CriticalPoint wrote:

Blimpie wrote:

Blame can be placed all ya want on the airline or its company culture, but at the end of the day, no amount of train or social engineering or reeducation is going to change human nature. People are people and they're going to do what they do regardless if they are in an airline uniform or a purple unitard and fake Groucho Marx glasses; no different that dogs will be dogs, cats will be cats or chupacabras will be chupacabras.

In other UA complaint news: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-airline-complaints-20170614-story.html

Agree with your post.

However I wouldn't call that article "UA complaint news" as it is about all US airlines not just United.

"The biggest number of complaints filed in April were against American Airlines (324), followed by Delta Air Lines (297) and United (265), the federal report said. Low-cost carrier Spirit Airline had the highest rate of complaints, 7.2 complaints for every 100,000 passengers, compared with 3.04 complaints for every 100,000 passengers for United Airlines."

It would appear United is actually doing better than all of the big 3 in the complaint compartment. Nice job United!

I did not write this article. It merely came across my desk from the wire earlier in the day.

"The biggest number of complaints filed in April were against American Airlines (324), followed by Delta Air Lines (297) and United (265), the federal report said. Low-cost carrier Spirit Airline had the highest rate of complaints, 7.2 complaints for every 100,000 passengers, compared with 3.04 complaints for every 100,000 passengers for United Airlines."

Wait!...Can this be TRUE? I didn't see it on my social media news feed.

739er wrote:

"The biggest number of complaints filed in April were against American Airlines (324), followed by Delta Air Lines (297) and United (265), the federal report said. Low-cost carrier Spirit Airline had the highest rate of complaints, 7.2 complaints for every 100,000 passengers, compared with 3.04 complaints for every 100,000 passengers for United Airlines."

Wait!...Can this be TRUE? I didn't see it on my social media news feed.

Unfortunately for your narrative all complaints aren't equal in magnitude

"All complaints aren't equal in magnitude"...So you're implying that AA, DL, and NK had more, relatively small complaints and UA had fewer but Really BIG complaints? Uh...Yeah....OK.

739er wrote:

"All complaints aren't equal in magnitude"...So you're implying that AA, DL, and NK have more, but, relatively small complaints and UA has fewer but Really BIG complaints? Uh...Yeah....OK.

Actually yea... Sure seems to be the case. I don't think the media has it out for United, they just keep doing inexcusable things over and over again to get themselves in the spotlight. If an AA agent shoved over a defenseless geriatric, you better believe it would be news too.

And if an AA employee yanked a stroller from a young mother and then got into a pissing contest with a first class passenger about it? Or if DL kicked a guy off the jet for peeing during taxi out? And NK?..well, not enough space here. But, ok, nothing ever happens on AA, DL, NK or any other airline...just UA.
You better believe the media has it out for United.

He paid a fine for an infraction and was fired, end of hoopla.

Who fined him? That would have to be a judge. To be able to legally fine him, the judge and court found him guilty either at trial or via a plea bargain, in which case he was admitting to the "infraction," as you call it. I'd call it an assault.

As far as the apology issue, I'll come back to my getting ahead of the curve and being proactive comment earlier. Why did United settle with Doctor Dao so quickly? Because the tape was out there in the wild, for all to see. They had to. Now, I'm not suggesting that this tape was as bad, but notice that as long as it was under wraps, no apology was forthcoming, nor an offer to settle. I'd argue that the most moral, proactive thing for United to have done would have been to apologize and offer a settlement after this occurred. Now, where are they? Facing a significant lawsuit. That's why apologizing early coupled with a settlement offer is the better course of action. Had they done so, this video wouldn't be going viral and they wouldn't be paying lawyers.

In short: Mom buys two seats, one for her, for 27 m/o son. UA sells toddler's seat to stand-by pax. Toddler sits on Mom's lap for 3.5 hrs.

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/3581 ... -passenger

She said herself she didn't bring the issue to the attention of a single crew member. They would not have let it happen because its illegal for a child that age to be on a lap.

So what are we discussing?

Is this surprising? Not really.
Does it happen? Yes, some airlines deal with it better than others.

Big question: why are you flying UA if you've seen the incidents and are scared of getting your teeth knocked out?

"Vote with your wallets" doesn't seem like it will happen to me

Rdh3e wrote:

She said herself she didn't bring the issue to the attention of a single crew member. They would not have let it happen because its illegal for a child that age to be on a lap.

Read again: "She says she told the flight attendant about the problem, but the woman just shrugged, said the flight was full, and walked away. "

Rookie87 wrote:

"Vote with your wallets" doesn't seem like it will happen to me

People vote with their wallets every day. Just because the vote doesn't go the way you want it to or expect it to doesn't mean that people aren't voting. It just means they're not voting the way you want them to vote.

I've been on two Alaska flights recently where two people have had the exact same seat. On one of them, the person was moved to an open seat while on the other one of the people ended up getting off the flight.

For this to be even possible she must have incorrectly booked the child as "Infant with seat" instead of child. For a child over 24 months it is illegal for them to be on a lap, had they been booked as CNN (child) this would have been physically possible for the gate agent to do.

I will get a ton of hate for this, but for too long airlines have been able to do as they please in many ways when it comes to customer service. It was bound to hit the fan, and 2017 seems like the year for it. So many people are afraid to speak up when it comes to airline issues, because you could easily be kept out of your flight until it was resolved. Hopefully people DO vote with their wallets, and by calling their local representatives as it seems they have.

RyanairGuru wrote:

For this to be even possible she must have incorrectly booked the child as "Infant with seat" instead of child. For a child over 24 months it is illegal for them to be on a lap, had they been booked as CNN (child) this would have physically possible for the gate agent to do.

Regardless, she paid for a seat that was then given to another pax. By your logic, had the airline scanned the toddler's boarding pass this would never have happened.

RyanairGuru wrote:

For this to be even possible she must have incorrectly booked the child as "Infant with seat" instead of child. For a child over 24 months it is illegal for them to be on a lap, had they been booked as CNN (child) this would have been physically possible for the gate agent to do.

Maybe. It could be exactly what the article says: a gate agent screwup of not scanning the child's boarding pass and then putting a standby in the seat because the computer showed the child as a no-show.

WPvsMW wrote:

Read again: "She says she told the flight attendant about the problem, but the woman just shrugged, said the flight was full, and walked away. "

She said she was afraid to speak up, I'm guessing that if she said anything to them she failed properly articulate the issue. There is literally no way this happened the way its been described.

Any flight attendant would immediately recognize that this is not just a customer service issue but a safety and legal issue.

Conveniently it doesn't mention when she notified the FA. If you don't notify anyone till the plane is in the air and you are tired of your son sitting on your lap, of course the crew can't do anything on a completely full flight.

alasizon wrote:

Conveniently it doesn't mention when she notified the FA. If you don't notify anyone till the plane is in the air and you are tired of your son sitting on your lap, of course the crew can't do anything on a completely full flight.

"The Kapolei Middle School teacher says they were sitting on the plane in Houston when a flight attendant came to check if Taizo was present. Yamauchi said her son was clearly in his seat, but another passenger still showed up, claiming the seat was his."

Sounds like this happened before take-off.

"I told him that I bought both of these tickets and he tells me that he got the ticket on standby. Then he proceeds to sit in the center," she said.
She says she told the flight attendant about the problem, but the woman just shrugged, said the flight was full, and walked away."


United accepted blame and apologized, saying it was the gate agent's fault. How again is this the pax's fault?

Rdh3e wrote:

WPvsMW wrote:

Read again: "She says she told the flight attendant about the problem, but the woman just shrugged, said the flight was full, and walked away. "

She said she was afraid to speak up, I'm guessing that if she said anything to them she failed properly articulate the issue. There is literally no way this happened the way its been described.

Any flight attendant would immediately recognize that this is not just a customer service issue but a safety and legal issue.

I have not had a seat dupe experience on UA, but I have had them on a number of carriers and have found that f/as are generally not very good at dealing with them. I remember a UC flight at PMC where we were put in the rear galley and had to dodge the caterers but most of my experiences have been equally bad.

gatibosgru wrote:

alasizon wrote:

Conveniently it doesn't mention when she notified the FA. If you don't notify anyone till the plane is in the air and you are tired of your son sitting on your lap, of course the crew can't do anything on a completely full flight.

"The Kapolei Middle School teacher says they were sitting on the plane in Houston when a flight attendant came to check if Taizo was present. Yamauchi said her son was clearly in his seat, but another passenger still showed up, claiming the seat was his."

Sounds like this happened before take-off.

"I told him that I bought both of these tickets and he tells me that he got the ticket on standby. Then he proceeds to sit in the center," she said.
She says she told the flight attendant about the problem, but the woman just shrugged, said the flight was full, and walked away."


United accepted blame and apologized, saying it was the gate agent's fault. How again is this the pax's fault?

I interpret it as the initial issue with the other passenger happened before take-off but its not clear when she notified the crew. Not saying this is the passenger's fault but if she didn't notify the crew prior to take-off then there is nothing the crew could have done. The way it sounds like it played out is:

1) Gate agent realizes a child wasn't scanned on and had the FA check to see if they were on
2) The FA reports back to the gate agent that they were but perhaps it was relayed they were a lap child and not a child in a seat
3) Man is sent down and takes the middle seat
4) Child sits on mother's lap the entire flight

At some point in there, she notifies the FA that there is an issue, not clear when, and its not clear if she notified the FA of the actual issue clearly and articulately enough.

Someone made a mistake. Which people, especially united employees, are not allowed to do in today's world.

Cubsrule wrote:

Rdh3e wrote:

WPvsMW wrote:

Read again: "She says she told the flight attendant about the problem, but the woman just shrugged, said the flight was full, and walked away. "

She said she was afraid to speak up, I'm guessing that if she said anything to them she failed properly articulate the issue. There is literally no way this happened the way its been described.

Any flight attendant would immediately recognize that this is not just a customer service issue but a safety and legal issue.

I have not had a seat dupe experience on UA, but I have had them on a number of carriers and have found that f/as are generally not very good at dealing with them. I remember a UC flight at PMC where we were put in the rear galley and had to dodge the caterers but most of my experiences have been equally bad.

Because that's a gate agent/csr issue not the flight attendant. I remember gate agents loved just throwing people on board and when seating issues came up, expected us to figure it out. I was a f/a for UA 8yrs, happened all the time.

B737900ER wrote:

Someone made a mistake. Which people, especially united employees, are not allowed to do in today's world.

I couldn't agree more. The media, the flying public, and Congress have UA under the microscope. I've flown UA (and before that CO) for years. There have been a few bad apples here and there, but on the whole I've been very satisfied with the service I've received. I can't say that for WN, the so called "darling of the industry." I've been delayed, sat on hot aircraft, and dealt with many rude agents and flight attendants. When I've expressed dissatisfaction their agents simply remind me how fortunate I am to have the privilege for flying with them. I've seen the media and Congress give WN a pass many, many times for things they crucify UA and other legacy airlines for.

That being said, UA needs to realize that they are under the microscope and adapt. It's not fair but in today's social media driven world it's a reality they have to live with. Their people shouldn't give the farm away, but they need to be cognizant of the fact that their decisions will be scrutinized more than those of their competitors.

I'm curious, American even after their merger with US Airways and Delta even after their merger with Northwest became large, capable airlines where screwups happen but are addressed and the operations of those airlines seem to do fine. Why has United (after the merger with Continental) been such a terrible airline from an operations and customer service standpoint? I have only flew United twice after the merger and I had more screwups from their customer service/operations on those two trips than I have in my entire 100's of flights/many years flying American/US Airways, Delta, and Southwest?

FlyUSAir wrote:

I'm curious, American even after their merger with US Airways and Delta even after their merger with Northwest became large, capable airlines where screwups happen but are addressed and the operations of those airlines seem to do fine. Why has United (after the merger with Continental) been such a terrible airline from an operations and customer service standpoint? I have only flew United twice after the merger and I had more screwups from their customer service/operations on those two trips than I have in my entire 100's of flights/many years flying American/US Airways, Delta, and Southwest?

I have a feeling that previous management (IE Smisek and co) didn't take care of the nest and we're just there to collect paychecks and golden parachutes. A lot of these issues have snowballed to where they are now and current management is putting out one fire after another. It'll start looking better later than sooner, sadly

gatibosgru wrote:

I will get a ton of hate for this, but for too long airlines have been able to do as they please in many ways when it comes to customer service. It was bound to hit the fan, and 2017 seems like the year for it. So many people are afraid to speak up when it comes to airline issues, because you could easily be kept out of your flight until it was resolved. Hopefully people DO vote with their wallets, and by calling their local representatives as it seems they have.

No. With everyone being a amateur freelance journalist these days and others wanting 15 minutes of fame over nothing, social media has blown these way out of proportion. Everyone is all over the airlones now because of the Dr. Dao incident, had that not happened, none of the later incidences would even get a spot on a national news ticker, it'd be limited to a 2 paragraph local news online article at best.

Every year has their hated industry and company. 2016 was the finance industry and Goldman Sachs, 2010 was the oil industry and BP, 2017 is the airlones and UA. If the airlines don't have a big PR fiasco around Christmas time, then all of their problems in 2017 will be forgotten in 2018.

I hate how everyone turns everything into a race issue. "I was scared because I'm Asian." Once you turn a mistake made by agents into a matter of race, I immediately lose all respect for your claim. When was the crew notified? At the gate? After push back? She does not give enough details on when she notified the FA. I've seen this happen before. It happened to me as a standby where I was given a seat only to board the aircraft and find that someone's boarding pass was not scanned. If she really had an issue, she would have deboarded and spoke to he agent. But now she will sue because that's how our country work and due to the bad press United has gotten, she will win.

The linked article isn't a paragon of journalism, the timing of the pax/FA communication isn't defined, but the bottom line is a screw-up by the airline. The gate agent should have noticed a family booking, linked PNRs or at least linked child fare in adjacent seats, before boarding the standby. The FA on final cabin check should have spotted an overage (look at the pix in the photo, competent FAs have a sense of "lap sized child") child in the mom's lap. Yes, the mom could have been more assertive... but she was clearly afraid of violence if she asserted her right to the seat she bought. The onus was on UA, not on the pax, and UA had two, probably three, chances to avoid the screw-up: gate agent, final cabin check, and maybe the pax/FA interaction was before the boarding doors closed.

IPFreely wrote:

Rookie87 wrote:

"Vote with your wallets" doesn't seem like it will happen to me

People vote with their wallets every day. Just because the vote doesn't go the way you want it to or expect it to doesn't mean that people aren't voting. It just means they're not voting the way you want them to vote.

People swore off United until they dumped their fares in toilet to keep the fliers and people quickly forgave them.

Dumping your fares in the toilet will likely end up hitting the bottom line more than it would cost to fix some of the problems.

Perhaps United should be re-training all of their FAs at Customer Service school?

jfern022 wrote:

People swore off United until they dumped their fares in toilet to keep the fliers and people quickly forgave them.

And your proof of this will be coming soon?

The mother buys two tickets, one for herself one for her son, she checks in two hours before the flight, she boards and she and her son take their seats. An F/A comes and checks if her son is on board, still the gate agent lets a stand by passenger board.

This is clearly a screw up by UA, the gate agent had all the information needed to avoid this before the flight closed, but still some people on A.net are defending the airline, the gate agent and the crew and looking for something the mother could have done wrong. Just plain disgusting.

Yes it should be accepted that mistakes happen, but passengers are never aloud mistakes, that is always braking rules with sure punishment to follow.

Here UA took a bought, paid and used seat away from a passenger. The crew aloud a 27 month old child to sit on the lap of his mother, clearly breaking, a here on a.net much cherished FAA rule and it was not the passenger initiating the rule breaking, but the airline. So were is the fine from the FAA in regards to UA?

And UA was so magnanimous in their compensation. They repaid the ticket and the seat they had taken from the mother. But that is not a compensation, it is a refund for a service sold but not provided and they added to that a voucher as compensation, WOW.

mjoelnir wrote:

The mother buys two tickets, one for herself one for her son, she checks in two hours before the flight, she boards and she and her son take their seats. An F/A comes and checks if her son is on board, still the gate agent lets a stand by passenger board.

This is clearly a screw up by UA, the gate agent had all the information needed to avoid this before the flight closed, but still some people on A.net are defending the airline, the gate agent and the crew and looking for something the mother could have done wrong. Just plain disgusting.

Yes it should be accepted that mistakes happen, but passengers are never aloud mistakes, that is always braking rules with sure punishment to follow.

Here UA took a bought, paid and used seat away from a passenger. The crew aloud a 27 month old child to sit on the lap of his mother, clearly breaking, a here on a.net much cherished FAA rule and it was not the passenger initiating the rule breaking, but the airline. So were is the fine from the FAA in regards to UA?

And UA was so magnanimous in their compensation. They repaid the ticket and the seat they had taken from the mother. But that is not a compensation, it is a refund for a service sold but not provided and they added to that a voucher as compensation, WOW.

The sky is falling! More a.net hysteria over something so minor. But then again, you always make sure to show up numerous times on every anti-UA thread so this is no real surprise.

mjoelnir wrote:

And UA was so magnanimous in their compensation. They repaid the ticket and the seat they had taken from the mother. But that is not a compensation, it is a refund for a service sold but not provided and they added to that a voucher as compensation, WOW.

UA did still fly the mom and her child to the destination. I'm not exactly sure what more you would expect in the form of compensation. Do you think UA should start a college fund for the child? (granted I am having trouble determining if you are being sarcastic or just don't know what magnanimous means)

The customer service issue here is bad but the much bigger problem is the potentially knowing violation of FAA rules. If the flight attendant knew that they did not have enough seats for all the passengers, you can't take off. Again, this isn't a customer service issue it's a life and death safety issue. If the child had been injured or killed the flight attendant could well have been criminally liable for her knowingly reckless behavior.

In these types of situations people lie. Everyone lies all the time. So knowing what happens is hard. Most likely situation as far as I can see is that the gate agent assumed child was under two (as someone on VFTW pointed out child was in 10th percentile for weight so would have looked younger than he was) and didn't ask for/scan his boarding pass. Then, since he no showed they gave his seat away. Woman wasn't forceful enough about issue and standby passenger sits down. Woman then tells FA attendant of the problem and FA doesn't want to deal with this issue/try to kick standby passenger off plane since United isn't doing that anymore as a policy. FA knows she probably needs to solicit volunteers to solve this problem. Instead of doing that she strongly suggests woman hold child on lap. Woman agrees and flight takes off.

jfern022 wrote:

IPFreely wrote:

Rookie87 wrote:

"Vote with your wallets" doesn't seem like it will happen to me

People vote with their wallets every day. Just because the vote doesn't go the way you want it to or expect it to doesn't mean that people aren't voting. It just means they're not voting the way you want them to vote.

People swore off United until they dumped their fares in toilet to keep the fliers and people quickly forgave them.

Yet there are people all over this website who last week screamed about how United RAISED their fares with the intro of basic economy and said they would be flying other (cheaper) airlines. So which one is it? are United's fares to high, or too low?

CriticalPoint wrote:

Yet there are people all over this website who last week screamed about how United RAISED their fares with the intro of basic economy and said they would be flying other (cheaper) airlines. So which one is it? are United's fares to high, or too low?

Since UA appears to have high load factors that are either holding steady or increasing it would appear their fares are just right.

The screamers on this website are clueless. Especially the ones who don't believe people are voting with their wallets. People are voting with their wallets every day. When people don't vote the way the screamers want, the screamers cant handle reality and become unhinged. But it doesn't change the facts.

Polot wrote:

.... Do you think UA should start a college fund for the child? (granted I am having trouble determining if you are being sarcastic or just don't know what magnanimous means)

Or pay DOT/FAA fine for violating the 2-year separate seat rule.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Polot wrote:

.... Do you think UA should start a college fund for the child? (granted I am having trouble determining if you are being sarcastic or just don't know what magnanimous means)

Or pay DOT/FAA fine for violating the 2-year separate seat rule.

Yes, but that is not compensation (the mother and her child wouldn't see a dime of that DOT/FAA fine).

Polot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

And UA was so magnanimous in their compensation. They repaid the ticket and the seat they had taken from the mother. But that is not a compensation, it is a refund for a service sold but not provided and they added to that a voucher as compensation, WOW.

UA did still fly the mom and her child to the destination. I'm not exactly sure what more you would expect in the form of compensation. Do you think UA should start a college fund for the child? (granted I am having trouble determining if you are being sarcastic or just don't know what magnanimous means)

I would expect a compensation, something instead of a silly voucher. UA sells a service, do not provide it, break a FAA rule, something most here equate with immediate removal of the passenger of the plane if initiated by the passenger.

Is it really the idea here that an airline do never have to provide what they sold?

ec99 wrote:

The customer service issue here is bad but the much bigger problem is the potentially knowing violation of FAA rules. If the flight attendant knew that they did not have enough seats for all the passengers, you can't take off. Again, this isn't a customer service issue it's a life and death safety issue. If the child had been injured or killed the flight attendant could well have been criminally liable for her knowingly reckless behavior.

In these types of situations people lie. Everyone lies all the time. So knowing what happens is hard. Most likely situation as far as I can see is that the gate agent assumed child was under two (as someone on VFTW pointed out child was in 10th percentile for weight so would have looked younger than he was) and didn't ask for/scan his boarding pass. Then, since he no showed they gave his seat away. Woman wasn't forceful enough about issue and standby passenger sits down. Woman then tells FA attendant of the problem and FA doesn't want to deal with this issue/try to kick standby passenger off plane since United isn't doing that anymore as a policy. FA knows she probably needs to solicit volunteers to solve this problem. Instead of doing that she strongly suggests woman hold child on lap. Woman agrees and flight takes off.

The gate agent checked that the child was on board before he send the standby passenger on board. There is no way the gate agent did not know that the seat he was selling a second time was occupied.

This incident is of such minor significance to anyone outside the A-Net alarmists. At most it was an oversight and clerical mistake by the agent and the passenger should have made sure BOTH boarding passes were scanned. Whatever happened to any responsibility for what happens to yourself? But please, A-Net outrage alarmists, continue about how United's brand is permanently damaged and cannot recover etc etc. With load factors in the 90's this summer, it seems your sense of outrage isn't shared by many.

Video interview with the mom. UA places blame on gate agent ("better gate agent training"). Mom gets ONE (only 1) ticket refund and a "travel voucher", and UA took five days to address issue. IMO, compensation would be refund of both tickets, plus a travel voucher of equal value.
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/3581 ... -passenger

As for the impact of the incident outside "a.net alarmists"... does it matter here in the Islands? Definitely Yes. It will hurt UA's expanded daily service from CONUS to all major airports in HI. Image of UA in the Islands is at an all-time low. First Dr. Dao, now the Kapolei school teacher.

Does the incident matter in Texas, where it happened? Buried in the noise.

mjoelnir wrote:

ec99 wrote:

The customer service issue here is bad but the much bigger problem is the potentially knowing violation of FAA rules. If the flight attendant knew that they did not have enough seats for all the passengers, you can't take off. Again, this isn't a customer service issue it's a life and death safety issue. If the child had been injured or killed the flight attendant could well have been criminally liable for her knowingly reckless behavior.

In these types of situations people lie. Everyone lies all the time. So knowing what happens is hard. Most likely situation as far as I can see is that the gate agent assumed child was under two (as someone on VFTW pointed out child was in 10th percentile for weight so would have looked younger than he was) and didn't ask for/scan his boarding pass. Then, since he no showed they gave his seat away. Woman wasn't forceful enough about issue and standby passenger sits down. Woman then tells FA attendant of the problem and FA doesn't want to deal with this issue/try to kick standby passenger off plane since United isn't doing that anymore as a policy. FA knows she probably needs to solicit volunteers to solve this problem. Instead of doing that she strongly suggests woman hold child on lap. Woman agrees and flight takes off.

The gate agent checked that the child was on board before he send the standby passenger on board. There is no way the gate agent did not know that the seat he was selling a second time was occupied.

The agent, as well as the FA assumed it was a lap child. I know this might shock you, but sometimes mistakes happen. Over the course of one day a single agent may board a thousand passengers, tens of thousands over a month, and a hundred thousand in one year. Mistakes will happen.

As for your claim that they needed to solicit a volunteer for a standby, that's just wrong. A standby has no rights to a seat. They can be given and taken away at anytime. What happened was that a few people erred in this situation. It happens. To assume their was malicious intent behind it is either ignorant, or you're just trolling.

mjoelnir wrote:

And if a passenger does not buy an extra seat and lets her child sit on her lap two days after the second birthday having flown out before the birthday and home after the birthday you would clap and scream hurrah if that parent would be thrown of the airplane, because she would have infringed on a FAA rule.
The other way round, the airline pushing the mother to infringe on a FAA rule is of course OK.

And the Idea that an airline should compensate a passenger, if the airline does a mistake, is of course out of this world, unthinkable.

Nobody pushed anyone. Why is it so hard for you to understand that somebody screwed up? Have you ever made a mistake in your life? What are you suggesting UA do? Give we a million dollars and fire the flight crew? I genuinely curious. What do you believe is fair compensation?

alasizon wrote:

gatibosgru wrote:

alasizon wrote:

Conveniently it doesn't mention when she notified the FA. If you don't notify anyone till the plane is in the air and you are tired of your son sitting on your lap, of course the crew can't do anything on a completely full flight.

"The Kapolei Middle School teacher says they were sitting on the plane in Houston when a flight attendant came to check if Taizo was present. Yamauchi said her son was clearly in his seat, but another passenger still showed up, claiming the seat was his."

Sounds like this happened before take-off.

"I told him that I bought both of these tickets and he tells me that he got the ticket on standby. Then he proceeds to sit in the center," she said.
She says she told the flight attendant about the problem, but the woman just shrugged, said the flight was full, and walked away."


United accepted blame and apologized, saying it was the gate agent's fault. How again is this the pax's fault?

I interpret it as the initial issue with the other passenger happened before take-off but its not clear when she notified the crew. Not saying this is the passenger's fault but if she didn't notify the crew prior to take-off then there is nothing the crew could have done. The way it sounds like it played out is:

1) Gate agent realizes a child wasn't scanned on and had the FA check to see if they were on
2) The FA reports back to the gate agent that they were but perhaps it was relayed they were a lap child and not a child in a seat
3) Man is sent down and takes the middle seat
4) Child sits on mother's lap the entire flight

At some point in there, she notifies the FA that there is an issue, not clear when, and its not clear if she notified the FA of the actual issue clearly and articulately enough.

If they noticed a paying pax is on the flight, that should have been enough to tell the gate agent that there is no room. It isn't the FAs job to "assume" that the toddler is lap child.

exunited wrote:

This incident is of such minor significance to anyone outside the A-Net alarmists. At most it was an oversight and clerical mistake by the agent and the passenger should have made sure BOTH boarding passes were scanned. Whatever happened to any responsibility for what happens to yourself? But please, A-Net outrage alarmists, continue about how United's brand is permanently damaged and cannot recover etc etc. With load factors in the 90's this summer, it seems your sense of outrage isn't shared by many.

Why is this the Pax's responsibility? This is the airline's job.