules, his Constitutional rights were never violated.

nt

Good point, I was more responding to the "you have no rights on an aircraft, period", not really suggesting that those rights were violated in this case.

I don't think my question was about whether they could deny his right to board, more whether they had the right to assault him to give up that seat? Does that make sense?

 

[SoonerAviator]

nt

Good point, I was more responding to the "you have no rights on an aircraft, period", not really suggesting that those rights were violated in this case.

I don't think my question was about whether they could deny his right to board, more whether they had the right to assault him to give up that seat? Does that make sense?

Understood, but when given instructions to deplane by the crew, Federal law requires that you do so. The good Dr decided he didn't want to comply, which then makes this no different from that aspect than any other unruly pax who gets tossed off of a flight. Should it have been handled better by security? Absolutely. Does that absolve the Dr of his actions and the resulting injuries? Not a chance. Everyone is to blame. The Dr played his hand and security called his bluff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Clark1961]

Understood, but when given instructions to deplane by the crew, Federal law requires that you do so. The good Dr decided he didn't want to comply, which then makes this no different from that aspect than any other unruly pax who gets tossed off of a flight. Should it have been handled better by security? Absolutely. Does that absolve the Dr of his actions and the resulting injuries? Not a chance. Everyone is to blame. The Dr played his hand and security called his bluff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you sure those instructions were valid and all terms of the contract of carriage were complied with? Did the ASO assure themselves that all terms of the contract were complied with before inserting themselves in a civil dispute? Disagreement does not equal unruly. The airline is bound by law as a common carrier and must act within the law. In this case it is not clear that they did so.

 

[Palmpilot]

This thread seems to be going in circles!

 

[mtuomi]

I always though of AA as the Chevrolet of the airline world. Most of my miles are on Delta, but I flew AA enough to know that it's worse now since Parker took over.

For a frequent flyer with OW status, AA is actually pretty good even in coach. Free food/drinks, free MCE seating etc. United gives non-UA Star Golds nada, zilch, zero, nothing.

 

[RJM62]

Hey now, America West was actually a pretty decent airline, until dumbass Doug started buying up failing carriers and created the miserable mess that exists today.

Seriously, it is a race to the bottom for the majors.

That's quite literally true.

Before deregulation, routes, fares, and fees (of which there were very few) had to be approved by CAB. As a result, most airlines flying a particular route charged the same or nearly the same fares and collected the same or nearly the same fees. That left things like customer service, on-time performance, and the quality of the in-flight experience as the only areas in which airlines differed from each other, and therefore the only bases for competition.

I remember a few flights I took on People Express back in the early 1980's when I lived in Syracuse. I used them only when I couldn't get a seat on another carrier because the PE experience sucked so badly. Usually I would take them to the nearest point where I could connect to literally any other airline for the rest of my trip. But in retrospect, the PE experience was actually better than that of the major carriers today. With the exception of paying for your ticket on the airplane (which would be impossible anyway nowadays), all the things they did that other carriers ridiculed have become standard practice in the industry.

Nowadays it's all about finding the lowest fare for most travelers, and they get what they pay for.

Rich

 

[Half Fast]

The Dr played his hand and security called his bluff.

...and the doctor is about to collect a very large pot.

 

[mscard88]

 

[Caramon13]

...and the doctor is about to collect a very large pot.

That's how it works in 'Murica. You can be a complete jerk and social media will still earn you a huge paycheck. The good Dr. should be sending all those people who captured his tantrum on video a part of the payout. If not for them he'd be getting a big fat nothing..

 

[SoonerAviator]

Are you sure those instructions were valid and all terms of the contract of carriage were complied with? Did the ASO assure themselves that all terms of the contract were complied with before inserting themselves in a civil dispute? Disagreement does not equal unruly. The airline is bound by law as a common carrier and must act within the law. In this case it is not clear that they did so.

The aircraft is not the proper venue to have that discussion. Deplane, then have the "disagreement". Throwing a tantrum like a toddler may have worked this time due to social media outrage, but it won't happen for the next guy who does it. They'll just deplane entirely, then re-board the passengers again while denying the randomly-chosen few out in the terminal.

 

[jsstevens]

[snip]
Nowadays it's all about finding the lowest fare for most travelers, and they get what they pay for.

Rich

And that's the deal and the airlines know it. As much as people whine about the experience, they still choose carriers by doing a web search on lowest fare. Why did American (and the other carriers) introduce a fare which charges extra for carry on? Because the published fare would be lower and folks choose it. Heck, I'm the same way. When I needed to fly my wife, daughter and myself to Philadelphia I did a web search on fares and chose Frontier. What I didn't count on was my daughter had to check a bag. By the time that became apparent the price for checked bags had gone up (closer to departure time it goes up, by it at the airport it goes up more). Once all that happened, it would have been cheaper flying Southwest (which I like). But i had already made my choice based on published price. And that's how the overwhelming majority of the flying public does it. Even for business. Heck DFARs require it. So even my business travel is usually constrained that way.

John

 

[deonb]

The aircraft is not the proper venue to have that discussion. Deplane, then have the "disagreement".

Civil acts of disobedience is how you get a system changed. And this one paid off:

"Munoz also said United already has decided it will no longer call on law enforcement to remove passengers from oversold flights once on board.
To remove a booked, paid, seating passenger, we can't do that"

So this won't happen again, and any action that even resembles this in the future will get them skewered in the media. That's a good thing. We need more people to stand up for, if not our rights, but what our rights SHOULD be.

A few more doctor's like this and the airlines may even be able to reach Greyhounds' level of service one day! (Sadly this isn't a sarcastic comment - Greyhound is rated higher in customer satisfaction than all of the U.S. domestic airlines).

 

[bflynn]

Civil acts of disobedience is how you get a system changed. And this one paid off:

"Munoz also said United already has decided it will no longer call on law enforcement to remove passengers from oversold flights once on board.
To remove a booked, paid, seating passenger, we can't do that"

So this won't happen again, and any action that even resembles this in the future will get them skewered in the media. That's a good thing. We need more people to stand up for, if not our rights, but what our rights SHOULD be.

To be clear, he was not making an act of civil disobedience. He wanted to go home and had the irrational idea that if he protested enough, they would pick someone else. He was wrong.

What I expect will happen now is that they'll just deplane everyone. It will take two hours and maybe you'll get home that night. On the other hand, maybe the pilots will time out and they'll cancel the flight. You can wait in a line with 80 other people waiting to get rebooked next Thursday because with all the airlines running so close to capacity, that's the next empty flight out. You know, because you don't want them to do that overbooking thing....

UAL stock is exactly where it was 5 days ago and where it was a month ago. I'm a little disappointed, I was going to buy it if it went down enough.

 

[Mike Smith]

The aircraft is not the proper venue to have that discussion. Deplane, then have the "disagreement". Throwing a tantrum like a toddler may have worked this time due to social media outrage, but it won't happen for the next guy who does it. They'll just deplane entirely, then re-board the passengers again while denying the randomly-chosen few out in the terminal.

You are 100% correct about this, the airplane is not the place to have this discussion, the airlines should have had this handled long before boarding. Deplaning is exactly what should and probably will happen in the future. If this had happened in the terminal, him being angry about being bumped, he would have huffed and puffed and been on his way, the plane, passengers and the other crew would have been happy as clams. No one should ever be dragged off of an airplane unless they ACTIVELY did something to be ejected. I am not unsympathetic to the airline for needing to relocate the crew, nor that they needed to bump some passengers, but anyone defending the way this went down......c'mon man?

 

[Mike Smith]

To be clear, he was not making an act of civil disobedience. He wanted to go home and had the irrational idea that if he protested enough, they would pick someone else. He was wrong.

What I expect will happen now is that they'll just deplane everyone. It will take two hours and maybe you'll get home that night. On the other hand, maybe the pilots will time out and they'll cancel the flight. You can wait in a line with 80 other people waiting to get rebooked next Thursday because with all the airlines running so close to capacity, that's the next empty flight out. You know, because you don't want them to do that overbooking thing....

UAL stock is exactly where it was 5 days ago and where it was a month ago. I'm a little disappointed, I was going to buy it if it went down enough.

Or maybe the airlines will get this figured out and have it taken care of before they board.....wouldn't that make more sense? Deny boarding??? Im ok with that, dragging someone off the plane? Nope. Yeah, I know it is basically the same outcome.

 

[deonb]

As much as people whine about the experience, they still choose carriers by doing a web search on lowest fare. Why did American (and the other carriers) introduce a fare which charges extra for carry on? Because the published fare would be lower and folks choose it.

The carriers are not doing enough of a job to differentiate their service. In other industries it's not always the lowest price that wins. There are plenty of places with a Costco right next to a Wallmart, and Costco makes more money per employee and per square foot than Wallmart does. (Same if you compare Costco against Sam's Club). There's enough that differentiate the two for someone to pick one or the other. And it's great that they both exist.

But not sure most people can tell the difference between Spirit and e.g. Virgin when it comes to economy class. It's going to suck no matter what. Heck, the average seat on Spirit is bigger than the average seat on Virgin. So what do you pay for?

Friendlier staff? Most people knows that's luck of the draw.
Better entertainment? Your iPad will work just fine.
Better meals? When the best meal anybody has ever been served in economy was worse than the worse meal at McDonalds.

So everybody just bites their tongue, know that it's going to be the 4 worse hours they're going to spend this year no matter what, and pick whichever airline is able to conceal their fares the best on the web site.

 

[deonb]

What I expect will happen now is that they'll just deplane everyone.

Would love to see that happen, with cellphone video of an entire plane getting deboarded and Munoz's words superimposed on it:
"To remove a booked, paid, seating passenger, we can't do that"

Sooo... good luck with that.

That PR battle is going to cost them a lot more to fight than for the few times when this is truly needed to just keep raising the price until someone willingly gets off. The far majority of overbooking can still be handled before the gate. Or gasp - sell overbooked tickets as standby.

 

[JOhnH]

What I expect will happen now is that they'll just deplane everyone. It will take two hours and maybe you'll get home that night. On the other hand, maybe the pilots will time out and they'll cancel the flight. You can wait in a line with 80 other people waiting to get rebooked next Thursday because with all the airlines running so close to capacity, that's the next empty flight out. You know, because you don't want them to do that overbooking thing....

Wouldn't it make more sense just to raise the compensation a little to entice volunteers? How much would it cost in lost time, employee overtime and scheduling costs to deplane and reboard? I have been on several flights where they were asking for volunteers and raising the comp until I was almost ready to volunteer. But someone usually volunteered before me. And there were other times where if they forced me off the plane and made me wait an extra day, I would have rioted and sued.

UAL stock is exactly where it was 5 days ago and where it was a month ago. I'm a little disappointed, I was going to buy it if it went down enough.

Me too!

 

[Clark1961]

The aircraft is not the proper venue to have that discussion. Deplane, then have the "disagreement". Throwing a tantrum like a toddler may have worked this time due to social media outrage, but it won't happen for the next guy who does it. They'll just deplane entirely, then re-board the passengers again while denying the randomly-chosen few out in the terminal.

There was no toddler tantrum. There was a refusal to leave by an otherwise well behaved, ticketed and boarded passenger. This isn't a situation where United can just say it's their sandbox and they get to say who plays there. There is a contract in place and both sides have to abide by the contract or face the consequences. In this case I believe the passenger was supposed to be given written notice of his contractual rights when United demanded he leave the aircraft. I have not seen anything which suggests the notice was given.

The airline operates under federal regulations as a common carrier. If they don't want to comply with the terms required by law then they need to either lobby to have the laws changed or get into a different business or change their tune. The CEO has publicly said they will change their tune. They have a long way to go based on the responses from airline pilots and other folks posted here.