3 ms·

I seriously can't understand what kind of mental gymnastics this airline management is doing in order to justify in their heads that this is just fine. Even if

I seriously can't understand what kind of mental gymnastics this airline management is doing in order to justify in their heads that this is just fine. Even if the law is on their side, they still overbooked the plane by themselves, they still let everyone check in, they still let everyone in onboard and they still forcibly removed some random paying passenger just because someone on their staff wanted/needed (anyone can clarify this part?) to board. Here is an idea for United (your HR department can contact me, I'm available to hire for 50% of your CEO and I easily come up with much better ideas): 1 - you just have to simply get the attention of the passengers on the plane (if you can be a bit smart and do it OUTSIDE the plane it's even better). 2- keep increasing the compensation you give one (or the needed) of them in order for them to catch a later flight. Sooner or later someone would just accept the compensation. Also, that compensation wouldn't be anything special anyway since you have a plane full of people competing for it. The passenger would be happy, United would get what it wanted and you wouldn't have this media shitstorm in your hands. Yes... it's really that simple United (again, tell your HR department I'm available for hire).

valuearb 10y ago
They should have increased compensation. I'm wondering if they have a company limit of $800. The reason this happened is they had another crew that missed their flight and needed to get to Lousville in time or another plane load of passengers would be stuck on the tarmac.
- jehoshaphat 10y ago
  I've read somewhere (can't find the link now) that the subject aircrew was from an associate airline (United Express--different operator than United who also operates regional jets for American and others, so not even technically their own employee. Other plane would not have been stuck on the tarmac. The crew had to get to Louisville that night to meet crew rest requirements. So that flight could have been cancelled/delayed hours in advance if no crew was available to fly it. The owners of that crew had other methods available to get that crew to Louisville, UA did not have to accommodate them on a fully booked flight, and in fact could not legally do so. I personally think there must have been some hanky-panky going on between members of the two flight crews. I can't think of any other reason UA would bend over backwards to fuck this up so badly.

valuearb 10y ago

They should have increased compensation. I'm wondering if they have a company limit of $800. The reason this happened is they had another crew that missed their flight and needed to get to Lousville in time or another plane load of passengers would be stuck on the tarmac.

jehoshaphat 10y ago
I've read somewhere (can't find the link now) that the subject aircrew was from an associate airline (United Express--different operator than United who also operates regional jets for American and others, so not even technically their own employee. Other plane would not have been stuck on the tarmac. The crew had to get to Louisville that night to meet crew rest requirements. So that flight could have been cancelled/delayed hours in advance if no crew was available to fly it. The owners of that crew had other methods available to get that crew to Louisville, UA did not have to accommodate them on a fully booked flight, and in fact could not legally do so. I personally think there must have been some hanky-panky going on between members of the two flight crews. I can't think of any other reason UA would bend over backwards to fuck this up so badly.