United Airlines customer service

Story not reported:
No amount of United vouchers would entice a passenger to stay in Chicago one more day.
 
Art VanDelay said:
And your implication is that they directed the police to rough the guy up ?????

Do I have that correct ?
Click to expand...
No, you don not have that correct, and at this point I am beginning suspect you are just trolling. However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and provide an earnest response.

If the United employees told the officers that the passenger was subject to removal, the officers are likely to be in the clear, assuming they were acting pursuant to their honest, good-faith, and reasonable belief that the passenger was subject to removal. At this point, I have no reason to believe this was not the case with respect to the officers.

If the United employees told the officers that they had a passenger on the plane that they were not sure whether they had the right to bump him because [insert any one of the many reasons discussed upthread], and the officers proceeded to forcibly remove the passenger, the officers should consider requesting that their union provide them a lawyer.
 
Captain said:
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.
Click to expand...
Right, but according to @Art VanDelay, if the airline needed to fly parts on the charter they would bump one of the passengers to make the W&B work. I call BS on that.
 
masloki said:
Story not reported:
No amount of United vouchers would entice a passenger to stay in Chicago one more day.
Click to expand...

The problem with taking an overnight from United at ORD is that you never know whether they will actually hold their end of the deal and get you on the next flight.
 
JOhnH said:
The CEO (with all his wonderful business acumen) could have defused this quickly. Instead he fanned the flames and made it worse.
Click to expand...

:dunno:

And hey were airport security.
Click to expand...

In other words, not under control of the airline.
 
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...

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...

I'd like to see JOhnH post the bit about United getting one of their pilots to fly the crew in their personal plane on a pro pilot board like airlinepilotforums.com The response there would be entertaining beyond belief.
 
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...
Really? They don't get two fares for one seat. They get two fares for TWO seats, worst case scenario on two separate planes.
 
JOhnH said:
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.
Click to expand...
i think the CEO is a good friend of azblackbird :d:d
 
MadseasoN said:
The airline is hedging on people not showing up. Double dipping in some cases.
Click to expand...

That is NOT what happened here and, while double dipping happens sometimes, there are many other reasons that passengers get denied boarding. Did you not see the post about JetBlue having a policy of no overbooking yet having a high denied boarding rate?
 
Everskyward said:
Right, but according to @Art VanDelay, if the airline needed to fly parts on the charter they would bump one of the passengers to make the W&B work. I call BS on that.
Click to expand...
Parts were an EXAMPLE in this case as I understand it it was either maintenance personnel or a flight crew to fix or operate down line equipment - jeez, get with the program here.
 
Everskyward said:
Right, but according to @Art VanDelay, if the airline needed to fly parts on the charter they would bump one of the passengers to make the W&B work. I call BS on that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, parts never bump charter pax unless it's the Pax's parts. The decision to bump the parts or the pax lies exclusively with the paying party in charter.
 
Tummler said:
No, you don not have that correct, and at this point I am beginning suspect you are just trolling. However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and provide an earnest response.

If the United employees told the officers that the passenger was subject to removal, the officers are likely to be in the clear, assuming they were acting pursuant to their honest, good-faith, and reasonable belief that the passenger was subject to removal. At this point, I have no reason to believe this was not the case with respect to the officers.

If the United employees told the officers that they had a passenger on the plane that they were not sure whether they had the right to bump him because [insert any one of the many reasons discussed upthread], and the officers proceeded to forcibly remove the passenger, the officers should consider requesting that their union provide them a lawyer.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter - since 9/11 I can have a passenger removed if he looks at me cross eyed. If he then fails to follow commands from the police it just gets worse.

Your Honor, permission to treat this witness as hostile ;)
 
Last edited:
Art VanDelay said:
Wow !
Ok so all airline aircraft are public property in your mind ?
Click to expand...

you clearly dont get it. its not like your private property like your house. if you have a house and you rent it out, the renter has rights too. sure, you can come in one day and tell him.. dude get out, but there are agreements and stuff that are specifically there to save the renter (the renter will be given 2 months notice, unless he is selling drugs or whatever and/or making them on your property). if he is not, you cant call the cops and ask them to haul his behind out because u suddenly need to store 500 lbs of junk potato in your house.
same as Rule 21 (or 25 dunno), you can remove a passenger only under specific circumstances. just stating hey i dont like you wont gonna cut it. and you can defend them all day long, the point is UA messed up big time and i would love to see them pay hefty price because this could have been easily avoided if they cared a tiny bit about customer service. there are somethings you CAN do and there are other that you SHOULD do. this falls under CAN.
 
dmspilot said:
That is NOT what happened here and, while double dipping happens sometimes, there are many other reasons that passengers get denied boarding. Did you not see the post about JetBlue having a policy of no overbooking yet having a high denied boarding rate?
Click to expand...

#390
You're typing more than reading.

Rules for denied boarding should be the same as not showing up. Get your stuff straight before the flight or lose your fare. Not a reason to overbook the plane.
 
WannFly said:
you clearly dont get it. its not like your private property like your house. if you have a house and you rent it out, the renter has rights too. sure, you can come in one day and tell him.. dude get out, but there are agreements and stuff that are specifically there to save the renter (the renter will be given 2 months notice, unless he is selling drugs or whatever and/or making them on your property). if he is not, you cant call the cops and ask them to haul his behind out because u suddenly need to store 500 lbs of junk potato in your house.
same as Rule 21 (or 25 dunno), you can remove a passenger only under specific circumstances. just stating hey i dont like you wont gonna cut it. and you can defend them all day long, the point is UA messed up big time and i would love to see them pay hefty price because this could have been easily avoided if they cared a tiny bit about customer service. there are somethings you CAN do and there are other that you SHOULD do. this falls under CAN.
Click to expand...

And if the cops rough up your renter and somebody puts a video of it on Facebook - it's all your fault for calling the cops ?
 
So are there any airline pilots who see this situation as United in the wrong?

Truly curious. My emotional investment in this discussion is around the same as my emotional investment in [insert your favorite reality TV show]... Which is zero... But I'm gathering a clear divide between airline pilots, and the rest of us poor souls riding behind them.

I will reiterate, I was flying commercial, same day, same carrier. Had a good time. Will fly them again if situation dictates.

Don't see their handling of this situation as good, or even acceptable, though.
 
Art VanDelay said:
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.
Click to expand...
It was an option that could have been exercised by free thinking management. Now, I do admit to ignorance to their contract that may prohibit this. If you tell me that is the case, then I will withdraw that suggestion as an option. But I could come up with a dozen more options.
 
In the words of Chinese Dr. Dao, "cocaine is a hell of a drug"
 
Art VanDelay said:
Parts were an EXAMPLE in this case as I understand it it was either maintenance personnel or a flight crew to fix or operate down line equipment - jeez, get with the program here.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter if if was parts, maintenance personnel, or a flight crew. None of those would have bumped someone from a paid charter.

Even if there was room and empty seats, the company would not have insisted that maintenance personnel or a flight crew join the group. They might have asked the passengers nicely, but if the answer was no, they would not have insisted. People charter the whole airplane, not just a seat.
 
Last edited:
SaltH2OHokie said:
So are there any airline pilots who see this situation as United in the wrong?

Truly curious. My emotional investment in this discussion is around the same as my emotional investment in [insert your favorite reality TV show]... Which is zero... But I'm gathering a clear divide between airline pilots, and the rest of us poor souls riding behind them.

I will reiterate, I was flying commercial, same day, same carrier. Had a good time. Will fly them again if situation dictates.

Don't see their handling of this situation as good, or even acceptable, though.
Click to expand...

I am not an airline pilot, just a PP-ASEL, and I think United was toatally right in how they handled the bumping situation and that the physical escalation is 110% on the passenger. They probably could have handled the aftermath better - but in reality, by the time the social media masses decreed that United beat and drug him off the plane, there wasn't much they could do to try and tell the sheeple any thing factual.
 
rsleeds said:
I'd like to see JOhnH post the bit about United getting one of their pilots to fly the crew in their personal plane on a pro pilot board like airlinepilotforums.com The response there would be entertaining beyond belief.
Click to expand...
Setting aside the fact that it probably would have worked, and excluding the possibility that this would be against the law or against union contract, what would be the problem?
As I said before, this was just one potential solution that a free thinking employee may have considered. And even if it wasn't a United employee with a private airplane, are you suggesting that there were no known commercial pilots or charters that could have accommodated them (without being re-accommodated)?
 
Art VanDelay said:
Parts were an EXAMPLE in this case as I understand it it was either maintenance personnel or a flight crew to fix or operate down line equipment - jeez, get with the program here.
Click to expand...
Yet you refuse to see that when I provide and "EXAMPLE" of potential solutions.
 
Tummler said:
...If the United employees told the officers that the passenger was subject to removal, the officers are likely to be in the clear, assuming they were acting pursuant to their honest, good-faith, and reasonable belief that the passenger was subject to removal....
Click to expand...


One of the three security officers involved has been "placed on leave", the Chicago Department of Aviation said, and his actions were "obviously not condoned by the Department".

The department also said it would carry out a review into the incident, which it said was "not in accordance with our standard operating procedure".​

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39563570

I haven't seen anything to indicate that the airline didn't say that the passenger was subject to removal, but that's not equivalent to asking for the passenger to be bloodied in the process.

...If the United employees told the officers that they had a passenger on the plane that they were not sure whether they had the right to bump him because [insert any one of the many reasons discussed upthread], and the officers proceeded to forcibly remove the passenger, the officers should consider requesting that their union provide them a lawyer....
Click to expand...

Why would an airline leave that decision up to airport personnel? That doesn't make any sense.
 
Art VanDelay said:
Doesn't matter - since 9/11 I can have a passenger removed if he looks at me cross eyed. If he then fails to follow commands from the police it just gets worse.

Your Honor, permission to treat this witness as hostile ;)
Click to expand...
Oh. that makes it alright then.
 
JOhnH said:
Setting aside the fact that it probably would have worked, and excluding the possibility that this would be against the law or against union contract, what would be the problem?
As I said before, this was just one potential solution that a free thinking employee may have considered. And even if it wasn't a United employee with a private airplane, are you suggesting that there were no known commercial pilots or charters that could have accommodated them (without being re-accommodated)?
Click to expand...

Not suggesting anything except the crapfest you'd create by asking that question on the board I referenced.

It's clear by now, everyone (not specifically you or me) has their opinion on this situation and nobody is convincing anyone else to change it.
 
Art VanDelay said:
And if the cops rough up your renter and somebody puts a video of it on Facebook - it's all your fault for calling the cops ?
Click to expand...
Yeah, social media can suck. But that doesn't mean it is always wrong.
 
WannFly said:
...same as Rule 21 (or 25 dunno), you can remove a passenger only under specific circumstances....
Click to expand...
I don't think a contract of carriage can overrule 14 CFR 91.3(a). The remedy if you think a contract has been violated is to bring a civil case, not to ignore crew instructions issued under PIC authority.
 
SaltH2OHokie said:
So are there any airline pilots who see this situation as United in the wrong?

Truly curious. My emotional investment in this discussion is around the same as my emotional investment in [insert your favorite reality TV show]... Which is zero... But I'm gathering a clear divide between airline pilots, and the rest of us poor souls riding behind them.

I will reiterate, I was flying commercial, same day, same carrier. Had a good time. Will fly them again if situation dictates.

Don't see their handling of this situation as good, or even acceptable, though.
Click to expand...

Airlines, like most businesses, are run by processes. I'm confident everyone in this event was correctly applying their process. The problem was the doctor not complying.

With that said. I think the UAL process should have applied more carrot before the exact same stick. Offer more money...Give that a chance. Given the right incentive 4 peeps WILL get off.
 
Art VanDelay said:
And if the cops rough up your renter and somebody puts a video of it on Facebook - it's all your fault for calling the cops ?
Click to expand...
If u are trying to evict them without a reason and breaking the renter agreement, yes.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
Captain said:
Airlines, like most businesses, are run by processes. I'm confident everyone in this event was correctly applying their process. The problem was the doctor not complying.

With that said. I think the UAL process should have applied more carrier before the exact same stick. Offer more money...Give that a chance. Given the right incentive 4 peeps WILL get off.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I have always said that running a business would be easier, if you didn't have to deal with customers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top