Members: ~~~~ Parking Lot ~~~~

Lhian Manguan l l
Althea Redublo l l
Juliana Barcelona l l
Kristelle Caluag l l
Mikhaela Sarambao ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Video Link: https://openstax.org/l/53VideoUnited

Article Link: https://openstax.org/l/53United
- Powerpoint Presentation
- 3 - 5 Minutes
- Upload to Teams Channel (Representative)

-
Given Questions:
INTRODUCTION
- A pleasant day, we are the 5th group from Act221. United Airlines, Incorporated
(commonly referred to as United), is a major American airline headquartered at the
Willis Tower in Chicago, Illinois. United faced an issue that showed a customer being
dragged from a United flight and had a bloodied face. With that we were assigned to
answer three questions regarding it.
Upon being asked to deplane and take a later flight, should a customer who has booked
the fare for the earlier flight have the right to refuse?
- The customer has every right to refuse to take the later flight because
overbooking is, in the first place, the airline's negligence. The deplaning of the
customer should always be voluntary because it is within their rights, considering
that a plane operates on a first-come, first-serve basis. Customers usually
book flights that are favorable for them, since they might have prior
appointments or because it is part of their itinerary.
- Aside from that, the management also needs to consider the ones who have
emergencies. They should not be compelled to forfeit their seat for something that
they are not responsible for, given that they have already paid for their fare. As
seen in the case of Mr. Dao, he booked a flight to go back to the hospital in
Louisville to treat his patients. However, they forced him to leave and even initiated
an unsolicited attack that he may use as a basis to press charges against the
airline.

Which stakeholder(s) do you think United valued more in this incident? Why?
- United Airlines valued the four employees more than Mr. Dao. It was
mentioned in the additional article that overbooking was the reason why four
passengers were asked to deplane "In order to find space for four United
employees” (Feldscher, 2017). If they did value Mr. Dao, the airline should
have let him have his seat and not do anything that would have hurt him.
Instead, they forcefully took him out of his seat by involving the Chicago Air
Police.

Airlines overbook to ensure that despite any no-shows or cancellations, any given flight
will have as many occupied seats as possible, because an unoccupied seat represents
lost revenue. In terms of valuing stakeholders, does this strategy make sense to you? Why
or why not?
- For the internal stakeholders, it is considered a win for them because it means
that there is a lower loss of revenue per flight. However, for external
stakeholders, it would be a bother if they are on the receiving end of the
inconvenience. Customers are stakeholders, thus if we want to value
stakeholders, we must take their morals and demands into consideration as well.
- In Mr. Dao's experience, not only was he not able to go home on his intended
date, but also received bodily harm for standing up for his rights. In our opinion,
overbooking flights is impractical and too risky because the additional profit is
not worth the added problems that it presents, it simply appears as fraud that
happens to be legal. Those problems could affect and make the image of the
airline negative.

Answers (per member)

-kristelle-
1. The customer has every right to refuse to take the later flight because overbooking is,
in the first place, the airline's negligence. Especially if the customer is unwilling to
deplane as they have an urgent duty on their itinerary. They should not be compelled
to forfeit their seat for something for which they are not responsible, considering that
they have already paid for their fare. Besides, customers have the right to make a
decision, get the service they deserve, and should the airline find a better way for this
occurrence without harming anyone.
2. Based on the incident, I suppose that United valued their employees more than the
morality of their customers. It is mentioned in the article that overbooking occurred
because their four other employees did not have space to settle to get to Louisville,
that they had to depart four passengers for their sake.
3. In terms of valuing stakeholders, this overbooking strategy does not make sense to
me. Customers are stakeholders, thus if we want to value stakeholders, we must also
take their morals and demands into consideration. On the other hand, even if
customers would be given affordable tickets while having the right to compensation,
employees tend not to always keep their commitments to customers, which gets
unethical eventually. There are instances when customers are asked to board a new
flight, or in the worst scenario, forcing them to leave. Overbooking is good for the
business if implemented accordingly but because of the downsides, it will simply
appear as fraud that happens to be legal because the only people who benefit from
it are typically internal stakeholders who could guarantee more revenue with
overbooking. Only the other side gains from this strategy, putting passengers through
inconveniences. Hence, in terms of valuing the stakeholders, this is irrational.

-Lhian-
1. Actually, I guess yes, because there was a situation that someone needs to go to that
particular place because that is an emergency that they need to go on as soon as
possible and at the same time the customers who buy and scheduled for the early
flight and the purpose is enjoying the other country or place, I guess the
management needs to consider the one who have emergency than to those people
who don’t. Of course, the management needs to talk to the customer if they are
willing to give their seats to the other customer because of an emergency in order to
make sure that they are not violating the rights of the customer and respect the
customer's decision.

2. In this kind of incident, the stakeholder prioritisation is the stakeholder that can fit in
this kind of problem. Because if we were not able to approach this kind of situation to
them, there is a big chance that they will never fix a problem like this and it might
happen again to others. Because of the stakeholder prioritisation we have a great
opportunity to speak about this problem to them and confront the organisation
management to fix their bad.

3. Actually, the strategy does not make sense to me because if I may have a chance of
having an unoccupied seat, yes, it may lead to loss of revenue but for me, it is better
than overbooking. They have a lot of good sides as well as having unoccupied seats
especially today. We are experiencing the deadly virus and we never know and we
never say if the person beside us is the carrier of that virus, since there are
 unoccupied seats. We can be sure that we can follow the social distance even in the
plane, second one is if there is an emergency and needed to go to that certain
country, they can avail tickets because there are unoccupied seats that they can use.

-Mikha-
1. Yes, the customer has the right to decline, especially if he had a valid reason. He
booked a flight to go on time to the hospital in Louisville to treat his patients but they
forced him to leave and they even hurt the customer. It's so inhuman that they didn't
consider his situation, why he didn't want to take the later flight.
2. The United valued the workers more during this situation. The overbooked flight
approach is unethical.
3. In this scenario, the overbooking strategy does not make sense because it's like
worth of money over people's value. They maximise their profits while one of their
customers is hurt and isn't valued as a customer.

Redublo
1. In my opinion, the customer has the full right to refuse because they already paid for
their seat on that plane. The deplaning of the customer should always be voluntary
because it is within their rights, considering that a plane operates on a first-come,
first-serve basis. In the situation of Mr. Dao, it could be considered an unsolicited
attack that he can use to press charges against the airline. The airline personnel
were the ones who were taking drastic measures rather than offering a better
alternative that could make Mr. Dao conceded his seat.
2. United Airlines valued the four employees more than Mr. Dao. It was mentioned in
the additional article that the reason why four passengers were asked to deplane was
"in order to find space for four United employees” (Feldscher, 2017). The airline also
involved the Chicago Air Police in forcefully removing Mr. Dao from the plane.
3. For the internal stakeholders, it could be considered a win to them because it means
that there is a lower chance of loss of revenue per flight. However, for external
stakeholders, it would be a bother if they are on the receiving end of the
inconvenience. Where Mr. Dao experienced not only not coming home on his
intended date but also receiving bodily harm for standing up for his rights. In my
opinion, overbooking flights is impractical because the additional profit is not worth
the additional problems that it presents.

Barcelona
1. I do think that the customer has the right to refuse because it is their seat in the first
place. Aside from that, they have already paid for that seat and probably chose that
flight because it is the most suitable time for them. Customers usually book flights
that are favorable for them since they might have prior appointments. However, if the
airlines would want the customer to voluntarily deplane, they should have asked
properly and gave them incentives. There are many incentives that the airlines can
do other than resulting in that kind of actions in the video.

2. The stakeholders that United valued more in the incident are the employees instead
of Mr. Dao. It is because if they valued Mr. Dao more, they should have let him have
his seat and not do anything that would have hurt him. Instead, they forcefully took
him out of his seat through the Chicago Air Police.
3. From my point of view, overbooking flights is inappropriate for the external
shareholders since it can be an inconvenience to them. On the other hand, it may be
a good chance for the internal stakeholders to gain more income since less seats
would not be occupied. However, having that strategy would be too risky since an
inconvenience to the external stakeholders would result the same to the internal
stakeholders. Those problems could rise and make the image of the airlines worse.