United Airlines customer service

KSCessnaDriver said:
Fine, the you'll be ok with ticket prices being raised 3-10% across the board to compensate the difference in sales then, no?

This whole issue illustrates why there are so few professional pilots left on this forum, because of the people who think they know how the system works, yet ignore the people who actually do
Click to expand...
I wouldn't cry over 3%, or 10% if it would mean that my confirmed seat was actually confirmed. Why would there need to be a price increase in the first place? If people buy tickets but don't show, then you make them pay a hefty change fee and all is well.

Basically, nobody is supposed to give their opinion because an almighty airline pilot has bestowed his wisdown upon us.
WE'RE NOT WORTHY. WE'RE NOT WORTHY. Gimme a break.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
The bigger issue here is the police brutality, but never pass up a chance to bag on an airline. "I'll never fly them again," says every Tom, Dick and Harry. 2 weeks later its the cheapest ticket and they're on UA again.
Click to expand...
Believe it or not, people do have preferences in airlines. Years ago, I would take Frontier, the hometown airline, when possible. Now they are my last choice, after Southwest and United, even though they are probably the cheapest. They made redeeming a voucher extremely difficult after I voluntarily took a later flight. Their service also went downhill.
 
orange said:
I wouldn't cry over 3%, or 10% if it would mean that my confirmed seat was actually confirmed. Why would there need to be a price increase in the first place? If people buy tickets but don't show, then you make them pay a hefty change fee and all is well.

Basically, nobody is supposed to give their opinion because an almighty airline pilot has bestowed his wisdown upon us.
WE'RE NOT WORTHY. WE'RE NOT WORTHY. Gimme a break.
Click to expand...

I also wouldn't mind paying more, not only for a truly confirmed seat, but for not being reminded of jitney rides in Haiti every time I fly commercial.

Rich
 
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.
 
Wow. Sounds like many of you believe that flying is right, just like health care. We see a few seconds of video that the media has cropped to make it look like the passenger is a victim and we all cry foul. But what is the whole story? What happened before the video started? What were the police/security told prior to pulling the guy off the plane? What if all they were told is that there was an unruly passenger in 23C that won't follow flight attendants instructions? I'm pretty sure if you read the fine print that anyone who doesn't follow instructions given by the crew can be removed from the plane. Also, just because you get off the plane doesn't mean you have no recourse. I have known people that have done very well with vouchers/compensation after their trip was over by just writing the airline and explaining the poor experience that they had on their flight.

Maybe what we need is for the government to take over the airline industry. Let TSA run it, then everything will be better.
 
Everskyward said:
Believe it or not, people do have preferences in airlines. Years ago, I would take Frontier, the hometown airline, when possible. Now they are my last choice, after Southwest and United, even though they are probably the cheapest. They made redeeming a voucher extremely difficult after I voluntarily took a later flight. Their service also went downhill.
Click to expand...

Yup. My preference is not to fly united. The only thing their employees seem to hate more than their job are their customers.
 
Shawn said:
Type of staff is really irrelevant. It is the fact that it is simply easier to screw over the PAX's lives and schedules for a service they paid for vs finding another way to move their employees. A few pizzed PAX is easier to deal with than added expense of interline or another method to solve their problem in the airlines apparent attitude.

Too big to care.

You screw over your customers, you are bound to pay the price eventually which they are due to their epic failure in how they handled the situation.
Click to expand...

So I understand, the premise is UAL screwed over their customers by tossing 4 to accommodate crew. So 4 customers were screwed.

Why isn't the entire plane that the crew is enroute to fly considered? If the 4 crew don't board and entire flight will be stuck. Why are we comparing 4 peeps on this flight not going where they want to 100 peeps on the other flight?

Isn't that conversation worth having? It's the exact conversation the airline had to have to get to this point.
 
Captain said:
So I understand, the premise is UAL screwed over their customers by tossing 4 to accommodate crew. So 4 customers were screwed.

Why isn't the entire plane that the crew is enroute to fly considered? If the 4 crew don't board and entire flight will be stuck. Why are we comparing 4 peeps on this flight not going where they want to 100 peeps on the other flight?

Isn't that conversation worth having? It's the exact conversation the airline had to have to get to this point.
Click to expand...
Okay but that's not a good excuse. United should have had better aforethought to not get into the bind to require the crew to be on THAT flight in the first place. The chain that lead to this starts earlier, and IS united's fault.
 
Captain said:
So I understand, the premise is UAL screwed over their customers by tossing 4 to accommodate crew. So 4 customers were screwed.

Why isn't the entire plane that the crew is enroute to fly considered? If the 4 crew don't board and entire flight will be stuck. Why are we comparing 4 peeps on this flight not going where they want to 100 peeps on the other flight?

Isn't that conversation worth having? It's the exact conversation the airline had to have to get to this point.
Click to expand...

Im my view it is that corporate culture of creating that situation where they can just willingly disregard the service that you sold your customer that is the problem.

But more importantly United can legally offer up to $1350 in cash to try and resolve the self inflicted issue, but instead they thought it was a better idea to call the cops to solve their bad crew planning.
 
Last edited:
That's ******** if true. They shouldn't be able to
KSCessnaDriver said:
Fine, the you'll be ok with ticket prices being raised 3-10% across the board to compensate the difference in sales then, no?

This whole issue illustrates why there are so few professional pilots left on this forum, because of the people who think they know how the system works, yet ignore the people who actually do
Click to expand...
I would be more than happy to pay for no overbooking. They could even add another 10% to take a couple rows out and give everyone room for the bottom half of their bodies. If they got rid of the TSA and all the security theatre ******** I would probably be willing to take out a second mortgage on my house.

So the TSA thing is obviously sarcasm but the rest is truthful.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Okay but that doesn't count as a good excuse, because United should have had better aforethought to not get into the bind to require the crew to be on THAT flight in the first place. The chain that lead to this starts earlier, and IS united's fault.
Click to expand...

In principle I agree. If the engines won't start and the flight is delayed or canceled that is the airlines fault. If a pilot calls in sick at an out station and has to be replaced that is the airlines fault. I don't think anyone is arguing fault. 4 people were being denied the flight and it was the airlines fault.

There is compensation when travel is denied at the carriers fault...and I do believ that compensation was offered.

The problem was the person was already physically on the plane and it appears to me that that person thought he was entitled to squat. Effectively refusing to leave when asked by flight crew, ground crew, and police.

I don't support dragging him off. I don't know what I would have done. Maybe make an announcement that we're gonna sit here until someone else volunteers or those 4 get off and wait. Maybe deplane the whole thing and start over. I don't know. Honestly, as a pilot I'd do my job. Call the appropriate people (CRO) and let them do their job....which is probably exactly what happened since we don't hear a word about pilots in this story.

:)

Still,

Being an informed viewer of this story and not happy seeing a passenger being dragged down an aisle....I still ask why the pax in question didn't just get up and walk?

Here's another question. The pax was a doctor. Would any of you let him treat you after seeing him choose being dragged over the inconvenience of walking off a plane? He literally chose to be dragged...
 
Shawn said:
Im my view it is that corporate culture of creating that situation where they can just willingly disregard the service that you sold your customer that is the problem.

But more importantly United can legally offer up to $1350 in cash to try and resolve the self inflicted issue, but instead they thought it was a better idea to call the cops to solve their bad crew planning.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Another thing to consider is that it only takes one idiot to cause this type of situation. I can give an example.

My crew was being positive space deadheaded to work a flight during irregular ops due to bad weather. We had to rush to a gate to make the deadhead. I approached the gate agents and told them my crew was getting listed as positive space. They were already boarding and were calling standbys that were trying to get on from other canceled flights. I told her she might want to leave 4 empty seats. I was totally ignored. The last passengers down the jet bridge were still waiting to get to their seats when we popped up as positive space on her terminal. It cost a bunch of money in vouchers to get 4 unoccupied seats for my crew. The lady just flat out didn't give a crap. The airline experience is awful. Even having the best window seat on the flight was unbearable. I have only flown commercially once in the last 7 years.
 
Captain said:
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...

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/

Captain said:
So your issue is they didn't go up to the legal maximum?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Uh that's not what it means.

"Compensation shall be 400% of the fare to the passenger's destination or first stopover, with a maximum of $1,350"

The required compensation has a maximum of $1,350. The airline can do more than is required.
 
dmspilot said:
Uh that's not what it means.

"Compensation shall be 400% of the fare to the passenger's destination or first stopover, with a maximum of $1,350"

The required compensation has a maximum of $1,350. The airline can do more than is required.
Click to expand...

Technically that entire section is about involuntarily denied boarding (like this guy was). For people to volunteer to give up their seats, they can go as high as they like.
 
After seeing this episode of the bloodied airline passenger, how many of us want airlines to run ATC?

I can just picture it. You're on the taxiway, and number two for takeoff. You're happily going through the last few items on your checklist. But then United calls up ATC and demands that four of its airbuses jump the queue, bumping you to #6. And there's weather coming, and you really want to depart. So you decline ground's instructions. Ground will have nothing of the sort, so they dispatch the airport police, which tugs your plane away, pulls you out of your seat, and beats you up. (If asked about it, they'll claim you fell on your step.)

Welcome to privatized ATC, United style!
 
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...

There is no legal maximum for voluntary compensation. The amount and type of compensation for volunteers is of the airline's choosing.
 
To the comment that people are ignoring the opinion of how the industry works, given by those in the industry... I think I understand the concept of overbooking. It's not unique to commercial airlines, and I'm not opposed to it.

In this particular case, with hindsight being what it is, I just really don't see how it can be argued that things were handled well.

First, it wasn't to make room for other paying passengers (overbooked), it was crew. To say that it was necessary to bump 4 paying passengers on that flight to keep 100 paying passengers from not flying on that crews next flight presupposes that A.) there was no other way to get the crew to where they need to be (which I find difficult to believe) and B.) that a staffing issue could only be resolved by getting those 4 specific people, to that specific destination, from that specific airport. <--- that's a point that I would like industry info on... I work for a company that's orders of magnitude smaller than United. If we have an issue with management on a remote project, we almost always have multiple options to restaff it. Not necessarily standing by, but options to make it happen, vs one person/crew and only one person/crew.
 
Captain said:
So I understand, the premise is UAL screwed over their customers by tossing 4 to accommodate crew. So 4 customers were screwed.

Why isn't the entire plane that the crew is enroute to fly considered? If the 4 crew don't board and entire flight will be stuck. Why are we comparing 4 peeps on this flight not going where they want to 100 peeps on the other flight?

Isn't that conversation worth having? It's the exact conversation the airline had to have to get to this point.
Click to expand...

You mean, why doesn't United do things the way YOU think they should be done? That is the question you are asking. The answer is because they are a business and they are more concerned with inconveniencing people who pay more money than inconveniencing people who pay less money.

I can see some procedures changing out of this, but its unlikely to change policies. When a passenger is being unreasonable like this, unload the entire airplane. Yes, it is a huge deal. It inconveniences everyone. It may means the flight gets cancelled. But apparently that is what it will take.

In 20 years of being self loading cattle, I have never seen someone who was this deluded to believe that if they just were stubborn enough then the airline would allow then to stay on board. As far as I am concerned, he was lucky that he only got a bloody nose and that his struggles didn't injure someone else. When you fight against LEOs in an enclosed situatuion, they are very likely to accidently injure you.
 
Having reflected on this a bit, I think the best solution to the overbooking / involuntary bumping problem might be to simply outlaw involuntary bumping altogether. Paying passengers would be guaranteed a seat unless either the entire flight is canceled, the passenger make makes an ass of himself or herself, or the passenger voluntarily gives up his or her seat in return for compensation that they deem sufficient to make up for their inconvenience.

The federal rules for involuntary bumping are based on dollars and time, not the importance of a trip to a passenger. A retired couple with no need to be anywhere at any particular time might actually welcome an upgrade to first on a later flight or an extra day or two at their present location on the airline's dime. But even so much as an hour's delay could be devastating to someone on their way to say goodbye to a relative who's on their death bed.

There's no way to promulgate the cost of involuntary bumping in a way that takes into consideration its subjective effect on passengers in every possible situation, so maybe we should just do away with the practice altogether. Allow airlines to overbook as they see fit, but let passengers set the price for getting it wrong by forcing airlines to keep bidding for voluntary "re-accommodation" until someone bites. Everyone has their price. Eventually someone will walk off the airplane smiling if the force option is removed from the equation.

It's hard to say how much impact this would have on airlines' profits. I suspect that it would inspire better bean-counting and a less-cavalier attitude toward overbooking and bumping, however, more so than it would affect their bottom lines.

Rich
 
Interesting to see that the attitude from the majority of the airline pilots on here can be summed up as "screw the passengers, we do what we like". Explains how the whole UA situation ended up like it did.
 
Katamarino said:
Interesting to see that the attitude from the majority of the airline pilots on here can be summed up as "screw the passengers, we do what we like". Explains how the whole UA situation ended up like it did.
Click to expand...

As passenger, you are just a bother. As noted above, most airline pilots would rather fly boxes around, except that most of that flying is at an inconvenient time for them. On second thought, most of them would prefer just to sit at home and get their paycheck for being so great.
 
Katamarino said:
Interesting to see that the attitude from the majority of the airline pilots on here can be summed up as "screw the passengers, we do what we like". Explains how the whole UA situation ended up like it did.
Click to expand...
I didn't get that feeling at all...

It sucks to be him. United should have handled it differently. The Chicago Airport Authority definitely should have handled it differently. Involuntary bumping does happen, but so very infrequently. One of the articles above mentions 46,000 out of 613 million. 0.008%. That's a really small number. For those 46,000, I'm sure it sucked.

Also, this was not a call that the pilots made, obviously. It wasn't even a call that the FAs made. This is a gate agent/supervisor thing. And it's really stemming from the air carrier trying to protect the next day's flight so they don't have 70+ inconvenienced passengers in Louisville the next day, and that delay will spread and domino through the system.

I think what the airline guys ARE saying is, one the police show up it is probably in your best interest to just avoid the conflict and get up, because it is not going to end well for you.

I did notice that although people were lamenting of the injustice of it all, not one of them rang their call button to let the gate agent know that "the doctor can stay on board, I'll get off." I guess people's altruism ends at posting a video online, not actually helping the situation.

Personally, I would have let it gone all Lord of the Flies back there. The plane isn't going anywhere until the guy in 8C gets off. Let the peer pressure take care of it.
 
RJM62 said:
Having reflected on this a bit, I think the best solution to the overbooking / involuntary bumping problem might be to simply outlaw involuntary bumping altogether. Paying passengers would be guaranteed a seat unless either the entire flight is canceled, the passenger make makes an ass of himself or herself, or the passenger voluntarily gives up his or her seat in return for compensation that they deem sufficient to make up for their inconvenience.

The federal rules for involuntary bumping are based on dollars and time, not the importance of a trip to a passenger. A retired couple with no need to be anywhere at any particular time might actually welcome an upgrade to first on a later flight or an extra day or two at their present location on the airline's dime. But even so much as an hour's delay could be devastating to someone on their way to say goodbye to a relative who's on their death bed.

There's no way to promulgate the cost of involuntary bumping in a way that takes into consideration its subjective effect on passengers in every possible situation, so maybe we should just do away with the practice altogether. Allow airlines to overbook as they see fit, but let passengers set the price for getting it wrong by forcing airlines to keep bidding for voluntary "re-accommodation" until someone bites. Everyone has their price. Eventually someone will walk off the airplane smiling if the force option is removed from the equation.

It's hard to say how much impact this would have on airlines' profits. I suspect that it would inspire better bean-counting and a less-cavalier attitude toward overbooking and bumping, however, more so than it would affect their bottom lines.

Rich
Click to expand...

Rich, overselling the flight is only ONE reason for denied boardings. I've mentioned several other reasons already but there are many many more. It would be impossible to guarantee boarding to every seat sold, at best you could minimize the number.

Take a 100 seat airplane:

Over selling; they sell 110 knowing only 100 show up, or
NEF: inbound flight has broken / unusable seats, or
Air Marshals decide to work a flight, or
Equipment downgrade, 100 seat plane broke...now using 70 seat plane, or
Another flight has an issue requiring personnel movement.

And guess what? Whatever the reason is the gate agent is going to pick up the mic asking volunteers to give up their seat because of the same reason...an "oversold flight". And it's true, technically it's oversold whatever the reason was...there are now too many paying passengers for the amount of seats available.

BTW, I'm very pro passenger. I don't take kindly to mistreatment of my passengers and can and do stand up for them. On many occasions I've crawled into the bellies looking for a stroller wheel that fell off, or gone to stop the stroller from going to baggage for a mom holding a baby in the jet bridge. Once a kid fell in the jet bridge and busted himself up pretty good requiring a trip to the hospital. They wanted to leave the families bags on the plane to save an on time departure. I told them screw that and go get this poor families bags out of the bellies. They were in for a bad enough night and didn't need the worry of none of their stuff added to it.

Point is that it's amusing to see people throw industry people under the bus because we don't go full outrage on this.
 
wsuffa said:
Buying an airline ticket is merely purchasing a lottery ticket that you'll get on a plane in the seats you reserved and arriving somewhere close to the scheduled time.
Click to expand...

And not even that in the last week for Delta passengers. :(
 
Sluggo63 said:
I didn't get that feeling at all...

It sucks to be him. United should have handled it differently. The Chicago Airport Authority definitely should have handled it differently. Involuntary bumping does happen, but so very infrequently. One of the articles above mentions 46,000 out of 613 million. 0.008%. That's a really small number. For those 46,000, I'm sure it sucked.

Also, this was not a call that the pilots made, obviously. It wasn't even a call that the FAs made. This is a gate agent/supervisor thing. And it's really stemming from the air carrier trying to protect the next day's flight so they don't have 70+ inconvenienced passengers in Louisville the next day, and that delay will spread and domino through the system.

I think what the airline guys ARE saying is, one the police show up it is probably in your best interest to just avoid the conflict and get up, because it is not going to end well for you.

I did notice that although people were lamenting of the injustice of it all, not one of them rang their call button to let the gate agent know that "the doctor can stay on board, I'll get off." I guess people's altruism ends at posting a video online, not actually helping the situation.

Personally, I would have let it gone all Lord of the Flies back there. The plane isn't going anywhere until the guy in 8C gets off. Let the peer pressure take care of it.
Click to expand...

Very nice post. Said it better than me.
 
topgun260 said:
Wow. Sounds like many of you believe that flying is right, just like health care.
Click to expand...

No, not quite. The issue is that people view it as purchasing a service, not a raffle ticket. Turns out it's more like a raffle ticket, but with really great odds of winning.
 
With a little GoogleFu...

The passenger's name was Dr. David Dao. (http://heavy.com/news/2017/04/david...ille-kentucky-passenger-removed-video-photos/)

The State of Kentucky Licencing Board has exactly one Dr. David Dao licence to practice medicine in KY. (http://web1.ky.gov/GenSearch/LicenseList.aspx?AGY=5&FLD1=Dao&FLD2=&FLD3=0&FLD4=0&TYPE=)

If you click on the "Current Order" hyperlink, you get this: http://www.state.ky.us/agencies/kbml/finalorders/22439.pdf

That makes for some interesting reading

http://www.wave3.com/story/4301599/elizabethtown-doctor-indicted-on-98-drug-charges
 
I wonder on a daily basis how many airline employees are carried to or from work?
 
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...

That's certainly true in my case.

I can't help but think that Delta is grinning ear to ear about this. Heh!
 
Sluggo63 said:
With a little GoogleFu...

The passenger's name was Dr. David Dao. (http://heavy.com/news/2017/04/david...ille-kentucky-passenger-removed-video-photos/)

The State of Kentucky Licencing Board has exactly one Dr. David Dao licence to practice medicine in KY. (http://web1.ky.gov/GenSearch/LicenseList.aspx?AGY=5&FLD1=Dao&FLD2=&FLD3=0&FLD4=0&TYPE=)

If you click on the "Current Order" hyperlink, you get this: http://www.state.ky.us/agencies/kbml/finalorders/22439.pdf

That makes for some interesting reading

http://www.wave3.com/story/4301599/elizabethtown-doctor-indicted-on-98-drug-charges
Click to expand...


Oh my. The 'throw United under a bus' crowd sure picked a poor horse to bet on.
 
Sluggo63 said:
With a little GoogleFu...

The passenger's name was Dr. David Dao. (http://heavy.com/news/2017/04/david...ille-kentucky-passenger-removed-video-photos/)

The State of Kentucky Licencing Board has exactly one Dr. David Dao licence to practice medicine in KY. (http://web1.ky.gov/GenSearch/LicenseList.aspx?AGY=5&FLD1=Dao&FLD2=&FLD3=0&FLD4=0&TYPE=)

If you click on the "Current Order" hyperlink, you get this: http://www.state.ky.us/agencies/kbml/finalorders/22439.pdf

That makes for some interesting reading

http://www.wave3.com/story/4301599/elizabethtown-doctor-indicted-on-98-drug-charges
Click to expand...

That last article is from 2005.
 
EppyGA said:
I wonder on a daily basis how many airline employees are carried to or from work?
Click to expand...

You mean on a flight? Depends. If you count standby commuters then a lot...but they don't bump pax. If you count dead heads who do bump pax then not many. In two years I've dead headed say a dozen times and bumped revenue once. One one occasion I sat in the jumpseat in order to get someone else on.
 
EppyGA said:
I wonder on a daily basis how many airline employees are carried to or from work?
Click to expand...

It's important to understand that there are a couple different situations. The vast majority of employees you see sitting in the back are traveling on their own - nonreving or jumpseating. These guys are commuting or just using their bennies for personal reasons. Actual deadheading crew is less common - the actual amount varies wildly by airline, equipment, and even a specific schedule - but in my case I might deadhead one or two segments per month.

EDIT: Looks like Captain beat me to it!
 
I don't believe that flying is a right. However, when I buy a ticket and make travel arrangements around that ticket I expect it to be honored. If the WX is bad or the plane breaks then I'll understand but the lame excuse of 'we oversold the flight' is not acceptable in this age. If people don't show up for their flight then they lose their fare. Easy solution. If they don't have seats for their employees then charter a flight. The company should pay for their poor resource management, not the customer.

I booked a flight 6 months in advance on Spirit. The 3rd time they changed the flight by several hours, and I lost my reserved seats which I paid extra for, I'd had enough and called them up. After much debate they cancelled my trip and gave me a full refund. The simply wanted to cancel one flight and crowd everyone onto a bigger plane. Not my problem. This was just last week.
 
I've never seen a situation where United was the cheapest fare. Often the only carrier, but never the cheapest when 2 or more carriers are available.
 
Ryanb said:
So then when the statistics are wrong and they all show up, the airline begins to throw out incentives to free up the overbought seats and when nobody bites, than they end up saying "hey you're not flying today, time to get off." I can see how that might not go over too well with the average Joe.

Moral of the story is to check in ASAP. Am I right?
Click to expand...
Wouldn't have mattered. He was randomly selected to depart. For all we know, he was the first to check in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top