skidooman

I am hoping they will investigate. And make the results public.

If really it was all about her being a Muslim, so inherently dangerous, then the FA was wrong.

But it is just as likely, and from what I can read perhaps even more so, that it went like this: the FA says something, and someone that has hyper-sensitivity to perceived slights concludes, hey, I am being discriminated against, I will fight it!

There are slights being done to minorities, including Muslims. But being member of a minority should not make you right each time you call foul.

CHOPCHOP767

That's a whole new level of DYKWIA Why only Muslims?

Seriously though, I suspect the sentiment was simply that if one lives their life looking for instances at which to be offended, they'll always be offended. Case and point, when I lived in Japan, I'd have loved to see what it's like inside one of those 'Japanese Only' bars, but alas, as a 'gaijin', it's not going to happen. Should I take to CNN/Twitter/Bookface and rage against this 'injustice' and 'discrimination'?

Sure would be interesting to hear other pax come forward with their accounts. Based upon the limited coverage, UA/UAX appears to have done their best to accommodate this passenger. I hope that part gets reported too.

spin88

On issues of "Muslims" {the discussion} is very different than with other customer reports, and causes me to trust no one, on either side . My willingness to take anything at face value is very different than in the usual airline vs. passenger issue (see Autistic kid, Canadian with 2 year old). Therefore I am going to put aside what actually happened before a comment was made or not made (your last step), as I don't have any idea.

But regardless of what I guess happened (the FA made a flip comment that in hindsight, even to her, was badly put) or what people can argue (it was a set up for 15 min, or FA actually said something insulting) this is still not going to end well - and has not played out well - for United.

PR is a game that you have to understand, and a reflexive defensive crouch (UAs natural reaction) just does not go over well in the internet world. Yet we keep seeing the pattern continue. United needs to realize that when it is at the bottom of every poll, and has a very bad public reputation (as it clearly does, see this board, polls, NPS, etc) it will naturally attract public and media attention to any incident. Right or wrong, the current management having created a wreck of an airline, people will pile on because it fits the narrative.

United needs to either fix the brand/airline so its not last (and the public has some trust in United to do the right thing) or it needs to be much more proactive when issues occur to avoid further damage.

tom911

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...602-story.html

Looks like he's holding UA at fault here, too, and has written to the UA (not Republic Airways) CEO.

UA1K_no_more

From the UA FB page, posted 15 minutes ago:
First two paragraphs of what's posted on the Hub:

tom911

Probably just transferred over to the Delta side of Shuttle America.

neuron

Thanks for the update.
Also from the update "United does not tolerate behavior that is discriminatory – or that appears to be discriminatory - against our customers or employees"

That is a strong statement along with the previous 2 paragraphs to indicate United felt the FA was wrong in her actions.

phltraveler

Obviously. The choice of wording was very deliberate; not that the person was no longer a Shuttle America employee or was terminated, but that they would "no longer serve united customers".

spin88

As I said many times, United made a big big mistake in not proactively saying what it has now said, even before it had investigated, and regardless of what actually happened.

Now it (appears, no way UA admits fault unless witnesses backed up the woman) that the FA infact did say something inappropriate. Who would'da thunk it?

p.s. the statement on the "hub" by UA is exactly what UA needed to say, and should have said (absent the part about having concluded its investigation) earlier.

airplanegod

Anyway, are FA's at airlines like Shuttle America, Republic, SkyWest, ExpressJet etc bound to one carrier (like just Delta Connection or United Express flights) or do they just get thrown into whatever airline is marketing the flight?

GUWonder

United can't terminate the employee of another company, even when that other company is a contractor where UAL is a huge part of the contractor's business.

I can't foresee UAL terminating Shuttle America over this matter -- it would make no business sense to let this kind of incident be the driver for terminating contractual relationships of this nature -- but I can foresee Shuttle America deciding on its own what to do with an employee that a major client doesn't want to see serving its own customers.

It seems like UAL must have weighed things and found it worthwhile to direct the contractor to not use this FA to serve UAL customers in the future. Whether or not the contractor is required to follow UAL's demand of this sort, who knows.

tom911

Looks like NBC noticed what the UA statement didn't say, too:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...t-coke-n369246

ABC has a different take from their headline:
Flight Attendant Disciplined After Muslim Woman Says She Faced Discrimination on Flight

Not sure how they came to that conclusion.

F23Coupe

While I don't know UA can legally bind Shuttle America in terminating a particular employee, if UA doesn't want a particular employee to service its flights, I'm sure SA can find a way to accommodate that wish.

I explained earlier in a post I made that if I didn't like a particular employee that's contracted to work for me, it wouldn't take much to get someone else to work for me. All in the name of trying to get continual business and satisfy the client. Sure, SA can stick it to UA and not cave in, but if pressured, I can see SA fulfilling what UA wants happened. All voluntarily, I presume.

Were you able to get your story to the media yet? It appears United has issued an apology AND arranged for that FA to no longer serve UAX flights. It'd be good to get more eyewitness accounts to the airlines so that they can get a better picture than just the account of the passenger in question. I'm not pointing this out so that UA can rescind its apology (because sometimes you apologize to defuse a situation to relieve public pressure regardless of fault), but to protect the FA if she didn't do what this passenger claimed she did.

sokolov

Every now and then I receive unopened cans in UA and UA Express flights (non-alcoholic, traveling in Y). Why would they think it is a weapon? Is it possible to turn the can into an explosive?

tom911

Republic Airways chimes in:

http://www.latimes.com/travel/deals/...603-story.html