fastair

No, they cannot, no they are not.

stacylk2003

I was initially angered when I saw the one line heading in the news. But when I read the detailed facts (as we all should do before reacting), I understood the nonrev situation and the reasonable policy.
I believe the first United response was poorly done. It could have easily and succinctly handled the problem.

John Aldeborgh

Your initial reaction is not unexpected but to me the real question is why so many people on social media post inaccurate information. If the initial posts were delayed, until these people actually had the facts, this never would have gone viral. To admonish UA for not instantly responding with perfect PR isn't fair. Companies have specialists that deal with PR crisis management, that's exactly what this became. Unfortunately once something goes viral all objectivity is lost, facts no longer matter, as it becomes all about narratives and social agendas. United is not at fault here in any way, they did nothing wrong, this crisis was created entirely by social media but they are never accountable for anything, when the pot gets stirred they just sell more advertising and improve earnings.

james dean

OK so what are the facts then?

chavala

UA DID do something wrong by replying with their robotic response (over and over and over) re the CoC. It was a stupid move. They could have nipped it in the bud right away.

pinniped

This.

The moment they invoked CoC and stated that the GA has discretion, it very much became about United vs. the traveling public.

The nuance of non-rev travel is a detail lost on 99% of the traveling public anyway. That's a thing that Flyertalkers, industry insiders, avgeeks, etc. know and (sometimes) understand. To the rest of the world (and even to *some* of us), the fare basis of the ticket is a red herring.

spin88

+1000.

There is nothing wrong with the perspective that (to paraphrase) "the good old days when people wore coat and tie or dresses in First Class were better, good for United for standing up for proper dress" that is behind a lot of responses on this board. There is also nothing wrong with the perspective that "the employer can demand any dress code it wants, and it is none of your business." These perspectives fit in a particular view of the world.

OTOH, there are a lot of people who (a) don't like to be told what to do by anyone, (b) think women get told too much what to do, and (c) think leggins are just fine for travel in the devalued cattle car experience United provides. That these are girls related to pass holders either does not register, or does not impact their thinking, and is irrelevant to what is important to them.

Ultimately United is not likely to pick up MORE business from standing its ground on the issue from the first group of travelers, but has taken a hit with the second group. Clearly the first CoC response was a BIG mistake, but I think also continuing to stand its ground was a big mistake too.

This media storm has left lots of people with the opinion that United is an old/stodgy/unfriendly/uncomfortable/un-hip airline. That this read on the story fits an existing narrative on United makes it all the more damaging.

halls120

I can see it now - travelers in your second group trying to make a purchase decision: "well, UA has the best price and/or the only nonstop to where I'm going, but since they aren't hip and they are mean to their employees and won't let them wear leggings, I'll pay more/have a less convenient trip."

Right.

jspira

Some travelers are blithely unaware of what airline they plan to fly on. We here on FT not only know the airline but the plane type, seat layout configuration, possibly the route's history, and so on.

While the outrage in social media was against United, I'm not really sure how it will translate into a typical traveler's decision-making process versus selecting either the lowest fare or most convenient time or routing.

spin88

Despite your current defense of United's Dress Code, I think you know how important brand perception is. I can go back and pull at least 100 posts where you have commented on it. I think I am not atypical, there are some airlines I will not look at. I would never fly US Air under Parker, and they were ALWAYS cheaper. And its not just me, if brand, etc did not matter, there would have been no reason why AS Air was always selling tickets for less, for years. And don't think "they charge for water" did not have something to do with it. CF http://crankyflier.com/2009/02/24/wh...hance-its-rep/

Very few people are entirely agnostic about airline brands. Everyone I know has someone they avoid (often for old, outdated reasons). And in most situations the airlines have roughly similar fares. Delta does well right now because it has a better reputation than United, people pick it, particularly closer to departure time, when fares are higher, and they sell more high value tickets, hence better yield. Ditto VX, which has picked up a lot of traffic based upon its brand. Ditto Hawaiian, who a lot of people I know will take (including connecting in HNL) over UA.

Do I think millions of people will stop flying United, of course not. But this kerfuffle fits into a pre-existing narrative on United's poor service/product, which does cost sales.

halls120

Other than professional musicians, I don't think United breaks guitars has driven many people away from the bingo cage.

You are correct - I was very critical of the damage that Smisek visited on UA, but there's a difference between what he did and the current situation. Smisek cheapened the soft product, made the hard product uncomfortable, and drove operational efficiency into the toilet through numerous bonehead moves. His changes still reverberate across the airline, and will for a long time to come.

This kerfuffle about leggings and the poor UA employee not being able to wear them while on a pass is simply not in the same league as the damage caused by Smisek. And in contrast to the United breaks guitars incident - which had staying power because paying customer was involved, this ridiculous obsession is with the details of an internal UA policy that has no real effect on paying customers.

But it is giving an officious busybody 15 extra minutes of Andy Warhol fame, so it's all OK.

spin88

I 100% agree that any damage is not in the same league with the lasting damage to Smisek did with his turning United into a ULCC that was late all the time. There were many very visable and notable things that made United an inferior airline.

However, I do believe (as do companies that spend billions each year on branding) that things like how companies are perceived impacts the bottom line. Perceptions of sexism or even just stodginess turn lots of people off, and I think does impact the bottom line.

I'm sure Oscar would do things very differently on "legginsgate" if given a chance to start over.

Baze

Because they post on gut reaction to what they saw and/or heard which is rarely the whole story. And with social media it can quickly become a firestorm based solely on partial information that is taken out of context.

halls120

Oscar probably wishes the Twitter crew had responded better.

I don't agree that UA's policy regarding crew dress is going to cost them.

This whole escapade reminds me of this:

SS255

Reminds me of the time my boss told me about an issue with her daughter's DL flight from IAD-LAX. I kept insisting that her daughter wasn't flying DL, and she kept insisting I was wrong.

The next day, she came back to me very impressed that I knew enough about DL's route structure off the top of my head to stand my ground -- and she sheepishly admitted that her daughter was flying United.

I've never used Priceline or Hotwire, but I would think that if it is not possible to filter out specific airlines, most of the people who have Twitter-shame UA will have very short memories the next time Priceline/Hotwire cobbles together a cheap itinerary on UA metal.