Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Whether or not he was shady what did that matter to this event?

It doesn't matter, but you can agree that a guy shouldn't be treated in such-and-such way and still call him out for being a dick!

Another example, I agree with the point of most of Peregrine's posts/points in this thread, but certainly not his tone or approach (here or elsewhere).

Oh I agree with you Kronk.

I just wanted to make it clear, because sadly there are a lot of people who will look at incidents in someones past, regardless of severity, and decide that everything that happens to the person now is a-ok.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Whether or not he was shady what did that matter to this event?

Court of public opinion changes quite a lot when you can portray the victim as someone shady who deserves nothing but bad things.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Oh I agree with you Kronk.

I just wanted to make it clear, because sadly there are a lot of people who will look at incidents in someones past, regardless of severity, and decide that everything that happens to the person now is a-ok.

Agreements all around!

Bro-Fist!

Herzlos wrote:

Court of public opinion changes quite a lot when you can portray the victim as someone shady who deserves nothing but bad things.

To be clear again: I don't wish the guy harm, I agree he should get paid, but he's still an donkey-cave (IF the TMZ report is accurate).

 Peregrine wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
If he had done that we would have known nothing about this.

Only if you don't pay attention at all. Overbooking and bumping passengers, whether voluntary or involuntarily, is hardly a secret. If you travel at all frequently you're aware of the situation.

Not really. I fly a lot, all over the world, and I have never once been on an overbooked flight. I have on occasion been placed in the same seat as someone else, but that was always easily resolved In fact, IIRC, overbooking is not allowed in, for instance, Germany, and KLM have said that it's against their policy, and in the unlikely event of an overbooking (which this wasn't!) still occurring, the situation would be resolved upon check-in before boarding (presumably on a first-come, first-serve basis).

Bran Dawri wrote:
In fact, IIRC, overbooking is not allowed in, for instance, Germany, and KLM have said that it's against their policy,

As someone that has flown on 38 trips in each of 2014 and 2016, and 42 in 2017, I WISH that was the case here. Despite the Euro-Thong swimming suits I've seen you hairy mother fethers wear to beaches over here (Jesus, does he have a squirrel in his suit?), ya'll sometimes have good ideas! I haven't been "bumped" from a flight, but I've had a number of delays on the Chicago-Houston and Chicago-Pittsburgh trips, waiting for them to sort that gak out. It rarely ends with happy customers, and no, I won't be happy if you make me miss my meeting in Pittsburgh, even if you give me a $400 voucher. KMA!

text removed.

Reds8n

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The ones dragging him out were federalized PoPo I believe.

Did they initiate the head smacking?

From the video it appears that he was pulled out of his seat at which point he flew across to the isle and hit his head on the seat across from him. This knocked him out cold and he was drug out of the plane by his hands on his back. Tons of passengers are screaming "stop" and "OMG" but not one of them would take this poor doctors place for 800 bucks and a free overnight at a nice hotel. Anyways. PR disaster for united regardless of who was in the right or wrong.

 Crazyterran wrote:
I imagine it rarely gets to the point where they have to choose involunteers, especially if they are offering 800 bucks and a rebooking.

$800 in UA vouchers, I believe, and in this case a flight at 3pm the next day. For $800 in cash I'd quite happily hang about in an airport a few hours / overnight if I wasn't missing out on anything (meetings, family, vacation)

Herzlos wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
I imagine it rarely gets to the point where they have to choose involunteers, especially if they are offering 800 bucks and a rebooking.

$800 in UA vouchers, I believe, and in this case a flight at 3pm the next day. For $800 in cash I'd quite happily hang about in an airport a few hours / overnight if I wasn't missing out on anything (meetings, family, vacation)

That's the problem though, those three things are pretty much the only reason anyone actually flies. And 800 bucks in vouchers from the company that just kicked me off a flight isn't particularly appealing. 800 in cash, different matter, but vouchers is just an insult as the airline just gets it's money back anyway.

Just my .02

I've seen some statements that he was initially taken off the plane, ran on, and that is when the police got involved and this whole PR disaster really started.

While that matters and is bad on his part, the thing that pisses me off to no end is: If you're over booked AND have over the seat count checked in (turns out, statements from United says it was neither overbooked nor over-checked) why the feth do you let people on the plane BEFORE resolving that issue??? Literally ever other carrier that I've flown on takes the volunteers/seat reduction processes before boarding begins, probably because some genius at those airlines has figured out that doing it the way United appears to have, is a PR nightmare waiting to happen.

On the United CEO's statement: if the flight was not in fact overbooked, why was this guy removed in the first place? Was it not overbooked, but the employees made it so??The story that they had employees making that flight doesn't sit well with me, unless they too are paying out of pocket for a seat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Yes. In no part is "lets call the PoPo to drag out our clients" a good business decision.

Well it can be if the story is "drunken individual was assaulting other passengers" instead of "oops, we overbooked"

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
I imagine it rarely gets to the point where they have to choose involunteers, especially if they are offering 800 bucks and a rebooking.

$800 in UA vouchers, I believe, and in this case a flight at 3pm the next day. For $800 in cash I'd quite happily hang about in an airport a few hours / overnight if I wasn't missing out on anything (meetings, family, vacation)

That's the problem though, those three things are pretty much the only reason anyone actually flies. And 800 bucks in vouchers from the company that just kicked me off a flight isn't particularly appealing. 800 in cash, different matter, but vouchers is just an insult as the airline just gets it's money back anyway.

indeed. First class seats to Hawaii on a flight of my choosing, now we're talking.

Well it can be if the story is "drunken individual was assaulting other passengers" instead of "oops, we overbooked"

Touche. I meant, a paying passenger not causing a ruckus.

Another one popping up, similar case, guy was already let on the plane, then threatened to vacate his seat.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/united-airlines-passenger-threatened-handcuffs-073030438.html

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Another one popping up, similar case, guy was already let on the plane, then threatened to vacate his seat.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/united-airlines-passenger-threatened-handcuffs-073030438.html

My guess is Air Marshal assigned do the flight. Can't have the police slum it in coach.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Because the wife always knows best:

https://thepilotwifelife.wordpress.com/2017/04/11/i-know-youre-mad-at-united-but-thoughts-from-a-pilot-wife-about-flight-3411/

kronk wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Whether or not he was shady what did that matter to this event?

It doesn't matter, but you can agree that a guy shouldn't be treated in such-and-such way and still call him out for being a dick!

Another example, I agree with the point of most of Peregrine's posts/points in this thread, but certainly not his tone or approach (here or elsewhere).

Calling them out for being dicks, like this?

All things considered I find it funny how many freedom loving Americans side with the company "because it's the law/rules" (and are nitpicking about the justification) instead of starting from the premise that this is inhumane behaviour and shouldn't be lawful in the first place. From the gakky overbooking practice to assaulting a passenger (I don't care how "justified it was"). Something like that shouldn't even be an option and defining a passenger who declines a request as resisting is mind-boggling.

One can agree that this is a gakky practice.

But one can also agree that if you willingly agree to the gakky practice, and then pretend that the gakky practice doesn't apply to you, and refuse to obey the police, there will be consequences.

 d-usa wrote:

Because the wife always knows best:

https://thepilotwifelife.wordpress.com/2017/04/11/i-know-youre-mad-at-united-but-thoughts-from-a-pilot-wife-about-flight-3411/

Ugh. That was rough to read. Her attempt to use 9/11 as an emotional appeal to justify United's actions in this incident was pretty revolting.

the pilot wife wrote:Because if you choose to take advantage of the services the airport provides, you play by their rules.

I know you’re all out there screaming that the ‘rules’ are unfair, but I am a pilot wife. I remember 9/11. Do you? I want my husband, the father of my children, to come home. I want you to get home. That law exists to protect my husband. And your wife. And your grandmother. And your child. And you. I, for one, am glad for the law.

Just stupid and ruins any actual points she was attempting to make later in her piece.

 d-usa wrote:
One can agree that this is a gakky practice.

But one can also agree that if you willingly agree to the gakky practice, and then pretend that the gakky practice doesn't apply to you, and refuse to obey the police, there will be consequences.

The thing is, he may not have, the United Contract doesnt have any mention of rights or lack there of after they've already boarded

 d-usa wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Because the wife always knows best:

https://thepilotwifelife.wordpress.com/2017/04/11/i-know-youre-mad-at-united-but-thoughts-from-a-pilot-wife-about-flight-3411/

I read, and commented on this article in my above first comment. . . basically, and I doubt she actually knows, hers is the only "article" suggesting that he had left the plane, then rushed back on.

I frankly don't care. If a flight is over booked, you remedy the situation before anyone even steps foot on the plane.

 Peregrine wrote:

 stanman wrote:
If they overbook they should kick off the last people to check in at the gate, especially if they were late boarding. Nothing sucks more than the plane having to sit in the gate while some moron is still racing to the terminal. If you care about flying get there early so everyone is on time.

This is a fair point in some cases, but let's not forget that many of these people running to the gate at the last second are doing it because their connecting flight arrived late.

Also the airline shouldn't overbook they know exactly how many seats they have and it's their own fault if they overbook,

Of course they know how many seats they have. The point with overbooking is that usually at least some passengers never show up, so their seats would be empty. By overbooking they ensure a full load, at the cost of occasionally having to pay a bit of money to a passenger as compensation for bumping them to a later flight. And it's not like this is some kind of secret, the terms of service you agree to when you buy a ticket clearly state that overbooking is a thing and they may have to change your flight. It's not the airline's fault that people don't read the details of their ticket information before paying hundreds of dollars for a ticket, and then act like they're entitled to something they were never offered.

they should never bump customers for employees trying to ride on pass.

Why not? If the airline is willing to pay the (rather expensive) compensation for removing a passenger to make room for an employee then why shouldn't they? Keep in mind that many of these employees are traveling for work reasons, and delaying an employee can cause chain reaction delays elsewhere because work isn't getting done.

Flying has degenerated into a canned sardine bus service in the sky, it's sad really.

I suppose you'd also like to go back to the obscenely expensive ticket prices of those over-romanticized days? Or do you want to keep the price benefits of bus service?

Just responding to the last part of this. I first flew in 1998. it cost $189 I got a real meal bought 2 days before the flightand had room for my legs. I am flying united this Thursday(for the last time). I bought my ticket 6 weeks ago. Coach with no leg room for 550. feth that noise I want to go back to the romantic over priced era.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
I imagine it rarely gets to the point where they have to choose involunteers, especially if they are offering 800 bucks and a rebooking.

$800 in UA vouchers, I believe, and in this case a flight at 3pm the next day. For $800 in cash I'd quite happily hang about in an airport a few hours / overnight if I wasn't missing out on anything (meetings, family, vacation)

That's the problem though, those three things are pretty much the only reason anyone actually flies. And 800 bucks in vouchers from the company that just kicked me off a flight isn't particularly appealing. 800 in cash, different matter, but vouchers is just an insult as the airline just gets it's money back anyway.

Well, yeah. I ain't missing a meeting or a holiday because of an airline, and certainly not for single-vendor vouchers. But I wouldn't mind arriving home 3 hours late for $400 in cash (and the flight transfer covered), if I don't have an appointment. Some flights are delayed by that much anyway.

TMy point is that the reward for being delayed is useless to pretty much everyone. If they want to solve the overbooking then they'd need to produce rewards that people actually want to accept.
Run a reverse auction with real cash and I bet you'd find 4 passengers willing to get off in a few minutes, for far less than the $1bn they lost in stock value.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
If he had done that we would have known nothing about this.

Only if you don't pay attention at all. Overbooking and bumping passengers, whether voluntary or involuntarily, is hardly a secret. If you travel at all frequently you're aware of the situation.

Which gets what? "Grumble grumble. I hate flying" from a few people. Companies and regulators are now looking at changes to rules and laws.

What to get staff somewhere for operational reasons? Plan it properly.

If only the world magically worked that way. In the real world there are weather delays, mechanical problems, etc, that require crew and/or aircraft to be moved on short notice to accommodate unexpected changes. And when there's a choice between bumping a few passengers from one flight or potentially starting a chain reaction of delays and missed flights that will hurt hundreds of passengers the choice is obvious: four people are going to be getting on the next flight to their destination.

And you removed my answer to that. If you might need people moving make sure you leave space on flights rather than over booking. Or use other means. Like I said, if you really need to move people use another carrier or charter a flight. It's not cheap, but that's the choice the airline needs to make if they are going to not make space available for employees that need to move around.

Don't go breaching your contract just because the publicity won't do that much damage.

No contract was breached. The contract explicitly gives the airline permission to move you to another flight, with appropriate compensation, whether you like it or not. The only "contract" being breached here is the assumption, made by passengers who don't bother to read the CoC, that they're entitled to a seat on a specific flight at a specific time and the airline can't change it.

If you read what others have posted, yes they have. Some airlines may put those clauses in, but I would bet if tested they would be found unfair. The airline claims that a ticket (booked for a specific flight at a specific time) is not a garentee of a seat on that flight? Ok, so what happens if I don't turn up on time and try and point that out to the airline? What happens if your flight is delayed? You are compensated (at least to and from any EU destinations) Whilst the conditions of carriage may say that, it seems pretty clear that these terms are questionable at best.

Or one day someone will be bumped which will lose them their job, or in the case of a doctor someone might die.

And it would be 100% that person's fault. If you are traveling by air you should be aware that you may not arrive at your destination as scheduled. Aside from overbooking there can be weather delays, missed connecting flights, mechanical problems, etc. The smart traveler makes sure that they have a day or two between their scheduled arrival date and any urgent needs to be somewhere. The stupid traveler books the longest possible vacation, leaving no room for error, and loses their job/lets their patients die/whatever if a thunderstorm shuts down the airport and cancels their flight. Be the smart traveler, not the stupid traveler.

Because of stupid airlines? If your going to use the "the world doesn't work that way" defence so am I. People have limited time off. They don't want to be wasting their limeted holiday time just in case an airline drags them off the flight. That's going to happen. It's a situation the passenger has no control over but the airline 100% does.

Long story short, United didn't do anything that violated the passenger's rights/broke the law. But holy hell, this has to be one of the biggest PR disasters of the decade; a situation that never should have happened in the first place executed in such a poor manner.

Still, not the first time United has been in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons. Their refusal to act promptly with decent compensation both historically and now has cost them far much more than a couple thousand dollars to keep the customer happy.

 Steve steveson wrote:

And you removed my answer to that. If you might need people moving make sure you leave space on flights rather than over booking. Or use other means. Like I said, if you really need to move people use another carrier or charter a flight. It's not cheap, but that's the choice the airline needs to make if they are going to not make space available for employees that need to move around.

I've got the solution: Airplanes will now be equipped with "Standing room only" sections. if you are deemed to be an "overbooked" passenger, or if you buy a new, cheaper flight ticket, you can get crammed into a section of the plane with subway-esque hand holds hangin' around and jostle for position with everyone else in that section for 4 hours

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
If he had done that we would have known nothing about this.

Only if you don't pay attention at all. Overbooking and bumping passengers, whether voluntary or involuntarily, is hardly a secret. If you travel at all frequently you're aware of the situation.

Which gets what? "Grumble grumble. I hate flying" from a few people. Companies and regulators are now looking at changes to rules and laws.

What to get staff somewhere for operational reasons? Plan it properly.

If only the world magically worked that way. In the real world there are weather delays, mechanical problems, etc, that require crew and/or aircraft to be moved on short notice to accommodate unexpected changes. And when there's a choice between bumping a few passengers from one flight or potentially starting a chain reaction of delays and missed flights that will hurt hundreds of passengers the choice is obvious: four people are going to be getting on the next flight to their destination.

And you removed my answer to that. If you might need people moving make sure you leave space on flights rather than over booking. Or use other means. Like I said, if you really need to move people use another carrier or charter a flight. It's not cheap, but that's the choice the airline needs to make if they are going to not make space available for employees that need to move around.

Don't go breaching your contract just because the publicity won't do that much damage.

No contract was breached. The contract explicitly gives the airline permission to move you to another flight, with appropriate compensation, whether you like it or not. The only "contract" being breached here is the assumption, made by passengers who don't bother to read the CoC, that they're entitled to a seat on a specific flight at a specific time and the airline can't change it.

If you read what others have posted, yes they have. Some airlines may put those clauses in, but I would bet if tested they would be found unfair. The airline claims that a ticket (booked for a specific flight at a specific time) is not a garentee of a seat on that flight? Ok, so what happens if I don't turn up on time and try and point that out to the airline? What happens if your flight is delayed? You are compensated (at least to and from any EU destinations) Whilst the conditions of carriage may say that, it seems pretty clear that these terms are questionable at best.

Or one day someone will be bumped which will lose them their job, or in the case of a doctor someone might die.

And it would be 100% that person's fault. If you are traveling by air you should be aware that you may not arrive at your destination as scheduled. Aside from overbooking there can be weather delays, missed connecting flights, mechanical problems, etc. The smart traveler makes sure that they have a day or two between their scheduled arrival date and any urgent needs to be somewhere. The stupid traveler books the longest possible vacation, leaving no room for error, and loses their job/lets their patients die/whatever if a thunderstorm shuts down the airport and cancels their flight. Be the smart traveler, not the stupid traveler.

Because of stupid airlines? If your going to use the "the world doesn't work that way" defence so am I. People have limited time off. They don't want to be wasting their limeted holiday time just in case an airline drags them off the flight. That's going to happen. It's a situation the passenger has no control over but the airline 100% does.

So... in the end, you're argument is that personal responsibility doesn't matter.

 General Annoyance wrote:
Long story short, United didn't do anything that violated the passenger's rights/broke the law. But holy hell, this has to be one of the biggest PR disasters of the decade; a situation that never should have happened in the first place executed in such a poor manner.

Still, not the first time United has been in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons. Their refusal to act promptly with decent compensation both historically and now has cost them far much more than a couple thousand dollars to keep the customer happy.

They say 'the customer is always right'.

They aren't of course, and some are bloody awful. But you have to treat them as though they are to an extent, not hit them over the head and drag them out across the floor.

This story goes to show that being proven technically in the right once you've clobbered a customer doesn't get much sympathy from the public, or remedy spectacularly bad PR.

They were not technically in the right in any manner shape or form.

Herzlos wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
I imagine it rarely gets to the point where they have to choose involunteers, especially if they are offering 800 bucks and a rebooking.

$800 in UA vouchers, I believe, and in this case a flight at 3pm the next day. For $800 in cash I'd quite happily hang about in an airport a few hours / overnight if I wasn't missing out on anything (meetings, family, vacation)

That's the problem though, those three things are pretty much the only reason anyone actually flies. And 800 bucks in vouchers from the company that just kicked me off a flight isn't particularly appealing. 800 in cash, different matter, but vouchers is just an insult as the airline just gets it's money back anyway.

Well, yeah. I ain't missing a meeting or a holiday because of an airline, and certainly not for single-vendor vouchers. But I wouldn't mind arriving home 3 hours late for $400 in cash (and the flight transfer covered), if I don't have an appointment. Some flights are delayed by that much anyway.

TMy point is that the reward for being delayed is useless to pretty much everyone. If they want to solve the overbooking then they'd need to produce rewards that people actually want to accept.
Run a reverse auction with real cash and I bet you'd find 4 passengers willing to get off in a few minutes, for far less than the $1bn they lost in stock value.

That is exactly the point the Radio 4 airlines expert made. This is a problem that is easily solved by throwing money at it, but United preferred to solve it by taking someone's booking, seating them in the plane, then having them beaten unconscious and dragged out like a slaughtered pig on live social media.

Not exactly the best way to treat your paying customers, regardless of whether it is technically legal within the terms of the Warsaw Convention and FAA laws.

What a bunch of useless feths.

I was listening to some expert on game theory that had a couple interesting ideas on how to improve the process:

1) Stop offering money in public. People might be willing to give up their seat for $200 and a slight delay, but people also have a fear of being screwed over and taken advantage of. You might be willing to give up your seat for $200, but if you see nobody else getting up to take advantage of that offer you start to wonder if you are being a sucker and then decide not to go up to the counter either. He proposed two possible non-public approaches:

1.a) Ask people when they check in. Maybe a simple "in case the flight is overbooked, would you be willing to take a later flight if we compensate you? If you are willing to fly at a later time, how much would you like to be compensated?" So by the time everybody is checked in and you know you need to bump a person you also have a list of who is willing to be bumped and you know what who would be your cheapest option. And while people don't want to be played for a sucker, they are also competitive and if they know that they could get money before someone else get's money they might be willing to lowball in order to score a "win" over someone else.

1.b) Use text or an app. If you need a seat then notify the people who are checked in via their phones. Yes, it's still somewhat public because everybody can kind of see if other people are replying to the request. But it also still has a feeling of privacy because it's a "private" interaction with you and your phone.

Both cases give you an option to deal with individual people, rather than dealing with a group.

2.) Start high with compensation, because it might end up being cheaper if you are doing it via app/text. People are competitive, people want to deal, people want to haggle. If you need 3 seats send a notification out to everybody that is checked in asking "we need 3 volunteers, is anybody willing to take the next flight in 2 hours for $2,000". If you start flashing a high amount of money, you get more people going for the hook. You likely get more than 3 people, and if you do then you send out another message: "we have more volunteers than we need. Would anybody be willing to volunteer to give up their seat for $1750." Then you keep on doing that until you got the lowest price where you got the right number of people to give up their seat. The theory is that people value whatever they have right now more than what they could have (just like it's easier to give up your crappy coach seat if your rear isn't sitting in it yet). When you need a volunteer, the airline is competing against the passengers to see if they can get anyone to give up the seat. If you get 5 passengers to initially volunteer their seat and you only need 3, then your passengers are no longer competing with you and are competing with each other instead. Rather than having a seat, and wanting to keep it, they now have money, and want to keep it. And once you have money, having half of that money starts to be more important than having none of the money. Just like an auction, people want to "win" against other people playing the game. So by starting high and then lowering in order to play the passengers against each other you might end up with a lower number than you would by starting low and playing against the passengers yourself.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
I imagine it rarely gets to the point where they have to choose involunteers, especially if they are offering 800 bucks and a rebooking.

$800 in UA vouchers, I believe, and in this case a flight at 3pm the next day. For $800 in cash I'd quite happily hang about in an airport a few hours / overnight if I wasn't missing out on anything (meetings, family, vacation)

That's the problem though, those three things are pretty much the only reason anyone actually flies. And 800 bucks in vouchers from the company that just kicked me off a flight isn't particularly appealing. 800 in cash, different matter, but vouchers is just an insult as the airline just gets it's money back anyway.

Well, yeah. I ain't missing a meeting or a holiday because of an airline, and certainly not for single-vendor vouchers. But I wouldn't mind arriving home 3 hours late for $400 in cash (and the flight transfer covered), if I don't have an appointment. Some flights are delayed by that much anyway.

TMy point is that the reward for being delayed is useless to pretty much everyone. If they want to solve the overbooking then they'd need to produce rewards that people actually want to accept.
Run a reverse auction with real cash and I bet you'd find 4 passengers willing to get off in a few minutes, for far less than the $1bn they lost in stock value.

That is exactly the point the Radio 4 airlines expert made. This is a problem that is easily solved by throwing money at it, but United preferred to solve it by taking someone's booking, seating them in the plane, then having them beaten unconscious and dragged out like a slaughtered pig on live social media.

Not exactly the best way to treat your paying customers, regardless of whether it is technically legal within the terms of the Warsaw Convention and FAA laws.

What a bunch of useless feths.

We agree totally. When former Aeroflot executives look at what happened and say "wow thats horrible customer service," You're doing it wrong.