United passenger forcibly removed from overbooked flight..
Discussion
ClaphamGT3 said:
Tellingly, this began to impact UA's share price this afternoon. Weak statement from CEO probably didn't help.
This could seriously ding them.
Yes. Interestingly, there was little initial hit - suggesting (what we knew) that their reputation was already dogsThis could seriously ding them.
t, and frankly this did little to alter the situation. The mealy-mouthed crap statement from the CEO told the market they were weak at crisis management, which I think gives investors greater cause for worry.
If I were the CEO I would be:
a) Immediately calling every employee related to that flight to my office, now, and trying to get as many views on what happened ASAP. No reactionary punishment beatings....just tell me the truth and everything will be fine (for them individually). Subtly make it clear (via underlings) that a cover-up WILL result in punishment beatings. Suspend them all from duty.
b) While that's happening, call the victim, and everyone within 3 rows on the plane. Apologise PROFUSELY that they endured this.
c) Try and get to speak to the cops.
d) Put out a statement immediately (before it's even clear what the hell has gone on) saying "I am deeply disturbed by the incredibly distressing footage that has emerged. I would like to personally assure everyone involved that we are taking this very seriously, and investigating with the utmost urgency."
Most of the above could be done within 2 hours.
e) If the initial investigation (which should take no more than half a day) reveals everything to be as it seems in the footage:
- Offer mega mega compensation to the victim in a compromise agreement. $1m+, on condition of silence and no further claims. Offer to pay legal costs for the victim for him to consider your offer. Also offer very generous compensation to everyone else on the plane - say 5x cost of full ticket on that flight, plus lots and lots of free flights.
- Issue a very sincere, very public apology. Do not mince your words. As well as that, announce the two points below.
- Initiate a review into the factors that led to this - did managers not feel empowered to offer bigger compensation for overbooking? Who trained them to call the police?
- Fire the crew/managers/dispatchers who let this situation get out of hand. Do so in a pretty public way, pour encourager les autres.
- Send memo to all employees explaining what happened, and what the consequences were. Impress the importance that they are representing the company, and their actions will build or damage the company's reputation. Encourage them all to always have this at the front of their mind.
La Liga said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
Tellingly, this began to impact UA's share price this afternoon. Weak statement from CEO probably didn't help
How so considering the price closed nearly 1% higher today? ClaphamGT3 said:
This could seriously ding them.
Absolutely, investors won't be looking at oil prices, passenger manifests, pension liabilities, dividends etc. They'll be using one controversial 'viral video' no one will care about in a day or two to make their investment decisions... Analysts have something of a habit of punishing consumer-led organisations that foul their PR up and I'm afraid that your rather naive post demonstrates that you don't really understand this sort of stuff.
ClaphamGT3 said:
La Liga said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
Tellingly, this began to impact UA's share price this afternoon. Weak statement from CEO probably didn't help
How so considering the price closed nearly 1% higher today? ClaphamGT3 said:
This could seriously ding them.
Absolutely, investors won't be looking at oil prices, passenger manifests, pension liabilities, dividends etc. They'll be using one controversial 'viral video' no one will care about in a day or two to make their investment decisions... Analysts have something of a habit of punishing consumer-led organisations that foul their PR up and I'm afraid that your rather naive post demonstrates that you don't really understand this sort of stuff.
It matters, whether it makes sense to you or not.
This will hurt them, and I'll have a go at the compensation settlement (not that it'll be disclosed) @ $350k+.
The ACTUAL cost will run to millions.
La Liga said:
John145 said:
Let's be absolutely clear here: THIS MAN WAS ASSAULTED, WITH POWER OF THE STATE, FOR NOTHING MORE THAN PROFIT.
It may well turn out to be an assault. However, without knowing the specific laws the chaps in the US operate under I can't make that conclusion because in order for it to be an assault it needs to be unlawful. In order to judge lawfulness I'd need to know the law. See the snag? You can make the conclusion, because it appears recognising such limitations escape you.
- Airline needs a seat for a member of staff because they've cocked up some planning.
- Airline asks for people to give up a seat, no one does
- Airline uses "airline staff must be obeyed" to get police to eject a randomly chosen MOP forcibly from the flight
- Airline protects its profits (short term until they've sued) misappropriating the powers of the state
You may want to look at more facts that come to light over the coming weeks. However your first stance was that the airline are well within their rights to do this. This is where we may forever fundamentally disagree.
A guy sitting at an airport bar in Atlanta noticed a beautiful woman sitting next to him. He thought to himself, "Wow, she's so gorgeous she must be a flight attendant.
But which airline does she work for?" Hoping to gain her attention, he leaned towards her and uttered the Delta Slogan, "Love to fly and it shows?"
She gave him a blank, confused stare and he immediately thought to himself, "Nope, not Delta."
A moment later, another slogan popped into his head. He leaned towards her again, "Something special in the air?" She gave him the same confused look.
He mentally kicked himself, and scratched American Airlines off the list. Next he tried the Southwest slogan, "Low fares, nothing to hide?"
This time the woman savagely turned on him, "What the f**k do you want?"
The man smiled, then slumped back in his chair, and said.... "Ahhh, United Airlines!"
But which airline does she work for?" Hoping to gain her attention, he leaned towards her and uttered the Delta Slogan, "Love to fly and it shows?"
She gave him a blank, confused stare and he immediately thought to himself, "Nope, not Delta."
A moment later, another slogan popped into his head. He leaned towards her again, "Something special in the air?" She gave him the same confused look.
He mentally kicked himself, and scratched American Airlines off the list. Next he tried the Southwest slogan, "Low fares, nothing to hide?"
This time the woman savagely turned on him, "What the f**k do you want?"
The man smiled, then slumped back in his chair, and said.... "Ahhh, United Airlines!"
John145 said:
You may want to look at more facts that come to light over the coming weeks. However your first stance was that the airline are well within their rights to do this. This is where we may forever fundamentally disagree.
I expect they'll be within their rights to deny him the seat once he was seated on the plane. Whether the force used to remove him was lawful is a separate matter.
ClaphamGT3 said:
Did you not notice the rather large tumble just before trading closed?
Analysts have something of a habit of punishing consumer-led organisations that foul their PR up and I'm afraid that your rather naive post demonstrates that you don't really understand this sort of stuff.
Accusations of nativity from someone trying to assign cause and effect to a day's tight trading range on an index where volume is primarily algorithmic on a share in a 5 year uptrend near its all time highs. Analysts have something of a habit of punishing consumer-led organisations that foul their PR up and I'm afraid that your rather naive post demonstrates that you don't really understand this sort of stuff.
boxxob said:
who's the person posting moronic answers? The one going on about this being akin to nazis a few posts up, and who is now bleeting on about mafia tactics throwing around all-caps placarding, while ignoring the simple fact that the airline did not instruct the police to handle it this way?
I put it 35% the fault of the police, 35% the airline and 30% the silly entitled passenger. At this stage I can only attribute the silliness of your posts to you.
The root cause was 100% the airline. They failed to plan properly. They then exacerbated their cock up by enacting "airline staff must be obeyed" to get police to forcibly eject a passenger. I put it 35% the fault of the police, 35% the airline and 30% the silly entitled passenger. At this stage I can only attribute the silliness of your posts to you.
Edited by boxxob on Monday 10th April 22:08
As I said in my post which you've conveniently ignored, we have no idea why the doctor fought so hard to stay on that flight. Maybe he had an urgent operation, maybe a member of his family was gravely ill, maybe whatever. Ultimately it doesn't matter. He had his seat that he paid for and he was assaulted by the state because quite simply the airline couldn't plan properly.
Quite simply when people sit around saying "well thems the rules" and not getting angry at this abuse what do you think the airline would do? The square root of f
k all, which so happens to be just more fk all. La Liga said:
John145 said:
You may want to look at more facts that come to light over the coming weeks. However your first stance was that the airline are well within their rights to do this. This is where we may forever fundamentally disagree.
I expect they'll be within their rights to deny him the seat once he was seated on the plane. Whether the force used to remove him was lawful is a separate matter.
BIANCO said:
John145 said:
Let's look at the facts as we see it:
- Airline needs a seat for a member of staff because they've cocked up some planning.
- Airline asks for people to give up a seat, no one does
- Airline uses "airline staff must be obeyed" to get police to eject a randomly chosen MOP forcibly from the flight
- Airline protects its profits (short term until they've sued) misappropriating the powers of the state
You may want to look at more facts that come to light over the coming weeks. However your first stance was that the airline are well within their rights to do this. This is where we may forever fundamentally disagree.
Do you think if someone is asked to leave private property but refuse to do so. They shouldn't be made to.?- Airline needs a seat for a member of staff because they've cocked up some planning.
- Airline asks for people to give up a seat, no one does
- Airline uses "airline staff must be obeyed" to get police to eject a randomly chosen MOP forcibly from the flight
- Airline protects its profits (short term until they've sued) misappropriating the powers of the state
You may want to look at more facts that come to light over the coming weeks. However your first stance was that the airline are well within their rights to do this. This is where we may forever fundamentally disagree.
So next time someone comes into your house under invitation like a plumber but then for some reason refuses to leave you will be just happy for them just to sit there?
BIANCO said:
John145 said:
Let's look at the facts as we see it:
- Airline needs a seat for a member of staff because they've cocked up some planning.
- Airline asks for people to give up a seat, no one does
- Airline uses "airline staff must be obeyed" to get police to eject a randomly chosen MOP forcibly from the flight
- Airline protects its profits (short term until they've sued) misappropriating the powers of the state
You may want to look at more facts that come to light over the coming weeks. However your first stance was that the airline are well within their rights to do this. This is where we may forever fundamentally disagree.
Do you think if someone is asked to leave private property but refuse to do so. They shouldn't be made to.?- Airline needs a seat for a member of staff because they've cocked up some planning.
- Airline asks for people to give up a seat, no one does
- Airline uses "airline staff must be obeyed" to get police to eject a randomly chosen MOP forcibly from the flight
- Airline protects its profits (short term until they've sued) misappropriating the powers of the state
You may want to look at more facts that come to light over the coming weeks. However your first stance was that the airline are well within their rights to do this. This is where we may forever fundamentally disagree.
So next time someone comes into your house under invitation like a plumber but then for some reason refuses to leave you will be just happy for them just to sit there?
No, they do not have that right.
If you were stood up windmilling with your cock, then yes, you've lost your right.
If you've sat there doing as everyone else doing then no, they don't have that right.
Rights are derived from responsibility in my opinion. When you're fulfilling your responsibilities then your right should be protected.
brickwall said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
Tellingly, this began to impact UA's share price this afternoon. Weak statement from CEO probably didn't help.
This could seriously ding them.
Yes. Interestingly, there was little initial hit - suggesting (what we knew) that their reputation was already dogsThis could seriously ding them.
t, and frankly this did little to alter the situation. The mealy-mouthed crap statement from the CEO told the market they were weak at crisis management, which I think gives investors greater cause for worry.
If I were the CEO I would be:
a) Immediately calling every employee related to that flight to my office, now, and trying to get as many views on what happened ASAP. No reactionary punishment beatings....just tell me the truth and everything will be fine (for them individually). Subtly make it clear (via underlings) that a cover-up WILL result in punishment beatings. Suspend them all from duty.
b) While that's happening, call the victim, and everyone within 3 rows on the plane. Apologise PROFUSELY that they endured this.
c) Try and get to speak to the cops.
d) Put out a statement immediately (before it's even clear what the hell has gone on) saying "I am deeply disturbed by the incredibly distressing footage that has emerged. I would like to personally assure everyone involved that we are taking this very seriously, and investigating with the utmost urgency."
Most of the above could be done within 2 hours.
e) If the initial investigation (which should take no more than half a day) reveals everything to be as it seems in the footage:
- Offer mega mega compensation to the victim in a compromise agreement. $1m+, on condition of silence and no further claims. Offer to pay legal costs for the victim for him to consider your offer. Also offer very generous compensation to everyone else on the plane - say 5x cost of full ticket on that flight, plus lots and lots of free flights.
- Issue a very sincere, very public apology. Do not mince your words. As well as that, announce the two points below.
- Initiate a review into the factors that led to this - did managers not feel empowered to offer bigger compensation for overbooking? Who trained them to call the police?
- Fire the crew/managers/dispatchers who let this situation get out of hand. Do so in a pretty public way, pour encourager les autres.
- Send memo to all employees explaining what happened, and what the consequences were. Impress the importance that they are representing the company, and their actions will build or damage the company's reputation. Encourage them all to always have this at the front of their mind.
k another CEO first.La Liga said:
ccusations of nativity from someone trying to assign cause and effect to a day's tight trading range on an index where volume is primarily algorithmic on a share in a 5 year uptrend near its all time highs.
Time will tell. In the meantime, do explain to us your IR experience; we're all agog....Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff