[volunbeer]

From a PR standpoint and simple courtesy to your customers this should NEVER have happened. If the flight is overbooked you keep upping the offer for people to volunteer to take the next flight. $800 voucher did not do it so offer $500 cash money and avoid this kind of crap. If nobody takes $500, offer $600.

It really seems quite simple and in hindsight how much easier would this have been for everyone involved? This is corporate stupidity in the extreme and the optics alone are enough to erase $100 million in advertising.

[jntrees]

Your logic if fair. There is company policy that you have to work to. This sort of thing happens every single day. This guy made the news because he chose not to obey a lawful order and paid the price.

[Leaning Right]

> If the flight is overbooked you keep upping the offer for people to volunteer to take the next flight. <

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.

[vette6387]

“This is corporate stupidity in the extreme and the optics alone are enough to erase $100 million in advertising.”

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner!

[DeltaZulu]

At this point they could have offered $10,000 and it would still be cheaper than what they are about to face.

[Sans-Culotte]

From a PR standpoint and simple courtesy to your customers this should NEVER have happened. If the flight is overbooked you keep upping the offer for people to volunteer to take the next flight. $800 voucher did not do it so offer $500 cash money and avoid this kind of crap. If nobody takes $500, offer $600. It really seems quite simple and in hindsight how much easier would this have been for everyone involved? This is corporate stupidity in the extreme and the optics alone are enough to erase $100 million in advertising.

I remember when I was a telephone customer service representative (CSR) at a company. Every now and then, something would come up when a customer wanted/expected something that was outside our rules and procedures. As a CSR, I would often take the view that "rules are rules" and it was my job to enforce them. Once I got into management, I had to approach the same situation from the viewpoint of "what do I need to do to make this situation go away and not lose a customer in the process?". This would usually mean I would defer to the customer even if I thought he was wrong.

That is what United should have done in this situation. In the future, their policy should be to keep upping the ante until they get a taker. Forcibly removing people should not happen. It does not matter if they were right and if the passenger screamed like an effeminate bitch. The losers in this are United and their CEO who doubled down on their idiocy. Their company will now be seen as heartless and their approach to "customer service" as laughable.