After watching videos of UA 's public relations disaster, I had a thought - Why do airlines overbook? Wouldn't it be simpler to just sell (actually rent) the number of seats on the airplane, and if the customer doesn't show up the seat flys empty? It would save fuel, create more space in the overhead compartments, and the airline still gets paid. Jet Blue has a system where the customer can pay a bit extra for the ticket, but has the right to cancel up to a certain time before the plane departs. The customer forfeits only the extra fee, and Jet Blue can resell the seat. This program saved our butts last November when I busted my leg a couple of days before we were going to fly north for Thanksgiving. It cost us $42, but we kept the tickets which are good for 355 (not a misprint) days. Overbooking always leaves someone PO'd - it's a horrible system.
They are depending on no-shows. If the no-shows didn't buy the higher priced refundable/reusable tickets like you had, the airline gains in both revenue and saved fuel (if there are empty seats, and thus also less luggage). It's win-win, for them.
It was my understanding that the flight was not overbooked but that 4 United employees wanted to fly free and the crew was making room for them. The people booted had a legit right to be in those seats.
The 4 United employees were a flight crew for a later flight from the destination city was my understanding. Poor planning on United's part.
And poor execution. The guy was offered $800 and turned it down (3 others took it) so United should have moved on and put out an open offer to any passenger to give up their seat (maybe they did). If there were no takers then its United's problem to get the crew to the next destination, not the paying customer who made a reservation. We took a bump on a flight and they gave us $400 per person (4 people) and put us on a flight that was 3 hours later in the day (not a big deal for us). They only wanted to bump 2 and no one took it so they relented and gave us the bump for all four of our family members when we offered. Bottom line, don't overbook.
I have a friend who's a mechanic for another airline, and he says his company has a standing contract with a charter company. If they need to move employees (crew, mechanics, whatever) from place to place they'll put them on a small charter plane instead of pissing off passengers. I bet that's cheaper than the $255 million dollar stock hit United just took. Patrick
All I can say is that if they grabbed me, those three goons would have been hurt. I may lose the fight, but..........
Not sure why the police were involved in a business decision by United. That guy wasn't being disruptive. The police should have left and let United figure it out. Bad deal all the way around, and policies will change, along with United's bottom line.
I think those goons worked for either the airline or airport. No matter who they represented, they were very unprofessional. I have worked security and they handled the guy all wrong.
I like a recent advertising slogan I heard about; "We beat our competition, not you" Heard that was American Airways who did that.
My understanding is they were airport security, not the "police". Likely the same source of security for removing unruly passengers when necessary.
If I was into the stock market Id be buying some of that while its down. This PR **** storm will blow over and they'll go back up fast.
United's policy is stupid, both on overbooking and removal of passengers to seat their flight crew. Plenty of other jets available to send that crew to the next destination.. the Chicago Airport Police were over-agressive to some extent. They should have restrained him, and used a stretcher to remove him. But as they say,"it takes two to Tango"... this passenger saw the opportunity for a big settlement, and worked it that way. Remember, he got off on his own once, and then got back on when no one was looking.. he realized that in the world we live in, full of amateur reporters with their cel phone cameras, he could work this issue. In one vid, you could hear him tell the cops "you will have to drag me off". Who says that? "Carry me off" maybe, but drag? His injury list is a joke.. ya buddy, I am sure they worked you over after they got you off the plane, where no one could video it, because for sure, the only violence seen during the removal was the act of dragging him off the plane.. that is not going to knock out your teeth. He bit his lip, and then consciously did not wipe his mouth, for the "bloody mouth" videos. I was born at night, but it wasn't last night. This guy is not a Saint.. he's a doctor who lost is lisc for illegally prescribing prescription drugs, who saw an opportunity to exploit a stupid corporate practice, and an over zealous enforcement unit... sad part is he will get what he wants... Money.
I hear you Jim. It was a computer lottery that chose the people who were going to lose their seats. The other 3 people understood, why not this guy? Then he sticks his head back in the plane to show off his bloody face. There's more to this than him being dragged off the plane. Jim (Ponch)
I realize this guy has had legal problems in the past and those problems are being used to discredit him. I choose to look at the situation had it been me on that flight. I bought a ticket and have a seat so obviously I have somewhere that I need to be. I'll be damned if someone is going to tell me that I have to disrupt my life and leave the seat that I bought and paid for. I understand that I "agreed" to those terms when I purchased the ticket but it doesn't make the policy right. It's flawed pure and simple. I can't help but view defending the airlines right to enforce this policy as a "boot licker" mentality. People should demand better and stop defending corporate policies when they are obviously flawed. They would have had to drag me off that plane as well. I would have fought it all the way.
I have not read that he willingly walked off the plane the first time. The way I interpreted the reports was that he was first dragged off, then afterwards made his way back on. Maybe I missed something. BTW, in the videos I've watched, it certainly appeared to me that security was VERY agressively working him over to get him out of his seat, just by the animated movements of those individuals in getting him out. I'm sure there's more to learn that's not been officially revealed yet, but I'm not ready to take sides with United.
Don't get me wrong, I am certainly not siding with United.. first thing I said above is that the policy is stupid. Bumping paying passengers to fly crew around is stupid, not offering good enough incentives to take a later flight is stupid.. the policy of overbooking is a calculated risk, one that they know they could lose. While this flight was not an overbooking case exactly, the same procedures were used to try and bump the company employees on the plane. But.. The Airport Cops were not United Airlines employees... They were only suppose to contain the situation until the Chicago Police department showed up. That is their written protocol, when no imminent danger is observed to the plane or other passengers. They did not, and screwed up by taking it upon themselves to remove the man. Your right David, the man ran on the plane after he was removed... I confess I have not been devoting that much time to this story.. but one thing interesting I found this morning was this.. the man originally agreed to getting off, then changed his mind, after speaking with his lawyer on the phone.. setting up the scam? He did have representation on this matter awfully quickly.. Further, to ignore the past history of an individual shortchanges the understanding of the individual, and his part in the situation. We don't live in a bubble, that gets renewed every day, rather we are the compilation of our life experiences, and serious past crimes are a window into one's thought processes. Most of us would never consider committing a serious crime. Others would, their morals or conduct standards don't preclude that type of action, if the reward is great enough. I tend to look at this with a broader view.. this man decided that there was a good chance of a payday if he resisted, and had no concern with the needs of everyone else on the plane. That plane sat for two hours after this incident. The man claims "had to see patients" on Monday, but I look at that and say.. "are these the same patients that you put on your schedule, who maybe waited weeks until you got around to seeing them".... and now it's life and death that you get home? Maybe it's just me, because I despise inconsiderate people. Courtesy and concern for the well being of other people is part of the glue that bonds a society together. When that breaks down, and it's the law of the jungle, then we have moved yet another step closer to the abyss. While I understand that legal precedent would not allow the introduction of one's past in a criminal case, we are not conducting a criminal preceding here. These days it's fashionable to bash the big bad corporation, and while they made mistakes, and have/will suffer just consequences, the situation is much more complex than it appears. Plenty of blame to go around. I am just saying I am keeping an open mind on this, until all the facts of the situation are revealed, before placing blame. I smell a rat here. Just have not identified which one it is. JW
The standby/non rev passenger booking system is very complicated. United's policy isn't that different from many major airlines. United was just unfortunate enough to have so many lapses in judgement coincide in one incident. Most airlines will allow company pilots to bump a paid passenger. All airlines overbook seats. And all airlines will allow airport security to remove a passenger if directed by the captain of the aircraft. Of course, the airport security probably wasn't briefed on the nature of the situation so they probably treated the guy like a criminal when he was only being stubborn. United should have either offered more money to accommodate a bumped passenger or they should have made other arrangements for the crew. Again, this same situation could have happened to any other domestic airline. United just happened to have the bad luck. Today with smart phones any situation like this can go viral and cause outrage. Great news for the average consumer, but sometimes things are blown out of proportion or directed at one company when it's an industry wide failure. Just like the legging incident a few weeks ago. So many people were angry but ignorant to the reason why the girls were kicked off the flight. They were friends of a United employee flying for free. United has every right to kick them off, they have rules stating how you should dress and act as a non revenue passenger. Should United have responded differently? Given the negative PR, yes they should have, but that doesn't mean United acted sexist or prejudiced, they were following policy. Unfortunately for United the customer is always right, even when they are wrong. What I also don't understand is why the flight crew absolutely had to have passenger seats. 4 pilots wanted to board the Embraer jet. There is one jumpseat in the cockpit and at least one unused flight attendant jumpseat. So why did 4 passengers get kicked off the plane for 4 pilots when the jumpseats were most likely available?
