Reference no: EM133400188

Case Study - Turbulence on United Airlines

The beginning of 2017 was not good for United Airlines. Several incidents involving United Airlines personnel enforcing a variety of rules, regulations, and protocols in employees' interactions with customers caused international outcry. The first incident involved two teenagers who were wearing leggings onto their flight from Minneapolis to Denver. They were stopped by the gate agent and not allowed to board for violating the United Airlines travel perk program. These travel perk passes hinge upon a requirement for users of the passes to dress themselves so that the airline is presented in a favorable light. United defended its decision via Twitter: "Leggings are not inappropriate attire except in the case of someone traveling as a pass rider." Comedian Seth Rogan tweeted, "We here at United are just trying to police the attire of the daughters of our employees! That's all! Cool, right?" A second, more severe incident occurred when David Dao, a doctor who needed to see his patients the following morning, was aboard a Louisville bound flight from Chicago in April. Four United employees
needed to get to Louisville last-minute, and it was announced that four people needed to give up their seats or else the flight would be cancelled. Attendants called the Chicago Department of Aviation after no one complied. The agents approached Dao and forcibly removed him from the plane. (United policy allowed for the involuntary removal of passengers from flights.) During the process, Dao suffered a broken nose and concussion after his head smashed into an armrest. Dao later filed a lawsuit against United for their actions.

A third incident, in Houston involved a soon-to-be-married couple, Michael and Amber, headed to Costa Rica for their wedding. When they entered the plane, they noticed a man sleeping in the row where their seats were assigned. Instead of disturbing him, they found some seats three rows up and sat there instead.

They were soon asked by an attendant to return to their seats, and they complied. A U.S. Marshall approached them soon after and ejected them from the plane. According to United statements, the couple kept "repeatedly" trying to sit in upgraded seats and would not follow the instructions of the attendants and crew members, and, as such, they were within their power to eject the passengers.

These incidents suggest that, starting with the structure as created by the CEO, United employees do not have much latitude or flexibility when dealing with day-to-day policy breaches. Cost-minimization and efficiency-boosting strategies, when taken overboard, also may have had an effect given that the focus drifted from the customer and toward rule following. Many attribute this inflexibility to the strict, rule-
following bureaucracy that has been set forth by United leaders. In this bureaucracy, their 85,000 employees may be reluctant to deviate from the rules-intra-company historical precedent suggests that many employees face termination when breaking the rules.

How do you think United Airlines should have handled this string of incidents? Do you think that United Airlines was within its power to have removed these people from the flight? Why or why not?

How might the company manage conflict effectively targeting the specific domains:
Strategy
Function
Workers

What are the pros and cons of having a bureaucratic organizational structure for an airline? Do you think the pros and cons are justified for United Airlines, and that they should keep the structure they have? Why or why not?

What do you think United Airlines should do in the future? Do you have any suggestions for enhancements or improvements to the United Airlines organizational structure? Would you consider restructuring? Why or why not?