4 ms·

I understand the sentiment, but if I would stop using every corp that fucked somebody up, I would probably have to move somewhere where there is no civilization

I understand the sentiment, but if I would stop using every corp that fucked somebody up, I would probably have to move somewhere where there is no civilization.

tabeth 10y ago
Perhaps people would start new companies with their absence.
nafizh 10y ago
I also understand your sentiment, and I may be guilty of it too. But this is the exact sort of attitude that blocks real change.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
ryan-c 10y ago
United consistently fucks things up.
rajeshp1986 10y ago
once people start doing this, the companies will change. The companies will start valuing the customers more.
- parent5446 10y ago
  Entirely predicated on the "once people start doing this", which most people won't.
  - colmvp 10y ago
    Pressure doesn't rely on most people. Even a vocal minority can have a profound impact on things. Look at how people got mobilized to let their representatives know they didn't like the ACA repeal bill which did end up having an effect on congressional members. Or more recently, how groups mobilized and pushed an ad boycott of Bill O'Reilly. There's even companies who opted to drop Ivanka Trump's line of fashion because of public outcry.
petilon 10y ago
If it was just that the flight attendants fucked up by calling in the cops in a situation that didn't really call for it that would be one thing. But it was more than that. The CEO made the situation worse by not apologizing and instead blaming the passenger for being "disruptive and belligerent". It was only after the stock dropped that he apologized. This shows that poor customer service is ingrained in this corp.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- nyolfen 10y ago
  the first statement issued by the CEO on twitter also used the truly orwellian word choice of calling what happened "re-accommodation" (even in the context of apologizing for it), which many people found insultingly tone-deaf passive voice PR-speak
jsemrau 10y ago
That's the problem. The airline industry in the US is a oligopoly in dire need for a regulatory intervention. Same sentiment in this op-ed piece on Medium. https://medium.com/@thisTenqyuLife/united-airlines-should-go-out-of-business-325e9983e51f https://medium.com/@thisTenqyuLife/united-airlines-should-go...
alphonsegaston 10y ago
We can draw the line at having the cops beat people to cover up for their screw-ups though, right? This isn't questionable stock trades, it smashing an old man in the face because you're shitty at your job.
px1999 10y ago
Massive retaliation is an effective deterrence strategy, and probably one of the only options that a weak group like consumers have against an oligopoly like airlines. It's not even about punishing United, it's about showing other players that if they behave in the same way, _they_ might randomly be subjected to this sort of punishment. People are not going to stop using airlines, but we might stop using yours for just long enough to make it hurt.

I understand the sentiment, but if I would stop using every corp that fucked somebody up, I would probably have to move somewhere where there is no civilization.

tabeth 10y ago

Perhaps people would start new companies with their absence.

nafizh 10y ago

I also understand your sentiment, and I may be guilty of it too. But this is the exact sort of attitude that blocks real change.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

ryan-c 10y ago

United consistently fucks things up.

rajeshp1986 10y ago

once people start doing this, the companies will change. The companies will start valuing the customers more.

parent5446 10y ago
Entirely predicated on the "once people start doing this", which most people won't.
- colmvp 10y ago
  Pressure doesn't rely on most people. Even a vocal minority can have a profound impact on things. Look at how people got mobilized to let their representatives know they didn't like the ACA repeal bill which did end up having an effect on congressional members. Or more recently, how groups mobilized and pushed an ad boycott of Bill O'Reilly. There's even companies who opted to drop Ivanka Trump's line of fashion because of public outcry.

petilon 10y ago

If it was just that the flight attendants fucked up by calling in the cops in a situation that didn't really call for it that would be one thing. But it was more than that. The CEO made the situation worse by not apologizing and instead blaming the passenger for being "disruptive and belligerent". It was only after the stock dropped that he apologized. This shows that poor customer service is ingrained in this corp.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
nyolfen 10y ago
the first statement issued by the CEO on twitter also used the truly orwellian word choice of calling what happened "re-accommodation" (even in the context of apologizing for it), which many people found insultingly tone-deaf passive voice PR-speak

jsemrau 10y ago

That's the problem. The airline industry in the US is a oligopoly in dire need for a regulatory intervention. Same sentiment in this op-ed piece on Medium. https://medium.com/@thisTenqyuLife/united-airlines-should-go-out-of-business-325e9983e51f https://medium.com/@thisTenqyuLife/united-airlines-should-go...

alphonsegaston 10y ago

We can draw the line at having the cops beat people to cover up for their screw-ups though, right? This isn't questionable stock trades, it smashing an old man in the face because you're shitty at your job.

px1999 10y ago

Massive retaliation is an effective deterrence strategy, and probably one of the only options that a weak group like consumers have against an oligopoly like airlines. It's not even about punishing United, it's about showing other players that if they behave in the same way, _they_ might randomly be subjected to this sort of punishment. People are not going to stop using airlines, but we might stop using yours for just long enough to make it hurt.