United Airlines, We put the "Hospital" in "Hospitality"!

[Air Gestapo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STJQnu72Nec

Find us on http://www.facebook.com/flightorg. On the 9th April,
2017, a man was forcibly removed from United Airlines Flight
3411 in Chicago, set for Louisville. While we'd normally say
that until we have all the information, we have no information
at all, the United response tends to confirm the incident as
described by passengers. United Airlines said that ... "Flight
3411 from Chicago to Louisville was overbooked. After our team
looked for volunteers, one customer refused to leave the
aircraft voluntarily and law enforcement was asked to come to
the gate. We apologize for the overbook situation."

United Airlines, Inc.

Mr Oscar Munoz CEO

Email

Telephone +1 847 700 4000
Website http://www.united.com
Social Media T

Postal Address 233 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL, 60606M
CIK 0000319687

United Airlines, Inc. (Customer Service and Complaints)


Email

Telephone (800) 864-8331
Website http://www.united.com
Social Media T

Postal Address 233 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL, 60606M
CIK 0000319687

Oscar Munoz's Email
Chief Executive Officer @ United Airlines
Location Chicago
Work Board Member @ United Airlines
President and Chief Operating Officer @ CSX
Chief Operating Officer @ CSX
Education Bachelor's Degree in Finance & Strategy @
University of Southern California - Marshall School of Business
Master of Business Administration (M.B.A.) @ Pepperdine
University, The George L. Graziadio School of Business and
Management
*

[Petzl]

On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 23:51:45 +0200 (CEST), "Air Gestapo"
> wrote:

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STJQnu72Nec
>
>Find us on http://www.facebook.com/flightorg. On the 9th April,
>2017, a man was forcibly removed from United Airlines Flight
>3411 in Chicago, set for Louisville. While we'd normally say
>that until we have all the information, we have no information
>at all, the United response tends to confirm the incident as
>described by passengers. United Airlines said that ... "Flight
>3411 from Chicago to Louisville was overbooked. After our team
>looked for volunteers, one customer refused to leave the
>aircraft voluntarily and law enforcement was asked to come to
>the gate. We apologize for the overbook situation."
>
>United Airlines, Inc.

All four evictees were Asian and AFTER they were allowed to board then
seated?
"Our" media are not reporting this, the Japanese media are
--
Petzl
Arguing with a woman is like reading the Software License Agreement.
In the end, you ignore everthing and click "I agree"

[Sylvia Else]

On 12/04/2017 7:51 AM, Air Gestapo wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STJQnu72Nec
>
> Find us on http://www.facebook.com/flightorg. On the 9th April,
> 2017, a man was forcibly removed from United Airlines Flight
> 3411 in Chicago, set for Louisville. While we'd normally say
> that until we have all the information, we have no information
> at all, the United response tends to confirm the incident as
> described by passengers. United Airlines said that ... "Flight
> 3411 from Chicago to Louisville was overbooked. After our team
> looked for volunteers, one customer refused to leave the
> aircraft voluntarily and law enforcement was asked to come to
> the gate. We apologize for the overbook situation."
>

It's a difficult situation. If a person refusing to leave were allowed
to stay, then passengers would never comply. If force has to be used to
remove a non-compliant passenger, then that's what has to be done.

Bumping passengers in favour of its own staff looks strange, but it may
be that if those staff weren't carried, it would have knock on effects
for other flights.

To my mind, the proper solution to the overbooking problem is either to
ban it outright (given that it's deliberate, not just a mistake), or to
require that the airline just keep offering more and more money until
they do get the needed volunteers. If that means they have to offer tens
of thousands of dollars, then so be it - that's the price of overbooking.

Sylvia.

[de chucka]

On 12/04/2017 11:43 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 12/04/2017 7:51 AM, Air Gestapo wrote:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STJQnu72Nec
>>
>> Find us on http://www.facebook.com/flightorg. On the 9th April,
>> 2017, a man was forcibly removed from United Airlines Flight
>> 3411 in Chicago, set for Louisville. While we'd normally say
>> that until we have all the information, we have no information
>> at all, the United response tends to confirm the incident as
>> described by passengers. United Airlines said that ... "Flight
>> 3411 from Chicago to Louisville was overbooked. After our team
>> looked for volunteers, one customer refused to leave the
>> aircraft voluntarily and law enforcement was asked to come to
>> the gate. We apologize for the overbook situation."
>>
>
> It's a difficult situation. If a person refusing to leave were allowed
> to stay, then passengers would never comply. If force has to be used to
> remove a non-compliant passenger, then that's what has to be done.
>
> Bumping passengers in favour of its own staff looks strange, but it may
> be that if those staff weren't carried, it would have knock on effects
> for other flights.
>
> To my mind, the proper solution to the overbooking problem is either to
> ban it outright (given that it's deliberate, not just a mistake), or to
> require that the airline just keep offering more and more money until
> they do get the needed volunteers. If that means they have to offer tens
> of thousands of dollars, then so be it - that's the price of overbooking.

There is absolutely no excuse for overbooking flights and bouncing
booked passengers with valid tickets. In this case they bounced him down
the aisle

[First-Post]

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:43:04 +1000, Sylvia Else
> wrote:

>On 12/04/2017 7:51 AM, Air Gestapo wrote:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STJQnu72Nec
>>
>> Find us on http://www.facebook.com/flightorg. On the 9th April,
>> 2017, a man was forcibly removed from United Airlines Flight
>> 3411 in Chicago, set for Louisville. While we'd normally say
>> that until we have all the information, we have no information
>> at all, the United response tends to confirm the incident as
>> described by passengers. United Airlines said that ... "Flight
>> 3411 from Chicago to Louisville was overbooked. After our team
>> looked for volunteers, one customer refused to leave the
>> aircraft voluntarily and law enforcement was asked to come to
>> the gate. We apologize for the overbook situation."
>>
>
>It's a difficult situation. If a person refusing to leave were allowed
>to stay, then passengers would never comply. If force has to be used to
>remove a non-compliant passenger, then that's what has to be done.
>
>Bumping passengers in favour of its own staff looks strange, but it may
>be that if those staff weren't carried, it would have knock on effects
>for other flights.
>
>To my mind, the proper solution to the overbooking problem is either to
>ban it outright (given that it's deliberate, not just a mistake), or to
>require that the airline just keep offering more and more money until
>they do get the needed volunteers. If that means they have to offer tens
>of thousands of dollars, then so be it - that's the price of overbooking.
>
>Sylvia.

As queried in another thread, are the airlines' budgets so tight that
they are so desperate as to overbook flights just to insure that not a
single seat is empty? What kind of **** poor business model are they
using?
It hasn't been very many years back that I flew on flights that were
barely half capacity and the airlines still made their profit.
If one or two empty seats on a flight is going to put them in the red
then they need to seriously rethink how they are running their
business.

[Wayne]

On 4/11/2017 6:43 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 12/04/2017 7:51 AM, Air Gestapo wrote:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STJQnu72Nec
>>
>> Find us on http://www.facebook.com/flightorg. On the 9th April,
>> 2017, a man was forcibly removed from United Airlines Flight
>> 3411 in Chicago, set for Louisville. While we'd normally say
>> that until we have all the information, we have no information
>> at all, the United response tends to confirm the incident as
>> described by passengers. United Airlines said that ... "Flight
>> 3411 from Chicago to Louisville was overbooked. After our team
>> looked for volunteers, one customer refused to leave the
>> aircraft voluntarily and law enforcement was asked to come to
>> the gate. We apologize for the overbook situation."
>>
>
> It's a difficult situation. If a person refusing to leave were allowed
> to stay, then passengers would never comply. If force has to be used to
> remove a non-compliant passenger, then that's what has to be done.
>
> Bumping passengers in favour of its own staff looks strange, but it may
> be that if those staff weren't carried, it would have knock on effects
> for other flights.
>
> To my mind, the proper solution to the overbooking problem is either to
> ban it outright (given that it's deliberate, not just a mistake), or to
> require that the airline just keep offering more and more money until
> they do get the needed volunteers. If that means they have to offer tens
> of thousands of dollars, then so be it - that's the price of overbooking.
>
> Sylvia.
>
But United ****ed up the deal from the gitgo.
The overbooking problem should have been solved before boarding.
If $800 won't get 4 passengers to volunteer, then try $1000, etc.
United should never have told boarded passenger that four had to leave
to make room for employees.

And then United just said to hell with it, let the cops throw the guy
off. The cops are only interested in submission and compliance totally
by the book. He's lucky LAPD wasn't involved or he would have been shot.

[Wayne]

On 4/11/2017 7:08 PM, First-Post wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:43:04 +1000, Sylvia Else
> > wrote:
>
>> On 12/04/2017 7:51 AM, Air Gestapo wrote:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STJQnu72Nec
>>>
>>> Find us on http://www.facebook.com/flightorg. On the 9th April,
>>> 2017, a man was forcibly removed from United Airlines Flight
>>> 3411 in Chicago, set for Louisville. While we'd normally say
>>> that until we have all the information, we have no information
>>> at all, the United response tends to confirm the incident as
>>> described by passengers. United Airlines said that ... "Flight
>>> 3411 from Chicago to Louisville was overbooked. After our team
>>> looked for volunteers, one customer refused to leave the
>>> aircraft voluntarily and law enforcement was asked to come to
>>> the gate. We apologize for the overbook situation."
>>>
>>
>> It's a difficult situation. If a person refusing to leave were allowed
>> to stay, then passengers would never comply. If force has to be used to
>> remove a non-compliant passenger, then that's what has to be done.
>>
>> Bumping passengers in favour of its own staff looks strange, but it may
>> be that if those staff weren't carried, it would have knock on effects
>> for other flights.
>>
>> To my mind, the proper solution to the overbooking problem is either to
>> ban it outright (given that it's deliberate, not just a mistake), or to
>> require that the airline just keep offering more and more money until
>> they do get the needed volunteers. If that means they have to offer tens
>> of thousands of dollars, then so be it - that's the price of overbooking.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> As queried in another thread, are the airlines' budgets so tight that
> they are so desperate as to overbook flights just to insure that not a
> single seat is empty? What kind of **** poor business model are they
> using?
> It hasn't been very many years back that I flew on flights that were
> barely half capacity and the airlines still made their profit.
> If one or two empty seats on a flight is going to put them in the red
> then they need to seriously rethink how they are running their
> business.
>
Agreed. When is the last time you took a flight that had even one empty
seat. United wouldn't have had to kick the guy off if they didn't
overbook to start with.

[Sylvia Else]

On 12/04/2017 12:06 PM, de chucka wrote:
> On 12/04/2017 11:43 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 12/04/2017 7:51 AM, Air Gestapo wrote:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STJQnu72Nec
>>>
>>> Find us on http://www.facebook.com/flightorg. On the 9th April,
>>> 2017, a man was forcibly removed from United Airlines Flight
>>> 3411 in Chicago, set for Louisville. While we'd normally say
>>> that until we have all the information, we have no information
>>> at all, the United response tends to confirm the incident as
>>> described by passengers. United Airlines said that ... "Flight
>>> 3411 from Chicago to Louisville was overbooked. After our team
>>> looked for volunteers, one customer refused to leave the
>>> aircraft voluntarily and law enforcement was asked to come to
>>> the gate. We apologize for the overbook situation."
>>>
>>
>> It's a difficult situation. If a person refusing to leave were allowed
>> to stay, then passengers would never comply. If force has to be used to
>> remove a non-compliant passenger, then that's what has to be done.
>>
>> Bumping passengers in favour of its own staff looks strange, but it may
>> be that if those staff weren't carried, it would have knock on effects
>> for other flights.
>>
>> To my mind, the proper solution to the overbooking problem is either to
>> ban it outright (given that it's deliberate, not just a mistake), or to
>> require that the airline just keep offering more and more money until
>> they do get the needed volunteers. If that means they have to offer tens
>> of thousands of dollars, then so be it - that's the price of overbooking.
>
> There is absolutely no excuse for overbooking flights and bouncing
> booked passengers with valid tickets. In this case they bounced him down
> the aisle
>

If they didn't overbook, then there'd be many more flights with empty
seats when people didn't show up. If you were an airline exec wouldn't
you been looking at those seats, and wishing you could earn some money
from them.

The problem is not the overbooking, but how it's handled when, as
occasionally happens, too many people actually turn up.

Sylvia.

[P. Coonan]

On 11 Apr 2017, First-Post >
posted some :

> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:43:04 +1000, Sylvia Else
> wrote:
>
>>On 12/04/2017 7:51 AM, Air Gestapo wrote:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STJQnu72Nec
>>>
>>> Find us on http://www.facebook.com/flightorg. On the 9th April,
>>> 2017, a man was forcibly removed from United Airlines Flight
>>> 3411 in Chicago, set for Louisville. While we'd normally say
>>> that until we have all the information, we have no information
>>> at all, the United response tends to confirm the incident as
>>> described by passengers. United Airlines said that ... "Flight
>>> 3411 from Chicago to Louisville was overbooked. After our team
>>> looked for volunteers, one customer refused to leave the
>>> aircraft voluntarily and law enforcement was asked to come to
>>> the gate. We apologize for the overbook situation."
>>>
>>
>>It's a difficult situation. If a person refusing to leave were allowed
>>to stay, then passengers would never comply. If force has to be used
>>to remove a non-compliant passenger, then that's what has to be done.
>>
>>Bumping passengers in favour of its own staff looks strange, but it
>>may be that if those staff weren't carried, it would have knock on
>>effects for other flights.
>>
>>To my mind, the proper solution to the overbooking problem is either
>>to ban it outright (given that it's deliberate, not just a mistake),
>>or to require that the airline just keep offering more and more money
>>until they do get the needed volunteers. If that means they have to
>>offer tens of thousands of dollars, then so be it - that's the price
>>of overbooking.
>>
>>Sylvia.
>
> As queried in another thread, are the airlines' budgets so tight that
> they are so desperate as to overbook flights just to insure that not a
> single seat is empty? What kind of **** poor business model are they
> using?

https://www.tsa.gov/for-industry/security-fees

> It hasn't been very many years back that I flew on flights that were
> barely half capacity and the airlines still made their profit.
> If one or two empty seats on a flight is going to put them in the red
> then they need to seriously rethink how they are running their
> business.

I'm sure opportunism has nothing to do with it.

http://quotes.wsj.com/UAL/company-people

United Continental Holdings Inc UAL
2015 Executive Compensation Compensation
$39,668,505

http://insiders.morningstar.com/trading/executive-compensation.action?t=U
AL

United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz returns to work on Monday only two
months after a heart transplant. Was the airline exec’s speedy recovery
spurred by a desire to get back to business, or did Munoz return earlier
than planned because it was the only way to earn his full bonus?

United announced last week that Munoz would return to the helm on
Monday, weeks before his previously anticipated return date of the end
of the first quarter.

Los Angeles Times columnist David Lazarus uncovered a regulatory filing
from the airline, made just a day after Munoz’s January heart
transplant, that details an extensive list of what the airline head
could get if he returned to work sooner rather than later. Spoiler
alert: it’s a lot of money.

According to the filing [PDF], the employment agreement between United
and Munoz was signed on Dec. 31, just a week before his heart
transplant, but two months after he suffered a major heart attack that
took him away from his corporate duties.

Under the agreement, Munoz would received a bonus of $10.5 million if he
put in six straight months of work. If he works for a full year, he’ll
receive a base salary of $1.25 million and a signing bonus of $5.2
million. He would also become eligible for an annual performance bonus
of at least $3.75 million.

All of these incentives and salary marks began with the start of the
2016 calendar year. And with three months already passed, that gives
Munoz just nine months to meet the stringent requirements.

For example, the $10.5 million six-month employment bonus stipulates
that Munoz is not eligible for the bonus until “such date as he has been
in continuous active service as President and Chief Executive Officer
for a period of six months.”

....

Munoz, who quickly began trying to repair United’s relationship with
employees and passengers after taking over when former CEO Jeff Smisek
abruptly stepped down, has a lot on his plate when he heads back to the
office. The New York Times reported last week rumblings began to surface
that some United shareholders were ready to shake the board up, tasking
former Continental CEO Gordon Bethune as chairman to oversee Munoz’s
performance.

https://consumerist.com/2016/03/11/united-ceo-may-have-made-millions-by-r
eturning-early-from-heart-transplant/

[First-Post]

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 04:09:54 -0000 (UTC), "P. Coonan"
> wrote:

>On 11 Apr 2017, First-Post >
>posted some :
>
>> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:43:04 +1000, Sylvia Else
> wrote:
>>
>>>On 12/04/2017 7:51 AM, Air Gestapo wrote:
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STJQnu72Nec
>>>>
>>>> Find us on http://www.facebook.com/flightorg. On the 9th April,
>>>> 2017, a man was forcibly removed from United Airlines Flight
>>>> 3411 in Chicago, set for Louisville. While we'd normally say
>>>> that until we have all the information, we have no information
>>>> at all, the United response tends to confirm the incident as
>>>> described by passengers. United Airlines said that ... "Flight
>>>> 3411 from Chicago to Louisville was overbooked. After our team
>>>> looked for volunteers, one customer refused to leave the
>>>> aircraft voluntarily and law enforcement was asked to come to
>>>> the gate. We apologize for the overbook situation."
>>>>
>>>
>>>It's a difficult situation. If a person refusing to leave were allowed
>>>to stay, then passengers would never comply. If force has to be used
>>>to remove a non-compliant passenger, then that's what has to be done.
>>>
>>>Bumping passengers in favour of its own staff looks strange, but it
>>>may be that if those staff weren't carried, it would have knock on
>>>effects for other flights.
>>>
>>>To my mind, the proper solution to the overbooking problem is either
>>>to ban it outright (given that it's deliberate, not just a mistake),
>>>or to require that the airline just keep offering more and more money
>>>until they do get the needed volunteers. If that means they have to
>>>offer tens of thousands of dollars, then so be it - that's the price
>>>of overbooking.
>>>
>>>Sylvia.
>>
>> As queried in another thread, are the airlines' budgets so tight that
>> they are so desperate as to overbook flights just to insure that not a
>> single seat is empty? What kind of **** poor business model are they
>> using?
>
>https://www.tsa.gov/for-industry/security-fees
>
>> It hasn't been very many years back that I flew on flights that were
>> barely half capacity and the airlines still made their profit.
>> If one or two empty seats on a flight is going to put them in the red
>> then they need to seriously rethink how they are running their
>> business.
>
>I'm sure opportunism has nothing to do with it.
>
>http://quotes.wsj.com/UAL/company-people
>
>United Continental Holdings Inc UAL
>2015 Executive Compensation Compensation
>$39,668,505
>
>http://insiders.morningstar.com/trading/executive-compensation.action?t=U
>AL
>
>United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz returns to work on Monday only two
>months after a heart transplant. Was the airline exec’s speedy recovery
>spurred by a desire to get back to business, or did Munoz return earlier
>than planned because it was the only way to earn his full bonus?
>
>United announced last week that Munoz would return to the helm on
>Monday, weeks before his previously anticipated return date of the end
>of the first quarter.
>
>Los Angeles Times columnist David Lazarus uncovered a regulatory filing
>from the airline, made just a day after Munoz’s January heart
>transplant, that details an extensive list of what the airline head
>could get if he returned to work sooner rather than later. Spoiler
>alert: it’s a lot of money.
>
>According to the filing [PDF], the employment agreement between United
>and Munoz was signed on Dec. 31, just a week before his heart
>transplant, but two months after he suffered a major heart attack that
>took him away from his corporate duties.
>
>Under the agreement, Munoz would received a bonus of $10.5 million if he
>put in six straight months of work. If he works for a full year, he’ll
>receive a base salary of $1.25 million and a signing bonus of $5.2
>million. He would also become eligible for an annual performance bonus
>of at least $3.75 million.
>
>All of these incentives and salary marks began with the start of the
>2016 calendar year. And with three months already passed, that gives
>Munoz just nine months to meet the stringent requirements.
>
>For example, the $10.5 million six-month employment bonus stipulates
>that Munoz is not eligible for the bonus until “such date as he has been
>in continuous active service as President and Chief Executive Officer
>for a period of six months.”
>
>...
>
>Munoz, who quickly began trying to repair United’s relationship with
>employees and passengers after taking over when former CEO Jeff Smisek
>abruptly stepped down, has a lot on his plate when he heads back to the
>office. The New York Times reported last week rumblings began to surface
>that some United shareholders were ready to shake the board up, tasking
>former Continental CEO Gordon Bethune as chairman to oversee Munoz’s
>performance.
>
>https://consumerist.com/2016/03/11/united-ceo-may-have-made-millions-by-r
>eturning-early-from-heart-transplant/

Very informative. Thanks.

From the looks of their stock, that bonus may be the last one he sees
for quite a while if they don't boot him.
I haven't done the math myself but I've read articles that say so far
United has lost around $700 million thanks to this fiasco that was
effectively caused by their desire to make every single seat on every
flight profitable. Their stock has fallen like a rock.

The market can penalize screw ups worse than any court.

[Sylvia Else]

On 12/04/2017 3:08 PM, First-Post wrote:

> I haven't done the math myself but I've read articles that say so far
> United has lost around $700 million thanks to this fiasco that was
> effectively caused by their desire to make every single seat on every
> flight profitable. Their stock has fallen like a rock.
>
> The market can penalize screw ups worse than any court.
>

The $700 is a reduction in market capitalisation, not a loss made by the
company. The stock will bounce back.

Sylvia.

[First-Post]

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:15:00 +1000, Sylvia Else
> wrote:

>On 12/04/2017 3:08 PM, First-Post wrote:
>
>> I haven't done the math myself but I've read articles that say so far
>> United has lost around $700 million thanks to this fiasco that was
>> effectively caused by their desire to make every single seat on every
>> flight profitable. Their stock has fallen like a rock.
>>
>> The market can penalize screw ups worse than any court.
>>
>
>The $700 is a reduction in market capitalisation, not a loss made by the
>company. The stock will bounce back.
>
>Sylvia.

Yes but in the eyes of the stock holders it is a big loss to them. And
if it doesn't rebound fast enough and high enough, the CEO may very
well see the end of his tenure.

[Petzl]

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 00:52:41 -0500, First-Post
> wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:15:00 +1000, Sylvia Else
> wrote:
>
>>On 12/04/2017 3:08 PM, First-Post wrote:
>>
>>> I haven't done the math myself but I've read articles that say so far
>>> United has lost around $700 million thanks to this fiasco that was
>>> effectively caused by their desire to make every single seat on every
>>> flight profitable. Their stock has fallen like a rock.
>>>
>>> The market can penalize screw ups worse than any court.
>>>
>>
>>The $700 is a reduction in market capitalisation, not a loss made by the
>>company. The stock will bounce back.
>>
>>Sylvia.
>
>Yes but in the eyes of the stock holders it is a big loss to them. And
>if it doesn't rebound fast enough and high enough, the CEO may very
>well see the end of his tenure.

The Aircraft was not over booked.
Those seated were given boarding passes and seated
The four made disembark were all Asian so selection was not random
Four "staff" turned up at last minute not booked requiring seats.
Three of the Asian passengers left quietly.
--
Petzl
Arguing with a woman is like reading the Software License Agreement.
In the end, you ignore everthing and click "I agree"

[RD Sandman[_2_]]

Sylvia Else > wrote in news:el5f1bFb5krU1
@mid.individual.net:

> On 12/04/2017 7:51 AM, Air Gestapo wrote:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STJQnu72Nec
>>
>> Find us on http://www.facebook.com/flightorg. On the 9th April,
>> 2017, a man was forcibly removed from United Airlines Flight
>> 3411 in Chicago, set for Louisville. While we'd normally say
>> that until we have all the information, we have no information
>> at all, the United response tends to confirm the incident as
>> described by passengers. United Airlines said that ... "Flight
>> 3411 from Chicago to Louisville was overbooked. After our team
>> looked for volunteers, one customer refused to leave the
>> aircraft voluntarily and law enforcement was asked to come to
>> the gate. We apologize for the overbook situation."
>>
>
> It's a difficult situation. If a person refusing to leave were allowed
> to stay, then passengers would never comply. If force has to be used to
> remove a non-compliant passenger, then that's what has to be done.
>
> Bumping passengers in favour of its own staff looks strange, but it may
> be that if those staff weren't carried, it would have knock on effects
> for other flights.
>
> To my mind, the proper solution to the overbooking problem is either to
> ban it outright (given that it's deliberate, not just a mistake),

Overbooking is intentional. It is done to try and ensure paying
passengers for all flights.

or to
> require that the airline just keep offering more and more money until
> they do get the needed volunteers. If that means they have to offer
tens
> of thousands of dollars, then so be it - that's the price of
overbooking.

The maximum is $1350 and it is usually in the form of a voucher which can
be used on other flights on that same airline. It used to be the cost of
the ticket for a later flight and a dinner at the airport. It could also
include an overnight stay at a local hotel if the later flight was
tomorrow.

--

RD Sandman

Airspeed, altitude and brains....two of the three are always
required to complete a mission.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[RD Sandman[_2_]]

Sylvia Else > wrote in
:

> On 12/04/2017 12:06 PM, de chucka wrote:
>> On 12/04/2017 11:43 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 12/04/2017 7:51 AM, Air Gestapo wrote:
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STJQnu72Nec
>>>>
>>>> Find us on http://www.facebook.com/flightorg. On the 9th April,
>>>> 2017, a man was forcibly removed from United Airlines Flight
>>>> 3411 in Chicago, set for Louisville. While we'd normally say
>>>> that until we have all the information, we have no information
>>>> at all, the United response tends to confirm the incident as
>>>> described by passengers. United Airlines said that ... "Flight
>>>> 3411 from Chicago to Louisville was overbooked. After our team
>>>> looked for volunteers, one customer refused to leave the
>>>> aircraft voluntarily and law enforcement was asked to come to
>>>> the gate. We apologize for the overbook situation."
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's a difficult situation. If a person refusing to leave were
>>> allowed to stay, then passengers would never comply. If force has to
>>> be used to remove a non-compliant passenger, then that's what has to
>>> be done.
>>>
>>> Bumping passengers in favour of its own staff looks strange, but it
>>> may be that if those staff weren't carried, it would have knock on
>>> effects for other flights.
>>>
>>> To my mind, the proper solution to the overbooking problem is either
>>> to ban it outright (given that it's deliberate, not just a mistake),
>>> or to require that the airline just keep offering more and more
>>> money until they do get the needed volunteers. If that means they
>>> have to offer tens of thousands of dollars, then so be it - that's
>>> the price of overbooking.
>>
>> There is absolutely no excuse for overbooking flights and bouncing
>> booked passengers with valid tickets. In this case they bounced him
>> down the aisle
>>
>
> If they didn't overbook, then there'd be many more flights with empty
> seats when people didn't show up. If you were an airline exec wouldn't
> you been looking at those seats, and wishing you could earn some money
> from them.
>
> The problem is not the overbooking, but how it's handled when, as
> occasionally happens, too many people actually turn up.

Pretty much. The problme in this case is that the passengers were
bounced to make room for United employees who are not fare paying
passengers.

--

RD Sandman

Airspeed, altitude and brains....two of the three are always
required to complete a mission.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[First-Post]

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:33:24 -0500, RD Sandman >
wrote:

>Sylvia Else > wrote in
:
>
>> On 12/04/2017 12:06 PM, de chucka wrote:
>>> On 12/04/2017 11:43 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 12/04/2017 7:51 AM, Air Gestapo wrote:
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STJQnu72Nec
>>>>>
>>>>> Find us on http://www.facebook.com/flightorg. On the 9th April,
>>>>> 2017, a man was forcibly removed from United Airlines Flight
>>>>> 3411 in Chicago, set for Louisville. While we'd normally say
>>>>> that until we have all the information, we have no information
>>>>> at all, the United response tends to confirm the incident as
>>>>> described by passengers. United Airlines said that ... "Flight
>>>>> 3411 from Chicago to Louisville was overbooked. After our team
>>>>> looked for volunteers, one customer refused to leave the
>>>>> aircraft voluntarily and law enforcement was asked to come to
>>>>> the gate. We apologize for the overbook situation."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's a difficult situation. If a person refusing to leave were
>>>> allowed to stay, then passengers would never comply. If force has to
>>>> be used to remove a non-compliant passenger, then that's what has to
>>>> be done.
>>>>
>>>> Bumping passengers in favour of its own staff looks strange, but it
>>>> may be that if those staff weren't carried, it would have knock on
>>>> effects for other flights.
>>>>
>>>> To my mind, the proper solution to the overbooking problem is either
>>>> to ban it outright (given that it's deliberate, not just a mistake),
>>>> or to require that the airline just keep offering more and more
>>>> money until they do get the needed volunteers. If that means they
>>>> have to offer tens of thousands of dollars, then so be it - that's
>>>> the price of overbooking.
>>>
>>> There is absolutely no excuse for overbooking flights and bouncing
>>> booked passengers with valid tickets. In this case they bounced him
>>> down the aisle
>>>
>>
>> If they didn't overbook, then there'd be many more flights with empty
>> seats when people didn't show up. If you were an airline exec wouldn't
>> you been looking at those seats, and wishing you could earn some money
>> from them.
>>
>> The problem is not the overbooking, but how it's handled when, as
>> occasionally happens, too many people actually turn up.
>
>Pretty much. The problme in this case is that the passengers were
>bounced to make room for United employees who are not fare paying
>passengers.

They probably could have easily talked some economy class passengers
to take a different flight if they simply offered them first class
fair on another flight, even if it had to be on a competitive airline.

The broader picture I get from this incident is that United and likely
a few other airlines seem to have forgotten that they are in a
customer service industry. They may legally be able to treat
passengers like they are conscripts in the military but just because
you can do something doesn't mean that you should.

Lastly, the four employees big emergency was that they had to be at a
meeting the next day. The whole situation could have been avoided had
United simply rented the employees a nice car and let them make the 4½
hour drive which still would have had them in Louisville in plenty of
time to have dinner, settle in and still get a full night's sleep
before their meeting the next morning.
And it wouldn't have cost the airline as much as those 4 non paying
seats did.

[Lebovitz Dubois]

"Sylvia Else" > wrote in message
...
> On 12/04/2017 12:06 PM, de chucka wrote:
>> On 12/04/2017 11:43 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 12/04/2017 7:51 AM, Air Gestapo wrote:
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STJQnu72Nec
>>>>
>>>> Find us on http://www.facebook.com/flightorg. On the 9th April,
>>>> 2017, a man was forcibly removed from United Airlines Flight
>>>> 3411 in Chicago, set for Louisville. While we'd normally say
>>>> that until we have all the information, we have no information
>>>> at all, the United response tends to confirm the incident as
>>>> described by passengers. United Airlines said that ... "Flight
>>>> 3411 from Chicago to Louisville was overbooked. After our team
>>>> looked for volunteers, one customer refused to leave the
>>>> aircraft voluntarily and law enforcement was asked to come to
>>>> the gate. We apologize for the overbook situation."
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's a difficult situation. If a person refusing to leave were allowed
>>> to stay, then passengers would never comply. If force has to be used to
>>> remove a non-compliant passenger, then that's what has to be done.
>>>
>>> Bumping passengers in favour of its own staff looks strange, but it may
>>> be that if those staff weren't carried, it would have knock on effects
>>> for other flights.
>>>
>>> To my mind, the proper solution to the overbooking problem is either to
>>> ban it outright (given that it's deliberate, not just a mistake), or to
>>> require that the airline just keep offering more and more money until
>>> they do get the needed volunteers. If that means they have to offer tens
>>> of thousands of dollars, then so be it - that's the price of
>>> overbooking.
>>
>> There is absolutely no excuse for overbooking flights and bouncing
>> booked passengers with valid tickets. In this case they bounced him down
>> the aisle
>>
>
> If they didn't overbook, then there'd be many more flights with empty
> seats when people didn't show up. If you were an airline exec wouldn't you
> been looking at those seats, and wishing you could earn some money from
> them.
>
> The problem is not the overbooking, but how it's handled when, as
> occasionally happens, too many people actually turn up.
>
> Sylvia.

Airlines have been overbooking for years. It's nothing new. Through
experience
the airlines know a certain percentage of booked passengers will either not
show
or cancel at the last minute. Keeping the seats filled increases profits and
most of the
time there are no conflicts. The problem was United's, the paying customers
should
have come first and United should have found another way to get the aircrew
to
their destination.

[P. Coonan]

On 11 Apr 2017, Sylvia Else > posted some
:

> On 12/04/2017 12:06 PM, de chucka wrote:
>> On 12/04/2017 11:43 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 12/04/2017 7:51 AM, Air Gestapo wrote:
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STJQnu72Nec
>>>>
>>>> Find us on http://www.facebook.com/flightorg. On the 9th April,
>>>> 2017, a man was forcibly removed from United Airlines Flight
>>>> 3411 in Chicago, set for Louisville. While we'd normally say
>>>> that until we have all the information, we have no information
>>>> at all, the United response tends to confirm the incident as
>>>> described by passengers. United Airlines said that ... "Flight
>>>> 3411 from Chicago to Louisville was overbooked. After our team
>>>> looked for volunteers, one customer refused to leave the
>>>> aircraft voluntarily and law enforcement was asked to come to
>>>> the gate. We apologize for the overbook situation."
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's a difficult situation. If a person refusing to leave were
>>> allowed to stay, then passengers would never comply. If force has to
>>> be used to remove a non-compliant passenger, then that's what has to
>>> be done.
>>>
>>> Bumping passengers in favour of its own staff looks strange, but it
>>> may be that if those staff weren't carried, it would have knock on
>>> effects for other flights.
>>>
>>> To my mind, the proper solution to the overbooking problem is either
>>> to ban it outright (given that it's deliberate, not just a mistake),
>>> or to require that the airline just keep offering more and more
>>> money until they do get the needed volunteers. If that means they
>>> have to offer tens of thousands of dollars, then so be it - that's
>>> the price of overbooking.
>>
>> There is absolutely no excuse for overbooking flights and bouncing
>> booked passengers with valid tickets. In this case they bounced him
>> down the aisle
>>
>
> If they didn't overbook, then there'd be many more flights with empty
> seats when people didn't show up. If you were an airline exec wouldn't
> you been looking at those seats, and wishing you could earn some money
> from them.
>
> The problem is not the overbooking, but how it's handled when, as
> occasionally happens, too many people actually turn up.

Except in this case it was 4 United employees who could have been moved
to another flight or comped by another airline. One hour wouldn't have
made any difference to them.

That flight was out of O'Hare. There were 48 flights to Louisville KY
that day, 24 of them after 6 PM.

[Christopher[_2_]]

In article >
Sylvia Else > wrote:
>
> On 12/04/2017 3:08 PM, First-Post wrote:
>
> > I haven't done the math myself but I've read articles that say so far
> > United has lost around $700 million thanks to this fiasco that was
> > effectively caused by their desire to make every single seat on every
> > flight profitable. Their stock has fallen like a rock.
> >
> > The market can penalize screw ups worse than any court.
> >
>
> The $700 is a reduction in market capitalisation, not a loss made by the
> company. The stock will bounce back.

Maybe without Mr. Munoz at the helm.

I've seen some clueless people in my time, but this guy takes
the cake.

The United investigation into why a passenger refused to get out
of a seat he'd paid for to accomodate airline employees astounds
me.

The priority here is those who pay. Shuffling crews around is
an airline's problem and should never affect passengers.

I used to fly a lot and I've seen crews from different airlines
traveling on other carriers numerous times. There is no reason
United couldn't have re-accomodated their crew on another
airline.

[Christopher[_2_]]

In article >
Sylvia Else > wrote:
>
> On 12/04/2017 12:06 PM, de chucka wrote:
> > On 12/04/2017 11:43 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 12/04/2017 7:51 AM, Air Gestapo wrote:
> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STJQnu72Nec
> >>>
> >>> Find us on http://www.facebook.com/flightorg. On the 9th April,
> >>> 2017, a man was forcibly removed from United Airlines Flight
> >>> 3411 in Chicago, set for Louisville. While we'd normally say
> >>> that until we have all the information, we have no information
> >>> at all, the United response tends to confirm the incident as
> >>> described by passengers. United Airlines said that ... "Flight
> >>> 3411 from Chicago to Louisville was overbooked. After our team
> >>> looked for volunteers, one customer refused to leave the
> >>> aircraft voluntarily and law enforcement was asked to come to
> >>> the gate. We apologize for the overbook situation."
> >>>
> >>
> >> It's a difficult situation. If a person refusing to leave were allowed
> >> to stay, then passengers would never comply. If force has to be used to
> >> remove a non-compliant passenger, then that's what has to be done.
> >>
> >> Bumping passengers in favour of its own staff looks strange, but it may
> >> be that if those staff weren't carried, it would have knock on effects
> >> for other flights.
> >>
> >> To my mind, the proper solution to the overbooking problem is either to
> >> ban it outright (given that it's deliberate, not just a mistake), or to
> >> require that the airline just keep offering more and more money until
> >> they do get the needed volunteers. If that means they have to offer tens
> >> of thousands of dollars, then so be it - that's the price of overbooking.
> >
> > There is absolutely no excuse for overbooking flights and bouncing
> > booked passengers with valid tickets. In this case they bounced him down
> > the aisle
> >
>
> If they didn't overbook, then there'd be many more flights with empty
> seats when people didn't show up. If you were an airline exec wouldn't
> you been looking at those seats, and wishing you could earn some money
> from them.

There was no need to overbook until the imposition of the
ineffective TSA layer of "security" using union deadbeats.

That turned a lot of people off flying and spawned new business
opportunities of collaboration and communication that did not
involve travel - thus cutting into airline revenue.

The TSA hasn't prevented anything but business expansion and
customer satisfaction.

> The problem is not the overbooking, but how it's handled when, as
> occasionally happens, too many people actually turn up.

You don't strong-arm your paying customers. It's going to be a
long time before anyone forgets about this "re-accomodation".

re-accomodate, verb: to bloody a paying passenger and drag his
limp body away.

Credit-Julia Carrie Wong

> Sylvia.

[Christopher[_2_]]

In article >
Wayne > wrote:
>
> On 4/11/2017 6:43 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > On 12/04/2017 7:51 AM, Air Gestapo wrote:
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STJQnu72Nec
> >>
> >> Find us on http://www.facebook.com/flightorg. On the 9th April,
> >> 2017, a man was forcibly removed from United Airlines Flight
> >> 3411 in Chicago, set for Louisville. While we'd normally say
> >> that until we have all the information, we have no information
> >> at all, the United response tends to confirm the incident as
> >> described by passengers. United Airlines said that ... "Flight
> >> 3411 from Chicago to Louisville was overbooked. After our team
> >> looked for volunteers, one customer refused to leave the
> >> aircraft voluntarily and law enforcement was asked to come to
> >> the gate. We apologize for the overbook situation."
> >>
> >
> > It's a difficult situation. If a person refusing to leave were allowed
> > to stay, then passengers would never comply. If force has to be used to
> > remove a non-compliant passenger, then that's what has to be done.
> >
> > Bumping passengers in favour of its own staff looks strange, but it may
> > be that if those staff weren't carried, it would have knock on effects
> > for other flights.
> >
> > To my mind, the proper solution to the overbooking problem is either to
> > ban it outright (given that it's deliberate, not just a mistake), or to
> > require that the airline just keep offering more and more money until
> > they do get the needed volunteers. If that means they have to offer tens
> > of thousands of dollars, then so be it - that's the price of overbooking.
> >
> > Sylvia.
> >
> But United ****ed up the deal from the gitgo.

That they did and they need to pay heavily for it.

> The overbooking problem should have been solved before boarding.

Agree 100%. United knew they had to accomodate their crew
members.

> If $800 won't get 4 passengers to volunteer, then try $1000, etc.
> United should never have told boarded passenger that four had to leave
> to make room for employees.

Agree.

> And then United just said to hell with it, let the cops throw the guy
> off. The cops are only interested in submission and compliance totally
> by the book. He's lucky LAPD wasn't involved or he would have been shot.

Shot multiple times and they would have killed a couple
passengers for good measure.

This is what happens in cities under Democrat control.

[White Ryder]

In article >
Petzl > wrote:
>
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 00:52:41 -0500, First-Post
> > wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:15:00 +1000, Sylvia Else
> > wrote:
> >
> >>On 12/04/2017 3:08 PM, First-Post wrote:
> >>
> >>> I haven't done the math myself but I've read articles that say so far
> >>> United has lost around $700 million thanks to this fiasco that was
> >>> effectively caused by their desire to make every single seat on every
> >>> flight profitable. Their stock has fallen like a rock.
> >>>
> >>> The market can penalize screw ups worse than any court.
> >>>
> >>
> >>The $700 is a reduction in market capitalisation, not a loss made by the
> >>company. The stock will bounce back.
> >>
> >>Sylvia.
> >
> >Yes but in the eyes of the stock holders it is a big loss to them. And
> >if it doesn't rebound fast enough and high enough, the CEO may very
> >well see the end of his tenure.
>
> The Aircraft was not over booked.
> Those seated were given boarding passes and seated
> The four made disembark were all Asian so selection was not random
> Four "staff" turned up at last minute not booked requiring seats.
> Three of the Asian passengers left quietly.

Maybe the selection priority should have been blacks, Mexicans,
Asians. We could have seen some cops get punched and beaten
before they pulled guns and started shooting everybody.

After this Asian guy wins his lawsuit, United might as well
paint black eyes on each cockpit window because this will never
ever go away.

It's going to haunt them like Pan Am Flight 103.

[Petzl]

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:30:47 -0500, RD Sandman >
wrote:

>Sylvia Else > wrote in news:el5f1bFb5krU1
:
>

>> To my mind, the proper solution to the overbooking problem is either to
>> ban it outright (given that it's deliberate, not just a mistake),
>
>Overbooking is intentional. It is done to try and ensure paying
>passengers for all flights.
>
The plane was full, not over booked.
Four un-booked "staff" turned up last minute requiring seats

>or to
>> require that the airline just keep offering more and more money until
>> they do get the needed volunteers. If that means they have to offer
>tens
>> of thousands of dollars, then so be it - that's the price of
>overbooking.
>
>The maximum is $1350 and it is usually in the form of a voucher which can
>be used on other flights on that same airline. It used to be the cost of
>the ticket for a later flight and a dinner at the airport. It could also
>include an overnight stay at a local hotel if the later flight was
>tomorrow.

I would expect an airline has the right to remove anyone it wants to?
However United Air abused this privilege
--
Petzl
Arguing with a woman is like reading the Software License Agreement.
In the end, you ignore everthing and click "I agree"

[Stitch]

On 12 Apr 2017, Petzl > posted some
:

> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 00:52:41 -0500, First-Post
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:15:00 +1000, Sylvia Else
> wrote:
>>
>>>On 12/04/2017 3:08 PM, First-Post wrote:
>>>
>>>> I haven't done the math myself but I've read articles that say so
>>>> far United has lost around $700 million thanks to this fiasco that
>>>> was effectively caused by their desire to make every single seat on
>>>> every flight profitable. Their stock has fallen like a rock.
>>>>
>>>> The market can penalize screw ups worse than any court.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The $700 is a reduction in market capitalisation, not a loss made by
>>>the company. The stock will bounce back.
>>>
>>>Sylvia.
>>
>>Yes but in the eyes of the stock holders it is a big loss to them. And
>>if it doesn't rebound fast enough and high enough, the CEO may very
>>well see the end of his tenure.
>
> The Aircraft was not over booked.
> Those seated were given boarding passes and seated
> The four made disembark were all Asian so selection was not random
> Four "staff" turned up at last minute not booked requiring seats.
> Three of the Asian passengers left quietly.

He was an arrogant chink. Who do these people think they are anyway?
Having a job, earning money, being responsible and paying taxes. Having
the means to fly. The nerve of this guy anyway. How dare he?

If he was an illegal alien or radical Muslim, United Airlines would
already be hanging by the neck, hoisted by their own petard.

[Coonologist]

In article >
Stitch > wrote:
>
> On 12 Apr 2017, Petzl > posted some
> :
>
> > On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 00:52:41 -0500, First-Post
> > wrote:
> >
> >>On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:15:00 +1000, Sylvia Else
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 12/04/2017 3:08 PM, First-Post wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I haven't done the math myself but I've read articles that say so
> >>>> far United has lost around $700 million thanks to this fiasco that
> >>>> was effectively caused by their desire to make every single seat on
> >>>> every flight profitable. Their stock has fallen like a rock.
> >>>>
> >>>> The market can penalize screw ups worse than any court.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>The $700 is a reduction in market capitalisation, not a loss made by
> >>>the company. The stock will bounce back.
> >>>
> >>>Sylvia.
> >>
> >>Yes but in the eyes of the stock holders it is a big loss to them. And
> >>if it doesn't rebound fast enough and high enough, the CEO may very
> >>well see the end of his tenure.
> >
> > The Aircraft was not over booked.
> > Those seated were given boarding passes and seated
> > The four made disembark were all Asian so selection was not random
> > Four "staff" turned up at last minute not booked requiring seats.
> > Three of the Asian passengers left quietly.
>
> He was an arrogant chink. Who do these people think they are anyway?
> Having a job, earning money, being responsible and paying taxes. Having
> the means to fly. The nerve of this guy anyway. How dare he?
>
> If he was an illegal alien or radical Muslim, United Airlines would
> already be hanging by the neck, hoisted by their own petard.

Now United and the hateful left-wing racist mass media are going
after this Vietnamese refugee / naturalized American citizen
with a vengeance.

They went and dug up dirt from 50 years ago in an effort to make
him look bad to trivialize the abuse actions by Chicago police
and United Airlines employees.

Talk about two tools of the state. United and AT&T, both
enemies of the American public.

[Sylvia Else]

On 13/04/2017 5:21 AM, Christopher wrote:

> The priority here is those who pay. Shuffling crews around is
> an airline's problem and should never affect passengers.
>
> I used to fly a lot and I've seen crews from different airlines
> traveling on other carriers numerous times. There is no reason
> United couldn't have re-accomodated their crew on another
> airline.
>

Well, we don't know the details. Perhaps there were no seats available
on other airlines, and the staff were needed at their posts on time, or
it *would* affect passengers.

Sylvia.

[de chucka]

On 12/04/2017 2:03 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 12/04/2017 12:06 PM, de chucka wrote:
>> On 12/04/2017 11:43 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 12/04/2017 7:51 AM, Air Gestapo wrote:
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STJQnu72Nec
>>>>
>>>> Find us on http://www.facebook.com/flightorg. On the 9th April,
>>>> 2017, a man was forcibly removed from United Airlines Flight
>>>> 3411 in Chicago, set for Louisville. While we'd normally say
>>>> that until we have all the information, we have no information
>>>> at all, the United response tends to confirm the incident as
>>>> described by passengers. United Airlines said that ... "Flight
>>>> 3411 from Chicago to Louisville was overbooked. After our team
>>>> looked for volunteers, one customer refused to leave the
>>>> aircraft voluntarily and law enforcement was asked to come to
>>>> the gate. We apologize for the overbook situation."
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's a difficult situation. If a person refusing to leave were allowed
>>> to stay, then passengers would never comply. If force has to be used to
>>> remove a non-compliant passenger, then that's what has to be done.
>>>
>>> Bumping passengers in favour of its own staff looks strange, but it may
>>> be that if those staff weren't carried, it would have knock on effects
>>> for other flights.
>>>
>>> To my mind, the proper solution to the overbooking problem is either to
>>> ban it outright (given that it's deliberate, not just a mistake), or to
>>> require that the airline just keep offering more and more money until
>>> they do get the needed volunteers. If that means they have to offer tens
>>> of thousands of dollars, then so be it - that's the price of
>>> overbooking.
>>
>> There is absolutely no excuse for overbooking flights and bouncing
>> booked passengers with valid tickets. In this case they bounced him down
>> the aisle
>>
>
> If they didn't overbook, then there'd be many more flights with empty
> seats when people didn't show up.

As the seat has been paid for what difference does it make if the seat
is empty?

If you were an airline exec wouldn't
> you been looking at those seats, and wishing you could earn some money
> from them.

In fact they get paid twice for the same seat

>
> The problem is not the overbooking, but how it's handled when, as
> occasionally happens, too many people actually turn up.
There is absolutely no excuse for overbooking flights and bouncing
booked passengers with valid tickets.

[Petzl]

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 23:35:00 -0000 (UTC), Stitch >
wrote:

>On 12 Apr 2017, Petzl > posted some
:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 00:52:41 -0500, First-Post
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:15:00 +1000, Sylvia Else
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 12/04/2017 3:08 PM, First-Post wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I haven't done the math myself but I've read articles that say so
>>>>> far United has lost around $700 million thanks to this fiasco that
>>>>> was effectively caused by their desire to make every single seat on
>>>>> every flight profitable. Their stock has fallen like a rock.
>>>>>
>>>>> The market can penalize screw ups worse than any court.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The $700 is a reduction in market capitalisation, not a loss made by
>>>>the company. The stock will bounce back.
>>>>
>>>>Sylvia.
>>>
>>>Yes but in the eyes of the stock holders it is a big loss to them. And
>>>if it doesn't rebound fast enough and high enough, the CEO may very
>>>well see the end of his tenure.
>>
>> The Aircraft was not over booked.
>> Those seated were given boarding passes and seated
>> The four made disembark were all Asian so selection was not random
>> Four "staff" turned up at last minute not booked requiring seats.
>> Three of the Asian passengers left quietly.
>
>He was an arrogant chink. Who do these people think they are anyway?
>Having a job, earning money, being responsible and paying taxes. Having
>the means to fly. The nerve of this guy anyway. How dare he?
>
>If he was an illegal alien or radical Muslim, United Airlines would
>already be hanging by the neck, hoisted by their own petard.
>
He was just one of four "chinks" removed by airline security (not
police) three did not argue.
--
Petzl
Arguing with a woman is like reading the Software License Agreement.
In the end, you ignore everthing and click "I agree"

[RD Sandman[_2_]]

Petzl > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:30:47 -0500, RD Sandman >
> wrote:
>
>>Sylvia Else > wrote in news:el5f1bFb5krU1
:
>>
>
>>> To my mind, the proper solution to the overbooking problem is either
>>> to ban it outright (given that it's deliberate, not just a mistake),
>>
>>Overbooking is intentional. It is done to try and ensure paying
>>passengers for all flights.
>>
> The plane was full, not over booked.

Not enough is known for me to argue with you. The point is that the
plane was full, airlines can and do overbook to ensure that all seats are
filled.

> Four un-booked "staff" turned up last minute requiring seats

Yes, they had to be at the arrival airport for duties. I would assume
those duties included working on another flight from that airport.

>>or to
>>> require that the airline just keep offering more and more money
>>> until they do get the needed volunteers. If that means they have to
>>> offer
>>tens
>>> of thousands of dollars, then so be it - that's the price of
>>overbooking.
>>
>>The maximum is $1350 and it is usually in the form of a voucher which
>>can be used on other flights on that same airline. It used to be the
>>cost of the ticket for a later flight and a dinner at the airport. It
>>could also include an overnight stay at a local hotel if the later
>>flight was tomorrow.
>
> I would expect an airline has the right to remove anyone it wants to?
> However United Air abused this privilege

No argument on that point.

--

RD Sandman

Airspeed, altitude and brains....two of the three are always
required to complete a mission.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[RD Sandman[_2_]]

First-Post > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:33:24 -0500, RD Sandman >
> wrote:
>
>>Sylvia Else > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On 12/04/2017 12:06 PM, de chucka wrote:
>>>> On 12/04/2017 11:43 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>> On 12/04/2017 7:51 AM, Air Gestapo wrote:
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STJQnu72Nec
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Find us on http://www.facebook.com/flightorg. On the 9th April,
>>>>>> 2017, a man was forcibly removed from United Airlines Flight
>>>>>> 3411 in Chicago, set for Louisville. While we'd normally say
>>>>>> that until we have all the information, we have no information
>>>>>> at all, the United response tends to confirm the incident as
>>>>>> described by passengers. United Airlines said that ... "Flight
>>>>>> 3411 from Chicago to Louisville was overbooked. After our team
>>>>>> looked for volunteers, one customer refused to leave the
>>>>>> aircraft voluntarily and law enforcement was asked to come to
>>>>>> the gate. We apologize for the overbook situation."
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a difficult situation. If a person refusing to leave were
>>>>> allowed to stay, then passengers would never comply. If force has
to
>>>>> be used to remove a non-compliant passenger, then that's what has
to
>>>>> be done.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bumping passengers in favour of its own staff looks strange, but it
>>>>> may be that if those staff weren't carried, it would have knock on
>>>>> effects for other flights.
>>>>>
>>>>> To my mind, the proper solution to the overbooking problem is
either
>>>>> to ban it outright (given that it's deliberate, not just a
mistake),
>>>>> or to require that the airline just keep offering more and more
>>>>> money until they do get the needed volunteers. If that means they
>>>>> have to offer tens of thousands of dollars, then so be it - that's
>>>>> the price of overbooking.
>>>>
>>>> There is absolutely no excuse for overbooking flights and bouncing
>>>> booked passengers with valid tickets. In this case they bounced him
>>>> down the aisle
>>>>
>>>
>>> If they didn't overbook, then there'd be many more flights with empty
>>> seats when people didn't show up. If you were an airline exec
wouldn't
>>> you been looking at those seats, and wishing you could earn some
money
>>> from them.
>>>
>>> The problem is not the overbooking, but how it's handled when, as
>>> occasionally happens, too many people actually turn up.
>>
>>Pretty much. The problme in this case is that the passengers were
>>bounced to make room for United employees who are not fare paying
>>passengers.
>
> They probably could have easily talked some economy class passengers
> to take a different flight if they simply offered them first class
> fair on another flight, even if it had to be on a competitive airline.
>
> The broader picture I get from this incident is that United and likely
> a few other airlines seem to have forgotten that they are in a
> customer service industry. They may legally be able to treat
> passengers like they are conscripts in the military but just because
> you can do something doesn't mean that you should.

I would assume you to be correct.

> Lastly, the four employees big emergency was that they had to be at a
> meeting the next day.

Aaah, I thought that perhaps they were needed for another flight from the
destination airport. I have been on many flights where airline personnel
were being flown to their duty station for the day. A stewardess friend
of mine lived in Waco but often flew out of Dallas or New Orleans. She
would fly to the airport where her day started.

The whole situation could have been avoided had
> United simply rented the employees a nice car and let them make the 4½
> hour drive which still would have had them in Louisville in plenty of
> time to have dinner, settle in and still get a full night's sleep
> before their meeting the next morning.
> And it wouldn't have cost the airline as much as those 4 non paying
> seats did.

And still may. It appears that the doctor suffered broken teeth, broken
nose and a concussion. It ain't over, mon ami.



--

RD Sandman

Airspeed, altitude and brains....two of the three are always
required to complete a mission.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[First-Post]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:02:39 -0500, RD Sandman >
wrote:

>First-Post > wrote in
:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:33:24 -0500, RD Sandman >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Sylvia Else > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>> On 12/04/2017 12:06 PM, de chucka wrote:
>>>>> On 12/04/2017 11:43 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/04/2017 7:51 AM, Air Gestapo wrote:
>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STJQnu72Nec
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Find us on http://www.facebook.com/flightorg. On the 9th April,
>>>>>>> 2017, a man was forcibly removed from United Airlines Flight
>>>>>>> 3411 in Chicago, set for Louisville. While we'd normally say
>>>>>>> that until we have all the information, we have no information
>>>>>>> at all, the United response tends to confirm the incident as
>>>>>>> described by passengers. United Airlines said that ... "Flight
>>>>>>> 3411 from Chicago to Louisville was overbooked. After our team
>>>>>>> looked for volunteers, one customer refused to leave the
>>>>>>> aircraft voluntarily and law enforcement was asked to come to
>>>>>>> the gate. We apologize for the overbook situation."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a difficult situation. If a person refusing to leave were
>>>>>> allowed to stay, then passengers would never comply. If force has
>to
>>>>>> be used to remove a non-compliant passenger, then that's what has
>to
>>>>>> be done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bumping passengers in favour of its own staff looks strange, but it
>>>>>> may be that if those staff weren't carried, it would have knock on
>>>>>> effects for other flights.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To my mind, the proper solution to the overbooking problem is
>either
>>>>>> to ban it outright (given that it's deliberate, not just a
>mistake),
>>>>>> or to require that the airline just keep offering more and more
>>>>>> money until they do get the needed volunteers. If that means they
>>>>>> have to offer tens of thousands of dollars, then so be it - that's
>>>>>> the price of overbooking.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is absolutely no excuse for overbooking flights and bouncing
>>>>> booked passengers with valid tickets. In this case they bounced him
>>>>> down the aisle
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If they didn't overbook, then there'd be many more flights with empty
>>>> seats when people didn't show up. If you were an airline exec
>wouldn't
>>>> you been looking at those seats, and wishing you could earn some
>money
>>>> from them.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is not the overbooking, but how it's handled when, as
>>>> occasionally happens, too many people actually turn up.
>>>
>>>Pretty much. The problme in this case is that the passengers were
>>>bounced to make room for United employees who are not fare paying
>>>passengers.
>>
>> They probably could have easily talked some economy class passengers
>> to take a different flight if they simply offered them first class
>> fair on another flight, even if it had to be on a competitive airline.
>>
>> The broader picture I get from this incident is that United and likely
>> a few other airlines seem to have forgotten that they are in a
>> customer service industry. They may legally be able to treat
>> passengers like they are conscripts in the military but just because
>> you can do something doesn't mean that you should.
>
>I would assume you to be correct.
>
>> Lastly, the four employees big emergency was that they had to be at a
>> meeting the next day.
>
>Aaah, I thought that perhaps they were needed for another flight from the
>destination airport. I have been on many flights where airline personnel
>were being flown to their duty station for the day. A stewardess friend
>of mine lived in Waco but often flew out of Dallas or New Orleans. She
>would fly to the airport where her day started.

I would think that they probably did have another flight out of
Louisville as well. But the report I read stated that the meeting
wasn't until the next morning which means that their flight would be
after that. So they had plenty of time as well as, I believe, 28
other flights for Louisville from Chicago that same afternoon and
evening.

>
>The whole situation could have been avoided had
>> United simply rented the employees a nice car and let them make the 4½
>> hour drive which still would have had them in Louisville in plenty of
>> time to have dinner, settle in and still get a full night's sleep
>> before their meeting the next morning.
>> And it wouldn't have cost the airline as much as those 4 non paying
>> seats did.
>
>And still may. It appears that the doctor suffered broken teeth, broken
>nose and a concussion. It ain't over, mon ami.

My bet is that UA will try to settle with him if he sues regardless of
whether he has a good case or not.
This incident is hurting them bad in the PR department and the stock
holders are obviously getting nervous from the way their stock is
looking.
So they'll want this to go away ASAP.

[RD Sandman[_2_]]

First-Post > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:02:39 -0500, RD Sandman >
> wrote:
>
>>First-Post > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:33:24 -0500, RD Sandman
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Sylvia Else > wrote in
:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/04/2017 12:06 PM, de chucka wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/04/2017 11:43 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/04/2017 7:51 AM, Air Gestapo wrote:
>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STJQnu72Nec
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Find us on http://www.facebook.com/flightorg. On the 9th April,
>>>>>>>> 2017, a man was forcibly removed from United Airlines Flight
>>>>>>>> 3411 in Chicago, set for Louisville. While we'd normally say
>>>>>>>> that until we have all the information, we have no information
>>>>>>>> at all, the United response tends to confirm the incident as
>>>>>>>> described by passengers. United Airlines said that ... "Flight
>>>>>>>> 3411 from Chicago to Louisville was overbooked. After our team
>>>>>>>> looked for volunteers, one customer refused to leave the
>>>>>>>> aircraft voluntarily and law enforcement was asked to come to
>>>>>>>> the gate. We apologize for the overbook situation."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's a difficult situation. If a person refusing to leave were
>>>>>>> allowed to stay, then passengers would never comply. If force
>>>>>>> has
>>to
>>>>>>> be used to remove a non-compliant passenger, then that's what
>>>>>>> has
>>to
>>>>>>> be done.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bumping passengers in favour of its own staff looks strange, but
>>>>>>> it may be that if those staff weren't carried, it would have
>>>>>>> knock on effects for other flights.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To my mind, the proper solution to the overbooking problem is
>>either
>>>>>>> to ban it outright (given that it's deliberate, not just a
>>mistake),
>>>>>>> or to require that the airline just keep offering more and more
>>>>>>> money until they do get the needed volunteers. If that means
>>>>>>> they have to offer tens of thousands of dollars, then so be it -
>>>>>>> that's the price of overbooking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is absolutely no excuse for overbooking flights and
>>>>>> bouncing booked passengers with valid tickets. In this case they
>>>>>> bounced him down the aisle
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If they didn't overbook, then there'd be many more flights with
>>>>> empty seats when people didn't show up. If you were an airline
>>>>> exec
>>wouldn't
>>>>> you been looking at those seats, and wishing you could earn some
>>money
>>>>> from them.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is not the overbooking, but how it's handled when, as
>>>>> occasionally happens, too many people actually turn up.
>>>>
>>>>Pretty much. The problme in this case is that the passengers were
>>>>bounced to make room for United employees who are not fare paying
>>>>passengers.
>>>
>>> They probably could have easily talked some economy class passengers
>>> to take a different flight if they simply offered them first class
>>> fair on another flight, even if it had to be on a competitive
>>> airline.
>>>
>>> The broader picture I get from this incident is that United and
>>> likely a few other airlines seem to have forgotten that they are in
>>> a customer service industry. They may legally be able to treat
>>> passengers like they are conscripts in the military but just because
>>> you can do something doesn't mean that you should.
>>
>>I would assume you to be correct.
>>
>>> Lastly, the four employees big emergency was that they had to be at
>>> a meeting the next day.
>>
>>Aaah, I thought that perhaps they were needed for another flight from
>>the destination airport. I have been on many flights where airline
>>personnel were being flown to their duty station for the day. A
>>stewardess friend of mine lived in Waco but often flew out of Dallas
>>or New Orleans. She would fly to the airport where her day started.
>
> I would think that they probably did have another flight out of
> Louisville as well. But the report I read stated that the meeting
> wasn't until the next morning which means that their flight would be
> after that. So they had plenty of time as well as, I believe, 28
> other flights for Louisville from Chicago that same afternoon and
> evening.

That was news to me. I had not seen those reports as I was tied most of
last night and this morning. Thx.

>>The whole situation could have been avoided had
>>> United simply rented the employees a nice car and let them make the
>>> 4½ hour drive which still would have had them in Louisville in
>>> plenty of time to have dinner, settle in and still get a full
>>> night's sleep before their meeting the next morning.
>>> And it wouldn't have cost the airline as much as those 4 non paying
>>> seats did.
>>
>>And still may. It appears that the doctor suffered broken teeth,
>>broken nose and a concussion. It ain't over, mon ami.
>
> My bet is that UA will try to settle with him if he sues regardless of
> whether he has a good case or not.

I would also assume so.

> This incident is hurting them bad in the PR department and the stock
> holders are obviously getting nervous from the way their stock is
> looking. So they'll want this to go away ASAP.

Exactomundo!!



--

RD Sandman

Airspeed, altitude and brains....two of the three are always
required to complete a mission.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Petzl]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 12:58:00 -0500, RD Sandman >
wrote:

>Petzl > wrote in
:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:30:47 -0500, RD Sandman >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Sylvia Else > wrote in news:el5f1bFb5krU1
:
>>>
>>
>>>> To my mind, the proper solution to the overbooking problem is either
>>>> to ban it outright (given that it's deliberate, not just a mistake),
>>>
>>>Overbooking is intentional. It is done to try and ensure paying
>>>passengers for all flights.
>>>
>> The plane was full, not over booked.
>
>Not enough is known for me to argue with you. The point is that the
>plane was full, airlines can and do overbook to ensure that all seats are
>filled.
>
Everyone was seated, so at the point the plane was full not overbooked
(UA spin).

More spin is that four passengers were "randomly" selected?

Airport Security were called when one Asian refused to voluntarily
comply.

The Asian media noted all were Chinese Asian, are reacting against to
what is seen by them as being profiled by UA and removed because of
being Asian.

UA are concerned because they have had over 30 years of operating
profitably in China.

>> Four un-booked "staff" turned up last minute requiring seats
>
>Yes, they had to be at the arrival airport for duties. I would assume
>those duties included working on another flight from that airport.
>
>>>or to
>>>> require that the airline just keep offering more and more money
>>>> until they do get the needed volunteers. If that means they have to
>>>> offer
>>>tens
>>>> of thousands of dollars, then so be it - that's the price of
>>>overbooking.
>>>
>>>The maximum is $1350 and it is usually in the form of a voucher which
>>>can be used on other flights on that same airline. It used to be the
>>>cost of the ticket for a later flight and a dinner at the airport. It
>>>could also include an overnight stay at a local hotel if the later
>>>flight was tomorrow.
>>
>> I would expect an airline has the right to remove anyone it wants to?
>> However United Air abused this privilege
>
>No argument on that point.

One would expect that removal be done safely?
It was not a frail old Asian man getting his head beaten in by
"Airport Security" and he ruturned for more,

"Somehow he got back on," Tyler Bridges, one of those who filmed the
incident, told NBC News. "He runs back on — dazed, bloodied, kind of
in a mess — yelling, 'I have to get home, I have to get home.'"

Now if one of this Doctors patients took a turn for the worse?
This sounds like a ambulance chasers dream (no win no fee)
--
Petzl
Arguing with a woman is like reading the Software License Agreement.
In the end, you ignore everthing and click "I agree"

[Scout[_2_]]

"Petzl" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 12:58:00 -0500, RD Sandman >
> wrote:
>
>>Petzl > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:30:47 -0500, RD Sandman >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Sylvia Else > wrote in news:el5f1bFb5krU1
:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> To my mind, the proper solution to the overbooking problem is either
>>>>> to ban it outright (given that it's deliberate, not just a mistake),
>>>>
>>>>Overbooking is intentional. It is done to try and ensure paying
>>>>passengers for all flights.
>>>>
>>> The plane was full, not over booked.
>>
>>Not enough is known for me to argue with you. The point is that the
>>plane was full, airlines can and do overbook to ensure that all seats are
>>filled.
>>
> Everyone was seated, so at the point the plane was full not overbooked
> (UA spin).
>
> More spin is that four passengers were "randomly" selected?
>
> Airport Security were called when one Asian refused to voluntarily
> comply.
>
> The Asian media noted all were Chinese Asian, are reacting against to
> what is seen by them as being profiled by UA and removed because of
> being Asian.
>
> UA are concerned because they have had over 30 years of operating
> profitably in China.
>
>>> Four un-booked "staff" turned up last minute requiring seats
>>
>>Yes, they had to be at the arrival airport for duties. I would assume
>>those duties included working on another flight from that airport.
>>
>>>>or to
>>>>> require that the airline just keep offering more and more money
>>>>> until they do get the needed volunteers. If that means they have to
>>>>> offer
>>>>tens
>>>>> of thousands of dollars, then so be it - that's the price of
>>>>overbooking.
>>>>
>>>>The maximum is $1350 and it is usually in the form of a voucher which
>>>>can be used on other flights on that same airline. It used to be the
>>>>cost of the ticket for a later flight and a dinner at the airport. It
>>>>could also include an overnight stay at a local hotel if the later
>>>>flight was tomorrow.
>>>
>>> I would expect an airline has the right to remove anyone it wants to?
>>> However United Air abused this privilege
>>
>>No argument on that point.
>
> One would expect that removal be done safely?
> It was not a frail old Asian man getting his head beaten in by
> "Airport Security" and he ruturned for more,
>
> "Somehow he got back on," Tyler Bridges, one of those who filmed the
> incident, told NBC News. "He runs back on - dazed, bloodied, kind of
> in a mess - yelling, 'I have to get home, I have to get home.'"
>
> Now if one of this Doctors patients took a turn for the worse?
> This sounds like a ambulance chasers dream (no win no fee)

Further it might be noted that while UA has a lot of .... discretion....
before boarding, their terms of service contract set forth a limited and
specific set of circumstances in which they can have you removed from the
aircraft.....choosing not to volunteer because they want the seats for the
own people is NOT among those circumstances.

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx

Reference Rule 21 & Rule 25

It should be noted that last minute additions of employees is not case of
"previously confirmed reserved space", per the definitions in Rule 1.

Further none of these rules allow people to be booted on a random basis as
was reported as the 'selection' criteria used.

So a quick review of the rules would seem to indicate UA to be in direct
violation of it's own Contract of Carriage Document, and thus the exclusion
clause ( Rule 21, j ) wouldn't protect them from liability since they failed
to comply with the terms of Rule 21.

[Petzl]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 18:24:23 -0400, "Scout"
> wrote:

>>
>> One would expect that removal be done safely?
>> It was not a frail old Asian man getting his head beaten in by
>> "Airport Security" and he ruturned for more,
>>
>> "Somehow he got back on," Tyler Bridges, one of those who filmed the
>> incident, told NBC News. "He runs back on - dazed, bloodied, kind of
>> in a mess - yelling, 'I have to get home, I have to get home.'"
>>
>> Now if one of this Doctors patients took a turn for the worse?
>> This sounds like a ambulance chasers dream (no win no fee)
>
>Further it might be noted that while UA has a lot of .... discretion....
>before boarding, their terms of service contract set forth a limited and
>specific set of circumstances in which they can have you removed from the
>aircraft.....choosing not to volunteer because they want the seats for the
>own people is NOT among those circumstances.
>
> https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx
>
>Reference Rule 21 & Rule 25
>
>It should be noted that last minute additions of employees is not case of
>"previously confirmed reserved space", per the definitions in Rule 1.
>
>Further none of these rules allow people to be booted on a random basis as
>was reported as the 'selection' criteria used.
>
>So a quick review of the rules would seem to indicate UA to be in direct
>violation of it's own Contract of Carriage Document, and thus the exclusion
>clause ( Rule 21, j ) wouldn't protect them from liability since they failed
>to comply with the terms of Rule 21.
>
Sounds like you have checked it out
Japanese media are questioning UA's "algorithm" that only picks Asians
for ousting?
http://diamond.jp/articles/-/124820?page=3
translated by Google, page 3
https://is.gd/bRb1X1
There was also pointed out that it was discrimination that "everyone
who descended was an Asian" despite selecting a person descending by
lottery in this news report.
--
Petzl
Arguing with a woman is like reading the Software License Agreement.
In the end, you ignore everthing and click "I agree"

[Petzl]

On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 09:04:20 +1000, Petzl > wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 18:24:23 -0400, "Scout"
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> One would expect that removal be done safely?
>>> It was not a frail old Asian man getting his head beaten in by
>>> "Airport Security" and he ruturned for more,
>>>
>>> "Somehow he got back on," Tyler Bridges, one of those who filmed the
>>> incident, told NBC News. "He runs back on - dazed, bloodied, kind of
>>> in a mess - yelling, 'I have to get home, I have to get home.'"
>>>
>>> Now if one of this Doctors patients took a turn for the worse?
>>> This sounds like a ambulance chasers dream (no win no fee)
>>
>>Further it might be noted that while UA has a lot of .... discretion....
>>before boarding, their terms of service contract set forth a limited and
>>specific set of circumstances in which they can have you removed from the
>>aircraft.....choosing not to volunteer because they want the seats for the
>>own people is NOT among those circumstances.
>>
>> https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx
>>
>>Reference Rule 21 & Rule 25
>>
>>It should be noted that last minute additions of employees is not case of
>>"previously confirmed reserved space", per the definitions in Rule 1.
>>
>>Further none of these rules allow people to be booted on a random basis as
>>was reported as the 'selection' criteria used.
>>
>>So a quick review of the rules would seem to indicate UA to be in direct
>>violation of it's own Contract of Carriage Document, and thus the exclusion
>>clause ( Rule 21, j ) wouldn't protect them from liability since they failed
>>to comply with the terms of Rule 21.
>>
>Sounds like you have checked it out
>Japanese media are questioning UA's "algorithm" that only picks Asians
>for ousting?
>http://diamond.jp/articles/-/124820?page=3
>translated by Google, page 3
>https://is.gd/bRb1X1
>There was also pointed out that it was discrimination that "everyone
>who descended was an Asian" despite selecting a person descending by
>lottery in this news report.

try translated link again?
https://is.gd/MI1yeu
or yourself
http://diamond.jp/articles/-/124820?page=3

https://translate.google.com/?hl=en
--
Petzl
Arguing with a woman is like reading the Software License Agreement.
In the end, you ignore everthing and click "I agree"

[Gerrit 't Hart]

On 13/04/2017 12:27 PM, Petzl wrote:

SNIP
> He was just one of four "chinks" removed by airline security (not
> police) three did not argue.
>

I seem to recall they had the word POLICE on their backs.

[First-Post]

On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 20:51:14 +0800, Gerrit 't Hart >
wrote:

>On 13/04/2017 12:27 PM, Petzl wrote:
>
>SNIP
>> He was just one of four "chinks" removed by airline security (not
>> police) three did not argue.
>>
>
>I seem to recall they had the word POLICE on their backs.

Latest reports are that the Dr. is filing a lawsuit against the
"Chicago Aviation Police".

[RD Sandman[_2_]]

Petzl > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 12:58:00 -0500, RD Sandman >
> wrote:
>
>>Petzl > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:30:47 -0500, RD Sandman
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Sylvia Else > wrote in news:el5f1bFb5krU1
:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> To my mind, the proper solution to the overbooking problem is
>>>>> either to ban it outright (given that it's deliberate, not just a
>>>>> mistake),
>>>>
>>>>Overbooking is intentional. It is done to try and ensure paying
>>>>passengers for all flights.
>>>>
>>> The plane was full, not over booked.
>>
>>Not enough is known for me to argue with you. The point is that the
>>plane was full, airlines can and do overbook to ensure that all seats
>>are filled.
>>
> Everyone was seated, so at the point the plane was full not overbooked
> (UA spin).

Perhaps. We don't know if there aother passengers in the terminal that
were not added to the flight. Additionally, when the four airline
employees were added to the manifest, the flight beame "overbooked".

> More spin is that four passengers were "randomly" selected?

Yes, it is a computer program that does the selection. Computers do not
make selections for any other reason than what is programmed into them,
and it is very difficult to make that purely random.

> Airport Security were called when one Asian refused to voluntarily
> comply.

Why should that be any different than if it had been a white female?

> The Asian media noted all were Chinese Asian, are reacting against to
> what is seen by them as being profiled by UA and removed because of
> being Asian.

I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere, however, I do not subscribe to
any Asian newspapers.

> UA are concerned because they have had over 30 years of operating
> profitably in China.

They need to be concerned for more reasons than that.

>>> Four un-booked "staff" turned up last minute requiring seats
>>
>>Yes, they had to be at the arrival airport for duties. I would assume
>>those duties included working on another flight from that airport.

I have to correct my assumption here. They were not scheduled to work
another flight, they were headed to a meeting the next morning.

>>>>or to
>>>>> require that the airline just keep offering more and more money
>>>>> until they do get the needed volunteers. If that means they have
>>>>> to offer
>>>>tens
>>>>> of thousands of dollars, then so be it - that's the price of
>>>>overbooking.
>>>>
>>>>The maximum is $1350 and it is usually in the form of a voucher
>>>>which can be used on other flights on that same airline. It used to
>>>>be the cost of the ticket for a later flight and a dinner at the
>>>>airport. It could also include an overnight stay at a local hotel
>>>>if the later flight was tomorrow.
>>>
>>> I would expect an airline has the right to remove anyone it wants
>>> to? However United Air abused this privilege
>>
>>No argument on that point.
>
> One would expect that removal be done safely?

Of course.

> It was not a frail old Asian man getting his head beaten in by
> "Airport Security" and he ruturned for more,
>
> "Somehow he got back on," Tyler Bridges, one of those who filmed the
> incident, told NBC News. "He runs back on — dazed, bloodied, kind of
> in a mess — yelling, 'I have to get home, I have to get home.'"
>
> Now if one of this Doctors patients took a turn for the worse?
> This sounds like a ambulance chasers dream (no win no fee)



--

RD Sandman

Airspeed, altitude and brains....two of the three are always
required to complete a mission.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Petzl]

On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 20:51:14 +0800, Gerrit 't Hart >
wrote:

>On 13/04/2017 12:27 PM, Petzl wrote:
>
>SNIP
>> He was just one of four "chinks" removed by airline security (not
>> police) three did not argue.
>>
>
>I seem to recall they had the word POLICE on their backs.

They do and did, but are not police, just "airport security"
Chicago real Police are distancing themselves from this
--
Petzl
Arguing with a woman is like reading the Software License Agreement.
In the end, you ignore everthing and click "I agree"

[Petzl]

On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 13:43:30 -0500, RD Sandman >
wrote:

>> More spin is that four passengers were "randomly" selected?
>
>Yes, it is a computer program that does the selection. Computers do not
>make selections for any other reason than what is programmed into them,
>and it is very difficult to make that purely random.
>
>> Airport Security were called when one Asian refused to voluntarily
>> comply.
>
>Why should that be any different than if it had been a white female?
>
Three other Asians complied (not sure of sex)

>> The Asian media noted all were Chinese Asian, are reacting against to
>> what is seen by them as being profiled by UA and removed because of
>> being Asian.
>
>I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere, however, I do not subscribe to
>any Asian newspapers.
>
neither do I but use "goggle news" which offer translation
https://news.google.com.au/
or Asia
Japan
<https://news.google.com.au/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn&ei=KIurV_OhK4H20gSq1Kb4AQ&ved=0EKkuCAUoBQ&edchanged=1&ned=jp&authuser=0>
china
https://news.google.com.au/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn&ei=KIurV_OhK4H20gSq1Kb4AQ&ved=0EKkuCAUoBQ&edchanged=1&ned=cn&authuser=0
or anywhere

translated link
https://is.gd/MI1yeu
or see yourself
http://diamond.jp/articles/-/124820?page=3

https://translate.google.com/?hl=en

"There was also pointed out that it was discrimination that "everyone
who descended was an Asian" despite selecting a person descending by
lottery in this news report."

"Our" media are not reporting this which has got the Chinese
Government in a flap

>> UA are concerned because they have had over 30 years of operating
>> profitably in China.
>
>They need to be concerned for more reasons than that.

China may ban UA from China according to Asian media.
--
Petzl
Arguing with a woman is like reading the Software License Agreement.
In the end, you ignore everthing and click "I agree"

[Scout[_2_]]

"RD Sandman" > wrote in message
...
> Petzl > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 12:58:00 -0500, RD Sandman >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Petzl > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:30:47 -0500, RD Sandman
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Sylvia Else > wrote in news:el5f1bFb5krU1
:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> To my mind, the proper solution to the overbooking problem is
>>>>>> either to ban it outright (given that it's deliberate, not just a
>>>>>> mistake),
>>>>>
>>>>>Overbooking is intentional. It is done to try and ensure paying
>>>>>passengers for all flights.
>>>>>
>>>> The plane was full, not over booked.
>>>
>>>Not enough is known for me to argue with you. The point is that the
>>>plane was full, airlines can and do overbook to ensure that all seats
>>>are filled.
>>>
>> Everyone was seated, so at the point the plane was full not overbooked
>> (UA spin).
>
> Perhaps. We don't know if there aother passengers in the terminal that
> were not added to the flight. Additionally, when the four airline
> employees were added to the manifest, the flight beame "overbooked".

If so, then the "overbooked" passengers that were added at the last minute,
ie the UA employees, should have been the first to be booted per UA own
Contract of Carriage.

After all, check the definitions:

"Oversold Flight means a flight where there are more Passengers holding
valid confirmed Tickets that check-in for the flight within the prescribed
check-in time than there are available seats."

The UE employees were not holding valid confirmed tickets nor did they
check-in for the flight within the prescribed check-in time. Otherwise, all
the seats wouldn't have been filled by boarded passengers. QED.

Their own Contract of Carriage....which is the legally binding
contract....does NOT allow them to act as they did.


>> More spin is that four passengers were "randomly" selected?
>
> Yes, it is a computer program that does the selection. Computers do not
> make selections for any other reason than what is programmed into them,
> and it is very difficult to make that purely random.

And yet, 'random' isn't an acceptable manner of selection per their own CoC.

Indeed, here's a nice write up on the whole thing as it concerns United's
contract and whether it violated the terms of that contract.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-13/united-broke-its-contract-with-frequent-flyers

[RD Sandman[_2_]]

Petzl > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 13:43:30 -0500, RD Sandman >
> wrote:
>
>>> More spin is that four passengers were "randomly" selected?
>>
>>Yes, it is a computer program that does the selection. Computers do
>>not make selections for any other reason than what is programmed into
>>them, and it is very difficult to make that purely random.
>>
>>> Airport Security were called when one Asian refused to voluntarily
>>> comply.
>>
>>Why should that be any different than if it had been a white female?
>>
> Three other Asians complied (not sure of sex)

Fair enough....you have seen media I have not. Oh, well..... ;)



--

RD Sandman

Airspeed, altitude and brains....two of the three are always
required to complete a mission.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[RD Sandman[_2_]]

"Scout" > wrote in
:

>
>
> "RD Sandman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Petzl > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 12:58:00 -0500, RD Sandman
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Petzl > wrote in
:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:30:47 -0500, RD Sandman
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Sylvia Else > wrote in
>>>>>>news:el5f1bFb5krU1 @mid.individual.net:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> To my mind, the proper solution to the overbooking problem is
>>>>>>> either to ban it outright (given that it's deliberate, not just
>>>>>>> a mistake),
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Overbooking is intentional. It is done to try and ensure paying
>>>>>>passengers for all flights.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The plane was full, not over booked.
>>>>
>>>>Not enough is known for me to argue with you. The point is that the
>>>>plane was full, airlines can and do overbook to ensure that all
>>>>seats are filled.
>>>>
>>> Everyone was seated, so at the point the plane was full not
>>> overbooked (UA spin).
>>
>> Perhaps. We don't know if there aother passengers in the terminal
>> that were not added to the flight. Additionally, when the four
>> airline employees were added to the manifest, the flight beame
>> "overbooked".
>
> If so, then the "overbooked" passengers that were added at the last
> minute, ie the UA employees, should have been the first to be booted
> per UA own Contract of Carriage.

I agree, or put on a later flight. UA states a "new" policy where their
employees have to be booked an hour prior to flight time per a paper I
saw this morning.

> After all, check the definitions:

No need...the fact that this all came about over comped passenger who
were employees of United Airlines is bad enough. It was a cluster****.

> "Oversold Flight means a flight where there are more Passengers
> holding valid confirmed Tickets that check-in for the flight within
> the prescribed check-in time than there are available seats."
>
> The UE employees were not holding valid confirmed tickets nor did they
> check-in for the flight within the prescribed check-in time.
> Otherwise, all the seats wouldn't have been filled by boarded
> passengers. QED.
>
> Their own Contract of Carriage....which is the legally binding
> contract....does NOT allow them to act as they did.
>
>
>>> More spin is that four passengers were "randomly" selected?
>>
>> Yes, it is a computer program that does the selection. Computers do
>> not make selections for any other reason than what is programmed into
>> them, and it is very difficult to make that purely random.
>
> And yet, 'random' isn't an acceptable manner of selection per their
> own CoC.
>
> Indeed, here's a nice write up on the whole thing as it concerns
> United's contract and whether it violated the terms of that contract.
>
> https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-13/united-broke-its-con
> tract-with-frequent-flyers



--

RD Sandman

Airspeed, altitude and brains....two of the three are always
required to complete a mission.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[keithr0]

United settle out of court

http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/27/news/companies/united-airlines-dao-settlement/

[Gordon Levi]

keithr0 > wrote:

>United settle out of court
>
>http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/27/news/companies/united-airlines-dao-settlement/

Phil Allison will be disappointed that this was the punishment for
Dao's "serious, illegal act". Most people will be grateful to Dao for
discouraging all airlines from involuntarily evicting passengers
because of overbooking or because they are giving priority to airline
staff.

[Wayne]

On 4/27/2017 11:14 PM, Gordon Levi wrote:
> keithr0 > wrote:
>
>> United settle out of court
>>
>> http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/27/news/companies/united-airlines-dao-settlement/
>
> Phil Allison will be disappointed that this was the punishment for
> Dao's "serious, illegal act". Most people will be grateful to Dao for
> discouraging all airlines from involuntarily evicting passengers
> because of overbooking or because they are giving priority to airline
> staff.
>
Yes indeed.
There is a mindset that after you enter security, everyone else has god
like powers, and you are a helpless captive. That's bull****.

[[email protected]]

On 27 Apr 2017, Gordon Levi > posted some
:

> keithr0 > wrote:
>
>>United settle out of court
>>
>>http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/27/news/companies/united-airlines-dao-sett
>>lement/
>
> Phil Allison will be disappointed that this was the punishment for
> Dao's "serious, illegal act". Most people will be grateful to Dao for
> discouraging all airlines from involuntarily evicting passengers
> because of overbooking or because they are giving priority to airline
> staff.

It was high time an airline was slapped down for their arrogant behavior.

Granted there have been some incidents where passengers push the envelope
as well, but the overall flying experience is in the toilet these days.

If it takes an extra 1-2 hours to drive somewhere as opposed to flying, I
drive rather than put up with the unnecessary union thug TSA "security"
crap. Those people are a ****ing useless joke.

Seriously. Why should I have to be at the airport checking in two hours
before a one hour up-state flight? It takes another hour to deplane and
get your bags, then you have to get a car anyway. There's another half
hour or more.

The odds are pretty good you're going to get a cold or flu from some sick
jerk on the dirty plane as well too. The planes are filthy.

It's just not worth the hassle unless you absolutely must fly. The
airline industry has shived their own product.

Another pet peeve is flying across country at a little over 400 knots when
the plane can fly much faster. You can see planes even dip below 400 in
places where there is plenty of open sky. No excuse for that. They are
engaging in "fuel saving" practices at the expense of your paid for time.

[Petzl]

On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 17:38:16 -0000 (UTC), "
> wrote:

>On 27 Apr 2017, Gordon Levi > posted some
:
>
>> keithr0 > wrote:
>>
>>>United settle out of court
>>>
>>>http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/27/news/companies/united-airlines-dao-sett
>>>lement/
>>
>> Phil Allison will be disappointed that this was the punishment for
>> Dao's "serious, illegal act". Most people will be grateful to Dao for
>> discouraging all airlines from involuntarily evicting passengers
>> because of overbooking or because they are giving priority to airline
>> staff.
>
>It was high time an airline was slapped down for their arrogant behavior.
>
>Granted there have been some incidents where passengers push the envelope
>as well, but the overall flying experience is in the toilet these days.
>
>If it takes an extra 1-2 hours to drive somewhere as opposed to flying, I
>drive rather than put up with the unnecessary union thug TSA "security"
>crap. Those people are a ****ing useless joke.
>
>Seriously. Why should I have to be at the airport checking in two hours
>before a one hour up-state flight? It takes another hour to deplane and
>get your bags, then you have to get a car anyway. There's another half
>hour or more.
>
>The odds are pretty good you're going to get a cold or flu from some sick
>jerk on the dirty plane as well too. The planes are filthy.
>
>It's just not worth the hassle unless you absolutely must fly. The
>airline industry has shived their own product.
>
>Another pet peeve is flying across country at a little over 400 knots when
>the plane can fly much faster. You can see planes even dip below 400 in
>places where there is plenty of open sky. No excuse for that. They are
>engaging in "fuel saving" practices at the expense of your paid for time.

Planes are not filthy?
https://youtu.be/wIQlkzgeZ5s
--
Petzl
Arguing with a woman is like reading the Software License Agreement.
In the end, you ignore everthing and click "I agree"