> Is advertising actually self-serving if it isn't upfront about what it being advertised?
Yes, subliminal advertising is a real thing, and other techniques desperately try to hide the fact that it's an ad. Not sure about this case, it's definitely an interesting one.
They should've done a number of things before resorting to forcing people off. They should've increased the value far more before this occurred.
And on top of all that, there is no transparency at all on how they kick people off. And they have the audacity to talk nonchalantly about this man who had obligations refused to get off so he needed to be bloodied when they could've done so much more.
Sorry, it's not this man's fault someone got sick and a flight crew needs to be in Louisville. Hire more people or save 4 seats on every plane in the future. We shouldn't be responsible for a company's mistakes.
> Since it was a whole crew I would guess they hit up against FAA mandated rest requirements.
Gee, I wonder if they could, I don't know, hire more people so that these situations don't happen as often? Heaven forbid they lose a little bit of profit a year...
You simply delay the other flight. You don't force someone off of a flight they've already boarded.
It's really hard to describe how all of this works without going into extremely detailed scenarios and edge cases. Simply put though hiring more people doesn't do anything.
Those extra people still would have to be sitting on call somewhere. Once they receive the call they're sent to where they're needed which still results in this situation. It's simply unreasonable to think they would have spare flight crews in every single possible destination. Unless you want about 1,000% increase in ticket prices of course.
I'm sure the other flight was delayed. Not getting a crew there on this last flight out for the night though would have likely meant cancelling the flight in Louisville or delaying it at least 24 hours. Stranding a plane in a city like Louisville would cause major ripple effects down the line resulting in probably another 10-15 flights being delayed. If they cancelled rather than delay now you have a plane full of passengers that need to be re-routed on multiple other planes that are likely already full.
Re-location of flight crews is simply a necessary option for the airlines at this point of time. Maybe down the road we can remotely pilot airliners and then situations like this won't arise.
See, for some reason people will go to lengths to somehow absolve corporations of their responsibility in this country. It's really sad.
Sure, there may be issues that can't be planned for, and you can't hire for every case and solve every issue. But that is still not this customer's fault, and he was punished for it, arbitrarily. Frankly I don't care how difficult it is for United to prevent this from happening again-it is their responsibility, it should not be the responsibility of their customers.
> Re-location of flight crews is simply a necessary option for the airlines at this point of time. Maybe down the road we can remotely pilot airliners and then situations like this won't arise.
Then reserve 4 seats on every flight for possible situations that arise. It's not my problem that United loses money this way. It's theirs.
I'm not absolving them of anything. What happened was wrong, no doubt about it. I'm making a best effort to explain why it's unreasonable to think that flights will never end up in this "oversold" situation.
By your logic they better go ahead and just block of 20 seats. You know, just in case they need to re-position a B747 crew. Wonder what tickets will cost when they can only sell 30 seats on those 50 seaters.
> By your logic they better go ahead and just block of 20 seats. You know, just in case they need to re-position a B747 crew. Wonder what tickets will cost when they can only sell 30 seats on those 50 seaters.
I would think that a better argument could be made than a straw-man, but in this case, I don't think there is, so I don't blame you for it.
What's unreasonable is to think that a moderate action shouldn't be taken due to an unlikely extreme result that would never happen.
The company needs to eat the cost. Whether that means blocking out a few seats or offering more to get someone to volunteer. And sure, you can argue, that this could make tickets go up for all-but the rates at which these events happen is very low, it's hard to argue that would happen. And due to competition, many airliners would find a better way-they still have to compete on price.
It's amazing how many "emergencies" aren't emergencies. If I have plans I have plans. If there are loads of "emergencies" then that is the result of poor planning and management. Lots of managers I have worked with back off when I decline.
Having said that, not everyone is in a position to be strict about it. It needs to be put into law or hashed out during the hiring process.
I definitely think it's more socially acceptable. It's just another annoying gender stereotype.
But to me the problem is companies working employees too long. Salary before meant putting in your 9-5 and leaving early on Fridays. Now if I don't put in 12 hours a day I look bad. If I do I look average.
Life often gives you a series of small choices that amount to preferring your career or your family. Different people choose differently and it adds up over time.
This choice is not gender neutral, we can see clear differences - and this shows up in all kinds of places, choice of profession being one of them; taking time off for family - another.
They really nailed it: a big roadblock to people shopping online was returns. It's easier to return something to amazon than it is to a local department store now. A few clicks, print label, take to UPS store.
> going for it can get the rules thrown in your face while everyone accuses you of being an asshole who is trying to break the rules while,
I don't doubt discrimination exists, and if this has been your personal experience, I'm sorry.
It just seems foreign to me that someone would actually do this for a private role.
If you don't match the skill set the algorithm will filter you out before anyone even knows you exist. If you get by it clearly the reviewer saw something they liked anyway.
What recruiter is going to berate someone and call them an asshole for applying to a job they aren't qualified for? And if that was the case, I'd view it as a dodged bullet.
I was making a more general statement. I assume no recruiter would actually call you an asshole to your face, but that does not stop them from thinking you are an asshole who is trying to break the rules, while they fail to see that it works just fine that way for (insert whatever category it works for).
I have made other pertinent remarks in this same discussion that support the idea that what keeps women out is not straight up sexism in terms of "No girls allowed in the boys club." But that doesn't change the fact that women do, at times, get excluded due to their gender and it is maddening when people try to act like that simply isn't a thing at all.
The rules do get applied differently for different people. This is not just losers making excuses.
I can't agree here. Windows 8 was not usable as a web developer, for me. Windows 10 is something I don't mind using as my experimental box (I still use OSX for day-job tasks).
Windows 8 was worse than Windows 10 which is worse than 7. I should have specified-to me Windows 8 and 10 are both poor, both much worse than 7. To be honest, I had an EASIER time with Windows 8 (company provided laptop) than Windows 10.
Windows 7 was the pinnacle windows experience for me and it has gotten worse ever since.
What about windows 7 was so great? The start menu? Windows 10 has a 5 second boot up time, most all annoyances anyone has online can be configured away, and it is insanely stable (haven't had it once crash on me yet).
It took a familiar UI and improved it. It added features in an intuitive way. And many of the features of windows 10 could've easily been added to 7.
> Windows 10 has a 5 second boot up time
Man, I wish. My 10 system never boots up that fast. Meanwhile my Windows 7 desktop takes 15 seconds to boot up on SSD. Those 10 seconds just aren't that much of a feature for me-especially since my laptop/desktop are typically in sleep mode anyway.
> most all annoyances anyone has online can be configured away,
Yes, because we should have to do work to eliminate baked in ads and processes that share my information with who knows who.
Also, you can't even intuitively FIND settings. The Control Panel has some settings the Settings app doesn't have and vice versa. It's a mess. Why can't they all be in one place? Mac? one place.
I can't even get Windows 10 to update. Instead I have to constantly kill a rogue update process that decimates resources because I can't get a basic update to download and install properly.
This is one of those annoyances, probably not a crash but one of those infamous 3am forced reboots while you're playing CSGO no less. This is one of those things you need to google and configure away.
If a job is as easy to outsource as so many on here are saying, it is already being done or has been done.
It's been done in my industry. The low level grunt work and basic administration is all outsourced. Has been for decades.