The wording of that tweet couldn't have been worse. Using "rest" twice... as if crew "rest" in a hotel is the equivalent to passengers "resting" on the flight home.

Yeah, I'd trade a comfy quiet hotel room for a good "rest" in a coach seat any day!

How can you write something like that and not realize how awful it sounds? I get the idea... that you want a well-rested crew up front for your peace of mind. But that's now how it comes out.

they probably pay their social media goons $15/hour, maybe less. to be fair, i got a less than stellar response from AA on a tweet the other day as well. it's a race to the bottom folks. UA leading the charge.

+1. I was wondering if I was the only one who hears how incredibly tone deaf UA's PR department is.

Nonetheless, social media is public performance, and the individual who sent that tweet is in the wrong job.

It was a major story on all 3 network newscasts tonight. United continues to hide... :rolleyes:

This should be a major point of discussion in the week ahead. Companies on Twitter is simply NOT a good idea.

It has an overwhelming legal sound to it. I'd bet it wasn't a Twitter expert or $14 an hour kid who did it. A United corporate goon, yes.

Further, this was not just a simple tweet responding to a simple issue from one customer. This was one of the bigger PR nightmares for UA in the past few months. And they allow this type of tweet in response???

Sorry, there is no excuse for this. Even the UA apologists must be at a loss for words in this case.

Canadian readers have a different perspective.
 

Canadian readers have a different perspective. Read the comments from this CBC story to see that Canadian readers view the passengers as "spoiled brats."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfou...upts-1.3113036

The fact is that there are only two small motels in Goose Bay, not enough for everyone (check www.tripadvisor.com). However, there are some b&b, and those pax who wanted to go on their own should have been given the option to do so.

A BIG unanswered question is this: were passengers able to leave the Canadian Air Force base to go in town? Clearly, the crew must have been cleared by Canadian immigration, so at least an immigration officer must have been available. (A quick check shows that there is one on duty at that airport.)

Anyone who was on that flight, could you please tell us if passengers were permitted to leave the base?

For the moment, let's assume that UAs new FF changes do indicate that they UA actually does care about a select few passengers, at the very top of the HVF list. Shouldn't there have been somebody responsible for monitoring VBTs (Very Bad Things) happening to GS folk? I'd assume there'd be at least a few of them on that flight.

This is what I want to know. Were the passengers literally imprisoned on this army base? Or were they free to leave?

Crew issue maybe? From the articles I've read there seems to have been 3 crews involved, the original, the rescue crew and the final crew that made it to LHR. With current the FA contract, maybe they had an aircraft but no eligible crew that was legal to work it to LHR.

I found this on another site:

http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.c...-for-20-hours/

It looks that all passengers were cleared into Canada so that means they were all free to go wherever. However, since they were told that a replacement aircraft would arrive in the morning, somehow nobody thought of going into town on their own. They did not have to get on the school bus after customs. They could have called the local hotels to see if anything was available.

"Yes, we were cleared for entry to Canada via 2 customs agents who were extremely nice after undoubtedly being awaken to clear a 767 at midnight.
Issue was, we never touched the civilian terminal. Old school buses picked us straight up from the aircraft, straight to customs, the back on the same bus to the barracks. originally, we were told a replacement 767 would arrive morning time Saturday for a straight continuation to LHR. Given that, none of us could find better options. Of course, the story changed when the original replacement was grounded for maintenance as well."

Unfortunately this of course meant they all had to clear US immigration again on return to EWR. :)

And did they have their luggage? Not just carry on, but for those like me who check most items, did they have access?

John Oliver had a good piece on why Twitter and corporations don't mix.


Edit: How do you just post a link without this fancy window thing???