Man Dragged off United Flight

srn121 said:
That's the assumption you made. The only thing I heard about the compensation was that the passengers were being offered $800 in vouchers, the airline later said it offered up to $1000 in 'compensation' which if it wasn't cash isn't what the law requires them to.
Click to expand...

The travel vouchers are only slightly less worthless than a buddy pass. The rate that they are redeemed is about 5-8% from what I can gather, so the cost of a $1,000 voucher to the carrier is more like $50-$80. It isn't transferable, so for someone that flies rarely is almost worthless.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
The travel vouchers are only slightly less worthless than a buddy pass. The rate that they are redeemed is about 5-8% from what I can gather, so the cost of a $1,000 voucher to the carrier is more like $50-$80. It isn't transferable, so for someone that flies rarely is almost worthless.
Click to expand...

If that's what they offered and claimed it was a $1000 in compensation let United get all and more that it has coming to it. It's not 100% certain yet, but had United followed the law this poor old bastard wouldn't have gotten his head smashed in. Who knows the incentive gate agents have on them in order to push these things instead of what's lawfully required due to being involuntarily bumped.
 
srn121 said:
No, but I'm saying that even though the law might be on your side that it isn't always right and that disobeying an unjust law or an authority figure acting inappropriately or excessively isn't always a bad thing. I absolutely think the police don't just have a duty to insure that only the passenger follows the law, but that United also followed the law when it came to his compensation for being involuntarily bumped.

That's the assumption you made. The only thing I heard about the compensation was that the passengers were being offered $800 in vouchers, the airline later said it offered up to $1000 in 'compensation' which if it wasn't cash isn't what the law requires them to.



https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/business/united-flight-passenger-dragged.html?_r=0



https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/250.5
Click to expand...

Sorry, but no. You have no rights to that seat or transportation above what is delineated in the contract of carriage. If United through its agent failed to provide the full compensation required by law then it is an issue to be brought to the DOT, not to be negotiated on a jet with the airport police as mediators.

Airlines have within their power the authority to deny boarding virtually at their whim, provided they follow laws of equal protection, civil rights and the contract of carriage-which includes this caveat. You have no right to fly, even with a ticket in hand. If you feel they are in breach of the contract, failing to obey the police and getting thumped in the head by an overzealous one is not likely to result in a review of said contract.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Gonna buy me one of these in case I'm booked on United in the near future.
Screenshot_20170411-142633.png
 
Cazadores said:
Sorry, but no. You have no rights to that seat or transportation above what is delineated in the contract of carriage. If United through its agent failed to provide the full compensation required by law then it is an issue to be brought to the DOT, not to be negotiated on a jet with the airport police as mediators.

Airlines have within their power the authority to deny boarding virtually at their whim, provided they follow laws of equal protection, civil rights and the contract of carriage-which includes this caveat. You have no right to fly, even with a ticket in hand. If you feel they are in breach of the contract, failing to obey the police and getting thumped in the head by an overzealous one is not likely to result in a review of said contract.
Click to expand...

Me any many other people will be happily taking our business elsewhere. United has been aspiring to be more like Spirit for some time and now they're probably in a deadheat as to who has the worst customer service. Mission accomplished management, I suppose.

Most of the arguments I've read show its quite disputable whether he violated their contract of carriage since he was already on board the plane. I'm not a lawyer and I don't really give a •, I just don't know why you signed up to launch to United's defense. I haven't read a EULA in my life or all the million of clauses hidden away on every little thing I buy in my life as I don't have the time and I wonder about the lives of people that actually do.
 
Been awhile since I posted here but it seems there is a vast gulf of difference between what United was "allowed" to do (the fact that there is any discussion on whether this fell under the IDB/removal rules increases the grey area but doesn't change the following) and what United SHOULD have done.

United has admitted they stopped the solicitation of volunteers in the sub-$1000 range, because they had no volunteers. That in and of itself is the "tipping point", they made a FINANCIAL decision that said "we prefer to forcefully remove 4 passengers and ACCEPT all the BS that comes with it in lieu of spending more than $4000* to resolve an issue we alone are responsible for"

After that "tipping point" United alone deserves whatever they get, including the ~$1 Billion loss in stock value they had today.

The passenger was not in the "right", but we all know in this world he will get paid, United knew that too when they decided to force customers off the plane.

Point is you don't have to like the real world, but you have to live in it. And United is learning that the hard way this week because they decided a few thousand dollars were worth the gamble. Bad move.

*Guarantee if they had continued going up in their compensation offers they would have hit the point where 4 of the ~70 passengers would have called out sick from work the next day because it was worth it.
 
srn121 said:
Me any many other people will be happily taking our business elsewhere.
Click to expand...

The rules are the same regardless of where you take your business. Nobody has a "right" to be on an airplane that isn't their own private property, paid ticket or not.
 
Hacker15e said:
The rules are the same regardless of where you take your business. Nobody has a "right" to be on an airplane that isn't their own private property, paid ticket or not.
Click to expand...

But they do have a legal right to be compensated for being involuntarily bumped which I'm not sure United ever had any intention of following the law. So far we've seen that United wasn't acting competently, ethically and all signs point to legally as well. I don't see what's to defend about management's failures in this situation.
 
One week from now, all these social media hero's will be posting another worthless story. UAL's stock will be back by the end of the quarter, no one will remember or care. If you were a smart investor, you'd buy discounted UAL stock. Do you really think UAL's stock isn't going to go back up in a few weeks?
 
srn121 said:
But they do have a legal right to be compensated for being involuntarily bumped which I'm not sure United ever had any intention of following the law.
Click to expand...

Complete conjecture, since our intrepid passenger didn't get that far.

Either way, not defending management -- deflating the entitlement some folks seem to think they have as passengers on private, paid transportation.
 
mrivc211 said:
One week from now, all these social media hero's will be posting another worthless story. UAL's stock will be back by the end of the quarter, no one will remember or care. If you were a smart investor, you'd buy discounted UAL stock. Do you really think UAL's stock isn't going to go back up in a few weeks?
Click to expand...

You're probably right as stocks move all over the place. I think there will be some lasting damage though. What's United's advertising budget? I wonder how many people have been inspired to fly United via stupid ads or commercials as I imagine it will take a whole lot of commercials and marketing to remove the negative conceptions United's been so quick to reinforce. With any luck this forces some of United's inept management out the door, but we'll see.
 
Hacker15e said:
The rules are the same regardless of where you take your business. Nobody has a "right" to be on an airplane that isn't their own private property, paid ticket or not.
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody here is debating that. The problem is United's unwillingness to compensate potential volunteers sufficiently, resulting in forced removal of paying passengers.

I hope their massive drop in stock value today as well as negative publicity was worth the ~$4,000-5,000 it would have cost them to sway potential volunteers.
 
Hacker15e said:
Complete conjecture, since our intrepid passenger didn't get that far.

Either way, not defending management -- deflating the entitlement some folks seem to think they have as passengers on private, paid transportation.
Click to expand...

As I posted in the link before the passengers accounts were that they stopped being offered anything greater than $800 non-transferrable, expiration date included travel vouchers. United claimed they offered up to $1000 in compensation, but amazingly none of the passengers took it which leads me to believe they never offered that or they didn't offer it in cash. I'm sorry, but barring a single event like a funeral or something like to catch a cruise, I'd easily take that cash and so would many others.

Here's the link again

An airline employee came on board and said United needed four people to get off, Mr. Bridges said, adding that the airline had by then increased its incentive to an $800 voucher. The airline later said that it offered up to $1,000 in compensation
Click to expand...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/business/united-flight-passenger-dragged.html?_r=0
 
mrivc211 said:
http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/04/10/congress-just-got-involved-united-airlines-incident/

Now you've got this charlatan hero politician trying to ride the social media wave and further her career to fight for "the average guy". You'll have to excuse my glass half empty attitude, but after being around too many phonies you see right thru their motives.
Click to expand...

Hey Congress, if this is any business of yours, then it should be defending the private property rights of the organization that owned that airplane. Otherwise, sod off.
 
mrivc211 said:
http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/04/10/congress-just-got-involved-united-airlines-incident/

Now you've got this charlatan hero politician trying to ride the social media wave and further her career to fight for "the average guy". You'll have to excuse my glass half empty attitude, but after being around too many phonies you see right thru their motives.
Click to expand...

You might be right on their motives, but I have no problem with well crafted laws to hold corporations accountable and to insure they act ethically. United screwed up big time, their CEO doubled down in the most insensitive, legalese way and now they can feel some of the pain. There has been too much abuse like at Wells Fargo (that was pretty much industry wide) and the average person is sick of it. The costs will ultimately be passed along to the customer, but I don't like what the race to the cheapest fares has done to the industry as both a frequent flyer and a professional pilot. The majors have some big time competition headed their way and if they don't get some capable management their quick it'll hurt more in the long run.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top