Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident

Re:Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident by sangnoir on Thursday April 20, 2017 @04:49AM (#14155000)

> discreetly accepting blame

GP isn't suggesting there isn't any blame, but that United is low-key accepting the blame/'taking one for the team'. United has decided not to throw any of the involved parties under the bus, even though it is likely that most of them - possibly all of them - do not work directly for United.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident by logicallee on Thursday April 20, 2017 @06:05AM (#14155357)

This makes no sense to me. The subcontracted brands are worthless, like actually bankrupt, and nobody knows them. Why take the brand hit on "United"? I wouldn't call it "throwing them under the bus" to at least mention this. The amount of backlash against United and its brand is hideous.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident by sangnoir on Thursday April 20, 2017 @02:38PM (#14159505)

> Why take the brand hit on "United"?

Maybe because United badly wants Republic to not go into liquidation? As to how badly - the dollar value is the difference between how much United is paying to contract versus how much they would have to pay their own Union staff.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Analysis of the United Airlines passenger removal incident by wyldfire on Thursday April 20, 2017 @09:47AM (#14156546)

It makes the brand look even worse if they refuse to accept responsibility for something that was ultimately their decision. It's their supplier [contractor].

[ Parent | on HN ]