Still not getting it. There were scheduled flights at the destination waiting on these particular employees to be able to take off in a week of more than thousand on going storm cancelations. If you drive them vs a 1 hour flight then you’re holding up their multiple flights by several hours each and causing further service disruptions. These employees had their own flights working canceled but were needed for the next leg of departures. Driving is not an option for them, it was for the doctor, not the “must fly” employees.
It’s easy, this is their legal policy. You’ve been told to leave. Act like a grownup, get off the plane.
United Continental bulls would say this would still be immaterial to an overall passenger revenue base of $31B for the company, and that the actions taken by the crew/police was within the legal purview of United Continental. But, I think there is actually pretty little debate around the legality of the actions, just as there seems to be little debate that this has become a public relations nightmare for United Continental already which I’d argue is a far greater overhang than defending the legal position of “might makes right.” In fact, there’s an interesting article in The Atlantic which argues that the real scandal is not the brutality used against the passenger, but rather the law permitting those actions to be taken: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/united-video-scandal-law/522552/?utm_source=atlfb
On quantifying the potential financial impact, consider that most large hedge funds, asset management firms, and strategy consulting firms spend at least seven figures and frequently even eight figures on air travel annually. I’m sure there are many other industries with this type of annual air travel spend, but these are the business models I am most familiar with. In any event, many T&E policies afford employees the flexibility to book flights that meet their frequent flyer and scheduling preferences, but there are various ways to make things more onerous to book. All it takes is a change of settings in Concur or a conversation with their third-party travel booking company to put an exception around an airline being “preferred” vs. “not preferred.” And while an employee can still book United if they so choose, an exception is created and an employee has to explain why they are flying a non-preferred airline, and that exception must be approved or exempted by the company’s finance or travel department before the ticket booking is confirmed. This would be enough yellow tape for anyone that loathes booking travel in the first place.
And, I know of at least two such firms that have already made changes like this to their air travel policies already. Therefore, I would be surprised if the reputational damage were confined to just a few million dollars in lost revenue.
What is the incentive to give up your seat? I am sure if it is at least equal to the fare + stay till next flight, there will be volunteers. Anything less than that is not reasonable
What is the incentive to give up your seat? I am sure if it is at least equal to the fare + stay till next flight, there will be volunteers. Anything less than that is not reasonable
United could have offered up to a maximum of $1,350 – instead they limited the offer to $800. Saving $550 there but at a pretty significant cost overall.
I’ve read enough to form an opinion. It’s a sh*tty policy and United f*cked up. The man paid for that service so he should be on the flight. If United knew they were overbooked, then they should have dealt with it in the wait area, not aboard the plane. In terms of monetary compensation, they started at $800 and should have upped it until someone voluntarily left. Key word is volunteer, not voluntold.
And also, I would understand the situation if it was a kid in need of medical attention at a specific hospital but these were United employees, not even customers. They should find other ways to transport them to their destination, whether that be plane or car. It will cost them more but it was United who screwed up in the first place.
Just going to quote myself to save effort at this point…
This wasn’t an overbook, this was them reacting to canceled flights and the myriad of headaches that that creates across the network. You can’t just “put them on another flight” when thousands have been canceled and you’re trying to shift logistics to get employees to flights waiting on them for takeoff. You also don’t have time to find them a car at a major airport hub that has seen hundreds of cancelations (and may not have cars available) or have them drive 4+ hours and delay the flights waiting on them. The policy is the policy, the guy was an entitled man child.
The force used to remove him from the plane was excessive
American airlines run an oligopoly so they sh!t on their passengers and people lap it up.
But, what would you do in the same scenario? Just go on the first time of asking? Make a fuss about it and rant at the air crew but give in pretty quick and skulk off the plane muttering under your breath while people judge you? Or dig your heels in and refuse to go until the police turn up?
