- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: United CEO doubles down, calls passenger "belligerent", claims United followed rules
Posted on 4/11/17 at 1:48 pm to baldona
Posted on 4/11/17 at 1:48 pm to baldona
quote:
Has that been proven in court? It could easily go both ways in court IMO. Kicking a paying customer off for an employee does not look good no matter how you spin it imo
Must ride employees cannot be removed for revenue passengers.
It absolutely would hold up in a court of law. Regardless of what a uninformed court of public opinion feels.
1
Posted on 4/11/17 at 1:50 pm to Junky
quote:
but these employees were needed somewhere else.
Tough shite. That is the airlines fault not the passenger who has already boarded.
Find another way to get the employees there, get volunteers, or frick off.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 1:53 pm to RedFoxx
quote:
Must ride employees cannot be removed for revenue passengers. It absolutely would hold up in a court of law. Regardless of what a uninformed court of public opinion feels.
What? I don't even know what you are saying exactly?
Posted on 4/11/17 at 1:55 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
Tough shite. That is the airlines fault not the passenger who has already boarded.
Find another way to get the employees there, get volunteers, or frick off.
it doesn't work that way. It is United's plane, not your private jet. They choose who they allow to fly. Posted on 4/11/17 at 1:57 pm to baldona
Must rides are those very important to an airline. It can range from the board to needed employees, pilots and flight attendants, so the airline can operate flights in another city that doesn't have reserves.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 1:59 pm to Junky
quote:
Must rides are those very important to an airline. It can range from the board to needed employees, pilots and flight attendants, so the airline can operate flights in another city that doesn't have reserves.
I know what a must ride is, he said they wouldn't kick a must ride off for a paying customer. I don't know why or how that is even relevant? I'm assuming he meant they WOULD kick a paying customer off for a must ride? But I have no idea.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 1:59 pm to Junky
quote:
It is United's plane, not your private jet. They choose who they allow to fly.
It's also United's fault they were in this situation in the first place.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 2:00 pm to baldona
Yes. They would fly first over a paying, revenue generating passenger.
***edit for clarification
***edit for clarification
This post was edited on 4/11/17 at 2:01 pm
Posted on 4/11/17 at 2:00 pm to baldona
quote:
What? I don't even know what you are saying exactly?
Employees flying as passengers, with confirmed seats, for operational needs cannot be removed to accommodate passengers.
They are called "must ride" and it is written in contracts.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 2:01 pm to crazy4lsu
it was the doctors fault for acting a fool
Posted on 4/11/17 at 2:02 pm to Junky
(no message)
This post was edited on 9/26/20 at 10:56 pm
Posted on 4/11/17 at 2:03 pm to Junky
quote:
it was the doctors fault for acting a fool
This could have been handled at the gate without the PR fallout. Instead they allowed everyone to board, and then randomly selected people to throw off, while offering a paltry sum. It's amazing how many people shill for corporations just because they have the law on their side. That's not justification for acting without nuance, or to justify overreaction.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 2:03 pm to Huey Lewis
Agreed
Posted on 4/11/17 at 2:05 pm to Huey Lewis
quote:
I consistently think a business should be allowed to tell customers to get fricked and if that's bad business then the market will sort it out.
I'd agree with this.
Hopefully the CEO carries on being a dumbass and we can watch the free market crush United.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 2:07 pm to crazy4lsu
Funny how people should be held responsible for their actions but aren't these days. Paltry sum? At least they offered something...$1000 voucher to fly with them again isn't paltry. That's two or three domestic flights. The fact that it wasn't good enough for the passengers is their own problem.
And removing a problem passenger isn't an overreaction, it is removing a problem. It was a tough situation, but the employees acted accordingly.
And removing a problem passenger isn't an overreaction, it is removing a problem. It was a tough situation, but the employees acted accordingly.
This post was edited on 4/11/17 at 2:09 pm
Posted on 4/11/17 at 2:08 pm to crazy4lsu
Pretty much.
This happened because the "must fly" passengers didn't show up to the gate and say "we have to fly" until everyone was on board.
This goat rodeo could have been bypassed by their employees checking in x minutes early like the rest of us peons so that this could be handled at the gate rather than going Thunderdome on the plane.
This happened because the "must fly" passengers didn't show up to the gate and say "we have to fly" until everyone was on board.
This goat rodeo could have been bypassed by their employees checking in x minutes early like the rest of us peons so that this could be handled at the gate rather than going Thunderdome on the plane.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 2:09 pm to Junky
quote:
They choose who they allow to fly.
And they chose the passenger that bought a ticket, went through security, got scanned through and got in his seat.
Need employees to get somewhere? Find a way without inconveniencing someone that paid for a ticket, had it scanned and sat in their seat.
That is not the passengers problem. It is the airline. Change your policy so you don't overbook, leave two seats open for employees, anything else but this.
Otherwise, airline, frickoff.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 2:10 pm to Junky
quote:
The fact that it wasn't good enough for the passengers is their own problem.
No it isn't. It is the airlines problem.
Posted on 4/11/17 at 2:10 pm to teke184
quote:
This goat rodeo could have been bypassed if the passenger wouldn't have acted like a spoiled child rather than going Thunderdome on the plane.
Fify
This post was edited on 4/11/17 at 2:11 pm
Posted on 4/11/17 at 2:10 pm to Junky
quote:
Funny how people should be held responsible for their actions but aren't these days. Paltry sum? At least they offered something...$1000 voucher to fly with them again isn't paltry. That's two or three domestic flights. The fact that it wasn't good enough for the passengers is their own problem.
And removing a problem passenger isn't an overreaction, it is removing a problem. It was a tough situation, but the employees acted accordingly.
United will be held accountable for their actions. $$$$
"At least they offered something"
How noble
quote:
The fact that it wasn't good enough for the passengers is their own problem.
Looks like it is United's problem Einstein.
You really can't be arguing that they've handled this well. Jesus Christ
This post was edited on 4/11/17 at 2:13 pm
Page 17 of 61
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News