United isn't entirely to blame for David Dao's controversial removal from flight
1–10 of 38 posts
Re: United isn't entirely to blame for David Dao's controversial removal from flight
#2Thoughtful, measured, and evidently informed. Thanks for posting!
Re: United isn't entirely to blame for David Dao's controversial removal from flight
#3Actually it sounds like they broke their own rules which seem to not allow removal of passengers for crew (but do allow it for overbooking, which is a different situation): http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/04/united-passenger-remo...
Re: United isn't entirely to blame for David Dao's controversial removal from flight
#4Passengers were first offered voluntary removal incentives until, I suspect, the agent's authorized limit was reached and involuntary removal became necessary.
The fact that there is an "authorized limit" is squarely on United. Start offering cash money to give up your seat, rather that near-worthless vouchers, as they are authorized and supposed to per FAA regs, and eventually, I guaran-freaking-tee you will find takers.
60% United, 40% hired security goons. United could have very easily avoided calling them in the first place
Re: United isn't entirely to blame for David Dao's controversial removal from flight
#5what a silly article. just unfounded claims not based in reality.
probably an article by the united PR department.
Re: United isn't entirely to blame for David Dao's controversial removal from flight
#6"Passengers were first offered voluntary removal incentives until, I suspect, the agent's authorized limit was reached and involuntary removal became necessary."
Looks like United's fault to me. On a side note, I'll never understand wanting to side with a corporation on a matter like this.
Re: United isn't entirely to blame for David Dao's controversial removal from flight
#7United is who called airport security to forcibly de-board someone, likely in violation of their contract with them: https://www.facebook.com/erik.bauman/posts/10106083654220072
The crew should absolutely have exhibited some agency and basic human dignity and intervened to prevented airport security for de-boarding a passenger who had already been seated. It would have saved everyone tons of time and their company a ton of horrible PR.
Re: United isn't entirely to blame for David Dao's controversial removal from flight
#8Reads to me like the airline industry is trotting out it's PR team to try and prevent regulatory reform of their customer-hostile practices. If you watch the press session with Dr. Dao's lawyer, he framed the attack on Dao as only the most extreme example of the pattern of mistreatment and disregard airlines have for their customers.
Re: United isn't entirely to blame for David Dao's controversial removal from flight
#9Good article. But I have to ask for clarification for this statement:
"Empty seats cost the airlines money, and they need to recoup those losses somehow."
What does this mean? The issue here is overbooked seats. If a seat is physically empty during the flight because the passenger just doesn't show up, the airline doesn't lose any money - the ticket/seat is still (pre)paid for. Overbooking is simply a way for the airlines to make extra money on top of what they would normally make, gambling on some percentage of customers not showing up for the flight.
So, is the airline industry operating on such a slim margin that giving up the practice of overbooking would force airlines to take noticeably drastic cost-cutting measures?
Re: United isn't entirely to blame for David Dao's controversial removal from flight
#10I wonder why was that exact passenger picked to be removed?