Originally Posted by
RandomBaritone
It's one thing to be convinced that Munoz isn't up to the task. But to smear the entire workforce is totally uncalled for.
Agree. During my almost 20 years of flying on UA, the number of poor employees I've encountered is dwarfed by the professional, kind, and helpful UA employees I've encountered.
Originally Posted by
WorldLux
This incident does show again how poorly passengers can be treated at UA.
So because this incident demonstrates poor treatment of passengers, we should conclude that the majority of UA employees treat passengers badly?
Originally Posted by
STS-134
The fact that someone was reported to have said he or she would volunteer for $1600 means that there was another option that would have caused less inconvenience to those removed.
Exactly. There was an option to dragging an elderly man off of the airplane that didn't involve the unnecessary application of physical force, but UA chose not to try it.
Originally Posted by
Ber2dca
Given that $1600 was likely considerably more than the amount the GA had to 'play with', it's not especially surprising (nor relevant) that it was rejected.
It's very relevant. UA had the option to avoid the use of physical force, and chose not to exercise it because they didn't want to spend the money it would have cost them.
How's that working out for them now?
