Do you have anything besides a “:rolleyes:” to counter the information given?
Once they backed themselves into that corner, certainly, you’re right.
But the thing is, as I listed in post #105, they had plenty of ways to avoid backing themselves into that corner, and only tried one of them, and that one only part way. And it was a situation of their own making to begin with, rather than something they had no control over.
Basically, what I hear you saying is, “once United fucked up repeatedly, and we get to the point where they’ve demanded that some people leave the plane whether they want to or not, well, forget all that: what happens next is what I want to focus on.”
So what is this nonsense about waiting to use violence as a “last resort” when you seem to mean that law enforcement shouldn’t be called in at all?
Are you agreeing or disagreeing with the things I post? I can’t tell. Please tell me which sentences I’ve posted that you agree with, or which ones you disagree with, or which ones you think contradict other things I’ve said.
For the record, I think violence should be used as a last resort to resolve unsafe situations. I don’t believe violence should be an option to resolve inefficiencies of business.
In the video I saw, I did not see the “reasoning” and “explaining.” I’m not saying that didn’t happen, just that we don’t know how the man was treated/spoken to before they pulled him out, as far as I know.
What I did see - and what people are outraged about, including the other passengers on the flight who actually saw it go down - is a bloody and possibly unconscious man being dragged by his arms out of the plane. Just to be clear, are you saying that that level of force was necessary? Personally, I would say it was excessive. The people who were actually there were shouting “No!” and “Why did you do that?” So there is some evidence that witnesses also felt it was excessive.
I’m not trying to present a legal case and obviously there are differences in buying groceries and flying, but my point was that even though Gary, like this customer, broke the law, he wouldn’t be in this position if the company hadn’t been lazy assholes who fucked up and abused their power (obviously not a direct tie in with a grocery manager; I do understand how retail and airlines differ). But the company in both instances were being lazy assholes and unnecessarily relying on the police to fix a self-inflicted internal emergency caused by bad management on their part.
I would hope that this standard would apply to the airline as well as to the passenger.
The amount of people who are okay with this level of corporate violence is truly frightening. Not just here on the Dope, but a fair number of other sites I’ve visited have been blaming and shaming the man who was abused.
I hope he sues United and whatever police department or security company that hired those goons.
Not right. The price of re-booking is usually a $50-$100 fee.
Correct. But why should you get to decide to increase my fare prices? I like lower prices and the risk of being put on a later flight. Maybe there are more people like you than me. I don’t know. But why shouldn’t the market decide?
Shouldn’t the market, not law-enforcement as a backstop, fix this kind of problem as well?
I’m siding with the airline and the goons on this one. Passengers don’t get to pick what rules to follow.
You’ve almost gotten the position I started this thread with.
Keep in mind that overbooking is a red herring here. The airline didn’t overbook its paying passengers (or maybe it did but had already resolved that problem, but it wasn’t the issue here); it had a logistical problem of its own making - a crew in Chicago that needed to be in Louisville or further on down that it hadn’t set aside seats for - that it was trying to resolve by forcing passengers off the plane.
Maybe you should try hearing what I’m writing instead of whatever it is you are translating it into? You gave a number of “solutions” without finding out if any of them were feasible at that time, and you have still to explain why they should have tried any of them in lieu of following written procedures agreed upon by both parties. I have flown a few times, and I have yet to read and or sign anything that gave me the right raise a stink in public and ignore law enforcement personnel if I didn’t like the situation I was in, nor did I have the option to create alternate off-the-book solutions for the crew to follow.
Are you sure United was so overgenerous?
According to a story on ABC News:
*"Compensation varies by how long the passenger will be delayed. If the airline can rebook the passenger and get him to his destination within an hour of his originally scheduled arrival time, no compensation is required.
If the passenger will arrive between one and two hours later than planned — or between one and four hours for an international flight — the airline must pay the passenger twice the amount of the one-way fare to his destination, up to $675.
If the passenger will be delayed more than two hours — or four hours for international flights — the airline must pay him four times the one-way fare, up to $1,350."*
I can hear James Kilpatrick on Point-Counterpoint saying: “Shana, he booked his seat, he took his chances that he wouldn’t be violently removed from it, dazed and bleeding…”
I’m not understanding. If I book a flight for $500, I pay for it, and I don’t show up for some reason, my understanding is that the airline keeps the $500. Some airlines allow you to purchase an upgraded ticket that allows you to transfer, re-book, kind of like flight insurance where if you aren’t able to make it, you can re-book. Are you saying that absent that, if I don’t show up I get some of my $500 back?
I agree, the market should decide. If there was a lawful command given, then as a society we have decided that force up to an including killing the person is permitted under certain circumstances. But as to the market solution, a way to opt out of being randomly selected (for a fee) to get bumped would be worth it to me. I also purchase the travel insurance too though, because when I make plans it’s important I can execute on them.
Yeah. I was at a stop when they asked for volunteers. Then they upped the offer and I wandered over. It was a Mom and her baby, so thinking to combine a good deed with a nice bonus, I took the proffered voucher.
It was a valid voucher, but you cant combine it with points or sell it or cash it in, and I don’t fly all that often. So I gave it away.
The literal definition of overbooking is when there are more confirmed passengers than there are available seats. The fact that the additional passengers were airline employees doesn’t change the fact that it was the overbooking provision of the contract that they relied on, and it is this ability of the airline to bump some passengers that is being debated.
Overbooking is always a “logistical problem of its own making.”
I do, in fact. My information is that a small uptick in United stock prices less than one day into the aftermath of this incident are more likely to be the result of any one a number of factors that have nothing to do with it, e.g. fuel prices. IANAstockbroker, so I’m willing to be educated on this point.
Here’s an article about a previous United public relations snafu, from 2008: http://sentium.com/a-public-relations-disaster-how-saving-1200-cost-united-airlines-10772839-negative-views-on-youtube/
After that incident, according to the article, “This tsunami of bad public relations has certainly had an effect on people’s decision in choosing an airline. The BBC reported that United’s stock price dropped by 10% within three to four weeks of the release of the video – a decrease in valuation of $180 million.”
So maybe we should wait a few weeks to see how the stock price does?
What you are asking for isn’t a market fix-you are asking for instantaneous capitulation to avoid unpleasantness and a threat of bad publicity. Market fixes come after the fact, after much deliberation, and they usually aren’t done for the sake of a single customer who reneges on a contract.