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.
So I just read this article below (about United Airlines charging a National Guardsman $200.00 for his bag of gear coming home from Afghanistan) and I have to ask: what is bad PR worth to United Airlines or any large corporation for that matter?
I saw the film 'Deepwater Horizon' about the Gulf of Mexico BP oil drilling disaster and they make a point of declaring that all those billions of dollars in damage, lost lives and horrendous Public Image could have been averted if British Petroleum had been willing to spend a measly (in relation to the company's profits) $120,000.00. Now, I get that there are no absolutes and other factors, but does it not boggle the mind the gamble they are willing to play? BP trying to save $120,000.00 would be like we average folks choosing not to pay five dollars to ensure our car wouldn't break down in the middle of nowhere. It was FIVE DOLLARS.
United Airlines has been on a Public Relations disaster roll lately. From the deadheading/passenger dragging issue to scorpions crawling in their planes to any other incident that can be recorded and uploaded in seconds, are there no PR/business experts who can break down the cost/benefit ratio of erring on the side of customer service versus unyielding/inflexible policies?
UA could have trusted and empowered their staff to up the compensatory amount to peacefully settle the incident that culminated in the doctor being bloodied and dragged off the plane. What would it have cost? A few extra hundred? A few thousand? Now they're out MILLIONS.
I get it. Policies are policies. But, they have management and people who fix situations for a living - their purpose is to solve problems and recognize when solving something for $200.00 is smarter than the PR fallout that could cost them $2 million in lost revenue.
If you don't trust your middle-management's decision-making capabilities in incidents like the above... why trust them to work for your company period?
---------
Armytimes.com
United Airlines charges soldier coming home from Afghanistan $200 for overweight bag
By: Rachael Kalinyak, May 18, 2017
After serving 21 months in Afghanistan, a National Guard soldier says United Airlines charged him $200 for an overweight bag that was full of his military gear, according to told Fox 7 Austin.
“I was told point blank that I'd have to pay $200 for the overage or find another bag to siphon stuff off with,” 1st Lt. John Rader told the station after flying to his home in Kyle, Texas, just south of Austin. “Well, I didn't have another bag so I was caught in a bind, do I go home without my stuff or without it?" The heavy items in his bag included his Kevlar vest, boots and two helmets.
United Airlines has a policy for active military members, but the policy states that the passenger can only have five bags checked for free if all bags are under 70 pounds. After checking other airlines, Fox 7 Austin found that others allow for the bags to be up to 100 pounds.
Rader paid the fee, but said "there was no empathy to the situation."
"I'm not looking for sympathy, but some form of empathy in the situation. There was none of that. It was just cold. I had to either pay or leave the bag.” he told Fox 7 Austin.
United Airlines has offered to refund the fee, but Rader said he wants to try to change the policy. "I just want to make sure soldiers are cared for going forward."
Sorry, but soldiers aren't special. The overweight rule is widely known and applies to everyone. Lots of people have what (to them) are valid reasons for wanting to check an overweight bag. Why should soldiers get a break when the rest of the public does not?
(And the overweight rule exists for good reason - bags over 70 pounds require two baggage handlers to lift them. The airlines don't have that rule merely to annoy passengers. Overweight bags cost more to deal with.)
So I just read this article below (about United Airlines charging a National Guardsman $200.00 for his bag of gear coming home from Afghanistan) and I have to ask: what is bad PR worth to United Airlines or any large corporation for that matter?
I saw the film 'Deepwater Horizon' about the Gulf of Mexico BP oil drilling disaster and they make a point of declaring that all those billions of dollars in damage, lost lives and horrendous Public Image could have been averted if British Petroleum had been willing to spend a measly (in relation to the company's profits) $120,000.00. Now, I get that there are no absolutes and other factors, but does it not boggle the mind the gamble they are willing to play? BP trying to save $120,000.00 would be like we average folks choosing not to pay five dollars to ensure our car wouldn't break down in the middle of nowhere. It was FIVE DOLLARS.
United Airlines has been on a Public Relations disaster roll lately. From the deadheading/passenger dragging issue to scorpions crawling in their planes to any other incident that can be recorded and uploaded in seconds, are there no PR/business experts who can break down the cost/benefit ratio of erring on the side of customer service versus unyielding/inflexible policies?
UA could have trusted and empowered their staff to up the compensatory amount to peacefully settle the incident that culminated in the doctor being bloodied and dragged off the plane. What would it have cost? A few extra hundred? A few thousand? Now they're out MILLIONS.
I get it. Policies are policies. But, they have management and people who fix situations for a living - their purpose is to solve problems and recognize when solving something for $200.00 is smarter than the PR fallout that could cost them $2 million in lost revenue.
If you don't trust your middle-management's decision-making capabilities in incidents like the above... why trust them to work for your company period?
...
I'm not so sure you're right about one thing -- that they're going to lose that much business. While airlines are not exactly monopolies, there's not that much choice anymore. And people seem obsessive about finding the absolute cheapest fare, and will basically take whatever crap they have to in order to get that cheapest price (hence the low cost airlines). And the airlines know that, which is why they continue to make seats and leg room smaller and smaller and smaller, and take away overhead compartment use, etc.
Second, airlines are no longer about customer service. That used to be their main push. It's pretty forgotten know unless you are up in first class or business.
Third, the airlines are blaming the various problems on security based on 9/11. I call BS on that. For the most part, "security" is done once you walk onto the plane.
The biggest problem, aside from the pack as many sardines on to the airplane as possible mentality, is the same problem that almost occurs when...well, what's the old saying: "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority." Because of 9/11, flight attendants became little despots (as we saw with that very aggressive flight attendant in the dragging case; not saying he did the dragging). They're going to show us who has the power! That's the attitude. And that attitude ratchets up everybody's attitude, including that of the customer.
I have come to HATE flying, and yet I used to fly quite a bit to Asia. Now flying is a last resort for me. Usually, if I can't drive, I don't go. It's just too much hassle. 90 minutes to get to the airport, supposed to be there 2 hours early due to security, the uncertainty that you might end up on tarmac for hours, the rudeness of personnel, and the lack of safety on the plane.
Sorry, but soldiers aren't special. The overweight rule is widely known and applies to everyone. Lots of people have what (to them) are valid reasons for wanting to check an overweight bag. Why should soldiers get a break when the rest of the public does not?
(And the overweight rule exists for good reason - bags over 70 pounds require two baggage handlers to lift them. The airlines don't have that rule merely to annoy passengers. Overweight bags cost more to deal with.)
I disagree. Soldiers are special. Under orders by our government, they put themselves in harm's way to protect our national interests. That alone should give them special consideration. Furthermore, they carry the equipment that they do because they have to, because they need it to perform the job that our government has ordered them to do. If the government is going to rely on the private sector to transport its "employees" than the government should ensure that all of the expenses are paid for, and not left to the soldiers to pay out of their own pockets.
I disagree. Soldiers are special. Under orders by our government, they put themselves in harm's way to protect our national interests. That alone should give them special consideration. Furthermore, they carry the equipment that they do because they have to, because they need it to perform the job that our government has ordered them to do. If the government is going to rely on the private sector to transport its "employees" than the government should ensure that all of the expenses are paid for, and not left to the soldiers to pay out of their own pockets.
When I was in the military and I traveled using civilian means, I was reimbursed for any expenses that came out of my pocket. This included international travel with a crapload of gear. Granted, there is still an issue here in that majority of the junior enlisted out there will not have $200 in their pocket to drop on this, but let's be real in that the service member will not be out any money on this. Another point is that these bag regulations have been in place for a while and thousands upon thousands of service members have flown without issue. They are allotted up to 5 bags and each can weight up to 70 pounds while on official business. Just traveling for personal reasons, they are given a lot of exemption. This LT thought he had a free pass to do what he wanted and was called out on it.
U.S. military exemptions
Active U.S. military personnel and their accompanying dependents, not traveling on official business, receive waived service charges for up to three checked bags at 70 pounds (32 kg) each.
Active U.S. military personnel and their dependents traveling on official business receive waived service charges for up to five checked bags at 70 pounds (32 kg) each.
Dependents traveling with active U.S. military personnel are also exempt as long as they are traveling in the same reservation.
I disagree. Soldiers are special. Under orders by our government, they put themselves in harm's way to protect our national interests. That alone should give them special consideration. Furthermore, they carry the equipment that they do because they have to, because they need it to perform the job that our government has ordered them to do. If the government is going to rely on the private sector to transport its "employees" than the government should ensure that all of the expenses are paid for, and not left to the soldiers to pay out of their own pockets.
The airlines as a whole are extremely lenient with military bags and as stated folks are reimbursed completely for the fee. This is click bait fake news at its best. I seriously feel for airline PR departments who must be tearing their hair out as stories like this, the leggings one, etc come out.
UA walked into it with the Dao plane dragging incident I'll give you that but generally these types of stories ignore the fact that the air transportation system handles 2.5 million people daily boarding flights, almost all except 0.001% having issues. That's pretty good for such a complex operation.
So I just read this article below (about United Airlines charging a National Guardsman $200.00 for his bag of gear coming home from Afghanistan) and I have to ask: what is bad PR worth to United Airlines or any large corporation for that matter?
I saw the film 'Deepwater Horizon' about the Gulf of Mexico BP oil drilling disaster and they make a point of declaring that all those billions of dollars in damage, lost lives and horrendous Public Image could have been averted if British Petroleum had been willing to spend a measly (in relation to the company's profits) $120,000.00. Now, I get that there are no absolutes and other factors, but does it not boggle the mind the gamble they are willing to play? BP trying to save $120,000.00 would be like we average folks choosing not to pay five dollars to ensure our car wouldn't break down in the middle of nowhere. It was FIVE DOLLARS.
United Airlines has been on a Public Relations disaster roll lately. From the deadheading/passenger dragging issue to scorpions crawling in their planes to any other incident that can be recorded and uploaded in seconds, are there no PR/business experts who can break down the cost/benefit ratio of erring on the side of customer service versus unyielding/inflexible policies?
UA could have trusted and empowered their staff to up the compensatory amount to peacefully settle the incident that culminated in the doctor being bloodied and dragged off the plane. What would it have cost? A few extra hundred? A few thousand? Now they're out MILLIONS.
I get it. Policies are policies. But, they have management and people who fix situations for a living - their purpose is to solve problems and recognize when solving something for $200.00 is smarter than the PR fallout that could cost them $2 million in lost revenue.
If you don't trust your middle-management's decision-making capabilities in incidents like the above... why trust them to work for your company period?
---------
Armytimes.com
United Airlines charges soldier coming home from Afghanistan $200 for overweight bag
By: Rachael Kalinyak, May 18, 2017
After serving 21 months in Afghanistan, a National Guard soldier says United Airlines charged him $200 for an overweight bag that was full of his military gear, according to told Fox 7 Austin.
“I was told point blank that I'd have to pay $200 for the overage or find another bag to siphon stuff off with,” 1st Lt. John Rader told the station after flying to his home in Kyle, Texas, just south of Austin. “Well, I didn't have another bag so I was caught in a bind, do I go home without my stuff or without it?" The heavy items in his bag included his Kevlar vest, boots and two helmets.
United Airlines has a policy for active military members, but the policy states that the passenger can only have five bags checked for free if all bags are under 70 pounds. After checking other airlines, Fox 7 Austin found that others allow for the bags to be up to 100 pounds.
Rader paid the fee, but said "there was no empathy to the situation."
"I'm not looking for sympathy, but some form of empathy in the situation. There was none of that. It was just cold. I had to either pay or leave the bag.” he told Fox 7 Austin.
United Airlines has offered to refund the fee, but Rader said he wants to try to change the policy. "I just want to make sure soldiers are cared for going forward."
Nothing to see here. Move on. Once again, this is the media attempting to stoke the flames of controversy. As has been stated, United has a clear allowance for military personnel, not to mention the fact that if he is traveling on official orders (the only time he'd be required to carry military gear), he'd be reimbursed for any expenses. Military members can also get a travel advance, and carry around a government credit card, so there would not be any money coming out of his pocket. Interesting how none of that was mentioned in the article. Why? Because, while giving all the facts is just good journalism, it doesn't sell newspapers.
Even when the airline attempted to rectify the situation, the LT was more interested in grandstanding, and there was a reporter who was all to ready to assist.
Nothing to see here. Move on. Once again, this is the media attempting to stoke the flames of controversy. As has been stated, United has a clear allowance for military personnel, not to mention the fact that if he is traveling on official orders (the only time he'd be required to carry military gear), he'd be reimbursed for any expenses. Military members can also get a travel advance, and carry around a government credit card, so there would not be any money coming out of his pocket. Interesting how none of that was mentioned in the article. Why? Because, while giving all the facts is just good journalism, it doesn't sell newspapers.
Even when the airline attempted to rectify the situation, the LT was more interested in grandstanding, and there was a reporter who was all to ready to assist.
Unfortunately, I think you're right. I do not believe for one second that the UA employee told the passenger he either had to pay for the bag or "leave it here" because airline employees are told constantly not to allow passengers to leave their bags unattended. They wouldn't be able to accept the unattended bag and would have no way of disposing of it (other than calling the police who would investigate it as suspicious).
As others have said, the weight restrictions are there for a reason - most importantly to protect the employees who have to lift and transport the luggage on and off planes. Lighter bags help keep injuries down.
I told my husband I would have been walking up and down the aisles asking people to help donate to get this guy his money back and my husband said "yeah they would have thrown you off the plane " and I responded back to him and told him I would have looked at them and said be sure this is what you want to do because the minute I am off this plane I'm making phone calls to the local media and maybe the national will pick it up . I would burn them so bad . I think they should be shamed to do what they did .
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.
