Business Traveller (Asia-Pacific) - - INBOX -

POST Canuck­land DATE April 10, 17:39

They say there is no such thing as bad pub­lic­ity. This story clearly ban­ishes that the­ory into the dust­bin. And the lawyers must be wring­ing their hands with glee. As op­posed to the UA em­ploy­ees who’ve clearly lost the plot.

PeterCoul­tas April 10, 21:35

Fly the friendly skies and get beaten to a pulp on the ground… to­tally dis­gust­ing as a long-term UA ex­ec­u­tive fre­quent flyer…

Rfer­gu­son April 10, 21:35

United could ob­vi­ously have re­solved this by of­fer­ing gen­er­ous com­pen­sa­tion – which ap­par­ently it didn’t. The irony be­ing it will likely cost them thou­sands of times more now. It is ab­so­lutely shame­ful the way they han­dled it.

Ah,Mr.Bond April 11, 11:30

I am sure any­one would be­come “dis­rup­tive” if asked to leave for no rea­son what­so­ever. I hope this doc­tor takes UA to the clean­ers for millions.

JohnHarper April 11, 11:58

This is shock­ing. I don’t travel to the US but if I did it would never again be on United. That their CEO is de­fend­ing this sit­u­a­tion based on their own over­book­ing and their de­sire to pri­ori­tise their crew tells me it’s not a com­pany I want to do busi­ness with. Given that the gen­tle­man had paid for his ticket and was in his seat United should have found an­other so­lu­tion. Surely they knew be­fore board­ing that this sit­u­a­tion was oc­cur­ring and could have stopped it at the gate. If they did not know that then should they be op­er­at­ing an air­line?

Mar­tynSin­clair April 11, 14:04

@steve­coots – “Un­for­tu­nately any­thing to do with fly­ing in the US now is a li­cence to be treated like some­thing scraped off your shoe by every­one in­volved.” Steve, never a truer word spoken. On my flight to the US yes­ter­day, I wit­nessed a se­nior cabin crewmem­ber (an Amer­i­can air­line) threat­en­ing a pas­sen­ger mid-flight, some­thing that on any other Western (nonUS) air­line would prob­a­bly have re­sulted in the cap­tain be­ing called to in­ter­vene. Truly, truly shock­ing, and not all these in­ci­dents are in the name of “se­cu­rity”…

Ed­ski777 April 11, 15:17

Ap­par­ently United used a method where they ex­clude un­ac­com­pa­nied mi­nors and fam­i­lies. I sus­pect that they will also ex­clude high mileage fre­quent fly­ers and those sit­ting in a pre­mium cabin. That leaves any sin­gle trav­eller or pair in econ­omy open to be­ing picked to be off­loaded. It just re­quires go­ing through the list of pas­sen­gers and their sta­tus, no com­pli­cated piece of soft­ware re­quired. Over­book­ing and try­ing to en­tice pas­sen­gers to give up their seat in ex­change for vouch­ers and a guaranteed seat on the next flight seems to be more com­mon in the US than in Europe, although it hap­pens. In­ter­est­ing to see how this de­vel­ops. It may change the busi­ness practice in the US on over­book­ing.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.