United Airlines is a terrible business

[Borg]

His actions may have been childish, but when there are thousands of flights, eventually someone like this would show up. United should have known this and should have taken extreme caution to not arouse the anger of social media with actions that are generally highly disapproved of by the public.

I find it interesting what social media gets angry about. People can mouth off, forcibly resist and even take a swing at police but if a cop uses any force in return, social media gets upset at the police. It really makes me wonder what it would take for social media to fault the person who won't cooperate and purposely escalates the situation. All this makes me of the situation in Arizona in January when a bystander shot and killed a man who was beating a state trooper on the side of the road. I wonder what the reaction would have been if another cop had shot the assailant instead?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Borg, in this case they weren't police. Yes, two of them are wearing jackets that say "police". They are not allowed to do that. Indeed, according to the Chicago Tribune, Jeff Redding (deputy commissioner of safety and security for the city's Department of Aviation) has said that they are not even supposed to board a plane for a customer service issue. He said "If it is a customer-service related incident, then you don't need to board the plane at all. If there's no threat, there's no imminent threat or no charges being drawn, then you don't need to board the plane."

So we don't have cops. We have people dressed like cops enforcing an airlines unwillingness to pay out an additional $400, even though they are told not to. Real cops are trained to de-escalate the situation. These escalated it almost immediately. Real cops are aghast at their behavior (here's one link).

There was an earlier post on the economics of this. United does around 65,000 VDB's a year. If everyone gets an extra $200, that's $13 million. United has a great deal of incentive to call airport security rather than raise their offer. However, as I mentioned earlier, there is a big difference between a boarding area and a tiny metal tube.

 

[vela]

I think it's fairly clear they may have had a right to do what they did according to policy, but that doesn't make it a good business decision.

I don't think it was clear that they had the right according to their policy to remove the passenger from the plane. In any case, it was certainly a bad decision to remove already seated passengers to make room for employees. I don't like how many in the media keep making the claim that the problem arose because of overbooking. It wasn't overbooking; it was UAL deciding to remove passengers that had already boarded and were in their seats because UAL decided to put its needs before the customers'. I expect that instead of improving its service, UAL will amend its policy to explicitly allow for removal of already seated passengers in cases like this.

 

[gmax137]

All I know is, United has gone onto my "do not patronise unless no other choice" list. I got PO'd at Exxon about 40 years ago and have bought their gasoline three times since then. I know it doesn't matter to them but it does to me.

 

[Astronuc]

Oscar Munoz, CEO of UnitedContinental, announced a new policy regarding crew movements. NPR reported that a new policy '"to make sure crews traveling on our aircraft are booked at least 60 minutes prior to departure." I don't know how that would have worked in Chicago for flight 3411.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...es-changes-its-policy-on-displacing-customers

There are three airports within two hours drive (Lexington, Cincinnati and Indianapolis) and one airport within 3 hours (Nashville).

Update:
Forbes - The United Flight Was Not Overbooked, Airline Admits
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christ.../united-flight-not-overbooked-airline-admits/

Washington Post - Here’s what United will do differently after the infamous dragging incident
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-infamous-fiasco-involving-dragged-passenger/

No crew member “can displace a customer who has boarded an aircraft,” according to the email, which was sent Friday. Schmerin confirmed the authenticity of the published email.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I think that United (and other airlines) could have saved themselves considerable trouble by allocating a small number of seats (say, 4 seats, the number who were to be "bumped" off the now-infamous flight) for potential crew on each plane, and not have those available for sale. Having these redundancy in seats available would have allowed the required flight crew to be transported to the next airport on a future shift without anyone else being forced off a paid flight, as well as allow for vacancies in case of passengers who need to make last-minute changes.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I think that United (and other airlines) could have saved themselves considerable trouble by allocating a small number of seats (say, 4 seats, the number who were to be "bumped" off the now-infamous flight) for potential crew on each plane, and not have those available for sale. Having these redundancy in seats available would have allowed the required flight crew to be transported to the next airport on a future shift without anyone else being forced off a paid flight, as well as allow for vacancies in case of passengers who need to make last-minute changes.

Not likely. Commericial airlines generally operate on tight profit margins and high occupancy routes that often run fully booked are their bread and butter. The government subsidizes airlines to serve unprofitable routes, but airlines probably just break even on these. Their incentive is that they feed traffic into hubs.

https://www.transportation.gov/poli...unity-rural-air-service/essential-air-service

 

[StatGuy2000]

Not likely. Commericial airlines generally operate on tight profit margins and high occupancy routes that often run fully booked are their bread and butter. By regulation, they are required to serve unprofitable lower occupancy routes usually using subsidiary or contract airlines.

But I don't see how setting aside a small number of reserve seats for airline staff on planes will change high occupancy routes that are fully booked. After all, these seats are simply taken off of whatever seats that are available. For example, if a plane has a total of 70 seats, and if say, a maximum of 4 seats are taken out, that still leaves 66 seats which can be fully booked. And somehow, I don't see how 2-4 seats that are not made available will really hit the profit margins by that much.

At any rate, if the profit margins are so tight, then the negative PR that United Airlines is facing will hardly help them in seeking ways to boost those margins if there is a flood of passengers seeking other flight alternatives.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

At any rate, if the profit margins are so tight, then the negative PR that United Airlines is facing will hardly help them in seeking ways to boost those margins if there is a flood of passengers seeking other flight alternatives.

Of course bad PR can be disastrous for the bottom line, but this is not something businesses usually plan for. Maybe they should, but I don't know how one does that. In the normal planning, most routes may barely yield a profit 24/7 so the small percentage of the best routes at the best times must yield substantial profits to make profit goals. CEOs are under constant pressure to increase the bottom line year to year.

BTW I edited my previous post re unprofitable routes.

 

[Choppy]

But I don't see how setting aside a small number of reserve seats for airline staff on planes will change high occupancy routes that are fully booked. After all, these seats are simply taken off of whatever seats that are available. For example, if a plane has a total of 70 seats, and if say, a maximum of 4 seats are taken out, that still leaves 66 seats which can be fully booked. And somehow, I don't see how 2-4 seats that are not made available will really hit the profit margins by that much.

Just a guess, but if United were to do this, they would likely need to increase their prices to compensate. If one of their competitors oversold those same seats, then they would be able to offer lower priced seats. Customers sorting their flight options by price would likely show a strong preference for the cheaper seats. Perhaps it could be communicated that there is a lower probability of being bumped with the higher price, but I suspect most people would still go for the cheaper seats. It's not so much the loss of those individual seats, but that would lead to a loss in market share.

And that wouldn't solve the problem completely. It would only make an overbooking or flight bumping scenario less likely.

It seems that it would make a lot more sense to simply increase the compensation when such situations occur.

 

[rootone]

Heh, could implement an auction like system for the always fully booked routes,
Staff seats are always guaranteed, customers pay a price to turn up for the auction but get a refund if they don't end up with a seat.
(and maybe hotel room + free entry to the next auction.)

 

[Vanadium 50]

could have saved themselves considerable trouble by allocating a small number of seats (say, 4 seats

Too expensive. The average seat on that flight is $180, so you're talking $720. United was willing to send in the brute squad so they wouldn't have to shell out compensation that would cost them $200, so they sure won't see $720 as an advantage. At 1.6M flights per year, for a similar cost, this would cost them over a billion dollars, or 25% of their total profit.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

IMO, the best solution is not to overbook at all and not reimburse customers who fail to cancel in time. A reasonable appeals mechanism for reimbursement can be worked out. This will work best if adopted by the entire industry. If seats are needed for employees, voluntary bumping only would be allowed.

 

[StatGuy2000]

IMO, the best solution is not to overbook at all and not reimburse customers who fail to cancel in time. A reasonable appeals mechanism for reimbursement can be worked out. This will work best if adopted by the entire industry. If seats are needed for employees, voluntary bumping only would be allowed.

My understanding is that is what hotels do -- set various conditions on which customers can be reimbursed if they cancel a reservation. For example, in many hotel booking sites (e.g. Priceline, Expedia) there are hotel rooms for a reduced cost under the strict condition of no refunds. Similar rooms would be available with various options for cancelling/reimbursement (typically, cancelling within 24 hours or within an hour's time) but at a higher cost.

I don't see why similar methods can't be adopted throughout the entire industry. After all, my understanding is that airlines don't so much care about full occupancy as much as all available seats that are paid for (after all, an empty seat that is paid for is the same as a filled seat).

 

[StatGuy2000]

Too expensive. The average seat on that flight is $180, so you're talking $720. United was willing to send in the brute squad so they wouldn't have to shell out compensation that would cost them $200, so they sure won't see $720 as an advantage. At 1.6M flights per year, for a similar cost, this would cost them over a billion dollars, or 25% of their total profit.

The irony is that sending in the brute squad will end up costing United far more than the $200 that they would have lost with the compensation.

BTW, I dispute the logic you use to determine the cost to United to following my proposal. You are essentially assuming that those 4 additional seats will have been sold otherwise, but if they are simply not available for sale, there is no additional cost. In essence, revenues will be based on having, say, 66 seats on the plane, which could be thought of as the equivalent of flying a smaller plane (which airlines already do to cut costs). If this is applied throughout the entire industry (not just at United), perhaps mandated by the TSA (assuming that the TSA has the ability to mandate this), then all airlines will forego the same additional revenue, so United will not be in any worse shape than other airlines.

Of course, there could be unintended consequences through this mandate (e.g. overall higher ticket prices). But this would at any rate reduce the probability of overbooking. (I am also in favour of @SW VandeCarr's proposal, which is essentially what the hotel industry does to avoid the situation of overbooking).

 

[vela]

IMO, the best solution is not to overbook at all and not reimburse customers who fail to cancel in time.

But the problem wasn't overbooking. It was United deciding to force people off a flight after they had already boarded. The situation could have easily been avoided if United hadn't decided at the last minute that its employees had to be on that particular flight, or if the airline had simply increased compensation until it found four passengers willing to give up their seats.

The irony is that sending in the brute squad will end up costing United far more than the $200 that they would have lost with the compensation.

Yup, someone at United made a really bad and ultimately costly decision. It was a situation that could have easily been avoided, so your proposal strikes me as an overreaction by imposing an industry-wide requirement because someone at United made a really stupid choice.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

But the problem wasn't overbooking.

I was the first in this thread to point out that the UA case wasn't overbooking (post 3) but the result is the same. Overbooking is selling something you don't have. Should a merchant take money for an item he knows he cannot provide unless others don't claim what they purchased? BTW you didn't quote my post fully (post 48). I addressed the issue of employee seating.

 

[russ_watters]

That's not what happens. Here's how it's supposed to work...

...they have N seats, M passengers with seat assignments, K passengers confirmed but without seat assignments, and L passengers on the standby list. For the flight in question N = 70, M was probably about 60, which would make K around 10, and I don't know what L was. In this case things are straightforward - print up K boarding passes and go.

What's a "supposed to"?

I know there are differences between how a perfect world works and how the real world works -- this thread would not exist if "supopsed to" always matched reality. I also recognize that it is a very complex situation/dance (that overall you understand better than I). My point may not have been explicit enough, but I was trying to point out one critical aspect, which it appears you overlooked as well: you're missing group "S" -- the no-Shows. My point was that the airline doesn't know if a potential "S" is actually an "S" or an "M" until they close the door to the plane.

Or to put it another way: this problem (typically) doesn't happen because they overbook the flight, it happens because they overbook the flight and then not enough people no-Show. In the era of online check-in, when people don't need to get their seet asignments at the ticket counter, the airline doesn't know if a late-running passenger is in the airport or still at home in bed.

My suspicion is that the easy/typical solution is that they bump the guy who is running late involuntarily and give away his ticket even before he's actually missed the plane, but in the past I have seen two people get on a plane with the same seat asignment.

Because this was not an oversold situation, and the pax was actually boarded, this does not fall under Rule 25 (Denial of Boarding), but rather Rule 21 (Refusal of Transport) in the CoC. However, none of the conditions in 21 seem to apply here. It appears that United breached its own CoC.

My interpetation of several clauses of rule 21 is that they are broad and apply here, but at this point the courts will have to sort it out. Either way, it is strange to me that this situation or one like it wouldn't be covered more explicitly by the rules.

 

[vela]

I was the first in this thread to point out that the UA case wasn't overbooking (post 3) but the result is the same. Overbooking is selling something you don't have. Should a merchant take money for an item he knows he cannot provide unless others don't claim what they purchased? BTW you didn't quote my post fully (post 48). I addressed the issue of employee seating.

I don't see why the supposed problem with overbooking needs to be fixed when it wasn't and isn't the problem in the first place. The end result might have been the same, but the difference was the way United violated the reasonable expectation of most travelers. Travelers might not be happy to lose their seat, but they can understand an airline giving away their seat if it thought they were no-shows. They won't have much sympathy for an airline that solves its problems by arbitrarily deciding to kick them off a plane they're already on.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I don't see why the supposed problem with overbooking needs to be fixed when it wasn't and isn't the problem in the first place. The end result might have been the same, but the difference was the way United violated the reasonable expectation of most travelers. Travelers might not be happy to lose their seat, but they can understand an airline giving away their seat if it thought they were no-shows. They won't have much sympathy for an airline that solves its problems by arbitrarily deciding to kick them off a plane they're already on.

No shows should not be a problem the way I described it. To reserve a seat you pay in advance. If you fail to cancel in time you don't get your money back. Waivers may be granted for certain conditions beyond the customer's control, but they must be reported ASAP. The airlines set what "in time" means , the nature of the waiver and who gets waivers (loyal frequent flyers, etc). There is no need for overbooking. What happened to Dr Dao could have happened whether it was for overbooking, unbooked employee transport or some other reason. I already said if bumping is necessary, it must always be voluntary. Bumping is a major source of irritation or worse for many passengers. Most of it is due to overbooking and can be eliminated IMO. Why did nobody else volunteer for $800 and save Dr Dao from the thugs?

 

[gmax137]

The airlines have reduced ticket prices to the point where they must fill every seat on every flight (or so they would have us believe). That is the real "problem" -- there is no surge capacity on any flight. Back in the day the flights were typically 2/3 full so there was always plenty of seats for the "expected no shows" that actually showed, or the passengers who missed their connection due to delay on their previous leg. All of that wiggle room is gone now (pun intended).

When the majority of passengers were business flyers the higher ticket process were ok (easier to spend the customer's money than your own). In those days few could afford to take their kids to Disney or to visit grandma. But flying was a lot more pleasant.

On Edit -- I wonder about the subject flight, what was the reaction of the passengers to the United employee who took the seat "vacated" by Dr Dao?

 

[Vanadium 50]

I wonder about the subject flight, what was the reaction of the passengers to the United employee who took the seat "vacated" by Dr Dao?

I'm sure they were polite. Very, very polite.

(And technically, it wasn't a United employee. It was Trans-States)

 

[XZ923]

Not to digress, but my opinion on this matter is very simple: confiscate and destroy every camera in every smartphone. I am beyond tired of seeing the daily cause du jour that everyone always gets so spun up about. Dr. Dao should have complied with security, the airline should not have allowed the situation to occur at all. Plenty of blame to go around. I honestly don't care enough one way or the other to form an opinion or pick a side.

Pay the guy's medical bills and an extra few K for his trouble and let that be the end of it.

Here's a truly stunning thought for today's youth: it's possible for a minor event in your life to occur without the need to film it and broadcast it to the world. Turn the damn thing off once in a while!

 

[BillTre]

Personally, I don't like the idea of shutting down a major route of communicating unjust events because they are "tiring" to particular individuals.

Seems to me a more appropriate recommendation would be that those easily "tired" individuals just back off of the web browsers and TV news and luxuriate in their ignorance.

 

[XZ923]

Personally, I don't like the idea of shutting down a major route of communicating unjust events because they are "tiring" to particular individuals.

Seems to me a more appropriate recommendation would be that those easily "tired" individuals just back off of the web browsers and TV news and luxuriate in their ignorance.

Obviously I was being facetious when I said "confiscate and destroy every camera". My overall point stands. If you're so obsessed with "unjust events" maybe you should pay attention to ones that actually have significant impact. How many people were murdered in America the same day this event happened? The same week? How many people died of drug overdoses? How many homeless veterans who fought for this country are sleeping on a park bench because of the incompetent federal government?

In the long run this incident should be meaningless. Dr. Dao will be perfectly fine, the airline will pay restitution, and no one's life will be significantly altered. The only reason you care about it so much is because someone shot a video and the media told you that you need to be upset about it.

Perhaps I should rephrase my previous premise. I'm tired of people getting spun up over minor things just because someone pointed a camera at it and CNN told you how awful it was when there are REAL injustices of much greater magnitude around us all the time. If you want to do something about injustice, unplug from the media long enough to donate time or money to charity.

And for the record, you don't need to film yourself doing it.

 

[russ_watters]

My overall point stands. If you're so obsessed with "unjust events" maybe you should pay attention to ones that actually have significant impact. How many people were murdered in America the same day this event happened? The same week? How many people died of drug overdoses? How many homeless veterans who fought for this country are sleeping on a park bench because of the incompetent federal government?

In the long run this incident should be meaningless.

I think @BillTre didn't quite get your overall point, instead focusing on the "tired of" part...

It isn't the recording of the events with smartphone cameras that is the problem, it is the viral outrage generated by social media. What social media does is amplify outrage, with little regard for the true magnitude of the events. So I agree that in terms of its place on the list of terrible events occurring that day (almost none of which any of us heard about), it generated way more reaction/outrage than deserved.

 

[BillTre]

I guess one person's unjust event is just another's "minor thing".
Making choices like this for other people, seems inappropriate to me. For one thing its a freedom of speech issue.

Those complaining could do their own self-behavior modification and look elsewhere if they are so "tired".

 

[XZ923]

I think @BillTre didn't quite get your overall point, instead focusing on the "tired of" part...

It isn't the recording of the events with smartphone cameras that is the problem, it is the viral outrage generated by social media. What social media does is amplify outrage, with little regard for the true magnitude of the events. So I agree that in terms of its place on the list of terrible events occurring that day (almost none of which any of us heard about), it generated way more reaction/outrage than deserved.

Thank you for summing it up much better than I did. In particular the part I bolded is the point I was trying to make; you worded it much better.

 

[russ_watters]

I guess one person's unjust event is just another's "minor thing".
Making choices like this for other people, seems inappropriate to me.

Fair enough - everyone is entitled to their opinions - but if pressed to make a logical argument for their opinion, I doubt anyone who is outraged could present a reasonable case that the amount of outrage generated is proportional to the severity of the act/injustice. Or to put a sharper point on it; is a murder a "minor thing"? More or less "minor" than this incident? How many murder victims from that day can you name? I'm pretty sure I know the answers to all those questions and I suggest any thinking person should agree the public response to this event is *wildly* disproportionate to how major/minor the injustice was.

 

[BillTre]

What social media does is amplify outrage, with little regard for the true magnitude of the events.

And how would determine the magnitude of the events to get outraged about and what the appropriate amount of outrage is?
I can understand your issues with this specific case and its well discussed problems, however I find it interesting to know about it. On the other hand, I am no longer paying it much attention.
Just don't watch if you don't like it.
It just sounds like censorship or repression to me. These would be good rules for Turkey and Russia.

There are plenty of things I choose to not pay attention to irrespective of the amount which they are floating around the media, like Harambe for example or lots of different sports.

 

[russ_watters]

We crossed a bit, so at risk of repetition...

And how would determine the magnitude of the events to get outraged about and what the appropriate amount of outrage is?

By applying *some* (any) sort of logic to the level of severity of the "injustice". Yes, it is a matter of opinion and yes it is reasonable for reasonable people to disagree about how to rank events, but this event was *so spectacularly/absurdly over-outraged*, there shouldn't be much of an argument about that when pressed to make an argument that isn't just pure emotion. IE; almost nobody will say this event was "good", but at the same time, almost nobody will suggest this event was as bad as a murder (of which there were probably about 40 that day in the USA).

It just sounds like censorship or repression to me.

I'm not suggesting a rule, nor is @XZ923. It's just the feeling that over-outrage is tiring. What I would suggest in response - that I know I will never get - is that I wish people would be more rational. But the best I can hope for is as social media matures and loses its lustre, The Outragers will grow tired as well, and people will stop paying attention.

 

[XZ923]

And how would determine the magnitude of the events to get outraged about and what the appropriate amount of outrage is?
I can understand your issues with this specific case and its well discussed problems, however I find it interesting to know about it. On the other hand, I am no longer paying it much attention.
Just don't watch if you don't like it.
It just sounds like censorship or repression to me. These would be good rules for Turkey and Russia.

There are plenty of things I choose to not pay attention to irrespective of the amount which they are floating around the media, like Harambe for example or lots of different sports.

On the contrary, I am very strongly against censorship. I am in no way suggesting people should be prevented from engaging in this sort of communication if they want to. What I am suggesting is basically what Russ Watters said above: these "viral videos" create outrage disproportionate to the issue at hand.

You asked how magnitude of events is determined? Common sense is a good place to start. What happened to Dr. Dao was an injustice, no question about it. But if we make a list of the injustices that occurred just on that day alone in the country, I highly doubt it even cracks the top 10 when compared to things like homicide.

EDIT:

Another way to look at it: what happened to Dr. Dao was at the very most a simple assault. Many other simple assaults occur everywhere all the time and you don't care about them. You only care about this one because someone put a camera on it and suggested you should be angry about it. And please don't tell me anything about how he was humiliated; it was his own decision to not comply with and then physically resist the authorities.

 

[BillTre]

and people will stop paying attention.

I think we agree on this.

There is a vast world of media information that could be considered overly outraging by different sets of people.
There is no way to make it all good for everyone.
In this case I would repeat: control thy own behavior, not others.

 

[russ_watters]

In this case I would repeat: control thy own behavior, not others.

The problem I have with that is that this isn't just harmless entertainment we're talking about. People aren't just using this to blow-off steam on facebook instead of yelling at their bosses (or whatever stressed them that day). Other peoples' disproportionate judgments about the seriousness of certain events affects me/many/some/all of us in negative ways because bad disproportionate judgments can lead to bad actions.

 

[Evo]

I have been in the situation several times where I have been on a plane where someone else was in my seat, one time I was with two small children and my connecting flight was late and I came unglued, but they had seats open in first class, so they put the three of us there. Another time, the airline was at fault again, we sat in Chicago with engine trouble, but was promised that they were holding our connecting flight seats in Houston, we got on the plane in Houston, and they had already seated other passengers, they lied, long story. In Tokyo, they overbooked and offered people money to get off the plane for 4 people, we had been up since 5am from Bangkok and declined, we were on the plane 26 hours, a horror story.

I think if Dr Dao was having an obvious mental breakdown, they should have handled it differently. They should have increased the offer to other passengers due to his emotional instability. Maybe even considered removing a flight attendant if that was possible. Were all 4 of the airline people critical?