United Airlines says controversial flight was not actually overbooked; CEO apologizes again - Sensationalist Headlines

[url]https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/04/11/united-ceo-employees-followed-procedures-flier-belligerent/100317166/[/url] [quote]The CEO of United Airlines apologized again Tuesday amid a global uproar sparked when a passenger was dragged screaming from his seat on a flight that, it turns out, wasn't even overbooked. "I continue to be disturbed by what happened on this flight, and I deeply apologize to the customer forcibly removed and to all the customers aboard," CEO Oscar Munoz said in a statement. "No one should ever be mistreated this way." United has been under siege since videos of Sunday night's violent confrontation on the plane at Chicago's O'Hare Airport went viral, drawing hundreds of millions of views around the world. Social media outrage rained down on the Chicago-based airline, prompting a public apology Monday from Munoz. United spokesman Jonathan Guerin said Tuesday that all 70 seats on United Express Flight 3411 were filled, but the plane was not overbooked as the airline previously reported. Instead, United and regional affiliate Republic Airlines, which operated the flight, selected four passengers at random to be removed to accommodate crew members needed in Louisville the next day.[/quote]

It wasn't even overbooked? Does that mean the employees just wanted to take seats off paying customers? I mean I understand looking after employees and I don't always think the customer is right, but this just makes the story even more bull.

Lol, they fucked up hard. [QUOTE=GhillieBacca;52089851] [media]https://twitter.com/JohnClarke1960/status/851829688293109761[/media][/QUOTE] What they did was complete bullshit.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;52090688]Not "just wanted to", they had to because they needed to be in Louisville next day. Work related and not "looking after employees".[/QUOTE] I hope they think it was worth the billion dollar loss in market value. Those employees ended up being pretty expensive to move. It'd honestly have been cheaper to charter a learjet for them.

Sure, dig the hole deeper. Bunch of fucking idiots.

[quote]Instead, United and regional affiliate Republic Airlines, which operated the flight, selected four passengers at random to be removed to accommodate crew members needed in Louisville the next day. [/quote] I thought this was common knowledge from the get go?

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52090701]I hope they think it was worth the billion dollar loss in market value. Those employees ended up being pretty expensive to move.[B] It'd honestly have been cheaper to charter a learjet for them[/B].[/QUOTE] No it isnt and no it wasnt, ever.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52090701]I hope they think it was worth the[B] billion dollar loss[/B] in market value. Those employees ended up being pretty expensive to move. It'd honestly have been cheaper to charter a learjet for them.[/QUOTE] *$900 million loss, which corrected back up by about 70% by the end of the trading day and will probably continue to correct tomorrow

[QUOTE=Code3Response;52090717]No it isnt and no it wasnt, ever.[/QUOTE] You're telling me a learjet is more expensive than the lost revenue caused by this PR disaster? Because I'm not in United's bookkeeping division so I can't prove anything, but I'm willing to bet it isn't in the bigger picture. I've an American friend who is currently on a trip to Seattle and he arrived two days before this happened; he commented that he was trying to avoid flying United, and this has cinched it for him. He'll fly anything other than United/subcarriers. I'm pretty sure he isn't the only one.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52090799]You're telling me a learjet is more expensive than the lost revenue caused by this PR disaster? Because I'm not in United's bookkeeping division so I can't prove anything, but I'm willing to bet it isn't in the bigger picture. I've an American friend who is currently on a trip to Seattle and he arrived two days before this happened; he commented that he was trying to avoid flying United, and this has cinched it for him. He'll fly anything other than United/subcarriers. I'm pretty sure he isn't the only one.[/QUOTE] How are you connecting lost revenue from this to something that wasnt even fiscally viable to begin with. Chartering a private jet for 4 crew members is not cheaper nor was it ever, than those crew members either jumpseating or taking economy seats on a scheduled flight.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;52090821]How are you connecting lost revenue from this to something that wasnt even fiscally viable to begin with. Chartering a private jet for 4 crew members is not cheaper nor was it ever, than those crew members either jumpseating or taking economy seats on a scheduled flight.[/QUOTE] Clearly the point is that it was so damaging to their public image it was not worth doing over finding an alternate route for those employees. I don't think they're suggesting that would be the best course of action.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;52090821]How are you connecting lost revenue from this to something that wasnt even fiscally viable to begin with. Chartering a private jet for 4 crew members is not cheaper nor was it ever, than those crew members either jumpseating or taking economy seats on a scheduled flight.[/QUOTE] I suspect it'd have been cheaper to move those crew via any means other than making international news for telling four seated passengers to get the fuck out before we have Chicago airport cops come in and beat you up and manhandle you off the plane, learjet charter included. But this is just business, right? :v:

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52090853]I suspect it'd have been cheaper to move those crew via any means other than making international news for telling four seated passengers to get the fuck out before we have Chicago airport cops come in and beat you up and manhandle you off the plane, learjet charter included. But this is just business, right? :v:[/QUOTE] you're right they should have consulted their crystal ball before making any decisions

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52090853]I suspect it'd have been cheaper to move those crew via any means other than making international news for telling four seated passengers to get the fuck out before we have Chicago airport cops come in and beat you up and manhandle you off the plane, learjet charter included. But this is just business, right? :v:[/QUOTE] It is 100% not cheaper. They'd be spending additional money on a charter flight instead of putting them on a flight already scheduled and accounted for in terms of finances. Market shares correct quickly, needless spending doesn't.

[QUOTE=EskillV2;52090695]Lol, they fucked up hard. What they did was complete bullshit.[/QUOTE] come on, this tweet doesnt actually tell you anything, that guy could say they they lost two, even three billion dollars and people would believe it because it's a graph showing a steep drop. you guys want things sourced properly, and not to use shit sources, yet you'd use some random guy on twitter with a graph with no units on at all stating something that's apparently a fact by using the useless graph

[video=youtube;sdtG0WyktMM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdtG0WyktMM[/video] 2nd update

merge snip

This is fucking atrocious PR, the type of shit they teach people NOT to do

[QUOTE]Munoz issued his first public apology Monday but hours later sent a letter to the airline's employees lauding the behavior of the flight crew in dealing with a "disruptive and belligerent" passenger.[/QUOTE] you'd imagine they'd stop calling him 'disruptive and belligerent' after the multiple videos of him facing belligerent behavior by their security continues to gain views. shame publications are also using his 2000s charges and surrendered medical license to color him as a "bad person" instead of including the full factor that he's obviously came a long way from that as a doctor who now has medical permission under conditions.

[QUOTE=EskillV2;52090695]Lol, they fucked up hard. What they did was complete bullshit.[/QUOTE] Just to make it clear, they only lost $255 million. [URL="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/uniteds-stock-is-set-to-fall-5-and-wipe-1-billion-off-the-airlines-market-cap-2017-04-11"]http://www.marketwatch.com/story/uniteds-stock-is-set-to-fall-5-and-wipe-1-billion-off-the-airlines-market-cap-2017-04-11[/URL]

[QUOTE=J!NX;52090952][video=youtube;sdtG0WyktMM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdtG0WyktMM[/video] 2nd update[/QUOTE] "They are a common carrier and is subject to common carrier regulations. I dont know what all that is because that is outside of my area of expertise" aaaand its time to stop watching. If you dont know what those are, you are not going to understand anything else. Particularly relevant for this is [URL="https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/part-250"]14 CFR 250[/URL] which is federal regulations regarding overselling/overbooking. And not surpringsly, involuntarily denial is included. This is printed on your ticket. Where his argument lies is in the definition of boarding. Which I am willing to speculate the airlines will define as from when the gate opens to when the airplane door is closed.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;52091052]"They are a common carrier and is subject to common carrier regulations. I dont know what all that is because that is outside of my area of expertise" aaaand its time to stop watching. If you dont know what those are, you are not going to understand anything else. Particularly relevant for this is [URL="https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/part-250"]14 CFR 250[/URL] which is federal regulations regarding overselling/overbooking. And not surpringsly, involuntarily denial is included. This is printed on your ticket. Where his argument lies is in the definition of boarding. Which I am willing to speculate the airlines will define as from when the gate opens to when the airplane door is closed.[/QUOTE] I dunno, I'm more willing to trust his assessment than someone on FP.

[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;52091117]I dunno, I'm more willing to trust his assessment than someone on FP.[/QUOTE] Really it's best to just wait and see how the courts figure it out if it goes that far than speculate about how the law resolves this, since there doesn't seem to be a very clear answer.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;52090913]you're right they should have consulted their crystal ball before making any decisions[/QUOTE] Is it such a mystifying decision to make, not having a paying customer beat up and dragged off the plane?

[QUOTE=meek;52091245]Is it such a mystifying decision to make, not having a paying customer beat up and dragged off the plane?[/QUOTE] The airport guards did that, all United did was call them. And the other 3 passengers got off without a fit. Most people are smart enough to know that if someone with the authority to use force is telling you to do something, you generally do it and sue them/seek recourse later. So they assumed that he would just get off the plane when cops showed up.

[QUOTE=meek;52091245]Is it such a mystifying decision to make, not having a paying customer beat up and dragged off the plane?[/QUOTE] I'm sure the CEO of United wants/wanted to know the answer to the same question I do: At what point, before, during, or after the airport cops roughed up a doctor in order to kick him out of the seat he paid for did the airline staffer responsible for managing the situation decide that it wasn't worth it just to put an employee in that seat? I personally would've thought that point would've come before first blood, but evidently I'm not enough of a hardass to do things the Chicago Way.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52091257]The airport guards did that, all United did was call them. And the other 3 passengers got off without a fit. Most people are smart enough to know that if someone with the authority to use force is telling you to do something, you generally do it and sue them/seek recourse later. So they assumed that he would just get off the plane when cops showed up.[/QUOTE] Very true, but cabin crew is trained to be service-minded and pleasant and avoid confrontation unless absolutely necessary. This was not a smart course of action.

[QUOTE=meek;52091262]Very true, but cabin crew is trained to be service-minded and pleasant and avoid confrontation unless absolutely necessary. This was not a smart course of action.[/QUOTE] They kind of passed it onto the police. And I don't really know if it was their decision, if you're referring to the workers just inside of the plane. They might have gotten orders from elsewhere to get that guy, reported that he wasn't moving, and then were told to call the airport police. Their stock is already recovering anyways, so this will probably won't amount to much in the long run. Depending on whether he sues and has a case or not. The airline industry somewhat has to be like this too which is pretty sad. They don't actively like booting people off of planes or overselling ofc, but they have to to have a good chance of turning a profit, since airlines run really small profit margins already.

Yeah, I can see why this event sparked conversation about overbooking but the system works. I've only been left out of a flight due to overbooking twice but both times I was really well compensated for it in addition to transportation+accomodation+meals paid for. Companies are happy to accomodate angry customers' demands because it's just so much cheaper than not overbooking flights.

[QUOTE=meek;52091245]Is it such a mystifying decision to make, not having a paying customer beat up and dragged off the plane?[/QUOTE] i'm pretty sure when united made the call to security to have him removed they weren't expecting the officer to beat and drag him off the plane. [editline]11th April 2017[/editline] my initial post was that the united rep in charge of the situation likely was following the books with their request to security had no idea that security would handle this in the way it did.