[Kona]

(04-10-2017 08:58 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 08:52 PM)Travel Museums Wrote:  

I'm in China and discovered this news on wechat. There are some negative meme photos going around. UA is opening new several new China routes. They were right but they will likely lose the public opinion battle on this. Chinese are so nationalistic they're all posting offense at an American of Chinese descent getting manhandled. VERY UNLUCKY that this doctor was ethnicly Chinese. They're going to lose a lot of business over it. And with the president visiting the USA? Only more focus and pressure over this. Hope it blows over. They are a good airline.

In general, good airlines don't beat their customers bloody until they scream "Please kill me".

United stock went up a little because of this.

http://fortune.com/2017/04/10/united-air...r-dragged/

Maybe its because the Chicago police technically beat the guy, even though they said he fell.

This guy accidentally fell on to sixteen of their bullets:

Be careful out there.

Aloha!

[Seadog]

(04-10-2017 08:52 PM)Travel Museums Wrote:  

They are a good airline.

Compared to who? Even with ignoring this incident? North American Airlines are consistently the lowest quality and nickle and diming-y ones in the world. I just can't fathom how anyone who's flown a wide sampling of airlines around the world would regard flying on a NA carrier as anything more than a chore.

http://www.worldairlineawards.com/awards...ating.html

Air Canada was the highest north American one coming in at #31, United was at #68 alongside other well known gems like Azerbaijan Airways, and Air Seychelles.

Even super discounter Air Asia was #23 but at least there, you can pay next to nothing, and you expect no frills. Or you can pay the equivalent or less of a NA economy fare on Asian or middle east carriers and get a full menu, hot towel, free drinks, and individual TVs. I (only) once flew DEN-HKG on UA and it didn't even offer a meal or have any functioning TVs. US lounges are garbage, staff aren't helpful, North American carriers have perfected the combo of no frills service, combined with full service pricing.

[markygras]

(04-10-2017 08:31 PM)CaptainChardonnay Wrote:  

Pretty stupid how they didn't just drive those employees to where they had to go since it was a 4 hour drive. To the guys saying he should have paid the higher fair, I don't think thats a valid way to look at it. He might just not want to spend money on plane tickets.

Bottom line is he paid for a service and it was not delivered.

Federal aviation rules require a certain # of "rest hours" prior to flying a plane, and time spent traveling don't count. Basically the law says the pilots have to get about 8 hours of sleep before being allowed to work again - forcing them to drive for 4 hours would defeat the whole purpose of getting them there.

[BrewDog]

(04-10-2017 09:51 PM)markygras Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 08:31 PM)CaptainChardonnay Wrote:  

Pretty stupid how they didn't just drive those employees to where they had to go since it was a 4 hour drive.

Federal aviation rules require a certain # of "rest hours" prior to flying a plane, and time spent traveling don't count. Basically the law says the pilots have to get about 8 hours of sleep before being allowed to work again - forcing them to drive for 4 hours would defeat the whole purpose of getting them there.

They were mechanics.

[Suits]

(04-10-2017 09:25 PM)Seadog Wrote:  

Even super discounter Air Asia was #23 but at least there, you can pay next to nothing, and you expect no frills.

I flew Air Asia recently and while they obviously don't include meals, entertainment or checked baggage unless you pay extra, their service was excellent and their staff very pleasant and accommodating.

[IvanDrago]

The airline has the right to remove anyone they want from the plane for any reason they want. It is their airplane. However, they created this problem themselves by calling in men with guns to handle something as simple as this.

On a scale of 1 to 10 of bad shit that could have went down by calling in the police, this was a 2 on the low end of the scale. Something far worse could have happened to this guy and it all could have been caught on video. How expensive of a PR disaster would it have been if the guy got a broken neck in the scuffle or shot for resisting (add quotes around "resisting" if that's your thing).

What they should have done is what normally happens when a flight is overbooked. Before anyone boards the plane, offer vouchers to get people off the flight. If that didn't work, offer them 2 vouchers. If that didn't work, offer 3. Everyone has a price. Vouchers cost nothing to the airline and more than enough people would have gotten off the plane by the time the got to 2 or 3 vouchers.

I am glad any time badge heavy retardation like this goes viral. Hopefully over time, people will start rethinking the perceived benefits of a police state and start using their heads to come up with intelligent solutions to problems in lieu of punishment and incarceration.

Fuck the old women and tough guy wannabe little boys saying the asian dude deserved this because he disobeyed an order. Fuck the airline too. I hope they have to pay through the nose for this. The more companies or schools or whatever get hit in the wallet when bad situations like this go viral, the more they will re-think the "just do what you are told....or else" line of thought that has been a cancer on this country over the last 15-20 years.

[Leonard D Neubache]

I'm going to be honest. I skipped page 3 and 4 of the thread.

I just wanted to say that I hope a team from microsoft comes over to aromaticmike's house and holds him down while scooping out his still-living organs based on the letter-of-the-law interpretation of a subclause interpreted via legalese after he accepted the terms of a fifteen page install window while unpacking winzip v1.047 12 years ago.

It's contract law, damnit, and pummelling a man over a few hundred dollars extra is what separates us from the animals!

What are we to be otherwise?

Savages?

[Crisp]

(04-10-2017 10:50 PM)IvanDrago Wrote:  

What they should have done is what normally happens when a flight is overbooked. Before anyone boards the plane, offer vouchers to get people off the flight. If that didn't work, offer them 2 vouchers. If that didn't work, offer 3. Everyone has a price. Vouchers cost nothing to the airline and more than enough people would have gotten off the plane by the time the got to 2 or 3 vouchers.

My thought exactly. This should have been resolved before a single person boarded the plane. If it still resulted in the same Chinese man as being selected to give up his seat, I find it hard to believe that the situation would have escalated the same way. It's much different to say "Sorry sir, you can not board the plane" than to say "Sorry sir, get off the plane." If the police were needed to bar the man from entering the plane and the guy got physical? Than that would be on him. But once seated, you're creating a much higher chance of a physical confrontation.

Plus there is another way to look at it. Most guys here are well traveled veterans with many flights under their belt. Not everyone is the same. Even people that do fly regularly can get stressed. Resolving this in the terminal where people would be more level headed and calm seems like a no brainer. Once on board, those that are skittish about flying get their emotions amped up. I'm not concluding this is what happened to the guy, but it is something to consider

[BrewDog]

[Rawmeo]

Disgusting. Removing a senior Asian citizen is way easier than removing a 30 y.o. white man with muscles, right?

Anyway that man is a doctor so I'm pretty sure he has the resources to make the airline regret that move.

I definitely believe that overbooking flights should be illegal. It causes so many problems that it's not worth the extra $200 that the airline can sqeeze out of it.

[Captainstabbin]

So you're selected to be removed from the plane, your choices are:

1. Walk off calmly and accept the $800. (Which might not cover your alternate travel arrangements.)

2. Throw a fit and possibly get a yuge settlement from the airline and police.

Tough choice.

[Rawmeo]

(04-10-2017 11:52 PM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  

So you're selected to be removed from the plane, your choices are:

1. Walk off calmly and accept the $800. (Which might not cover your alternate travel arrangements.)

2. Throw a fit and possibly get a yuge settlement from the airline and police.

Tough choice.

The guy's a doctor, so if he has a surgery to make, he can't tell the patient "well, I've been bumped off a flight, your surgery will have to wait". Some people geuinely need to be there on time and can't afford missing their flight.

I personally never volonteer my seat for overbooking, even with vouchers, because I am a firm believer that overbooking should be made illegal. So you won't see me supporting that.

[Captainstabbin]

(04-10-2017 11:55 PM)Rawmeo Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 11:52 PM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  

So you're selected to be removed from the plane, your choices are:

1. Walk off calmly and accept the $800. (Which might not cover your alternate travel arrangements.)

2. Throw a fit and possibly get a yuge settlement from the airline and police.

Tough choice.

The guy's a doctor, so if he has a surgery to make, he can't tell the patient "well, I've been bumped off a flight, your surgery will have to wait". Some people geuinely need to be there on time and can't afford missing their flight.

I personally never volonteer my seat for overbooking, even with vouchers, because I am a firm believer that overbooking should be made illegal. So you won't see me supporting that.

Just makes the potential settlement higher. The choice gets harder.

[Leonard D Neubache]

Company run by fucking idiots:

"Take the 800 or we're going to have your face smashed."

Company not run by fucking idiots:

"Nobody at 800? Who'll take 9? Do I have a taker for nine? Ten? One thousand per ticket. Do I have a taker for ten hundred dollars... etc etc."

Inevitably someone will bite, and regardless of how much extra it cost, it would pale in comparison to even the shitty optics of a non-violent demand that was conceded to.

But let's face it, ever since 9/11 airlines (particularly in the US) have begun to act as though an airplane is the equivalent of a prison, where all rights and social graces are suspended, even if they have nothing to do with security whatsoever.

Or in other words, we're all painfully aware that once you pass through security, you cease to be a citizen and are regarded instead as a peasant.

[I DIDN'T KILL MY WIFE]

(04-10-2017 04:45 PM)achromaticmike Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 04:42 PM)I DIDNT KILL MY WIFE Wrote:  

"ACSHUALLY, it says so in the fine print!" is a really bad way of arguing a policy.

Most of us would take the money and just fly on the next day. But just imagine that you had a REALLY fucking important flight and you had to take it ON THAT DAY ONLY: a parent's funeral, some ridiculously profitable business deal you're about to sign, there's a vacation cruise liner waiting for you on the other end of the flight that cost more than the compensation the airline is offering you etc. etc.... those are some situations where you'd probably say "fuck you and your compensation, I need to take THIS flight only!" and it's ridiculous to allow the airlines to weasel out of it by saying "woops it was in the contract lol"

I'd probably stand up -- explain to the passengers in the vicinity of me my predicament and offer additional compensation to ensure someone took my place. In other words, I'd behave like an intelligent adult.

In this case with these exact circumstances since the flight was Chicago to Louisville and driving was about 3 hours longer than the flight and my supposed scheduling issue wasn't until the following day -- I'd probably take the $800 and the refund and go grab a rental car.

Are you a libertarian or something? It's nothing to do about behaving "like an intelligent adult", intelligence has nothing to do it. This is more of a consumer rights issue in which companies like to structure contracts in such a way that they have all the upside, reserve all rights and have all the options while the customer only has the obligation to pay but zero rights afterwards. You can't haggle your way into a B2C contract, you're in that way mostly helpless against the big corps and govs and regulations exist to protect consumer rights for exactly such reason.

Actually this is basically another similar situation to the tipping/no tipping debate. Restaurant owners claims that it would literally impossible to run a restaurant if they didn't pay their staff 50 cents/hour and let them make the remainder of their wage up with tips. Otherwise - OH NO! - they'd have to raise the price of their food to pay a couple of waiters a proper wage instead of hiring an army of illegal bussers and other assistance stuff. Same with airplane corps, just raise the price of the ticket accordingly and stop overbooking planes and then playing "leave the plane" roulette

[Gustavus Adolphus]

Pondering that "leave the plane" roulette- one of the only scenarios I can think of that would have been worse would be to come on the plane to remove a uniformed military passenger. Or maybe a woman with a baby.

How random is this game exactly? Are we sure it's connected to lowest cost fares/ lowest profits/ last in first out? Or some other algorithm? Who is eligible? Just guys with names that are low risk PR nightmares usually?

And the CEO Munoz now says passenger was disruptive and belligerent. He stands by his employees.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/10/united-ce...erent.html

Quote:

According to the letter, which was obtained by CNBC, when crew members first approached the passenger to tell him to leave, he "raised his voice and refused to comply," and each time they asked again "he refused and became more and more disruptive and belligerent."
Crew members "were left with no choice but to call Chicago Aviation Security Officers to assist in removing the customer from the flight," Munoz wrote, and at one point the passenger "continued to resist - running back onto the aircraft in defiance of both our crew and security officials."
Munoz acknowledged to employees that the company could learn lessons from the incident, but said: "I emphatically stand behind all of you."

United is a great Airline. Get over it?

[Captainstabbin]

(04-11-2017 12:44 AM)Gustavus Adolphus Wrote:  

And the CEO Munoz now says passenger was disruptive and belligerent. He stands by his employees.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/10/united-ce...erent.html

Quote:

According to the letter, which was obtained by CNBC, when crew members first approached the passenger to tell him to leave, he "raised his voice and refused to comply," and each time they asked again "he refused and became more and more disruptive and belligerent."
Crew members "were left with no choice but to call Chicago Aviation Security Officers to assist in removing the customer from the flight," Munoz wrote, and at one point the passenger "continued to resist - running back onto the aircraft in defiance of both our crew and security officials."
Munoz acknowledged to employees that the company could learn lessons from the incident, but said: "I emphatically stand behind all of you."

United is a great Airline. Get over it?

He's passing all of the responsibility to the police. They HAD to be called in to remove a "dangerous" belligerent passenger.

Meanwhile, the police have already suspended the cop and admitted guilt. That pushes the settlement up at least a couple 100k.

[worldtraveler3]

From the economist. Seems like this is not an overbooking situation.
"UA and Munoz really screwed the pooch here, and the media need to stop using the term "Oversold" when describing the circumstances of the flight that brought about this situation.
.
According to details from UA's own agents' description of the incident, the flight was not "oversold" according to UA's definition of that term. (which can be found here: https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content...riage.aspx)
.
Here's how UA defines "oversold" in the "Definitions" section of its "Contract of Carriage Document": "Oversold Flight means a flight where there are more Passengers holding valid confirmed Tickets that check-in for the flight within the prescribed check-in time than there are available seats."
.
Here's what they say happened:
.
"The sequence of events is based on preliminary reports submitted by the airline's employees which states:
.
Summary of Flight 3411:
• On Sunday, April 9, after United Express Flight 3411 was fully boarded, United’s gate agents were approached by crew members that were told they needed to board the flight.
• We sought volunteers and then followed our involuntary denial of boarding process (including offering up to $1,000 in compensation) and when we approached one of these passengers to explain apologetically that he was being denied boarding, he raised his voice and refused to comply with crew member instructions.
• He was approached a few more times after that in order to gain his compliance to come off the aircraft, and each time he refused and became more and more disruptive and belligerent.
• Our agents were left with no choice but to call Chicago Aviation Security Officers to assist in removing the customer from the flight. He repeatedly declined to leave.
• Chicago Aviation Security Officers were unable to gain his cooperation and physically removed him from the flight as he continued to resist — running back onto the aircraft in defiance of both our crew and security officials."
.
Notice that the very first bullet point item states that the plane was "fully boarded" (all ticketed passengers had checked-in and been seated). ONLY THEN were the agents approached by UA crew members who needed to be accommodated on the flight.
.
Based on this revelation, it's looking like the problem was not that the flight was "oversold" (which is legal, and a valid reason that passengers can be denied boarding privileges), but rather that UA had a last-minute logistical issue that the gate agents thought they could pass off as an "oversold" flight (sneaky, sneaky). They probably could have gotten away with it too, if the flight hadn't been fully boarded already. After all, how would any passenger know how many tickets were actually sold for the flight before boarding? But again, this trick fails once the flight is already fully boarded, as was the case here. (not just in actuality, but probably legally, as well)
.
UA enumerates very specific reasons why it can remove a passenger in its "Contract of Carriage" (this is "Rule 21- Refusal of Transport https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content...Mobil...), and the situation that appears to be in play here (the need to get UA employees to a destination) is not stated in this section of the contract.
.
UA also details its policy for compensating passengers for "involuntary removal from Oversold flights" (as Rule 25 ) but again, this doesn't come into play because A). the flight wasn't "oversold" according to UA's own definition; and B). this rule covers scenarios that occur PRIOR TO BOARDING. As UA states in their own summary of the events, the flight was already "fully boarded."
.
UA appears to be attempting to rest the legitimacy of their action on their claim that the removed customer was "disorderly, offensive, or abusive" because he "he raised his voice and refused to comply with crew member instructions" and that he became more "more disruptive and belligerent" as they continued to badger him (even though the crew member's instruction was probably 'get off the plane'; a demand they had no justification for making according to the COC document)
.
Rather than waiting for all of the facts to come in, Munoz is digging the company further into a legal hole by releasing this information which damages the customer's reputation (even if it was only meant for internal consumption, this is being sent to tens of thousands of people). He may be able to pin the actual physical damage on the airport security, and may be able to pass of the buck to United Express/Republic Airlines for the actions of the agents (the actual operators of the flight). But if he continues to paint the customer as the one at fault (when it appears he wasn't) he likely won't be able to escape a lawsuit for defamation."

[Suits]

^^^If that is the case, the "disruptive and belligerent" has a massive payday coming. His legal team is going to have absolutely no trouble convincing a jury that he was within his rights.

Going to be very hard to field a jury that is going to have a pro-airlines bias in this day and age. All he needs is an argument that sounds halfway legitimate.

[samsamsam]

I think maybe what is being overlooked is his mental state. All of the passengers.


You are waiting for possibly the last flight home after an exhausting trip. The next day you have a shitload of important things to do. Maybe not important to others but in your mind very important. You are waiting to board and they are seeking volunteers. So you are a bit worried. You are on the plane and you think you have made it. The tension or concern eases from your mind. And then someone comes abroad and takes you and robs you of any chance to handle your pressing issues tomorrow. Even if you drove all night you are probably not in a condition to perform the next day.

Let's say anyone here who has said they wouldn't react and just take their lumps. Let's say you were going home for some critical event. Select whatever it is that would cause you distress, something in your mind you can't miss, you would be cool with it? Keep in mind the mental state you are in now. You think you are set. You are on your way home and then it gets taken.

In all the horror movies when the kids think they killed the bad guy, it never ends well.

Edit: based on world travelers post some of my example is not applicable now. But the mental
State - you are on your way home still applies.

[samsamsam]

(04-11-2017 01:40 AM)Suits Wrote:  

^^^If that is the case, the "disruptive and belligerent" has a massive payday coming. His legal team is going to have absolutely no trouble convincing a jury that he was within his rights.

Going to be very hard to field a jury that is going to have a pro-airlines bias in this day and age. All he needs is an argument that sounds halfway legitimate.

Supreme court will rule for united. Companies are people too.

[Duke Castile]

(04-11-2017 01:30 AM)worldtraveler3 Wrote:  

From the economist. Seems like this is not an overbooking situation.
"UA and Munoz really screwed the pooch here, and the media need to stop using the term "Oversold" when describing the circumstances of the flight that brought about this situation.
.
According to details from UA's own agents' description of the incident, the flight was not "oversold" according to UA's definition of that term. (which can be found here: https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content...riage.aspx)
.
Here's how UA defines "oversold" in the "Definitions" section of its "Contract of Carriage Document": "Oversold Flight means a flight where there are more Passengers holding valid confirmed Tickets that check-in for the flight within the prescribed check-in time than there are available seats."
.
Here's what they say happened:
.
"The sequence of events is based on preliminary reports submitted by the airline's employees which states:
.
Summary of Flight 3411:
• On Sunday, April 9, after United Express Flight 3411 was fully boarded, United’s gate agents were approached by crew members that were told they needed to board the flight.
• We sought volunteers and then followed our involuntary denial of boarding process (including offering up to $1,000 in compensation) and when we approached one of these passengers to explain apologetically that he was being denied boarding, he raised his voice and refused to comply with crew member instructions.
• He was approached a few more times after that in order to gain his compliance to come off the aircraft, and each time he refused and became more and more disruptive and belligerent.
• Our agents were left with no choice but to call Chicago Aviation Security Officers to assist in removing the customer from the flight. He repeatedly declined to leave.
• Chicago Aviation Security Officers were unable to gain his cooperation and physically removed him from the flight as he continued to resist — running back onto the aircraft in defiance of both our crew and security officials."
.
Notice that the very first bullet point item states that the plane was "fully boarded" (all ticketed passengers had checked-in and been seated). ONLY THEN were the agents approached by UA crew members who needed to be accommodated on the flight.
.
Based on this revelation, it's looking like the problem was not that the flight was "oversold" (which is legal, and a valid reason that passengers can be denied boarding privileges), but rather that UA had a last-minute logistical issue that the gate agents thought they could pass off as an "oversold" flight (sneaky, sneaky). They probably could have gotten away with it too, if the flight hadn't been fully boarded already. After all, how would any passenger know how many tickets were actually sold for the flight before boarding? But again, this trick fails once the flight is already fully boarded, as was the case here. (not just in actuality, but probably legally, as well)
.
UA enumerates very specific reasons why it can remove a passenger in its "Contract of Carriage" (this is "Rule 21- Refusal of Transport https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content...Mobil...), and the situation that appears to be in play here (the need to get UA employees to a destination) is not stated in this section of the contract.
.
UA also details its policy for compensating passengers for "involuntary removal from Oversold flights" (as Rule 25 ) but again, this doesn't come into play because A). the flight wasn't "oversold" according to UA's own definition; and B). this rule covers scenarios that occur PRIOR TO BOARDING. As UA states in their own summary of the events, the flight was already "fully boarded."
.
UA appears to be attempting to rest the legitimacy of their action on their claim that the removed customer was "disorderly, offensive, or abusive" because he "he raised his voice and refused to comply with crew member instructions" and that he became more "more disruptive and belligerent" as they continued to badger him (even though the crew member's instruction was probably 'get off the plane'; a demand they had no justification for making according to the COC document)
.
Rather than waiting for all of the facts to come in, Munoz is digging the company further into a legal hole by releasing this information which damages the customer's reputation (even if it was only meant for internal consumption, this is being sent to tens of thousands of people). He may be able to pin the actual physical damage on the airport security, and may be able to pass of the buck to United Express/Republic Airlines for the actions of the agents (the actual operators of the flight). But if he continues to paint the customer as the one at fault (when it appears he wasn't) he likely won't be able to escape a lawsuit for defamation."

Well well well, this bit of news makes all of our spergy friend achromaticmikes neverending "he should have read the contract he agreed to" posts age poorly.

Perhaps he DID read the contract and perhaps he DID realize he was being taken off for an illegitimate reason.

Also consider for a moment that you are a 70 Yr old gay Asian doctor and you have a 6000 in billing the next day.

I doubt you have the travel experience to think in that moment "no problem I'll just drive"

In your mind you're losing 5200 bucks just so some asshole pilots can get to the destination you paid for.

You also believe your status as elder, and a doctor, and let's not forget a PAYING customer, entail you to your ticket.

US domestic carriers are complete shit and I enjoy seeing then get fucked.

Really suprised by all the "follow the rules or else" comments by forum members.

TL;DR low t gay chinese doctor displays more balls than many on sperg spectrum on forum

[booshala]

As a frequent flyer, I've been bumped at least 10 times and in every instance it was a proactive request on my part. Shit, once I got bumped three times in a row and got $3000 in vouchers and a hotel room out of it. From my POV it seems like just about every actor in this scenario was acting various degrees of shitty:

- Crew did not do a good job of handling this situation and/or explaining the situation to the passengers. Still, I've been on the other side of some hairy customer service situations involving hundreds of people and I can say that it's nerve-wracking keeping your cool in situations like that. Obviously, people's individual self interests almost always precede an abstract greater good, but perhaps the FA's could have better articulated that an entire flight would be cancelled if these mechanics couldn't get to Louisville. That + a generous voucher, room offer and/or some above and beyond perk could've been the key to making this happen. Then again, who knows if internal policies prevented them from doing that.

- UA CEO Oscar Munoz... shit, this guy has not had a great 18 months. From taking over for the long beleaguered Jeff Smisek - who many claim had run UA into the ground after the merger with Continental - to his near fatal heart attack, to his now terrible tone-deaf response about this incident... this does not bode well for his career with United.

- Law enforcement bloodying a 69 year old man and forcibly dragging him out of a plane? As if their PR isn't already bad enough.

- And damn... I'm Asian so I should inherently be biased to the plight of an elderly Chinese guy, but that doctor really put on a show. Unless he's some sort of specialist that has some unique life saving technique or some shit and was scheduled to administer that the next day, I think from a bird's eye perspective, he should've just complied. Also, "Just kill me"? At that point, I'm pretty sure he knew that there were dozens of cameras on him and that was the coup de grace on what will assuredly be a 7 figure payout. This is a personal injury lawyer's dream case.

- Finally, this is all over Facebook which is perfect for virtue signaling "boycotters" to display their mock outrage. Still, I'd lay 5:1 odds that these same people would fly United in a heartbeat if the flight was $50 cheaper than the nearest competitor or they were the only one flying nonstop on the route (e.g. ONT-SFO). Yeah, it was a shitty thing that they did to him and they deserve to take their lumps for it, but I'm so tired of the hashtag activism nowadays.

So many participants could've changed the end result of this incident, but I guess with bumps happening so often, some shit like this was bound to happen. My prediction is that UA will take a temporary hit but it's not like the average person will actively boycott them forever, no matter how much real or mock outrage they have. Doubly so for those flyers that are hub-captives in places like Chicago and Houston.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

Of course they are going to blame the cops.

The guy came inside and was looking at an "unruly passanger" scenario. He used force, because cops are actually the last resort. Of course United is going to pin the thing on him.

The cops should never have been called at all. It would have been easier to up the offer and then pick a young couple.

Now they are memed out of this:










"We are also reaching out to this passenger to talk directly to him..." --Oscar Munoz, CEO









The competition is already picking up on the meme wars:

[Paracelsus]

"May the odds be ever in your favour!"
- United Airlines slogan