United Airlines customer service

SoonerAviator said:
I'm sure most people don't buy the refundable fair. It costs significantly more than the regular ticket in order to pay for the ability to re-schedule or cancel without penalty. As far as being "bumped", yes, you will be compensated in some fashion. How much is dependent on when the next flight is, that particular airlines' policies, and how well you negotiate.
Click to expand...
What you are failing to take into account is the passenger wasn't "bumped" because the flight was oversold and he was low man on the totem pole, he was ejected so that someone else, an employee, could have his seat, and create for him a major inconvenience when he did nothing wrong except have his number come up on Eminiar VII's computer.
 
deonb said:
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.
Click to expand...

The situation is that you have a passenger who should not be on the plane and you've made the decision that they have to get off. They refuse because ignorant people on the internet have made this guy a "hero" and they think it's the right thing. BTW, the "hero" did not fly and did not get home that night.

Now what? Getting the police to remove him is no longer the solution. Letting them fly is not an option. What is your solution other than deplaning everyone?
 
paflyer said:
What you are failing to take into account is the passenger wasn't "bumped" because the flight was oversold and he was low man on the totem pole, he was ejected so that someone else, an employee, could have his seat, and create for him a major inconvenience when he did nothing wrong except have his number come up on Eminiar VII's computer.
Click to expand...

I don't think it was failed to be taken into account, it just isn't relevant. Being on the flight you made a reservation for is what usually happens, but it is not a guarantee. The is no rule that says the airline cannot make you get off the plane again, you just don't know how it works and you think there should be.
 
bflynn said:
The situation is that you have a passenger who should not be on the plane and you've made the decision that they have to get off. They refuse because ignorant people on the internet have made this guy a "hero" and they think it's the right thing. BTW, the "hero" did not fly and did not get home that night.
Click to expand...
Totally a training and procedure problem. A particular passenger doesn't have to leave. All that is needed is an empty seat. Now the problem is solvable without conflict. Of course OCD management types can't handle the problem now...
 
deonb said:
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).
Click to expand...


This wasn't "civil disobedience" like MLK advocated. The passenger was doing this for no other reason than he didn't want to be kicked off the flight. He wasn't doing this "for all airline customers" so that they changed the way they operate.


Mike Smith said:
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?
Click to expand...

I'm not defending the way it went down, I am saying that it wasn't an unexpected event when security gets called to remove a passenger who refuses to obey orders given by the crew. The security team is not in the business of negotiating or interpreting CoC contracts nor legal definitions. The passenger refuses commands, security gets called, they remove passenger. How violent the removal is will be entirely dependent on the passengers willingness to obey commands from law enforcement. It is NO DIFFERENT than having the cops called to remove someone, then complaining when the cops have to get physical with someone in order to get them to comply with their requests. The passenger in this case may come out ahead in the end, but it's not likely to be the case in most instances. Once the cops are there, it's time to get off the aircraft, right, wrong, or indifferent.
 
SoonerAviator said:
This wasn't "civil disobedience" like MLK advocated. The passenger was doing this for no other reason than he didn't want to be kicked off the flight. He wasn't doing this "for all airline customers" so that they changed the way they operate.




I'm not defending the way it went down, I am saying that it wasn't an unexpected event when security gets called to remove a passenger who refuses to obey orders given by the crew. The security team is not in the business of negotiating or interpreting CoC contracts nor legal definitions. The passenger refuses commands, security gets called, they remove passenger. How violent the removal is will be entirely dependent on the passengers willingness to obey commands from law enforcement. It is NO DIFFERENT than having the cops called to remove someone, then complaining when the cops have to get physical with someone in order to get them to comply with their requests. The passenger in this case may come out ahead in the end, but it's not likely to be the case in most instances. Once the cops are there, it's time to get off the aircraft, right, wrong, or indifferent.
Click to expand...
So "cops" should just do what they are told and have no need to verify that their actions are warranted? Pretty sure it doesn't work that way....and the officer involved is suspended during an investigation into his actions. Give it up. You are defending actions which cannot be defended.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I'm not defending the way it went down, I am saying that it wasn't an unexpected event when security gets called to remove a passenger who refuses to obey orders given by the crew. The security team is not in the business of negotiating or interpreting CoC contracts nor legal definitions. The passenger refuses commands, security gets called, they remove passenger. How violent the removal is will be entirely dependent on the passengers willingness to obey commands from law enforcement. It is NO DIFFERENT than having the cops called to remove someone, then complaining when the cops have to get physical with someone in order to get them to comply with their requests. The passenger in this case may come out ahead in the end, but it's not likely to be the case in most instances. Once the cops are there, it's time to get off the aircraft, right, wrong, or indifferent.
Click to expand...
That is precisely where the UAL gate agents screwed up.

They abdicated all authority for resolving/diffusing the situation when they called in airport police to handle it. They took the easy way out. When the passenger changed his mind about accepting the offer upon realizing they couldn't get him home on time, rather than upping the compensation or attempting to find another pax to remove, they just said 'screw it' and called in security. Once the airport cops show up, they hear 'non-compliant passenger' and without further discussion they go in as if he was a drunk interfering with the flight crew and BOOM, social media is all over it and UAL has a PR problem……but the key is it was a PR problem that UAL could have diffused before it got to social media.

The secondary issue is the unprofessionalism of the airport police. They acted like rent-a cops with a chip on their shoulder, not like professional LEs. There are ways of removing a passenger from the aircraft without drawing blood. Their actions were more along the lines of the cop who fires 50 rounds into a dude with a baseball bat. Dirtbags like that give cops a bad name.
 
Clark1961 said:
So "cops" should just do what they are told and have no need to verify that their actions are warranted? Pretty sure it doesn't work that way....and the officer involved is suspended during an investigation into his actions. Give it up. You are defending actions which cannot be defended.
Click to expand...
Fine, I'll create an imaginary scenario for you: you paid $20 to go to a club (United Airlines), after you have been admitted (boarded), they decide there are too many people in the building and don't want to violate fire code (need to get their crew on), they tell you to leave with a refund. You refuse. They call the police and the police forcibly remove you (assuming they didn't use their bouncers in this case). You complain about having paid for a service and been denied, the police officers don't care, they were called to remove you from the premises at the request of the owners (United). You put up a fight with the cops, your nose gets broken and you get dragged out while everyone in the club films it with their cell phone. So, what part of that scenario don't you understand? The cops only needed to verify that you were in the club (aircraft) and were told to leave. They own the club (aircraft) and you must comply with their instructions (Federal law) or face the consequences.
 
Fearless Tower said:
That is precisely where the UAL gate agents screwed up.

They abdicated all authority for resolving/diffusing the situation when they called in airport police to handle it. They took the easy way out. When the passenger changed his mind about accepting the offer upon realizing they couldn't get him home on time, rather than upping the compensation or attempting to find another pax to remove, they just said 'screw it' and called in security. Once the airport cops show up, they hear 'non-compliant passenger' and without further discussion they go in as if he was a drunk interfering with the flight crew and BOOM, social media is all over it and UAL has a PR problem……but the key is it was a PR problem that UAL could have diffused before it got to social media.

The secondary issue is the unprofessionalism of the airport police. They acted like rent-a cops with a chip on their shoulder, not like professional LEs. There are ways of removing a passenger from the aircraft without drawing blood. Their actions were more along the lines of the cop who fires 50 rounds into a dude with a baseball bat. Dirtbags like that give cops a bad name.
Click to expand...
Sure, I never implied that UAL handled the situation correctly, just that the result for the passenger who failed to comply and resisted attempts to remove him was predictable. If UAL called for the entire aircraft to deplane before calling the cops, this whole thing probably doesn't happen.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Sure, I never implied that UAL handled the situation correctly, just that the result for the passenger who failed to comply and resisted attempts to remove him was predictable. If UAL called for the entire aircraft to deplane before calling the cops, this whole thing probably doesn't happen.
Click to expand...

No, if United would have offered true market price in compensation for those four seats at that moment in time, this whole thing couldn't have happened.
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
No, if United would have offered true market price in compensation for those four seats at that moment in time, this whole thing couldn't have happened.
Click to expand...
Better yet, once your butt is in the seat you paid for, it's yours for the duration. Send a deadhead crew in a limo or NetJets.
 
topgun260 said:
I'm pretty sure if you read the fine print that anyone who doesn't follow instructions given by the crew can be removed from the plane
Click to expand...

Wrong, the passenger is not behaving unruly if he denies to follow a crew order which is unlawful or unruly itself (applies to this case)
 
cowman said:
There are so many new pages yet so little new content.
Click to expand...
here ya go; turns out the "Airport Police" may be little more than goons for the airlines.:

"Chicago's aviation officers are not part of the regular police force, unlike in many other big cities. They get less training than regular officers and can't carry firearms inside the airports.

"Cellphone footage of the confrontation "really has put it at risk," Alderman Chris Taliaferro said Wednesday, a day before aldermen were scheduled to grill United and the Chicago Aviation Department about Sunday's incident. At the top of the list of the City Council's questions is whether the airport officers even had the legal authority to board the plane, said Alderman Michael Zalewski, who leads the council's aviation committee.

"They are allowed in the terminal and baggage area, but my understanding is they may not be allowed on a plane," he said. Zalewski also said that he is not sure if the officers have the authority to make arrests or if they are authorized only to write tickets."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/uproar-united-video-imperils-chicago-airport-police-46768663
 
I'm curious if anyone has changed their minds during the course of this discussion.
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
No, if United would have offered true market price in compensation for those four seats at that moment in time, this whole thing couldn't have happened.
Click to expand...
paflyer said:
Better yet, once your butt is in the seat you paid for, it's yours for the duration. Send a deadhead crew in a limo or NetJets.
Click to expand...

That's also an option, and sometimes may be the right one.

But again, if they had offered true market value at that moment, there would have been 4 passengers somewhere on that flight who would have walked away with a smile and we wouldn't have been reading about it. Easy peasy.
 
Mike Smith said:
I am not unsympathetic to the airline for needing to relocate the crew, nor that they needed to bump some passengers, ....
Click to expand...

I am quite unsympathetic to the airline.

We've become accustomed to treatment from airlines that we'd never accept from any other business.

Imagine you take your family out to a nice restaurant for dinner. You sit in the waiting area for 30 minutes until there's a table available, are seated by the hostess, and begin perusing the menu.

Then the hostess comes back to your table and demands that you and your family get up and go back to the waiting area to wait another half hour for another table, just so the restaurant's chef, busboy, and two waiters can take your table to have their dinner break.

How would you react?

Imagine now that, if you refuse to get up, the restaurant brings in a couple of hired security guards to physically assault you and remove you from the restaurant.

Would any of us put up with this kind of crap from anyone other than an airline?
 
JOhnH said:
I'm curious if anyone has changed their minds during the course of this discussion.
Click to expand...

Here's one:

Monday: CEO Oscar Munoz doubled down in a letter ... claiming that employees "followed established procedures" when removing a passenger from a plane because it was overbooked, and calling the passenger "disruptive and belligerent."

Tuesday: "The truly horrific event that occurred on this flight has elicited many responses from all of us: outrage, anger, disappointment. I share all of those sentiments, and one above all: my deepest apologies for what happened. Like you, I continue to be disturbed by what happened on this flight and I deeply apologize to the customer forcibly removed and to all the customers aboard. No one should ever be mistreated this way."
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
Here's one:

Monday: CEO Oscar Munoz doubled down in a letter ... claiming that employees "followed established procedures" when removing a passenger from a plane because it was overbooked, and calling the passenger "disruptive and belligerent."

Tuesday: "The truly horrific event that occurred on this flight has elicited many responses from all of us: outrage, anger, disappointment. I share all of those sentiments, and one above all: my deepest apologies for what happened. Like you, I continue to be disturbed by what happened on this flight and I deeply apologize to the customer forcibly removed and to all the customers aboard. No one should ever be mistreated this way."
Click to expand...
That's true. He did change his mind. Or at least his public position.

But I was referring to anyone on the board changing their mind due to reading this thread. I didn't make that clear.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Fine, I'll create an imaginary scenario for you: you paid $20 to go to a club (United Airlines), after you have been admitted (boarded), they decide there are too many people in the building and don't want to violate fire code (need to get their crew on), they tell you to leave with a refund. You refuse. They call the police and the police forcibly remove you (assuming they didn't use their bouncers in this case). You complain about having paid for a service and been denied, the police officers don't care, they were called to remove you from the premises at the request of the owners (United). You put up a fight with the cops, your nose gets broken and you get dragged out while everyone in the club films it with their cell phone. So, what part of that scenario don't you understand? The cops only needed to verify that you were in the club (aircraft) and were told to leave. They own the club (aircraft) and you must comply with their instructions (Federal law) or face the consequences.
Click to expand...


Your scenario doesn't work, it would be like this. You go to the club, pay to get in. The club is now full, but the club owner decides he wants to let in one of his buddies so they kick you out. That is more accurate.
 
deonb said:
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).
Click to expand...


So company personnel can't fly on company equipment anymore. Okay...so now the down line flight cancels. Or...the other route. The company charters a flight for the company employees or offers more compensation to boot pax. Either way that cost gets absorbed by the other paying pax in terms of higher ticket prices. I seriously don't care. As a pilot I just do what i'm told. If they tell me to head to the FBO to catch a NetJets G550 I'm cool with that. Take Dr. Davids seat? what ev's. My obligation is to fly the flight I'm assigned and get to that flight in the manner my company tells me.

But there is a price to be paid. I'm not paying the price and I promise the company isn't paying it either. Ya'll want guaranteed seats? It will be paid for one way or the other.
 
Captain said:
So company personnel can't fly on company equipment anymore.
Click to expand...
After that stupid statement, nothing else in your post is worth reading. NOBODY ever indicated that. What they CAN'T do is beat up random passengers.


Okay...so now the down line flight cancels. Or...the other route. The company charters a flight for the company employees or offers more compensation to boot pax. Either way that cost gets absorbed by the other paying pax in terms of higher ticket prices. I seriously don't care. As a pilot I just do what i'm told. If they tell me to head to the FBO to catch a NetJets G550 I'm cool with that. Take Dr. Davids seat? what ev's. My obligation is to fly the flight I'm assigned and get to that flight in the manner my company tells me.

But there is a price to be paid. I'm not paying the price and I promise the company isn't paying it either. Ya'll want guaranteed seats? It will be paid for one way or the other.[/QUOTE]
 
Clark1961 said:
Totally a training and procedure problem. A particular passenger doesn't have to leave. All that is needed is an empty seat. Now the problem is solvable without conflict. Of course OCD management types can't handle the problem now...
Click to expand...
True, they could have resolved it without any particular person being chosen. But once they selected a person, that particular passenger had to leave the plane. Lets say they asked him nicely and he refused. Now what? Move on to the next person? Do you think ANYBODY else would leave if they saw that all you had to do is refuse to leave.
 
Captain said:
The company charters a flight for the company employees or offers more compensation to boot pax. Either way that cost gets absorbed by the other paying pax in terms of higher ticket prices.
Click to expand...
And if they treat customers badly, they have to pay money to lawyers, PR companies and advertisers to compensate. Which also raises ticker prices.
 
Mike Smith said:
Your scenario doesn't work, it would be like this. You go to the club, pay to get in. The club is now full, but the club owner decides he wants to let in one of his buddies so they kick you out. That is more accurate.
Click to expand...
That doesn't work either. A yet better scenario would be that the place was filled to capacity and they needed to fix the DJ booth, so 4 repair guys had to come in but the club is literally at the max number allowed by law. So 4 people have to leave in order for the repair guys to be able to enter the building.
 
paflyer said:
here ya go; turns out the "Airport Police" may be little more than goons for the airlines.:

"Chicago's aviation officers are not part of the regular police force, unlike in many other big cities. They get less training than regular officers and can't carry firearms inside the airports.

"Cellphone footage of the confrontation "really has put it at risk," Alderman Chris Taliaferro said Wednesday, a day before aldermen were scheduled to grill United and the Chicago Aviation Department about Sunday's incident. At the top of the list of the City Council's questions is whether the airport officers even had the legal authority to board the plane, said Alderman Michael Zalewski, who leads the council's aviation committee.

"They are allowed in the terminal and baggage area, but my understanding is they may not be allowed on a plane," he said. Zalewski also said that he is not sure if the officers have the authority to make arrests or if they are authorized only to write tickets."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/uproar-united-video-imperils-chicago-airport-police-46768663
Click to expand...
Oh, that's okay, I'm sure Rahm Emmanuel will sort this out....




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top