Friendly Skies

[Shyheels]

As a frequent flyer, although not, thankfully, of United Airlines, I have been following with a mixture of awe and nausea the dumpster fire of a PR nightmare that is the United Airlines overbooking story. Airlines are pretty unfeeling corporate entities these days, but beating the bejesus out of an innocent paying passenger who did not want to give up his reserved seat for the convenience of one of their staffers is a new low.  The CEO's lame corporate-speak apology followed by his internal note to staff, praising them for their handling of the situation, is truly horrible.  The harrowing video and the gob-smacking follow-up attitude by United has certainly started a backlash, but also illustrated how low our expectations are of airlines these days. Passengers are nothing more than just so many kilograms of live weight cargo these days...     

[FastFreddy2]

I'm pleased to read the response from a flyer. As I often report, it's something I don't do if I can possibly avoid it. (Cat-sitting is my current excuse.)

United have also begun a 'character-assassination' regime of the flyer, to try and mitigate their position, which overall seems to be very anti-customer from what I have been reading. My conclusion (again, form reading) falls behind your summation in that paying passengers are no more than "live cargo". It's been reported that millions have fallen off the stock value of United, and there is a huge social media backlash against the company. I wonder if it will last much longer, given the wide and deep negative PR campaign throughout the world. These might be worth a read:

Fly Friendly

Backlash

TV Show skit

 

I suppose this is what happens when you graduate the Gerald Ratner School of PR.... 

The CEO should have issued a worldwide apology, and thrown $500,000 at the passenger's medical care needs, and quietly 'settled' any subsequent claim which should have included lifetime free travel with the company. But no, they thought they could ride out a bad report and blame the passenger. Silly mistake that will make that passenger's ticket for that flight, the most expensive in history. 

[Shyheels]

It us all the more stupid, if that were possible, because the flight was going only to Louisville, a 4-5 hour drive away. They could have chauffeured their staffers there for a fraction of the $3200 they offered in compensation, and had no troubles at all. Just amazing.

[FastFreddy2]

6 minutes ago, Shyheels said:

It us all the more stupid, if that were possible, because the flight was going only to Louisville, a 4-5 hour drive away. They could have chauffeured their staffers there for a fraction of the $3200 they offered in compensation, and had no troubles at all. Just amazing.

Yes. Or if the crew were required to staff the aircraft they were travelling on for a return or follow on flight, increasing the the buy-back compensation until 4 passengers 'cracked' would have done the job. Even at $1500 per seat, still cheaper than the outcome. And that outcome might now have to include a complete re-branding if the airline is to survive. 

[Shyheels]

So far they have lost $250 million in market capitalisation, with US Senators proposing an enquiry and growing talk if boycotts in the massive Asian market. Yes, I'd say they took the expensive option to get their four staffers to Louisville. They could have chartered a Gulfstream for them and still be quids in.