
United Airlines Announces Changes to Improve Customer Experience - rajathagasthya
http://newsroom.united.com/2017-04-27-United-Airlines-Announces-Changes-to-Improve-Customer-Experience
======
11thEarlOfMar
As experienced on United this week:

\- Hand out warm chocolate chip cookies as passengers de-plane.

\- If a passenger asks for a couple of decaf coffee pouches, give them 16

~~~
gist
It's a new broom. Let's see how long that lasts.

------
ghostly_s
> Eliminate the red tape on permanently lost bags by adopting a "no questions
> asked" policy on lost luggage.

What on earth does this mean?

~~~
gist
This means that just like insurance companies often do they put up roadblocks
hoping that someone just peters out and decides it's not worth their time to
pursue. At the very least even if they don't you buy time and can use the
money (that you would have to pay) for cash flow purposes.

This is both in obvious and non obvious ways. One way can be by simply making
it hard to communicate with someone who has the authority to solve your
problem and keep bouncing you around or taking extra time to respond to claims
and even questions.

~~~
ghostly_s
So they previously were asking _you_ questions, when _they_ failed to deliver
_your_ luggage?

"Excuse me sir but we must ask, did you leave this item in the care of any
untrustworthy individuals since you last saw it?"

"Yes...your staff."

~~~
PhantomGremlin
Yes they were, but not in the way you hypothesize.

What they're now saying is they won't make you prove to them that the bag they
lost was worth $1500. Do you have receipts for the suitcase itself? Do you
have receipts for each item you claim was in it?

And then they could and would say: "Hmmm ... those shirts were purchased a few
years ago, they're currently not worth anywhere near what you paid for them
new."

The only problem I see with the new policy is the potential for fraud. At many
airports there is very very little supervision of the baggage claim area. So
bags can easily be "stolen" from there by accomplices of the passenger. Then
it would be easy for the passenger to demand $1500 for a "lost" bag that
wasn't even worth $150.

------
draw_down
> United commits to:

> Limit use of law enforcement to safety and security issues only.

> Not require customers seated on the plane to give up their seat
> involuntarily unless safety or security is at risk.

Isn't that what they claimed the situation was in the first place? I get that
they have to make announcements like this because they're in damage-control
mode, but, come on.

~~~
MrVitaliy
This time they're "committing"

------
wfunction
Is the $10k still in vouchers?

The main problem they had IMO was that $800 was very useless for many people
when it was in vouchers...

~~~
ad_tech_ninja
to add - $800 is definitely not enough to merit screwing over a business
meeting that may have taken weeks to schedule and coordinate people taking
different flights to the same location. sometimes, 800 isn't enough to cover
hotel cost for losing a reservation then needing to rebook for a flight the
following day.

------
drak0n1c
The greater lesson here is to ensure employees don't make a habit of strictly
following computerized procedures such as the random number generator that
insisted on this particular passenger's seat. Human dialogue and creativity
can provide a better solution to problems like these.

------
Upvoter33
Rule 1: Never Talk About Fight Club

------
notyourwork
Is anyone else disappointed with the PR turn around? Although unlikely, I was
rooting for United to push back and tell the guy to piss off for acting so
ignorant. I cannot imagine how mad I would be if I was asked to leave after
getting on the plane but once the authorities get involved anyone beyond 10
years old should know it isn't time for a temper tantrum.

Kudos for United for improving customer experience but I wish this improvement
would come whole heartedly and not simply because of a PR nightmare due to an
ignorant passenger.

~~~
UnoriginalGuy
He was literally on the phone to United's call center when the cop pulled him
forward while still belted, then sideways into the middle armrest, then mashed
his head into the armrest across the aisle causing concussion, broken Nose,
and lost teeth. The guy literally had to have reconstructive surgery.

Calling United's call center to get a resolution isn't a "temper tantrum." It
is the correct course of action in the circumstances. A United Manager should
have resolved this situation, not an abusive cop. United should pay for it and
the cop should be fired and charged with battery.

The passenger did nothing ignorant, and I'm not entirely sure you know what
the word means.

~~~
rl3
> _Calling United 's call center to get a resolution isn't a "temper tantrum."
> It is the correct course of action in the circumstances._

So disobeying flight crew instructions, then law enforcement instructions, and
finally insisting on working your way through first-line support at the
company's call center while you _single-handedly continue to delay an entire
flight_ is the correct course of action in that situation?

The way cops handled the situation was absolutely awful, and in my opinion
they should be footing his medical bills. However, it doesn't mean he was
justified in his actions.

Such actions could even be perfectly understandable in circumstances involving
an underlying medical condition (dementia, mental illness, severe
hypoglycemia, whatever).

How you can suggest it's the correct course of action for someone of sound
mind though is puzzling at best. I can't even begin to comprehend the level of
entitlement that delaying an entire flight would require.

~~~
UnoriginalGuy
United violated their own contract with the passenger. The passenger was
attempting to escalate it within United themselves when they were violently
assaulted at United's request.

Law enforcement got involved in a civil dispute between a customer and company
and then battered that customer on behalf of that company. There was no safety
or security justification for law enforcement to be involved at all.

The flight was delayed due to United's actions (kicking passengers off to
board crew, after the flight had already been seated). The passenger was
asserting their contractual and legal rights, the company and law enforcement
violated those rights and the other passengers were negatively impacted due to
the company's wish to save a small amount of money.

~~~
rl3
> _United violated their own contract with the passenger. The passenger was
> attempting to escalate it within United themselves when they were violently
> assaulted at United 's request._

Sorry, but that's hyperbole. I'm fairly confident the interaction didn't go
down as: "Hello, we have an uncompliant passenger refusing to leave the
aircraft at gate XYZ. Please come down and beat the shit out of him for us,
thanks!"

 _> Law enforcement got involved in a civil dispute between a customer and
company and then battered that customer on behalf of that company._

Ignoring the continued hyperbole, the dispute became more than a civil dispute
once he refused flight crew instructions to leave the aircraft.

 _> There was no safety or security justification for law enforcement to be
involved at all._

There was once a passenger demonstrated they're not willing to comply with the
flight crew. Contrary to popular belief, commercial aircraft are not glorified
busses.

 _> The flight was delayed due to United's actions (kicking passengers off to
board crew, after the flight had already been seated)._

Yes, but his actions then delayed the flight _much_ more than it otherwise
would have been. A minor delay due to crew positioning is a small price to pay
if it means not having to cancel an entire flight of passengers down line.

 _> The passenger was asserting their contractual and legal rights, ..._

Then argue that to your heart's content after deplaning. The aircraft you're
being told to leave isn't the proper forum for legal and contractual disputes.

~~~
EliRivers
"The aircraft you're being told to leave isn't the proper forum for legal and
contractual disputes."

That's the only time they really count. It's exactly the place for it. If you
can't assert your rights when you need them, they're worthless.

~~~
rl3
> _That 's the only time they really count._

They also tend to count in context of litigation and social media, all of
which can be pursued after leaving the aircraft.

> _It 's exactly the place for it._

I'm honestly baffled here. It's basically the "I want to speak to the
manager!" behavior that so many decry, and yet, it's somehow OK in context of
holding up a commercial aircraft to insist you settle your individual dispute
right then and there.

> _If you can 't assert your rights when you need them, they're worthless._

There is no _right_ to be on an aircraft, just as drivers have no explicit
right to be on the road. Despite the fact one pays for their car, pays
insurance, pays the state all manner of fees, driving remains a revocable
_privilege_ should that person not follow the rules. A flight is no different
in this respect.

It's like failing to pull over on the shoulder for emergency vehicles,
insisting you have a right to remain in your lane. While that might sound
proposterous on the face of it, what if the crew that's positioning is
operating a flight that's transporting organs? Suddenly the person refusing to
give up their seat for crew isn't so righteously justified.

~~~
EliRivers
_it 's somehow OK in context of holding up a commercial aircraft_

I do not agree that business must have priority, and while I recognise the
practical nature of the universe in which we live, I do not subscribe to the
axiom that the needs of the many inherently outweigh the needs of the few.

I suspect our differences are simply axiomatic.

 _They also tend to count in context of litigation_

Litigation is all about trying to make things better after something bad
happened. We can never make things right because we cannot change the past, so
litigation is not a solution; it's mitigation. I subscribe to the idea that it
is better for that bad thing not to have happened. On a personal note, I
suspect (but cannot prove) that the doctrine of letting people do bad things
because we can litigate later is corrosive to society.

~~~
rl3
> _...I do not subscribe to the axiom that the needs of the many inherently
> outweigh the needs of the few._

Generally speaking I'm in agreement with you there.

It's just that I view giving up a paid seat due to rare but exigent
circumstances analogous to motorists involved in a minor collision pulling off
to the side of the road as a common courtesy.

> _We can never make things right because we cannot change the past, so
> litigation is not a solution; it 's mitigation._

Litigation is somewhat of an imperfect solution when it acts as a deterrent.

> _On a personal note, I suspect (but cannot prove) that the doctrine of
> letting people do bad things because we can litigate later is corrosive to
> society._

Agreed, but unfortunately there's far from perfect oversight of corporate
behavior. Even when you're talking cases where people _die_ due to gross
negligence, criminal charges are extremely rare.

Litigation—when it has merit—acts as an imperfect second line of defense
against misbehavior that would otherwise go unpunished. It's capitalism's way
of keeping itself in check.

It is however far from perfect. Many companies will simply fight meritorious
litigation on the basis that it's the cheaper option, regardless if doing so
is morally bankrupt. For example, a company may decide issuing a recall for an
issue that kills people is more expensive than just dragging the existing
litigation out as much as they can.

