Todos
← Back to Squawk list
United Airlines reaches settlement with passenger violently dragged off flight
David Dao, the passenger dragged off a United Airlines flight, has reached an "amicable settlement" with the airline over the incident that sparked a worldwide uproar, his lawyers said Thursday. The amount of the settlement was not disclosed under the terms of the agreement, but lawyer Thomas Demetrio praised United CEO Oscar Munoz for his handling of the dispute. "Mr. Munoz said he was going to do the right thing and he has," he said. (www.usatoday.com) Más...
Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]
Making a profit isn't evil, but if you refuse to treat people the right way, it is absolutely going to have an effect on your ability to stay in business. I'm glad that this has United (and other airlines) in the spotlight. Passengers should not put up with it.
If they choose to raise prices to pay the settlement, it means that more people will fly other airlines. So be it. If I were United, I would do the opposite; cut profits and lower prices to win customers back. Of course, that will only work if they actually improve policies and treat people fairly.
And I know you're trying to be snappy to prove a point, but you're making yourself seem very foolish by suggesting that people you do not know need to 'learn about the business' (please feel free to tell me how many years I have in the business world and in aviation). Further, I am very well versed in COCs and aviation policies and book some $60-$100k with United every year as most of my team has Global Services status.
Differing viewpoints are never a bad thing, but I would ask that you learn to be more respectful in expressing yours.
If they choose to raise prices to pay the settlement, it means that more people will fly other airlines. So be it. If I were United, I would do the opposite; cut profits and lower prices to win customers back. Of course, that will only work if they actually improve policies and treat people fairly.
And I know you're trying to be snappy to prove a point, but you're making yourself seem very foolish by suggesting that people you do not know need to 'learn about the business' (please feel free to tell me how many years I have in the business world and in aviation). Further, I am very well versed in COCs and aviation policies and book some $60-$100k with United every year as most of my team has Global Services status.
Differing viewpoints are never a bad thing, but I would ask that you learn to be more respectful in expressing yours.
I agree with srobak! Since everyone reads the fine print on their tickets, and that's all that matters in "the business world", airlines should be free to put all sorts of cost saving measures into the fine print, and passengers should just shut up and accept it. Why should we all have to pay more because United is being unfairly vilified for legally beating up a passenger?
Just think how much airlines could save if they just eliminated the lavatories on all aircraft. Simply add a clause to the "fine print" that urinating or defecating during a flight is a violation of the terms of service and BINGO...you could fit nine more seats on a 737, lowering the cost for all of us passengers!
Why stop at that? How about airlines adding a clause to their "fine print" that if the flight is overweight, they can just set your luggage on fire and you have no recourse? That would save tons of money for "all passengers". And, since we all read the find print, we'd be perfectly happy with that!
If srobak had any business experience at all, he'd know that competition rules the marketplace. Beating up your passengers is bad for business, even if it's allowed under the "fine print". This may raise ticket prices by a few cents per seat, but the result is that airlines won't treat passengers this way ever again, which is worth it for all of us.
The only reason to use force on a passenger is in the case of a security threat. I'm a pilot and I know that "failure to follow flight crew instructions" means that we can legally remove a passenger from the aircraft by force, and call in security to do so, but that would be completely idiotic (and inhumane) unless there's a compelling security threat to the rest of the passengers. That was definitely not the case in this incident. He was just a guy who bought a plane ticket, sat down in his seat, and expected to be carried to his destination.
Just think how much airlines could save if they just eliminated the lavatories on all aircraft. Simply add a clause to the "fine print" that urinating or defecating during a flight is a violation of the terms of service and BINGO...you could fit nine more seats on a 737, lowering the cost for all of us passengers!
Why stop at that? How about airlines adding a clause to their "fine print" that if the flight is overweight, they can just set your luggage on fire and you have no recourse? That would save tons of money for "all passengers". And, since we all read the find print, we'd be perfectly happy with that!
If srobak had any business experience at all, he'd know that competition rules the marketplace. Beating up your passengers is bad for business, even if it's allowed under the "fine print". This may raise ticket prices by a few cents per seat, but the result is that airlines won't treat passengers this way ever again, which is worth it for all of us.
The only reason to use force on a passenger is in the case of a security threat. I'm a pilot and I know that "failure to follow flight crew instructions" means that we can legally remove a passenger from the aircraft by force, and call in security to do so, but that would be completely idiotic (and inhumane) unless there's a compelling security threat to the rest of the passengers. That was definitely not the case in this incident. He was just a guy who bought a plane ticket, sat down in his seat, and expected to be carried to his destination.
[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]
But according to the CoC, there are only a few situations for which they can remove a passenger once on board, and accommodating deadheading crew members isn't one of them. Even if Dao was "disruptive", he only became so after illegally being ordered off the flight and being beaten by security (at which point I imagine he wasn't of sound mind, through no fault of his own). I certainly agree the airline can remove a passenger for being disruptive or threatening, but this situation seems more like a cop arresting someone for no reason and then justifying it by claiming he was resisting arrest.
I concur, Sorbak.
Let's leave his prior incidents out of this since they have no bearing whatsoever in it. If any of us had to be to the destination in a timely fashion and had been granted boarding, we would not have agreed to give up our seat. And no matter who asks, we would not have to. He was not a security threat.
Now, if you want to offer enough to charter my own flight, I will gladly shuttle over to the nearest FBO and be on my happy way. But once on board, that is the passenger's call, not the airline's. Could the airline just cancel the entire flight? Sure, but we all know that would end up costing them orders of magnitude more. If they were really smart, they would've chartered a flight for the crew that needed to be relocated.
I do hope this forces airlines to operate more from what is right than what is legal.