NOPE!
Try again.
I’m just speculating as to possible scenarios to illustrate the range of possibilities that may exist given that we don’t know for sure–I’m not saying that I think any one of those is actually the case.
You are, however, drawing preliminary conclusions on the assumption that those aren’t the case, despite the fact that you don’t know that those things aren’t true and they very well could be–so you shouldn’t be drawing any sort of preliminary conclusions at all.
This is so not true. If I go into Macy’s and buy a shirt and they decide I have to leave without my shirt, the police are not going to come, or if they do, once they understand the situation, they are not going to forcibly remove me. I know of a case exactly like this hypothetical, and when the police were called they not only didn’t come, they laughed at the person who thought they would.
There are several charters available from the linked site. (I don’t know if you’re seeing the ones in Chicago.) Every one of them, except for the piston-twin Cessna 310 (the least expensive plane) will make the trip to Louisville in under an hour. And that’s just one link. A google search brings up many more.
As for speeds, IANA commercial airline pilot. I think they generally fly around 400 to 450 knots. The charter jets are about the same.
Bad link. I fixed it for you, below.
United’s stock is falling 2.4% and wiping $600 million off the airline’s market cap.
That’s because once you purchase the shirt, you own the shirt.
You don’t own the seat. A ticket is just a grant of a revocable license to sit in the seat; it does not create an ownership interest.
Really, that’s just a shitty and irrelevant analogy all around.
Especially since the police will still remove you from the store. You’ll keep the shirt, but you’ll still be kicked out of the store. Because it’s their store, and as long as they’re not doing it because of membership in a protected class, they can bar anyone they want for any reason they want.
I’m just stating my opinion. Apologies if it seems like anything different to you; I will strive to be a better poster, as always.
Thanks. I’m on Microsoft today, and it won’t stop SDMB from changing the link to viglink. (It never happens on my Mac.)
I’m sorry, but I don’t understand your post. Some sort of official determination that WHAT is or is not so?
Note the three "IF"s in my response to make the idea viable. BTW, are the charters you found available at a moment’s notice, and are they what the contract between the airline and the crew calls for? To say that a certain solution is “available” to the general public does not mean that the same “solution” is available, or even allowed in situations like this.
This is not a very smart comment.
Of all the people who are concerned about this incident, very few have said that the man himself was right to refuse the orders of the crew. If it makes you feel better, i’ll say it right here and now: when the crew asked the guy to leave, he should have exited the plane.
Now that you’ve attempted to rebut an argument that basically no-one was making, maybe we can get back to the substantive issues.
So, this may be a bit of a tangent, but the Chinese are upset because the man was “Chinese.” And (according to one of the early stories), the passenger claimed that he was selected for being “Chinese.” The man is from Vietnam. Do the Chinese (and Vietnamese) frequently view people from Vietnam as “Chinese”?
and when he refused to exit the aircraft, they should have…? What’s the answer to the whole question?
If it suits their propaganda, yes.
Irrelevant to the point i was making, which is that almost no-one is arguing that he should have refused to move. I’m not interested in debating that issue with you.
If you’ll look back through my posts in this thread, you’ll see that i have not, even once, addressed the issue of how he was removed from the plane. As i’ve made clear, in multiple posts, my main concern here is the structural question of how a situation like this arises in the first place, and how the system might be changed to prevent it from occurring. If you have anything intelligent to contribute on that question, i’ll think about addressing it.
Offered more money to the passengers, until someone volunteers. Or better yet, not allowed him to board in the first place. Or had better planning so they didnt need to kick off passengers.
Yes, once you get to the point where they violated their own contract with him, and ordered him to leave, then bad things would occur.
However United had many opportunities to forestall a violent ending.
You said, “We know that airlines deal with this all the time, we know that other airlines and UA reroute, or reschedule crews to work around this all the time without deplaning customers.”
You are correct in that airlines typically deal with crew shortfalls without deplaning customers, but I am pointing out that airlines involuntarily bump passengers fairly frequently. Bolstering this is the data I provided that one airline, JetBlue, never overbooks passengers, and yet they bump passengers at a substantially higher rate than nearly any other airline – more than twice the rate of United.
I contend that the single-minded fixation of nearly half the participants in this thread (that United is worse than other airlines in bumping passengers) is a half-baked reaction to one viral video. The difference in this case is that we saw one passenger get roughed up by police, and humans are apt to fill in the storyline with all sorts of details that have no evidence to support them.
By the way, looking at the FAA data, it sure seems like Delta has an interesting overbooking issue. They involuntarily bump a very small percentage of their passengers, but they voluntarily bump a VERY large percentage of their passengers.
Overall, if you buy a ticket on Delta, you have a 1 in 900 chance that you won’t get to your destination on time, either because you were booted or because you agreed to be booted. Compare that to a 1 in 1,300 chance for United; a 1 in 1,700 for Southwest; or a 1 in 18,000 chance for Hawaiian. If you take Skywest, you’re basically fucked, because they are at 1 in 650.
There are quite a few people in Southeast Asian countries who view themselves by ethnicity before they view themselves nationally. To say it another way, a person whose ancestors are ethnic Chinese, but their families may have been in, say, Thailand, for decades, may continue to describe themselves as Chinese rather than Thai.
There are a lot of ethnic Chinese that are from Vietnam. I’m unaware if that applies here.
Crewmembers gave bad instructions breaking the deal with the passenger, UA chose to resort to violence to resolve the situation instead of paying a fair price or resolving the situation in a non-violent manner. They are responsible for the use of violence, whenever you needlessly use force to resolve a situation there’s a risk of excessive force, and I think it’s perfectly reasonable to hold the entity that called for violence responsible for the results of said call. The fact that it’s legal for airlines to use violence against people when the airline isn’t living up to it’s side of a bargain is a PROBLEM highlighted in this situation, not something that makes it OK.
If you call in people to use violence against someone instead of amicably resolving your financial dispute, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to call that use of violence an attack. Especially when the financial dispute is because you don’t want to pay the person even 1% of a reasonable hourly rate (as demonstrated by UA’s paying that hourly rate to an employee) for his time.
Still sticking with that “He was only allowed to be deboarded, not deplaned” shtick, I see.