I have been a member of flyertalk for many years and have a large number of postings.
Please tell me what United should have been done differently according to “common sense”.
They ask for volunteers, don’t get enough.
The gate agent’s computers select which passengers get involuntarily bumped, likely the ones who paid the least.
The passenger resists when denied the flight.
The police are called as per standard airport and airline protocol. If something doesn’t go well between the passenger and police that is absolutely not the airline’s fault at all.
Sometimes employees who need to fly show up after passengers have boarded but the door isn’t yet closed. Is it really “common sense” to delay hundreds of passengers on another flight by neglecting to bump one person on this one?
1. Plan better. I am not against over-booking. But this had to do with 4 employees without a way to get to Louisville last minute.
2. Keep raising the incentive until you get a true volunteer. Never remove someone against their will.
The Doctor is NOT at fault here.
Common sense: up the offer until you get a “volunteer”.
Apparently the flight was overbooked before the 4 flight crew arrived and the GA had to get some volunteers at the gate, then more after the PAX were already boarded (lack of common sense/operational prowess). Common sense would mandate that you pay out $1500.-$2000. to save millions of dollars.
You wouldn’t happen to be “MDJennings” on FT would you? ;-)
Mount Athos
A VERY SIMPLE solution would be to not overbook the flight. Say a plane holds 50 passengers as an example. Sell tickets for say 45 seats. Then the airline has the flexibility to put their employees on who need to get to another destination.
If the seats aren’t needed then anyone who needs to fly standby, who has already PAID for a ticket then gets the seat. This way those seats are revenue generating. They are not revenue generating when they are given to the employees to fly to the other airport.
If the seats DONT get filled by either a standby passenger or employee needing to get to another airport it will still be less of a revenue loss than offering 800-1000 dollars per seat.
Pretty simple idea AND common sense.
They ask for volunteers, don’t get enough.
Increase the offer until the reward is commensurate with the inconvenience up to the point when its cheaper to hire a car and driver for the employees.
The gate agent’s computers select which passengers get involuntarily bumped, likely the ones who paid the least.
Sounds good, was it really done? Did everyone pay different amounts or were there lots of customers at the same cost? Can that be done anytime the airline gets a chance to make/save money on a few seats?
The passenger resists when denied the flight.
So let me get this straight...when an airline decides its in their interest, not public saftey or an emergency they can tell you to get up and get off the plane and if you say wait a minute I have patients who will be waiting for me in the morning...the attendant doesn't feel like a debate even though the airline's actions are manifestly self-serving and in breech of the expectation of paying for a ticket..so the attendant calls thugs to rip the passenger out of his seat, give him a concussion and leave him bleeding...expose young children to a violent episode and this is fine.
The police are called as per standard airport and airline protocol. If something doesn’t go well between the passenger and police that is absolutely not the airline’s fault at all.
Now this is where it gets really funny, when someone gets hurt in the course of a crime everyone involved is subject to prosecution even if they didn't cause the injury. Most people are incensed because this was an assault on an elderly man and the attendant set it in motion as did the supervisors and policy setters. United is completely culpable for exactly that reason. They overreacted and used a protocol designed to protect the public from dangerous situations and terrorists to go after and subdue and elderly man for profit, convenience and because they could.
Furthermore you proved my point with your response; you are part of the problem not an unbiased observer.
I wonder about the doctor. What would cause him to act as he did? Does he have a history of resisting authority? Was he on drugs or drunk? Does he not understand English well? Did he in fact have at least one patient with an extremely serious conditions he needed to care for? Is he under financial stress and needed real money from billings (not vouchers)? Does he have psychological issues that made him act as he did?