This guy is going to milk it for all it’s worth
…and there’s a shitload of “concerned onlookers” ready to help him do it.
Yes.
Yeppers. It’s just that even though the FAA data is as solid as solid can be, if I don’t know involuntary bumping even happens (which was the case just 48 hours ago), it’s not going to be a factor in how I rate one airline against another.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear the first time, hope I made more sense this time.
Re #3. I don’t think we know when the deadheading crew showed up. The gate agents may not have known anything about them. But this is then just another screw up.
I didn’t see where he started screaming until after he was bloody.
He was not cooperative, but that’s not screaming.
And if you are complaining about someone screaming after they have had their head slammed into an arm rest, then that’s a pretty weak complaint.
Ok, I’ll buy that.
Of course not. They might need an hour or two. Maybe more. But United Airlines isn’t available at a moment’s notice either. If you want to know the lead time, I invite you to call the operators on the list, and/or use the google link to find different ones, and ask them. Please report back.
The contract undoubtedly calls for the crews to be at their assigned duty stations at the assigned times. While the contract may provide for deadheading, I doubt it forbids employees using other means of transportation.
You make this claim without presenting any evidence that it is disallowed. You present no reason why a flying Uber that is available to the public is not available to private companies.
Skimming posts, I get the impression that you think other posters, including me, are holding Dao blameless, and painting United as Evil Incarnate. I don’t know about the others, but I’m not. Dr. Dao was required by Federal Aviation Regulations to obey the cabin crew. I think they used excessive force, but they were not wrong to physically remove him for failing to obey.
It’s my opinion that airlines should not overbook – especially on a Sunday, when they know people must be someplace on Monday. If they need to reposition a flight crew, and there are no seats for them on a United jet, I think it should be incumbent on United (or other airline) to move their employees without removing paying passengers. In this case, the four $800 vouchers they offered would have paid for the charter plane, no one would have been forcibly removed from the United plane, they wouldn’t have had to clean up blood, their reputation would not have been sullied, they would not have a billion Asian people calling for a boycott, and they would not have lost hundreds of millions of dollars in value.
Ah - I get your point. There are tons of ways to judge airlines – how many bumped passengers, how many lost bags, whatever – but I think in the end, the vast, vast majority give their patronage to airlines based solely on two factors:
- Price
- Convenient itineraries
I’d be very surprised if United suffers any long-term harm from this. All they have to do is announce some discounted fares for summer travel season and everyone will forget about this when they get to go to Paris this August for only $750 round trip.
We’re not certain of that. The DOT is looking into it.
But tell me, Rosa Parks was* legally required by law *to obey James F. Blake’s order. Was that order legal? Moral? Ethical?
I think that’s a silly comparison.
So if a passenger is clearly and repeatedly violating the law, your solution is to offer the other passengers more money?
Is that your position?
Maybe it’s just me, but I’m not comfortable comparing one of the great civil rights injustices in recent memory to a company’s fare maximization and overbooking practices.
You did not go there. :eek:
No, this is not my position. I was suggesting something that the airline could have done earlier, to induce volunteers to give up their seats.
Clearly? That is in doubt.
Doesn’t that apply to the airline as well? They should have moved on, then when they landed, sued the guy. Or the guy who got removed in his place could have sued him. Or they could have very loudly announced “Your contract states that you may be removed. You will be compensated. If you refuse to live up to the terms of your contract, United will pursue damages in court and you’ll be banned from ever flying on United flights again” before they even selected anyone, so that people understood the stakes.
You don’t go to “violent removal” for anything short of actual danger.
He just explained his position clear as day in the post that you quoted. Why did you feel the need to make up a different position?
nm
I said that they broke the deal with the passenger, and they did. Whether fine print or laws written by airline lobbyists mean the contract was technically broken or not is irrelevant to that, though it’s not even clear that UA was abiding by the terms of the contract. Dude bought a plane ticket, boarded, then they decided to throw him off the plane to save money, that’s what I call breaking the deal with him. They did resort to violence, by calling in people to forcibly evict him from the plane, when they could have resolved the situation in numerous other ways. Are you asserting that they didn’t expect the cops to use force, or are you just using a weird definition of violence that doesn’t include slamming his head into a solid object and dragging him off the plane? I didn’t claim that they were under any legal obligation to base payments on the hourly rates of employees, I simply used an hourly rate that they consider reasonable as a basis for comparison to what they offered to show that they the dollar figures are not just reasonable but a tiny fraction of reasonable by their own standards. I don’t generally provide evidence for claims that other people make up, I did provide evidence for the dollar figure, and the rest is all just in the basic news story and video that we’re talking about.
I don’t care. As both you and Czarcasm missed, I said the airline was breaking the deal with the customer, not that they violated the contract or any specific law. I would not be surprised if this is allowed in the lengthy fine print attached to the contract, but I don’t consider using fine print buried in a big document to get out of a deal to be actually sticking to the deal. And judging by UA’s stock price, neither do most people - corporations abusing fine print is not exactly the way to win popularity contests.
Nope. They had agreed to sell him a seat, then offered him money to volunteer to back out of the deal so that one of their employees could use the seat instead, he declined, and instead of offering more they turned to violence. That is a financial disupute, plain and simple, and saying that the sequence of events that led up to the situation are completely relevant to judging the situation is patently absurd.
Comparing Rosa Parks to this doofus is like comparing Nelson Mandela to Nelson Muntz.
United’s smart move would have been to offer more money in the first place, not AFTER ordering someone off the plane. That’s clearly what people are saying.