91 replies to this topic

[Timmeh]

[THBatMan8]

Timmeh, on Jul 15 2010, 01:26 AM, said:

In flight sim I fly quite realistically. I rarely take off with more than 60% fuel, never overweight.

Actually it's impossible to configure CASM/RASM in flight sim due to the fluctuating costs of fuel. There are also other factors that come into play that'll change the fuel payload of the airplane, such as a lower/higher turnover time, holding time, etc.

[LA_PHX]

Timmeh, on Jul 15 2010, 01:26 AM, said:

LA_BOS, on Jul 14 2010, 09:22 PM, said:

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 15 2010, 01:17 AM, said:

Why are you so bent on protecting the attendents? The writer of the article wasn't booted off, and he was there, watching it from his seat. On what grounds are you calling him a liar?

I won't call him a liar but when he himself says the gate agent said she would go by the check-in list, I find it hard to believe.  He has no support for his claim and until he does, I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the airline employee who I am almost positive knows how to do her job.  I find it hard to believe the gate agent would have a list of how much each passenger paid, except for separations by class (which there probably since it was United).  And if that is the case, then yeah, go by whoever checked in last, from coach.  If I was United, I wouldn't be removing First Class passengers.  They are your bread and butter.

Timmeh, on Jul 15 2010, 01:20 AM, said:

.Andrew, on Jul 14 2010, 09:09 PM, said:

Timmeh, on Jul 14 2010, 10:04 PM, said:

People are throwing around the words "overweight" and "overbooked".

The article doesn't mention any of that, it just says they're throwing people off who paid the lowest, which is . When you pay you are a revenue customer, not some standby just to find out, "Oh hey, yea, you know that flight...nevermind that."

Airlines overbook because they know a few people are going to miss/forget/etc, the flight. I doubt that the plane is overweight as well, considering they are designed to be full of passengers, cargo, food, etc...

So why do you suppose they kicked people off? To get a good laugh?

Lower weight = cheaper to operate. Less people to serve, lighter, less fuel used.

If an airline had the opportunity to fly a plane full rather than close to full, they'd fly it full.  Airlines want full planes.  Period.  That is why airlines will have last minute deals to fill those flights that aren't getting full.

Some people get tickets ridiculously cheap. They don't mind kicking them off if it saves them in fuel.

And then they lose out on the in-flight alcohol service and whatever else the airline charges for.  I have never once heard of an airline kicking off passenger who were booked for the sole reason of they bought their tickets cheap.  In fact, that would cost the airline because they would have to pay compensation and find another flight for them.  If they really cared about people flying on cheap fares, they wouldn't sell them cheap in the first place.

[Timmeh]

THBatMan8, on Jul 14 2010, 09:28 PM, said:

Timmeh, on Jul 15 2010, 01:26 AM, said:

In flight sim I fly quite realistically. I rarely take off with more than 60% fuel, never overweight.

Actually it's impossible to configure CASM/RASM in flight sim due to the fluctuating costs of fuel. There are also other factors that come into play that'll change the fuel payload of the airplane, such as a lower/higher turnover time, holding time, etc.

Yeah but I'm just saying, these planes are designed to hold full capacity. Even if they did go overweight easily, taking 20 people plus their luggage is a lot. That's a least 4,000 lbs average (170 a person, 30 a checked bag, not including carry ons)

[Prancer]

LA_BOS, on Jul 15 2010, 12:26 AM, said:

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 15 2010, 01:23 AM, said:

LA_BOS, on Jul 15 2010, 12:21 AM, said:

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 15 2010, 01:17 AM, said:

Why are you so bent on protecting the attendents? The writer of the article wasn't booted off, and he was there, watching it from his seat. On what grounds are you calling him a liar?

I won't call him a liar but when he himself says the gate agent said she would go by the check-in list, I find it hard to believe.  He has no support for his claim and until he does, I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the airline employee who I am almost positive knows how to do her job.  I find it hard to believe the gate agent would have a list of how much each passenger paid, except for separations by class (which there probably since it was United).  And if that is the case, then yeah, go by whoever checked in last, from coach.  If I was United, I wouldn't be removing First Class passengers.  They are your bread and butter.

Lord, do you people not pay a bit of attention to the article? I'm going to say this again...slowly..so you can grasp it..

The..check..in..list...bit..was...after...eighteen...people...had...been...booted...off...the..plane...when...they....needed...two...more...people...to...leave...after...he...mentioned...families..and..older...couples...being..booted...off...

DID YOU READ MY POST?

JUST BECAUSE IT MENTIONS A CHECK IN LIST LATER IN THE ARTICLE, DOES NOT MEAN IT HAPPENED IN SUCH ORDER.  NEWS ARTICLES ARE WRITTEN IN AN ORDER THAT IS CONVENIENT TO THE AUTHOR AND IN A WAY THAT MAKES IT FLOW, EVEN IF THAT MEANS PUTTING ONE OR TWO THINGS OUT OF ORDER.  AND AGAIN, I TOOK A JOURNALISM CLASS SO YES, I DO HAVE SOME UNDERSTAND ON THIS SO DO NOT CLAIM I DON'T.

It has nothing to do with the order in which it was written, it has to do with a key word:

Quote

“(Gate agent) said if we don't get two more (volunteers to get off the flight)... I am going to get a list of the last people that checked in! All passengers sitting nervously!" Bruce said.

Two more...if you went to school, and I assume you did, you know when you say 'two more', you mean 'two additional to something', 'adding two to something that already happened.' And going by that, if you have any logic at all, you would know that had to have happened AFTER people had already been removed.

Now for a math lesson.

20-2=18.

THEREFORE.

Those TWO MORE came after eighteen had been booted off.

[THBatMan8]

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 15 2010, 01:31 AM, said:

LA_BOS, on Jul 15 2010, 12:26 AM, said:

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 15 2010, 01:23 AM, said:

LA_BOS, on Jul 15 2010, 12:21 AM, said:

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 15 2010, 01:17 AM, said:

Why are you so bent on protecting the attendents? The writer of the article wasn't booted off, and he was there, watching it from his seat. On what grounds are you calling him a liar?

I won't call him a liar but when he himself says the gate agent said she would go by the check-in list, I find it hard to believe.  He has no support for his claim and until he does, I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the airline employee who I am almost positive knows how to do her job.  I find it hard to believe the gate agent would have a list of how much each passenger paid, except for separations by class (which there probably since it was United).  And if that is the case, then yeah, go by whoever checked in last, from coach.  If I was United, I wouldn't be removing First Class passengers.  They are your bread and butter.

Lord, do you people not pay a bit of attention to the article? I'm going to say this again...slowly..so you can grasp it..

The..check..in..list...bit..was...after...eighteen...people...had...been...booted...off...the..plane...when...they....needed...two...more...people...to...leave...after...he...mentioned...families..and..older...couples...being..booted...off...

DID YOU READ MY POST?

JUST BECAUSE IT MENTIONS A CHECK IN LIST LATER IN THE ARTICLE, DOES NOT MEAN IT HAPPENED IN SUCH ORDER.  NEWS ARTICLES ARE WRITTEN IN AN ORDER THAT IS CONVENIENT TO THE AUTHOR AND IN A WAY THAT MAKES IT FLOW, EVEN IF THAT MEANS PUTTING ONE OR TWO THINGS OUT OF ORDER.  AND AGAIN, I TOOK A JOURNALISM CLASS SO YES, I DO HAVE SOME UNDERSTAND ON THIS SO DO NOT CLAIM I DON'T.

It has nothing to do with the order in which it was written, it has to do with a key word:

Quote

“(Gate agent) said if we don't get two more (volunteers to get off the flight)... I am going to get a list of the last people that checked in! All passengers sitting nervously!" Bruce said.

Two more...if you went to school, and I assume you did, you know when you say 'two more', you mean 'two additional to something', 'adding two to something that already happened.' And going by that, if you have any logic at all, you would know that had to have happened AFTER people had already been removed.

Now for a math lesson.

20-2=18.

THEREFORE.

Those TWO MORE came after eighteen had been booted off.

From the same quote:

Quote

“(Gate agent) said if we don't get two more (volunteers to get off the flight)... I am going to get a list of the last people that checked in! All passengers sitting nervously!" Bruce said.

Doing some math as you pointed out:

2 more volunteers were needed to make the list of 20. In order to need 2 more volunteers that means that 18 people already volunteered to leave the aircraft.

[Prancer]

Actually, I think when they include that, they mean they were looking for those two to be volunteers, when he plainly stated the original eighteen were not

[LA_PHX]

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 15 2010, 01:31 AM, said:

LA_BOS, on Jul 15 2010, 12:26 AM, said:

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 15 2010, 01:23 AM, said:

LA_BOS, on Jul 15 2010, 12:21 AM, said:

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 15 2010, 01:17 AM, said:

Why are you so bent on protecting the attendents? The writer of the article wasn't booted off, and he was there, watching it from his seat. On what grounds are you calling him a liar?

I won't call him a liar but when he himself says the gate agent said she would go by the check-in list, I find it hard to believe.  He has no support for his claim and until he does, I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the airline employee who I am almost positive knows how to do her job.  I find it hard to believe the gate agent would have a list of how much each passenger paid, except for separations by class (which there probably since it was United).  And if that is the case, then yeah, go by whoever checked in last, from coach.  If I was United, I wouldn't be removing First Class passengers.  They are your bread and butter.

Lord, do you people not pay a bit of attention to the article? I'm going to say this again...slowly..so you can grasp it..

The..check..in..list...bit..was...after...eighteen...people...had...been...booted...off...the..plane...when...they....needed...two...more...people...to...leave...after...he...mentioned...families..and..older...couples...being..booted...off...

DID YOU READ MY POST?

JUST BECAUSE IT MENTIONS A CHECK IN LIST LATER IN THE ARTICLE, DOES NOT MEAN IT HAPPENED IN SUCH ORDER.  NEWS ARTICLES ARE WRITTEN IN AN ORDER THAT IS CONVENIENT TO THE AUTHOR AND IN A WAY THAT MAKES IT FLOW, EVEN IF THAT MEANS PUTTING ONE OR TWO THINGS OUT OF ORDER.  AND AGAIN, I TOOK A JOURNALISM CLASS SO YES, I DO HAVE SOME UNDERSTAND ON THIS SO DO NOT CLAIM I DON'T.

It has nothing to do with the order in which it was written, it has to do with a key word:

Quote

“(Gate agent) said if we don't get two more (volunteers to get off the flight)... I am going to get a list of the last people that checked in! All passengers sitting nervously!" Bruce said.

Two more...if you went to school, and I assume you did, you know when you say 'two more', you mean 'two additional to something', 'adding two to something that already happened.' And going by that, if you have any logic at all, you would know that had to have happened AFTER people had already been removed.

Now for a math lesson.

20-2=18.

THEREFORE.

Those TWO MORE came after eighteen had been booted off.

My apologies for missing that but you are still being a giant tool.  I know that is a "childish" thing of me to stay but you have to stop treating people like children because they disagree with you.  Get used to it.  Millions of people in this world will disagree with every single opinion you have in life.

And my points from earlier still stand.  Just because someone makes a stupid tweet about something doesn't mean it is automatically true.  Like I said before, and I'll say it slowly for you...

The...guy...never...quotes...an...airline...employee...as...saying...they...are...booting...people...off...by...how...much...they...paid.  If...you...are...going...to...quote...someone...that...would...be...an...important...thing...to...quote...if...something...that...outrageous...happened.

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 15 2010, 01:39 AM, said:

Actually, I think when they include that, they mean they were looking for those two to be volunteers, when he plainly stated the original eighteen were not

Possibly.  But he still doesn't say those eighteen were booted because they paid cheap fares.  But it could also mean, as you said, the 18 people already volunteered and now they were going to the check-in list for two people as they couldn't get two more volunteers.

Edited by LA_BOS, 15 July 2010 - 12:41 AM.

[THBatMan8]

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 15 2010, 01:39 AM, said:

Actually, I think when they include that, they mean they were looking for those two to be volunteers, when he plainly stated the original eighteen were not

He never stated the 18 others weren't volunteers. If you need 2 more of something that means you have the others.

[Timmeh]

"United Airlines removed 20 people from the flight from Burlington to Washington, a passenger said."

Dunno' about you guys, but it's usually hard to tell whats happening from a passengers point of view.

Edited by Timmeh, 15 July 2010 - 12:44 AM.

[Prancer]

Well, I hope you're happy. I went into his twitter and found some quotes for you.

Quote

@unitedairlines  No other flights today and flights full tomorrow.You will be removed from the flight based on what you paid for your ticket

Quote

@unitedairlines  She then said I will first take volunteers but we will have to go from the cheapest ticket to determine who gets tossed     6:07 PM Jul 13th  via web

Edited by Wampa_Stompa, 15 July 2010 - 12:45 AM.

[THBatMan8]

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 15 2010, 01:44 AM, said:

Well, I hope you're happy. I went into his twitter and found some quotes for you.

Quote

@unitedairlines  No other flights today and flights full tomorrow.You will be removed from the flight based on what you paid for your ticket

Quote

@unitedairlines  She then said I will first take volunteers but we will have to go from the cheapest ticket to determine who gets tossed     6:07 PM Jul 13th  via web

Still doesn't tell me anything. Those quotes could be fraudulent.

[LA_PHX]

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 15 2010, 01:44 AM, said:

Well, I hope you're happy. I went into his twitter and found some quotes for you.

Quote

@unitedairlines  No other flights today and flights full tomorrow.You will be removed from the flight based on what you paid for your ticket

Quote

@unitedairlines  She then said I will first take volunteers but we will have to go from the cheapest ticket to determine who gets tossed     6:07 PM Jul 13th  via web

Okay, so it is more believable but then why does he say the gate agent announced they would be going by who checked in last?  He contradicts himself.

Sorry, but this is just something I have a hard time believing.  Just because it is on the internet, doesn't make it true.  Unfortunately, United takes a hit for something that could have been a simple misunderstanding by a passenger.

And I still wonder if the gate agent has access to how much everyone paid.  Can anyone who works for an airline (or worked) confirm this?  Because even if the gate agent doesn't, United isn't going to fire back with, "that couldn't of happened because our agents don't have that information."  That would be a terrible PR move for them.  Instead, they recognize that something didn't go as it should and bite the bad press and show they are fixing anything that went wrong.

[Prancer]

You were ready to believe some of his other quotes..

Quote

Okay, so it is more believable but then why does he say the gate agent announced they would be going by who checked in last? He contradicts himself.

Sorry, but this is just something I have a hard time believing. Just because it is on the internet, doesn't make it true. Unfortunately, United takes a hit for something that could have been a simple misunderstanding by a passenger.

No, he doesn't...the check in list...came...after...this part...his twitter and wording shows that. What is so hard to grasp about this?

Edited by Wampa_Stompa, 15 July 2010 - 12:52 AM.

[THBatMan8]

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 15 2010, 01:51 AM, said:

You were ready to believe some of his other quotes..

No, I wasn't. I won't judge anyone's claim until I hear from the other side.

[LA_PHX]

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 15 2010, 01:51 AM, said:

You were ready to believe some of his other quotes..

Quote

Okay, so it is more believable but then why does he say the gate agent announced they would be going by who checked in last? He contradicts himself.

Sorry, but this is just something I have a hard time believing. Just because it is on the internet, doesn't make it true. Unfortunately, United takes a hit for something that could have been a simple misunderstanding by a passenger.

No, he doesn't...the check in list...came...after...this part...his twitter and wording shows that. What is so hard to grasp about this?

Which ones?  The one where he says the check-in list part?  Of course I'd believe that because that is what normally happens when a flight needs to have people removed and there aren't enough volunteers.  But something like this is too crazy for me to believe at this moment.

DUDE, JUST GIVE UP.  YOU AREN'T CHANGING MY MIND UNTIL THERE IS CONCRETE PROOF (Edit: or as BatMan said, hear from the other side - the employee in question), WHICH IN THIS CASE, IS EXTREMELY HARD TO HAVE.  SO I WILL GIVE THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT TO THE EMPLOYEE AND THE AIRLINE BASED OFF MY KNOWLEDGE OF HOW AIRLINE OPS USUALLY WORK.

Edited by LA_BOS, 15 July 2010 - 12:55 AM.

[Prancer]

LA_BOS, on Jul 15 2010, 12:54 AM, said:

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 15 2010, 01:51 AM, said:

You were ready to believe some of his other quotes..

Quote

Okay, so it is more believable but then why does he say the gate agent announced they would be going by who checked in last? He contradicts himself.

Sorry, but this is just something I have a hard time believing. Just because it is on the internet, doesn't make it true. Unfortunately, United takes a hit for something that could have been a simple misunderstanding by a passenger.

No, he doesn't...the check in list...came...after...this part...his twitter and wording shows that. What is so hard to grasp about this?

Which ones?  The one where he says the check-in list part?  Of course I'd believe that because that is what normally happens when a flight needs to have people removed and there aren't enough volunteers.  But something like this is too crazy for me to believe at this moment.

DUDE, JUST GIVE UP.  YOU AREN'T CHANGING MY MIND UNTIL THERE IS CONCRETE PROOF (Edit: or as BatMan said, hear from the other side - the employee in question), WHICH IN THIS CASE, IS EXTREMELY HARD TO HAVE.  SO I WILL GIVE THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT TO THE EMPLOYEE AND THE AIRLINE BASED OFF MY KNOWLEDGE OF HOW AIRLINE OPS USUALLY WORK.

Man, you airline fanboys really are a hilarious bunch.

This guy has a good rep, he has a respected travel business that partners with the airline, he wasn't booted, he has no reason to lie, so that's pretty much good enough reason to believe this really happened. Cry me a river, but that's the stance of the OP and the poster.

[LA_PHX]

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 15 2010, 01:58 AM, said:

LA_BOS, on Jul 15 2010, 12:54 AM, said:

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 15 2010, 01:51 AM, said:

You were ready to believe some of his other quotes..

Quote

Okay, so it is more believable but then why does he say the gate agent announced they would be going by who checked in last? He contradicts himself.

Sorry, but this is just something I have a hard time believing. Just because it is on the internet, doesn't make it true. Unfortunately, United takes a hit for something that could have been a simple misunderstanding by a passenger.

No, he doesn't...the check in list...came...after...this part...his twitter and wording shows that. What is so hard to grasp about this?

Which ones?  The one where he says the check-in list part?  Of course I'd believe that because that is what normally happens when a flight needs to have people removed and there aren't enough volunteers.  But something like this is too crazy for me to believe at this moment.

DUDE, JUST GIVE UP.  YOU AREN'T CHANGING MY MIND UNTIL THERE IS CONCRETE PROOF (Edit: or as BatMan said, hear from the other side - the employee in question), WHICH IN THIS CASE, IS EXTREMELY HARD TO HAVE.  SO I WILL GIVE THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT TO THE EMPLOYEE AND THE AIRLINE BASED OFF MY KNOWLEDGE OF HOW AIRLINE OPS USUALLY WORK.

Man, you airline fanboys really are a hilarious bunch.

This guy has a good rep, he has a respected travel business that partners with the airline, he wasn't booted, he has no reason to lie, so that's pretty much good enough reason to believe this really happened. Cry me a river, but that's the stance of the OP and the poster.

Ha...hahahahaha. Airline fanboy?  No.  If you want to call me a fanboy, call me a JetBlue fanboy.  I don't care if that airline strands me for 10 hours on a tarmac, I, for some reason, have a hard time criticizing them.  And I know it and I'll admit it.  But dude, airline fanboy?  That's definitely comedic.

I don't care what you believe.  I stated my opinion on it and you got all bent out of shape, as usual, when my opinion disagreed with yours.  From that point forward, it was on.

Edited by LA_BOS, 15 July 2010 - 01:02 AM.

[THBatMan8]

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 15 2010, 01:58 AM, said:

LA_BOS, on Jul 15 2010, 12:54 AM, said:

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 15 2010, 01:51 AM, said:

You were ready to believe some of his other quotes..

Quote

Okay, so it is more believable but then why does he say the gate agent announced they would be going by who checked in last? He contradicts himself.

Sorry, but this is just something I have a hard time believing. Just because it is on the internet, doesn't make it true. Unfortunately, United takes a hit for something that could have been a simple misunderstanding by a passenger.

No, he doesn't...the check in list...came...after...this part...his twitter and wording shows that. What is so hard to grasp about this?

Which ones?  The one where he says the check-in list part?  Of course I'd believe that because that is what normally happens when a flight needs to have people removed and there aren't enough volunteers.  But something like this is too crazy for me to believe at this moment.

DUDE, JUST GIVE UP.  YOU AREN'T CHANGING MY MIND UNTIL THERE IS CONCRETE PROOF (Edit: or as BatMan said, hear from the other side - the employee in question), WHICH IN THIS CASE, IS EXTREMELY HARD TO HAVE.  SO I WILL GIVE THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT TO THE EMPLOYEE AND THE AIRLINE BASED OFF MY KNOWLEDGE OF HOW AIRLINE OPS USUALLY WORK.

Man, you airline fanboys really are a hilarious bunch.

This guy has a good rep, he has a respected travel business that partners with the airline, he wasn't booted, he has no reason to lie, so that's pretty much good enough reason to believe this really happened. Cry me a river, but that's the stance of the OP and the poster.

Fanboy?

The name calling is starting to irritate me, as you did it in another thread also. I don't care how good this guys rep is, I know what United SOPs are and this is not part of them. If it were, you'd be hearing about stuff like this happening more often.

[Prancer]

THBatMan8, on Jul 15 2010, 01:01 AM, said:

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 15 2010, 01:58 AM, said:

LA_BOS, on Jul 15 2010, 12:54 AM, said:

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 15 2010, 01:51 AM, said:

You were ready to believe some of his other quotes..

Quote

Okay, so it is more believable but then why does he say the gate agent announced they would be going by who checked in last? He contradicts himself.

Sorry, but this is just something I have a hard time believing. Just because it is on the internet, doesn't make it true. Unfortunately, United takes a hit for something that could have been a simple misunderstanding by a passenger.

No, he doesn't...the check in list...came...after...this part...his twitter and wording shows that. What is so hard to grasp about this?

Which ones?  The one where he says the check-in list part?  Of course I'd believe that because that is what normally happens when a flight needs to have people removed and there aren't enough volunteers.  But something like this is too crazy for me to believe at this moment.

DUDE, JUST GIVE UP.  YOU AREN'T CHANGING MY MIND UNTIL THERE IS CONCRETE PROOF (Edit: or as BatMan said, hear from the other side - the employee in question), WHICH IN THIS CASE, IS EXTREMELY HARD TO HAVE.  SO I WILL GIVE THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT TO THE EMPLOYEE AND THE AIRLINE BASED OFF MY KNOWLEDGE OF HOW AIRLINE OPS USUALLY WORK.

Man, you airline fanboys really are a hilarious bunch.

This guy has a good rep, he has a respected travel business that partners with the airline, he wasn't booted, he has no reason to lie, so that's pretty much good enough reason to believe this really happened. Cry me a river, but that's the stance of the OP and the poster.

Fanboy?

The name calling is starting to irritate me, as you did it in another thread also. I don't care how good this guys rep is, I know what United SOPs are and this is not part of them. If it were, you'd be hearing about stuff like this happening more often.

Dude..if you know what every little procedure (you don't have to use fancy acronyms) are, for every case..you are a fanboy.