United Airlines customer service

JOhnH said:
They said they offered to pay the difference on the spot, but nobody does that. I doubt there is even a process for it.
Click to expand...
There is! The hand-held devices the F/As now carry allow them to sell E+ upgrades on board.
 
Yes, you can upgrade on United after you've boarded if there are open seats. However, it wouldn't surprise me if they had already been warned a few times before being told they had to leave, at which point they probably offered to pay for the upgrade.
 
So, this is apparently a legit job opening at United as of April 12th.

889a9a36f852afc126dd568e19e9171f.jpg
 
Love Mike Rowe's (host of Dirty Jobs) response:

"Like most people, I don’t enjoy seeing passengers dragged down the aisle of a commercial airplane, limp and lifeless. Nor do I enjoy seeing them hogtied at 37,000 feet, (which I’ve also had the occasion to witness – in person – and more than once.)

These kinds of episodes are always disturbing, but what bothered me initially about this video was not just the violence, it was the obvious ease with which it could have been avoided. A little common-sense and the freedom to apply it could have resolved this situation in a dozen different ways. Last night however, I watched a tape of United’s CEO, Oscar Munoz, as he attempted to walk back some earlier comments. He told ABC news that the passenger in question – David Dao - “did nothing wrong.”

Now, I’m no longer disturbed, Donna. I’m merely terrified.

Is Oscar serious? God, I hope not. I hope he’s just doing the typical “over-apology” thing CEO’s do when their “crisis experts” tell them they’ve got to say whatever it takes to win back the public trust. I hope he’s just reacting to some lawyer who told him before the interview, “for the love of God, Oscar, don’t blame the victim!” Well, Oscar certainly didn’t blame the victim. But in the process of finding him blameless, he suggested that millions of passengers are under no obligation to follow a direct command from United employees. And that’s a hell of a lot more disturbing than a beat-down in the main cabin.

Here’s the thing. It’s easy to forget that we have no right to fly. Buying a ticket doesn’t change that. So, when we board the plane, we have no right to remain there. We can be legally removed if we’re too drunk, too loud, too creepy, too suspicious, or too big for the seat. We can be removed if we stink. We can be removed if we’re insubordinate. We can be removed for whatever reason the airline deems necessary.

Obviously, airlines don’t like to remind us of such things, because it makes them sound mean. So they bury the truth in the fine print of a 37,000-word contract, and tell us how much they love us in sappy commercials and mandatory safety briefings that try oh-so-hard to make us smile. But the facts are clear: if you want to travel by air, you must agree to do what you’re told. If you don’t, you subject yourself to fine, arrest, constraint, forcible removal, and/or a permanent ban from the friendly skies. It’s all there in the fine print.

Personally, I support this policy. I support it because I don’t want to fly across the country in a steel tube filled with people who get to decide which rules they will follow and which they will ignore. I’ve been on too many flights with too many angry people to worry about the specific circumstances of their outrage, or the details of why they took it upon themselves to ignore a direct command. A plane is not a democracy, and the main cabin is no place to organize a sit-in. The main cabin is a place to follow orders.

Moving forward, what matters most to me is a heightened respect for the rules, and a heightened respect for the people who enforce them. Obviously, the policies that led to this particular fiasco need to change. But the greatest enemy we face in the friendly skies is not bad service – it’s anarchy. And I have no interest in flying with anyone who doesn’t follow orders. Do you? Does anyone?

Let me say it again. United made a business decision that was unbelievably, incomprehensibly stupid, and now they’re paying for it. (Seriously guys – what did you think was going to happen with two hundred citizen-reporters armed with cameras?) Point is, this is how the market is supposed to work. Their stock is down hundreds of millions of dollars, their customers are flying on other carriers, and according to CNN, they just might be the most hated company in the world today. But that doesn’t mean Dr. Dao “did nothing wrong.” He did. He ignored a direct order from a United representative while sitting on a United plane. He was told to leave and he refused to do so – multiple times by multiple people – all with the proper authority.

Does that mean he deserved a beating? Of course not. But it doesn’t mean he's innocent. Like the airline, Dr. Dao had options. He had recourse. He could have deplaned and pled his case to the gate agent. But he didn’t. He chose resistance. That was dumb. United chose confrontation. That was dumber. Now, here we are. Dumb and Dumber.

As for your question, Donna – if I were Oscar Munoz, I’d take a page from Charlotte McCourt, the 11-year old Girl Scout who became famous on this page for telling the truth about how Girl Scout cookies actually tasted, and then, wound up selling more Girl Scout cookies than anyone else in the world. First, I’d stop apologizing for the way in which that passenger was removed, and start apologizing for being cheap and short-sighted. Then, I’d apologize for valuing rules more than common sense. Then, if United still insists on overbooking future flights, I’d publicly empower my employees to offer any amount of money to entice people off of an over-sold plane. Whatever it takes – no cap, no limit.

But through it all, I’d make damn sure the world understood that passengers on my airline still need to follow the orders given by my people - even if they think those orders are stupid or unfair. And for that, I would make no apology whatsoever.

Finally, let me say to my many friends on the front line of the airline industry – flight attendants, pilots, gate agents, and those of you behind the counter - I appreciate what you do, sincerely, and I understand how difficult things are right now. Your jobs have become increasingly thankless over the years, even as they have become more critical. Thanks for your hard work.

Mike

PS. Oscar – I’ve prepared a new greeting for your pilots to read prior to take-off. I think it captures the kind of transparency many of your customers currently crave. Maybe one day, as I pull my seatbelt low and tight across my hips, I’ll get to hear it…

“Morning folks, and welcome aboard. This is your Captain speaking. I realize you paid a lot of money to rent the seat you’re currently occupying, but let’s be clear right from the get go – you have no right to be here. We’re glad that you are, but I don’t care how much you paid to fly with us today, or what you think you might be entitled to as a result. I’m in charge of this plane, and everyone on it. That includes you. So - if a flight attendant asks you to do something, don’t argue – just do it. We’ll try to make your flight as comfortable as possible, but make no mistake – your comfort is not our priority, and neither is your opinion about the decisions we make during the journey. As for safety, you’ll be pleased to know I have much to live for, and so does my co-pilot. So rest assured – we’ll be doing all we can up here to get ourselves back on the ground in one piece. That’s good news for the rest of you, assuming we can keep the main cabin attached to the cockpit. Finally, we value your business here at United, sincerely. And we appreciate the trust you’ve placed in us. But let’s not gild the lily. For the next few hours, we’re all in this together, so keep your hands to yourself, don’t get drunk, and listen to the flight attendants. In other words, try not to be an *******. I’ll see you on the ground...”

Now that’s an airline I could get behind! Who’s with me?

Mike"
 
SoonerAviator said:
...As for safety, you’ll be pleased to know I have much to live for, and so does my co-pilot. So rest assured – we’ll be doing all we can up here to get ourselves back on the ground in one piece. That’s good news for the rest of you, assuming we can keep the main cabin attached to the cockpit....
Click to expand...
And that right there is why I'll never set foot on either a pilotless or remotely-piloted airliner!
 
Mike Rowe has it all wrong. I read the COC, and the airline has the right to refuse to board him...but they didn't. They actually did board him, and he had done nothing wrong. He simply refused to exit the plane for no valid reason. Now beyond that point, yeah he was crazy...but they I disagree with Rowe's assertion that the airline had a right to throw him off after being boarded when he had done nothing out of the ordinary.
 
I usually agree with Mike Rowe, but I echo Gerhardt's comments here. The passenger did nothing that's covered under United's "reasons you can be removed from the aircraft" section. He was entirely within his rights to be there.
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
Bah. This was soo easily solvable. Pay market rate for a seat at the time of bumpage and you will ALWAYS have volunteers. By definition.
Click to expand...

Yep. But I've taken up offers of vouchers on two different occasions for giving up my seats. Never again at any price. The vouchers were basically worthless with so many blackout dates.
 
Katamarino said:
I usually agree with Mike Rowe, but I echo Gerhardt's comments here. The passenger did nothing that's covered under United's "reasons you can be removed from the aircraft" section. He was entirely within his rights to be there.
Click to expand...
I don't think that was necessarily the point that Mike Rowe was making. The aircraft cabin wasn't the place to be having that argument with the airline employees/security. I seriously doubt the Dr (or any passenger on that aircraft) knew the full extent of their "rights" under the CoC with United, so it's not as if this was a legal argument at that point in time. Either way, as Mike Rowe mentioned, the airline made terrible decisions and the whole thing was a debacle for United because people weren't allowed enough latitude per the company rules.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I don't think that was necessarily the point that Mike Rowe was making. The aircraft cabin wasn't the place to be having that argument with the airline employees/security. I seriously doubt the Dr (or any passenger on that aircraft) knew the full extent of their "rights" under the CoC with United, so it's not as if this was a legal argument at that point in time. Either way, as Mike Rowe mentioned, the airline made terrible decisions and the whole thing was a debacle for United because people weren't allowed enough latitude per the company rules.
Click to expand...
Problem is once you leave the cabin your power diminishes to zero.
 
I could pick a couple of nits, but in general, I agree. As for his parting shot of "Captain's Greeting", while I agree with the sentiment, he should take his own advice, the time for that conversation is before anyone is ever on the airplane, not in the cabin.
 
Gerhardt said:
Yep. But I've taken up offers of vouchers on two different occasions for giving up my seats. Never again at any price. The vouchers were basically worthless with so many blackout dates.
Click to expand...
I don't think worthless vouchers meets the definition of "Market Rate". "Market Rage" means the offer is acceptable to both sides. You got stuck a few times, but I don't think you now believe those vouchers were acceptable. It will take a better offer to constitute fair and equitable.
 
Gerhardt said:
I read the COC, and the airline has the right to refuse to board him...but they didn't. They actually did board him, and he had done nothing wrong. He simply refused to exit the plane for no valid reason.
Click to expand...
Oversales are covered by DOT regulation 14 CFR 250.

"Denied boarding" is a DOT term and is not restricted to passengers who have not yet boarded the airplane. The boarding process hasn't ended until the flight is closed out. Passengers can be "denied boarding" at any time.

The reason for 14 CFR 250 is to require that each airline have, and use, an established procedure/priority for handling oversales, that a call for volunteers (VBD) will be made, and to establish minimum compensation levels when an involuntary denied boarding (IDB) occurs. Your interpretation would create a loophole in the IDB priority order established under 14 CFR 250 negating exactly what the regulation is intending to establish.

If your interpretation was what was intended, the airline could get around it by deplaning everyone and handling the oversale in the gate area before reboarding. The only result would be increasing the delay by an additional 30 or 45 minutes.

In this incident, your interpretation also wouldn't apply because Dr. Dao deplaned himself. He, and his wife, volunteered on the airplane for $800 vouchers plus hotel. They exited the airplane and were in the gate area when he realised that the flight being offered wasn't until the following afternoon. At that time he ran back unto the airplane and into his previous seat without the agent's concurrence. This, IMO, was likely why the police were called as it was no longer about an IDB but a passenger who ran down the jetbridge on his own.
 
Gerhardt said:
Yep. But I've taken up offers of vouchers on two different occasions for giving up my seats. Never again at any price. The vouchers were basically worthless with so many blackout dates.
Click to expand...
I heard Ralph Nader on the radio saying cash is king (for the reasons you said) and that a gate agent with a stack of $100 bill would have solved the problem.
 
I'm reading 14CFR250 regarding denied boarding. I see a handful of definitions, but "denied boarding" isn't one of them. I also see a number of references to "in the event of an oversold flight..." which wasn't the case here. The flight wasn't oversold. The airline just chose to later add non-fare passengers and bump fare-paying passengers.
 
Gerhardt said:
I'm reading 14CFR250 regarding denied boarding. I see a handful of definitions, but "denied boarding" isn't one of them. I also see a number of references to "in the event of an oversold flight..." which wasn't the case here. The flight wasn't oversold. The airline just chose to later add non-fare passengers and bump fare-paying passengers.
Click to expand...
Ya just know that the airline's lawyer is going to say that the flight was oversold by 4 seats...
 
Gerhardt said:
The flight wasn't oversold. The airline just chose to later add non-fare passengers and bump fare-paying passengers.
Click to expand...
The flight was never overbooked but, as soon as the four must-rides were added, it became oversold.

Overbooked is when there are more confirmed reservations than seats.

Oversold is when there are more confirmed passengers at the gate at the cutoff time than there are seats.

A plain-English understanding of the terms alone doesn't convey the meanings as used in the industry. Same with "denied boarding".
 
Larry in TN said:
The flight was never overbooked but, as soon as the four must-rides were added, it became oversold.

Overbooked is when there are more confirmed reservations than seats.

Oversold is when there are more confirmed passengers at the gate at the cutoff time than there are seats.

A plain-English understanding of the terms alone doesn't convey the meanings as used in the industry. Same with "denied boarding".
Click to expand...
While the industry may have its own understanding of what denied boarding means, I believe from a legal perspective, unless this definition is spelled out in law, regulation, or the contract of carriage, the common common understanding of the term will apply (denied boarding=not allowed to get on the plane).
 
I'd be willing to bet a sixpack of decent IPA that if it ever goes to court, "denied boarding" is not considered what airlines consider it to be, but what the common understanding is (which is: once you are on your seat, you have boarded, and cannot be denied boarding at that point any more). The fact that there are separate reasons in the CoC for refusal of transport (which obviously apply after boarding - I don't think the idea is that you can be refused transport halfway by asking you to leave - immediately) support this opinion.
 
kkoran said:
While the industry may have its own understanding of what denied boarding means, I believe from a legal perspective, unless this definition is spelled out in law, regulation, or the contract of carriage, the common common understanding of the term will apply (denied boarding=not allowed to get on the plane).
Click to expand...
Case law would have to be reviewed to see what the courts have done in the past. And then the lawyers will still argue it because that's what they get paid to do.
 
kkoran said:
While the industry may have its own understanding of what denied boarding means, I believe from a legal perspective, unless this definition is spelled out in law, regulation, or the contract of carriage, the common common understanding of the term will apply (denied boarding=not allowed to get on the plane).
Click to expand...
The DOT wrote the regulation forty years ago. The DOT would provide a witness to testify how it is applied, and has been applied, over these past decades.

And again, all the airline would have to do is deplane and handle the oversale in the gate area. That is not the intent of the regulation.
 
Clark1961 said:
Case law would have to be reviewed to see what the courts have done in the past. And then the lawyers will still argue it because that's what they get paid to do.
Click to expand...
At least they get paid to argue... unlike us who do it for fun

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
WannFly said:
At least they get paid to argue... unlike us who do it for fun

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
No kiddin on the pay part. I've got a ringside seat watching an argument over whether or not electricity is a "good" as opposed to a service. Case law says it is a good so the judge told the lawyer "nope" on the claim it is a service after a day of testimony. Now the lawyer is arguing that the judge made the wrong decision so there will be another day of testimony to just to hear "nope" again. Lawyer laughs all the way to the bank since he doubled his billable to no advantage for his client.
 
This article was on the BBC site this day. It's about a 10-year-old traveling with his parents who was bumped by Air Canada.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39631049

I think if I were his parent, I would have told the airline, "No worries. You go ahead and take care of Cole. Chaperone him, feed him, put him up in a hotel overnight, make sure he washes behind his ears, and fly him as an UM to Costa Rica. We'll pick him up there." It would be interesting to see how Air Canada responded.

Rich
 
Gerhardt said:
Yep. But I've taken up offers of vouchers on two different occasions for giving up my seats. Never again at any price. The vouchers were basically worthless with so many blackout dates.
Click to expand...

I think of it like pulling a gun. You don't pull a gun unless it is serious, and if you do you have to break randy to shoot.

They should NEVER have "pulled that gun" on a person that hadn't done anything, at that stage before offering cash. Or worthless vouchers but in high enough denomination that they would gotten a volunteer.

You know, from passengers point of view, we've had enough. Let alone that it is the only industry that can sell their wares over one hundred percent. They sell the same ticket to several people, which wasn't even the issue here. But we know they do. And we all know that sitting at the gate waiting to board, we can still get bumped. But here is the thing, after all their customers have to put up with, getting there with huge margins, sercurity, often being treated poorly and no assurance really that you will get to your destination that day, ONCE you get into your seat, and comfort yourself appropriately, it should take an actual emergency to get bumped.

It is inhumane and over the limit. We all know that feeling when after all the stress of getting There, you finally sit in your seat, buckle in, and let out a sigh of relief.

United was terrible in what they did. Truly terrible. And the reason was even worse.
 
LongRoadBob said:
They sell the same ticket to several people, which wasn't even the issue here. But we know they do.
Click to expand...
I guess most (not all) people know the airlines overbook.

But suppose half the airlines overbooked and the other half didn't. The half the didn't overbook would have to raise their rates to maintain an equal margin.

If you could buy a ticket on airline A for $300, knowing they may overbook, or you could pay $320 on airline B, knowing they don't overbook, who do you think the majority of travelers would book with?
 
The airlines could do like other businesses do, if you don't cancel ahead of time by xxx hours, you get no refund. Problem solved, the never have to overbook. I admit that I am a skeptic, but I believe that the airlines do in fact sell some seats twice when people don't show.

"guess most (not all) people know the airlines overbook.

But suppose half the airlines overbooked and the other half didn't. The half the didn't overbook would have to raise their rates to maintain an equal margin.

If you could buy a ticket on airline A for $300, knowing they may overbook, or you could pay $320 on airline B, knowing they don't overbook, who do you think the majority of travelers would book with?"
edited to add quote
 
Mike Smith said:
The airlines could do like other businesses do, if you don't cancel ahead of time by xxx hours, you get no refund. Problem solved, the never have to overbook. I admit that I am a skeptic, but I believe that the airlines do in fact sell some seats twice when people don't show.

"guess most (not all) people know the airlines overbook.

But suppose half the airlines overbooked and the other half didn't. The half the didn't overbook would have to raise their rates to maintain an equal margin.

If you could buy a ticket on airline A for $300, knowing they may overbook, or you could pay $320 on airline B, knowing they don't overbook, who do you think the majority of travelers would book with?"
edited to add quote
Click to expand...

You do realize that not everyone misses their flight simply because they don't show up. Mis-connects happen all the time, which is one of many reasons airlines overbook.
 
JOhnH said:
I guess most (not all) people know the airlines overbook.

But suppose half the airlines overbooked and the other half didn't. The half the didn't overbook would have to raise their rates to maintain an equal margin.

If you could buy a ticket on airline A for $300, knowing they may overbook, or you could pay $320 on airline B, knowing they don't overbook, who do you think the majority of travelers would book with?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that is totally true, but that was not the point. We all know it is a pretty dirty play to do it, but they do it. But don't push it to removing paying customers that made it to their seat, didn't do anything wrong...at least until they pony up with a little of that extra cash they make off of double booking (they either take way more for a refundable ticket, or else they make double money) to offer to get volunteers.

It's a lot like fuel prices. When they tanked, lately, we saw no change in prices, or the add ons they work out, the tricks. You take all that trickery, we take all that, and all the ills of commercial air travel, and you gotta leave something like "we will do our absolute best to make sure IF you get to your seat and follow the rules we won't just drag you out" or take away that little bit of humanity that when a person gets there they can sigh, relax and know they will be flying if they don't make problems.
 
Last edited:
kkoran said:
I heard Ralph Nader on the radio saying cash is king (for the reasons you said) and that a gate agent with a stack of $100 bill would have solved the problem.
Click to expand...

The passengers on the flight that they interviewed after the fact said pretty much the same thing. They didn't want United Dollars, but they would have settled for cash.
 
LongRoadBob said:
Let alone that it is the only industry that can sell their wares over one hundred percent. They sell the same ticket to several people, which wasn't even the issue here.
Click to expand...
LongRoadBob said:
We all know it is a pretty dirty play to do it, but they do it.
Click to expand...
Are you kidding? You think the airline industry is the only industry that's allowed to overbook? Why do I have to wait in a doctor's waiting room until 2:45 when I have a 2:00 appointment? Because he overbooks his time. Why when I get to a restaurant for my reservation at 7:00, do I have to wait 30 minutes to be seated. Why isn't my table ready? Why is there someone sitting at the table I reserved at my reservation time? They overbook their tables.

Every industry that deals with capacity management, especially those who have a high probability for their customers to cancel at the last moment overbook to ensure best optimization of their resources. In fact, I'd say the airlines are the industry that has the most regulation about their overbooking procedures. There's even a poster here who sells "bandwidth" who wrote earlier that he overbooks his "bandwidth" to his customers. He stated that if all his customers wanted to use all the bandwidth available to them at the same time, he would not be able to provide it to them.
 
Not withstanding the post above, this is actually why I came to this thread to post... Now it's happening all over. This time American Airlines. What do you do now? You're the Captain. You make the call.
Do you allow the male passenger to fly, after what he does? Do you pull the FA off the flight? Do you pull both?


P.S. The backstory is the crying woman was told she could have her stroller on board. When it wouldn't fit in the overhead, it had to be gatechecked. Story gets hazy here but apparently, the FA "violently" took the stroller from the mother and in the process she was struck with the stroller. I heard an account the the FA was trying to get it unwedged from the overhead that the mother was trying to put it in, and it came out with some force and struck the mother accidentally. Of course, you never see the first 5 minutes of any of these situations. What I want to know is what you do with the male FA and the aggressive passenger.
 
Sluggo63 said:
Not withstanding the post above, this is actually why I came to this thread to post... Now it's happening all over. This time American Airlines. What do you do now? You're the Captain. You make the call.
Do you allow the male passenger to fly, after what he does? Do you pull the FA off the flight? Do you pull both?


P.S. The backstory is the crying woman was told she could have her stroller on board. When it wouldn't fit in the overhead, it had to be gatechecked. Story gets hazy here but apparently, the FA "violently" took the stroller from the mother and in the process she was struck with the stroller. I heard an account the the FA was trying to get it unwedged from the overhead that the mother was trying to put it in, and it came out with some force and struck the mother accidentally. Of course, you never see the first 5 minutes of any of these situations. What I want to know is what you do with the male FA and the aggressive passenger.
Click to expand...
I would "randomly" choose the jerk passenger and drag his ass kicking and screaming off the plane.
 
Last edited:
deonb said:
Do airlines not extend upgrades to people getting married anymore?

When I got married the first time, we got upgraded to Business class. When I got married the second time, they gate-assigned two rows of 4 interior seats to us (the type you can lift the handles up to sleep across).

Every other person I know off who got married also got upgraded. Is this a relic of the past?
Click to expand...

I've never heard of it.
 
kkoran said:
I heard Ralph Nader on the radio saying cash is king (for the reasons you said) and that a gate agent with a stack of $100 bill would have solved the problem.
Click to expand...

Nader is a buffoon.
 
Sluggo63 said:
Not withstanding the post above, this is actually why I came to this thread to post... Now it's happening all over. This time American Airlines. What do you do now? You're the Captain. You make the call.
Do you allow the male passenger to fly, after what he does? Do you pull the FA off the flight? Do you pull both?


P.S. The backstory is the crying woman was told she could have her stroller on board. When it wouldn't fit in the overhead, it had to be gatechecked. Story gets hazy here but apparently, the FA "violently" took the stroller from the mother and in the process she was struck with the stroller. I heard an account the the FA was trying to get it unwedged from the overhead that the mother was trying to put it in, and it came out with some force and struck the mother accidentally. Of course, you never see the first 5 minutes of any of these situations. What I want to know is what you do with the male FA and the aggressive passenger.
Click to expand...

The male pax had no right to interject himself into the situation and threatened the FA, he goes.
 
Sluggo63 said:
Are you kidding? You think the airline industry is the only industry that's allowed to overbook? Why do I have to wait in a doctor's waiting room until 2:45 when I have a 2:00 appointment? Because he overbooks his time. Why when I get to a restaurant for my reservation at 7:00, do I have to wait 30 minutes to be seated. Why isn't my table ready? Why is there someone sitting at the table I reserved at my reservation time? They overbook their tables.

Every industry that deals with capacity management, especially those who have a high probability for their customers to cancel at the last moment overbook to ensure best optimization of their resources. In fact, I'd say the airlines are the industry that has the most regulation about their overbooking procedures. There's even a poster here who sells "bandwidth" who wrote earlier that he overbooks his "bandwidth" to his customers. He stated that if all his customers wanted to use all the bandwidth available to them at the same time, he would not be able to provide it to them.
Click to expand...

You must be kidding, not me. Both of your examples are time based, where the needs of a patient, or a diner, are not uniform. Some patients end up having more time (some less) with the Doctor than anticipated. Some diners take longer than expected to eat and pay, and leave. But you still get to see the doctor, you still get to eat a meal, same day, near the same time. If you try to reserve or show up at a restaurant that is fully booked, they will tell you they won't be able to get you in. They don't take your order, and CHARGE you for the meal and then tell you to come back another day to eat it. If you try to make a doctors appointment and they are fully booked they tell you. If they let you "book" you might be delayed but you are assured you will eat, or in the case of the Doctor, be seen. That day. Your analogy would only work if they booked you knowing they couldn't see you, charged you for it, then let you show up and told you to go home. Is this really so hard? And there's that too...restaurants, doctors EVEN if they did (but they don't) you still could drive home and forget about it. Not so when you are stranded in another city, state, or country and told someone else is taking the seat you payed for.


You get bumped, and you may have to wait one or more days and travel is a lot more disconcerting when that happens. No other industry I can think of does what airlines do and it's legal. The plot of "the Producers" was conmen selling more than 100% interest in a play, then trying to find a dog of a play so no profits...and they went to jail.

Travel is far more critical. They sell some of the same seats twice. Taking money from both potential passengers. If a passenger that paid doesn't show up (their supposed reason for doing this) and has a non refundable ticket it's free cash. If the passenger does have a refundable ticket, the customer paid WAY more for it, they still give the seat to the other one and took enough from sucker #1 that they come out ahead. If both show up, one of them gets screwed. That is not ok, but somehow they get to do it. Which is why this incident was specially bad, it wasn't overbooked, but they decided to let their employees steal seats from paying passengers. They didn't even care to offer cash, and they took someone that made it through all the hurdles, got into his seat, did nothing to warrant expulsion, and told him to scre off.

If you don't see the problem with that I sure can't help you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top