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 Do not cite, copy, or report on such.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
- Muñoz 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}
#3061
Join Date: Oct 2009
Programs: UA 1K, Hilton ♦ , Hyatt Carbonado, Wyndham ♦, Marriott PE, "Stinking Bum" elsewhere.
Posts: 5,001
Probably this has been addressed in the interim, but this headline that you've quoted is blatantly false.
Delta Air Lines paid THREE people $11,000, over the course of 3 attempts, not to fly last weekend. Compensation was around $1300 per person, per flight attempt. Here's the actual first-hand account: https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabe.../#3b59276d4de1
It's unfortunate that a news outlet summarized that article and gave it the headline that they did.
Delta Air Lines paid THREE people $11,000, over the course of 3 attempts, not to fly last weekend. Compensation was around $1300 per person, per flight attempt. Here's the actual first-hand account: https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabe.../#3b59276d4de1
It's unfortunate that a news outlet summarized that article and gave it the headline that they did.
Of course, I never believed it every time I read it, so I knew it was false.
But it is being repeated ad-nauseum by the basement lawyers here.
Thanks for the good info.^
#3062
Join Date: Sep 2008
Programs: A3 *G, AA exePlat, AS MVP 75k Gold, JL sapphire, UA silver
Posts: 4,035
they can reroute to nearby airports with ground transportation. there are so many options.
#3063
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,664
Second part first: I think back in the day gate agents may have had more authority / flexibility in making offers to VDB or IVDB passengers?
First part: Could they not have chartered a plane for the 4 UA employees to get to Louisville? Not cheap I know but that or maybe another airline could have accommodated them? Just brainstorming here.
First part: Could they not have chartered a plane for the 4 UA employees to get to Louisville? Not cheap I know but that or maybe another airline could have accommodated them? Just brainstorming here.
#3064
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,012
And I believe those asserting otherwise do not actually have a basis for their argument. The CoC sets out different standards for denying "boarding" versus denying transport to a boarded passenger. Overbooking is not an allowed reason for the latter, only the former.
#3065
Join Date: Sep 2008
Programs: A3 *G, AA exePlat, AS MVP 75k Gold, JL sapphire, UA silver
Posts: 4,035
#3066
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA
Programs: Delta
Posts: 43
This would have worked I think. The only thing I can see going wrong is if UA has gotten so cheap that they'd try to make up the difference from their employees for going over $800 in vouchers (which are really only useful for future UA travel).
#3067
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: SFO
Programs: Free agent, UA 1K, Bonvoy Gold
Posts: 353
Do pax airline crews deadhead on 5X and FX? Seems there would be an awful lot of flights ORD-SDF on 5X
#3068
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: YVR - MILLS Waypoint (It's the third house on the left)
Programs: AC*SE100K, wood level status in various other programs
Posts: 6,232
This thread is spawning faster than my ability to read it all, but does anyone know what UA is doing for the no doubt traumatized passengers on that flight? Flight vouchers perhaps? Teddy bears?
#3069
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NY Metro Area
Programs: AA 2MM Yay!, UA MM, Costco General Member
Posts: 49,049
Obliviously I do and you don't. What has been suggested would empower the passengers to escalate any situation with threat. The airline now has no rights on their own property. They are held hostage to the passenger's demands. Their only recourse would be to cancel the flight.
#3070
Join Date: Jul 2005
Programs: SQ *Gold
Posts: 871
Interesting graphic from The Economist showing that United has a significantly higher rate of IDB and VDB than other large US carriers.
"United Bumps More Passengers Than Any Other Large American airline"
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graph.../daily-chart-6
Quote from story:
"And what about United, whose name will now be synonymous in the public eye with violent overbooking for the foreseeable future? With an IDB rate of 11.6 passengers out of every 100,000, it is certainly no ExpressJet. However, that still makes it by far the most bump-prone of the United States’s large airlines: American’s rate is over 40% lower, and Delta’s 55%. Travellers on United can only hope that the company might ease off its relatively aggressive overbooking policy in response to this public-relations nightmare."
"United Bumps More Passengers Than Any Other Large American airline"
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graph.../daily-chart-6
Quote from story:
"And what about United, whose name will now be synonymous in the public eye with violent overbooking for the foreseeable future? With an IDB rate of 11.6 passengers out of every 100,000, it is certainly no ExpressJet. However, that still makes it by far the most bump-prone of the United States’s large airlines: American’s rate is over 40% lower, and Delta’s 55%. Travellers on United can only hope that the company might ease off its relatively aggressive overbooking policy in response to this public-relations nightmare."
Last edited by jbb; Apr 11, 2017 at 12:29 pm Reason: Added in quote from Economist story
#3071
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2010
Programs: AA
Posts: 14,743
And chances are if UA was oversold AA and DL were also oversold (DL especially considering that it was in day 5 of a meltdown that started with weather in ATL on Wednesday - DL should write a thank you note to UA for keeping it's meltdown off the front page).
#3072
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 43
I am going to take this opportunity to apologize for being somewhat flippant in some of my prior responses. Believe it or not, I truly am interested in getting to the bottom of our disagreement. As such, I am recommitting to participating in a good faith, earnest exchange of ideas. With that in mind, I hope we can identify exactly what we agree upon and where our opinions begin to diverge.
1. Do you agree that a passenger has "boarded" a plane, pursuant to the common, ordinary meaning of that term, when he or she has taken her assigned seat on a plane? I'm not asking whether you think the common, ordinary meaning of "boarding" should be applied to that word as used in the CoC. My question is limited to the general usage of the phrases "boarding" and "borded."
2. Irrespective of whether the passenger at issue had "boarded" the plane, do you think a passenger who has already "boarded" a plane, using your preferred definition of that phrase, can be "denied boarding" after the fact due to a flight being oversold pursuant to United's CoC?
3. Do you agree that the default rule for determining the meaning of provisions in contracts is they are given their commonly understood meaning by ordinary people of average intelligence?
4. If your answer to No. 3 is yes, do you agree that rule should be applied to United's CoC?
5. If your answer to No. 4 is no, why not?
1. Do you agree that a passenger has "boarded" a plane, pursuant to the common, ordinary meaning of that term, when he or she has taken her assigned seat on a plane? I'm not asking whether you think the common, ordinary meaning of "boarding" should be applied to that word as used in the CoC. My question is limited to the general usage of the phrases "boarding" and "borded."
2. Irrespective of whether the passenger at issue had "boarded" the plane, do you think a passenger who has already "boarded" a plane, using your preferred definition of that phrase, can be "denied boarding" after the fact due to a flight being oversold pursuant to United's CoC?
3. Do you agree that the default rule for determining the meaning of provisions in contracts is they are given their commonly understood meaning by ordinary people of average intelligence?
4. If your answer to No. 3 is yes, do you agree that rule should be applied to United's CoC?
5. If your answer to No. 4 is no, why not?
#3073
Join Date: Sep 2008
Programs: A3 *G, AA exePlat, AS MVP 75k Gold, JL sapphire, UA silver
Posts: 4,035
Republic didn't have the ability to oversell the next flight for it's crew, as the next flight wasn't operated by Republic but another regional jet operator. Reports are though that the later flight went out full or oversold as did all the UA flights the next day, so even if they could've oversold that flight, it would've just been shifting the problem to a later flight.
And chances are if UA was oversold AA and DL were also oversold (DL especially considering that it was in day 5 of a meltdown that started with weather in ATL on Wednesday - DL should write a thank you note to UA for keeping it's meltdown off the front page).
And chances are if UA was oversold AA and DL were also oversold (DL especially considering that it was in day 5 of a meltdown that started with weather in ATL on Wednesday - DL should write a thank you note to UA for keeping it's meltdown off the front page).
(different people to be rolled over from the incentive.)
#3074
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 47
The safety valve for an airline is that they can move to involuntary boarding denial. No one denies that involuntary recourse is generally available for the airlines - the dispute in this case has been whether (1) involuntary denial was allowed in the particular circumstance of this gentleman because of the way his boarding was handled; and (2) the wisdom of the airline invoking involuntary denial when they still had headroom under their own policy to negotiate further.
#3075
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: SFO/CDG
Programs: UA 1k
Posts: 211
I completely agree, however, working in a large organization it just doesn't happen like that all of the time. I am not in any way saying the gate staff is blameless but they are not empowered to solve the problem, and that is an intentional cost control mechanism by management.