I think the refusal to comment on booking impact is a smokescreen. I don't see how it is possible bookings were not negatively affected.

The head of United Airlines met with the Chinese consulate in Chicago over the possible impact to bookings from a customer being dragged off a plane but it was too early to tell if business in China had been hit by the event, the company said.

Dao accused officials of discriminating against him for being Chinese before he was hauled off the plane, according to a fellow passenger. Social media users across the United States, Vietnam and China called for a boycott of the airline over the incident.

United has about 20 percent of total U.S.-China traffic and a partnership with Air China<601111.SS><0753.HK>, the country's third-largest airline, according to analysts.

"It's really too early for us to tell anything about bookings, and in particular last week because it's the week before Easter. That's normally a very low booking period," United President Scott Kirby said on the call.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/united-ch ... 05132.html

The meeting was last week when things were hot and heavy and before all facts were out. Its since come out the dear Dr. was Vietnamese, not exactly the most friendly nationality to China.

Also as pointed out yesterday by analyst, the UA China network accounts for ~3% of revenues, with a very heavy component of US point of sale. Their take was "booking haven’t been materially impacted by this event"

LAXintl wrote:

The meeting was last week when things were hot and heavy and before all facts were out. Its since come out the dear Dr. was Vietnamese, not exactly the most friendly nationality to China.

Also as pointed out yesterday by analyst, the UA China network accounts for ~3% of revenues, with a very heavy component of US point of sale. Their take was "booking haven’t been materially impacted by this event"

I probably should have commented on the fact he was Vietnamese. Kind of racist for UA to just assume he was Chinese it seems to me.

enilria wrote:

Kind of racist for UA to just assume he was Chinese it seems to me.

What evidence is there that United "assume[d] he was Chinese?"

It seems to me that the reason the CEO of United met with the Chinese consulate was because of the social media firestorm over the incident that was particularly prominent in China specifically, and because of the importance of the Chinese market specifically to United.

enilria wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

The meeting was last week when things were hot and heavy and before all facts were out. Its since come out the dear Dr. was Vietnamese, not exactly the most friendly nationality to China.

Also as pointed out yesterday by analyst, the UA China network accounts for ~3% of revenues, with a very heavy component of US point of sale. Their take was "booking haven’t been materially impacted by this event"

I probably should have commented on the fact he was Vietnamese. Kind of racist for UA to just assume he was Chinese it seems to me.

I think it was the Chinese who asserted he was Chinese in state media, but perhaps I missed something last week.

commavia wrote:

enilria wrote:

Kind of racist for UA to just assume he was Chinese it seems to me.

What evidence is there that United "assume[d] he was Chinese?"

It seems to me that the reason the CEO of United met with the Chinese consulate was because of the social media firestorm over the incident that was particularly prominent in China specifically, and because of the importance of the Chinese market specifically to United.

But why only China? Why not Japan, South Korea, and other prominent Asian markets? Obvious there was an assumption made.

enilria wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

The meeting was last week when things were hot and heavy and before all facts were out. Its since come out the dear Dr. was Vietnamese, not exactly the most friendly nationality to China.

Also as pointed out yesterday by analyst, the UA China network accounts for ~3% of revenues, with a very heavy component of US point of sale. Their take was "booking haven’t been materially impacted by this event"

I probably should have commented on the fact he was Vietnamese. Kind of racist for UA to just assume he was Chinese it seems to me.

How about somebody assumed he was Chinese and UA apologized to the Chinese as a result. Still pretty embarrassing...

UA China network may only be 3%, but you still have a large number of Chinese-[Americans|Canadians|Europeans] that use UA for non-China bound services and some of their Business could be lost if there were a Chinese boycott.

QueenoftheSkies wrote:

But why only China? Why not Japan, South Korea, and other prominent Asian markets? Obvious there was an assumption made.

Because China is the place where, apparently, the social media reaction was the most prominent. It seems to me that the "assumption" made was that since Chinese social media was responding so actively to the incident, and since China is a strategically and financially important market for United, it was worthwhile to take action. It seems like quite a stretch to suggest that there was something sinister, let alone "racist," involved.

enilria wrote:

enilria wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

The meeting was last week when things were hot and heavy and before all facts were out. Its since come out the dear Dr. was Vietnamese, not exactly the most friendly nationality to China.

Also as pointed out yesterday by analyst, the UA China network accounts for ~3% of revenues, with a very heavy component of US point of sale. Their take was "booking haven’t been materially impacted by this event"

I probably should have commented on the fact he was Vietnamese. Kind of racist for UA to just assume he was Chinese it seems to me.

How about somebody assumed he was Chinese and UA apologized to the Chinese as a result. Still pretty embarrassing...

How about you didn't do any research and made up a racism claim instead? This story took China by storm and was shared on Chinese social media by storm. That's something the CEO of United would want to address and not because you say he's a racist

https://www.ft.com/content/12f87b1a-89d ... 879dd1d625

I agree the doctor being Chinese was reported falsely, but when you have a PR shitstorm on your hands, you try to make it right. I'm not saying that CEO Muñoz apologized to give legs to the idea that doctor was Chinese, but when a portion of your customer base is in a frenzy, you do all you can to calm them down, whether you are right or wrong.

Also, although only 3% of their revenue base may be from China, but that fails to include the Chinese and Chinese-Americans who fly with United all over the globe. So United may draw a higher share of its revenue from Chinese sources or from sources with ties to China.

Dr Dao is a Vietnamese-American but he mentioned in one of the videos that he was discriminated because he was Chinese. Many countries in SE Asia have Chinese minorities by ancestry but they may not hold Chinese nationality. Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore, Vietnam etc. China considers anyone who is of Chinese descent to be Chinese, but technically they may not be so on paper/passport. As a result, even though racism has not been determined to be a factor, it is wise for United Airlines to apologize to all customers, worldwide.

Adam

So is it a correct assertion that the Chinese media initially wrongly reported that Mr. Dao was Chinese, which stirred up the Chinese social media response, which then died down when the reporting was corrected and it came out that Mr. Dao was in fact Vietnamese? I'm honestly just curious not trying to stir the pot.

UA should be thankful that Facebook and Twitter are blocked in China or else...

Ziyulu wrote:

UA should be thankful that Facebook and Twitter are blocked in China or else...

As many as 100M shares on Weibo isn't trivial.

enilria wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

The meeting was last week when things were hot and heavy and before all facts were out. Its since come out the dear Dr. was Vietnamese, not exactly the most friendly nationality to China.

Also as pointed out yesterday by analyst, the UA China network accounts for ~3% of revenues, with a very heavy component of US point of sale. Their take was "booking haven’t been materially impacted by this event"

I probably should have commented on the fact he was Vietnamese. Kind of racist for UA to just assume he was Chinese it seems to me.

Racist really? maybe short sighted or poor judgment in assumption. IF they did call him Chinese. The racism word is so quickly labeled in society today. I hardly think UA is showing racism towards the Dr.

LAXintl wrote:

The meeting was last week when things were hot and heavy and before all facts were out. Its since come out the dear Dr. was Vietnamese, not exactly the most friendly nationality to China.

A person can be Vietnamese and Chinese, like a French-Canadian or Chinese-Jamaican or Thai-Australian.

etoile wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

The meeting was last week when things were hot and heavy and before all facts were out. Its since come out the dear Dr. was Vietnamese, not exactly the most friendly nationality to China.

A person can be Vietnamese and Chinese, like a French-Canadian or Chinese-Jamaican or Thai-Australian.

Exactly, as jasonbrau pointed out, he can be of Chinese lineage & blood, but may be a national from Vietnam.