United Airlines customer service

Jimmy Kimmel had a good skit lastnight. A fake ad: 'You do what we tell you to and nobody gets hurt. United''.
 
He didn't stand up to the airline, he stood up to the two cops tasked with removing him. Two guys that had absolutely nothing to do with that decision and had absolutely no ability to make it right. I don't agree with overbooking and I think, as a company, United handled this very poorly. However this was something between a childish tantrum and a grandstanding stunt and no more commendable than a toddler bawling in line at the grocery store because mom won't buy him a candy bar.

Complaining, going to social media, never flying United again, writing members of congress, going to the FAA or FTC, or filing a lawsuit are all perfectly reasonable responses to this. What he did could only have had the outcome it did, otherwise we'd have to give in to every manchild throwing a tantrum and there are a disturbing number of manchildren these days.
 
Stock's down about 3%, or $830 million. A $5000 check and a Netjets seat is a bargain by comparison. In an age where everyone has a recording device, in loaded situations management has to expect things to go bad, and be pleasantly surprised when they don't.

I mean, it only Chicago to Lexington, fer Chrissake. An Uber could have had the crew there in 5 hours for less than a grand. There may be a lot of manchildren, but there are also a lot of stupid people in positions of authority.
 
Last edited:
United Airlines' customer service is almost as good as the Toilet Safety Administration
 
cowman said:
He didn't stand up to the airline, he stood up to the two cops tasked with removing him. Two guys that had absolutely nothing to do with that decision and had absolutely no ability to make it right. I don't agree with overbooking and I think, as a company, United handled this very poorly. However this was something between a childish tantrum and a grandstanding stunt and no more commendable than a toddler bawling in line at the grocery store because mom won't buy him a candy bar.

Complaining, going to social media, never flying United again, writing members of congress, going to the FAA or FTC, or filing a lawsuit are all perfectly reasonable responses to this. What he did could only have had the outcome it did, otherwise we'd have to give in to every manchild throwing a tantrum and there are a disturbing number of manchildren these days.
Click to expand...

yes but his tantrum will get much more attention now and thats the whole point
 
rsleeds said:
Modified duty pending investigation and typical scapegoating.
Click to expand...

"One of the security officers involved in the incident was suspended on Monday afternoon, pending a review, said the Chicago Department of Aviation in a statement.

The actions of the officer were "obviously not condoned by the Department", the statement said."​

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39556910 about two-thirds down the page.

Rich
 
I'm excited for when United starts removing pax mid-flight!

Be glad they were on the ground when this Dr. was removed. :D
 
You know, much is said about pilots willing to fly for little money, I wonder what the reaction would be if airlines ditched the entire contractual entitlement of commuting. Would pilots exit the profession over that? Just wondering.
 
Last edited:
ElPaso Pilot said:
How often does an airline actually pay out in cash, vs. attempting to get the involuntary bumpee to accept a crappy voucher in lieu of them knowing any better??
Click to expand...
The DOT regulations required that a carrier first ask for volunteers before involuntarily denying a passenger. The DOT does not regulate the terms for volunteers. That's between the volunteer and the airline.

Volunteers are paid in vouchers. Meal vouchers are often included as are hotel rooms when an overnight stay is required. Sometimes you can get other things thrown in like a better seat assignment or even an upgrade.

If they airline doesn't get enough volunteers then the DOT regulations require that the carrier have and follow an established procedure for determining who will be removed. These procedures can vary somewhat from airline to airline but they generally prioritize passengers by status (in the FF program), then by fare class (price), then by check-in time. i.e. the first person denied will be one who checked in the latest out of the passengers paying the lowest fare class and holding no status.

The compensation paid to an involuntarily denied passenger must be a cash/check--no vouchers. The amount required is based on the length of the delay and the fare paid. In this case the delay was over four hours so the required compensation would be 400% of the fare paid up to $1,350.

Everskyward said:
I don't think that was true in this case. I have read in multiple places that they let the computer determine the unlucky passengers randomly.
Click to expand...
The media was reporting what passengers told them. The computer did pick the passenger(s) to be bumped but it did so in accordance with the established procedures. It isn't random.

orange said:
Jetblue claim that they don't overbook.
Click to expand...
They don't overbook--never have. The interesting thing about that is that even though they don't overbook, JetBlue's denied boarding rate is relatively high as compared to the rest of the airlines that do overbook.

hindsight2020 said:
Based on my co-workers' comments, it strikes me most airline pilots privately would rather fly boxes than people, if it weren't for the schedules on the former.
Click to expand...
I flew cargo for fifteen years. I now fly passengers (total of about 12 years of passenger flying). Flying passengers is much better, IMO, than flying cargo. I would never want to go back to cargo.

Captain said:
So your issue is they didn't go up to the legal maximum? Btw, what's your source for a legal max of $1350? Are you saying if an airline wanted to offer a million dollars to take a later flight that would be against the law?
Click to expand...
As I said above, the max of $1,350 is from the DOT regulations which require compensation in cases of INVOLUNTARY denied boardings. The required compensation in those cases is determined by the length of the delay and fare paid and this compensation must be in cash/check--not vouchers.

The DOT does not regulate the compensation for volunteers. That is left up to the airline and passengers to agree upon. There is no minimum nor maximum.

Typically, for a short flight (less than an hour flight time) like this, the offer for volunteers would be $100-$300 and that would get the needed volunteers. The airline's final offer here was $1,000 plus hotel. When they didn't receive any/enough volunteers at that level they moved to the involuntary procedure.

Despite claims to the contrary, there is nothing in the DOT regulations which says that once a person in onboard the airplane they are exempt from being involuntarily bumped. "Denied boarding" is a DOT term and can occur at any point prior to departure regardless of the passenger's location (i.e. gate vs. seat). Someone who is "denied boarding" after boarding is still under the provisions of the DOT denied boarding regulations. When the boarding process is complete, they have been denied boarding.

The DOT Fly Rights page has information on overbooking, oversales, and denied boarding.
https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights
 
Another great one that captures the essence of the corporate hypocrisy in United's own words...

 
Shawn said:
Yup...as stupid as it sounds. Special Interest at work in lawmaking...

14 CFR 250.5 - Amount of denied boarding compensation for passengers denied boarding involuntarily.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/250.5

See Article as well:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/united-video-scandal-law/522552/

My real issue is that they were stupid enough to call the cops/security to resolve initially a non criminal customer service issue with force.
Click to expand...

I have a problem with the selection. Ok, so the computer/whatever/whoever picks 4 people to dump. #4 says no. But there are how many OTHER people on the flight that might have taken the offer. Did the supervisor at the gate make the offer to everyone in the airplane, or just point to 4 people and say Get Up and Out? I find it hard to believe that no one else on the flight was willing to take the offer and run.
 
jordane93 said:
At my shop we're allowed to remove passengers for a variety of reasons. You really think we can't remove passengers once they've boarded?
Click to expand...

with a reason yes. in this case the reason is.. because i told you so and i want to save a few buck. if you want to be good at customer service, you cant do that. simple. well you can, but there are costly consequences
 
murphey said:
Did the supervisor at the gate make the offer to everyone in the airplane
Click to expand...

Reports are that they offered $400 to everyone once boarded...then upped to to $800 to everyone...then decided that was the price to stop at and call the cops to throw the randomly selected guy off the plane to solve their problem.

There were potential volunteers that inquired, but then declined when it was realized that the next flight option was not till 24 hours later the next day and they would be stuck overnight without their luggage.

I get the "follow crew member instructions" thing...but that is not an all powerful unquestionable position without limitations. A crew member can not say "do a cartwheel or get off my plane"...that is simply a flagrant blatant abuse of power.
 
Last edited:
Today's summary:

1) The "doctor" turns out to be a felon who had his license stripped for trading sex for drugs

2) He's also a semi-pro gambler

Would think he'd know when to fold 'em...

I'm curious to hear what his BAC turned out to be after his weekend gambling trip...
 
RJM62 said:
Well... I think handcuffing and walking would have been preferable to body-slamming and dragging, but maybe that's just me.

Rich
Click to expand...
I think that was offered at first. They even said "pretty please with a cherry on top" but the guy didn't budge. Should they have just walked away?

This was a calculated move on the part of the "doc" to get a payday. But there was no other way for this to end once the cops were called. Cops will never be the ones to back down. The thing that United could have done differently is try harder to get volunteers to get off by offering cash, not vouchers. Like somebody said vouchers on United are not really very tempting.
 
WannFly said:
care to show where it shows in COC?
Click to expand...
I consider federal regulations sufficient to decide the issue. The pilot in command is the final authority as to the operation of the aircraft, and my understanding is that airline captains expect cabin crew to give instructions to passengers. If a passenger believes that the airline has not complied with the contract, his remedy is in civil court, not disobeying instructions from crew members.
 
orange said:
I think that was offered at first. They even said "pretty please with a cherry on top" but the guy didn't budge. Should they have just walked away?

This was a calculated move on the part of the "doc" to get a payday. But there was no other way for this to end once the cops were called. Cops will never be the ones to back down. The thing that United could have done differently is try harder to get volunteers to get off by offering cash, not vouchers. Like somebody said vouchers on United are not really very tempting.
Click to expand...


Ummm, yeah, at least to the extent that they went to someone in authority and told them this is about to get real ugly, everybody has a recording device, are you sure you can't think of another solution? Think hard now...

This guy isn't a criminal, there's no compelling reason to forcibly remove him. It's called de-escalation.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
Stock's down about 3%, or $830 million. A $5000 check and a Netjets seat is a bargain by comparison. In an age where everyone has a recording device, in loaded situations management has to expect things to go bad, and be pleasantly surprised when they don't.

I mean, it only Chicago to Lexington, fer Chrissake. An Uber could have had the crew there in 5 hours for less than a grand. There may be a lot of manchildren, but there are also a lot of stupid people in positions of authority.
Click to expand...
Somewhere I saw it mentioned that the crew needed to be at their destination in time to allow for mandatory rest. Otherwise, the flight they were needed for on the next morning would not have been able to go.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
Ummm, yeah, at least to the extent that they went to someone in authority and told them this is about to get real ugly, everybody has a recording device, are you sure you can't think of another solution? Think hard now...

This guy isn't a criminal, there's no compelling reason to forcibly remove him. It's called de-escalation.
Click to expand...
And what happens when de-escalation doesn't work. I've seen videos where cops use "excessive force." The first few minutes the LEO says in a calm voice, "sir put your hands behind your back." The person naturally says no and starts combating. That's when the police officer has to use alternative methods. There are some police officers who abuse their power but when I'm confronted by authority, I put my tail between my legs and comply. If I feel like they aren't doing something standard, I'll fight another day with a lawyer not while their knee is in the back of my head.
 
What's not to work? This guy wasn't the belligerent, all he wanted was what he paid for, his seat ride home. There is no video evidence he wasn't sitting quietly right up until the ASO's laid hands on him.
The problem shifted from "How do we get this crew to KY?", to "GET THIS GUY OFF THIS AIRPLANE NOW!", and all brain function ceased.

Could have auctioned off a seat, hired a charter, asked for a favor from another carrier, an Über, whatever. Instead, this cost $380 million bucks so far and a real problem in United's China market.
 
WannFly said:
care to show where it shows in COC?
Click to expand...

Rule 25. It's generically called "Denied Boarding", but also deals with the reasons you cannot fly. Just because you have a ticket is no promise that you will actually be on the plane when it takes off.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
What's not to work? This guy wasn't the belligerent, all he wanted was what he paid for, his seat ride home. There is no video evidence he wasn't sitting quietly right up until the ASO's laid hands on him.
The problem shifted from "How do we get this crew to KY?", to "GET THIS GUY OFF THIS AIRPLANE NOW!", and all brain function ceased.

Could have auctioned off a seat, hired a charter, asked for a favor from another carrier, an Über, whatever. Instead, this cost $380 million bucks so far and a real problem in United's China market.
Click to expand...
You said they needed to de-escalate the situation. How many times do you think the LEO said, "sir we need you to remove your stuff and get off this plane." I'm guessing he said no and look what happened.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
What's not to work? This guy wasn't the belligerent, all he wanted was what he paid for, his seat ride home. There is no video evidence he wasn't sitting quietly right up until the ASO's laid hands on him.
Click to expand...

Not belligerent? So he was not confrontational, antagonistic or contentious when he was informed on multiple occasions that he had to get off the airplane?

ASO? It was a Chicago police officer, not a rent-a-cop
 
jordane93 said:
You said they needed to de-escalate the situation. How many times do you think the LEO said, "sir we need you to remove your stuff and get off this plane." I'm guessing he said no and look what happened.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Look what happened.
 
jordane93 said:
You said they needed to de-escalate the situation. How many times do you think the LEO said, "sir we need you to remove your stuff and get off this plane." I'm guessing he said no and look what happened.
Click to expand...
It should not have gotten to the point of having to remove this particular passenger against his will. If they had offered enough, someone else would have gotten off.
 
Everskyward said:
It should not have gotten to the point of having to remove this particular passenger against his will. If they had offered enough, someone else would have gotten off.
Click to expand...
I agree. But it did get to that point and should have complied.
 
bflynn said:
Not belligerent? So he was not confrontational, antagonistic or contentious when he was informed on multiple occasions that he had to get off the airplane?

ASO? It was a Chicago police officer, not a rent-a-cop
Click to expand...

They were airport security officers, unarmed but with police training, power of arrest but only on the airport premises. As far as whether he was belligerent or just simply refusing lo leave his seat, I've seen no evidence either way.
 
172andyou said:
Today's summary:

1) The "doctor" turns out to be a felon who had his license stripped for trading sex for drugs

2) He's also a semi-pro gambler

Would think he'd know when to fold 'em...

I'm curious to hear what his BAC turned out to be after his weekend gambling trip...
Click to expand...

MSM and the general public won't care. They're out for blood and they'll keep screaming until something happens. Members of Congress are already jumping on the coat tails to "fix" this situation. I've even seen comments that say the crew can suck it and drive like everyone else to SDF.

Regardless of who was in the wrong and right UA lost big time and is still losing. In the end, "something" will be done to show they "fixed" the issue. Most likely the COC clause will be changed and/or some new DOT regulation will come out against IDB after boarding. Hopefully the crews don't get screwed on the back side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top