Another UA scandal just popped up. Geoff Fearns booked a First Class ticket, boarded the airplane and then was forced the leave the plane because somebody more important came in at the last minute:

Fearns needed to return early so he paid about $1,000 for a full-fare, first-class ticket to Los Angeles. He boarded the aircraft at Lihue Airport on the island of Kauai, took his seat and enjoyed a complimentary glass of orange juice while awaiting takeoff.

Then, as Fearns tells it, a United employee rushed onto the aircraft and informed him that he had to get off the plane.

“I asked why,” he told me. “They said the flight was overfull.”

Fearns, like the doctor at the center of that viral video from Sunday night, held his ground. He was already on the plane, already seated. He shouldn’t have to disembark.

“That’s when they told me they needed the seat for somebody more important who came at the last minute,” Fearns said. “They said they have a priority list and this other person was higher on the list than me.”

Next they threatened the customer if he would not cooperate:

“I understand you might bump people because a flight is full,” Fearns said. “But they didn’t say anything at the gate. I was already in the seat. And now they were telling me I had no choice. They said they’d put me in cuffs if they had to.”

Source
http://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus ... story.html

Ohhhhhh man. UA's social media team just needs to take a week off for what they're about to deal with/what they've already dealt with.

Interesting the comments in the article about "It shouldn't make any difference", when you check in or what you paid or how frequent a flyer you are to get bumped. What criteria would they prefer airlines use? In this case it was a downgauge of equipment after a mechanical issue? Sometimes people are going to have to be bumped how should thoat be determined what is fair?

Again, the issue here is that a seated customer was removed (in this case voluntarily) from his seat after boarding.

It's a totally different situation if he is reassigned at the gate prior to boarding.

UpNAWAy wrote:

Interesting the comments in the article about "It shouldn't make any difference", when you check in or what you paid or how frequent a flyer you are to get bumped. What criteria would they prefer airlines use? In this case it was a downgauge of equipment after a mechanical issue? Sometimes people are going to have to be pum[ped how should thoat be determined what is fair?

First come, first serve. Who checks in first, gets the seat.

Wait a minute, last minute first class fare from Hawaii to LA only $1,000?!?! That's the real news here lol

If this is true, which we will have to see, if someone showed up at the last minute then too bad for them. Airlines have a required check in time/ arrival at gate time. A real lack of common sense here.

Even if First class were oversold, the proper procedure is not to bump off a first class passenger, but downgrade them into a lower class and see what you can do with the lower class passenger. And pay them both.

Who the hell is running this company. It just gets worse everyday.

QueenoftheSkies wrote:

Wait a minute, last minute first class fare from Hawaii to LA only $1,000?!?! That's the real news here lol

One way, doesn't sound too crazy.

UpNAWAy wrote:

Interesting the comments in the article about "It shouldn't make any difference", when you check in or what you paid or how frequent a flyer you are to get bumped. What criteria would they prefer airlines use? In this case it was a downgauge of equipment after a mechanical issue? Sometimes people are going to have to be pum[ped how should thoat be determined what is fair?

After a paid customer has been boarded it is absolutely unprofessional and downright idiotic to throw him off the plane because somebody came LATER with a higher mileage status and wanted in.
There are no two ways about it, it does not happened to the rest of the civilized world and we as a society find it so deplorable that UA and its stock price are being pummeled.
Quit digging, it is a settled issue. UA and anyone else who forces already boarded passengers to disembark in order for someone with higher FF status to get their seat are scum and deserve all the blowback they and their stock valuation are getting.

UpNAWAy wrote:

Interesting the comments in the article about "It shouldn't make any difference", when you check in or what you paid or how frequent a flyer you are to get bumped. What criteria would they prefer airlines use? In this case it was a downgauge of equipment after a mechanical issue? Sometimes people are going to have to be pum[ped how should thoat be determined what is fair?

Priority status is a fine metric to determine this, but it should happen at the gate. No one should ever be bumped due to priority status after they're already been seated.

I don't necessarily buy this story. I think he's trying to take advantage of the situation here.

kavok wrote:

Again, the issue here is that a seated customer was removed (in this case voluntarily) from his seat after boarding.

It's a totally different situation if he is reassigned at the gate prior to boarding.

Thanks! Some people really seem to struggle that "removing a seated passenger" is not the same as 'denied boarding' for X reason!
And anyway, if it's the airline's fault, then it's the airline who has to be:
1) apologetic
2) kind
3) creative
4) accommodating
5) generous

..and especially *NOT* violent

P1aneMad wrote:

UpNAWAy wrote:

Interesting the comments in the article about "It shouldn't make any difference", when you check in or what you paid or how frequent a flyer you are to get bumped. What criteria would they prefer airlines use? In this case it was a downgauge of equipment after a mechanical issue? Sometimes people are going to have to be pum[ped how should thoat be determined what is fair?

After a paid customer has been boarded it is absolutely unprofessional and downright idiotic to throw him off the plane because somebody came LATER with a higher mileage status and wanted in.
There are no two ways about it, it does not happened to the rest of the civilized world and we as a society find it so deplorable that UA and its stock price are being pummeled.
Quit digging, it is a settled issue. UA and anyone else who forces already boarded passengers to disembark in order for someone with higher FF status to get their seat are scum and deserve all the blowback they and their stock valuation are getting.

Let's not get carried away. The stock ended down 1%. That's not anything to point to as a victory.

Well, we will soon see UA employees descend here and start saying that the passenger has to obey crew's direction, even if they tell them to do a strip dance, else the passenger will be treated as a trespasser & criminal, just as the UA crew told this passenger that they will take him out in cuffs if required.

flyguy84 wrote:

P1aneMad wrote:

UpNAWAy wrote:

Interesting the comments in the article about "It shouldn't make any difference", when you check in or what you paid or how frequent a flyer you are to get bumped. What criteria would they prefer airlines use? In this case it was a downgauge of equipment after a mechanical issue? Sometimes people are going to have to be pum[ped how should thoat be determined what is fair?

After a paid customer has been boarded it is absolutely unprofessional and downright idiotic to throw him off the plane because somebody came LATER with a higher mileage status and wanted in.
There are no two ways about it, it does not happened to the rest of the civilized world and we as a society find it so deplorable that UA and its stock price are being pummeled.
Quit digging, it is a settled issue. UA and anyone else who forces already boarded passengers to disembark in order for someone with higher FF status to get their seat are scum and deserve all the blowback they and their stock valuation are getting.

Let's not get carried away. The stock ended down 1%. That's not anything to point to as a victory.

You mean $225.000.000 getting wiped out and the airline facing a backlash that no other airline has in the last decade?
Munoz's apology after his initial reaction says it all really. .

UpNAWAy wrote:

Interesting the comments in the article about "It shouldn't make any difference", when you check in or what you paid or how frequent a flyer you are to get bumped. What criteria would they prefer airlines use? In this case it was a downgauge of equipment after a mechanical issue? Sometimes people are going to have to be pum[ped how should thoat be determined what is fair?

I don't see that "when a passenger checks-in" makes any difference. As long as it's before the cut-off time the airline specifies.

blrsea wrote:

Well, we will soon see UA employees descend here and start saying that the passenger has to obey crew's direction, even if they tell them to do a strip dance, else the passenger will be treated as a trespasser & criminal, just as the UA crew told this passenger that they will take him out in cuffs if required.

Nope but passengers aren't entitled to do whatever they wish. You still must comply with the airline and it's rules, regulations, and policies.

P1aneMad wrote:

flyguy84 wrote:

P1aneMad wrote:

After a paid customer has been boarded it is absolutely unprofessional and downright idiotic to throw him off the plane because somebody came LATER with a higher mileage status and wanted in.
There are no two ways about it, it does not happened to the rest of the civilized world and we as a society find it so deplorable that UA and its stock price are being pummeled.
Quit digging, it is a settled issue. UA and anyone else who forces already boarded passengers to disembark in order for someone with higher FF status to get their seat are scum and deserve all the blowback they and their stock valuation are getting.

Let's not get carried away. The stock ended down 1%. That's not anything to point to as a victory.

You mean $225.000.000 getting wiped out and the airline facing a backlash that no other airline has in the last decade?
Munoz's apology after his initial reaction says it all really. .

You do realize the stock market fluctuates and can easily regain those losses in a matter of hours.

flyguy84 wrote:

blrsea wrote:

Well, we will soon see UA employees descend here and start saying that the passenger has to obey crew's direction, even if they tell them to do a strip dance, else the passenger will be treated as a trespasser & criminal, just as the UA crew told this passenger that they will take him out in cuffs if required.

Nope but passengers aren't entitled to do whatever they wish. You still must comply with the airline and it's rules, regulations, and policies.

So is there a rule that says you must make room for a higher-priority traveler?

Your not even safe In first class. Once inside the aluminum cylinder different rules apply.

flyguy84 wrote:

blrsea wrote:

Well, we will soon see UA employees descend here and start saying that the passenger has to obey crew's direction, even if they tell them to do a strip dance, else the passenger will be treated as a trespasser & criminal, just as the UA crew told this passenger that they will take him out in cuffs if required.

Nope but passengers aren't entitled to do whatever they wish. You still must comply with the airline and it's rules, regulations, and policies.

Nope, the passenger did absolutely nothing wrong. Your employer and your fellow workers are in the wrong here on how they handled the situation.
An already boarded and seated passenger does not get thrown out and in handcuffs no less because someone with higher FF status came in late to check in.
You guys deserve all the flak you are getting.

flyguy84 wrote:

You do realize the stock market fluctuates and can easily regain those losses in a matter of hours.

Tell that to the board of UA who are running like headless chickens to do damage control.

flyguy84 wrote:

blrsea wrote:

Well, we will soon see UA employees descend here and start saying that the passenger has to obey crew's direction, even if they tell them to do a strip dance, else the passenger will be treated as a trespasser & criminal, just as the UA crew told this passenger that they will take him out in cuffs if required.

Nope but passengers aren't entitled to do whatever they wish. You still must comply with the airline and it's rules, regulations, and policies.

So after paying for a full fare F class ticket and boarding and being seated, the seat still isn't guaranteed till the aircraft begins pushback? And here I was thinking once passenger purchased a ticket, was seated peacefully, he was guaranteed a ride to his destination as long as weather/mx cooperates. Didn't know that he would just be a seat warmer till the higher priority passenger came along.

I get the feeling a DYKWIA lost out to a bigger DYKWIA in this case. The guy's coming back from a partially taxpayer funded junket to Hawaii FFS. Take it like a man!

There clearly is a rule, in UA's world, for high priority read big spender I guess.

Back on CO I've seen the upgrade process be undone once. They took a guy from exit row into F, then boarded a new Y standby pax, then had to undo it when the booked F passenger showed just after that.

Biged wrote:

Your not even safe In first class. Once inside the aluminum cylinder different rules apply.

Is that mentioned in the conditions of contract? Would be interesting to know that a higher paying customer can beat a lower paying customer. Or a customer who may have paid more for his ticket but is kicked out by a customer who has more Status miles on his log.

Also, how many minutes are you allowed to argue with the gate Manager before Airport pplicie comes with handcuffs. Which brings me to the next question, is it a crime to argue with an Airline employee in order to protect your rights? And how can it be that innocent People who have not committed a crime can be handcuffed? And why does this remind me to the old GDR aka East Germany?

I totally get a downgrade, especially if it was cleared a bit too early.... but once someone is in the seat, ie cleared standby....pushing it.

From the article it seems like it was an oversold situation and a late arriving DYKWA with status was throwing around the 1k.

the reality is... 95% of the PAX would bow down to the intimidation and not do anything but comply. Unfortunately for United... thanks to all of their PR incidents, more and more PAX are willing to stand up to their Customer Service BS and calling them out.

I am hoping this wakes something up at UA to change before it breaks them.

United has become a PR joke.

It's one thing when they upgrade someone and the ticketed passenger in that seat shows up, it's another thing when someone buys a confirmed seat in that cabin class and is denied.

Currently you really don't buy a trip from, say, Hawaii to Chicago. Rather like software you buy a license and the dozens (?) of pages of the contract mean the airline may, at its convenience take you at some uncertain time from one of the islands to some place in the Midwest. And regardless of what class you paid for, it is entirely at the discretion of United what seat they will put you in. And then after all of this things start getting bad. If at any point you object you are subject to arrest, and even violence.

If our congress and senate were not bought off by the airlines, the FAA would write a two or three page contract. It would outline the duties of the airline, and those of the passenger. It would also have a chart of reimbursement fees. I suspect that once a passenger is seated reimbursement for any non-voluntary movement would be very high.

The main point is, an airline is ready to resort to violence to resolve a booking or operational situation. After all the bla bla of violence is unacceptable.

They should stop over booking.

mjoelnir wrote:

The main point is, an airline is ready to resort to violence to resolve a booking or operational situation. After all the bla bla of violence is unacceptable.

That's the bottom line idiocy of the situation.

I seem to recall that in the early days of one of the ME3, whole flights would be pulled and requisitioned by the ruling family. That does not happen today.

This from UA is equally unacceptable.

Here is United's problem. They didn't ask for volunteers. An airline is obligated to ask for volunteers, before it denies boarding or removes a passenger who is already on the plane. United should have asked in anyone in First was willing to fly coach for X amount of money, vouchers, miles, or combination of the three. If Y was full, then United needed to see if anyone in Y was willing to get off the plane voluntarily for compensation.

Fearns needs to contact DOT, if United didn't ask for volunteers, because there is a major infraction of the regulations regarding the overselling of flights.

That said, I am surprised that United oversold F on a flight out of Hawaii. A friend of mine is an AA pilot. There are a few routes in which AA oversells F. They are business routes, such as JFK-LAX or maybe LGA-ORD, because senior-level employees at banks, movie studios, and such will double or triple-book F, just in case a meeting runs long or short. While a flight to or from a city that draws mainly leisure travelers will allow overselling in Y, it usually doesn't overbook F.

I also know that the denied boarding is based on a formula that involves F/F status, fare paid, and time of check-in. So, if you are a top-tier F/F member who paid on walk-up fare and printed the boarding pass 23 hours before departure, you aren't getting bumped.

If you bought a heavily-discounted fare, checked in at the ticket counter, and aren't a member of the F/F program, your chances of involuntary bumping are much, much higher.

UpNAWAy wrote:

Interesting the comments in the article about "It shouldn't make any difference", when you check in or what you paid or how frequent a flyer you are to get bumped. What criteria would they prefer airlines use? In this case it was a downgauge of equipment after a mechanical issue? Sometimes people are going to have to be bumped how should thoat be determined what is fair?

Simple, just make it truly random.

seahawk wrote:

UpNAWAy wrote:

Interesting the comments in the article about "It shouldn't make any difference", when you check in or what you paid or how frequent a flyer you are to get bumped. What criteria would they prefer airlines use? In this case it was a downgauge of equipment after a mechanical issue? Sometimes people are going to have to be pum[ped how should thoat be determined what is fair?

First come, first serve. Who checks in first, gets the seat.

I would say, whoever bought their ticket first.

Tugg

kavok wrote:

Again, the issue here is that a seated customer was removed (in this case voluntarily) from his seat after boarding.

It's a totally different situation if he is reassigned at the gate prior to boarding.

But it was not voluntary, he was forced under threat.

Tugg

Contract of carriage, if boarded, to remove someone from their seat they must be basically a danger to the plane in some way.

Have we actually confirmed this happened and not just some guy looking for 12 minutes of fame?

This was from yesterday and so far I haven't seen it repeated anywhere else...one would think with all the attention on UA right now it would be more widespread.

Biged wrote:

Contract of carriage, if boarded, to remove someone from their seat they must be basically a danger to the plane in some way.

And the crew can classify you as a danger for not following their orders, so....

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

Biged wrote:

Contract of carriage, if boarded, to remove someone from their seat they must be basically a danger to the plane in some way.

And the crew can classify you as a danger for not following their orders, so....

Tugg

The crew can classify you as a danger for being disobedience to a LAWFUL order, not any order. Big difference. And in this case, the crews request for him to leave the plane was not lawful.

blrsea wrote:

Well, we will soon see UA employees descend here and start saying that the passenger has to obey crew's direction, even if they tell them to do a strip dance, else the passenger will be treated as a trespasser & criminal, just as the UA crew told this passenger that they will take him out in cuffs if required.

What I'm waiting for is for some long-time UA employee to blame the Continental side of the house for these gaffes.

kavok wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Biged wrote:

Contract of carriage, if boarded, to remove someone from their seat they must be basically a danger to the plane in some way.

And the crew can classify you as a danger for not following their orders, so....

Tugg

The crew can classify you as a danger for being disobedience to a LAWFUL order, not any order. Big difference. And in this case, the crews request for him to leave the plane was not lawful.

But what recourse does one have? As some here have noted you essentially are screwed, have to comply, and then later sue for recompense. But that is a very weak position to be in. And if you accepted their "compensation" and were put on another flight by them your case is even weaker.

Tugg

How many passengers does UA carry each day. How many incidents a week if 0.01% has a issue?

UA's PR is worst than a monday morning.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

I seem to recall that in the early days of one of the ME3, whole flights would be pulled and requisitioned by the ruling family. That does not happen today.

This from UA is equally unacceptable.

Not possible, they have private jets galore sitting idle and can even hire from elsewhere.