irrational fear of flying

[AngryScientist]

they could have very simply just continued to increase the incentive to get off the plane. someone would eventually cash in. forcefully removing a passenger already in a seat? yikes, that's a bad precedent to set.

[rwsaunders]

they could have very simply just continued to increase the incentive to get off the plane. someone would eventually cash in.

No question, but I have noticed that the incentives that they offer these days in some cases, don't even cover the cost of a flight. And a meal voucher...those are ancient history. It's definitely not a passenger friendly market right now, but I have never heard of passengers being removed to make room for shuttling crew members. Thank goodness for video and the web.

[Saab2000]

they could have very simply just continued to increase the incentive to get off the plane. someone would eventually cash in. forcefully removing a passenger already in a seat? yikes, that's a bad precedent to set.

Bingo.

• Offer a guaranteed seat on the next flight
  +
• If that flight is the next day put the customer(s) in a good airport hotel
  +
• Offer $1000 cash/check

Money talks and they would have had volunteers.

Instead they have a publicity nightmare that will cost them much more. Some of these airlines are run by the best and brightest MBAs.....

[davids]

I am surprised we don't hear about this five times a week. Overbooking is part of airlines' business plans.

[monadnocky]

By "re-accommodate" I guess Munoz means "beat the crap out of." Man, this response is gonna be worse than the incident. Totally tone-deaf.

This is wildfire right now on the internets.

But... United's stock is up 1% today!!!

C9EI3-cXkAAuYcg.jpg

[Saab2000]

I am surprised we don't hear about this five times a week. Overbooking is part of airlines' business plans.

This is correct. It was not the policy of my previous airline but they knew they had to start doing it. Leaving the gate with empty seats isn't good for business. Ideally (at least for the airline), every airplane would be full and there would never be a no-show passenger. For many reasons, passengers miss flights. Today I got a seat on the PHX-MSP flight because somebody didn't show up. I was expecting to have to sit on a jumpseat.

Most airlines do it because they have historical data on no-shows.

That said, they need to have a better contingency plan than assaulting passengers for expecting to get what they paid for when they all show up.....

[monadnocky]

So here's the morbidly awful part of this... they let him back on the plane, dripping blood from his head injuries. You can find video of him babbling, in what appears to be a state of shock, dripping blood from a head wound.

Good times!

[SteveP]

what a pr disaster...
united continually takes a beating online that I see.

[Mabouya]

There was plenty of stupidity on the part of several of the actors in this story, but you have to admit that these days law enforcement, whether by actual police officers, the TSA, or by rent-a-cops, is feeling empowered.

You're free to guess why this might be. I have my own theories.

[xjoex]

Holy shit - video of the man back on the flight:
Twitter

How the fuck does this happen in a civilized society? I hope he sues the shit out of united.

There is a time and place to use force, this was not it.

-Joe

[Mabouya]

How the fuck does this happen in a civilized society?

Perhaps we need to reexamine the premise of your question.

[bcm119]

The obvious solution was to increase the incentive until someone volunteered to get off. But that is only obvious to people who consider civility part of the equation. This is what happens when shareholders run corporations. Profit trumps civility now. Same reason middle class wages are flat while executive pay has skyrocketed.

[rwsaunders]

I'm waiting for tomorrow's edition of The Onion. But for now, folks seem to be doing a good job on their own.

[Saab2000]

[BBB]

Why should anyone get off to enable a flight crew to travel to their next gig in any event? Surely the airline can work their own scheduling out a bit better.

Most people flying usually have a need to get to their location and don't have the luxury of jumping off (travelling for work, travelling full stop with a need to get a connecting flight etc) to enable the airline to get its shit together.

Terrible PR. An own goal etc. How exactly do you explain to shareholders that we are being sued because we assaulted a passenger to enable a crew to get to a particular location?

[Saab2000]

Why should anyone get off to enable a flight crew to travel to their next gig in any event? Surely the airline can work their own scheduling out a bit better.

Most people flying usually have a need to get to their location and don't have the luxury of jumping off (travelling for work, travelling full stop with a need to get a connecting flight etc) to enable the airline to get its shit together.

Terrible PR. An own goal etc. How exactly do you explain to shareholders that we are being sued because we assaulted a passenger to enable a crew to get to a particular location?

I agree with the premise of your point. But there is a bit of a back story here.

First, it is clear that this situation never should have happened. I think that is evident to everyone.

But sometimes (often) crews are sent around the system for a variety of reasons. These might include an airplane that had a mechanical breakdown at an outstation, or a crew that has reached the end of their legal duty period (up to 16 hours), or a sick crew member, or a weather event has caused rerouting of an airplane, etc. These situations happen every day throughout the industry. The airplanes are wonderful things but they are still operated by human beings who get sick and tired and they operate in weather that sometimes forces changes to the plans.

It is simply not possible to plan for every contingency in the business, so the airlines will send a crew as "Must Ride" passengers to protect another flight. As unfortunate as it is, bumping a few passengers to protect another flight with a couple hundred makes business sense.

This event should never have happened. That much is clear. But the story is deeper than the video shows. That is not a justification for the end result, but it is a bit of the back story on how the situation started. Sometimes tough decisions are made to protect a larger issue in the network.

I hope that makes a bit of sense. This is not excusing what the video depicts but hopefully a clarification on some of the operational challenges airlines face every day. There's a lot going on behind the scenes to make these things work. My current employer operates nearly 5000 flights per day. 99% of them go smoothly. Sometimes things don't go smoothly.

[jclay]

The obvious solution was to increase the incentive until someone volunteered to get off. But that is only obvious to people who consider civility part of the equation. This is what happens when shareholders run corporations. Profit trumps civility now. Same reason middle class wages are flat while executive pay has skyrocketed.

^^ Totally gets it.

[BBB]

I agree with the premise of your point. But there is a bit of a back story here.

First, it is clear that this situation never should have happened. I think that is evident to everyone.

But sometimes (often) crews are sent around the system for a variety of reasons. These might include an airplane that had a mechanical breakdown at an outstation, or a crew that has reached the end of their legal duty period (up to 16 hours), or a sick crew member, or a weather event has caused rerouting of an airplane, etc. These situations happen every day throughout the industry. The airplanes are wonderful things but they are still operated by human beings who get sick and tired and they operate in weather that sometimes forces changes to the plans.

It is simply not possible to plan for every contingency in the business, so the airlines will send a crew as "Must Ride" passengers to protect another flight. As unfortunate as it is, bumping a few passengers to protect another flight with a couple hundred makes business sense.

This event should never have happened. That much is clear. But the story is deeper than the video shows. That is not a justification for the end result, but it is a bit of the back story on how the situation started. Sometimes tough decisions are made to protect a larger issue in the network.

I hope that makes a bit of sense. This is not excusing what the video depicts but hopefully a clarification on some of the operational challenges airlines face every day. There's a lot going on behind the scenes to make these things work. My current employer operates nearly 5000 flights per day. 99% of them go smoothly. Sometimes things don't go smoothly.

Thanks for that. I understand or appreciate why crews get flown around, but it kind of conflicts with the customer buying a ticket and expecting to get what they paid for. Operational issues probably should not confront the core of your business (ie flying passengers from place to place) and certainly not in such a public way as the present.

[rwsaunders]

United stock was down almost $1B yesterday and gained back enough to be only down $250M for the day. If I were United's CEO, I'd offer Dr. Dao $10M to come on TV and become "friends" with me and the air cop. A move guaranteed to gain back the $250M and then some. I'm just waiting for Gloria Allred to come into the picture though, to spice things up.

[sk_tle]

I agree with the premise of your point. But there is a bit of a back story here.

First, it is clear that this situation never should have happened. I think that is evident to everyone.

But sometimes (often) crews are sent around the system for a variety of reasons. These might include an airplane that had a mechanical breakdown at an outstation, or a crew that has reached the end of their legal duty period (up to 16 hours), or a sick crew member, or a weather event has caused rerouting of an airplane, etc. These situations happen every day throughout the industry. The airplanes are wonderful things but they are still operated by human beings who get sick and tired and they operate in weather that sometimes forces changes to the plans.

It is simply not possible to plan for every contingency in the business, so the airlines will send a crew as "Must Ride" passengers to protect another flight. As unfortunate as it is, bumping a few passengers to protect another flight with a couple hundred makes business sense.

This event should never have happened. That much is clear. But the story is deeper than the video shows. That is not a justification for the end result, but it is a bit of the back story on how the situation started. Sometimes tough decisions are made to protect a larger issue in the network.

I hope that makes a bit of sense. This is not excusing what the video depicts but hopefully a clarification on some of the operational challenges airlines face every day. There's a lot going on behind the scenes to make these things work. My current employer operates nearly 5000 flights per day. 99% of them go smoothly. Sometimes things don't go smoothly.

I get all this.

But but but. This is one thing to overbook a flight. Another one to let everyone board the plane. I can't understand why didn't they stopped these people before they reach the plane ?