Skip to main content

It's not at all friendly in United's sky!

More than apt commentary in The Guardian (with video) on United Airline's outrageous conduct so widely reported around the world....

It has become apparent that America’s airlines, much like America’s president, have absolutely no shame. They seem to care only about profit and treat the people they supposedly serve like chattel, cattle or criminals.

This week’s installment of airlines reaching new lows is brought to you by United – you know, the people who spend tens of millions of dollars on fancy adverts urging you to “Fly the Friendly Skies”, while seemingly going out of their way to make the skies as unfriendly as possible. 
The story has been everywhere over the last 24 hours and you’ve probably seen the graphic video. United overbooked a flight and, having only realized this after the flight had boarded, tried to force a few randomly selected passengers off. One man refused to vacate the seat he paid for and, thus, had a reasonable expectation of sitting in. Security officers dragged the 69-year-old grandfather off the plane screaming. This was all caught on video and went viral.
You’d think that United might have balked at this PR disaster and issued a groveling apology. Particularly as the incident comes hot on the heels of last month’s controversy around United denying boarding to two teenage girls because they were wearing leggings. But no. 
The furore was followed by perhaps the most half-assed sorry-not-sorry in the history of corporate apologies, with United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz expressing regret for “having to re-accommodate these customers”. Yes, that’s right, they translated “dragged a man out of a plane screaming” into “re-accommodate”.
Somewhere, in the depths of United HQ, there is a team of copywriters tasked with systematically wringing any actual meaning out of the English language and transforming it into hollow, hyphenated platitudes.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...
6 comments
Read more