Just read this, which goes with the video.
Quick summary: a United flight supervisor came on board a sold-out flight and demanded that four seated passengers leave the plane so four United employees could take their seats. Four passengers were chosen at random, and one, an older man, refused. Police were called and he was beaten and forced off the plane.
Really.
It’s hard to type with all these brains from my head explosion on the keyboard, but…
1. No business that treats customers like this deserves to stay in business.
2. Any solution would have been better. Anything. Charter a flight for the United employees. Pay 10,000 bucks per passenger as incentive. Offer a lifetime ticket. That the united employees couldn’t come up with a less abusive and disrupting solution shows terrible training, terrible judgment, and a terrible corporate culture.
3. I am stunned that no passenger, when the older man who refused to go began to be abused by the police, stepped forward to take his place. I would think that would be an obvious response. Can we all pledge here and now that before someone is dragged screaming of a flight we are on, we’ll step forward and give up our seats?
4. I have to travel a lot for my business, but I will move heaven and earth not to have anything to do with United.
5. The carrier should pay dearly for this. It is inexcusable.
More accounts: New York Times, Hot Air, Vox, NPR, FOX6Now.com, The Gateway Pundit, neo-neocon, Boing Boing, View from the Wing, Raw Story, Fox News Insider, CBS Chicago, , Guns & Money, The Federalist, IJR, FOX31 Denver, AOL, Instapundit, Axios, Eschaton , Mediaite, The Ring of Fire Network, View from the Wing, BGR, Mashable, CBS Pittsburgh, The Daily Caller and Outside the Beltway
And this, from Hit and Run at Reason:
While United’s customer service policies in this case are clearly heinous and absurd, let’s not forget to also cast blame on the police officers who actually committed the brutality on United’s behalf. NPR reports that the cops attacking the man “appear to be wearing the uniforms of Chicago aviation police.”
While there may be something to be said for the ability for private businesses to summon the help of the police to remove people from their premises if they refuse to leave peacefully and their presence is unwanted, there is no excuse for the police to cooperate when the reason their presence is unwanted is not “causing a disturbance” or being violent or threatening to other customers, or stealing goods or services, or doing anything wrong at all, but rather wanting to peacefully use the service they legitimately paid for.
Shame on both United for calling the cops on a passenger to make the lives of their employees and business easier, and shame on the police for having any part of it.
[UPDATE: According to A.P., others may agree with the above; “Chicago aviation department says officer involved in dragging man off United flight placed on leave,” A.P. tweets.]
Ethics Alarms 
I am speechless. When I clean my brains off my own computer screen, I’ll try to comment in some sensate way.
Don’t use Windex. The ammonia eats away at the pixels. Bad. Very bad.
jvb
Someone should send the chairman of United a copy of Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery” with a note attached “This is no way to run an airline.”
I suggested this morning that my senators introduce an FAA rule about bumping passengers that have been boarded and seated on the plane. Bump at the gate, that’s fine. But once they’re boarded, WTF.
I don’t know if that’s feasible. They don’t know if the passengers are all going to show up until they’re on the plane… Unless we’re talking about some kind of first-come-first-served scenario where the last couple of people to show up get bumped.
Yeah – I think you solicit volunteers at the gate area and then “pre-bump” the requisite number of seats you need and put those that you “pre-bumped” at the top of the standby list to take the place of people that don’t show up. Then you start the boarding process.
Well, if this guy is a doc I’m sure he will find a way to sue the pants off United. I don’t think I’m ready at this point to do my “I’m Spartacus” routine. Hopefully United will get some very nasty publicity over this incident.
Saying someone will be compensated for harm after the fact isn’t the same as acting affirmatively to prevent the harm. Come on.
As disturbing as United’s behavior is, isn’t it far worse that the police backed United’s poor decision?
I’m sure they know the airplane has contractual rights to do this, so they are technically enforcing the law. They don’t even know why the passenger is being removed, conceivably.
Perhaps, to the extent of making an appearance, but not to the level in which they acted. The “just doing what I was told” excuse didn’t work at Nuremburg and it shouldn’t work anywhere.
Thus reminding me that I need to add “It’s policy” and “I was only following orders” to the Rationalizations List…
I admit I overstated my case, but at least some good (jogging that memory) came from it.
Doesn’t that already fall under the auspices of the compliance dodge?
The compliance dodge is reserved for the excuse that wrongdoing did not violate any rules or regulations, so it’s OK. The policy rationalization is that because a policy seems to compel wrongdoing, that makes the conduct OK. The Nuremberg rationalization is that following orders relieves one of ethical accountability.
Related but distinct.
I could not tell if it was police, TSA, or other government security or a private security company. If it were a government agency (police, TSA, etc.) why didn’t someone in the department ask, “Are the passengers being disruptive? No? They just won’t leave? Well, then. We will be there but we have a load of lumber to clear before we can spare our officers to evict your paying customers, which could take all day – there’s a huge load all over the highway and we need to remove it to get traffic flowing again. We be there we can.”
jvb
The guy that hauled the passenger off was wearing plain clothes, chances are he’s an air marshal.
I dunno about stepping forward while the police are roughing someone up, for fear that they might start tune YOU up instead. These tactics are the kind of tactics you use when interrogating hardline prisoners, not when you are telling paying passengers they need to step aside for carrier reasons.
The way that was handled was criminal, and United needs to get hit with the biggest civil lawsuit the courts have ever seen. I wouldn’t accept any settlement, we’d be going to trial, and I would make sure everyone in this country knew about these thug tactics. It should be this guy’s mission in life to put United out of business.
United should be put out of business. And if not by the legal system, by the millions of people who refuse to buy a single ticket from them ever again.
Just heard the air marshall who managed to create this criminal fiasco has been put on leave. How about fired outright?
Q: When does the National Transportation Safety Board get into this?
There’s all kinds of moving parts here, but I tihnk one is the absurdity of bumping paying customers off flights in favour of employees. The airline offered $400 (and then $800 when that failed) and a hotel stay to each of the four customers that were bumped. I’m not going to begrudge the airlines overbooking the flights, those seats are perishable goods and it’s a waste not to have them full… But it means that sometimes you’ll have situations like this that you have to deal with, and you’d think they’d have figured out something better. You’d think, for instance, that for reasons ranging from PR to cost savings, they could have figured out a way to get four people from Chicago to Lousville for less than $4000. I mean, really… It’s a… What? 5 hour drive?
That is a weird story. Who knew the airlines could forcibly evict you from a plane, when it oversold the flight, and you are randomly chosen to be booted from the flight because the airline needed seats for flight attendants/crew to work a later flight? It gives a whole new meaning to ‘voluntary’, doesn’t it? I don’t remember reading that disclaimer in my most recent plane trip. I cannot, for the life of me, figure out who thought physically removing paying passengers from an oversold flight would be a good idea.
I have read comments to this story that suggest it is an issue of contract of carriage in which every airline has the right to remove or displace any passenger (while the passenger may be entitled to limited compensation). That may very well be the case, though I have my doubts. However, UA oversold the flight, needed space for four of its employees to get to Louisville to service another flight, and decided to remove four paying customers/travelers so their crew could get to another flight without delaying that flight. UA offered compensation to passengers willing to alter travel plans, nobody accepted. The PR nightmare UA unleashed upon itself seems well deserved, especially in the social media heaven of cellphones, Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook, where everyone with a hand-held device is now a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist.
UA will pay dearly in the court of public opinion. It took a sledgehammer to its reputation, tenuous as it was. UA sent the message that its passengers are at UA’s mercy, and UA will determine whether passengers make their destinations or not.
jvb
According to this, it is unlikely. In fact, their stock is up.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/10/united-is-being-immature-former-continental-ceo-gordon-bethune-says.html
News catches up quickly. United is down in after hours trading.
Did anyone doubt that? I didn’t.
I need confirmation from multiple sources that have verified this story and that what is said to have taken place is actually what took place, this video does not tell the whole story. I’ll not jump on the smearing bandwagon until I have verifiable proof.
If this story is confirmed to be absolute truth and this guy did nothing but refuse to get up and give his valid ticket to a United Airlines employee, I’ll never fly United Airlines again and when I say never, I actually mean never. If that means there is somewhere that I will not be able to fly to, fine, I’ll fly somewhere else and drive the rest of the way.
Well, there are multiple videos, multiple confirmations from passengers and United has not disputed the account.
I just read multiple reports from various news sources.
I’m done with United Airlines. Personal permanent boycott. I just sent a message to my travel agent telling her, from this point on, not to book any of my flights on United Airlines.
Fini
Bravo.
I just went on the United Airlines website, which enables one to make a comment or ask a question. I expressed the opinions I have added to this blog, and did say that I have avoided them for ten years, as we all know they are a second rate airline. I also suggested they just take this heinous act as a ‘sign,” and sell out to Southwest while they still have something to sell.
When one sends an email to United, one has the option of adding it to Facebook, but since Facebook is ugly enough, I didn’t. But there is an option on the basic UAL website to send them an e-mail. Do it!
Have issues with some of your conclusions in your very many enlightening postings, but NOT with this one. You neglected to mention DISGRACE, as well as LACK OF COMMON SENSE, but such wasn’t necessary, as your message was well conveyed by all the terms you used.
What a black mark on United! Hope an apology will be forthcoming soon.
An apology would be meaningless.
I don’t know the inner workings of say UA’s union contracts, but if I were a manager, I’d like to think I’d fire someone here. Someone is holding a job that has power they obviously cannot deal with.
It’s ahem “apology” ahem, warrants its own post.
Yup. Joe Thomas of the Cleveland Browns is so far winning Twitter with his mocking of it.
johnburger wrote:
Who knew the airlines could forcibly evict you from a plane, when it oversold the flight, and you are randomly chosen to be booted from the flight because the airline needed seats for flight attendants/crew to work a later flight? It gives a whole new meaning to ‘voluntary’, doesn’t it? I don’t remember reading that disclaimer in my most recent plane trip.
There are voluntary and involuntary denials of boarding. You don’t remember reading that disclaimer because you’ve probably never bothered to read an airline’s Contract of Carriage, despite the fact that you agree to it when you buy your ticket. United’s C of C makes clear that passengers on oversold flights can be denied. I strongly doubt that any lawsuit will prevail, and the social media myrmidons howling to that effect have no clue what they’re talking about.
All of which said: I agree with most of Jack’s assessment of this. This was an incredibly stupid thing for United to do. Airlines could get away with this stuff in the past century, but the pitchforks-and-torches brigades on Facebook and Twitter will make their lives miserable for doing so. United will now spend way more mopping up this situation than it would have spent to charter a private jet to move the crew.
This has all the hallmarks of an Ethics Train Wreck in the making – or, perhaps, an Ethics Plane Crash. I expect Charles Schumer to weigh in any minute.
Oh, and for whatever it’s worth, United’s stock was UP half a point today. Guess the Street likes full seats.
Let’s see where there stock is a week from now…
You said “Denied boarding”. Can we take a clear look at the terms and see if they apply to patrons who have already been permitted to board? That have passed the gate check-in, sent down the jetway, stowed their carry-ons, taken their seat and fastened their belts?
Ah, that is the thing, isn’t it?
The contract of carriage refers to “denied boarding.” It does not refer to removal after boarding has taken place except in cases of danger to the aircraft or passengers. Once a passenger has legally boarded and on good behavior, I don’t think their contract allows for forcible removal.
This will be litigated, and I predict the plaintiff will win. Huge. Yuuuge. Whatever. The United CEO has said he wants to “reach out” to him. If it were me, he’d draw back a nub with a lawsuit stuck to it.
Glenn and Tim – good points. I re-read the policy and it doesn’t provide specifics about being removed from a flight after boarding one. However, we should remember that the cameras started rolling once the cops were already on board; we have no record of this guy’s behavior once they showed up. United could, and likely will, invoke Rule 21 (Refusal of Transport) of the Contract of Carriage. They might even be correct in doing so.
The whole thing stinks and it was unbelievably stupid. But this guy isn’t going to walk away with bazillions. My bet is that he walks with business class travel for the rest of his life, and United will tweak the C of C to reflect the incident,
Again, I am NOT defending them. I stopped flying United years ago unless I had no choice. Damn shame. Munoz is actually supposed to be a pretty good CEO, and the last time I flew United – about four months ago (no choice), It HAD improved a bit since his predecessor, who resigned due to suspicion of influence peddling. Still had a long way to go.
Another interesting aspect of this: this was not a full-line flight. It was on an Embraer, which means it was on a contracted United Express carrier. Those are actually independently owned and flying under United livery. In theory, they’re supposed to toe the company line with regard to Contract of Carriage. But the decision could actually have been made by THAT airline, not United.
United owns the problem regardless.
And regardless of how it decides to “own” this problem, I think the company is dead, dead, dead. It doesn’t matter how the no-choice “bumpee” acted, the fact is that he was bumped without choice or recourse, was treated like a criminal and dragged along the aisle like a piece of too-large carry-on luggage.
Frankly, this would be a good case for the ACLU — if they had the guts. We are all advised to fly — it’s safer, it doesn’t muck up the highways, and theoretically (don’t believe it) is energy efficient. Even if all that is true, who wants to be dragged out like a Jew on Kristallnacht by a bunch of airline Nazis? And that’s exactly what happened to this poor man.
Really?
E2, I have been MOST impressed by your writings – until this one. We are in the early stages of this case. I handle this kind of stuff for a living (not on this scale; I deal with smaller companies that are caught in a horrible PR jam).
Take it from me on this: United’s C-Suite won’t fully understand what happened for two or three days. And one could argue they got lucky, because this was a HUMAN failure rather than one involving forensic engineering, metallurgy and other more complex analyses related to airline problems. This one should be comparatively easy..
I completely agree that the optics on this are as bad as they get. I feel comfortable in saying that the decisions that led to this were horrendous – both by United (or, more specifically, by the contracted regional carrier that actually made the call), and by the law enforcement people.
Bottom line here: this is an evolving story produced by a social media lynching party. It MAY well be that lynching is the delivery of justice without due process. But due process has been denied. This is the Rosemary’s Baby of Web 2.0: people are incapable of not rushing to judgment.
It may well be that United, Big Company, owns a problem created by a contractor and executed by dumb-guys-who-wanted-to-be-cops-but-weren’t-quite-good-enough.
That’s where I’m betting this one goes. Not that it excuses United; they OWN this. But at this stage of the story, if I were going to bet, that’d be my bet.
Again: United (Big Company) owns this and this may be a wonderful example of karma: eating a steaming pile of shit due to past sins.
Won’t break my heart either way. I only fly ’em when I have to. But we should all ask ourselves this: there are three legacy carriers (United, Delta, American) and three major “second generation” (Southwest, JetBlue, Alaska) carriers operating domestically in the U.S.
I ALWAYS fly the second generation in preference to the legacy carriers. Would you really like to see United go away as a result of this? I wouldn’t. The competition is thin enough as it is.
All I hope is that this is United’s Come-to-Jesus moment.
Thanks for the measured professional view. But isn’t this at the outset res ipsa loquitur? United overbooked. United demanded that seated passengers leave for a flight crew. United decided to play Sophie’s choice. Its employee made tha bas crisis management decision. He decided to call in muscle, and escalate the situation.
All of that happened independent of the police botch. That’s why I didn’t concentrate on them in the post (someone just asked why.) That part was moral luck. If the Dr. had gone quietly,there was no uproar, and the flight had left on time, it would have been a minor story, if a story at all. Nevertheless, what United did was still unfair, high-handed, disrespectful, contemptuous of the lives and needs of its paying passengers, and miserable planning and customer service.
They own it, and what they own is a business that has shown itself untrustworthy by its own customers.
We agree that they own it. In this day and age, no one else would. Or could. The mob has spoken. It could come out that the removed passengers flashed gang signs and/or a gun and nobody would change his/her/its mind.
From my perspective, the problem is much larger than the incident. It is cultural, throughout the company: it has been for a very long time, and this brings us neatly back to what Ethics Alarms is all about. Companies often make a lot of noise about “empowering” employees, but all to often, those employees (or contractors) are trained towards short-term bottom line instead of long-term development of customer loyalty.
United is one such company, and has been for a long time. And it’s one of the reasons I always check JetBlue and Southwest first when I have to fly.
How Munoz handles this in the next few weeks will be extraordinarily telling. He has to be reasonable. He has to communicate flawlessly, and twellthe lawyers who try to re-write his statements to go pound sand. He has to speak clearly and in the language of social networks – informally, but carefully.
He does that well, United’s brand could actually rise on this one. He doesn’t, and they’ll still be one of six remaining major airlines in the country, and the difference won’t amount to a fart in a tornado. That’s what’s depressing about this.
I have as much contempt for the cyber-mob as anyone, but why are you focusing on them in this episode? In this case, social media is extremely useful—it gets the message and the story out; it serves as a warning.
I am not focusing on them. I am merely pointing out that the a mob is driving this (and I know we share contempt for it), There’s still a LOT that’s unknown about this.
Only somewhat tongue-in-cheek, this is your first Ethics Plane Crash. Enter the politicians, if they haven’t already.
Oh, look – here come the politicians!!!! http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2017/04/11/united-ceo-defends-actions-staff-in-viral-video-as-lawmakers-call-for-investigation.html
Wait, United escalated? Aren’t passengers supposed to obey orders from flight crew? It’s their plane; they say get off, you get off. Sure, unethical practice to overbook flights; failure to reserve seats for crew transport. All valid complaints. But passengers don’t get to say no when they kick you off. He resisted, so they had to use force. What other option did he give them?
If I paid you $50 to drive me somewhere, and at the last minute you decided to say no for ANY reason, I would be entitled to getting my $50 back. But under no circumstances would it be okay for me to sit in your car and refuse to leave, and no sane person would expect you to start offering me bribes to go. You would be fully within your rights to call the cops and have me dragged out.
This may be redundant, but I hit the wrong key, so here we go again.
Are you absolutely serious? The airline industry has — at least — the NTSB, the TSA and a bunch of airline cops to support them.
Do you really think that a cabbie would dump a single passenger because he suddenly found customers — maybe four or five — who want to go to a farther distance and would pay more money to get that cab? Do you really think a cabbie would risk losing his license — there is is “hack patrol” — by insisting the single passenger get out of his cab, and even call a bunch of pseudo-cops to get that passenger out?
Think! There is absolutely no comparison here, and frankly, your knowledge base needs some real enhancement.
Your argument that my example is wrong because you deem it unlikely is a non-sequitur. Ownership creates authority. My car, my rules. I say you get out, you get out.
Maybe the cops were excessive–most people on the receiving end of authority think so. Regardless, when the cops showed up, fighting was pointless. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
He will probably win millions if it goes to a jury, but I doubt a judge will let him keep it. He may settle if he’s not so angry he’d rather litigate. If it were me, I’d be pretty mad, but in a day or two, I might rethink that if their offer was good enough.
But I would only accept money. No way I’d fly their airline again.
He will do far more damage to United on the cable circuit.
Oh, no doubt. I can’t even count the cost there, but it will be substantial. Tens of millions at least.
Arthur,
Thanks for your response and the other responses. You have an extensive understanding of carriage industry/law than I do, and from your interesting, informative, and measured responses have given me a bunch of stuff to consider and reconsider. I am aware that carriers have the option of bumping passengers for various reasons, as you pointed out. I have seen it happen and I have read enough in my travels to know that the carrier can deny me entry at any time.
My point was directed more at the physical and violent nature of the way security, airport police, etc. physically removed the passenger. That does not seem right to me. I don’t know that I have consented to physical abuse if I am otherwise not disrupting the flight or bothering other passengers.
UA may not have liability for the incident. However, the PR nightmare visited upon it by the social media furies cannot possibly something its management is all too happy about. The optics are not good. I read that the police officer who dragged the passenger off the plane has been suspended. That is probably a good thing. UA may try to point the finger at the contracted carrier and local law enforcement, but the fact is UA’s reputation is taking a big hit.
I read through UA’s Rule 21 (Refusal of Transport) of the Contract of Carriage and I did not see a specific provision that authorized UA to remove the passenger, unless refusing to abide by the bumping “order” or decision could be construed as a violation of Rule 21A, which provides for removal for breach of the carriage contract, but that seems to be a stretch.
UA
How much of a fuss did this guy make before filming began? Usually cops aren’t called for no reason. I’m not saying United is a saint, but I question the narrative here that the passenger was some hapless victim of an evil corporation & their police minions. If bumping flights is in the fine print when the ticket is purchased, then at some point you have to accept the potentialities that happens when you don’t bother to read it.
I’d make a fuss, wouldn’t you? A paying passenger who is already on board (perhaps with luggage in the hold) is picked at random to get off the plane. It’s Sunday, he says has a full morning of appointments the next day, and they want to put him on a plane at 3pm the next day. He’d be getting there after the work day was over. It’s hardly a great offer, and the $400 or $800 they were offering doesn’t begin to cover what he’d lose by accepting it.
His schedule would be messed up for weeks to come, and he knew that…if you have 8-10 patients coming in and you don’t show, you’ll have to fit them in somewhere in between the patients you have scheduled the rest of the week and keep squeezing them in there until they’ve all been seen. Surgery scheduled? Holy hell, what a scheduling mess that would be, as well as the massive inconvenience to the prepped patient. He tells them says he’s going to call his lawyer, United calls the cops on him and they yank him out of his seat That’s a great big ‘Tough cookies, too bad you’ll miss a day of work’ from United, it’s totally unreasonable!
How does him ‘making a fuss’ justify in any way getting manhandled and dragged? The airlines/TSA now expect instant compliance to any order they bark out. Resist in the slightest and be punished. He was yanked out of his seat from a seated position (it looks like, from the many shots I’ve seen of it) so how much trouble could he have been? He objected verbally, saying he had appointments, patients to see, and ‘I have to go home’…just a week or so ago Hawaiian Airlines dumped fuel, returned to the airport and made a man get off the plane for saying he’d like to ‘take someone behind the woodshed’ over charging $12 for the use of a blanket. People on a plane evidently can’t voice any complaints, or object to anything now without force being applied. I’d raise a stink. It’s wrong not to. It’s unbelievably shabby treatment.
Yes of course I’d be pissed! And of course it’s unfair too. But I also know flight attendants have an understandable hyper vigilance regarding erratic passengers. Also, I’m not trying to play the race card here, but also I’m brown and know it’s not a good idea to make a fuss in these situations. Again United is no saint, but there’s a difference between being angry and acting out in anger and entitlement.
I also wonder with news stories like these, just how much of it is stirring the pot, while some other more important news item is being missed.
I’ll say it one more time: he should add racism to his various lawsuits. Here was this small Asian man — chosen presumably ‘at random’ — because these United morons thought he would simply acquiesce. Surprise! He had guts, refused to be used, and all hell broke loose. One might ask if Roger Clemens, on the same plane, would have been ‘randomly chosen’ to be debarked from the plane.
A key area of investigation: How, exactly, wast this particular passenger chosen? I’d really love to hear the answers in court. In the video, a very large man in front of him was NOT chosen? Why? Good question.
It might be a good strategy, but the claim that any time anything is done to a minority it must be racism is an impediment to society’s development. Maybe the United team was so unbiased that they didn’t even take his race into consideration.
An immediate — or later thoughtful — charge of racism is not ipso facto bad for society. My charge here is that the United morons thought that this victim — because he was small and Asian — could be bullied. He surprised them. My accusation against the airline is less a societal one but a specific one against a bunch of morons who do not know how to run any business at all, much less an airline.
The old saw that “The customer is always right” apparently now applies only, unless or until it discomfits the provider of the service or which individual customer the company chooses to be right or wrong.
I want United dead. And I suppose they’ll come after me for saying that. (I mean,of course, that United as a company, not a collection of individuals, should die the corporate death it deserves…)
E2, I’m starting to worry that you’re going to strike out looking on this one. The “old saw that the customer is always right” was a marketing trope developed by a tiny handful of very smart department store owners back in the days when caveat emptor was an accepted legal doctrine.
They knew that a small percentage of their customers were dishonest. They calculated that a larger percentage would buy without complaint.
The customer is NOT always right. Sometimes, he or she is completely full of shit.
Hmm. Okay that last point I agree with. It’s curious how they chose him. Apparently it was “at random” but who/how is important.
I dunno. I just find how blown up this story is to be suspect. Wish I could say definitively why, but I’ve noticed a pattern of “indignation” stories (victim/villian) that appear when something more newsworthy is going on. Usually it’s an executive order or UN thing. Guess we’ll see.
The way the airlines have consolidated, it will be tough to avoid United if you travel frequently for business.
I once almost missed a flight to a family vacation because of this policy. The flight was oversold and it did not matter that I had purchased my tickets almost a year in advance. We were the last ones to board the plane even though we had assigned seats — the airline held us at the gate until everyone else was seated. We would have missed our cruise departure if we had not been on that flight. The next time we took a cruise, we flew out the day before and incurred a hotel expense just because the airlines are so shitty.
I personally think the best way to send the message is to avoid United whenever it is physically and economically feasible.
If it’s not, then fly United and may the Force (as well as the luck of the draw) be with you.
I do a lot of business traveling. And only once in three years have I been unable to avoid United. As luck would have it (or not) I always fly out of DCA/Reagan so I have more choices. I have left early and late to avoid the horrible United. Let Southwest buy them after they’ve lost every ounce of value they ever had.
There you go. For my part, I’ve had more problems with American than United. They didn’t even offer me money, they just told me they’d put me up in a hotel and fly me out the next day. But then again, that was for storms, which probably qualifies as force majeure.
I try to avoid them, but they are a client and I have to go through our company’s travel person.
Yeah. That makes it tough.
“…the airlines are so shitty…”
This.
Southwest is better than most, but that is faint praise. I used to fly every week, on all different airlines, and my opinion of them is not very high on their best days.
I use American at every opportunity — also a deal for extra miles. I fly out of DCA/Reagan, and Southwest just recently got a place there. Probably because of all the mergers. Nevertheless, I e-mailed United, told them I had been avoiding them for years, and now would change any plans — business or otherwise — to stay off their planes.
I am absolutely certain that United will try to get out of this — blaming the TSA police, or the passenger, or even the flight attendants. Only the lack of paying passengers will make the difference. Interesting that United stock was down one full percentage point on : this is huge, and does not augur well for them. Good.
All this crap from others about the “rights” of cab drivers, etc., is just that: crap. Sure, the hack patrol tries to monitor the behavior of cabbies, but cabbies do NOT have a TSA, a bunch of quasi-police who can act at their own will to deal with passengers. Air travel has become a crap-shoot,and I even have a TSA Frequent Traveler pass that gets me through security. Not exactly a warm feeling at the moment.
I don’t care about mergers. I care that United Airlines mistreated a passenger so its own employees could get where they needed to be — when the airline had every opportunity to address this in advance, without bloodying. hurting and mortifying a paying customer.
So I came across this article:
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/10/united-is-being-immature-former-continental-ceo-gordon-bethune-says.html
I am not sure if the headline is accurate. The quote is too vague and could be talking about the situation, not the person. However, it is the second part of the article that worries me. United stocks are already up after one day. People fake outrage over something that should be outrageous! I mean here we have a clear-cut non-partisan issue over something that was handled badly by a company and people are still not going to put their money where their mouth is because ethics and principles are not worth a few extra dollars. What good is outrage is your not going to change your habits about it?
Sadly, this will all blow over and the airline will still make millions off of those not willing to stand up for what is right.
With all due respect, can you explain the difference between your declaring that “I will move heaven and earth not to have anything to do with United,” and “the carrier should pay dearly for this,” and the declaration of other ideological groups to boycott Ivanka Trump’s fashion line (or any other Trump-related industries).
Are these not both boycotts of a service that is based on an ideological difference? (I lean toward your opinion here if United, but I struggle to defend this and not defend boycotting Trump’s fashion line and I am no POTUS hater.)
Why yes. Why not look up “boycott” and see if I called for one. I described a personal opinion and decisions. I did not coordinate, advocate, or organize. I also refuse to watch Fox News, Bill Maher, or John Oliver, read Breitbart, listen to Hillary Clinton, Chris Christy, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, or Mitch McConnell, pay for Woody Allen and Roman Polanski movies, or eat at Fridays (long story.) None of which are boycotts.
How in the world is refusing to patronize a business that mistates customers based on an “ideological difference”? Is there some Lousy, Disrespectful Service That includes beating doctors Party I’m unaware of?
Worst comment of the month.
Actually, by definition, those are boycotts. I generally thought of boycotts as a group action, then I looked it up.
Then again, dictionary.com defines it in terms of a group action. You clicks your link, you gets your choice, I guess.
But a personal boycott is different, I think, especially when it’s rooted in a specific cause related to performance. I suspect you don’t refuse to watch those people/programs because of their ideology, but because of their inferior work product, bias (rendering their work unreliable) or the fact that they are demonstrably horrible people who don’t deserve your valuable time. No one must subject themselves to that just to be a “non-boycotter.” Theoretically, we all engage in boycotts when we refuse to do business with a lousy company (depending on how you define the term) but it can’t be a bad thing where performance is concerned.
I’m not flying United anymore (where I have a commercially feasible alternative) because I’m afraid they might rip me off their airplane by main force. They’ve proven themselves willing to do just that, and I would likely resist and get myself hurt like this poor gentlemen did unless they offered me a financial or other incentive commensurate with my inconvenience. Is that a boycott? Sure, technically. But some would just call it smart.
Just for the heck of it, wouldn’t you agree that Bill Maher is at least as bad a product as United AirLines?
Heh. More than half, probably. 🙂
I wouldn’t fly on him, either.
His arms would sure get tired. Just as tired as his jokes!
I’ll be here all etc., try the etc.
Nice…
Not that he was the first to tell this joke, but that is where I heard it… we lost Don Rickles last week.
First, Mr. Marshall, I apologize for any aggravation that I caused. I am often told that I tend to say things that make me sound like a jerk when I do not mean to do so. I thought I had improved on that account, when the opposite appears to be correct. My most profound apologies. I will attempt to speak less offensively in the future. I hope this attempt does not come across to any as offensive as I am merely seeking clarification, not attempting to “score points.”
My dictionary primarily defines a boycott as “a person or group of persons intentionally withdrawing from financial transactions or support of a company as a protest.” In a second dictionary, a boycott, either by one or more persons is caused by “ideological differences,” their phrase, which I used above.
Some of my friends who also read your blog and I have been confused by this as we thought your declaring boycotts unethical meant both personal and public boycotts (as per the definition above) and have had a great many debates about how a personal boycott with reasons ranging from the extremely insane to the extremely prudent could be unethical. This particular situation would easily have become one of those debates.
I do not disagree that a company with this magnitude of customer service problem (if this maltreatment can even be called such) should be avoided, if nothing more than for the prudent fact of never knowing which other customer may be next. I was merely curious why, after stating that boycotts were unethical in previous posts, you were withholding your financial support of the company. I believe I now understand that you only mean organized public boycotts are unethical and that the private ones (again using above definition) are perfectly acceptable. Did I get this right?
Sarah
The differences are not ideological it is a behavioral one. A boycott based on something an enterprise fails to do – in this case treating the customer properly- is not the same as a boycott based on differences in beliefs.
Actually, I am not sure that it is legal or in accordance with airline policy to remove a paying passenger for a non-paying passenger in the airline “heirarchy” of who gets bumped for whom. It’s been a long time, but when I worked for SatoTravel — which was owned by ALL the airlines — as I recall we traveled “non-rev” for business and we could be bumped for paying customers. I may have to look that up. In any case, United has pulled despicable acts with us and our family and we have managed to avoid flying them for at least a decade. Really vile customer service, if you can call it that.
Thanks, Jo. I suspect you are correct.
I’m guessing UA needed to get a flight crew from O’Hare to Louisville really quickly so they could staff a flight out of Louisville as soon a possible. I doubt they were just random pass riders going to a minor league baseball game or something. So somebody just lost it completely somewhere in the chain of command. Really dumb.
Yeah, that’s what it was; a flight crew. Still no excuse.
And boy, for what they’re going to wind up paying after the dust settles, both in lost revenue and legal costs, they probably could’ve hired a private Gulfstream to take them there in style.
Blockheads.
The cost of the Gulfstream charter probably would have exceeded the profit of the flight to Louisville and the flight they were trying to staff, but a little commonsense on someone’s part would have gone a long way. I wonder if somebody bumped it up the chain of command and a higher up said, “Get that God Damned crew to Louisville even if you have to drag some people off the God Damned plane.”
No bullet points about how the police responded? Talk about overzealous.
Overzealous indeed.
Not that I believe that TSA did this (absent confirmation), but I have been surprised that TSA does not wear brown shirts.
As has been mentioned before, bumping a paying passenger for a “dead-head” makes no business sense at all. UA deserves any and all consequences of this action. By-the-bye, a Gulfstream is a long-range aircraft, and way too luxurious (read ‘expensive’) for a dead-head crew. Learjet would work fine and get the there just as quick.
Looks like the police in addition to being brutal are also incompetent. Apparently after roughing him up and dragging him off the plane they then managed to lose control of him and he ran back on necessitating emptying the plane and hauling him off again. Well, I guess it is his own fault for forcing United to re-accomadate him. At least the captain didn’t entertain the other passengers with details of his or her personal problems.