There can be no question that UA firmly believes, and correctly so,
that their passengers are a bunch of ignoramuses. After all, there's
no evidence that any were bright enough to even attempt suing UA
individually, let alone as a class action, as it should be, on behalf
of everyone who has ever flown on UA since deregulation when UA began
its downward spiral to become the epitomy of the airline industry.
$200 travel vouchers for damages that are easily worth thousands
(including punitive and exemplary damages) are UA's way of adding
insult to the injuries sustained. Put another way, stabbing some
elderly people in the back isn't good enough, they have to "twist" the
blade and smile while they look around and say "does anybody else want
to complain"!
The customer relations people at UA are quite correct telling its
victims that UA "is not responsible". This is another example of
twisting the blade and telling them "you ... bunch of fools, ya deserve
whatever we dispense at you."
Would I consider flying UA. Yeah, right, sure!
I wouldn't even send a small non-prioritized pkg with
that kind of an outfit.
If they had anyone qualified to discern the difference between good
weather and bad, they wouldn't be telling passengers the fairy tails
about weather problems where there aren't any. Yes, an airline w/o
personell qualified to assess weather conditions is very hazardous.
And if they have such qualified people, they'd be using them, or
stories like you have posted involving perfect weather reported as
unsuitable for flight wouldn't happen.
How stupid are UA passengers? How stupid is someone with evidence in
hand that an airline hasn't anybody qualified to read a weather map,
but boards a plane anyway. Its no wonder UA likes these kinds of
passengers. They set themselves up to beat liability in a civil action
based on assumption of risk and contributory negligence.
I hope UA is adequately supporting UNTIED.COM, for all of the
substantial benefits you're providing them. Without UNTIED they'll
have more difficulty advancing affirmative defences like assumption of
risk and contributory negligence. Indeed and perhaps inadvertently
you're helping UA further its illicit and unconscionable goals.
I have no doubt UA has lots of large complaint departments,
international complaints departments, baggage complaints, et cetera
(they're usually called "Customer Service"); and all those people
working there who were given the jobs despite no experience from any
other department (these people don't even know what a dispatcher does,
have no idea what a tariff is let alone any of its intricacies) would
be out of work if the causes of the complaints were eliminated. Not
that they have any idea how to even begin eliminating one, but if they
did, would they want to eliminate any causes of complaint? Letters
saying "We're sorry", "we're not responsible", and [we think you're
only worth $200] ensure them job security!)
Instead of issuing those insulting form letter replies, a responsible
organization would answer letters of complaint with something like the
following:
"Thank you for letting me know that you were told your flight
was cancelled due to bad weather in SFO when in fact SFO weather
was perfect. After investigating the facts that you disclosed,
I was able to ascertain that Mr. Jones, a new employee in LAX
took it upon himself to attempt explaining a situation he had no
knowledge of.
This was caused through insufficient training of our
co-ordinators in LAX, because the chief instructor wanted to
reduce costs through an abbreviated training program.
Rest assured that I have placed the matter on proper basis.
There will not be any more abbreviated training attempts in this
company and all those who were not adequately trained will be
identified and properly trained. I have instructed Mr. Spano,
our LAX Chief Instructor to inform you of the progress he is
making in this regard, by sending you copies of the same reports
he will be preparing for my own benefit. Mr. Spano understands
that these reports will be prepared on his own time, and knows
what may happen to him if they contain any inaccuracies or
omissions.
[Skipping all the crap about "we" thank you for flying Exxon] I
appreciate your taking the time to bring this to MY attention.
I concur in your position that the ultimate purpose of our
exercise is to preclude a recurrence. If you encounter any
other irregularity in our service, please do not hesitate to let
me know."
Purposeful complainants don't want apologies, they can get apologies
for a dime or less at their corner convenience store from the teenagers
hanging out in front; nor do they want money, if they did they would
have sued for proper value. They should not be insulted with $200
vouchers. They want corrective action, and that's what proper
handling should ensure. The complainants will be even more insulted
if, instead of specific indications of actual corrective measures,
they're given the general PR garbage that typically flows out of
Customer Service depertments, identifying nothing, showing no
particulars of corrective measures, but simply adding insult upon
insult. Any insult, however polite promising or otherwise camoflouged
is nonetheless still an insult.
