United airlines brutally removes passenger after overbooking flight

[Czarcasm]

@Acsenray

I don’t see any need for sarcasm. It seems to me pretty obvious that it’s perfectly right that businesses should be susceptible to the pressure of public opinion. United should be forced to change policies that people consider outrageous. There’s no injustice in that.

Which public-those that fly, those that “me too” on You Tube, the Chinese government that threatened a boycott, or some combination therein?

[bordelond]

@Czarcasm

Lesson learned: With enough histrionics, public pressure and a wee bit of pressure from a foreign government threatening a boycott(gee-I wonder if I put those in the right order of importance?), anything is possible!

That’s one way to put it. Depends on personal worldview, experience, and perspective.

Whatever you may think of the matter, ultimately you have to share the planet with people that disagree with you. I guess we all navigate the waters as best we can.

[Czarcasm]

@k9bfriender

Yeah, people can’t make up their minds. Last time there was this much public pressure on the airlines to change their ways, it was because the crew wouldn’t let the passengers leave their seats while sitting on the tarmac for hours, and now people get upset that the crew makes them leave their seats before the plane ever even leaves?

Let’s look at all the ways those two incidences match each other:

1. Airplane.
2. ?

[enipla]

@Czarcasm

Let’s look at all the ways those two incidences match each other:

1. Airplane.
2. ?

Whooossssh (as airplane flies overhead)

[k9bfriender]

@Czarcasm

Which public-those that fly,

Also known as customers, yes.

those that “me too” on You Tube,

Some of those people fly too.

the Chinese government that threatened a boycott,

There are a few members of the public who are airline customers in China, as well, I do believe.

or some combination therein?

Yes, and add in the flight crews that don’t want to deal with this type of situation in the future, police who don’t want to deal with this situation in the future, airline executives, who don’t want to deal with this type of situation in the future, and Fred.

[Saint_Cad]

@Czarcasm

No, I am not assuming any such thing one way or another, since I have no evidence. If you do, please let us know. If you do not, why did you bring it up?

Because we don’t know BUT if they did then the plane cops went there looking for a fight. That’s on United for escalating the situation.

[k9bfriender]

@Czarcasm

Let’s look at all the ways those two incidences match each other:

1. Airplane.
2. ?

2. Airlines treating their paying customers in a shitty fashion in order to try to save money.

3. Paying customers getting fed up with the treatment and complaining (histronics, you might call them)

4. Public pressure to change the way that airlines treated paying customers in this situation.

5. ? Legislation gets passed that legally prevents airlines from treating their paying customers in this fashion. (Hasn’t happened yet in the deplaining case, but it happened before when people were upset with the way they were being treated by the airlines.)

[Czarcasm]

@Saint_Cad

Because we don’t know BUT if they did then the plane cops went there looking for a fight. That’s on United for escalating the situation.

And what if he was secretly targeted because he look foreign, or what if was slipped some drugs to make him uncooperative? If they did either/both of those things it would certainly be on United for escalating the situation!

In other words-Thanks for the kindling, but this fire is doing just fine on it’s own.

[RTFirefly]

@Beren_Erchamion

I’m not sure what you’re saying is at all coherent.

Well, I was responding to an objection that made no sense, so correcting it can be confusing to the person who raised it.

[iiandyiiii]

@Czarcasm

No, I am not assuming any such thing one way or another, since I have no evidence. If you do, please let us know. If you do not, why did you bring it up?

Actually, you assumed “It was a duly appointed law enforcement officer that instituted force, and did so independent of any request than “He is a trespasser-please remove him.””

[Beren_Erchamion]

@RTFirefly

Well, I was responding to an objection that made no sense, so correcting it can be confusing to the person who raised it.

It made perfect sense, assuming you actually understand how the process works.

[enipla]

@iiandyiiii

Actually, you assumed “It was a duly appointed law enforcement officer that instituted force, and did so independent of any request than “He is a trespasser-please remove him.””

Bolding mine. And even if THAT was said, while it MAY be technically true, it would give a completely wrong slant to what was going on.

[Acsenray]

@Czarcasm

Which public-those that fly, those that “me too” on You Tube, the Chinese government that threatened a boycott, or some combination therein?

All of them and more. The flying public, the non-flying public, local and foreign governments, hairdressers and dog catchers, butchers, bakers and candlestick makers, anyone who has an interest in how things should work in society.

[Mtgman]

Society has entrusted flight crews with some of our police authority to protect public safety. Instructions from flight crews are to be obeyed under penalty of law, and possible enforcement of said instructions through government law enforcement. I can’t say I know the exact wording of the statue, but I can’t imagine the legislative intent was to grant carte blanche to airline employees. A more reasonable interpretation of the legislation intent was to grant authority to resolve conflicts between passengers which would threaten the safety of other passengers or the flight. I’m assuming no one believes this “follow crewmembers instructions” law would extend to being instructed to hand over their wallets or bank account PINs. So clearly the crewmember instructions have limits.

It seems we wrote too blank a check to the airlines. Now instead of resolving civil disputes over the contract of carriage with civil measures they’re leveraging the legal penalties for disobeying crewmember instructions as a backstop when negotiations over the contract of carriage break down. As a company they’ve set low thresholds(legal minimums, or possibly less) of what they offer a passenger to voluntarily give up their seat, and given their gate agents limited decision-making authority to resolve such conflicts before involving law enforcement.

As a member of society I will be writing my representatives with a version of the following.

Dear Sir/Madame Representative,

After seeing the treatment of a properly ticketed and seated passenger by United Airlines representatives/partner companies and the police officers at the Chicago airport this past week I have decided to request a change in legislation. Please introduce, or co-sponsor, a bill to clarify the authority airline employees/flight crews have to issue instructions which, under penalty of law, a passenger is obligated to obey is limited to instructions regarding the safety of the flight and passengers. The dispute over bumping a passenger to give preferential seating to crew members for another upcoming flight should not have ever involved police. This was entirely a civil matter, and at no point was the safety of the flight or other passengers in jeopardy. The authority to issue legally binding instructions, enforceable through the police, is too powerful to be indiscriminate. The parties in the contract of carriage should have been left to work this out between themselves.

Please make the legislation to amend the appropriate legal code sections to clarify the limitations of the authority of flight crews/airline employees to issue legally enforceable instructions a high priority.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Broomstick]

^ Well said.

[Corry_El]

@Mtgman

Society has entrusted flight crews with some of our police authority to protect public safety. Instructions from flight crews are to be obeyed under penalty of law, and possible enforcement of said instructions through government law enforcement. I can’t say I know the exact wording of the statue, but I can’t imagine the legislative intent was to grant carte blanche to airline employees. A more reasonable interpretation of the legislation intent was to grant authority to resolve conflicts between passengers which would threaten the safety of other passengers or the flight.

Obviously, with any application of common sense. But a definite (and IME growing) feature of American culture is hyper legalism, which in this case would be manifested in a) making some argument about the wording the central issue rather than the common sense conclusion airlines should not use safety as a pretext to call in the govt to settle commercial disputes in their favor and/or b) outrage at the ‘injustice’ that a publicly traded corporation would respond to overwhelming public outrage and modify its behavior rather than pedantically sticking to some legalistic argument they were right, and calling such public reaction ‘whining’ etc. And the nationalist gambit is also BS, UAL chooses to be a major player in overseas markets and that makes it subject to foreign public opinion.

But in hyper-legal US society as it now exists, maybe such a clarification of the law is actually needed, ‘you must obey’ has to be about safety, without ridiculous elastic stretching. Maybe the airlines will on their own stop pulling such stunts to save a few bucks. We’ll see. But UAL is a crappier company than even the other US airlines, which tend to be crap compared to better foreign airlines you can fly at least internationally.

[bordelond]

Interesting words out of Munoz’s mouth this morning:

Munoz also said he doesn’t think Dao was at fault in the incident. “He was a paying passenger sitting in our aircraft. No one should be treated that way,” he said.

This is now the official company position, for all intents and purposes.

And this:

Munoz also said United already has decided it will no longer call on law enforcement to remove passengers from oversold flights once on board.

“To remove a booked, paid, seating passenger, we can’t do that,” he said.

I am very curious if this policy will ever be tested by a passenger. Without the ultimate option to forcibly remove someone (United employees absolutely won’t do it), they simply cannot enforce involuntary deplaning going forward. Ergo, United has to move heaven and earth and spend money to be double-sure deadheading never, ever affects a seated passenger going forward.

[SloppyJoes]

It looks like United Airlines got religion. They are not only reimbursing the doctor that that security officer brutally dragged across the plane; they’re also reimbursing allall the passengers who were on that flight.

Worldstar.

[Corry_El]

@bordelond

I am very curious if this policy will ever be tested by a passenger. Without the ultimate option to forcibly remove someone (United employees absolutely won’t do it), they simply cannot enforce involuntary deplaning going forward. Ergo, United has to move heaven and earth and spend money to be double-sure deadheading never, ever affects a seated passenger going forward.

Umpteenthly, nobody has made a plausible argument that it’s at all likely to cost a whole lot more to simply continue auctions till the price rises to where enough people voluntarily deplane. UAL was just, probably mainly brainlessly rather than as a conniving thing, sticking to the now clearly idiotic idea you’d cut off the auction at some low price then kick people off, and that would never backfire even with people already on the plane. Just let the bidding go to even $1-2k, real money that is, problem solved overwhelming % of the time in a country with median income on order of $100-$200 a day, and you only have to get the few people with the lowest opportunity cost of being delayed.

IOW there simply isn’t a reason for ‘involuntary deplaning’, just to make room. That’s never been established in this discussion. The only semi valid points by the pro-airline people (wonder how many work for airlines, though I don’t envy that either) have been about pedantic legalisms (moot) and whether the good Dr. is such a great guy (who cares). The idea you really have to be able to kick people off rather than pay them to go voluntarily, not in evidence, as the legalistic lot might say.

And it wouldn’t apply to people actually causing some problem other than refusing to give up a seat they booked and paid for just to make room for somebody else.

[DrDeth]

@SloppyJoes

It looks like United Airlines got religion. They are not only reimbursing the doctor that that security officer brutally dragged across the plane; they’re also reimbursing allall the passengers who were on that flight.

Worldstar.

So. lets see. United Airlines has admitted they were wrong. The Police admitted they were wrong. The DOT has said it is investigating it. The Press has universally said United airlines was wrong.

But** Czarcasm** still thinks Dao was wrong. :rolleyes: