United has to do what is good for PR, whether it is good for the airlines or the crews involved or not.
From what I’m gathering (and should be able to link to later):
The specific protocol that wasn’t followed is that a passenger asked to involuntarily deplane must be given the opportunity to review a written copy of the contract of carriage on the spot. I believe (don’t know) that a member of the flight crew is also obliged to go through the contract’s relevant items with the passenger. The fact that there’s some similar information on the back of the ticket does not matter.
…
Munoz is speaking out of both sides of his mouth, but I guess he has to. Here’s what he wrote to United employees earlier.
I would have taken the deal after they kicked this clown’s ass. My comment to the press: ‘That was awesome how they kicked his ass and then paid me to watch it.’
The guy’s surname is Dao (陶) which is a fairly common Chinese as well as Vietnamese surname (that character, though pronunciation and Latin transliteration would vary). If he said he was ‘Chinese’ (as reported), though from Vietnam, that would itself seem to answer the question if reported correctly: an ethnic Chinese person from Vietnam. They make up a higher % of Vietnamese Americans than they do in Vietnam.
The reason some are saying that the flight was not overbooked is because the four crew members arrived very late to the plane. After the plane was fully boarded, in fact – and the gate agent either did not know the crew members were coming, or did not account for the crew members’ impending arrival.
The issue seems to be less overbooking, and more about what rights passengers have versus the airline’s plans to move their staff.
No, it wasn’t.
Once there’s an unruly passenger, the airline has to deal with that situation, not X,Y, or Z that “should” have happened before.
They were airport cops, not air marshals.
‘Negotiations’ were over when United accepted his credit card. If they had no intention of letting him take the flight, they should not have accepted his money.
What would you do if you were sitting on an airplane and a stranger put his hands on you roughly?
If they caused the passenger to become unruly by not following proper procedures then it’s their fault, not that passengers.
So, you would be fine if airlines intentionally upset passengers to the point of being unruly, then dealing with that situation?
You really don’t get that the best time to de-escalate a situation is before it gets to imposing physical force?
We are discussing ways of preventing this sort of thing from happening in the future. You are simply repeating, over and over and over and over again that once the airline had chosen to use physical force (and ignore their own policies and procedures in the process), that everything is just fine.
Since it is typical policy for traveling crew to use jump seats when at all possible, so that paying customers can have access to regular seats, but there was an unforeseen influx of crew that needed to travel and not enough jump seats available, I’m actually not sure if I’m willing to make that concession.
Is your proposed solution always leaving set an amount of regular seats empty, regardless of whether an emergency arises where crew needs to use them?
For the purpose of this question, I’m treating “overbooked” as only including paying customers, not employees on the clock.
Is there any evidence that this wasn’t done the several times talked to him?
No, because unlike the passenger, the airline actually owns (or leases and so has control of) the airplane, so if they decide they want you off, then for the time being you have to leave; if there are issues, you settle it later.
[/QUOTE]
I believe that the airline admitted that this procedure was not followed.
They sold him a license to the seat that was stated up front would be revocable at the discretion of the airline.
Nope – just anecdotes. And I believe 'em. YMMV.
It’ll all come out in the wash, since there’s an investigation starting up.
WTF?? Where was this even implied?
Within the limits of DOT regulations and their contract. Whether or not they followed DOT regs is still under investigation and a industry expert saz they violated their contract.
And my standards of evidence seem to be higher. Come’s from being a skeptic, along with a lifetime of listening to rumors that turn out to have no basis in fact.