- 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 4/12/17 at 3:30 am to NYNolaguy1
Posted on 4/12/17 at 3:30 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
So what grounds was he pulled off if it wasn't oversold?
UA's procedural policy is that standby FA's needing to get somewhere else to work gives them priority over paying customers
3
Posted on 4/12/17 at 4:46 am to SamuelClemens
The issue is that UA needed 4 seats for crew and they did NOT have reservations. UA could have sought other slightly more expensive means, the flight was only 5:40pm to get their crew there such as booking them on another airline or this was a hub they could have leer jetted them there or drove them. The fact is there were other options.
Instead, they chose to boot a paying customer already in their seat on the plane to save money.
The fact people are forgetting is that UA does NOT make their own rules. Many of their rules and regulations are made by the DOT, FAA, etc. Even if what they did was legal, it's still a bad business decision for a big corporate company to kick off a paying customer to save a couple $1000 in a rare instance. By doing so they are simply saying the DGAF about customers.
Instead, they chose to boot a paying customer already in their seat on the plane to save money.
The fact people are forgetting is that UA does NOT make their own rules. Many of their rules and regulations are made by the DOT, FAA, etc. Even if what they did was legal, it's still a bad business decision for a big corporate company to kick off a paying customer to save a couple $1000 in a rare instance. By doing so they are simply saying the DGAF about customers.
This post was edited on 4/12/17 at 4:48 am
Posted on 4/12/17 at 5:26 am to baldona
They should have rented a van, drove either the passengers or crew to Louisville in 5 hours. If the passengers, compensate them. Solves the problem.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 5:39 am to tigerfoot
quote:
certainly they can. If an employee is needed at the destination city at the last minute so they can keep operations going smooth, they should.
4 people mad or 130?
Or you can not be cheap and put them on a competing airline
Or you can not be cheap and offer better compensation
Or you can just be more organized so you don't need to rush crew last second.
but their lack of organization and cheapness has cost them infinitely more
Posted on 4/12/17 at 6:13 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
I'm completely serious. It's likely that you've lost track of the discussion, but that's your issue.
oh? Posted on 4/12/17 at 6:16 am to baldona
quote:
Baldona
I admire you sticking to your Learjet theory.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 6:19 am to VerlanderBEAST
quote:
Or you can not be cheap and put them on a competing airline
Or you can not be cheap and offer better compensation
Or you can just be more organized so you don't need to rush crew last second.
but their lack of organization and cheapness has cost them infinitely more
All of this. Handled very poorly by the airline. Get the passengers on another flight with some compensation, and/or get them or the flight crew in a van to Louisville.
Very easy to solve this for very little money.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 6:26 am to SamuelClemens
quote:
UA's procedural policy is that standby FA's needing to get somewhere else to work gives them priority over paying customers
Indeed. It's been fun watching people pretend that this isn't agreed to when purchasing a ticket.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 6:37 am to SamuelClemens
quote:
UA's procedural policy is that standby FA's needing to get somewhere else to work gives them priority over paying customers
Even if it blatantly violates a paying customer's contract of carriage?
What you're proposing is called breach of contract.
This post was edited on 4/12/17 at 6:38 am
Posted on 4/12/17 at 6:45 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
It's been fun watching people pretend that this isn't agreed to when purchasing a ticket.
Agreed to where? And what were the terms exactly?
This post was edited on 4/12/17 at 6:49 am
Posted on 4/12/17 at 6:50 am to NYNolaguy1
So this whole time you've been arguing, and you've never purchased a ticket?
Thanks for clarifying.
Thanks for clarifying.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 6:59 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
So this whole time you've been arguing, and you've never purchased a ticket?
Thanks for clarifying.
What ticket? He purchased a promise and agreed to a contract of carriage. The same one last night, where you couldn't find anything relating to FA taking precedence over paying passengers.
The troll game is strong here.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 7:03 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
What ticket?
You see, when you want to fly somewhere, you purchase what is typically called an airline ticket. It could be from United, but it doesn't have to be. There are others like Delta and Southwest.
Does that answer your question?
quote:
The same one last night, where you couldn't find anything relating to FA taking precedence over paying passengers.
I don't need to.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 7:10 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
You see, when you want to fly somewhere, you purchase what is typically called an airline ticket. It could be from United, but it doesn't have to be. There are others like Delta and Southwest.
And by doing so do you agree to their terms and conditions as spelled out in the contract of carriage? Are they bound by the same contract?
Posted on 4/12/17 at 7:12 am to NYNolaguy1
Seriously, go buy a ticket. Read carefully.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 7:18 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Seriously, go buy a ticket. Read carefully.
Show me what to read.
Are you normally this good, troll?
Posted on 4/12/17 at 7:23 am to NYNolaguy1
There are terms and conditions you agree to before purchasing the ticket. It even says this in the Contract of Carriage that you mistakenly believe is the only relevant document.
I don't fly United, so you'll have to be the one to purchase it.
I don't fly United, so you'll have to be the one to purchase it.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 7:57 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
There are terms and conditions you agree to before purchasing the ticket
Sounds great. Can't wait to read about it.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 8:08 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:Would be yet another awesome line to use in a trial, probably what would ultimately win the case.
Cool. I don't need it to be in there.
"I don't need it to be in the policy, I just really want it to be true!!!"
Posted on 4/12/17 at 8:09 am to TigerDeBaiter
quote:As part of the contract they entered into, pretty sure this is not a valid reason to do so.
Because they had 4 employees that needed a ride so that a larger chain reaction of cancellations/delays could be avoided.
quote:This is false.
They own the damn plane, so they can cancel the flight if they want.
Page 60 of 61
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News