Apr 10, 2017, 8:42 pm
Last edit by: WineCountryUA
WELCOME, THREAD GUIDELINES and SUMMARY PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING
If you are new to us, welcome to FlyerTalk! Who we are: FlyerTalk features discussions and chat boards that cover the most up-to-date traveler information; an interactive community dedicated to the topic of travel (not politics or arguments about politics or religion, etc. – those discussion are best in the OMNI forum)
The incident discussed in this thread has touched a nerve for many, and many posters are passionate about their opinions and concerns. However we should still have a civil and respectful discussion of this topic. This is because FlyerTalk is meant to be a friendly, helpful, and collegial community. (Rule 12.)
1. The normal FlyerTalk Rules apply. (Including not discussing moderation actions in thread). Please be particularly attentive to "discussing the idea and not the poster" when you have a disagreement. Civility and mutual respect are still expected and are what we owe each other as a community.
2. You are expected to respect the FlyerTalk community's diversity, and therefore refrain from posting inflammatory comments about race, religion, culture, politics, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. Do not cite, copy, or report on such.
3. While you can disagree with an opinion, the holder of that opinion has the same right to their opinion as you have to yours. We request all to respect that and disagree or discuss their point of views without getting overly personal and without attacking the other poster(s). This is expected as a requirement in FT Rule 12.
4. Overly exaggerative posts as well as posts with information that has been posted several times previously may be summarily deleted.
5. In addition, those who repeatedly fail to comply with FlyerTalk Rules, may be subjected to FlyerTalk disciplinary actions and, e.g., have membership privileges suspended, or masked from this forum.
If you have questions about the Rules or concerns about what another has posted in this or other threads in this forum, please do not post about that. Rather, notify the moderators by using the alert symbol within each post or email or send a private message to us moderators.
Let’s have this discussion in a way that, when we look back on it, we can be proud of how we handled ourselves as a community.
The United Moderator team:
J.Edward
l'etoile
Ocn Vw 1K
Pat89339
WineCountryUA
N.B. PLEASE do not alter the contents of this moderator note
CHICAGO, April 27, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- We are pleased to report that United and Dr. Dao have reached an amicable resolution of the unfortunate incident that occurred aboard flight 3411. We look forward to implementing the improvements we have announced, which will put our customers at the center of everything we do.
What facts do we know?
- UA3411, operated by Republic Airways, ORD-SDF on Sunday, April 9, 2017. UA3411 was the second to last flight to SDF for United. AA3509 and UA4771 were the two remaining departures for the day. Also, AA and DL had connecting options providing for same-day arrival in SDF.
- After the flight was fully boarded, United determined four seats were needed to accommodate crew to SDF for a flight on Monday.
- United solicited volunteers for VDB. (BUT stopped at $800 in UA$s, not cash). Chose not to go to the levels such as 1350 that airlines have been known to go even in case of weather impacted disruption)
- After receiving no volunteers for $800 vouchers, a passenger volunteered for $1,600 and was "laughed at" and refused, United determined four passengers to be removed from the flight.
- One passenger refused and Chicago Aviation Security Officers were called to forcibly remove the passenger.
- The passenger hit the armrest in the aisle and received a concussion, a broken nose, a bloodied lip, and the loss of two teeth.
- After being removed from the plane, the passenger re-boarded saying "I need to go home" repeatedly, before being removed again.
- United spokesman Jonathan Guerin said the flight was sold out — but not oversold. Instead, United and regional affiliate Republic Airlines – the unit that operated Flight 3411 – decided they had to remove four passengers from the flight to accommodate crewmembers who were needed in Louisville the next day for a “downline connection.”
United Express Flight 3411 Review and Action Report - released 27 April 2017
Videos
- Passenger one row behind and on the aisle footage BEFORE man was dragged off https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=655_1492004707
- Videos of man being removed https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4b7_1491983214 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nAZEk6nsNE
- Video of man re-entering plane https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNEQDWpYbZA (link dead)
Internal Communication by Oscar Munoz
Oscar Munoz sent an internal communication to UA employees (sources: View From The Wing, Chicago Tribune):
Dear Team,
Like you, I was upset to see and hear about what happened last night aboard United Express Flight 3411 headed from Chicago to Louisville. While the facts and circumstances are still evolving, especially with respect to why this customer defied Chicago Aviation Security Officers the way he did, to give you a clearer picture of what transpired, I've included below a recap from the preliminary reports filed by our employees.
As you will read, this situation was unfortunately compounded when one of the passengers we politely asked to deplane refused and it became necessary to contact Chicago Aviation Security Officers to help. Our employees followed established procedures for dealing with situations like this. While I deeply regret this situation arose, I also emphatically stand behind all of you, and I want to commend you for continuing to go above and beyond to ensure we fly right.
I do, however, believe there are lessons we can learn from this experience, and we are taking a close look at the circumstances surrounding this incident. Treating our customers and each other with respect and dignity is at the core of who we are, and we must always remember this no matter how challenging the situation.
Oscar
Summary of Flight 3411
Like you, I was upset to see and hear about what happened last night aboard United Express Flight 3411 headed from Chicago to Louisville. While the facts and circumstances are still evolving, especially with respect to why this customer defied Chicago Aviation Security Officers the way he did, to give you a clearer picture of what transpired, I've included below a recap from the preliminary reports filed by our employees.
As you will read, this situation was unfortunately compounded when one of the passengers we politely asked to deplane refused and it became necessary to contact Chicago Aviation Security Officers to help. Our employees followed established procedures for dealing with situations like this. While I deeply regret this situation arose, I also emphatically stand behind all of you, and I want to commend you for continuing to go above and beyond to ensure we fly right.
I do, however, believe there are lessons we can learn from this experience, and we are taking a close look at the circumstances surrounding this incident. Treating our customers and each other with respect and dignity is at the core of who we are, and we must always remember this no matter how challenging the situation.
Oscar
Summary of Flight 3411
- On Sunday, April 9, after United Express Flight 3411 was fully boarded, United's gate agents were approached by crewmembers that were told they needed to board the flight.
- We sought volunteers and then followed our involuntary denial of boarding process (including offering up to $1,000 in compensation) and when we approached one of these passengers to explain apologetically that he was being denied boarding, he raised his voice and refused to comply with crew member instructions.
- He was approached a few more times after that in order to gain his compliance to come off the aircraft, and each time he refused and became more and more disruptive and belligerent.
- Our agents were left with no choice but to call Chicago Aviation Security Officers to assist in removing the customer from the flight. He repeatedly declined to leave.
- Chicago Aviation Security Officers were unable to gain his cooperation and physically removed him from the flight as he continued to resist - running back onto the aircraft in defiance of both our crew and security officials.
Dear Team,
The truly horrific event that occurred on this flight has elicited many responses from all of us: outrage, anger, disappointment. I share all of those sentiments, and one above all: my deepest apologies for what happened. Like you, I continue to be disturbed by what happened on this flight and I deeply apologize to the customer forcibly removed and to all the customers aboard. No one should ever be mistreated this way.
I want you to know that we take full responsibility and we will work to make it right.
It’s never too late to do the right thing. I have committed to our customers and our employees that we are going to fix what’s broken so this never happens again. This will include a thorough review of crew movement, our policies for incentivizing volunteers in these situations, how we handle oversold situations and an examination of how we partner with airport authorities and local law enforcement. We’ll communicate the results of our review by April 30th.
I promise you we will do better.
Sincerely,
Oscar
The truly horrific event that occurred on this flight has elicited many responses from all of us: outrage, anger, disappointment. I share all of those sentiments, and one above all: my deepest apologies for what happened. Like you, I continue to be disturbed by what happened on this flight and I deeply apologize to the customer forcibly removed and to all the customers aboard. No one should ever be mistreated this way.
I want you to know that we take full responsibility and we will work to make it right.
It’s never too late to do the right thing. I have committed to our customers and our employees that we are going to fix what’s broken so this never happens again. This will include a thorough review of crew movement, our policies for incentivizing volunteers in these situations, how we handle oversold situations and an examination of how we partner with airport authorities and local law enforcement. We’ll communicate the results of our review by April 30th.
I promise you we will do better.
Sincerely,
Oscar
Each flight you take with us represents an important promise we make to you, our customer. It's not simply that we make sure you reach your destination safely and on time, but also that you will be treated with the highest level of service and the deepest sense of dignity and respect.
Earlier this month, we broke that trust when a passenger was forcibly removed from one of our planes. We can never say we are sorry enough for what occurred, but we also know meaningful actions will speak louder than words.
For the past several weeks, we have been urgently working to answer two questions: How did this happen, and how can we do our best to ensure this never happens again?
It happened because our corporate policies were placed ahead of our shared values. Our procedures got in the way of our employees doing what they know is right.
Fixing that problem starts now with changing how we fly, serve and respect our customers. This is a turning point for all of us here at United – and as CEO, it's my responsibility to make sure that we learn from this experience and redouble our efforts to put our customers at the center of everything we do.
That’s why we announced that we will no longer ask law enforcement to remove customers from a flight and customers will not be required to give up their seat once on board – except in matters of safety or security.
We also know that despite our best efforts, when things don’t go the way they should, we need to be there for you to make things right. There are several new ways we’re going to do just that.
We will increase incentives for voluntary rebooking up to $10,000 and will be eliminating the red tape on permanently lost bags with a new "no-questions-asked" $1,500 reimbursement policy. We will also be rolling out a new app for our employees that will enable them to provide on-the-spot goodwill gestures in the form of miles, travel credit and other amenities when your experience with us misses the mark. You can learn more about these commitments and many other changes at hub.united.com.
While these actions are important, I have found myself reflecting more broadly on the role we play and the responsibilities we have to you and the communities we serve.
I believe we must go further in redefining what United's corporate citizenship looks like in our society. If our chief good as a company is only getting you to and from your destination, that would show a lack of moral imagination on our part. You can and ought to expect more from us, and we intend to live up to those higher expectations in the way we embody social responsibility and civic leadership everywhere we operate. I hope you will see that pledge express itself in our actions going forward, of which these initial, though important, changes are merely a first step.
Our goal should be nothing less than to make you truly proud to say, "I fly United."
Ultimately, the measure of our success is your satisfaction and the past several weeks have moved us to go further than ever before in elevating your experience with us. I know our 87,000 employees have taken this message to heart, and they are as energized as ever to fulfill our promise to serve you better with each flight and earn the trust you’ve given us.
We are working harder than ever for the privilege to serve you and I know we will be stronger, better and the customer-focused airline you expect and deserve.
With Great Gratitude,
Oscar Munoz
CEO
United Airlines
Earlier this month, we broke that trust when a passenger was forcibly removed from one of our planes. We can never say we are sorry enough for what occurred, but we also know meaningful actions will speak louder than words.
For the past several weeks, we have been urgently working to answer two questions: How did this happen, and how can we do our best to ensure this never happens again?
It happened because our corporate policies were placed ahead of our shared values. Our procedures got in the way of our employees doing what they know is right.
Fixing that problem starts now with changing how we fly, serve and respect our customers. This is a turning point for all of us here at United – and as CEO, it's my responsibility to make sure that we learn from this experience and redouble our efforts to put our customers at the center of everything we do.
That’s why we announced that we will no longer ask law enforcement to remove customers from a flight and customers will not be required to give up their seat once on board – except in matters of safety or security.
We also know that despite our best efforts, when things don’t go the way they should, we need to be there for you to make things right. There are several new ways we’re going to do just that.
We will increase incentives for voluntary rebooking up to $10,000 and will be eliminating the red tape on permanently lost bags with a new "no-questions-asked" $1,500 reimbursement policy. We will also be rolling out a new app for our employees that will enable them to provide on-the-spot goodwill gestures in the form of miles, travel credit and other amenities when your experience with us misses the mark. You can learn more about these commitments and many other changes at hub.united.com.
While these actions are important, I have found myself reflecting more broadly on the role we play and the responsibilities we have to you and the communities we serve.
I believe we must go further in redefining what United's corporate citizenship looks like in our society. If our chief good as a company is only getting you to and from your destination, that would show a lack of moral imagination on our part. You can and ought to expect more from us, and we intend to live up to those higher expectations in the way we embody social responsibility and civic leadership everywhere we operate. I hope you will see that pledge express itself in our actions going forward, of which these initial, though important, changes are merely a first step.
Our goal should be nothing less than to make you truly proud to say, "I fly United."
Ultimately, the measure of our success is your satisfaction and the past several weeks have moved us to go further than ever before in elevating your experience with us. I know our 87,000 employees have taken this message to heart, and they are as energized as ever to fulfill our promise to serve you better with each flight and earn the trust you’ve given us.
We are working harder than ever for the privilege to serve you and I know we will be stronger, better and the customer-focused airline you expect and deserve.
With Great Gratitude,
Oscar Munoz
CEO
United Airlines
- Chicago Aviation Department said on the Monday afternoon after the incident that the officer who had dragged the passenger off the plane had been placed on leave pending an investigation. Spokesperson Karen Pride said in an email that "The incident on United flight 3411 was not in accordance with our standard operating procedure and the actions of the aviation security officer are obviously not condoned by the Department."
- 4/12/17: Two more Chicago Aviation officers involved are suspended
- Muńoz does ABC interview, announcing United will no longer use law enforcement to remove passengers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90jSUe_vdhM
- United announces policy change that crews traveling on their aircraft must be booked at least 60 minutes prior to departure.
- United releases multiple changes in overbooking / denied boarding policies "We are making changes to ensure that we always put customers first" (http://newsroom.united.com/2017-04-2...mer-Experience) released 27 April 2017
- Statement from United Airlines Regarding Resolution with Dr. David Dao - released 27 April 2017
- Response to Senate Commerce Committee questions - 1 May 2017
- United Airlines PR Boss to Step Down
- James Long, one of several officers involved in removing David Dao from the April 9, 2017, flight to make room for airline employees, filed suit on Tuesday against United, Chicago’s Department of Aviation and its commissioner, Ginger Evans. The lawsuit, filed in the circuit court of Cook County, Illinois, alleges he was not properly trained on how to use force.
Poll: Your Opinion of United Airlines
Poll link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/KP68GYG
Results link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/results...Q6B2B/instant/
Reference MaterialResults link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/results...Q6B2B/instant/
UA's Customer Commitment says:
Occasionally we may not be able to provide you with a seat on a specific flight, even if you hold a ticket, have checked in, are present to board on time, and comply with other requirements. This is called an oversale, and occurs when restrictions apply to operating a particular flight safely (such as aircraft weight limits); when we have to substitute a smaller aircraft in place of a larger aircraft that was originally scheduled; or if more customers have checked in and are prepared to board than we have available seats.
If your flight is in an oversale situation, you will not be denied a seat until we first ask for volunteers willing to give up their confirmed seats. If there are not enough volunteers, we will deny boarding to passengers in accordance with our written policy on boarding priority. If you are involuntarily denied boarding and have complied with our check-in and other applicable rules, we will give you a written statement that describes your rights and explains how we determine boarding priority for an oversold flight. You will generally be entitled to compensation and transportation on an alternate flight.
We make complete rules for the payment of compensation, as well as our policy about boarding priorities, available at airports we serve. We will follow these rules to ensure you are treated fairly. Please be aware that you may be denied boarding without compensation if you do not check in on time or do not meet certain other requirements, or if we offer you alternative transportation that is planned to arrive at your destination or first stopover no later than one hour after the planned arrival time of your original flight.
CoC is here: https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...-carriage.aspxIf your flight is in an oversale situation, you will not be denied a seat until we first ask for volunteers willing to give up their confirmed seats. If there are not enough volunteers, we will deny boarding to passengers in accordance with our written policy on boarding priority. If you are involuntarily denied boarding and have complied with our check-in and other applicable rules, we will give you a written statement that describes your rights and explains how we determine boarding priority for an oversold flight. You will generally be entitled to compensation and transportation on an alternate flight.
We make complete rules for the payment of compensation, as well as our policy about boarding priorities, available at airports we serve. We will follow these rules to ensure you are treated fairly. Please be aware that you may be denied boarding without compensation if you do not check in on time or do not meet certain other requirements, or if we offer you alternative transportation that is planned to arrive at your destination or first stopover no later than one hour after the planned arrival time of your original flight.
Man pulled off of overbooked flight UA3411 (ORD-SDF) 9 Apr 2017 {Settlement reached}
Apr 14, 2017, 10:41 am
#5491
Join Date: Jun 2009
Programs: AA Plat, DL DM
Posts: 32
Why no public comment from United PR today other than the poorly worded missive which apparently went to GS flyers? Does anyone know what United Crisis PR firm(s) are suggesting to United? That United earnings conference call is starting to loom large as a very interesting situation. I've been told that the questions are typically all (or virtually all) from brokerage analysts who write on the stock and depend on access to management to "cover" the company and write their reports. I've been told that typically makes these analysts sound like a "hallelujah chorus", often fawning over management. Usually listeners other than the brokerage analysts are in a "listen only" mode on these calls.
Does anyone know how United handles its calls? The invite for this call must have already gone out, can anyone give some color on this?
Maybe CEO Munoz, in the way he wrote the internal communication to employees calling Dr. Dao "belligerent", will sense a friendly audience on the call and say "we administered a beatdown to a physically slight, elderly doctor, but he deserved it."
Time will tell.
Does anyone know how United handles its calls? The invite for this call must have already gone out, can anyone give some color on this?
Maybe CEO Munoz, in the way he wrote the internal communication to employees calling Dr. Dao "belligerent", will sense a friendly audience on the call and say "we administered a beatdown to a physically slight, elderly doctor, but he deserved it."
Time will tell.
Apr 14, 2017, 10:43 am
#5492
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,554
Hopefully they are telling management to stop feeling obligated to issue daily apologies, which is apparently what people now want.
Apr 14, 2017, 10:47 am
#5493
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 11
I could have sworn I saw in this thread (but not can't find it & the thread is so long, or maybe it was a different thread) a post (or more) that had a chart that showed the IDB rates amongst the various airlines. But now I can't find it. Does anyone have a link?
Cheers.
Cheers.
YOu may have been thinking of this thread: IDB and VDB - how does UA compare to other US carriers?
Apr 14, 2017, 10:50 am
#5494
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,090
Why "should" they? Because they believe it is in their best interest.
No employer is required to. Many airlines choose to do so as part of their union contract negotiations.
Generally, the pilots select a "base" from among options (sometimes a limited set of company selected airports, sometimes any airport with commercial service, sometimes something in between).
Generally, the employee is required to get themselves to the base by the beginning of their tours. Sometimes they live closeby to those base airports and just drive in. Sometimes they live far away and use their credentials to fly on negative space on commercial flights - the logistics of this are complicated and non-reserved, so they often have to plan to get there hours or even a day ahead of time, just to make sure they are on time for their shift.
You may remember that one of the crew on the United Express Buffalo crash did this - arriving the night before her shift and sleeping in the crew rest area (in violation of policy, but it was commonly violated because she had to show at EWR and wasn't paid anything close to enough to be able to afford to live nearby).
If an airline allows crew to select from a lot of bases, including ones that are nowhere near their centers of operation, the company will generally be responsible for moving them from their base to the beginning of their actual flying tour. They are generally on-duty during this time, and getting paid. If the company only allows them to select bases which are that airline's hubs, then the pilots generally fly on their credential passes as described above, or make their own (paid) arrangements.
There may be some instances where an employee lives somewhere far away from their base and the employer still pays to move them to their base (on company time, I presume this would mean), but I do not have direct knowledge of that if so.
I agree with a poster above who asked why any of this is relevant to the situation at hand. I don't think it is. But perhaps it will be interesting to other flyertalk folks.
No employer is required to. Many airlines choose to do so as part of their union contract negotiations.
Generally, the pilots select a "base" from among options (sometimes a limited set of company selected airports, sometimes any airport with commercial service, sometimes something in between).
Generally, the employee is required to get themselves to the base by the beginning of their tours. Sometimes they live closeby to those base airports and just drive in. Sometimes they live far away and use their credentials to fly on negative space on commercial flights - the logistics of this are complicated and non-reserved, so they often have to plan to get there hours or even a day ahead of time, just to make sure they are on time for their shift.
You may remember that one of the crew on the United Express Buffalo crash did this - arriving the night before her shift and sleeping in the crew rest area (in violation of policy, but it was commonly violated because she had to show at EWR and wasn't paid anything close to enough to be able to afford to live nearby).
If an airline allows crew to select from a lot of bases, including ones that are nowhere near their centers of operation, the company will generally be responsible for moving them from their base to the beginning of their actual flying tour. They are generally on-duty during this time, and getting paid. If the company only allows them to select bases which are that airline's hubs, then the pilots generally fly on their credential passes as described above, or make their own (paid) arrangements.
There may be some instances where an employee lives somewhere far away from their base and the employer still pays to move them to their base (on company time, I presume this would mean), but I do not have direct knowledge of that if so.
I agree with a poster above who asked why any of this is relevant to the situation at hand. I don't think it is. But perhaps it will be interesting to other flyertalk folks.
Apr 14, 2017, 10:53 am
#5495
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: LH SEN; BA Gold
Posts: 8,405
Welcome to the age of the internet. Both new and legacy carriers have thrown punches at each other for the purpose of marketing (cf. NZ v. EI tweets over who's going to win the rugby world cup; LH asking FR if they need help at the big, scary FRA, etc.) As long as it's in good spirits, I don't see how this is bad.
Apr 14, 2017, 10:54 am
#5496
Original Member and FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Kansas City, MO, USA
Programs: DL PM/MM, AA ExPlat, Hyatt Glob, HH Dia, National ECE, Hertz PC
Posts: 16,579
Apr 14, 2017, 10:55 am
#5497
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: BOS
Programs: 1MM, UA 1k
Posts: 529
Perhaps I misunderstood your point then. Here is your post:
I thought you were espousing that a passengers non-compliance with a request is a safety/security issue. I countered that refusing a request to get off the plane from Ground Staff should not be equated with a propensity for the passenger to disregard directives from Crew related to safety.
I made the point that lawful vs unlawful requests should not be evaluated in the same criteria.
If this was not your point, I am a bit confused.
I thought you were espousing that a passengers non-compliance with a request is a safety/security issue. I countered that refusing a request to get off the plane from Ground Staff should not be equated with a propensity for the passenger to disregard directives from Crew related to safety.
I made the point that lawful vs unlawful requests should not be evaluated in the same criteria.
If this was not your point, I am a bit confused.
My perspective is this: I get concerned that a passengers non-compliance with a request from the ground crew is an indicator that they will selectively choose what requests to obey or not. I'm assuming the ground crew and flight crew are coming with rational requests, not some of the hypothetical gymnastics proposed earlier. I am categorizing IDB as rational for this discussion. Whether it is or not, is a separate argument.
Apr 14, 2017, 11:00 am
#5498
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: SIN, SFO, LON
Programs: SQ:TPPS, Marriott: Titanium
Posts: 442
United PR should suggest to the Board to fire Munoz's ... before he start laying blame to everyone except himself. Its quite obvious to everyone that he's either a lousy lier or just plain incompetent. The buck has to stop somewhere.
Why no public comment from United PR today other than the poorly worded missive which apparently went to GS flyers? Does anyone know what United Crisis PR firm(s) are suggesting to United? That United earnings conference call is starting to loom large as a very interesting situation. I've been told that the questions are typically all (or virtually all) from brokerage analysts who write on the stock and depend on access to management to "cover" the company and write their reports. I've been told that typically makes these analysts sound like a "hallelujah chorus", often fawning over management. Usually listeners other than the brokerage analysts are in a "listen only" mode on these calls.
Does anyone know how United handles its calls? The invite for this call must have already gone out, can anyone give some color on this?
Maybe CEO Munoz, in the way he wrote the internal communication to employees calling Dr. Dao "belligerent", will sense a friendly audience on the call and say "we administered a beatdown to a physically slight, elderly doctor, but he deserved it."
Time will tell.
Does anyone know how United handles its calls? The invite for this call must have already gone out, can anyone give some color on this?
Maybe CEO Munoz, in the way he wrote the internal communication to employees calling Dr. Dao "belligerent", will sense a friendly audience on the call and say "we administered a beatdown to a physically slight, elderly doctor, but he deserved it."
Time will tell.
Apr 14, 2017, 11:01 am
#5499
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 11
Getting standby pilots from Chicago to Louisville to operate a flight the next morning is not a home to work commute, it is moving employees from one work location to another.
The former will never bump a revenue passenger. The latter may/will.
Not to mention allow lightly-paid employees to commute hundreds of miles by air for "free."
Pay someone $20-25 a hour or whatever and allow him/her to expend God knows how much getting to/from work.
This specific situation might not have been commuting, but a lot of flying is.
Pay someone $20-25 a hour or whatever and allow him/her to expend God knows how much getting to/from work.
This specific situation might not have been commuting, but a lot of flying is.
Apr 14, 2017, 11:01 am
#5500
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 43
I am close to certain that this incident- while hopefully spurring significant change for the positive in how airlines implement policy and treat their passengers- is also going to result in newly empowered jerks feeling as if they have the ability to ignore crew requests.
In fact, for all of us who travel frequently, I'd say that there's 1 or 2 passengers per week that I could envision pushing back with this case as their fuel.
There are reasons crews were given unilateral powers. They've obviously grown to abuse such power (not unexpected), and need to be racheted back. But it needs to be done at the level of the airlines and legislation. The feeling of "I don't like this, let's fight back!" works only when the aggrieved is in the right. Never underestimate the stupidity of the average American.
In fact, for all of us who travel frequently, I'd say that there's 1 or 2 passengers per week that I could envision pushing back with this case as their fuel.
There are reasons crews were given unilateral powers. They've obviously grown to abuse such power (not unexpected), and need to be racheted back. But it needs to be done at the level of the airlines and legislation. The feeling of "I don't like this, let's fight back!" works only when the aggrieved is in the right. Never underestimate the stupidity of the average American.
Apr 14, 2017, 11:02 am
#5501
Join Date: May 2000
Location: IAH
Programs: UA 1K 2.7MM, Marriott Titanium/LT Plat, IHG Spire
Posts: 3,317
I find a passenger who won't follow the requests/demands of the crew a security issue. In this case, he may resist demands because he feels his job is more important than the rest of us on board (DYKWIA) or some other arcane reason, but I don't want said passenger determining what requests he's going to follow, and which ones he won't.
Apr 14, 2017, 11:03 am
#5502
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,594
I keep coming back around on this point, actually. There was absolutely no reason United could not have confirmed him on a seat on the last flight of the evening--overbook or not--and get him home that night even if he was IDBed off 3411. If overbooking is a legitimate tool to move crew around is ought to be a legitimate tool to deal with the consequences to passengers who are removed from flights through no fault of their own.
$0 for <1 hour delay
2x up to $650 2 hours<delay< 4 hours
4x up to $1350 4 hours<delay<8 hours
8x up to $2750 8 hours<delay<16 hours
16x up to $5550 16 hours<delay<32 hours
etc.
so that the cost of delaying a new passenger every 4 or 6 hours for 24 hours is much less than the cost of delaying a single passenger by the whole 24. There would also have to be a condition that repeated IDB of the same pax pays they higher penalty.
then in the long run it's cheaper for the airline to do a "rolling overbook" where they keep pushing the overbook to the next flight and pushing a new person into the IDB hole while hoping that someone takes VDB (and having some incentive to do so, because the cost is adding up). Structured like this it puts a large penalty for bumping someone for a long delay, and gives people trying to exploit the VDB offers less than they'd get for getting a big IDB up front.
Last edited by chrisl137; Apr 14, 2017 at 11:11 am Reason: (add multipliers and condition on repeated IDB)
Apr 14, 2017, 11:10 am
#5504
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,090
That may be true, but you asked why airlines pay to commute employees from home to work, and referenced another poster who lamented airlines paying pilots very little but offering them standby flying privileges (for free) to get to work.
Getting standby pilots from Chicago to Louisville to operate a flight the next morning is not a home to work commute, it is moving employees from one work location to another.
The former will never bump a revenue passenger. The latter may/will.
Getting standby pilots from Chicago to Louisville to operate a flight the next morning is not a home to work commute, it is moving employees from one work location to another.
The former will never bump a revenue passenger. The latter may/will.
It doesn't really matter, it was the simple fact of moving crew that was the root cause of this problem where paying customers were put last in the pecking order by United, or its operators.
Apr 14, 2017, 11:11 am
#5505
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: National Capitol Region
Programs: Delta Dirt Medallion,AA,USairways, WN Rapid Rewards, National Emerald Club
Posts: 3,912
I keep coming back around on this point, actually. There was absolutely no reason United could not have confirmed him on a seat on the last flight of the evening--overbook or not--and get him home that night even if he was IDBed off 3411. If overbooking is a legitimate tool to move crew around is ought to be a legitimate tool to deal with the consequences to passengers who are removed from flights through no fault of their own.