Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"In its contract of carriage, United Continental Holdings Inc. says it chooses those to be bumped based on a fare class, an itinerary, status in its frequent flyer program, “and the time in which the passenger presents him/herself for check-in without advanced seat assignment.” That means those who paid more for a ticket and those who fly the airline frequently are less likely to be selected as an involuntary bump, criteria that are not unique to the Chicago-based carrier."
End of discussion. While the thing could have been handled better (ok much better) United Airlines was within their rights it seems. Of course how this whole PR cluster.... will play out for them, who knows?
Tokyo Convention for international travel, plus Eid v. Alaska Airlines, Inc. for US domestic flights.
Nice try but that case has zero relevance. 1. Because it has to do with international flights, and international treaties. This was a domestic flight. 2. Ignoring that, because the passengers in that case were creating a safety issue by refusing to take their seats in flight. The United passenger was in his seat and not creating a safety issue.
Also irrelevant. This man did not assault or intimidate a flight crew member or interfere with their duties. He was just sitting in his assigned seat, minding his own business. He has not been charged with anything, and for good reason. He didn't break any laws. Nobody interferes with a flight crew, and doesn't get arrested for it. If he did any of that, he would have been charged.
He interfered with the crew, It was NO longer his assigned seat,
He was Involuntary bumped from the flight. As outlined in the contract of carriage he agreed to when he bought the ticket, Once he was bumped, the seat was no longer his.
The crew could not closed the doors of the plane, do the safety briefing, etc, That is interfering with the crew.
4 MUST FLY Crew members. Who were needed to take the flight out this morning from SDF-MIA.
Ah, I see. So there were no crew members already in SDF who would volunteer to take the flight to MIA? We certainly wouldn't want to pluck them off their couches and throw them into a plane involuntarily.
Yes, I know there is more behind the story and there are certain logistics at play. I get it. I work for a financial institution and what we do and why we do it can be much different than how the public sees it. Unfortunately, for airlines (and banks), public perception is huge when it comes to reputation.
Everyone has their price. United should have increased their offer for volunteers. The extra couple of thousand would have been much less costly than this PR debacle.
The situation was completely mishandled by United. The contractual situation is neither here not there. It is public perception that matters.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
