swamt: I don't think any of that matters.
The must-ride crew may not have been Republic, as SDF gets one out and back Republic ERJ-170 daily, Besides that one 170, SDF-ORD is a mix of Skywest and Trans States 50-seaters, and thus the must-ride crew may have been employed by one of those other regionals.
Lots of internet know-it-alls have been posting this week that mainline UA gate agents staff the regional gates at ORD. Turns out they may have been correct, because here is what Oscar said about the situation in his "circle the wagons" memo to employees:
Even if they are not UA mainline gate agents, that no longer matters once Oscar calls them "United" employees repeatedly uses the word "we" to describe the employees. If the CEO calls the employees "United" employees, doesn't matter who actually employs them.
This wasn't caused by the actions of any pilot or FA (or mechanic or fleet service). This was caused by a gate agent who tried to "deny boarding" to someone who had already boarded and who knew that there were plenty of seats for all paying passengers with tickets. And then it was magnified by a tone-deaf "customer was wrong as usual" CEO into a full-blown PR disaster.
UA may not have had any justification in its Contract of Carriage to de-board him, despite the agent's attempts to bootstrap into the IDB procedures. The recent changes confirm that UA won't try to pull this nonsense any more in the future.
The must-ride crew may not have been Republic, as SDF gets one out and back Republic ERJ-170 daily, Besides that one 170, SDF-ORD is a mix of Skywest and Trans States 50-seaters, and thus the must-ride crew may have been employed by one of those other regionals.
Lots of internet know-it-alls have been posting this week that mainline UA gate agents staff the regional gates at ORD. Turns out they may have been correct, because here is what Oscar said about the situation in his "circle the wagons" memo to employees:
On Sunday, April 9, after United Express Flight 3411 was fully boarded, United's gate agents were approached by crewmembers that were told they needed to board the flight.
We sought volunteers and then followed our involuntary denial of boarding process (including offering up to $1,000 in compensation) and when we approached one of these passengers to explain apologetically that he was being denied boarding, he raised his voice and refused to comply with crew member instructions.
Even if they are not UA mainline gate agents, that no longer matters once Oscar calls them "United" employees repeatedly uses the word "we" to describe the employees. If the CEO calls the employees "United" employees, doesn't matter who actually employs them.
This wasn't caused by the actions of any pilot or FA (or mechanic or fleet service). This was caused by a gate agent who tried to "deny boarding" to someone who had already boarded and who knew that there were plenty of seats for all paying passengers with tickets. And then it was magnified by a tone-deaf "customer was wrong as usual" CEO into a full-blown PR disaster.
UA may not have had any justification in its Contract of Carriage to de-board him, despite the agent's attempts to bootstrap into the IDB procedures. The recent changes confirm that UA won't try to pull this nonsense any more in the future.