Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FAO: teevee- Customer Service at our Favorite Airline

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    So...just endured two incidents of EXTREMELY slow bag drop at Delta...It would be so bad if I weren't paying $25.00 for this great privilege.

    ...and I guess some kudos to AA who gives me the wonderful privilege (that I asked for) of printing and attaching my own bag tag (after sorting through several up-sell-screens which subtly say "Continue" instead of "No Thanks, just print my damn boarding pass and bag tag")
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

    Comment


    • #32
      We should wait for the final report, but this at least looks interesting and speculation-worthy. The discussion below the article seems to imply that he was 1) Already seated and 2) Removed for a commuting crew.

      https://www.yahoo.com/news/united-pa...134930951.html

      PS: AA MinionMinion, please note, this is not your beloved employer.

      Edit: Important note to ATLCrew (and others). This was not 'United' but Republic.

      I know that means Republic pilots and Republic Hosties/Hosthes, but aren't the gate agents 'regular United' and security??? employees of the People's Republic of ORD/Obamaland Police Dept?...

      Also part of the edit- this is not looking well for 'the airline' (whomever that is)(and even though the final report is not out)

      ...While they were probably within their fine-print rights, it would seem that this passenger checked in on, time, paid good$ for a seat (possibly assigned?), was allowed to board and then 'removed because the fine print says we can' and we have a crew we need to reposition.

      As "we" think how to solve this, can't they swing a decent price with some charter co to fly the pilots to the next location?
      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by 3WE View Post
        We should wait for the final report, but this at least looks interesting and speculation-worthy. The discussion below the article seems to imply that he was 1) Already seated and 2) Removed for a commuting crew.

        https://www.yahoo.com/news/united-pa...134930951.html

        PS: AA MinionMinion, please note, this is not your beloved employer.
        yeah yeah. read about it earlier and heard about it on the news.

        this is not new, but what is new is the police involvement and government violence against a citizen SOLELY to protect corporate profit. and no, i don't give a shit about the flight from louisville that would've been cancelled had the dead heading crew not flown. that would simply have been the side effect of corporate greed and the ridiculous bastardization of 1000 years of contract law to permit greater profits to airlines.

        a closer look at what untied did reveals quite clearly their greed: they offered vouchers up to $800 for volunteers to get off and stopped there. not enuf people volunteered. so, instead of raising the stakes a bit to tempt just one more person to get off, they called the cops and abused the crap out some poor shmuck. the cops should and will be sued. untied should and will be sued.

        hopefully, this poor abused doctor has a huge pair of balls and hires an attorney like me that will not seek a quick or cheap settlement. rather, drag untied and the po-po through the court system and in front of a jury--costing both untied and the po-po 100s of 1000s in attorney's fees and continuing bad publicity and hopefully resulting in a jury verdict for millions AND a PUBLIC ADMISSION BY UNTIED THAT ITS SOLE MOTIVATION WAS GREED.

        this heinous act, if left unchecked sets an insanely bad precedent for corporations, to invoke the government's police power for profit. the kind of stuff that was reserved for the 3rd world, like sending marines to central america to protect corrupt fruit companies.....

        embarrassed to be an american sometimes.

        Comment


        • #34
          Was it really THE police that removed him, and not pseudo police...wow, defies basic freedoms pretty bad.

          And, 4 times 8 = 3200...shouldn't that rent a king air (or the company biz jet) to deliver the crew.

          Of course, this is our fault for being cheap asses (Just razzing you) And how about Delta taking 5 days to sort out an old fashioned day of springtime thunderstorms? A system designed for greed with little resilience.
          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

          Comment


          • #35
            Back in the day my favourite airline for travelling across "The Pond" was Continental. Sadly they were taken over by United who are currently trying to drag the Continental legacy crews down to the United excuse for passenger service. From what I've heard the crews on the old Continental aircraft (they are the ones with no letters on the end of the aircraft registration) are trying hard to maintain the old Continental standards.
            If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by 3WE View Post
              Was it really THE police that removed him, and not pseudo police...wow, defies basic freedoms pretty bad.

              And, 4 times 8 = 3200...shouldn't that rent a king air (or the company biz jet) to deliver the crew.

              Of course, this is our fault for being cheap asses (Just razzing you) And how about Delta taking 5 days to sort out an old fashioned day of springtime thunderstorms? A system designed for greed with little resilience.
              apparently, there are two depts that patrol ord--an armed force and the unarmed "aviation security dept" which is still under the police dept. one of the officers was suspended pending an investigation.

              there's all sorts of jibber jabber about how untied was within their contractual rights to forcibly remove this poor bastard. BULLSHIT!

              their COC is located here: https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...age.aspx#sec21

              Rule 25 covers denied boarding and compensation. it is important to note that untied stresses denial of boarding, and makes NO MENTION of removing a pax that has already boarded. hence, in my genius legal opinion, untied breached their own contract. take thos f*$%ers to the bank and withdraw a very large sum.

              but wait, there's more!

              they say this was an overbooked flight. this claim is belied by the fact that they needed 4 volunteers to leave so they could transport 4 crew members. seems to me like the flight was NOT "overbooked." rather, they screwed up or had other scheduling problems out of louisville and needed the crew from ord. so the entire section of the coc on denied boarding is INAPPLICABLE, since it specifically states, "When there is an oversold flight..."

              now, Rule 21 covers refusal of transport and sets forth a comprehensive list of reasons why they can refuse to transport AND remove from the aircraft any pax for the enumerated reasons. refusal to leave in an overbooking situation is not listed. there is a legal maxim that states, "expressio unius est exclusio alterius." which simply means when one or more things of a class are expressly mentioned others of the same class are excluded. hence, since untied specifically listed reasons it reserved for the removal of pax from the plane, they EXCLUDED any reasons they did not list.

              shit i wish i could represent this guy......

              p.s. now reading that the ceo is saying the doctor was belligerent. hell yeah i'dda been more than belligerent! in their faces for breaching their own contract and resorting to physical violence in the name of corporate profit.

              p.p.s. at an absolute bare minimum, the doctor should be paid the same amount untied would've had to pay for cancelling the flight out of louisville. then add punitive damages for the intentional infliction of bodily injury, stress, emotional damages etc etc etc.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                ...there's all sorts of jibber jabber about how untied was within their contractual rights to forcibly remove this poor bastard...
                Make no mistake this sucks...

                What bothers me a bit more is 1) United truly does have all sorts of contractual rights to screw over passengers in fairly crappy ways, and 2) Everyone else also has all sorts of contractual rights to screw over passengers.

                I would hate for the outcome to be a big pay out and an internal training effort on how to be better at denying folks boarding, (but business goes on largely as-always), a few tweaks to our COC, establish a new rule to not throw people off and then run a BS PR campaign that we're back to being 'The Friendly Skies'.

                I also hate that the outcome will be that everyone else in the industry continues with "Contract Law That Violates The Ages and All Semblance of Common Sense" (to borrow from you). I am sure there will be lots of internal memos and reminders and training at all carriers, but I'm with you that this sort of stuff has established itself in airline DNA, and it includes large doses of white wash and diversion.

                And that the monopolistic behavior allows this sort of business practice to continue.

                One of the most damning things that keeps coming up is that airline profits are way way way up...

                There ought to be a little more cash to pay for hotel rooms for crews to fly out the next morning, buy a few more company G-5's (or should they go cheap and get Pillati?) and keep them at ORD to shuttle your displaced crews when you are overbooked.
                Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                  ...COC...Rule 25...NOT "overbooked."...INAPPLICABLE...specifically states...Rule 21...enumerated reasons..."expressio unius est exclusio alterius."...and blah blah blah additional legal mumbo jumbo....
                  ^^^Friendly Razz^^^, but being more serious, Thanks- a seriously interesting analysis and great explanation.

                  Along with 'the government' being complicit in supporting an oppressive, highly-profitable business, in assaulting a person who paid significant $ for transportation from point A to point B.

                  AND...as wrong as 'the regional thing' is, this issue is on United. I guess we blame Republic for going cheap on not having a crew stationed for the next AM's flight, but the policy, response, assault and battery are all on United and the CPD.
                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                    shit i wish i could represent this guy......
                    Who (what) is stopping you?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                      Who (what) is stopping you?
                      1. i've decided i don't wanna litigate anymore and stopped taking on new cases about a year ago. litigation is to full of shit for me to deal with, so i'm sitting back and enjoying transactional stuff which allows me to work from anywhere i have internet. though this is exactly the type of case i would've loved to have not all that long ago.

                      2. i'm not very close to kentucky, which is the logical place to file suit, although it theoretically could be filed in any state in which untied operates.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        and now they are admitting the flight wasn't overbooked (duh!)

                        "I continue to be disturbed by what happened on this flight, and I deeply apologize to the customer forcibly removed and to all the customers aboard, "No one should ever be mistreated this way." (oscar munoz)

                        get out the checkbook oscar. but hey, it wouldn't surprise me if they settle quietly for what will be a very large amount of money. nor will i be surprised by any BS defense untied puts forth if they do wind up in court.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                          "expressio unius est exclusio alterius."
                          Even if the document said that the list are only examples, that it is not exhaustive or complete, that there may be other reasons not listed, and that the company reserves the right to deny service to any person for any or no reason? (like restaurants do)?

                          (ps, I am not saying that that's what the airline's contract of carriage says, just asking in general about the espresso principle.

                          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            in general, if there is a disclaimer like, "including but not limited to..." then no, the maxim would not apply. also, if they reserve the right to refuse passage to anyone for any reason, i still do not believe force should be used. of course, the a/c is private property and if you are trespassing, the police can remove you, by force if necessary.

                            i think that in a situation as this, the police had an obligation to do a bit of an inquiry before hauling the guy out. a simple "what did he do or what basis do you have for tossing a paying pax off the plane after he has boarded." if i'm the cop and i'm given a contractual basis for the pax removal, i'm gonna ask to see the contract. if that had happened, untied woulda been shit out of luck since their own contract does not permit what they did.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              further investigation shows that untied had a later flight, aa had a later flight, and swa had a later flight (out of midway). whaddaya think the chances are that ALL 3 of these later flights were fully booked and that untied could not have put their crew on one of them?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                On the other hand, the pax (google translation from a newspaper in Spanish)...

                                ... was charged in 2005 with 98 counts of serious crimes related to the prescription and illegal trafficking of painkillers. At that time, prosecutors in charge of the case alleged that Dao delivered fraudulent recipes for hidocodone ...

                                ... was also convicted of six counts of fraud and deception and in 2005 he was sentenced to 5 years probation ...

                                ... was convicted of giving prescriptions and checks to a patient in exchange for sex. According to reports from the medical board that dealt with the case, Dao denied having paid for sex, but acknowledged that he accepted sexual favors in exchange for reducing a client's debt in his favor ...

                                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X