|
Mackieman posted:I was talking about the idea of a lawyer having a case; I believe the CoC makes it such that an attempt to bring a suit would never make it to a jury. Ah, fair enough. I would still think there's a case to be made against the police, at the very least. I can buy that United is well within their rights to tell the dude to gently caress off and bring in the authorities when he doesn't budge, but I don't see how the police can get away with what appears to be blatantly excessive force. e: But if United has any sense at all they'll be paying this dude bigly. They really need to save some face on the PR front.
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:52 |
|
|
I'm not so sure we can count on United to have sense https://twitter.com/RyanRuggiero/status/851577150117425154 Also lol: https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/64jl6s/_/dg2vfdi air- fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Apr 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
Huh. This looks like the united ceo doesn't think united is at fault at all. Nice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
Mackieman posted:What world are you living in? It absolutely is within their right per the Contract of Carriage to bump a paying passenger to ferry employees or for any reason at all, honestly. My understanding is that the employee involved in this case was required for the return flight on that aircraft. Had they flown without that employee, the airplane would not have been able to return from the outstation. It is within their right to 'deny boarding', but the guy was already boarded. When you enter the plane, a bunch of regulations fire off, and (it doesn't apply in this case) when the door closes a bunch of other regulations fire off. This is a bit more complicated then it first seems.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
Mandalay posted:Huh. This looks like the united ceo doesn't think united is at fault at all. Nice. A CEO's position by default is to defend the company and its employees, regardless. There's also legal issues at hand. There's no doubt that all communication right now is going through legal counsel.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
What's more hilariously incompetent is that somehow the airline and gate agent didn't know about their required dead headers until the people showed up just after boarding but before the AC door was closed. Edit: while UAL is clearly within their legal rights to send in a fuckin swat team to remove a four year old girl or whatever, I think it's fairly indisputable that the situation was poorly handled by the airline and no amount of "but we're ALLOWED to!" Is going to,change that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
Yeah, they may have had the right, but it's poo poo customer service. They should have picked someone else and/or paid way more to get someone else to volunteer. Though I'm also surprised that no one volunteered for $800 plus hotel plus meals. I've volunteered for less.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
i fly airplanes posted:A CEO's position by default is to defend the company and its employees, regardless. There's also legal issues at hand. There's no doubt that all communication right now is going through legal counsel. No empathy at all for the customer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 05:51
|
|
|
Water Resistant posted:Yeah, they may have had the right, but it's poo poo customer service. They should have picked someone else and/or paid way more to get someone else Pay more: sure Pick someone else: that's not how this works. You don't get to throw a fit and refuse and pass that to someone else. It was random, he was involuntarily removed, bad luck but that's the way it is. Uncle Jam posted:It is within their right to 'deny boarding', but the guy was already boarded. When you enter the plane, a bunch of regulations fire off, and (it doesn't apply in this case) when the door closes a bunch of other regulations fire off. This is a bit more complicated then it first seems. So you're arguing that boarding for a particular person ends when a ticket is scanned for that person vs the process of the door closing signaling the end of the boarding process as a whole? Do you have any citings for these regulations and definitions? It's an interesting argument that somehow he's in a legally binding agreement that isn't subject to federal air crew regulations for the short time between being scanned onboard and the doors closing. Also, when someone is removed for being drunk, how does that work? The aircrew ultimately refuses to take the passenger and that doesn't hinge on if the gate agent lets them on or not. sellouts fucked around with this message at 06:06 on Apr 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
Mandalay posted:No empathy at all for the customer. Corporations do not exist to empathize customers. They exist to extract as much money as possible from them. Obviously United messed up big time in the PR department and this fiasco is going to hurt whatever brand/goodwill they still had left.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 06:23
|
|
|
And then when their ticket is .50 less than the competitor people will mash the purchase button again
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
Of course it's RPA so they're cheap stupid low rent fucks about everything, but how is this a superior outcome to say, hiring a coach service to shuttle your flight crew to L'ville for like $1,000?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 08:01
|
|
|
i fly airplanes posted:Corporations do not exist to empathize customers. They exist to extract as much money as possible from them. Obviously United messed up big time in the PR department and this fiasco is going to hurt whatever brand/goodwill they still had left. Why the gate agent let them on in the first place is absolutely ridiculous. If corporations want customers they should be empathetic when they're unable to deliver service or product well. United is likely in the legal "right" but the way they've handled everything and continue is only making things worse. EDIT - Now this, after the leggings thing? :jfc: Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 08:57 on Apr 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 08:46
|
|
|
I don't know if this makes me a terrible apologist for our corporate overlords but after all the facts came out about the leggings thing I think it was justified.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 09:18
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:If corporations want customers they should be empathetic when they're unable to deliver service or product well. Corporations don't care about their customers. Airlines are some of the worst. What makes people think that any corporation cares about anything more than sucking every last dime out of each customer? Even the altruistic ones are slaves to the board and stock prices. Capitalism is as capitalism does.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 12:11
|
|
|
sellouts posted:Pay more: sure I read the federal regs and it seems unclear enough that a lawyer could at least attempt an argument. That is enough where the news will pop up yet again in 5 months time when they file, and again whenever the case advances. This is a negative for United. On top of that, these incidents can change an industry. For example, After the Toyota thing, pretty much every car gets recalled multiple times in its lifetime. It's hardly more newsworthy than lotto numbers anymore. Do the other carriers really want United to fight hard on this and possibly narrow the leeway on CoC? Relates, but the House could request the CEO for his presence and get free brownie points with constituents raking him over the coals. On top of that, the risk of someone pulling poo poo during involuntary bumping has gone up a bazillion percent. Edit: being drunk is disorderly and is a safety risk, where getting bumped from a flight is not. I think this is why United is really pushing the narrative that he was disorderly, because they know you can't jackboot someone for getting simply bumped. Of course you can argue that he became disorderly the second he refused crew instruction, but then the argument is do the regulations give the crew too much power? If a steward having a bad day tells a guy to get off cause he's ugly and the dude doesn't move for a minute in disbelief, and gets dragged out, maybe that's OK technically in the regs, but not spiritually, maybe the regs should be changed. Uncle Jam fucked around with this message at 13:35 on Apr 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 13:26
|
|
|
Water Resistant posted:Though I'm also surprised that no one volunteered for $800 plus hotel plus meals. I've volunteered for less. This is what has me suspicious that they were being colossal shitlords even before the cameras turned on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
Rex-Goliath posted:This is what has me suspicious that they were being colossal shitlords even before the cameras turned on. Someone on reddit said that they were on the flight and someone asked for $1,600 and the United manager laughed in their face
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 13:41
|
|
|
Whether or not United technically broke the law or not is totally secondary. It was absurdly bad customer service and they are rightfully getting slammed for it. United created the situation and then needlessly escalated it. Now they are doubling down on it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 13:49
|
|
|
Cacafuego posted:Corporations don't care about their customers. Airlines are some of the worst. What makes people think that any corporation cares about anything more than sucking every last dime out of each customer? Even the altruistic ones are slaves to the board and stock prices. Yeah and on that line of thought, this piece was my overall favorite take on the whole situation. quote:The reality is plain: United Airlines is not the disease. United Airlines is a symptom of an infected country whose institutions of power no longer respect the dignity or the sanctity of the individual life. They don’t care about you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 13:54
|
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:
Ok thanks. I think you're really stretching. The crew timing out is illegal and then being tired is also a safety risk. I gotta say...it's a bit insane to me if anyone thinks that the crew of an aircraft have too much power. If a person feels as though they're being discriminated against as you're implying in your example there are ways to handle that that aren't "I'm not listening to you, you can't make me". Also that didn't happen and hasn't happened.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
Water Resistant posted:Yeah, they may have had the right, but it's poo poo customer service. They should have picked someone else and/or paid way more to get someone else to volunteer. It was a Sunday flight, so I'm not surprised. $400 to arrive 2 hours later on a Friday? Sure. $800 to miss a day of work/have to cancel patients? No thanks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
I'm more thinking that he's a 69 year old cranky grandpa. The hassle when you get older/more frail is significantly higher.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
sellouts posted:Ok thanks. I think you're really stretching. I don't think it's stretching to say the federal regulations change depending if the customer is at the gate, in the seat, or door is closed. Because they do. There are also more ways for the passenger to handle it but I can't think of one that would have gotten public opinion more on his side. And yeah that hasn't happened, but what happened may be construed as crew over reach. It doesn't matter at all there was another crew maybe timing out; that's totally United s fault and their responsibility to make sure they have enough employees to not be running into overwork rules.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
Would be funnier if that were the actual patch notes... Funny how the app has tanked to a 1 star rating on the app store though. It's probably one of the better FF apps I've used.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
This is delightful, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
I guess to their credit, it looks like United is doing a 180 on their "lol gently caress you pal" stance with an apology and a policy review. Just words, though, so we'll see what happens.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
Noctone posted:I guess to their credit, it looks like United is doing a 180 on their "lol gently caress you pal" stance with an apology and a policy review. Just words, though, so we'll see what happens. They lost something on the order of a billion dollars in market cap today so they're backing down ever so slightly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I don't know if this makes me a terrible apologist for our corporate overlords but after all the facts came out about the leggings thing I think it was justified. What was the conclusion? As a guy whom travels frequently Leggings, Yoga Pants, etc. have just become a standard clothing item like jeans. I understand it shows your "figure" but that's just the time that we live in and United needs to join reality.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:What was the conclusion? The only relevant data point I heard was that these were comp (like employee or w/e) passes and those come with the understanding that you're representing united and expected to conform to among other things a dress code yadda yadda.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
I still feel that one was kinda bullshit. If you were a flight attendant and you were actually traveling with an ID badge or something else that identifies you as a United employee, then yeah, your rules should be followed. But if there is really no way of knowing that you are an employee or a family of one, then who cares?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
It just felt very old fashioned to me. Like who is actually going to care if someone on a free pass is dressed fancy or not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
If United thinks that what's really holding their image back is people flying on buddy passes while wearing leggings then lol forever at that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
Who is complaining about women wearin yoga pants? What red blooded american man doesn't enjoy seeing some fine rear end in tight yoga pants? I mean you gotta take the good with the bad right, but one of the greatest things about being alive today is somewhere, somehow women were convinced that wearing tight yoga pants everywhere for drat near anything was socially acceptable. It's the Lords gift and I don't want to hear no one complain
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
Waroduce posted:Who is complaining about women wearin yoga pants? What red blooded american man doesn't enjoy seeing some fine rear end in tight yoga pants? I mean you gotta take the good with the bad right, but one of the greatest things about being alive today is somewhere, somehow women were convinced that wearing tight yoga pants everywhere for drat near anything was socially acceptable. It's the Lords gift and I don't want to hear no one complain 
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
I just did a leg to Japan and the person next to me was a delta pilot doing a free trip to Okinawa and she was in yoga pants and a white t shirt so it seems like Delta doesn't care.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
DJCobol posted:I still feel that one was kinda bullshit. If you were a flight attendant and you were actually traveling with an ID badge or something else that identifies you as a United employee, then yeah, your rules should be followed. But if there is really no way of knowing that you are an employee or a family of one, then who cares? The social contract must be upheld or else we are just animals.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:52 |
|
|
Thoguh posted:The social contract must be upheld or else we are just animals. We're animals anyway
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 03:37
|
|