![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-124537-100x100.png\")
Well now that mere customers can't phone United to get any problems resolved, what would the Chicago Tribune Problem Solver do now? e-mail or write a strongly worded letter?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
@MalcoveMagnesia: Or heaven forbid, walk up to their HQ and demand some answers, seeing as how they're Chicago-based?
I think it's from a surveillance camera.
@Joshua Davis: I assumed that you were being funny. Either way, I laughed out loud when I read your comment.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-103766-100x100.png\")
The writeup here repeatedly made it sound like it was intentional. The Tribune wasn't much better. It was an accident. A negligent one, but an accident nonetheless.
@Ash78: I know I accidentally set things on fire all the time, but the police keep calling me a pyromaniac for some reason.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-446358-100x100.png\")
@Ash78: \"The writeup here repeatedly made it sound like it was intentional. The Tribune wasn't much better.\"
Here is the second paragraph from the Tribune article:
The employee explained that her bag, containing most of her wardrobe, had been placed too close to the exhaust of a belt loader used to deliver bags to the cargo hold. Someone turned on the equipment and, voila, luggage flambe.
That doesn't sound intentional to me. It fully explains that a mistake was made and no one intended to incinerate the luggage.
And the write-up here is accurate, because her luggage was set on fire and was incinerated.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-537475-100x100.png\")
@Ash78: It was an incident, and it was negligence, and it was unacceptable. Things happen, but when you have handlers who have been hired to do this and only this - what do you expect? You expect for them to do their job right, and to not put things near exhaust.
I don't think the writeup here made it seem intentional. The tribune article makes it clear it wasn't intentional, and nowhere did it imply that anyone thought otherwise.
@pecan pi:
I felt the following both connoted intent:
\"Sets woman's luggage on fire\"
\"Luggage was incinerated\"
Pedantically, neither explicitly means it was intention, but both of those phrases are used most commonly with intent. $0.02
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-24730-100x100.png\")
@Ash78: Pedantically? How 'bout semantically, colloquially or grammatically. Unless your intent was to teach a lesson.
Just asking. I mean, this is the internets.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-71483-100x100.png\")
I laughed hard at the caption on the linked article's photo:
\"Shannon Tadel with other luggage\"
ORLY!? That's not the stuff they set ablaze? :rolleyes:
I'm curious, how exactly does one's luggage simply burst into flames like this? I worked at the exact job (not with this airline) these guys are doing and I'm at a total loss.
Enjoy THAT flight Shannon :)
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-157517-100x100.png\")
@TheMonkII: You must be from Slashdot. :)
The information is in the linked article. As Pecan Pi said, too close to the exhaust of a piece of luggage handling machinery.
@TheMonkII: I think what happened was the luggage was placed on the belt near the exhaust, and when the equipment was turned on, it lit the flammable items as well as exhaust.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-21970-100x100.png\")
Note: the photo is meant for jokey illustrative purposes only. It should be apparent that it's a fake (the flames aren't composited very well at all), but if you have any questions about a photo in the future, be sure to check the photo credits link at the bottom of a post. In this case, you'll see two names, which should immediately tip you off. If you click through to them, you'll see that they're two Flickr photos, one of Air Italia and one of a car that was set on fire. GIMP magic FTW!
@Chris Walters: which is why its hard to take consumerist seriously sometimes. Photoshopping pictures without any explanation that they are photoshopped.
@Patrick Mcgranaghan: If you read the description and compare it to the picture... they don't match. An obvious indication of a photoshop. Not to mention that they did add the explanation.
@jamar0303: Consumerist is quick to rain fire when a Wendy's hamburger doesn't match the picture, but they have no compunction about making up shit in their own photos.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-436259-100x100.png\")
@Patrick Mcgranaghan: Unlike Wendy's, Consumerist doesnt want you to eat the supposedly flaming baggage in the pic. Theres a difference. The pic isnt an ad, its an illustration.
One more reason why facebook shouldnt be allowed.
@Patrick Mcgranaghan: Wendy's doesn't prevent you from taking pictures of their burgers for security reasons quite like an airline can for pictures out the cockpit windshield, hmmm?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-98962-100x100.png\")
How were they able to retrieve her meds from that?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-560148-100x100.png\")
@sonneillon: Why did she even put her meds into her checked luggage in the first place? Isn't that always one of the top packing tips?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-199488-100x100.png\")
@sonneillon: I totally wouldn't want to take them after that either. Most meds are supposed to be kept in a cool, dry place.
Cool, dry place - FAIL.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-6536-100x100.png\")
@shorty63136: Good point. I hope that if she took any of them she only used them until she could get a replacement.
Before anyone asks why a woman packs $3,500 worth of clothing, there was no mention of how long she was on her trip, or whether it involved an international trip. She was in NY heading back to Chicago, but that doesn't reveal how long she was away from home, nor does it say where she was going from Chicago to begin with, as NY could have been a layover destination.
I just wanted to nip that in the bud.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-171970-100x100.png\")
@pecan 3.14159265: good, cuz clothes are expensive, especially if they're bought for long term ownerships instead of chuck-a-year fashion waste.
@pecan pi: $3,500 isn't that much clothes anyway.
A winter coat - $200+
Jeans - $150 a piece
Shoes - $200 a piece
Now these are on the high end, but it's very easy to add up. If she was going for work, business suits are expensive, if she was going for pleasure, it's not hard to believe that she would pack nice things instead of crappy ugly sweatpants.
A good suitcase is also like $200 anyway.
@TropicalLogic: I didn't think about the suitcase. Can you add the cost of the suitcase in the total? And we don't know how many pieces of luggage were toasted.
I know in all, $3,500 isn't too much. Whenever I travel, I pack a pair of boots that were $120. They're the best boots I've ever owned, and are near irreplaceable to me, though the company still makes them. But they're $120! That was something I had hoped to be a once or twice lifetime expense. So since I bring those all the time, and also quite a lot of accessories that are small and wouldn't take up much space, but would add up to a lot, I get how she could get to $3,500 of clothing. And even a dress is about $120.
@pecan pi: Not to mention that the bag might have contained items other than just clothes. We know she had medication in there for one thing.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-706864-100x100.png\")
@pecan pi:
\"Before anyone asks why a woman packs $3,500 worth of clothing\"
Anyone who asks that clearly isn't married.
LOL.
Although, I'm being honest when I say I doubt the combined clothing of my wife and myself has a value over $350.
I should be rich with this level of frugality. Alas, it's quite the opposite. :D
@shepd: You either don't have much clothing or you aren't adding correctly. Add in shoes, purses, scarves, whatever else you have. And coats. My closet's contents would easily top $7,000. It just surprised me that this woman could PACK $3,500 of clothes. That's either a lot of clothing or a little but expensive.
@pecan pi:
:) Probably not much clothing, and 90% of it is either free hand-me-downs or from the thrift stores. Heck, right now I'm wearing:
Button Shirt - Free, hand me down
Pants - Free, hand me down
Running Shoes* - $40
Socks - ~$0.60
Drawers - Guess you gotta buy something new. About $2.
* - Only because it's winter. I had some junky dress shoes I bought for $16 at walmart, but they've committed seppuku. I'm not going to wear the xmas gift shoes until winter is over.
Maybe you're right, $350 is a bit low. Maybe more like $1,000 total between us.
@pecan pi: I was about to argue you but then I realized you were including shoes and accessories. I added up my shoes until I hit $1000 and then became too depressed to finish the math. I doubt the cost of my clothes comes in very high but, with the exception of work pants, everything is second hand.
@pecan pi: For clarification: I mean that my closet's contents would top $7,000 because I have a lot of items, and you have to add up scarves and shoes and purses, as well as whatever accessories you have. It's not just clothing. I certainly don't spend a lot of money on clothes - but I do have a lot of clothes. And scarves. And purses. And shoes.
@Hank Scorpio: Or a single person with loads of money (not that that's me). A single pair of Manolos? Upwards of $400.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-793925-100x100.png\")
With airlines, if they were actually run by front line pilots and FAs they would actually be good.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-108612-100x100.png\")
For those disinclined to click through, it might be helpful to mention the cause of the fire: apparently, the luggage was \"placed too close to the exhaust of a belt loader used to deliver bags to the cargo hold.\" Yikes. What was in this exhaust, short of gusting jets of flame? Or is it just really hot?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-236523-100x100.png\")
There's gotta be an easier way to pick those pesky TSA-approved locks... Yikes!
I guess at least they're not gonna be able to pilfer valuables out of it, like usual?
@ZukeZuke: Of course she did get some of her possessions back...what was left...TSA agents don't want charred remains of shirts and jeans.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-154038-100x100.png\")
OK, it took United a while to settle the claim, if you believe her timeline and not theirs. Give United a little credit for the fact that they could have lied and just told her that her luggage was lost. And I can guaranty you she wouldn't have received $3,300 for lost luggage.
But United still sucks.
Nevermind.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-483565-100x100.png\")
@drdom: Yeah, I'm thinking one lesson I take from this story is to send my compensation requests with signature confirmation.
@drdom: They couldn't have possibly claimed her luggage was lost, right? There were witnesses, including the pilot, who was kept informed of the situation because he told her specifically, \"that fire pit fodder is your luggage.\"
@drdom: Why would one not believe her timeline? They have a record of when she took her flight and her upgrade for her luggage going up in flames (and I would hope some kind of internal incident report with it being a fire and all).
I would hope they would jump on it rather quickly.
Plus - I'd be a photo-snapping so-and-so if it were me. I like evidence and posterity.
Once again, it takes a newspaper reporter calling to get any kind of resolution. How sad.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-38607-100x100.png\")
Woman's bag too close to tailpipe catch's fire. Woman responds: \"I just feel exhausted by the whole experience,\"...
United lost and found roller coaster ride.
a week ago, I lost my wedding ring on a united flight from JFK to SFO. I recently lost some weight, and the ring slipped off my finger somehow.
The ring is not worth a lot of money, but it was designed and handmade for me by a local artist in italy. It is almost impossible to replace.
So I tried to get hold of a person anywhere in the United system. Impossible. I filed the online report and received the \"don't call us, we probably won't call you\" reply.
My husband and I had a commuter marriage for most of last year. He had a job in Seattle, I was in DC. So I was at the Premier Executive level with United. I turned to their customer service number. Spoke to a woman in India who repeated the same lines back to me whenever I mentioned certain buzzwords. IF I was not so distraught, it might have been fun. No help available here.
I turned to consumerist archives, and flyer websites. Turns out there is a woman working at SFO who, if you can find her, can work miracles with lost items.
I am now unemployed, so I have some time. I worked a $99 round trip ticket to SFO on Monday, and flew down to hunt for the ring.
The United flight attendants on the flight down were amazing! They let me whine about the ring, offered advice on where to look, who to talk to, and told me that despite recent corporate assurances, the planes were only really cleaned once a month... YUCK! But it gave me hope.
SFO United was all roadblocks, all the time. I had to insist they actually go get the lost and found lady, that she actually check to see if the ring was there. Then I had to wander through an empty creepy parking garage in search of the airport police department to file a report. Once filed, the officer taking the report said, \"now you do know we don't do anything with these, don't you?\"
Almost in tears, I boarded a a flight to home. And found an angel. Even though I was pretty certain that I did not lose the ring on the SFO-SEA part of the trip, I stopped by the Seattle United lost and found. Gerri, the fantastic woman helping me, was able to answer more questions, track down planes, and let me know that United does not have a central lost and found register of any kind. She gave me the phone numbers for the other airport lost and founds (leave a message numbers only, but apparently that is how United works now.)
Long story long- ring is still missing, Heart is still kinda broken, but the Seattle based United folks were so amazing that I feel a little better.
My wife had her luggage put on the wrong plane when she flew United home to DC from Cali last April. To my amazement, their customer service was actually very helpful. They recovered the lost bag later that day and delivered it to our home in Montgomery Co. from BWI (Baltimore) that night -- maybe about an hour's trip with no traffic.
With all the stories about airline customer service, that surprisingly turned out to be pretty easy.
@Shadowman615: On my way back to the east coast from LA, my baggage neglected to deplane with me. Whoopsy. As the cross-country flight went international on its continuing leg, my bag went to Spain! Luckily, it apparently still had all its tags, but had merely been overlooked when the Philly bags were pulled. Had it back in a little over a day (shocking, considering it was USAir; pretty decent).
I'm still jealous that my suitcase had a better vacation than I did. Madrid is lovely that time of year.
@Shadowman615: my international flight was delayed for about an hour, and when we finally did board from the U.S. to go to Germany, our luggage was about three steps behind, and it was on a different plane going to the same destination. Sigh. We didn't know this, however, and when we got to Germany, none of our luggage came and we had to go to the lost claim area. I'm grateful that the attendants there spoke English, cared about how upset I was that they had misplaced my belongings (my favorite pair of boots were in there, since they wouldn't fit in my carry on). And I was worried that I would have to replace my clothing, which was only great in that I could go shopping, but terrible in that I didn't want to spend all of my money on clothes (I'm a book hound). Luckily, they found our luggage and had it all sent to the hotel we were staying at. Thanks Lufthansa and the airport in Berlin!
Haha leave it to Hancock airport to set someone's luggage on fire. Oh Syracuse. That airport is literally one runway, one building and one hallway with a couple of doors for boarding planes. There is a Sbarro's and some sandwich shop for food stuffs. Although you can fly from syr to jfk on Jetblue for crazy cheap, it might be the saddest airport after Rome's Ciampino.
At least she got reimbursed for what I'm sure is much more than what she lost. BA did nothing for us when our plane to Ataturk left T5 from Heathrow with no luggage on it.
@jodles: If you think Syracuse is bad you haven't been to Ithaca. There's only the one building, not even a hallway. On the plus side, that's the only place I've ever had a nice encounter with the TSA.
@jamar0303: Syracuse isn't that bad, and I loveIthaca. You only have to show up like 1/2 an hour before your flight is scheduled to depart. I also had a nice encounter with TSA. I forgot about the liquids rule and had a water bottle with me. The agent let me empty the water bottle and then take it through to the other side and re-fill it again. I can't see that happening anywhere else.
@lisa1120: True. I really sucked at wording that one. I meant it purely in terms of size- if you don't like small airports and turboprop planes Ithaca's not too fun, but if you don't mind it's a refreshing change from the big airports (even US Airways can't screw up your luggage at an airport this small). I loved it too- it's only minutes from downtown.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-21984-100x100.png\")
@lisa1120: Actually the life hack is now to carry empty bottles through along with powdered drink mix (gatorade, hi-c, tea, etc) and then remix with free fountain water beyond the checkpoint...
@jodles: Why do you think she was reimbursed for more than she lost?
She estimated the amount to be $3,500. United offered $3,000. Seems to me that she has no reason to lie, and has less reason to lie because United is notoriously stingy with their money, and is less likely to reimburse higher amounts and deny it was their fault, even when showed evidence of their fault.
Why is her luggage on fire ?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-223835-100x100.png\")
The 'uh-oh' caption FTW.
So it's Syracuse in December. Maybe they lit it to keep warm on the tarmac.
I'm from that area and I'm in total agreement with jodles. Hancock sucks.
On the upside she can send a written complaint to United about the incident and be \"most satisfied\" when United \"decides whether to email, write or call passengers with response.\"
I am from Syracuse and this was never in the newspaper!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-741824-100x100.png\")
Made the front page of the Syracuse Post Standard today.
Apparently not everything within the luggage was a total write off, but from the picture of whats left of her jeans, I dont think anyone other than a highschooler would wear them.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-261962-100x100.png\")
to sum up most of these posts \"blah blah blah speculation. Blah blah ignorance. Blah blah blah BLAH!\"
Rtfa people. Don't make your judgemments based on what the consumerist, digg, news headline says. Click links. Read shit. It's sort of how the Internet works.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-436584-100x100.png\")
Glad Shannon got reimbursed for her loss. United sure did take their sweet time to get that check out.
The Wall Street Journal today (Feb 11) has a short article that says that United will no longer have a phone number you can call to complain about their service saying that they get better results when people write letters. Yeah, I'll bet you do. IMHO, this is one clear case for publishing EECB procedures for United.
Maybe this is what happens when you fail to fully pay your luggage fee.
Boy that's one test you never saw in those old Samsonite commercials..
United- the only airline to have a whole website dedicated to the hate of its poor customer service:
www.untied.com
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-326654-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-27305-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-488475-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-627591-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-25844-100x100.png\")
is this an actual picture of the event? Because if they let her take a picture from the cockpit, those pilots are gonna get fired.
@m4ximusprim3: if you look at the caption on the bottom of the picture, it says its a photoshop.
@m4ximusprim3:
Read much? The caption clearly states that the photo is a simulation.
@m4ximusprim3: Missed that little line across the bottom, eh?
@m4ximusprim3: Whenever I board a plane the cockpit door is open. I think the prohibition on passengers in the cockpit only applies when the plane is in flight.
@m4ximusprim3: Perhaps they added the \"artist's conception\" text that I see in the picture later than your comment, but why would pilots be fired for allowing a woman to snap a photo through the cockpit windshield? If there's a policy stating that a passenger being allowed in the cockpit is a termination offense then the photo has nothing to do with it... there's nothing in the cockpit of a civilian aircraft that's secret.
@m4ximusprim3: It is a photoshop job, the two photos they used to create the image are linked in the credits at the end of the story.
@m4ximusprim3: Syracuse, NY on December 1st. I'd hope the grounds crew would be wearing more than t-shirts.
@m4ximusprim3: My guess is security camera from outside. There is no window distortion like you would get taking a picture through the cockpit window.