I find it interesting in all the uninformed defense of United, like "this makes no sense" -- duh -- a few facts stand out, from those who probably know more than we do, and none of these would have happened, if it was the typical drunken abusive passenger everyone is smearing this guy as.
1). All three aviation police involved in the incident have been suspended. Not one , all of them.
2) over 20! US senators are demanding answers from United. Why would they stand up for some crazy abusive passenger? So is the governor of New Jersey, where united has a big base. He's pissed.
Now it's sport to make fun of these guys. I think it's pretty stupid, if you run a business. Of course, most have no clue what that means.
BTW for the slow witted this is why the CEO did a 180. Didn't get religion, he's trying to calm down Chris Christie who can really mess up his life.
I don't blame the police, primarily, or the flight crew. Likely had no clue. Now the question is what did the gate agent tell the cops about the passenger, who until then witnesses say was quiet, compliant, ect. I think it's fair odds there was lying involved somewhere. Why? Because that is the tone set by senior management, where the fault lies. This is all on United. Someone said the guy was a threat, get him off. So the cops did. I'm guessing the gate agent messed up big time, then played hardball to fix it, and it blew up.
I'm a business guy, not in the airline business. I analyse companies for a living, and analyse this story from a management and business lens. Among the worst story I've ever heard of, in any industry, in two decades of doing this. CEO's response was beyond brutal.
Now me, I'd get off the airplane. I value my health, I don't argue with security. But the passenger isn't on trial here, at all. Even the CEO finally said so today, so no one else can. He said ...late ....we were wrong. But it's too late.
Again ... from a business point of view -- that CEO's reputation is toast and uniteds is impaired. I would never, ever, invest in any company run by that CEO. He's done. And neither will many other funds.
On the carriage, guy has a legal case. Flight wasn't overbooked -- important -- it was full, everyone seated, door ready to close. I'd like to see specifically, in the carriage, where an airline can bump a seated, confirmed passenger, not for safety reasons in any way, but purely for uniteds convenience. 4 crew members need to make another flight? Tough. That isn't a valid reason from my understanding. They were late. Find another way. Take the bus.
There were other options, but the CEOs True attitude is like the video I posted. Fuck you, in a word. Yep, everyone got that.
Handle Overbookings, beat the snot out of pax and drag them off.
-
Nark1
Rookie, you didn't read the contract of carriage I linked. That much is obvious.
US senators are well regarded for their noble causes. They have proven time after time to be above reproach...
^^^ I hope you understand that was entirely facetious.
How can we have a conversation if you refuse to acknowledge the facts, not speculation?
Further, the $$$$ involved is a court of law, thankfully not of public opinion.
Crappy leadership, absolutely. Unwarranted negative attention, in my opinion.
PS my name is Chris Reeves. I fly for both a major airline and I fly helicopters in the Army Guard.
US senators are well regarded for their noble causes. They have proven time after time to be above reproach...
^^^ I hope you understand that was entirely facetious.
How can we have a conversation if you refuse to acknowledge the facts, not speculation?
Further, the $$$$ involved is a court of law, thankfully not of public opinion.
Crappy leadership, absolutely. Unwarranted negative attention, in my opinion.
PS my name is Chris Reeves. I fly for both a major airline and I fly helicopters in the Army Guard.
-
Rookie Pilot
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:44 am
[quote author=Nark link=topic=6023.msg15928#msg15928 date=1492065132]
Rookie, you didn't read the contract of carriage I linked. That much is obvious.
US senators are well regarded for their noble causes. They have proven time after time to be above reproach...
^^^ I hope you understand that was entirely facetious.
How can we have a conversation if you refuse to acknowledge the facts, not speculation?
Further, the $$$$ involved is a court of law, thankfully not of public opinion.
Crappy leadership, absolutely. Unwarranted negative attention, in my opinion.
PS my name is Chris Reeves. I fly for both a major airline and I fly helicopters in the Army Guard.
[/quote]
Chris,
BTW if you've read my past posts you know I'm a big supporter of our servicemen (and women). If I have an issue there, i take it up with the elected officials. Not the troops. Always.
Carriage. Help me out here. Can you link a reference to reasons a boarded pax could be deplaned not applicable to safety or security after boarding is completed?
Anyway -- you may legally be correct, as I wrote before. I'm more curious. But you're also aware it's all about optics and perception. It's a public business. This one struck a chord with the public, maybe a "last straw" for United. The CEO ignored this and that means brutal leadership, and that's why he's under fire.
A fair question if this is all normal -- why is it always united? Not Lufthansa, Emerites, Cathay.
I get people want cheap fares and that's the model. (I don't like it, but --). Physical violence is not a way to solve issues like this. Anyway I'm sure it'll disappear soon enough from the instant news cycle --
Regards Robert
Rookie, you didn't read the contract of carriage I linked. That much is obvious.
US senators are well regarded for their noble causes. They have proven time after time to be above reproach...
^^^ I hope you understand that was entirely facetious.
How can we have a conversation if you refuse to acknowledge the facts, not speculation?
Further, the $$$$ involved is a court of law, thankfully not of public opinion.
Crappy leadership, absolutely. Unwarranted negative attention, in my opinion.
PS my name is Chris Reeves. I fly for both a major airline and I fly helicopters in the Army Guard.
[/quote]
Chris,
BTW if you've read my past posts you know I'm a big supporter of our servicemen (and women). If I have an issue there, i take it up with the elected officials. Not the troops. Always.
Carriage. Help me out here. Can you link a reference to reasons a boarded pax could be deplaned not applicable to safety or security after boarding is completed?
Anyway -- you may legally be correct, as I wrote before. I'm more curious. But you're also aware it's all about optics and perception. It's a public business. This one struck a chord with the public, maybe a "last straw" for United. The CEO ignored this and that means brutal leadership, and that's why he's under fire.
A fair question if this is all normal -- why is it always united? Not Lufthansa, Emerites, Cathay.
I get people want cheap fares and that's the model. (I don't like it, but --). Physical violence is not a way to solve issues like this. Anyway I'm sure it'll disappear soon enough from the instant news cycle --
Regards Robert
-
Rookie Pilot
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:44 am
Chris,
Saw this on the other site. Addresses carriage, claims to be written by a lawyer. Addresses points far better than I can.
So here's the question. Guy was trying to call his lawyer when removed. If he reasonably believed it was illegal for United to force him to leave the AC -- which is quite possible -- did he have the (legal) right to stay there while getting his lawyer on the phone?
Its a different question than if its smart to listen and get off. I would because not all TSA type people are calm, patient and rational, and I value my face --
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/04/ ... -fail.html
Saw this on the other site. Addresses carriage, claims to be written by a lawyer. Addresses points far better than I can.
So here's the question. Guy was trying to call his lawyer when removed. If he reasonably believed it was illegal for United to force him to leave the AC -- which is quite possible -- did he have the (legal) right to stay there while getting his lawyer on the phone?
Its a different question than if its smart to listen and get off. I would because not all TSA type people are calm, patient and rational, and I value my face --
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/04/ ... -fail.html
-
Nark1
[quote author=Rookie Pilot link=topic=6023.msg15929#msg15929 date=1492082951]
Chris,
BTW if you've read my past posts you know I'm a big supporter of our servicemen (and women). If I have an issue there, i take it up with the elected officials. Not the troops. Always.
Carriage. Help me out here. Can you link a reference to reasons a boarded pax could be deplaned not applicable to safety or security after boarding is completed?
Anyway -- you may legally be correct, as I wrote before. I'm more curious. But you're also aware it's all about optics and perception. It's a public business. This one struck a chord with the public, maybe a "last straw" for United. The CEO ignored this and that means brutal leadership, and that's why he's under fire.
A fair question if this is all normal -- why is it always united? Not Lufthansa, Emerites, Cathay.
I get people want cheap fares and that's the model. (I don't like it, but --). Physical violence is not a way to solve issues like this. Anyway I'm sure it'll disappear soon enough from the instant news cycle --
Regards Robert
[/quote]
Rob,
First thank you for your support. I'm currently dealing with pricks of the Islamic faith in a middle eastern country. I posted pics of the area in another thread in the misc forum.
Second, in rule 25, paragraph 2 A and B it explains the recourse United has in denying the doctor boarding. I've been witness to the exact same situation, ironically probably the exact same aircraft as I used to fly for that regional: Republic.
4 crew members needing to get to Louisville (positive space travel) makes the already "booked" flight to an oversold flight. When dead heading, we as crew members must ride. That involves soliciting volunteers, and further actually removing people from a seat, such as this case.
This isn't new to United, Delta or any of the big guys.
Mr Munoz lost face because he didn't stand behind his employees, which followed [i]his[/i] letter of the "law." (If you mind the pun).
Johnny law was called and the situation escalated.
We must not pander to public opinion, but rather follow established tort, and civil proceedings.
Again, like I stated an intern could try this case for United and win.
The article you referenced with Reddit lawyer... completely missed rule 25. Im sure glad that guy hasn't charged Reddit or naked capitalist reporter, because he's not a very savvy lawyer.
Chris,
BTW if you've read my past posts you know I'm a big supporter of our servicemen (and women). If I have an issue there, i take it up with the elected officials. Not the troops. Always.
Carriage. Help me out here. Can you link a reference to reasons a boarded pax could be deplaned not applicable to safety or security after boarding is completed?
Anyway -- you may legally be correct, as I wrote before. I'm more curious. But you're also aware it's all about optics and perception. It's a public business. This one struck a chord with the public, maybe a "last straw" for United. The CEO ignored this and that means brutal leadership, and that's why he's under fire.
A fair question if this is all normal -- why is it always united? Not Lufthansa, Emerites, Cathay.
I get people want cheap fares and that's the model. (I don't like it, but --). Physical violence is not a way to solve issues like this. Anyway I'm sure it'll disappear soon enough from the instant news cycle --
Regards Robert
[/quote]
Rob,
First thank you for your support. I'm currently dealing with pricks of the Islamic faith in a middle eastern country. I posted pics of the area in another thread in the misc forum.
Second, in rule 25, paragraph 2 A and B it explains the recourse United has in denying the doctor boarding. I've been witness to the exact same situation, ironically probably the exact same aircraft as I used to fly for that regional: Republic.
4 crew members needing to get to Louisville (positive space travel) makes the already "booked" flight to an oversold flight. When dead heading, we as crew members must ride. That involves soliciting volunteers, and further actually removing people from a seat, such as this case.
This isn't new to United, Delta or any of the big guys.
Mr Munoz lost face because he didn't stand behind his employees, which followed [i]his[/i] letter of the "law." (If you mind the pun).
Johnny law was called and the situation escalated.
We must not pander to public opinion, but rather follow established tort, and civil proceedings.
Again, like I stated an intern could try this case for United and win.
The article you referenced with Reddit lawyer... completely missed rule 25. Im sure glad that guy hasn't charged Reddit or naked capitalist reporter, because he's not a very savvy lawyer.
-
Rookie Pilot
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:44 am
[quote author=Nark link=topic=6023.msg15932#msg15932 date=1492100961]
[quote author=Rookie Pilot link=topic=6023.msg15929#msg15929 date=1492082951]
Chris,
BTW if you've read my past posts you know I'm a big supporter of our servicemen (and women). If I have an issue there, i take it up with the elected officials. Not the troops. Always.
Carriage. Help me out here. Can you link a reference to reasons a boarded pax could be deplaned not applicable to safety or security after boarding is completed?
Anyway -- you may legally be correct, as I wrote before. I'm more curious. But you're also aware it's all about optics and perception. It's a public business. This one struck a chord with the public, maybe a "last straw" for United. The CEO ignored this and that means brutal leadership, and that's why he's under fire.
A fair question if this is all normal -- why is it always united? Not Lufthansa, Emerites, Cathay.
I get people want cheap fares and that's the model. (I don't like it, but --). Physical violence is not a way to solve issues like this. Anyway I'm sure it'll disappear soon enough from the instant news cycle --
Regards Robert
[/quote]
Rob,
First thank you for your support. I'm currently dealing with pricks of the Islamic faith in a middle eastern country. I posted pics of the area in another thread in the misc forum.
Second, in rule 25, paragraph 2 A and B it explains the recourse United has in denying the doctor boarding. I've been witness to the exact same situation, ironically probably the exact same aircraft as I used to fly for that regional: Republic.
4 crew members needing to get to Louisville (positive space travel) makes the already "booked" flight to an oversold flight. When dead heading, we as crew members must ride. That involves soliciting volunteers, and further actually removing people from a seat, such as this case.
This isn't new to United, Delta or any of the big guys.
Mr Munoz lost face because he didn't stand behind his employees, which followed [i]his[/i] letter of the "law." (If you mind the pun).
Johnny law was called and the situation escalated.
We must not pander to public opinion, but rather follow established tort, and civil proceedings.
Again, like I stated an intern could try this case for United and win.
The article you referenced with Reddit lawyer... completely missed rule 25. Im sure glad that guy hasn't charged Reddit or naked capitalist reporter, because he's not a very savvy lawyer.
[/quote]
Chris, The question seems to be those 4 crew showed up late, after boarding was complete. Question is does that change things. I think its reasonable that it does.
[quote author=Rookie Pilot link=topic=6023.msg15929#msg15929 date=1492082951]
Chris,
BTW if you've read my past posts you know I'm a big supporter of our servicemen (and women). If I have an issue there, i take it up with the elected officials. Not the troops. Always.
Carriage. Help me out here. Can you link a reference to reasons a boarded pax could be deplaned not applicable to safety or security after boarding is completed?
Anyway -- you may legally be correct, as I wrote before. I'm more curious. But you're also aware it's all about optics and perception. It's a public business. This one struck a chord with the public, maybe a "last straw" for United. The CEO ignored this and that means brutal leadership, and that's why he's under fire.
A fair question if this is all normal -- why is it always united? Not Lufthansa, Emerites, Cathay.
I get people want cheap fares and that's the model. (I don't like it, but --). Physical violence is not a way to solve issues like this. Anyway I'm sure it'll disappear soon enough from the instant news cycle --
Regards Robert
[/quote]
Rob,
First thank you for your support. I'm currently dealing with pricks of the Islamic faith in a middle eastern country. I posted pics of the area in another thread in the misc forum.
Second, in rule 25, paragraph 2 A and B it explains the recourse United has in denying the doctor boarding. I've been witness to the exact same situation, ironically probably the exact same aircraft as I used to fly for that regional: Republic.
4 crew members needing to get to Louisville (positive space travel) makes the already "booked" flight to an oversold flight. When dead heading, we as crew members must ride. That involves soliciting volunteers, and further actually removing people from a seat, such as this case.
This isn't new to United, Delta or any of the big guys.
Mr Munoz lost face because he didn't stand behind his employees, which followed [i]his[/i] letter of the "law." (If you mind the pun).
Johnny law was called and the situation escalated.
We must not pander to public opinion, but rather follow established tort, and civil proceedings.
Again, like I stated an intern could try this case for United and win.
The article you referenced with Reddit lawyer... completely missed rule 25. Im sure glad that guy hasn't charged Reddit or naked capitalist reporter, because he's not a very savvy lawyer.
[/quote]
Chris, The question seems to be those 4 crew showed up late, after boarding was complete. Question is does that change things. I think its reasonable that it does.
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 5 Replies
- 1249 Views
-
Last post by Colonel
-
- 7 Replies
- 1931 Views
-
Last post by Nark
-
- 12 Replies
- 2776 Views
-
Last post by Chuck Ellsworth
