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.
Meanwhile, United CEO has been forced to issue an apology:
"This is an upsetting event to all of us here at United," CEO Oscar Munoz said in a statement. "I apologize for having to re-accommodate these customers. Our team is moving with a sense of urgency to work with authorities and conduct our own detailed review of what happened."
Bet he had better things to do on a Monday morning than firefight this mess. And now they are going to have to spend time on their own detailed review.
I should imagine that United are now wishing that they offered a bit more to get passengers to voluntarily give up their seats.
CEO's issue many apologies. Airlines know they can't make everyone happy all of the time. There is a good chance that in the long run the action United took is in their best interest. At some point any airline is going to say we tried the nice way and it did not work. So now we are going to bump passengers per our policy.
-One of the officers involved has been placed on leave
-United Airlines has issued an apology
-Aviation security experts have stated that this is very troubling to see and that in instances of overbooking, passengers are bumped PRIOR to boarded rather than being assualted and forcibly dragged off of a plane after they have already been issued a boarding pass and issued a seat.
For someone who so-called "disobeyed a direct order", seems to me that it is the officers involved along with the airline who are in "hot water".
"The aviation security officer who pulled the man from his seat was placed on leave Monday, "pending a thorough review of the situation," the Chicago Department of Aviation said in a statement. "The incident on United Flight 3411 was not in accordance with our standard operating procedure and the actions are obviously not condoned by the department," the statement read."
Within their rights or no, something tells me this is not going to end well for United Airlines, nor anyone else involved. That whoosing sound you hear is from scores of Illinois attorneys looking to lawyer up this doctor....
What if the 4 pilots did not get to where they needed to be and another flight was cancelled altogether resulting in a plane full of passengers not getting to where they needed to go...We can play what if all day long. The bottom line is the passenger chose to disobey the police and paid the price for it.
CEO's issue many apologies. Airlines know they can't make everyone happy all of the time. There is a good chance that in the long run the action United took is in their best interest. At some point any airline is going to say we tried the nice way and it did not work. So now we are going to bump passengers per our policy.
Sorry but no, United could have handled this differently.
From the get go it was known at the gate before passengers began to board there was an issue. No one took up the offer then and the plane was allowed to passenger. That was United's first mistake; persons obviously assumed since they were allowed to board they were going to get where they were going and paid money to do so.
Then United came back with an other offer *after* passengers had boarded, which (surprise, surprise) no one took them up upon. That is when United started to get nasty and told passengers a "computer would randomly choose" which passengers would be bumped.
Well *DUH* why didn't United go to this so called computer lottery *BEFORE* passengers had been allowed to board, and certainly after no one took them up on initial offer?
The whole thing could and should have been solved either at the gate or before. Yes, a passenger or passengers not being able to board may have put up a stink, but far better than the PR nightmare now forever in cyberspace of a passenger being man-handled off a United plane.
One of my favorite bloggers pointed out that selling more of a product than you can provide would be called fraud in any other industry. Overbooking screws with people's lives. How is it even legal?
One of my favorite bloggers pointed out that selling more of a product than you can provide would be called fraud in any other industry. Overbooking screws with people's lives. How is it even legal?
I've been a victim of "overbooking". I was notified while retrieving my ticket and issued both a cash and travel voucher and placed on a different flight. This is the way it should be handled. Not wait till I was seated then assualted and dragged off the plane!
CEO's issue many apologies. Airlines know they can't make everyone happy all of the time. There is a good chance that in the long run the action United took is in their best interest. At some point any airline is going to say we tried the nice way and it did not work. So now we are going to bump passengers per our policy.
There are ways to handle a difficult situation and ways not to handle it.
This has been an object lesson in how not to handle it.
Sorry but no, United could have handled this differently.
From the get go it was known at the gate before passengers began to board there was an issue. No one took up the offer then and the plane was allowed to passenger. That was United's first mistake; persons obviously assumed since they were allowed to board they were going to get where they were going and paid money to do so.
Then United came back with an other offer *after* passengers had boarded, which (surprise, surprise) no one took them up upon. That is when United started to get nasty and told passengers a "computer would randomly choose" which passengers would be bumped.
Well *DUH* why didn't United go to this so called computer lottery *BEFORE* passengers had been allowed to board, and certainly after no one took them up on initial offer?
The whole thing could and should have been solved either at the gate or before. Yes, a passenger or passengers not being able to board may have put up a stink, but far better than the PR nightmare now forever in cyberspace of a passenger being man-handled off a United plane.
I was not there so I freely admit I do not know all of the details of everything that happened. I am guessing you weren't either. I also freely admit I have 30 years in the airline industry ( not with United) so I tend to be biased towards the airline point of view based on what I have encountered over the years. However what I am confident in saying is the airlines are under a lot of pressure to stay on schedule. What can appear to be a simple delay may, and often does, snowball in to many problems down line. The gate agents have no magic crystal ball to look into and see how things are going to work out. They have to keep moving forward and try to keep the flight on schedule.
What if the 4 pilots did not get to where they needed to be and another flight was cancelled altogether resulting in a plane full of passengers not getting to where they needed to go...We can play what if all day long. The bottom line is the passenger chose to disobey the police and paid the price for it.
That's United's problem for not scheduling/staffing properly. Had they done that, this whole incident would have been avoided.
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.
